meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting 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 have discussed each project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each
public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via a roll call of the members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Chair Melissa Recos >> present. >> Ed Harrow
>> present. >> Uh Matt Moyan >> present. Now, let's see how we're doing here. Jim Cerillo. Nope. Walter Garland, >> present. >> Great. And I am Ted Barker Hook. I'm
present. I will now confirm that staff. Uh, now confirm the staff that are present. Judy Day, the Hopkinson Conservation Administrator, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present. and Joe Orzel of Lucas
Environmental. >> Before I pass it over to Melissa, I want to let everyone know that we do have one hearing that has been continued. Um, if you are here for the 37 Oakst uh
Oakhurst Road um meeting uh um agenda item that's been continued to January 27th, 2026. Otherwise, uh I think we are on as planned on the agenda. There you go, Melissa.
>> Thanks, Ted. >> All right, we'll get started here on our work session items, which first up, we have the 2025 annual report, which Judy and Anna drafted up for us to take a look at.
Um, I think you guys did a great job summarizing our 2025 year. good pictures in there, too. Um, does anyone on the commission have any comments or need some additional time to
review? I I believe the annual report. Do we have about a month, Judy? >> Yeah, it's due before the next meeting, so >> Oh, it is. >> Get it in a little early. This is um I think the last time in meeting for commission members to give feedback, but I can always take them via email.
>> Okay. Um does anyone have any feedback at this point in time on the annual report? This is something we do every year and it just uh you know outlines what we did over the year 2025 for you know the
residents in town. >> Looks great to me. >> Yeah, it's good. it really kind of when you count you see those numbers for how many um notice of intents and um project exemptions and things like
that were completed in the past year. It's pretty impressive. We've been busy >> up from last year too. >> Yeah. Well, what was that? >> You're up from um 2025 too or 2024 >> on those numbers. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, if anyone um takes a look at it in the next week or two and has any comments to send over, send them over to Judy and then they'll be finalizing that before our next meeting. Um all right, next up we have revised
enforcement order for 10 Exchange Street. Um, so Judy drafted this up based on our last meeting. Um,
I don't believe we have this is actually also agenda number four, item number four in our work sessions for restoration plan discussion. So we don't have a plan to go with this yet, right Judy?
>> Correct. we would want to include with the enforcement order. So, this is a draft and work in progress. Um, I personally need a little more time to to review it because this is pretty detailed, but Judy, did you have anything in particular you wanted to
point out or for us to pay attention to? >> Uh, yep. So, I would direct folks to the conditions pages at the end. um this has the details on what exactly um would be required through issuing
this enforcement order. So we kind of pulled it from similar enforcement orders in the past um starts with general conditions but the um specific actions under restoration conditions and invasive species management conditions go into um how long the plans shall be
in place. um what the expectations are for monitoring interim reports after each growing season. Um we took uh feedback from last meeting for the survival rate of plantings. So we put 80% survival rate after five
growing seasons um requiring plantings are native non-hybrid non-cultivars. Um and then sort of at the end of the five growing seasons of both restoration and invasives management um looking for a final report to determine the success
of um both of those actions. Um so if anybody has feedback on the details of that, I thought it would just be easier to have the same timeline for plantings and for invasives management. Um, we don't always do five growing seasons for plantings, but I thought it
would be less confusing um, since the invasives are going to need that long to just have them both on the same timeline. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think I think that makes sense. Um, does anyone have any thoughts or
comments at this point in time for G? >> This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I I thought it was very solid. Um, in reference to the time span of five years, I can report that in open space in the Whiteall
Conservation Area, we are four years at this point with the notweed. We hope we're done. There were still two stocks this year. Um, hopefully next year there'll be none. So, notweed is
extraordinarily challenging to get rid of. I should clarify, it's five growing seasons the way it's written right now. So, I think that would equate to um like two and a half years. Um but if you'd like the timeline to be changed um
can definitely take that feedback. That's a good clarification because I in my head I I went to five years. So growing season is like season of the year. >> Yeah, I was reading it as a spring and a
fall where each one >> Joe, am I wrong? >> Yeah, through the chair. Uh yeah, growing season is generally um uh you know, April through Yeah. October of each year or May through October of each
year. Um, so it would more or less equate to uh a calendar year, but um if plantings go in too late in the growing season, they're generally not included in that growing season. So if you plant in September and submit a report uh in
October, that is generally not counted as the first growing season or the first year. >> Okay, >> I can add a definition in that case for growing season. Yeah, I think that would be helpful
>> to the chair. This is Ed. So, >> yes, >> we are talking five calendar years then. Correct. >> With that clarification, that's how I understand it. Yes. Which is in line with what you said, Ed,
your experience. This is just for the invasives or is this um to establishing plants? >> This is for just for I apologize for coming in late. >> That's okay. >> Um is this just for the um invasives or
is this for establishing new plantings, new plant material? >> So we were saying or Judy was saying that um five years would was what she we were thinking for the invasives. Okay, I'll go with that. >> But yeah, but because the plantings we
don't we don't typically do five years, but to keep it consistent and on the same time frame for our review schedule, then she included five years for the plantings as well, just to be on the same schedule.
>> So I apologize for this question, but what do we normally require? That was too long season for establishing >> for plantings >> plant new planting. Is it two that we've used normally? >> Yes. >> In which case two of the five are
include both but then three only include the invasives. >> Well, I guess it's we can I it's up to us really. We can say that we can say two and we can say five. And >> it seems to me that the two is for the
just to establish two full growing seasons. >> So said differently if it was planted spring of 26 then 27 growing season. So then 28 would be reported as
healthy and mature or healthy and taken. >> Yeah. which you get with two growing seasons, report on it when the next growing season uh begins or just report it on the end of two.
That's just I don't know if it doesn't take hold. My experience is sort of just around houses is if it's not it doesn't take a hold in two years, it's not going to take a hold. You know what I mean? >> Right. Yeah. I guess I guess we think about it that way too. Sometimes if it's
too far out on these plantings, then we also find that we can't find them anymore and we don't know what was the planted one versus things that have grown up around them. So that ought to be a condition of accepting it as as established plantings
is that we anything that's not established got to be replaced. We do that anyway. anything's got to be replaced or if it can't be found which I remember some recent examples then uh yeah it's got to be replaced new
so I was just thinking about that what's the period of time for invasives and separately for the plant Okay. >> All right. We can um we can stew on that while we review it and and provide some comments back,
Judy, before the next meeting. Does that make sense? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, do we want to go ahead and >> through the chair? >> Yes. >> Sorry. I think we um also have the
homeowner on the line who had a few questions. Um, so maybe while we're on this topic, see if she has any input. >> Okay. >> Or we can return to it, whichever you prefer. >> Um, we can do that. I was just going to say, do we want to talk right now about
item number four, the restoration plan discussion as well since we're got our heads, you know, kind of on this project. Okay. Um, so the homeowner Admiral, right?
>> Yes, I'm here. Yeah. >> Hi, welcome. >> Yeah. Hi. Um let's go ahead and talk about both this enforcement order and the restoration plan um discussion. Do you want to go ahead and do do you have
thoughts that you want to share? >> Yeah. So I'm I'm I'm totally on board of planting those plants like as Dave um submitted the plan like the 84 trees, 51 shrubs, all all of those things and he's pointed out where uh where exactly
located. we're going to go ahead and plant them during the spring uh session. So uh and you know all the plans uh and everything is is is clear to me. So there's no questions on that. However,
uh I have uh so when you're heading from uh from 135 making a left to the 10 exchange street like the the the area to the left of 10 exchange street like honestly I don't know any I did not know
anything about notweed before but after like you know after reading through the notweed like a while back I uh you know I I learned like something about how it grows inside it's very difficult to destroy. and all that. So there's a town
owned property at just abing the 10 exchange street which is fully of notweed. I went in and I checked fully 100 200% or maybe 500%. To the point that it is actually
protruding onto the onto the road that it's actually blocking the cars that that would go there. So and that is where the that is the starting point of the north which is
coming to the 10 exchange street to the point this summer I was even because I mean obviously this is the first time I I even know and I saw that it is spreading on our property to and then it
and now I am even more scared uh you know what it's going to do to my property in future like you all were were concerned So I don't know how many years going back this is and you let that you know
that not be develop in that area so badly and to affect a thing and then you are asking me as a homeowner who is and then like you're dumping all of this responsibility of five years on me. Is that fair? I just wanted to ask you
guys. So I mean I mean if if that's what you think you can do because I'm at this point I'm frustrated. I just want to like get rid of that that area. I'm just so frustrated at this point. >> So and then like now you are also saying oh you usually do two years and you want
to do five years now. I don't know why >> because you know you I just I just I just feel you're being very unfair to me. >> Okay. >> That's all I have to say. No, I I appreciate um the concern for the the neighboring property and there's
no um house or anything on that property, right? That's a we don't know who the owner is. >> Who the chair? The town owns it. >> The town owns it. >> And I I sympathize
with the property owner. >> I'm I'm going to shut up now before I get in trouble. Well, no. I was going to ask Ed if you had any thoughts on this type of situation
um where you're trying to manage notw weed on a property, but you don't have control over the adjacent property, what the limits are to what you can do. I don't think it's
I don't think you want to do nothing because it just will continue, right? Um but what's a happy medium in my opinion? Okay, I'm going to go out and get in trouble. The town needs to take this on the town. And I don't mean
this particular parcel. I mean all over town. this and bittersweet are rampant all over town and the town is ignoring it.
>> Okay, now I'm really going to shut up. >> I'll help you and say that I think there could definitely more that can be done on the public roadways. >> Melissa. >> Yes, Ted. Um, I I also am am sympathetic
to 10 Exchange Street, but I unless the GIS is wrong, this is not owned by the town. It is an unknown owner, which makes things even more frustrating, I think, in controlling these things. But it's not the town's
property. >> If the GIS is correct, >> the chair, I misspoke. Yes. Unknown owner, which is might as well be in the town. So, we're asking this owner to take care of the unknown owner's properties.
>> Well, no, we're not. We're not asking >> clear part of this. >> No, we're not. We're not asking the owner to take care of someone else's property. We're only asking for the invasive species management on within her own property.
Um, but obviously the concern is that there's invasives on the adjacent property that aren't being managed. So, um I guess Joe Orzelle, do do you have any um have you seen something like this before with
an invasive management plan um where you kind of have this hard line against that you're working up against and how you maintain that when the invasives are right next door? Yeah, it's it's a tough situation. I
mean, all you can do is is manage the invasives on the the property in question. Um, and if nothing's being done on the adjacent parcel, uh, over time once management stops, you know, you're probably going to get, uh,
reinfestation on the existing parcel on the parcel you were working on. Um, so I I think one of the questions is u where on the uh 10 exchange street property the invasives are located. So I
think the notweed is primarily more in the center of the property and not along that property boundary. Um, and I know that was one of the things that was um supposed to have been done on the um revised plan was to show the
locations of uh uh the stands of invasive species. Um, and that might help as far as the commission visualize where those are and whether or not they they are clearly coming into the site from an adjacent
parcel or not. I I don't recall that adjacent parcel. I don't remember looking at that specifically as far as what vegetation is is out on that parcel. >> Yeah. G, do we have the um do we have a plan with that the
invasives on the property highlighted? >> We do not. That was one of Joe's comments that has not yet been addressed. >> Okay. Um, Padma, do you know if that
if that comment is is going to be addressed? If we're going to get a plan with >> I got the plan. I got I mean I because because they asked me to to get a get a plan of treatment and all that. I had I
have the plan. I mean I have uh I've been spending uh you know I have taking loan. I have been spending and spending and spending. So I I have the plan. So >> uh plan meaning the invasive management
plan or an actual plan >> within that that has >> I haven't started any of those things but I have the plan to manage the invasives. Yes. >> Okay. I think in order to,
you know, move forward with the plan and both address your concern with how, you know, how not to have this um snowball into something that's kind of out of your,
you know, responsibility area. That's will be important to identify. This is the area invasives that the plan is focused on. in treating. Um I think f when you to answer your question about five years
versus two and why is five years so long? Um we were talking about five and two because in invasive species management typically that plan is 5 years worth of work and followup in order to get those invasives under
control. We used two years for the plantings for so for the new trees and the shrubs and in those that restoration work that's two years because that's how much time a tree or a shrub
needs to get established and we can feel comfortable that it's going to continue to grow and thrive. Um so five >> what we typically >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. So I also have another question. And so now let's say I I I mean you I
have the I I continue this plan but what is the guarantee that because it's so much notw weed on the other property it's going to grow underground it's going to spread again right it's not unless that unless that is contained I'm
very um nervous to even start anything in my opinion because the what I read it's going to uh spread underground around. You guys know better. I don't understand that. But um but then then then
how good is it my treatment plan if that this thing is not addressed, the source of the problem? >> Yeah. So, I think and Joe and Ed, correct me if I'm wrong,
but part of the this is all stemming from removing trees and removing native vegetation that was there. And that's one of the things that prevents um invasives from spreading
um is having that native vegetation. That's kind of why we got to where we are. So what we're looking for is to reestablish those native plantings and put them back and you know that will help because
otherwise you're just this yeah it's going to spread it's going to come on your property and I think for >> with all respect I disagree that statement though because um because when uh even when there was um there was like
these um the trees that existed there like were like hanging I don't even know the names the bittersweet and all of those things some of them were even poisonous uh because the guy who even removed them I mean they suffered three weeks after
removing them because there some of them were poisonous I also did not know I I felt so bad for them uh so so to your point that the
from my layman knowledge that the trees um kind of helped uh protected the northweed. I don't know how much that is true because it was like a forest like a jungle, right? Like it was all over. I
don't think anyone like would would want to be like like that kind of a thing if it's there in in the property. I mean, you want you like trees, but you you know, they at least like need to be like trees. It was like like all creepers like all like it was like
I don't know. I I I I I mean I I I don't know. So So to your point that I created this problem, I don't agree with that with all respect. So >> Melissa, can I say something? >> Sure, Jim. >> Uh so I don't think u I don't think
Melissa was saying that uh that you created the problem. She wasn't saying that because it was there. But if you look around just about anywhere, you'll see that the notweed grows on the edges of roadways, on the edges of paths, and areas that are bare
of of trees. There's no natural understory and there's no canopy to keep it out. So she so is correct that u that trees and other vegetation does keep not weed out and limits it to those areas that's over to the sun. The oil to be
suite's a completely different story. But so as far as the uh the uh the notwe Yeah. You don't usually see in the middle of a for >> Do you think we should we can build
something like like a like a wall or something? It will like like if we dig out and like build some kind of a concrete wall. It will help like to the like a border. It will help like not to
spread like to the to our property between the um instead of like what I'm thinking is I just don't know uh instead of like having this management plan like spending money on that if we have like a like a wall
with a little bit deeper. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm not I don't know about I don't know about that. Joe Joe, do you know is that a method of controlling not weed is our primary concern here,
right? >> Yeah, I I haven't seen it used um as a control method. I mean, it might help hinder the spread. >> It has to be pretty deep though. >> Yeah, it would have to go deep because we have to keep the roots out. I think the you know the the homeowner's
responsibility would be to um meet the conditions as of the five years and beyond that um you know if you know um things start growing back in you know I don't think the commission's going to come back to the to the homeowner and say oh it's
coming back now you have to start up again you know it's it's limited to the time um of the enforcement order uh condition. Um, and if the site is is clear of invasives at that point, then then the conditions have been met.
>> Yeah, that's >> the chair. >> Yes. Anna, >> um, just also a reminder that that shared property line is in the middle of the resource area, too. So, >> yeah. Wall might be problematic. >> Would we Melissa?
>> Yes. Would we allow someone to use black plastic to cover the I'll say infestation um and then would we allow them to cover that black plastic with mulch or chips or something
um above it above the black plastic >> um >> within the resource area. >> Well, in the area of the of the notweed. Well, yes, it would be in the resource area, but it's in the area of the
notweed to control it. I mean, that is a proven technique of controlling it to suffocate it for a couple of seasons in the summer. And I think that kills it. >> That's just an option that I thought about, >> right? I I guess that would be if it's
if it's in if it's was something presented in the management plan. >> Yeah. um you know that Joe could review. And I think I think having the we talk about the plan is the written plan and and talking about how these are going to be
controlled, but the actual site plan, the plan that shows where the work's being done, where things are being planted. And if we can have that, I think it's important to have that like Joe commented to identify exactly what
invasive species area we're talking about. But I think that is important for us and I think it's also important for Padma so she knows you know this is the area invasives that were looking um to be treated and managed
over you know the period of time. Um, so I do think that's an important piece of information that we're missing or that we need in order to complete both the enforcement order that Judy wrote and
the management plan. We don't have that yet. um >> through the chair. Just a comment on on that scenario for the control. Um, in a in a situation like that, if you're going to cover uh the infested area, um,
you would you would have a a delayed planting of your native vegetation because you need uh quite some time for those um plants to to to die completely in an area that's been covered. Um, and then the planting would would like to go
in afterwards. So there would it would be on a different time schedule. >> Okay. >> I I believe sorry through the chair this is Ed the Vermont Land Trust had an article discussing the control of
notweed that involved technique like Jim mentioned. So that would be a worthwhile thing to um try to dig out. Okay. Okay. So in regard um
to the restoration plan discussion work session item number four Judy is there additional information that we are that we have to discuss there through the chair. Uh no so we
haven't received updated plans since the last discussion. Um so we did receive the restoration plan discussed it at the last meeting but the commission had several comments um regarding the locations of the PIBs and Joe had also
prepared a memo of comments that um have not been addressed either. So there aren't any new materials uh to discuss at this point. >> Okay. All right, then I'll just go back to um Padma on
whether you have any additional concerns you wanted to discuss um and if you can address Joe's comments comments from the last meeting um for us to move forward.
>> Yes. So the flags uh were already put on this isolated wetland onto the right of the garage. The the flags were already in place and the plants uh narrative. It's like very detailed on the left like
how many plants, what kinds of plants and all that. So I I'm not seeing any uh at least a need for any additional thing. It's very clear as far the plantings are concerned. it's very clear to me like what needs to be planted
where uh you know I mean I could I can I can work off of this plan. Uh the additional PIBs where uh you noted like to cover that. Um I yeah I think that's that can uh other than that PIB thing I
think I don't think you need anything else from the plantings perspective this looks this looks like a workable plan for me to plant the plantings is that uh are you guys looking for something
else from this plant other than the new PIBs to cover that thing? Um Joe, do you can you do you have your comments handy to highlight? >> Uh yeah, I do. Um >> I think with regard to as far as the the
plantings species, uh uh they all look fine. Um they're proposing um uh 54 trees and 74 shrubs to be planted. Um
84 trees were cut. So I think the the one question would be um is the commission satisfied with um 84 trees um being cut and 54 being proposed for planting. I did note that within the the
wetland areas um there is at least one to one replacement of any trees that were cut. Um uh Podma mentioned the uh PIBs uh whether or not um I think was discussed at the last meeting uh those should be extended. Um,
let's see. Uh, elevation contours uh are not on the plan. That was an item I had noted for the commission to discuss whether or not um that should be required um whether necessary. Um
the erosion control barrier, I had a question as far as several locations. I know it's um it's shown around parts of some of the wetlands and not other parts. So, we was just curious as far as um some further explanation on on the
location of the proposed um erosion controls. Um there then I had some uh uh comments regarding the uh enforcement
or that uh requirements for the invasive species management plan. Um and that was one I had mentioned was that it was supposed to map on the uh on this site plan where the um invasive uh populations were located.
um the extent of the uh invasive species locations on the on the plan uh information on which species are present um and how to identify them and that's um provided with regard to Japanese
nweed in the plan that was pre uh presented but uh it does not include uh some of the other multifllora some of the invasives that are present at the site such as multifllora rose and glossy buckthornne. Um
uh same with treatment methods uh it's described for Japanese nweed but not for the other species present at the site. Um the timing um performance metrics for success uh those are supposed to be
included in the uh invasive species management plan uh and they are not. Um the methods for disposing of material uh the plan states that cut notweed uh should be will be neatly stacked on
site. Um, I suggested some additional information be provided such as um, you know, wrapping the material in black plastic and making sure it's not u carried to other locations on the site.
I think that pretty much covered the uh comments that I had with respect to what was submitted uh uh previously by the applicant and what was required uh by the existing enforcement
order with respect to the u invasive species management plan and what was uh still needed. >> Okay. Um, so, so it's two parts I guess here. The planting plan, which is what we're
looking at. So, if we look at this plan, um, I c I don't see a reason, unless someone has a thought on it, why we need to require elevation contours for this
particular plan. And I think I'm okay with not adding that effort and expense unless anyone can think of a reason that's helpful. >> I agree with that. >> Um
the the trees. So 84 trees cut 54 trees are replacing them. How many bush or how many shrubs did we say? 74 shrubs. >> 74 shrubs.
>> So, it's a total of 128 woody plants for 84 trees. >> Okay. Um, I I think I'm okay with that. So, like one one and a half to one.
Um, with this particular site, I don't Does anyone have any thoughts on that count? I think it's probably good to mix in shrubs and trees. >> Trees. >> What was that, Jim?
Um I said yes. Shrubs and trees. >> Shrubs and Yeah. 128 for 84 trees. >> Um >> wait, what was that? 84 trees. How many shrubs? >> No, 84 trees were cut. >> Oh, I see. So,
>> um so >> the combination of the two >> the combination of So, 128 plants are being planted. 54 of them trees, 74 shrubs. >> Um, okay.
>> So, it's not quite two to one, but >> the chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I guess I have two comments. One is um I will call it disposal of the knotweed by piling the knweed on site it will rroot
um and if it's taken off site and not disposed correctly um it will end up like what was growing on the side of the shady oaks or um oh the guy oh damn I'm drawing a blank um
road off of of um Saddle Hill does a loop named after a guy who started a um >> Daniel Sheay. >> Daniel Sheay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Shay's Rebellion. Um, so an an
adjacent parcel was dumping quantities of stuff that had been removed from other sites and it was full of knotweed and that knotweed of course started growing there and migrating onto town property. Um, so the knotweed needs to
be disposed of in a way that it's not just like taken someplace else and dumped. Um, and I think, you know, as far as the trees go, I know we're saying, you know, native and no cultivars, etc., it might be worthwhile to spec what some of those
trees are so we don't get silly little trees. That's all. >> Um, yeah, >> trees are listed. The trees are listed on the right side, on the left side. Mhm. >> They are there is there is a planting list that identifies the trees and
shrubs proposed. >> Yep. >> Okay. I guess the only thing it doesn't say is or we haven't specified a size a size of tree. Right. So we like usually
um Okay. So before we talk, we can appreciate that thought, Ed. And I'm going to hold it for a minute for the enforcement order, the uh invasives plan to talk about that in a minute. But if we can just get through the planting
plan first, I think um is everyone is anyone not okay with the number of trees and shrubs being proposed? I'd like to establish that
>> uh through the chair. Melissa, I feel fine with the numbers, but I do think you're right that we ought to have a a size at planting. And I don't know, I don't remember what has been kind of our standard expectation, the 2in diameter, 4 in diameter at planting. I don't six I
don't remember what we've done and asked, >> but I do think that would be important. >> Okay. After all, putting pine cones in the ground and hoping they grow over the next two years isn't going to cut it. So, we're going to want something more substantial than that. >> Yeah.
>> Uh but I I don't remember what standard we've done. >> Yeah. Okay. Um maybe Judy, you can take a look at what we've if we've specified anything. So, for some reason, I feel like two or two and a half inch
um might be appropriate. Maybe what we maybe look at what we did over off of Blueberry Lane, Myrtle and Fitch when they had to replace trees. >> Yep, I can do that. >> Okay.
And then >> Yeah. Okay. And then the erosion control barrier that's on the plan is that um do you know Padma what the reason for for that line is where exactly it was
drawn. It looks like maybe it's between where plantings are going in in the wetland between the two. You're referring to the dotted line like that. >> The dash line. Yeah, >> the dash line. Um I'm thinking Russian
control. Uh uh I I can check with Dave. Dave is going to be at the next meeting. So yeah, I can check with him too meanwhile. >> Okay. See if that needs to be tweaked at all or if it makes sense where it is. Um
especially if they're going to be planting in the wetland anyway. Um, I guess it depends how much earth work needs to be done in the adjacent area. Okay. So, I think that covers the
planting plan and we can kind of wrap that piece up with those comments being addressed. So, Judy will get back to you on the tree size for the new tree plantings.
We're good with the tree numbers. You don't need contours. Um, just clean up the erosion control boundary. And then that should be Oh, and then
Yeah, I think that's it for the planting plan. >> Does that make sense, D? Uh yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. And also the PIBs need to be uh um uh there are a few more PIBs need
to be put there. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're good there. All right. Um and then on the invasives um obviously Joe had more detailed comments on that and how you know I
guess the question would be can you can you look at addressing those comments? Um, I think importantly what's not in there yet is the map, a plan similar to this, but just shows where the invasive species are that are
going to be managed and the types. And I think that'll help both you and us understand, you know, what the responsibility is here. And then, you know, going over the next five years of the plan as they're being managed, it
gives that baseline for this is this is where it is right now. Um, so so when uh when when I called that invasive uh person, most of the you know, from my perspective, a lot of it was to the left of the garage and some
of it like was on to the right. Um now are we doing someone pointed out earlier are we doing that separately than the trees and first resolving that before the tree plant uh the the the the the planting is happening or is that going
to happen simultaneously? I believe it happens simultaneously, but Joe Orzel will correct me if I'm I'm wrong or if it doesn't work that way. >> Yeah, it often is simultaneous, but
sometimes it's the planting is delayed. Um because if you're if you're planting in a really dense stand of uh invasives uh the likelihood of success for the plantings, you know, decreases
significantly. Um so sometimes there's a period of invasious control that happens first um and then the plantings happen. I think it depends on what's proposed for the invasious control. If you're going in and and and cutting everything and um
treating with an herbicide, um you might be able to plant at the same time depending on on um how dense a stand is. Uh but you if you're going to be doing folure spray and follow-up treatments, that makes it
more complicated because you have to try and avoid the plantings that you put in. Um, so it depends on the specific plan, uh, and the details of the specific plan. >> Okay. Okay. So, I think that's something you'll have to talk to the scientist
who's putting the plan together. >> So, Joe, you you have that uh invasive uh uh thing. Judy, I sent it to you. I don't know. Does did Joe have that that plan? Because right now the the plants are not there. I think I then otherwise
we have to wait until for them to grow to kind of re-evaluate right >> the by the plan do you mean the uh the proposal that you received for the invasive control? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. I I did review that and um I
compared that to what the um conservation commission required in their previous enforcement order and that was what I was speaking to before as far as elements of that proposal which which are still missing. >> Okay. So that so that one probably have
all different kinds of invasive species because right now because it's winter I don't have any plants we have to wait otherwise we have they have to come again and redo it right so so I think that at least removes that element of different kinds of species right it's
invasive species that plan or it does not specify I don't know I don't know does it specify or not specify that that particular document. >> The the proposal um that you received specifi was specifically for notweed. Um
it did mention that other species would be other invasive species would be identified on the site. Um but it didn't talk about any of the treatment strategies um for those species or other ones other species that are known to be
present at the site. And I I know at least there's um glossy buckthornne and multaphora rose. Uh and likely I believe probably from what you described um um bittersweet also um the the climbing
vine. Um so the the invasive species management plan should at least um address those additional species. >> Okay. Um the reason I'm asking that is if if for them to then then we have to
wait at least for the trees to grow and then them re-evaluate and then do because right now there's none right or or I don't know if you are able to tell by the stems I don't know different species of plants
>> to treat them. Yeah, the three stems. I don't know. >> Yeah, I'm not sure. It might it might take a little time to get that invasive species plan worked out if it doesn't have all that included
yet. Um, so I think at this point in time, we've been on this for a little while. We got we got others on the line here, too. Um, I think at this point in time, if you can take a look at Joe's comments on the
invasive species management plan and uh talk to who you've engaged with that about Joe's comments um and see if they can work on addressing them. >> Okay. >> Um, that would be that would be helpful.
>> Okay, that sounds good. Thank you. Yeah. >> Okay, great. Um, so we'll continue. This was a just work session. So, okay. Yeah. When you're when you're ready with that and
have some feedback, then we can have you come back and in the meantime, the commission will look at this um enforcement that Judy's drafted up and we'll provide comments and we'll work on that on our end. >> Yep. Sounds good. Thank you. Yeah.
>> Yep. Thanks, Okay, let's jump up to the continued hearings now. 47 Oakurst Road, notice of intent continuation. >> Hey everyone, this is Andrew Tibo with Goddard.
>> Hello. >> You guys mind if I um for my screen I have a couple iterations of this plan that I'm going to show if you don't mind? That that's fine with me, Judy. >> Thank you. >> All right, you should be all set. >> Perfect. That come up. Okay.
>> All right. Again, for the commission's records, uh my name is Andrew Tibo. I'm the project's wetland scientist. Um, since we've had a number of hearings, I will jump right into it. Um, we were last with the commission at the November 25th meeting. At that meeting, we had
presented a few major changes. Um, just to summarize them very quickly, the the major takeaway from that meeting was this was when we had proposed to remove the 120 foot shed that currently sits off the rear of the patio and we increase the number of mitigation
plantings. So this that iteration of the plans had jumped from 91 mitigation plantings to 110 and it had had reduced that hardcape um by 120 square feet. So at that meeting we had talked about a few different items. It seems like at
that meeting the location of the house being out of the 50 was now agreed upon and we shifted our focus to um the mitigation plan and as well as the after the fact approval of the patio. And so that was where the bulk of our conversations were directed. There was a few requests of the commission that came
out of that. One is that the concrete retaining wall that lines the bank of the lake here. Uh we had discussed that this area can function as a PIB, but that it should be labeled on the site plans as such. Up until that point, it was not yet. And then the commission did
express some concerns over um still the limit of hardscape that was requesting after the fact approval with a number of mitigation plantings. we had the request that this even with those changes it may not have been enough and to take a second look at the mitigation plan and so we had continued out a couple
meetings to allow for those changes. Um since then the commission has received two different iterations of the plan. The reason being is I was unable to attend your December meeting. So what we did was we submitted an updated application. We asked um Judy and Joe to take a look at it, provide us any
feedback in the interim so that if there were remaining comments, we could address them prior to this meeting. So, as far as the new materials go for the commission since that meeting, um what we did is for the first submitt that you received in early December, we updated the mitigation plan a bit that included
um both the reconfiguration of some of the plantings that we see here as well as the addition of a few new ones. So, at the last meeting, we had discussed that we had 110 mitigation plantings in in the backyard here, which is um getting to be very tight on the lot. And so, we were looking to see where we
could add a few more. Another thing that came out of that last meeting was the commission had showed us the lakefront planting guide where the the goal was to try to stagger plantings on the sides of the properties to try to limit the direct space between developed surfaces and the lake. We had had some
conversations that that is difficult on already developed lots, but that we would take a look and see what we can do. So, one of the main things that we did is we were able to add four um new low bush blueberry plantings and we were also able to reconfigure and move some plantings around. So, with me being able to jump back and forth between screens
here, what we mainly did is we extended the planting area out a bit on this corner and we also added more shrubs up in the corner here. And the goal of that was to sort of decrease that lawn space and the developed surfaces between. That way we
had uh basically no access through this area here would be all native plantings, only a narrow walkway here. Then the only direct access to the lake would be down their existing stairs. That was submitted back in early December. As I had stated, we were not able to attend the meeting in December. So we had asked
for that to be reviewed. Um and then in late December, um Judy and Joe got back to us with some additional comments that uh mainly that the commission may like to see a little bit more. At the last meeting, we were talking about the reduction of additional hardscape in addition to mitigation plantings. There
was a request to um add a slot in detail to the plans to make sure that that wall was labeled as a PIV and to provide updated measurements on the request for after the fact patio within the 25 ft. Um, specifically at the last meeting, it
was asked of us to calculate the total impervious surface cover within 25 feet of the bank of the lake and then relate that to the mitigation plantings. And so that resulted in an additional round of improvements that the commission received um actually on New Year's Eve. And so that's what we see here. What's
changed since the previous proposal is we are now proposing to remove additional hardscape. So, in addition to that 120 foot shed being removed, um there's an area on the patio that's now about 146 square feet, it's used for their fireplace at present. It presents an opportunity to remove additional
hardscape and so we modified the plans to add that as well. So, what that did is now at the last before the last meeting we had increased the mitigation plantings and also expanded the planting area by reconfiguring the plantings and now we have reduced um the hardscape
cover as well. In addition to that, we did label that the retaining wall would be functioning as a PIB. That's on both the mitigation plan and the site plans themselves. And then we added the slot train details of the plans and we provided the updated calculations requested by the
commission. So just to recap that we with the removal of the fire pit in the replacement with um crush stone to make it pvious. What that does is now it reduces the total um impervious surface cover within the 25 ft to the bank um to
about 189 square ft with the reconfiguration of the plantings. We are proposing 840 square ft of currently either lawn or that deck space to be replanted as native plantings. So what that gave us was about a 4.4 4:1 ratio
of mitigation along the banks of the lake in sort of a swap with that 189 square ft of impervious service carbon has been generated here. So at a high level those are all the modifications that we've made. Um because this area is
all lawn at present with this current iteration the improvements we've made. We now think that all the comments from the commission have been addressed. This is a plan that we believe has now addressed these items and that does result in improvement over existing conditions. Um so with that I'm happy to turn over to questions.
>> Did we lose Melissa? >> Mute for me. >> Oh, sorry. I was on mute. >> Oh, okay. >> You're all listening carefully to me. No, I was saying thank you uh Andrew for
going going through that. Um can you just go one more time? Maybe you can use a pointer on to go through the areas um the breakdown of the areas in the 25 foot. I know it was like written in
narrative, but 189 square feet of new impervious surface within the 25 foot. That's the the the pink to the green line. Pink. >> Exactly. So that that would be using the
PIB right here in blue. >> Yep. >> That's our 25 ft buffer in green here. And then the pink is what is being proposed as after the fact. The gray is what was there previously. And then this fire pit area that we see is like a
dotted color. This is currently pink, but we're now proposing to remove it, put crush stone. And so it's a pvious surface. So all that would be within the 25. And then um because we've directed the plantings to be all located within the 25 to try and follow the lakefront
planting about that the entirety of that 840 ft of mitigation is within the 25. So it's basically 840 ft of mitigation for 189 square ft of patio. >> Okay. And the 189 is the
the pink area. >> Correct. Yep. Right. >> Does anyone else have questions or want additional clarification on those numbers or on that topic? >> That was something we were specifically looking for last time.
>> Um, Melissa. >> Yes. So I think I was thinking of something else but the existing heartscape is going to remain the whole thing. >> Yes. >> No longer the whole thing. Um so the now
what you see in pink is proposed to remain. So >> I only have pulled up the last one but the we've been reducing it with each meeting. So what you see here in pink is proposed to remain but there are the two areas that we see on my cursors here are now both proposed to be removed.
>> Okay. Right. Thank you. >> Um, okay. And let's see, maybe Judy or Joe, can you clarify that? So that 25 foot buffer, no disturb zone, green line compared to
the 25 foot bylaw BLSF buffer. Oh, that's being measured off the red line. Okay. But as far as our as far as our no our no disturb zone goes, it's the green line.
um through the chair Melissa if it helps. We also did calculate it from the the 25 foot to BLSF. I had previously submitted a narrative that we our interpretation of the bylaw is that the intent of the 25 is from the resource area itself. But we did also um tabulate
the numbers taking the 25 from the flood plane knowing that area's >> lawn behind it now. It's interesting to tabulate from but it was also included in this submitt. If I can go up to the table, I can show that we we have a much greater imperous surface cover within
that because it reaches up into the developed portions of the site. Um, but it was still only 636 ft of impervious surface cover with 840 ft of mitigation. So even if we included it from the BLSF, we were still providing more mitigation than impervious cover.
>> Okay. Hey Um, okay. I think everything that we asked for in the last meeting was provided here as far as numbers, details,
and whatnot go. Um, so I'm just going to open up to the commission if folks have questions, comments at this point because I don't know that there's much else um to go over.
This revive plan looks good to me, Melissa. >> Okay, thank you. >> Anyone from the public have any questions or comments on this site? No. Okay.
So, hearing none, I think I'm thinking we might as well go ahead and um vote on this application. Um, one thing I think we should probably do
is bifurcate the the vote per the wetland protection act and then also by the bylaw. Wetland protection act is not as stringent on the 25 foot uh buffer as our bylaw is. So um there might be
different feelings when you're looking at it one versus the other. Um, >> so would you make a motion to approve this under the Well Protection Act? >> Yes, I would. Thank you, Jim.
>> I'll second that motion. >> All right. So, all in favor, Ed. >> I hate being first. >> I thought you wanted to be first. There's >> only one answer, Ed.
>> Yes. Ted, >> the act. Yes. >> Matt, >> hi. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Remember this is under the act.
>> This is under the act. Yes. Uh, Walter, do you feel comfortable voting on this one? >> Yes. I I'll vote yes. >> Okay. You'll vote and you vote in favor? >> Yes. >> Okay. and myself. I'm also
an I under the act. >> Okay. Now, will you take a motion to approve this under the town's bylaw? >> Yes. Can I get >> I will second that motion. >> All right. Ed,
>> I'm going to say no. >> Ted. >> Ted is a no. Matt, >> hi. >> Jim, >> hi. >> Uh, Walter,
>> yes. >> All right. And I'm going to say no. But that carries with three. Oh, wait. No, that's a that's a split. >> Yeah, we're short an odd number of
numbers. Um >> but there is but but that does um that defaults to >> I know >> I know >> so >> hearing that I would jump in and say is
there rather than leave this to a tie I know there's a new commission member coming is it reasonable to leave this open under the bylaw to extend that conversation a little bit I think that if there's a split vote, it it would be the hope of the applicant that there's
something that can be done to bring those nos to a yes. I say that because this application seeks a lot of after the fact work as well as the construction of a new dwelling. And it's it's in both the interest of the applicant and the town to to try to seek
resolution on this because my thoughts are we need to permit this after the fact because if we do not receive an order of conditions under the bylaw, there still will be open items on the site that are not necessarily in compliance and will have to be addressed
regardless. And I think the applicant has made every every intent during this process to address them and to continue to to see where we can make improvements. And so the easiest pathway to resolution seems to be able to leave it open under the bylaw to attempt to do that. Um but I'll leave it to the
commission from that. That's my thought process hearing the split vote. >> Do um dead dog leaving >> open dead. >> I don't know. Judy, do you know can we do that? uh through the >> applicant
if the applicant presents something new, we could um retract the motion some new information and that seems like new information to me. So, I would be okay with um not taking that vote now and waiting.
Although I will caution that what whoever the new member is is going to have to bring themselves up to speed on the issue of this to understand where we are. But I'm sure they can do that. >> And I would also clarify that if that new member chooses to recuse themselves
then fully understand on the applicant team and we will go to a vote with the six members. Um but I think that this at least gives the opportunity to attempt to try to find a final resolution at least with the members here now as well. Um, I think that would be the way to do it and obviously we we do appreciate you
considering that. >> I'd be with I'd be willing to withdraw my motion. Melissa, >> you're the chair. >> May maybe Anna ought to go first. >> I believe that you have um somebody would need to make a motion to resend
that vote under the bylaw and then if that motion passed then the hearing has not been closed under the bylaw and then you can continue it. Okay. So, I'll make the motion to resend that vote under the bylaw and revote at a future date.
>> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> I. >> Matt. >> I >> Jim. >> I
>> Walter. >> Yes. And I am also in I Okay. >> Melissa, can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> Uh, so it it seems the the sticking
point is this is the 25 foot setback that there's hardcape still existing within the 25 foot setback under the town bylaw. Is that >> right? >> Kind of what we're stuck on here. It sounds like no one has
made any issue of the plantings all that etc. It's it's just the the hardcapes that remain within the 25 ft area that seemed to be the thing that people are that voted no from the town bylaw are
against. Um I think so I won't speak for everybody but I think having um protecting that no disturb 25 foot buffer from imperous area is is the
sticking point for me. So it would seem that the feedback for the homeowner is if you want to do something to to seek people to approve it that are we're on the no side is to do something more
about the the impervious area that's within the 25 foot. >> Yeah. Yes. I'll let Ted go ahead and speak his piece. Um, I think what I'm looking for, and and I think I've said this a couple times, um, I I do
appreciate that there is less hardscape than there was, but looking at this plan the way it is now, if it were unbuilt, I could not approve it. I would love to see less yardscape in the 25
or I'll repeat again a planting plan that creates a true acrosstheway buffer with curving paths to the waterfront. I'm not looking to deny access to the waterfront. I'm looking for plantings
that create a barrier across the entire section if we're going to have this much incursion into the 25 ft buffer. So, I think there's two routes or a combination of roots to move my vote before we have another vote. Um, I
appreciate the plantings and I know the applicant said that this is an unprecedented number and I'm happy for that. This is not a plan I would approve if it were offered right now. And I think that improvements can be made
still that could move my vote. >> Thank you. That's that's valuable feedback. And also before we get too far onto that as well, thank you to the commission for taking a look and rescending that vote. I think that is one a nice gesture to the homeowner and two I think that that is a good path to
resolution. So, your comments make sense and I think that to leave this as the open item under the bylaw, I think we can certainly work to address them. Um, I do want to ask a clarifying question. I the comment about impervious surfaces in the 25 makes sense to us. When we
talk about reducing it, um, I do want to just note for conversational purposes, there was a bit already in the 25 with the patio and the shed here. We had some sort of limit of disturbance. Is it reasonable to expect that the commission would be looking for a a strong
reduction but not necessarily a zero due to some being there previously? >> Uh through the chair I can give my own answer. I don't >> go ahead. >> I I am not if there was a removal of all hardscape in the 25 even with no
plantings I would probably move to a yes but I'm not necessarily looking for that. That's why I'm saying a balance of the two. I appreciate that the fire pit is now gravel, but I'm still as many plantings as there
are, I would prefer to see them snaking all the way across if we're going to still have incursion into the 25. Um, so a combination. Um, I think that that kind of purpley gray line there, that's the um trench. Is that true?
>> That runs north south. >> Yeah, this is the terrain. A for example, if the pink to the lake side of that were to become gravel and we expanded some planting so that we were reaching more across, that might be
enough to move me depending on how that looked when we saw the plan. >> Understandable. And our >> speaking of it only for myself obviously. >> Yep. No, that's that's very valuable feedback and exactly what I was looking for with that question. So, thank you Ted. The chair for the chair. There's a red
Okay, Ed, go ahead. >> I'm not a purist. >> Okay, >> go ahead, Judy. >> Uh, yeah, we were just thinking for um the vote under the act just since we're
considering new plans. Um, that vote should be rescended as well. So, it's clear what exactly the commission is approving. >> And we're fine with that. We have marching orders to continue to the next meeting. I think if we want to resend that vote to keep things clean, we'll do
it however it works for the commission. >> I'd like to make a motion to resend the vote under the act. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I.
>> Walter. >> I. >> I am also an I. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. Yes, Matt, >> if you've got a minute for me. >> I do have a minute for you. Sure. Be quiet so I can give you a minute. >> I I appreciate that. So, I'm going to
take a little bit of a different perspective on this one. Um, frustrations of the fact that this is an after the-act uh request for the patio and the work within the 50 foot buffer. Um, I think
in a lot of ways the lakefront properties if they were to go the path of taking roof runoff, putting it to subsurface recharge areas, putting in, you know, like a slot drain or a foundation drain that takes patio runoff
and puts it into those chambers and then planted the first 20 feet off the lake in a manner like this where we have this many shrubs to filter and help with that runoff to the lake um is a fair tradeoff
for work within that 50 foot buffer versus fertilized lawns, storm water runoff going with into the lake with phosphorus and nitrogen and other pollutants of concern. Um, so from that perspective, I think it would be great
for the for the town if more properties had plantings like this if it and subsurface recharge if it meant we had to give up some of that encroachment into the 50 or the 25. So still frustrated that we're dealing with this after the fact,
but I think this as a whole could be a positive um in the end. Yep. Thanks, Matt. >> Yeah, >> that was worth a minute.
>> Yes. Thank you. We appreciate that. >> Um, okay. So, that being said, we would want to continue out to the next um I don't know if you want to continue
to the next meeting if we're Well, I guess I'll leave it up to you if you're Our new commission member would have been sworn in tonight, still needs to get um signed in at town hall and hasn't attended a meeting yet.
So, that being said, um, our next meetings are January 27th and February 10th. I think we'll go to January. With this project having so much history, I I wouldn't bank on the fact that a new member will want to review all the
materials and vote on it. And I think that we just received clear feedback from um, commission members of how a vote could change. And so, I think that is enough for us to continue for January. and um we'll proceed in that manner. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue
this out to January 27? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. This is Ed. >> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. I
>> Jim. You there Jim? Oh yes I >> okay >> I was muted >> Walter >> I >> and I am also an I >> okay thank you >> thank you guys have a good night
>> you too all right next up we have 15 Montana Road notice of intent continuation. Um, okay. So, we've got a couple
new materials on this um, but limited. Judy, do you want to just go over what we've gotten from since the last meeting? Sure. Uh through the chair. Um
so we have a revised site plan showing further extent of the drainage swell around the property. Uh as well as some materials from the homeowner describing the historic use of the property. Um I think I would turn it over to homeowner or Joe Marquidant for more detailed
description of the revised materials. >> Sure. Joe here. Good evening all. Um when we met last time, uh there seemed to be a um a concern about some of the other uh swailes beyond the limits of
what we showed on that original plan. Uh we had been highlighted on uh the existing wetlands behind number nine Montana at the easterly corner that uh cast buffer zones across that portion
of the site. We heard the commission uh raise an interest about the swale that continues westerly and terminates at the stone wall along the westerly boundary line. That's what you see on this plan.
um to the uh on the west edge of the paddic heading easterly that is unchanged. We've added that blue thick line heading westerly. The swale along uh the boundary installed by by the
homeowner at Kelly to handle um flows across his property uh from adjoining properties. And then uh I think believe at the at the request of the chair uh Ed had shared some information about the
history of the farm its uses uh with some idea of of what has happened in the past and what is happening in the future. um he at memorialized that and submitted that with a package too uh for the benefit of the commission to
appreciate just uh just what he has there and how he intends to use it going forward. >> Okay, thank you. Um, one of the questions that I had
as I was visiting the agricultural definitions um, in the bylaw and the act and I it didn't come through on the narrative that was provided for the history of the site. um is whether that the activity
the agricultural activity was considered commercial or not. Um I don't know if you know that Joe or if the owner's on the line to add any detail there.
>> Yeah. Hi, this is Ed Kelly from 15 Montana. Um, yeah. So, from a business standpoint, there's different income generating streams that have happened time in and time out, not consistently. We do some
uh additional horse boarding, some temporary what they call freasing where folks leave their horses at your house and you allow them to to board. Um, we've done some milk and and cheese and
meat sales, but those things become a an issue with licensing for different dairy requirements in the state after a certain income level, those kinds of things. So, we've always limited that. So, I guess the definition of
commercial, it has to be, is it a full-time income for us or a consistent income stream for us? It is not. Um, has the farming activity been consistent since we've occupied the property? It
has been. Um, so as far as the definition, I think it meets the intent from a standpoint of how the land is used. From a business standpoint, I I I can't really give you that definition, but I
think everything that's mentioned in the in in the bylaw happens out here. It's just a function on whether or not it generates a income for us. >> Okay. Okay. Um, and there's never been any
deed restrictions or anything placed on the land as far as agricultural activities go. >> No. >> Okay. Okay. Um, I think Joe Orzelle, did you have any
did you do take a look at at this and have any thoughts or comments? >> Yeah, I have not reviewed anything since the uh last meeting. Um, in fact, I was just checking my emails. I wasn't aware
that anything new had been submitted um on that. So, I can certainly take a look at that um moving forward. >> Okay. >> To the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Yeah, I think I had waited on sending this to Joe because I was u waiting for
confirmation from other Joe um on whether the swale was also delineated or if it was just survey located. I wasn't exactly sure um that this plan had met the commissions and DP's comments regarding delineating the property. So I think that's where the hangup was. Um
didn't end up sending this over for another review from Joe O. >> Okay. Joe Merkon, do you have an uh answer to that question that to answer that question? Yeah, this is survey located. This is the existing swale.
>> Okay. Okay. >> The chair. >> Yes. >> And I would just note that there is um also some BBW along that swale in the um would be the southwest corner if that is
in the lower left corner um of that property and on the western edge um which which I would think should be delineated also. >> Okay. through the chair. >> Yes. >> Joe, you feel that is on-site or off?
>> Uh, some of that is on-site. Uh, there is definitely some offsite, but u there is some uh on the site also. >> Okay. Um, does anyone else on the commission have any questions on
what we're looking at here? >> You're the chair. This is Ted. >> Yes, Ted. Um, I apologize. My mind drifted for a moment. Could you review again that definition of commercial agriculture? And I'm curious if the boarding of horses qualifies as
commercial agriculture or if that's something else. Um I would need to look again in research on commercial the word commercial for agriculture
under the act is defined as land um primarily used for agricultural commodities for commercial purposes. >> A commodity assumes a good for sale I think. Yeah.
>> Um, yes. But I don't I mean that boarding horses is, you know, sale of something and you know, I'm not sure. I need to do a little more more digging on that.
>> As I'm trying to puzzle it out, I'm wondering if that doggy daycare place over the border in Southboro counts as commercial agriculture or is that something else? Um, seems to me boarding horses and boarding dogs probably aren't too different. I just don't know how
that fits, >> right? >> Categories. >> Yeah, this one is um definitely new territory to me. >> Um, it might might be something that is worth reaching out to DP
um on because I think it does change the way you you look at the site and how it could, you know, >> 100%. That's why I want to try to and maybe um well I'll leave it at that 100%. I think getting a handle around
what commercial agriculture means will have a big impact on how we look at this. >> Right. Right. I think it gives a lot more leniency and leeway um to do things on the site. So >> the chair. >> Yes. Matt, >> it's it's it's very important in my mind
that it talks about primarily used in producing or raising So it's not just a commercial purpose, it's the production or raising of those agricultural commodities. >> Yeah. >> Whether or not boarding horses is considered raising.
>> Breeding would be raising probably if you're breeding for sale, but boarding is different. >> To me, that's the that's the that's the sticking point. Uh you know, what does that truly mean? And I'd be curious if D has an opinion on
>> where boarding falls within the confines of that definition. >> Yeah. >> So if I if I could add some more context, um we do actually have an active dairy farm as well where we breed dairy goats both for milk and for meat
and dairy products. So that's been consistent for the last, you know, 12 years here and 15 years prior. So that that's actually more of a primary activity on this farm than the horses are.
>> Okay. >> Chair. >> Yes. Joe, >> I just want to also just uh point out that the definition of the bylaw for the agriculture under the bylaw um does not refer to the violence protection act,
but refers to um general law chapter 128 section 1. Um, so that another definition to to to look at, >> another one to look at. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um,
Mr. Kelly, did you have those those dates and time frames? I did read through your narrative, but I can't remember off the top of my head if you had that level of detail for um the the dairy
in the >> That's been since day one. So, I mean, if I needed to amend the the narrative to be a little more specific on dates, but you know, since the day we moved on to the property, our our generation of the family, we've had dairy goats on the property
>> and and horses. So the all of those activities have taken place in their entirety since the day, you know, we we've moved on the property >> cuz we moved we moved from another farm to this farm
>> and so we brought everything with us. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah, that level might be up because Judy, I believe it was D that was uh kind of the impetus for this research
project. >> Yeah. >> Um so it's not just us, but it's Yeah. crossing our tees and dotting our eyes with EP. Um so >> yes, Matt,
>> can I can I add to your list, Judy, if you're going to reach out to DP? Yeah. >> Can you get clarity from them? Because I think I remember the answer, but I want to make sure we're clear on this. The
other part of it is presently, right? What does presently mean? My prior understanding at least how I understand up to this point is that presently referred to at the time that the act was implemented
and that creation of land and agricultural use now may not fall may not fit in that definition either. So be good if nothing else it would be good to get educated on that piece of it.
>> Yep. I can ask them about that. Um, all right. So, I think I'm going to look for a motion to continue this one out as well to January 27th.
>> This is it. I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Ed will second. >> All right. All in favor, Ed. I >> Ted. >> Ted is an I >> Matt. >> I >> Jim. >> I >> Walter.
>> Hi. >> And I'm also an I. >> All right. Thank you for uh the extra information, Mr. Kelly. >> Yeah, I guess let me know if you want any additional details. I'm happy to
provide them. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Next up, we have um 12 North Mill Street. Okay. Notice of intent for continuation on the single family house. Um
I know I think I saw Mr. Petroi. >> Yes, I'm here. >> You're here. >> Still awake. >> Good. I learned a lot about knwweed tonight. >> Always always learn something when you come to our meetings. >> Exactly.
>> Just don't know what it's going to be. >> Well, since we last uh met um uh we submitted a revised plan and we increased the replication area to comply with the one and a half to one.
Uh we counted the trees. We added more trees into the replication area. And um I understand that um Lucas Engineering has provided some comments uh but they seem to be mostly
administrative in nature. So I'm not quite sure what's what we need to do. Um we're we're going to be meeting with the uh board of health on the 12th
seeking their um approval of this waiver for the uh drinking water well. And so I'm not sure quite what we do from here. >> Okay.
Um well, I'll first ask Joe if you concur that um most of your comments have been addressed and if there's any to highlight outside of being administrative
at this point. >> Yeah. Um I think a lot of the comments went away because uh the uh large crossing of the wetland stream is no longer proposed. I do have a couple remaining comments. Um, uh, still recommending that the
applicant submit a construction and post construction invasive species management plan. Um, and let's see with respect to the uh, uh, alternatives analysis. um the
current site plan. Uh and there was a waiver request for um uh a waiver from the requirement for one and a half times the wetland alteration area mitigation for the alteration. But apparently with
the revision um the current plan uh does provide uh at least 1.5 times mitigation to the altered area. It looks like that waiver is no longer requested. I was also um uh wondering if the applicant
had considered alternative uh innovative alternative septic designs uh that um might be um approved for the site that could possibly um decrease the uh size of the
soil absorption system uh and maybe allow some um some more wiggle room on the property seeing how tight it is. Um uh the plan does include uh locations of trees greater than um 10 in. Uh it
wasn't clear which ones of those exactly were going to be removed. Um uh because I think that's proposing uh 16 trees to be removed of that size and then I think the existing condition plan shows roughly 25 or or so. Um, uh,
just was looking for some clarification as far as what trees were being removed, maybe a list of the trees that were being removed to make it more clear. Um, uh, as far as the, uh, construction sequence, uh, recommending that that be
revised, uh, to reflect the current, uh, plan proposal. Uh, same for the wetland replication plan narrative. Um and same for the BBW what compliance evaluation narrative. Uh those should all be
revised to reflect the current proposal. Um the plan does uh uh has been revised to show the 125 ft uh buffer line from the PVP uh in the northwest corner of the
property. Um the uh offsite um PVP uh to the southeast uh does not have the 125 ft uh boundary or buffer. Uh
recommending that the uh the buffer lines shown on the uh north of 10 plan match the buffers that were approved on the ORAD. Um and also that the commission discuss how they want the uh
vernal pool buffer line to be labeled um uh possibly as the 125 ft vernal pool habitat boundary or something along those lines. I know there was some discussion of that uh that would a previous meeting. Um,
see, >> so the buffer lines, if I can just >> and reject for a minute, the buffer lines you said to match the OraD plan, >> correct? >> So the like the 50 foot and yellow here.
Well, yeah, but if you look uh at the uh other parts of the plant where the uh vernal pool PVP buffers are shown. >> Yeah. >> Um you can see the PVP buffer to the left of the plan has a 100 foot line and not
the 125 foot. >> Oh, okay. >> Um >> so that you know the 125 comes onto the property and that was what was approved in the overhead. So just just to match the the buffer line the locations of the buffers that were approved and the on
and the ORAD. >> Okay. >> Uh no erosion control detail is provided on the plan. Would recommend that that be shown on the on the plan. Um
and I think that uh pretty much covers it. I mean there the one of the administrative ones it's just you know the form three would recommend that the wellness protection act form three be revised to um reflect the
currently proposed uh alteration and mitigation. I think that pretty much covers it. >> Okay. All right. So,
yeah, you clean up things. Um, you clean up things to do. The I think the one that jumped out as far as what we might want to discuss was um
on the alternatives analysis were any septic designs innovative septic designs considered or would that have an impact on the uh placement of the house and impacts here Mr. Well, you know, we we won't know
anything until we um go to the board of health and have them make a comment on the design, which I think we have filed with them. >> Okay. >> But but the whole, you know, the whole plan rests on the fact of the commission
approving the the plan, number one. And number two is that the board of health recognized that that that we're seeking to disturb less of the site and grant us a waiver for this u well location. So I mean it's like a
cat and mouse type of u situation. We can't do one without the other. And so what I was hoping that um the commission would consider if you are considering approving the plan with conditions that many of the items that
uh Joe has mentioned in his comments are really just I consider them administrative details that just making revisions to the plan that could be incorporated into an order of conditions that
uh we do between now and you have 21 days um before you have to issue an order of conditions that they be that we have that opportunity with an approval that we have that opportunity to present those revisions
that Joe has mentioned and give us an opportunity to go in front of the board of health with a positive uh outlook from the commission. I per I quite honestly from my previous experience
is that the board of health is not likely to give me a positive vote unless they know that the commission is going to give a positive vote. So, it's like um someone has to start the ball rolling. And I was hoping
the commission would do that with a conditional approval uh that we could go to the board of health on on Monday night and ask for their consideration as well. I mean, the plan blows up if we don't get one or the
other. So, uh, and I don't, like I said, I don't think the board of health is going to give us anything positive unless the commission gives something positive. So, it's clearly up to the commission. >> Okay. Well,
so for as I was saying, I I agree. Um, a lot of it is plan cleanup, but the two things that jumped out as me as discussion items
um for the commission was that question about the septic design and then the clarification of trees being removed versus those being saved. Well, if I can just say um that you can
see from the contours of the of the property, the whole site is basically cleared. >> Yep. >> You know, so doesn't make any sense for us to identify the trees that are going to be removed because they're being removed. I mean, we're not >> Yes.
>> Unfortunately, can't do that. Regarding the septic system, of course, we'll consider whatever the uh board of health is allowing us to do, but it the impetus on us or the requirement of us is show that we can comply
and then explore the opportunities to reduce um the uh you know these uh new types of systems that are available and then work with the health agent to seek an approval along those lines.
Um, so it's like, you know, I know we want to do that as well. I mean, we've struggled with this whole property for a long time. So, if there's any way that we can reduce the area to be, you know, as far as the leeching galleys or the
leeching ch uh trenches and that sort of thing, sure, we'll certainly consider all of that stuff at all. It's not really a earthshattering type of alternatives, but we won't need we won't be able to do any of that until the commission grants us this relief
for the filling in the replication and the in the well location. It's simply we're going to be at a standstill. We'll have to come back and you'll have to do it again and we'll be in the same spot.
>> Yep. No, we don't. want to um certainly don't not the intention to hold this up forever. So would also like to see it move along. Um
>> does anyone >> how would the commission feel about an approval with conditions outlined in Joe's memorandum? So my so the commission I mean historically is extremely uncomfortable
with voting on a plan voting on plans conditioning that that things be updated within that 21-day period because we've been burned before um by that not happening and then they've never happened. Um,
so I'll just throw that out there that that is the the the commission. My desire would be to have updated plans, everything addressed um in order to vote on it, but
I'll also open it up to the commission. I don't see anything here that's earthshattering or that would change my decision on voting, but um I do, you know, kind of it's a matter of process like to see um that the plans are all
cleaned up and and good to go before we before we vote. Um I'll open up to other commission members if you have questions, comments on um what's in front of us here for Mr. Troy and also your thoughts on voting on this tonight.
>> Yeah, Melissa. Um, and forgive me if I missed it or I just don't remember where we landed, but the wetland replication area and the size of it. Our regulations require, it says we must have one and a
half to one mitigation for the loss of wild. We do not have that shown on this plan right now. Where are we on that topic? >> Excuse me. But we do we this plan satisfies that requirement, Matt, of 1.5 to one replication.
>> Can you help me understand? I'm looking at the numbers on here. >> The math doesn't add up. >> The blue shaded areas are the replication areas. If you add those up, those two areas up, they come to 1500 10. I don't know. I don't have >> 1500 something. But if you look at the
two pink areas, they add up to over thousand. So you would need >> Okay. So you got the you got the 1.5. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> That was that was one of the more specific uh requests of the commission
that we comply with that requirement rather than seek a waiver. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just couldn't remember where we landed. So thank you for >> Okay. >> clarifying. Uh Melissa. >> Yes, Jim. >> Does it seem that uh cleaning up the
plans, if you will, uh uh in accordance with Joe's comments, is that that's is it seem that that's all we need. So that if we can't do that tonight, um and Mr. Petro is going to the board of health on Monday, which I think I
heard. Um could we at least say, you know, that's going to something positive like that? Looks like that'll be approvable and um board of health can at least look at the video from this or something else and Mr. Petros you can
bring to them that's a concom is is uh you know close to making a decision based on some new plan revisions. So he has something to go Monday positive with the board of health >> instead of them just saying let's just keep putting this off.
>> Yeah. No, I think I wouldn't have a problem. Or maybe Judy could um I don't know if Judy is that something you would be comfortable with >> the chair. I I think without having the
correct delineation on this plan and there being questions at the last meeting about the scale and how the buffer zones were drawn, I think it's a little personally maybe premature to to give a leaning in either direction. Um, you know, until you have
a corrected plan in front of you to make decisions off of. But that's just my take. Yeah. >> May I make a suggestion? If you How about if you um we keep the hearing open,
but send a uh some sort of a message to the to the board of health that subject to the some administrative uh revisions to the plan, the commission
favorably supports this proposal. through the chair. >> Yes. >> I think additionally with there being questions about whether the alternatives analysis was pursued as far as it could have been in terms of Joe's comment regarding you know innovative septic
design um as the applicants requesting a waiver from the 50 foot no build if there's still options to dive into with the alternatives analysis and questions on whether that was done adequately. Um, that might be another thing too. >> Well, can I just interrupt for just a
second? This whole other than the wetland replication, the whole thing revolves around whether or not I can so locate a a drinking well within the wetland area that we're asking to be
filled. If the board of health does not grant that, then we're going back to another we're going back to the alternative of crossing the wetlands and putting a well back there >> through the chair. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, if I'm hearing you correctly, Mr.
Petrosi, like would it be helpful for us to issue something stating that we're amendable to the well being located in the wetland as shown on this plan? >> That is Yeah, exactly what I'm asking for. Something along those lines.
that that gives them the message that this plan is they're not wasting their time granting the waiver. I'll tell you the story behind you know the the previous years ago maybe 20 1998
they granted us a waiver which they have a copy of they granted us the waiver and then the they rescended it because the wetland line they weren't sure the conservation commission had accepted the wetland line. So, I I just have I just know what
they're going to do because I've been there before and the people tend to uh refer to historical type of u events like this and so we're going to we're just spinning our wheels back and forth.
>> Well, I think if I can just clarify that um we've already accepted the wetland line. So the wetland line isn't in question >> right >> here. Um so the board of health is making
their own decision on whether they're okay with a wellbeing in the wetland, right? >> No. >> Well, no, no, that's not it at all. They're going to be looking that the conservation commission is allowing the wetlands to be filled in order to locate
a drinking water well within the buffer their 50 foot buffers area from a wetland. That's the decision that they're going to be making. So essentially the commission needs to bless the fact that we're filling the
the wetlands in order to maintain or um um establish some level of compliance of being or 125 ft or 100 ft away from the leeching field. That's really kind of the nut in a nutshell what it is. I mean,
>> so they're so they need to be they need to so they will only approve the well if it's not in the wetland, >> right? >> Is what you're saying. And we Okay. >> We're not We're not suggesting to them that they approve a well in the
wetlands. We're proposing that the area where the well will be is going to be filled and become non-wetland and a well will be located within their established they have a not they
have a separation of 50 ft I think from the from the edge of BBW. So the commission has to allow the filling of the wetland where the well is going to be going placed and then they have to
approve a waiver of their 50ft requirement. Now you talk about a tech uh like an innovative system. Well the innovative system may shrink the leeching field but it's not going to affect the distance of 100 ft from
the well. It's it's you're talking you're talking minimal >> incremental type of change here that shrinks the field. But it's >> as you can see the the line between the leeching field and the reserve trench of
that leeching field is not going to change much even if it's an innovative system. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I I wasn't I get it now. I wasn't understanding the I wasn't looking at it from that perspective of
it's just it just seems like a very weird backwards situation. Um that we're creating Upland, but I get it. I get it now. That's why the board of health is intertwined >> um with us. In my mind, the well is way
deep in the ground and it still in the wetland, but um that's fine. >> Yes, Matt. >> I just want to make sure that I'm crystal clear before I make a suggestion. >> Okay, >> Mr. Petrosi, the board of health, when
you meet with them, they're going to review the well location. Are they also at that same meeting making a decision on your septic system? Because that's the where 50 foot setback comes into play. Yeah. No, that that has a separate application under the title five that
will go to them and they'll >> You're not there yet. You're just just on the well right now. Okay. >> Because I can't submit a non-compliant plan. If the well is not compliant, then the whole plan is non-compliant. >> Yeah. Nope. I understand. So Melissa,
given that, does it make sense for us to deliberate on feelings of filling for the installation of the well so we can come to a conclusion on whether or not we're comfortable issuing some indication to the board of health
one way or the other whether or not that fill is acceptable to the commission for the installation of the well. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense to do whatever you want to call it, a a straw pole or or pull the commission on that one particular item.
>> Okay. >> Um yeah, >> I'm happy to lead off that discussion. >> So from from my perspective, and this goes back to some of the prior discussions we've had um of the alternatives that were considered placed in the dwelling on the front of the
property uh would have the le least impact to the resource areas. So, if that means some limited fill to the wetland to comply with the board of health requirement, as long as we're meeting the minimum replication
um in our regulations, I think that'd be okay with that. Phil, >> just go down um go down the list of members and just let me know if you are
agree with with that with a Yes, Ed. >> Oh, yeah. This is Ed. Um, I I would concur, but I would stipulate that figure of like I it's hard for me
to read because this picture is so small. 470 square feet. Did that be the the number specified? 470 square ft of wetland being filled. >> Correct. >> Yes, that's good clarification. Ed
>> uh Ted, what about you? Um, yeah, given that we are only talking about that one pink rectangle right now, that's the only thing we're talking about. I I can say sure.
>> All right, Matt, you're you started us off, so you're okay with it. Jim, >> well, I'd like to mimic that and say sure, but I'm I'm all for it. >> Okay. Walter,
>> I I'm okay with what I've heard. >> Okay. And I also agree with that. >> Okay. >> Go suggest with that. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Outside of that,
>> so I would s I would ask that we continue the hearing. I'll make the uh corrections to the plan that u Joe has commented on and um hope to be able to come back at the next
meeting with some positive results. >> Okay. Um before I sign off on this, I'll just open it up to the public and see if there are any comments from the public. Okay. Hearing none, I think we
>> Yes. >> Oh, >> Bruce Homegrren, 19 Street. >> I just had a question for Lou. He talked about a uh deed restriction being formalized for the rest of the property. I wonder if you could just explain
exactly how that process would work. Um well I to the rear of this property there's already uh a deed restriction conservation restriction. I don't know how you call qualify it but we would just mimic that
uh agreement. It would get recorded. I would expect the commission to make that a condition of an order of conditions that that would be in place before any construction could commence.
And uh basically it um reserves the back of the property from no act I guess no activity or no construction or I I have to look at the wording of the of the the document that was previously issued but
it's basically becomes uh open space that is undisturbed. So, a question to the commissioners. Would that become an order of condition? Likely. >> Um, it it definitely if being offered up
um it definitely could be. >> Thank you. >> Okay. No other questions. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Then um can I get a motion to continue this out to January 27th >> through the chair?
>> Oh yes. >> Lou, are you asking to continue both hearings? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. Until we get the final thing. I guess we have to do that. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Thank you.
>> So I'll amend that motion to include both uh files uh that we're going to hear tonight. want to say. >> All right. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed. >> Hi,
>> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> Hi, >> Jim. >> Hi, >> Walter. >> I >> and I'm also an I. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And anything anything that you can deliver to the
board of health as we talked about would be very much appreciated. >> Okay. Good luck. >> Yeah, thank you very much. Bye. Bye. >> Bye. Okay. Um, going down to work session items.
The trails committee Windsor Apartments to Mary Acres Trails exemption request. Um, do we have someone on the line from the trails committee? Yeah, I'm here. >> Okay. Who was that? I'm sorry. I'm >> Sean Kimble.
>> Rolling. Sean Kimble. Okay. Hi, Sean. Um, do you want to go ahead and present? >> Sure. Um, as you can see on the map right here in the uh towards the bottom left where you see the sign that says proposed trail relocation and proposed
bridge. >> Yep. >> That's what we're proposing right now is uh to replace a bridge that's basically just a plank that's going for over an 8ft span. Uh putting in a bridge very similar to the bridge that we did a
couple months ago back in November. be about 10 foot long maybe with some ramps depending if we can if it doesn't meet the grade then we'll put in some ramps but they won't be anything of they won't be huge or anything like that and then as you can see that the trail kind of
goes to the north along the wetlands and we're proposing to decommission that section of the trail bring it onto higher land to get away from the water and um and make it a more of a direct path. The other thing too is notice up
in your top left, that's the Windsor Apartments, right? The Brown buildings. Um, this will enable people from Windsor Apartments and the West Main Street Business District to use this path to go
to the Chamberlain Extension to the far right. And you can see in the bottom far right where there's another orange line. right now. That's um that's a shared use path that eventually will get up to the center trail. So, in theory, well, once
everything's all said and done, the folks from Windsor Apartments can get to the schools via the trails. >> Okay, great. >> Um and then the other thing I want to just bring to the commission's attention is the proposed boardwalk. So, there's a
there's a 40ft section that's an old farmer's bridge. It's basically not cobblestone, but larger stones that fills an intermittent stream. You can see the stream there. Um, and we're proposing at some point, not right now, unless the commission wants to approve
it, um, to do the 40ft boardwalk over that stone walkway, but that particular parcel is on Eversource property, and we have just made contact with Eversource, and they haven't reviewed our proposal yet. So they're they they don't they
haven't given their blessing cuz they haven't seen it yet. Whereas the parcel we're talking about, the darker green, that's Wreck Hopington LLC's property and they do they did pro provide permission and approval. >> Okay.
Okay. Um I just had a couple questions for the proposed trail relocation. Um, what is that going to involve? I guess how wide is that trail going to be? Um,
and what what are you anticipating having to remove to create that trail if anything? >> Um, not much. The um the decommissioning, well, not the decommission, the new trail will be the cleared corridor will be 5 to six feet
wide, 8 foot overhead clearance. The travel way itself will be four to five foot wide um with the path basically in that four foot with two feet on either side like kind of like a buffer area if you will. So your path is going to be
four to feet four to 5t wide and then an additional one to two feet on the side on each side of the path and then you imagine just 8 foot above you would be cleared. Most of this brush that we're we're going to be clearing, it's knee
height, maybe shoulder height stuff. It's not very substantive, and we're not taking out any trees, barring two trees that are um relatively small and dead. One's already kind of fallen over. It's leaning, and we're just going to clear
that out so it doesn't fall. And the other one's just it's just a dead tree that's in the way. I think they're 8 inches, less than eight inches. Okay, that's pretty wide. Are the um existing paths that wide? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. You to be honest with
you, you don't even really really notice it. I think the the rule of thumb when Halt does their property clearing is they do well, not my arms length cuz I'm kind of a small person and they do arms w basically 8 foot, you know what I mean? 6 to 8 feet. This is standard.
This is typical. And you're not putting anything down. It's just going to be uh soil path. >> Yeah. >> Player. Um and did we get is there a detail for
the bridge crossing like consistent with what we've seen in the past? Okay. >> Yeah. Exactly. You mean this bridge? So, we built a 16 ft bridge back in November. It's basically going to be the same bridge only smaller or shorter.
>> Mhm. Okay. Um, >> yes. Go ahead, Jim. >> Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. That's the bridge that they need to get NSTAR's approval for. Ever source approval? >> No. >> Right. >> No, no, no.
>> This bridge is on Wreck Hopington LLC's property. Okay, got it. I'm not able to look at the the plan right now. >> Okay. Yeah, >> thanks. >> Um, okay. I'll open it up to other commission members for questions on this
comment. >> The chair, this is Ted. >> Yes, Ted. >> Sean, um, I love what the trails committee does and I'm happy with the trails and I usually doesn't take much to convince me. I'm a little confused by what you mean by a 4 foot wide trail
plus two feet on either side. That sounds like an eight foot wide trail. So >> it's it's not what that means. >> All right. So think of it this way is that so you're walking down your typical trail, right? And you got the tread. That's the really beaten down section,
right? Which is really compact soil that's four to four to four four to five feet wide. And then on either side of that, it's not tread. It's probably probably like you'll you see small underbrush grass, um weeds, that type of
thing that will typically grow maybe two to three inches on either side. And that 8ft section, that's what you call the corridor. So the trail itself is four to 5t wide. The corridor is like 8 foot. And it's just it's basically to prevent like trees and stuff like that from
going onto the trail is really what it boils down to. But like I said, I we're not taking down any trees. >> And how long a path is that pink dotted line? >> Oh. Um, >> roughly >> couple hundred feet.
>> So like 100 yards maybe. >> Chuck is probably better at it than I am. I was going to say go to Chuck. He knows better. I I I'll just say I just get worried about approving 7500 yards of clearing in the wetland without
understanding the plan a little bit better. Um that makes the bridge I can approve pretty quickly. I've gotten very used to those bridges. I know what they are, know how they work. But new clearing. Um I believe your assurance, Sean. I I trust that you're not going to
be hacking down trees, but just as a precedent, I don't know that I love Yeah, go ahead and just do the right right thing for a 100 yards forward. Um I wonder if there's a way we can get some more
of a plan or breakdown of what the vegetation is that'll be moved besides the dead tree and maybe the half dead tree. The chair has his hand up. Yeah. >> Does the chair? >> Yes. Mr.
>> Chuck Doy, 25 Sanctuary Lane. Um, you know, Sean and I uh worked together to um lay out this alternative route. the uh um um I don't I'm not sure to clarify
uh Ted the uh uh the trail is not in the wetland is entirely in Oakland. >> Um >> okay. Is it is it in the buffer zones though? Is it initational area? Right. >> Yeah. the um it's the length is probably
about uh a little over 200 f feet and uh the uh the vegetation that is the um uh the woody vegetation that's there. Uh there's one little patch of u uh uh
you could almost call it a small thicket of u sprouts about finger size. uh uh uh mostly sweet pepper bush. Um and then uh there were a couple of uh
small clumps of witch hazel um uh that we uh some of the leaning branches of witch hazel which uh they tend to uh branch out and uh so the ones
that are leaning toward the trail, we may uh need to cut those back. But otherwise um we picked a route where uh there's no significant uh clearing needed. Um
and the uh whereas the route uh along the wetlands uh due to the high water table there uh there are a lot of exposed roots. It's really a uh uh not a great trail. And uh
uh this will allow us to have a u a route that'll be much more friendly to u traffic hopefully uh by kids on the way to school >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> I have pictures of both trails, the
proposed new and the existing if that would be helpful. >> Sure, that'd be great. So this is walking flag to flag for the new trail. So it gets a little bit woodier towards
the um western side. >> And for every one of these we're talking about moving forward. The path would be the center of the photo >> following the flag >> straight back. I just can't see all the flags there. Right. Found that one. But okay.
>> Mhm. Yeah. It's it's looking walking along the trail looking forward. >> Yeah. >> Uh that's the existing bridge. And then this is the existing trail going right along the uh wetland here. >> Um may I ask another question, Melissa?
>> Yes. Um to either Sean or Chuck, what is I if you get approval uh or when you get approval, what is your your hope for building the bridge in the trail? Would it be in the spring? Would it be soon? March. >> March.
>> Okay. Um I may be alone and if so, I won't be the sticking point. I wonder if we could just have those photos look good and thank you. I should have seen them on my own before the meeting and I just didn't see them. Um, I I would love a a shortish description of where we're
going. I just don't want to establish a precedent that while I do trust you guys, I don't want another entity coming and saying, "Well, you trusted them. We're going to do just the same thing." I I would love some sort of
description of where the trail is going and and what some of those thicker thickets are. that would make me feel more comfortable about this one, but frankly I trust you guys, but more for what we are establishing for what might come in the
future from non-trails committee requests. >> And I wonder if that could be put together before the next meeting so that you can still be on a timetable for March construction. >> Yeah. No, I honestly Ted, I think that's that'd be easy to do. Relatively easy.
Um, I just want some I just want you to elaborate like where now when you say where the trail is going too and you're not talking about logistics like it's going from east to west and >> No, I mean like it is. So Chuck says it's 200 ftish I think is what he said.
Mhm. >> So, if we had a number for the length, um if we had some a little more description of what the clearing is going to be, you know, we bumped into some name a bush and so we're going to have to move three of these bushes or
remove three of these bushes. Something that describes the work a little bit better than just well look at the photos. This is where we're going. Um and I'll just say it again, although I don't think you need to hear it. It's not that I don't trust YouTube. It's that I want to make sure
a future applicant who is not the trails committee doesn't say, "Well, you guys approved before based on a couple photos, so why can't you let us do it as well?" >> No, I I you're trying to establish a best practice. I understand that, Ted. >> I'm gonna go to Ed for a minute. Yeah,
because I know you had been having something to say. So, we we saw a couple pictures of the existing trail, which to me looks like a lovely woods trail, not a I I don't want to call it a super
highway, but a trail that is not a mere narrow walking path through the woods, but something that's more than that. Am I correct? >> It's gonna No, it's going to be that same path. It's not going to it's not going to be a super highway or shear
juice path or anything like that. >> Well, the surely the pictures of the existing trail didn't look like they were 4 feet wide, but >> Melissa, I have a couple questions. >> Yes, Walter, go for it. Uh so the
proposed trail relocation and the the paint dotted line uh there's no mention of the existing trail the red that goes up near the wetland. Is that going to be closed? You're going to >> yes >> drag branches and leaves and such and
close that trail. I think that should be indicated on the plan that you're closing that trail. Uh, so the the section that shows like from where the blue dotted line intersects over to where the bridge that's the part you're closing. >> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. I think if you could mark that, that would be helpful to know that that's no longer going to exist. Uh, and then there's a proposed boardwalk on the NSTAR land. It is NSTAR going to have to approve that?
Yeah, but it's it's NSTAR and they have their own processes that we have to go through which >> Okay. >> my gut is going to take months to get there. >> All right. So, that's not before us for approval. >> No, this is this is like I said, this is just a kindly advanced notice saying
this is what we're looking at. >> So, we're really considering what's kind of in the the green overall green shaded area. Yeah, >> that that's what we're Okay. >> I mean, I I this is something I'm not as
sure of. Like when the commission approves um a project, is it by the parcel or parcels when it's grouped together? Because this is two owners and I'm not sure if you can get an exemption for two owners on two different parcels.
>> Um that's a good question. That's why I kind of held it out there. I was like, I you know, when I've done personal exemptions for my own househ, >> you know, the letter comes out and it says, you know, at this address where here it'd be two partial ownersh.
>> Yeah. Unless unless you know off the top of your head, Judy, how we would handle that. I mean, if they're if you're not proposing that one right now, then >> more for cuz like I said, we're not going to do anything until NSTAR says go. >> Yeah. >> It's just like and the other thing is
I'd hate to get an exemption approval without NSAR even knowing about it, right? We just kind of gave them a heads up >> and I can see them getting perturbed by it. >> Yeah. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, Anna. >> Yeah. Happy to do either way. Um, for
the commission's reference, when Judy and I write the exemption letters, we always say that it doesn't um like this doesn't exempt private property, right? So, like if this is not on the property that the person who's asking owns, like you have to like we do it with like tree
exemptions where they're like borderline they're like you have to coordinate with your neighbor to make sure like whose actual tree this is. So, you know, we kind of put in a um some language on those exemptions that says, you know, does not prevent private property rights,
you know, being just, you know, gone over kind of thing. If that makes sense. My words are not coming out. I'm tired. Sorry. >> Okay. >> Another question, Melissa. So on the on the Instar property uh trails
uh just in a lot of places in Hopington just appear or they've been used for years. Uh I'm wondering if Instar has given approval for the trails that are forget the boardwalk but the trails that are already there. If you go to Instar
and say, "I'd like to put a boardwalk on this trail through your property." They say, "We never approved that that trail, the red trail on our property. So, don't ask us for a boardwalk because we don't even approve the trail."
>> It's it's Well, they literally just sent me an email yesterday saying that. Well, mind you, Walter, it's not EndStar, it's Boston Edison to date this one, right? So, you have to go back two acquisitions ago. >> And it my my understanding was kind of a
maybe a handshake or a head nod type of an agreement. >> Um, also notice how well the way this mapping is done, we're more accurate with the trails now than they were 20 years ago because of GPS, >> right? So, when the trails were mapped
and I think that the original trail was meant to be on town property, which is the green to the right. So, I think most of the trail should have been on town property. It just there's a a stone wall that goes down that trail. And so, had you been on the right side of the stone wall going
north, you would have been on town property. If you're on the left side of it, which it is, you're on NStar property. >> It's just I'm speculating. I wasn't here 25 years ago when it was put in. >> Um, >> so NSAR just has this little island of property in the middle of the townland.
>> Pretty much. Pretty much. Well, NSAR, well, Boston Edison donated a portion of the land 25 years ago. >> So, and that's when the trail went in. I'm speculating, but long and the short of it, Eversource says, well, because this happens all over the state, if not
New England, and they say we have a formal process to kind of vet these things, and this does happen. They're like, yeah, we know trails exist, but we now have a formal process to go through these to kind of get it on record. basically to indemnify MSAR. So if somebody gets hurt on the property, you
know, in in theory, NSTAR could be liable for it. >> Okay. >> Sure. And then one other one final question. So if you follow the red trail down the property, it crosses another wetland. Are you planning to put a
boardwalk or bridge there at some point? seems pointless to to talk to him about this one proposed boardwalk if you're going to need another one 100 ft down the road. >> Yeah. If you scroll whoever's on the screen, if you scroll up just a little bit,
I'm not sure. >> Right. And so you can see there's some boardwalks that we've already built >> on direction is what I'm talking about. >> Which one? If you go if you go the other direction scrolling down I guess to show
the more of the instar property >> down. >> Oh the instar property pretty much >> because it looks like the red trail splits after it goes onto the instar property and goes south. >> It does and it goes into property over a wetland. >> Well that goes into property. It doesn't
go into town property. >> Okay. But if you're going to go to Instar, do you need a a a boardwalk or a bridge over that looks like the a larger expansive wetland down at the at the bottom of
>> Oh, yeah. To the left of the sea is what you're talking about. >> Yeah. To the left of where it says Chamberlain Culac. To the left of that, there's a wetland that the trail crosses. Uh >> yeah, we uh >> right now that's a trail to nowhere and
we're we haven't if we did have to go build a bridge there, yes, we would have to go through NSTAR or Eversource, I should say. >> Yeah. So, I think I think um I agree with Ted's feedback and it sounds like you
guys are on board just to provide a little bit more detail um what you described to us tonight, but in writing and maybe take this plan and instead of proposed boardwalk, future boardwalk,
something like that. So, um it's calling out exactly what's being proposed for this exemption request. Proposed bridge, proposed trail relocation. Walder had a good comment on the um >> proposed trail closure.
Um and then I think we should be probably probably good for the next next meeting if we have those additional details. like Ted said, either a narrative or called out on the plan some details
about width of trail, um you know, final condition of trail and what type of vegetation is coming out to put in the new proposed trail. Does that all make sense? Sound good?
Okay. Yeah. No, that's fine. >> All right. Anyone from the public have any comments, questions on this one? Okay. Um, yeah, I don't think we have to vote or anything. This is work session. So, um,
we'll look forward to seeing that next time around. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, we already talked about 10 Exchange Street. So, Legacy Farms Road project change
request continuation. Um, >> Judy. >> Uh, so >> or wait, who do we have on the line? Mark, we have Mark. >> Eric Swenson's also here.
>> Yeah, I'm here as well. >> And Eric Okay, I got you now. >> Sounds good. >> Um, all right. Do you want to give an update? I believe uh from what I saw in the files,
Joe made some comments, provided a comment letter, but that was just very very recent. So, um I don't know if you got a chance to take a look at them. >> Yeah, we did we did get a look at them. um fairly straightforward in some ways
just uh some some clerical items noted um in terms of some of the monitoring reports which is kind of secondary to this request um but good to document Joe um and we can definitely work to clarify that um separately from any type of approval on this request um but then
that was for that's really comments um um uh number sorry I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong response letter. Um, so anyway, yeah, so Joe had Joe had basically three sets of comments. Um,
one, the first comment was basically just a introduction comment um that he had been out there and comment two was basically all the the flood plane um comments there. We did provide Judy something in writing just so that she did have that um for the file. Um, and
we really had um weren't sure if if where the commission would stand on on reviewing that tonight or if they wanted Lucas to kind of start with the summary um or I can just walk through the comments for for um number two which
there were a few that we were hoping to get clarification on if not resolved tonight even if there's others that need to be extended. Um, I think if you just want to, this is getting late. Um, I think if you just want to hit on the ones that you're looking for clarification and maybe we
can get through those and then the rest of the comments um, you know, I expect to continue and and work through those offline. >> Great. So, um, so we did provide, um, some additional information that Lucas
did ask about in terms of the, uh, the, um, the the compensatory storage. So um in terms of that um we basically we we believe that the the mitigation that was this our tables first of all were based
on the site plans that were approved um the order of conditions had a different number um than um of 11,000 cubic feet of fill versus the site plans showed out 10,524 cubic feet. So, our table was based on
what the site plans actually listed and what the the but VHB actually said was going to actually occur versus a rounding up uh that was in the order of conditions because we wanted to make sure the calculations reflected what was actually on the site plans and not just on the order of conditions. Um so that
was um something that we we just addressed there. There was also a rounding error of of a cubic foot which was basically a rounding error from Excel in terms of digits really more than anything else. Um so we corrected that didn't actually change the actual main columns which is five and six which
is what we've been discussing in terms of um compliance there. The the thing I think that we just want to see if if the commission does have clarity on is is um we we are again are
proposing to comply with the the WPA for all intervals and we're also seeking to comply with the net volume um required by the order of conditions. So and and and Joe brought this up. He was asking about why was there
additional mitigation proposed? Um why was 24,200 cubic feet chosen? Um and and our response is is we believe it's because the Army Corps of Engineers were thought to be in the requirement of permitting that actually ended up not
happening and so the mitigation was overdesigned and then let and and brought through conservation anyway. And on top of that, we do actually have currently over 26,000 cubic feet of BLSF volume provided. So, um, we we'd like
just to clarify with Joe about about that question in terms of his guidance to the commission that we we do think at this point we provide the the net volume. Um and we're just seeking to provide the interval correction at um
interval 278 to 278.9 just so that way um you know we cross all the eyes and dot all the te's in terms of regulatory crossover there. Um but that's one clarification we just want to make sure that Joe could confirm so that way we we know that's actually um
does that that actually kind of makes sense from his um review. Uh yeah, having not been involved with um the previous review of of that um um personally um I think the explanation it
makes sense. Um I don't know if there's any um information you have supporting that was there was there a core permit that had the larger number required. So, we did uh submit a core permit, I believe, and then we rescended it before
we got a review back. Um, and we in doing so, we found a route to where we could redesign. Uh, and we did not have to submit to the Army Corps of Engineers, but we we did fully put a permit together and that's why we went through to you guys first before we went
to the Army Corps. Uh, and and we ended up just going with what we had. And so the and so the numbers you had with the core permit were just carried over into the >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And we you got it. >> Yeah.
>> And so again in column four at the bottom you can see that the the the the total net is actually mitigated. And so the only the only change request is is where is that mitigation occurring which
is at a lower elevation in the flood plane. Um and also allowing us to do that additional mitigation required from 278 278.9. So um we'll end up with more than 26,000 cubic feet at the end
because we still need to add 530 and change cubic feet of volume. So the the the the we do believe this the the the intention of of the regulations has been followed. The the requirements are there. It's just the way the path we got there is a little different. But we do
believe it's actually better than um just going with full net compliance and going after more mitigation at a higher elevation than at a lower elevation. >> Okay. So the other um item Joe did bring up
was whether or not um further review of the calculations was necessary. Um we we do believe the the calculations that are pro are appropriate for what is needed here. Um the um I did provide um I don't know if Judy do you have or Anna do you
have the letter that I sent this afternoon that shows column 8 that I added just so that way >> might still be in my inbox. Okay, because we we did add a column A just to show that the we did run the calculations for the um the the
completed fill in the BLSF and we actually found there's actually less fill than was actually even proposed as well. So that's an additional benefit that we haven't even that's not even shown in this table with the fact that we didn't actually fill 10,524
cubic feet. Um we actually filled only 97 here we go. Yeah. Yeah. So we're we're about 800 square feet 800 cubic feet less BLSF was filled because the road actually was narrower
um in on the east side than proposed. So >> and that was due to the the covert design and the way the guardrail was functioning. We were able to get it smaller. >> Yeah. So that was so so in terms of the crossing being in compliance, it's definitely in compliance um from from
all standpoints. there's less there's less impact as a whole from the cross because they didn't make it narrower than it was actually proposed to be. So, um but we just want to make sure that um Joe I think Joe did ask about whether or not further calculation review is
required um to move forward here, but we think it's we provided is necessary is is adequate and can be implemented to just to to finish out this. Okay. It seems I mean my gut is saying I I think we do have
enough calculations here. This is making sense based on your clarifications from the last time. Um, if anyone else has any thoughts or Joe, if you have any additional particular calculations
that jump out at you, let me know >> uh through the chair. No, I think adding the asbuilt pill was helpful and certainly the table uh as revised is is more clear than the original table. So,
I don't have any any questions at this point. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you for kind of reformatting and and and and reooking at the tables. >> Our our pleasure. It was a good exercise.
>> Yeah. No, it definitely makes me feel more comfortable. Okay. All right. So did you say those were your two points of clarification? >> Yeah, those were our two points of clarification. So we think that um so um
basically um we updated the um we clarified the the volumes um and the the scrier typos which is that pink numbers there. Basically just the one foot cubic foot rounding area because Excel and the decimal in hundreds places is being moved around. Um we added the column 8
for the um proposed completed work. Um calculations are adequate. Um the excess mitigation we just talked about as well. And and I think that's really all the items for point number two that Joe had. And um the comment number three, Joe, is
isn't isn't part of this request. Um but um we can I'm sure you and Judy and I can circle offline just to make sure that if you need anything else in terms of the monitoring documentation we can get that all cleared up um so it's on the record. Um but I think in all in all
we've got things mostly in line there and and um if anything we can clarify that with spring monitoring for you just to make sure that you and and Judy are are good with what we're submitting and um then the commission can look at that as it comes in.
But I think at this point um I guess I mean I'll leave it up to Joe um and and and you Melissa if you if you if we're good with moving forward with this minor um request going forward or um if we're
um um still need some more time just to look it over. Um I think well Joe okay so you got comments from Joe
today and some of them need to be responded to. >> Well we we provided this the page on on your screen now is part of the response letter that we did submit late this afternoon. >> Late this afternoon. Okay. >> Yeah. It would have been earlier but I
had to do column 8. It took a little while. That was it was worth it. That was that was the snag in in in getting it done um um today uh earlier today. But um >> but yeah, so we have it in writing. So and I guess if if if the commission
wanted to table it, I guess I mean we're not going to start the BLS if we're going to think right away um in terms of finishing that last small area. But I if if anything maybe it if you need more time or you want to look at it, you can
table this and then if if everything's all set, you can just let us know. We don't have to come to the next meeting. Um or um Eric can just come just to streamline things. Um that would be great. >> No, I I think that's fine. How about we How about we give Joe um time to just
look at it and then hopefully everything looks good and he can provide any comments and um we can give it a final blessing hopefully at the next meeting. Um you don't have to be present unless there's some issue.
>> All right, sounds great. >> Okay. All right. Thank you for hanging with us tonight. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Yep. >> All right. Um, next up we have Whisper
Way. This is the request for certificate of compliance continuation. Um, >> um, yeah. So, Chris Nation is on the call along with Craig Nation. Okay.
Um All right. So, we got comment letter back from you and Joe took a look and provided a email to the commission that um Joe looked like all your comments
were addressed that just the things that remained were those things that you brought to the commission's attention um to discuss. Um, so I guess that being said,
we could just go through the letter kind of quickly and see if commissioners have anything that they want to discuss on the the items that were um identified by Joe that we might want to take a look at.
Um, I'll take a spin, try and try and get through it quickly, but let me know if I skip over anything or miss anything um along the way. The first one we have was the erosion control barriers.
Um, the applicant has removed the plastic netting and what remains is the mulch filter tube and straw waddles. um that are all decomposable
or biodegradable. Um I'm okay with leaving those in place now that the plastic netting has been removed. Anyone has any other thoughts on that? Anyone? >> I have the same thought. I'm okay with
this. >> Okay, so good with that one. Um let's see. the replication area. Um we talked last time about how the
wetland vegetation cover was about 90%. Um however there's comment that remains that the low survival rate of the woody vegetation um was up for discussion with the commission and to discuss whether that
meets the desired function requirement of the approved replication area. Um when I looked at that I mean it it does in the ordering condition states that the function and performance
um function and performance of the area even though the woody vegetation was specified to be planted. It's the function and performance of the the uh wetland
area that we're we're looking at. So in my mind I think I'm com I am comfortable with the vegetation coverage of 90% um for that area. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
Other opinions? >> Again not another opinion but I'll go I agree. >> Okay. Um so COC narrative states that the restoration area
um was monitored for 3 years as part of the last round of edits or last round of comments. Gdard provided a uh 2025 supplemental report because they were missing um all the review years there.
Um so that has been provided. Um Joe's comment for discussion was that you know it still shows that surviving shrubs present were 37 and that's below the 133 that were required. Um
but again the goal was to create a reforested area and does the commission want additional trees and shrubs planted um or are we okay with just the fact that the area is
uh vegetated um and the pictures there were a bunch of pictures shown at the last meeting. I don't know if everybody remembers um Goddard pointed out that there's there was no requirements for planting survival in the conditions and that the
area does have more than 75% vegetation coverage. Um so that indicates that you know we do have a a nice vegetated restoration area in place. So given that and that it's that it's been a while, it seems to me like
this area just wants to be vegetation, not necessarily reforested. Um and um kind of the mind to let it grow as it wants to be and not force it to be something that it doesn't um
the good effort was given to put the plantings in. But I'll open that up to others for thoughts. Well, I'll say it again. I'm with you, Melissa. I agree. >> All right. Um,
we talked last time also about the mode paths. There's mode paths through this reforestation area. Um Craig had talked about how we use those paths for invasive species management. Um so the
question up for discussion is whether we're okay with those paths just letting them grow back naturally to match the vegetation that's there or if we should request that any trees be planted or any additional plantings be put along these
paths. Um, again, I mean, I'm just kind of following the same mindset that it seems like the area is growing, vegetation is growing. It's not a matter that it's not there. Um, and I think the paths will
kind of naturalize themselves, and I'm okay with that. Um, >> Melissa, just really quickly, could you remind me how wide are those moan paths? That's a good question. I think Craig, you probably know off the top of your
head >> the parameters like 60 in probably and uh there's like one path through the middle that's probably 100 in. I'm just thinking it's a 52inch
mower that went around. So it's I think it made two passes down the middle and then he sort of just made one loop around the whole thing. So, kind of like one big landscaping mower. >> Yes. Yep. A stand-on landscape mower.
>> I I I'm comfortable also, Melissa, letting it grow back. >> And just for the record, that's that's smaller width than the uh trail through the woods. >> Good point.
>> I assume people will continue to walk on it. So it might is there there's no is there any prohibition of that? Like people from the neighborhood seem to come walking along and I assume do we have to put up do are we trying to stop that or is that
okay? >> Um I think and I actually had mentioned this to you Judy I think >> through the reforested area not the replication area. >> Right. Right. Um, I think in the bylaw
there is or in the regulations there is an exemption for like foot paths through buffer zone and in in areas like that that are like 30 in wide. There's definitely not like
>> All right. >> You know, but it's fine. >> As long as we stop mowing it, it will I think it nature will take its course. Yeah, kind of. If people walk it routinely, then it might be a little foot path. I think that's fine.
Um, okay. Um, so again, we talked last time about some invasive species management. Um, was the the the plan was implemented with good success.
There was a few areas that you had a little bit of invasives noted when Lucas was out there last time, but I believe Craig, you had said you've been actively continuing to manage that and pulling things out. Um,
so I'm not worried about the invasive species at this point. I think seems like you have a pretty good handle and are committed to continuing that. Um, I don't know. Ed, do do you have anything
you wanted to comment on as far as invasives go? >> I guess assumption that we're in there for invasive management and we've done it. There's no more nasty bad invasives. Good to go. >> Yeah, we're good to go. Okay.
um >> if through the chair just just cuz for my own sanity, I'll I'm going to keep an eye on uh the notweed stuff cuz I've taken it upon myself to sort of go elsewhere around and couple other choice
spots in town and jobs and uh so I'll I'll keep an eye on that just uh out of morbid curiosity more than anything, but I feel like I got it under under wraps. And then the bittersweet, too. I mean, if I see it, I'll pull it.
>> Okay. Yeah. No, I think that's great. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes. >> Is greatly overrated. >> What? >> Okay. Um, number eight, conservation commission discussion if a project
engineer should confirm that the uh drain and utility lines had clay dams and seepage collars along them to intersect groundwater. Um, I read the note from Goddard that Beta did inspections during
construction. Um, I think for the planning board and went into the commission files and they did they noted that all the work was performed in accordance with the plans and didn't raise an issue about it. So,
um, you know, I think that's the best assurance we have. they were responsible for inspecting underground uh utilities and installations. So I um would just go with our peerreview engineers
on that and and believe that they they they reviewed it and they went in um let's see the homeowners association agreement to be submitted to Hopington
Conservation Commission. uh discuss that. So Goddard's response was that the planning board um falling under the the planning board that no home owners association was
required to maintain the roadway and they're planning on turning the roadway over to the town. Um, so it sounds like it's either under the jurisdiction of the developer until they um turn it over
to a to a new owner, which would be the town. So, that being said, I think I'm comfortable um with that process. I don't know if anyone has any
thoughts or questions on that, but the operation maint um are tied to the O andM plan and currently by the developer until the town takes over it. >> Yes, I agree. Right.
>> There's the way it would work. >> Yeah, I think I'm okay there. Um, the vernal pool certification. We talked about this for a while last time as well. Um, so Goddard provided all the vernal pool
data for the vernal pools. Um, you know, they've definitely put in the effort on the vernal pool that was in question, vernal pool number one, that they just didn't have the documentation to certify it. Um, you know, looking back at our regulations,
burn pools are protected under our bylaw. So, I think where I stand on it would be that, you know, there's really no threat that this vernal pool is not going to be
protected. It will under our bylaw um just being a potential vernal pool and obviously flagged that way through this process. So, um I think I'd agree with Goddard's response that it is fully protected by our bylaw.
Um even though it's not enough to certify it, um it still is receiving that same level of protection. So I think in this case the good faith effort was made to try and certify it and
um I don't think we can ask any more of that from from uh the owner here at this point but if anyone has another thought on that I welcome welcome to hear it or if you agree I like to hear that too.
Wait, I agree. >> Agree. >> Just for the record, I don't know if you're looking. I am putting my thumb up to try to not slow us down. So, if I appear on your screen, but >> thanks, Ted. >> My silence is approval. Just hoping to
move things along. >> Appreciate it. I'm not looking at my screen. Um, okay. I think I hit all the things that we were supposed to discuss. If I missed
any, Joe or um Judy, let me know. >> No, think you got everything as far as I can tell. >> Cover all the bases. Okay.
So, if everybody's comfortable, then I think the next step here is to vote to issue a certificate of compliance uh for Whisperway subdivision with signatures by Judy and Anna if anyone would like to make that motion.
>> I'm happy to make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> All right. All in favor, Ed. I >> was on mute. Go ahead. Ted >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> Hi.
>> Jim. >> I. >> Walter. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Thank you guys. >> Have a good night.
>> Okay. Um, number six, >> we're so close. Lake Maspan 2025 annual vegetation report and draw down status. So,
um, this report is in the file. Um, Judy, I know you had some notes on it, but it is getting late. So, uh, what do what do you recommend?
Would we take a look at it? Is this something that we definitely need to review tonight or take a look at it and provide comments for the next meeting? How you feeling? >> Yeah, there wasn't necessarily an ask from Carrie. I think this was more an
FYI and a requirement of the um, order of conditions for vegetation management of the lake. So, it's just a good overview of um what kinds of growth they saw this year, um what they're recommending for next year,
uh invasives they saw, native species they saw. So, it's more of an FYI. Um and also in there is an update on the ongoing draw down and and how that's doing. Um they're going to be starting to fill back up in a week or so. Um, so yeah, more of an FYI. If anyone has
questions, I'm happy to pass them along to Carrie, but there isn't an ask at this time. >> Okay. No, that's great. I definitely want to take a good look at it and understand it because I'm sure they're going to be back in the spring
um looking for next steps. So, everybody could take a look at that and keep fingers crossed. I think we've had some pretty cold weather and not much snow. So hopefully that's all good stuff for the draw down um that's been happening. So fingers
crossed that we have a good year. Um conservation minutes. So, this is the last thing and again it's late so I don't want to tie it up too much but Judy do you want to go over a couple things we've been thinking about
for conservation minute. >> Sure. Um so I guess one of the things was the list of updates to the regs. Um I know Melissa you had a lot of great comments on it. Uh if folks have other things they want to see uh let me know. Otherwise I'll start working on a track
changes version. Um, and when that's in a good place, schedule that on a on a future commission meeting. Um, me and Melissa had also been talking about some outreach materials to start working on as well. Um,
tree replacement guidelines, um, outreach to realtors, landscaping companies, construction companies. Um, so we're going to try to do a lot more outreach to um, private businesses, things, you know, we've been seeing issues with over the year. Um,
that is a broad overview. I'm very tired. I'm happy to dive into more specifics. Um, but yeah, I will be working on ress updates. Um, and we will be working on a lot of outreach materials to be going out this year. Um,
and then some of the more substantive regs updates like tree replacement guidelines, I think we'll pepper into conservation minutes. Um, so that you all have a chance to discuss the more, you know, minutia of what that'll look like. Um, so, you know, I'll come up
with maybe some ideas from other towns and then we can discuss, you know, peace meal. Um, what you actually want to see put into the regs. Um there I think also just to note Judy put a folder
in the work session items outreach materials. It was just a couple examples I found of letters. It was actually on the MACC website um from a couple towns that had sent out outreach like Judy said to different audiences like
landscapers, realators, um homeowners, new homeowners. So if you're interested and take a look, check them out. >> Um Melissa, Jim, thank you Judy for all that Hannah for all that. Uh it's good stuff. I will get a chance to take a
look at things in the next couple of days, but just add to your list of uh of the who we're reaching out to. I would include uh real estate uh closing attorneys also um real estate transactions
because a lot of the stuff that we see is stuff that should be caught at a closing like a lack of a COC uh and other things, you know. So add that to your list. Anyway, I'll look at the rest of it. Yeah, I remember I don't know if they do
it anymore, but when we moved into our house in 201 18, there was a like welcome to Hopping committee. I remember them like coming to the house and giving us a binder and it had like all the stuff about restaurants and different things in
town. I don't know if anybody else experienced that, but it came to mind as like, oh, >> we did. >> You did? Um, >> yeah, they used to call that the welcome lady, I think, when I was growing up. >> But yeah, I don't know if they still do it or not, but budget cuts, they
probably >> I think they stopped doing it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I think one of the main goals we have is to educate people of requirements, what we have for requirements. Um, and that everybody knows along the way when they
buy a house and they sell a house and people don't run into the problems of like Exchange Street, you know, clear cutting an acre of land or or whatever without knowing they got some responsibility. >> Yeah. Yeah. I
>> Yeah. I feel like we get people who move into town from out of state and it's very different in New England and there's a lot of regulations that >> Sure. have no idea. >> But you own you own real estate and you really should know what you need to do.
I mean, I would never buy a place without knowing what had to be done or making sure that at the closing everything was all cleared up. >> Yeah. >> I mean, there was no COC at my house, but we made sure we had it done before we um closed on it. So, you got to look
for those things. People got to look for I blame the closing attorneys for not finding them, right? That's it. I'm tired. I'm going home. >> The chair. This is Ed. >> Hey, I'm gonna say I'm a
>> Go ahead, Ed. I'm going to have a coughing fit. >> I'm going to >> I know we want to bail out. We have a public forum and I've had three complaints, too, on Brute Street about excessive salt.
People come to me because they know I like to complain. So, I'm just passing that along. >> Excessive salting like of the of the road by DPW. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Fruit Street, >> especially on Fruit Street where there's
a an area that's labeled, you know, environmentally sensitive. >> Anyway, >> I can talk to Carrie. >> I'm just passing it along. >> Melissa. >> Yes. I'm also tired and would like to go to bed, but I maybe I fell asleep
earlier. Did we vote on the draft minutes? >> We did not. That's why I just unmuted. >> Forgot about that. >> No, we didn't. We can do that. Um, all right. Draft minutes. Does anyone have any comments or not
have enough time to review either the minutes for March 25th or June 17th? All set. >> All set. Okay. Can I >> a motion to approve those minutes? >> So moved. >> I'll make that move. I'll second him.
>> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I'm gonna abstain. I wasn't present that evening. >> Okay. Jim. >> Come on, Jim. >> He was off mute. Is anyone on mute?
>> Jim, you said you said I, right? >> I said I. Yes. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Walter, I'll let you stayain there. And >> yeah, I'll abstain as well. I wasn't here for either of those. >> Okay. And myself.
Um, we'll say I I think I was there for both of those. >> If it's helpful, I can abstain from just the March and say I on the June because I was there in June.
>> Yeah. No, I'll I'll say I. >> All right. >> We approved them. Excellent. >> Yes. So then we just need a motion to adjurnn. >> I'd like to make a motion. >> Make I'm making this motion. Ted, >> you go ahead.
>> All right. I'll make that motion. >> I'm looking at you, Ed. >> All right. I'll second. >> All right. All in favor. Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Walter.
>> I. >> And I am also an I. Fabulous. Well done, y'all. >> Well, listen, it's a long one. Thank you. You did a great job. >> Especially when the rest of us were clearly flagging the nations one.
>> Good night. Good night and happy new year. >> Good night, everybody. >> Good night, everyone. >> All right. See?