at all. This is the March 24th, 2026 open meeting of the 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 in the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkin
Conservation Commission is convening by video conference vian via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of
its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that all attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your
computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair. Supporting materials that have been provided to the 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 applica project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish
to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken this meeting will be conducted via roll call call of the members. I will now confirm which
commission members are present. Melissa Recaus >> present. >> Ed Harrow >> present. >> Peggy Shaw >> present. >> Jim Cerillo. Walter Garland.
Matt Moyan. I am Ted Barker Hook and I am present. I will now confirm staff that are present. Judy Day, the Hopkin Conservation Administrator, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, our environmental and
inspectional services coordinator, >> present. >> And Joe Orzelle of Lucas Environmental, >> present. Uh before I give it back to Melissa, I just want to point out to members of the public and anybody else interested that we've got a couple
continuations and one applicant has withdrawn. The seven South Barn Road application has been withdrawn per request of the applicant and both of the Wall Street development uh hearings have
been continued per applicant request to April 7th, 2026. All right. Thank you, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Let's get started with work session items. We can go right to 10 Exchange Street.
Um enforcement order to the chair. >> Oh, yes, Judy. >> Uh the homeowner requested to be present for this discussion and I don't see her in the meeting. Um if you're all right with circling back on this one. Yeah, we can do that.
Um, then Ours Road is Ours Road here. We They're actually under both work session and continued hearings. >> See Dave? >> Yes, I'm here. Sorry. >> You're here. >> Click myself on here. I don't know if
Dave's on yet. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we're on there. Yep. >> Oh, okay. Sorry, Dave. I didn't see you. >> Okay. Um, let's go ahead and I guess talk about the enforcement order first so we can kind of wrap up that document. So,
Jo Judy, you you drafted that for us. Um, do you want to go over it for us? >> Sure. >> Any highlights? >> Yep. Um, so first couple pages are standard paperwork documenting the violation. Nothing you haven't seen
before. Um, the conditions are pretty similar to the ones that the commission approved for 47 Oakurst. Um, so it's specific to the mitigation plantings and the hardscape removal. So
the mitigation aspects of the notice of intent application. Um so this is all general boilerplate standard conditions at the beginning and then the more specific conditions regarding expectations for the
restoration and mitigation. Um so plan reference standard monitor plantings for two growing seasons. uh requiring a report at the end of those two growing seasons um to show at least an 80% survival rate of the
plantings um condition about stabilization and then stating that no COC for the order of conditions uh may be issued until the enforcement order has been complied with. >> Okay. >> So happy to take any questions or
feedback um this time. >> Yeah. Do you have in there or maybe it's the top I can't remember um a time frame for getting this done? So I have two growing seasons for the
plantings um with the final report to be submitted no later than December 2027. So that's assuming the plantings go in this spring. Um I don't have a timeline on the patio hardscape reduction. If you'd like me to add something in there,
I'm happy to. >> I think we should. I think for an enforcement order, we should have date that we are expecting this to be completed. Um, and I I can't remember what we've
done in the past. We've always done so two growing seasons then December 2027. Um, >> so I guess the patio would have to be removed before the plantings go in at least in one of the areas. I think
there's some overlap. >> Yeah, >> maybe either of the Daves can talk to their expected timeline. >> Okay. >> I expect to get on this right away. So, um, yeah, the patio will be the very first thing I intend on removing so I
can move forward on getting the plantings in the spring so that they'll have the full season to grow. >> Okay. So, Judy, can we put it can we put a time frame on there that the patio and
the plantings will be installed? Um, so the the growing season it starts when March. March 15th. Yes. So, we're already in there. >> We're in there. >> Um >> could say something like three or six
months following issuance of the order just to make sure it's done within, you know, relatively the season. >> Yeah. So, six months would put us April, May, June, July, August, September.
I'm thinking. Yeah. September. I feel like six months would push it out of the growing season if it wasn't done. Bumped right up against there. So maybe three. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that
on the commission >> through the chair? I I don't have a strong thought on that. Um I was thinking four. Um but three is fine. I don't think it makes much of a difference. Um if the homeowner says it's the first job, three ought to be just fine. Um I have a different
question on that though, and maybe I need to see the map because the two different ukers properties that we've discussed in recent months get confused in my head. Is the the hardscape that needs to be removed, is it pushed right up against the lake? And if so, do we have anything in the enforcement order
about proper removal of that hardscape so it doesn't impact the lake, but it looks like there is patio removal close to the lake. I don't know what the lake level is right now, if it's possible to get any erosion controls in
there. I don't know what that wording would be, Melissa or Judy, but I think some wording on a proper removal if the patio is right up against the resource area like that would make sense, but I don't have a proposal for that wording. >> Yeah, Dave, can um can you remind us how
tall that retaining wall is? Is it above is that ground level with >> Yeah. So, the uh >> Yeah. Yeah. the top of the U retaining wall is level with the patio.
May maybe a suggestion would be is to uh leave a very small strip of patio to remain while the remainder of the plantings are are taking place and then do that last. Um,
you can also condition temporary stabilization until the plantings have established like a straw or something like that. >> Well, mulch. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I like that idea. I feel like the
pulling out of the patio will be pretty quick, but then the soil will be unstable until the plantings take. So, so yeah. Um, you could probably
put a fairly effective straw waddle along the wall, too. >> Yep, I agree. >> Okay. Okay. If we can add that, Judy, and as a
condition as well as the threemonth date. >> Yep, I can do that. Can I request uh three months on the plantings and six months on the hardcape mostly around the fire pit area only
because sometimes it takes a while to get the or four months even um for workers on the hardcape part of it. >> That's the plantics ASAP, you know, because it's early spring and I want to get that going. the getting the quotes and getting the
workers and everything else going for um well actually not the removal of the hardcape that part is easy. It's more the finishing the hardcape around the fire pit and the that little 14t area um which always was patio but for that
sometimes that might take a little longer. >> Yep. I'm okay with that through the chair. Yes, Judy. >> Uh, I think that aspect of the project would be covered under the order of conditions. So, it wouldn't >> necessarily be subject to the same um
>> right >> timeline. Oh, okay. Sorry. >> So, that you have three years to do. >> Okay. No, just joking. >> If approved and it hasn't been, you know, approved yet, but
>> Okay. Um, does anyone have any other questions or comments on the draft enforcement order? >> No, I would just encourage the applicant, whoever you hire to remove
that hardscape, please, please check references. After all, we started this process because of some workers who it appears didn't quite know what they were up to. So, >> that I will. >> Yeah. Is there um we could put a
condition in there if there's not a standard one already just to notify um our staff when the work is going to take place. I think that would be helpful. >> I love that idea. >> I can add that if it's not already in
there. >> Okay. >> I know it would be in the order, but I'm not sure if I've been writing those into the enforcement orders. >> Okay. >> Okay. With that being said, can I get a motion to >> I'm sorry. Uh >> oh,
>> can we speak? >> Sure. Someone from the public. This is in regards to the enforcement order that we're discussing right now. Go ahead. >> This is Ria Magnamera, 390 Kursed Road. Has the commission actually walked this
property? >> Um, I have not. our staff has, >> but the the the voting members have not. >> I don't know if anyone else on the commission has. I don't not that I'm
aware of. >> This is Ed. I have not. >> It's kind of important to understand exactly what's happened here. Um because the prior owner was reported to the town
several times for encroaching onto the water and then David, you know, came along and he cleaned up the site, but it seems like, you know, he he definitely changed some things around, including sending that
shed down closer to the water. If you're going to do an enforcement order, I think that the enforcement order should include the removal of the shed. Um the perpetual building into the lake from ownership to ownership when new
people come and see no you know effort to enforce then you know they do it too and it gets worse. I mean, there's no question that the former tent was not a permanent structure
and the shed was actually placed closer to the water than even the tent because you if you looked at the site, you would have seen the stumps of the trees that were there prior to all this hardscape
and shed being placed there. Now, if you look at uh Mr. Marant's uh notice he he says this is approximate location of a shed but it's not even a shed form. It's not even a shed shape.
And so I'm you know I I do encourage you to walk the property before you vote on anything in terms of enforcement here because I think you're missing the the bigger picture. That's it.
Thank you. >> Permission to speak to the board. If you show the uh the first plan where it shows the previous uh shed that runs pretty much the whole length, you'll see that goes past the fence line almost
right to the water, almost to that corner, maybe about two or three feet off the water. And then if you go back to the third drawing where it shows the new existing shed, the new shed, you'll notice that it's significantly
back from the end of the fence line about 10 ft back. And that's where the slope of the land changes. And that was the only flat area. And according to the building department at the time when
it was inspected, they were fine with that location because of the pre-existing shed that ran the whole length of the property over there. >> Did anyone look at the pictures that I sent in regarding this tent?
So, so yes, I was going to get into this with the notice of intent hearing discussion, but since they're related, we can talk about it now. Um, so I did go through the photos
um that were provided of the um this the the structure or the tent or whatever we want to call it. Um, and I would agree that based on what is shown on the
existing conditions or previous conditions plan, it does not strike me as a building as it's labeled on that previous plan. Um, what I did notice in looking at it is that the structure
was housing things like um lawn mower. Um it looked like there were some cans and you know just just miscellaneous um things that you would find in a
garage or used for yard maintenance and things like this under that tarp or that um tent. So I think it was more permanent than um you know just a pop-up tent but not I wouldn't necessarily
classify it as a structure with a foundation. and it had dirt floor. Um, the shed that's there now does a lot better job of containing those type of items. Um, when I looked at the pictures of the tentlike
structure, um, I'd be concerned about storm water um, and spills picking up pollutants and things from what was underneath that tent um, structure.
Um, I do think the new shed is smaller than that tent and provides some benefit in that regard. Even though it is um, you know, where where where it is, it's not closer to the lake, I don't think,
than the the previous structure or previous tent type structure. Um, so we gain some lawn area. So in my mind um
looking at them, you know, for what what purpose they served and what, you know, potential risk factors there were to the resource area. Um
I feel like the new shed does provide benefit over the old tent like like structure. Um, that being said, I, you know, I don't know if anyone on the commission has thoughts they want to share on that
topic. >> The chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> Um, I looked at all the photos, too, and I agree with your analysis. It looked to me like the old tarp and framing. Again, I don't think building is the right word, nor do I think tent like what I
put up when I go backpacking is the right word either. But that looked to me to be an environmental hazard. Um, what we have now doesn't appear to be. And if the plans are drawn accurately, and Ria, I don't know if you're suggesting they
aren't. This certainly does look further from the lake. We are getting plantings in between the shed. Uh, and we are getting lawn area, which isn't always my favorite thing, but it's better than a tarp with lawnmowers leaking into the earth. Um, so I do think it's
appropriate that this be part of the NOI discussion. Um, I don't think it needs to be a part of the enforcement order. Uh, as for walking the property, I have not, but I have driven by it and preined my neck as best as I can, which I grant is not the same as walking the property.
Um, but that's as close as I've come. I do trust um Judy and Anna to present their honest feedback on how the grounds look and that their photos are not um I don't know misleading.
So I am comfortable not having the shed on the enforcement order. I am comfortable the the current shed and I am comfortable once we talk about the NOI um I'm likely to allow it to be there as well.
through the chair. >> Um, I'm just going to open it up to other commission members first to see if they want to provide any input. >> This is Ed and I think I think I've raised this question before. Um, when
one wants to put a dog in a in a pond like Maspanino, one has to go to D and get a a permit. And I'm just curious is is if D has um commented or
had an opportunity to comment on the I guess I will call it materials that are um beyond the property boundary into the lake. through the chair. >> Yes, Judy.
>> We did get comments from D. I can pull them up if that would be helpful, but I don't think they commented on the shed. They did mention that chapter 91 approval would be needed for retaining wall steps or docks,
>> but that would be conditioned um in any order of conditions that the commission might approve. This is tiny. There we go. So, these are all of D's comments on the um notice of intent, not on the U violation.
Yeah, we've and we've had these for a while. Um I believe that these comments have been addressed right >> through the process. Yep. Okay.
>> I do have one quick question. Um, if you don't mind, do all all docs, um, if you're going to install a floating dock, um, does that need to get uh, approval going forward
uh, with the state and you guys? >> Yes. And so if someone does that, you know, we would need to call you first. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> All right. I'll open it back up to the public for additional comments. >> Am I the only public? >> I believe you are. >> React 390. Cursed. Well, I'm I'm glad that you were able to discern that this
was not a permanent structure of the the tent that was there. And again, the prior owner of my house um was very very upset with the prior owner of David's house because he encroached not towards just to towards the water, but he
encroached on her property as well. And it wasn't until I was able to put this fence up that I could stop the encroachment because he was literally building things onto my property. Um I you know you guys are in the enforcement
business here and all I can say is that uh you know if someone puts a tent up and then they put some boards in it and they put a lawn mower in it and over time it becomes this you know gross thing. You know I hopefully somebody
does something but you know nobody ever did anything with Bill Anderson. Um he he just I mean we everyone called on him. I ended up calling the police because he had propane and lighter fluid
in the shed, not the tent, but the shed that was actually adjacent to the existing deck. So when I see that, you know, we just ignore the fact that that was, you know, something that was a a brain issue with
this man, and we say it's okay to build a structure where there was no quote unquote structure before, but just a dump, I, you know, I'm I'm a little frustrated because gosh, if that's the way to get away with, you know, building structures on the lake, you know,
everyone's going to know that at this point. Mike Shepard, he probably never saw the thing when it was still there, the tent.
He probably saw it after it was removed and then the new shed just appeared one day. Um, and I and I think that the new shed looks a hell of a lot better than the tent. And sure, it's a it's a much more protected thing for whatever is
inside it. I'm just I'm just questioning why are we allowing a shed here when one Oakurst Road couldn't have a shed there, you know, close to the water. I mean, everybody along the lake wants to have a shed because they don't have enough storage.
That's my that's my point. The the the shed was never finished on the top. The the shingles are still missing. I mean, I'm I'm just pointing out this because I've been living next to it and when we had two years of construction here with
a backhoe, you know, making sounds and then oh my god, how much, you know, rock cutting was going on forever. David wasn't living in the house. He was he was somewhere else. So, I mean, we're the ones that were affected, the
abutters, not just that this is part of the lake situation. So, hopefully you can see some wisdom in keeping the shed there because everyone's going to figure out how to put a shed next to the lake now.
>> Well, I know that this is the first time that the commission this is being brought up to the commission with this application. um or not application, it was brought it was brought up to us because of unpermitted work being done uh you know
with a retaining wall. So despite the history, we're, you know, a volunteer commission and we don't see every, you know, we can't just drive around looking for things um all day long in as far as violations go. And and
we we try to pick up on things when we do see them, as does our staff and um communication between um departments, but you know, we're we do the best that we can. Um, so when this was brought to our attention, this is how we got to
where we are right now. And um, I wouldn't say that we're just allowing um, what was put there to be to remain without any remediation or mitigation. Um, that's what's being shown on this plan right now is removing some of the
patio that was put in, replacing with plantings, putting in this filter strip that we've been requiring of all applicants who come in front of us or violations that come in front of us um along the way the lake. We've really um
been trying to hold people everyone to this standard of improving the lake shore. um along the lake. So there there I don't think anyone's getting off the hook here. Um
and we'll continue to expect the same from all residents along the lake uh going forward um as I think we have over the past few years. So, we do the best that we can with um you know
what we have. Um with that being said, Judy, um anyone else on the commission if have any other thoughts, comments? Otherwise, I think we'll go ahead and
and vote on this enforcement order and then we can move on to the notice of intent. Okay. Can I get a motion to issue the enforcement order with the comments and additions that we discussed in this meeting
um with signature by Anna or Judy? >> I'd like to make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. with some trepidation. I
>> Peggy I Ted >> Ted is an I >> and I myself am an I. Okay. So, let's bump over now to
same site notice of intent. Um, so one of the things that we talked about in the last meeting to add to the plan was the average mean low water line which I see has been updated. Dave, do
you want to fill us in on that? Yes. So, um after our uh March 10th meeting, uh we reached out to uh Kerry uh DPW. Uh Matt was uh sort of uh
suggesting that we get a an opinion uh from Carrie. Um uh she'd get get back to us very quickly. Uh the usual draw down is between four and 5T. Uh she uh also uh
chimed in with Ericardi. Uh he also agreed uh that it's usually four to five feet. Uh we uncovered some old evidence as well and came up with the same value uh uh 4.5 to 5.2. Uh we used uh 4 1/2 ft
as an average. Um uh when we apply that, it brings our flood uh mean annual low water down to elevation 346.2, which is approximately uh 24 ft off of
um retaining wall number two and uh 32 ft off of retaining wall uh number 1A. So uh clearly it's uh outside uh the existing retaining wall and has no influence on um on that. Um
we also uh as a followup uh we had made a small change on the um uh button bush. Uh we had talked about uh limiting uh putting the minimum of three uh bushes in. Uh we've updated the plan as well as
to that. uh had discussions with uh Judy about both those items uh short time ago, a week week and a half ago. Um and I I believe that those are the only changes that we had. Um and I think that's what all that we had uh left over
from our March 10th uh discussion. >> Thank you. >> Um all right. So, I think that addresses Matt's concern about the mean low water and all the work is outside of that. So, that's good to hear.
Um, Judy, can you review for this notice of intent exactly what we would be including um as I guess basically what we would be
accepting. Um, we're looking at obviously the shed which we just discussed and the exist or the patio that's under construction. Sure. So it would be everything on this
plan that wasn't addressed in the enforcement order. So, the retaining walls, shed, I mean, even everything from the walkway, existing patios, the dock. Um,
and then I would note in the order of conditions that there's a a connected enforcement order regarding the planting areas and the patio removal. So, it would be very specific about what structures you're allowing to remain as well as what you're allowing the
homeowner to complete. Um, which is is just the patio that you requested, >> right? Okay. Um, does anyone have any questions, comments, concerns on
the scope of the notice of intent. >> Melissa, >> yes, >> that includes the PIBs, I assume, right? The retaining walls is the PIB as we discussed plus the one medallion in that uh existing planter.
Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Dave. >> May I just ask quickly? I'm looking for the PIB in the planter. >> Oh, there it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I see it. I see it. Okay. Thank you.
So, just to reiterate, previously there was no um no filing for this property at all. Right, Judy? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Not the building, not any not anything.
So, >> so yeah. >> All right. If no one on the commission has any >> Melissa, I have one small question. I'm sorry. I was just reaching for button. Um, could you remind me Dave or Dave, what the walk number
G? Am I reading that correctly? The walk. Oh, it says stone. Maybe there's my answer. That's a stone walk. Is that true? >> The walkway down to the right >> from the house to the shed. Is that
stone? >> Um, let's see. It's a stone wall. Um the wall and it's up uh the pavers go down to those steps, the kind of triangular um not triangular but yeah
those the three steps that you see there and then there's gravel in that corner to the left. >> Oh, okay. >> Gravel down uh yeah below it too. >> There you go. And are those are the walk pavers similar to what I'm seeing with
the under construction fire pit or are they different? >> Um >> I guess my real question is how permeable is it? >> I imagine they're similar. I think the the lower level is similar to or almost
or identical to the to where the patio is. David Mark, can you clarify a little bit? >> David, the question to David Holmes. Uh, there's no sealant. Those cracks between the pavers are not sealed. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Are there any spacing? >> There's a there's a grout, you know, there's a gap between them all. >> Okay. And I think I think the patio uh where the fire pit is is like a blue stone. Is that correct?
um >> that we must >> only a blue show kind of topper. Um it's just a uh I don't know what what you call it, but just patio stone. Um >> and those will remain unsealed with
those gaps between the stones allowing water to infiltrate. >> Absolutely. >> From the walkway and the fire pit. >> Yes. >> Okay, that that was my only remaining question, Melissa. Okay. All right. Anyone
from the public have any comments, questions? Okay. Um, I think with that being said, I think all the information that we requested was provided. So, we should go ahead and
uh take a vote on this notice of intent application. So, can I get a motion to that effect >> with signatures by Judy and Anna or Anna? >> I'll make that motion.
>> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> Hi, >> Peggy.
>> Hi, Ted. >> Uh, a short preamble. This was a difficult one. Um, but I think the applicant heard all of our concerns and I think ultimately the site is better with this plan than it was before. So, I
am an I. Um, and I would agree with that too, Ted. So, I'm an I. All right. So, with that, you guys are
all set. Thank you for working with us over the past year plus. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, board, for your time on this. I appreciate it. Yep. All right. Next up, we have 28 Lakeshore
Drive. It's a notice of intent continuation. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I noticed a typo >> on the >> And does that typo impact any vote that
we take or do we need to, you know, correct the typo but ahead of time? I believe I believe raise should be r a ze >> raise >> on the agenda. Whoops.
>> Yeah, through the chair. That's just a brief description. Um I forget when we started adding those just so that people kind of had an idea. So, um, if we do not close tonight, then we will correct it for moving on for the continued ed
agenda. Thank you. >> And I thought they were lifting the house and then pulling it out and removing it. So, I I thought it was fine. >> Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, um Judy, you wanna you want to go ahead
and pull up the plan and give an update on what we have in front of us? >> Sure. Um so the applicant provided the overlay plan showing existing and proposed conditions. That was a request
of the commission at the last meeting. Um let's see. We received comments from Joe um recently, so the snow on the ground made it uh impossible for him to conduct site
visits. So, we did just today receive additional comments from him that um I don't believe the applicant has had time to address, but they wanted to um come with the revisions that they have made, the overlay plan, and continue the discussion that was started at the last meeting and at least get some additional
feedback from the commission on the project. Okay, >> that's all I have for now. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, this is helpful having this this plan. Um, for sure. Um, I will I do have a couple questions, but
I'll turn it over to Joe Orzelle and see if you want to just give us a high level of your comments in case we can discuss any the applicant. >> Sure. Um, couple of comments that I'll note. Um, with respect to the proposed
infiltration uh chambers, uh recommend that the applicant provide some information on the uh on-site soil conditions and groundwater elevation um and not just rely on the map soil type. Um
there were um also uh three um large trees just to the the west of the uh proposed house that are um proposed to be removed. U they appear to be outside the limit of grading and was just
wondering why u those are uh needed to be removed. Um the applicant had uh requested that a planting plan be approved um after an approval. I would recommend that the planting plan be approved uh prior to
the commission uh closing on the hearing. Um I did have a chance to go out and look at the uh at the site and the wetland delineation. Um the uh delineation the BBW
delineation along the stream uh to the south uh uh looked pretty good. I just thought that one location between flags one and two um that the wetland bumped up gradient maybe four or five feet uh
based on the soil and vegetation and saturation that I observed. Uh I think the site's entirely in the buffer zone anyway. So I don't think it impacts uh too much with the buffer zone except maybe some of the uh the 25 ft
and 50 foot u numbers. Uh also just uh so the commission is aware that the lawn is present up to the uh retaining wall uh right down to the lake. Uh I did poke around with the augur a little bit in the lawn uh above the
retaining wall and uh there there is hydric soil uh in that area. Um one augur I did was approximately 24 ft upgradient and still was hydric. So I would recommend that maybe the applicant
um have their consultant go out and take a look at the uh limit of hydric soil. uh vegetation could not be assessed at this point due to it being mowed and the time of year but would recommend some additional information on the extent of hydric soil in the lawn. It appears to
come up quite far. Um the data sheets um had a number of errors that would recommend they be corrected for the record. See,
>> I think the tree line had previously been shown on the uh on the site plan. I think the revision removed the tree line to recommend that it stay on the plan. And there was just I think one other item. Um
there was a note on the plan about the compost sock being left in place to uh degrade u and just that should be changed to uh being removed after the site is stabilized and and approved by the uh conservation commission. Yeah, I think that that pretty much covers my comments.
>> Okay, thanks Joe. Um, I will I certainly agree that the commission always expects the planting plan to be part of the application for our review and approval. So, um, in my
mind, that one that one's not really a a question. Um, but I'll turn it over to the applicant or the engineer if you want to speak to any of Joe's comments at this point or discuss them with the commission.
>> Yes. Um, Steven Balset here on behalf of Land Planning, Inc. representing the owner and applicant. Um, so a few things, one is the tree line. Um, that's shown as small dotted lines. When I submitted the plans, there was an issue
with the plot uh plotting of that line. So, there's dotted uh small dots that what that were the tree line. They just did not produce when we plotted it. So, you can see them if you really zoom in on subsequent revisions. I'll make sure
that that's actually uh plotting appropriately. Um, regarding I believe the uh representative for the commission uh had a question regarding the compost sock. Um, I misunderstood um the a
substitution and I can add the silk fence on the down gradient side of the compost sock. Uh, so that basically have the two barriers along the perimeter of the project. Um there was another question regarding the uh straw waddle.
Um we needed to provide a stockpile area and because constant access to that area would be necessary throughout construction uh we felt that you know moving a compost sock back and forth it may not uh remain for the full duration
of the project. So the compost sock is strictly for the perimeter of the stockpile area. All other sediment barrier will be mulch uh compost sock and as I said uh silk barrier. Um there was a question regarding the
infiltration sizing. Um at this time it's sized to infiltrate one inch of runoff from the driveway and roof area as shown. As I mentioned, uh these are preliminary uh floor plans and I can add
the uh calculations that demonstrate we've provided adequate uh storage volume in the infiltration chamber systems. Um I believe there was another comment regarding uh the medallions. I can add a
note that they're uh to remain in place perpetually. um that right now we're proposing them to be fixed to the uh tree line along the southerntherly bordering vegetated wetland. Uh I believe commonly the uh PIB along the
lake will be represented by the wall. So we do not have any medallions proposed there. Um regarding the three trees west of the proposed dwelling, um one of the trees is a pine tree. um and it's significant
in size and with the new construction the applicant felt that uh for safety reasons they would like to have that removed. Um as previously mentioned we're going to uh meet the required 2:1 replacement of that tree. Um the
northerly um oak tree is adjacent to the infiltration chamber and uh we feel that it should be removed just so we don't disturb the root system and the tree ends up um not surviving the construction of that infiltration unit.
Again, we're going to provide a planting of 2:1 for that removed tree. Um the southerntherly oak um they'd like to remove that and uh basically put 2:1. Um
I've discussed uh planting with the applicant and I understand you would prefer to have a planting plan prior to approval. Uh would the commission be accepting of basically identifying areas
of plantings and not necessarily having proposed species at this time? Um I direct that to the chair. Um I would say that the commission has
always required uh planting plan including the type of plants, number of plants um in addition to you know the planting areas. So um I would want to I would
want to see that. I wouldn't want to wave that. Um especially because as we spoke in the previous um or one of the previous discussions, the
filter strip along that we're encouraging um along the edge of Lake Maspanino is something that we're looking for applicants to get on board with and um install particularly in that that location and and making sure that
that functions well. So, um, I'd say it's a requirement. If anyone else has another opinion, they can jump in through the chair. This is Ed. I merely would like to know these
two oak trees of what variety are they? >> I can um get that. I believe they're white, but I will verify that for the next meeting. Yeah, a white oak tree is is um a significant tree. It's a significant
tree for critters, etc., etc., etc. So, um I have a bigger issue than I might otherwise, and I would certainly suggest that if we are going to allow them to be taken down, they would be replaced like with like.
>> The chair. >> Yes, Ted. I was just going to add to here. I I agree with what Ed was saying about the trees. I have hesitation on the tree removal, but um about the plantings. Um I think when we have had uh work on a
property that is you fixing a retaining wall, we've had more leniency on the locations of the plantings, but this is essentially a new construction that's being proposed. Um, and on occasion, and I'll ask Judy to do it now so that maybe the uh
Stephen can work it into his plans for our next meeting. Judy, could you show the ideal filter strip planting, the kind that protects the entire shoreline? Because I would certainly be looking for that level of protection of the shoreline on a project of this scope
where the entire structure is being taken down. And I agree with you, Melissa, that the type of planting we've always asked for, especially on lakefront property. So, what I like to point out in these
pictures is there's never a straight line access for runoff into the lake. That all of it is protected and that the the human access is on really attractively curving walkway, not a straight line of lawn or path right into
the lake. So on this property when the planting plan is put together, I'd be looking for something along those lines as far as level of protection of the lake. >> Understood. >> Thank you. Yeah, I would also echo what
Ed said about, you know, when we usually look for 2 to one replacement for trees. Um, you know, those are those are your typical smaller trees. When when we have these high value large I mean, I think when I was looking at the plan, we're
talking like 24 26 inch diameter um trees. they're significant and I I would want to see more than just two to one replacement, some additional
um mitigation, but first off would like to see the trees protected um and kept if possible. Um >> Melissa, >> yes. Isn't it true that if someone uh is
proposing tree removal within our jurisdiction, we ask for a certified arborist to tell us about the health of the tree? >> We do. >> So I I guess from the the short description we got from you, Stephen, um I don't
have a sense that any of the trees are in a dangerous health condition right now. Um, which is another reason I would not lean towards allowing removal. What I think we don't want to establish as a precedent or continue if it once was a
precedent is allowing tree removal just for a pretty view of the lake. That to me is not what our job is here on the conservation commission. >> Okay. Um, as far as the tree, um, located near
the infiltration system, um, we're kind of tough, uh, on keeping that 50 ft outside of the buffer zone. Um so where we're doing a tradeoff in that instance infiltration for the roof and imperous
area is that a sufficient um reason to remove that tree um its proximity to recharge um supply surface water I should say. Um, I think it's something that we we
would need to balance, but I think we would want to know what alternative locations or considerations have been made. Can that infiltration does that infiltration system have to be right there close to the roots? Um, how much
will it actually impact the roots? Are we just speculating that it might impact the tree or are we really sure that it's going to kill this tree? Um I I don't know that I would take down a tree cuz I think it might
have a chance of not surviving. Um I'd like to give it better odds than that. But >> who the chair? >> You'd have to be convinced, I think. Go ahead, Ed. >> This would be another question for the arborist. >> Yeah. Um, and and I I will tell you that
that we had a maple tree that was very close to our septic system. It was a very happy maple tree. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, I did have another question. We you talked about the medallions
um along the wetland tree line page south. Are they actually shown on the plan where they would be? >> Uh yeah, I believe there's a symbol showing it's it I used a sign symbol uh just so it would stand out. Uh but that
southerntherly boundary is 90 feet long. So we placed approximately every 30 feet a medallion. So, there's three medallions along the southerntherly uh boundary line. >> I see it now. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right.
>> Melissa, can I just offer one other thought? >> Yes. And it may be contingent on on where the tree discussion goes. If the trees are not going to be removed, I think the limit of work line might need to be reconsidered.
Um so that's maybe two steps away because we have to address whether the trees are being removed or not. Um but then just listening and hearing myself about plantings along the waterfront. Um this is a question for commission members I think more is the limit of
work in my mind that's heavy machinery type work. If there's plantings being done clearly there would be work outside that limit of work line. Um but am I understanding that correctly? I think you're right, Ted, because
we would want erosion controls down there for exposing the soils and um planting planting things. So, yeah, I think I think that needs to be it probably needs to be tweaked depending
on what happens with the next submitt comments are addressed. Go ahead, Anna. So my concern would be if you move the limit of work erosion controls like right to the lake edge then there's a lot more chance that of them getting if there is an issue reach of it getting
right into the lake. So I would almost suggest kind of you know two sets that they have the main construction one but then when they go to do the plantings depending on the timing >> that there's additional ones along the lake would be my suggestion. >> Okay. That that feels right to me, too,
because while I would want some work up next to the lake, if we move that big heavy dotted line right to the lake edge, um that gives bulldozers permission to go right up to the lake edge as well. And I don't think we want that. We've seen that kind of clearing
on lots and other places and it usually doesn't work out well. So maybe two layers of I I don't know the the the standard way of presenting that on these plants, but um and if the trees are to stay, I would
say that limit of work needs to get even closer to the house, but like I started with that maybe is a discussion two steps away. >> Yeah, >> if I may uh just ask a question. So, um I briefly spoke with the applicant regarding the plantings and I understand
it is the commission's preference to uh plant along the uh retaining wall, the waterfront. Um I just wanted to point out that this area is also within the flood zone. Uh does the commission um
how does the commission feel about that level of work? Um because based off of that sketch, there seemed to be a significant um request demand I should say for planting down there as far as square footage and
that results in disturbance in that flood plane. >> Yeah, we've we've never had an issue with with that. I mean, all the houses along the lake have that same situation. Um, we've never come you're not
permanently um filling or something like that. So, >> okay, >> Joe, do you have anything to add there, >> Joe? Or >> uh no, I think I think that's that's correct. I mean, as long as you're not
filling the uh the flood plane, um uh planting is is fine. No issues. Hi. Um, this is Alan and Chrysanne here, owners of the property. Um, we just had a couple questions for you guys if now's an appropriate time to pipe in.
>> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. So, I think Alan wanted to ask something or mention something about the pine and then I wanted to mention something about the plantings. We intend to. >> Yeah. So, the pine tree uh that we're we're talking about those three trees in front, the pine dropped significant
limbs this winter, and we're we're concerned about safety with that tree specifically. It's it's it's uh we we don't want things falling on the house and things like that. So, that's our concern with that one specifically. Um, and then >> and then in terms of so I mean I want to
like preface this with um like I think I mentioned in the last meeting that we're both like very eco-conscious and want to do the right thing for the land and the lake and like my family's lived here for like forever. So um we're not just trying to do aesthetically pleasing things by taking down the trees. Like if
we did that, we would definitely be willing to work with you guys on um even like a 3:1 planting or a a different kind of species that would have the same kind of um erosion control and filtration of elsewhere on the property
maybe. So I don't know if that's a discussion you're willing to have. Um and we do for sure intend on doing plantings along the the waterfront. Um so that's not something we are going to like push back on. um
and also along the wetland boundary um with our neighbors there to the I don't know to the southerntherly side of the lot. Um with that said too, um I remember last meeting we were talking about how you thought your guys were
okay with us proposing uh this box rather than our final plans. um because our final plans would be um within that box that we're proposing here for our house. Um we're still work we're in the middle of working with an architect right now to figure out what those like
final floor plans are going to be. So I guess my question is I'm I we feel like it's a bit premature to hire a landscape architect when we don't actually have like the floor plan and the dimensions of our house even though it's going to be within that box. So, I'm just not
sure how that's going to affect how this moves forward within your committee because um I mean we could give updated plans on like the plantings along the waterfront and along the wetland boundary, but in terms of the plantings that we would do like around the house itself, like I it wouldn't be realistic
if we were to give you a plan around this box. So, I'm not sure. I know those were like three different things that I just addressed, but if you guys could kind of give your feedback on that' be great. >> Yeah, sure. Um, I guess to start with the first one, I think the commission um
certainly understands the pine tree um factor and is we're typically we're more amendable to taking those down realizing that you
know they they pose hazards. Um so understand that um the trees the other two trees there's I think significant habitat and
value to an old tree or you know that you just don't get back planting three smaller trees. Um so that's why we hesitate more um to take down you know a significant tree that's been there to
get all the benefits back from that tree the canopy you know the heat the the um carbon footprint benefit all all those things um you know it'll take years and years and years and years for a newly
sap you know a sapling tree to be planted and kind of to make up for that. So that's kind of what we're factoring in um with tree replacement numbers. Um what else did we have? We had the
the building, so the size of the footprint and the landscape plan. Um I think what the commission is is most concerned about is the area along the water.
um planting that out, which you know is mitigation for putting the house in and all the development that's going on and other trees coming down and things like that. Um I mean, personally, I don't think we're that
worried about plantings that go right around the edge of the house. You know, kind of those landscapy um mulched planting beds. um those would be more of like a minor
modification or an insignificant change if you were to modify that down the road or to add them them later in my mind. Um Judy, if you have another thought or someone on the commission, I think as far as you know, plantings that are
right up against the house and around the footprint, um I don't even know if we see those come back to us typically. >> The chair, I agree with what you're saying. I I guess the only thing is we're always looking for native species everywhere,
>> right? >> I think you're right. I think we often don't see in the plans the uh the shrubbery or the flowers or the tulips that are going to be lining the walkway up to the street and stuff like that unless it's walkway to the beach. That's a different
deal. >> Yeah. Um so I mean I don't think you need to to spend time and effort worrying about a landscape architect around the building and in those type of details. um we're more focused on the more you
know significant resource area habitat um components of it. Um was that everything or was there another item? >> Um that was everything. Thank you. Um I
did have a followup um comment or question on that. Well, one thing was um we are intending on doing like almost all the native species. like we want to do kind of like a native like meadow kind of look um around the house as
well. So, I didn't know if um if we're using a lot of native species that are on that list anyway if they would count towards some of the replantings. Um but again, if they're right up against the house, like that's good to know. We don't have to necessarily provide that
in order to move forward in a committee. like we could provide, you know, elsewhere on the property where our um plantings are going to go. Um and then, oh, my other question, if we propose something and say it gets through the
committee, it passes and then we decide at a later point like, oh, we really want to swap out this tree for that tree or this shrub for that TR shrub that's on the approved planting list. Um, will we come back through you guys again or is that
something that's more administrative? I >> think typically that's more administrative >> and you just work with Judy >> um on that. >> Judy, do you want to add anything there? >> Yeah, I think that sounds good. And if the commission is comfortable with it,
usually I just um look at similar types of plantings if they're swapping out a tree, looking at another tree. Um and then I check everything for native to the uh county. >> Yeah. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Y um >> Melissa, before I feel like we're moving close to a vote to continue, but looking at my notes, I've now highlighted it in green so I didn't forget. I had one more question um that I think maybe Joe Orzelle might be able to help with.
>> Yep. >> Um I believe as part of the plan, we get a uh net change of imperous surface as part of the plan. Um, but if I remember our discussion two weeks ago, the botchi court was counted as impervious and that
seems dubious to me. Um, I don't think it will change much as far as a vote for approval or not, but I would love to have the numbers correct. Um, Joe Orzelle, do you have thoughts on the botchi court being counted as impervious?
>> It's a pretty fine crush stone. Um, so I think it's it it's probably somewhat pvious, but I I think it's not very pvious. Um, >> that's a new category.
>> Imperous. Not very pvious. >> Pervious. >> Um, >> it's going to infiltrate, I think, to some extent, slowly. Um, but typically with a f with a fine crushed stone like that, it's typically considered impervious.
>> Okay. If you're comfortable with that, then >> through the chair, this is Ed Ted. There's a botchi court behind the senior center. You could stop by there on a really wet day and see what you got. >> Well, I have been seen botchi courts and I've seen the water kind of disappear.
But again, if Joe is comfortable with that being counted as impervious, then that's why we're paying him. Okay. >> And through the chair, this is Ed, one last comment. There's a great book by Doug Talamy about white oak trees. I
suggest it's a good reading book. >> Thanks, Ed. >> Um, okay. So, our next Oh, I lost my agenda. Um, our next hearing is April 7th and then after that
is April 28th. So, my question would be, do you want to continue this out to the 7th? Does that give enough time to address comments or would you like to continue to the 28th? >> Um, if possible, I'd like to continue to
the 7th. Um, being that you want the planting plan, I'm going to have to work with the applicant uh to see uh how far we get uh with that. Um, so we'll go for the seventh, but possibly continuing uh
before the meeting. >> Okay. Um, can I get a motion then to continue this out to our next meeting, April 7th? >> Melissa, I'll make that motion in a moment. Um, I just want to remind the applicant that if you are going to try to make this 7th, we're going to need
the paperwork Thursday or Friday before that meeting so we have time to look at it. So, I'm I'm certainly open to saying, "Oh my gosh, it's Thursday and we're not there yet." And asking for a continuence then, but if we get the paperwork on Monday or Tuesday, that's not going to give the commission time to
really look it over, particularly with the the extensive changes that we're talking about tonight. >> Understood. and and we've kind of gone gone over various areas of where we're going to be proposing. Um it's just a matter of getting the species locked
down. Okay. >> Uh so we do intend on giving plenty uh plenty of time to see it uh prior to the meeting and um and continuing it as needed. Um yes, >> great. Great. Uh with that, I'd like to
make that motion. >> Melissa, this is Ed. I'll do the second. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Peggy I. Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> And I am also an I.
All right. So, thank you all. >> Thank you. >> All right. Let's All right. Now, we're jumping back down to 10 Exchange Street. Um, and I think I saw Padmas here. Okay,
great. So, Judy has drafted up the enforcement order and Joe, I saw you were able to take a look at that species plan, invasive species plan, and provide us some comments. Do you just
want to speak about those for a minute? >> Sure. I had looked over the uh proposal for the invasive species plan and I thought it was uh pretty comprehensive and and appropriate for the site. Um I had uh also um
submitted some comments on um possibly uh some of the u aspects of invasives management that the property owner could maybe take on themselves if they chose to. And um that would include I think as
I mentioned at the last meeting um any kind of mechanical removal, hand pulling using a weed wrench um you know digging by hand um of any of the invasives anywhere on the site um could be uh undertaken by the property owner. Uh as
far as herbicide application uh within the wetlands, uh that should be done by a licensed herbicide applicator uh not by the homeowner. Um outside of the wetlands and the buffer zone. The homeowner could uh apply
herbicides. Um, I would uh uh recommend that it would only be um uh cutting and cutting and painting um uh on the woody species or possibly an herbicide glove for folure application. I would not recommend
um uh folure spray application because of the uh potential for drift onto the species that you're planting and the ones that you're you want to uh save. Um obviously the uh uh homeowner would need
to follow all the manufacturer's directions um and dispose of cut or pulled um invasive plant material appropriately um and need to learn to recognize the
the invasive species. uh I potentially uh the homeowner may may uh want to discuss with uh uh their consultant uh doing the work as far as uh how they
might be able to uh work together um to determine what could be done by the homeowner. Um, and I also would recommend that uh either the commission staff or someone from LE um meet with the homeowner on
site prior to any basic treatment invasive treatment um work that they might u undertake. But I think, you know, a fair amount of that could be could be undertaken by the by the property owner and uh I don't
know, you know, it's up to their their uh contractor um uh how much of a of a reduction that might be, but um that might help uh with with the overall cost of the program.
>> Okay. >> Um I'll ask uh Padma seeing these comments from Joe and what you might be able to do yourself. Do you have any questions? >> No, this is great. Uh thank you so thank
you so much uh for uh providing this um uh uh this kind of setup because um what happened is when we were like removing the wood chips uh we were uh proposed that uh to charge like four times to the price that what a machinery would do.
But after doing the work, I'm still fighting with that person. He comes back and asking me like close to 10 times because they have to do manually. So if um if uh these kind of challenges uh I mean um because there are multiple things that are need to be done on the
property if the the contractors are coming back and posing these challenges. So I cannot hire them and like kind of pay them for these kind of a things. So this is very helpful. uh this is very helpful and I really uh appreciate that and I'm uh and I will work uh and I will
work on that accordingly like um you know what has been proposed. So yeah, thank you for that. >> Okay, good. Um so Judy, I saw that in the enforcement order you incorporated most of these things as conditions.
>> Yep. Yeah. hoping to get commission and Joe's feedback on how I included his comments. Um, so most of this is the same as what the commission's already seen for this enforcement order. Um, and then where I included a condition
about professional versus homeowner, it's new. I haven't written one like this before, so instead of kind of listing out what the homeowner could do, I thought it was easier to say what a professional needs to do. Um, so I said management of Japanese notweed including
treatment and disposal and then application of herbicides within wetland resource areas. >> Uh, one thing Joe mentioned that might be good to add is I didn't include a restriction on folure spray by the landowner. So I can add something to that extent that if they're going to be
applying herbicides themselves, it has to be uh cut and paint or glove or or something that isn't spraying. Okay, that would be that would be regardless of whether it's the homeowner or the contractor. Would that be the case for both? Because
it's how it affects the plants >> uh through the chair. I believe I believe the proposal from the contractor did say that they would not be using folure spray. >> Okay. >> So, I can just do a general condition just confirming that. No folar spray
either way. >> Okay. Yeah, I think I think that's a good idea. Um, I did I did read through and I I think they look good. One of the questions I had
um was we had talked at one point about whether the plantings could happen at the same time as invasive species or not or if some could and some couldn't. I don't know if that's addressed in here, but I know that it says we had two
growing season monitoring after the plantings. And if there's variation when things are planted, is that going to be an issue for that monitoring
um requirement? Did does that make sense what I just I said that the best way? Yeah, through the chair. That makes sense. So, if that area with the really dense knotwheat, if they're not able to get plantings in there until like next year or even
later, um >> yeah, >> when if that would kind of set its own timeline, >> I can maybe play with some language around within two growing seasons after like the conclusion of all
plantings or something like that. Um, unless you want the monitoring to start immediately. Um, I'm not sure what I' what I'd want or what would be best.
I just don't know if it'll get confusing when we're trying to enforce it later or, you know, collect reports. So, I was just trying to avoid confusion down the road. Um,
I don't know. Have you ever seen this situation, Joe, where you have like >> uh Yeah, not specifically that I recall, but I think Judy's idea of um uh stating two growing seasons after the conclusion of planting might be the
easiest way to to address it. >> Okay. And I think we can still ask for those interim reports. So growing season report starting from the first plantings, but then through two growing
seasons following, you know, all plantings being installed. >> Okay. >> I don't know if I'm like verbalizing that right, but um like we don't not want to get any reports until they're all in. Um >> Right. >> Yeah. No. Okay. I think we're on the
same page. Yeah. >> All right. And then my other question, um the condition to coordinate a site visit with staff prior to treatment. Um is that just like is the intention to
have a site visit the first time before you start any treatment? um or like anytime a new treatment is started or what if we have a different homeowner or what if
you know there's kind of this is happening over an extended period of time. So I wasn't sure if the intention was just like one to kick it all off or one anytime something was being done. Yeah, I think I had written that in per
one of Joe's comments. Um, and I think he was intending if the homeowner is going to be applying herbicides or doing like a large scale pull or something like that, having someone out there to make sure they're pulling the right um species, if if that sounds like what you were getting at,
Joe. Um, >> uh, yes, that's that was the intent of that comment. >> Yeah. So maybe like I don't have to go out there every single time. Um but if
you're have a plan for, you know, this spring I'm gonna focus on this area. Padma, I'm happy to come out and just confirm you're looking at the right things. >> Yeah, I definitely need help uh um identifying the the the species and I'm
also curious uh because I also don't I I don't want to damage uh those species to damage any of the construction. I I eventually at some point I plan to do at least for now. Um so maybe Judy you you can help me identify those species.
Oh that would be awesome. So I'm heading back to Massachusetts this by uh tomorrow. So I'll be there on Thursday. So I think going forward like you know that's because this this property uh needs like you know I can't rely on cont I can't afford that. So uh I'll be
working closely with you uh during the weekends and as the weather gets better. So first first I will identify the species and then um uh I I'll I may take some help with my uh the person who does my uh my law u my leaves and all. He is
a reasonable guy. He does he he cannot give uh he's not licensed I think. So he cannot give those kind of written things but he I I am planning to take his help and some of it myself. That's at least the hope for now. So he gives reasonable code. So
>> yeah, >> through the chair. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Just just to to make sure uh uh the homeowners aware if if anyone uh if you're paying anyone to do any of the herbicide applications, uh they need to
be licensed. >> So uh if you're doing it yourself, uh you can do those those things on your property. I that are outlined in in the u my email. But anyone that you're paying um if they're charging you or
being or receiving payment for doing the herbicide application, they need to be licensed. >> Okay. Okay. Then we definitely we will do it. We will learn uh and do it ourselves. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, does anyone else have any questions or comments? >> Melissa? >> Yes, Dave. >> I I just have a question on the disposal. >> Y >> um
item number 26 of the enforcement order indicates that a professional does the disposal. Um, item number five on Joe's review indicates that the homeowner can do disposal. Um,
are they both right? >> I think this one I think 26 is specific to the notweed. Is that right, Joe? >> Yeah, >> it looks that way. Yeah, I think with with regard to notweed that should be disposed of by the professional. All all
the treatment for the knotweed. Um with with regard to the any of the woody plants that the homeowner may cut, um they can certainly um do some kind of disposal themselves as long as it's appropriate. And there's certainly
information online um that you can look up as far as appropriate disposal for for cut invasive stems. >> Thank you. Yeah. Judy, do you
um based on those couple comments, could we vote on this or do you need to um do you need time to update and review with us? Again, >> I think that's up to you guys. Um I can
run through the notes that I was going to add to the enforcement order. Um, so if you'd like to see it again before it's issued, we can have it on the next agenda or if you're happy with the list I have and and me just working on that and issuing it in the meantime. Um, up
to your comfort level. >> Okay. Yeah. Why don't you go go through the list and then we can decide. >> Yep. So, it's going to add a condition for no folar spray of herbicides by either homeowners or contractors.
um figure out wording around a condition to start monitoring reports um after the first plantings go in and through two growing seasons following the final plantings going in. uh and clarifying the site visit
condition um to be specific to homeowner work and maybe like once or twice per growing season prior to major invasives removal. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, I I think you got it. I'm comfortable voting. Does anyone else >> I just have one question on that. What I'm sorry I mean I did not hear what is that folic spray should not be f I don't understand that what is that like um can
you please explain oh maybe I can do it later maybe with you Judy >> yeah through the chair >> go ahead Judy >> so fuller folure spray it's like a technique to spray herbicides it just
kind of goes out in a cloud almost it's not like a targeted directed application So, it's a little bit more room for error with contamination. Um, you would be asked to either yourself or a professional do direct application. So, cut the stem and then
paint the herbicide directly onto the cut stem or like Joe said, a glove application method. So, you know, we just don't want to see anyone out there with a a bag sprayer just spraying herbicides everywhere into the air and it's not great for human health or
environmental health. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Can I get a motion to issue this enforcement order with the additional conditions and edits Judy
just listed out? >> This is I'll make that motion. >> And and signature by Judy or Anna. >> I'll second that. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Peggy >> I. Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> And I myself am also an I. >> All right. Thank you, Penma. And >> thank you very much. >> Yep. Thanks, Dave. All right. Next up, we have 150 Fruit
Street. This is a violation discussion. Um, so let you take the lead on this one, Judy. >> Sure. Um, through the chair, I'll pull up the approved plans to kind of give a
picture of what I'm discussing. Um, so we were doing routine construction monitoring last week, Monday and Tuesday, after the major rainstorm we had. Um and we observed sediment and turbid storm water tracking beyond the limit of work and into the small
isolated vegetated wetland behind 150 Fruit Street. This was an order of conditions issued for single family home construction. Um it was late 2025 the order of conditions was issued. um house is pretty much up but
the um ground and area around the house is is pretty unstable and there's a large unstabilized uh stockpile roughly in this location. Um so site in serious need of stabilization. It looked like the erosion controls hadn't been refreshed since they were installed
maybe a year or so ago. Um, so I did recommend that the owner stabilize the site, stabilize the site and the stockpile, refresh the erosion controls, and then come to the commission tonight with a short and long-term plan to prevent additional releases.
Uh, the other thing we noticed when we were out there is a pretty large pool of standing water uh, in an area not labeled as resource area on the plans. So roughly in the uh location of the 180 contour behind the house here.
I asked Joe to look back at his notes. I think him and Goddard had gone back and forth on whether this was resource area. So it being vernal pool season, I was a little concerned. U maybe it was missed as their site visit was in September. Um but it sounds like Joe doesn't think this is is potential vernal pool habitat
due to um potentially the amount of time that water would be pulled here. So, I can turn it over to him for more details on that, but I just wanted to mention there was a pretty dirty pile of of water in this area. Um, so I don't know how it was getting dirty, if it was coming
directly off the site. It didn't really look like it. Um, but there's also two mystery pipes between that area and the IVW that nobody ever figured out where they went. Um, so just mentioning that there was dirty water back here as well
as in the IVW and the buffer zone here. Um, so that's that's all I had. I have some pictures as well. Um, but I would turn it back over to you, Melissa. >> Okay, sure. We can look at the pictures and I I guess I'll ask Joe if you have
anything to add. >> Uh, no, I think Judy covered it. I did like Judy say look at my notes and my photos and I I recall the area uh completely. Um I think based on uh the
soil that we observed out there um I I suspect that what we're looking at for ponding right now is is pretty ephemeral. Um because the soils did not reflect any kind of long-term ponding in this area. Um so I I
think that it's very unlikely that it's a that functions as a new vernal pool habitat um just based on uh the soils that we observed in that area. >> Okay, thanks.
Um, great. So, have the erosion controls been addressed at this point in time? I guess I'll ask if we have someone on the line.
>> Yes. Are you hear me? >> Oh, yes. We can hear you. >> Okay. Yeah. I was uh after Jodie stopped by, I was take a look and keep eye on it. Uh today I uh this morning after the
rainy I was go down walk all the way around take a lot of pictures and I show duty uh is the water is crystal clean now. Um what I find
um um yesterday when I walk around I saw a lot of footprints theas and um uh animal waste. I don't know if they walk around try to drink water and then Judy shows up after because since I was down
today I have a lot of pictures show dudy it's the water crystal clean uh and also explain her uh because we have um unspec uh water this year
um my plan is I already talked to my landscaping guy and we have a water yesterday. The ground is uh considered very wet. Now my um plan is wait to dry
this week. My uh team my um landscape team we can start work on Monday or Tuesday. Next weeks if the if the ground um drains we can came level up and do u
spread the loom and hydro because everything on the back of the house is done. The house is pretty much done. The only thing hold us is the landscaping because we have a lot of snow and delayed us a lot. So, but we ready to finish the landscaping especially on a
on a back part of the house with the big pile is a loom we pile last year and during the spring in the in the it's a grow visit visitation is growing that but on the winter all the vegetation
died but that's a loom uh screen loom we can soon as the soil little dry we can spread that and do the hydro seed I think that's the the best solution. Um get the hydro sea I'll say in about a
week week and a half from now have everything hydro sea and hope that grows quicker and stabilize the soil. >> Okay. Um and just to back up, are you can you just introduce yourself? Are you
the contractor? >> Uh no, sorry. Uh I'm the homeowner. >> The homeowner. Okay. Awesome. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. >> Um, okay. So, are there erosion controls currently up
at the limits of work and where you're going to be putting down the loom? >> Yes, I check out the ro control if there's any gap or anything uh between them. I don't see I don't see any gaps or any uh cuts or anything.
today. Uh, but it's still a lot of water. I don't want to walk around to make more mess. Um, I today is a sunny day. It's like uh less have a little snow on the morning,
but uh it's sunny day today. I hope tomorrow you get the same. I'll double check everything and I hope uh we get better weather for maybe a week, week and a my landscaping guy said if we don't have uh big rain in I would say
like a week week and a half uh we can go with the machines and get it done and um do the uh spread the the the the grass. Uh and also I told Judy I don't mind you spend
a little more and uh lease on the back of the house is necessary. Uh I came bought um um how do you call the um the gr the whole roll of grass and roll and um get it that stabilized at
least like four or five feet around the roach control area. Oh, like like sod. Yes. Yeah. Okay. >> 2,000 square feet or whatever. Uh and
then level up, spread the loom and at least on the edge uh with the water uh like I think the roll came three by three feet by two feet wide. So if you put it on a um we can put it like six
feet from the edge up. I think that can uh help a lot uh to hold to estabilize around the the road control. >> Yeah. No, that that does sound like a good idea to me. Um,
you know, being spring in New England, I feel like hoping for a week of dry weather, like you just never know what you're going to get. And >> yeah, >> hopefully it does happen. But I could also see going, you know, the next month
without actually getting, you know, a good dry week to dry that out and be able to to work there. And even once the sod's down, you know, you still got to worry about that washing washing out too. Um, so I I think we
need to see some more erosion control measures so that um we don't get more more sediment um breaching those erosion controls. I know you're so close and you it's a lot of work. Um especially when you're looking
at, you know, putting down seed so soon, but um the the spring season is just so unpredictable. Um do you have any additional uh suggestions or anyone else on the commission for interim measures?
>> Yeah, through the chair. Um one thought I had is there's straw waddles out there right now. um which is what was speced and approved. But I think what we've seen is the mulch or the compost socks are a lot more effective. They're a lot heavier um and seem to do a better job
of filtering water. So maybe just adding another layer of mulch sock or compost sock >> really the chair. >> Yes, Ted. Um, I spent a lot of time listening to the last uh back in November and October
2024 when this uh application came up. Um, and a big part of the discussion for multiple nights was where PIBs would be. Um, and part of the PIBs we were looking for was a split rail fence or some other
fence. I bring this up to say we have had plenty of projects where hydro seating has gone far beyond where the PIBs were placed and then lawn just grows beyond the PIB. So a hesitation I
have with Mr. Bragg's plan is that whether it's sod or hydro seeding without the PIBs established unless they are exactly on where the limit of work erosion controls are supposed to be that we could have lawn beyond where we've
stipulated PIBs. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Judy, can you pull up the plan so we can see how that matches up the PIB with the ECB? So, so right now there is is there grass
area between the erosion control barrier and that tree line where the um PIB is shown. just existing meadow and >> I mean uh is the grass behind the the
water and the fence is behind that. It's it's a grass all the way around. >> Yeah. >> So it's getting So somehow um there's a breach somewhere in the erosion controls. Um, Judy, I don't know if you noticed when
you were out there if there was a specific like weak point in the erosion controls right now or just, you know, it was coming from all over. Yeah, it seemed like it was. So, this picture kind of shows the worst of it. So, roughly from maybe like the end of
the snow here um all the way up and around this tree. So, that's like that's this tree right here. to this corner. And there is like an extra layer that they put out of of waddle here, but it's that's the one that's
kind of underwater in one of my pictures. This one here. >> Yeah, that's not doing much. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's definitely around here and getting in towards the wetland. >> Okay.
Yep. and that is the closest point with not much between it. So my my thought is that we need to see um some more significant erosion control barrier especially just especially
around that corner where it's obviously ponding and water is getting directly into the the wetland. >> Okay. and you you'll uh suggesting like put a second bearing uh inside the property nearby. So instead of have one
bearing, they have a two bearings now. Um I can do that. >> Yeah. Well, like I mean, and like Judy said, if the if the if the one that's there right now is not functioning well because it's straw and sometimes if it's been there all year, those get like smashed down and or they lift up the
water can just kind of like make them float kind of. Um you could replace it with um something heavier and more substantial like the um what did you call it, Judy? I'm blanking on the word just like mulch or compost.
There you go. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I can uh walk on it. >> Okay. Um >> yeah, I I think that's probably what needs I think that's what needs to happen.
Yeah, I'll do that. I'll >> Okay. Um done as soon as possible. I I checked the I check tomorrow around uh if we can bought that and stuff and uh I'll stop by probably on the town hall if I have any question and talk to Judy
about it to make sure we on the same page. >> Yeah, that'd be great. Judy can definitely help help advise. Just a heads up, I will be out this Thursday and Friday, so also include Anna in any emails or updates. She'll be
here. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. Does anyone have anything else to add? >> The chair chair, >> do do we need to have a date certain for this work to be done?
>> Um, yes, that is a good suggestion. Um, do you think you can get this done by the end of the week? >> Uh, I can I can try to get out if I find the the material and all that I can get it done. Yeah.
>> Okay. Does that sound reasonable, Ed? >> That would make me happy if it's done by the end of the week. >> Okay. I think that's reasonable. You want me Judy? Question for Judy. You want me to get done where there's no
there's no point into the like a little bit behind the tree. So that uh area or >> so I think what the commission was saying is they want it to be inside the limit of work. Um so put that mulch sock
>> either along or in place of the straw bottle that's already there. Um so not necessarily adding anything beyond it. It shouldn't be getting past that silt fence dirty anyway. So, keeping it in the limit of work footprint. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Um, thank you for coming in and and for taking care of that and we will um hope for dry weather for you. >> Yeah, me too. >> For all of us. Y
>> unfortunately we need the rain for our drought conditions though, Melissa. >> We do. We do. But >> if there's a if there's a way the rain can avoid Mr. Bragga's yard but fill our wells, that would be fantastic.
>> Thank you. Appreciate you guys. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Moving on to uh conservation minute. Um Judy,
we were talking about regulations lately. Um, uh, one of the things I wanted to ask everyone if we could think about, you
know, we we have the regulations drafted by Judy. She's looking for comments. Um, we did get a quote. I don't know if anybody got a chance to look at it from Lucas for them to also give a review of
our regulations and provide any comments that they might have. Um, can you pop that up on the screen, Judy? All right. Yeah, I'm pulling it up. Okay, there we go. Oh, and someone is drawing on the
screen. I still don't know how to turn that off. Okay, it's gone. Um, all right. So, here's the quote from from Lucas. Um, Judy did look into our account and we have $18,000.
Is that right? >> Yep. A little over 18,000 >> in our spending account. So, we do have enough more than enough to cover the scope of services. Um, I I think it's probably a worthwhile
investment in use of funds while we're doing the regulation revamp anyway, but um opening it up to the group here for any thoughts on that. I'm all in favor of spending I think 11%
of our funds to get uh professional feedback on updates. >> Yeah. >> Is that math right? One nth I don't know. I think 1/8 is 12 >> maybe like 10%. Yeah.
>> Okay. In order to spend the funds, we do need to take a vote. >> You're the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Um, think you'd also asked me to reach out to Chris Lucas about their timeline. Um, >> oh, that's right. I did. >> So, he said max two weeks between
authorizing them to begin their review and getting comments for the commission. Uh, but they said they can be quicker if needed. So depending on when the commission is aiming to have a final version ready for a public hearing, um it would probably be one to two weeks
for the Lucas review. >> Okay. I think that's very reasonable because I think our, you know, as a commission, we still need to um review it our ourselves. So two weeks is certainly
acceptable to me. Agreed. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to accept this proposal and fund it through our
is it just called the conservation account or what do we call that account? Judy >> the 53E and a half just where we put local filing fees. >> Okay. know how they come up with that name.
It's a funny name. >> You know, actually my son Alex, my our second choice was 53E and a half, but >> sure. What what somebody said? No. >> Yeah. Yeah. I had an uncle said, "Yeah, I don't recommend that one." So, Alex,
>> um can I get a motion to that effect? >> I'll make that motion. I'll second Ed's motion. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Peggy >> I. >> Ted. >> That is an I.
>> And I am also an I >> Melissa. >> Yes. >> Before we wrap up, I will admit that I'm the guy that drew the box there because I think that's a newer Zoom feature um that I hadn't noticed before. Judy, were you able to get rid of it?
Because I was trying to erase it and I couldn't. >> I don't know who got rid of it. It might have been Anna >> because here's the reason I bring that up. We've had plenty of meetings and I know Ed would like to meet in person every time. Um, and I like the Zoom meeting, but the hard part sometimes is
trying to get Anna or whomever it is with the cursor to go to the part of a plan that we're talking about. But if I have a tool that it can allow me to say, if you look here, it could speed that part of the meeting up. But then I couldn't get rid of that
mark a second ago. Um, I hit the eraser and I'm Oh, there it just maybe I did erase it. >> Did it? Yeah. Anyway, it may be a helpful feature if if we we don't have our whole commission here, but there's a
green pencil over there in the corner and that gives you a chance to write and apparently everybody can see it, which was part of my test earlier. >> So, could be helpful to us in meetings. >> So, if you click on it, you get a toolbar
>> and then click on the pencil and you should be able to circle. Oh, >> you can highlight too. >> Yeah. Oh, >> and that might be as long as we don't go crazy and as long as applicants don't know about it, it might be helpful for
some of our when we're trying to look at a specific section of a plan. >> What's funny is I was watching you all do it and it was popping up with your name. So, if you pay attention enough, it actually shows it at the time, but then it goes away. So, like you can't go back and click on
it. But we did have a couple of applicants doing it. I think on Petetro's place were all like scribblings. I And I'm not sure where that was coming from, but >> yeah. >> Anyway, it it may cause more chaos than we want, but it struck me that that
might be helpful for some of our discussions. >> I am seeing I have the ability to delete your scribbles. So, if we do run into issues, I think as hosts and co-hosts, we can delete stuff. So yeah, feel free to scribble away.
>> Awesome. That may be a helpful thing. >> Okay, good find, Ted. I like that. You learn something new every day. >> Conservation minute. >> Conservation minute. That's >> what it's for. >> It looks like there's a there's a back
button option because I kind of scribbled and then I hit that and it disappeared. So, I don't know if I'm the one who deleted my scribbles or somebody else did, but I don't know if that gets rid of the the markings or not. >> Oh, yeah. I think you're right. Yeah. Undo. It's like an undo. >> Yeah.
>> All of a sudden, timer Ted's going to start his countdown writing on it. You're almost done. Time's up. >> All right. Anyway, it might be something worth keeping in mind that I experimented with. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I think that could
definitely be useful. Um, all right. So, then >> I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn. >> Do you want to adjourn or do you want to or or do we want to set a uh >> a date for when I mean since Lucas is going to review our regulations now in
two weeks? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, >> we don't we don't have all our members here either um to ask this question, but for those that are here, >> how How long do you think or what's a
reasonable date to maybe review the rags and then submit some comments if you have them or questions for the commission um to discuss because I feel like if we don't put a time frame on it then it just
always gets kicked to the back burner. >> I I propose the same deadline we ask our applicants to hit. So, Thursday before a meeting gives time for them to be kind of put together in a way, questions and comments so that we can all process them
ahead of time >> through through the chair. >> Yes, Anna. >> Now, do you guys want to review them before they go to Lucas for comments? Because I don't know like how many versions do we want to have out there? If Judy's making comments,
you know, is then I don't know that we want to go back to Lucas. like does the commission want to do a once over first and then Judy can kind of incorporate your comments or questions and then we go to Lucas for more of a comprehensive review. >> Yeah, that's I think that's probably a
good idea, Anna. Um because we might and we might have a couple things that we highlight for Lucas, too, and say, you know, we're really not sure about this. can you focus in or provide um you know I don't know whatever we
might come up with for a particular section um will that mess up their still be reasonable within their scope Judy I mean I wouldn't ask them to do like add another section or something like that but just um yeah
>> yeah I think they included a round of review and then attending a meeting. So, yeah, it might be best to try to stick to that just one review. So, maybe if folks have questions or comments, have them in by the next meeting, like Ted
said, the Thursday before or so, and then after that, we can discuss them and and authorize Lucas to start their review after the next meeting if that sounds good. >> Okay. Um, for those on the call,
is that too aggressive before the next meeting or is that reasonable with your schedules? Matt's obviously not here to speak for himself. Um, and neither is Walter, so
I might say the 20 28th. Speaking for myself, >> yeah, >> um the 28th seems a doable number. Um before that seems um difficult.
>> Okay. >> All right. Let's hear that. Go ahead. >> I got to say this is our visitor today. >> Is that a >> Fisher? Scrat Fisher cat >> fisher. >> It's a fisher.
>> Nice tail. >> Looks like a mermaid. >> I'll have to tell you a great fisher story someday. Ed. >> So Melissa, we're saying we have a month to read and provide feedback. >> Yes. >> Okay.
And then it would be another two weeks because after that we would give it to uh Lucas. >> Yes. And I think when you read and provide feedback there might be questions too that we just want to talk about as >> right. Right.
>> Um >> so maybe the soonest we can move forward would be two months from now. >> Right. >> Okay. All right. I would rather uh take our time and be thoughtful than rush anything. So I'm
sure >> okay sounds like a plan and go ahead and make your motion. Ted >> now I'll make a motion to adjurn to the chair. >> Yes.
>> Before everybody goes away you made a comment about putting things on the back burner and nobody knows what the back burner is. So, the back burner is not the back burner that's the furthest away from your belly on your stove. The back
burner has to do with an old cook stove. Like, if you want to see one, there's one at our house which had six lids and two lids were over the firebox. That was the front and the lids furthest from the firebox, even though they were to the side were the back.
>> Thank you, Ed. entirely welcome and you're welcome to come over and check it out. >> Was that also a second of my motion as well? >> Sure. That's a second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I.
>> Peggy I. Ed >> I. >> And I'm also an I. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Thank you everybody. >> Good night everyone. >> Good night.