with Matt and it should be just fine that he will be here in plenty of time before I have to leave if I have to leave before we're done. Um, so hopefully that'll work out. And I saw the emails with Jim. I'm psyched that Jim is joining us despite being on
vacation. That gives us a little flexibility. Ed, I want you to do the whole meeting from right where you just were. Oh, ju keep it right there. Right there. I was turning on the light. It's a light
my grandfather made. Your grandpa made that? Oh, yeah. That's that's minor. Well, that's cool. Um, come here sometime and I will show you a fraction
of his production. I wish I had a tenth of his talent. My grandfather helped make the atom bomb. So there you go. Now if we're going to put on our big boy bragging pants through the chair, you're
live on HCAM TV. We might hold it then, Ed. Hold whatever you're about to brag about. Oh, no. No. It's okay. My many great backgrized name John Jacob Mikley was the guy who in 19 in
1777 smuggled the Liberty Bell out of Philadelphia under the nose of the British on a cart with one of his kids and took it to its resting spot in Allentown, Pennsylvania in the basement of the Zion Reformed Church. and he
covered it up with what became the universal American coverup, which I shall not mention here on um on camera, but you can ask me about it later. Okay. How are we Thank you, Ed. Thank you for refraining when appropriate. How are we doing with numbers here? Were you
paying attention, Judy? Yeah, I still haven't seen Janine or Jim come in, so not quite at quorum yet. All right, I see some familiar names out there in the crowd. So, I can come up with another family law story.
Just just be your own editor. This would be an uncle. Okay. Not not a direct line. He was on all three of Captain Cook's voyages. He was on the bounty. He made the 2000
open boat voyage with Captain Blie. And you can read his testimony on the British Navy website. You look at you. My goodness. Right. We do have quorum with Janine here. Okay, great. So hopefully Jim will
join us soon, but we will get started if we have a quorum. Thank you, Judy. Um, my name is Ted Barker Hook. I am the co-vice chair of the conservation commission and I will be leading the meeting at least most of the meeting if not all. Uh we'll start with the script.
This is the 29th day of April 2025 open meeting of the Hopkin Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new law authorizes all
members of a public body to continue participating in the meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkin Conservation
Commission is convening by video conference v via the Zoom app as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of
its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your
computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. I'll just add to the script. And please remain muted um until you're called on if you're a member of the public or an applicant. Uh commission members, just
be judicious with that mute button. Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda, the
chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members.
I will now confirm which commission members are present with me. Ted Barker Hook. Ed Harrow. Janine Leblanc present. Heather Burton present. And is Jim Cerillo here yet?
No. Uh, and Matt should be joining us later and we will not see Melissa tonight. I will now confirm staff are present. Judy present. Anna Rogers present. And Joe Orzelle of Ellie
Environmental present. Great. Uh, with that we can move into the agenda. It is worth noting that in the continued hearings, item number seven, 47 Oakst Road uh has been continued uh per the
applicant's request until May 13, 2025. If anybody is here for that hearing, you are certainly welcome to stay on, but we will not be discussing that hearing tonight. It is 5 minutes after 7, so we'll start with the work session items for a little
bit. Uh we have a document for review to open up. It is the 10 Exchange Street uh enforcement order. Judy, do you want to fill us in on what you've got there? Sure. Uh through the chair. Um so we did hear from the property owner at 10 Exchange Street. Uh just a reminder,
this was the violation we had back in January of the unpermitted tree removal. Um that they do have a wetland delineation scheduled for early May. Um, so we wrote up an enforcement order to kind of get it in writing that we are going to be looking for plans after the
delineation is completed. So first page is just explaining the [Music] violation. Second page checked off um cease and desist additional activities affecting the buffer zone and resource areas requesting that a restoration plan
be filed with the commission. Um, I said May 21st to give us time prior to the uh June 3rd commission meeting to review the plans and then a little bit of a description on what we're looking for and other expectations um to submit to
the conservation office a site plan containing the delineation locations of cut trees and vegetation and a restoration plan um or a preliminary planting plan is is what we've been told they're preparing by May 21st uh with the property owner to be attending the
commission's June 3rd meeting to discuss the site plan restoration plan um and any next steps that the commission wants to pursue at that point. Um did include if we would like uh Joe to review any of the plans um that those consultant fees
would be paid by the property owner. Um and that's that's basically what I have in here. Um space for signatures and then standard conditions for enforcement orders. Um, so commission to discuss. U
let me know if you have any questions or feedback. Um, happy to issue as is or if you have any adjustments you'd like to make. Awesome. Um, I for myself looked over and I didn't see anything that jumped out to me, but commission members, did anybody see anything that
needs a revision and edit? Anything? That looks like a no. I would love a motion to issue the enforcement order and allow Judy or Anna to do our signatures. So move second. And we will
do a roll call vote. Is Jim Serrilla here yet? Oh, that's sometimes Jim noise. Is that Is that Jim? Uh anyway, Ed, yes. Hi Janine. Hi Heather. Hi. Ted
Barker Hook is an I. Jim, are you here? No, but that's four I's. So, it's unanimous and I think we can move on. Uh, we will stay with the work session items. Next up, draft minutes. We have
none for review. Um, so let's talk a bit about 37 Oakhurst Road Homes. Uh, violation discussion continued. Um, is uh Mr. Holmes here? No. Um, Judy, would you share with
us what we got and then we can discuss what our next steps might be? Sure. Um, so at the commission's April 8th meeting, um, you had voted to issue an enforcement order requesting sketch plans from the homeowner showing, um, conditions prior to the work done in
March and conditions after that unpermanented work was done. Um, we did receive some sketch plans here from the homeowner. So, this is what he was indicating as the prior conditions. Oh, okay. We've got Oh, I think we do have
David on the line. Um, I'm just going to run through what you showed me and if you'd like to add anything, please feel free. Oh, thank you so much. I'm not very wellversed at Zoom sometimes. So, no worries. My apologies. Great. Thank you. So, Jude, why don't you wrap up and then I I'll come to you.
All right. Um, so just to orient you, we have the lake here at the top. Um, this is the prior conditions. There was a dock as reported by the homeowner. Um, and the X's here represent the original retaining wall.
Um and on the second page we have the work that was done in March. Um so that dock had been removed what looks to be the new retaining wall indicated by the slashes. Um and then we have boulders
here on the side to stabilize the corner is the note here. Um some things that I did see um that are missing are just the hardscape patio and the dock. um activities which while also unpermitted
may have occurred at a different time as the the March work. Um so those are just a few things to note. Um and David, if you'd like to add anything to my interpretation of your sketch, please feel free. Um no, not not at this time. Thank you.
Apologize for the uh handwritten mess, but hope you hopefully you guys can read it. Great. Thank you. Um, so I I thank you for the handwritten mess. It's better than what we had before.
Um, so, uh, I w I was looking at it and I think that you've done, um, a fine enough job showing us where the wall is. Could you show me the other page again, please? An uh, Judy, thank you. And where the dock is. Um, and so that's all great. My initial
reaction um is this project is bigger than just the wall. Um as Judy mentioned um we do have the patio that's on the other side of the wall that was not originally permitted which is within our jurisdiction. Um I don't see anything in
your plan about the uh semi-repaired stretch that goes alongside the property or or toward the lake. Um, I did see that you filled it in with some gravel or cinder or something like that. Um, I don't know if that is the permanent plan
or if that is a temporary to stabilize things. Um, but there's nothing in these drawings that help me understand that. Um, and I would say additionally what I'd love to see on these drawings, um, and maybe Judy you have it. Uh, there's
that. Um but we uh as we mentioned at our last meeting when we've dealt with applications along Lake Massan um we're holding applicants to a standard of protecting the waterfront with plantings. Um and I think Judy
might have at her fingertips the um the information that we've shared with a lot of homeowners. So, what I'd like to see first um is a plan that is more detailed and all-encompassing of the work that has been done and that needs to continue
to be done. Um and then before I open it up to the to the commission, a couple other things that I happen to see. Um I'm curious. Um I don't think that there's any description of how the wall was finished, what materials were used. Um,
I was assured that the tarred cinder blocks were removed, but what materials are holding the new stones in place? What is the buffer between the stones and the cinder block wall? Um, I would love to know more about that. Um, and
then finally, it looks like from the photos, and that's a perfect photo for it, we still have straw waddle issues. Um, that straw waddle right there is not staked down. And pretty clearly if you can cursor over where there's debris right there which is not being protected
with erosion controls at all in that current situation. So um I like that we're making progress is my first thought. Um but I think that better plans and a little bit more erosion control um are probably called
for. Um would you like to respond to any of that before I open to the commission? Sure. Um yeah, absolutely would be happy to stake down the waddle there. Um and also um that's all been seated now. The that
that slope on the other side from the previous photo that has been strawed and seated and straw on there as well. Um the material that was used was a natural stone veneer
um to to reinforce the cinder block uh wall behind it uh so that when the lake uh waves and everything hit it um the joints you know
from the center block won't deteriorate. So, you know, I you you guys gave me allowed me permission to go ahead with that work. So, before the water rose, fortunately, we got there just in time to do that.
Um, and again, prior to that, in front of that stone wall that you see now was an old rotted dock and this that still had remaining trash in it from the previous owner. And you would you'll see you would see from previous photos where
the sea pitch occurred that caused the uh patio um if you're looking at that photo to the right to cave in and also caused um sink holes in front of the wall um between um
where those gentlemen are standing and the uh existing patio. Uh so before to the far left was a old jet ramp, jet ski ramp that went into the lake at least eight feet and
that was rotted as well. Um, if if I don't know if you guys were able to pull up some old photos or go uh checked out the old files previous to my ownership. Um but the
um previous owner buried incredible amount of trash on this property and it was it was hence uh removed and um and this is what kind of the last I
guess phase of it because it it did end up um failing this winter time. Um, so it was really just a kind of a what I thought was an emergency repair and replace
um because I wanted to get there but fix it before the lake water rose. Otherwise, it would have been a really uh a quite a bad situation u going forward for erosion and seepage and everything else.
Um, so again, I apologize uh not knowing um that I needed to come before you and also apologize for my what I I feel honestly is a reckless behavior of the landscapers that I hired that did the work and they were like drawing water
from the lake and things like that. So things like they shouldn't have done. Um everything I've done to repair this wall and never encroach, never changed the elevations. I took away all that trash that was underneath that dock, the dock itself that has rotted, the ramp past
that dock, you're looking at. Um, so and then I replaced that back corner with natural uh stone to bring that back to kind of a more natural flow and a grade. Um, I guess
that's what I need to add. I guess if there are questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them for you. Um yeah, let me just uh two things again before I go to the commission. I just remembered an item from our last meeting when you were talking and there was
removal of borders from the lake. I mean boulders, rocks from the lake. Have those been found and replaced? Yeah, they were never removed. Um they were moved so that I could uh use them um to
shore up that corner. Um that was the um I guess my original plan. Um because there were I guess from the previous owner I guess I don't know how long ago when he put that ramp in he moved them into into the
water. So um I I used uh what I naturally could to shore up that corner and bring that back to so it even matches my neighbor's yard. So, so I'm confused. The boulders were
not moved by you. They were moved by the previous owner. Well, way back they were then, but I did uh have I had the landscapers use the existing boulders that were right nearby
that ramp to shore up that corner. Okay. Uh my second question then I guess maybe Joe are you here? Joe Orzelle. Yes I am. Oh great. So I
have two questions for you. Uh or maybe maybe the first is for Judy. Did you observe the site because I was under the impression that it looked like the boulders were freshly moved that you could see the indentations in the lake bed where the boulders were uh through the chair. Yes. I think maybe the
correct interpretation is that the boulders were moved but not necessarily removed from the lake bed. So I mean it did look like there were fresh holes but I don't think they were fully taken out of the lake bed. I think they
were placed on the end of the wall to stabilize as David said. So um yes moved and altered but I don't think they were taken from the lake. Are they still being stabilization. Are they still being used for stabilization or they
serve that purpose? Um, they're still being used current. I believe they're cut. I wasn't there when they did it, but I believe they they use some of them that were close to the ramp uh for stabilization.
Okay. instead of adding outside boulders from a a different source. I guess uh the rocks that were right nearby where that ramp was were used I believe and I I I can double check with the the
landscapers on this issue, but I'm sure some of them were used for that corner to stabilize that corner. Okay, Joe, my other question was um I know nothing about what the proper materials are if you are putting a stone wall up against
the lake bed. Um did you hear Mr. Holmes's explanation and did it fit with what you think is is proper? Yeah, I didn't have uh any any major issues jump out with this description. Um, I guess the the one question I would
have is um were the um the stone facing that was put on, how was that applied? Is that a mortar that was just applied to the uh cinder blocks or uh how was that attached? Uh it was with a mortar
to my to my knowledge. Yes. Yeah. I I um I don't have any major issues with that, but I don't know that necessarily that's something that uh I would have the expertise to comment on as far as
um structural design of that. Okay. All right. Thanks. Um are there members of the commission that have questions or observations? That looks like a no from the chair. This is Ed. Sure, Ed. I just have a
simple question. The height of the wall. Yes, sir. Is it What is the height or Oh, um I don't know. I'm guessing 2 and 1 half to 3 ft. The elevation was never changed from the old [Music]
um I'd say let's say let's say 3 ft. I don't know exactly, but it was never never altered in any way. Anything else from the commission? Uh, just to say hello. I apologize for being a little bit late. Oh, don't
apologize. We're happy you're here. How's North Carolina? Um, it's very windy, but it's been in the 80s, so that's pretty good. Um, Mr. Holmes, did you install the patio that we're seeing the edge of or was that there underneath all the
garbage when you bought the property? Um, no. That well was a part there was a patio there um it was sinking at the time um with the old dock and so we replaced it with new patio stone. Okay.
It had like an old red brick pattern that uh he also used for his basement floor cuz his floor he never put French Strange in. So he just puts um old stone, you know, patio stone down in his basement at the time. He's
clearly a gem. Um yeah, two dumpsters of trash out of that out off off the lake. I mean Right. Right. I mean the you know the town you guys I'm sure if you open up the old file you will see that plus I sent you a bunch of pictures of and
again we appreciate all of the cleanup you did. Thank you for making all of that better than it was left by the last person. Nonetheless, we still have a lot of activity um that we have to deal with and you're not quite done with your project. So, I wonder commission
members, it feels to me like I'd recommend an NOI plan uh given the work within um right on the lakefront um that includes so many of the things that the sketch doesn't have. Um so that we can
button this up and let Mr. Holmes finish the project. Um, I would love to see a plan that details the wall work that I am sure we would have approved very quickly had you been able to come to us. We get the idea that it was an emergency. But [Music]
we I believe we can't allow this amount of work without documentation and approval to become the norm. Um, so what I I think what I would like to see, but I'd like to hear from commission members if they think I'm off base, is an after
the-act NOI filing, um, so that we can take a look at all of this, so that we can talk about plantings along the lakefront so that we can try to further protect the water. um the lawn restoration by where the construction vehicles went down, the
patio that was built a while ago or repaired a while ago. I think all of that needs to be documented for us to be able to, as I look, I don't think there's anything you did that doesn't make sense, but we still need to go through
the process to allow these things. Well, be happy to to apply, you know, um to do plan things along where you see the water there. Yeah. Um to capture any possible runoff from the yard itself and
then anything else you guys would recommend. Um uh would be, you know, happy to work with you going forward. I was going to say there are commission members that have served longer than I and I'm just want to make sure that they don't
disagree vehemently with me. No, I agree. That's what I would have anticipated is the is the next steps in this process, Ted? Okay. Anyone else? So, I think Mr. Holmes, your next
step is to talk with Judy and Anna if you need some direction on how to file an NOI and the kind of things that we'd be looking for. Um, I think that's your best next step so that we can get things buttoned up. Okay, very good. Judy, is there anything
I'm missing? Um, nope. I'll just come to our next meeting with a revised enforcement order um confirming that the commission wants to see an amended NOI filed. Um, and I'll come up with what what feels like a reasonable date for when we might want to see that. Um, but nope, I don't think you're missing
anything. Great. And in the very short run, um, Mr. Holmes, if you could just take care of the sediment control there along the wall. Um, and make that just a little bit more effective. Oh, absolutely. Be happy to. I'm glad you pointed that out. I didn't see that
myself. So, and I'll probably run it up along the side, too. Um, side as well. Um, yeah. Then also that slope going down. I have in the past put some down like a U shape um down at the very base
to capture way your way down to the right kind of to capture any during a really heavy rain um just to capture any that goes down that way too. So we we're we're we have it on the left side as you see it, but there I think right down at the very bottom. I would like to put
some more down there cuz um you know after pulling out u so much out of that property he buried the house 2 ft deep above the sills with trash. I mean he was a very sick individual. So um so you're clearly
trying to get everything back to a normal grade and know you know I know there's certain trouble areas and that would be one that you are clearly making it look more attractive. We just want to make sure that we do it with all proper documentation and approvals. I hear you.
All right. Thank you very much and we'll see you down the road, I suppose. All right, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time tonight. I appreciate it. Bye-bye. All right. Take care. All right. We're going to move on to new hearings. We have three new hearings tonight. Um, and which means I've got to
read some paperwork. Let me see if I can find the first one. [Music] Um, Mary, what is the Oh, it's this one. Okay, this one
has a lot of property location, so bear with me, everybody. The Hopkins and Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 29th, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in an amended
notice of intent filed by the town of Hopkin for changes uh at the intermittent stream crossing to the proposed school entrance driveway. Location Zero Hayden Row, Assessor's Map U23, block 33, lot zero. Zero Hayden
Row, Assessor's Map U23, block 35, lot A. 129 Hayden Row, Assessor's Map U23, block 28, lot zero. 147 Hayden Row, Assessor's Map U23, Block 32, lot zero.
Um, LTC Myrtle Avenue. What's LTC? Help me with what that means. I get it refers to a lot, but it's just how the assessors have it. Oh, LT is for lot. Lot C, Myrtle Avenue. Thank you. Lot C, Myrtle Avenue, Assessor's Map,
U23, block 60, lot zero. Lot B, Fitch Avenue, Assessor's Map, U22, block 68, lot zero. Welcome back. Um, I wonder if you could just walk us
through what our new situation is, uh, with this work over there at the Charleswood School. Absolutely. Uh for the record, Claire Hogabone, wetland scientist with LEC Environmental Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Um so the commission might recall that
we were uh we attended the last April 8th conservation commission meeting uh to informally discuss this new discovery uh that was made after issuance of the order of conditions for the Charleswood Elementary School. Um what we discovered
is an intermittent stream that uh flows into the northern portion of 147 Hayden Row Street. Uh sort of in the center of that plan sheet that's on the shared screen. Um we identified the bank boundary of that stream and found a
buried uh covert that directs the stream uh continuing south off site. Um, and we showed the commission uh some revised plans that depict these features. Now, it does place additional buffer zone
onto this uh parcel that was not previously identified through the original notice of intent review. Um and after the discussion with the conservation commission on April 8th, it was determined that uh the project team should submit this amended notice of
intent to request an amended order of conditions so we can have a um an accurate representation of these features on the plan of record. Um so what we provided to you in the submitt uh are the revised specific plan sheets,
the civil sheets and the landscaping sheets that now show this feature and the buffer zones. Um the civil sheets also have notes directing the contractor to identify elevations of this cover and replace it
in the field during construction uh in place. and it's essentially that darker solid line feature that crosses underneath the um proposed driveway entrance. Uh the plan also shows um a
paved driveway turnaround that's in an easement just closer to the entrance off of Hayden Rose Street that wasn't previously identified. Um and that was determined through um discussions with that neighbor to ensure that they have safe eress and um ingress and egress
from their home. Um we also the landscape plans also have only native plantings uh proposed within the buffer zones. So that is a revision that was made as well. And as you see,
there's a couple of arrows pointing to um plantings on the parcel to the north and fences on uh offsite on each side of the driveway entrance. But um those notes uh
specifically state that those features uh will be administratively approved by the conservation staff um outside of this order of conditions as we discussed at the April 8th meeting as well. [Music]
Um I believe that covers everything. Uh we I think we've provided uh full-size sheets of these revised plans to uh Judy and Anna at the conservation office. So they have that uh on file, but uh we can
provide a compiled PDF as well um for your records after we get through tonight's meeting. Great. Thank you. Um, Claire, neither Melissa nor Matt is here right now, and they're kind of our water experts. Um, so I'm going to ask you to dumb some
stuff down for me because I don't fully understand what I see on the plants. Okay. Could you help me understand um how the two catch basins on either side of the driveway work? How does the water move?
How do we how is the water being treated as it heads back into the stream? Is it being treated? Just walk me through the flow of water. Sure. Um Judy, would you mind just zooming into that a little bit more? So you can see some there's a lot of
gray line work that's offsite, but on the north side where you see the wetland flags or the bank flags is where the stream flows south uh onto our site. And at the catch basin that's shown above two of those flags,
that's where the stream will enter the culvert uh the replaced culvert. and it continues about 700 maybe more feet in the covert underneath multiple properties and it daylights again um very well south of
our site. So where you see um on the solid line of that replacement culvert on the south side of that where there's a circle with a D inside of it um is where that's sort of the replacement location between that and the catch
basin. So, the water flows uh above ground north of our site and it's going to continue to flow through a culvert within our site as it does presently. Um, but the covert will
just be replaced to ensure that when the driveway is installed, there's no question or risk of it collapsing after the the town works so hard to construct this project. Okay, that helps me a little bit. I think it would take hours for me to
fully understand all of it to be honest. Um, but Joe, you everything looked good to you, Joe? Someone who knows much more about these things than I. Yeah, I did review all the revised information and
uh I had no issues uh with what I saw and everything was in keeping with what was discussed with the uh commission at the previous hearing. So I had no comments or request for any additional information.
Okay, great. Thank you. Um are there any other commission questions? The chair. This is Ed. Please go ahead, Ed. If this was known from the beginning, would this have had any
effect on um restoration work that would have to been done or wetland creation to compensate for the disturbance of the buffer zone? Are you asking, Claire? Yes, I'm asking.
So that question is directed to me. I'm asking whoever can answer it. Uh through the chair. Um yes, as they are proposing replacing an existing structure. Um that is something that is commonly exempted and permitted. Um and
they're not proposing any resource area alteration. um so there wouldn't be any required replication and they are um proposing now the the all natives within the buffer zone so there is an improvement there but um based on my knowledge it doesn't seem as though
there would have initially needed to be replication thank you are there any other questions or comments from commission members not now not now do you anticipating a question
later because we might be wrapping this up. That's as soon as I said that I realized that would be uh No, I have no questions. Okay, great. Are there any questions or comments from members of the public? I see none.
Um, so I guess I'm worried I'm going to get the language wrong, Judy. Uh, I'm looking for a motion to approve the NOI. Is that the correct verb? Is it just approval? So, it would be issuing an amended order of conditions to include the new material presented.
What Judy said, I'm looking for that motion in addition to allowing Judy uh to do our signatures. I'll make that motion. And there's a second. Great. Let's do a roll call vote again. These are fun. I lost
my Well, I'll try to do it by memory. Oh, no. Here it is. Uh, Ed, I Janine, I. Heather, hi, Jim. Hi. And Ted Barker Hook is an I. I think Claire, you're all set. And hopefully we don't
find any more pipes. Yeah, agreed. Thank you so much for your time. You're welcome. Thank you. Take care. All right, moving down the agenda, we have another new hearing, which means I get to read another document. This is
for Bay Path Humane Society, 66 Fruit Street. The Hopkins and Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 29th, 2025 at 7 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in
a notice of intent filed by Bay Path Humane Society of Hopkin for the installation of underground utilities. Location portion of 66 Fruit Street, Assessor's Map U3, Block 13, lot zero,
and a portion of 66B Fruit Street, Assessor's Map R six, Block 8, lot zero. Um, I believe we have a representative from Bay Path here. Elizabeth, are you there? Hi. Yep, I'm here. Elizabeth, um,
there's no reason you'd remember this, but in my very first term on the zoning advisory committee. Oh, I think you guys came in front of us as the very first step to where we are now. So, 10 years ago, Ted, everything old is new again. Yep. Certainly is. Can you tell us about
your project and why you're here? Yeah. So, if it works for everyone, I'll just do a quick overview real quick of Bayath and then um I believe Scott on our team is going to um fill you in on the the the really good details, but um just real quick um my name is Elizabeth Jeff.
I'm the executive director. I've been with the organization for 14 long years. Um and thank you, I meant to say I meant to lead with that. Thank you for taking the time tonight. Um but Bayath has been in town since 1977.
So, 48 years in Hopkin. Um, we serve cats and dogs. Uh, about a thousand animals cared for a year. But we've been growing in recent years, like the last uh 15 years or so. The needs of the community have changed. We have a partnership with Project Just Because
for a pet pantry. Have a formal animal control relationship with the town of Hopington. We also work closely with Grafton, Westboro, Framingham, Retham. um lot a coupleus with other towns for animal control services and a community
education program as well um and obviously volunteers fosters. But as we continued growing and noticed the need um continue to grow in the community, we decided to approach the town. We we were have been on an Eversource lease since
1987. It's three years at a time. Um they don't really bother us, but they won't give us a long-term commitment. So, we approached TED at all at the zoning advisory committee in 2015 and um everyone was super supportive. 2016, we
worked with the town to change bylaws to allow for a shelter somewhere in town. In 2017, we got on the town meeting uh warrant to ultimately be able to answer an RFP to allow for a shelter. We did that. That RFP was issued in 2019. We
were chosen in March of 2020 when the world shut down. We negotiated the lease all of 2021 and we signed it in June of 2022. Then we began the fundraising. We've raised uh just over 5.1 million
currently of our $6.5 million goal. Um along the way, you know, the realities of postcoid pricing and tariffs and different uncertainties have changed the the dream a little bit, but we're definitely going to do this. and um just appreciate the town support. So that's
the the fuzzy stuff. So um no one has any questions. I'll turn it over now to um I guess Scott and maybe Chris for the the the details that you probably are most interested in. Great. Thank you very much, Elizabeth. Thank you. Thank you.
Thanks, Liz. Hi, folks. I'm Scott Jordan, wetland scientist with Ecote Tech. Uh, perfect, Judy. Yeah. Sheet four. Um, so as Liz explained, uh, there's a new facility proposed. Um, the
facil facility will be accessed, uh, off of Fruit Street. Um, the proposed driveway and the entire facility is outside of Riverfront area, buffer zones, uh, etc. The only work that we're
proposing that's uh that we filed the notice of intent for is connecting the water line to the new facility which we're going to pull from the uh there's a 12-in main and Pratt Way which is the access road to the ball
fields and we're going to follow the water line. We're going to connect in that 12 in with an 8 in and um follow the existing uh sort of a gravel sparsely vegetated. It's sort of a cart path
slashd driveway slashwalking trail. So, um we won't be uh there'll be no need to remove any trees, any woody vegetation. We're going to put it right along the uh the cart path, which is uh which is fortunate. The only unfortunate part is
we will be uh in the buffer zone. We will provide a uh straw waddle roach control barrier. The work will just encompass trenching in this water man back filling um and then you know ultimately
connecting into the 12-in uh in Pratt Way. We looked into bringing the water line in down the proposed driveway off of Fruit Street, but that's a 6-in water man, and the town did not
uh did not think that was adequate. They wanted us to pull off of the the 12 in. So, that's why we are forced to go down the buffer zone here. And that's the extent of the work in the buffer zone. um trench within
existing gravel cart path back fill and we'll be done. And uh if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Great. Thank you very much. Um so just to let the commission members know,
unless something has changed since yesterday afternoon, um Bayath doesn't have a D number yet. Is that still true? Yes. Yes, we won't be able to close no matter how happy we might be with all of this. Um, so this will have to be
continued later, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss it and learn about it. Um, Joe, have you had a chance to look at this? Uh, I have share with us your thoughts. Sure. I I did get out and u have a chance to review the wetland
delineation and I was in general agreement with the with the flagged wetlands on the site. Uh there were a couple of flags missing around the ground, but uh based on the uh obvious uh slope and adjacent flags, I think the
locations that were indicated on the plan were appropriate. I didn't see any or find any additional uh wetland resource areas um that would be of concern uh within 100 ft of any of the proposed work, not
just the water line. Um I did walk the entire site and the perimeter of the entire site. Um I did uh also note that although not uh mapped as of any potential of
certified vermma pools out there. Uh there were um areas within um both wetland C and wetland B that appeared as potential burner pools. Um, I didn't spend a lot of time looking for
any critters. I did do a quick look and didn't see any uh evidence of any u salamander larva or any tadpoles or any egg masses, but uh I think it'd be worth a look maybe with a dip net just
to to verify that. Um uh there was one in um uh in the wetland shown uh on the uh the screen right now which was fairly close to the they're the proposing the water line. Um
uh also there's um a small wetland se that was identified as an isolated vegetative wetland. It's a very small area you can see uh on the southern part of the plan right there. Uh and that is connected to
the BBW with a culvert shown in red. The culbert is is quite elevated. Um so it's kind of a strange uh connection. I just thought maybe um the uh applicants consultant could give his take on and
why um that was called out as IBW and not BBW with the uh connecting culbert there. Would you like to hear that now? Would that be better for you? You want to go through your comments? I I've got a few more things I think I'm just catching up on my own
notes here. So, okay. Um, also just noted um, uh, requested that the applicant describe if any soil stock piles are going to be required for the work. Um, and if so, those should be located. Um, also should describe how
soil sediment will be kept out of the public uh, roadways. Um, I don't know if there's going to be any soil spurs for any length of time. It's probably going to be a pretty quick process of cut and cover, but would like that a little bit
further explained. Um, I did note that there are several non-native plants listed in the in the landscape plan, but those are all proposed outside of the buffer zone. Um, and uh, no PIBs are proposed. That's
something for the conservation commission to discuss if uh PRBs are at all appropriate at at this uh location. Uh and then the last comment was that there was a
uh note in the construction pre uh uh PPP pollution prevention plan that uh noted the use of hay bales. I just um would like to uh see those hay bells to say straw
bales just to make sure that there's no problem down the road. And that's it for my comments. Right. Um Scott, I see that Joe's memorandum is dated today. My guess is that you haven't had much of a chance to look at it or certainly not kind of
deeply consider it, but do you have any initial thoughts on Joe's Yeah. observations. Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, we got that uh I don't know uh late morning uh midday and um we we certainly can
address all of these these questions and comments. Um with regard to that sea series wetland, that little isolated wetland that Joe, you may agree this I think this is a historic uh gravel mine
area. It's it's certainly deterior. It's it's highly disturbed disable. Yeah. So, what's interesting if you look at the USGS map, the wetland B there, the larger wetland to the right, page right, is shown as like a pond with an intermittent stream coming out of it.
It's it's it's dried up. I suspect that was a wash pond, sort of a sediment basin during for gravel operation. And I suspect that that C- series wetland was sort of a forbay in the in the gravel washing process. And there's
a culvert that connected that. And Joe, we stood there for a while scratching our heads. Should we just call it BVW or not? I I don't suspect this is very sandy soils out here. Yeah. And um I don't suspect this thing really even has hydraology anymore. I suspect
that the the hydric soils I found, the low chromosils are relic soils. So, it was conservatively flagged. Um, and the the culvert is about five feet up from the bottom of this thing. I don't think it takes water anymore. I think uh I think it was part of the wash pond
system. Regardless, um the town takes isolated wetlands. So, you you getting your 25, 50, and 100. So, to me, it didn't really matter either way. Um so, I'm happy to call it whatever.
um you know that works you know in the buffer zone temporary work um my understanding I I shot a note to the engineer he said no stock piles in the buffer zone are proposed it's a cut and cover thing and you folks can can
certainly condition that um must uh you know back fill by the end of the day open trenching um as far is uh construction entrance tire scrubber
type of thing. Uh he explained to me the access would be off over Pratt Way to the south there. He said over a 400 foot long um paved driveway. Um, so,
uh, we could certainly do, uh, as necessary sweeping of the paved roadway, but we wouldn't install, you know, a stone tire scrubber, um, in the on the paved. Know if there are any catcherations in Bradway that
could potentially pick up sediment, could use a so thick. Are there? I don't know. I I didn't have to Yeah, I would be shocked if there's drainage out in that out in that road, but we can take a look at
that. I would be shocked. Um, um, what else? Uh, you had mentioned um some ponding areas that were observed. Um the the memo says in the the A series wetland which is
shown at the top of this page and to the right um it's not being shown currently. That wetland um turns out is well over 200 feet from our site um and further than that from our work.
So even if there were a uh a certifiable vernal pool in there, it would be well beyond 125 feet um to our work. The I I actually ran out there. I live in Grafton, not too far away. I ran out
there this after this afternoon to to look at the uh the ponding area in the B series wetland and it is located between about B7 and
B10. Um which is sort of the middle upper middle. Uh I don't know if you have a cursor, Judy. Beautiful B7 down to B10. and it's set back a few feet from those flags. So, that
wetland's it's actually split into two little ponding areas. In total, that's about 40 feet long, eightish, maybe nine to 10 feet wide. I suspect it's just a low sort of a uh uh sort of a trench right at the edge
of the cut that was that they used to make this pond. And it's it's six maybe 8 in deep. So it's tiny. Talking about like 300 square feet. I also saw a green frog. Um which is not a ver vernac
uh species. Um but I mean the the criterion for for uh certification requires you know five mating pairs of obligate um species or five egg masses would
work. In my opinion, um I don't think this probably qualifies as a vernal pool, but I did not dip net. Um so regardless if it is or if it isn't. This is this is where we would
like to run the water line. Again, we can't come off of Fruit Street with it. The town won't allow us to connect into that small 6 in. And um we're going over a uh
already um developed area being a a gravel roadway, so we don't have to remove any vegetation. So, and it's a quick it's a quick job. So, I don't know what if the commission wants a formal vernal pool evaluation. Um but again
um even if it was determined to be a vernal pool, I think we would seek a waiver to to keep this project in that proposed location. Um so we don't have to start doing major grading. If we move that to the to the left uh to the west
um you can start to see where the grades um are picking up some grade there. So we have to do major grading, tree removal. etc. So, I think I think that would be uh our request is is is to keep
this layout. Um, okay. Without it becoming too much back and forth between Joe and Scott? Um Joe, any any thoughts from from what I I um agree with what Scott's saying is
that, you know, um it's they're installing in a in an existing pathway. They're not significantly disrupting any habitat, potential upland habitat if it is vertal pool. Okay. Um, just as a little bit of
further clarification, I I know exactly the area you're talking about where you saw the the small pools. Um, I um if you go a little bit further uh along the line by flags um I think B1 B4 up in that area, it opens up again into a into
a larger pool. Okay. I didn't even see that one. Yeah, but um it's still um I think your your comments still apply either either location. Yeah, I think this layout is just best ecologically uh
certainly from construction perspective. Um it's our only way in um is off of Pratt Way with this water line. And if we move westward away from these possible vernal pools, potential vernal pool isn't even the correct term.
That's a mapped thing in the U by natural heritage. These are not mapped potential verna pools. We call these possible vernal pools. Um then we're doing a lot of grading and tree clearing and stuff. So, um, so one of the things you mentioned,
Scott, is the possibility of doing a more formal vernal pool analysis. Um, and then if we did find them, then you'd ask for a waiver. Um, I don't know how the rest of the commission, Joe or Judy, feels, but one of the things I
like is accurate maps so that we have that for historical purposes. Um, so I don't know, Joe, Judy, my inclination is to say even if it requires asking for a waiver, I'd like
to see an accurate map and if those are determined to be vernal pools that it ought to be represented, Joe, Judy, either one. Am I out of line with that or out of keeping with what we've done uh through the chair? I'm not 100% sure
what y'all have done in the past. Um, but what you can either do that I learned from Joe today, um, is either help them confirm there's a vernal pool or through any order issued for this work, state that you're not confirming the presence of a vernal pool or not. Um, you know, if the commission chooses,
they don't need to have that information. But if any new additional work were proposed within 125 ft of that potential vernal pool, that a determination would have to be made. Um, if that makes sense. That does.
Through the chat. Yes. Who is that? It's Matt. Oh, Matt, you're here. It's good to have you. Are you just saying you're here or do you have some thoughts? No, I just I have thoughts as I'm driving. Great. Happy to hear you. Quick question for Joe and and then then thoughts based
on his answer. But Joe, am I correct in understanding the vertical season has come and gone at this point? Uh well, the egg masses are pretty much gone, but the uh there's still some time if you do some dip netting um to catch, you know, tadpoles and and lar
salamanders. And what's the window look like for getting that done? Is that like that has to be done in the next week or two? Uh sooner the better. Um I haven't been dip netting recently. Uh, so I'm not sure quite how far along they are, but I'd
imagine that in some areas they're they're probably uh getting close to leaving the pools. That's fair. I I knew we were getting close to the end of that window. To that to that end, Ted, my thoughts on it would be that we we have
a condition in there saying that we're not determining whether there is or is not a vernal pool on the property just because the timing to get Scott out there potentially see something or not see something, we're cutting it awfully close. And to the point he made, with
the work being in an existing cart path with no tree clearing and really the only option for bringing water into the site, I I don't know that those those added costs and time necessarily change how we would view the work. Okay. My
thoughts on the situation. I don't think those are unreasonable. Other commission members, do you have thoughts on this particular issue or if you want that is Jim other um if we accept that that Matt said well
then I think in the past we have voted on and if we've approved the notice of intent um it's conditioned on getting the number first getting the D number but I think we've done that before uh where we voted on stuff without the D
number and that but we waited for the number to issue it. Make sense? Is that true? Uh through the chair, I don't believe that's recommended. Um just because we have 21 days once the commission votes and the
off chance we don't get D comments in that time, it's not worth the risk of of running out of time on our end. Yeah. But what happens without the number of 21 days though? um then we have to issue without D comments which I don't know that we've
ever done but um they are required to review so it might just get sticky. Um so just I just thinking historically I think we have done the approval in the past pending DPW but we decided I believe that we would not do that
anymore. Oh okay. All right. Fair enough. Thank you Dean. Sure. through the chair, especially if D has comments. If the hearing's already closed, then you guys can't discuss any further. But yeah, no, D really frowns upon the closing of public hearings prior to the
issuance of a D file number and then sort of regarding the sort of, you know, approval not confirming vernal pool or not. I mean, since we have done that in the past, we've passed we've set that precedent. So, I would be okay with, you know, doing that doing that
again. Um, we wouldn't be sort of uh charting new territory by doing that on this one. Yeah. But I no longer like the idea of doing it without it and without D comments. No, no, no. Not D comments. That confirming whether the existence of a
verna pool or not. Oh, I'm good with that. Yeah. Um, yeah, it sounds like, unless somebody hasn't spoken up, it sounds like we really would like to get the D number before we vote or approve anything. So, we'll keep
it that way. And that will also um, and I certainly don't want to slow Bay Path down anymore, but it started 10 years ago. Another extra meeting or two, I don't think a tragedy at this point. Fair point. I would be shocked if there
were comments from D, but we'll see. Um, through the chair. Yes. Um, yeah, I just have to mention before we close, um, that I did file a disclosure of appearance of conflict of interest for this filing. Um, as recommended by the state ethics commission, as I do
volunteer with Bay Path, um, they recommended, it's okay that I'm still make comments and suggestions as I'm not making any permit decisions and not on any voting board with Bayath. So, just wanted to let you all know that. And it's in the um public folder as well. Great. Thank you. I remember that from
the notes and then forgot about it. So, thanks for for popping in. Um so, yeah. And I think also if if we wait for the D number, that'll give Scott a little bit of time to address some of the the more minor stuff that um that Joe brought up and and make
those small fixes as need be. Um which I think would be good. Um, this is about as previously disturbed as you're ever going to find if you haven't gone through the photos. Uh, folks, please do. Um, I have one question on
one photo, and I don't think you have to dig it up, Judy. I don't know who took it. There's a photo. It looks like of someone's house and driveway. It looks beautiful. It doesn't look anything like the wasteland of Fruit Street. And I don't know what that is. I don't know what we're supposed to be gathering from
that photo. Do you know the one I'm talking about? No, I'm curious. I It's no longer on my iPad, so I'd have to dig for it again. I have Joe's letter on my iPad right now.
And I can't find it either. I'm gonna have to go through my photos and see if something was. I'm going to just hold it up to the screen. It looks like that. Yeah. I don't know where that is. [Music]
Anyway, um it is clearly very very very previously disturbed. Um are there any comments from the public before we look for a continuation of this? I see none. We need to vote on a continuation.
Yes. So the next meeting, oh you know Ted, sorry to throw that that's I know what that is. That is right when you come out of the driveway you you like when when people would be leaving Bayath that's between those two houses that are like 55 and 57. So that's the view.
Yeah. I think I know where that is now. Yeah. So you're like because I remember looking and reminding myself that like the headlights go headlights would go between the homes. Thank god instead of into Oh. And not into their living room. Yeah, that's well that's a beautiful
entrance to a to a desolate wasteland be um so great I I think would the next meeting which is May 11th 13th 13th would that work for you guys absolutely and we have space are big in D and we
have space on that agenda yep great so I guess I would love to hear a motion to uh continue this to May 13th. I'll make that motion. I'll second. And we will have a roll
call vote. Ed Harrow I. Janine Leblanc I. Heather Burton. Hi. Jim Cerillo. Hi. Matt Moyan. Hi. And Ted Barker Hook is an I. We'll see you in a few weeks.
Thank you all. You sound like a game show host there, P. I sound like a game show host. Yeah. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Um, I don't know how to respond to that. I don't know if that's a compliment. I don't know. Say thank you. Say thank
you. That's all you have to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. With the passing of Wink Martindale, maybe I'll step in shoes. You forgot to say that this is being filmed in front of a live audience, too. All right. We have another new hearing.
Uh although it's property we've seen before, we have a brand new notice. The Hopkinson Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 29th, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice
of intent filed by Yuan Lee and uh Rui Het to construct a single family house, driveway, and associated work. Location 30 West Main Street, Assessor's Map U8,
block 32, lot zero. 0 West Main Street, Assessor's Map U8, Block 33, lot Zero, and Zero Elm Street, Assessor's Map U18, block 19, lot zero. Welcome to the
Conservation Commission. Um, is there someone who is ready to fill us in on what you've got for us tonight? Yes, good evening. Um, for the record, my name is Sam Alranti. Um, a civil engineer with Soleie Engineering. Um, our offices are uh based in Norwood,
Mass. Um, Judy, I have a short presentation if if I could share my screen if that's okay. Sure. Okay. Make sure you have sharing privileges. All right. See your screen yet.
How about now? Uh, yep, that looks good. Okay. Um, so for the record again, Sam Alranti, civil engineer with Soleie Engineering. Um, I'm here on behalf of the owners applicants, Ruhi and and Yan Lee. Um, I believe Yan is on um as well.
I saw her her name earlier. Yes. So, we we're here before you. We, as chairperson um mentioned, this project was before the commission um a few months ago and it was withdrawn formally um so we could we we could resubmit the
notice of intent. Um and we can just take you through a brief presentation. Um I'm sure you guys are are relatively aware of this project site. Um it's basically the property um between Elm Street and West Main Street.
is heavily um inundated with resource areas along I guess the northern and western side of um the property kind of along it runs parallel to Elm Street the Indian Brook does um it's about 7.59 acres in total
um and the delineations were approved um by by this commission um in May May 11 2023 under an OraD um and This this uh image that's shown here um
was included as part of the permitting plan set. Um it just gives a good uh representation of the wetland areas, the um water course areas which are shaded in gray. Um we have the the riverfront
100 foot re uh inner repairarian and 200 foot riverfront um shown in red. And then we have the the wetland buffers 50 and 100 shown in kind of a lighter blue. Um, very similar to the previous application, um, the single family home
that is proposed is is proposed to be accessed through the 30 West Main Street property, um, as the only accessible um, path to this developable area um, Upland area that is located on the Zero Elm Street property.
Um, if I could take through just a zoomed in uh image of of the site plan. I know previously in the in the application, it was kind of shown as as two potential driveways. Um, after kind of an evaluation that took place um
it was determined that the I think it was originally proposed as the eastern driveway. Um, that was the the more suitable um location and proposal. So that is the path of of um or the project that's proposed in front of you. Um we
are proposing a 430 linear foot driveway. I have been in communication with the fire department. I know that was brought up um by one commission member at the previous hearings. Um and we are proposing to kind of traverse the
property line the eastern property line um through the West Main Street property. um go around the existing barn that's out there um kind of hug the property line. The grading we have basically um 2:1 slope or 3:1 slope um off of the
driveway to minimize the disturbance and impact to to the property. Um and we are proposing a geoell driveway which is a um a plastic reinforced um driveway that is is gravel um gravel base as well that
that provides some structural stability and minimizes really the impact to the subs soil. Um that's the goal of of this driveway design. Um and then we we are able to access the the upland portion of the property. Um, one of the main
changes with with this NOI as opposed to the previously filed NOI is um we we are proposing some disturbance within the riverfront area. Um, and it's it's mainly grading um associated with the septic design. I know that was that was
something that the commission had comments on previously. Um, so we do have a fully designed Title 5 septic system um in Leeching Field. Um, we we have not went before the board of health. Um but we intend to. Um so this
is just a step along the way. Um but I can and this shows you the grading and utility plan shows you kind of the the water line domestic water service electrical and septic system that is proposed. Um the house that's
proposed is just under 3,700 square ft. Um it's I believe 56x 66. Um, one of the things that we we did receive comments from Judy um following our initial submission to to the town um
and one thing that was clarified was regarding a waiver request um and our interpretation of of the town's regulations is that driveways are permitted within the 50 foot um buffer
is I think there's a 10-ft buffer for driveways. Um, so that was our interpretation of it why we did not submit a waiver request for that. Um, so the only location that is within 50 feet is just this driveway section here and
the closest point of our disturbance is 14.5 ft from the wetland. Um, all other disturbance is is for both outside of the 50oot buffer. As I mentioned, we have um we do have some disturbance within the riverfront area.
Um and I'd be happy to answer questions. We we've provided a supplemental um alternative analysis memo. I'd be happy to go through that. This project has not been issued an NOI file number um or DP file number, excuse me. Um and I don't
believe I've received um review comments from from the commission's consultant yet. So, um, we don't intend obviously to close. Um, but I'd be happy to hear some comments, questions, and, uh, maybe explain myself a little bit more if, um,
you guys need clarification. I I think that would be great. And no, there there's I don't think anyway we're going to close. This is a very difficult site. Um, and I think this may take a lot of conversation. Joe, you have not, just to confirm, you have not been able to look over the plans and check the property.
Uh I have uh just as late today submitted um a review on this. Um I don't know if you want me to go over anything or just u get the applicant time to to look things over and for you guys to to take a look at things. Um
for the chair. Yes. Um we received the comments right as Judy and I were leaving for the day. though we hadn't gotten a chance to review them to provide any feedback to Lucas before sharing them with that. Yeah, I I guess I would my response unless there's push back from commission members is we're
not wrapping this up today anyway. I would really have like to have time to chew through what Joe has to say and not just hear the the the big overview from him. Um so thank you Joe. I'm glad you got that done, but I let let's push that off so that we have more time to
consider it. Um, before I open it up to commission members and public, I just have a a question or a comment or two. You said you've checked with the fire department. Do you have any feedback and what they think about that driveway? I I am not the fire department, but that
practically 90° sharp turn I would imagine could be an issue. Do you have any feedback from them or are you waiting for feedback? So, we have I' I had preliminary conversations with I believe it was the deputy chief if I'm not mistaken. Um, I have their turning template for their fire engine. So,
their requirement is uh 500 ft, which I I believe was a discussion point at the previous hearing. Um, not that it's in the buffer zone, but it really wouldn't change the LOD. Um, but the their minimum radius internal radius of the
driveway is 40 40T, which our radius proposed here. here. I don't have it on this plan, but I believe it is 60. Um, so I don't envision any issues, but I do intend to submit a turning movement, turning sweat path analysis to the fire department. Um, like I said, I don't
think that would hold up any conservation commission um reviewer approval, but it is in process. Okay. Um, so the the other thing is I I gave a read of the alternatives analysis letter. Um, and some of them I I read
and I say, "Yeah, that makes sense. Trying to enter from Elm Street seems like an absurd uh proposition in anyway." Um, and I do I see that you mention often wouldn't have impact on the
riverfront area and okay or would have minimal impact on riverfront area, but we're charged with protecting more than just the riverfront area. So the one that especially caught my eye is alternative two reduction in development
envelope and at the conclusion you say it would fail to reduce RFA disturbance in any significant way. That may or may not be true but certainly reducing uh uh the size of the the house the size of the lawn would reduce impacts on
buffer zone areas. It's the work is outside of the 50 you mentioned, but it's almost entirely within the 100 foot buffer zone um which is ours to protect. So my thought is wouldn't
reducing it reduce buffer zone impacts and secondly the line that especially caught me is um where is it now? I can't find it. It said as oh there it is consistent with surrounding homes. When I looked at the
homes on all of the abuing properties and across the street there was one that was in the neighborhood of the same size of this proposed home. All of the other homes were substantially smaller than this. So if an alternatives analysis is
saying this is in keeping with all the other homes, I would say no, it's not. Yeah, if I could respond, please. So, one thing that I I I want to ensure the commission
um and it seems like uh some of your your comments were kind of mis misleading a little bit. So, this performance standards, it's just applicable to the riverfront area. Um so, I don't necessarily disagree that the property is entirely within the
buffer areas. Um but specific to the riverfront area which it's most it's most clearly shown on the what I have shown on the screen here. So this red dash dot line is the 200t riverfront area. Uhhuh. The the
the extent of the disturbance is largely due to the grading of the septic system. Um we aren't proposing any structures within the 200t riverfront area. um and and the septic system in the leeching field is is located based on soil
testing. So the that has a large impact. That was kind of the the reasoning of that um alternative to reduction of the the house. Um, while I understand what you're what you're getting at there, it the septic system is still going to be
located adjacent to the riverfront area and the grading associated with that would still be required to disturb portions of the riverfront area. We are proposing it's I mean there's 74,000 square ft of riverfront area on this property. We're proposing
3,00 I think 560 square feet. It's it's less than a it's about a 2% um disturbance. Um, and I I I truthfully I think it's a it's a reasonable disturbance proposed in the sense of
um the sighting of the leeching field um the large portion of riverfront area and environmental areas on this property that are going to remain undisturbed and really unaccessible um once this house is built. Um so that that's kind of the the the logic there.
I I apologize if that's not entirely explicit on on this memo. I I had a difficult time putting this memo together truthfully. Um um I I I tried to outline as much as I could. Um but it that's that's kind of the path and I'd be happy to answer more
questions if you're Sure. And I would bet you there is other feedback. Again, this is a pretty challenging site. Um but for now, I'll leave my comment where it stands. Um, and I'll open it up to other commission members if you have
initial thoughts on on a process that could take a while. Yeah. Well, I just have a question. Go ahead. Go ahead, Jim. On the on the on the site plan that was shown before this riverfront, can we go back to that? I
don't think the septic area was shown on that. I see it here on this one here. Oh, it is shown. Oh, there was one I was looking at that wasn't. Okay. So it's all there. Okay. Yeah. The I apologize. I want to know the septic. Yeah. The septic system on
our site layout plan. We we don't have it shown, but it's shown very clearly on the grading and utilities plan as well. Site plan. Okay. We we try to Thank you. We try to put layers on so it is easier for kind of reading purposes. Yeah. No,
I get that. Yeah. No, I know that. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Any other commission members with initial reactions or questions? I I guess for initial reactions, um mine would be this is a huge project,
a huge house, a gigantic backyard, and a large concrete pad on a area that only has a small upland uh area to to build on. Uh I so I guess
that is that that's my initial reaction. It's it's it's it's it's quite big for such a challenging uh small buildable area. Thank you Janine. Other commission members.
This is Ed. I would echo the general sort of thoughts that have been expressed. Thank you, Ed. Oh, Matt, you're out of the car. I'm back in the house, out of the car. Um, as long as you spoke up, do you have
any thoughts initially or do you want to sit on this a bit? No, I don't have anyial thoughts. I think um, one thing that jumped out, we got to talk about PIBs at some point, of course. But other than that, let's I'd like to see this kind of advance a little bit further
here from Joe and kind of get a little more info. Understandable. Completely. Any other commission members? Do we have any comments from the public? None. That surprised me. Um, okay. So, I think what we need to do is
uh continue um get a hold of Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry, Sam. I just have a quick question. Uh, Commissioner Moyan uh mentioned I think PIDs. Could What is that acronym? Sorry if I'm not familiar with it. Permanent removable barriers.
So in Hopkin, one of the things we do is when there's a project on a property that has wetlands, we request that these conservation buffers. Yeah, sort of like a conservation buffer. It's basically a little orange pl that gets mounted to trees or to fences or to, you know, like
a iron beam. Um, just so that homeowners and other developers in the future understand there are resources beyond that point and they should be calling the commission to see if they need to file. Gotcha. Yep. I think I think it's like 40 feet on center is kind of our
baseline for for where we place them, but it's we look at it on a case by case basis. Okay, good to know. I can uh I'm sure we're going to get a comment, but um I can work on getting that addressed too.
Great. Um, okay. Seeing no more comments, um, I guess are are you open, Sam, to coming back on the 13th? Uh, yeah, the 13th works. Um, I'm not sure. Um Judy, I I don't know how long
typically the turnaround for um sending out comments is, but if we receive them sometime this week, um we could hopefully give them back to to the town and Lucas for another review pri maybe a week prior to the 13th if that aligns. If not, we'll have to continue to the
the later meeting, I suppose. But let's I guess shoot for the 13th and we'll kind of play it by ear there. Yeah, I'll get you their review this week. Okay, awesome. All right, great. Could I get a motion to continue this uh hearing to
May 13th, please? I'll make that motion. And second, there's the second. Which one was wants that? Janine and B needed a punch. I thought I thought you made the motion. No, I think you both. I want
to make sure it's all clear for Anna who's taking notes. So, you give Anna a thumbs up. All right, let's vote on that uh motion to continue. Ed I Janine I Heather I Jim I
Matt hi. And Ted Barker Hook is also an I. We'll see you in a few weeks. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a good evening. Bye. Um all right, with that we are done with new hearings. We're going to move to continued. Um, and Matt, I want to give you a heads up
that I think I can get us through uh item number four, the Ravenwood hearing, but then I may need to leave and get out of the school so that the maintenance crew can go home. Oh, good. We'll pick it up. Yep. Okay. All right. So, with
that, we will uh revisit our Zero Wood Street Ravenwood LLC. Do we have a member of the Nation family or a representative for them? Good evening. Mark Around here with GDRD Consulting here on behalf of the ANRAD hearing for
1881 1841 Ravenwood LLC. Um so just to start off the hearing um this is a brief notice of resource area delineation. Um we did receive a memorandum from Lucas Environmental um late this morning um which we have a
been able to review. Um, we weren't sure if um Joe would want to give the commission a summary of that or um we did have a few things we thought should be clarified at a public hearing before we um look to make some minor tweaks to
the plans to make sure that things were kind of clear cleared away from a a clerical standpoint on the plans. Okay, Joe. Uh yeah, commission's uh choice if they want me to go first
or have the applicant kind of comment on my comments. Uh some of my comments maybe able to be addressed initially and I don't have to go over those. But Mark, do you have a preference who speaks first? Um I mean I'm fine with walking through um what Joe had commented and if
Joe feels that that's more efficient, I I that's my that I'm glad to do that. So if Joe if you want you want me to proceed then that's all right. All right let's try to get this moving forward. So thanks so much. So um so Joe commented that he did be he has been on the site. He did review the wetland line and also
walked it with us and made those changes. Um he did review um the wetland line and those changes um and the flagging changes did uh appear were were consistent with what he had noted in the field. Um he um did note that several of the
wetland lines don't extend to the property line. Um these wetlands um as shown in the plans are are are wetland fingers that reach off of that are wetlands off property that come onto our property in a finger and then go back off property. um we didn't bother
delineating them further because the buffer zones that they reflect are onto the property and everything behind them is off property and not relevant to um the uh what whatever the applicant would be doing on the property. And so in terms of relevance and in jurisdictional areas and buffer zones u we think that
that that reflects um the jurisdictional areas um for the purposes of the ANRAD itself. the um the uh the plans do um show a portion of the the northern end of the wetlands, although it's basically just the one of
the last flags um that kind of extends off to the north. And that property is a separate property. It's not part of the Sanrad. We just show the connection. And Joe, we can update the plans to um just pull back slightly so you can you can
show you F29, which F29 is on the northern property um which is under a separate order of conditions, which is valid at this time. So the line that that's shown is connecting to F-29, but we can show F29 just to show the continuity of the wetlands from that
northern property, which does have an order of conditions to the new property itself. And I know you looked at that that line as a whole. you just want to make sure that it's shown for for clarity and that that makes absolute sense and we appreciate that's a that's a good good comment to have from you. Um the next comment Joe had was um in terms
of the the ILSF calculation. So just uh to recap what we discussed with the commission at the last hearing, there are two um large isolated vegetated wetlands, the S series and the T series. And we ran the ILSF calculations for
both. Um we determined that the T-series is a very large isolated wetland. It clearly um would meet ILSF um volume calculations. And so we drew the extent of ILSF based on the topography of that wetland. And and ISF is based on the
ponding and flooding of a wetland to where it extends to the maximum extent and then eventually it can't raise it can't flood higher in elevation. It has to eventually spill out. It goes somewhere else like a dam cresting. Um, so basically if if if the commission and
Joe looked at those plans, you'd see that the the spot elevations at the extent of ILSF, um, which was shown in red in that exhibit plan, um, basically that extent there, you start seeing spot elevations below elevation 402. And that elevation
is the spillover point to where uh after 402 the ground drops down like a spillway of a dam and there would be no ability for water to uh be retained within that wetland before it would spill out into the upland around it.
Again, this is in and sometimes ILSF is a theoretical if it ever did flood to a certain extent it would raise this amount. It's unlikely that it does unless there was an a massive storm of over 100 year potentially. But um that's
basically the the the the um the methodology that DP has for ILSF. The um so in terms of that, we're not disputing um that. And so we don't think engineering calculations are necessary. It's it's actually fairly straightforward to understand that that
that's the high point in the in the saddle, then no water can go above that elevation based on that. And I know Joe and I did walk that area for the wetland line um to see that area and it's pretty obvious there's no ability for the water to go higher than that and that too is all completed by um a PLS surveyor. The
other isolated vegetated wetland um is the S series and as we showed based on the the contours provided by the engineer again or sorry by the surveyor uh the the elevation there is pretty clear where it actually spills out to in terms of elevation. And then we did the
um the the ILSF calculations um as required by D. We do think those are accurate um to show the area is fairly small in terms of area and and also in in in terms of depth. Um once you look at the size of the area, it's a lot smaller than the the T-series. Um and
then also the depths of that are also very different in terms of how shallow it is compared to the T series. And therefore um from a logical standpoint, it makes sense. it's not um isolated landscing now that you can see the area, but also um we did run the numbers to
confirm that. And so um we don't think those require additional engineering calculations um to review um but we're hoping that that could be clarified um tonight just to make sure there's nothing else that we need to submit in terms of those calculations there.
Um, we did. Sorry, I'm just walking through his comments. Says there are plenty of them there. There are Oh, yeah. So, um, through the chair, Ted, can I jump in real quick? Yes, please. To the next point, Joe. I may have missed it. Do Do you agree with the
boundaries of God's isolated land subject to flooding? Yes, I think I think the u the survey I'll put let me answer that in a long answer. The um survey data I think um is appropriate
and shows that uh the one basin is too small to hold the required uh volume of water. I think that the the S space and the S wetland um and that the T uh depression is large enough to hold the
required volume. I think the the main point I was um trying to to uh raise is that uh it's being assumed that u wetland te
floods to the maximum extent and that's what they're calling the uh the boundary of the isolated lands the flooding for an accurate determination of the boundary of isolated lands of the flooding You need to have either u the
observed maximum extent of of flooding that um recorded extent of flooding in an area or you run uh the engineering calculations based on u a rainfall event and potential contribution by uh
groundwater to determine if the wershed is large enough to fill that depression to the required volume of water. Um so that's that's the calculation that I was um just bringing up that if uh I think
the um boundary of the isol lands flooding for wetland T is on the conservative side because it's assuming that that entire area um uh uh floods um which may
or may not be true based on the size of the contributing wershed that that we we agree with that statement that Joe that that we we we think it is conservative. we actually it may not actually flood to that extent but rather than going through expensive
topo survey of that whole area to try to determine if it's slightly smaller than the extent it it because it's all within the isolated vegetated wetland basically um it doesn't really affect the jurisdictional extent of the wetlands and so we decided to rather than go through expense of making it smaller for
really no extra value to anybody um we decided to call it conservatively larger to the largest extent it could potent potentially become if it was run through the whole crunch, but again, it could be smaller. Okay. No, that I wanted to hear from Joe was that, you know, this is
either conservative or or accurate and and that it could not be larger. So that I'm comfortable, at least from my perspective, that the engineering calculations wouldn't be needed. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Matt. Appreciate it. So, uh, Mr. Chair, can I
continue? Please do. Great. So um so um this is a comment 3F matt Joe talked about the northern wetland line again the F- series F1 to F29 we'll add that to uh we'll add F29 to the plans just so that way you can see um how that
overlaps with that um D number um and we could probably add a reference number to that flag as well saying this is part of that D number just so that way if as someone looks at these plans and ever looks at and looks at those plans maybe collectively they'll understand how they
um they connect to each other. Um we did um Joe, we did were able to swing by really quickly this afternoon, squeeze it in between visits. We looked at the R series wetland and that area is BVW. There is a pipe that actually goes underneath Valleywood Drive. So we'll correct that and call the R series a
BBW. Um so it doesn't change what's out there. It's just that what whether it's isolated or vegetated. So there is um BBW because there's a covert that does connect um underneath Valleywood Drive. when they build that roadway, they put a hydraologic pipe through just to make sure there was some relief in terms of
drainage. Um, we can definitely submit colored plans um per the the bylaw and red checklist, Joe. Um, we'll still give you black the the originals um as well, just because that's what the engineer gives us. Um, we'll make sure they're all highlighted colored the way the
bylaw has that. Um, the DP data forms, Joe, sorry about those those scrier errors. I mean, yeah, we're not we're acknowledging their wetland data sheets and it's all there. Just again, we'll just make sure that that gets clarified for the record just for clarity. Um, we'll update the the narrative just to
kind of summarize what um has happened and give you an update Excel sheet of with the flag um locations for coordinates so that way you've got those on records. Um and then in terms of mass DP's comments um we did um you you have
fieldverified this area Joe as DP recommended the commission have someone field verify that the areas is correct. Joe has done that. Uh we've done the ISF calculations which we just discussed and then we did also Joe we also walked the area between the S series and the T
series to make sure that there was no um no connection wetland wise between those two wetlands and there there is nothing there though it feels like there should be but it's just the way that that it's the it's the nature of those wersheds. They're small enough they don't connect. Um so um yeah so we have some so we have
some plan changes to make just again some edits and scrier stuff there um the DD issues so we can update as well. Um so we're not expecting um closing night but we we appreciate um your time tonight and uh look forward to um getting an approval hopefully at the
next meeting if there's no other comments but again if there's any other comments let us know. Great. Um yes who's that? Just want to point out one one thing that Go ahead. Yeah. One thing that wasn't touched on um is that the uh kind of in the center areas of
both wetland key and wetland s there are depressions that had the look of possibly being vernal pools. And uh I don't know if that has been further inspected. I was under the impression that that was going to be looked at a
little bit further this spring. Um I don't know if that's been done or not. Um, with respect to potential vernacular vernac um, we haven't done anything uh, to my knowledge. I can check with the applicant about whether or not they we're going to have a biologist um, out
there. I mean, this is an anrad for wetlands. So, we weren't planning on doing a wildlife study out here. Um, but um, we can we can check in with that. But I mean, we weren't in we we didn't have we weren't doing the we filed this without the intention of doing any type
of wildlife surveys. And the other uh vernal pool comment was that uh the previously approved order of conditions planned for the property to the north. um indicates that uh there is a vernal
pool um uh downgradient of the wetland that delineated boundary um that potentially u appear that the 125 ft buffer from that probably stays within the 100 foot buffer from the wetland boundary but
that might want to be shown on the plan outside. Yeah, Joe, we can I mean, we can see where that lands. I'm trying to find that that I I it might be good for you and Judy to take a look at at that approval. Um and again, that that
approval was um 1881718. So, that vernal pool was was very very interior to the the that F-S series wetlands. It was it was not in the middle. And I think um you may cuz if you looked at the record I think Matt
looked at that um when we were getting that approval in in place. I'm trying to find my apologies that I'm not finding those plans more rapidly. Here we go. think because I know it was there was a
question that did come up about that and I know it was quite interior to um yeah the critical aspect would be as if the 125 ft buffer extends beyond the you
know buffer in any location um on the on the site. Yeah, that wetland does. Um, if I can share my screen, I can I can pull up those plans just just to kind of give the context a little bit, although it's difficult with the scale. Um, here.
Is that all right with you, um, chair? Oh, yes, of course. Should have screen sharing. All right. So, I'm going to just gonna try to see if I can put these side by side just to help. It's a little bit it's going to be a little bit of a stretch in the in terms of the scaling because it's of
understanding, but um just to show you how far away we are here. Here we go. This should do it. All right. I'm going to share my desktop, which is a dangerous thing. Um so this so this is the uh this is the plan here. Um that
was for 17 uh 1881 1718. Um and this which was this uh this crossing here um with the storm water basin over here. Um And um this is this is the this is the wetland series. This F series here. So F-13 15 16 17 18 is shown here. And it
goes along here. And you can see inside here this is the the edge of the vernal pool. Um and this this whole wetland drains um um south west to northeast. Um and so the the the ponding um gets shallow. It doesn't really start hap is
really at the lower end of this which the northeast end of this wetland. You can see how far interior is. And this is at F-18. Um, and our wetland series for this ANRAD is at F starts at F-30. So you're 15 flags um up gradient of of
this area say 10 flags upgrade and those flags are about 30 feet apart, 300 ft. Um, uh, we don't think that is, but we'll double check, Joe, just to do a quick look. Um, yeah, I think if you scroll scroll to the next sheet on the,
uh, order of conditions plan. um where it runs south. No, you're right. Hold on. You're right. A little bit closer. I'm sorry. Hold on. Something's going on with the the the Pure. So, here's Yeah, there it runs a little bit closer, but
that you know, I think a few spots it might get close to being within 25 ft, but I think Yeah, we did. Yeah, we did have it running. Yeah, you can see it runs about it runs about 50 over 50 feet interior to the wetland
line um is the vernal pool itself um back in that area there. But we can we can show uh I think we might have some data above this. So we can show that data, Joe, um there just as a as a point of of clarification. Yeah, I think it would be important just to have that
buffer line on the plan just for any potential future considerations of of work in that area. Yeah, understood. Through the chair, yes, I would echo that sentiment that Joe just had for the other areas where he questioned whether
or not there are vernal pools moving forward. When if and when a project happens on this site, one of the first things I imagine we're going to ask the commission is are there or aren't there vernal pools? Because it's not you're not asking for that to be
decided as part of this Orad. So given we're at the close of the vernal pool season, my suggestion would be to try to boogie out there and put eyes on it and get us some information on whether or not in your opinion, Mark, or
or your biologist's opinion that there are or are not burns. Thank you for that. Put you in a better spot. Thank you for that comment. Um, you Mark ran through a whole bunch
of stuff very quickly and I'm impressed with Joe being able to say, "Wait, you didn't respond to this or that." I was not able to keep up quite as well, but Joe didn't raise this question, so you probably did address it. Um, I'm looking at comment H about whether there is a
stream or culvert present, which apparently is on mapping. Um, did you respond to that comment? And if so, could you just remind me what you said? I did. There is a stream that our series wetland should be called bordering vegetated wetlands. Um so we'll update
that on the plans. Um it doesn't really change anything else. It's just an intermittent stream. It's it's a covert that provides hydraologic relief because of the raised roadway um on Valleywood Drive. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then my only other question, and this might be,
uh, um, because I'm a high school history teacher, um, we have had very little rain. We're under severe drought conditions. Um, and I would imagine that means our vernal season is shrinking more quickly than most years. Um,
Joe, does does all do all of these evaluations get impacted by our extreme drought conditions lately? Is it harder to make these evaluations? Is it I mean I don't know. I just it seems to me obviously we can check soils and and you
guys can look for for hints of stuff there even if there's no water. But does our current weather condition, Joe, give you any hesitation with final decisions on these things? Uh short answer, no. Uh I think if we
were if we were uh if we were not taking a conservative uh approach regarding the isolated land of the flooding if if the uh boundary of isolated land was being uh delineated
based on observed uh limit of of flooding then uh there would be an argument well it it's not typical limit of flooding but because they're um assuming that the flooding
extends to the limit of the uh isolated basin. Um that doesn't come into play uh in this case. Okay, great. Thanks. Are there any other commission comments or questions before we look to continue this?
You're the chair. Um not a commission member, but I did have one question. Please. Um I did notice on the overlapping ILSF T series IVW. Um there's some areas
where they aren't a perfect match and the 100 foot buffered ILSF is protected under the bylaw. So I might want to see that drawn on separately um in the areas where it differentiates from the IVW buffer zone. Mark, are you comfortable with that?
Yep. Yep. We'll add that. I I'm adding that note right now. Great. Are there any comments from the public? Seeing none, um I would love to get a motion and a second to continue. I assume May 13th is good for you, Mark.
Yes, please. Okay. Motion and a second to continue this hearing to May 13th, please. This is Ed. I'll make the motion. I'll second. And we are ready to have a roll call vote. Ed Harrow I. Janine Leblanc. I.
Heather Burton. Hi. Jim Cerillo. Hi. Matt Moyan. Hi. Ted Barker Hook is also an I. Mark and Craig. We'll see you in a few weeks. Thank you so much. Have a good night. Welcome. Um, and with that, I'm afraid I need to vacate my office
here at school and go home. Just to let you know, Matt, we got through all the work session items except for public forum requests. And hopefully you saw the updated um agenda that the 470 Oakurst Road has already been continued.
All right, so we got two items left. We've got two items left. I wish I could stick around. Everybody see everyone on May 13th. Oh, I did want to say this. Commission members, Hopkinonians, please go to town meeting. I know it's a long slog. It's democracy
at its finest. It's our town. Please be a part of town meeting. Um, I'll be there. I'll look to say hi. With that, I'll say good night. Night, Dad. Good night, Judy. I'll ask that you uh continue
controlling the screen here because I'm just logged in through the general login. So, I have Yeah. No, no additional controls tonight. No problem. So, it sounds like we're ready to move on to 17 Lechstone Drive, a continuation of a notice of intent for an addition on
a single family home. Do we have any representatives from the applicant here with us? Uh, yes, that would be me. Mike, how are you? Good. How are you? Good. Judy, is there anything you'd like to update the commission on on this
particular item? Uh, sure. Through the chair. Um so this hearing opened at our last meeting on the 8th. Um but as the applicants hadn't notified a butters in Hollist as this propertyy's on the Hopington Hollist border um we couldn't
formally discuss anything. So since then they have notified the one Hollist of Butter that falls within the 300T radius. Um we have confirmation of mailing. Um we have a response to Lucas's review. Um, and a couple of
outstanding items for the commission to discuss. Um, so you might want to start with the applicant giving an overview of the project as the commission hasn't received that yet. Um, and happy to bring up any outstanding comments
afterwards. Sounds good. Mr. Dean, would you like to give us an overview, please? Uh, yeah, sure. Good evening. Uh, my name is Mike Dean with DNL Design Group out of Milford, Mass. We're here representing Michael and Kathleen color of 17 Ledgestone. This is their house.
The project uh consists of an existing single family house shown kind of in the middle of that uh site plan there which is the hatch area, the the hatched uh rectangle there. That's the exist existing single family house. The lot itself is a
65,362 ft uh residential lot. Ledgestone Drive is located um on the bottom of the plan which is just out of ura there. So there's Ledgestone Drive there located at the bottom like I had mentioned the existing single family house shown in
the hatched area. Uh these this subdivision and the lots and the lots were created in the late 80s maybe like 1989 or so. The colors are the second owner of the property. The house itself is serviced by on-site septic and onsite
well. Wells off onto the back right hand corner of the lot and the septic is in directly located in front of the house. Um so towards the rear of the house there's a border and vegetated wetland shown in the solid
green and the associated 25 ft parallel line and the 50ft parallel lines are are behind the house and um let's see and the 100 foot buffer zone is shown in the solid yellow line.
So there's the 100 foot buffer zone to the border and vegetated wetland, the green solid line. Also on this property or this property is also associated with uh 200t riverfront. Up in the top left hand
corner you'll see there's a solid blue which is the mean annual high water mark and then the 200t riverfront area is shown in the dashed yellow line. So there's the 200 foot riverfront there goes through the back lefthand corner of
the existing house and portion of the driveway. That's the side entry driveway right to the left of the existing house. Also on the lefth hand property line in common with the property line is a red solid line and that indicates or that shows the highlights the existing
36-inch drain line that drains from the subdivision in the roadway and discharges right there where it's labeled the existing 36 inch outfall. The proposal itself consists of a small 550 556 square foot addition towards the
back right hand corner of the existing house in a new deck. This is all in the same general location of the existing deck which is obviously going to be removed and they're both just outside the 50 foot no build zone.
All the work and activity that is being proposed is taking place in a previously disturbed area. This is essentially is their rear yard. Following this the submitt, we received the peer review and since it was um continued, we've had time to
address most of those items. I believe um certainly go through those quickly. I'm not here to speak for Joe, but I'll just go through them quickly. We put some effort in revising the plan and resubmitting that to the commission. So following that submittal, we have adjusted the wetland line at one flag
location. Uh that was in the review letter flag number three which is then in bold wetland flag 3A and in parentheses saying move. So we move that 8 ft closer or upgradient. We've added a note to the plan for the removal of leaf and pine
needle piles that are out in the rear yard adjacent to and along the wetland border that is shown in the green. So, we added that note to the plan. Um, the existing 4-in foundation drain was not shown on the original plan. We've added that. That just comes
out in the back lefthand corner of the existing building and heads towards the wetland area. But, it is a foundation drain. Construction access has been added to the plan. Judy, if you could just scroll down a little bit up off to the right. So, there's a a construction
access and this is chosen for a couple reasons. Uh off to the right hand side, and that avoids coming off the end of the driveway, the existing driveway back on the opposite side of the house, which is in the riverfront area. So, we chose to take this this um we chose this
location to avoid the riverfront. Uh let's see. So, stockpile area has also been added to the plan. That's off to the right of the house. and to the left kind of that curve area of the access construction roadway and that is outside the buffer
zone. And let's see, one of the revisions also was the erosion control from the original plan and the limit of work that's shown there with the uh line work and the X's. We've moved that in closer to the addition. And we also wrapped that right around at the 200
foot riverfront, keeping everything out of the riverfront and not and not um accessing down through the end of the driveway. Uh also in the review letter, there were some other items that were listed as further discussion with the commission. So we have added um well,
let's see, another one is proposed medallions have been added to the plan located at the 25 foot line. Those are the diamonds. and and a note added to the plan as well that those will be proposed medallions um
located on on trees and finalized with the commission through the process. So those are the note even gives the ability to adjust it. Uh so couple a couple of other comments that that in the peerre review letter that suggests further uh
conversations with the commission is let's see the lawn extends beneath the tree line and further discussion should take place regarding the restoration of the 25- ft node disturb zone. Another item is three trees are being removed for the project. That's those are shown
on the plan off to the back right of the proposed addition and we should have a conversation as to the mitigating or replanting those. I I I talked to Oh, and I forgot to say that the applicants are online here. I'm sorry. The the
colors are online also. Um I discussed that with them and they have no issues replanting the trees. However, I don't know who has been out to the site, but the tree the the site in the yard area, there's there's there's a fair amount of mature trees there. So, you know, if we
plant them, you know, are they going to survive? Does it make sense? But they have no problem planting the trees. Um, and then there was a question about the gutters explaining what was what the plan is for the gutters of from the addition. It is a 550 556 foot
addition. The plan was the initial thoughts was to tie in the existing the proposed gutters into the existing gutters andor to the existing downspouts. So there's a couple downspouts along the back of the of the um house, but we can certainly further
discuss that if that's not suffice. So with that, the project once again consists of a small 556qt addition. This is the color's home. They've lived here for about 29 years. We have revised the plans to address most of the com concerns or comments in
the peerreview letter. And with that, I'd turn it back over to the commission to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. J. Appreciate the thorough presentation. That's that's welcomed by the commission. Joe, I'll kick it over to you if you have anything you'd like to add. No, I think uh the
applicant did a really good job in responding to all the comments. Um there was only one outstanding issue that I had initially uh regarding some missing data on the um BMW forms but that were
subsequently uh submitted and uh all of my all of my comments have been addressed. I think um really the the remaining items are the discussion items that the uh that great I appreciate that Joe. So as as
you went through the presentation Mr. There are a few items that popped out to me that that we definitely want to discuss. Um, one one in particular I'd just like to get some clarity on. You mentioned the existing foundation drain coming off of the single family home down towards the wetland. Do we do you
know where the discharge point is for that? It it terminates just about at the wetland line. It is elevated a little bit. I mean, we could probably cut that back a little bit and it's really not that active at all. It's been there since the original construction of the house, but I don't think you can terminate it much further back due to
the grade, but that's that's that's where it discharges. Yeah. And it would be groundwater, and I talked to the colors about it to discuss what what it actually is, and it's really not active at all, but that's that's terminates at the uh closely to the wetland. Yep.
Okay. Thank you. One thing we've asked for in the past for these foundation drains, if there is not any stone at the discharge point, just placing some larger diameter stone, like 3 to six inch stone, just in the event there is discharge, it helps mitigate the opportunity for erosion, especially when
it's that close to to a wetland area. So that I think that's something we'd like to see on the plan. Um the PIB locations, appreciate that they've been added. What we've as a commission done in the past is not just strictly followed a 25 foot no disturb area, but
we've tried to pull those in as tight to the existing lawn or the existing servants on a property. So as it as they go I guess if if plan north as they go to the east into that wood line I think we would like to see those PIBs move
closer to the edge of the tree line just to inform that there is resource area beyond that. So closer to that 50 foot no build in that area certainly for those three the other two on the west side at along the 25 foot look like they're pretty consistent with the limits of the
tree line. So I think that's that's pretty fair of a location. And the last item was was the mitigation for the tree removal. So it sounds like three trees are proposed to be removed. We've got some lawn area that
encroaches on on the 25 ft no disturb area. So from my perspective, I think the most logical place to do some mitigation would be in that 25 foot no disturb area, whether it be trees, shrubs, um some alternate plantings. I
think that as a commission, we've been pretty flexible as to what we like, what we were willing to accept with mitigation, but generally we've looked for for two to one for trees, I think up to four to one for shrubs. So that's my two cents on it. I'll open up to the rest of the
commission if they have any questions, comments, thoughts. So, the chair, this is Ed. I just want to compliment the drawing being colorcoded, especially when you're looking at these in a little monitor at
home. It's really, really hard to pick some of the stuff up. So, having it done that way is a really great asset. Thank you. Thank you. My only comment um would have been what
you covered Matt uh on the the PIBs having a brought closer to the um existing lawn area rather than following the 20 foot. So that's it for me. Anyone else? Not hearing anything. Anyone?
Is it Joe? Yep. Um just a quick comment on potential mitigation plantings. Um so the it's the area um with under the tree line there. There there are quite a few trees out there
and it's almost like a park light setting. There's there's a tree canopy and then lawn underneath it. Um so my suggestion would be um if if mitigation plantings were discussed that those focus more like on shrub plantings.
Okay. Thank you. Yep. Yep. Yep. Oh, go ahead, Judy. As long as we're already doing plan revisions, um might be minor, but remove trees as needed. Um it might be better to specify that it's
three trees. Um just so that's not to be interpreted as more than the three indicated here. Yes, I can. Yes, I think I even put in my response letter that it is three and then I forgot to change that. Uh that's the original note. My apologies. I can certainly change that. Yeah, that's
that's a great catch, Judy. So yeah, Mr. G, if you can just have remove three trees and as noted or as depicted, that would be great. Y just for for additional clarity. Um, anyone from the public have any questions or
comments? Not not hearing any there either. Um, Judy, are you okay if Mr. Dean reaches out to you about native planting options that we've typically used in a situation like this? Yep. Yeah, I can share our list. All right,
great. So, I think in terms of action items, we're looking at some updates to the PIB locations. Um, the discharge point of the foundation drain, just calling out some stones there for energy dissipation, some proposed mitigation
within that 25 foot no disturb zone to offset the removal of the three trees that are going to be noted as specifically for removal. And I I think that covers the action items. give one last call if commission members have any final thoughts before we make a
motion to continue. Um Matt, so it so in addition to the to the stones at the discharge point, do we want the that pipe brought back um a a little bit? I know that was an offer made if it's possible. Would
that help? Yeah, I think I think if it can be cut back a little bit to provide some space for the for the stones and some space between the wetland, that's that's a great option. I'll defer to you. I'll take a little I'll take a closer look at that and
determine if I can cut that back a little bit or we can cut it back. Obviously, if we can't cut it back, we don't want to go in digging, you know, and exposing more soil to cut something back. So, I wasn't quite sure why you were asking me that. So, I was I just answered, but certainly putting the rip
wrap there, but I will evaluate it. If we can cut that back, we most certainly will and we'll add the rip wrap. Agreed. Yeah. If it's exposed, which some of these foundation drains are at the end, their last like five, six feet are exposed and it can be cut back without substantial disturbance to the ground. I think that's a great option. If we're
talking about digging up a pipe to cut it back, to me, that's not adding a whole lot of value because the stones are really just intended to dissipate some energy. So, we want to keep whatever vegetation is established there established to the extent we can.
Agreed. Thank you. All right. We'll entertain a motion to continue to our next hearing on May 13th. Does that work for you, Mr. Dean, in terms of turnaround time to update plans and Yep. Okay. Great. Some moved. Uh, some move. I'll second
then. All right. Great. Roll call. Ed I. Janine. I. Heather. Hi. Jim. Hi. And I am an I.
Thank you, Mr. D. I appreciate your time. Okay. Yes. Thank you on the 13th. Yep. Thanks for your time as well. Have a good night. All right, moving on to our last item for the evening. Continued hearing for Banyan Lane in Lindon Street.
Request for determination of applicability for a demolition of a single family home and site work. Do we have a representative from the applicant on the line? Hi. Uh my name is Ron Stros uh from Oxbow Associates representing uh the applicant and uh she's also on the
call. U Miss Modi Juny any updates on your end since the last time we saw this particular effort. Uh yep. So through the chair um this hearing was opened on April 8th. Um, but
Joe had discovered an additional channel on the east side. Um, uh, the adjacent property on the east side of the lot. Um, and the applicant chose to continue to investigate that additional resource area and get it mapped on the plan. Um, I believe they've walked the site with
Joe again uh, to confirm this new resource area um, in the associated buffer zone. Um, so Joe I believe has notes on the confirmation of that. Um, so I can leave it to him to discuss the confirmation of the additional
resource area. Um, but that is the status of where we're at right now. And if you'd like an overview of the project, I think that would be another good way to place to start. Um, as we didn't get that at the last hearing. All right, that sounds good. Mr. Stros, if you don't mind giving us a quick
overview of the proposal here. Yeah, no problem. Uh so Oxbow Associates visited the site in February and uh flagged a BBW associated with an intermittent stream on the north side of London Street. Um it was not flowing at the time that we flagged it and uh it's
unnamed and not on the USGS map. So we're confident it's intermittent stream. Um, the BBW is kind of located at the toe of the slope off the edge of the pavement there. And it flows from west to east and from left to right on your on your screen here. Uh, it goes
into a head wall right at flag A5 and it runs continues to go east um and evidently flows out near flag B1 um through a a kind of buried cover. Uh it then flows into a a very small pool and
then uh kind of turns the corner there into a a vegetated swale that's in the existing lawn before flowing into another culver that goes underneath uh the driveway of uh I think that's 10 uh Lynen Street uh and then flows out the
the south side of of Lynen Street um which apparently drains into uh the ground right there and there's no BBW associated on the outfall. Um kind of assuming that this is really kind of
road drainage that's going into this this ditch and uh less actual flow that's coming from a higher resource area. Um nevertheless it was it was all flagged. Um the proposed project is to uh demolish the existing single family
home that's on the property. uh that's ex existingly is is already extending into buffer zone. Um and then construct a new single family home that will be constructed outside of buffer zone to both the A and the B wetlands. Uh contract a new septic system that is
going to be located to the south of the house um further from the wetland and um remove parts of the driveway and make it a bit smaller. Ultimately, uh, the project's going to result in, uh, about
465 square feet of impervious being removed from the bumper zone completely. Um, and overall, there's going to be a a net 370 uh square foot drop in imperous service on the lot
itself, mainly from the removal of that existing driveway and existing house together. But that driveway portion is is the larger uh impact there. Um under the act and the bylaw, this is work
outside of the work to reveate an area that's existing impervious is exempt. Um and so this area that was the house that is extending into the into the buffer zone is going to be reveated the lawn and
erosion control is proposed in the form of those silt socks that extend from the stone wall um all the way along the west side of the property and then follow the 100 buffer zone on the east side. Uh that portion of the existing driveway on the east that's going to be removed
that's in buffer zone. Um we did respond to Joe's comment about removing uh sorry moving the uh silt sock to encompass that area. So it will be uh when it is pulled out um all the work will be uh
surrounded by all the silt socks and um yeah and the new driveway will go in uh it's going to be a bit narrower than the existing driveway and extend uh outside the buffer zone. And we've added the construction entrance detail that's to
the right of this plan. Um, as as requested by Joe in his most recent uh letter. Thank you, Mr. Strole. Joe, do you have anything you'd like to add? Uh, no. We've uh had a couple of back and forth and I think uh all of my
comments uh have been addressed. I think the only outstanding point um is for the commission to discuss whether or not PIBs are appropriate um possibly along the the eastern buffer
zone area. Um it's all pretty well um heavily vegetated. the the tree shrub line along the eastern part of the uh property um
is uh quite a dense u uh mixture of invasive species but no work is being prepared being proposed in that area but no no additional comments. Great. Thank you Joe. Yeah, I think it
would be a a good idea to have some PIBs along that eastern tree line just to alert the land owner that there is resource area and buffer zone beyond that woodline so that lawn doesn't
extend unintentionally into the wood line along the street side. I don't see any benefit on the western side. It's it's looks like it's existing on today and we have Lynen Street between the property and the wetland. Um so from that perspective I I wouldn't
necessarily think PIBs are appropriate there. U one quick question and forgive me if I'm misreading the construction entrance line work makes it appear like it's larger than the existing curb cut and
paved drive. Is that is that indeed the case? Um, oh, I just tried to move the screen. Um, all good. The, uh, it does seem to extend wider.
Um, I'm not really sure why that is. Okay. Yeah, I think it might just be to show that it is that it's there. Yeah. Yeah. That could simply be that from my perspective, it would be great to see that limited to the existing footprint of the driveway and not create
unnecessary disturbance. Yeah, that makes sense. Matt, it may just be an access issue in terms of trucks, truck traffic that need to widen wider than the existing driveway. That's just what I'm thinking. But if but if not necessary. Yeah, I
don't I wouldn't want Yeah. No, not necessary. make it as narrow as possible. Yeah, absolutely. Uh, you know, I think overall this is a a strong proposal. It's great to see that this existing driveway is going to be converted back to vegetation. The house has been strategically placed outside
the buffer zone. We certainly appreciate the thoughtfulness there. U, so I'll open it up to commission members if they have any questions, comments, or thoughts. going once. All right, sounds like we're all good on that front.
I I would personally be comfortable moving forward with a negative determination with a condition that PIBs be placed at 40 ft on center along that eastern tree line at the 100 foot buffer
zone line with signatures by Judy or Anna. Um for a motion I'll make that. I'm happy to take a motion if we're ready.
I'll make that motion. Second. Yeah, we'll do a quick roll call. Janine, I. Jim, I Heather I. And I am an I.
Thank you, Mr. Stros. Appreciate it. Yes. Thank you very much. Um, just a quick question. Did do those PIBs did do they come directly from the commission? Can you buy them at Okay. Yeah. Yeah, you can. Judy will have some. Judy or Anna will have some for you. They're
they're free of charge. Oh, okay. They can be picked up at the town offices. Okay. We're probably looking at somewhere between six and eight on the existing tree line. Okay, that sounds great.
And just just as a point of clarity, um the condition of showing those PIBs, we would appreciate if you could provide just an updated plan for the record that show those locations so we have it on file. Okay. As as an as build like a after they've been placed. No, as as as
just an update to this plan. Okay. Okay. You could just depict them with like a solid black or diamond similar to some of the other projects you've seen tonight. Yep, that makes sense. Great. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you,
Judy. Any public forum requests? No. All right, we've made it through. All the heavy lifting was done by Ted Ted and I got to do a little cleanup work. Great teamwork, man. Great teamwork. Yeah, you guys are great. Yeah, thank
you. Anyone else have anything that they want to talk about tonight while we're here? Well, you want to talk about fishing or the sun or something like that? We we did do some fishing on April vacation last week. Caught caught a whole bunch of fish down in Florida. It was a lot of
fun. Thanks. Oh, yeah. Well, I started fishing down here in North Carolina, but it's a little bit too windy and too much surf. But we'll wait. Be good. Well, hopefully better ahead. Our fearless leader appears to be
doing well. I'm not quite sure how public we can be, but all all everything I'm hearing is good. Good. That's great to hear. Thanks for that update. Yes, the update is much appreciated. All right. I will if if no one else has
anything else, I'll certainly entertain a motion to wrap it up for the night. I'll make motion. I'll second the motion. Quick roll call. Janine. Hi. Heather.
Hi. Jim. Hi. Ed. Hi. And I am an I. Thank you everybody. Everyone. Have a good night. Bye.