Okay. >> Um, >> someone else signed on on your phone or computer. I I see a second Melissa >> recos. >> That's a good question. I do I am not purposefully signed on onto
>> this AI. It's AI. >> Do you see what I see? >> Yeah, I see it. I assumed it was maybe you trying to get another screen or something. >> Well, we'll see.
>> Sometimes if you're using sometimes if you're using the the screen on your laptop, but you dial in on your cell phone, it shows up twice. I think >> mystery >> to the chair, this is HCAM. We are live and recording.
>> Thank you. You're welcome. All right, let me just check real quick. See who's here. Jim, Ted, Ed, and myself. >> And myself. >> It's four.
>> We'll count that as four. >> All right. Uh, why don't we go ahead and you if you don't mind reading the um opening the meeting with the script, Ted, get that out of the way. >> I don't mind at all. Let's go. This is the June 9th, 2026 open meeting of the
Hopkin Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during this 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 Hopkinson Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on
the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by hcam through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and
that all 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 in the meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Chair Melissa Recaus >> present. Ed Harrow.
Ed, we'll give Ed another try in a moment. He's on mute. Jim Cerillo, >> Walter Garland, Peggy Shaw, Matt Moyan, uh, Ed Hara. Okay, I managed to unmute,
but my is does it's like flashing and going crazy. Does it flash? >> That is a That is a Filillmore East kind of spectacle going on there. >> Okay. So, I I could log out and come back or leave it. >> I don't know. You make the call. Uh and
I am Ted. I am present. >> I will now confirm that staff are present. Judy Day, the Hopington Conservation Administrator, >> present. Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present.
>> And Joe Orzel of Lucas Environmental, >> present. >> We have one continued hearing tonight I want to let everyone know about. Uh the 15 Montana Road hearing with uh the Kelly family has been continued to June
30th, 2026. Back to you, Melissa. >> All right. Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Okay, let's see. All right, so since it's just 7 o'clock,
um we're going to do as we usually do and start with a couple work session items. Um we'll go down the list here in order. Um I am going to skip the draft minutes review since there's at least three members
um not present at the moment. Um and we'll jump right into the informal violation discussion. Fowler and Lang Five Denine Road vegetation clearing. Um,
I'll start off and I'll just ask Judy if you can give us a summary of how we got to where we are tonight. >> Sure. Through the chair. Um, so I have some pictures I can bring up as well, but just as an overview, uh,
conservation staff, uh, myself and Anna responded to several resident complaints and observed evidence of recent tree clearing that had occurred along Lake Maspan at 5 Denine Road on May 21st, 2026. We issued a cease and desist that day
for unpermanented vegetation removal in the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. And due to the homeowner's history with violations in the past and prior knowledge of the regulations, um we did issue citations for the
roughly 40 or so uh cut stumps that we were able to observe um from the uh public path that exists on the property. So, we counted stumps that looked to be about an inch and a half or greater, but there was quite a bit of understory cut
as well, as well as some pruning of the trees that were not fully removed. Um, so with about 50 or so significant tree stumps, we issued one ticket per stump, um, with the fine amount for each ticket being $300.
Uh, so total that is $12,000 was issued in fines. Um, so I'm happy to bring up the pictures, answer questions that the commission may have, but yeah, we're looking for commission members to discuss the nature of the violation, um, whether you would like to uphold all
or a portion of the issued fines, um, and any required next steps you may want to um, enforce for the property. So, I'll bring up some pictures. So, this is the view from Sandy Beach across the lake. And these are all in
the public file for folks to access. Um, and then I just have several pictures of the stumps that we saw. So, I'll turn it back over to you, Melissa. Okay. Thanks, Judy.
Um, yeah, the pictures are helpful to give folks an idea the scope here. Um, all right. I believe we do have the homeowners on the call here. Would you
like to introduce yourselves? >> Yes. Hi. Um, I'm Lee. Uh, this is my husband, Larry. And a Karaska. >> The gentleman is the guy who did the work. Yeah. Okay.
Welcome. >> All right. So, do you um you know, I know there was a lot of correspondence back and forth um and there are emails in the file. I've been reading up on them and discussing with Judy. Um, so I guess I just wanted to ask you, it seems
you understand why the fines were issued to you, um, for the the trees that were cut and the violation that you, you know, have we brought before you?
>> Yes. Uh, we first apologize for, uh, not reporting to the, uh, to the town before we, uh, start work. Um, we uh I thought I I did go into town talk to them and I know we should uh talk to the people
before we cut but and I plan to do it and I discussed with the guys but then we got sidetracked into the technical you know about the vehicles get into here how to do things and then we just
we forgot we we we just start doing and then and and end up not discing ing and it's our fault and we uh we admit that and it's very um is is well just so we're very sorry about that
but um regarding the previous I don't recall we uh uh previously uh have any violation we have been on this piece of property for 7 27 years and uh own this piece of property for 27 years and
actually lived on it for 20 years. Um, the house originally was proposed about a 100 feet from the water. And uh, because we come from northwest, we love trees. And so we said we want to protect
the environment, we moved the house back to 360 ft line. And in 20 years we live here, we really didn't touch cut the woods. as the results this u on the picture now you can see there's a
clearing before we cut it was completely on uh the same thing as a as on both sides okay from our house we cannot see the water at all and should we initially build a house closer to the water we
would be so um so that's unfortunate we decided to protect wland and give leave more trees But as a result, we can't see it. This is for 27 years and the trees completely blocked the view. We cannot see. So um
uh so I think it was 24 we went into town. We talked to Judy and uh and then they said if we want to remove the trees, we should go in to talk to them. But it turned out I I meant to talk to them but then get sidetracked. Did not.
The reason we started to do to do this was there are some big trees. Uh I can show pictures as well. They are uh they're falling down. They ever since I I talked to Judy, I think there are at
least eight trees fell down. They're big ones. And one of them almost hit my car as I just passed. And uh this last uh just before Christmas, two trees fall
down. And this uh I think was March. Um three three or four more fell down. We're not here. The policeman called my daughter in New York and told her to clean up. So there continue those
trees falling down and uh four of them are very close to the house. the leaning uh towards the house. So, kind of a threatening. So, at this point, we said, "Okay, let's uh let's remove those
trees. Should those trees fall down, um they would damage the house." I can show you the tree stumps on those trees. They're completely hollow in the middle and they're half dead already. They're they're they're dangerous. And then uh
besides those big trees um I think the the picture earlier we saw that one tree uh stump is not hollow but I can show you the four trees close. This one this one is close to the uh walkway to close
to the uh the trail. Okay. uh this close to the trail and we in case it fall it would be not only hurt our house but hurt people walking on the trail
>> and and uh and so we the the I can show you the tree stumps close to our house. Uh those are >> that's okay. Not >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, it's it's okay. I'll just go through um I guess there's a there's a there's a
few different pieces here um that we can address in parts. So, typically um and Judy probably explained this to you, but um just for everyone's benefit, the commission um frequently has people come
in and ask or just call Judy or Anna um to request for date, you know, trees that they feel threatened by to come down. Um, and we do have a process for that. And it's not, you know, it's it's very easy. If it's Judy can go out and
identify that it's a dead hazard tree, um, she can issue right there on site permission, um, to take down trees. Um, if that's the case, without you even having to come into the commission. Um, so I just want to make sure for you and everyone else on the call that that's
understood. We we like to work with people um, for those situations. Um, but I think what we're really here for um tonight is the violation up toward the lake and what
the commission um and as you you know living on the lake for many years. Um you have a preservation um group. We've been working on lake weeds. Um, we've been trying to encourage buffer along the way lake and
even people who do have um homes closer to the to lake to try and reestablish um these buffers. And as you said, it's taken 27 years plus to really grow that nice vegetated
um buffer along the lake right there. And you know to take that down without any discussion um with the commission is it it just it it wipes out so much old you know growth and establishment that's
that's been in place. So um that's that's what's I think frustrating for the commission um to see when that happens um and that's why the finding process um kind of proceeded as it did.
So, as far as the um the $12,000 in fines, um I think that number of 40 trees is probably conservative being that Judy and Anna were um you know, counting from
off property um not doing a complete survey. So, um, number one, I think the commission just needs to discuss whether we go ahead and proceed with following through and issuing um, these fines. And then
number two is whenever we have these situations with violations, um, we work with applicants to come up with a restoration plan and a mitigation plan, um, to try and, you know, mitigate what's gone on.
And that's separate from the the violation fees. And in that process, um, typically what we have people do is do a a survey of the stumps and identify the stumps, um, the size of the trees that came
down. And through that effort that we can also identify dead and diseased trees based on the stumps like you're saying, you know, if they get cut down, obviously um if it's a hollow tree, it's probably something that Judy would have
approved and the commission can consider that when we look at it and think about mitigation um for what's happened and maybe you don't need to, you know, replace that tree. um one for or two for one or you know
whatever we decide upon. Um that's kind of our standard practice for dealing with um violations. >> I'm just comment >> Yes, you can comment. When we built this
house, we cut down an awful lot of trees to get to space to build it. And in the process, we replanted over a hundred trees to replace what we took down.
And and our house was much much close to the edge of the water. We volunteerily backed up to 360 feet so we can leave more wet land and as a result 27 years
we never touch a scene is overgrown and we cannot see the lake at all. That's why we clean besides their tree, we clean it up some lower bush so we can have a have a glimpse of the water. And we we love the trees. Don't get us
wrong. We love the trees. We want to protect it probably more than anybody else. And another thing is there's a public trail going through our property. That's all the way along our property, probably over 2,000 some uh feet. And uh
uh earlier you said it took 27 years to grow those trees. That's not true. When we moved in that entire tree was not is hard is completely covered. There was no trail. You can hardly see that trail. In
this 20 years, we let publics use that trail for uh use the the the lake for free. Today there's a big big trail. The damage on the trail all the way along the water is probably 100 times more
than this 40 whatever the trees we remove. It's a wide wide trail right now. You know, snowmobiles and people running through docks is just a big park right now. Mhm.
>> We we did our very very best. Like Larry said, when we build the house, we backed up the house into the trees and in our front yard and backyard, we in knees and hands, we plant over 100 trees.
>> And we we want to preserve these trees more than anyone else to be honest. and the the public damage to the lake. There's there's no there's just damage and there's no protection. Over this 20
years we live here. The waterfront was well protected. But today is a big trail and it was like a backyard park. >> It even has a bench somewhere. I've been told. >> Well, there Yeah, there's a there's a
lot of development. It's not us. We just cleaned up our little backyard. We can see a little bit of water. That's all we did really. >> No, we certainly appreciate the um you know the the vegetated buffer, the vegetation that's been maintained and
the forest that's been maintained and the conservation effort for sure um provided by your property. Um I don't want to minimize that at all. I I'm not familiar with the trail. Um that is
in my eyes a separate issue that can come before the commission. Um I don't see that tied to this particular violation. Um but I think at this point in time I want to open it up to other commission
members to give them a chance to speak or ask questions other than uh just myself. So I'm going to open it up to the commission. Melissa, this is Ted. >> Yes, Ted.
>> Um, I I agree with you that right now we're looking at two different pieces of this. One is to talk about the the tickets that were issued and the other is what are next steps. On the next steps, um, you mentioned that uh, it's our regular practice to ask for a
mapping of the trees that have been removed, a count of the trees. Um, I don't think I heard you mention though. Um, I think it would be necessary for us to get a wetlands delineation and a buffer delineation. After all, if there are trees removed that are not within
our jurisdiction, that's I think not a matter for us to discuss. So, we would need to know how many trees are within our jurisdiction. Um, I believe so. I think that uh the homeowner would have to look into getting a wetlands delineation as well
to help this out. >> I agree. I agree with that, Ted. Um I think if we can just ask Judy for a moment as far as the number of trees for um the tickets you were able to base those on
100 ft from the waterfront. >> Yeah. >> Statement. >> So it was the trees that look to be within 100t of the water um roughly in this location um of an inch and a half diameter or
greater. And then we also since the path um crosses close to a wetland crossing, a stream crossing that goes under the driveway, we also included a couple stumps that we saw that would have been jurisdictional for um either the stream
or buffer zone to this stream as well. So I think to answer your question, Ted, yes. In addition to surveying the stumps, we want the what the delineation and then we'd want the stumps within our jurisdiction. We're
not looking to um regulate or you know prohibit or anything outside of our specific um jurisdiction and what we are um supposed to be protecting under the Wetland Protection Act and the bylaw. But I think the 40 that were counted for
the um for the fine are very uh were we are sure that these are within our jurisdiction. There's probably >> I don't I don't doubt the work that Judy and Anna did and I figured you and I
Melissa were on the same page with that. I just kind of wanted to make sure we included that wetland delineation as part of the discussion for the public record and for the homeowner. to see that uh what they're talking about the stumps in the clearing. They
had to wander down the trail to get past it cuz it's right down the trail. So they were they were right next to it. >> Right next to the trees that they were counting. >> Yes. >> Right. Agreed.
Agreed. Um it I I just hope the um the comm the committee take into consideration that yes we are fault. We did not talk to you guys before we cut. Uh but we cleaned
just our backyard so we can see the water. Before we cannot see the water and this is volunteer. We could have seen the water if we build a house right on the water and we voluntarily backed up 300 feet.
As a result, we can't in 20 years the full grown vegetation blocked our view completely. We we uh we kind of uh just directly uh clean uh directly in front of our house so we can have a glimpse of
the water. That's all we did really. And uh along the trail the damage was so much I don't know who is going to pay those to be honest. >> It's like a quarter miles of way and uh
>> close to almost half a mile. >> Yeah, it's just all those trees. I mean I >> Yeah, like I said, we can we can >> planned back. we can look into the trail as a as
a separate matter because sounds like that's beyond your property as well. Um but going back in time, you know, 27 years when the house was built, that was before um a lot of the regulations and things that were charged with upholding
now were in place. So at this point in time, the commission has a charge to protect the resource areas, including the 100 foot buffer from them. Um, so that's what that's what we're looking at and that's what we're responsible for.
Um, and we treat, you know, all homeowners on the lake at this point in time that come in front of us or look to do work on their property within that 100 foot buffer of the lake or a um wetland resource area, the same. So
whether it's cutting down trees for reviews or to put in a shed or to do whatever they want to do, um it's still needs to be a conversation, a permitting process. Um that's what we're here for
as the commission. So um at this point in time, I will open it up. We don't have anyone else on the commission that has questions or comments. I will Oh, yes. Ed, you got one? >> I have I have two questions. Um,
>> sure. >> There there's going to be some expense involved in a restoration and I'm wondering if we can wrap the restoration cost and the fine together so that >> not >> pardon. >> You can't.
>> Okay, that's answer number one. And that's question number two. Um, someone was hired to do this work. Um, it seems to me that the party that's hired to do this work has a responsibility for knowing the rules. And it would seem
like the person who was hired to do the work who um did not follow the rules should bear some responsibility. >> Um, I believe you said you have the gentleman with you who did the the tree work. What company are you with?
Yeah. Uh, I do by myself. I don't have company. >> Okay. >> I'm try here to help this lady. She's my friend. So, I cut the small tree, not the big tree. And I just wanted to give her the good view to the war. That's it.
So what I can do now I can buy 2003 and yeah playing it like like small one to grow up again. That's what I >> Okay. No, I appre appreciate you coming
to the meeting and um hopefully you get a good understanding of of what we're we're looking for and that is part of the mitigation plan that we look for is replacing trees. Um usually we Judy has some guidelines for what we typically
look for in that in a restoration plan. We look for native plantings, native trees, species. Um, also replacing usually we look for 2:1. Um, we do entertain planting shrubs
instead of just trees or in addition to just trees so that you know you're really recreating the habitat and that underbrush and that that um was kind lost.
Um, so certainly in in the next steps if you can help the homeowner with that. I'm sure that would be beneficial um >> through the chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> As the commission's official timekeeper,
I just want to let you know we're almost 25 minutes into this particular hearing. >> Okay. Thank you, Ted. Yeah, I'm going to open it up quickly for um any commission any uh comments from the public and then we will wrap up and move along.
Yes. So, this is Jeff Hirs on Lakeshore Drive. Am I allowed to make a comment? >> Yes. >> So, the one thing I'm confused about, the statement was made that the house is 350 ft from the water. So, it's not clear to me at all how cutting down
trees right on the water prevents them from falling on the house. So, that doesn't I I don't understand that. It doesn't really make sense. However, there were multiple comments that they did this to obtain a view and they are
well aware that when they bought the property and when they decided to live on it that unfortunately because they were not grandfathered in that was not an issue. Um that was not something that they could do. The main thing I think
that needs to be addressed, and you touched on it, is that there needs to be a mandatory site restoration to bring this back to the condition it was. And I believe you're even allowed to say that that should include planting multiple
mature trees to replace the trees that were brought down. And I strongly agree about the bushes as well. Should they hire an arborist to guide them how to do that in the most appropriate fashion?
>> Um, yes. We request that the plans be prepared. I think I'm say I think tell me if I'm saying anything out of line, Judy, but um typically we require that the plans are prepared by a professional
whether landscape architect engineer um service and they are reviewed through the commission through our um third party consultant. Um and then we need to approve the plan before we come to an
agreement and accept that as mitigation. Melissa. Yes. >> Hi, I'm I'm Charlie. I'm uh their daughter. I I'm sometimes in New York, but sometimes in Hopington. Um I just I kind of just wanted to speak to the one thing that he said. Um the trees by that were fall about to fall in the house,
the ones that did fall in the driveway was kind of like the original premise for it. And then some of them that there were ones some along the trail as well that we felt were there. But then the view thing, it it kind of all just sort of like became one project at the same time because we were doing the one. It
wasn't really like intended to like necessarily be two things. It was just like because we had him coming to already do the other trees. Then it kind of became we were like, well, let's have a little bit of the view as well in the same thing. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Thank you for the clarification. Ted, go ahead. I was just going to say uh in the interest of efficiency, I think that we can't really talk about restoration and mitigation until we get those plans. So certainly I'm open to
public comment, but I wouldn't want to go too far down that road until we have more information. >> Yeah, >> I agree. Um, so to keep us focused on the on the fine, I will just ask commission members
I think I'll just open it up to a vote or ask for um a vote on whether we go ahead and issue the fines for $12,000 for the 40 trees >> through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed.
Can we hold the fines in obeyance until we see their plans for restoration? >> No. With the ticketing system, as I understand it, there's 21 days to pay the fine
>> and within so within that 21 days, we can withdraw them or let them sit. Right now, they're in effect. Quick question. Does it is it possible to just like not have the full amount of the fine? It's like a huge fine. Is it
possible to like have it just be like maybe less than that >> or are you do you have to vote on just >> It is um >> Yeah. No, that's a that's a good question. Thank you for asking it. Um we can discuss reducing um if we're going
to reduce it then we should reduce it by number of trees because that they were issued as individual tickets per tree. So it's easier from an accounting and for the court um documentation paperwork uh to reduce it by number of trees. So I
will open that up to commission members for consideration. >> Thank you. the chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> Uh, you touched on right at the beginning of this hearing how much we have been working to try to protect Lake Massan and that we've been working in
conjunction with the LMPA. Um, and I think we've in recent years begun to make some good progress. Um, I I don't know where I land on how many of the tickets to enforce, but I will say that this is tremendously
frustrating to me, this decision. And my understanding is there were communications with uh Anna and Judy at town hall and it was made very clear to the homeowners what they needed to do to get permission to remove trees. And
whether they just forgot or got excited because he was a guy willing to cut down trees, frankly to me that's immaterial. It was made very clear what the rules are in town, what the wetlands regulations are. Um, I I I would imagine
that the LMPA is similarly frustrated and probably looking to us to hold the line. >> Thanks, Ted. I share that sentiment. Less Jim, can you just redo or have Jude
Can you have you or Judy redo the math or just >> summarize the math for me? I can't get into the docks. >> So, the the math is there were 40 trees or 40 stumps that were estimated at one
and a half inches or larger that were counted. And it's $300 per tree for the violation. So $300 times 40
is how we got to 12,000. >> What were some other um sizes besides the inch and a half? There were 40 that were greater than inch and a half. Do we know of that? How many were saplings and how many were mature trees? just off hand. I looked at the photo. I didn't
count them up to be fair. >> Yeah. Through the chair. Um, we didn't break them down like that, Jim, but it ranged probably from inch and a half to maybe 12 in the largest. Um, I mean, most of them were smaller, but there
were quite a few larger stumps that we observed. >> 12 in. >> Can I uh can I show some picture also? Um, I think no, I think we're just going to go with uh Judy's pictures and what we have in the file because I I don't
have a way to identify where the trees are coming from our jurisdiction versus outside of jurisdiction other than Judy's photos. And I I'll just remind the commission these are focused on trees that we are definitively know are
within the 100 foot buffer to the lake or the resource area. Um so this is probably a conservative count. It is a conservative count on trees. If we actually went out and surveyed them, there's likely
more And the the reason we need to assess the funds or not assess them as opposed to holding them is because we have 30 days to act under that ticket system. >> Right? We used to when we used to hold
in abance, it was before we had the ticketing system >> when we had to move to a ticketing system. then we're locked into a 21 day the you issue the ticket and then um the violator has 21 days to pay that ticket
and we can go to the court and say we'll withdraw 40 all 40 we'll withdraw 30 whatever we want to do within that 21-day window but once the 20 days has passed then they're you know in violation of paying them so
>> and the clock started ticking on May 21 May 28th. >> All right. >> Yeah, it was right. So >> May 28th was when we issued the tickets. So the 21 days started on May 28th. So however, if the commission chooses to uphold any um or all of the tickets,
then they would need to be paid by June 18th. >> The chair has said we will have a meeting then before that time period expires. No, no, we won't. >> I I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand
the question. What was that? >> Ed was asking if we're going to have another meeting before the tickets are required to be paid. And the answer was no. Our next meeting is June 30th. >> Um,
>> four we can close the hearing or we can actually this is a work session. Um I I believe we can move on and we can come back at the end of the meeting to make this vote if the commission members
want to. Um but I mean that's not a lot of time to think about it either. So >> maybe we can uh we can verify those 40 trees because I have not count I have not go down to count if how many trees
there are >> um >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. I'm not sure if it would be possible to get an accurate wetland delineation and a stump survey within that time frame. And you know, the commission isn't meeting again before
the payment would be due. So, I mean, I might suggest trying to make that decision on how many of the tickets you're upholding tonight based on what we have. Um, >> yeah, I think I think you're right, Judy. And if you know
um if Mr. Fowler and Miss Lang want to contest those tickets through the court, they could do that. >> The chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> Um this is um a large fine. I'm aware of
that. This is an extraordinary violation that we're looking at as well of a resource that we have put a lot of work and attention and time into. I'm aware that this is a very large fine. I'm aware that this is an extraordinary
violation and I am comfortable with the count that Anna and Judy did that it's a conservative count and I am comfortable with assessing all 40 tickets. >> Okay. Well, we uh I personally have a problem
with that. Um the fine is large. Okay. Um I'm not saying we're not at fault. I I admit we did not discuss with the town. Uh that's our fault and we will we should be uh take the responsibility replant the trees and pay part of the
fine. However, I think the fine is quite extensive. Um, especially take in consideration there's severe damage on our property by the trail. >> Okay, I think this at this point in
time, um, I'm going to have to stop because we're not talking about the trail. I'm going to go ahead in the um essence of time, we're going to go ahead and we're going to put it a vote to a vote to the commission members on whether we um
I guess we'll word it as um you know, the fines have been issued. So, does someone want to make a motion on pro proceeding with issuing the fines? >> I will make a motion that we assess the
fines on the 40 tickets. >> And I will second the motion. This is Ed. >> All right. Um, I do a roll call. All in favor? Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Ed. >> I.
Jim. >> All right, >> Matt. >> I'm gonna abstain because I missed the beginning of the discussion. >> Okay. Um, and I do not see Walter.
I think it's just me then and I am in I. All right. So, those will remain in place. So, I think that's what we needed to cover for tonight. Um, the chair. >> Yes, Judy.
>> Did you want to consider um a vote on an enforcement order regarding the stump survey and wetland delineation that Ted had mentioned? >> Yes. Um, yes, we should vote on that, too.
So, let's go ahead and have Judy write up an enforcement order. As you said, we're including wetland delineation, um, tree survey for stumps 1 and 1/2 in in diameter and larger within our
jurisdiction. And a restoration plan um to be provided and completed by a professional landscape architect or biologist or is there a particular
wording we use Judy? >> Yeah. Um I wasn't sure if you wanted to wait on the restoration plan until you have the stump survey in the wetland delineation. Um so you can always issue a new enforcement order at that point when you have a better sense of the scale of what you would like to see in
terms of the restoration. Um, if you want to hold off on requiring, you know, a planting plan right now until you know exactly what was cut. >> Okay, that makes sense. We can agree on the delineation and the
>> stumps first. Okay. Can I get a motion to issue an enforcement order drafted by Judy, signatures by Judy or Anna to that effect? Ted, >> we'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second?
This is Ed. I'll second it. >> All right. All in favor? Jim. >> Hi. >> Ed. >> I. >> Headed. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt, are you going to abstain or do you want to?
>> Yeah, I'll abstain again just for consistency. >> Okay. And I am also an I. >> Okay. Judy, am I forgetting anything else? >> Nope, I think you're all set. >> Okay.
Um, Mr. Fowler or Mr. Lang, thank you for joining us tonight. And in the meantime, if you have any questions or any more information, um, don't hesitate to reach out to Judy. >> Okay. I am not very clear what uh what's the action steps next.
>> I'll follow up in an email after um tomorrow morning. I will send you an email. >> I am not going to >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, is that is that it for this then? >> Yeah. Yeah. You're you're all set. Yep.
>> Okay. Thank you guys. >> Yeah. Thanks. Bye. Bye. >> Have a good night. >> You too. All right. Next up, we're going to jump up to new hearings. So, Ed, would you like to read this to open it up?
>> I would be happy to. The Hopkin Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 at 7 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Lynette Nean to
construct a single family house with associated site work. Location, One Hickory Way. Assessor's map R25, block 35, lot B. >> All right. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> All right, Judy. Um, I know this one has a little bit of a history to it, even though it's a new hearing. Do you want to just give a quick preview and then we can open it up to the applicant? >> Sure. Uh, through the chair. Um, so this is a notice of intent for the
construction of a new single family house at 1 Hickory Way. Uh, this is a new one lot subdivision being built um sort of behind or next to the existing house at 30 North Mill Street. Um, a little bit of the backstory behind this
one. There was an order of conditions issued under um file number 1431. It's linked in the public file to build this house with a wetland crossing in the front. Um, they built the crossing and a few other uh tasks were completed which
the applicant has provided a list of um but never uh built the house or the barn in the back, the septic um and they did not complete the wetland replication required um in putting in the crossing. So, this permit is now expired, but it a
certificate of compliance was not issued. Um, so that's a question for the commission. D doesn't generally recommend issuing two orders of conditions for one property. Um, so I think the applicants have, you know,
questions about the process in in terms of the new notice of intent, what you want to see with the old permit, um, and then how they should go about completing the wetland replication that was required initially, um, but was never
done. Um, so that's that's it for me. >> Okay. Thanks, Judy. Um, and who do we have on the call representing the applicant or the applicant? >> So, uh, this is Lynette Nean. I'm here.
Uh, and Chuck Joseph and Joe Mockrron are here as well. >> Excellent. Welcome. >> Thank you. So, um, uh, I guess just in in line with the the history, just I'll add a couple
things and then I'll turn it over, uh, to Chuck and Joe if that makes sense or does that feel like the right order? >> Yeah, that sounds good. >> Uh, so I don't know how much of the history is um um I think Judy um captured it. Uh, uh, there is obviously
a kind of a long history on this. Uh I've been at this property since um 2008 uh in at North Mill. Um the plan was that we bought this property and we were
pursuing building a family home at what is now One Hickory Way. And I believe that we in the 2009 to 2011 time frame um got pretty far in the process of having the subdivision
approved and um most of the work approved for for um for building. So you know at the time as as Judy mentioned we completed a lot of the key requirements that were noted uh swailes near the
road. We had hay hay bales put um through the extent of the entire property for in preparation for building. Uh we put in a culvert for the stream stream crossing. Um we had a stone wall built a paved apron at the
end of the driveway and a utility pole um um put in. um unfortunately a significant family issue um halted our plans and uh kept me for uh many years from from moving ahead. So, it has taken
now that it's 2026, um to state the obvious, it has taken a while to get back to moving ahead, uh you know, get back to kind of moving ahead with this. And um I've been working with um Chuck and Joe who have been um extremely
helpful in terms of informing me of kind of where we are. Um it's my understanding that um the swailes the um the the way that I have maintained them has not been appropriate. It was kind of
falsely I think on me that it was my understanding that we did the swailes and kind of let vegetation come in and kind of take over which I thought was appropriate but I I now understand that that's not really the the what the um
request was. So at this point um really what we're coming to you know coming to this group uh to ask is to what we need to you know what we can do to move this forward. Uh for me personally, this is a an extremely meaningful
um transaction to be able to move forward. And so with with uh Chuck and Joe's assistance, really just looking to work with this group um and the other um boards in town to understand what it
will take to move this forward in a way that um works for the town, but also takes into account all the the work that's already been done on the property. >> Okay. Okay.
Thank you for that summary. Um, >> just the other thing I'll just note, I actually am um a resident at 30 North Mill, so I will continue to be a resident at 30 North Mill. >> Yeah. >> Okay, awesome.
Um, all right, Chuck Joe, do you have anything you want to add or >> just as we u dove into the research on all of this because it has been quite a while. Um we spent a lot of time in the planning board files and um the planning
board considers this project substantially complete. Um that it is still viable um and recently uh they took uh bond money shity for the completion of the project and released a
lot. So uh I didn't want anybody to get the impression that this thing um was starting at square one. um an awful lot of uh media items have been uh completed and we're we're quite frankly with the construction we're closer to the end
than we are u to the beginning. It's just that some of these items are um in sensitive areas some of these items will put a lot of the site like like paving the driveway for instance from North Mill to the future home. um that's 600
700 ft of of asphalt paving uh roughening roughening up the surface and paving that. So there are some things that um will disturb um a large portion of of what's there now inside buffer zones. And then we've got some some
stuff at the uh in the storm water mitigation area down at North Mill where Hickory meets North Mill. Uh we've got some stuff that has to take place within sensitive areas. So, um, it it's a it's a I don't want to say sprawling, but it it covers a lot of ground, uh, the
permits, but a lot of what has taken place was part of a program worked out between the commission with its roster back then and the planning board um, with its roster. That's all I offer is that uh, um, there
are quite a few things that have taken place. >> Okay. Thanks, Joe. All right. So, >> Melissa, could I jump in for one second here? I'm sorry. Um, Joe, Joe and Judy and Anna have been very patient explaining things to me. Um, I've done a
lot of work in the town, but this is a kind of a unique one. It's a unique process of where we are. And I think the confusing part for me, and they've been very patient, is that there is an existing order of conditions that has expired and has not been closed. And
from what I understand from Judy, there's a reluctance to have to open a new order of conditions because they don't like to have two orders of conditions open on the same property. But what I'm concerned about is we we're fully prepared to go forward with whatever the commission decides. What
I'm confused about is if we went in for instance now at the at the front detention areas and planted the wetland species as specified in the 2009 order and then the commission found it um appropriate to close out that first
order of conditions. But then we opened up a second order of conditions and it was found that that work the new work which we just finished under the old order was not adequate to today's standards. We're we're all spinning our wheels here. So, I'm just looking for a
clear way forward for Lynn so that we we say to the commission, we're here to work with you. We're we've we've put in our $5,000 for the consultant. We're ready to start getting done what has to happen today, but we need one clear set
of directions in order to perform the work appropriately as the commission would like to see it. And I think that's really our hope is that we can get to some clarity as to how we're to proceed. >> Gotcha. Okay. Um yes, definitely unique, but I think
there are threads of similarities between some other things that we've done in the past. So, um I think we can draw on a few things. And yes, Steve does not um like it when we have two open orders. Um that's definitely true.
Um, when I look at it, I am thinking that closing out the existing order based on since so much work has been done and you're you're slow so close to where you need to be with the roadway based on, you
know, the conversations here. Um, it seems like closing out the order and then issuing an enforcement, which sounds negative, but you know, can be a positive way to move things forward,
maybe issue an enforcement to finish any restoration work. Um, that still needs to be done because when you do plantings, you need to have like a review period of a couple years,
make sure they survive and all these good things. whether that um wouldn't tie you to that for the order conditions to close it out and then that would enable you to I
think proceed with the the new notice of intent for any work moving forward. Judy, does that make sense? Did I say that in a way mean meaningful way? >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. I I
think what I would recommend is if the commission is amendable to it, I think the applicant should apply for the COC ASAP um get Joe out there and he could probably give a better picture of what still needs to be done in terms of the the restoration and the replication. And
then if the commission so chooses, you can um issue a COC with, you know, being very clear what work was not done and then a separate enforcement order to require that work be done. Um if you'd like to allow the applicant to be able to move forward with the new notice of
intent, you can split it up that way. >> Does that make sense, Chuck, to what you're trying to do? I'm trying to I'm trying to follow so g be patient with me. All right. But what I understand is um we apply for CLC, you issue an enforcement order for the work
not completed. Correct. At that time without doing that work, we can apply for a new order of conditions. >> Correct. And then there will be one significant order of conditions which will include the enforcement order for
the the planting of the previous that the previous order of conditions required. >> I think there'll still be two se there'll be two separate documents. The enforcement order is just to wrap up the work. >> Okay. >> On the side, >> but that would not have to be completed
immediately. It would be part of the project. >> That's up to the commission. Yeah. So that's one option you all could take >> clarity on >> or you could choose to want them to be done sequentially. So you know plant the plantings, monitor them and and then
come for the COC. So it's up to the board um which process you're comfortable with. >> And I think that kind of depends on if Joe goes out there depends on what he sees >> um >> or the chair.
>> Yes. As we um focus on that area up at North Mill uh by the storm water, there's also um a breakdown in the construction of that um treatment swale. Uh the for bay is still intact, but the
burm at the outer edge of the um treatment swale has deteriorated and does not function, does not hold water. I assume the intent was to allow that to become a wet swale. That's what was the design initiative with the planning
board. So as we shape what activities are going to happen in that location. I feel it should include uh finishing that treatment swale especially that burm on the downhill side so that one it will function and two uh it can become that
wet swale. So, it it's the the plantings and and the work associated with that, but there's also an element of the storm water that has to be completed as well. I just want to throw that out there. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense because that's part of the roadway
that's built. Yep. Does anyone else on the commission have thoughts or opinions on this? Who the chair? This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I think the idea of having them run concurrently makes sense if that's my if my if my interpretation and words are
correct. >> Mhm. >> Anyone from the public? Any other comments? >> Hi, Keith Pomeroy from Four Cold Springbrook Road. I'm at a Butter. >> Yes. Um, this is the first time I've
seen this plan, so that's fine. Um, is this a single family home project? It's not uh build one and then another one can be built further on >> through the chair. >> Yes, Joe.
>> This was a traditional grid subdivision approved by the planning board. One uh single family building lot was created. The remaining acreage was set aside as open space. So there is one 3.2 acre
building lot 2A and then there are 7.2 acres of open space and that's the entirety of the project. >> So uh just to there's room for a second building on this property. Is that correct?
>> A barn. We have proposed a single family home in a barn which resembles the original filing from 2009. >> Okay. And as I'm looking this separate question as I'm looking at this plan um it shows an existing well. Has that well
already been drilled? >> Yes. And approved by the board of health. >> Okay. >> Water source. >> Can you just remind me what's the minimum setback from the well to any septic system? 100 foot per title five state the state
environment code. >> Okay, last last quick question. There's a there's about a 15t high hill between our house and the proposed house covered by vegetation. Is there a plan to uh
remove that hill? >> Currently no. But that doesn't mean that it could not it could be removed. >> So part of the Yeah, I was just going to say um part of the notice of intent process when they apply for well the
notice intent that they have um they'll have to come back in front of the commission and review design plans and and vet those through the commission. So, I think it's there'll be more
conversations on this um application going forward if that helps. >> Okay, those that's all the questions I have. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um,
I think if that's it, then we would want to go ahead and continue this. Um, question being, do you want to continue it to our next meeting on June 30th, which is in person, or further out? And in the meantime, you'll also want to
do some paperwork with Judy on if you decide you want to apply to close out the um existing order. >> Melissa, >> pardon me, Melissa. Is that question directed to us if we want to? >> Uh yes, sorry. >> We would like Sorry, I didn't know who
you were talking. All right. Yes, we would like to continue to June 30th if possible. Um and we would have every intention of um applying for the CLC and the new order of conditions. >> Okay.
>> Could I ask a question? Is it too late? Not too late. >> Yeah. Hi, my name is Stuart Coward. I'm also and a butter, but uh there's actually a road or driveway between my house and the way this is coming in. And since this is a subdivision approval
and not a lot approval, um, is there going to be some requirement that the road be like a landing strip that you could land two, you know, major jets on or can there be a narrower drive that kind of fits with
the character of the area that would go up through this? That's an awfully long driveway and I would just hate to see just a huge tarmac going up the hill there. I know Linda didn't want to see that either, you know. So, uh, but what is the requirement? Because it is a
subdivision and my understanding was subdivisions aren't supposed to go to dead ends. Number one, and number two, they typically mean that there's a wider roadway in and a wider offset off the roadway than a driveway. So, what are the ramifications of this being
classified as a subdivision versus a lot with a driveway? >> Joe, I you want to handle that, Joe? >> Yeah. >> I'd say this is this is a planning board can of worms. Um, so
>> well, it's also conservation because it impacts how wide of an area you're going to be disturbing as you come up through there. >> It does. Yes. But I think >> Go ahead, Joe. You can go over what you want, >> Joe. If you could help us out, that'd be great. >> Sure. The um the roadways was created
traditional width. What the planning board did back in 2009 was wave the construction requirements down from the 22 foot wide to a 12t wide driveway. So, what is proposed is a 12t wide driveway
um at the request of the applicant with the approval of the planning board members. >> Perfect. Thank you. through the chair. >> Yes. Ted >> Anna, do you need an address for Mr. Coward? >> I'm at 34 North Mill Street.
>> I knew that, but thank you. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, yeah, definitely more discussion to come on this one, but um hopefully you have a good idea of your approach plan.
>> Yeah. um for paperwork going forward. Okay. So, can I get a motion to continue this out to June 30th? >> So, moved. >> Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> All right. All in favor? Jim? >> I. >> Ed. >> Ted. >> Ed is an I. >> Matt. >> I. and I am also an I. >> Thank you.
>> So, we'll see you on the 30th and we will be in person. >> Okay, great. >> Thanks everyone. >> Yeah, thank you. >> We forgot that Anna knows every resident's address name and first born.
>> All right. >> Yes. Thank you, Ted. That was helpful reminder. Um, next up we have continued hearings. Town of Hington Department of Public Works. I'm going to go ahead and recuse myself from this hearing and turn it over to Ted.
>> Thanks very much. Um, I'm hoping that we can close this hearing tonight, but we'll see what Joe has to say. I think where we stand is Ty and Bond gave uh responses to Joe's second set of comments. Um, we've been given those.
Um, Joe, did you get a chance to look at that second set of responses? >> I have. Um, I unfortunately didn't wasn't able to get the our response to the commission until this afternoon. Um,
but, uh, I think substantially, uh, the issues have been addressed. I guess I could go through and just mention a few items um that the commission may want to consider. >> I I think that might be a good idea. When I went through Joe, I identified
one, two, three, four, five, six of the 16 that might still want some discussion. Um but if you see others, I identified two, three, five, 9, 11, and 15. Um, and some of those might be a
very very quick discussion, but maybe you have one or two other ones you'd like to talk about. >> Okay. >> Five or six other ones. I don't know. >> Um, so uh for comment one um
uh regarding the initial evaluations identify of work uh how to identify work in various jurisdictional areas. Uh I think the applicant's previous response um was appropriate but uh that one I had just uh noted the conservation
commission uh needed to uh discuss to uh come to any final conclusion on on what is being proposed there. Um the DPW is stating that they would rely on the uh the uh described communication to
confirm whether or not work is uh occurring in an isolated land subject to flooding. Uh that would be uh communication with the conservation commission and um any u input or response from the commission. Um
comment two you had mentioned um um the we had requested uh some uh revisions to a table. Um section 2.6 six uh of the north of 10
was revised uh to add um those revisions. Uh and that will the uh one change there was that work or activity proposed to take place within or within the buffer zone to an outstanding resource water or
an ACE um uh would require uh submitting an individual u uh application to the commission. Um and uh we thought that that was an
appropriate um uh response was what what we had requested. >> So you're good with that wording? >> Good with good with that wording. Yes. >> Great. >> Uh comment number three. Um we uh recommend that the applicant uh
confirm that all category 1 through 4 activities will not generate additional storm water runoff increase in previous area or create a new point source discharge. Uh if that is the case then we would agree that the proposed activities in categories one through
four uh are uh generally not subject to the uh D storm water standards. There was a question as to um if if some activities took place that um could possibly uh
trigger some storm water standard requirements. Um then that would be required under categories 1 through four. The response was essentially that um uh generally the activities in those categories do not involve grade changes.
Um but I think uh an additional um confirmation that none of the activities in categories one through four would either generate additional storm water runoff increase in previous area or create a new point source discharge um
would put that one to bed and uh be appropriate to include those activities in categories one through four. >> Um so let me stop you. Do we have a representative from Tyen Bond on board? >> Uh, yes. Maria Johnsonberg from Tyen Bond.
>> Hi, Maria. Do you have a a response to Joe? Does that sound okay to you? >> Um, our response and assessment from looking at the activities in those tables is that those activities should not be subject to the storm water standards. They are
not going to change grades or change storm water runoff. They are not going to um increase in previous areas and they are not going to create new point sources. >> Joe, I saw a nod of information.
>> Yeah. So, uh if that's the case, I think it's appropriate to have those in categories one through four. Um >> not requiring >> good in my notes. >> Um comment number seven. um just a a minor
uh typographical uh there was a a misqued citation that was corrected. Um as I was looking at that correction, I did notice that u there's an typographical error um in
table 22 footnotes 8 through 12 uh where um instead of referencing CMR 10 uh.02 02 2. It references CMR 10.0220. Just there's an extra zero added in
there. Just wanted to point that out. I don't know if that's something that the commission needs uh feels needs correcting, but it would clean up the reference to those citations. If >> I may. >> Yeah. >> Yes, please. >> We we updated this typographical error
and sent it to Judy and Judy has responded to me that she's received it. >> Oh, great. That goes away. Okay. Um, comment number 11. Um, let's see
with with respect to the uh legal notifications. Um, and we just uh our comment on that was a conservation commission to discuss if they're really comfortable with uh what's being pro proposed for the uh legal notifications.
Um, we had suggested that maybe uh the uh uh application uh uh uh do a legal ad um and also publish uh something at the town hall and I think
the uh response was that the legal ads are um expensive but they would be open to posting something at the town hall. Uh so if the commission is u okay with that um that's uh for for you to discuss.
Um and I think the last one is uh number 15 um which was with respect to uh D file number and the D file number has been
issued. Um the uh comments there propose are with respect to not uh having any substantial impact on existing embankments um uh or loss of flood storage or significantly
changing existing rates. It was primarily um with respect to lands up to the coast. version with the border lines of the flooding. Um and the wording has been uh added to table 2.3 to clarify u that uh
this is only affect only is with respect to dimminimous loss of flood storage. Um, and there was also two table 2.0 there was also a revise um to separate uh repair versus replacement of public
infrastructure uh in response to one of the D comments and I thought both of those were appropriate um and uh adequate and I don't really have any other comments on that. Um,
if the question has any further questions or needs a little further u explanation, please let me know. I know that was a little bit rough. I had just finished that. So, um, haven't had time to uh to go through that to prepare uh for the presentation. >> Thanks, Joe. Let me just point out the
one or two that I want to make sure that you feel comfortable with that you didn't hit on. Uh when we go to nine, um were you happy with the revised table 31 in attachment F? >> Yes.
>> So that's good. >> That's good. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. And then um Oh, number five. Um maybe we don't need your comment, but there is a note for the conservation commission to discuss whether we're
comfortable with um letting Anna or the commission know if we run up against um any work that's going to be within 125 ft of a vernal pool. So maybe uh there's no new information there. So maybe there's nothing for you there,
Joe, but that's for us maybe. Um so thank you, Joe. Um so to the commission I think what we have left is are we comfortable with where things landed on number one regarding
communications, number five regarding communications and number 11 regarding communications about work to be done. Um maybe we'll count back down. Number 11
was the question of legal notices and a notice at town hall that DPW was worried about the cost of mailings uh and legal notices, but they'd be willing to do public postings at town hall. Um I'm understanding that that that bullet
point correctly, I think. Yes, Judy. >> Yep. So to the commission members, does anybody have concern about what DPW is proposing as kind of a compromised solution that also saves the town money?
Seeing nothing, I'm going to go ahead. I also don't have any worry about that. And I'm going to write good with my pen that's running out of ink. Um point number five is the vernal pool question.
Um I myself I'm again comfortable with DPW letting uh Anna Judy know if we are coming close to a vernal pool and Judy and Anna can determine whether it's something that should come up in front of the commission if it's uh a little
sketchier. That to me feels fine. Are there any commission members who feel differently? Ed's screen is just a trip. Uh, seeing and hearing no comments, I I feel good about five and I'm going
to write that note. Good. Um, point number one then is the last one. And in truth, I did not print up a copy for that part. When I looked through it the first time, I didn't see much there. Judy, could you show us number one just so that I can remember, the commission
can remember what it is, what communications we're talking about for that one. And maybe hopefully Judy, you can give a quick summary of what's going on there so we don't have to sit in silence. >> Um,
>> sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me, Ted. Maria, maybe I can give you a summary if you'd like. >> Thank Maria, thank you very much. This it was just one that I didn't prep for, but Joe mentioned that it might be something for us to discuss, and since I didn't prep, I didn't want to sit here
in silence reminding myself what number one was. So, thank you, Maria. >> Absolutely. So the comment number one was asking about clarification about how we would determine if we were doing work
within or near isolated land subject to flooding. Um because bordering land subject to flooding, we can go to a FEMA map and we can say, "Oh, there's probably something here." Because we have a map. isolated land subject to flooding
is not as easy to determine from a desktop point of view. So, it's a little more complicated to decide if it exists at a site. And our response is that we were
planning to rely on the kind of mini review and back and forth with Judy and Anna when we submit something to let us know if they think something else is there that we've missed. Um, and when we
brought this up a couple meetings ago, the response was generally were Judy and Anna comfortable with that since it was essentially putting work on them. Um, to go along with this, we did extend the amount of time that they
have. They have 4 days to look at things instead of 48 hours. So, they have more time to look at these now. And hopefully that alleviates some of the original concern around it. >> So in that respect, this is similar to
number five regarding vernac. >> Yeah. >> Judy uh and Anna, are you comfortable with both number one and five? >> Yeah. Through the chair, that's all right with us. Um we have a similar current relationship with Carrie. Um and we review similar asks all the time. So
I think with four days that gives us a bit more wiggle room. Um, so yeah, that's fine with me. >> Okay. Okay, then one more time. I'm writing good in my notes. Um, so let me just for the commission. Um, as I I
think we're moving close to the end. Does anybody have any questions or comments or concerns at this stage? I've seen none. I saw Jim shake his head. No. Is there anybody from the public who has questions, comments, or concerns?
I see none. Um, there was one section where there was a recommended condition. Where was that? I think I circled it. Right there. Add this as a condition.
This was from number 11. Um uh open to adding a public notice. Do we want wording uh commission members? Do we want wording that uh DPW will uh make a public notice at town hall for
this works? I don't see any reason to not have wording. Putting that into the document doesn't seem that ownorous. >> Yeah, I think it makes sense to have that. Okay. So, other than that, unless
anybody has anything else, um I think that we're ready for a motion to approve the document as written other than that one adjustment. Um and as part of that motion, uh with
signatures from AnnaJudy, does that feel all right, Judy? Am I proposing that correctly? >> Yep. Sounds good to me. So, if I could get a motion in a second, we can move to a vote. >> I think that was the motion.
>> Yeah. >> And we're looking for a second. >> That's Ed. >> Did somebody second it? >> Yeah, Ed seconded it. >> Ed did. Okay, great. We have a motion and a second. We're going to do a roll call vote. Uh Melissa, I'm going to call
your name and then you can say you recuse yourself just to make sure it's part of the official vote. Melissa Recos. >> Yeah, I've recused myself. >> Ed Harrow. >> Hi, >> Jim Cerillo. >> Hi, >> Matt Moyan.
>> Hi. >> Did Walter Garland join us? Did Peggy Shaw join us? Uh, I'm Ted Barker Hook. I am also an I. And that is four votes in the positive, none in the negative. I think that
closes the hearing. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> And I can give the steering wheel back to you, Melissa. >> Thanks, Ed. Nice job. >> Thank you.
>> Um, all right. Let's move right along to Ducet 181 Hayden Row Notice of intent continuation. Um I think we were almost there last time. Judy, can you give us a update on this where we're at?
>> Sure. Uh through the chair. Um couple of minor plan revisions from the last plan set the commission reviewed. Um so now we have um showing the two small saplings behind the barn to be removed right here. Um
the plan did note that there are no replacement plantings proposed. So that is a discussion item for the commission. Um the in between the initial submitt and now the shed off of the barn was moved back a few feet. So now it shows a
revised location of the shed. um it did move towards the wetlands. So, this is another item for the commission to discuss um whether you're all right with the location of the shed as is or if you would like it to be moved back to its original location. Um
added a note on the width of the driveway, 8 ft, which was a comment that Joe had. Um, a few other plan notes were added, um, including the only work on the septic excavation being the tank and not the, uh, the leeching area here.
Um, so a few minor plan notes, but I think a few discussion items left. Um, pass it back to you, Melissa. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so I just want to make sure I have this right, and Mr. Dat's on the line. you might be able to confirm
the existing shed location, revised location. When I was looking back at pictures, it looked like the pictures that were provided at the last meeting had the shed in this location closer to the wetland.
>> It was moved months ago. >> Okay. >> So, I think it's it's been there. >> Okay. So, if there were any pictures, I don't know what pictures you were looking at, but theoretically, it's it's it was moved in I don't know, January, maybe.
>> Okay. So, it wasn't moved between the last meeting and this meeting. It was moved >> um and it was this is a new location from when we approved it right before the house was sold. Right, Judy? because that as built plan um in our our order
there had it >> that's correct. >> Yeah. So it's a different location between the plan sets but yeah it sounds like it was moved maybe before the notice was submitted but after the original survey was done >> for the notice of intent not the COC.
>> All right. And um as far as how much it was moved, from what I could tell, it looks like it was um basically the back of the the back of the shed used to be even with the existing
concrete uh existing driveway line. Now it kind of goes right gets clipped by that PIB between the two PIBs. Um, my first instinct is it's not a,
you know, we the pictures that we had last time. It's consistent with what we looked at and were kind of on board with at the last meeting. However, it's also a very classic example of encroachment um and just creeping closer to the
wetland area, which is what we are continually trying to uh fight against. Um and the reason why we have the PIBs. Um so, can you just explain, Mr. Did you
set the reasoning for moving the shed and does it really need to be where it is now or can it be where we had originally um you know a year ago agreed that you know this shed is in a good place. >> So I don't know if you had a chance to look at my email but the bottom line is
again this was existing stone all the way back there. Lucas's notes said it was moved five feet. I guarantee you it was not moved more than 2 feet cuz all I was trying to do was get access to that back corner of the building where there are going to be
garage doors. That's part of the building plan that I submitted. And there really isn't the way that uh barn is constructed. It has balloon infrastructure out there. And there's only eight feet between the end of the barn and that balloon
infrastructure. the only access to that back third of the barn. >> Judy, can you bring the plan back up? Sorry, just I'm sorry, Steve. Did I just >> Oh, no problem. You know, again, so I don't know if I I really can't point at
the plan, but literally you can see that the back corner of that barn is the only access to the back third of that barn. So, I could move that shed back two feet and I won't be able to drive a car in there or get through there cleanly. And
that was the whole intent of this building permit was to be able to get that in there. And originally, you know, I didn't catch this until the end. And I had Joe I I I tried to fess up and say move the move the shed a little bit like I did two feet because the architect
that did the drawings didn't even include the shed on them. So, I literally moved it back two feet and and I assure you it was on existing gravel. I moved it back two feet and it's literally allow me to get access into that back third of the barn because
it's the only access I can get to that back third of the barn. >> Okay. So, you're trying to get in between the shed and the existing barn. >> Well, is in the back corner of that barn. You can't see my mouse. I mean, again, I could send you I mean, I don't know if you have the building plans. I
submitted them to Judy, but she could show you a picture of the barn where literally the only door in and the building permit plans were including a garage door, two nice barn doors. I'm not going to do a garage door to access
that back third of the whole barn. >> Okay. >> So, um, you know, I did mo I did move it back again. the the new P I thought again the PIBs were well behind where it
was. Uh and again, you know, after I saw it, yeah. Um so there's the existing barn. I guess that's coming from the back. If you saw see a side view, you can see where the
doors want to go. Uh if you scroll up, I think it may have a side door of the of the existing barn. No, maybe down. >> Yeah, go down and I think it's the last page. >> Uh, Steve, that's all the pages I got.
>> All right. So, go up to the top because I think there's a picture of the barn on the first page. >> Yeah, this this is all I got. The three pages >> and there's not You only got three pages. >> Yeah. Well, any man, you can see if you look at that barn by itself, the egress
stairs are coming down. Those are two dormers that you're seeing there. >> Okay, the only place to access that whole back third of the barn is on that farthest right back corner. And the shed I, you know, again, was moved back just
a little bit to allow me to get into that barn. >> Gotcha. Okay. Um, so I guess to the commission, um, I guess the question is, you know, if we
were okay with it at the last meeting, um, is it minimal enough change? The only thing that stuck out at me, the reason why I questioned it is because when I looked back at the asbuilt plan from 2025, it's like May of 2025. Um, it
did not show gravel uh where the barn is right now. Um, if you flip back to that plan, the gravel is even with the existing concrete line. So, I think at some point in time between May 2025 and
um you know, a couple months ago, there was gravel added. Um >> there was no gravel added. It was there because it always was extended beyond the beyond the shed where it stood. >> Yeah, that this is the this is the um as
plan from May 2025. And what's CS? >> Yeah. >> What is CS in the back of that shed? >> Brush stone. Yeah. So, if I mean, if this asbelt was correct, then at some point between
May 2025 and the last couple months, uh there was additional crush stone put in >> that area. So, I mean, not >> Yeah. I don't know what to say except for that, you know, again, I I moved
that barn back two feet and it's right up against the crush stone. There's no there's none beyond it. >> Okay. Um All right. My my thought is so we have two So that's that's one thing and then we have the two two trees that were
taken down. Um, and there's is there room to plant those two trees um or bushes or shrubs or something behind where the revised location of the shed is to establish, you know,
>> Yeah. I thought I thought we talked about these at the last meeting and we agreed. They're they're two plants. They're literally right in front of the door, which is the back entrance to that barn. >> And I thought they were disposable. There was never any discussion of replacing them. If you'd like to replace
them, I guess I'm happy to accommodate, but again, I thought we had resolved that issue at our last meeting. >> We We did. We did, but now I'm seeing a different issue here with all, you know, this shed being closer to the wetland than it was when we previously approved
a plan 2025. So, I'm just seeing um you know, some encroachment. So, my recommendation to commission members, I'm open to other thoughts, is to plant a couple bushes behind the crushed gravel area of the revised existing shed
location, it can stay where it is. But, um, if we can put some vegetation in there so that we don't get any more creep um, then that would make me feel comfortable and ready to move on. >> Through the chair, >> yes, Ted, >> I'm with you. But um and maybe I'm
misremembering this application versus others. I thought there was also a discussion that some of the land over there is really really wet and I wonder if bushes can be put there or if that area is too wet. But maybe I'm mixing it up with another application.
>> If you want my opinion, there's there's there's very little water if any back there at all. So, I think right behind the shed it actually comes up. If a couple bushes need to be put in there, uh, you tell me what you need to put in there.
>> Okay. So, then maybe I'm mixing it up with a different application than a little walkway. >> Yeah. No, literally, I mean, that's been dry as a bone since January. >> That feels good to me then, Melissa. I I agree with with the scooching of the shed, asking for the trees to go back.
Uh, and right in that spot feels very appropriate to me. >> And I >> right right behind the shed and we're talking just a couple of native bushes, >> right? Yeah, you can um run them by Judy. >> Okay. >> The bushes, you know, the the species
you want to get and make sure that they're appropriate. But yes, right behind the shed. Anyone else have any thoughts or requests on on this? to the chair. >> Yes. >> Can you clarify um are you asking for
the shed to also be moved >> to it? No. >> Okay. So, just the plantings. Got it. >> Right. Yeah. >> And the the plantings more so in my mind for allowing the shed to be where it is and establishing that um >> fixed.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, we don't Yeah. Right. Okay. Anyone from the audience >> through the chair? >> Yes. Anna, >> how many uh shrubs are we talking?
>> Um I had my planting regulations in place. Um, I think they I So they come in buckets, right? Like I'd say at least two
decent size. I What's a decent size? Which size does shrubs come in, Joe? >> Yeah, usually u a onegon bucket. Um, one gallon container. um uh is about the size you want to put in. And those are
usually, you know, about 2 feet tall. >> So maybe and the the width of the shed, Mr. Det, what would you say that is or the length? >> Uh I don't know. It's on the plan. The width is is probably 8 feet, maybe 10. I
I'm not sure. >> Um let's see if we did a dimension. It's not dimensioned out. So, um, >> you typically plant those, Joe, like four feet apart,
Joe or >> Yeah. Yeah. You could you could put them in a little bit tighter, but depending on what you're planting, um, that that'd be about an appropriate spacing. >> Okay. >> You could probably fit >> maybe let's do four back there. >> Four. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Thanks, Judy. Okay. Um I think I'm all set. So, I'll ask for a motion unless anybody has anything else they want to cover >> through the chair. >> Yes.
>> I did get comments back from Joe um this afternoon. So, I don't know if he had anything additional he wanted to mention. >> Do you have anything else, Joe? >> Uh couple of quick items. Um we had just noted in one of our comments
that there were some invasive species present in the uh proposed landing area. Um they added that the applicant added a a note on the plans stating that the client to develop a management plan for
invasive species or invasive vegetation. um just uh noted that the conservation commission might want to discuss whether um they would like that provided uh before uh closing on on a hearing. Um
I think there was the trees uh that were being cut and u it's already been already been discussed. Um the applicant as you're aware did submit architectural plans for the carport. Um,
I did not see on uh the plans or the site plans or the architectural plans how the roof runoff is going to be addressed. I know that was a question that came up um I think at the last hearing. Um the uh there was another plan note
regarding a a comment on the proposed sewer trench that was not necessarily in its uh final location. Uh the plan note stated the sewer trench dimensions installation and and inspection will follow Town of Hopkin rules and regulations. So that's something for the
um the commission to be aware of and discuss if you had any um issues with that. Um we had also requested a detail of the u the pavers that are being proposed for the uh driveway extension
um and the um appropriate subsurface preparation and detail the pavers was was provided. However, there's no detail on the um appropriate subsurface preparation for those pavers. Uh you
want to have the proper subsurface of the pavers function. uh correctly and allow infiltration of the water as they're designed. I think the manufacturer does have recommendations and a detail that uh show that
preparation and I think uh we recommend that that be included on a on a plan and I think that pretty much uh covers my comments. >> Okay. Thanks, Joe. >> Um I think Mr. introduce that in the
last hearing we talked a little bit about the roof runoff and that it was going to just drip off the sides. Is that correct? Is that still the plan? >> Yeah, I think again it's going to be a gable roof front to back. So the front
half of the building and it's what 30 feet total. So 15 ft will go back towards the driveway and out into the yard in the front and the other 15 ft will go back towards what is the lowlying area uh that feeds back into
the wetlands. And we talked about it being clean water. And if I put a gutter there, I may put a gutter there and I do a runoff down and just run it back into my yard and let it flow naturally back there. Um, that would probably be the
most likely scenario because uh I don't really need access to walk out of the back of the carport. So, I probably do not need a gutter there. If I put a gutter on the front, I might actually just flow the water down towards the driveway. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I think I think my suggestion Judy would be to include a condition that the roof runoff um discharge to pvious area. >> Yep. That should address it.
>> Okay. What does that mean though? May I ask? >> Pvious meaning like the grass area as opposed to >> Yeah. And that's exact. And I have and I have 15 feet of grass or 20 feet of grass in the front and probably 30 feet of grass in the back. >> Yep. So grass, garden, whatever. So it's
>> right >> not hitting the pavement. Um I think the utilities per the town requirements, I'm I'm okay with that. the sewer and then if we could put a condition for the pavers to be installed
per the manufacturer's recommendations. Um I think since they're under the carport cover anyway, they're um that water is going to get >> Yeah, most of them will be. And and again, I assure you, I've had my
landscaped escape architect in here, and they they I I'm taking what was a dump and trying to make it a pretty home in Hopington. I'm not going to cut corners there. So, it'll be installed per manufacturers's instructions or better.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Sounds good. >> Thanks, Joe. Those are some good conditions. Um, appreciate that. All right, I think I think that covers anything. If anyone
wants to either make a motion or provide additional comment, I'm open to that. Melissa, I'm happy to make a motion to approve the uh notice of intent with the conditions just discussed and to approve signatures from Judy and Oor.
>> Great. Can I get a second? >> This is Ed. I'll second. >> Okay. All in favor? Jim? >> I. >> Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I.
>> Matt. I >> and I am also in I. All right. So, you are all set. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Guys, have a good evening. Hopefully, you get out of here at a decent hour.
You >> is that. So, Judy, I guess I will just get a letter of approval with conditions. >> Yep. Within 21 days, I'll have your permit to you with instructions on. So, does that hold up? So, I can't start building or doing anything until I get
that. >> Correct. Yes, there are pre-construction conditions you'll have to follow. Um, but yeah, once we issue I I'll follow up with you. We don't have to spend time on this now, but yeah, I'll follow up. >> Okay. And there's no way to accelerate that. >> I will do my best.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good day. We'll see you later. >> Bye. Good night. >> Good night. >> All right. Next up, we have Wall Street Development 12 North Mil Street >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Uh, we got a note from the applicant
that they will be uh requesting a continuation to June June 30th for this hearing. >> Okay. Can I get a motion then to continue this out to June 30th? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Jim?
>> I. >> Ed? >> I. Ted. >> Ted is my >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. >> Excellent. Okay, jumping down to work session items.
Um, 9 Montana Road believe is up next. Project change requests. Uh, Judy, you want to give the rundown on this one? Sure. Uh through the chair. Um I believe we also have the applicant on the line, but just an overview. Uh
the commission issued an order of conditions back in 2022 for construction of a single family house at 9 Montana. Um the approved location of the house is in blue. Uh the applicant is now requesting a project change approval to
uh shift the footprint of the house location to this area in red. So you've got wetlands here. So shifting away from the wetlands. Um they would also like to add an 8 by12 deck off the back and a covered porch on the side here. Um I
would note that adding a deck without a cover outside of the 50ft buffer that's considered an exempt activity. Um, so I think the commission would really maybe more want to focus on the addition of the covered porch because that would be technically added impervious area. Um,
back to you, Melissa. >> Okay. Um, did the homeowner have anything that they wanted to add to Judy's description there? >> Um, no. I think she covered the the actual proposed request and it's just based on uh the customer a customer
request for potential marketing of the project. Um, so we're hoping that the concession of pushing the entire house forward a further away from the buffer zone or further away in the buffer zone would offset some of the
additional impervious covered by the porch roof. So, we're at least attempting to make things better. At the same time, we're asking for something in addition. >> Yep. No, I I appreciate that. Um, coming in with a with a compromise. Um it's
great and I I going back I remember this um application and appreciate the buffer strip that was put in um at the back of the property to you know protect the runoff, protect the well and from the runoff. So um I have no problem
um accepting this as a project change. It looks okay to me, but I'm going to open it up to the commission if see if anyone has any um alternative views or questions. >> The chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> Uh I also feel pretty good about this. I have a question for clarification. Um we
don't seem to have that tool where I can actually draw that we played with a couple months ago. >> Sorry, I turned it off because someone was misusing it. I I can turn it back on. >> Oh, no, no, no. It's okay. I think I can guide us there. If uh if I'm looking at the older plan, the purpley blue one, it
looks like there's a a box that was part of that plan right by where it says ECB right below 14. Yeah. What was that? And yeah, that's a that's a a p a pvious patio. >> And so that's also been removed.
>> No, the the intent is to to keep the patio there. The the red is actually just a building structure. So, the p that patio place, we would like to keep that, but that was designed as a pvious patio. >> Okay. All right. Um, I still feel okay
about things. Um, that would have made me feel even even more okay, but I'm feeling fine. >> Okay. Anyone else or anyone from the public? >> Okay. Uh, that being said, can I get a motion to approve this project change
request >> with signatures by Judy? >> Okay. Thanks, Ed. >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Jim. >> Uh, I >> Ed >> I.
>> Ted. >> Ted is an I. Matt. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. You're all set, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate your time, folks.
>> Yep. Have a good night. >> Okay. Next up, we have the trails at Legacy Farms request for additional units. And see, we have Mr. Beimis online. We haven't seen you in a while. >> Yes. Good evening.
>> Welcome back. Welcome. It's good not to have to be seen for something other than this. >> That was a compliment. Thank you. >> Um so, good evening. Peter Beam is here on behalf of the trails. Um so, to date, you've released 21 units. Um those were
mostly units that were on the right side of the roadway at Waterville Lane. Um now, I'm coming to you to request the um the first 10 on the left. Those are shown in green on that exhibit. uh we will still have 18 units uh to come back
to you regarding in the future. Uh but these units should uh probably carry us through the end of the year anyways. Um the sales have been a little bit slower there. Uh but hopefully uh things will improve. Um seems like there's a little bit of stagnation going on across the
economy anyways. Um but uh we did put our last unit which is 42 which the last one in blue on the uh the left lower left there. our upper upper left in the picture. Um so we are out of units to
proceed with. So I would ask that if you could uh grant this. We've been doing them kind of in blocks of 10. Um this area is all areas that we have um either stone treatments or um we have uh stump
grindings covering most the surfaces out here. So if it's not there's no open ground for the most part. Um there's always some sort of cover that's around these areas. So we'll continue to develop in the same fashion we've been doing. Um and we have a detention basin
that is uh being uh holding water. So we don't release any water from the development during construction which has proved to be very effective. Um the only time we had a problem with it was in the beginning when they left the valve open. So um been been a good phase
4 has been a good program for us. So, um, >> yeah, great. >> Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Say, um, whatever you're doing it, it's working. So, that's that's good. And >> thank you. >> Um, I hear you've been good with getting all the SWIPS in, which is appreciated
as well. Um, Judy, do you have anything to add? Is there anything on Ashlin's end? I know they review these as well. >> Yep. So Ashlin Concom will have to approve an identical um request for the same exact uh lot numbers since these
aren't a at the developer's discretion. Um they are set to meet after you all. So I will just confirm with their agent that they've approved the same request before we um give the green light to the building department. Um but yeah, no red flags from my perspective um and no
recent violations. >> Okay, great. We're on there Monday night, just so you're aware. The timing of your meeting and their meeting. We thought we'd be on for the previous one with them, but um they they had a rep um advertising they couldn't make it, so we
we had to do the one after. >> Okay. All right. Um does anyone else have any questions or comments? Or would anyone like to go ahead and um make a motion to approve the release of these 10?
I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. And I know that motion was made with signatures and Anna, so we'll go ahead and uh vote. All in favor? Jim.
>> I. >> Ed. I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. Matt. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. >> Great. Thank you for your time. Have a good evening. >> Yep. Thank you.
>> Okay. Next up, informal discussion. Davis one Huckleberry Road Vegetation Clearing. Um I guess I'll have you open this up, Jody. >> Sure. Through the chair. Well, my pictures,
uh, everybody was cutting trees a couple weeks ago. So, we responded to another complaint uh, regarding uh, tree clearing in potential conservation jurisdiction on May 27th. Um I went out there observed recently completed tree
clearing in um potential buffer zone 2 wetland on the property at one Huckleberry Road and potential buffer zone from wetlands uh documented across the street um across on Fruit Street. So, I did issue a cease and desist for
unpermitted vegetation removal that day, but I did grant um administrative approval for two additional trees that um were deemed hazardous on site with the homeowner. Uh there are, like I said, mapped wetlands across Fruit
Street and per notes from uh Kim, the previous conservation administrator, she did observe evidence of a potential wetland on this property. um we just don't have mapping showing the extent of that. Um the homeowner has been very cooperative and I believe is on the call
with us today. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Um but yeah, the commission to discuss nature of the violation and any next steps you would like to see. >> Okay. Um All right. I'll open it up to the the
homeowner if you want to introduce yourself. All right. Um, is there someone either representing the homeowner or the homeowner on the line? We can't hear you if you are here. >> I see him in the meeting, but wondering if he maybe stepped away. Um,
>> okay. >> Uh, can you hear me now? >> Oh, we can hear you now. Yes. >> I'm sorry. Hey, good evening everyone. I think I was on mute. Apologies for that. >> It's okay. >> I'm Rinsson. I I live in Huckleberry Road. >> Okay. Welcome.
>> So, yeah, quick note. We moved here 3 years back and based on the public documentation what is available, we don't see any wetland marking in our in this property. Uh you know appreciate if if you can provide anything so that we can use that for the further reference.
We clean couple of trees from here so that I can put some veggie garden chicken coupe and then couple fruit trees. My my kids love all those. So that's the purpose of clearing it and happy to you know cooperate with you
with whatever that you recommend me to do. >> Okay. Um, so what I would recommend, I think, in order to be able to establish what areas within our jurisdiction and what area you can clear and and use or
need to, you know, come in front of us to talk about would be to get a wetland delineation completed. Um, and this is strongly based on the fact
that Kim has notes in the file that she was on the property and had identified um, wetlands in the area and we do have them across the street and there's likely connections there. So, I think there's a very strong likelihood um even though they're not necessarily
mapped on um you know mass GIS, they don't always pick up on the local um wetland areas, but those are still fall under the conservation commission's jurisdiction. Um
so similar to other um applicants who have or homeowners who have found themselves in these situations typically that you know that that's what we're looking for. Um,
and I I'll open it up to the the commission members for any other questions, comments, but um, procedurally, we would either ask you to go ahead and uh, provide a delineation
um, and identify trees that were cut down so we can have a better discussion about this um, and or we would issue a violation um, letter requiring that you that you take those steps. apps can yeah as as I mentioned right I was
based on the documentation I have I was I'm not aware there is no marking on the wetland >> um so I I really don't know right um which document to follow so I hope you will consider that >> and nichish
>> sorry >> yeah no there I mean there there's document that we can give you that tells you where the wetlands are. It's something that someone needs a professional wetland scientist needs to go out and identify them on the property um and put a plan together.
>> Yeah. even for putting the fruit trees or chicken coupe, we need that or is it >> if it's within our if it's within 100 feet of the wetland. Um then you would need to depending on what you're doing, you could submit a request
for determination to the commission. Um we could have a discussion about it, but it's really hard to have any discussion when we don't have that line established of where the wetland is. >> Okay. Um so that's the first step really. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> So do you know what's the process for me to understand or to understand how to determine that who to approach and how to do that if you >> Yeah, Judy is um very helpful with that. She can point you in the right
direction. >> Okay. um for you know folks that you can contact or how you would go about doing that. She'll probably show you some example plans too of you know what we what we'd be looking for what that looks like on a plan. >> Okay. >> Um
>> and one more request I am planning to put a six foot uh fencing on that side if if I want to know if that is okay. Yeah, that's another thing that typically um depending on on where that
that wetland line is when it's in the in the buffer. Typically the commission is is open to that. Um >> Judy, sometimes I think those always come in front of the commission the request for the fencing. Correct. It's
not an administrative action. >> It can be if it's more than 50 feet away. um we've done staff exemptions for that and will require gaps for like wildlife movement. But if it's closer than 50 feet um then yes, it would require a commission review.
>> Okay. >> So I think establishing that wetland line is is really going to be important for you for answering these questions. >> Okay. could depending on where you are in relation to that line, you might be able to just go ahead and do it with a,
you know, Judy takes a look and says, "Yep, that's outside or you need to come in front of us." But we really can't say one way or another unless we know where the line is. >> Yeah, I agree. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, this Sorry. Sorry, Ted. Go ahead.
>> Um, go ahead, Ted. I just wanted to say just to be perfectly clear, Rinsson, um there should be no more work in that area until we can have our next discussion. So don't start to put up the chicken coupe. Don't start to put in post holes for the fence. Leave
everything alone until we can have our next meeting. >> Yeah, absolutely. No, there is nothing happening there. >> I just wanted to make sure that that was very clear. >> Yeah. No, thank you for making that very clear. Yeah. Um, I guess the other question would be
Judy if we put it together an enforcement order at this point. Um, probably just to get a delineation in the works and then we can go from there. >> Yeah, I would suggest that. >> Okay.
Um, can I get a motion to that effect to have the applicant or have the homeowner um provide us with a delineation so that we can have further conversations about the violations potential? >> Yes, Anna,
>> do you want to include a stump survey with that delineation? >> Yeah, let's similar to the way we worded the other one. stump survey within um within our jurisdiction within the resource area and buffer
one and a half inches and greater >> and that enforcement order would require signatures from Anna's last shooting. >> Yes, >> I am happy to make that motion. >> Thanks, Ted. Can I get a second? >> I'll second.
>> All right. All in favor? Jim >> I >> Ed >> I >> Ted >> Ted is an I. >> Matt >> I >> and I am also an I. All right.
So Judy will be in touch. >> Okay. I appreciate that. >> Yeah. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. Bye. Bye. All right. Next up, Charleswood School DeWatering update. Judy, do you have a brief update
on this? >> Sure. Uh through the chair. Um so just a quick update on where things stand with the Charleswood geothermal dewatering um question the commission's been hearing about. Um so after the last
discussion we had with the school building committee and town council um it was determined that the builders had to direct a portion of the water from the geothermal well drilling to a different parcel not owned by Concom. Uh so this has been done. They've been
directing at least more than 50% off to the side. Um we've confirmed the volume has gone down since they've started doing that. uh they established a new erosion control boundary at the property line. Um so that's done. They have left the
temporary dewatering setup with the chain link fence and erosion controls in place on the Concom property until um they have a restoration plan prepared and reviewed by Lucas. Um so I did recently give feedback on what that plan
should include. Uh, so that's anticipated that we'll have something to review soon. Um, and I've also heard that the engineers have submitted new plans for the permanent overflow area that was originally um,
shown on the concom property. They've submitted new plans to the planning board to change that location off the concom property. Um, so they're determining what level of of permitting needs to be done through planning board right now. So things are moving on that. Um, as of today, they are still drilling
the geothermal wells. Um, so it's gone on several weeks longer than originally was estimated. We go out weekly to check the groundwater levels around the roots of the large larger trees on the Concom parcel that are close to that dewatering area. Um, and it's been pretty high
consistently. So, I think this is something that we'll be recommending for the restoration plan that they look at the long-term health of this area um and account for any potential die off of the trees here. So, I'll I'll continue to provide updates if folks want to reach out as
well. I'm happy to give an update. Um but yeah, things are moving along. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks, Judy. Does anyone have any questions? Sounds like progress is being made. I don't have this is it. I don't have
any questions and I appreciate Judy and Ann are following up on this. I just I want to vent. I'll leave it at that. >> I'm not pleased. >> Um
seems like this could be a good um science project for some new fifth fourth graders. Fifth grader fourth grade in that building. watch these trees for us for the next few years and give some uh monthly updates on take
pictures, tree health. >> All right. Um, moving on. That was our last work session. Oh, I'm going to jump back up. We didn't do the draft minutes for review. Um, we have minutes from February 24th,
2026. Does anyone have any comments or would like to make a motion to approve those listing? February 24th, 2026. >> I'll make a motion to approve February 24th, 2026 minutes.
>> All right. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Jim? I >> Ed. >> I >> Ted. >> Ted is an I >> Matt. >> I
>> um and I'm also an I. And how about the March 24th, 2026? Any comments or a motion? Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to approve the March 24th, 2026.
>> All right. All in favor, Jim. Oh, >> we need a second. >> Oh, you didn't get a second. I'll make that second. >> Thanks, Jim. >> Yeah, >> I'll vote I. >> All right, >> I'll vote. >> Thank you, Ed. >> I, >> Ted. >> Ted is an I.
>> Matt, >> I didn't see those minutes in the folder, so I apologize on this one. It's okay. You can abstain. >> I'll abstain because I'm not sure if I was at that meeting. >> Okay. I will give it an I.
So, those are all set. Um, right. I don't have anything for the conservation minute tonight and being that it's 95 gonna wrap it up. If anyone has any >> thoughts they just really need to share.
I have a very quick thing, I promise. Sure. >> Um, I did get comments back from uh Chris and Joe on the regs revisions. So, I will be sending those out tomorrow. Um, and we will plan on advertising for June 30th for a discussion on them. So,
if folks could uh take a look at um all the comments that they made in the margins and and the revisions itelves and um prepare any feedback you might have, we'll plan to talk about them on the 30th. And then I think we'll just maybe look at the checklists then too if
folks have time to look at um proposed changes to the checklists. Uh so just keep an eye out for an email from me about those. >> Great. Thanks Judy >> Melissa. >> Yes. >> Um I will be uh unable to attend that meeting unless something dramatic
happens. I will be on a road trip. But I will certainly I am I've got a couple days of school but I am done with school work now. So, I will find some time to look at those rags and Joe's comments um and get them to you, Melissa, in advance of that meeting. >> Okay. Appreciate that, Ted. Thank you.
>> Um and everybody remember next meeting, June 30th, is in person and it's at town hall, not the senior center. So, I'm sure >> Judy will send us a reminder. >> We're going to be at the big kids table.
>> We're at the big kids table. Yeah. Hey, I have a confession. I got a confession. >> Okay. >> Uh I couldn't help but seeing Ed screen wanted to put some Jimmyi Hendris on in the background, but I didn't. >> For those of you old enough to know who
Jimmyi Hendrickx was. >> I think you're in safe company here. >> Yeah, you're good. It's funny. >> You looking for a motion to adjourn? >> I am. I'll make that motion. Second.
All in favor, Jim. >> I. >> Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ed is an I. >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And I'm also an I. >> All right. >> Well, everybody in a couple weeks in
person. That's awesome. >> That's right. >> I'll be the one wearing the Okay. Good night. >> Good night, everybody.