the March 10th, 2026 open meeting of the Hopkin Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act uh extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new law authorizes all members of
the public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkinson
Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom 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. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair. 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 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. Melissa Recos, chair, >> present. >> Jim Cerillo,
>> present. >> Peggy Shaw, >> present. >> Walter Garland, >> present. >> Ed Harrow and Matt Moy. And I am Ted Barker Hook. I'm present. I will now confirm that staff are present.
Judy Day, the Hopinson Conservation Administrator, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present. >> And Joe Orzel of Lucas Environmental, >> present.
>> Great. Uh, one thing to let everybody know, we do have one continued hearing that will not be heard tonight. Although we will open the hearing, there will be no discussion. That is for 7 South Barn Road. Um that has been continued to
March 24th, 2026. Melissa. >> All right. Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Okay, let's um let's get started with a few work session items.
draft minutes for review. Um, we have October 21st and February 10th. Um, I believe one of these we had October 21st members that were not here.
We still might not have those that grouping on the call yet. All right, let's skip over minutes and see if we get a couple more members. Um, we'll jump down to 32 Granite Street enforcement order. Um, Judy, if you
could go over this. I believe where we left off, we were all set with the plans. Um, you had drafted the enforcement order and we were going to vote on that tonight if you want to just give us a quick overview. >> Sure. Uh, through the chair.
So, the first couple pages are sort of just the general documentation that you've all seen before. Um, so I will skip to the meat and potatoes. So, the conditions here outline what the expectations are for the restoration
plantings that the commission approved um at the last discussion. Um, so we've got some general conditions that are fairly standard. Um and then the specific conditions regarding restoration start here. So
we're asking for um restoration to be monitored over the course of two growing seasons with a report to be submitted to the commission at the conclusion of each growing season. Um which should contain photo documentation, summary of work performed and the condition of the
plantings. Um we are asking for an 80% survival rate of plantings after two growing seasons. Um requirement that all plantings are native non-hybrid non-cultivars and at the conclusion of the two growing
seasons. Uh asking for a final report documenting um the condition of the plantings um restoration activities performed and the rate of survival. I should update this to remove invasive species
management because that is not being asked of these homeowners. So that is a typo on my end that I can fix. Um and then other conditions broadly around the use of herbicides, fertilizers, stabilization and relocating the PIB that had been
discussed at the last few uh meetings. So happy to take any feedback. Um, and I will note to make that correction with invasive species before issuing. Oh, good.
Um, I think it looks good with that that revision, Judy. Um, and I didn't have any comment either on the new the new phosphorus containing fertilizer um condition wording. I think
I think that makes sense as well. Basically saying that it's it's they need acknowledging that they need to follow follow the current mass state law. >> Yeah. Just specifically calling it out. >> Yeah. And Okay. Unless they have a
specific scenario as outlined in the which the law allows for. The soils and testing say that they can use phosphorus um for in the fertilizer. Um, okay. Can I get a motion to go ahead
and issue this enforcement order with signature by um Judy or Anna with that one typo correction on the invasive species management um plan? >> I'm happy to make that motion.
>> Second. >> All in favor? Jim >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. Walter >> I >> Peggy >> I >> and myself am also an I. And I see Matt
just joined. Matt, did you hear the discussion? Do you want to vote? >> I some internet issues on this side of town. >> So I don't know what you're voting on. >> Sorry, you broke up. Can you Can you repeat?
>> We've got some internet issues on this side of town. So, I I just joined. I don't know what you're voting on. >> Okay. You can see if that's enough for it to pass anyway. It's the Granite Street enforcement order paperwork. So, with
that, um I think we're all set. Thanks, Judy, for pulling that together. All right. Next up, 10 Exchange Street enforcement order. Um, I'm going to turn it over to you, Judy,
to give us um a status update on this one as well. >> Sure. So, I can pull up the plan we have just for reference. Um the last time the commission discussed
um this violation, it sounded like everyone was happy with the planting plan, happy with the revised PIBs. Um the outstanding item was to get a revised invasive species management plan per uh comments from Joe. Uh we did
receive a revised plan um recently. Did not have time to send that to Joe. Um, and I I referenced it in a new draft enforcement order, but I think it's open to discussion with the commission if you're happy with what's included in
there. Um, and if you're ready and comfortable to include that reference in an an updated enforcement order. Um, so I do have it up. I haven't had a ton of time to look at it, but we have the homeowner as well as uh Dave Marquon on
the line for additional questions. Okay. Um I also open up to Dave and Padma if if you had anything that you wanted to add to what Judy said.
>> Um no um the the now that the um Lucas had asked for like more um measures and uh some more things about like you know additional um uh invasive species. I think uh later I understood like uh
something like um multifllora or something. Those kind of things are pretty um common everywhere. Even in my home I uh my my husband and I we we clean it up. So those things are uh making the the the company has given a
much larger uh quote uh now they are calling it like a land management plan. Uh you know it's they are asking a ton of money. So they understood that uh before they did not know it's an uh it's an in enforcement order or something like now they are like trying to I don't
know if they're trying to take advantage or whatever it is but uh it's it's it's a big figure that I cannot afford uh you know the so I I I don't know but the the plan is there um but how I'm going to do that I don't know so that's where I
stand but I know that I have to start the planting oh they also recommended u the areas where um the northweed was uh significantly present left of the garage. The once they apply the the in
the invasive management they they wanted us to wait uh at least an year to do the planting. So we will the plan is to start the plantings in the area where at least from before the northweed was uh is not
significantly present. Um so I think we're waiting on uh you know for the spring uh to come up and even now I'm curious to see uh uh to kind of understand these species plant species and like uh uh see what it all means. Is
there any uh any any way I could uh uh do something to kind of like get the cost reduced. So that's what is in my mind. So I'm waiting for uh the the the the plants to sprout. So uh I'm I'm definitely going to start the work plant
and all that uh in the area where the northweed is not significantly present and also uh you know maybe work with either work with them to kind of like revise the thing uh break it down. I don't know where that but that right now whatever they have proposed is
significantly higher. So that's what um uh I have so far for the invasive uh species. So >> okay. Okay. Um, so I guess I would ask Joe a question about that, Joe Orzelle. Um, is this
something that when you review this plan, you could kind of look with an eye to that of what might be over, you know, what might be a reasonable expectation as a commission for invasive species management.
Um, >> yeah. Yeah, I can do that and I could look at it. I mean, like for instance, if there's any mechanical um uh removal um proposed, you know, that's something that the the homeowner could could even
do themselves. They wouldn't necessarily have to have that done by uh someone else. It just gets into when you get into the herbicide application, you want that done by a cert certified applicator if possible. Um so, um >> Okay. But when I'm looking through, you
know, the proposal, I can certainly look for ways that they might be able to cut cut back or uh allow some things to be done by the uh by the homeowner. >> Okay. I think that might help even in and and we can maybe speak to that in
our enforcement order to Joe Judy if that makes sense. Maybe there's certain things as Joe's looking at it that, you know, we acknowledge have have to be done by a professional applying herbicides and other things,
you know, that don't or we, you know, we're still expecting but don't need to be done by the professional licensed applicator. >> Sure. Maybe another idea is the reporting could be done by the homeowner
as long as it contains, you know, all the information you need and we can as staff verify that at no, you know, additional cost. Um >> Okay. Okay. I think it would be I think that would be helpful and I think it would be helpful to us and the homeowner just
really outlining in our enforcement order I guess mostly what we expect to be done by a professional and you know the rest could be um a homeowner doing it and reporting reporting. I think it would be good to be clear about that.
>> Yeah. >> Um okay. >> Thank you. Uh thank you for that. I have one other ask uh um for be um because like right now I'm not living on that property and there is a historic home um that um uh actually um on the right and
uh that's that's a bigger issue because they want to preserve the structure. I I I had um I had requested um the town to kind of like uh you know see if uh I could I could at least like see the possibility of like you know um uh constructing a small home uh you know in
the area where the existing garage is. Um so uh if you know that would at least like help me to kind of like you know um um you know um um help me with the costs that are involved in maintaining this very challenging property because this
property has it all like you know historic wetland uh spe all of these you name it. So, it's um it's it's I'm I'm kind of like getting overwhelmed at this point. But the problem is because I've got stuck into this. Uh if I sell as is,
it's going to be really disastrous for me. Uh so, I'm kind of like um um not knowing uh I mean there were only only few options. So, I'm kind of like um you know wanting to see because the existing garage uh you know uh has um is a little
bit away from the isolated wetland. if you can like point to that picture. So I was thinking uh if if if uh you know then I could get some loan uh you know to kind of like get the thing because the you know it's u otherwise I'm kind
of like stuck. I don't even know where to start right now. So this is a humble request to the commission. Um well I know so based on what we've done in the past typically when you're close to wetlands like this
the commission is usually amendable to working within the footprint of an existing structure. Um sounds like you might be talking about doing something larger than that. No, I mean little bit but like to the
left uh um to the to the like if you look at the picture like looks like little bit like maybe just just the garage itself is like uh for the expense that that we have to spend like right now in the existing situations um kind
of like numbers are not working out may may not work out uh uh b uh so uh I'm thinking little bit but not not not not but they will help on the on the uh on
the um numbers the measurements and all I don't know but I'm thinking little maybe very little bit but it it's all going to be like you know presented we are not even there yet he's going to look at the possibility and do some uh some some things that is needed so I'm
just requesting to kind of like uh go that route at this moment even I don't know um because this is my last shot before I think uh or think about like u some other options of getting this out of this. Uh not not too many um good
options exist for me at this point. >> Yeah. Um, I'm guessing, you know, Dave has worked with our commission a lot and knows um kind of what we tend to look for and find acceptable or look for mitigation
um for. But I guess I guess that's all I can really say at this point without having you know something on paper to look at is that within the existing footprint um the commission is usually amendable
to that. Um, and then as you get closer to the buffer zones, within the buffer zones and within the wetland, you know, we look to protect those areas and and minimize disturbance and provide mitigation um in some way if you're expanding
development. I don't know if anyone else on the commission has any thoughts on that, but um that would be my two cents. Melissa, I'd just say you covered it. I I don't want to leave you in silence. I
don't have anything to add. >> Okay. >> Um, does anyone on the commission have any other questions or thoughts on the invasive species management piece of it or the enforcement order? Next steps.
>> I do not, Melissa. Okay. >> Okay. One other last thing like to the to the if you look at the picture like to the left um looks like uh that is like that can give a little bit um because I think we have 50 foot from the
wetland. I'm thinking we can like if even if we leave 50t there could be some possibility. I'm thinking do you think there is room to kind of like see if some extension can happen leaving the 50 foot? Do you think that uh I'm thinking
in that direction from the wetland? Um we we have been available to some development between the fif you know in the hund the 50 to 100
um and within the 25 to 50 it gets a little more difficult. >> Yeah. So, right now, yeah, sorry. Sorry. Um, so I was I'm just like, >> it's weird without the lines on there.
>> Good. >> I'm not sure where the 25 falls. Do you think maybe maybe we can like I'm going to like maybe ask Dave if there is anything like um um from 50 to 100 because we I only need like a little bit
to the existing garage. I'm thinking if we can get like a little bit um 50 to 100. I'm thinking we can I mean I'm just going to ask before um you know um kind of like um you know close this
thought. It's just dragging a lot on our life. So >> through the through the chair. >> Yes. Uh I I would suggest if the if the homeowner is looking for some relief or
uh feedback or approval from us that they update the plan to what they're looking for. I mean we would never be able to approve a verbal ask anyway. So, I I would suggest that
they have this plan marked up the way they would like us to consider it and we can say yay or nay on that. But I mean, just talking about it is not going to help. >> Yeah. No, I I agree. I don't think we're
um I think it's it's time not well spent um just trying to describe it. talking about talking about hypotheticals is is not very constructive. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Um we'll we'll we'll talk to Dave and then see if there is room uh to proceed or not on this. Thank you so much for that. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. I think that's all I have. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we'll have Joe look at the invasive do the review on the invasive
species management and um Judy maybe you and Joe can talk and form some language into enforcement order and we can get that um on the agenda for the next meeting and get that moving cuz we're finally
melting so might be able to actually start doing some of this um restoration work at this point. Does anyone from the public have any questions or comments on this? Oh. Am I missing anything, Judy? >> No, I don't believe so.
>> Okay. All right. I don't think we need to vote or anything. And this is just a work session item. So, we'll continue out to the March 24th meeting is our next meeting. uh through the sheriff. >> Yes, Walter.
>> Uh I I know there was some mention of cost concerns. I mean, even if the homeowner just drew on this plan what they're what they want. I mean, at least I mean, I cannot visualize on this plan what the homeowner's talking about. So, you've been thinking
>> a red line and draw and hear what they're thinking about and come back and talk about that something solid. You could do that. >> Consider it. doesn't have to be, you know, a an a surveyor that does it if they they're
just uh looking for um feedback. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I got that. Thank you. Yeah. I will provide that to Judy. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Sounds good. Thanks.
All right. Next up, we'll jump up to the new hearings. 20 Lakeshore Drive, notice of intent. Ted, would you mind reading this to open the hearing? >> Not at all. The Hopkin Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 at 7 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Allen and Chrissan Connell to raise an existing and construct a new larger
single family home with associated site work. Location 28 Lakeshore Drive, assessor's map, L35, block 11, lot zero. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Welcome. Um, let's see, who do we have on the call here for this project? Present. >> Um, good evening. Steven Bosovich, uh, here representing Land Planning, Inc., uh here on behalf of the owner and applicant of the property.
>> Welcome. >> Um would it be okay if I shared my screen just to present the initial plan set and then I can stop sharing um so that we can kind of discuss them? >> Yes, that's fine.
>> All right, you should be all set. All right. Can you see the plan set uh right here? Okay. Um so you can all see the plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so as um you said 28 Lakeshore
Drive. Uh currently the um existing lot has a single family dwelling and associated accessory um uses. Um the jurisdictional areas are Lake Maspino to the west. There is a residential
property to the south, an additional residential property to the north, and Lakeshore Drive to the east. Um the site is currently serviced by water and sewer, municipal water and sewer. Um you can see the jurisdictional areas of the
BBW here in green, Lake Ma Maspanino, blue. There's also a FEMA flood zone as identified in red on the plan. The buffer zones uh from the BDW include this line here. This is the 50 foot and
the 100 foot here. The surface water buffer zones are the 25 ft buffer zone here, the 55 uh 50 foot buffer zone here, and the 100 foot buffer zone here >> through the through the chair.
Yes. If >> could just go a little slower. The cursor is moving so fast. I can Oh, >> maybe maybe pause for a second. >> Yes. >> When you're pointing something out, that'd be very helpful. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so I'll start with the lake.
Um, so lakes here and the buffer zones, they kind of intersect at this area here for the 50, the 25, I'm sorry, the 50 and the 100. Um so at the end of each um
buffer zone you can see the label. So this is from the BVW 25 ft. This is the 50ft BV BVW buffer zone and then the 100 foot BV uh BVW buffer zone
from the lake. uh they are labeled along the north 25 foot here, 50 foot here in the 100 foot here. Uh we also have included a 100 foot uh buffer zone from
the uh FEMA flood zone 100 100year flood elevation that's included here. Um in summary, the lot is majority majority in one buffer zone or another. Um so you
can see the existing dwelling is very close to the southerntherly boundary uh to the BBW and the lake. So the lake ends here and there's actually existing foot bridge that spans uh this little inlet here. These are retaining walls.
So the lake actually extends underneath the foot bridge and ends here. So there's kind of that interface between the two resource areas. Um included on the the site are a paved driveway. Um so this area here is all
pavement and then also gravel uh basically parking area. Um it's used for parking various vehicles, recreation vehicles and such. Uh there's a botchi court and
then a series of tiered decks. Um over here on the side of the plan, we have a lot coverage breakdown for the existing site. Uh we broke it down for the dwelling, the imperous surfaces, um kind of semi-imperous decks, stairs,
uh pavers, permeable pavers, and then permeable surface, which includes basically the grass area, the lawn, uh the small amount of woodland that's included on the site. That's all included in the uh preconstruction
existing conditions permeable surfaces. Um if I could switch to the proposed um construction. So the improvements for the site include the construction of a new dwelling. Um the
intent is to provide uh new dwelling that meets the property owner's needs. One of which is to build an in-law suite for a relative that needs assistance. Um the lot um the distance I should say
from the proposed structure to the BVW and the lake have been improved. Uh an additional improvement is there were no recharge uh facilities on site. So we're proposing uh two recharge facilities for
roof infiltration as well as the paved driveway through a trench drain. Um so these two facilities for infiltration are going to infiltrate the roof and the pavement area. Um we've also included an
inventory of the trees um that will be necessary to come down to complete the construction. Um you can see that we've provided a schedule of uh deciduous and conifer trees and proposed a tree
replacement schedule minimum. Um at this time there are several permits that are needed to be obtained as well as with conservation permit. Um so at this time we haven't prepared a full planting. However, we wanted to uh put the number
of proposed trees to be removed and what the minimum we would be uh trying to replant. Um additional permits we're going to be uh obtaining are a demolition permit. the
property card and the subdivision uh are within the historical commission jurisdiction. So, we're currently seeking a permit for demolition through the historical commission. Um
the zoning setback is here. Um so, we provide an additional zoning setback um than what is existing. Uh so we'll be seeking a special permit from the uh zoning board of appeals. Um we're currently just seeking a conservation
approval before we go forth with those other permitting uh boards and commissions. Um again we provided a proposed lot coverage. Um, another improvement is we are going to be reducing the imperousness of the site by about 600 uh
600 to 650 square ft. I believe it is I believe we noted that it was about 640 square ft of imperous reduction. Um, so that concludes kind of the presentation. I will uh send it back to the chair uh
if there are any questions or concerns. Okay. Thank you for that presentation. >> You're welcome. >> Um curious is the botchi court. What is is that grass? I'm not a botchi player. >> Is that I'm sorry.
>> The botchi court. What surface is that? >> Uh so it's like a crushed stone dust. Um so it's basically the base that they put down uh before they lay up a pavement. Um it's very uh compact and through the
years of walking and playing uh we believe it's essentially compact gravel um area. Uh the current proposal is to remove that court. >> Okay. So the botchi court and the gravel parking area were part of your imperous
calculation for the existing conditions. >> Yeah. um more so the the the gravel area because um it's had uh years of parking of vehicles um for the property. There is no current um garage located on site.
So that's used as kind of the parking area for the residents. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, I'm gonna turn it over to Judy and Joe and see if you all have any
comments you want to share at this point in time. I know it's early on in um in the application, so sure how much time we've gotten to spend on it yet. >> Judy, you want to go first or you want me to go first? >> Sure, I can go. Um
so I had a few comments on the application as it came in. Um some mistakes on the NOI form which have been corrected. Uh and then several items that I have not received uh updates on. So we would be looking for a waiver
request form in alternatives discussion. Um even though there's existing disturb disturbance, the proposed plans are uh proposing alteration in um the no build and no disturb zone. So we would need that documented.
Um I requested a project sequence because this is a pretty large scale um construction project. I suggested they swap out uh the straw waddles that are speced for erosion controls for something more substantial.
uh mulch sock and silt fence. Um just because we don't see the straw waddles being super effective when there's this much sight disturbance. I suggested the applicant propose a PIV um along the southern property boundary.
Usually the commission is okay with retaining walls acting as the PIB for lakeside, but since there's wetland right here, um maybe not as much of a risk for encroachment because it's over the property line. But for something like dumping it might be helpful. Um suggested they add a material stock
pile construction entrance. Um suggested a lakeshore landscaping buffer as that's what the commission has been requesting for lakefront development recently. Um should provide the BBW field data forms for when Joe goes out there to
verify the flags. Um, and then minor comment, some of the buffer zone labels don't match the correct resource area names. Um, so I think there's one that says surface water. It should say um, inland bank.
And that was it for me. I believe Joe has some additional comments. Okay. Yeah, I did review the uh the application um and Judy's comments and I thought her comments were quite comprehensive and very similar to what
um I would have included in a review memorandum. So, I just did an email um with a couple of additional comments and I figured I'd do the formal response um once some of the revisions have been have been received. Um uh my first
recommendations was that uh the applicant provide an overlay plan of the existing and proposed conditions. I think it just makes it easier to see uh what's being proposed compared to what is existing. Um also recommended uh that
uh a more detailed breakdown of the surfaces being considered permeable and u pvious be provided. I know that was brought up and discussed in a little bit of detail. um um by the applicant just a few minutes ago, but I think a table or
a narrative on that would be helpful. Um the site plan was missing the date of the on ground uh field survey. Usually that's included on the site plan. Um the uh in addition to the uh proposed
mitigations plantings uh would recommend describing the species and sizes of the trees that are proposed to be removed. Um and also that uh the applicant verify if the wetland flags remain present in the field and I think that uh they have
done that. Uh so it's always good if I go out to the field and the flags are there. I don't waste my time. Um, so that's good to know. And that covers my additional comments. >> Okay. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Joe and Judy. Those are all
good comments. I'm I echo the um it would be helpful to have the plan overlay for the commission to understand the proposed um building orientation and layout and stuff compared to the existing.
I'll open it up to commission members if anyone has any other questions or comments at this time. Anyone from the public? I'm hearing none. Okay.
Um, and I did see there was a D, file number and a comment or two from them as well on the file. So, okay. Um, all right. So, I think
we were looking to continue this out. you have some time to review the comments from our staff and um from Joe >> um >> and provide some responses. I don't know if you have any questions right now for them or that you want to discuss. Um
there was just one additional thing I just want because um I know the peer reviewer re uh recommended an overlay. Um with the nature of the project and the various permits that are necessary to be pulled prior to construction, the
building footprint as provided on these plan sets are not the final plan. Um so there will be um some deviations as far as getting more uh further away from the resource areas uh than what are
currently shown. Um we basically provided a footprint on these plans uh that the architect that's been obtained will fit the actual footprint in. So when I do the overlay, I just want you to be aware that this footprint is
actually kind of oversized from what is possibly going to be done. And I haven't seen final architectural plans yet. Um, but I'd be happy to uh put an overlay to the commission so you could kind of see uh the differences, but I just wanted you to be aware of that um that fact
that right now we're kind of in the preliminary permitting kind of side of things as far as the project is concerned. Um so, uh just a note. >> Okay, we appreciate that. I think we've seen buildings um change before and
applicants have to come back um you know based on tweaks during architecture, but we certainly appreciate them getting smaller or further away from our resource area rather than getting bigger. So um thank you for that clarification.
>> You're welcome. >> Hi. Um this is Chris Connell. Um, I was curious when you were talking about the DP notes, um, where could we find those or I'm just curious what they would be and how we'd go about.
>> Yeah, there I'm sure Judy could probably send them over to you, but they should also or they're also in our files online. >> Okay. So, we're just beginning this whole thing. So, we're still trying to figure out like how to navigate all the paperwork part of it. So, I'm not sure.
Judy, I'm sure I'd be happy to share that link with you. >> Yeah, I can do that. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else? Any other questions from anyone? >> Uh through the through the chair. >> Yes.
>> Uh just a recommendation. I know they mentioned they hadn't gone before the ZBA yet. Uh, and I know from my time on the ZBA, they may want to uh work on a a table of current setbacks and proposed setbacks.
Uh, and the ZBA likes to see that on the plan so they know or if there's relief being asked that it's all very straightforward, right on the plan. If if if something's decreasing like
moving further away, that's great. So, it's a a table of that uh on the proposed conditions is will be very helpful for them as they proceed through the processes.
>> Okay, >> makes sense. >> All right. Anything else? >> I think that's it for now. uh on our end. >> Okay. Our next meeting is March 24th. Would you like to continue out to that meeting
or April? >> Um could we continue to that meeting because I would like to work on some of these items and provide a response. I know we're we may still be waiting for the delineation review in the field. Um,
but I feel like a lot of these items can actually be amended on a site plan. Um, and and I can kind of go through those just so we can check the box those boxes off at the next meeting. >> Sure. Yep. We can do that. Can I get a
motion to continue this out to March 24th? >> So moved. >> And I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. Walter, >> hi
>> Peggy. >> Hi, >> Ed. Oh, Ed's not here. U Matt, >> hi. >> And I am also an I. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time.
>> Yep. All right. Next up, um we're going to have Ted go ahead and open up this seven South Barn Road uh hearing and then we will continue it out. Here we go. The Hopkin Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 at 7 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by James Val to construct an ingground
pool with associated site work. Location 7 South Barn Road, assessor's map, R30, block 148, lot zero. Thank you. And can I get a motion to continue this out to March 24th?
>> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? Jim. >> Hi, >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Walter. >> I. >> Peggy. >> I. Matt. >> Hi.
>> And I am also an I. All right. Moving on to our continued hearings, we have 37 Ours Road notice of intent continuation. Right.
See, we have a revised site plan. Do we have anyone on the call for this project? >> Dave. Dave's here. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Um,
>> yep. >> Um, kind of a um summary of some of the items that uh had changed from our last uh meeting um in in previous meetings. Um,
Judy, could you bring I mean, yeah, Judy, could you bring that down just a little bit, the drawing, please? Just a little bit. Yep. Right there. Uh, one of the questions uh that was outstanding was uh storm water roof
runoff uh locations. Uh those little circles are uh 6ft diameter uh uh leech pits. uh capturing the water from the back and then we have two 4ft uh diameters in the uh uh left front, left
side if you will and uh right side. Um those locations were provided by uh David Holmes uh to the best of the ability uh limited limited notes, limited pictures. Um you
>> um the uh person who installed those uh was let go before they David could acquire exact locations. So that's uh David's uh best uh determination as to where they
are. Um, one of the comments that, uh, Joe had had in the right rear corner of the of the property, uh, looking at Google Earth, uh, there was some some, uh, canopy, uh, we had located, um, a pine
tree, uh, along the a 12-in pine tree along the fence line just uh, off the property line. And then a series of a double and a and a 4-in tree. uh when we estimated uh about a month or so ago the
the canopy of that uh and then showed that to the best that we could. Um recapping, we've we've added uh two additional uh planting areas. Uh
one uh at the right rear corner. Um, we have taken uh we're going to remove uh 57 more ft of uh patio. Uh we're going to bring it right up to the edge of the lawn. So everything behind all the patio
behind uh the shed uh will now be uh two planters. Uh we've left a small little twoft wide uh wash uh drip edge there uh that had been shown previously. uh on the left hand side of the left rear
corner uh the uh we had added uh planting area >> through through the chair a question >> you mentioned a you mentioned a a shed I don't see that on the plan >> yeah it's uh
yeah it's uh right about where the lot line is >> there it's the hatched area uh the larger hatched area uh to the bottom of that planting area. >> Okay. And the the existing patio you said that's going to be removed. Where
is that? >> Um there's a kind of a hatched uh that a tighter hatched area. Uh that um approximately about 60% of that area that's hatched to the lakeside of the
shed uh is patio. Uh some of the lawn is being converted into into into a planter. Um that left edge of that hatched area is the lawn. Um
>> so they where it's hatched up in the kind of the right hand corner >> is going to be going to be >> planter, right? That's going to be >> out of that was was a patio and walkway. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep.
I apologize for the cough. The um left rear corner, same type hatched area. Uh previously, uh last month, we had indicated that that was going to be slightly elevated with a small little retainment wall. Uh that's been
eliminated. Uh we've re-evaluated that and that will be on grade. Um the edge that's closest to the water will only be up a couple of inches. There's only a couple inch difference between the water
elevation and the uh the new planter, but essentially it's on grade. Um so um we've also then gone through some finalized and clarified some of our uh
questions that were asked about the the the bank and the water and u land underwater and uh stud uh flood storage that was compiled uh on on a memorandum that we had provided uh uh Scottheim uh
and contributed to that as well as myself to the to the values of that. Um I don't I don't I think most of the uh uh you know all the other uh changes uh there have been no other changes other than what I just mentioned.
>> Okay. Thank you for that overview. Um, Judy, do you have anything to add to what Dave went over or anything you observed? >> Uh, no, nothing really to add. I know Joe has some comments on the revised
materials. Um, my only comment would be if the commission is leaning towards a vote tonight, um, just to split your vote with the mitigation. So, the plantings, the patio removal should be done under an enforcement order. and then any structural work you're allowing
to remain um as well as their proposal to finish the under construction patio um if you're so inclined to do so uh that should be done under a separate order of conditions. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. What do you have Joe or >> All right. Uh I did have a chance to review the materials. Um, unfortunately was not able to get a revised memorandum to you in time for the hearing, but I can speak to uh my comments. Um,
a couple of I'm just going to go through and just note a few things regarding the uh presence of any wetlands or hydro soil. Um, I uh acknowledge that there are none on the site. I think we've gone
over this before. However, just reiterating that um I I can't tell what was there prior to the the work. So, the commission just should be aware of that. Um the applicant has proposed some changes um in the areas which he had
described as far as for mitigation. Um so that is for the commission to discuss. The trees were located as as was mentioned by Dave. Um um no further comment on that at this
time. Uh regarding the corrected form three that mean a minor item that one of the check boxes was incorrectly checked. Um I've not seen it was stated in his in his um narrative that that was
corrected. I did not see that. I don't know if that was submitted to the commission. I just haven't seen it. um the planting areas uh uh the plans proposed all appropriate um and I have
no additional comment on that. the the PIBs. I think that's been discussed previously. Um that the applicant is proposing to use the retaining walls as a PIB. Um and that I think the commission um has discussed
previously that uh they are generally okay with that. uh regarding some of the uh responses to the uh D comments. Um uh with respect to uh the performance standards
um the uh bank performance standards um appear to be met. Uh land underwater performance standards appear to be met. Um and the bordering alliance after the flooding they are providing uh increased
flood storage. There was only only at the highest elevations did they not meet the uh u uh existing uh flood storage. However, the storage
that is gained below that elevation more than accounts for what is what they're short at the higher elevation. So that's um you know for the commission to discuss. Um and I think the only other comment I had was that uh regarding the
chapter 91 license um the stated that they would be applying for that for the uh walls one and two I think they stated and I would also and the uh doc I would recommend that the author add the new
retaining wall >> uh that was uh built on the uh left side that replace the retaining wall three and four. And I think that covers all my comments.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um let's see. Dave, uh in regards to you had mentioned a form that you weren't sure if it was submitted, Joe. Yeah, we I we had I I think we did
provide that uh to Judy. Uh it's simply just a a box that shouldn't have been checked. Um it I'm sure it was provided. If not, we'll provide that to Judy. >> Okay. And then adding the new retaining
wall to the chapter 91. Do you have any issue with that? >> No issue with that. >> Okay. Um, all right. That's good. The performance standards were met. The flood storage item for discussion that Joe mentioned,
I um am comfortable with that, you know, that there's flood storage being provided at a different elevation. I we've seen this on another project recently. Um, and I'm okay with that. I don't know if anyone has any
questions or alternative opinions there. Um okay. And then um I guess the biggest question is I I'll open it up to the commission for discussion on
any other questions or comments on the um proposed planting areas. And um if we have if anyone has any questions or comments on you know what's being proposed here for for mitigation at this point in time. I think we've the
applicant has provided everything that we requested at the last hearing in regards to metrics and and backup. >> Melissa. >> Yes. did >> the um I just I just want to clarify one
um one item on the um planting area on the on the uh back lefthand corner planting number 1A. Um Scott Heyman uh agreed with Joe that that might be the edge of the planter, the end of the planter that's closest to
Lake Maspedok. Um we are proposing to plant a button bush there. bush. We've indicated seven symbols, but after doing some some research on this the size of a potential tree and bush for a button
bush, I'm thinking that instead of indicating seven, I think there should maybe be no more than two uh because they they can sprawl quite well and um there would be no way that seven could fit in that tiny little space. So, I
just wanted to mention that we can either do a revision or just I just wanted to mention that seven's impossible to plant there. >> Okay. >> Um Joe or Judy, do you have any comments on that? Two versus seven. Two sound
appropriate. >> Uh button bush certainly they can get big and they they can spread uh pretty densely. Um, two might be a little thin. Maybe I might recommend maybe three, but um, uh, I don't think that it needs to be
seven. Um, as long as, uh, the ones they plant are surviving, um, they should, uh, spread naturally and and fill that area in. >> Yep. We can do three. We'll do three. Okay.
Close three. through chair. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do we have any information on how uh mean annual low water was determined? >> There's a mention that it was at elevation 40 348.5, but there's no
reference as to how that elevation was determined. >> I'm sorry. Could you say that again, Matt? I'm sorry. Uh how was mean annual low water determined? >> Yeah. Um
a while ago, a few months ago, uh we had to sort of stall to get some elevations at the lake bottom. Um we have a date on there that we had we had acquired the water level on October 15th at 348 and a half.
We've seen it not not this year but in in in recent years it's lower than that. Um but at that particular day that that was the elevation but I think overall it's a little bit it's a little bit lower than than that on a on a normal
draw down. >> Do we have any historical information on the the low water mark on the lake? Usually I'd expect to see more information than a measurement one date,
one random day, and one random year. >> Yeah, I'm sure. I don't know. Judy, do you know if we probably do on other plans? >> Yeah, nothing that comes to mind. I can certainly look at other
plans, but I don't think I could do that within the time of this meeting. >> I don't have the info off hand, but we did a project about three or four doors down. Um, same side of the road. Um, we might be able to find some information
based on that. Um, historically what that would be. What are you What are you thinking, Matt? We should um >> I'm thinking we need something a little bit better to document that there were no impacts to land underwater.
>> All we have in the file right now is a statement that the water mark was measured on October 15, 2025, and that that is the mean annual low water mark and therefore no work occurred in land underwater.
>> That falls short of what I've seen on many applications over the years. Yep. >> Maybe David Holmes could enlighten us as to typically how far it goes with respect to uh where the dock is placed. David, do you have any feel
as to uh horizontally where that water would be relative to the to the dock in the walls on an annual on a typical year? >> Yeah. Well, this particular draw down um
it varies on the different draw downs based upon what how far they draw how how much they draw down the lake. But uh this year they I believe it was eight feet or nine feet they drew the lake down. So but it it went past the dock by
uh I want to say a good uh 7 to 8 ft before the water where the water line is now past the existing dock. Is that is that what you're asking? Yeah.
>> Yeah. Go ahead, Dave. >> Yeah. On a on a normal year, not not the not the excessive uh draw down. On a normal year, um where would low water be relative to the is it to the front of
the dock? Is it to the the back of the dock? Um not not this year because this year is it kind of is an unusual year. Um, you mean like last year?
>> I think I think either way what um Matt's Matt's point is, which I think is a is a good one for the commission just to document the mean low water so that we're holding it to similar metrics to,
you know, other plans. Not um, you know, what we remember from the past, but >> what consistently use on all projects. >> It's hard. It is hard to answer, Melissa, because you know, maybe check with the wolves that you were recently here with before the board might as
mentioned a few doors down from me, their >> their plans, but uh you know, I've only witnessed uh um you know, from the five years now of me owning the property.
um it being just going uh anywhere from 2 feet past the dock to about six to 8 ft past a dock just depending on the draw down. So it's very hard to answer you know like what's standard
um and maybe you just can get the other that information from other um you know from past uh filings. Yes, >> I think my suggestion would be to
the applicant um check the chapter 91 filings for other lakefront properties. They are going to need that information to file a chapter 91. They're going to have to document on the plans and others on the lake I know have we've requested that so I'm sure have
done that at some point in the past and if D's acknowledge that that elevation is accurate that would be more than good enough for me. >> Yep. >> Yeah, that makes sense. Dave, is that something you can look
into? >> Yeah, we have we have various projects around the lake. We we can we can compile that information and come up with a better value as to typically uh where low water is elevation wise. We can do that.
>> Okay. >> Um >> through the chair. >> Yes, Walter. Uh it looks like this discussion has been going on for a long time looking at the files. Uh can you give just a quick summary of
>> what started this? It was it trying to get a certificate of compliance uh cease and desist? I looking through all the documents I can't kind for find the first piece of the thread for this. >> It has been going on for quite a while.
Yeah. to refresh my memory frequently. Um, Judy, can you give a quick highle summary? >> Sure, happy to. Um, so I guess early
2025 around there. Um, we were called out to the property by a concerned abutter um, wanting to confirm whether some construction work was permitted or not. Uh, Mr. homes allowed us to come onto
the property um observe the work going on appeared to be work on a retaining wall and patio. Uh there weren't any permits pulled. So we um had them stop work and come back to the commission with a formal permit application to both get the work that
was already done approved and then anything additional um that the homeowner wanted to complete um request that to be completed as well. So, I think we've just been going back and forth for a while to get everything squared away on what exactly was in
existence at the property prior to this unpermitted work, what the work entailed, and what the homeowner wants to um complete in the future, as well as making sure the commission is happy with the mitigation presented. Um, so there's
a lot of moving parts. Happy to answer any specific questions, though. That that that's a great summary for me. Uh thank you. Uh and then one other question just looking at the what's on the screen now the property lines uh it
is beyond the property line is that considered this owned by the state or uh because there's a who controls that from a ownership perspective. Is it the state of Massachusetts?
So, as I understand it, nobody has ownership over the lake itself. And it's an incredibly common occurrence on Lake Massenograph for work that's technically over that property boundary. We don't really have a a solution to that. It's come up quite a few times.
>> Okay. So, it's just trying to find a solution that everybody's comfortable with. >> Yeah. And documenting. Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> You're the chair.
>> Yes, Ted. >> If I may, I have a a question or two. Um Dave, first of all, I'm sorry for your cold. It sounds miserable. Um as Dave, I think you know, you've been in a lot of our meetings. I've become quite a striden voice for plantings on in front
of the lake. Um, and my ideal situation would be to protect more of the lakefront on this property, but I'm very happy that patios are being removed and I'm happy to see some plantings. So, that's not really my question or concern for this applicant. I heard you Dave
kept saying planters, not plantings. Are these elevated planter uh plantings? And if they are, I have a question for Joe. Does that provide the same kind of protection for the lake
>> that at at grass level plantings would provide? >> Um, no, the the planters are on grade. The grade that's there today is that's going to be the the final elevation of the planter. >> Okay. Just the the term planter. I was
picturing kind of those elevated planting beds that you see like a kind of a little wall about shin high. That's not what we're talking about. Uh we had one uh last month around the um uh eastern edge, the right side of
planter uh 1A. Uh that was elevated about 8 in last month. Uh and that is no longer the case. That wall has been removed and that all these four planters are uh on grade. >> Okay. All right. Great. That was my only
real question. Thank you, Dave. Feel better. Thank you. >> Does anyone else have questions or comments or anyone from the public? Okay. So, >> Oh, go ahead.
>> Sorry. I was trying to figure out how to get rid of the uh the mute. Yeah. >> Yeah. If you if you can just state your name and your address for the record. >> Sure. Start audio. Um this is Ria
McNamera 390 Kirst Road. I'm the abuter to the south of this property. Um I missed the meeting in January unfortunately, so I couldn't uh weigh in on that at that point. Um my neighbor is
uh has done a great job in renovating this site. Um, like all of us who've come to Lake Maspan, we've seen the beauty of the lake. We've decided that uh this could all be improved. A lot of these houses started off as camps. We've
all improved our properties. Um, I came before the Conservation Commission to have two trees removed that were on the water side of my house. Um, back in 2004, the trees were literally on the house.
That's the reason why I had them removed. Um, I've kept all the plantings in my yard. Um, I did not put a shed down um by the lake, which I thought would have been really helpful, but the problem is is that I know that that would be, you know, more impervious
surface down by the lake. My question is, why is a shed closer to the lake than any other shed that was there before? Um I it just seems like that's an easy
thing to fix. In fact, there's already um been a um previous uh property owner on the same side of the street who moved his shed from the area near the lake to back
on the setback of the conservation commission recommendation. This shed is literally, you know, 5t from the lake. Um, it was there never was a shed that close to the lake before. There was a
tent that extended down almost to where the shed was, where the shed is, but there was no structure, permanent structure there. I'm just wondering like how how are we approaching the shed because that's one
of the big impervious structures that you know makes up this area. Is there any suggestions for that? >> I can elaborate on that if you like. Um, it was a shed that went really from
the corner of the house to past past that existing shed >> through the through the chair. I'm sorry. He does not have that fact straight. I've had pictures taken of that area and that area does not show a
shed where the shed is. >> Pass that. I'll um if >> I think it was on David's drawing original drawing >> if you can direct if you can direct comments through the chair. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you.
>> Um >> through the chair. I I submitted photos, letters, everything to the commission to show exactly where this property looked like before David started working on it. Um, you know, I don't have a problem
having a shed on the property. I have a problem having a shed right there. And I've expressed my my concern to David several times, but you know, he ignored me. And he thinks that this is something that is okay. In fact, somehow in my crazy mind, I thought he had actually
got it permitted, but it turns out he never got it permitted. So, there was a shed that was adjacent to his deck where it says existing deck and then there was a tent that went off the shed that went down towards the water, but there was no
shed where this existing shed is. Okay. So, one of the things that we're trying to do at this point in time with this application, um, I guess a little bit more detail on what Judy was
explaining before is that we came across the project through the enforcement order and we have two things that we're looking at right now. One is the enforcement order um and restoration on on that piece and
then the notice of intent as to whether the commission approves of you know work and what what's shown on the property. Um, a lot, you know, this hearing has been going on for quite a while and a lot of that has revolved
around trying to establish, you know, what was existing versus, you know, what's been put in more recently because we don't have much information. We're kind of trying to piece it together as a commission. So, we appreciate um,
you know, the work that's been done and the information that's provided to us. Um, and one of the things that we're looking at here are these planting areas, the mitigation, removal of some of the existing work, as was spoken about the impervious area um for patio
that's now being turned into planting areas. Um, I think to answer your question, can a shed be moved or removed? Of course it can. Um, and that's,
you know, the discussion in front of us. So, I appreciate you bringing up, you know, the concern about the shed >> and always. >> Yeah, Melissa, only because my neighbor at Oakurst, uh, a number one Oakhurst,
he was told he had to move his shed back because he put it down by the waterfront and he literally had to move it back up, you know, outside of the 50 foot back uh, boundary. Yeah, ideally we get on the, you know,
get to have input when people, you know, are trying to decide where to put the sheds and then we can work with them. And um unfortunately these after the fact discussions are are not um ideal and make everything more difficult. And yes, um I think the commission has in
some cases every every application is is a little bit different, but um >> through the chair. >> Yes, Walter. >> Um I thought there was some mention of a plan that showed some of the existing conditions
uh that might have shown that area uh before the construction began. >> Yeah, this is the ex >> there it is. with the existing conditions. >> That's a shed. >> That's not a shed. I'm sorry. It's a tent.
>> Hang on. Hang on. >> So, this is the existing what we're seeing first and then >> Yeah, this plan on the screen right here, Walter, is the existing conditions plan. >> Um,
>> and it's showing that previous building number five >> is what is shown, I think, in that shed area. We have another plan, too, that has red. It kind of overlays the two. >> Mhm. >> Um I don't know if you can pull that one
up, Judy. Yeah. So, we've got shed here and then what they're calling that um building or tent is in this solid black underneath. >> Oh, okay. So that does have the
>> is there >> existing is red. >> Is there any pictures of what that looked like? Was was that >> was it like a permanent tent in terms having wooden post or >> Okay, this is great. >> Yeah, this is the best I've got for
aerials. I don't think we have any pictures of it. Well, it certainly looks like a permanent structure, >> but it isn't >> like a canoe in there. >> It It wasn't. And it was done improperly
um by a man who was having brain cancer. So I mean the issue the issue here is that are we going to reward you know this this kind of uh situation or are we going to you know look at it and say this is this should
never have been there to begin with and oh by the way it was a tent as you can see the structure it doesn't have the tent on it right now because the tent kept on blowing off
the sides of the the structure he put together. >> That's not true. Uh board, that's not that's incorrect. It >> does de demolition. >> It does look like a structure to me. >> Structure. It was uh poles uh plastic
PVC poles all the way down with tarp wrapped around it and wood had wood walls. Uh he also had electric running to it for TV. Um yeah, it was a permanent shed. >> Okay. So then uh
>> then I'm going to pop a temp up and I'll call it a permanent shed. You know, I mean that this is the thing that I'm I'm struggling with because you know this new shed was placed in a portion of
where the old tent was and it is not attractive to look at. I I I understand that. But just from a commission standpoint, uh Melissa, this looks like a shed that would
conform to the 120 120 square foot rule for, you know, a shed >> inside 50 ft. >> There was not approval and that one of the points here. There was not approval for that shed. And that's part of what we're
considering as uh as approving the what was done without a permit, >> right? >> Or the scope I guess >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> The commission has approved sheds within
50 ft of resource area before depending on the level of mitigation offered. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, we're we're weighing a lot of things right here and a lot of different things um and trying to, you know,
>> trying to write things on the property. >> Is there um a written description of everything we're uh so great plans here, but is there something written that we can uh look at and say, "Okay, yes, that
seems good. That seems bad. Uh, kind of like you did, Judy, on the on the NOI we just went through. Do you have a list of what or does some someone have a list of what we should be considering here
in as opposed to just looking at a at drawings? >> Well, I can't remember. Do do we have a um existing and proposed or previous and proposed imperous area breakdown for this
project? >> Yes. As mentioned, if permission to speak, please. Um, as mentioned before, over 2,000 impervious square feet was removed from the property uh during uh renovations. And then we're adding
another 500 uh um square feet of of of area to and to be able to work with you guys for just repairing the lake wall that fell in. Um so >> do we have it documented
>> building department also uh was there constantly and to my and what they says if if there was an existing structure there before I was well within my rights to uh keep that there. Now, I've also
been in your office 5 years ago with Mike and Chuck going over everything and all the cleanup and everything that went with it. And, you know, if you open up the files, you'll see the uh massive pictures of trash that have been removed. We don't need to go down that
road again. Yeah, I'm I'm looking more I thought if I can cut off for a minute here because I think the wish the question and for documentation purposes um Dave Mark went on did we I feel like we had a table at one point but maybe I'm misremembering or a different
project. >> Oh, you're on mute. You're on mute Dave. Sorry about that. That's okay. Um, yeah. Um, the plan that you have on the screen right now, uh, should be sheet number two. Uh, this is, uh, the proposed, uh, finished product, uh, for the property.
Um, we did do a table. It's on sheet one. Uh, we have a reduction in impervious 809 square ft. >> There it is. Okay. >> Um, from, uh, 19 to 25. Okay. So, um but she too uh shows uh the
shed and the planters all all together and the final constructed activity for the site. >> Yeah, I think this is >> Go ahead, Walter. Just as someone who's in new to this uh
what's existing in >> hand side is what was existing before the 2019 2020 >> um >> 2025 like if we could go up just a little bit it would it would we go one
more a little bit more there there's the there's the 19 of uh 7379 9 >> and then um 25 is 6570 >> buildings and structure and and uh
>> so I would >> that's that's even got a little wor that got a little better because we should have subtracted a little bit more pavers out of that. So there's a slight reduction a little bit more than 800 809 but generally we're we have less now
than we were in 19. Okay. So that that's one representation uh of of the existing and proposed or what to approve. Uh >> is there anything else? Uh Melissa, I
think at some point there's got to be that we can look at approve uh as opposed to folders full of drawings. >> Right? I know if you scroll down on the
page, which is also important to the commission, um are the numbers broken down within the 25 and 50 foot buffer? Because obviously, you know, we have this big push for the lake for um that 25 foot buffer along
the water and um improving that has at a higher value than you know between the 50 and 100. It's all good. All of it's good, but put a little higher value on what's within the 25 closer to the lake. Um, seeing
the numbers >> decrease >> decrease there is more value in my mind than >> yes, >> it's further up. Um, so I think >> so that that covers that dimension. Uh
but uh for instance the shed do is is is that if it wasn't approved before did we need to is that something for us to approve or ZBA to approve um if there wasn't for it >> or maybe >> yeah so for us with the order of
conditions if we issue we vote and approve an order of conditions um as Judy said we should do that and we should specifically be looking at the structures the patio, the retaining walls, all these things that were not
um previously approved but that were built. >> Okay. So, I as I recall, I'm stretching my memory here, but it I I'm thinking that a a shed of 120 square feet doesn't need a permit
unless I mean, as long as you abide by the setbacks and so forth. So the structure itself may be fine in terms of its size, but then approval for where it's located
maybe more of concern for us or for for >> ZBA. >> Yeah, I think that process is kind of we separately for us. Just because we approve it doesn't mean that ZBA or boarding or bu building approves it. We're just approving it in our jurisdiction.
>> Okay. And vice versa, if they approve it, you know, they we say that I think in our in our orders that, you know, we're approving our plan, but you still need to get all your required approvals from other departments. >> Okay.
>> In order for it to be valid. >> Yeah. So we don't necessarily look at the size of the shed, you know, criteria for being square footage, just whether or not we approve it in our in our area. >> So then it what I'm hearing you say is
that there will be like a proposed order of conditions that'll go with this that'll kind of spell out everything that we'll be asked to uh vote on. >> Yeah. J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Judy, if you could explain exactly
what goes into that, but it um in my mind it would be this these plans right here in front of us are the primary piece of the puzzle. >> Can I make a comment please? >> Sure.
>> Um the impervious versus the pvious values change drastically if you take the tent out of the calculation. I did send pictures of the tent to Judy on October 7th. They're part of your
file. Um, it shows not only the tent, but all the other stuff there. There's also uh a statement here about rubber surface. And the rubber surface again was a temporary rubber surface. He did
not want to have weeds growing. So, he threw that down on the ground. But it wasn't something that was nailed down slash, you know, a structure. So if you take that out of the con the the calculation, it changes.
Um, you know, I I I just I wonder about this because we're talking about somebody who did something without permits and the mitigation here is not including the shed. So, I'm just wondering whether
or not we're going to do something about the shed, especially because I did send pictures and everything else to Judy so that you guys had enough information. Um, I don't know if you can bring up those pictures, Judy, but they're part of your
your package. And we can determine whether or not we consider this a permanent structure. Melissa. Well, while J is doing that, just a quick question. >> Yep. >> And I apologize if at some point during this one of these meetings this has come
up, but the the structures that we're discussing, the the preexisting structures, right, the old shed, the old house, was there an order of conditions issued by the commission for any of that work?
>> No. No, I don't. Correct me if I'm wrong, Judy, but I I think this is this is the first, >> correct? Yes. >> Okay. So, when we compare these 2019 and
2020 values to the 2025 values, we are actually comparing two situations that have not been approved by this commission. >> Correct. Okay, that's helpful to understand.
I understand what Matt is saying, but at the same time, it doesn't change what was pvious or impervious. And if if it's being reduced forever how many years it was the way it was,
uh it's an improvement as you said, Melissa, >> right? >> And I I know there's a lot of things that go on around the lake for for many many years that never see the light of a a permit. Mhm.
>> And the the the the what that property looks like today verse what it looked 10 years ago is night and day. It is a beautiful property now compared to just a total eyesore.
Uh before that this the homeowner has done an amazing job with this property and just completely renovating it. certainly uh cure that as a lake resident myself.
Yeah, >> this this one has definitely been a challenge for the commission to establish what you know what was there and there's not um it's very hard to apply hard and
fast rules to you really you really can't it's outside of the box. >> Agreed. >> As are the structures that are there um which I think is being alluded to. They really don't fit into typical
bucket or definition for um structures impervious area, pvious area. Um >> move on to I think you had asked what would the uh order of conditions consist of. >> Could she go ahead with that?
>> Oh yes, you can Judy. >> Sure. Um, so let's pull up the plans that show the planting area. So anywhere where it says
planting area or patio removal, um, in other words, activities that constitute mitigation, those would be specifically called out in the enforcement order. Anything that is stated as existing
or proposed. Uh so proposed limit of patio, existing shed, existing patio, existing dock by approving an order of conditions with these plans. Um in effect, the commission is saying that those items have been documented through
this permitting process and those are allowed to remain the proposed patios allowed to be uh finished. Um, so whatever is kind of listed on this plan, that's what would be and I would specifically call it out in the order of conditions. You know, these items are
reviewed by the commission. They're allowed to remain um if that is what you determine um and what those items are as you determine them. And I would reference the enforcement order in the order of conditions so that they're they're separate documents, but they would be kind of linked in that way.
Does that make sense? >> It does to me. Just one question about the enforcement order. Is that a document in this somewhere in this treasure trove of documentation? >> I haven't written it yet because we uh have not um settled on a plan yet. So
that would be if you vote to have an enforcement order issued. At that point, I would write it up. Um and then you can either vote it with signatures, in which case I can write it and issue it um myself, or you can choose to have it reviewed at the next commission meeting.
I thought it might have been something that was part of like a cease and desist that needs to be responded to. >> Nope. There I believe may have been an initial enforcement order to require the homeowner submit the NOI, but you have to issue a new enforcement order every
time the commission asks for something new. >> Okay. Thank you. Part of part of the reason between splitting that Walter and having the enforcement order is because the enforcement order are required actions that the owner has to take and we put a timeline on it for implementing
them. Um the stuff that's in the order of conditions are things that they can do or allowed to do if he >> therefore to build the house. >> We're not requiring you to. We were just giving you the permission and the authority to do that
>> or the limits or whatever. >> Yep. >> Mhm. Okay. Thank you. >> Um Okay. So with that being said, um
I think getting the so the retaining existing retaining well. So the getting the mean high mean low water I feel like is probably a requirement in order to vote and issue on the order of
conditions but not necessarily the enforcement. Correct. I guess that's to Judy and Matt. >> In other words, >> think >> what was that?
>> Seems reasonable to me, >> right? Okay. >> Can I ask Melissa what how that has a bearing on the enforcement order? I heard some mention of that the uh
>> 91 or the dock approval >> uh >> is that what it's related to not so much here? I mean I don't I I just fail to understand how the the low water mark has an effect on
this or are we saying is it always is this at some point in the year always going to be dry? Just part of my education here. Sorry. Take that one if you want. >> Do you want to take that one? >> Sure, I'll take that one. So, under the
Wildlands Protection Act, there's a definition for land underwater and it's anything waterside of the mean annual low water mark. Right now, uh we have a comment from D and a response
from the applicant. come from D is basically to document how the project complies with performance standards for land underwater. The applicant has said none of the work is being performed in land underwater, but there's no
there's no clarity on how the land underwater mark was defined other than one point of measurement in 2025 and it requires I think it's 19 years of data to determine
that low water mark. So it has a bearing on whether or not the project complies with both our local regulations and the Wellness Protection Act. Does that help? >> Okay. Is that something this homeowner has to bear? Because I can't imagine
that it exists for anywhere any property on the lake that's has potential for underwater. How is a >> Yeah, the applicant has to bear. How how is a homeowner gonna come up with 19 years of data? >> You don't have to come up with 19 years
of data. You just need to go to a source that has that data. So, it could be a DPW. It could be mass DP. Um, whoever manages the draw down of the lake is probably the best source to get the information for this particular water body. >> I do know that's the DPW. So, that part
I do know they're in charge of the >> if I was looking for it, that would be my first stop. Yeah. >> So, I think we need that piece to issue an order of conditions to complete the
file and address those comments and make sure all those boxes are checked, but I don't think it holds up anything for the enforcement order for the mitigation work. Um, and all that's, you know, above the walls anyway. So,
um, because I'll ask if anyone on the commission is doesn't, you know, I wants to make a motion to have Judy write up an enforcement for the mitigation as shown on the plan or
if there's any further discussion on what's being um, presented here for mitigation >> through through the chair, I would make a motion to request Judy to to write up the enforcement order.
>> Okay. >> Based on what we have so far. >> Yep. Can I get a second? >> I'll second that. >> All right. All in favor? Jim.
>> Jim, you got to come off mute again. Oh, yes. Um, yes. >> I Okay, Ted. >> Uh, Ted is an I. >> Walter.
>> I. >> Peggy. >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> And I am also an I. >> Okay. So Judy will write that up.
>> Yep. I'll plan to have it for the next meeting on the 24th. >> Okay. And for the next meeting on the 24th, uh Dave and Dave, do you want to continue out to that meeting and hopefully come with that piece of
information for the um water? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes, we do. Y Okay. Anyone else have any last questions, comments, or thoughts there?
Additional information? Good. Okay. Can I get a motion to continue that out to the 24th? >> Uh, make a motion to continue the to the 24th. >> I'll second.
All right. All in favor? Jim >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Walter. >> I. >> Peggy. >> I. >> Matt. >> I.
>> I am also an I. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Thank you board for all your time and commitments. Appreciate it. Yep. Have a good night. >> You too. Okay,
next up we have Wall Street Development 12 more 12 North Mill Street. Um, let's see. See, we have Mr. Petrosi on the line. >> Hi there.
>> Hello. Boy, that was a long one, huh? >> Yes. >> Yes, it was. >> So, uh, so the last time we got together, uh, about a month or so ago,
um, commission was looking for, um, the well company to put their protocol on their letterhead, which was submitted. um the revised uh form three and that was submitted. And then there
was um just the revised plan that showed the fence uh the post and rail fence along the edge of the uh uh marking off the wetland area. So, those three items were submitted
and um I know the commission has received the peerreview proposal from uh Lucas Engineering for $1,800 to review those three documents. And I find that to be not very
reasonable. So, that's really kind of uh all the information I have for tonight. Okay. All right. So, that came in. Yep. That came in Sunday night.
>> Yep. >> We would still be looking for Lucas to review it. Um, and when he reviews that information, she usually goes through, you know, the
whole plan set, make sure everything's um, you know, squared away before our votes. Um, so you know, you can't do that until >> I'm not I'm not opposed to paying, you know, some pay, but $1,800, I mean,
already paid thousands of dollars already to get to where we are. And the only the only change to the plan was to add a post and rail fence along the edge of the wetlands. So, you know, quite frankly, $1,800 is not what I would
consider to be a reasonable fee under the 53G account provision. Okay. Well, >> I think there were quite a few I think there were other versions of the plan that Joe hasn't reviewed up until this point. >> No, no. He gave us he gave us a peer
review letter. We addressed his comments. Most of his comments previously, if you recall, had to do with the other alternatives, which was the original plan, which is to cross the wetlands and put, you know, have a limited project and put everything in
the back of the property and so on and so forth. So, those comments, he's reviewed this several times. I mean, we've paid several thousands of dollars to do this to get to where we are today. And the only the only item that was left the
only three items that were left was the well protocol, the post and rail on the on the fence and the revised form three. Now is it does it $1,800
divided by I don't know what he gets. $100 trying to tell me he he'd have to take three full days to review these three documents. I just don't think that that's fair. That's all. >> Okay. >> So,
>> well, you could ask the commission to vote without it and then it's, you know, up to the commissioners to feel um whether they're comfortable >> that they have enough um information
provided. Um if that's if that's the stance. Well, has it has the information been reviewed? Has it been distributed to I know I >> I know I got it to the commission rather late. It took me a while to get the well company to put it on their stationary.
So, I understand that, you know, I have no problems in continuing so that the commission members will have a chance to review the information. But I, you know, it's reading a document. It's common sense. I mean, it's not like you need a it's not like you need an a technical
assistance on this particular aspect of the project. You know, most of the other stuff is >> Yeah. >> dashed out. It's been a year since we've been working on this thing, >> right? Um, I do I would like to have a
continuence because I do not think that commission and staff has had enough time to review it um since we just got it the other day. >> I agree. >> So, that would be helpful. Um, but in the in the um essence of you know trying
to wrap this up because it has been going on for quite a while and we don't want to you know string it along much longer. I do just want to touch on aside from the well and the project in general, Judy, can you just bring up the
the current plan? Um, I just want to talk for a minute. So while the commission members are reviewing your latest submission over the next, you know, before the next meeting, >> the other things to think about um when
we review are the bylaw and rags language for jurisdiction um and the waiver for work within the 25 foot no deserve no disturb and 50 foot
um no build zone. Um, so I just want to point that out to commission members. And this is a project where we will vote bifrocate the vote between the act and the bylaw. Um,
because there's different standards there. And looking at the town bylaw, it's within our jurisdiction to look at that 25 no dessert, no disturb and the 50 foot no build and determine whether
um the request that's being made is to put a structure within the 50 and the 25 and work um you know almost up to the wetland line. and whether there's mitigation measures in place to protect
the buffer zone and the wetland um from impacts both during construction and post construction. So that's kind of the presumption that the applicant needs to overcome um you know in presenting presenting to
the this to us and asking for the waiver. So, if there's any discussion, questions, I know we have a couple new commission members. Um, >> on that piece of the puzzle or anything else, um, I guess we'll just I think it would be useful of this time to talk about
that. Sure. Well, I hope you know, may madam chairman that the new commission members understand that this is a an alternative presented for to avoid, mitigate and minimize impacts to wetlands because the
alternative that we the original proposal was to cross the wetlands with significantly more impact as a limited project. So um I don't want it to be tainted in a way that yeah we're in the 25 we're in the 50 you know the whole
areas but it is as we previously discussed a much better alternative to what was uh originally proposed. So I just want the >> alternatives alternatives analysis is
part yes. Yep. Is part of that waiver request. Um which is also in the file. Um, are there any other key points, Judy, that you can think of for commission
members to think about if we're looking toward a wrap up of this project at the next meeting? >> I think you covered it. Um, looking very closely at what the bylaw performance
standards indicate and allow. Um, Lucas's last review memo was, I think, three plan revisions ago. So, that's why I think it's important to get his eyes on the current plan. Um, and then I guess I would also ask the applicant
whether the plan revisions have been sent to D to make sure they've seen them and and whether they have additional comments as the plan has changed. Yeah, I have not sent a an updated plan to the U D
simply because we've were has you know kind of discussing the options and the alternatives but if uh if you want me to do that I'll happily do that. Um but you know again like we discussed at the last meeting is you know I've amended the the
forum three you know in in um based on the conversation that I thought you know I'm under the impression that the commission were favorably inclined for this alternative versus the original
proposal. So, you know, if the commission is not favoring this alternative, then we're back to square one and I might as well just go back to the original plan. So um we've spent quite a bit of time on this
alternative over the last 6 months and um although there have been three revisions the revisions were simply additional replication areas and to comply with the one to five 1.5 to one replication requirement
um nothing substantive has changed on the plan for quite some time. So, you know, I'm happy to make a uh you know, you know, $500 peer review pay for
someone to sit down and overlook the plan and the protocol and determine whether or not there's anything that we have missed that must, you know, that I'm happy to do that, but I just think that $1,800 is just, you know,
not not a very fair not a very fair um proposal to consider at this point. But um so um does anyone on the commission have any questions,
comments? >> I guess a question for Judy. potentially for Judy. I don't know. We'll see. Um, obviously we have Lucas as our peerreview engineer signed up. Have we
in the past looked at getting quotes from other peer reviewers to satisfy or do we have to do so to satisfy Mass General laws or any regulations that we need to adhere to?
Not in the year and a half since I've been a tough question. >> Yeah. >> So I can look at what else we've done in the past, but I know the regs do provide for, you know, the if the commission wants materials peer reviewed as part of a permit application, then that's their
purview. But I don't know what the rules are around if there's, you know, request for other quotes. Um, I would note that any unused funds would be returned to the applicant. So, if it doesn't end up taking that amount of time, um, that would get returned at the close of the
hearing. >> Yeah. Okay. No, that that's what I thought. And I guess the reason I bring it up is if the applicant is not amendable to paying the fee for Lucas to do the peer review, we'd be forced to go out and get
alternative quotes from peer reviewers. And I have little doubt it would be far more substantial of a fee because they would want to review the entire project from start to finish um to issue a peer review. So >> So I mean
>> I understand the applicants >> the the statute says >> understand reasonable it's supposed to be a reasonable fee a reasonable fee. So, I mean, uh, do you need 18 hours, 16
hours to review this plan for tomorrow? I mean, that's two, that's somebody working, sitting at their desk full time for two and a half two to two and a half days to to study this plan. I I I mean I
like to say that, you know, the peer review is necessary, but but it's nobody's going to sit there for two and a half days and look at this plan and say that they need a it's just it's
completely illogical. I mean, >> through the chair. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Uh Mr. Petrosi, I I hear what you're saying and I understand your frustrations. As a commission, our options are to solicit quotes for a peer review and the
numbers we get are the numbers we get and we generally would try to select the lowest of the pe qualified peer reviewers in in my opinion. Um, and at this stage of the review, I have no doubt that would be Lucas given the history they have on the project. And as
Judy indicated, any unspent funds would be returned to the applicant. So, we're we're sort of in a no-win situation. Well, it is discretionary. So, I mean, I would hope that the commission would use their discretion and look at it from the point of view of the applicant who was
paying the bill. I mean, if you think you need technical expertise, I agree with you. You need a peer reviewer. This is has nothing to do with technical aspects of the plan. It's just all of the it's been reviewed. I mean, it's we've hash dished over and I've
never gotten any money back from any peer reviewer in any town. they spend it all. So, I mean, let's try to be fair about it. I'm happy to pay for peer review to review the plan, but it doesn't take 16
hours or 18 hours to review this plan. It just isn't it doesn't I mean, I don't know how much of what we've already paid, but it's pretty substantial. And you just can't keep the
the the law and the regulation isn't there for the for the peer reviewer to abuse it or the commission to use unreasonable um standards that and it's a it's supposed to be a reasonable fee based on
the work that's being reviewed. So, you know, >> I think we we rely on our on our peer reviewers as well, you know, through the process of um
you know, assisting Judy as needed with the order of conditions, with writing, with consult, with things. You know, we're all volunteers and um these things do, you know, go into files. they have
the potential to be appealed. Um, so we really need to be careful from a legal standpoint ourselves too that we're making sure that the documents in the files that we're voting on >> don't have polls.
You know, as I do business in lots and lots of towns that have the same rules and regulations that you folks have, you know, it's kind of gets tiring when the peer reviewer continues to beat on you for unnecessary review and
funds that quite frankly it's getting uncontrol. It's uncontrolled. >> They don't have the money. They have the money. It's just so at some point, and I hate to make this the point, but at some point someone has to say something that
you're out of line. When do you get to the point where you take a peerreview proposal for a minimal review and come up with a fee for $1,800? Where do you come where in no one in private practice would charge you $1,800 to review this
plan? Why are they charging us applicants more money than what they would charge a client that came in off the street? It's just it's just it's insulting. I'll pay the $1,800. I'll pay the $1,800, but if I don't see a refund,
there's going to be an inquiry as to what Lucas Engineering is doing with this money and with their time. I want a complete accounting. It's completely irresponsible for them to continue to do this uncontrolled.
There's no accountability. Look at the four things that are on his proposal. Read this, read that. It, like I said, I don't know how many hours have been put into it already. And I'm not penalizing Joe at all. He does his job. That's his work. But whoever's writing this
proposal, you know, it's just It's just unfair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yeah. So, I I think we did include sufficient funds in the proposal for several additional rounds of review if
necessary because uh we didn't want to go through the process of asking for more funds um if if it got to that point. So I I think the the amount that was of the proposal took into account um
additional rounds of funding of of review if needed and as well as the current uh two supplemental filings that were done and as of yesterday three supplemental filings. Um so I think you
know that just so the commission is aware. Um >> yeah we did provide sufficient funds in there for additional review beyond what's been submitted at this point >> just so that we didn't have come we
didn't come back to this again. Um if the current proposals um uh answer all of our uh questions then we wouldn't have any further review. Um but just wanted to make that point.
>> Yeah. No, I appreciate that Joe. Um, and that makes sense. We don't want to have these conversations um with each and every round of review. Um, I think we've been pretty happy with Lucas and your reviews um on all our
projects to date and haven't had an issue um justifying hours spent. So, I don't I don't doubt um where it's coming from. And you know, I'd also say that on the applicant's
end, there's a way to make things more efficient for the peer reviewer as well. Having been in a peerreview position myself, there's certainly applications that you can get through or review much quicker than others just because of the
way that they're presented, organized. All the information is there. You don't have to double check things, triple check things. um you know there's a way to make it more efficient for yourself as an applicant
as well. Um just respecting everyone's time I think in general is is appreciated. Um so >> understood understood. You know we're all in we've been through this many times all of us both board members and
applicants. It just gets very frustrating to have to continue to pay for review that you believe has already been conducted and there's not much change that has occurred in the last six months. So while I understand that
other review might have taken place and may have been done in a gratuitous fashion, I understand that part of it and I appreciate the fact that that happened. But when you get hit with something that is what we would consider to be like a dimminimous change on a
plan, it shouldn't cost $1,800 quite honestly. So So I'll I'll continue. I'll drop a check off $1,800 and we'll we'll see whether or not we have a good honor system or not. >> Okay.
Sounds like a plan. >> When is your next meeting that we can continue this to? And assuming that I drop a check off before uh Friday, well tomorrow's Wednesday, so it's before Thursday. When how much time
would we need for a peer reviewer to complete his report and get it to the commission? >> So our next meeting is March 24th. Um Joe, how much time do you think you're or what you know is that give
enough time if you get um the go-ahad by the end of the week to do a review in another week? We can take a look at it. >> Uh yeah, I would think uh it would be done by the end of next week. If we get the go ahead by the end of this week.
>> Okay. Okay. I think that works. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I get a motion to continue this out to March 24th? >> I'll happily make that motion.
>> Can I get a second? >> Second >> through the chair. >> Yes. We're continuing both hearings. >> Sure. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um, all in favor, Jim.
Hi >> Ted. >> Hi >> Walter. >> Hi >> Peggy. >> I >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. >> Great. Thank you very much. I'll see you
in two weeks. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you. Bye-bye. >> Yep. >> All right. So, we're going to jump back down. We never did the draft minutes for review. Um, so I'll do these separately. Does
anyone either have any comments or want to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from October 21st, 2025? >> If there are no comments, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay.
>> Can I get a second? >> I'll second. I'll second. >> Thanks, Jim. All in favor and just let me know if you want to abstain if you weren't there. Um Jim >> I >> Ted >> Ted is an I
>> Walter you were not here right? >> Yeah I abstain >> Peggy >> Matt >> I >> and I am also an I and then we'll do for the minutes of
February 10th. Can I get a motion to approve? >> I'll make that motion, but my vote will be an abstain. I don't know if we have enough to pass it, so I don't know. >> Okay. I think we do. >> Okay. I I don't know for sure who was
there, especially Peggy and Walter. I can't remember when people came on board. So, anyway, I'll make the motion. >> Okay. Can I second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Jim? I >> Ted's gonna abstain.
>> Abstain. >> Walter's gonna abstain. Peggy. The chair. I think Walter and Peggy were at that meeting. >> Accept that meeting. >> Okay, then I'll go Peggy.
>> I. >> All right. Two eyes. Um, Matt, >> I'm gonna stand. I wasn't present. >> You weren't there. Okay. And I'm also an I. Right. Thank you all. And then
at that we're down to the conservation minutes. >> Melissa. >> Um. Yes. Jim, >> can you can you just have Ted announce the conservation minute because he's got the best radio voice. You gonna make me add limit?
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> Ladies and gentlemen, your conservation minute. >> I need a jingle. >> Jingle. I like it. Baseball season. Um,
yeah, Judy, I'll turn it over to you. >> Sure. So, I think you all saw my email from a few weeks ago about a first draft of the tree restoration policy. We had talked about this in the last meeting. Um, I took all of your suggestions from
the survey and kind of created a draft section of the regs um pulled out into a word doc so you could review just this part of it before the full ress update. Um, so if you have comments on the structure of it, I kind of go over an
introduction, uh, procedures of when and how an applicant might be requesting tree or vegetation removal. So, this is either through a staff exemption request or a permit application through the commission.
Um, and then the yellow highlighted areas I think are the key points needing review and feedback from you all. Um, so I have kind of two sections of restoration. So there's cases in which the commission tends to look at ratios
of remove trees or shrubs to replacement trees or shrubs. Um, so I kind of proposed some numbers here. If it's a lot of smaller plants, I directed folks towards the following section, which looks more at square footage. Um, 3 to 6
in DBH. We've been seeing the commission request one and a half to one for replacements and then larger seeing 2:1. One of Melissa's comments is that we should have another category for even larger trees which we can certainly add.
Um, continuing on restoration of impacted areas. So, I included this. You know, there's some cases like 32 granite where it was a lot of understory. So, maybe it made more sense to look at like a square footage.
Um, so a lot of this is borrowed from another town that suggests for a certain amount of restoration they have uh numbers of types of plantings that should be proposed. Uh so for every 150 square feet at least one tree. uh for
every 70 square feet at least one shrub and then 10 square feet at least one herbaceous plant or ground cover and that's sort of cumulative. Uh and then the last section planting conditions this is where all of the kind of extra bits are. So requirements on
location um organization native species uh etc etc. So this is kind of a lot. If there's anything you have comments on, things that you think should be removed or additional things to add, I'm happy to take suggestions. Um, and the last
thing I will mention before I turn it back over is uh Chris Lucas had offered to have a scope prepared for uh having uh Joe or someone else from Lucas Environmental review all of our regs updates. So, if that is something the commission wants, we can take a look at
our uh 53E and a half and see if we have um enough funding for them to do a REGGS review. Uh so, this would be included in that as well. Um so, just something to think about. Now, we'll pass it back over to you Melissa. >> Well, thanks Judy.
>> Um yeah, I don't know. Did anyone else get a chance to look at these yet or need more time? I don't know. If I I did put some comments in there, some discussion items. Um I don't know what as a group if you prefer to look at
them on your own or do it here. >> Melissa, speaking only for myself, obviously. Um I am very interested in this, but I'm in a rough time of the school year right before spring break and I have not had a chance to look at them and I I would like to and would
like to look at your comments as well, but I haven't had a chance to. Okay. >> So, I don't think we're rushing to some sort of vote or anything anyway, but >> No, right now I have no comments, but I am certain to have feedback. >> Like would like more time
>> once I get into this spring break and can take a breath. >> Okay. >> More time. I'd echo that. More time would be good. Um I did skim it and saw a couple of your comments. Mosa two things that stuck out to me stuck out to you as well. It looks like um the height
of the trees, the minimum height range seemed a little wide. Um I'd look for like six to eight or you know 8 to 10 somewhere in that range. And then for trees like substantial trees that have been around for 50 plus years situation,
right? One or or a couple of trees replacement doesn't seem satisfactory. So at some point I think we draw a line where it's 12 in 15 in 20 in whatever it may be it's an an equivalent
DBH. So however many plantings are required to get you back to that equivalent of the treated lost. >> Okay, cool. Thanks. Anybody else have anything at this point? Or
I do like that thought, Judy, on getting a proposal for Lucas to look through our rigs as we're making updates. I think that would be helpful. >> I was about to say the same thing. If we were done with the trees specifically, I
think that would be a great idea. >> Yeah. Great. Yeah. I'm just about done with a full run through of the regs with some other updates you all have mentioned. So, I think I can get that version with the track changes to um well get a scope
first, make sure we can pay it, and then I'll send the track changes version to um Chris Lucas and see if um that's how they want to do their review. But I think when I talked to him last, he said that he could get something back in time for an April discussion. So, I think
we're still on track even with having that peer review. >> Okay. >> Getting something approved by the spring. >> Okay. >> Julie, would that be a full scrub of the regulations or just the areas we are intending to modify?
>> Almost every section has changes proposed. Um, I did a lot of like tone, consistency, grammar, um, clarifications on things that we've found don't make. So, I mean, basically the whole thing is going to be reviewed,
but it's not in any sense like being rewritten. Um, it's just, yeah, some minor changes, but throughout the entire document. Um, and with this whole kind of tree restoration being a new section added to it,
Sounds good. >> And do folks want to see it before it goes to Lucas or would you rather look at it one time after it gets peer reviewed? >> I'd like to see it before it goes there. >> Okay.
We can certainly send it out. Okay, that sounds good. All right. Well, thanks everybody. I will ask for a motion to adjurnn. >> Uh oh, >> Melissa.
>> Yes, Walter. Uh just something I wanted to uh ask. Uh Anna was uh a resident uh reached out to me about uh a fee related to a certificate of compliance
uh and wondering I I think they're surprised that they might have to pay uh consultant fees for uh that certificate of compliance. I don't think they uh like completely
understand the process. Anna, and this was for 50 Lakeshore. Have you explained what you or do you explain in a letter why you need a consultant to for a certificate of compliance >> through the chair? I think we already
have a fee for 50 Lakeshore if I'm not mistaken. >> Um through the chair. I'd rather not discuss a particular applicant's financial matters um over a public meeting. So, if you'd like to forward us the email um we're happy to reach out. I did just reach out to them um for some
additional money. Um but yeah, they've uh we're in the process of talking to them, so I'm surprised she didn't reach back out to me. Um but if you'd like to forward over that email or, you know, give Judy or I a call offline, we can discuss it further.
Uh well just in general then uh for a certificate of compliance it is it's not assumed that there's going to be a consultant for this is for any certificate of compliance. Uh
if a homeowner all I'm going to have to pay for is the the filing fee for the certificate of compliance. uh is is >> so there is a minimum consultant fee that's um an initial consultant fee for a certificate of compliance just like
for um a notice of intent an RDA and then it depends on again you know like these notice of intent is it more than one meeting does Lucas need to review it multiple times so every project is unique um >> okay so without going into specification
that you guys have reviewed yet for certificate of compliance So um it's it's not ready to go come to you guys at this point. >> So as you say it's just based on each uh situation
uh whether uh do you or Judy feel that uh a consultant is needed or is a consultant always going to be needed or uh >> a consultant is needed for all certificate of compliance applications >> compliances. Y okay that helps me understand. >> Absolutely.
>> Yeah. That's all I have, Melissa? >> Yep. No problem. Anybody have anything else? >> Okay. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All right. All in favor? Jim? >> I. >> Ted. >> That is an I. >> Walter. >> I. >> Peggy. I >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And I'm also an I.
>> All right. Have a good night everybody. >> Good night everybody. >> See you.