During the state of emergency, the new law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended.
For this meeting, the Hopkin Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be
broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. accordingly. Please be aware that others may be able to see you
and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair. Supporting materials that have been provided to
members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff has have discussed each project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion for
public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the
members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Jim Cerillo, >> Ed Harrow, >> present. >> Matt Moyan, >> present. >> And I am Ted Barker Hook. I am present.
Uh, I will now confirm staff that are present. Judy Day, the Hopkin Conservation Administrator, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present. and Joe Orzelle of Lucas Environmental >> present.
>> Uh I just want to let everybody know that we've had a number of hearings continued at the request of the applicants. We will not be discussing the Hopkin Trails Committee uh Chamberlain Street Loop Road Connection. Uh we will not be discussing REC
Hopington at zero Lumber Street. nor will we be discussing the um hearing for 37 Oakhurst Road. Uh the first two have been continued to September 23rd. Oakhurst Road has been continued to
October 7th. With that, I turn it over to Matt to get us really going with the fun stuff. >> Thanks, Ted. Much appreciated for reading everything in here. Uh so, we'll get started with some work session items. We've got a couple of documents for review. The first is for 73 Clinton
Street certificate of compliance. Judy, do you want to just give us a quick update on this one? >> Yep. Uh through the chair. Um so this is a request for a new signature page for a
certificate of compliance that the commission approved back in 2006. Uh the original copy was lost before it was able to be recorded. Um, but it was approved and we have a digital copy of it. Uh, so we just need a vote from the commission today to issue a new
signature page that they can um then record with the registry of deeds. >> Great. Thank you, Judy. I'll entertain a motion to that effect. >> I'll make that motion. >> Thank you, Ted. Second. >> I'll second it.
>> Ed. Thank you. Quick roll call vote. Ted. >> Ted is an I. Ed >> I >> Jim >> I >> and I am an I. >> All right.
Next up is 42 North Mil Street. An enforcement order that Judy had pulled together I think today or yesterday. So if you could catch everyone up uh on this one that would be great. >> Yep. Uh through the chair. So this
document goes along with work session item five. Um so you can either do them both now or we can return to it when we get there. But um it would be approving uh acting on a restoration plan that the
homeowner has put together uh to be reviewed under that that fifth work session item. >> Great. Yeah, I think it makes sense that we'll jump down to five and combine it and talk about both now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, the last uh commission meeting that this was discussed, the homeowner
was asked to revise the replanting plan uh for trees removed in riverfront to include um a mix of trees and shrubs versus just shrubs. Uh so, we do have that revised plan. I'm happy to go over it um or pass it over to John who is the
homeowner and um put the plan together. >> Sure. Is John on the call? >> Yep. >> Uh hello. Uh, this is John Toddiel, 42 North Mil Street. Yes, I am here. >> Hey, John. How are you? >> Good, thank you. >> Do you want to give us just a real quick
highle rundown of the updates you made since we last spoke? >> Yes. Yes. So, um, uh, this is a region one where the plants were cut. Uh, and this is a outside region. So Judy, could you bring up the two photographs that I
uh uh provided so get get a better perspective? >> Sure. One second. Um >> do you have it or not? >> Yeah, just yet. through the files.
>> Uh not this one. So u I I sent it with uh with with the uh plan. There were two images. Okay. It it uh you can bring it later. I can show that later. Uh there are two pictures which is highlighting in blue diagram what this one is.
>> Okay. So uh let's go to the these are two pictures. Okay. And this is the region uh that I showed in the other diagram where the trees were cut. And this is the region on the right side which I highlighted here where there are
some free space where I can plant the trees. Here were the four trees that were cut. 1 2 3 and four. If you look there are too many rocks here and the uh the trees are kind of uh very close by
barely 8 ft 5t. uh so in this region I will be planting the uh shrubs and in this region just outside of it which is here I'll plant the tree just outside uh protecting it
from the uh lake. So you can go back to the diagram that we we have the perspective of the region. So the other can you go to the other diagram? Okay. So this is where the uh trees were cut and uh 8 ft x 5t. So here will be mostly
um shrubs. Um so there'll be um tree cuts are in the red. I cut these two trees, but I took ownership of these two trees that were cut before. Uh and they're going to be 1
2 3 four shrubs and they're going to be uh four trees. And the um I can't see the bottom so can you roll up a bit? Okay. So this uh shows the relative position. So this is the
front of the house. This is the back of the house. This is the extent of the lawn lawn and u so it's about 30 ft from here and 40 ft from here. And uh the pictures were taken me standing here at
this this place. So the uh the species of the trees would be the next page. So the shrubs would be all be uh low bush uh blueberries and the trees would be choke cherry
which is about 30 to 40 ft tall and uh uh gray birch about also the similar height 30 to 40 uh feet tall. Uh, that's all I have. Any comments? And >> Great. Thank Thank you, John. Anyone on the commission have any thoughts or
comments they'd like to share? >> Uh, I'm sorry. I I may or may not. I'm just trying to pull up images of choke cherry trees and the other ones because I don't have a sense for what kind of tree they are. Um, >> it's funny you say that cuz I just did the same thing for the chair. I was like, let me just see what that looks
like. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I I wonder if Joe Orzelle has thoughts on those particular tree offerings as replacements for what's been removed. Um, while I continue to try to find some pictures to understand what those trees are. >> Yeah.
>> Joe, not to put you on the spot. >> I wasn't clear. >> Oh, this is Joe. I I wasn't clear on what was removed. Um but uh as far as those particular trees for planting um it looked like a pretty uh upland location. Choke cherry within
grrey birch both do well there. It look pretty sunny. They they like sunny locations. They're pioneer species. Um fast growing. Uh choke cherries will provide um some wildlife food habitat.
Um neither one of them is are very big trees but u they they are fast growing. >> Great. Great. Thank you Joe. Yeah I I my recollection is the trees that were out there were were rather large and there was some concerns about falling on the
house. So I think we were amendable to some smaller replacement trees as long as the the quantity was there and there were going to be some shrubs to supplement it. So, I don't know if anyone recalls anything differently, but that was my
recollection of our last discussion. >> No. And now that I've looked at pictures, um I I originally typed in choke berry, >> and those are pretty clearly bushes, not trees, but I found some pictures. I think I'm okay with those trees. >> And I'd be remiss not to ask if you have
any thoughts here since we're talking trees. Yeah, you know, I'm not going to argue. Fair enough. So, it sounds like we're we're all in agreement, so I would
happily take a motion. Well, let me take a step back. Judy, can we talk a little bit about um the second item, the enforcement order and the language that was pulled together here? >> Yep. Yeah. So, the original enforcement order required the homeowner to put
together the restoration plan. So, now that we have that, um I put together a new enforcement order to require compliance with that restoration plan. Um so, most of the information is the same. Uh when you get
to section C now the requirement is install plantings as depicted on sketch plan. Um all required plantings to survive a minimum of two growing seasons. Plantings that don't survive shall be replaced and monitored for survival. Um and then I have several
conditions mostly standard um but one special condition around installing the PIB that was also depicted on the sketch plan provided. So happy to answer any questions or if you have feedback um can make some
tweaks to it as well. >> Yeah, from my perspective I didn't nothing jumped out at me as concerning. I think you had everything covered but anyone else on the commission have questions, comments, thoughts on the updates here?
>> They all look good to me. Thank you, Judy. Okay. So, I think at this point entertain a motion to issue the revised and enforcement order for this particular property. >> Do we need signatures >> and signatures? Yes. Please include that
in your motion. >> I will make that motion including signatures because we won't be signing. >> Ann and Jude second. >> No second. >> Thank you, Jim. Quick roll call vote. Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Ed. >> I'm an I. >> Jim. >> I. >> And I am an I. >> Thank you, John, for pulling that together. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Have a good evening.
>> Yep. >> All right. Moving down the list. We've got a couple of items here. There's no draft minutes for review today, so we'll jump right into uh the first of two DPW items. I think I saw Carrie on the line.
Carrie, are you here? >> Hi, I'm here. >> Ah, hi Carrie. How are you? >> Good. >> So, I think we'll start with Lake Massen, the DPW drawdown request. Judy, I don't know if you have anything to add, but I I think what we'd love to
hear, Carrie, from you is just kind of a refresher on the work that's going to be executed and what you're looking for from the commission tonight. >> Okay, great. No problem. So, hi everyone. Carrie Reid, um, director of public works. So we have been
responsible for um implementing the weed management program that has been recommended by the lake basin weed advisory citizen group um or citizen advisory group. So this group
has been working for 10 plus years um evaluating the situation with the weeds in the lake and making recommendations. So last, so part of that we came before the conservation commission to get an order
of conditions that included a toolbox of multiple options that could be used for weed management. And so we're operating now under this order of conditions, but we've also always done operations and m I shouldn't say always operation and maintenance of the dam itself. Um so this order of conditions kind of
includes that piece of it. So for the regular maintenance of the dam, we always do a draw down in the winter time. It's typically um like 3 to 5 ft 3 feet. Um every third year we've been doing an extended draw down. It serves
two purposes. One is the maintenance of the lake and the other is that it does help with weed control. So what it does is exposes the bottom of the lake. Um, and if we get a nice cold freeze, that will
damage or um destroy the roots of a lot of the weeds. And so it's really effective if we get a good nice cold um section. So last year we were doing repair work to the dam. So we the dam or
the lake was in addition to doing repair work, we had drought conditions. The lake was a little bit lower than it typically was and we had good cold winter. So, it actually worked pretty well. Um, so that is the citizen advisory group's preferred method. It's the least intrusive. Um, it's very
effective if we get the right weather. In addition to that, which has been like kind of normal practices at the lake for several several years. Um, based on the research and recommendations of the citizen advisory group. Um, and we also as a town we hire a limnologist to help
out and provide like that technical expertise. We had the recommendation and we've went before you guys to get approval to do an aquatic uh herbicide treatment. So, we didn't do it this summer. We did the previous summer. We did that. It was very effective um as we
expected. Um, we did all of the requirements, the post, the pre and the post surveys. It seemed to work pretty well. As I said, we had that kind of five foot draw down last summer or last winter and that froze it out. So, the beginning of this year when we did the
pre-summer kind of the spring survey, everything looked pretty pretty good. Um, and it still continued to be pretty pretty good. But we just did a survey back, what was it, the end of June or July? It's in that letter, the end of summer survey. Actually, it was later
than that. Um, and the weeds are starting to come back. Um I think there were a lot more native species which is good but the density is back up again. So based on that uh we are recommending right now for this
winter to do the extended draw down because we do it we have been doing it every three years. So this will be the third year and then we are waiting for the final report from the new limnologist that we hired to give us recommendations on what we should do
next year. And that's my full summary. >> Great. Thank you, Carrie. Everything I'm hearing is we're supposed to have a cold fall and cold winter. So, it's it's probably timing up nicely for this every thirdyear draw down. You're talking about the 8 ft. Um, I don't have any
questions on my end. I think this is a great alternative for controlling the weeds in the lake. So, it's good to see we're still doing that. Um, anyone on the commission have any thoughts, comments, anything you'd like to share? Not hearing any. Ed, no. Go ahead. I saw
you come off mute. Go ahead. >> Other than that Carrie is a rock star. No, >> that that's you're welcome to share that comment as well. I think we all agree. Um, Judy, I think we want to vote on this one. Correct. >> It would. Yeah.
>> Great. So I'll entertain a motion to guess approve this extended draw down as one of the measures uh DPW is going to use for managing leads at Lake Mastadon. >> I'll make a motion. >> Well, I'll second it then.
>> All right, quick roll call. Ted >> Ted is an I. >> Ted >> I. >> Jim >> I. >> And I am an I. >> All right. One down, one to go. carrot. >> Well, thank you everyone and um the the
citizen advisory group and the lake maspan preservation association are very um thankful for the support and everybody's help with all this. So, I will let them know um and we'll work with our team to start the draw down. We typically start it um midepptember, but we are very very cognizant of the
drought conditions that we're experiencing now. So, we're going to be um watching that and making sure that we're considerate of that as we do the draw down. So, thank you. All right, switching gears. You ready for the next one? >> Yeah. You want to jump into the ice
house pond project summary? >> Yes. So, this um I'm very excited about. But um so DPW, we are going to submit a grant application for the um community
preservation commissioner community preservation act round this year to try to do some improvements at Ice House Pond. So hopefully you all are familiar with it, but as you're going down West Main Street towards town, it's on your left um near Golden Pond. It has the
historic train depot out front, uh, parking area, the ponds behind it, and then Berry Acres, which you guys manage, is um, on the other side of the road. So, what I am proposing to do is right now try to get some funding for conceptual design. Um, personally in
DPW, it's always been bothering me that it has this kind of amoeba parking lot that doesn't function very well and cars kind of go everywhere. They come in and off the road everywhere. Um there's huge puddles all the time. Couple it wasn't last year before we tried to do some
grading and help out with that but it's always kind of difficult. So that was where I was interested in it as DPW. But I wanted to re conservation commission because I know you have some interest in there because of the connection to the um conservation space across the road.
It's a like those trails are really well used. Um, and also some interest in protecting the resource, which is the pond itself. Um, one thing I talked to Judy about was that the conservation commission had been looking for some
projects to show um, how you could do like a nice native planting buffer. Um, and we've been looking at the Lake Mass and we couldn't find a really great space. So, this felt like a really good area that maybe we could do a pilot project and put in some more native
shrubs and species and show what you could do with like really responsible landscaping as part of the improvement projects. So, I was hoping that um because of that and with the improvements hopefully to the drainage from the parking lot um that would have to come before conservation that I
wanted to see like let you guys know about the project, see if you have questions and then I was hoping that you might be willing to like write a letter of support to CPC for the grant application. >> Great. Yeah. No, I mean I think this is a great idea. It's a high visibility
location and if we can use it as an educational tool as well as something that residents in town can use to both access that side of the road and Barry Acres, I think there's a lot of positives about a project uh in this location. So, I would certainly support
that and I think it would be great um as long as the rest of the commission agrees for us to pull together a letter of support and provide that to you to submit with the grant application. Ted, add or Jim, any thoughts or comments? >> Uh yeah, just a couple. Um hi Carrie,
thank you. This is a great idea. Um will this be used as a trail head for Barry Acres, do you think? And if so, uh, consider putting in some type of crosswalk or at least signage. >> I think we, it's a great question. I
think we need to look at that because, right, there's no real easy way to get to Berry Acres and this is very popular space to to park. So, that's why we are going to hire Halverson and this is a proposal that I got um is um an architectural landscape architect firm
that we've been using for some other projects I've been very happy with. Time Bond is an engineering firm that does our peer reviews and some other work for town. So, I'm hoping that all these things will come up and that they might be able to give us some examples. Um, >> the challenge with that area is it's a
midb block crossing which can be dangerous. So, we want to make sure we can do something safely. >> Um, but I think it's definitely something we need to look at or definitely signage because like some people, you know, they park there and they walk around the pond, they have no idea that the trail network is across
the street. So something that helps um build that would be great. >> Well, there's Yeah, there's a lot of I think additional trail extensions and so forth going on. Um I I would if I could I would support the letter although as
you may know I'm on CPC so that may or may not be appropriate but well done. saw Melissa jump on. So feel free if you have any thoughts as well here, Melissa, to to jump in. >> Yeah. No, I would just echo um support
for this project. I think it's great. Um, and I like the connection that you're making with the buffer um, plantings and then being able to kind of like point to this for other
uh, homeowners, land owners projects in town. Um so yeah, no definitely I think we can come up with a pretty good support letter and anything else um through the process be happy to weigh in
or support. Um yeah, >> either of you like to share, is that you? >> Yeah, that's me. First, echoing Jim's thoughts about the crosswalk. Um, but secondly, this is a bit of trivia that probably I'm guessing
most of you don't know. The Hopkin High School hockey team like in the 1930s, this was their home ice. And there is a picture or there was a picture at the historic commission inner sanctuary at
the library of the crew out there. So maybe said picture could be copied and stuck up on the wall in the railroad station. That's all. >> That's a great idea. >> That's amazing. By the way,
>> good bit of history right there. >> Anyone else? Happily, if there's any comments from the public, happy to entertain those as well. Not hearing any. Um I don't know that we necessarily need to vote on anything here. Um it sounds like everyone's in agreement of supporting the project and
I think we're all willing to write and sign a letter of support to submit the grant application. So uh this is great Carrie. I think there's a lot of opportunity here both for an educational standpoint and to, you know, make sure residents in town are aware of all the resources we have and to take advantage
of. So, thank you. >> Well, thanks. I appreciate the support. Um, I think the applications are due in early October, so we've got about a month um to get that in. If you guys write a letter of support, you can send it straight to Jim. No, um, CPC
and keep our fingers crossed. >> Sounds good. Thanks, Carrie. >> Thanks, >> Melissa. I'll happily hand the reigns back over to you if you're ready to take over. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Thanks, Matt.
Thank you guys for kicking it off. Um, >> so I think where we left, well, you know where we left, we've got a couple of work session items outstanding that we haven't gotten to yet. We did we did hit number five, so we combined that with the enforcement order discussion. Um, so
we could skip over that and it's well past 7:15, so I'll leave it up to you if you want to go into hearings or work session. >> Okay. Yeah, let's jump up to let's jump up to hearings. Um, so with that, we have Ravenwood LLC
continuation for the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation. Um, do we have anyone on the call representing this project? I know we were close
last time. No. Okay, Joe, I think I'm going to turn to you um to see where we're at as far as your outstanding comments and how they
address them. >> Yeah, I didn't meet um with the gutter consultant out at the site. uh we reviewed um all the uh changes that I had suggested made those
changes um and all the changes were made u so I don't have uh I think all the all of my comments have been have been addressed I think u the the plan looks good as it is >> okay
sounds good Yeah, I think that's all we were we were looking for last time around was to clean up those comments that you had. So, um, does anyone else I'm I'm good with it. Does anyone else have any questions or comments on this uh delineation?
>> If Cho's good, I'm good. >> Okay. Anyone from the public? No. Great. Go ahead. And um can I get a motion to approve this abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for
Ravenwood? >> Yeah. And I'll amend that motion with signatures by Judy or Anna and second it. >> Thanks, Matt. Um all in favor, Ed. >> I >> Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Matt. Matt, >> I >> uh Jim, >> I >> and I am also an I. >> Put that. >> All right, we can finally put that one
to bed. Um, good. Next up, we have All right, Hawk Can Trails continued. So, we're on to 16 Lakeshore Drive. Notice of intent continuation. It's a retaining wall.
Um Judy, can you give us a update and overview on where we're at with this one? >> Sure. Uh through the chair. Um so we do have uh an updated site plan and narrative for this project. Um Dave sent
over a narrative and a discussion around the performance standards as requested by Joe. Uh a second planting area was added to the plans. So the commission had expressed that they wanted to see more of a vegetated buffer across the lakefront. Um this secondary area was
added down here. Um this is the area that had already been on the plans. The uh bordering land subject to flooding boundary was drawn onto the plans as well. So that is shown by this kind of bolded line here.
Um, I'm not seeing the buffer zone on here, but it might be off property. And then there is still open discussion around hydric soils found at top the wall and whether that qualifies as BVW. Um, so I think Joe has a little bit more
insight into that. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah, Joe, can you jump in with your your thoughts and comments? >> Yeah. Um I think a majority vast majority of our comments
were addressed that a couple of outstanding items. Um as Judy had mentioned uh there was a question on hydro soil um upgradient of the of the retaining well. Um it looks looking at
the plan it looks like they now have an area um highlighted with the with an arrow saying limit of hydrate soils and then in parenthesis not BDW. Um and I know it was it's a mode area with low grass. There was no u explanation or
discussion submitted that I saw as far as why they were not considering a BBW um um with the hydro soils. Um so it may be because there was insufficient vegetation or low vegetation but um it's not clear. So I was recommending that uh
they provide some additional information on why they're considering it non BDW uh with the hydro soils being present. Um, let's see. Uh, had a question on, uh, originally on notifications. Uh, there was no evidence
of the mailing submitted in the information review. I assume that they submitted that, but it was still not in any of the information that was, uh, submitted in the revised materials. [Music] the uh they didn't respond uh directly
to our previous comments, so I had to kind of go through the plans and the documents and pick out what was addressed. Um so I don't know if you want me to get into all the items that were addressed or just the ones that weren't, but I guess um >> yeah, I think just the ones that were
>> the ones that weren't. Yeah. So uh they uh did say that they would be filing a chapter 91 the chapter 91 recommending that the commission be copied on that. Um they have revised the plan as Judy mentioned to show the um um
revised flood elevation and buffer zone. However, they have it labeled as a flood zone A. Um it should be the flood zone 80 to be uh correct because it does have a a base flood elevation associated with it. Recommended that the plan just be
advised to show that. Um there's also um a comment that they will be accessing the site from the adjacent parcel which um I believe is a town of Hopington parcel and just want to make
sure that u they get all the permits and and permissions they need to access it from the town of Brussel. uh they had noted that the work would be done uh during lake draw down the low water um and I would recommend that uh
the project be conditioned to require that as as Julia talked about they now have two planting areas um they've totaling about 195 square ft um with a number of
u native plants proposed. I think the uh plants are appropriate for the site. Uh the planting plan or the planting notes do not include the scientific names of the plants. I would recommend that those be added just to avoid any confusion and
that a note be added that no cultivars are to be used. And there was a comment on the uh wall functioning as a PIB. We had noted that the commission should discuss that
and also DP had provided a comment uh requesting that they be copied on all revisions and just uh making sure that I'm not aware that DP was copied just making sure that uh they should be copied. I think that pretty much covers covers my comments.
>> Okay. Um and Joe on the FEMA flood line um you mentioned the comment to change it from A to AE to reflect that properly. Otherwise is the line drawn >> it appears yes it appears to be drawn
correctly at the at the correct elevation but the plan is is on a vertical not the same vertical datim as the um um the FEMA flood elevation. So they have a corrected they have a note on the correction and what what it corresponds to and it looks like it's
drawn in that that that you know where that close to where that should be. I imagine there was some um calculations done between between the contours to figure out where it goes but it does look to be in the in the correct location. >> Okay,
great. Thanks. Um, do we have the homeowner um on the line here or Dave, you're representing? >> Yeah. Uh, good evening. Yeah. Uh, Steve
Dana is on the call as well. >> Okay. >> Uh, we we can make those th those uh changes in the in the plantings to the scientific to include the scientific name. We can change the uh the wording on the flood. the flood zone is is
accurate. Um the plantings it's glad to hear that we're okay with the type of plants. Um prior to this we had uh just the high bush blueberry. So uh we're in now it's sort of in keeping with what the what we think the board is looking
for. Um the buffer zone to that flood zone is across the street. Um and uh you know there are no trees to be cut. We feel that the the wall could act as the PIB. Um they've done that in the past. We we thought we could follow through
with that same same type uh understanding. Um um and Steve Dana has had discussions uh with the town of Hopkin and he could uh clarify that. Uh but we do have permission to to utilize that piece. We
are intending to put down plywood. Um uh anytime we're going to uh travel across that that little strip. Um Steve uh Dana maintains that property uh the town of Hopkins piece. So it's in his best
interest to to keep it plush. Um and yes, we can make these changes relatively soon. Um Scottheim uh who couldn't be here today uh on August 14th went out and evaluated uh the BVW the hydric soils. I thought he would address
that in his letter. Uh we'll get some clarification on that for the next meeting. Um [Music] it's his understanding that is not uh BVW. There was evidence of hydric soils but not BVW. Um so that was under his
instructions to label it as such. But we'll we'll get that in in in in writing. >> Okay. Yeah, that I think that would be be helpful for our understanding. Make sure we're all on the same page. Um, couple things.
So the proposed plantings for the buffer strip that we talked about which is right here on the plan on the screen. Um you know the the the purpose and what we like to see is to have that buffer along
as much of the pond um frontage as we can. Uh so I guess in my mind when when we ask for that you know the commission's desire would be to carry that across
um you know all the way to the dock obviously leaving room for someone to access um the water to get into the dock and and and into the water. But there's still a significant portion of that lakefront frontage that is open to, you
know, lawn and and runoff um making its way straight in there. So, my question would be, can we expand that that filter filter strip that we're looking for further along the pond line? And Melissa, before we get an answer, I
I was looking um Dave and I was trying to find somewhere on the plan some measurements. Uh I was first looking to see what the gap was. Um but what's the width of those planning strips? >> Five feet.
>> Five feet. Okay. So, that sounds good. But I am completely with Melissa on extending along the shoreline. And I don't remember if it was this property when we met recently, but I asked Judy to flash up the um graphic we sometimes show because the path to the dock is
important, but it's also important that it's a bit of a curved path. So there's not a straight line from lawn to the dock. Uh and I would love to see that incorporated as well. Yeah, we uh we had discussed this uh at
length uh with the with the property owner and it it was his desire to to to go a little bit thicker on the width of the planting bed. Um it doesn't leave a lot of room
between his house and the lake. Um he has a very small front yard, so all his activity is in the backyard. Um he he the lake is important to him and and Steve's on the call. Um it was it
was uh the area that we're talking about is about an additional 18 and 19 ft between the edge of the dock and the section of plantings worth more opposing to the south. Uh north being up the page. Um,
and it was just it's kind of a it's a it's a personal thing for the homeowner. Uh, he understands he's all about preservation. Uh, he's just trying to he he did what he thought was in the best interest of the lake and his property.
So, he was trying to trying to meet the commission halfway uh with their request. Um, and that's kind of how we got to the two areas that currently show in the plan. >> Yeah. No, I I understand that that this
isn't a, you know, we're not rebuilding a house or anything. We're rebuilding a wall. Um, but it is >> Yes. >> Um, I am not one to redesign a plan, but I
for one would be happy in in the more is this a north south orientation? If it is, the more northerly L-shaped planting, I'd be happy to give back some backyard for the long end and move that over to lakefront. It it would be,
you know, a zero some gain of of lawn space, but it would be much more protective of the lake. Can I speak? >> Yes, you may. Absolutely. >> Thank you. Um, you know, I've I've I've lived here for eight years and like Dave
said, I'm a strong proponent of Lake Health and an active member in LMPA as well. Uh, and the lake health is very important to me. Um, Ted, I that little leg that you have coming across and it I it just leads to up the easement that's
there. Uh the town does own that easement with there there are no plantings there. There is nothing there. I am more than willing to sort of I don't know if it's north southeast. I'm not a very good boy scout but uh to bring those to where the town property
is. That's not my responsibility, but I would be willing to do that as well as part of this to bring I think there's about 18 ft of of buffering, some type of buffer there with some these type of plants that we're talking about, the tall blueberries and uh sort of continue
that on where it's not on my property, but it would be something that I've listened to the com uh the commission talk about this as something that's important to you. It's also important to me to enjoy the lake, uh, to have my grandchildren over. Uh, a lot of this the the the planting is a little, um,
excessive, you know, to coming into my yard, I guess. You know, I I I wouldn't it'd be my house and then we would be plants and then, you know, run through them and get to the lake. Um, so I I I'd be more than willing to do that at at my expense to
sort of continue that on if you I I can't move the uh the drawing down a little bit, but that where the town right of way is right now, there is nothing there except uh grass that goes into the lake. This would be something that we could build uh you know,
something nice in there and uh have There we go. Uh Rod says existing loose stones and rocks. That's uh that would be some nice planting that we can continue to do as well as trying to I think Ted what you were saying is that
the long part versus the short part what looks like kind of like a like an L or a number seven. This would run into another bunch of hostas and some other stuff that's been existing there for as long as I've lived there. All this stuff that's there is has been there since I've been there. None of this been
planted or cut or anything since I've since I've been there. if that makes sense. >> Melissa. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Ted. >> Um, so I I I hope we can stay uh friendly because I believe you love the
lake. The difficulty um the difficulty I have um is we as a commission have been really trying to establish this planting buffer as a norm. And if we back off of
that, I don't know how firm a leg we have to stand on when the next applicant comes and the next applicant. Um I have a question for I'm not sure who. Maybe it's Joe. Maybe it's Judy. Um,
we love the plantings. Um, I understand what you're trying to do. Is there short of plantings some sort of French drain with gravel that could live between grass and wall and lake that
might perform some of the function of the plantings that we're hoping for? Is there anything like that as a compromise situation that anyone knows of? >> I don't know, but I can look into it,
but I I can't give you an answer right now. >> Yeah, likewise. Um, the only thing I could think of potentially was something would be something like a uh like a rain garden type construction. Um, you know,
kind of a linear shape along the wall that could possibly um be put in there, but I don't know how that would impact the functioning of the wall if there if there would be an issue with that. I I guess for me I I'll leave that
question open. I I am very nervous about backing off on what we've been trying to establish to protect the lake. Uh as much as I'm sympathetic to you, Steve. >> Well, I I appreciate that. Just that it's and I you know and I'm cool with
you know with something reasonable. I'm I'm I'm cool. Um and and that's why we try to I try to come up with something that would still allow me to use my backyard a little bit uh and uh and satisfy the you know the committee's
request. I mean we got you know stuffs going up and down the lake. I'm the only one that would have any of this uh you know plantings or any of this sort of stuff all the way to the end of Lake Shore from the beginning to the end. There is nobody else that has any
plantings or anything else that's going on down here. >> Uh the all I know is the existing wall right now is terrible. Uh I I really would like to replace. I think it would be a very positive thing for the lake and the lakes's health. Uh this wall was
never built right, but it's that's nothing for me to do. It's been there for the last 65 years. So I'm just I'm trying to make it right. >> Yeah. And and if I may, I believe that you're what you're saying about your neighbors, but that's part of the reason it's become a priority for us because
this has not been the norm around the lake and we think that it's resulted in ne negative impacts on the lake. So, so I don't know. I'm a little stuck. I'll be quiet now. >> The chair, this is Ed.
>> Yes, Ed. >> Yeah. I'm going to try and thread in here. Um, how what is the distance between as as in the plan right now between what I'll call the the northerly
garden and the southerntherly garden that fronts on the lake. How many feet is that? >> I think it's 49. A little under 49. >> If if we >> Oh, the Oh, you mean the gap? Uh, Ed, I'm sorry. Yeah, gap between there. >> I think it's under Maybe it's under 12
feet. >> I thought I heard Joe Mark went on say 18, but maybe he said he was talking about something else. >> Nope, it's uh This is Dave. It's >> Oh, Dave, I'm sorry Dave, I got you confused. I'm sorry. >> It's okay. It's uh it's about 181 19 ft
from the edge of the uh opening for the dock going southerntherly to the other. The southern one is 181 19 ft. So, in further in the spirit of compromise, if we squeeze that some, would that be
something, Steve, that you could live with? >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'd have to sort of look this one. We know I kind of staked it out a little bit just to see what was left after we're all done. Um, it it's it's a lot for us to give up. It's a
lot. And I again I'm in the spirit of compromise all over the place. And um I thought maybe where the the town's part of it, you know, is has nothing right now and we're doing all this buffering and trying to make everything right, but
the the part that the town owns has all the drainage issues, has all the other stuff. This would be a very positive impact. and and you know again at my expense trying to in the spirit of trying to meet everybody and and continue on future endeavors that this
was a a very positive thing for Lake Health and for uh and for my project as well. [Music] >> Sorry. So if you if you if you do indeed
plant in in the on the the margin there of the town's rightway, how many feet would that be? And correct me Dave if I'm wrong. I think it's about 20 >> through the chair. Um >> I'm a little hesitant to entertain
>> uh plantings on town property just because we don't know what that easement's for. Um and I'm not exactly sure who owns or maintains it. So >> I maintain it. >> Yeah, I'm sure. But I don't want to give you per, you know, for you to get
permission to plant on it. And DPW says we need to mow all this down to get boats, you know, for whatever reason. I don't know what it's there for. So, without having had those conversations, I'm a little hesitant to >> to >> Yeah, Judy, I'm I'm flipping through the pictures right now. I don't know if you
can pull one up. Um 9877 is is a good one. Um, it looks like it's just a catch basin from the street and the drain pipe. Um, but I agree with you. It's it's um
something that would need to be reviewed with DPW, but it it does you can kind of scroll through I think the one be before that two. You can see it is grass right up to the water. It
wouldn't be a bad It would be an improvement. Um it's obviously lawn right there in that easement all the way down to the water as well. It's a straight shot. Um
>> look at how nice I mow that. >> Nice green grass. Yeah. So, I mean, maybe this is something obviously there's a few things that need to be cleaned up on the plans. Anyway, um Joe's comments that Dave's going to address. Um I don't
think we're closing this tonight. Um maybe that's something that we can talk to DPW about or you can talk to DPW about, Dave and Steve. >> Sure. >> Um see if that's something that we can entertain. and see what that reason's
for. Um, actually Judy, if you go to 9889 picture 9889. Yeah, I was thinking it was more rock, but it's it's it's really not. It's mostly grass all the way there. >> Yeah, there's no rock. There's just that seaw wall if you want. another another
retaining wall if you would. >> Yeah. >> When the first pipe that was there a few years ago was like earthing, it cracked and created a gigantic sinkhole. Uh they had to kind of dig up the whole thing
and put this new pipe in. Um the other previous DPW, not Krie, but the the guy she replaced, uh uh he explained to me there's a pond that's on Beach Street that gets some relief from this as well. Drains into the culverts.
I I don't really know, but that's what it's for. Um, so yeah, I think I think if we can if you can kind of take another look and consider the thoughts
um from the commission and what we're what we're trying to do, that would be appreciated before the next meeting. >> Melissa, >> yeah, go ahead, Ted. I was just going to say since I was the most vocal sticking point, um I do worry about precedent,
but this would if DPW if the town says, "Yeah, we'll put some plannings there." That to me gives the commission um a firmer leg to stand on when the next applicant comes and doesn't want to do the plings because it's similar to mitigation we ask other uh applicants to
do if there are are places where we're concerned. Mhm. >> Um if we can I if Steve you can get permission from the town. Um that to me feels I feel on firmer ground allowing the the
the plan on your property exactly the way you have it. Feeling okay. >> Okay. I'll I'll do my best >> and and I concur. >> Yeah. I think I think the other thing with this um particular application too is that it's
not increasing impervious area not I mean it's it's replacing the existing wall um and there there are improvements mitigation that's being offered. So um that's helpful too as opposed to a plan
that's coming in front of us where it's expanding the building, putting in a patio, adding more impervious area. Um, so >> yeah, Melissa, >> yeah, >> I would adamantly second that. Um, I
understand the precedent discussion, but, you know, we're we're not talking about a new project here. We're talking about a replacement of a wall that's beginning to fail that could result in, you know, erosion and sediment getting put into the lake. Um, and they're
offering up mitigation. So, if anything, it would feel to me like we're setting a precedent that even when you're just doing a maintenance exercise, we're going to expect some type of planting to help protect the lake and the greater goals of this commission. So, um I get what you're saying, Ted, wholeheartedly
and I agree like the more plantings the better. No doubt about that. Um, but in this particular case where it's a replacement of an existing weight retaining wall in kind and we're getting looks like what I at least a couple hundred if not 300 ft of plantings where
it's all lawn right now. I think those are those are positives and I think it's not necessarily precedent setting across the board, but just in a situation where you're dealing with a lakefront maintenance issue, not a new project, I think that's a a helpful distinction to
keep in mind for us. Just my just my two cents. I don't don't want to be contrarian, but that's just those are just my feelings on it. >> Yep. Okay. And then I do think
um so we talked about the PI the wall is a PIB so that's not called out on the plan currently right there's that's a question >> no um I think there's a note on the plan
Uh >> yeah, not number 18. Uh the proposed retaining wall will act as a PIB. >> Okay. >> Okay. Melissa, when we've done that in the past with the PIBs being the wall, have
we >> has it just been the wall as is or have we done like placards, you know, like cast into the wall or anything like that? Just curious. I I haven't been around long enough to to know. >> Yeah. No, it's a good question because I think um in the past we would just
identify the wall, but more recently we've found that um or we've been trying to kind of double up and put the actual placard somewhere so that people in the when you're in the fe when you're in on the site without a plan in front of you, you
know, you can recognize you can recognize it. Um >> yeah. >> What's PIB mean? That's a great question. >> Yeah, it should probably be spelled out there. Um, permanent and movable barrier. And what that is supposed to be
is a line in the sand of where um the conserv, you know, we kind of agree that this there no work beyond this limit. no maintenance, no, you know, this is the conservation area um that shouldn't be maintained or
touched by the homeowner or anyone um on the site. >> Is that just during when they're building it or >> No, it's after. >> Oh. >> Um so it's it's supposed to be on there so future homeowners also realize that
you know this is a environmentally sensitive area. You need to go to the commission if you want to do anything, you know, in that area. Don't mow. Don't throw yard clippings, things like that. It's a little
>> sounds crazy. >> It's a little It's a little quirky when it's on the lakefront like this. Like usually it's more um you know, you have the tree line in someone's backyard and then beyond it is the buffer and the wetland. So you put them on the trees
like you put the medallions on the trees so that you know it's a marker. Don't >> Oh yeah. >> You know, don't like don't don't throw your yard waste back there. Don't cut down the trees. Don't you know >> we get some big water back there. >> Yeah. Yes.
>> Steve, I'm happy to tell you that I would be okay without medallions on the wall. I think it's a pretty obvious and we do have it on the plan in case anything comes up. Um and I'm I'm a stickler for these things. I'm all about PIB markers in this case.
>> Thanks, Ted. Appreciate that. >> I I I will be on your side for this one whole. >> Thank you. >> I I feel like the wall is pretty obvious. I like that it's on the plans so we have it uh there officially. I don't feel the need to put plastic
markers on the wall. >> Yep. Okay. >> I I don't mean to speak for everyone else, but that's that's where I land. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. No, I'm with you, Ted. >> Don't be mad at me, Dave, that I didn't
know that. >> Now you know. Tell your friends. >> When I have him over tomorrow, big cookout. >> Yeah. Um, all right. So, I think >> Melissa, I I'm sorry to slow us down. >> No, it's okay. >> I I thought, and maybe it happened and I
missed it. I thought that Joe Orzelle had a um a question about the note that says limit of hydric soils, not BD BVW. Um and I'm not sure if Dave Mark would answer Joe's question, but maybe I
missed it. >> Yes, David, go ahead. >> Yep. Um, I had thought that Scottheim uh when he went out there on the 14th uh was going to address that in his latest uh memo to Joe into the commission. Uh he had not.
>> Okay. >> Uh I was there with him and he it was his opinion uh that it is not VVW, but we'll have uh Scott address that uh in a memo to prior to the next hearing. >> Okay. Sorry that I I made us rehash
that. It's okay. Um, anybody else have anything? Stephen, Dave, you good? You know, >> I got my homework. >> Okay, great. All right, then. Um, can I get a motion to continue this to the
next hearing? >> This is it. I'll make that motion. >> Do you have something, Dave? >> Yeah. Um Um, can we move that to October 7th? You're meeting like the 26th. Is that right?
>> Yes. Yeah, we can do October >> 23rd, but um >> September 23rd and then October 7th are the next two of October 7th. >> Yeah, that's the first one in October. Yep.
Yep. >> Thank you. >> So, is Ed's motion to continue to October 7? Yes, >> I will second Ed's motion. >> All right. All in favor, Ed. >> I
>> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt, >> I >> and Jim. I think you said I, Jim, right? >> I did. I >> Okay. >> And I'm also an I.
>> Great. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. Thank you guys. >> Yep. >> All right. Next up, we have 470 Oak Cursed. This is a continuation for a notice of intent.
>> Hi everyone. You have Andrew Tibo with Goddard on Zoom. >> Andrew Um, you want to go ahead and uh let us know what you got here for an update? >> Yeah. Do you guys mind if I steal um the screen sharing? I have a couple
different visuals to flip back and forth between. So, if that's easiest, I can take it over. >> That's fine with me. Judy, let me just give you permission. >> Thank you. >> Awesome. I appreciate that.
Does this come up? Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Just for context, what we're looking at here is the original plan that was submitted. Um I have both the original and the the new plan, just to talk through um some of the changes. So to to recap sort of where we are now
um in our review process with the commission, we had submitted revised materials um on August 26th. So that was a some pretty substantial um supplemental submitt. It included a full response letter to the third round of
peerreview comments issued to us by Lucas. Um it included a revised site plan. It included an updated mitigation planting plan that's largely the same, but it was over the revised site plan for um consistency. And then um we had submitted a new waiver request form. and
the the largest of the new submitts that's in that packet was um the submission of a full waiver request narrative. So, at our last hearing with the commission, which um would have been two meetings ago now, we have sort of been reviewing the encroachment of this
project into the 50 foot no build zone. And we were having some conversation about the existing conditions of the site, how we felt that the the substantial mitigation plan and storm water management um had met the intentions of the bylaw, but it would require a waiver for the work. and it
was um asked of us to submit a full narrative sort of detailing that position explaining um compliance with the bylaw in greater detail. And then um we had also had the discussion that it seemed that in previous submitts for um
projects in this case where precedent may have been set that we would look at the existing encroachments into the 50, but that the intention would not be to um permit new ones closer to the lake. And so since that meeting we had gotten together as a team and we had made um a
few revisions to the project to to get that to get that done here. So first and foremost um the easiest revision to the plans was that FEMA had updated the flood plane maps for this area back in July and so it was asked to just update
the flood plane on the property and to show the bot buffers that come from that. So the new FEMA flood zone that we see on this property um with the chosen flood elevation is shown here in red and we have now added both the bylaw buffers
to the flood plane and the still showing the bylaw buffers to the bank where we've been discussing this project around. So that was sort of just the easy plan revision. Um and then the mitigation planting plan has remained the same. Prior to the last iteration of
the mitigation plan, we had removed the last species that um didn't seem to show up as native um in either of the um two goat pages that we were using. So the planting plan is still the same. It proposes 91 native plantings. It's um 56
shrubs and 35 plugs throughout the property um as our mitigation. So that all remains the same. What has been changed in this submitt is the the footprint of the house. And so as part of the waiver request narrative that we had submitted, part of that was detailing compliance with the bylaw, but
another portion of it was explaining that we had been discussing the precedent set by the commission and that the intent would not be to encroach further than the existing conditions. So what we did is we took a look at the existing conditions of the property and we found it can be a little bit difficult to see. So bear with me. I'll
do my best to explain it. The polygon that we show in orange, this is the old plan that we discussed at the last meeting. shows the the current um sorry the proposed footprint of the new house and interior of this orange line the polygon that we see here is the
existing dwelling. So we analyzed this to see where our existing encroachments into the 50t are and we found that although the existing dwelling itself um was primarily outside it had a deck that's within the 50 and this deck is
under over a concrete patio so it's fully impervious underneath. So our our limit of imperous development into that 50 was at the deck that we see here. So there was a bit of an existing encroachment into the 50 at present, but it seems like the intent would be that
that should not be extended um vertically closer to the lake and only laterally if the commission was to to grant that waiver. And so we had found that in reviewing the architectural plans that we have, we could trim 2 feet off the back of the house without really
changing anything. um majorly concerning about the project. The applicants are still able to achieve their intended design to build their new house, but we can just trim two feet without having to change the layout of the of the house, change anything with storm water, and it would just reduce the square footage a little bit. And so what we did is we
actually pulled the corner of the house over here to the edge of that 50ft buffer to inland bank and then we extended it laterally across where there is existing encroachment with that deck. So, this was a a slight reduction in both the square footage of the house and the the linear footage from the lake. We
pulled it back two feet. So, we're now about um 43 feet away at closest. We also modified the deck. So, originally the the deck itself was proposed to be um over a pad which would be impervious. And so, we have now proposed this to be on helical peers where we won't be
changing the substrate of what's below it. So, what we see here is the existing hardscape that's on the lot. Everything outside of that is currently lawn. So the idea is that we're not going to modify anything below the deck. Now we will maintain lawn in the areas where it's existing lawn and we'll
maintain the hardscape below it where it's existing hardscape and allow us just to pull back the scope a little bit. The the major submitt that we had incorporated with this as I had mentioned was the the waiver request narrative where we had really explained
the intention of the the project design the bylaw and so I'm sure the commission's read it. So to to spare you, I'll give sort of the brief outline of of what we intended with that submitt. The idea was to take a look at the bylaw in the way that the 50-foot no
build zone is is described and then read the remainder of the intentions of the bylaw and sort of review that in tandem with the intention that we need to provide mitigation here. We don't want to set precedent for projects like this. And so the waiver request had outlined
that in reading it, the bylaw seems to interpret the 50 foot no build zone as a as an undeveloped area. So the way it's written seems to be that when a when a property is undeveloped, these are the sort of criteria, the functions and
values that the 50 foot should be held to to um to maintain throughout a project. And so we had explained that at present this is of course not the case here. So the bylaw uses a term that's called the pre-existing characteristics of the project site. And so we had outlined in a greater level of detail
than the original notice of intent had that the the pre-existing conditions of this site are such that we have an existing single family house. Storm water is not managed at present because it it predates any sort of storm water management standards and we have primarily lawn and heartscape to the
bank of the lake. And so that that waiver request narrative was submitted to sort of explain that we feel that the intention of the bylaw is to protect that the 25 foot not to 50 foot no build from undeveloped areas to to bolster the both the wildlife habitat of the buffer
zone as well as the functions of the resource area itself. And because those are not fully functioning at present as a fully developed buffer zone, we took the position that installing 91 mitigation plantings on the single family house lot with the intention of the majority to be along the bank and to
really cut off and remove that lawn from the bank um as well as providing full storm water management. When you work in tandem with pulling the house further out of the 50, we felt that this was a significant improvement to the project and something that was more consistent with the intent of the bylaw. So, that
was submitted on August 26th. I know we we received um the fourth peerreview letter from Lucas today. It was this afternoon, so I I looked through it very briefly. From what I can tell, and I will certainly let Joe speak to it, so I don't speak for him. Most of the comments seem to be um addressed or
acknowledged. I know there was a comment in there about um a few of the plantings and sort of showing up as native on one database, not on another. So, we have that to go through still. Uh but it seems like most of those comments have been addressed and the intention now is to um one continue to work with Lucas to
make sure we address all their comments and two to review this updated um slightly scaled back version with the commission to see that we can try to bring this um to something where the homeowner is still able to to achieve the project and the design that they're looking for, but
sort of make agreements and um provide mitigation where possible and find a design that works for both sides. So that was what was included in the the August 26th submitt and I'm I'm happy to discuss any component of that. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you for that that
summary. Um Judy, can you pull that what was just up on the screen back up there? I know it was Andrew who had it, but and I can pull anything back up that um that you guys want me to see. I can't see the commission when I have my screen
up, so I was just pulling it up to talk. But let me know if there's anything you guys want to see, and I'll pull it back up. >> Yep. >> I don't think I have that exact visual, but this is the most updated plan set here. >> I I think you do have that visual, Judy,
because I think I'm looking at it on my iPad. >> I do. >> I think it was in the letter, though. That's in the >> Yeah, some old. >> Aha, you're right. >> Okay, >> we had our best artwork interior to the
application. >> Yeah. Um, okay. So, going to the rationale on work in the buffer zone and how that's interpreted.
Um, and you're right up there. Um, I do, you know, agree in most cases you're looking at a at an undisturbed buffer area and it's of significance to
protect um the resource area. The, you know, the commission, you know, keeping that intact is the best way to protect the resource area. um my my I guess my my thought on that for this particular site as I'm looking
at it um the pink existing hardscape to remain um that area is we never permitted that right that's being permitted through this application right now. So even
though that area um aside from the building, not talking about the building, but talking about the hardscape, the existing patio that was previously existing versus the pink, what I'm going to call, you know, new hardcape area to remain.
Um that is a change within that 50-foot buffer zone. that were being asked. >> Correct. Yeah, there was a patio within
this previously, but it was um in a portion of the heartscape you see here and there was a shed, but much of this, you're right, is is included as after the fact. >> Okay. So we are indeed, you know, looking at a different a different condition in my
mind here. Um that warrants well I guess first off do do we prove it and do you know mitigation for whether that that would be why we would allow it in the buffer is if you know potentially there's some mitigation that offsets and
protects the resource area in that buffer zone area. Um, and if we're okay with that. Um, I can't believe you still we didn't quite get the house out of the 50. Um,
there's just still a sliver in there. Um, >> we we are trying. I know it's the orientation of it. Um, because if we if we shift it in either direction, you still you would cause the other one to bump in a little bit. So, we took what's there currently and we tried to just
extend it laterally. And um I would remind the commission the attempt is being made here. Um I know we've discussed this at length, but I know we go a long time in between meetings at times. So it it is important to just remind and discuss that the before we even file with the commission, they they received ZBA approval to bump up the
front yard setback by an additional 10 ft. They relocated a utility pole to do that. So the the intent is absolutely to shift this up as far as possible. It's a it's a very tight lot where as the kitchen you can see that 50 foot's right in the middle of it. So the house that's there now is is very modest in size and
most architectural designs push into the 50. So we're trying to limit it to the extent feasible. Um and we completely understand the commissions. We know we're requesting after the fact patio work and that's why or a major reason why this includes um both a substantial mitigation plan um and full storm water
management. So, we have 91 mitigation plantings, which I think is the most I've ever proposed on a single family house lot below a quarter of an acre. You know, I I do think it's a significant um addition to what's there now and and certainly provides an improvement over existing conditions. And I would clarify that the the drywall
units are sized for all of the impervious surfaces on the site and not just the dwelling itself. So, they use the full it's about 4,000 square feet. Um they they simulated an inch of runoff. So the drywalls are sized to make sure that they are including um that entire patio and hardscape under
the storm water management plan. So I think the commission's aware of that. Just things that get discussed in one meeting and are important to to continue to discuss. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate that because these do go on for a while and you forget details. Um >> definitely. >> Can the So just because they're sized
for that flow, does the hardscape area actually get to those infiltration units? So in this case um it would not so they're they're sized to end up in a net reduction of runoff and volume leaving the property. So they are tied to um the
driveway and the the gutter systems. So it will in effect remove and store the same amount of storm water to make sure that nothing else ends in in a net increase. But the the property's pitched where runoff itself from the hardscape
or areas like this would still um slowly percolate towards the lake which is why it is important to have that native buffer rather than lawn all the way up to the edge. Yeah. >> And then um going back to the house, I think in our
last meeting Matt had asked just for justification why why it needs to be as big as it is it is. Um did did you provide that do we have some rationale for
especially being that we're you know we we are still in the 50. >> Sure. So I know to my best memory when we were discussing it was and I could be wrong about this my I I was under the impression we were asked to explain uh
why it needs to encroach into the 50 and so that was the intent of that waiver request um letter to explain you know how we look at the site the existing conditions of the site um how extending laterally with this bit of reduction would meet the intentions of the bylaw
there wasn't a sort of blurb exactly on why it needs to be sized how it is. Um, but the the remainder of that was in that that waiver request letter. >> Yeah, Melissa. Yeah. What I was looking
for was justification for why the proposed house and proposed deck should be permitted by the commission within that 50 foot no build. We talked a lot about the dwelling so far. I haven't heard much about the deck which
continues to extend well into that 50 foot no build. Um so I don't know Andrew if there's anything you could share to help us understand why that needs to extend so far into the 50 foot. >> Yes. So so the deck was modified as
well. So originally it was proposed to be over a pad and it would have been in the commission's eyes a an additional intrusion into the 50. So in this plan we we had modified the deck and we had added a note that um you would see as an
arrow in like the bottom portion of the graphic that's on Judy's screen right now and it says deck on helical peers. So the intent now is to to modify the deck so that it's it's not changing any of the surfaces on the lot at present. So, it's just going to be on those peers now where all the areas where it's lawn,
it's going to be lawn beneath the deck at present. The deck will extend over portions that are already the hardcape patio at present. Um, and so the intent is not to change any of that um pvious versus impervious surface or create any new runoff from the deck. So, we had thought that this revision would result
in um a significant improvement over the previous that would have been more of an impervious encroachment into that 50. Thank you. That's helpful to understand. >> Absolutely, >> Melissa. From from my perspective,
>> um, with the understanding that we have some discretion on what we allow, do not allow within the 50 foot no build. Um, if it was just the house on the deck, I don't think I'd have much heartache about it or heartburn
about it. Um, but looking at the whole picture, I think is what the at least for me is the challenge, right? We have this massive patio that was unpermitted in addition to what's being proposed for a house on a deck. And I
think for at least for me, that's where the challenge lies. Um, if it was just a house on the deck, I think it'd be in a pretty good place given the justification that was provided. So, just wanted to put that out there for for consideration from everyone.
>> Yeah. >> No, that's that's kind of what that's what I'm struggling with too, Matt. Um, does anyone else have thoughts or questions, comments on the commission? >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. We keep hearing hardcape,
hardscape, hardscape and and maybe it's been stated and I missed it, but exactly what are we talking about? >> Yeah, I I know I don't have screen share capabilities, but I can at least explain that. So, the hardscape that we're describing is sort of the outside of the
dwelling and the deck itself, the remainder of the impervious surfaces that are proposed by the project. Thank you. Those pictures are helpful. So, it's a it's a large patio space. There is some fireplace um and a shed um a couple sheds. So, it's it's all the areas that would qualify as impervious that are beyond the
>> Andrew. And Andrew, yeah, I get all that. I wanted to know what this hardcape was. What is it cobblestones? Is it pavers? Or is it what it looks to be like poured concrete? >> Oh, yes. Good question. So, um I think
we discussed this during a previous meeting, but I if I hadn't made that clear, I apologize. It's it's travertine stone, which is like a more porous um sedimentary rock. So, it's it's used for patios a lot because it we still consider it impervious. I don't want to make the claim to the commission that
it's a you know, like a pvious paver, but because it's a more porous um rock substance, it it wicks water better and so you see a reduced rate of runoff compared to if you just poured concrete back there. So, it's a it's a stone like that that's meant to provide some
ability to wick water from patios. >> Yeah. >> And then of course the sheds themselves would it's it's an impervious roof. Um and I'm hearing so a couple questions from the commission just sparked a thought for me that I'll I'll jump in on. I I understand the commission's um position and our our intention is
certainly to to work with the commission. We've we've had no um no problems revising mitigation plans, discussing back and forth. Um and the intention is certainly to work with the commission. We know that we're requesting after the fact approval. Um it seems like at least you know the idea
that the dwelling within the 50 is being minimized is reasonable. If there are things that we can do with this hardcape um patio area to alleviate some of those concerns, I think we're also open to that discussion as well. Um, I know that
the question about where the storm water management systems actually take water from is a good one. If the, you know, if the imple implementation of some storm water management strategies around the existing patio to manage additional water, things of that nature might help alleviate more concerns. You know, I think we're open to discussing that as a
team as well. The the intention is certainly to to work with you guys and come up with a plan that that does actually end up in a net benefit for this area. So, I'm not putting words in your mouth. If that's something that is beneficial or if the commission has other ideas, we're we're certainly open to hearing them.
>> The chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> Um, I think what I'm struggling with is it's a net benefit over what has been done without approval. I don't know that if this plan
came to us with none of that hardcape in place if we'd be talking about how the adding all the pink would be a net benefit, right? It's a net benefit of the problem that exists. My problem is the pink. My problem is
none of that is permitted as I understand it. And I can't imagine that we ever would have permitted it ever that extent of patio. Not just in the 50 in the 25 the the closest to the lake.
What is that 5T that we have deck going next to the lake there at the southern part? Um building a drainage system for a patio that is that intrusive into what we are supposed to protect. it
still leaves a patio in what we're supposed to protect. Um, and I'm really, really, really struggling with being asked to approve after the fact all of that pink on the plant,
whether there's drainage or not. >> And that that's a fair question and I I understand that response. Um, part of why you are saying that we feel that it's a net improvement. I do agree that of course we are requesting a full patio after the fact. Before this was a patio,
it was pre-existing lawn. Um and so of course drainage concerns are sort of the major thing that comes with the um conversion of lawn space to to patio space. But the way we had looked
at this was this was pre-existing lawn before the the Wells Protection Act and local bylaw down to the edge of the lake. So it was sort of a lawfully existing limit of lawn and so whether it was lawn or patio it certainly changes the drainage characteristics of the
site. Um but the the remainder so like the wildlife habitat benefits of the site things like that were little to none regardless of the the surface material that was there. And that's sort of what we're looking at here. So the the storm water management is implemented from the drainage side of
things, but the the 91 mitigation plantings are attempting to look at an area that if this patio wasn't here, it was still all lawn, it's been maintained for a long time, introducing a full native schedule to the property, the way I look at it is still a benefit in
either condition. And that's that's the attempt behind the mitigation plan, at least to that side of things. Yeah. Um I think you know this is this is the flip side of the one that we saw before.
Um that was just in front of us before where yeah maybe it used to be grass but we're being you know we're being asked to significantly change the entire um
the entire surface cover of of the site. So, we need we need to really make an improvement um here to consider to consider what's being
presented. I mean, we got our D comments as well that also ask for or suggest looking for um putting in natural vegetation, you know, in the area in front of the lake.
I think You know, you have your that that could definitely be you talk about 96 plantings, but 96 plantings compared to the area that's being taken up by the existing hardscape or the, you
know, created hardscape plus the increase in the size of the building. Um, you know, makes that number not not sound quite as big. Um, I don't think that offsets what being proposed here. So,
um, yeah, I I would say I think we need I think we need to go back and need to review review it a little bit more before I'd be comfortable um, making a decision on the on this.
>> Sure. and we we understand that and I I would add that um the intention is still to um continue this meeting. So we we had our fourth letter come in from Lucas today. There's a few more things that we regardless would need to um to respond to and make sure that we're addressing.
Um the bulk of the conversation at the last meeting was centered around the proposed dwelling and we had submitted some materials on that to do what we can. um hearing the the concerns now over the the patio of the heartscape, that conversation, I think it's um very reasonable for us to then take those
comments from the commission and go back and discuss it with the applicant um because there's a there's going to be new materials coming to Lucas anyways. I think that that can then certainly be addressed and and we definitely understand your comments. So, I think we can definitely discuss and address that. >> Okay. Um Joe, did you want to highlight
any particular comments um at this point? Anything that was jumping out? >> Uh I don't really think so. I think um really the discussion has covered pretty much uh anything that I had commented on for the most part.
>> Okay. >> I don't think I need to to go over any of those again at this point. >> Okay. And Judy, is there anything that um that we're leaving out here or that comes to your mind that you want to bring up?
>> Uh, nope. I don't think so. >> Okay. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I have a question for Joe, which he may or may not be able to answer. >> Okay. >> But I'll ask anyway. >> Yeah. Um, if you were to compare,
I guess the the drainage of this patio made of this material versus that same area if it were just grass. Can can you can you give any sort of
like this has 10% more runoff than grass or this has no more runoff than grass? Could you can you give anything like that? Uh, I I couldn't put a number on it. It certainly is going to have a lot more runoff than grass, I would I would
imagine. I mean, there's um maybe a minimal amount of absorption by the travertine, but I I don't know those numbers, so I really can't can't address that with any specificity. >> It's an out of the out of the out of the rightwing sort of question. I'm sorry,
but I'm I'm struggling with this and I'm just trying to understand how it works. Thank >> and um to the chair Ed if that's helpful um because obviously I've my my expertise is more um vegetation wetland science. I'm happy to find the specs for
this material and provide it to the commission knowing that there's revised materials coming. I don't know that it will be a substantive um sort of a storm water report style, but I think even just giving you guys more information on the material might just help that conversation a little bit. So we can include that in our in our revised materials just to provide as much
information as possible on it. >> Um yeah sure you can do that. >> Um does anyone from the audience have any questions or comments? No. Okay. Um, Andrew, would you like to continue
this out to our September 23rd or our October 7th meeting? >> I think for now we'll go just one meeting to September um with the intention of submitting materials the week before that. If for some reason we can't, we'll check in with you guys ahead of time to make sure we get a
continuence in. >> Okay. Um then can I get a motion to continue this to our next meeting on September 23rd? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. I. >> And I am also an I. Thank you all for your time tonight.
>> Thank you, Andrew. >> Take care. >> Um, okay. So, we're back to work session items. Matt, you said we already covered 42 North Mill, >> correct? >> Correct. All right. Then we have 242
Hayden Row request for certificate of compliance. Um Judy, did you want to give us a briefing on this and recommendation? >> Sure. Through the chair. Um so this is a
request for certificate of compliance to close out an order issued in 2008 for construction of the single family house. um they had applied for the COC back in 2022, but had a few outstanding items that were just now being addressed. Uh
so one of those was installing a PIB along the 50ft buffer. Uh the commission at the time determined that this fence uh could stay, but just to add PIB markers in the back lawn along the 50 foot. Um Ann and I did go
out and verify that those are in the correct locations. Um the area between the PIVs and the fence was meant to um reveate naturally. So no plantings were required. Uh but this had to become a no touch zone and it does look like
vegetation is growing in. So um that looked good and I can share pictures as well. Uh, and the last item was there had been a sort of batting cage structure behind the shed here. Um, that was lined on the bottom. So, it wasn't allowing vegetation to come through. So,
the commission at the time had asked for this to be removed. Um, so it's now over here in the the lawn here. Um, and for this area also to naturally reveate, which it has done. Um so at this time those were the last remaining items from
when it was discussed back in 2022. Um so from that perspective I think it's um my recommendation is that the COC be issued but happy to answer any questions and show pictures too. >> Okay. Thanks Judy. Yeah if you want to throw a couple pictures up.
>> Took them. >> So this was the batting cage before it had been taken out. So, this is 2022. Um, bear with me as I scroll through my Google Drive.
And these are some pictures from our site visit. Um, this is that batting cage area now fully vegetated. Um, there was a small debris pile behind the shed. This has been confirmed to be removed. So, that is all set. Um,
this is the area of the 50 foot buffer back towards the fence which is kind of in this tree line here. So that's all come up nice. Uh and the 50 foot buffer continues sort of along here. So um this looks a little
funky but um we determined that the the goal was not encroaching. I don't have any pictures of the PIBs, but I promise I did see them. >> Okay, thank you. That was going to be my next question. I trust you. >> Yeah. Through the chair, they're
actually nicely buried in that vegetation. So, he's actually allowed even more than the 50 to become naturally reveated. So, >> did poke through, but they are back there. >> Okay. Awesome.
All right. Thank you. Um I don't have any other I don't have any questions or comments. Anyone else? anyone from the public or the homeowner? No, we good. >> Yeah. No, thank you. Thanks for um listening to my petition and appreciate.
Thank you. >> Yeah. No, thank you for working with us. Um that being said, can I get a motion to approve um the certificate of compliance with signatures by Anna or Judy?
>> Well moved. and a second. I think that was Matt. Um, all in favor, Ed. >> I, >> Ted. >> Ed is an I. >> Matt >> I. >> Jim.
>> I. >> And I am also an I. >> We're all set. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thanks. Uh, next up we have Wall Street Development 10 Leonard Street and 12
Leonard Street request for certificate of compliance. Um, let's see. I do see we have Mr. Petrosi on the line tonight. Um but Judy, do you want to go ahead and
give us your review of the COC request? >> Uh sure. Through the chair. >> Y so we received these two requests for COC's for 10 and 12 Leonard um issued for construction of both dwellings um
earlier this year. But one of Joe's remaining comments was uh whether the planting areas indicated on the um approved planting plans were installed correctly. Um whether we had gotten required reports on those planting areas
as well as the invasive species management report requirements. Um so we'd been waiting on that information uh after the fact from the applicant. We did receive some before and after pictures.
um as well as some invoices of plants purchased for both properties uh and a report from Ecotech explaining their uh findings from a site visit which does indicate that there are still invasives present. Um
so I think some of that material has been received um but not all of it. Uh we don't have you know a full report on whether the planting areas were installed correctly. Um Anna and I went out and have a couple of notes on each
of the properties. So at 10 Leonard, we did still see notweed along the road. Um we didn't see clear plantings. There might have been two dog woods, but everything else kind of looked more like natural vegetation and we did still see erosion controls in place at that
property. Uh and for 12 Leonard, we did see a lot of shrub plantings um but we didn't see trees um which were specked at one every 300 square feet. Uh and some of the shrubs were um seemingly cultivar species as well. Uh the other
issue with 12 Leonard is that the residents seem to have carved a trail throughout the wetland. uh looking like they've been raking and cutting vegetation to maintain that trail and they have been mowing past the PIBs as well. So I think there's
some new outstanding items and I don't think that the major outstanding item of the planting area and the invasive species have been fully addressed at this time. >> Okay. >> Um Mr. Patrozy, do you want to respond
on any of those comments? >> Sure. Sure. Why not? I love staying up. >> I know you do. >> So, you know, it sounds to me like uh you know, this this property was completed houses were sold over two
years ago and what's transpired since then, we don't have any control over what the homeowners are responsible for. Uh we tried to explain to them what their responsibility is on the order of conditions, but it sounds to me like uh
it's the um the commission or the agent is confusing what is things that are responsibilities after Wall Street has sold the properties to these folks. um whether or not they are
maintaining the invasives or doing what they're supposed to do, that's it's kind of not my problem. Um we did what we needed to do while we were there. Uh I think the properties look fairly good. I haven't been out there recently.
We did have Echo Tech as requested go out there and do an analysis of what he thought was u yeah he did indicate that there were some invasives that still exist but I don't think it was the intention of the invasives to disappear
overnight. I think it was um intended on doing some treatment and trying to mitigate the invasives and I think we did that while we were there. So to hold us responsible for something that's now over two years
past I don't think is a fair um fair judgment. Our responsibility to request a certificate of compliance is completion of the work related to the order of conditions and not all these
continuing um regulations or conditions that you have that go along with most orders of conditions for people who become homeowners. That's their responsibility to maintain them. >> Okay.
Um, I think what I, you know, my response to to that would just be that a more timely submission of a request for a CFC would take care of a lot of these issues. So, >> I know Melissa, but we did we submitted
this uh while Kim was still the agent. I don't know how back that goes. Probably a year and a half ago, we've submitted this. So, we even had we even had difficulty getting permission to remove the erosion control. I don't know if you
remember the compensations that we had, but this is not something that we just decided uh to submit all of a sudden. We've submitted this at the time that we were selling the properties and conveying the properties. And so, it's a
year and a half ago, two years ago. So, >> yeah. Yeah. No, I um >> so I you know it's not fair to put that on us. You know, we we certainly did the best that we could while we while the work was going on. I think we did a
great job there. We took care of I don't know if you saw the before and after pictures of the invite in invasives that were there before versus what's there now. It's clearly night and day. Um, so I I don't know what more you would want from
us other than yeah, you know, in basins grow back. They they grow back. We all know that. So, but that's not I'm not it's not Wall Street's responsibility to go back there. It's the it's the homeowners that need to maintain the continuing conditions that you have in
your order. And I think the homeowners once they understand what their responsibilities are um especially like this cutting the grass and uh overstepping there the boundaries and things like that. I think they just need to be educated a little bit better on
what what they need to do and I think they're receptive to that. >> Yeah. No, I agree. The education piece with homeowners is on our plate and something that we do as a commission. Um, however, we can't approve a request for a certificate of compliance when
there are still erosion controls in place. >> And when I'm perfectly willing to go, I don't know what's left out there in terms of erosion control, but you certainly could, you know, uh, approve the certificate of compliance and then hold it in your hands until we actually
went out there and removed the erosion. That's the only thing that you're going to hold us to. You know, I can send somebody out there to to take it out. We did have somebody remove. Uh I thought it was all removed, but I'm, you know, now told that it is a small area that still remains. Um I
don't think we should have another meeting where I should wait three hours to talk to you about getting because of the little bit of erosion control left on the property. Well, you know, I think if we um I think the reason why
we don't sign off and then hold things is because then they never get done. Um and we've, you know, dealt with that in the past. So, if you know, you come to us with everything completed, then we should have no problem um approving the
certificate of compliance. So, what I see right now is on 10 there's erosion control still in place. And then, um, >> Jim, do you have a picture of what's left there for erosion control? >> I have a few. Some of them are kind of hard to see, but it was around the full.
So, we saw it along the roadway, along the driveway, and again along uh the front of the lawn. And >> this is on 10, right? >> Yep. Just on 10. I didn't see them on um the others. >> Okay. >> Um >> Well, we'll take care of that. I mean, that's really that is our responsibility
from that standpoint and we'll go out there and take care of it. >> It's and then I think um as far as the plantings go, it sounds like they were planted. We just have had difficulty identifying them on
the site. >> Well, yeah, because it's overgrown now. I mean, it's like uh you know, these plants were meant to grow into, you know, the border of the wetland. It's they're not meant to stick out and be like a landscape garden. You know,
they're meant to they're meant to grow into the vegetation that's there. And I think after two years, I think they have for the most part. >> Yeah. No, that's a positive. Um, on number 12 though, there's discrepancy as
to shrubs versus trees. Um, >> that one sticks out a little more to me than 10. >> I don't even know if they took them. I, you know, again, you have the list there
that we got. We ordered them based upon the square footage and the requirements and we had them planted prior to us getting an occupancy permit because that's what was a requirement of
ours to even though it's maybe there's no notations here in the record, but I'm sure Kim and Anna would go out there prior to the occupancy permit being issued to confirm that the plants were in place. Uh we did that. That's over
it's over two years ago. We you know it's actually coming up on two years right now um for the last house anyway. So I listen if you want a few extra trees I'm happy to put in a few extra trees. They're not it's we're not talking a we're talking minimal dollars.
It's just I just don't think it's I don't think it's um appropriate to hold up a certificate of CL compliance for a few shrubs and an erosion control thing that you know we did a lot of work
out there and I think uh it came out really nice and I think we did what we were supposed to do and so for for a few shrubs in a in an erosion control fence. I mean, this is this is kind of petty in my opinion.
>> Through the chair. >> Yes. M >> Judy, is this the list of the plantings that were installed? >> Uh yes. Um list of plantings that were ordered >> on both lots. There were two two invoices.
>> Appreciate it, Lo. Uh just give us a chance to talk for a second. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I'm not seeing any trees, any oaks or maples that were required on the plan in this list. >> You may be right. I mean, this is going back two years. But like I said, if you
need a couple of trees out there, I have no problems doing it. I just don't think it's what I would suggest or so we don't take up too much more time is that um, hold the certificate of compliances.
We'll go out there and do what we need to do. Judy can go out there and make sure that it's done. And if when they're done, then you can release them. That's it's pretty simple >> for the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> So, I understand where you're coming
from, Mr. Petrosi, but from my perspective, the applicant has a responsibility to comply with the order conditions. We're seeing here that you have clearly not complied with that order. There are no trees that were installed on this property. The erosion and sedimentation controls were not
removed from the other property. So, I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, it's not our responsibility to to have to to cater to your desire. It's our responsibility to apply the order that was issued to our decision-m.
And at least from my perspective, what I'm seeing here is the projects as they stand today have not met all of the requirements of the order issued for them. That's I think it's pretty clear. So, um that's where I stand on this.
>> All right. Well, listen, I I'm not going to I'm not going to argue with you. You want a few trees, you want the Listen, you want to take up the time again, that's fine. But are those the only two things that we're missing now? Is that we have we established that as the the only two things that are remaining that
we need to do >> through the chair? This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> The order of conditions, one of the things was invasive species. And you might argue that with the transfer of the property that you're no longer responsible for that, but that's part of
the order of conditions. And I would submit that as you know that if you do not stay on top of invasives, they continue to grow and to multiply. And I think that's a failure to uh such that I will not vote to give you an order your order of conditions on that basis.
>> Well, well, that's unfair because you know we're not responsible from the day we convey the property. We're not responsible for the continuing conditions of your orders of conditions. No person is responsible. The order of
condition goes with the property. So I don't think it's appropriate for you to have that position for the chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> I would say that whenever we get these
COC's that come to us, sometimes they are from buildings that are 20 25 years old. We look at the property the way it is when the certificate of completed. Right now it's being requested and there are lots of parts of the properties that
are not meeting our requirements. On top of the invasives, on top of the trees not being planted, on top of the erosion controls, we have mowing beyond where mowing is supposed to happen. We have a trail going through the wetlands. We are asked to look at the project right now
and see if it meets what was agreed to. >> And right now it does not. Well, excuse me, but I don't really want to belver the point. We we requested the certificate of compliances almost two years ago. Um, if you're going to hold that us
responsible for what homeowners do after they acquire the property, that again is an unreasonable position to take. So, we're trying to I'm trying to work with you folks, but if you're going to hold me responsible for the behavior of
people who own the property, you know, that's not my job. That's not my responsibility. So, um, if you continue to maintain that position, then we're not going to get anywhere. I don't really care one way or the other whether
you issue a certificate of compliance or not. I'm doing this for the homeowners because they would like a certificate of compliance so they can go and come to the commission with other types of things. Maybe they learn their lesson
about swing sets and sheds and cutting grass and all these other things that they may not be complying with. Now, this is not my responsibility. If you want a couple of trees for me to comply with what was shown or
to remove the erosion control because we forgot to do it or didn't do it, then I'm happy to do that. But I'm not going to be responsible for ongoing conditions that are not related to the construction or the project.
So >> Melissa, >> yes. So, um, Lou, having said that, uh, what do you think about calling in the individual homeowners, property
owners, and letting them know what their responsibilities are? Uh, I think that Mr. patrol has got to take the sedimentation controls out. But you say, Lou, that you planted everything that's on that list,
but it may now be overgrown or or, you know, removed by the homeowner. >> It it could I I don't you know, we planted everything on these invoices on where they were supposed to go. Okay? I mean,
that's all I can tell you. I don't do the planting. I, you know, I'm not doing it. >> So, Judy, Judy, you didn't see those all those plants. >> Uh, I didn't see any trees at 12. And then, >> okay.
>> Yeah. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, Joe. Just going back and looking at my uh review from when I was out there in late December of last year, um I did have a note that I did see um uh some
red maples uh planted on both lots and um a number 10. Um I had noted about 24 shrubs and trees. I didn't have it consisting of red maples and dogwoods primarily. I didn't have an exact count or breakdown of how many trees and
shrubs there were. And on number 12, I had counted approximately 40 shrubs and trees uh consisting of red maple, dogwoods, I bush blueberry, and service berry. Um so I I did see some trees out there at the time. Um I had noted that
it didn't appear that all the areas that were proposed to be planted um with veget with those trees and shrubs had been planted with the trees and shrubs. Um but there were um like I said approximately 40 and approximately 24 um
and it consisted of trees red maples and shrub plantings. >> Thank you Joe. I appreciate that. And that's just so you know, Melissa, I u you know the way the formula on the plan was this a certain number of shrubs
per square feet. I forget what it was. One for every 300 square feet or something like that. So the calculation it wasn't a specific number. We calculated based on the square footage approximately of the hashed area that was shown on the plan. And you know there wasn't like
plant 60 shrubs or plant 40 shrubs or no there wasn't a fixed number. It was an estimate based on what we calculated to be the square footage. And that's how we did it. It's I mean I don't know what to say. We we did the job. We we did the work. What the homeowners have done
since that time. I have no idea and I have no control over what they do. That's their property. If you feel like they've overstepped their bounds, then you would do like you would do to me, which put an enforcement order or go talk to them or I I think I had a
conversation because I think either Judy or Hannah or Anna were out there and explained to them that they shouldn't be doing certain things. So I think they have a better idea about it now because I did have a conversation with them saying that you know you're holding
up the the certificates of compliance and these are the things that they need to be aware of. So like I said we try to educate the people when we convey the properties sometimes they have a hard time understanding uh
what or they don't think it's that big of a deal what they may be doing. So, uh, like I said, I I think we did exactly what we were supposed to do. Now, we we will go out there and we will remove the erosion control. It's not a
big deal. It's, you know, should have been done before and I'm surprised that it hasn't been done or that it's gone this long, uh, that it hasn't been removed. So, but I think Joe's referencing what he saw out there back
in December, which is almost a year ago now. Um, the plants were there, the shrubs were there, the trees were there, everything that was required of us was done. So, I I I don't know what else to say. I don't have any other explanations.
>> No, I think um that's helpful, Joe. It's hard. You know, she said things are grown in and for us to feel comfortable um we can only see what what we can >> Yeah. The longer it goes the much it
becomes much more difficult to to pick things out that were planted. >> Yeah. Um I think maybe Yeah. L if you can take care of those erosion controls. Maybe Joe can share his notes with Judy on the the planting.
So, we just have that in the in the file. Um, and I do think it is because there's a shared um desire from the homeowners for the certificate of compliance as well. uh
might be worth having or inviting them to come in um to the next meeting as well just to kind of go over the expectation and what um the the ongoing conditions are that
we expect them to kind of keep up here. >> I think I think Jody explain was it you Jody or was it Hannah Hannah that did it? I I think Judy gave them a pretty good uh talking to from what I understand about what they're supposed to do and what not to do and
>> okay >> anything that they want to um modify or change or improve on the property that they have to come it's all the whole property is within jurisdiction of the concom so I think they just need to know that and understand what the process is
most people most people don't know that I mean they don't know what the process is so >> well That's why it's a great idea to have them in so that we can speak with them and if there's something that they were supposed to do and haven't done, uh, we can get them to do it. >> Sure.
>> So, I'm a big fan of it. >> I'm actually here, folks. >> This is Jake Tadero. He's the owner of 12 Leonard Street. >> Yes. >> Welcome. Thank you.
Thank you for identifying yourself. Um, so I guess I'll just I'll I'll ask you, do you have do you have questions? Any thoughts you want to share with the commission? Um, as far as your your property and what this means, the certificate of compliance and what
you're responsible for. >> Yeah, I I have a couple comments. So I I definitely understand there are ongoing conditions that uh I have done things uh intentionally or unintentionally that violate. I don't understand why that
holds up the developers certificate of compliance because these conditions go on forever for me. And um you know I yeah I I raaked a little trail so my 5-year-old could run skip through the woods to her mailbox. I'll let that grow back. That's not a big deal. the mowing.
I just mowed where the grass was and I I know that the PIBs are there so that you don't build anything by there, but I didn't know I wasn't allowed to to mow there. I'm happy to let that area grow back in. I do think it's somewhat ironic that we're holding up the the bushes
that have been overgrown because they haven't been mowed and we can't identify them and then on my property where I do mow, I get in trouble for mowing. But um yeah, I don't understand why those conditions would hold up the builder's certificate of compliance. I would like the certificate of compliance to be
issued because there's an ugly Wall Street development sign on the front of my house that I don't like. I don't like that three people have shown up to take pictures in my yard and I it's just this sort of damic leaves over my head if Lou gets hit by a bus or if I have to sell the house or something. It's just
something I want to get cleared up. So, I think I understand my responsibilities now. I'm happy to comply with all of those things. Um, uh, I think the trees and and the bushes were planted, from what I can tell, uh,
according to plan. The erosion controls, I think there were just two layers of them and one of them is so old and so buried that if you tried to pull it up right now, it would fray into a million little pieces. And uh unless you want to support birds building nests with
synthetic materials, I think those erosion controls are probably better to leave in place than to try and tear up at this point. They're so buried. You could try and remove the stakes, I guess. But the actual woven material is so degraded. It's it's construction started on these houses four or five
years ago. So, I I don't want to agree with Lou, but I kind of agree with Lou on some of this stuff. Um, but yeah, I'm I I I call Lou and he says bug you and I call you and you say bug Lou and I don't want to bug anybody
anymore. I just want to move on. So, those are those are my thoughts. >> We appreciate that. Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on um you know what we're what we're trying to do in the areas that that we are trying to
protect. >> Yeah. Oh, and for invasives, I Kim showed me what Japanese knotweed looks like. I've been I've been trimming and treating that. Uh and I I don't think there's any left on 12. There is some on on 10 along the road. Um, I'd be happy
to talk to Mike Reid is the guy over there and and and work with him on managing that because I've had reasonable success. If there are other invasives that aren't Japanese notweed, I don't know what they are and I don't know what they look like. So, I'd be happy to have somebody explain to me what those are and I can take care of them.
>> Okay. Yeah. No, that's great. Um, because that stuff will migrate real quickly, that Japanese snotweed. Um, all right. So, you're on 12. Based on what Joe has in his notes.
I think it's fair to say the plantings are probably good. Um 10 is the one with the erosion controls still in place. Um so, we want to pull those pull those
out. Um, does anyone have I'm I'm leaning towards >> Yeah. >> voting to approve the COC for 12. >> Um, >> Melissa,
>> and then continuing on 10. Go ahead. So on 12, the only outstanding item was the trees because they weren't on this list, but we've now got Joe's confirmation that he saw them installed. Is that the only outstanding item on 12? >> You know, now that we've talked to the
whole >> he understands the ongoing conditions. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, >> from my perspective, then it sounds like it's complying with the order of conditions that Melissa Joe's Joe's comments change the discussion a little
bit here. for my for my view. >> Okay. Well, the >> chair. >> Um, yes, Anna. And then I'll jump to you to head. >> So, just as a reminder to the commission, so you have withheld COC's
from other developers where homeowners are mowing past the PIBs. So, um, if you were to vote, I would still not release it until confirmation that that mowing and that path has grown back in. So just as a friendly reminder of those two
outstanding items on 12. >> Okay. >> Uh for you Melissa, we could also do that for 10, couldn't we? Well, that is condition the the final release of the COC on removing the stakes or whatever can be removed for the origin control.
Can we do the same thing with 10? Sounds like the same thing to me, but >> well, we could the the difference the difference to me is removing something that hasn't been removed and
I feel like will never be done versus just wait to grow back >> which requires >> Okay. So, we should wait to to vote on that until that's done. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Ted, you were going to say something. >> I I just I I heard Joe to say something a little more nuanced than I think I'm hearing now. I think what I heard Joe to say is he did see evidence of trees being planted, but he didn't necessarily
see them planted where they were supposed to be planted. that there were areas of planting that did not show evidence of complying with the plans. Did I understand you correctly, Joe, or did I misunder? >> Well, if I if I can if I can read my comment from my memo dated January 3rd,
2025. Um Ellie notes the approved plan sheet SUA shows proposed planting. Although Ellie observed plantings as noted above that was um um number 10 the
24 shrubs and trees. Uh we did not observe plantings in the entire area indicated on the plan. Um and then in addition there was a question on whether the monitoring reports um which were required in the order had been um submitted.
And for number 12, I think I had a similar comment. Um, I observed approximately 40 shrubs and trees planted along the PIVs consisting of red maple, dog woods, high bush blueberry, and service berry. Uh,
note that the service berry is an cultivar. However, there was no restriction on the use of cultivars noted in the order of conditions or on the improved invasive disease management in planting program. Uh, so on 12, I didn't have a question on the locations
of where they were planted. On 10, there was a question of of whether the entire area that was supposed to have been planted was planted. >> Thank you. That helps clarify things for me both on a vote for each property. >> Thank you.
Can you explain to me, Joe, because uh what area are you suggesting was not planted? >> Yeah, I would have to go back uh in more detail and look at I I hadn't reviewed this in detail for tonight, but um you know, I could do that. Um,
>> well, as I re as I recall, as I said on the plan, they weren't specified areas like where each plant were to was to be planted. Along the driveway, it was a it was a mixture of wetland mix grass and
then along the inner portion of the lots where the PIBs are, that's where the plantings were to go. So if you are thinking that there should have been plantings along the driveway, that was never part of the protocol. That was
always supposed to be a wetland mix grass and that's what was done there. It's grass on the slope of the driveways. So I I quite honestly I can't believe we're having this conversation about a few plants, but um the plants
were done. They were put in the places that were designated on the plan. The calculation was based on the square footage of the area that was hashed out on the plan and that's how we came out with the quantities. That's why there's so many there's a greater area on 12
than there was on on 10 and that's why there's a difference in the number of plants. That's there was no magic formula here. It's not rocket science. You just calculate the square footage, you divide it by 300 and you get a certain number of plants.
>> That's how it go. That's how it is. I don't know if you folks have looked at the plan lately, but to me, uh, listen, I'm not if you don't want to issue the certificate of compliance, that's up to you. But on the certificate of compliance, if you've seen them before, and I'm sure you have,
there are boxes on the certificate of compliance that you can check off that says what things are completed and what things are remain to be completed. But the work in and of itself is completed. There's no need to hold up a certificate
of compliance for what we're talking about. >> Okay. So, I think I'm still going with um my previous thought with those clarifications. 12 seems to be all set. um is according to plantings with Joe's
notes as Matt said that change things. Um so I'm comfortable issuing certificate of compliance for number 12 the condition like Anna said we hold on to it make sure the grass grows back
10. Um, I'd like to just hold that one till the erosion controls are out and then um maybe Joe and Judy can share notes on plantings.
I'm not so concerned about uh exact placement numbers, but more that the areas that were supposed to be planted have s sign uh sufficient vegetation
growing in them reflective of, you know, what we're looking for on the plans. If that makes sense. I'm in agreement and I think I'm ready to make a motion unless there's more discussion. >> Yeah, before you before you make that
motion, Ted, um on 10, I'm in agreement, right? The erosion controls need to come out. I think our expectation is also that that area is fully stabilized before we're in a position to issue a certificate. So I guess the question is
how far out do we want to continue that discussion >> for the erosion controls >> through the chair? Uh you don't have to specify a date for COC's. We can just wait until we have confirmation to reschedule on our end.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you, Judy. Go ahead, Ted. >> So I think we're going to need two motions. Uh or maybe just one. Um, I'd like to make a motion to issue a COC on
12 Leonard Street uh with signatures from Rand or Judy, but that they are held until Ann and Judy agree that the mowing beyond uh the PIB stops and that the trail through the wetland is left to
disappear. Be a second. Second. >> All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim.
>> I. >> And I'm also an I. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Another motion. I don't think we need one if we are agreeing to wait on 10 Leonard. I don't think we need a motion to not grant it.
So I think it's just the one one motion, one vote, >> right? >> So So before I go to bed, can I just We're just making sure that we're just going to remove the erosion control. That's the only criteria that we're talking about right now for the
certificate of compliance. Is that Do I understand that correctly? >> That's correct. as long as Joe and Judy's notes jive. >> Okay. Well, >> I I for one am interested in where Joe said the plantings didn't occur.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to have that conversation, too, because it's on, you know, like I said, it's shown on the plan. Um, but I, you know, I'll take care of it for you folks and, uh, we'll see you, uh, at the next meeting on the 23rd. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, ma'am. I just want to make sure
it's understood. It's not just removing the controls. It's stabilizing the area that's disturbed after the controls are removed. >> Yeah, that that's that's an important piece of that effort. >> Okay, I understand. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Petrosi, and thank you, Jake, for coming in. >> Yeah, thank you all. I do have one quick question. Uh, is it okay if I put like stakes to mark where the guys who
don't speak English who mow my lawn while I'm at work know where to go and not go? >> Yes, >> please. >> Because they just they just mow what looks like grass. This is like nobody made a decision conscious decision on
what to do. Uh, if you guys are okay with that, I'll just I'll just put some wood stakes in there and we'll let it grow back. >> Yeah. No, that's perfect. Appreciate that. >> Sounds good. Thank you all. >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. Thanks a lot. We'll see you in the next meeting.
>> All right. >> Okay. Um, next up we have Lake Maspanog weed advisory group new liaison. So um Janine was our Lake Maspan
liaison for that advisory group. So we need a new one. Um I know Judy reached out to that advisory group to ask for some more information. You still haven't heard back from them, right Judy? Or did you? >> I have actually. >> You did. Okay.
>> Yep. So it sounds like they meet uh virtually two to four times a year. So um fairly low commitment. Uh but they are currently talking about um their recommendations for treatment for 2026. Um so they are eager to have a new
member especially someone from concom. >> Did they say when their next meeting is? >> No. >> No. >> No. Oh, he said the next month or so, but not an exact date. >> Okay.
>> So, I'm not available to do that. >> Regrettably, >> I've already got my second committee. >> Yeah, I can't help out on this one. We do, unless anything came in like today, we
still don't have any um applications for the to open seats, right Judy? Nana >> haven't heard anything. >> Okay, because that's an option as well. >> I'm
Melissa. >> Yes. So, um I know people can can go on go on the town's website, they can see vacancies, but can we do something like um I don't know, get the word out better,
whether it's the independent or you know, Mary Allen might write a little blurb about vacancies or something like that. If it seems like if we rely on just word of mouth and um and people going to the
town website maybe that's not enough candidate not enough not a big enough audience >> may be listening right now. >> I was going to say yeah per this hi >> if we could request article
>> I forgot about that. >> Yeah. Well, what do you think of that? >> The solution is very simple. Back in the 1800s, there were things called press gangs. Does anybody know what a press gang was?
>> No, but it sounds like something that we should get rid of. >> They walked around the warfs and found likely candidates and grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and hauled them aboard and said, "Okay, now you're a duck hand." And then they left port.
And I think that we could we could try this. We could find likely working candidates, grab them by the scruff of the neck, and if we met in person, we could drag them into our meeting. See, >> and say you're also on the weed
management committee, >> you know, I I I'm I'm struggling with what I'm doing now. And I mean I live on >> we just got a >> problem Friday. >> Sorry. Maybe that's something we can push Saturday by the way as soon as we
get the word out Saturday at family day. >> Yeah. >> Yep. We can certainly do that. Okay. We can think about this one. Saturday. >> Good segue. >> I think that's a perfect segue. I was just about to say that.
So, Saturday is family day. We have a tent. We have some activities. Um, it's 2 to 6 is when the booths are actually um open. So, um, Judy, you said you had some time
you could spend on Saturday. I have some time I can spend. Um, we wanted to kind of pull the group and see who else was willing to come. >> I'll be there. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll help set up I can help set up
and take down, too. >> I I'm sorry to not carry my weight, but my birthday is Thursday and my wife is booked for us a weekend trip to the Aderondex and I won't be around this weekend. >> Happy birthday. >> Oh, happy birthday.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Now, now open space is hopefully going to be semi organized and maybe we could put our space next to your space and we could kind of cover for each other. >> Yeah, that's >> they already have the tent locations identified. Judy,
>> I haven't heard that yet. No, I think they just said we when we get there, they direct us to the place we're setting up. It's got to be pretty big. >> So, I'll come in. Are you going to be in Friday? I come in and pick up all the stuff.
>> Oh, I can come set up. I just have to leave at 4. So, I just need somebody to pack it all up for >> But I >> Oh, that's fine. I can do that. But you can get it over there. >> Yep. >> Oh, okay. Great. Okay. So, then we'll just set up a time to meet >> one o'clock.
Does that sound good? >> Uh, yeah. Yeah, one is good. They said um no earlier than 12:30, so anytime after that. >> All right. Okay. >> I just I just thought of a new activity for family day. Now, I'm not around to run it, but tonight's meeting makes me
think put a whole bunch of weeds around and have kids try to find the PIB [Laughter] >> or oak tree, whatever it is they need to find in the weeds. >> Just how about the hide in the woods?
>> Yeah. have a lot of lost kids. >> Great. That sounds good. >> All right. You get a motion to adjourn. >> Yes, please. >> Uh, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Thank you, everybody.
>> Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor, Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. Jim. >> All right. >> And I am also an I. >> Jim, you're almost lit up like you're
gonna tell us a ghost story. >> No, I'm holding up. Oh, look at that. You're right. I didn't realize. >> Oh. Huh. >> I gota eat some different food. I look forward to seeing whoever's there
Saturday. >> I'll see you there. I'll bring my candy. >> Oh, smart. Ed, bring some invasives. [Laughter] >> I think we can I think there's some over by the track. We can just go over and
cut them. >> Leave your hat, your red hat home, too, by the way. >> How about I bring my cannon? >> The kids would like that. The kids would definitely like that. >> You know, my mother was at or my my wife was at Brimfield. My mother bought me
cannons from Brimfield, but my wife was there this past weekend and there was a really pretty nice field piece and she did not buy it for me. >> Smart woman. >> You don't need any more.
>> Good night. All right. Good night.