certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. 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 Hopkin Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission Commission agenda identifying how the public may
join. Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others
may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair.
Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda, the
chair will open the discussion 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 this meeting will be
conducted via roll call of the members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Melissa Recos, >> present. >> Heather Burton, >> present. >> Ed Harrow, >> present.
>> Matt Moyan, >> present. >> Jim Cerillo, >> and I am Ted Barker Hook. I will now confirm staff that are present. Judy, the Hopkins Conservation Administrator. Anna Rogers, the environmental and
inspectional services coordinator, and Joe Orzel of Lucas Environmental >> present. >> Before I pass the gavl to Melissa, I want to let everybody know that we have a number of uh hearings continued. If you are here for these hearings, you're welcome to stay, but we will not be
discussing them. Those hearings are both of the Wall Street development hearings at 12 North North Mill 38 Downey Street um continued uh 47 Oakhurst Road continued 85 to 89 West Main Street
that's the Starbucks Verizon uh unib parking lot continued um rec Hopin at zero lumber street continued and the uh request for a certificate of compl clients for PY Homes Legacy Farms North
continued. I think that covers it. Melissa, I think it's your turn. >> Thanks, Ted. >> All right. With that being said, we have a few minutes um to cover some work session items. So, we're going to start with 42 North Mill Street restoration
plan discussion. Um do we have the homeowner on the call? I did see him. You did see him having trouble unmuting. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm here. John Tiel, 42 North Street. Yes.
>> Welcome. Welcome. All right. So, I think where we left off was um there were two four there were four trees that were taken down in our jurisdiction and you are going to return back to us with a restoration plan.
um mitigation for taking those trees down and some PIBs. Is that what we're looking at here? >> Yes. So, uh could you uh zoom a little bit, uh Judy? No, no, no. Zoom in uh zoom out, sorry.
So, I can get a bigger picture. Okay. Uh so, um so it it shows the orientation. Uh the street is on the uh the bottom side and if you look uh I have the house here and to get a reference the house is
about 60 ft wide and uh this is the uh lawn this about 40 ft from and 30 ft on this side and this is the lawn edge and this is the stream and this is the property line and immediately beyond the
um proper uh property property uh know the lawn line about 10 ft away at uh where the trees were 10 to 15 ft. So more or less like 50 ft from the house
there were four trees. So the plan is to replace uh uh one to two and uh um so I I I I showed these trees as one 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 and um uh the trees I picked are actually uh two types. Uh can you go to the next page? Uh J. So if you go through the number, I
picked two trees. U L bush blueberry because it's good for ground cover. It's a ryome based uh once you plant it, it's uh root volume increases. So it gives a steady good soil protection which is the
uh main motivation uh doing this one. Although it's only about 5 ft tall, I think it spreads very quickly and establishes a very uh um good soil. And the black chalk chalkberry is actually a larger tree.
It's also good to promote um the there are some deers that come around. So I thought maybe it's a good idea to plan them to uh you know they keep coming but uh I want them to um you know be a host for it as well. So that those are the
ideas. Um and can you go back one more time the PIBs? So the PIBs uh I have two options. These are the um edges of the property. I can put two at the edge and one at the
center or I can put two in the center and ignore the propert uh ignore the edge lines. So those are the two options and I collected these three from the uh office uh about two three weeks ago.
>> Okay. Um I think in regards to the PIBs, what you have shown on the plan looks appropriate to me. Um are you putting those on trees or on posts?
>> There are actually uh two trees already here >> inside the I can put those two and I put a post here. There's no tree here. This kind of So I can put a post 3 foot and put the other one here. or if it's not acceptable, I can put the post here. But
this is actually a peach tree. And this one is actually a Japanese uh red tall tree. We can put those two on a tree about 3 ft tall as well. >> It's acceptable.
>> Putting them on a tree is acceptable if um they're in good locations. >> Okay. >> I don't have a problem with that. Um does anyone else have any comments on the PIVs? That's when >> when you nail them to a tree, you want to nail them vertically, top and bottom,
not side by side because if you nail them side by side as the tree grows, you will tend to push them out. And it's always best to not nail them firmly, but to leave some nails sticking out to give the tree room. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Only the bark I suppose.
>> Thanks, Ed. Um, in regards to the plantings, um, I know in the last meeting we talked about specifically trees being planted. Um, the varieties that you had on there all look like bushes.
>> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Shrubs. So, I know the commission uh, you know, leaves some um, you know, works with homeowners on what types of plants um, bushes. I did I did work with
Judy. I did work with Judy >> and uh the one I I think the main idea is to protect the soil, right? There are two contradicting things. One is the tall tree was like the trees were like 60 to 80 or even more tall here and
being very close was hazardous, right? That was the primary motivation for me to cut it without knowing the uh u I cut two. I think I I took responsibility for two more. Um but uh I think planting the
same type of trees or very tall trees would put back the hazard and I want to eliminate that while serving the uh current purpose which is to protect the soil. Right? That's why I have the ryome based uh plant. But I can add I can add
a um um some kind of tall uh shrub which probably meets around 30 ft or so. I that's okay with me as well but not too tall to um you know pose a hazard later on. Maybe somebody who is coming here
later on staying in this house. >> Yeah. And I I understand the concern um of tall pines for for hitting the house, but um and definitely soil stabilization is one of the things that we're trying
to restore and mitigate here. But the other thing is also just restoring back the habitat and the environment that was there um prior to the be trees being cut and trying to get back to what it was um
which was trees you know >> well habitat wise uh I'm actually improving the situation pine trees were not uh providing food to the deers and the squirrels that come there right and this is actually both of these plants
actually improve through the fauna in that area like a Yeah. So that wise it's more enhanced. Maybe it's more diminished with the tree but tree wise it's also beneficial that it's not hazardous anymore. So two positives one
negative >> chair. Yes. >> How how what is the distance from the nearest tree or proposed tree to the house? uh it was about 45 to 50 ft to not the house to the foundation right
so that's about 40 to 50 ft but I also have to secure some of my loan lawn right so from from the end of the lawn to the trees about 10 ft 10 to 15 ft >> so the the furthest trees then are are
60 ft from your house >> uh from the foundation yes but uh We do have a uh you know barbecue area in this area. I just uh so it's also uh hazardous to have too much clothes. Last
time a tree fell from here and it almost hit the uh um what do you call the foundation um and it was about the same distance >> who the chair. >> Yes, Ted. Um, John, I don't think that
we asked you to replace the trees with the exact same trees that were there before. And I appreciate that the shrubbery may bring some different animals, but um I have trees in my yard much closer to my house and and they're
huge. Um, and we get plenty of animals. In fact, when when friends come to visit me, they're astounded with the variety of birds and chipmunks and two different types of squirrels and rabbits. Um, I don't think the shrubbery is necessary
to enhance the the fauna. Um, and we were pretty clearly talking about trees when we met on June 17th. Um, I I think the bushes are great, but maybe plant them underneath the trees if
you want to propose bushes and trees. >> We were pretty clearly talking about trees when we met before. >> True. Um, I had a communication with Judy and uh, well, I don't want to put on the spotlight, but I think there was
an option between uh, trees and shrubs. So, I I'm willing to put trees, but there will be a cap on the height uh, to around 30 ft uh, just to make sure that it doesn't cross too much into my lawn
>> if it falls. >> Yeah. No, I think on our on our species list, there's a variety of trees um that can be chosen. Um but I I do think we need some some trees here for this replacement effort.
>> How many do you think it's a good idea? >> So, right now we have eight replacement shrubs. Um, >> I can put a I can print a put a tree in the center of the four
>> through the chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> Uh, again, John, the the discussion we had a couple months ago, you agreed to eight trees. I went back and watched the video just to make sure my memory was correct. I don't know why we're not
talking about eight trees anymore when that was what you agreed to before. Okay. I I thought tree was a general term for anything a plant. So, but I I don't see it that way. I don't I
don't think zebra grass equals a tree. I don't think a rose bush equals a tree. I don't think Pakisandra is a tree. A tree is a tree with a trunk and branches. >> Yeah. Frankly, I think there's no space to plant two to one tree there. is very
clustered there like from this tree to this tree is probably 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft. So >> yeah, I mean I I personally um my thought would be four trees, four shrubs
um might be appropriate um for the area. I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts on that. I I for one I think I could be amendable to that assuming of course that Judy is involved in helping to make sure that
the appropriate trees and the spacing is appropriate. Are we looking for a second plan Melissa do you think? Or >> I think so. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So we don't put that on Judy. >> Yeah. Yeah. just updating the plant the plant
list and >> all would be acceptable. I would replace the odd numbers with the the trees. Yeah. >> Okay. And in you know in the field um the placement of the trees can Yeah. Because I know there's some stumps there and stuff so if you need to move
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. There's a lot of rock there. That was also one of the reasons >> that we thought it's not stable. Right. Some of them half of them were on top of a rock. One of the trees. Yeah. So, just yeah, in the vicinity of that box. Um, >> okay.
>> Wherever they fit. >> Can I put them here? >> This area. >> Um, what? I I can't see where you're pointing to. >> Uh, the cursor if you look diagonally five, there is a corner there, right in
the square and a rectangle I draw. Go right diagonally. Then maybe around that area. >> I'm sharing my screen. So they can't see your cursor. >> Okay. Please. >> If you could um direct me, I'm happy to circle where you're talking about.
>> Uh you see number five uh at the rightmost corner of the rectangle. >> Just outside that one. Yeah, correct. Yeah, around that area. >> There's some space there. There are no trees which probably didn't exist before. I can fill them up here.
I I think that's fine as long as is in the vicinity um where the trees will survive best. Um >> okay, I can put them here. It will be about uh 10 ft from here. >> Within the 10 ft from this edge from the
furthest tree or can I put Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. Yeah. If you can um just update that um can work with Judy on the tree species. Um, okay. That would be great. >> Okay. Four trees in that region. Okay. I
I will keep the shrubs as it is, but plant the trees on the edges. There are more more less rocks. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Um, we're going to jump up to
our new hearings now. So, um, Ted, would you like to read or would you mind reading, um, our first new hearing, which is Hopington Trails Committee? >> Not at all. The Hopkinson Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, August 19th, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by the Hopkin Trails Committee to construct a stone dust shared use path with a stream crossing and associated
site work. Location portion of zero Whan Road, Assessor's Map R23, block 135, lot zero, and portion of 90 Hayden Row, Assessor's Map, U21, Block 3, lot zero.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um, all right. I believe we have, is this Mr. Dachi here for this >> presentation? Yep. Uh Charles Dashi, 25 Sanctuary Lane, um assisting the uh town
trails committee uh uh with uh this project. Um the um okay to provide and uh I guess this is probably clear enough. There's also a
slightly larger scale locus map uh in the NOI, but great. That's okay. Um uh what we're proposing is uh uh 1,400
feet uh uh of a 1600 foot uh trail. This section is already done out and is outside the wetland buffer. Um uh that will connect the loop road to
the new Chamberlain uh culde-sac. Um, this concept uh uh came up during the original subdivision review uh uh as a way to uh provide access particularly
for school kids uh to the school campus area. Uh and it's finally uh we hope coming to fruition. This will be a stone dust path similar to the center trail or maybe a better analogy is the Hughes uh
trail. U the center trail followed an old rail mostly followed an old road bed. Uh the Hughes trail uh follows as this does. uh an old uh Woods Road cart path.
Uh and uh we'll be uh just using that area for construction. Um at this point there is a stream crossing. Uh uh there are uh and again
we have photos of them if uh but uh there's uh an old washed out uh twin culvert there uh uh right now uh the stream is crossed by stepping stones u
and I guess one of the stepping stones is in fact one of the old culverts uh but um that will be replaced by a There we go. Um
um you can see the the old road approaching and in the foreground uh what's left of the road uh uh on the near this is uh this is looking uh north. Um
the bank uh is 11 ft wide. Uh bankto bank uh the width when you include the wetland
uh and this wetland is was not really defined by vegetation because of the old road fill but essentially by the hydraology. We took the area that was uh effectively a foot uh above
uh the bank fold or seasonal high water elevation. Um uh because the vegetation is minimal um so this is a conservative estimate of quote wetland and not functionally
vegetatively wetland. Um but on the uh recommendation of um Kim uh the previous uh agent, she um we are proposing to span the entire wetland
uh and stream complex uh with a uh uh timber bridge uh 22 foot span in total. Uh and there are separate uh designs for the bridge uh within our
submitt. Uh yes, if we want to review the route. Um okay, this shows the the green line being the wetland, the orange being the bank. um
and a uh 8 foot wide bridge uh uh spanning uh both the um I can if it would be helpful trace the entire route um with if Judy
can uh uh run the screen uh starting at either end. Okay. From the loop road, uh the green
is uh the wetland boundary. The yellow is a is the 100 foot buffer. Um, as your reviewer from uh Lucas pointed out, there is a uh marsh covered area here
which is a storm water management basin. Uh the outlet of which uh is here. Um the uh
there is a fence uh that runs uh down the uh uh high part of the uh embankment for the basin. Uh our uh proposed path fits u between the
fence and the wetland. This is the closest point. It's a pinch point. uh but we avoid uh altering the wetland. Uh there will be a sediment barrier uh between the wetland and
uh the uh wetland. Uh uh on we did not pro propose one on this side because actually the grade is uh uh toward the wetland to the east. But um
um it could be provided along the base of the fence if necessary. Um okay, no, Kim, if you want to continue. Um I'm sorry that was a little too far. Back to the previous.
Okay. Uh there. All right. Um in this area uh we come from the uh side of the detention basin embankment into the edge of field 11 where there's an
existing um uh maintenance road. Um we will be elevating this area slightly with a stone uh under drain uh because the uh
there is a drainage swale uh that runs through here and we're providing an area for the flow from that to seep through. Um and um
I have to apologize and I would like to take about a twominut re reset. No. Okay, it's back. I No, it's not. Um hang on. We have a
technical issue. There's a problem of being a bionic man with a uh u coclear implant. Okay, I guess the battery's okay. All right. Um the um so that's u uh one uh
particular feature otherwise um the trail uh and there's a cross-section on the plan will consist of um you know 6 in of a u gravel or
reprocessed pavement and and then 2 in of stone dust uh compact acted stone dust u in any in all cases it will be outs sloped uh to prevent uh accumulation of runoff to the point
where it would cause erosion of the stone dust surface. Um okay. Uh continue on I guess. Oh um while we were on that sheet um uh I should say the um uh
material stockpile areas uh would be in this se area of field 11 uh uh on this side of the stream. There'll be another stockpile area on the opposite side of the stream. Um, as uh
Lucas's review noted, um, we did not designate that. We will do so on the final plan. Okay, continue, please, Judy. Thank you. Um again, now we go into the woods um on
the uh old uh pathway. Uh follow that around. Um we have checked uh the pathway for width all the way. Uh there is at least 12 ft between
any uh significant trees. Uh there are some you know shrubs and sprouts um that will be cut u in the course of the project. Um we don't actually have to
uproot uh those. They'll be cut flush um and then uh covered with the geotechnical fabric which will go under the uh uh base course um similar to what was done on the
Hughes Trail. Uh then we get to the crossing. Uh the in all probability the bridge will be constructed uh after both uh approach uh ways are
constructed just to simplify access. Um depending on our contracting schedule, uh they may end up doing the bridge uh uh beforehand uh or uh con uh
contemporaneously but uh the uh in all likelihood it will be separate contractors. Um uh from the bridge we continue on again u the already
cleared path. Uh and then on the next sheet Judy uh we u we bend away to maximize the distance from the neighbors here. Um and
then um loop around uh this section uh up to a little short of the 100 foot buffer. Um was already stone dust. Um at that uh this was when the subdivision was being built. Um we wanted to make
sure that people were aware that there was a trail going there. Uh so it was done up front. Um the commission has already uh approved and u the trail is a trail is roughed in
now that was done under an exemption um that uh continues to the south uh uh from the bend uh that uh uh just close to the buffer line here.
Um, so that is u a shorthand description of what we have planned. Uh, I'd be glad to address uh questions and uh the different
concerns that have come up on review. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll turn it over to Joe Orzel now. Um, I know you had a bunch of comments in your
letter. If you can go through those, that would be appreciated, Joe. >> Sure. I think I'll kind of try and summarize some of the main questions. Um, and I think, uh, primarily we were, uh,
looking for some information on how the delineation was done, um, when it was done. um uh because a lot of the flags were either missing or stubs that were unbeatable. Um so I wanted to be sure
that the delineation depicted on the plans um was in fact accurate [Music] and particularly the area of stream crossing just to be sure that there would be
no impacts to any of the resource areas. And then I think uh the other main theme was whether there would in fact any impact to the resource area at the stream crossing. Um
I I know there's a profile uh provided in the um submitt. I I think it may be somewhat of a generic profile. I don't see that there's any uh natural elevations tied to that. Um, so with
respect to um, you know, the location of the flags or or the stream bottom, I know there's some pretty good size rocks in that stream. Uh, I guess the question would be, is there going to be enough clearance on the bridge? I think
not quite sure how high it is looking at the at that cross-section, but that would be good to know. Um and just uh uh again u assurance that u no impact will occur to any of the rece areas. I know
there's an old culvert also lying in the stream. Um I don't know uh I assume that's being removed. I don't know if that will require any type of excavation work or if it's just lying on top of the existing rocks. I myself was not uh in
the site. someone else from our office did the did the uh the inspection so I haven't actually viewed that but it might be obvious I don't know the answer to that so I think those are the the main themes of the questions that we had there were
there were quite a few but I think that they center on those those topics >> okay >> okay um the chair would you like me to address >> yes if you uh no I I I appreciate uh Mr.
Rosel's uh uh concern about the um the delineation um uh the u in a way I would have preferred a totally surveyed uh delineation but um in the interest of
cost for the uh we uh had our our consultant did a GPS location of the wetland and flags. Um
the um however um and this was done in November of 22 as there is a date indicated in a note on the plan. Um the u so some of them are pretty tired or
gone. Um but uh I would note that um more precise location of the flags would not change the design. We are following the route that's there
and um the uh we it is it is clear um from what's in the field uh that the uh uh grading is not encroaching on the IND on the flags at the closest points. Uh
Peter Lgoy and I double check that. Um so uh uh we would hope that the commission uh will accept uh this somewhat more generalized u u u flagging locations.
Uh as I say, uh a surveyed location would not change the location because if to try and move the uh work some arbitrary distance away from
further away from the wetlands would result in unnecessary clearing. Um uh and we do have uh provided sediment controls to make sure that uh the wetlands are protected during the construction.
Um, regarding this the crossing itself specifically there recognizing that uh we needed accurate measurements uh we did uh a uh tape triangulation
u uh and adjusted the uh plotted flag locations based on that. So we are u accurate in terms of relative distances
and measurements um there to calculate uh the necessary length of the bridge and uh the stream crossing to make sure we comply with stream crossing standards.
Uh in terms of the elevation that uh Joe mentioned, um those elevations are uh based on uh uh a a survey right at that point. uh with
uh a an accurate hand level uh and are probably are within a certainly a tenth in in terms of proper u uh relative elevation. Again, to be sure that uh the
bridge design would uh you know was uh would clear the full wetlands which also means clearing the stones that are uh within the channel. Um >> Dr. the chair. >> Yes.
>> And just if if you could um comment on the existing cover and and what that will take to there. It's small enough that I think uh uh you know two uh two persons could uh
will easily carry it away. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um so so that being said, if there was specific measurements and details, those
details taken in the in the field. Um, but there were no Joe, you said there's no wetland flags around that crossing area. >> There are the flags there, I think, are pretty much still in place. Um,
>> okay. Um, is it a matter of adding the additional detail to the crosssection for the bridge to make sure we're not we you know it is it is being spanned
and we can show that on the on the cross-section. Well, it the cross the the the bridge design does show uh the edge of wetland the um the bankfull elevation
um and um and there's a scale. [Music] So that wetland edge is um consistent with the location shown on
the plan view is what you're saying. >> Yes. >> Scaled up >> at the the plan view um at the crossing was adjusted to reflect the uh tape measured u and triangulated
locations of the flags. So those the flags uh at the cross uh section uh at the at the crossing were uh located uh accurately relatively. Yes, we do not
have them tied into a specific datim. No, >> but the relative uh uh vertical and horizontal are uh uh are
accurate within I would say within a tenth. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I I'll be curious to uh take a walk out there and see see this site
this crossing. Um, >> Judy, do you have any >> I was going to say if you would like u uh uh let me know and I'd be glad to join you on a walk. >> Okay. Maybe we can set up a sidewalk.
>> Yeah, great. Um yeah, I said Joe, um my understanding in talking to Devin was that the flags at that crossing were either missing or or not readable or maybe some of them were missing. Like I said, I was not at
the site, but that was my understanding. So, um there may there may be some of those flags that are missing at that location. >> Okay. I can try to uh refresh them in terms of the numbering based on the uh
uh the adjacent flags. Um and uh the uh if if there are missing flags, replace them based on the tape ties. >> Okay.
Um, Jody or Judy, I wanted to give you a chance to talk if there's anything you have to add to to Joe and Chuck's description here. >> Uh, sure. Through the chair. Um, we did late this afternoon get comments from D, but not a D number.
>> Okay. >> I'm not sure if one will be issued soon, but they were asking for um what elements of the project make it exempt from uh meeting storm water standards. So, I'm just asking the applicant to provide justification for
why they're um exempt from that. >> Uh and then I would just mention um >> Chuck, did you say you were pulling stones out of the stream bed to put the crossing in? >> No, not out of the No, no, there will be
um uh excavation um outside the wetland edge for the footings for the bridge. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just confirming that um the applicant is reporting uh this is a buffer zone only project. So you know
just confirming there aren't any direct resource area impacts or you know if there are that be documented. >> Uh again we uh uh on Kim's recommendation we are spanning the entire uh wetland and bank
system. So uh so there would be no impacts. Um uh uh we will not have to cross the stream with equipment. Um the we have access equipment access from
each side. Um the um the stringers for the bridge um u can be u you know uh reached over the stream. uh uh just by
uh with equipment a good size backhoe uh will easily be able to swing those over the stream and then we'll attach them on each side. Um so no uh equipment work in the stream is
necessary um and no alteration of the stream bottom uh or banks. Um, regarding the uh states comments uh uh in terms of storm water uh exemption,
um I uh we felt we were exempt based on the history of the Hughes Trail which was uh very similar u where they were considered exempt uh
uh based on no imperous surface. Um the uh there's also no point dis uh point source discharge. Um and uh
actually I had experience a few years ago on a project in uh western Mass where the uh again it was a uh at a conservation area a uh uh
an access road replacing a culvert in this case of and a gravel access road and parking and again no storm water uh management was considered to apply. But
um I will uh contact uh uh the regional office and um if they feel that uh we do need to submit the forms, so be it.
Um, can you just talk for a minute about what the width of the existing path is versus your proposed width and how you >> It varies I would say probably from uh, you know, six to eight feet. Um, the
cleared that is of you know the obvious old tread. Um the uh the cleared width um is uh and we walked it with a with a 12 foot long pole
figuring that's the easiest way to make sure we've got the space. And u u so we have a cleared width uh of uh uh uh approximately 12 feet. Um
the other than a as I had I think indicated some um shrubs and saplings. >> Okay. >> Melissa, may I just ask for clarification on that? >> Y >> please make sure I understood. Chuck, so
at present the the path is did you say 6 to 8 feet wide along the length? berries >> in terms of the um of the old the tread of the path. Yes. >> Okay. And the proposal is to widen it to
a uniform 12 ft. >> No, we're 12t 12t working room. Um uh the um uh 10 ft would be the ideal surface. Um um we look to 8 feet as a
preferred minimum. Okay, thanks for the clarification. >> Yep. >> Um, and I think my >> uh Yeah, was that Matt? >> Yeah, just just one quick thing. It
sounded like DP was asking about storm water management standards. Are there any impervious services proposed as part of this trail? >> No. >> Okay, that that was that was my read on it, too. >> Beg your pardon? And that was my read on it too, looking
at the plans. It looked like it was gravel with a timber crossing over the stream. So, um I'm curious, Judy, if they were if D provided any more clarity on why they were asking that question. >> Um
>> probably because I did not uh provide uh maybe an explicit enough rationale. Um, >> yeah, that is why you just didn't give them a reason. >> It should be an easy fix.
>> Um, up on the the first sheet, the beginning, um, where we go by the detention basin, um, I'm just curious why you're not using the existing path, um, that goes down to the field and
creating a new one. um >> it just seems like extra work. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think part of that is um so is again the uh school department gates that entrance
and uh you know to prevent vehicle traffic. So that you know that's a part of a practical problem. The other is that um you know, we're looking toward
the future when if budget allows at some point in the future. Um, this trail would connect u along the edge of the U loop road or even at the toe of
the slope um uh to the center trail so that there will be a contiguous continuous uh uh stone dust trail. the
that's why uh we proposed taking this route which uh is available and frankly the uh ideally um there shouldn't be woody vegetation on the Phil embankment
for a detention basin anyway. >> Okay. Um, does anyone else on the commission have any questions or thoughts? >> Um, I do have questions for Joe. And Joe, I know that you were not the one who walked the the field, so I don't know if you have an answer. When um
the Lucas rep looked at it and could not find markings, was that along the length of the trail or was that only looking at the water crossing? In in how many places are we unsure whether the edge of the the wetlands that we're seeing on this map are
accurate? >> Yeah, my understanding is that it was uh along the length of the trail. Um >> Okay. >> And not just at the crossing. Is it possible that some of the current trail has actually
inside the wetland border? >> Uh again, not having walked it, um I can't say that definitely, but um if the flags were not present, uh then I guess it's possible. >> So then that was my fear. Um,
>> Chuck, I I love the work that you guys do and I appreciate that you're working within a budget. Um, I've not been to the Hughes property. Um, I did walk this one just recently, not even knowing it was coming up. So, I'm a little familiar with this. I was on the trail five days
ago, four days ago. I am familiar with the cross country trail that is over by the softball field that goes down to the center trail. Would this be similar to that model? Um I would like to say
no because um in that case um the grading and drainage and cross sloping
uh was not thoroughly considered. You're anticipating my next comment, I think. Um, would it be similar in material and width? Uh, in material uh the width may be a little
narrower. There's some there's some places certainly on the on that the so-called cross country trail that it spreads out uh more than we probably will. >> Yeah. But um so yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So that's you you've I think seen my worry. Um I don't think this has the the same steepness that the other one does, but we had real drainage problems with that one and material was carried well off the trail. And if this one is ab
budding or even already in the wetlands, it it would really concern me if we are putting down new material that can be, you know, carried further into the wetlands if it isn't in the wetlands already when we're putting it down.
What? Why? Again, you guys do a great job. I'm not second guessing you. Um I walked the trail. It seems pretty well marked. Why put down the stone dust? why not leave it as is and just go for the bridge crossing which makes all the sense in the world to me.
>> Um the um again going back to the original u intent uh which was uh to provide uh good access uh for uh the kids particularly
kids from the subdivision um to the uh school campus. Um the current trail is not what you would call easily bikable. Um and the uh so the hope is uh that
with a stone dust surface uh then uh it could get kids you know off uh Chamberlain or West Main whichever way they go. Um that was part of the
intent. the uh in discussion with the planning board uh at the time of the review. Uh that connection over to the center trail was one of the uh uh the
points uh that that the planning board was looking for. And uh provided uh we worked with the uh developer to provide uh the easement that's out at what is
now the uh west end of of this trail. uh between two lots that even wasn't there on the initial plan so that this uh could be effectuated. >> So the big difference is bicycle versus
walking. I love kids going to school, not in a car. I I think that's great. >> Yeah. >> Um but it's for bicycle use that you're hoping to smooth things up. >> Well, I think that's the key thing. We uh and we we do find
uh that uh there are many folks who do prefer the stone dust to even an an even earth surface trail. Um but uh they uh um a trail in the woods they worry about
ticks etc. But uh >> okay ticks can jump off this trail. Uh but uh but Ted, if I may address your concern about maybe were uh the act existing trail is actually you know into
the wetland. Um u the I would say definitively no having uh mapped many miles of wetland myself. uh the one
place that it it is, you know, there's two spots where it's close and no, there's uh uh we've checked those to make sure very clearly there's room to build outside it. Um I've taken tape
measurements between um the wetland flags and on this particular plan you can see where the uh flags uh are closest to the fence. Um and and the
Right. Exactly. Yeah. I uh tape those uh and uh the I think the closest point was 19 ft. Um so we have working room there.
I I wonder I don't know how much anything costs. Um, I wonder if we could ask Lucas to at least look at the sections where the proposed path or the current path comes closest to the wetland lines. At least
maybe not flag the whole thing, but the possible overlap areas. Maybe that can make me feel a little bit better. Mhm. >> Um I would be glad to try and one try and
find the old flags and refresh them to minimize the cost. Uh and um and then uh uh so that uh Lucas doesn't have to spend uh time um doing extra
hunting. um the uh and then u you know they can double check them. >> Okay. Um and then really quick I think this is an easy one. Um when we had the the schematic of the bridge, there is a
line that shows the the essentially the bottom of the stream bed. Um I I assume while there are no rocks drawn in that schematic that you've taken into account the height of the rocks sitting on top of the stream bed and that that's going to clear those rocks.
>> Um the the stream bed reflects the u the actual the bottom um u the uh >> the stepping stones the height of the stepping stones are they taken into account right now?
>> They are. They um that was not surveyed. Uh they are generally below um the edge of the the wetland which is uh again a foot
higher than the top bank. >> Okay. Well, those are my thoughts now. Thanks. >> Okay. And the bridge will be built in place. I assume that's something that they'll be bringing materials and building
over. >> Yes. Um in all probability it's a the nail laminated uh stringers. Um those will be um uh assembled um you know in
the upland and then uh um you know swung over the uh uh the crossing u and then uh set uh
on the footings. Um the uh uh uh we you know we we're not trying to build the bridge uh separately and then uh uh and then install it um or uh trying to do
the nail lamination uh with the uh with the stringers already across the uh uh the stream. [Music] >> Okay. >> All right. Does anyone else have any questions? >> I guess my apologies. I think it's
actually screwed elimination rather than Neil, but in any case. >> Okay. Um, >> or the chair. >> Yes, Heather. >> I I wonder how many years the Stone Dust
Trail lasts before it needs to be maintained again. I'm just I just don't know that information. So, that was just a question that came up for me. Um the um well at this point the center trail has been there longer than I've
been in town. So um uh the uh and you know some minor uh there's a a couple of chipmunk calls or something that have developed that uh that need to be filled now and then. Um
the uh um the Hughes Trail uh again the longest track record we have on the Stone Dust is the center trail. Um
the uh the maintenance issue we find on on the Stone Dust trails is uh just vegetation encroachment in some areas. So we have to keep uh uh keep uh mowing that. But um
>> but it's a uh for many uses a much friendlier surface than pavement and it certainly is uh uh you know uh reduces the runoff compared to pavement.
>> Yeah, this is uh Peter Lgoy uh trail committee chair. um 21 Hayden Rose Street. Uh we put the um Tener Trail in back in 2012, so it's been there for 13 years and you know, it's getting a little rough around
the edges, but they tend to last um you know, pretty well. Um at the same time we were putting our trail in, um Polliston was putting theirs in, so it's been around roughly the same time. uh they just did a patch on one small area.
Um but yeah, in general you're looking at, you know, at least that 15 20 year time frame. Um certainly certainly roots start popping up through uh asphalt trails quicker
than that, >> through the chair. And I I should just clarify that I was not in any way proposing an asphalt trail, but I was just curious. >> I thought not. >> I I felt I needed to say it came up twice.
>> Yeah. No, I I really appreciate Chuck's presentation and covering all this stuff and all the work he's done on it. Um, the only other point that I had to make from listening was with regard to the pipe that's in the stream that that can
be hauled out by hand. What we actually end up doing with that, um, it'll whatever it is, it'll be in an upland area whether we leave it, which would not be ideal, but I'm pretty sure that's transite pipe. So, we'll need to look at costs to get rid of it. um you know
>> but end of the day it'll get into the upland at at the very least and and hopefully we just disposed of it but that may take further discussion through the town and with DPW >> Thank you Peter. >> Yep.
>> Any other uh questions, comments? Anyone from the public have any questions on this one? Comments? I don't see any. Okay. So, Mr. if you could I think the I think our action items are refreshing those flags
um so Lucas can take a look and we can feel confident that we're outside um the wetlands that you know for planning and construction so those are >> yeah I'll I'll just focus on the the points of closest approach if I may y
>> um right and I will also u contact uh DP >> D Yep and uh you know clarify uh that uh we have you know no impervious service uh and no point service discharge. So
>> yep. Okay, I think that sounds good. Did I miss anything, Judy, that we need to follow? >> Uh nope, I don't think so. >> Okay. Um our next meeting is September 9th.
Would you like to continue to the ninth, Mr. Dachi? >> Uh, Peter, yes, I assume. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes, that sounds great. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this to September 9th?
>> I'm happy to make that motion. >> Then second. All right. All in favor? Um, Ed >> I. Heather I Ted >> Ted is an I.
>> Matt >> I >> Jim >> I >> and I am also an I. All right. Thank you Mr. Di. And we'll uh see you at the next meeting. >> Thank you. Thank you Chuck.
>> Thank you. >> Take care. >> Thank you Peter. >> All right. Next up, we have for Duffield Road. Ted, if you could read this into the record. >> Coming at you. The Hopkinson Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19th,
2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in the request for determination of applicability filed by Paul and Jennifer Russo to construct an addition and deck with associated
site work. location for Duffield Road, Assessor's Map, L35, Block 163, lot zero. >> Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Um, do we have the applicant or
representative to present this plan? >> Yes. Hi. Um, it's Susan MacArthur from MacArthur Environmental Consulting and I believe, um, Paul and Jennifer Russo are also on the call. Yes, we are. Thank you, Susan.
>> You're welcome. Um, so as Ted had said, we have filed this request for determination of applicability to construct a a mudroom and a deck um on the side and back of the house uh respectively. Um the property is
approximately uh 0.2 acres and it contains a single family home uh raised back deck with stairs leading down to the um the grassy area in the backyard. Um a concrete walkway, front stairs,
landscaped lawn, fenced in backyard, and a paved driveway. Um and the site is fairly level. Uh there is a stream channel um off property be at the back of the back of the property and um the
there is an associated bordering vegetated wetland and the BBW line was delineated on June 13th um with consecutively numbered survey flagging and the channel isn't shown on the plan.
I didn't flag it because it's uh the BBW is closer to the house and the proposed work than the channel was. Um but the uh proposed project consists of constructing a 144 square foot mudroom
and um a back deck. Uh the mudroom will have stairs leading down to the driveway. Um the back deck will have uh stairs leading down to the um land the lawn, the back lawn. And so the new deck
um will also have approximately six um uh footings associated with it. And the stairs will um touch down on a small concrete pad. Um and so all of the work um is considered
well the deck is considered minor in nature according to the Wellness Protection Act. Um the work uh will all take place within disturbed previously disturbed areas of either covered either in lawn or um concrete or existing deck
or um pavement. And uh prior to any work starting um we are proposing an erosion and sediment control barrier around the limits of work. As I said the the lawn um the site
is pretty level so there's really no chance of anything even if the barrier weren't there I don't think it would reach the wetland in the back but uh we're proposing one anyway. And um as far as regulatory discussion um so
according to 310 CMR 10.022B um certain minor activities are exempt from regulation and in this case um it is the conversion of lawn to uses accessory to residential structures such
as decks, sheds, patios, pools and um some of and this includes the the deck in the back there. Um and also the Hopkin wetlands protection regulations um 206-4H7
calls out certain minor project exemptions which match the mountains protection act as I just cited. Um so I I think that's it if anybody has any questions. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Thank you Susan. Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Um Judy, do you have anything you want to add to that presentation or point out on this project? >> Uh sure. Through the chair. Um most of
my comments have been addressed with Sue already. Um I think one outstanding item was there were references to both straw and compost waddles. Um so just looking for clarification on which I don't know if the commission has a preference. Um, but like Sue said, it's a pretty level
site, so I think either would be fine. Um, and then I think Joe and I had both um asked why the 25 ft buffer was shown on the plan. I think it was corrected in the narrative. Um, but the no disturb zone should be 50 ft in this area unless
um we have documentation otherwise. So, I think it's just it's still on the plan, but it's been corrected in the narrative that the no disturb zone is 50 ft. >> Okay. I think that's it for me. >> Okay.
Um Joe, did you have anything to add? >> Uh just a few comments in general. Um we did look at the delineation and u concurred with that. Um I know we noted in the memo that there is an intermittent stream um nearby mapped
intermittent stream that does appear to be greater than 200 ft away and stream stats show it to be less than a half a square mile drain basin. So confirmed as an amendment.
Uh we had made a comment that uh signatures were missing on the form just uh that should be signed just for the record. >> May I address that? >> Sure.
>> Okay. Um the hard copy had the signatures. For some reason, the electronic didn't um have it. But Judy, I had uh this afternoon or this evening, I did send them over to you that signature page with both the applicant
and my signature on. So, >> yeah, we do have that. >> Sorry about that. >> And u and just a comment on the flood zone. While it's not the study is not within the uh inter flood zone, it
references the the old um FEMA map. Um just recommend that u the correct references put on the plan. Let's see. If any stockpiling um should be located away from the buffer zone if it's
necessary and recommended u the applicant just discuss uh how these any disturbance areas will be stabilized after work is done. uh if there's any uh proposed downspots
um from the mud room. Um and if so u those are being handled and nothing indicated on the plan regarding PIV markers measure may want to distance. >> Yep. >> I think that covers it.
>> Okay. Thanks Joe. Um, so Susie, can can you talk for a minute about the um are there down spouts for the mudroom? >> I don't believe there are, but um maybe Paul or Jennifer could address that
because I I wasn't told that there were, but >> uh yeah, thank you, Susan. So, um, honestly, we're at the the beginning phases of the project. So, um, I'm unsure if there will be downspouts or gutters installed in the additional, uh,
roof or mud room. However, I guess my comment is, uh, to everyone here on the call, if that's something that would help with the, uh, additional square footage of the roof and the drainage and the runoff, I mean, we can absolutely, I guess, add that to the design because
we're in the we're in the pretty beginning stages here. Um yeah, I think I think the idea would just be that um the pitch or the the runoff from from the addition would go to somewhere that it can infiltrate into the ground
rather than, you know, over the paved driveway or I >> mean, I can't speak to concrete whether it's happening or not because I I don't have the plans in front of me, but my >> I guess opinion would be personal opinion um with the additional overhang
and the roof I don't see why they would not have some sort of gutter or down spout >> um so the water didn't just run down onto the driveway I'm assuming there'd be gutters and a down spout directing the water towards the street and towards the actual sewer and the drainage
>> through the chair >> yes Judy >> um I think we have a similar condition for this for orders of conditions Um, if you'd like, we can include that in any determination issued. >> Okay. Yeah, that that would be great. That's
in reference to the the runoff from the roof. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, what else did we have here? Disturbed areas. Um, is that Can you talk about that for a
minute? the I guess that's the workaround area around the deck and within the erosion control, >> right? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um there won't be too much in the way of disturbed areas. Um any stockpiling they can put on like the
edge of the driveway um and you know contain it. Put a um you know compost filter tube or something around it just to contain it until they haul it away. Um and
uh I mean the the deck itself won't be generating a lot of um you know a lot of sediment or >> a lot of there's not a lot of digging I should say associated with that. Um the mudroom might have I'm guessing it would
have like a type of foundation not not a full maybe just um like a frost wall. Is that right Paul? Yeah, that's correct. I'm actually trying to pull up the plans right now so I can let everybody know how many
footings were planning to be installed. >> If you just bear with me for 30 seconds here. So, looks like closer to the driveway where the overhang and the additional mudroom were going to be
installed, um there was about three footings and then in the backyard there was I believe another three to support the deck and then at Susan had mentioned there was a concrete pad for the landing for the stairs
um that gets you into the actual grassyard. >> Okay. Um >> so any disturbed area just to answer your question um you know if there is anything left at the end that's
disturbed um like dug up grass or anything they'll just lom and seed it to >> y at least stabilize. >> Okay. And then in regards to PIBs we do like to um get those on properties when
we can when they do come in front of us. The PIB is just that marker um to make people aware of the buffer and the wetland resource areas um you know beyond kind of that lawn area.
Is that something that you would be amendable to put up either on trees or on the fence there in the back? >> Absolutely. I think I had previously had a conversation with uh Judy in the really preliminary stages of what we
were trying to do here and that was brought up in discussion. So I believe you're referring to and I'm sorry for asking this question. There are small little markers that go in the wetland zone just to say do not disturb and to kind of delineate where that stream is placed. >> Right. Yeah. Just kind of the limit of
activity on the site. Um >> yeah, absolutely. >> Yep. Okay. Um, so this looks pretty straightforward to me and that it would qualify for um a negative, but I'd like to hear from anyone else on
the commission if you have questions, comments, or thoughts on this request? No. Um, anyone from the public have any questions, thoughts? No. Okay. So, with that being said, um
can I get a motion for a negative determination of applicability um and issuing those conditions that we've talked about um which includes the
condition about the uh stockpile areas being um outside of the buffer zone or surrounded by erosion controls. Um Judy, we talked about what was the one we you mentioned the roof the um
roof runoff standard condition and updating that FEMA reference. I think Joe had commented on his letter >> and signatures. I assume
>> signatures were sent over. Oh, >> I think uh I think signatures on the on the uh determination by Judy and Anna so they can do that on our behalf >> since we're remote. >> So moved
>> through the chair. >> Yes. >> Are we about to say the same thing? >> Go ahead. You can do it >> with um the fence with markers serving as the PIB um in the field and marked on a site plan.
>> Yes. Thank you. >> I'll try again. So move. >> Can I get a second? >> I'll second. I second. >> Right. Thanks, Jim. Um, all in favor? Ed >> I. >> Heather.
>> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> And I am also an I. All right. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you and good luck with the
projects. >> Okay. Good night. >> Thank you every Thank you everyone. >> All right. Next up we have 27 Jamie Lane. This is a continuation for an addition. Um
do we have someone on the call for this project tonight? Yes. Uh, yep. Uh, DJ Delino. I'm the, uh, homeowner. >> Okay, great. Um, do you just want to give an update on on where you're at here with this
plan? >> Yeah, I believe uh, Joe had submitted um, the request from last week. I wasn't able to be on last week. Uh, just with regard to the one question that was had. Uh, I did see the note from, I believe
it was Joe, uh, from earlier this evening, uh, just with regards to removing some of the brush and leaves in the back. Um, that that's not a problem at all. I had kind of planned on going forward with that anyways, just to, uh, clear it out and make sure there's no
bees or anything in there as well. So, >> so I believe we um, received the narrative right up. Is that correct, Joe? Does that look good to you? >> Yeah, I had one question on on the
narrative. Um, it states in there that um the proposed entry level results in an approximately 30 square foot increase in impervious surface area. Um and the alteration will allow for
infiltration of storm water runoff and encourage groundwater recharge at that location to the sand and gravel substrate representing an improvement over the existing conditions. So it wasn't clear to me what the existing conditions are
um that would be improved by that. Um just wanted some clarification on how the increase in impervious area will um uh be mitigated to result of the improvement in conditions at that location.
That was that was my only question. Everything else had been addressed. >> Yeah, I'll I'll take a I'll take a guess at that. Um I talked with uh with Mr. Marquat a little bit before he left for vacation.
Um the the previous uh steps that were there uh were 30 square feet. I believe it was 6 feet by 5t. Um and those were kind of cracked and uh decayed and coming off the house. Um what uh is
proposed to be there is I believe 10 by six feet which is 60 square feet. So I think that accounts for that additional 30 square feet Joe mentioned. Um and and my my best guess on that is just that the previous structure was kind of uh
decayed and cracked and you know eroded from the home and the new one would obviously be uh you know attached or um be in much better condition than what was there >> uh to the chair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yeah. Um so and the performance standard
is is for improvement in the conditions to the you know regarding the the riverfront area um or buffer zone and that doesn't necessarily um you know
apply to to any of the performance standards. However, um I think if uh the commission considers a removal of that that leaf bile um which is also
in the road area um as as part of the project condition um you know that would certainly be an improvement the existing conditions within the river area that can be considered. >> Okay.
um for that to be considered. Can that be conditioned or does that need to get into this write up? >> Do you think? >> Um I would think it could be condition but certainly um
people may have different >> Judy. Do you have any thoughts on that? >> Uh, no. I don't see why not. Um, for it to be included in a condition. >> Okay. >> With documentation, we can word it, you know, in the finding of fact that the
commission views removal of the debris as improvement over, you know, existing degraded conditions. >> Okay. >> All right. I think I'm satisfied with that. Does anyone else have any thoughts
on this? No. Anyone from the audience? Oh. >> All right. Um, that being said, can I get a motion >> through the chair? Sorry. >> Yep. Um, I think we had brought this up earlier, but um, whether the commission
wanted to consider um, DP's comment regarding allowing or restricting further alteration within Riverfront. Oh, right. You're right. They did have a comment on that. Yep. I forgot about that one. Um, so D because we're in Riverfront.
Yeah, I don't know if everyone caught that. um didn't is it suggested I guess Zor suggested a condition that there be no further riverfront modification on this site
um going forward. So the question is do we want to include that condition or or not? >> Sorry, let me correct myself. Um, it's a common comment we get from D, but it looks like they actually did not submit that comment for this particular uh project.
>> Okay. >> I think um my opinion would be to leave that one out. Um, yeah, just I mean to leave it a little
open for the the homeowner going forward that addition comes to fruition in the future. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, all right. We'll try again. Can I
get a motion um to approve with signatures by Judy or Anna? I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> I'll second. I'll second. >> All right. Thanks, Jim. All in favor? Ed
>> I. >> Heather. >> I. Jim. >> Hi, >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I.
All right. So, thanks for coming in. You're all set. >> Thank you guys very much. Have a great rest of the night. Appreciate it. >> Yep. You too. >> All right. Next up, we have 109 Winter Street. This is the amended notice of
intent continuation. Um, so do we have just Joe Maron on the line for this? believe we have the homeowner. Joe's actually on vacation this week. >> Oh, okay. >> Hi. Uh, my name is Stephen Drew. My parents are the homeowners. I believe
they're also on the call. >> Yeah, Joe's on vacation. And, uh, from what I understand, the only thing that's left is the invasive species plan. And, uh, I think that is submitted and hopefully that's, uh, that's all set.
And, uh, yeah. Okay, thank you. >> Yep. You bet. >> So, Joe Orzelle, I don't know. Did you have a chance to look at that yet? The invasive species?
>> I did. Um I did submit an email response uh late today. >> Okay. So, I reviewed the U letter from Margaret Hotton Associates um with responses um to our memorandum number
two. Um a letter regarding the performance standards analysis, revisions to the site plan, some minor revisions, and then the uh invasive species management plan.
and I had no outstanding uh comments and I think at this point uh all of our comments have been addressed. >> Okay, great. That's great. Um Judy, did you have anything else to add?
>> Uh nope, I do not. >> Okay. Anyone have any questions or comments before we vote on this? Anyone from the public? No.
>> All right. Can I get a motion to approve this amended notice of intent signatures by Judy or Anna? >> I'm happy to clear and make that motion. >> All right. >> I'll second. >> All right. Thanks, Jim. All in favor? Ed
>> I. >> Heather. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. That is an I. >> Matt. Matt. >> Not so sure. All right.
Oh, did you just >> Sorry, I had to step away for a second. I heard my name as I was walking back. >> That's okay. Do you want to uh Do you want to vote on this one? >> What's the motion? I missed it. >> Uh, the motion is to approve the amended
notice of intent. Um, all of Joe's outstanding comments have been addressed, including the invasive species management plan, which he reviewed today. >> Yeah, I'm on board. >> Okay. Um, and I am also an I. So,
we are all set. >> Great. Thank you very everyone. >> Yep. Thank you. All right, back down to the bottom of the list here. Work session item um 121 Pawn
Street. This is an enforcement and restoration order. Um Judy, do you want to go through this one? >> Uh sure. Through the chair. >> Yeah. So, there was an enforcement and restoration order issued back in 2009
for unpermitted vegetation clearing in buffer zone at this property. Um, so roughly between the wetland and this fence at the back of the property. Um, not a a lot of great documentation, so we did our best with approximations of
where this was. Um, at the time the homeowner was required to allow the altered areas to reveate naturally. Uh, plantings were not required, just no further maintenance. Um, as well as install PIBs at the edge of the existing
lawn. Uh, so we do have the asbuilt with the locations of the PIBs. Um, I believe Joe went out and confirmed that these are installed as depicted. Um, and you know, can pass it over over to Joe for more specifics, but it sounds
like the area is well vegetated, hasn't been maintained. Um, and I would feel comfortable recommending this be um a certificate of compliance be issued to close this out. >> Okay. Thanks, Judy. Um, Joe, do you want to add anything?
>> Uh, I think, uh, Judy pretty much covered the the points. well vegetated, no erosion issues, no evidence of any mowing or or activity in the area. Um the PS are uh as depicted. Uh there is
some invasive vegetation in the restoration area. Um I did not see um any uh condition in the enforcement order regarding management of invasive species. Um but there was some there
And uh there was a condition about the the work having been completed no later than December 1st of 2009. I don't know when the uh PIB signage which would have been the uh the
apparent work was done but all was included. >> Okay. >> That's it. >> The chair. >> Yes. head. >> Judy, do you want to just could you just really quickly flip through the photos so that the commission and anybody else can quickly see what it looks like?
>> Absolutely. So, this is the lawn area. PIBs on posts at the uh edge of lawn. That's that fence. And then some closeups of the invasives. It's quite a jungle back there.
>> Yeah, it is. It's >> I also like just demonstrating a good use of PIBs. So, uh it's in the public record what we're talking about with the posts and the and the medallions and stuff. So, >> yeah. Steal this for powerpoints.
>> Although, we got to hide the invasives for the powerpoints. Thanks. >> Multi-purpose photo. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, comments on this?
No. All right. With that being said, I think um this looks good. So, can I get a motion to issue certificate of compliance for 121 Pawn Street with signatures by
Judy or Anna? >> So, moved. >> And can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. I. >> Heather. I.
>> Jim. Ted >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> And I'm also an I. All set. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Um, let's see.
I skipped right over the draft minutes for review. >> I was just about to bring that up for you. >> It's okay. Save the best for last. >> Does anyone have any uh comments or not have time to read those January 20th,
2025 minutes? >> That was hefty writing work. That is a long set of minutes. All right, hearing none. Um, can I get a motion to approve those minutes? >> So moved. >> So moved.
>> Sorry, Ed. >> Ed, you want a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed? >> I. >> Heather. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. Matt.
>> Hi. >> And I'm also an I. >> Gotta be quick to get the jump on Ted. >> I just don't like waiting. I just feel like let's move it along. >> Ready to be done. >> So I I I'm teaching myself to pause a
little bit, Ed. But then when there's that just dead air, I'm like, okay, come on. >> It takes me a while to reach out and unmute myself. Give me >> I anticipate it. I unmute as the the request is coming. >> I didn't skip anything else today
between all these crossouts. >> I didn't see anything else that got skipped. We haven't asked if there are public forum requests, but the answer to that we usually know. >> No. >> No public forum. Okay. Does anyone have anything else they
want to talk about? Um I will just bring up I think we learned today that uh as of noon today we do not have any applicants for the open seat. So again if anybody knows anybody and wants to recommend or
suggest to them I think that would probably be good. >> For the record I have done so to no avail yet. Okay. >> All right. >> You know, I'm thinking if we met in person and we served food
that we might get more attention. >> The last couple times we met in person, you you fell short of the bread offerings. Now, I'll admit I've never brought food, so maybe I shouldn't be calling you out,
but >> right, we need door prizes, too. >> Well, excellent idea. >> All right. Well, um, if we're all set, I will ask for a motion to adjurnn.
Go Ted. >> Waiting for you, Ed. >> All right, I'll make that motion. I'll make that motion. >> Thanks, Jim. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Heather. >> I.
>> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> That is an I. >> Matt. Hi. >> And I am also an I. Wonderful. Thank you everybody. Not too late tonight. >> No, >> not bad at all.
>> Thank you everybody. Have a great night. See you in a couple of weeks or in the meantime. Bye. >> Good night everyone. >> Good night. Good night.