to the chair. You're live on HCAM. >> Thank you. Can I see? Hi, Heather. It's 7 o'clock, but it looks like it's just me and Heather at the moment. Am I missing anybody else? >> Just letting Ed in now.
>> Okay. But I haven't heard from Jim yet. Okay. Give them a couple more minutes. Come over here. We need at least one more member to make
a quorum. So that's why I'm uh going to wait a little bit longer here. I believe that Jim is on his way to join. >> Okay. >> The word I got was he was napping
>> when Kate came home and she wasn't sure whether to wake him up. >> Okay. So, I can't hear anybody. Can anybody hear me? Wave if you can hear me. Oh, great. I can't hear any of you. All right. I'll be back. Okay, I got to ask. That sounds my dog
when he's panting. What am I hearing? >> You're hearing me pant. >> Sorry about that. I have Parkinson, so hopefully it won't interfere with anything. Oh, Ed, I saw when I was talking with
Judy about it, we saw the trees were planted. over off of Blueberry in the easement in the drainage ement. Did you see that? >> I've seen the picture. I haven't seen them. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I did go out and count. So, they
have the correct number plus the um eight they had to put in for the open space trees. They had just put one um in the easement, so requested they move that one, which they did. So, should be all set there. They put in a um New England Conservation seed mix. So, it
should I mean hopefully it rains not the best time for planting. Should be coming in nice. >> And and and and what trees did they plant? >> Five different ones. I know Tuliplar was in there. Not 100%
on the others. I don't know with this um hot weather. We have been getting some nice rain. >> Yeah, >> so it might be okay. >> Am I in the right place? I will verify. >> This is the uh conservation commission hearing.
>> Yes. Regarding 12 North Mil Street. >> Yes. >> Yeah, that's on there. >> Okay, I did it. Good evening everybody. >> Hey Jim. >> Sorry I'm a little bit late. I'm a
little >> It's okay. We're glad you joined us. All right. So we have four members quorum. So we can go ahead and uh get our meeting started. Um Judy, would you mind reading the
preamble for us? >> Of course. Uh this is the July 22nd, 2025 open meeting of the Hopkins Hopkin Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new
law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkin Conservation Commission is convening by
video conference via Zoom app as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note
that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Supporting materials that have been
provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish
to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members. And I will pass it back to Melissa to confirm which commission members are present.
>> Thanks, Judy. Um, all right. Head, are you present? >> I am present. >> Jim, >> yeah. >> Heather Burton, >> present. >> Great.
Um, and now confirming staff that are present. Judy Day, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, >> present. >> Joe Warzel, >> present. >> Thank you. Um, before we get started, I just want
to point out on the agenda that we had a couple items that were continued. So, that means they will not be discussed tonight. That's number seven. Um 27 Jamie Lane, it's continued to August 5th. 38 Downey
Street is continued to August 5th. And PY Homes Legacy Farm North certificate of compliance is also continued to August 5th. Um with that being said, I'm going to skip
over the draft minutes since we're down a few commission members. Um if you don't mind pushing that to the next meeting as well, Judy. >> Yep, we'll do. >> Um we'll go ahead with 126 Fruit Street
exemption request fencing and tree removal. Um do you want to give a little overview on this Judy? And I don't know if we have anyone homeowner on the line as well. >> Uh sure through the chair. Um I believe
the homeowner was planning to join. Not sure if he's in yet, but um happy to give an overview. Um so the uh homeowner at 126 Fruit Street recently bought the property and is looking to uh install fencing uh around the property as indicated on the
plan here. Um as well as remove a row of evergreen trees that are behind the house. Um, and as they were on the asbelt plan for an RCOC back in 2012, uh, we do believe that these trees may
have been um, intended to serve as the PIB. Uh, so the current state of them is they're a little overgrown. Some of them are overgrowing the garage and at least two of the trees trunks have been compromised by another falling tree. Um,
so happy to pass to the homeowner if he is here. I believe he was considering a replanting plan and open to the commission's feedback on what they would like to see if they allow him to uh remove the trees and install the fencing.
Do we have a homeowner on the line for this? Anybody? I don't see anybody yet >> or if folks have thoughts on if they'd like to see a an application for this or if a minor project request is the
appropriate uh pathway for this. >> So, do we do you have the other plan handy from the COC? >> Yes. Let me pull it up. Yeah. So, I don't know when the delineation was done. Um the original
filing was from 1986 and the request for a certificate of compliance was 2012. So I believe they might have used the original delineation. Um but since it's such an old filing, we don't have a complete set of documents. Yep. So this was the
original for the 2012 request for certificate of compliance. >> Okay. Yeah. So, it looks like those were definitely proposed plantings at that time. >> Yeah, looks like.
>> All right. And can you just throw up the picture of the trees so we have an idea current condition? >> Yes. So, these are some pictures the homeowner put together. Um, this is the type of fencing he wants to install, not
this one. It's a black chain link. And this is the garage on the right, house on the left, and the trees kind of run the length of this walkway here. It's from the other direction. Here's the plan again.
>> The chair of the home. >> Did you say the homeowner's on the line, Anna? Correct. >> Okay. Who is our homeowner? Are you you want to introduce yourself? >> Hi there. Yes. My name is Charles Boini
of 126 Fruit Street. >> Hi, welcome. >> Hi. Thank you, >> Jaz. I just gave an overview of your request to the commission um the removal of the trees behind the house and installation of fencing. So, if you have any details you'd like to add um or any
thoughts on receptiveness to replanting um or if you'd like to reiterate your plan for the property, uh please feel free. >> Yeah, sure. That would be great. Um I will be able to share my screen momentarily. So, uh I I'm very thankful that Judy was able to meet me on proper
on the property last week. Um I'm very appreciative of her giving me some of her insights as to um what was uh part of the half the property if not more than half of the property is in the wetlands. So um I'm I'm being very uh
cautious as to how to approach this um project that I have uh in mind which really revolves around the safety of of my children and the idea would be install a fence and
part of the installation process is um butdding up against the 22 I believe they're hemlocks. Please correct me if I'm wrong there. That are at the rear of the property. Um they are uh available on the drawings that I submitted there
to Judy uh overlaid over the asbill that she had sent over to me. Um those were circled in green and the idea is to remove those. There were a few of which Judy and I took a look at that
a dead trunk that had fallen into. I believe two of them um as well as two or three of which were leaning up against and encroaching um on the garage structure. So
this part of the is make it a little bit difficult to fit a fence in there. >> Sorry. Go ahead. We just >> Okay, maybe that's a little bit better. Do you have me now? >> Yeah, we do. Yeah. >> Okay. I apologize.
So, so what I was saying was that when I was walking through the the property, you have the 22 hemlocks on the back that are really encroaching on the walkway as well as encroaching on the garage that would make it more difficult
to install a fence. Um, as that uh the the real uh issue that I'm trying to solve here is my wife and I purchased the property. We are waiting to move in until we have the property secure. Um part of buying a
new house is not necessarily familiar with um the area, the beauty of buying a house, if you will. So, Fruit Street has been drawn to my attention that it is a racetrack. So, this led me to to believe that we need a
fence as much as it's the Kyle, we're losing you again. >> I think he just dropped off the call. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, >> Melissa. I'll have to recuse myself. I'm just listening in, but I'm a neighbor,
so I think that's probably the best choice. Yeah. >> Okay. I don't know if that makes any difference particularly with tonight not having all of the members present but I thought I would let you know. >> Thanks Heather. >> Yep.
>> Um I think at this point we're so this is an exemption request. Um so we can at least give a little feedback if Oh yeah, you're back. Hi Chess. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry about that. Hopefully that that works now. So yeah, I'm open to any and all feedback. You know, I'm
so grateful to be working with the conservation commission here in Hopkin. Um we're excited to be in town and this is one of the first things we have to do. Um so any any feedback, any uh any direction will be greatly appreciated. >> Okay. Um I think my two cents or my
initial thought is I don't have a problem with the fence. Um I think that's, you know, makes sense. sits along the edge of the existing um grass area anyway, so I don't think it's
going to cause any problems for wildlife. Um but the question I would have is, do we really need to take out all those trees or is there more of a like pruning cut them back situation um to get the the fence in?
It seems some of them are Well, at least where the fence is drawn in this situation. Some of those trees look like they're pretty far away from the fence. But maybe that's how it's drawn. I think Chess is frozen again.
I can put some more pictures up. Let's see. Yeah, we might have to come back to this one if Yeah. So, there is existing fencing along the walkway. And when I was out there, the trunks were pretty far back, but the branches were coming up towards
the fence. >> Yeah. Okay. Does anyone else have any thoughts? >> Yeah, this is Ed. I would as as the
resident extreme tree hugger, I would concur with with your thoughts. I can see where the the apex of the fence seems to get into the trees and that might be an issue and the and the tree onto the garage is is certainly an issue. Um but many of the trees seem
pretty far away from the fence so I don't quite understand um the concern there. >> So Chaz, I don't know if you um can hear us or >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. I've heard I've heard um all the
uh feedback over the past couple of minutes and you know like I said I than happy to work with the commission. Um I think there is a path forward. Um I would agree frankly um not only for the
budget as well as the appearance to prune them. One of my worries was once we get into it, um, as I mentioned a couple minutes ago, there is a dead tree trunk that maybe Judy can speak to if she hasn't already, that is leaning up
against two of them and then the three to four that are leaning up against the garage there. So, if I if we remove those, will it just look a little funky? there is some sort of white growth growing on
a lot of them and I'm by no means a professional. I'm just trying to figure out if I process why not ask for the ability to remove all the trees versus start to pay through them and find out
that the diseases further on than I thought or it's just going to look a little if are to miss it. Um, so that was the main reason for um trying to move forward with removing
all the hemlocks and replacing them with uh a a much shorter um species off of the list that Judy had provided me provided to me a couple days ago. Yeah, I think what the commission usually does in the case of if it's a if
it's a dead or deceased or dying tree, um Judy, you know, she kind of acts on her behalf to allow those trees to be removed. Um if it's a healthy tree, then it's a different discussion and the
commission um has to weigh in on those. So, um if there's a couple trees that are dead, like these ones, um are dead, dying, deceased, then those could be removed. Um the commission also in order to remove
a tree that's in question, um if you think they're diseased, if you think they're um in jeopardy, then we look to have an arborist opinion on that. Um, so if you have a company that you plan to work with, tree company, sometimes they
have an arborist on staff, um, and can write a letter for you and speak to which trees, um, might be compromised. Um, so I think that would probably be the next step if you think that there's
some disease situation going on there. >> Understood. Yeah, that I think that's a good a good path forward. Um, so I see that Judy has up on the screen right now the uh the one tree that had been
uh deceased and and leaning up against the the hemlocks there. Um, do you think it makes sense to dis have a have a discussion here as to what trees out of the 22 that I've circled can be removed? Um because I
knew that this is where we would end up at this point in the meeting. And one of my thoughts was to say, "All right, we prune back the majority of the trees and just take care remove the trees that
are that's pictured on the the the shared screen right now. as well as the other concern is the three or four that are encroaching onto the structure and then leaving the remaining 18 or so hemlocks but just burning them
bringing them back to make way for the fence. >> Yeah, I think I think that's reasonable, Judy, if you consider these trees compromised enough to that you know you would evaluate them in that regard for these two. >> Yeah. Yeah, I would agree with that.
>> And then against the shed, I mean, yeah, that's obviously encroaching on the shed. So, in my opinion, um, and if Ed and Jim, you agree to take the one or two trees closest to the shed,
um, I'd be okay with that. So if I can be shocking as pemlocks and there's mention of disease and and white stuff on them. >> Um could they have woolly algulid?
>> Um which is um a pretty devastating critter to hemlocks. Um Judy, do you know what what that looks like? >> I do. I didn't get close enough to check
for them though. >> So I mean if if if a large number of them have that then you know their days are numbered. >> Yeah. Through the chair um if if they
are infested with the uh it and left untreated uh can kill the trees within generally four to 10 years. Okay. So, Chaz, I think I leave that to you if you
want to get that decision made um on all the trees or if you just want to take the two that are obviously injured here plus one or two by the uh shed. >> Yeah. Why don't I move forward with the
ladder? And then while I'm in there, I had made a an appointment with a local contractor in town and they may or may not have a certified arborist on staff. I'll have to double check and once we get back in there if it uh is brought to
my attention while we're looking around that it is uh pretty rampant through the majority of the trees. Um if uh okay, I can reach back out to Judy and get back onto the uh the schedule here and we can discuss that in the future.
>> Okay. Yeah, I think that sounds like a good plan. >> You're the chair. >> Yes, Judy. Did you also want to wait for a quorum to vote on the fencing or would you prefer me to approve that administratively? >> Um I think
I'm okay with um approving administratively. >> Yeah. For the fence. So, you would be approving the exemption request or you'd just be approving the you'd just be improving the fence administratively, right? >> Yep. The fence and then the um
three to four trees that were mentioned. >> Okay. Yeah, let's let's go with that. You can admin you can approve it administratively. >> Okay. And Charles, before you go, I want you to know that I really, really, really
like that house. >> Well, I really appreciate that, Ed. My wife Kim, our uh daughter and son, dog, um we went to one open house and I concur with uh not knowing the area too
well that it just spoke to us. We fell in love with it and as luck would have it, the gentleman who helped us uh purchase the home as the sellers agent is is a neighbor. So, all the stars aligned. I I grew up on wetlands. I
can't wait for my kids to enjoy it. Uh as well as well as quite a quite a unique house. So, I appreciate the words that and we're excited to uh to be in town here. >> Awesome. Welcome to town. Good luck. Thank you very much for your time everybody. Have a good night.
>> Good night. >> All right. Being that it's almost 7:30, we'll move up to the continued hearings. So, we have 12 12 North Mill Street notice of intent for single family house and also um next to that notice of
intent for access for soil testing. And I see Mr. Petrosi's on the call here. So, um do you want to uh let us know what you're looking at? What we're >> Okay, sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, since we uh since I was last
here with the commission, u as I mentioned previously, uh we had filed a uh request for a variance uh from the front setback line of uh North Mil Street. And we are fortunate enough that the zoning board did grant
us a variance to uh place a house or structure within 30 feet of the street line instead of the required 60 ft. So what that does is that opens up an option alternative for the commission to
consider. Um what's on the screen right now is the uh variance plan that was granted showing a house in the front portion of the upland um closest to North Mil Street. And then towards the
rear of the lot would be a um accessed by a gravel drive is the proposed septic system that would be outside of your buffer zone areas that's shown on the on
the plan. Um the second uh the bylaw uh plan that is and and by the way on this uh oh you just went on mute Mr. Petrozi you just went on to mute. >> How's that? Am I back?
>> No, you're back. >> Okay. Sorry about that. I'm a little little uh bouncy with my fingers tonight. So uh in any case uh with the variance plan the gravel road requires approximately 2500 square feet of wetland filling crosses the intermittent
stream with a uh two uh proposed 24in culvert uh pipes and uh basically just allows for access in the future to um um maintain septic system. It will be a gra
uh a force main pump up to the septic system to the rear of the lot. So that's uh an option that that we're perfectly willing to pursue at the commission's uh request um or preference.
the the BAR u uh proposal that was originally submitted. Um the second plan if you can show that um is essentially puts the house and the septic system both in the rear portion of the lot uh
connected with a long lengthy driveway and box covered crossing the intermittent stream. um with a much larger impact to uh wetlands of approximately 5500
square ft and replication of um I don't know probably uh like 8,000 something square feet of replication in the front of the lot. So, um I know this is going to be a difficult
lot to permit, but I throw those options alternatives out for the commission to discuss and lead me to the path that we are to pursue, you
know, the least amount of um impacts um and mitigation as possible. So perfectly happy to pursue either one um depending on how you folks want to uh handle this.
>> Okay. So um so for this meeting you are just looking for our thoughts on the two options because I believe we don't have a review yet because we're waiting on some consulting fees.
>> Um >> yeah. Well, I I guess the question would be what plan are we going to review? And and as I've mentioned to Judy uh earlier today by email is that what what is the what
is the per per pe per pe per pe per pe per pe per pe per pe per pe per pe per pe per reviewing? I mean we spent quite a bit of expense and time during the ENRAD process. all the resource areas have been identified and um
I'm not quite sure what what would be peer reviewed other than the replication protocol for whichever plan is being proposed. So the as far as I know is uh that
the Lucas Engineering submitted a proposal that was in excess of $2,000 which in my opinion was excessive for what needs to be done in terms of reviewing this application uh in addition to the filing fees that
we've already paid. So, um um you tell me is is that a reasonable amount of money to pay someone to review the placement of the house and uh the replication area proposal or what is it
that they want to do >> the chair? >> Well, I think it's on I just put the scope on the screen that includes the um items anticipated to be completed during the review. So um conduct a site visit, review the application and plans,
prepare prepare a comment review memorandum. Um supplemental information review is not included. So this is just the first round of review and attending one meeting. So it's it's kind of the bare bones of an initial review included in the estimate.
>> Well, let me ask you this, Journey, not to interrupt, but I mean what you've been on the site three, four different times during the pro. What what purpose is it to review the to be on a site? I mean, what does he have to review? We've been there. They've modified the wetland
line half a dozen times and the stream and the intermittent stream is as far as I can tell this this is a paper uh review um and not necessarily require any on-site
um um fair review. from my perspective. >> Yeah, Joe can confirm, but I do believe he likes to review in the site where the proposed structures are going to be um with the soil uh testing uh case. The issue is that the path wasn't marked.
So, it's it's seeing where the proposed uh plan is in the field in relation to the delineation. But, um if Joe has any additional comments on what the site visit would entail, feel free. >> Uh yeah, through the chair. Um, typically we look at, you know, the
proposed stream crossing location. Um, uh, the house location with respect to buffer zone impacts, uh, and any other buffer zone impacts. Um, and then also the proposed replication area to see if it appears suitable, if there's an issue
with invasive species. Um, so that's generally we would uh we would do a site inspection for a notice of intent. Um, even if we've been out there in the past to look at the uh delineation uh just regarding the
sighting of the the proposed uh construction. >> So how many hours would that entail, Joe? Are you going to go out there and um the 20 minute uh inspection? How much time? >> Usually usually on on a like this, it's
about an hour inspection. >> Okay, >> that see that seems reasonable. >> Y >> So So what do we do with the other uh let's say $2,000 worth of uh fees? >> I think that's that's right there in two
through five. reviewing the notice of intent application and the documents and the plans and then preparing the common letter and attending you know the meeting um to talk about it. So I then you know if you don't that all
doesn't get spent then it gets >> you know we we had this uh process before during the and rat if it doesn't get spent if it doesn't get spent and we had Joe going out there two and three times different times to um assess the
resource areas that had already been assessed and reassessed intermittent stream that was in the wetlands that really didn't matter much you Not no offense to Joe or anything because this is in every community. They the the abuses that are going on with a
peerreview process and the amount of money that are being is being spent is getting outrageous. And quite frankly, uh when you're dealing with four or five different towns and they're all doing the same thing to you, you get kind of ang uh angry at the process. And so I
don't care if it's $100 or $1,000 or a dollar. you know, this is my money that I'm spending and I want it spent appropriately, not on uh, you know, you know, looking over an application to see whether or not you've filed a waiver or
some other thing that might is inconsequential to the whole project. So, which which plan would the commission prefer to review? Can you put them back up on the screen, Judy? Yeah. Thanks. Um, I have a
question on the first plan. Oh, they're both on the same sheet. Did you say that the zoning board granted you a 30 foot setback? >> Yeah, they reduced it from 60 feet to 30.
>> So, this is showing a 40 right now on the plan. Or is that a typo? >> It's got to be the wrong plan. I must have sent you the wrong plan, but it is 30 feet set back, which I apologize if that's the one that I sent out. >> Okay.
>> So, um, essentially the the rest of the plan would be the same. The house would be 10 ft closer to the street. Um, my thought would be um that the house in the front of the lot would be the preferred alternative between the two.
Um, but I still don't I'm not I still wouldn't say that we would find that permittable. Well, >> I think that we did some Hannah did a little digging. No, it wasn't for this one. I mean,
you're it's right up against the wetlands there. It's within the 50 foot no build. So >> no, I I I understand the uh the regulations and your rules and I think that um in my experience in Hopkin,
which is dates back to almost 35 years, I would say this is permittable. And I would say that the lot being created uh in the 1980s is exempt from whatever regulations you're referring to. And um
so I would prefer for the commission to look at this objectively and not have uh a preconceived notion that this is not permittable because that's not what your regulations call for. We're allowed to overcome any presumptions
that are in your regulations and for you to already uh determine that this is not permittable is not fair to me as the applicant. Okay. Well, you asked for an opinion on
which alternative um at this point in time, but without a peer review, that's also a little difficult um to give any opinion. So, it's an unofficial unofficial thoughts. If anyone on the board wants to to share, otherwise I'll go to public
comment. Kim, um I absolutely think that there needs to be peer review. Um and I'm not sure what uh what's being referred to as it was a buildable lot or whatever back
in 1980 or whatever. I'm not really sure what what the applicant's referring to with it being something that is not subject to review even if it predates our bylaw. The Wellness Protection Act is still in play and this is, you know, clearly within jurisdiction of the
Wellness Protection. >> Well, we, you know, just so you know, we did have a superseding order of conditions from D back uh 198 or something like that or 2000. So, we know that it's permittable as a limited
project of under the wetland regulations. The only real issue here is whether or not the application of your local bylaw regulations are um are um applicable.
So I think you know for you Mr. Petrosi the um you obviously have a strong opinion on that. So I would, if I were you, I think the path forward is just to present the alternative that you think has the best
chance of uh, you know, meeting our bylaw and present that case in your notice of intent and we go from there. >> Okay. Is any of commissions have commissioners
have any opinion? you're the chair, not a commission member, but just want to point out that the plans um provided today um by Mr. Protozi don't include the delineation approved by the ORAD issued in 2024. Um
so, >> and that's my mistake. I'm sorry. I think uh I think I sent Judy the wrong plan that had been previously submitted and corrected by Anna uh during the initial filing. So I'll have to send the
uh plan that was approved by the ANRAD and also reflected by the variance. So that's my fault and I apologize. >> Great. Thank you. Um I'll just note to the commission members
um Judy and did add a link to the ZBA file um to this filing. So we have it in our records to show the setback and it also includes a number of letters of opposition um
that were presented at that hearing which are also applicable um here to our own protection acts um interests. So, with that, I know we have someone at least one member of the public on the
line. Um, if any if you or anyone else. Yep, I see a hand. Arty Archie, if you can state your name and address for the record and then provide whatever you'd like. >> Uh, to the chairman. Uh, this is Bruce
Homegrren. I I live at 9 North Mil Street. uh and uh as a taxpayer and an abuter, I'm uh very pleased with the work that the conservation commission has done so far in general and on this on this property. It has been under
review by the conservation commission at least three times over the last 40 years. uh the looking at the uh the ORAD and the uh attached uh
light plan, the GLM site plan. I've looked at the um current uh percentage of of wetlands on this site. It's uh in excess of 50%. I think my numbers are something closer to 60, but I wouldn't
stand by them too well. But uh looking at the wetlands with a 50 foot buffer also applied that it's at least 90% by my count of the site is uh either wetlands or within
50 ft of wetlands. And if you look at a 100 foot buffer, there is no part of this site that I can see according to the uh petitioner's drawing uh that is not within 100 ft of a wetland. Uh
the the site is subject to intense periodic flooding. It's caused flooding problems for me uh for my neighbor behind me and for the property uh adjacent.
Uh I this uh also was subject last concomy was uh it uh response to uh DP number 1881818
and that was an issued of uh excuse me let me see here I apologize that was that's the u the last filing was uh in uh D file
number 188-859. That was a denial order of conditions. And if you have a chance to take a look, which I would appreciate if you would, the uh reasons for denial on pages three and four are substantial.
They remain appropriate conditional uh today. And so I ask your for your detailed review of that information. Uh others have submitted other documents in showing the
amount of flooding including the petitioners and scientists that show substantial flooding at periods of time especially in the front where this proposed dwelling is going to be placed. uh I don't see how uh anyone could
actually provide a significant amount of uh uh replacement or replication of wetlands either given the the nature of the site to begin with. >> Thank you.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, can I I just want to correct the record for the uh homeowner at 9 North Mil Street that that that uh order of conditions was over overridden by DP as uh in a superseding
order was was issued following that under appeal. So, we did have a superseding order for this lot um issued by D, which more than likely would be issued again.
Uh to the chairman, uh if I might respond, that is true that it was uh the state had a different viewpoint. They were looking at and it's my understanding they were looking at the
flow of the of the uh temporary or the uh intermittent uh stream. However, they also stipulated in that document that they deferred final decision to the local uh conservation
commissions and I think your your previous assessment of that site uh remain valid. Good. >> Thank you. Um, can I take the comment from
>> Arrey? Oh, >> Arthur. >> Arthur. Okay, it's showing up as R A R T R I. Can you um >> A r T H U R I S E M A N 16 North Mil
Street. Thank you. >> I have a simple a stupid question. I'm sorry for taking the commission's time. My understanding is that this has been looked at at least twice
and turned down twice or more. That's my only question. Not sure how many times it's been looked at in the past. At least once. Can I get Dave's comment?
>> Yes. Thank Can you hear me? Okay. >> There. That's probably better. Can you hear me? >> That's better. >> Okay. >> Name's Dave Shay. I'm at 7 North Mill. I live across Pine Tree Lane from Bruce Homegrren. Been here since 92. Um I I don't know. Am I able to share my
screen? I have some pictures I want to show you. Talk about this intermittent stream. Uh oh, I send a request. >> If that's all right with you, uh I can give >> me now. How do I do this? So share
uh this one I hope. Can you see that my fancy PowerPoint? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. A lot of talk has gone on about this intermittent stream. And yes, it is intermittent. A lot of times there's nothing going on. But I want to
give you an idea of what it looks like at times and why I'm so worried about whether the drainage downstream from me is going to get screwed up. I This was probably 2023 maybe. I don't remember what year it was. I wish I had written it down. But here's December
11th of a couple years ago. This is upstream of my driveway. So I am upstream from the subject property. This gets pretty well, you know, backed up here. Here's the stream where it goes through my property and heads down towards the corner of this is Pine Tree
Lane and this is North Mil Street. So, it's cruising along down here pretty good. This is a pretty good storm. This is upstream of my driveway. Again, you can see that the the water is contained, you know, in between the grass kind of gets carved out here. So, this is where it's trying to flow. Um,
this is the pipe that's going under Pineree Lane heading towards Bruce Holgren's house. So, the water's coming down here and you can see the pipe is I don't know 40% full. So, you know, not not bad. Um Whoops. Wait a minute.
Uh this is the corner of Pine Tree Lane. I'm sorry. This is North Mill and Pine Tree Lane's over here. Uh nine North Mill is here. Seven North Mill is back here. So, you can see this little area, this corner is pretty full. There's another pipe that goes under now North
Mill Street and you can see the output. So this is flowing in towards the subject property. Uh 10 North Mill is over here. 14 North Mill is over this way. So this is the this is the property. So you know this is looking pretty soggy. Um and then oh
so here's a panorama. These get a little distorted but there there's 10 North Mill and you can see the water all over the place. So, this is one storm on December 11th. Then, uh oh, wait a minute. Here's one little closer to 12
North Mill. So, this is in I think in the middle of the subject property, but you know, you can see all this water all over the place. Um, a week later had another opportunity because the storm was even worse. So, you can see where this used to be grass and the
water was most largely channeled down here between the arrows. Now, it's all over the place. Um, this is what it was before. This is what it was in the bigger storm. Um, you can see the earlier storm, the the flow going down the stream. The flow is a lot faster a
week later. Um, this was the one the first storm where it's about 40% full. This one it's about 60 or 70% full. So, this drain pipe is getting a little stressed out here with this storm. You can see how piled up the water is here
on the 18th going into that pipe. Uh this is coming out into the subject property. So here's the storm on the 11th. Pretty significant. You see a lot of water. Look at this. You know, this there this is just gushing. Um again,
this is intermittent, but when it's bad, this is what it looks like. And so this is why uh I'm worried about uh If this drainage such as it is now, I've been here 30 years. I haven't
been flooded. Uh but if this gets screwed up, I think uh N North Mill, Bruce Homegrren, and myself, we're we're in big trouble. So, I wanted to point this out because yes, it's intermittent, but man, it can get angry. So, that
that's uh that's all I wanted to say on that. So, any questions? I >> I have a question. So, uh, so Dave, uh, you from the photographs that you just showed, it seems like your house in your lawn area
is like within 10 ft of the stream. Is that correct? >> That stream, uh, goes through Well, the house is what, 200 The lot is 250 ft. So, here's North Mill. >> Yeah. So, >> uh, the house, the photograph on the
left, you have lawn area that's almost up to the screen bank. Is that what you're telling us? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, that's pretty much okay with you, right? >> Well, this is kind of hilly. This isn't getting flooded, but
>> I'd be worried about here. Now, here's the driveway. >> Um, >> so so just I I just want to make a point here. You know, the commission's probably heard this a million times, but it's okay for your property to be inside the buffer zone, but not okay for me to build inside the buffer zone. Is that
what you're saying? >> Well, this house was this house was built in 1975. So, I don't know that all this kind of stuff, you know, to your point earlier about the 80s. I don't know that any of this kind of regulations were in place at the time. >> I do know that, you know, if my deck falls down, I can never replace I have
to replace it because I could never build it again according to the rules. >> Yeah. Just a point of it's just a point of fairness and I think the commission needs to take that into account. you know, it's okay for the people who are there to be there, but the people who want to be there are being precluded by
regulations that may or may not be applicable. So, >> I get your point, >> but you do you do raise you do raise a particular concern that we >> want to make sure that whatever we do on that property doesn't uh impede anybody upstream or cause any damage or flooding
upstream. And right >> and and so I agree. I I understand your concern and we will uh be looking into that as well. >> Okay. Yep. That's great. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else? >> Okay. Um Mr. Petrosi, is your limit of development on these two projects or disturbance? Is it under an acre? Yes, I believe so. >> Okay. >> Does that include the replication area
or what? Well, if you just heard from the calculations from my neighbor, one of my neighbors, that um 70% of it is wet, as he would call it. So, out of 1
83 acres, 70% would be under an acre. So, I would say yes, we're under an acre. >> Okay. Melissa. >> Yes, Jim. >> Jim, I have a question. Mr. Petrosi
uh and and anybody u I'm not able to get into the Google Docs that Judy posted, but Mr. Petrosi, you refer to uh superseding order conditions issued by D or Superior Court.
>> No, D. Um it's kind of a long story. has no the D has no authority over our bylaw. We have the sole authority to enforce the bylaw. >> You are correct. >> It's theation It's the application of
your bylaw that will be uh up for discussion. >> What was what was appealed? What's you referred to an appeal in the past? What was the appeal to? >> Denial of Yes, the there's there's under your
under the regulations today and even 30 years ago, the appeal process is uh to D for a superseding order and to superior court for a local bylaw appeal. So
>> yeah, you got to be clear on what which what your regulation you're referring to. We have the state protection act, >> right, >> which D holds jurisdiction over and then we have the town bylaw which D does not have jurisdiction over. Only security court does.
>> Yes. Superior court to uh to issue a uh overturn the commission. >> But keep Yes, we did. And keep >> true. Do we know that, Melissa? >> Yeah. No, it's true. It's true. We did. And so, so just just so you know, I
don't mean to, you know, belabor the point here, but you do you're 100% right that that the appeal under the bylaw is the superior court. But I'll just caution you to understand that there's a lot of new case law that's out since
1998 and beyond that is calls into question how local bylaws are applied. And so I would just say keep an open mind because
it's only fair way to to determine how this property is managed or handled in the past. And I and I will say that I offered this just so you know. I mean, I offered this to the town as uh under
their what do you have the CPC funds if they wanted to buy it and I was told um basically that you'll never build on it. >> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, Mr. Rosie. >> Yeah, that's okay. But I did offer it to the town first and the town rejected it.
So, you know, I I'm going through the motions here in the right in the right or order, let's say. Okay. Want to say this, I'm also kind of familiar with uh court cases over quite a bit of period
of time. So, >> okay. >> You suggest that you suggest that uh local commissions are loosening their standards. I'll say being more lax um no >> considering things and I don't agree with that at all.
>> Okay. >> There is no precedent for that. Uh maybe you're reading the different cases than I am, but you know, we'll get into that dialogue as we get closer to having a you know, I really don't like these Zoom meetings that much, but I told Judy that
I would come and present. But, you know, we'll we can discuss the case law if you want later on. But I right now we're looking to uh minimize and mitigate as best we can to uh meet the regulations
the of the local bylaw as closely as possible. And we're just hoping that the commission um you know like I've done you know several projects in town that are you know I would say that the bylaw was in place on and that we really were
able to do uh what we proposed to do and we did it in a reasonable way and and uh it came out fine. So, I I don't want, you know, people to think that just
because I don't meet uh every item of your bylaw doesn't mean that it's not an approvable project. >> Well, >> I think >> not meeting the not meeting the element of uh 50 ft is
kind of significant. >> Well, again, I I I think uh I don't know how long you've been in town. I I I I've been uh you know dealing with the conservation commission and over many many many many years
many years 30 something plus years. So um I would hope that you would uh have an open mind when we get to the point where you need to make a decision. >> Yeah. So, I think I think for >> the bylaw
>> I think for what what we're doing tonight um >> I think we've I think we've gone through it. I think you know you just you have alternatives here and I think you just need to present the one that you think
best meets um our bylaw. As you said, you presented at the Kesh Mission before. You've got projects in front of us. You kind of know what we look for. So, um I think the ball's ball's in your court. >> Absolutely.
>> Yeah. >> So, you so you'd prefer me to uh pay the peer review and just let him uh what I mean, we'd have to figure out what he's going to do and when he's going to do it. So, I'll talk to Judy tomorrow or the next day and we'll figure it out.
And uh why don't if if it's okay with the commission maybe we should continue this for like 30 days or like your won't you have an inerson meeting in September? >> We haven't talked about that yet. We potentially
we potentially could I'd like to wait for more commission members to be here to talk about an inerson meeting. >> Okay, fine. >> But our next our September meetings aren't the 9th and the 23rd. So, when is your next meeting in a uh like the end of Do you have a meeting at
the end of August? >> 19th. >> Okay. Well, let's try August 19th and then I'll try to u make sure I get the right plan to Judy and we'll we'll talk about the
peer review uh providing some funds for the peer review. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think the other thing was just making sure to flag out there so before Joe goes out we can make that efficient and he only has to go out once um if your proposed limit of work and
>> can be flagged. Um that's helpful. >> Okay. And regarding >> no one one other thing just so I can say regarding the other uh application we'll I'll send a uh notice in to withdraw the soil testing
uh notice of intent that we had filed because the soils haven't changed. So we know what the soils are back there. >> Okay. All right. So, can I get a motion to continue um
the notice of intent for the single family house? >> Lewis, I have a question first. >> Oh, sure. Go, Jim. >> So, we've agreed to continue the hearing through August 19th. Between now and then, Mr. Petrosi, you will select
uh the option that you're going with and you will have uh our peer review before that meeting. Well, I would hope so. >> Yeah, I I I would hope so. We'll have we'll have to talk to Joe and see what
his schedule is and his availability. >> But you're prepared to engage our consultant. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. For sure. I'm looking to cooperate. >> I'll make that motion. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to u I make a motion that we continue to hear
into 19. >> All right. Can I get a second? Second. All right. All in favor, Ed. >> Hi, >> Jim. >> Hi, >> Heather. >> I >> And I think I saw Matt sneak in.
>> You did. >> Okay. >> Hi. >> All right. And then, um, so for the soil testing, >> Judy, should we continue that until you get the withdrawal? >> Yep. That's what I would recommend.
Continue to the next meeting. >> Yeah, that's >> Yeah. Can I get a motion to that effect? >> I'll make that motion. >> And can I get a second? >> This is it. I'll second. >> All right. In favor, Ed. >> I.
>> Jim. >> I. >> Heather. >> I. >> And Matt. >> I. >> And I am also an I. All right. Thank you, Mr. Joy. >> All right. Thank you, Judy. I will be in contact in tomorrow, the next day.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Great. Next up, we have uh Solen 1993 Trust, 8589 West Main Street. Notice of intent. >> Hello. I'm here to present the
application. >> Hi. >> Hi. Um, may I share my screen? I have a colored site plan. That might make it a little bit easier to see things. >> That's fine with me. >> You should be able to. >> Great. Thank you, Judy.
Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Okay, great. Um, hello. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Jessica Smith. I'm a wetland scientist with Gddard Consulting. Um, I am here on behalf of the applicant. um the Alicia
Isa Solen and Samara Vern Solen 1993 trust regarding the notice of intent filed for the proposed work at 8589 West Main Street D file number 1881850. I am joined tonight by the applicant and
project engineer. On our screen here I have um our site. Um the site is currently comprised of an existing commercial property with an associated paved parking lot and storm water system. Um Goddard has delineated a
small portion of this bordering vegetated wetland along this side of the property line. Um and it casts a 50-ft no disturbance zone, 75 ft no build zone, and 100 foot buffer zone. The
proposed project that we have here consists of adding an additional three parking spaces to the existing um parking lot. Um slivers of the landscape islands um are
proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed spaces as I have highlighted here. But no natural vegetation at is proposed to be cleared. This is just you
know landscaping islands with shrubs. Um as part of the project the applicant is additionally proposing uh several mitigation plantings which are a mix of sweet pepper bush and witch hazel. The
project represents a minor increase in imperous surface by around 0.65% um and has been designed as such um that the existing storm water system is able
to handle this small increase in imperous surface. We are providing erosion control barriers around the inlets as well as around the proposed mitigation plantings. um right here on our site exhibit. Um
through the peer review process, um the scope of the project has been minimized um including the removal of a proposed parking space here as well as sidewalk connection. And that is all. Do you have any
questions? have any questions? Um, my thought on this property though is that what I remember from when we were permitting it originally was that it was pretty maxed out. Um
and that you know the parking configuration and the number of spaces that are there compared to the size of the building was determined at that time by the developer. Um
so I don't see a reason to make a change here. Um um reduce imperous area and for for a couple parking spaces. >> The applicant has noticed um throughout
you know the use of the business that um additional parking spaces are required um at this time. >> Yeah. Um I'm able to speak just Andrew Steiner with with Bowler um the the project engineer. >> Yep. Sure.
>> Yeah. uh just in in terms of the additional spaces. Um so again like this is a it's a pretty congested site again with the with the two buildings and there's again several businesses that are housed throughout. Um, so really the additional stalls are to help provide
some kind of needed flexibility that's that's needed on the on the site because it does get congested at times and this is really again providing some additional stalls. Well, not really kind of changing the the intent and kind of minimizing the amount of disturbance. Um
we're also we're achieving these stalls by um you know through the planning board looking to install some compact spaces to really kind of further limit that that on-site disturbance >> through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes.
>> There's an expression one could use but not not in this particular situation. This is incredibly, in my opinion, poorly planned, overly filled with buildings for the amount of land area that's there. And the idea of increasing
the number of parking spaces turns us into an even more absurd. I mean, I've gone in there a few times and I avoid it like the plague because people don't pay attention when they're par pulling out of these tight little
parking spaces. Um, adding more parking spaces to me is going 180 degrees in the direction that's needed. >> Um, no, I I agree. I mean, we went put a lot of effort into the original permitting
on this one. Um, and going back and forth. Does anyone else on the commission have any thoughts, questions? >> Yeah, this is Marissa. Um, >> yeah, >> I I certainly recall all the debate
going back and forth and somewhat to Ed's point, I don't think this should have ever the construction of this plaza. Well, it says it's compact and so forth. The property should never have been allowed
by the planning board to be uh grandfathered in any way because of the former Golden Spoon and Restaurant because none of the buildings are built on uh built on the original foundation. But in any event, um notwithstanding any
parking limitations, this was approved after a lot of discussion debate on our part. And I'm pretty sure at the time we probably said something to the effect this is it don't come back like we said to some other applicants uh this is that
this is what you get you planned it you want to do this but don't come back and ask for uh modifications later that's it for me anyone else have thought That's feedback
or anyone from the public. >> Can I um I'm one of the owners of the property. Can I speak or? >> Yep, you can. Sure. >> Okay. Um I just want to first of all thank you um for taking the time to review this project. We really
appreciate it. Um I think there are a couple of additional points I just would like to make. um you know when the parking was initially um approved or configured or the um the
studies were done for parking um we we do not believe that the numbers of staff in the retail in the tenants spaces were considered. So when you think about the
staff on site, um they they could represent 10 parking spaces there um at the very least. And um the other issue is that the smaller
tenants really you know they need addition you know Starbucks really runs that parking lot for the you know sort of controls the the number of cars there and the smaller tenants really could use the additionales.
Um I I think there were some other maybe engineering issues related to impervious but I don't want I I don't want to misspeak. Um >> hi I'm Victor Tlasi. Uh I represent the
owners of this pro property. Um I'm a licensed um civil engineer in New York State. Um, and uh, as some pointed out, we're we're not the original owners of this property, um, uh, and the the the
calculations for parking spaces, uh, we believe were erroneous, um, and did not account properly for employees. So, we're we're trying to rectify something that, uh, occurred in the past. Um, as
Smart pointed out, uh, uh, a couple of our smaller, uh, tenants are are really having a hard time and we're looking to provide a couple of reserved spaces, uh, for the for for those businesses,
particularly the nail salon and also the Verizon store. um they have complained to us that um um their their customers um h are having trouble finding uh space. So there's there's a real problem
here. Um we really try to minimize to the maximum extent possible the uh amount of additional imperous uh area. Uh, I believe it's it's roughly about
250 square ft. Um, Andrew, do you have that exact number or is it a little bit more than that? >> It's it's it's a little bit more than that. Um, it's about 266 square foot um increase. Mhm.
>> Um when we initially submitted this, we were roughly at it was just about 500, but with the you know removal of that um additional parking stall again brings that that number down significantly. >> U and then on along uh um um North Main
Street, West Main Street rather, uh we're reducing the spaces from 9 ft to 8 and 1/2 ft. Um and that really minimizes um the amount uh that we need to uh take
from from the island there. Uh and we've also along uh where Unib is uh we've also found ways to um minimize um the amount of of the island
we're taking. Um um and it it is something that is needed. Um uh I suspect uh I you know that uh um we will
lose uh tenants um and um uh if if we don't get these additional spaces that we want to use for reserve spaces to protect uh the two smaller tenants that we have. that that's our main objective
here. Um uh so um uh you know we we hope that you can um see the problem that we have and we really try to make a maximum effort to um um reduce and minimize the
impact and and I believe Andrew your calculations show no increase in um storm water runoff. >> Sorry. Um yeah so the again with the reducing of the the scope of the project to remove that additional stall um we we
initially had a a small dimminimous increase of 0.1 cfs in the in each one of the storm events. However with removing that um the essentially the this increase in impervious area is so small it it really doesn't change much from a peak runoff standpoint. Um, so
the the peak runoff would be equal to currently what it is now on site. Um, there's there's one other point I wanted to make is I know there's some of the original permitting that was that was brought up. Um, so this this small increase um, we're still ultimately less
um, impervious area than when this was, you know, the the I think it was the golden spoon. Um, so again, if if if these stalls were contemplated at that time, we wouldn't maybe be here as part of this this conversation. But, um, again, just wanted to to point that out.
And I can I can certainly provide some additional, you know, a graphic of that. Um, if that'd be helpful for the commission. >> And I'd like to just add one other thing. Um, uh, the, um, the reduction in the landscaping.
uh we still have the required percentage of landscaping um so we meet that standard uh as well so we've tried to remain within that standard. Thank you. Um
I guess my response to that would be um I feel your frustrations not being the original builder or owner. Um, but I think that your frustrations that you have now are our frustrations from the past when we were sitting here
saying, you know, this is too much square footage for this site. um back when we went back and forth with the original um applicant on the design and really pushed to get it down as far as
you know we could as far as impervious area and and impact on the property. um you know maybe the argument of reduced impervious space from the original I don't know if that's helpful to any
other members but um I just I I feel your frustrations cuz that is what the commission gets frustrated on a regular basis with developers and these kind of self-imposed corners that they put themselves in where we put too much
development on a site and then if we go back can allow more um space to be taken later, then that kind of doesn't look good for the commission either um when
we're trying to tow a line. So, um I don't know. I I I do want to say that, you know, our emphasis is to protect the the two smaller tenants and um uh there that's that's our main goal here and um
we're we're really concerned um that we will lose these tenants and if we don't provide them with reserve parking spaces, uh that will certainly may have an effect on on the town's re our
revenues and also the town's revenues as well. >> To the chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I wonder >> if the if the petitioner has considered the possibility
of renting parking spaces from the business and plaza, whatever you want to call it, that's across Lumber Street, which appears to have plenty of parking. Yeah, we we we have considered it and um
uh and we um in fact uh at one time uh we rented um about a half a dozen uh parking spaces on uh not across the street but the adjacent lot along
lumber. Um and that proved very unsatisfactory. Uh um no one used it and we paid uh uh rent you know for several months and and it it just um you know uh employees
found uh didn't want to do that and and uh customers certainly didn't want to do that. Um and we we feel that with the three spaces um we'll be in balance with with what um is required at this site.
Uh it'll make the site whole. It we're just asking for a very small change. Uh and um um you know I don't know what to tell you. I uh I think losing uh tenants is is very real for us.
Jim, did you have something? Yep. >> A couple of things. Uh, first of all, uh, the, uh, surface condition of this site bears no resemblance whatsoever to what it was when it was the golden spoon. So, we don't even need to talk
about what it was then and what it is now. Um, you know, if the original developer had plans permitted that were uh defective uh or inefficient in traffic and in and parking, then that's on them.
If you purchased a property and didn't know that, well, that's on you. I purchased some commercial properties in my lifetime. I I do due diligence and I look back at the record for everything. So if you didn't do that then um you
know that's another matter and by the way also um I can you imagine combo farms coming in and asking us I mean they're trapped over there maybe they'll decide they want to do something and have some parking and and so forth. Um,
so, um, >> I mean, if this is a philosophical decision, um, I don't think we can argue it. If, if you're arguing that too bad, um, um, you screwed up and, uh, we're
not going to help you out. Um, that's what I'm hearing. Okay. >> I don't want, not going to rush, but I don't make a decision on either of those. I don't make a decision philosophically. nor do I make one out of spite.
>> Again, you know, um you know, we pay taxes to the town of Hopkinon, quite a bit of taxes. Uh these businesses support your schools. Uh your department of public works supports your salaries. Um we're good neighbors, you know, uh
you know, and we didn't do the calculations uh uh when this original development was uh approved and and and we feel the town had a role in this and and so we're asking the town to to help
us correct this situation. >> Okay. So just um as a conservation commission, we don't look at costs. We've had discussions on this in projects in the past. Um tenants, use of buildings, things like
this. We're responsible for protecting um the wetlands, the resource areas. Um that's that's our charge. So and that's what drives our decisions. Um, we're also all volunteers, so it's,
you know, that's that. Um, so I think at this point, if you want us to go ahead and I don't think there's anything else you can present um to change or or ask for anything in that regard
>> to to the chair. This is Mark Argar Consulting, senior soil scientist. Um, I've been listening to discussion as part of this application and I was I was wondering if the commission could be a little more clear about what performance standards this project is not meeting that does not comply with your wetlands
bylaw. Um, the that we're convert the could projects converging of landscaping to impervious surface of a very minor amount um is is is a change in the buffer zone. um but it's already disturbed a natural um buffer zone in your in your in your no disturbed zone
and your outer buffer zone. Um and some of this area is outside the buffer zone entirely. So uh I just curious just as we as we as a team assess your comments from tonight, we'd like to be we'd like a little more clarity on where the performance standards the commission is looking at in terms of where we don't
comply so we can um move forward on this. And I guess just to to that end too again, we are providing some native shrub plantings again adjacent to the wetland area to to help support um that existing resource.
Yeah, the additional plantings I don't know what that area looks like right now. Um if that's needed um vegetation or not. um if that does, you
know, much in the way of mitigation or if it's just, you know, some nice plants to put put over there. Um through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Um did just want to point out that we are owed two replacement plantings for a tree removal exemption issued in June
2024. So, I'm not sure if um those two are included in what's being proposed or if they're going to be accounted for elsewhere. the so the the two plantings would be included in the the ones that were were there, but if it comes down to, you
know, additional plantings, we can certainly talk with the applicant about providing some additional ones. And to the chair that the purpose of this that conversation with the plantings is is there may be opportunities to enhance the landscaping that's there to a situation where we have better evapor transportation in
those landscaped areas by more shrubs and trees that would that would help mitigate um and provide more shading to the impervious surfaces in the area. That would also be a benefit to the resource area um in terms of of of the way the property functions. And so if that that's something that the
commission would like to see um we could definitely look into that. Yeah, I don't know if anyone has any any uh any thoughts on that. I just just removing just adding impervious area um
and reducing or producing imper reducing pvious area on the site. I don't um I don't have enough of an argument there. Um >> you're the chair. >> Make me feel comfortable. Yes, Joe. >> Yeah, just wanted to point out there's
there's also potential uh opportunity for some additional mitigation with invasive invasive species mitigation. There is Japanese nweed and fragmitees growing in that wetland. Um, and while they're not doing
any work uh in that area, that is uh something that the commission may want to also consider. >> Okay. And that's in the wetland itself. >> Correct. Uh the notweed is uh adjacent to the wetland. The frag money is in
what? >> The chair. >> Yes. Am I correct in understanding that the applicant is calling this a redevelopment project despite the fact that there's an increase in pvious cover? >> No, I think that's not true. I think
we've reclassified it as a development project. It's on the checklist. >> The checklist I'm looking at says the project qualifies as redevelopment. Um, that's an old checklist. We resubmitted um the checklist, I believe. Um,
>> and we can resubmit a new one if needed. >> Um, it was resubmitted just uh I think Friday. Um, maybe it hasn't gotten to you. >> Yeah, if it was submitted Friday, there's no chance any of us would have had an opportunity to review that yet. Oh,
>> we had um we had submitted it on Thursday. >> Same same thing less than less than a week prior to our meeting. We don't have an opportunity to review that. >> So, yeah, that that was changed. I do know that I I believe that um you know
Lucas did respond with um their their review of that if I'm remembering correctly >> uh through the chair. We we typically don't review the uh the storm water report.
So I'm not aware if that was changed in the storm water report or not. I'm looking Yeah, I'm looking at the at the one right now. um that was submitted on Thursday and it is uh checked as new development.
>> Yeah. So I mean Melissa, I I think we've got some information we need clarified from the applicant here because my understanding of our storm water standards in the state of Massachusetts are that any increase in impervious
cover would constitute new development. And we are not reviewing this project against the golden spoon project that existed prior to we are now reviewing this request against the conditions that exist out on site today.
So I think it would be helpful for me at least to get a little clarity from the applicant on what exactly they're proposing or what they believe they're proposing redevelopment versus new development. how they comply with those
storm water standards as well as how they comply with the requirements of our wetland regulations for work within the 50ft no disturbance and the 75 ft no build zone for a commercial project
>> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. Um, we can reach out to a third party for a storm water review as that was outside of Lucas's scope of um, the notice of intent evaluation in the wetlands delineation evaluation. Um, so
if that is desired by the commission, we can request uh, a third party prepare a scope as I don't believe planning board is pursuing that right now. >> Okay. >> Um, as far as I was aware, planning board was pursuing that. Andrew, am I
wrong? So, it's it'll be part of our um conversation when we go back to to planning um which I believe is like the first week in August the 4th. >> I I would just like to point out that um there's not a lot of room here for
um an increase in storm water runoff. uh the um the increase in improve area is only 266 square ft. So um it's it's not uh I I I don't think the conclusions
would be any different but um it's very small you know this is a small project this is a small change >> through the chair. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Uh I understand where you're
coming from that it's a small project. I I appreciate that and I appreciate the desire to try to meet your tenants needs. Uh however, as a conservation commission, it's our responsibility for each and every project regardless of how big or small to ensure that it complies
with both the state protection act and our local bylaw. So, we're going to look for documentation that gives us enough justification to make a decision one way or the other.
>> Understood. >> Thanks, Matt. Um, I did want to follow up. I know Mark Arnold had asked how we were not in compliance with, you know, the standards set forth in the bylaw and I was kind of curious what the commission had to say regarding that.
Well, I think Matt just outline that pretty clearly >> through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. So my suggestion there would be and I haven't had a chance to look at the new documentation that was submitted just a
few days ago. If that documentation doesn't provide information to to either document compliance with our bylaw and the state state regulations, then I would include that. And if it for
some reason falls short, I would provide a justification for why we as a commission should consider mitigation in lie of compliance. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. And I just would go on to say that if
there was a plan for invasives control and that I saw an effort was being actually made to live up to the plan that that would give me a warm spot in my heart which might be useful.
>> That is something we can certainly discuss with applicants. >> Okay. So, would you like to continue to our next meeting? >> Um, yes, I do believe so. >> You're the chair.
>> Yes. >> Did you guys want to make a decision on the storm water review because it can either be done with the planning board or it would wait and delay even more if the planning, you know, depending on what the planning board says. So you guys can do it independently or try to
work with the planning board. Um I think we should have a storm water report. Um if we can piggyback with the planning board then that obviously makes sense. >> Yeah. I I would just um you know I I
think we you know we'd be willing to do a storm water report. Um but it doesn't look like the commission is going to approve this project. We're we're not very optimistic. So um I am just not
sure where we're going to go from here. Um I'm not sure we see a path forward. Um, from what we've heard today, >> well, I think we've given some feedback on what would
make the application um, you know, obviously we had a little more time to look at what was shared uh, the end of last week, provide some more information um, for us to make a better decision.
Um, but it's up to you. It's up to you on on what you want to do from there >> and because our latest calculations show no increase in in in storm water runoff. Um that's that's what we submitted to
you last week with all the calculations and and so on. Uh and and a review is not going to change that very much. We're only looking at 266 square feet of of additional impervious area. So, I'm I'm just, you know, not
sure what the expectation is of this uh independent review, but you know, if that's what it if that's what you want, uh we'll consider it. >> Well, um can I say something? Um I think that the commission needs to to review
it. If I understand correctly, I think the commission still needs to review the material that was submitted last week. So could we continue to the next meeting and then pick up from there at that and
discuss >> this project once it has been fully reviewed? >> Yes, we can we could certainly do that. I I guess just to that end, I know we heard some some feedback regarding invasives and then again, you know, additional clarity and I know you'll be
reviewing things on on your end. Is there anything, you know, additional that, you know, other commission members may want to see on, you know, for that um you know, that next hearing. >> For me, I would echo Matt's comments and I would agree with Ed on the invasive
species piece. Um, does anyone have anything else? >> I think that that would cover that would cover it. >> I just want to get a clarification on the invasive species. Is that just
within the wetlands area? >> Yes, I believe that's where they are, right Joe? >> Yeah, through the chair. Yeah, the the common read is uh in within the wetland uh in the part of the wetland closer to
West Main Street. Uh there's uh notweed is uh on the eastern side uh of the wetland um in the area near the uh
the buildings. And then in further back uh where the storm water um outlet is located, there's note back in that area along the tree line also. Thank you. >> I think the comment of limited to
wetland is perhaps not exactly correct because notweed is not principally a wetland plant. >> Correct. The not the notweed is uh primarily outside the wetland. There may be some uh slightly within the wetland primarily um you know right along the
edge of the wetland. Okay. So, do we want to continue to the next hearing? >> Yes, I think we are where we're going to request a continuence. >> Yeah. And I I think that would also give
you a chance to um review the revised submission. And and I I believe we responded to all the comments we received um and and I I think um I I think the latest submission has
responses to the DEEC comments as well uh which the previous submission did not have. So I think it's a more complete package for you to look at. Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay, that sounds good. We'll take we'll
take time and look at it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, can I get a motion to continue this to the next hearing? >> That I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Jim. >> I. Heather. >> Hi. >> And Matt. >> Hi. >> And I'm also an I. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> You. >> All right. Next up, we have 470 Ours Road single family home. >> Hi everyone. This is Andrew Tibo, wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. Hello. >> Do I have permission to share my screen if you guys don't mind? I have a few
visuals that I was going to bounce back and forth. Um, one of them being the one that's up there now. >> Yep, that's fine with me. >> Great. Thank you. I'll take that over. Can you guys see this? Okay. >> Yes. >> Perfect. So, to start this off, this is
the plan the commission saw last time. This has since been significantly expanded upon. Um, but we're about a month in between hearings. Um at this point we were last with you guys in um in June. So I was just going to summarize quickly what we had discussed at the last meeting and then sort of what we have incorporated since then. So
we were we were last with you guys in um the middle of June at the last meeting and that was at that time when we had submitted our first round of comment responses and revised materials um to Lucas's first peer reviewview letter to some comments from Mass D and some of the preliminary discussions with the
commission. So at that time we had received some comments from um Lucas about the clarification over the minor project exemption. So at that first meeting we were discussing that it it seems like a lot of the work that we were looking to include under existing
conditions was actually the previous conditions of the site. And so we had provided clarification and quantification of the previous conditions of the site, the existing conditions now and then what was proposed. We had discussed the storm water testing and we had presented our first iteration of a mitigation planting
plan in support of that waiver request. So that's what we see here. Um at the time we had proposed about 20 native shrubs and 10 or so plugs along the rear of Lake Maspanok. Um in discussing with the board it was made clear that this
was not going to be adequate for the work that we were submitting. And so what we had done is we had responded to Lucas's original letter. we' received a new comment and we have since now significantly beefed up this plan um and incorporated a bunch of revised materials. So you guys got a second round of materials from us on July 15th.
At that point that was responses to Lucas's second peer review letter and a revised planting plan that I'll pull up in a moment. Part of that response had notified the commission that revised site plans themselves would be coming, but the engineers were still working on them. Um, we had a comment in that Lucas
letter to clarify the the FEMA flood zone as shown on the plans. So, I'm just going to show that revised material first as that's actually the most easy sort of response we have here. One of the comments was that um the FEMA flood zone was shown as a polygon and we needed some clarification on the exact
elevation where that was to be shown. So, the commission did just receive a revised plan on Friday. So, I'm going to show that now. Um, quite interestingly, FEMA actually updated their maps on July 8th of this year, so only a couple weeks ago, and we now have um a base elevation
of 350.5 on the site. So, we just had the engineers revised the plan, and we submitted this, and we attached a FEMA map as well. The the bulk of this middle that you guys received, and that was a week ago, as of today, is um now a significantly revised planting plan. So,
as I mentioned, we had originally proposed about 20 shrubs and and 10 plugs along the rear of the lake. At this point now, we have proposed to plant essentially the entirety of the the bank of the lake outside of what's in use here. So, we we can't put
plantings in front of the steps that are down to the lake now or the access to the dock that's there. But, we are proposing to replant the remainder of the bank of the lake. This is now comprised of um 56 shrubs and 30 plugs. So, we went from 30 proposed plantings
to 91, trying to fit as many as we possibly can back there. Um, it also incorporates native vegetation within some of the landscape beds that are there currently. So, it's replacing some of that vegetation with native landscaping as well as reestablishing the the bank of the lake here. So, that
was a significant update. Um, also in the Lucas Peer View letter, there were suggest suggestions made that we include the scientific names of the vegetation that we were proposing. the original one that the commission received, I'll go back to it here, had common names and quantities, but the the peer reviewview
letter had notified us that that can lead to confusion with the um the scientific names, different common names in different areas. And so we added those to the plans as well. And then we also added a note that plantings will be native species only with no cultivars to be used um just to make sure that that's on there that these
will be truly native to sort of stick to what we are trying to to accomplish here. And then we also added um an additional straw bottle along the bank of the lake. That was another um recommendation that came from the Lucas Peer Review letter. Just during installation, there will be a bit of
minor soil movement. So, we added that there. I do want to note that I did submit a revised version of this today. The only thing that changed is um replacing world to seed with additional creeping blocks. Um Judy and I had touched base at this at the end of last week and she had just given a comment
that there was some some information on um the USDA database and Gobotney that um one of the species we were proposing world tick seed may not be native to our area. So we kept this the quantity the same. We just added the additional um creeping flocks here as that is native.
So this came to the commission today. That is the only the only difference here. Um the other things that came in with this new submitt is at the last meeting we were discussing that there was a waiver request submitted but there was no signature on it. Uh we had discussed that we think it was an error with the PDF but just to make sure we we
had the applicant sign a new version date it more recently include that with the submitt just so so that's included in there as well. And then we also provided clarification. So at the last meeting we were discussing as I had mentioned a bit of the the minor project exemption that had
been submitted in the past but that was not um officially approved and what works was supposed to go in with that. So one of the main things that we've been discussing is the after the fact approval for the the patio and the fire pit. What's there now? So we clarified that what was there before was a
concrete patio. it's been expanded and the the goal of the waiver request is to use this significant significant um planting plan that we have submitted here as sort of the the mitigation for that. But we had also provided clarification um when the commission had discussed the minor project exemption in the past. There was some discussion
about um reworking the stairs. That was one of the reasons why it was submitted in the first place. And there was a there's a quote in the meeting minutes that it said that um it is likely to be approvable as a minor project exemption as long as it does not extend into the lake and it was replaced in kind. Um during the peer review, Lucas had noted
that there actually was a step extending from um the steps here now over the lake. And so that was a discussion at the last meeting if that was going to be included in the notice of intent for an additional after the fact um approval or if that was going to be removed. So, we
provided a clarifying comment that that step will be removed. Um, the intent with this is not to encroach further onto the lake. The the intent is to to pull back and to replant the bank significantly beyond what it is now. So, we clarified that that step will be removed um as part of this planting plan here.
The only other comment that we had from Judy that we um had not been able to answer yet because we were kind of going back and forth on Friday. Um I know the commission likes to get materials a week in advance, so we held off on submitting any new comment responses. um other than just that revised planting plan. Um but at the last meeting, we had had a
significant discussion over um the slight portion of work that is within the 50 at present. Um there were some questions from the commission on the need for that sort of the the reasons why. So I just wanted to touch base on that verbally while I have you guys here and then we will um take the questions
after that. Uh but I did I did want to clarify to the commission that I think we had discussed this sort of in our original hearing but a lot of time has passed that the goal with this design um certainly was to minimize all the encroachments into into the buffer zone to the least um extent possible. I know
the commission's aware that the property was fully developed. There's about an 800 foot um single family house there now. There's a patio and lawn space to the rear and it's essentially maintained lawn all the way up to the bank of Lake Massock at present. And so when we're looking at this, you know, we we didn't feel that the the lot itself at present
is really protecting the the interest of the 50- foot no build zone. The applicant also did take in um quite a bit of of efforts to minimize that to the extent that they could. And so when they went through the ZVA process, they actually um were able to get a 20 foot
front yard setback here. Granted, it's usually 30. So they were able to push this building up to to the 20 foot. And that's what the plans reflect to is try to get it as far from the Bank of Lake Massock as possible. Um they also had to get the utility company to to move a utility pole to accomplish this. So that's all been done. The goal was to
move this up as far as possible. Um and the the justification for that is that at present there already was a structure um within the edges of the zone, a patio and lawn space. So, it's our opinion that although there is a slight encroachment into the 50, the the
addition of storm water management now on both sides of the project, the the robust planting plan that you guys see here, um coupled with the the the efforts to move it up as far as possible, protect the um the interest of that waiver request. So, I know that's a lot of information. I definitely want to
leave time for questions. So, I will end there and if you guys have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. >> Great. Thank you. That is a lot of information. um clarification question on the existing hardscape to remain that pink area. So
for this notice of intent that hardscape area was never permitted, right? So it's unpermitted. It's it's existing hardscape, but um is there certain areas that were
existing before they redid the patio or is it the exact same limits? >> There were areas that were um existing previously. So there there there was a a concrete patio that was in the rear of the lot before it was reworked and there was a shed there as well and then the remainder of it was sort of lawn and
landscaping. Um so it was there was portions of it that were hardscaped. It's been um expanded upon. So the goal is to request after the fact approval under this notice of intent. Um we had provided in previous submitts we had quantified what was there previously. We had some photos of the old patio and the
lawn space. Um and then now we're quantifying what is to remain. Um another thing that I do want to note um although not necessarily quantifiable, the previous patio that was on the property was um concrete pavers. So it was considered fully impervious when they when they redid the patio because
these clients they're they're wellversed in in landscaping, hardcaping, things like that. They uh they use travertine stone which is a picture may know but it's a sedimentary rock that sort of has much more pvious um moisture wicking qualities to it. So when this was installed although it was not gone
through the conservation commission the goal was to have sort of infiltration and runoff in mind. So, it was built in a positive way. Um, and there was portions of it that were over a previous patio, but we are requesting the remainder of it to be included under this application um with a waiver
request that we submitted. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, and then I think Anna, you did a little research for us, right, on um, other properties around the lake in the 50oot buffer and what we've
um, I don't think we've I think the only cases where we've allowed new building in the 50oot buffer is where it's within the footprint of an existing structure. >> Correct. Yeah. I looked back through
about the last five years just quickly and it looks like the only ones that were allowed closers if um the limit of structure was already close less than the 50. So the footprint may have extended um expanded left to right but
not towards the lake. So that's kind of that's that's what we look for um or what we've our decisions have been based on in the past in regards to that 50ft buffer line for structures buildings.
>> Um and you're encroaching on that right now. >> Thank you for that. Um yeah, the other thing I do want to add to that is we did submit our our comment letter a week ago. So, we we are anticipating um another round of um comment responses to come from Lucas. So, we are taking any
comments you guys have tonight that that still need to be addressed by us. The goal is to sort of go through this iteration again responding to all your comments and Lucas's. So, that is helpful. We appreciate that. >> Okay. Um Joe, I know you you sent in a letter today um a comment letter. Do you
have particular comments that you want to highlight for the commission that are still outstanding? Yeah, just a couple of of things uh we just want to touch on. Um one uh was uh discussed uh as far
as removal of the uh step um that extends into the lake. um if that's being included uh as an after the fact uh activity for this north of intent. I think uh a little additional detail on
how that's going to be done should be included. Um I also note if you looking at the photos there are two columns stone columns um adjacent to the steps that also extend somewhat beyond the
previous wall. it appears. Um so the commission might want to take a look at that as far as whether that uh would have um complied with their initial um finding uh as far as not extending into
the into the lake or over the lake. Um uh also that work uh because it is below the mean high water line um may be subject to uh chapter 91 uh permitting also.
So I just want to bring that point up. Also, the uh revised uh FEMA flood elevation um which as was noted was a very recent revision and it was formerly a zone A
with no elevation provided and it now has a elevation provided and uh as shown on the site plan that essentially brings the U flood line bordering land stuff flooding up to the base of the uh second
stone retaining wall from the lake. The first one being the bank, the second one um uh is upgrading on the bank and you can see on the plan that the flood line essentially comes up to that wall. Um so
that is you know boring and flooding. Now the bylaw also has a 100 foot buffer zone and no builder you know sets for that also. So that's something to be considered.
I also had a comment on u u one of the the plans that was already mentioned as far as u being u likely not needed to this area and that change uh was made and that revision was was done on the
plan that you see before you. But those are my my primary points in my last letter. >> Okay. Thank you, Chill. All right. So, you'll address Joe's comments.
>> Absolutely. Yeah, I find all those reasonable and we especially know when that letter is done, then we we fully intend to to respond and incorporate those. >> Okay. Um I do appreciate the additional plantings um along the lake
the lake front there. >> Absolutely. Yeah, I think that'll be great for it. >> Does anyone else have thoughts, comments at this point >> through the chair? >> Yes, Heather. >> Hi, Melissa. Yeah, I just wanted to make
a comment that I appreciated being relatively new um to the conservation commission, the history at least over the last five years of what was allowed in that 50 foot buffer zone. That's helping to make the decision for me. >> Yep.
Thanks, Heather. Anyone else? >> Yeah, Melissa, I I guess my suggestion would be I'm I'm feeling a little underwhelmed by the justification for the work within the 50 foot buffer
given this. Yeah, I understand it was a developed site. Uh but this is not in my eyes fit under the minor activities portion of our bylaw because that work is within 50 ft of a resource area. So,
I stick with my comment from the last time we talked about this project that I I need to see some thorough justification for why a structure within our 50 foot
no build zone should be allowed by the commission. >> Thank you, Matt. Okay. So, I think you you have our feedback. Is that enough for tonight? >> Absolutely. Yeah. No, the margin orders
are clear. Uh I think yeah, generally we we wanted feedback on what's been submitted so far. The the big thing for us was um one of the main items at the last meeting was the was the mitigation plan. And we wanted to make sure we had a pretty long discussion about what the commission likes to see, especially on lakefront properties. We wanted to make sure that this was an improvement over
that and that this kind of moves us in the right direction and these these remaining comments will help get us there. So, I appreciate them. >> Okay, great. Um, do you want to continue just to our next meeting? One meeting out. >> Yeah, we'll go one meeting. If for any reason we can't make that, we'll we'll
check in with Judy, but I think that sounds reasonable. >> Okay. Um, can I get a motion to continue this? August 9th. >> So move. >> Second.
>> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Heather. >> I. Matt. >> I. >> And I am also an I. >> Thank you all.
>> Just for clarification, it's August 5th. Say that again. Oh, I thought I'd heard you. I said the nth. Thank you. >> The fifth. Thank you. >> We'll be here on the fifth then. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thanks, Anna. >> All right.
Um, next up we have Ravenwood LLC, Zero Wood Street. Good evening. My name is Mark Arnold with God Consulting here on behalf of Ravenwood LLC. Um, we are here for an abbreviated notice of resource area
delineation for the property off of Wood Street and also near Valley Wood Drive um road, I should say. Uh the um last um comments from Lucas that were issued um uh several weeks ago, I think it was
maybe six weeks ago, um included comments um from staff about um evidences of of vernal pool activity in the two isolated wetlands in the back of the property. Um we did have a wildlife biologist go out there and flag those
vernal pools um where we could on property. Um you'll see those on these plans as the ZNY series. We've added the 125 ft vernal pool buffer zone um to those um areas as well. Um and also as
Judy requested, we've got um three buffer zone lines around um that wetland that has the isolated land to flooding. So you have three distinct buffers that you can compare in terms of where you are buffer zone per resource area. Um so
the um one comment that Joe did have that he um he initiated um I think it was yesterday um which we did respond to um via email to the staff um was about the um the extension of the vernal pool Z series at Z1 which is near the center
of your screen um right above that label isolated vegetated wetlands. um that Z1 Z2 is basically the upgrading end of of that vernal pool and it goes to the um to the south and to the west um um from
there and um in addition to that if if it if there was a larger area the you can see the 125 buffer zone is actually well inside um existing resource areas which is ILSF and IVW as well. So, um, we believe that the plan does show the
appropriate, um, buffer zones and and resource areas, um, that the commission needs to review. If there's a a a question about that specific location, the commission could definitely put a a note that, you know, um, vernal the vernal pool um, in that location may
need to be further verified to confirm the 125 buffer zone um, on the property itself. But we we do know it's an off property um at that location. Um I can elaborate more, but um I think at this point I'll open it up to questions or
further comments from Joe. >> Okay. Um Joe, I'm going to turn to you and see if that answered your questions or thoughts. I'm not sure if it did or not. Yeah, initially I wasn't sure um if the uh vernal flow
boundary had been delineated, but didn't see a anything in the u narrative around a plan pointing out the vernal pool boundary. So I just wanted to verify that what was shown was a delineated vernal pool boundary. Um and that's been
confirmed. Um I did have a question on whether what direction um the verool boundary uh continued in u prior to flag I think it's Z1 um because if it did go
to the uh I believe it'll be the east or right on the plan um it could there could be additional vernal pool buffer zone on the subject property. I know looking at aerial photos it looks like it goes to the south and southwest
away from the property. Um but uh obviously I couldn't confirm that well without a sight inspection. And also just want to point out that um I have not reviewed the vernal pool boundary delineation. I did uh look at
the other delineations. So, um I really can't comment on whether or not I I feel that that is accurate at this point. Um but other than that, I think that was uh really my only uh remaining comment um was uh the question on which direction
the verbal pool went in from that first flag and whether the uh commission wanted me to verify field verify that that delineation. So it looks like based on this that the vernal pool buffer does extend further
than the IVW or the ILSF buffer zone at least in one little area. >> Correct. >> On the property. So, um that makes me think we should verify
um have you go verify the vertical um delineation so that when something comes proposed to us, we can we can use that line comfortably. Um, well, if anyone else has any
thoughts on that, but it's my initial reaction. The alternative would be saying that we're just not that it wasn't confirmed, but then if something's presented to us later as a development plan and we have
an unconfirmed line that we're trying to make um, decisions based on, we'll have to have Jo back out there. I'm thinking at that time. So, um, does anyone else have any questions, thoughts, comments?
>> No. >> All right. Are you amenable to that? Um, >> I think we would like Joe to look at it at this point. Um I if if if that's the only last comment um I hopefully we can close at the at close at the next meeting. Um it's been a long process to
get to this point. Um this was flagged by um a wildlife biologist who is in is works with natural heritage and endangered species for vernal pools stuff like that. So he's very well experienced with doing that. So I think Joe will find the the delineation to be satisfactory in terms of of that.
>> Okay. And then you can uh maybe check out that last flag, Joe. That that was kind of in question. >> Y >> yeah. Okay, I think that makes sense. So um if we can continue out and hopefully that'll be the last continuence for this
for this one. Can I get a motion to that effect? >> How far are you looking to continue this? It sounds like there's some field work to be done. Yeah. >> Do we think that can happen between now
and the 5th? >> What do you think, Joe? >> Yes. >> Okay. Then I will make a motion to continue to August 5th. >> And I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed.
>> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Heather. >> I. >> And Matt. >> Hi. I'm also an I. >> Thank you so much. Thanks, Joe, for getting out there in the next two weeks. Appreciate it.
>> All right. Next up, we have 109 Winter Street, amended notice of intent, driveway crossing for the single family home. Uh Joe, you want to show us what you have here?
>> Where's Joe? >> Mark, sorry. Based on the um Joe Orzel's memo and input from the commission at the uh first public hearing, we have made
revisions uh to the plan. Um the goal with most of it was to more closely tie it uh more robustly tie it to the order of conditions um for the project um that uh the commission issued
in 2017 and has been updated um several times um excuse me several times um since um it it all related to as I said a moment ago to Joe's um memo and um we've tried to
to flesh out a few of the things that uh um normally come up u with regard to the PIBs. They're the uh the um dark um polygons you see around the basin and
around the northeast side of the driveway. Um we've um taken uh the suggestion regarding the limit of work and we're posing proposing uh an orange snow fence uh in areas that don't have
the ro control barriers don't have the waddles and um the sil fence will now get u the orange um snow fence. Um, we have shifted to the westerly side of the
culvert, the winter street side, the left side. On this plan, there's an outfall uh inadvertently shown in the resource area on the original plans. We have shifted that location to get um the
all the work, all the alterations outside of the resource area. Um, a bunch of it was tied to, um, fleshing out details on the box culvert, the wing walls. Um, the replication, there was
some confusion, some poor drafting on my part. U, so we fixed uh, that to provide a single datam for uh, folks as they construct the replication areas. And then I think the maybe the one that is of the most help is on sheet six. We've
kind of borrowed uh the idea from the first set of plans and there is a comprehensive plan that shows um all the different surfaces, what's going to be grass, what's going to be a wildflower mix, what's going to be paved, uh what's going to be rooftop,
those sorts of things just to try and uh to make it a little easier to appreciate just what's going to happen at the site. Um, with regard to the other stuff, we uh updated the narrative, did some uh some
uh stream crossing standards to prove that we meet the the general requirement for uh the crossing. Um punched up uh some information regarding uh stream crossing activities. Um but we do have
uh a handful of items still yet to go. Um, we are in contact with Miles Connors at Partter Ecological regarding the invasive species plan. Um, he and I walked the site last Friday. He's got
some ideas. Um, and we're trying to firm up uh a relationship and get those plans, get that information off to um the commission for review. Um, we do have uh off-site wetlands. I think it's
going to be very close to whether the driveway work at the intersection of the drive and Winter Street falls within the buffer zone. My quick taping, quick calculations put us very close, but uh we have delineated that information.
Scottheim has hung some flags out there at Northeast Escological. We just did not have time to get them on the plan for tonight's meeting. So, that will be um in the next round, that stuff will be added. And then we have on our to-do
list uh an update of all the resource area flags at the site. Uh the next week or so, uh everything that is shown on these plans as resource areas will be reflu, uh we have a a brand new fresh limit.
So, we've done quite a bit of work. We have a few items left to go. Okay, thanks for the update. Um, Joe Orzelle, do you have any comments?
Um, that >> I can speak to a few things. Yeah, I have had a chance to review the most recent information. I have a draft response uh done, but nothing submitted yet. Um, I think Joe touched on a
couple of the uh items I was going to note regarding the wetland across the street. I also agree that that buffer zone is probably going to be pretty close. I when I paced it off, I thought the work proposed work would probably be uh somewhat into that buffer zone. Um,
he also mentioned that they're working on the invasive species uh management. Uh I would just suggest that that be pure review once uh it is u come up with
submitted. Um let's see a couple of minor items. Uh I know the uh WPA form 3 uh it was u stated in the comments that uh the form will be updated. I didn't see that in the
revised material. So, I think that's still forthcoming. Um, I would acknowledge that the proposed open bottom culbert does meet the uh general stream crossing standards and actually exceeds the general uh uh
standard for openness ratio. Um, so that appears to fully meet the uh stream crossing standards. Also the uh project narrative uh was updated and it described uh performance
standards uh the work how the work meets performance standards for uh BBW and for land underwater ways but did not touch on Inland Bank and there will be some disturbance to Inland Bank although temporary. >> I think they should probably just note
that uh with a brief description of how the standards are met. Um uh and I think my last comment was that I know there was a note on sheet two of the project plans that um
stated to refer to the box cover plan uh by messed 5817 for details um on the uh opposed crossing uh and the stream bypass. I didn't I just want to
verify that that was still the correct reference uh to have on that note with some of the new uh crossing uh detail plans that were submitted. >> Okay. >> And hopefully you'll be getting u the
review comments uh tomorrow. >> Okay. Thanks, Joe. >> All right. So, it sounds like um thank you for the update. Sounds like you got a little little more homework like you said. Ch Mark went on to continue this out to the next hearing. Is that enough
time or do you want to go out to >> No, I think the next hearing we've already got the uh the locations of the offsite BBW just have to add those to the plan. So, uh, the only fly in the ointment is, uh, the, uh, invasives management plan, and I think we can pull
that together in time to the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Uh, one thing I noticed, um, that the commission might want to ask for is the PIBs as proposed. Me pull up the sheet with them. Um,
follow the driveway here and then the front of the house. But since there's wetland in the back, might consider asking for additional PIBs around the rest of the structure. Um, but up to you.
>> Yeah. No, that's a good call. I think um Joe Maron, is that something something you can look at? >> Yeah, I don't see any issues with that. And obviously boundary line is right there. So uh any further work also puts
us in a difficult spot with uh the town. But we can certainly add a few along that backside to reinforce the point. >> Okay. >> Yes. Just letting Joe know that that Open Space has worked with Miles now for
three or four years on a notweed infestation and they've taken it from roughly 20 by 30 feet to two plants in that period of time. So kudos. >> You got the right guy. Good. >> All right. Okay. Can I get a motion to
continue this out to the our next meeting on August 5th? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Jim. I.
>> Heather. >> I. >> Matt. I. And I am also an I. >> All right. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Um, see
where we left off. Um the trails trails of leg legacy farms request for additional units to be released from the cease and assist. Um looks like we do have Mr. Gaitley on the line.
Did you want to present your request? Hello there. Can you hear me now? >> Yes, we can hear you now. >> Yes. Um I'm just requesting the next um eight units at the trails.
If you remember, we're down to our final phase of 48 units and we have previously had uh the commission release 13 units. They are all under
one phase of construction or another. Um all 13 of those units are uh you know the foundations are in some of them have occupants now as of last month. So,
um we are now ready to um to start our next group of units which um were listed in the uh the site plan part of this submittal.
And just like before, yes, that's the one there. So very quickly going down the right side there, those units, even numbers 4 through 22. That was the first release last July.
And those are the ones that I think there's five four people moved in and a few more coming very soon. Um then um going down a couple units, our first request after that original request was for
three units, 31, 32, and 34. Those are uh have construction has started. So now I'm looking to really finish the the rest of the right side
going down with two more duplexes. um 2426 and 2830 and then the last four units um 36 through 42.
So those are the eight units that I'm requesting and and as before I would like the um the ability to be able to choose the locations. So they wouldn't they wouldn't necessarily be these exact
locations here. They may at uh at our discretion and basically based on you know sales marketing u we would like the ability to make a change if we if we see the need.
Great. Okay. >> Yes. I think um we haven't seen you in quite a while, which is a good sign. Everything's >> yeah, >> good storm water-wise on the site. So, thank you um for keeping up on that.
Judy, you mentioned that they're up to date on all their SWIPS inspections. >> Yeah, >> that's correct. >> Okay. So, that being said, I think I'm comfortable um I'm comfortable with approving
this release. I don't know if anyone else on the commission has any thoughts or questions for Mr. Gaitley. >> Mr. Chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I think it's a minor question, but um
the the reference to to possibly doing different units, could you just explain to me that a little bit more? I think what my interpretation is that you've picked out eight units, but maybe someone wants to buy one that's in a different location from those units and
you would like to do that. Is is that a correct assumption? >> Yes, that's exactly right. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else know the chair? >> Yes. Go ahead, Judy.
>> Did I win? Um, if Vin you decide to change the numbers, if you could just give us a heads up, um, so we can keep track, that would be very helpful. >> Yep. >> And through the chair, um, just as a reminder, and, uh, Vin is also going to
the town of Ashland for their next meeting. So, um, your vote is also contingent upon Ashlin releasing these same additional units from their cease and desist. Okay, sounds good.
Um, I guess we'll go ahead and do a vote on this. Can I get a motion to approve the request for these units to be released from the cease and desist? >> So move. >> Can I get a second?
>> Second. >> All right. All in favor, Ed. I >> Jim. >> Hi, >> Heather. >> I >> and Matt. >> Hi. >> And I'm also an I.
>> All right. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you, too. >> Okay. Yep. >> Um, Lucas Environmental FY 2026 contract renewal. So, this is something we just uh need to vote on.
Um hope to have Judy sign. Um Judy, you had mentioned I believe that this is pretty much the same as last year's agreement and um fee. >> Yep. Correct. The rates are staying the
same this year. Um potentially changing next year. >> Okay. Um, so I think this looks good. We appreciate um all your work. Joe, want you to uh stick around with us if you will.
Um, >> thank you. >> Can I get a motion to approve the contract and have Judy sign for us? Melissa, real quick before we make that motion,
>> are we looking at what is intended to be the current agreement? >> It's a typo. We just noticed that. >> Okay. Yeah. It's worth correcting and initialing just so it's properly documented. >> Yeah, we'll we'll get a corrected
version before I sign. >> Perfect. I I'll happily make that motion. Joe's done a great job. >> And because Joe's pinned me off well, I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Um, Ed,
>> hi >> Jim. >> Hi, >> Heather. >> Hi, >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. Um, do we have any public forum
requests? No comment. No. Good. And everybody saw. Thank you, Judy, for sending out those. um meeting things that are coming up on climate change and invasives. Um appreciate the heads up on that. I can
probably I'm going to drop into the climate change or climate resilience. They're calling it climate resilience on uh Thursday. >> Yeah, it is drop in event. So if folks can't make the whole thing, it's it's tables. So you can come for five
minutes, come for longer if you'd like. Boom. >> And I will likely be out of town. >> All righty. Then, um I guess the last thing that I had is just
um I think most people know, but I don't know. Janine had Janine resigned from the commission. Um unfortunately, so we'll miss her. Um, but that means we need to all look around or think about anyone that
we might recommend or poke to submit an application um for our open open space on the board. So if you have any ideas, I'll bring them up
and that would be >> think about it. >> Yeah, >> she's she's resigned as of before this meeting, I guess, right? >> Yeah. >> I mean, she's not resigning in the future. She's already resigned. >> She's already resigned. Yeah. So, it
goes through the process. Judy was explaining to me the select board has to accept her resignation at their next meeting um before they can entertain new application. So
So yeah, so we'll have a empty spot for a couple months probably. No, >> they may challenge other forums. >> Yeah. Yeah, it will. So, the sooner we can get somebody in,
the better. Drum up interest. >> Yeah. And to that point, if everybody can take a look at the next couple meeting dates and there's if there's days that you know already that there's conflicts, um the sooner we know, we can try to uh work around those as well.
Please and thank you. Hey. So, um it since um since the select board has to accept the resignation for some reason, um is it not published on the town's
vacancies list as a open uh opportunity or we have to wait for that before they put it on the vacancy list >> through the chair? >> Yes. >> Yep. So, how it's been explained to me. So, the select board has to accept the resignation. Um so they will do that at their August meeting. It then has to be
publicly posted for 14 days and then at uh after the 14 days if there's application then they would vote on a new application. So I believe the earliest they could vote is their first meeting in September. So we're probably looking at our second meeting in September before we would have a new
member if there is any applicants. >> I just have one word. Yikes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, select board was only met July 1st like we did and then it was only meeting once in August. So, um it's unfortunately the timing that it
is. So, >> okay, >> I'll take my next question off something. >> I have a question. >> Yes. S >> in the event of a quorumless meeting, what happens? I realize we can't meet
and you can't vote etc. But are there other ramifications >> public flogging? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I mean that happened. >> So we just h unfortunately we knew about it prior to the start of the meeting and unfortunately just had to um ask
everybody to do a continuation you know to the next public meeting which just made a really long meeting. So, >> so as long as >> as long as people accept a continuation,
what happens if someone doesn't? >> Uh, I believe they can appeal to D. >> Yeah. And then, you know, D can would likely either bump it back to the commission. I don't I don't really want to investigate that and I hope we don't have to come to that. Um, I think most
of the applicants, you know, are pretty amendable. I mean, they don't want delays with having to either resubmit or start over if they don't agree to a continuation. So, >> um, that's said, just, you know, things come up and, you know, you guys all have
working lives and personal lives, but if you know for sure like, hey, I'm going to, you know, three of you are going to miss the August 19th meeting. We'll cancel it now and reschedule kind of thing. So the sooner we know if possible, you know, the easier it is.
>> Yep. Yeah. I mean, in general, it's in the applicant's best interest to just continue. >> Yeah. I think it's I think fortunately we meet twice a month, so it's not like we're kicking them a whole month, which is helpful.
>> I think Anna, well, we can only continue three times. I think that's been my understanding. >> We've had applications that have continued for years. So, um I've never heard of that three time rule, but >> yeah.
>> Well, continue three times. The length may be years, but >> I I don't know the the number of days Joe might know. I maybe not. But there's a certain number of days that the commission is required to act in upon
receipt of a complete application. >> But again, applicants that want the process to wrap up sooner than later are always just going to continue. I don't I'm not aware of any continuation limit as long as it's amendable between the commission and the applicant to to
continue a hearing. Now, I've seen applicants say they don't want to continue. They want the commission to vote or they want a planning board to vote. Um, but I've it's rare that that they would deny a continuence
request from the commission because we don't have a quorum. And that to me would be a poor decision. >> No further questions. >> No. All right. If we have no further questions, then I'll take a motion to
adjurnn. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Jim >> I. >> Heather >> I. >> And Matt >> I.
>> And I'm also an I. All right. Thanks everybody. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Good night.