The new law authorizes all members of a 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 Hopkins
Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom app as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be
broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. accordingly. Please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not
to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment.
After commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each
public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Ed Harrow I am here. >> Matt Moy,
>> present. >> Melissa Reikos >> here. >> I am Ted Barker Hook. I'm here. Jim Cerillo, >> oh great. Thank you, Jim. I will now confirm staff that are present. Judy Day, >> present.
>> Anna Rogers, >> present. >> And Joe Orzelle, >> present. Uh before passing the gavvel over to Melissa, um I'd like to let everybody know that we have three hearings that have been um well two that have been continued, one has been
withdrawn. Uh 37 Oakhurst Road has been continued to November 4th. Uh the Hopkinson Trails Committee, Chamberlain Street Loop Road, uh has been continued also to November 4th. and the 85 to 89
West Main Street Starbucks Unib parking lot um has been the that application has been withdrawn. That's all I got. Melissa, >> great. Thanks, Ed. >> Through the chair, this is Ed with with your permission.
>> Yes, Ed. >> The author is Jill Kirk Conway. Thank you. >> All right, we can sleep tonight. Thanks, Ed. Um, all right. We're going to, uh, start
off with a few work session items. Um, seeing that we have no documents for review, we do have draft minutes from October 7th, does anyone have any comments on the minutes or
not had enough time to review them? No. Hearing none. Um, can I get a motion to approve the minutes of October 7th, 2025? >> That motion. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> And I am also an I. Thanks for putting those together, Judy. >> That was Anna. Don't want to take the credit,
>> Anna. Thank you. >> Very welcome. >> Um, next up we have Town of Hawkington Charleswood School violation discussion. Um,
I think to start off, Judy, do you want to give a uh summary of what's happened, what you've observed, and why we've brought this forward as a violation discussion?
>> Sure. Uh, through the chair. Um, so we observed silt beyond the limit of work in buffer zone to a jurisdictional pond just off of the uh work site for the new Charleswood school last Thursday. Uh, we
think this was due to heavy rains on Tuesday. Um, so I can pull up some pictures. So silt in the leaves accumulated in buffer zone beyond the erosion controls
and this was sort of the pile up in front of the erosion controls. So we think water was kind of getting channeled to this area and getting through. Um, we went back out yesterday and saw additional silt past the erosion
controls in buffer zone in this area as well as another area uh just north of that same pond. So, it looks like there's two release points. I'll pull up those pictures as well. So, this was the second location here.
So, the first one, I don't think there's as much of a risk of silt getting into the pond itself because of the way the grade is. Um, but this location, it's above the pond. Um, just off to the left here. That's where it is. Um, so that's a little bit more of a concern, but nothing has entered resource area as of
yet. Um, I know the builder has made a lot of improvements to the site to try to fix this. Um, so I think they are on the call to talk through those. Um but just to add to the buffer zone releases, we also noted that the um concrete pipe
carrying the intermittent stream across the entrance of the Charleswood school off Hayden Row um the one that necessitated the amended NOI earlier this year. Um you know that had all sorts of conditions about how that pipe was meant to be excavated and replaced.
um that had get been cut through while putting in utilities um and looked to have been kind of just draining into a storm water swale. So I can pull those pictures up as well. Um obviously not how it was meant to be
handled as of now. They did put in a temporary connection to block off the open ends of the pipe. So um ideally no turbid storm water would be entering and getting downstream and that water connection would be restored but um I
think TBD on how that's going to work. Um should be interesting to see with tomorrow's rain if we're still seeing flow downstream. Um >> so this is a trench going from the street bringing utilities from the street into the site and >> correct
>> cut through that drain pipe. >> Yep. And water's overflowing from the excavation into the drain pipe. >> Yep. Correct. >> Downstream to resource area potentially. >> We don't think it was getting downstream. So this is the um this is
the inlet pipe. So this is where water was coming down. >> Y >> that's the water that was collecting. See if I have a shot of the downstream pipe. I don't believe I do, but it was the water level was below the downstream
pipe. So, we don't think anything dirty was getting downstream, just that there was a risk of that while it was still open. >> Okay. All right. Um, and do you happen to have a a plan, Jody
or Judy, just to identify where the releases were on the plan? >> Yep. I can pull that benefit of everybody on the call. That might just take me two seconds. So this is one of the approved plan
sets. Um this is the pond here, the depression. Um the release looked like it occurred in the outer buffer zone at the sort of southern edge of the limit of work. And then the other release looked to be sort of on this northern side here.
>> Okay. >> And that pipe is way over here. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> Y um so I'm going to ask who we have representing the contractor or the site
um developer on the call tonight. Can you introduce yourself? >> Yes. So this is uh Joe Amaro with Bra Builders uh project manager um for as the general contractor for the project. I also have uh Nicholas Bra uh the lead superintendent and I think we may even
have uh Bill Tui as well uh superintendent. >> Okay. >> So yes to uh to what Judy just stated. So I can go back first to the uh the 12-in RCP break. Um so you're correct
with your assessment. the the the breach occurred during excavation for what is the utility duck bank uh that's going to be feeding power to the new building. Uh it was not the intent to perform the construction of the crossing drainage at
that time. Uh unfortunately during excavation it was undermined and the pipe uh was compromised. So at that time the pipe was removed. Uh, as Judy mentioned, uh, no, uh, surface water, groundwater, any of the the the runoff
uh, water made its way down the outfall. And Nick could speak to that more. Nicholas freight went down uh, to where that actually daylights and uh, witnessed no evidence of silt at that end of the site. But today, that pipe was repaired. And I did send some photos
over to Judy of that repair. So now the plan the plan right now is finish the duck bank which we would plan on doing that by the end of this week and sometime later next week or early the following week we would be starting the work for the permanent repair or the
permanent fix uh for that 12-in RCP. Um speaking to the two areas of the release uh those are on portions of the site where we are building up the grade of the roadway. So the permanent roadway you can see uh above the location Judy if you could just show them where the
the swale is in that area where that roadway is. I think you're sharing the photo. So that's the roadway uh construction there which is a temporary roadway but in its permanent condition is pretty close to what that is right now. uh the grade in that area does need to come up about another uh I'd say five
or six feet which we'll be trying by the end of this uh end of the season to build that up to its permanent condition at least for the roadway and then the surrounding perimeter areas as well so we can get that stabilized. But in the meantime after after the you know the
five six inches of rain that we received on Tuesday which was uh in a 24-h hour period we did immediately jump on any of the repairs uh the remediation work. We did do hand work outside the limit of work uh to remove the silt. We did add
uh an additional section or additional row of erosion control uh silt fencing in front of those areas of brereech along with uh crush stone on either side. So we're trying to trying to facilitate or at least prevent
any silt from getting first that past that first line of defense into what we have as a erosion control. We have a silt fence uh silt uh compost waddles and we also have the coil logs in that area as well. So we have additional
measures in place now. Um and again the cor the work was corrected immediately. So we did have crews on that immediately. So, uh, the site contractor has been diligent with, um, checking and inspecting erosion controls before and after rain events per the swim. Uh, they've been reporting such, uh, and
making the necessary repairs. They do have the necessary materials on site. So, again, um, it was unfortunate event. You know, we have we do have the measures in place per the contract documents, but sometimes you're not going to really see where the water is going to flow until the the rain event.
And unfortunately that was the area that uh took the heaviest amount of impact. But uh we've we've seen that now and we're definitely in a better situation at least over in that area for any future events. So uh Nick or Billy if
you have anything else to add um feel free to speak but I don't know if we have any photos or Judy I think Nick has sent you a few photos of the corrective measures that are in place if you don't mind showing those to the team. um here.
>> So, I took this uh earlier today. This is the um area above the pond, >> correct? >> So, yeah, as you can see, they added a row Oh, sorry. They added a a row of uh crush stone uh on the front side of the
sill fence. They added another layer of defense of crush stone behind that. Um repinned the coil logs. uh confirmed and secured and re and cleaned up any areas of silt on the compost socks and uh made
sure that the silt fence in the back was all set as well so there were no issues. So this is that northern section breach um or release point that uh Judy had mentioned to the north side of that um buffer zone. >> Okay.
I don't know if you have uh additional photos of the area near that retaining wall as well. You grabbed any of those today, but that area as well. Uh we we did some corrective action work down there as well.
>> Yeah. It's hard to see from this angle, but again, they extended the crush stone layer down into this depression where that runoff was occurring to catch any silt before it got to the first line of defense which they added.
You can see the straw waddle in the front with some additional silt fence. Uh there's additional stone behind that layer and then we have the coil logs, the waddles and the silt fence behind that. So that was the other area of release.
>> Um okay. Um yeah, that looks like some substantial effort put in there um to reinforce the soils. Did is there a need for additional
basin on this side to increase the capacity to store the water that's flowing off the site? Um, I know just based on the experience of your neighbors, um, next door there off of
Blueberry Lane, uh, we know that this, you know, every any water that gets off the site has that fine silt in it. So, the crush stone, um, I think based on what we've seen doesn't necessarily filter anything out. Um, anything that
leaves the site is going to be have a lot of sediment in it. >> Um, and they've had to take some drastic measures over there just to make sure that they're detaining and and and filtering this stuff out if it if it
does leave the site. Um, so I guess that question concern there. I think a basin in this area wouldn't be the most ideal location just because of where what the grade is in the area because it is a lower depression in the site. So we don't we don't necessarily want to have
the have that water come to this location. We're trying to re redirect and divert it to a lower portion of the site where we do have the basins. >> So I think that's where um constructing that permanent roadway is going to assist with that. It's going to help any
of that surface water that was running off um for that incomplete road down that slope. It's going to help at least divert that water one way and then this area is just going to be impacted by just the the rainfall. It shouldn't be as much. It wouldn't be the runoff that we're having before.
>> Okay. And can you remind me, I know you said it, but what is the schedule for getting that roadway up to grade to create that burm? >> It's in progress right now. Um, Nick could speak better to it, but I think uh by I would say somewhere in the middle to end of November, that is the
anticipated time frame to have that roadway at a at a place where it's close to permanent. We're not going to have it paved. We will be paving some other portions of the site prior to that point in time, but we won't be paving that area. But it would allow us to get the roadway to its correct elevation or or
to a point where it's ready for for pavement. And then it would allow us to um stabilize and and prepare the perimeter of the site so we could stabilize it more um for the winter. And is there anything preventing you
from putting from um I guess accelerating that or putting in a temporary burm because mid mid to end of November is still a ways off and I think these big storm events are something that's become
>> regular event. >> I wouldn't say I know I we're out of the dry season. Yeah, I would I don't think there's anything at this point. Again, um we'd have to review that with Dorenzo, our site contract, and make sure that there's nothing preventing them or in their way with creating BMS, but we did speak about that um today. Uh
some potentials for adding some BMS at least in that corner, like the elbow of that roadway to at least um redirect and uh slow down the flow while that's in construction, I would say. Yeah, I I think that's something that I
would I'll open it up to other commission members, but I'd like to like to see that happen as soon as possible because obviously we know there's a weak point here and I think it would be a mistake to not get that bur in um as soon as at least a temporary one and as
soon as possible. >> Um hi, this is Nicholas Bra. I can speak to that. >> Okay. Uh, so I I don't think there's any reason why we can't get that done within, you know, the next two weeks. And then we would have some um we would stabilize that that slope with the hay,
the stapled uh hay. And um yeah, it just kind of at this point it's weather permitting. So to be able to back fill and compact um as long as we get some good dry days, which it looks like we have a good week ahead of us, uh we should be able to um take care of that.
Correct. >> All right. I'm going to open up to other members of the commission to get thoughts on on this plan here and what happened. >> Melissa. >> Yes. Ted. >> Um, why does it take two weeks to build
that burm if we have good weather other than the rain coming overnight? Why can't that take three days? I don't know how to build that burm. It's an honest question. Why would that take two weeks? >> We could definitely have the burm built uh
you know, I'd say middle to uh of next week and then um get the contractor SNM out there to stabilize the slope. I think it'll be, you know, 100% completed in two weeks. But as far as getting the the burm, what we want to do is back
fill it to its to subgrade to its um final intended condition and then stabilize it, which it's about it's about, you know, 8 ft of material. And there's also a modular wall and kind of um back filling
up against the building. It all kind of comes into play. But yeah, a week or two. I mean, it's definitely on our radar now and we'll be pushing for it. >> Yeah. Well, again, I I don't know how to
do the job you guys are doing. I appreciate that it's on your radar. I I just don't sense the urgency from you guys that I feel to make sure all of this is buttoned up as soon as absolutely possible. um on your radar and and I don't
remember exactly the words you just used, but it sounds like and we will push to get this done. I feel like it ought to be >> well I think >> first thing to get done. >> Fix the hole in the pipe. >> Yeah, the the pipes fixed. Um and I you
know the problem here we believe is solved. Um, definitely installing the getting the grade to the right elevation will will help, but at this point there's there's no water other than, you know, um, surface rainwater is going to
make its way down there. The grade is already pretty much fixed. Um, I can see if I got some pictures of it. Mr. Chair, this is Ed. Have there been >> complaints from Uber Lane or the new
subdivision about water coming off of the site? Not that I know of. I know we can open it up to the the public here at this point and see if anyone has any uh comments
on this discussion. I don't know. This particular breach is on the opposite side from the Blueberry neighborhood. All right. Um, so at this point, you know, I I agree. You know, Ted makes a good comment. We
as a commission appreciate um or I appreciate you getting that pipe fixed. Um jumping on that. That that was very important.
um making some changes over in this corner. But uh we we definitely would like to see, you know, a sense of urgency when it comes to the erosion controls and making sure
that things don't happen again. Um like I said, there's site in this area right next door. um where we we know we know that there's the potential and we knew even before this project started that
the soils make this very difficult site when it comes to erosion controls and managing storm water and anything that gets off the site is going to be um carrying carrying silt and um it's tricky just keeping it on
site is really really important. >> Yeah. And and I think to that point and I think coming into the project, we understood that this portion of the site was um heavily focused on especially with the addition of the coral logs in in addition to the sediment uh the waddles and the and the fencing.
>> Um so we definitely we definitely have put a a focus or been somewhat hyperfocused on this area especially with prior to rain events. I know that we did have the instance here. We will speak with the subcontractor tomorrow because again after that rain event the site in this area was somewhat uh you
couldn't really touch it because to your point the site once that material does get wet it's very difficult to work with. Um so being out there personally today it was soft in that area but uh they were trying to work and at least um
do some corrective work up on that road area. But we will speak with them tomorrow to see just in as a temporary basis to get to get that burm in place just for future preventive measures um while they're working that roadway. whatever they can do to to get something
there in place um just for that extra belt and suspenders until that permanent roadways um to that subgrade level. So, we'll have that discussion with them tomorrow. Put that again, I know we said it's on it's on our radar. We're we're going to we'll hyperfocus on that with
the contractor in addition to the other activities they are performing on site. We'll make sure that that's on the forefront uh of their attention to uh get that in place as soon as possible. >> All right. If you I think it would make us or it would make me feel comfortable more comfortable if when you talk to the
contractor tomorrow if you could report back to Judy um with an email or some correspondence on a time frame that the contractor can get that in. Um we're looking for, you know,
in the next week, week and a half to be >> understood. Not a problem. I'll talk to them in the morning. Judy, I'll follow up with the uh the email that's been circulating back and forth um with that update. And again, I think just as a starting point, it would be a burm and
then we just have to um line up the contractor for the sill fencing after that. That's been kind of the tricky effort at some points, but we'll at least get the the burm in place and then we can work with them on getting still fence in place as well. >> Okay. Does anyone else have any other
last thoughts, questions, comments >> through the chair? >> Yes, Judy. We've also got engineers from Vert.Ex on the line in case they have anything to add. >> Okay, great. Vert.ex, do you have anything? >> Uh Chris Everly from the Vert.Ex
company. Um we know you guys well. >> Yeah. Um we've have made this point of emphasis with break from the beginning. Um we know the commission's concerns and we have repeatedly relayed them from the initial bidding all the way through
awarding the contract and all the way through a extensive discussion as we began to look at um clearing of the site and the commission's intentions with the CMP. Um, Ty Bond has been started by the
um for the storm water side from the planning board side to be um their eyes and ears on the site and has visited the site including since this um challenge occurred. They've also reviewed the construction management plan which this
uh commission was quite um adamant about us including um which Brit provided to us um and we'll continue to push um we've been documenting their performance um related to this erosion control work
um daily until the site is manageable. Um I think you know they have responded to this once the um site became overwhelmed. Um I agree with the commission that we would love to see
better um preparatory response and hopefully coming out of this incident um we'll be better prepared to deal with the next storm. >> Okay. We appreciate that and the um emphasis on our concerns and
oversight on the project. Um yeah, so let's uh get that buttoned up and hopefully that'll take care of things and we're proactive going forward. Um
appreciate appreciate your attention. Not a problem. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Yep. All right. So, it's about 7:30, so let's go ahead and open the new hearing. Ted, if you
can read read that one for us. >> Sure. The Hopkin Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 21st, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in
a notice of intent filed by Magun. Oh boy, I'm sorry. Magunco Realy LLC for subsurface soil borings and contaminant mitigation. Location 75 South Street,
Assessor's Map R29, Block 7, lot zero. >> All right. Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Uh, being that this is a new hearing, do we have the applicant on the line or representative?
>> I am here. Joe Makan. >> Hey, Joe. save here from >> welcome. >> Thank you. >> And from Aldrich >> from Henri. Okay, great.
Um, can you all give us an overview of what you have going on on this site? >> Sure. I thought I'd kick it off. Um uh as mentioned a moment ago, we have two folks on the line, the owner applicant and the LSP from Haley
Aldrich. Um so I'll kind of kick things off. They can certainly bring you up to speed on the more technical stuff. Um just uh to kind of set the stage, uh this 75 South Street is um a 4 acre
parcel at the corner of um Haywood and South Streets. Um the uh Haywood Street by orientation is the top of the plan. South is the left and that is 495 U to the right. Um it was the site of the
Valpy Fisher Corp. uh they built a a facility here circa 1973 and Lance's group uh acquired the property in uh September um of 2024. Um in anticipation of some upgrades that
were going to take place both inside the building and out, we asked Ecotech, Inc. to uh review the site for um wetlands resource areas. They identified something here that you see in green on
this portion to the east. There's something down um at the bottom of this plan on the southeast corner and then offsite uh predominantly offsite in the southwest corner. We're focused on that first one up uh against uh against
Haywood Street. Um, Lance purchased this property uh with the understanding that um there were hazardous waste on the site below grade as a result of the activities of Valpy Fisher. So, um what
has um come about is a need for um a process to um mitigate some of the impacts from that hazardous waste. So what is being proposed and on this plan here are several in injection sites
where chemicals will be introduced uh at levels significantly below ground level 20 to 50 feet below ground level to begin to um break down. And this is where my lack of biochemistry history
knowledge comes into play. So Lance and Jared can certainly pick up uh where I falter, but the idea is to introduce some chemicals that will begin to break down the hazardous materials and then install um a handful of monitor wells to
see how the um process will um the results of the process, see if it will in fact do what is necessary or necessitate additional injections. So we are within the existing parking lot that is all
paved behind um the building up till about oh 15 10 15 ft off of that BVW edge. The work will be in the pavement. Uh borings will take place. The injection will happen. Um all the areas
uh any soil that is that comes uh off the pneumatic rig will be placed in a uh a sealable container taken off site for disposal. The areas where the um asphalt is disrupted will be repaved with a
batuminous um a coal patch. Um the the bags of coal patch be stored inside the facility and those areas will be capped after uh these folks are done to return the paved surface to a bitcock surface.
Um the um the alternatives to this um were um were were evaluated. Debate was uh was undertaken back and forth and this process was chosen as uh the most
effective and uh least intrusive um greater protections um to the wetlands and a shorter duration. uh other um I'm told other processes that could have taken place may result in multiple trips, multiple
injections. So um we feel that this is uh the appropriate way to to handle this. It just happens to fall within the buffer zones and your purview. Okay. Um,
yeah. So, I'm I'm curious about the about what's being in injected and into the ground and how that works >> with the groundwater and whatnot traveling traveling through the system there.
>> Mhm. trying to find my video, but I can't get it to work. Ah, there we go. I'm gonna move you over to my other screen. So, there are a bunch of ways to do this. We are planning to use
an abiotic and biotic approach, meaning that we're going to inject iron into the ground uh with emulsified emuls emulsified vegetable oil and lactate to facilitate biological activity. And then we're
going to add microbes that are known to degrade the chemicals that are in the ground uh at a faster pace. So essentially it's iron, a little bit of vegetable oil, and some lactate with some bugs.
A lot safer than your typical chemical oxidation where you're injecting permaganate or fentins reagent or anything else along those lines. It's a lot safer. The chemicals are chemicals are inert. The microbes are non-toxic to human health.
Um, and there's also the other alternatives that Joe was alluding to was a very large thermal remediation project where we'd have to burn the stuff out of the ground and that would definitely have a significant impact on the wetland resource. So, we chose this
method instead. >> Okay. Um, >> yes, Jim. >> I agree with the institute approach by the way. >> Haven't done that many years ago. Um, what is it? What's the chemical
composition by the way? I don't think you said that. >> It's all organics, right? >> Yeah. It's volat organic compounds primarily tricloroethylene and its breakdown constituents. Oh. And a little bit of perk as well.
Perchloroethylene that was probably used way long time ago. But that's no no hydrocarbons. >> This was a machine. >> Nope. >> This was a machine shop.
>> Uh this was a circuit board manufacturing company that used the chemicals for degasing operations and cleaning of the circuits. Did you consider uh vacuum extraction?
>> So, they actually had a GZA was out here a long time ago and they used an abiotic No, I'm sorry. They used a biotic process where they injected molasses into the ground and then they also put in a pump and treat system. The problem we have is that the soil types here are
pretty dense once you get down at depth. Um, so any vacuum extraction and even the pump and treat system was not effective such that it was decommissioned a long time ago. >> And you there's there substantial soil and groundwater
contamination. >> Surprisingly, not too much soil contamination. It's primarily groundwater, which is why we like the the surface area treatment with injections and then kind of reactive barrier set up town gradient. How long ago did they go out of business? Were
they moved? When were they in production? >> Um, uh, so it was Val Fisher and then CTS took over because they bought out Val Pay Fisher and they were they were operating in there up until a few years
ago. Um but this this site has been ongoing for quite some time and there the operations I would say over the last 15 years 20 years have been pretty good from a chemical release perspective and >> okay thanks
>> um so there's a number of borings I see how many monitoring wells are there is five >> five Okay. Um I'm going to know I know Lucas did a uh
review memo, Joe. Um do you want to go through that um through your review and and you know the comments that we should discuss? >> Uh sure. Um I did receive the uh the
responses from the applicant u today and I think a lot of our comments were addressed. >> Okay. >> Uh couple of of things I just wanted to to um note um
just starting with the one delineation. Um the I was agre in agreement with the delineation. I didn't have any issues with the flagging out there. the uh one that was described as a stormwater swale. Um
let me guess be the south end of the site or maybe that's not sure which way the arrow is going north is but yeah down the bottom of the page uh just off site that's actually uh what was the constructed isolated vegetated wetland
um for the adjacent property at 77 South Street. Um, so I had suggested that that also should have a buffer zone even though it was um the work was proposed quite a ways away from that island. Um, and that was added to the plan
as a just a general observation. When I see invasive species out at the site, I usually note it just uh in case there's an opportunity down the road potentially for mitigation. There are some fairly dense now areas of invasive vegetation um between the site
and uh and Route 95 primarily glossy bar and Oregon. uh the uh application didn't did not note that the uh project was uh eligible as to be treated as a loan project. Um I
thought it might be I don't know all the details but maybe the uh the LSP can comment on that whether or not it does uh qualify as an 11 project um for the uh contain the mitigation remediation um
of release or author release of hazardous material theme. >> I agree with you Joe. I think it would qualify as a limited project, >> right? But you're not asking for it to be looked at as a limited. You just may
be eligible. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> I mean, I don't know if maybe Lance wants to. >> Um, >> I'll just simply ask Joe, did we look at the opportunity for being a limited project?
>> No, we did not. >> Okay. It seems to me that it it falls exactly in line with a limited project. If that's an update that we could make, um I'd be open to that. >> Okay.
>> I also had a comment on the uh the filing fee. Um they did uh indicate a single filing fee of 110 under category 1 F for activities associated with the installation of a monitoring well or other than construction of a access
roadway there too. Um I'm not sure how the commission has looked at that particular you know been filing fee in the past if it's uh lumping all the monitoring wells together or the uh or treating them
individually. Um so that was something I had for the commission to discuss. I had noted that there were no permanent removal barriers on the plan. They did add some along the weapon at the bottom of the page. I didn't see any added um
along the weapons along the right side of the page. Something the commission might want to discuss. I think some of my other comments were really regarding um you know what what are the chemicals proposed uh to be injected, what are the
chemicals that are that are being treated and just what if what LSP was uh was on board with the project and I think uh all those have been addressed >> through the through the discussion tonight >> through the discussion. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. Thanks, Joe. >> Yeah, >> that's helpful. >> Um Judy, do you have any um thoughts on that limited project question discussion? Does it matter or
how would they change that that change? >> Does seem to apply. Um they would still require filing of a permit application. So, I'm not exactly sure um the details of how that would change things at this point, but happy to do some more
research. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we don't there's not a DP number for this anyway, so we um can't vote on it tonight. All right. So, that brings us down to Joe. Thanks for
noting the invasives. Um I think for the scope of this project, we wouldn't require anything there just cuz you know it's a remediation project and they're not really touching
vegetation. So I um just note that they're there. But that would be about it in my in my opinion. Um, I think it would be helpful regardless of whether it's a limited
project or continue down the path of notice of intent if we could just get a narrative on some of the things that were discussed tonight as far as the chemicals go and the process. I think that would be helpful just to put that in the file. Um,
it would be great if we could get whenever we look at these projects when we're touching an old site, if we can get PIBs up along wetlands, um, it would be great. I don't know along that line, if you bring the page down,
Judy, where the work's being done. Um, if there's some opportunity to put a few medallions along the curb, if you all would be amendable to that,
seems like an easy thing. Is that something you're willing to do, Lance? >> Yeah, it seems perfectly reasonable. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, and then the last thing or at least that I wrote down was for
the fee, the filing fee on the wells. I don't know that we've I can't think of a project where we've talked about this recently or had a situation with multiple monitoring wells.
Um, >> there is a substantial fee under the bylaw that was paid by the applicant >> there was okay. >> Yeah, the >> $8,000
>> that was largely consultant fee. Um, so I think maybe what Joe's referring to is state filing fee under the category that was chosen and any unused consultant fee will get returned. I guess my point is that there is money for supervision. Um,
this won't go won't fly under the radar. >> So, it's looking at with five wells 550 versus 110. Does anyone on the commission have thoughts on that? I'm inclined to say
um it reads like it should be each monitoring well. Melissa, um I I think I agree, but I don't have that wording in front of me. I looked at it earlier. Do you It looks like you might be looking at the wording when you say it looks like it reads
>> Yeah, I'm looking at Joe Joe quoted it. Um activities associated with installation of a monitoring well other than construction of an access road there, too. a single fee of $100 $110
for activities associated with installation of a monitoring well. >> And that's the key, a monitoring well, right? Yeah. I'm inclined to say it's a fee per well. >> Yeah. Okay,
I think we should go with that, Judy. Okay. Anyone from the public have any questions, comments on this application? >> No. >> Who the chair? This is Ed.
>> Yes, Ted. Um, as a person who has a real hot button about invasive, I I'm disappointed that um that we're apparently going to ignore
these. That's all. >> Well, we don't have to. That was my opinion. Um, and welcome to discuss that further. That was just my my rationale for this particular
project. But if you have another one, Ed, certainly open to hearing it and talking about it further. >> The only good invasive is the dead invasive. >> I'm sorry. That's
>> we have open space has spent significant amount of money dealing with invasives on our property um on one property and it's all over town. I don't care what invasive you're talking about and to
um give tolerance to their presence I think is a big mistake. That's all I've spoken my piece. >> Ted at her or Jim, do you have or Ted, Matt or Jim, do you have any
thoughts on this? >> No, I don't. I was with >> I don't know. I'm torn. I'm with Ed, but I'm also thinking on this type of project maybe we relent, but I don't know. I don't think I'm helpful on this discussion.
I'm sorry >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> I'm happy to share the uh fact sheets that we give everybody um for specific invasives with the applicant. Um, so if you decide whether or not to require them, I can still share those as
aformational material. >> Okay, that would be certainly helpful. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything else? Um, so I guess if
You all can, I guess, consider what you want to do as far as limited project um or not or continue with a notice of intent while we wait for that D number to come in and we can continue out to the next
hearing which is November 4th. Okay. >> Or the one after that is November 25th. >> I think we prefer the fourth. I don't feel like there's a big gap between the commission's thoughts and ours. So, I
think we can wrap this up pretty quickly. >> Yeah, we'd like the cleanup underway. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this out to November 4th? I'll make that motion.
>> Can I need a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is not. >> Matt >> I. >> And Jim. >> I.
>> And I'm also an I. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Great. Well, thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Rec Hawkington, Zero Lumber Street, continuation of a notice of intent.
>> Melissa, I think you skipped Downey Street. >> What I do? >> Yes, I did. >> Sorry about that. Um 38 Downey Street, notice in 10 continuation for a dock.
Judy, can you update us on where this one's at? >> Sure. Um, so updates we've gotten since the last hearing. Uh, we have a narrative describing the um design and method of installation of the dock. Um,
the applicant has submitted an updated form three uh using the most up-to-date form version. um some clarification around why the BBW data forms were not able to be provided uh and what exactly the um level of
excavation is associated with the restoration work um that they're doing. I believe the only outstanding comment was one of Joe's that the buffer zone to bank be corrected um as I think it was originally drawn from a BBW boundary
rather than the um top of bank. Um and I don't think we've got an updated plan since that comment was made. >> Okay. So that's really the only Joe. Um, do you concur on that one?
>> I concur. >> You concur. So that's the only outstanding item on this. Do we have anyone um representing the applicant tonight on the line? >> Yeah, Madam Chair. Matt Marorrow here
representing the applicant who is also here. >> Okay. So, um I'm not clear on that comment about the buffer zone and bank. Couldn't we go into that really quick? >> Yeah. >> Joe or Judy, did you want to
>> Yeah, I think it was originally one of Joe's, but I think what he was saying was the buffer zone to bank. Um, so this blue line was drawn off of uh this delineation line versus the top of bank line. Um so it would be slightly different position if it was drawn from
top of bank I believe is what you were saying Joe. >> Correct. Yeah. If you see how close the the the lines are um between the what's showing as the bank and the BBW buffers and there's
greater distance um you know between the bank and the and the uh >> well I mean my understanding was it was drawn off of top of bank which was what the original BVW delineation was but I'll address that with the engineer that's a minor change um I can have that
made um to continue where we left off on we did a plan revision to push some of the replication area out closer to the rock. Um we still have 560 square feet of well I I call it replication. It's
actually more like restoration. Um if the commission recalls we had the certificate of compliance snafu um if I could share my screen for just a minute. >> Sure that's fine with me Judy. give you permission.
All right, should be good. >> Okay, just give me one moment. I've never ever been a rapid fire on this screen share stuff. So, >> can you guys see that? >> Yes. >> So, this is a picture of the shoreline in 2022. You can see the pre-existing
dock there, which we're looking to just simply put back in the same location. Um, this is the current shoreline as it exists today. So, what we're looking to simply do is is add a herbaceous and more shrub air
on this side here and an area that would come up from the rock area right here, come up, go over and then up this way. So, we would obviously keep the overstory. Um, we would add um more
shrubs here and add a herbaceous wet mix here. That can be done by just taking the sod out, turning over the, you know, the top soil in here, um, adding the mix. You've got, um, drains coming from the house that basically feed in over
here, which would feed this area. And this area is already getting overland water flow. So there's plenty of water source to continue to keep this wetland fed. Um it would add a, you know, dimension of the filtration of whatever's coming off the side here, including what's coming off the drain
coming in here and add more of a vegetative buffer as well as put the dock back into basically where it was prior. That's really it. >> Yep. No, that makes sense. That's right along the line. That's that's what we're looking for. So that sounds great
to me. Um, so again with this one, we're not confirming the wetland line. That would be written in the um >> Well, no, but on a certificate of compliance, the success of the
replication would have to be evaluated. That actually would wind up creating a new wetland line >> uh for any future filings, which we would put in an asbuilt. >> Okay. Yeah, I meant the um the existing. Nope. I got you. >> Yep.
>> And it sounds like you just went through what I went through >> with your voice. You have a cold, too. >> Something like that. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. It was bad. I I had it. It was bad. >> Um, so >> yes, Joe. >> Yeah. Um, so that would I think
confirming would apply to the what the line, but not to the bank line. I think you can confirm the bank of buying is the >> confirm the bank, not the wetland. >> Yeah, I mean that that's easy enough to
do. >> Okay. >> And also I would say confirm you have to confirm the flood plane line outside which is >> Yes. >> the the new flood. >> Well, the new flood plane line that you pointed out, Joe, is drawn in in red on
the >> Yes. Correct. Yeah. So we put that on we put that on the plan based on what you had what you had said. So >> okay. Um does anyone on the commission have any thoughts, questions, comments
on this? The thought in my head right now is we could probably vote on this contingent on just getting the updated plan. with the buffer line corrected.
I think I would be okay with that, but I'm open to hear from others. >> I'll have that done in a day. And obviously, I wouldn't expect an order to be issued until July receives a correct document. So,
>> Melissa, I'm on board with you the way this project together. So, thank you to the Well, >> appreciate it. So do I. >> All right. With that being said, can I get a motion to issue
um the COC and with the condition or no >> the OC? >> OC with the notation that we're not confirming the wetland. We are confirming the flood plane and bank and signatures by Judy.
I'll make that motion. >> Jim, you want a second? >> I'll second or third. >> Okay, >> I guess but we'll keep it that way. >> Um,
all right. All in favor, Ed or >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. Matt. >> Hi. >> And Jim. >> Hi. >> All right. >> All said then.
>> Thank you all very much, ladies and gentlemen. You all have a good night. Um, Judy, I'll be in touch about the uh revised plans. I'll make sure you get them right away. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay, now we can go to RC Hawkington
notice of intent continuation. Um, I believe we probably have someone on the call here representing this project. >> Hi, Sophie with Goddard Consulting. I'm representing Bre Hopington for Lumber Street Law 4. Uh so we received a second
peerreview letter from Lucas Environmental on October 2nd. Um it detailed a majority if not all comments have been addressed. Um there were a few open comments. Uh one was 3B which um
mentioned the FEMA flood map reference. Uh that has now been updated to July 18th, 2025. The site locus is still not um within a jurisdictional FEMA flood zone at this point. Um, a second comment from Lucas
Environmental comment 3D. Um, it discussed the removal of trees on site and, uh, whether the mitigation was sufficient. Um, at this point, I'd be happy to discuss this further with the commission. Um, as a little recap, um,
for how many trees we're proposing to remove, we're proposing to remove 57 trees in total with 44 trees in the buffer zone. Uh we do have 38 plantings proposed which includes red maple, white spruce, service berry and creeping
juniper. We've also submitted an invasive species management plan to remove the Japanese knotweed multifloor rose glossy buckthorn and oriental bittersweet on site. Um, so at this point, I'd be happy
to discuss uh mitigation further with the commission uh or any outstanding comments uh from Joe for Lucas. >> Okay, thank you. >> Um Joe, did you have any comments? Any
outstanding comments? >> Pretty much everything was addressed. Um just a couple of things to note. I didn't note that the uh cumulative impact figure that was included in the submitt indicated the amount of buffer zone
impact percentage buffer on impact on this property but not it didn't include the total for the all the u abuing RC properties um which works out to approximately 18% based on the
numbers that they submitted That was just for the conservation commission's knowledge of of the total disturbance on the associated properties. >> Okay. And I think the other comments uh that I
was going to mention were addressed just now and um that's probably the only the only item that I have to mention. >> Okay. And so all of the PAR comments were
addressed as well. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Melissa, question. >> Yes, Jim. So you said cumulative impact is 18%.
That's not really cumulative, right? That's just this parcel, this project. Uh no, they provided a figure of all the uh this property now this parcel and the abuing parcels um under the same
ownership um and uh the cumulative impacts on all those properties. Um but in that table they noted the buffer zone impact on this property uh at >> as a as a percentage of the buffer zone
on all the properties but um they didn't give the figure for the total buffer zone impact on all the properties combined which was 18%. So all the Okay, thank you Judy. Um >> this is on the all of the other
development or this is on audio development plus this one. >> So these percentages >> percent of total buffalo zone altered by lot 4 retail office building. So lot for retail office building is the site we're
talking about today. Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> Where' that go? >> Um >> is this 3,788,000 and change square feet
of disturbance? That's No, that's in the Okay. No. Is that true? >> That's for sites. >> Yeah. So, this is all of the properties and this is just this um project, I
believe. >> Not impacts. Not impacts, but cumulative buffer zone, right? >> Um what are cumulative impacts? All >> yes, this is a little confusing. This box
The way I read that is they're showing the cumulative buffer zone buffer zones on all the properties. >> Yeah. >> Then showing the buffer zone impact on this property as a percentage of the buffer zones on all the properties.
>> Okay. So wouldn't we like to know what the impacts of the other properties are? Well, >> if you look at the if you look at the information that's on the figure, I think in some of the other uh text boxes,
um it looks like the total buffer zone impact on >> all the properties is about 18%. >> All right, I think I see that in the upper box. Okay, thanks. I'll call it nature.
>> Okay. >> So for I guess for consistency on this particular graphic, the other projects are showing buffer zone alteration in square feet.
We do have those for this pro. So this is the proposed work here. Can Sigman Oh, okay. >> Yeah, the other table is a summary of everything. >> Okay, >> gotcha.
So Melissa to you. So there's >> total impact all of it including lot four is 237 square ft roughly I'll say almost a half an acre
of the 3 and 1/2 acres 3 and 12 acres at the bottom is just a lot for all right I got it. >> Yeah. >> I had to work that out. It's heavy math. Um,
>> okay. >> I did use some calculus. >> Use your calculus. >> Thanks, Jim. All right. So, then the other question, we're if we're okay with the planting plan.
Um, which I looked at. I I I think I am. I mean it's for the area. >> So the chair I just want to thank Joe and Jim for bringing that up. That was my question for this project. >> Okay.
Yeah. Yeah. And I think I'm I didn't have issues with this planting plan. Um, does anyone have any last questions, comments, thoughts? Anyone from the public
or the commission? No. All right, let's go ahead and um vote on this one. Can I get a motion to approve the notice intent? >> I guess I'll make
>> I'll make the motion and take a second. >> I will second Jim's motion. >> In favor, Ed >> through the chair. >> Yes. >> Can we add staff signatures, please? >> Uh, yes. and amend that motion to
include signatures by Anna or Judy. All in favor, Ed. >> I'm still thinking. >> All right, we'll come back to you. >> Ted. >> Ted is >> Ted's an I. Matt.
>> I >> Jim. >> I >> I am also an I >> with regret. I guess I will follow suit. >> All right. Ed is an I.
So you guys are all set. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Next up we have Wall Street Development 12 North Mil Street notice of intent continuation. See where we're at with this one. It's
been a little while since we've talked about 12 North Mill. We miss you. >> We miss you. Um I guess
>> Mr. Petrosi, do you want to >> Let me Yeah, let me just recap where we uh left off and where we are today. So, uh, you know, we had been, uh, waiting to schedule a, um, on-site review by
Lucas Engineering, which, uh, was delayed a little bit, but we, I think we finally took care of that a few weeks ago, uh, at the end of, uh, September, I think, and then uh, at the last meeting, we didn't have a report, so we continued
the meeting. But essentially since our site meeting um I think I informed the um the commission that we recently received a variance from the zoning board
to uh for the required front yard setback from North Mil Street from 60 feet to 30 feet. So that throws out a several alternatives that I think uh would be
maybe a better consideration for the for the commission. And we have the ability to um build this home in the front portion of the lot without crossing the
wetlands. But it requires some um creativity, let's say, with regard to the front portion of the lot. I submitted a few preliminary uh alternative plans.
I don't know if uh you can get those up, Judy, or not, but I'd like to just go through them quickly. So, alternative one accommodates the house uh septic system
and um the well with slight filling of I think it's less than um thousand square feet of BVW to meet the distance requirements or the setoff
requirements. ments between a well and a septic system and a septic system and a BVW. So if you see highlighted in purple, um those are the areas where we were
proposing to do some filling and meet the setback requirements for all the other jurisdictions relative to title five and and um uh locating of a public private drinking
well on the site. Now, of course, we still are within the buffer zones of the wetland regulations, but as as we all try to do, as we try to avoid,
minimize or mitigate impacts, this is one alternative that I think deserves some consideration. The second alternative um if you can shoot up a little bit.
Second alter alternative is similar, but it fills a little bit slightly more BBW closer to North Mil Street and again um allows for the house to be built on
the front portion of the lot without crossing the wetlands. And I should say that in order to locate the well in that area, by the way, I just want to point out that if you see a a little bluish line, that was the original
line BBW that we had flagged out in the in the fields. And subsequently, apparently, you know, during the ENRAD process, nobody really challenged the revisions made by Lucas Engineering
in the field, but as you can see, the uh that line got scrunched down a bit. That is making this a little bit more difficult than it should be. But in order for us, we still would need
>> under either one of these proposals, one or two, we would still need a a waiver from the board of health for locating the well within I believe it's 50 ft of a BVW. And I should say that,
>> excuse me, >> I apologize. I don't mean I don't mean to interrupt Melissa through you. When you say BBW, you're really talking about the Green Line, which is the edge of the wetland. >> Correct. >> The entire the entire development, the
entire build is in the BBW. >> No, no, no, no, no. >> Veget. >> No, we're not filling. There's There's no >> I didn't say filling. >> Excuse me. The only thing that's in the BVW is the purple.
The rest of it is upland. So where you see the house located >> the green line where does the green line cut out? >> The green line is the edge of the BVW as uh as determined under the ORED.
>> So that's what that's what we're uh working with right now because that was what was issued by the commission under the ORED. So the green line is the BVW. What's in purple is a proposed filling
of BVW that would allow us to comply with the required setback distances for a septic system and a well and not cross wetlands. >> I'm sorry I got to ask again. Why is the
green line labeled edge of wetland? >> Because that is the edge of wetland. Well, then that's not the edge of the boarding vegetated wetlands, nor what is regulated by our bylaw. >> I don't understand. >> Regulated by a bylaw is up to 100 ft. It says edge of wetland.
>> Oh, that Well, we're we're talking about two different things. Um, so you're talking about you're talking about buffer zone. I'm talking about actual BBW edge. >> You keep saying BBW. >> Well, that's a bordering vegetated
wetland. That's what that is. Yeah. So the so the green the green line is our wetland line and then the buffer zone comes off that but you can't see the buffer zone. >> It's off the property baby >> because it's off the pro because the
whole thing is in in the 50. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What's all that stuff? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Can I just cut in? Someone's drawing on the screen. I don't know how to turn it off. Um folks could um >> very interesting
>> draw on the screen. Yeah, I'll try to >> Yeah. Yeah, I just noticed that. >> Try to change the settings. >> Interesting. >> So, uh so these are the these are the two least uh intrusive alternatives for this
particular lot. Now, if you go to the next alternative three, we can build the house on the front portion of the lot and put >> put the septic system in the back
>> to the chair. This is Ed. Can I get one question in before we get to to the third one on one and two? >> There's some filling shown which I don't understand the purpose of it. Could could you explain why one and two both
require some filling? >> Yes. So, under title five regulations, it's required that the septic system, the leeching field be 50 feet away from any edge of wetlands.
So by filling those areas on one and two allows us to get the 50 ft from the edge of wetlands >> you follow that >> thank you >> well maybe another question Melissa
where's the reserve uh system the reserve le >> everything is in everything is there and everything is that septic system that you see on one and two is is in compliance with title five regulations
for even including a reserve system reserve trenches >> I don't recall do you show the reserve on that one and two options >> yeah um you know it's kind of uh narrow but yeah it's on there and one thing I should point out that you know we've
instead of a fourbedroom house we're actually because of the location we're restricted to a threebedroom um septic system with the provisions that we're requiring. So now if we go to like the like I said
the next alternative, everything else requires crossing the wetland. So number three, we build the house in the front, we build the septic system in the back, we comply with the regulations. Same thing here on four. We build the house
and the septic in the back and we comply with the regulations. The biggest thing here obviously, you know, is we're crossing the wetlands. It's more impact. We have more uh hoops to jump through as you've seen
through um Lucas's review that that you know there are more resource areas in in play. So tonight I'm just simply asking to before we go any further into the you
know which is to is to come to some sort of consensus that the commission will work with us to not have to cross the wetlands and do something in the front portion of the lot.
And what I will say is that under those circumstances, we will put some sort of a conservation restriction because obviously we don't want to have to cross the wetlands to create replication. We would put a uh some sort of a
conservation restriction on the back part of the property so that it never gets developed. And I don't know if the commission is aware, but you might be aware that in the back of this property is already
uh restricted with a conservation easement or I I don't know what you call it, a restriction or an easement. It's already has been dedicated in that fashion. So this would just end up being a continuation of that in lie of
replication. So, I throw those thing those alternatives out to you. Um, it's strictly, you know, the commission's discretion on how you want to handle this, but I think it's uh worth the conversation given these
circumstances. A and also, you know, since the board of appeals did grant us the 30 foot uh variance, it would be uh it would be incumbent upon us to explore all of the possibilities to allow us to make use of
that variance. So, that's where where we stand at this point. Joe and I had a very nice sitewalk. The property is beautiful. Um, so this is um this is our proposal tonight.
>> Melissa, may I say something? >> Yes, Jim. Sorry the >> I recall I think correctly that at our last meeting we said that we don't want to look at three alternatives. We want you to come to us with the alternative that you proposed.
my misremembering of someone. >> Yeah, I think just to kind of go over a couple things before we get like too deep into discussion. Um, you know, the commission needs to be presented with the application that
we're considering, which is, you know, one plan. Um but we als we also ask for because the waiver needs to be granted in this case we ask for alternatives analysis. Um
>> yeah good point. >> So this is the alternatives analysis. So, we're not >> okay >> picking one of these, but we are, you know, we do need an alternatives analysis in order to see if there's a better option than what is being
presented or to show that other options were looked at. And the one that is eventually presented to us is the best or the least invasive, you know, the best for um the resource area.
Um, >> thank you. I said corrected. >> Yeah, I think I think that hopefully helps. Um, a couple things before I turn it to Joe because I know Joe had a bunch of comments. Um,
I noticed when I was looking at this that a couple of the plans have the potential vernal pool identified on it. Some of them don't. I think that's really important to get that
squared away. Um that isolated on this particular plan the isolated ve isolated wetlands shown in the top right corner there. >> Um I believe in the original ANRAD was identified as a potential vernal pool.
Um, so I think we need to show that on the on the plans because that definitely affects the feasibility of whether or not, you know, these alternatives are viable. Um, I think if you have the
potential vernal pool on here or it's determined to be a vernal pool, then that throws 125 ft right in the middle of, you know, where this building is being proposed. So, while it's looked at as an alternative, it's I don't think
something that um we'd have to factor that in. Um >> Madam Chair. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I'm not, you know, again,
we're looking for the least impacted alternative >> and and as I've mentioned, you know, we went to the zoning board and pursued a variance. They were um they they granted the variance, which I thought was
beneficial to potentially developing this property. And so I understand all of the comments that have had made previously. Um I would like to get the commission's
um I I would assume that the commission would would prefer not to have to cross the wetland. So whatever alternative accomplishes that, I would think that that would be preferential than
these alternatives three and four showed. And I'm sure that there are other alternatives too depending on where you put the septic, where you put the building, where you put the well in compliance with the regulatory uh site dis uh separation setbacks. So, if if
I'm hearing you correctly, you know, if we throw this isolated wetland or make it a a vernal pool with 125 foot buffer, by the way, you should really review your bylaw because it doesn't give you the discretion over 125 ft. It's only a
hundred, but you should really uh if you want to work together on this, this is I I would like to think that we could work on alternative one or two. It's less than a thousand square feet of
impact of BBW. Doesn't cross the wetlands. Um, and it provides the rest of the property to be uh held in some sort of a conservation type of
um restriction or deed restriction of some sort. So I mean certainly we can go through all of these jump through all these hoops and try to um accommodate but you know your your
regulations regarding waiverss clearly states that this is um an alternatives analysis where the commission must decide which alternative is preferential given
the impacts of each alternative. I'm simply suggesting that alternative one or two would be the way to go. I so I understand and we do want to work with anyone who comes in front of us uh
with a proposal. But what I'm trying to say is that we cannot evaluate something that has incorrect base plan information on it. So the base plan information which includes the potential vernal pool needs
to be shown correctly on the alternatives and the plans that are put in front of us or else we cannot evaluate them. >> Okay, >> that's what I'm saying. >> Okay, is that >> I am also reading our wetland regulations that say that our vernal pool and vernal pool habitat buffer zone
is 125 ft. >> I know, but you your regulations your regulations come from your bylaw and I think you should read your bylaw a little bit closer. Okay, >> just a suggestion. >> Let's um
>> Yeah. 125 ft. >> Go to the go to the jurisdiction >> either way. Okay. >> The plan does not have
>> Is that the only thing? Is that the only thing that you're missing >> on the plan? >> Yeah. >> I don't know. We can we can we can turn to Joe's comments in a moment. Um >> but that being said, um yeah, Joe, why don't we hit the the high
points of your comment letter? Sure. Um so I had u one of the the first request was that u the applicant provide an alternatives analysis um which he has done with these alternatives. Um I
should point out that the uh plans that I was looking at at the time I did my review were alternatives three and four. Um I had not seen I have not reviewed alternatives one or two uh which clearly
um have less wetland impact and do not cross the BBW and the stream as alternatives three. So, a lot of my comments um had to do with uh issues with the stream crossing um or the BBW
crossing um primarily stream crossing and um if the applicant is pursuing either alternative one or two, those comments would not apply.
Also just a just a brief comment on the during the ANRAD review process of the wetlands. Um the the wetland changes uh to delineation were agreed upon in the field by myself and and representatives
of of counter consulting. It wasn't uh me telling them u something had to go here or there. community in the field. Just to just to clarify that point, um
there are a few things that would would still be required uh with regardless of which alternative uh was moved forward. Um regarding replication guidelines um although apparently uh based on
discussion um the um there would be no replication with filter one or two it would be uh proposed as a conservation easement. Um so that might go away. Um
uh number and size of trees to be cut within the buffer zone. No disturb zone. Um, no build zone. Let's see the general comment on discrepancies in the construction sequence that was uh
previously provided. Again, we would need a construction sequence for any of the alternatives that goes forward. The vernal pool buffer lines um as was already noted um we need to be shown on all the plans.
Limited project issue would go away if there was no crossing. Sorry for the uh peace meal effort here. I'm just looking at the ones that might apply if there was no crossing. >> No, that's fine.
site plan should u note that the uh wetland boundaries were confirmed by the overhead typically and also mass DP comments need to be addressed and again some of those have to do with the crossing which which may go away
I think that's that's the my comments and again I didn't have access to alternative one or two um at the time of my review so um The comments are not necessarily specific to to those two alternatives.
>> Yeah. No, that that makes sense. >> Thanks, Joe. >> All right. So, >> the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> I apologize if I missed it, but do we have a breakdown of buffer zone or resource area impacts for each of the
alternatives? I don't think we've gotten that point yet, Matt, because uh we pull these alternatives together thinking that if we don't have to cross the wetlands, we've doing quite a bit,
you know, accomplishing quite a bit because that's clearly what most of the impact is involved with. So if uh the commission wants to deter I mean obviously the whole front portion of the lot is within the 100 foot buffer zone and a lot of
it's in the 50 foot uh buffer zone. So there's nothing that we can do to avoid that. Um so um I can just calculate the whole we can have the whole area calculated as being in the buffer zone.
of the whole front portion of the lot is in the buffer zone. >> Yeah, I think through the chair I think it'll be helpful for us as a commission to understand the breakdown of resource area impacts impacts and no disturbance zones, no build zones, and just the the
buffer zone beyond that because it sounds to me like what you're trying to accomplish here is to obtain a waiver for the project. And part of our responsibility under the regulations is to evaluate each of those alternatives and their impacts and come to a
conclusion as to whether or not there is a practical alternative or which alternative would be the least impactful to the resources we're charged to protect. So that's going to be critical information from my perspective.
>> I agree. So the chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. How about a sidewalk? >> I'll go for that. >> We could certainly set that up. >> Long as it's not raining.
>> We go rain or shine. >> No, that's the best time to go is in the rain. >> Oh. Um, >> I'm I'm perfectly uh I I I think a sidewalk might be helpful to the commission. Joe and I had a nice
sitewalk while we're out there. Um, so whatever's at the commission's uh discretion there, happy to attend. >> We can set that up. Usually we do them on like a Saturday morning. >> Sure.
Um, we could do as I think we could do as early as this Saturday or look out a couple weeks if people need time, but I would probably want to do it this Saturday or next Saturday >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy.
>> I think if we have four or more people attending, um, we just need to advertise it two days in advance. Um, so we'll need a head count if we're doing it this Saturday. We need to post pretty soon. >> Excuse me. I I know the uh public
meeting as long as nothing is discussed at the at the sitewalk, I don't think it requires to be posted. Just like just my view based on other situations, as long as we don't discuss anything relative to the permit and
we're just viewing the site, but I'm all in favor of a posting if that's if you want to have it this Saturday. Um, Jim and Ed, do you have or I get anyone on the commission that wants to attend?
>> I'm available Saturday, this or next. >> The chair, this is Ed. I just checked and I'm available either. >> Matt, >> don't schedule around me. It's going to be tough with the kids. So, I will attend if I can.
>> All right. >> And Melissa, I'm pretty sure I'm booked for four consecutive Saturdays right now starting this weekend. >> Okay. >> So, why don't we go ahead and put it on for this Saturday?
And I'm thinking we won't have more than three of us anyway. time you thinking >> time. >> Um, you want to do 9:00 a.m. How how late do you guys sleep in?
>> I'm up at 3 a.m. >> I sleep in late, but you know, go on a sidewalk with you, Melissa. I'd go early. nine o'clock. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Works for me.
>> Set that up, Judy, if you don't mind. >> Yep. You can send out an email. >> And u for parking, you know, North Miller is kind of a narrow street, but they are building a house uh that you can pull in and park right across the street from it. So, I kind of would
suggest that. Thank >> Okay. Um, all right. Aside from a sitewalk, I think I just want to review the things that we're looking for to move this
forward. So, as Matt said, I think I agree resource area impacts are important. Um, I think you know, you put together the alternatives analysis. Well, I guess so resource area impacts
making sure that the base plan has um the del the correct delineation is using the correct delineation for each of the alternatives and the you know proposed or
um chosen alternative. I do think that you should provide the commission with what your selected alternative is. >> I guess >> you're putting forward as your proposed
plan. And obviously we'll talk about all the alternatives, but >> Okay. Um if there's an alternative that is more impactful than the one that you want to present and it doesn't make sense to include it
because of that then you know >> right >> it's it's your choice on what alternatives you want to include in the alternatives analysis. Um, am I missing anything else, Joe, from
your comments that we definitely need to see? I guess just take a look at at Joe's letter knowing he you know he didn't have the two in the front but you can obviously apply his >> I think uh yeah I think miss Jim that you know if we're not crossing the
wetland as Joe mentioned a lot of the issues go away regarding stream crossings and um and resource area impacts diminished quite a bit. So I think we should try to focus on the first two alternatives that don't
involve uh any of the um you know stream crossings and so on. So and then if if we can't get by that then I don't know where we go from there. And and unfortunately, I didn't have, as
Joe mentioned, I didn't have these alternatives in hand when um when we did our sitewalk, and I just just recently got them from our engineer just recently. So, but anyways, uh we
can uh this the the house in the back is staked out. The center line of the driveway is staked out, so we'll be able to find our way. And um it's really not a lot left out there to uh distinguish
from um when we get there. >> Chair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yeah, if the applicant could respond to our comments and just uh those that no longer apply, just note that they no longer apply um and that those that
still apply to respond to those. >> Okay, I can do that. >> That'd be great. Um, I do want to open it up, open the floor up unless does anyone on the commission have any additional questions, comments, or feedback at this
point? Um, okay. I'm going to open it up to the audience and see if anyone has any questions, comments, considerations. Uh, yes, Mr. Holgrren, I see your hand up.
There we go. Uh yeah. Well, first of all, uh I just like to say that uh as far as parking is concerns, you can park on Pine Tree Lane. I know there's plenty of parking on Pine Tree Lane there. Uh second, uh would the public be uh allowed to participate in this walk
down? >> Generally allow public to come on the walk. You're >> the chair. >> Yes, Anna. Um, so in the past it's up to the applicant and we have had some applicants allow and some applicants
that have not allowed access to private property. So only the commission is allowed by right under the application. >> Okay. >> So Mr. Petro Yeah. >> Bruce Bruce, are you going to bring any snacks? >> That cash?
>> Well, I I I can bring snacks if I want. >> Halloween cash. Um, I don't think >> Besides if you say no, I can just watch from the street. >> Well, yeah, Bruce seems like a nice enough guy. He can come. >> Thank you.
Uh, I did want to point out that we had submitted a a letter, the abuters had to uh commissioners on September 12th. uh if we're only looking uh at the front as a potential site for a house and a
lot of our comments uh go away. Uh so I would like to see very much uh I can see the the stakes out there now uh but it's not clear to me exactly what uh what uh the details are. So I'd be looking forward to seeing that. Thank you.
That's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? No, I don't see anybody. Okay. Um, then with that, I think we'll go ahead and I'll ask if I can get a motion
to continue. And our next hearing is November 4th. >> Mr. Do you want to continue to the fourth? >> Yeah, that's fine with me. And uh Yeah, that's fine with me >> through the chair. >> Yes, Anna.
>> Uh Lou, clarification. We are continuing both hearings. We still have both the soil testing application access and the single family house access still active. >> Yeah, why not just continue both of them? >> Thank you. I don't have to.
>> We could close out. I mean you >> Yeah, we can close that out. I mean, >> the soil testing could be closed out at any or could be withdrawn at any time, I believe. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's let's uh get through the next couple meetings
and we'll see. >> All right. Can I get a motion to continue both both the single family house and the soil testing access notice of intent applications to November 4th. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. I and I am also an I.
>> Great. Thank you. And uh we'll see you uh Saturday at nine o'clock. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Thank you. Bye-bye. >> Well, those blue marks won't go away. >> Yeah, I'm just going to reset the screen share. There we go.
All right, next up we have 47 Oakst Road. Um, notice of intent continuation. >> Hey everyone, this is Andrew Tibo, now the wetland scientist with Gddard Consulting. Um, Judy, do you mind if I
share my screen? I have a colored iteration of the plan that I'm happy to share and run through if that's easiest for the commission. >> That's fine with me, Judy. Thank you. It looks like I just need permission. >> You should be good to go. >> Nervous of my permissions now.
>> I won't draw unless you need me to. Does it show up okay for you guys? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Perfect. So, I'll start off with a quick recap as it's been um a bit over a month now since the last meeting and then I will um explain what's changed then. So, we were last with the commission um at
your September 9th hearing. At that time, we had presented and walked through what was our um third iteration of responses to the the peer review ongoing with Lucas and we're addressing some of the um commission's comments and questions. So, most importantly, what came out of that previous meeting was
prior to that, we had submitted our lengthy waiver request letter. It was discussed at the commission prior to that that u we submit a longer narrative addressing the commission's bylaw the um 25 foot and 50 foot zones how the project pertains to it and so we had we had walked through the the previous
history of the lot being maintained as primarily lawn and landscaping up to um the edge of the lake with no storm water management um and how it the pre-RO characteristics of the site were not necessarily fulfilling a lot of the intents of the bylaw at the time and so that was submitted in project support
and then accompanied by that there was also a slight reduction in the site plans. But a meeting previous to that, we had discussed that um it's typically the commission's precedent that when there are existing encroachments into the 50 that we don't expand closer to the resource area than existing
conditions, but um only laterally. And so originally um this house was sized a couple feet larger. So, we had noticed that little bit hard to see because of the colored plan, but the the black line that we see here that's sort of shaded a little bit, that's the existing
conditions of what's out there now. So, we had found out the deck that was off the rear of the house was actually a concrete foundation underneath. And so, we had identified that as our our limit of impervious, our limit of structure that's with the house now. So, what we had done was we trimmed our house back
about 2 feet just to reach that line there. Um and then we extended that only laterally. Original deck for this project was proposed to be on a foundation that would have been um another impervious surface increase and a push closer to the resource area of that structure. So we then altered that
to be placed on helical peers. Um that way the substrate underneath it's not disturbed, no foundation goes in and we don't change the ground conditions that are out there now. So we had walked through that um on September 9th and the majority of our our conversations at that point were centered around the
existing u hardscape in the rear of the lot. A lot of the after the fact work that we are looking to permit here as well as the mitigation plan. One of the main things that came out of that uh was a discussion around our storm water management. So the commissioner will remember that we have two subsurface drywall systems going in. We have the
rear gutters hooked up to drywalls in the rear and then same thing with the front yard. Oh, we had discussed that although those drywalls were sized to handle um all of the impervious surfaces on the site, the runoff that was actually associated with this patio and heartscape we see in the rear was not
actually hooked up to those. So, it was sized to the full impervious surface cover of the site, but only hooked up to the gutters, meaning that in practice, the water that would fall in this area would still move down gradient towards Lake Maspanok. Um and so what we've done since then and the commission would have received this um about mid last week is
we added a slot drain to the plans seen in this blue line here the the patio that's here now had the slot drain installed where um a subsurface pipe will now deliver the storm water from this patio and heartscaped area to the drywalls. So the intent was to um keep the dry wells the size that they are as
they were already sized to handle this but then to actually take the storm water modify the plans and redirect that into the the drywall. Well, that was sort of a followup to that original waiver request letter that the reason that the the patio and the heartscape is proposed to remain is that the area was
was lawn previously. We didn't feel that it was contributing to the the factors and the interest of the bylaw at present before this, but that the runoff was a very valid concern and so we added that slaughter as a result. Um the other addition we made was more of just a
clarification. Um the last couple iterations of these of this plan that we've been presenting with the commission um is showing all of the patio, the heartscape and the rear of the lot in pink. We've been showing this plan that I show here um and that kind of presents the um the presentation that
all of this is new and after the fact permitting. So we just broke it out into two different colors to show um back in about 2021 before any of the the unpered work occurred what was out there. So, we identified the the old 200 foot patio that was out there that was a concrete paper patio and then the existing shed
that was there as well, but just provides a little bit of a clearer image of what's new, what was there previously, and what we've added for storm water to sort of um guide the discussion. So, with that, we did submit um a response letter to Lucas's final couple comments last week, knowing that that's not a ton of time. We know that
portion of it ongoing, but if Joe has any comments for us, then we're more than happy to talk through them here. And um with that, I'll turn it over to the commission for questions. >> All right. Thank you. And thank you for updating the uh the coloring here on the
patio. I found that very helpful when I was reviewing the plan this time around. >> Absolutely. Um, I did take a look took some time to take a look at the
drainage aspect with the drywalls, the pre and post. Um, and I appreciate the fact that we are capturing the first inch of runoff from all the imperous areas.
Um, I do think that makes a difference. we're infiltrating before it gets to the lake. Um, so I I see that as a benefit to the site and adding that slot train. I didn't see a detail for the slot train
or dimensions or anything like that. Um, did I miss that or is that not on the planet at this point in time? >> Yeah, it's not on the plan set at this time. So, um, you didn't miss anything, but that's certainly something we can add, especially if there are questions on on sizing and detail. That's
something that can be added to the plans very easily. >> Okay. I think that would be helpful. >> Absolutely. We'll make note of that. >> And then the other thing when I was looking at the drainage piece is how does the
is there a way that the driveway runoff gets to the dry wells or how is that graded on the site? Kind of looks like it goes into the garage right now. Yeah, fair enough. The driveway, so there are there's currently no um French
drains or anything like that that would connect the driveway runoff to the drywalls. It's sort of just the grading of the site would would pitch overland flow. Um so with that in mind, that's that's something I can talk to the engineers about. I know um you know, the patio edition of the slot drain is we're trying to manage storm water to the best
that we can and make sure that uh once this project is approved that we do manage storm water beyond what was um done even prior to any of this work taking place. So the answer is at present there's nothing done over there but I'm happy to take a look at that with them. >> Okay. Yeah. I think for the benefit of
the homeowner too just it's a you know make sure the street isn't being channeled into the driveway into the site into the house. >> It's always a benefit. Absolutely. Um
Joe, you was looking at your comments. Um so I'm curious to hear from you, especially on the planting list and the natives and kind of the discussion back and forth on that. >> Well, I don't know if the commission is
had a chance to look at the recent the last memo. I just submitted it late this afternoon. Um okay but um just had a couple of remaining comments if I will
one of them was with regards to the plant list um all the plants on the plant list are listed as native by either uh goat or USDA uh the plants database
um but uh you know it's either I'm thinking all of it's one or the other in I think in the past the commission um has accepted as native plants that were listed as either but um
maybe someone else can confirm that also but I think that's been the case in which case that all these would would qualify as as native. Um well well I think the uh
other comment I had of the commission though we may still be discussing uh is if the commission is satisfied with respect to the um delineation or non non-delineation of any BBW
um only because uh I I agree with the based on the vegetation that was reported by the u after my initial site inspection. I agree that the vegetation does not qualify as a weapon, but um I did not
look at that after my initial inspection back in I think it was May when April when the ground was still frozen. But I I wasn't sure if that was still a topic on the minds of any any commission member or not, but u I' just left that
as a to be discussed. Um the um other comment I had was that um regarding the um the new
uh drain um there are no waddles on the site plan shown along actually it's not that it's along the uh the bank the the planting plan shows erosion control barrier along the bank.
Um the site plan does not so I recommend that the site plan also show that the erosion control barrier along the top of the bank and the only other comment I had was regarding the um buffer zone
disturbance calculations. the the buffer zones um were updated based on the bordering land for flooding and I know that the numbers that were submitted were based on the buffer zones from bank only. So with the uh buffer zone, the no
disturb zone and the no build zone now being moved, um I think the applicant should should also report the numbers the service numbers within those revised weather zone.
Um I think that covers it. Okay. All right. Um so discussion items obviously updating the disturbance numbers is pretty straightforward.
Um the wetland line question um and through the chair I can speak to that briefly if we want to just have a quick discussion on that. So, I know we discussed that on the earlier meetings, but since this project has been ongoing since about March, it's probably worth
just discussing again was um when this plan was first filed with you guys, we had shown what we show as the the concrete wall/bank of Lake Massock as the edge of the resource area and show the buffer zones off of that. The original Lucas um peer review had explained that excavating in some of the
soils immediately upgradient of that wall um would yield some hydro soils. um I don't remember the exact soil coloring of course in the report but it was essentially that the soils are hydric and there was redox within that typical profile and the area should be looked at as um if it was a wetland or not and so
what we had done is we had conducted another site visit out there um after that just to take a look at the soils and the vegetation. So what we had found is there is redux in the soil that would that would be considered a hydro soil based on um presence of ground water which would make sense at this point. It's the lawn that's um right up against
the retaining wall on Lake Maspanox. So it would coincide with the fluctuation in water levels but that the vegetation in it was all upland. So this was in March but it was um was all low growing upland species mainly clovers plantains things of that nature that would suggest that the vegetation was upland and then
did not meet the criteria that way. Um, so we had submitted an opinion letter a few months back that we we did not find that had the vegetation to be considered a wetland area. I think furthermore with this application, the the only areas where there were any any pockets of soils like that were um immediately
above the wall, the project actually proposes to to only restore that area. Um, we're putting native plantings in an area that's currently lawn and removing it. So though we didn't think it was a wetland resource area um in our own investigation I don't know that it's a in our our response had mentioned that we don't know that it's necessarily
important for this project because it's proposed as you know native restoration to remain um only anyways. Okay, thank you for that recap. >> You're the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed.
>> I I hate to say this, but Andrew, could you talk a little slower? I'm having a hard time keeping up. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Yep. Um,
and do you did you catch that or we want to >> No, no, I'm I'm I'm getting it, but I think Andrew has a calling as an auctioneer. >> I think I he does speak very very quickly. Moving this moving this meeting
along. Um, all right. Right. So, in regards to the wetland line, does anyone have anything they want to discuss on that or be comfortable using the wall as the line? I think we've done that on other
applications similar to this. I think um and I think I I personally think I'm leaning towards feeling comfortable with that. Um so if no one else has any thoughts,
>> feels good to me. What was that, Ted? >> I said it feels good to me. >> Feels good to you. Okay, good. >> I don't want you to feel all alone out there. >> All right. Um, does anyone else have I shared kind of my comments on some of
the stormwater stuff. Um, does anyone have any other thoughts on this? >> Uh, yeah, I have a question. Um, I've been on commission for a while, but others have been here longer than I. I think Andrew, if I understood you
correctly, you suggested that commission precedent is if there's incursion within the 50-foot buffer, additional incursion, as long as it extends laterally and not closer to the water resource, the commission has in
the past accepted. Is that what you suggested, Andrew? And if so, is that true? Has that been the commission stance before that we allow additional inside the 50 incursion as long as it's
lateral to what was previously there? >> But then I'll just chime in quick and say this that was a discussion point. I believe it was our second conservation meeting with you all, which would have been sometime in the summer. We had discussed um that in the sense of uh we were just discussing what the commission would usually do in these circumstances
and at least to my knowledge and any commissioners please correct me if I'm wrong that that was that was a discussion that we would find that point where we have our closest encroachment and to not expand closer to that. Um I certainly can't speak to the long-standing history of the commission but that was my memory.
>> So I'm looking to help from the commission. Thank you Andrew. I'm looking for help commissioners, especially those who have been here longer than I. Yeah, Ted, that's a good question and something that I was kind of bouncing around in my head looking at the proposed dwelling
being okay like probably being okay with existing foundation and building upon that if it's in the 50 but definitely some hesitation on extending that
even laterally. Um I mean looking it is really hard to see the lines in this plan and it might be splitting hairs. Um >> yeah if it's helpful I can I can zoom in
on a on a cursor here. So the existing foundation encroachment is everything that we would see on my cursor right here. So the only the only new lateral encroachment we would be talking about would be the area that we see right here. It's of course a a very minor sliver. it would be over lawn only. And
the the truth of the matter is is because architecturally for them to cut this little bit here wouldn't make sense with with the layout of the property or any of the plans that they have. Um and so that's that's why it's a very very minor encroachment. And if it's helpful, I could I could certainly get the square
footage on that >> through the chair. >> Yes, Anna. So if I remember correctly from the research that I did a while ago for this project um so it was house foundation. So I don't know that we've considered
uh impervious under decks as house foundation in the past. Um, so it's typically, you know, dwelling area and we have allowed lateral along that same line if it is within the 50. Um,
but again, this one seems to be it was their deck that they're asking for that extension on, not the living space of the house. >> Gotcha. through the >> So, I think I think Oh, go ahead, Joe.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to point out that the the blue line that was pointed out as the 50- foot buffer, I guess the 50ft buffer to the bank. I believe the 50 foot buffer to bordering land is further
upgrading more or less in the middle of the house. H >> that was that was moved when the U FEMA maps were updated. >> Yes, for this property they were updated on July 8th of this year. So it was um
about in right in the middle of this project review the FEMA maps were updated. Um, so we do show those buffer zones. That was also addressed in a comment with Lucas is um the difference between the the 50 foot to the bank of the lake itself and the 50 foot to the to the flood plane line. The reason that
we had evaluated and kind of separated that out was um of course one is the the actual lake resource area that we're trying to protect. Um one is just the flood plane line. So when we do do our calculations, I think it might be helpful to provide calculations for for both 50-ft zones. That way we can
demarcate the difference. >> Name. >> So I guess my feeling I think regarding that extending laterally kind of fits with your hesitation Melissa and there's frankly so much I see on this
plan that makes me uncomfortable. But one more thing is that lateral incursion. um we are adding 50 foot disturbance. I mean to me that matters and whether it's a sliver or not I worry about precedent in the future and you allow that sliver
over there. Ours is only x square feet bigger. Um so that is one of of several things that gives me real pause with this plan. >> Yeah. I um I don't think that
and our I I don't think that our decision on whether or not it should or shouldn't be pulled back should be based on what we think an architect can or can't do. I like to think that they can design around
the box that they're given or the area that they're given. Um, >> we understand that. Um, sorry, didn't mean to cut you off there. >> Yeah. No, that was that was pretty much it. >> Perfect. No, we we understand that. And actually, I was going to build off that
and say um Ted, if you don't mind, you had made a comment about um some other concerns of the plans. So, our intent tonight, you know, I think the store water was a major addition. Um we've been trying to move this forward with the commission. The as the commission knows the applicant did go through ZBA
to get a different front yard setback approved to push this up. So, we're we're making the efforts that we can and our hope is certainly to to be able to move this um in the right direction so we can bring this to a close and allow them to to proceed with this. So Ted, my question for you is if there are other concerns and this is to all the commissioners as well on these plans
right now, um we're more than more than willing to take all those comments and hear them so that we can go back and try to come up with a plan that that would address all of them. So if there's anything else if you don't mind letting us know. >> So I can do my own thoughts briefly through the chair if that's okay, Melissa.
>> Sure, go for it. Um, we're asking, you're asking for, your applicant is asking for approval on all of that hardcape. And I can't imagine that if that were a new application that I could be convinced that that was something that was acceptable to me. That none of
the hardcape has been offered to be returned to something more natural is disappointing to me. that you're going that the applicant is asking to keep all that hardcape and offer only the plantings that I see while keeping lawn in place, which is always a worry to me
next to the lake. I feel like if there is an ask to keep the hardscape, which I think is a difficult one to accept, then there needs to be a flooding of plantings as mitigation for all of that
hardscape, not a dotting along some of the edges with some other edges going straight to the lakefront. Um, the backyard generally is a a major problem for me beyond just the the size of the
house and where the house sits relative to buffer area. >> Thank you. No, I I appreciate that. That's helpful for us to know. >> You're welcome. >> Does anyone else want to share their comments? >> Yes.
Is the house as proposed on a pre-existing foundation? >> Some of it is over that footprint, some of it is not. So, it is a little hard to see again, but the the line that we see on my cursor here that we see in black,
that's the existing footprint of the house. So, it is um over much of the footprint of the existing dwelling. It is a slight expansion into the lawn on both sides. And then as I had just mentioned in my earlier comment, the
this the applicants and homeowners on this went through the ZBA process to actually move the the front yard setback up 10 ft. We do push 10 ft closer. So a portion of it is also over the existing um portion of the driveway and walkway. So much of it is over impervious and
there are portions of it that would be over lawn. So, the the house facing the lake that is on the existing foundation,
maybe wider, but but >> Yes. >> Yes. Yep. So, the the deck that's out there now is also on a foundation. It's it's concrete underneath. So, all of that foundation ends at the rear of the house that we see here in orange. And then it just has that slight lateral
encroachment. The deck that we see here is is just on helical peers that way. It's elevated above and everything underneath it does not change. >> Right. I understand about the deck. So, but the the the
house facing the lake, the distance from the lake, whatever, however you want to phrase it, that foundation is the original foundation of the house. Although it might have been added to on either side.
>> Correct. Yes, we the very end of this is is the same. >> Okay. Thank you. To the if you go like page north, the building is getting bigger to the north bed.
So that area is not on existing foundation. That's on lawn area. You're muted though, Ed. >> Pushing the wrong button. Sorry. So, that's that's what generates the little gaposis out there.
>> Yeah. >> If we zoom in, I'm sorry, Melissa. Uh, if we zoom in on the house, you might be able to see better where the uh current dwelling is versus proposed. >> Yeah. Okay, I think I got it. >> Yep. And then this line here is the existing driveway. It's a it's a wide
driveway there now. So we can see the existing driveway line and the dwelling line. >> So through you Melissa, I have a question. Andrew, >> what is the what what is the um footprint of the existing building with all pertinances with all the support and
so forth versus the proposed? >> I'm sorry if I missed that. No, it's it's in the notice of intent, but um that's not something that's on these plans right here. That's a calculation that I should be able to get for you pretty quickly.
>> Well, I can look it up on the notice of intent, too. >> Yeah, I'll um I'll let the commission move on to any other questions, but I will be looking up that that calculation in the meantime just so I can get it for you. >> Okay. I was going to say on the um on the plan with the storm water design the
drywall sizing calcs say in per existing imperous area 3,850 square ft proposed 4,080 square ft. So if that number >> Oh, looks like looks more than that, but
okay. Thank you. >> Yep. So the existing building takes up about 800 square ft and then the home doesn't look like it's on there, but I believe this one is closer to to,200, something of that nature, but I I can get that
calculation. All right. Great. Matt, do you have anything to to add or that you want to see? >> Nothing on my end that hasn't already been said. >> Okay, >> Melissa. >> Yes. I I think I just want a
clarification on one thing that I think was explained, but if we could if we could zoom in on the house again one more time, please. So, the existing concrete we're talking about as a foundation for the house, but it's actually the edge of the current
house is west of that concrete. That that concrete is foundation for a deck, not the house. Is that true? The existing house wall is not in the same location as the proposed house wall.
>> Correct. The limit of impervious is the same, but the the actual house location would end somewhere in my cursor here and then the deck foundation would be here. >> So I I don't know if that changes a little bit, Ed. the what you were asking about the the wall facing the lake, they
would be in a slightly different location, but the concrete would be the same, at least on the part that's already built. Is that true, Andrew? Am I saying that correctly? >> You are. Yeah, we we would the reason why we use that is it's the limit of impervious associated. So that's that's exactly right.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure that that was clear. What? Melissa, you're pouring a whole new placing a whole new foundation for the new dwelling. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay.
Does that help, Ed? >> Thank you. >> All right. I think you've got our final feedback, Andrew. >> Yes. No, this this was helpful. So, excuse me for the direct questions. It's is very helpful for us to see exactly what the concerns are so we can go back
and review them. So, I think um we have everything noted. I think that um that takes it. So, we're happy to go back and discuss and um we'll come back. >> You're the chair. One more comment. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yep. I didn't I don't know if the
commission has uh decided on whether or not PIB markers are appropriate here. I think the applicant has stated that the the bank will function as PIB, but I
don't know >> perceived by some markers. >> Yeah. No, thanks for bringing that up. Um cuz I can't remember if we talked about it on the site or one of the other very similar sites along the lake with these properties. I think we've been
using or allowing the wall along the bank to be the PIB. Um and I think I'm okay with that. And does anyone else have thoughts? I I would only say don't think we need to have the plastic made dallions on the
wall. >> Yeah. >> Just identify on the plan that >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the PIB. Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this out to our next hearing which is November
uh 4th? >> Some moved. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Head is an I. >> Matt.
>> I. >> Jim. Jim. >> I. >> Okay. and I >> I Okay. >> All right. Thank you all for your time tonight.
>> No problem. Thank you. Okay. Um All right. That's it for our hearings. Going to go down to the exemption request for Trails Committee Barry Acres Boardwalk.
This was a continuation. We were almost there and then realized we should ask for details on the boardwalks themselves, which I believe we've received. Yep. Thanks, Judy.
So Joe, I don't know if you had a chance to look at this, but I think it looks pretty similar to what we've approved in the past. >> I have not, but at first glance appears
to be similar to what you've looked at in the past and approved. >> Yeah, for the chair. >> Yes, Anna. I believe you have Sean Kimble on the call too if you guys have questions. >> Oh, do we? Great. Hi, Sean.
>> Hello. >> Um, so yeah, maybe you can answer the question. Is this typical or does it vary at all from what we've seen in the past for sections and details on the boardwalks?
>> The appearance will look exactly the same. Um, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the the the boardwalks we just installed at Berry Acres. >> Mhm. >> Um, but very similar. The difference the the not the biggest. It's not that big of a difference. This is going to be 4
foot wide versus the boardwalks at Berry Acres are three foot. >> Okay, >> that's that's the only difference. But again, it's a typical construction. 4x6 stringers, 4x6footers, and then 2x6 deck boards.
>> Okay. Um is there a reason with for the width change? Is it just a >> Yes. Um the the So I think longer term planning is to connect um the schools to essentially
Windsor apartments. So students would have access to walk the trails from the apartments to the schools. >> Okay. And the theory is students would like to walk side by side versus in single file.
>> Gotcha. >> And I might add that older people with some difficulty getting around like it 4T wide. >> That's another reason strollers another thing we talked about. >> Mhm. That makes sense.
Okay. Thank you for following up with >> absolutely >> details. Um, I think at this point we can probably go ahead and take a vote to accept the exemption request. We can get a motion to that effect with
signatures by Judy and Anna. >> So move >> and a second. >> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt, I Jim
I. All right, you're good to go. >> Excellent. Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Okay, cheers all. >> All right, next up we have 168 Hayden Row, Hopington Historical Society,
request for waiver of RCB. >> Um, Judy, do you want to talk about this one for a minute? to the chair. Um, sure. And I think we also have the applicant on the line as well. Um, but this was an order uh for
perimeter drainage and plantings around the historical society building on Hayden Row. Um, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the consultant fee to close out the permit. Uh, as they received a waiver for consultant fee for
the NOI. Uh when Kim was here, she did the review herself and and didn't have Lucas do it. Uh we're not exactly sure of the reasoning behind it. Um but their request is to have sort of a similar closeout period where staff review the
COC request against the approved plans. Um so commission to discuss if you're all right with that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, this is Dan Act. I am here representing
the historical society. The the reason the reason the u the bylaw fee was waved for the NOI and we expect it to be waved for the certificate of compliance is because
this type of work is exempt from the by. So we would be exempt from the feed well. >> Okay. Um, >> so specifically under uh I think it's
4.6G of the bylaw. >> Mhm. Uh this chapter should not be required for maintaining, repairing or replacing but not substantially enlarging an existing law structure, facility, yard or landscaping
on any pre-existing lot recorded at the time of the wetland's bylaw. So this lot is uh we provided proof this lot was uh before the bylaw during the notice of 10 hearings and the only work was to replace the
footing brain which was not functioning. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I remember it being um not too involved of a review in in project and I believe
you buried a bunch of invasives on that site, right? >> We did. How did that go? >> It went good. Actually, the timing of kind of the summer drought worked out really well for us to get
this work done. Uh we didn't have to do any dewatering that we were concerned about. We're able to dig down pretty deep and bury those and come out invasives. >> Okay, great. Um,
yeah. I mean, I I I think I'm inclined to be in support of issuing that waiver and having Judy um go ahead and give give it a look
for the COC. Um, especially being that it's a nonprofit. And it was I'm okay with that. >> CPC. >> And what was that? >> It was all the money was all funded
through CPC. >> For CBC, >> right? >> Okay. Jim, you're okay. You're good with that. Others? >> Yes. Yep. I don't want to volunteer Judy to do a
whole bunch of work for other people all the time, but in this case, I think we can make a special case. Um, if you're up for it, Judy. >> Yep, that's fine with me.
>> Okay. Um, I guess we should go ahead and Should we vote on that? you think? I don't know if we need to vote. Um, >> no, I don't think it's necessary. >> You can you can do it at the time you
vote for the COC if you want. >> That's true. >> Okay, we'll just give her a blessing now then. >> Well, thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Have a good night.
>> You, too. All right, next up we have 100 Ash Street violation discussion for a shed. Um, do we have anyone um do we have the homeowner or anyone representing the homeowner?
>> Yes, absolutely. You've got both I believe uh like the homeowners online as well as myself, Chris Prderoli. I'm a wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. >> Okay. Welcome. >> So, I would uh sorry, I was just going
to say I would defer to you as to how to handle it. I've been on site as of last Friday and can kind of give you what I've seen, but you know, we're kind of looking to open a dialogue with the commission. >> Yeah. No, that's great. Um Judy, why don't you just give a brief how we got
here intro before Goddard gives their two cents. Sure. Uh through the chair, I can pull up the enforcement order you all had voted on back in September. Um in
response to notice of installation of a shed within the 100 foot buffer to a BBW at 100 Ash Street, uh the enforcement order required the homeowner to submit a sketch plan containing the location of the shed and any other unpermitted
activities. uh as well as a narrative containing uh various information including date of installation of the shed, previous condition of the area where the shed now sits, uh any trees removed to install the shed, um material and method of
installation, extent of gravel, um and any other unpermitted changes. Uh so since then, we do have a bulk of this information that the homeowner sent over to us. So we have a sketch plan containing the location of the shed. We've got a narrative containing the
date. Um, pull that up, date of installation of the shed, some information about it, how it was installed, um, what was there previously, uh, underneath it's about an inch of gravel, so it's not on a sort of
permanent foundation. Um, and the memo from Goddard explained that shrubs and saplings were removed but not, you know, specified exactly how many. Um, so I think we have a good amount of the information and up to the commission now, you know, what they
would like to see in terms of next steps. >> Okay. Thanks, Judy. Um, yeah. No, we appreciate that. I think um we were definitely just looking to gather information.
Um we appreciate the homeowner pulling that together for us. Um I guess I'll turn it over to you, Chris, to let us know what you've been working on and give your piece. >> Yeah, absolutely. Um so as of I guess
overnight Thursday we were retained by Oleg to uh you know help them through this piece of the process and we started off with delineating the wetlands as we start pretty much everything that we do. Uh we delineated a wetland line that looks quite similar to the wetland line
shown on here. Um I believe this came from a plan from like the mid 90s. So, uh, you know, things may have shifted a little bit over time, but generally from what I can tell based on kind of referencing this plan to what I did in the field, uh, they look pretty much,
you know, pretty similar. Uh, we did also, you know, kind of evaluate the extent of the the impact caused by the shed. I think that, uh, you know, as far as wetlands violations go, it's it's not the most egregious out there. Uh it's a
bit of crushed stone, a all for all intents and purposes pretty mobile shed placed on top of it. Uh and we measured that as being about 40 ft from the wetland line. I think uh maybe Judy if you have my report there. I think there's a photo in there showing that.
Um we just, you know, as we were in the field pulled tapes off of the nearest wetland flag to the corner of the shed. I think it's the last one maybe. Uh maybe one more. There we go. Um so this was the the nearest wetland flag that I hung and
it's a little tough to see through some of the leaves, but we're at about 40 ft from the corner of the shed. My colleague Jacob's over there holding the tape on the other end of the shed. You can see his high viz vest. Um so essentially that's what we've that's the due diligence we've done so far. We've
got wetland flags up. uh we've kind of started to evaluate, you know, what that area might have looked like and it's, you know, it's a matter of piecing together historic aerials, right? Um I know from my conversations with Oleg
that this area had been previously disturbed and from what we can tell used for some sort of storage. Uh I know he had indicated to me that there was not a tremendous amount of vegetation removed. It was mostly some small brush type things. You know, no real tree removal
occurred to make room for this. Um, and there is, let's see, I do have a quick aerial that I had pulled up if if it would be okay if I shared my screen momentarily. >> Yes, that's okay with me.
Um this is a 2019 aerial that you know publicly available and this is generally the area where that shed is. Um and you know it's a little hard to tell exactly what's going on there but we think it it looks pretty clearly like it's uh you
know a relatively disturbed area. Um, so again, just not uh Oh, I have some more photos as well, but it for all intents and purposes, uh, no tremendous amount of vegetation removal occurred as part of this. And while we're here, I might as well threw a few of my other photos.
Um, here's a view of the shed. You can see this corner of the foundation wall, which is shown on that plan that, uh, we were looking at a moment ago for a little bit of a sense of scale and location. uh and really just kind of inserted there at the edge of the the tree line
looking back the other direction and showing it is on wheels so it's not really a permanent installation. Uh it could be moved if need be but um this is kind of what it looks like from that perspective. And then this was a photo
that Oleg had obtained somewhere showing generally the same area uh from apparently the year 2000 showing that it had kind of been used in a similar manner uh historically. So that's what I've got for photos and I think we
really just kind of wanted to open it up to the commission see what the commission's thoughts were on the best way to proceed from here. I know um we would love to not have to move the thing and be able to seek some sort of after the fact approval uh if the commission
would be amendable to that, but that's why we're here this evening. >> Okay, great. Thank you for collecting that information, giving us a good picture um of what it look like.
Um so 40 ft from the wetland previously disturbed area looks like um I mean to the commission the question is do we would we approve this um if it
came before us do we want to see any movement and what type of after the fact approvals or changes are are we considering? Um does anyone have any thoughts looking at what was presented
today or questions for um Chris or the applicant? >> I don't have anything else, but I will say more that um that's a good point. We look at things as if they were coming in
to be freshly permitted. Is that it, Jim? >> I think that was it for Jim. >> Yeah, that's it. >> So, my own thought I if I understood Jim correctly, we look at it as if it's being proposed now. Um, the shed is on
wheels. It's movable. I think if it were proposed now, my response would be, can you just move it 10 ft closer to your house so that we don't have any issues? Um, because it's on wheels, I think it is reasonable to ask that it be slid
rolled 10 ft. Uh, I'm not worried about the saplings that are being cut. Um, I trust Goddard and the applicant that there were no major trees cut down and if that land if the shed is moved, um,
and the land behind the shed in those 10 ft were allowed to grow saplings again, that's probably what I would have pushed for if this were a fresh application. Now, >> thanks, Ted. That's good. cond
>> based on documents that have been shown there was previously something here and the town presumably knew about it. Um I I I tend to
heir on the side of this is not something new. This is a replacement of what was there. Yeah, that's a good point, too, Ed. Um, and I do believe the
homeowner, you are relatively new to the property, right? You've moved in here within the last year or so. >> Yeah, I think it was about a year and a half ago. >> Year and a half ago. Yeah. Um, Matt, do you have any thoughts, feelings
on this one? >> I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. >> Okay. One thing, you know, we do always try and bring up when we have a property, whether it's
in at any stage of the game when it comes in front of us is whether we could potentially um get some PIBs put up just so that that edge is uh memorialized and
identified um for people going forward. whether it's this homeowner or a future homeowner um to kind of raise that flag if they're going to do something in that area or looking to potentially do something in any of that area along the wetland.
Um it would flag for whoever it is, a homeowner, a landscaper, anybody that there's resource area um that some thought needs to be given to considering
um bringing a proposal to the commission. I don't know if that's something that the homeowner would be amendable um to to adding on their property. >> Yeah, we can certainly discuss that. Um, I will note there is kind of a I don't
know, calling it a retaining wall is generous, but there is a little bit of a sort of a a stone wall. I'll use the term loosely with screening plantings basically along the entire perimeter of that backyard that sits something like
20 to 40 ft from the wetland line. Um, so for all intents and purposes, I feel as though that does a fair job of providing some sort of uh permanent immovable barrier, but uh, you know, I understand that if that if that's the commission's request, I think it's uh, a
relatively minor one. >> Okay. Um, Judy, as far as after the fact approvals, what would be look we be looking at
documentation wise here? So, through the chair, um, generally for sheds, if they're further than 50 ft, they've been able to be approved as minor project exemptions. So, not requiring the filing of a permit
application, either an RDA or an NOI. Um, so I think being that it's within 50, um, that might be a situation that would trigger maybe an RDA, but if they can get it outside of 50, um, if the
commission would like, I can write up an exemption letter. But in the past, if it's been closer than 50, you all don't generally approve um, as straight up exemptions. >> Okay. Through the chair. Yes,
>> if if we found a way to, you know, squeeze in a handful of native plantings or something like that, uh, you know, as mitigation for whatever small corner of this thing sits within the 50, uh, would the commission consider that as
potential mitigation for leaving the shed where it sits today? Um, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, JD, it's more of like an RDA. You could, we
could still potentially approve an RDA with the shed within 50 without the mitigation. >> Yes. >> Right. Um, so I think it's more of a paperwork standpoint of
whether we can go for a minor project exemption where technically we're only to issue those if you're greater than 50. You're outside of that 50 foot with the shed, which you're not >> understood. >> Which then kicks you over to the RDA,
which is filling out that paperwork, which again, I don't know. can open up to the commission again as far as whether if you come to us with an RDA. Um I don't know that we would require
plantings. >> Okay. Yeah. I was just thinking um you know for the sake of crossing tees and dotting eyes >> perhaps an RDA to leave it where it stands uh you know with or without some sort of mitigation may be an acceptable
approach. >> I'll open up to the commission. Do commission members feel that um looking at this as within RDA would require some mitigation? Would you be looking for mitigation or um kind of as Ed alluded to that it
there was an existing storage use here? Um and we accepted as an RDA under that stance. >> Um I don't >> Go ahead, Judy. Yeah, I just wanted to
clarify something I said. Um, so by exempting outside of 50, I meant more as staff exemptions. >> So staff, we don't exempt anything within 50. Um, the commission can exempt
minor work within the 50. I mean, you um do accept the boardwalk exemption requests. Um, it's just not as common with sheds. So, I would say it's not, you know, necessarily out of the realm of possibility if you would like to entertain a minor project
exemption request. Um, it just would be through the commission and not through staff. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I was going to say that works for me. >> A minor project exemption works for you, Jim. >> Uh, yeah.
>> Or an RDA? I well I don't know because I'm not really sure how that applies but >> I think the minor >> we have before approved minor project presumptions haven't we after after the
fact >> right this is after the fact so haven't we before >> maybe not >> not that I've seen no but if we're looking at this as a fresh request I think it is something you might consider, but I haven't seen you all approve an after the fact minor project
exemption. >> Yeah, I don't know if we want to go down that route with sheds. I don't think we do. >> I don't think we can. >> Yeah, >> I think for it to be considered a minor product exemption even by us, it needs to be more than 50 ft from a resource
area, >> right? So I think an RDA is the appropriate path forward. >> Yep. Unless they want to move unless you want to move the shed >> or if they want to move it outside. Yeah. Outside the 50 foot. >> Yeah. So and through the chair just to
put a finer point on this. Uh if we are contemplating leaving it within 50 ft, an RDA sounds appropriate. If we were to move it outside of 50, we might be able to get through with a minor project assumption. >> Correct. >> Is that correct? Okay.
So I think it it's up to you. >> Understood. I I know the intention is, you know, moving it 10 ft forward puts a pretty tight squeeze between the front of the shed and the corner of that foundation >> uh in terms of access going forward. So
I that's why I say I do know that it is preferable preferable to leave it where it stands today. Uh, and especially, you know, considering that with the fact that it has been historically disturbed. Um, I think it's I think it's a reasonable proposition. Um, so that's
really what we were trying to gauge the commission's feeling on this evening. >> Okay. Yeah. And as you know, an RDA isn't too big of a lift, >> right? Yeah. No, we were um an RDA is is totally doable on our end. >> Okay.
Okay. Anything else? Anyone from the public >> through the chair? Um, >> yep. >> You might want to consider issuing a new enforcement order requiring either an RDA application or a
minor project request by a certain date. >> Okay, that's a good point. Thank you, Judy. >> And and through the chair, sorry to interrupt. Um, there was one other piece of this that we were contemplating and figured tonight might be a, you know, do
it all in one shot kind of opportunity. Um, Judy, do you still have that asbuilt plan handy? >> Yep. >> So, there is that that foundation wall that I had shown in those photos earlier um is an extension essentially of this
garage over here on the left side of the house. And the foundation is has not been completed. It's really just kind of an open foundation at this point. And I know it's Oleg's intention to complete that work. Um and so this is kind of an
extension of this conversation that we were hoping to have with the commission if you have a few extra minutes for us. Um, but if we could find a way to maybe wrap that into an RDA, considering it's already an existing structure, it would just be completion of that structure.
Um, or or something along those lines. >> I I believe so. I think you could include that in an RDA application obviously with the additional information so we can understand you know the the scope and what exactly
you're you're doing there >> right yeah my my thought is it falls under the category of you know repair replace but not substantially enlarge >> um because that foundation's already there and my assumption is >> no no digging you know it's it it would
have in lawn anyway if it wasn't there. Um, so my thought is that that might be also appropriate to include in an RDA in terms of the scope of work and you know we'd be happy to show erosion controls and those types of things, but um just
kind of wanted to get the commission's take on that as well. >> Okay. Um, it makes sense to me. Does anyone else have a contrary thought? No. Okay. Um then I guess I'll ask you
Chris, how long do you think you need if we were writing up um an enforcement order like Judy said with a date to come back with an RDA? How what's a reasonable amount of time for you to do? >> So, this is always the million-dollar
question, right? Um I guess an important question to ask in this is um would the commission require a surveyed plan showing these things? Um I think and I
before I move on I I'll offer that we could um we do have a high quality Trimble GPS unit that gets to you know near survey grade accuracy uh with if you don't have on a good day it's you know plus minus 3 in or so. Um so we'd
be happy to prepare some graphics kind of showing the shed and the foundation and those types of things using that device in lie of a survey and especially since this asbuilt is you know only barely two years old. Uh using that as a base plan um seems to me like you know a
reasonable alternative to avoid the cost and expense uh and really the time delay of having to get survey back out here. Um, so, you know, assuming that would be acceptable to the commission,
I'd say, you know, a month, six weeks, you know, just to be sure. Um, but I would leave that to the commission. Yeah, I think that for whatever would fall under the
scope of an RDA or what we would consider eligible under an RDA that would be sufficient. I don't think we would need a new survey, especially given the detail on this asbuilt that's fairly current. Um, but again, I'll open
it up to other commission members to see if anyone has any closing thoughts there or concurs. A thumbs up. >> I concur. The trim is plenty accurate
enough for what? >> Yeah, >> I concur also. Okay. So, Judy, why don't we write that up for whatever or six weeks out?
>> Yep, I can do that. Uh maybe one of the December meetings I can count back to a filing deadline. >> Okay, that'd be great. All right. Well, thank you for coming in. >> Yeah. No, thank thank you so much. That's super helpful. We get direction
on a lot of things and make sure we're not spinning our wheels. >> Yeah. Good. All right. Have a good night. >> You guys, too. >> Um, all right. Next up, we have 32 Granite
Street violation discussion for clearing. Judy, can you go over this one? >> Yep. Um, so we were contacted by a tree company back on September 17th.
um they were seeking guidance on tree removal in a jurisdictional property. Um responded that the owner needed concom permission and asked them to submit an arborist report. Uh but by the time we drove by about a week later, we saw a pretty large amount of understory and
saplings had been removed. Um and several large trees were tagged either for pruning or removal. Um so this was a property that came before you all earlier this year for a COC. Uh, so we do have pretty good before pictures from
Joe showing a a pretty healthy amount of saplings in this area. Um, we were unable to access the property. So, these are all from the street. Not sure what impacts were done in the back of the property, but I would say on the scale
of dozens of, you know, young trees and understory were removed. um can pull up Joe's original pictures if you'd like to see those. >> Sure. Yeah. >> And I believe the homeowners are on the
line as well. Um >> yes, we're right there. >> Provide more information and I believe they also have additional requests for hazard tree removals on the property as well. Um, so this is a view the streets
over here. So it's a little bit of a different angle of the front of the property. You can see there's a significant amount of young trees around this larger trees. Uh, and then if you go back to my pictures, really no young trees left in this area.
>> Okay. All right. So, thank you Judy for going over that. Um, so to our own homeowners here. >> Yes. Um, hi, my name is Palavi and that's my husband Himantru. >> Hi, nice to meet everyone.
>> Nice to meet you. >> So, we're fairly new to the area. Um and uh so the trees that you see that we have like cut the the the young saplings um they were some of them were dece like
diseased trees or some of them were like really slanting. We do have a lot of other trees on the property that are like slanting towards the house. Um so when we contacted this tree company I don't remember who we contacted who the
the the the organization that reached out to you for um uh you know for the pruning and what was the requirement um we had asked them uh we again we showed them the property they had marked the trees and uh that's when they said okay we'll go out to the town and ask these
are the big trees the the the tall 80 ft kind of trees uh these trees that we cut again like I and they were either diseased or they were leaning. And we have a a three-year-old who runs around, loves to clean the woods. Uh so just from her safety perspective also, uh we
these trees, we just cut them down um with the fact that uh you know they were they were harmful or they were slightly threatening to our daughter um because they could fall with the way they were leaning. Um, so
even even with that, this was the only tree company that the guys that reached out to you who said we needed a permit. We had our previous landscaper um who said you can just cut these trees. Uh, even though the medallions are right there, there's a number. Um,
I'm not sure if he was aware of the law. Uh, so these these trees when we cut them, we did again we did not know about this. Um and it was the street company that contacted you said that's that's when we realized that we had to um seek permission from you all uh and give like
a um certified arborist report. Um so that's kind of been the situation. U also proactively again this is before all this happened uh with our current landscaper we have plans to add in about 10 to 12 more native uh plants and trees
in this area. We just removed these the young ones because they were again either diseased or kind of leaning towards uh the property. >> Okay. Okay. So, um
>> I was about to say to that like uh again we were not aware of the law again like it was not mentioned by the landscaper or anyone. So we cut the trees just as PV mentioned to because there were a lot of trees that were leaning over the cable line and on the house. Yeah. And
there were also safety risk because as she mentioned like we have a young daughter who like rooms around the house. So the landscaper mentioned that it's better to cut the trees. We were not aware that we need to seek permission from a conservation committee. We are very new to this area.
>> Okay. Um, so yeah, this is definitely an education opportunity, uh, learning opportunity. Um, Judy, do you have the plan set that has like the PIBs on it so we can
kind of go through? So, this as plan here is your property. And as you're now aware, these proposed PIB icons on here should correspond to
those ones that you see out on the trees that your tree company picked up on. Um I guess and you know when we approved um
this plan for your property those were specifically identified to protect the wetland resource area you know that is downstream from your property. Um, so anything that you're doing in these areas,
um, you know, needs to look at the regulations that we have, talk to Judy. She's fantastic, um, at helping people understand what they can do, what they need to come to see us for, what she can, you know, help
with. I'm sure she's helped you. >> Yes. you know, >> recently um to understand. Um so yeah, any trees that so if we talk about the big trees >> anything that you're looking to come
down that you're looking to take down needs to be vetted through through the commission. Um and even that understory that you were cutting is important habitat. It's important for the resource
area. It's important for that whole, you know, forest system, >> you know, to properly take care of the wetlands that we're trying to protect and be that be that buffer. >> Um,
other things that we don't >> allow beyond the PIBs, like dumping yard waste or things like that, >> um, are also prohibited to try and maintain, you know, that natural area. Um,
so I guess you know you can once you figure out with your arborist, with your tree company if there are trees um that need to that you would like to come down, you can come in front of us for that. But tonight is the violation discussion
about the clearing, >> right? Um so the question to the commission is what we want to do about um the current violation. So you did say that you are planning on planting
11 to 12 um native uh we with our current landscaper. So, we work with Scott's Landscaping uh down at Lumber Street uh and he's given us a code for I think 10 to 12 trees and um I think bushes as well, a few of them uh that we
are that that we plan to add to our uh property and that whole u area that where we cut the trees off. >> Okay. Um I guess question to commission members. Sometimes when we have violations like
this where there's clearing cutting, um we look for the applicant to provide us or the homeowner um to provide us with a kind of an inventory of what was cut, what was taken down so that we can understand the
scope um of what was done and then kind of make sure that appropriate mitigation like that number of plants 12 um that you're proposing kind of adequately replaces
or takes the space um of what was taken down. >> Um it's kind of hard in a meeting like this just to kind to visualize what size of saplings and things like this were were cut. Um
>> okay. Okay. So do you suggest like maybe we just engage the arborist again to maybe prepare like some kind of document what was cut or do you want us to prepare that document and share with the committee here? >> Well Melissa can I ask the question
first which is do you have applicant do you have any photographs of the way it was naturally >> before? I think Judy has those photographs. I mean, we we don't have the photographs of what it was before we cut it because we just moved like four
or five months back here. >> Yeah, I think we have some photos. Jim, Judy has them from when we did this review previously. So, I think we have some before photos. We just don't have the
after the cutting, >> right? All right, I'll look on the dryer. >> We could maybe get some photos. The homeowners could provide us with some photo current photos of the back of the property
>> or were there any photos of the backyard in the real estate listing that they may still have or we can still get? >> Well, I think we have those. That's what Jod Jod's showing right now. >> Okay, I see it. But it's the current
condition and just getting permission or getting information of the current condition. You're the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> I think a stump count would be helpful. You know, number of stumps, locations,
um width of the stumps. Uh since it seems like they're all still there, um you know, that might help put a number on it where they are. I think I mean the whole property is jurisdictional so either way it was most likely buffer zone but um I think that's what we had with 10 exchanges. We asked for a stump
survey plan. >> Okay. Yeah. So and I don't know that that needs to be done by an arborist if they wanted or do you think so? >> I think that's up to you. Um >> okay
>> if you'd like a professional to do it um versus the homeowner. Um, you can have, you know, make the request of staff verifying locations. So, you know, if the homeowners are amendable to us being on the property to verify, I think it's, you know, up to you all.
>> Okay. Um, I think I'd be in favor of either if the if you as homeowners want to do your own >> Sure. >> mark up and tally, you can do that. If
you're amendable to Judy coming on, Judy or Anna coming to just just do a verification check if you don't mind them coming on your property. >> Sure. We could yeah we can we can do a count
we can send you pictures and if Judy you want to come back to like verify that's absolutely okay with us. >> Okay. I think that would be helpful for us to understand um the extent. >> Sure. >> Thank you.
>> And Melissa if I if I may. >> Yeah. >> Um I I agree it would be helpful. Part of what I'm struggling to to picture is I keep hearing the saplings were cleared. And my picture of a sapling might be different from what other
people are using. To me, a sapling is 4 feet high with a a trunk in air quotes that is the thickness of of my pinky. Um, but it looks like from the pictures there are small trees certainly, but maybe the thickness of
a soda can that might be 10, 15t high. When I heard the applicants saying that that some of these saplings were diseased and leaning, I had pictured a 4-oot plant being determined to be diseased. So the better I can understand what are the trees and what is a sapling
and what is a 10- foot very young tree but still a tree that would really help me out. >> Yeah. So, so none of the trees were like too big or like too long because they were cut by two of us and we don't we
are not professionals even we just like cut them on our own not by we we never had any professional company to cut the trees. It was just two of us that we just got a ax from like the lows and we just cut some of the trees in the
vicinity. So >> I think they were four or five feet maximum because >> we can't even >> we can't even do anything taller than that. I I don't even think they were more than like five. >> Yeah. So I mean you can >> Yeah. Where you can look at the pictures. You guys are happy to come
over the property. But it they weren't like really they weren't like trees. They were five feet and probably their diameter would be like a soda can. I I think that's the right analogy. >> Okay. >> Or even smaller than those. >> Okay. if if you could try to put that
together and maybe Anna can help too by looking at the the stumps or the >> the whatever it is left after the >> Okay, sure. Sure. Yeah, we do that. >> Would help me picture a little bit better what might be proper replantings. >> Okay. >> Sure.
>> Um let's go ahead and why don't we put a date on that, Judy, if we can do that. Um, our next meeting is November 4th or it could be by November 25th. >> November. >> No, that's my >> fourth or fourth is fine.
>> Yeah, fourth is fine with us. >> Okay, >> that sounds good. >> The chair um >> yes >> might recommend having us issue an enforcement order uh just to get that date documented and enforceable. Um
there's no cost burden. It's just putting, you know, everything in writing and having >> letter. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. The enforcement authority if it's not followed. >> Yeah. No, that makes sense. And that that can be a nice little summary to com, you know, what we're looking for
as well for them to come back with. Okay. Well, thank you for sticking around. It was really late night. You're at the very end. >> Thank you so much. again like uh >> we apologize for not Yes,
>> we we are new to the area. We are not aware of the law and like the regulations. So, apologies again for that. >> May I really quickly before we lose the applicant jump in? >> Yes. >> Um I know that tonight we are only talking about the the cutting of trees, but you're planning to ask for
permission to cut more. I just want to sure that we're not confusing the term arborist with a tree cutter. What we'd be looking for when you put that application together is the report of a certified arborist and not all
landscapers are that. So just and if you need more clarity, I see Judy nodding. I'm sure she can help you with that to make sure um you can get to that application as quickly as possible by finding the right people initially. Yeah. So, sure.
>> There's a database um of certified arborists operating in Massachusetts I can send over. >> That would be helpful because we tried reaching our current arborist and they've kind of been slacking. So, that's the second part of when we get we have like like I was speaking we have
some 80 ft trees which are hollow leaning. That would be a separate conversation. But for today uh and for the November 4th, we'll talk about the trees that we cut down. We're all on the same page. I was just trying to streamline your second. >> Yes,
>> I appreciate that. >> Help that out ahead of time. >> Sure. Thank you. >> And I would just recommend Melissa a vote with signatures for the enforcement order. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to that effect? >> So moved.
>> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> Ted's an I. >> Matt. I >> and Jim. I >> I am also an I. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Have a good night.
>> Have a good night. >> Okay. This is We haven't had a past 10 o'clock meeting in a while. >> Can I um jump in to make it slightly longer? Um we didn't vote with signatures for 100 ash enforcement order. if we could just redo that vote
with signatures so we're not waiting until the next meeting to issue that document. >> Sure. Yes. Can I get a motion? >> Yeah, I'll amend that motion. A motion. >> I'll second the amendment. >> All right. All in favor? Ed
>> I. >> Ted. >> There's an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> And Jim. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> No problem.
Um, two quick things. I think we got through everything on the agenda. I didn't miss anything, right? >> No. >> Okay. >> Two quick things. Um, we we haven't had an inerson meeting in a while, so we should probably
look at dates or think about putting one on the calendar. Um, Judy, what is far as publication goes the soonest date we could do that >> would be the second November?
>> The November 25th, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Yeah, we've already had our test November 4th. Um, remote. >> Okay. >> Um, are folks in favor of this? Opposed?
I'm in favor of it. >> You're in favor, Jim. >> Go for it. >> Okay. Who want to do the 25th? >> Work for me. >> Just a heads up in case anybody is for that is Thanksgiving week.
So, we figured it'd be easier to have it two days before Thanksgiving than the Monday after Thanksgiving. I mean, the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. So, just in case people are planning on traveling and may not be available. >> How come we're not doing the 21st? Wait a minute. What is it now? How is that
the second week? >> That's the next one's the fourth, right? >> Yep. Fourth. >> How come not the 18th? Why the 25th? >> Um, so it's it was how we did the date so that you only had one meeting in
December to try to allow for the holidays. >> Okay. Well, we're around quite a bit. >> I like that date. It gives Ed an even better reason to bring us some food right there. >> Okay. >> Okay. But you need to understand that
our kitchen is still 100% nonfunctional. >> I I I think you're up to the challenge, Ed. >> You have a whole month to figure it out. >> Yep. Thanksgiving. It's not a case of figuring it out. It's
a case of getting it done. >> All right. And last last thing, um Ted brought to our attention, he observed a spotted lantern fly
>> fly, which is the one you see on posters all over the state that we should be on the lookout for. down at Snappy Dogs this weekend. There was a spotter and lantern fly crawling on the parking lot. Uh with the help of of folks, we
captured this specimen. Uh I took a look on the internet. I reported it to the state, which is what you're supposed to do, and then I euthanized the specimen. Um so I only bring it up to say that we are not one of the towns that is known to be covered in spotter lantern flies.
So, if you do happen to see one, um, there is a protocol you're supposed to follow, uh, do essentially what I did. Take a picture of it. You don't have to capture it the way I did, but the state asked you to take a picture of it, send them the photo when you file the report.
Just Google Massachusetts spotter lantern fly, and you will get to the right website. >> Do they want proof of life? >> What's that? >> Do they want proof of life? Uh, they didn't ask for proof of life and and
after I euthanized the specimen, I just chucked it in the garbage in its death bag. >> Oh. >> Oh, that sucks though. You have to start looking out worrying about that. >> Yeah, I've gotten one other report in
the last couple months. >> It was pretty easy to frankly. >> Yeah, they look they look different. Look at that red red. >> It's a big gray bug. Not really a moth. Its wing case closes differently. And
even with the wing case closed, you can see a a touch of very bright red kind of between the wings. >> Yeah. >> Wings are gray with um dark gray or black spots on the outside.
>> I don't know if it hold my fingers up in the view, but it's it's about that big. It's It's If it were on your nose, it would cover your nose pretty well. >> Does it eat Japanese notes? >> Unfortunately, I don't think so. >> I think it kills trees that we don't
want built. >> Yeah. >> To the chair. >> Yes. I just want everybody to know that a couple weeks ago at the Sbury River cleanup that our fabulous Judy Day and
her husband Chris were there helping out. So, we all owe her a thank you. >> Thanks, Judy. >> Thank you, honey. >> No problem. >> Thank you. >> And I am working with Carrie on getting those waddles taken out. I think we're
going to meet up there to look at them. So, we stumbled across some waddles. It was a little awkward. Oh, and we do have a new member. As of today, they were appointed by the select board. So, as soon as they get sworn in, um should be able to start joining
meetings. So, >> can you disclose? >> Uh yeah, it's public information. Um Yep. >> Walter Garland. Yep. Cool. Welcome. >> Yeah, we're going to work on getting
>> It's great. Halfway there. >> All right, that's been enough. Can I get a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> I will make that motion happily. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor? Ed. >> I. Ted.
>> That is an I. >> Matt. Hi, >> Jim. >> Hi. >> And I'm also an I. All right. Thanks. >> Have a great night, everybody. >> Good night, everybody. >> Everybody, it's a late one.