Seems like you come through nightmare. like we are on HC cam. It is 700 p.m. >> So, we're going to get started. >> I assume the mics are on. >> Okay, I won't touch any buttons.
All right. So, um, yeah. So, first off, we'll welcome Walter to the board. You're officially sworn in. >> I am. Yes. >> Got your name tag and everything. >> I do. Yes. Thanks to Judy. >> Great. >> Judy.
>> Awesome. All right. So, we do have a quorum, so we'll go ahead and get started. I see Joe on the screen. Hi, Joe. >> You're official. if it's possible to turn the volume up a little bit. Um you guys
>> trouble hearing us. Yeah. I mean the issue is I think you're coming through on my laptop >> then I can hear a problem. >> If we push you closer maybe we just project.
There we go. All right. let us know how that does, Joe. >> Okay. Um All right. So, we'll get started with our work session items. We don't have any documents for review.
No draft minutes. So, first up, we'll have Town of Hopington School Department with the Loop Road repaving in formal discussion. Um do we have anyone present for that? the volume from the microphone. >> They're not. Yeah, they're only for the
beach. They're notic. >> Okay. >> So, we'll just try and talk louder. >> So, um Chris Everly, project manager and Claire and Carly can join us as
well. So, we're here on behalf of the public schools. Uh, both of the people we would bring are traveling. So, Tim Perkins and Susan Rotherman couldn't be with us. Um, so I'm the OPM. I've seen you guys many,
many times. Um, with me is Carly um, Colmore. She is the project manager on the Hopkins project. Also with me is Claire Hodbum. she is from LEC. She is the scientist for the project and Steve
Powers who is the civil engineer for the project. And I'll turn it over to >> um so we're here just to informally discuss the uh loop road improvements project. Uh do you have the color copy? I think that might be a little user more user
friendly to show. Um, so you're all familiar with, you know, we've been doing a lot of the school projects here. So this is Loop Road within the Hopkin School complex just west of Hayden Row Street. Uh, the project itself is simply just maintenance of the existing Loop
Road. There's sort of two components to it. One where segments of Loop Road, I believe it's the light colored is going to be mill and overlay, whereas the dark gray color is going to be full depth three pavement. Uh and Sammy OD's did
site evaluations on all the storm water infrastructure, determined those are in good condition. Um so the project's just going to incorporate cleaning out the existing infrastructure and replacing anything that needs replacing in kind. But um otherwise, you know, just looking
at the site plan itself, you see there's a lot of overlapping resource areas here. We did a site evaluation in July and August to delineate all the resource areas approximate to Loop Road. uh in green it's all bordering vegetated wetlands. Uh we have buffer zones in uh
solid yellow. Uh we have the perennial stream that flows sort of like plan east to west um beneath two segments of loop road. So we have riverfront area also overlapping uh portion of the project area. On the right side of the plan you
see there's a uh solid pink line work. That's where at the sort of origin of the perennial stream, there's a an obstruction that's creating sort of uh holding back of standing water that gives the impression of the physical
characteristics of vernal pools. It's not identified on natural heritage mapping, but um just based on the physical characteristics, we identified the mean annual high water to that and placed a 125 ft vertal pool buffer zone from the bylaw onto the plan. uh with
this being a driveway or roadway improvements project, you have uh your 25- foot no disturb zone and 30 foot no build zone uh projecting from the resource areas as well. Um but essentially with this informal discussion, we wanted to introduce you
to the project um and gain feedback on whether the commission would agree that an RDA would be appropriate with a negative determination for this work. Seeing as there's no increase in impervious, there's no removal of vegetation, it's all proposed work within the existing footprint and
essentially maint maintenance of the driveway. Um so in our letter we referenced the state regulation um minor project that would allow us to submit an RDA and then under your bylaw there is an exemption as well for this type of
work. So uh open to any of the questions or comments from the commission. Okay, thank you. Um, so you said that all the storm water infrastructure was looked at and found to be in good condition.
Is that >> So, so we looked at it, we we went through and we looked at all the storm water structures, >> the catch basins. >> Catch basins. Yes. Um, they're all structurally sound. Um, which was surprising. Usually there's at least a
couple of them that sag and you know you have to reset. >> Um so they're all structurally sound. Um part of what we're proposing with the remediation plan is uh cleaning out
obviously any of the catch basins, any of the other structures. Um and just ensuring that the the the conveyance system works properly and continues to work properly. So there's no hold up or um blockage of runoff, you know, getting in there so it can move.
>> So, did you find that the catch basins all have do they have sumps in them and are they kind of like up to par with the current standards? >> We didn't measure all the sumps um down. Um there there's definitely some sediment in there which is why we propose to clean out all of them as we
go through and do this do this work once it's approved. Um, we didn't see if So, we didn't we didn't measure if your question is to see if they're four feet. Um, we did not do that. >> Okay. But they have But they do have sumps.
>> The ones we looked at looks Yes, they appear to have sumps. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, I guess what I was just getting at is if we're, you know, working on the roadway, are there any up, you know, storm water improvements while we're there that we would want to consider?
Um, and it looks like so crossing the stream is full depth reconstruction. >> That's the or did you say the dark gray or the
>> uh it was >> the dark is full depth, correct, Steve? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Darkest full depth and light color is mill and overlay. >> Okay. So we have full depth in the area of >> So I think we have full depth on the
>> and that's where the bridge spans over the stream channel, >> right? >> Yeah. There's an existing bridge in both locations, both as you approach the Hopkins School and as you leave the Hopkins School. >> And and when we initially did this, we went through and this is our first pass
based on >> walking walking the entire site. uh we had pavement cores done to take a look at it and then just judging whether it's you know really that pavement failure, the alligator cracking that you see or if it was just maybe some lateral
cracking. And so we've we've tried to balance it. So we're going to go back and actually look at the bridges to see if it really needs a full depth replacement >> um because we're um you know as you as you get further down we want to make sure that you know we're dealing with
appropriate subgrade to do that too. So, we are going to do more of an analysis on both the bridges. >> Right. Does anyone on the commission have any questions on this that they want to bring up? >> This is Ed. Uh, just briefly, the stream
crossings, are they current standards? I believe the one on the west plan west there that's a bridge crossing and when that was constructed I think in >> the '9s yeah it was it was designed to completely span that so that's to stream
crossing standards uh from my understanding on plan east uh for the entrance to Hopkins Elementary School that is I believe a double or triple uh covert
that uh conveys the stream beneath the crossing there. So, it's not a bridge span, but it's uh a couple of coverts there. >> So, it's not current standard. >> Not No, I wouldn't say so. >> Okay.
Um, did we did Joe look at this at all for you, Judy? I don't probably not. It's informal. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I guess the feedback that we're looking to give here is whether we think it's appropriate
um to look at this project as a notice of intent or just an RDA. Um, Is there any work occurring with the curbing out there? >> Replacing it's Buminous curb that we'd
be replacing Buminous curb. >> Okay. But no widening, no new sidewalks. >> No. >> No. We really tried to keep it within the what was originally constructed in 96. The the project has enough remaining to tackle this and refresh it. Um, I
don't know that we have the budget remaining to rebuild this over again to current standards. It's just it's not in what the appropriation has room to absorb. >> Melissa, my sense is if there's no widening all the works occurring within
the paved way, we're just replacing curbing in kind or upgrading it that this could fall under an RDA. >> Yeah. annual call for the appropriate erosion controls in the areas >> absolutely
>> around our resource areas. We can condition condition that. Um yeah, that that makes sense to me too. It's a maintenance project.
Of course, if you if you come across something that's more than that when you're out there on a crossing or >> Yeah, maintenance of the structures is reasonable, like going in, cleaning them out, making sure that they're operating properly. That I think is something that we have the budget to absorb. What we
were concerned with is if we have to rebuild the storm water system. I don't know that we have given the scope of the wetlands in this area. I just don't know that the budget exists right now and it would have to become a capital project that would come back to the town.
>> And you don't have um areas that you're worried about drainage right now based on >> not that I'm aware >> how it works currently? Yes. >> I'm not aware of any. I mean the parents of Hopington might differ because they're probably there a lot more frequently, but mostly it's just it's
crumbling asphalt. It's crumbling curbs. It probably doesn't direct the drainage to the storm catch basins as well as it should just because of the age. All of this is original to um 1996 when the Hopkins school was first built and so
that it it's due for replacement. >> Right. Okay. Um, if no one has anything else, I think I mean you were looking for feedback. So, >> yeah, I think there you go.
>> Yeah, I think that was helpful. It seems that the RDA is an appropriate way to go. We just didn't want to come in with an RDA and find that it the commission felt it rose to the level of requiring a notice of intent and then we're coming back and taking up more time on your agenda with multiple filings. So I think
this conversation was really helpful and gets us in the right direction and we'll see you guys in a few weeks. I will >> suggest in the in the RDA filing just point out the fact that there's going to be erosion sediment control clean out the catch basins those those topics we
talked about tonight. I just make sure they're rolled into that file. >> Absolutely. For the record. >> Yeah. Appreciate the feedback. >> Great. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, I should ask anyone from the public. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Couple quick questions. one on where the
center trail enters this on the >> can we just do name name >> 21 Hayden Rose Street >> also chair of the trails committee >> when you're putting in redoing the the curbing there um where the trail center trail meets the road it would be helpful
to cyclists to have a ramp there rather than just the straight curve so if you can consider that and you're planning it not a big deal I don't think to do it But it's a pain to retrofit it. Um, and then the other just a quick question on
your uh the orange flagging down there. Is that edge of wetland? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Yep. Anyone else from the public? >> No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank
you. >> Thank you very much. All right, being that it is 7:15, we'll jump to the new hearings. So, first up, we have 10 Clinton Street. Ted, if you don't mind opening with the notice. The Hopkin Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 at 700 PM at the Hopkin Senior Center, 28 Mayhew Street to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by John Pru to
install a replacement septic system with associated site work. location 10 Clinton Street, Assessor's Map, R14, block 4, lot zero. >> All right, welcome. >> Good evening. >> Hello.
>> Um, for the record, Margaret Bacon. I'm an engineer with Civil Sight Engineering, and I'm here with the uh the applicants, the uh Claire and John Peru. and uh we're here at requesting a permit to uh replace an existing uh
failed septic system. So I see you got the revised plan up there. Um so I was tried to address a lot of uh comments that uh Judy had given me and and LEC's
comments were very similar to yours. So, uh, so, so basically, if you want me to go over this plan or >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Can can you zoom just out a little? >> All right. So, the uh there you see the
uh existing house. Uh, and then uh where that stockpile area is, that's where the existing septic system is right now, but it's really not big enough to replace. So, we have a uh and then we have a a patio and a pool in the middle of the
backyard. So, we're uh putting in a new system um on the other side of that pool. So, we've kind of squeezed between the 50- foot buffer zone and the title five, you know, setback requirements for property
lines and that inground pool. So, because of the high groundwater, it is a pump system. So that allows me to be able to put that system uh in the back there with a uh three-foot wall that goes around it. So it's a raised system
and uh it'll accommodate a three-bedroom house. And I think uh uh I tried to the system itself is outside the 50 foot buffer zone. Uh but the walls are I think like at 45 uh
45 ft away from the uh the closest spot to the wetland. Okay. >> And so we included the the permanent barrier, whether it's a split rail fence or whatever else the uh the new owner decides to do.
And then the bushes that are going to be removed, we're going to replace with two to one native shrubs. And I think the only thing uh I know Jude uh Judy, you want to review what I sent to you? So, I did not have time to fully review the
revisions that you sent over. Um, >> so I know that you address a lot of my comments. I just having them come in later today. I just didn't have time. >> Sure. That's fine. And I know we're waiting for the D file number. So, uh, while I'm here, here's, uh, I had to notify about 50 of Butter, so I didn't
want to, you know, scan those in. So, do do you want these? >> Yeah. I mean, ideally we'd get a scan, but um >> look at them all. >> I can also take care of it. >> Yeah. Yeah. It would take that would have taken forever. And then >> and then here's the green cards for the
D. Okay. And then here's two hard copies of the revised plan. >> Okay. >> Then if you have any other comments, you can just let me know. And and hopefully between uh now and the next hearing, we hear from the D and then we can kind of
put this to to bed. Can you um can you just describe what the area where the proposed system is going is right now? Is that grass or what what is that? >> Well, actually part of it's a a patio and grass.
>> So So that patio is uh it's going to get moved slightly over to the uh the left. So it >> Oh, okay. and and so so the new system on top's going to be grass, but uh but right now it's partial patio and uh and
grass combination. >> Okay. So, you're taking the existing patio area, same size and everything, shifting it over, correct? >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks, Tim. >> Oh, there you go.
>> Yeah, there you go. It's not really what I would call a patio, but >> it's okay. Um, I guess I'll just ask Joe if you wanted to go in over any of
your comments. Um, >> yeah, I could briefly just mention our observations at the site. Um we had no issue with the uh delineation. Um u as usual I I do note that if there are
any invasives present there were some invasives um primarily counting backthornne and glossy buckthornne along the wetland edge um just to the commission's uh knowledge on the site issues and uh there were uh two piles of
grass clippings observed uh along the edge of the wetland out there um one between flags one and two and one near flag number four. Um, and we just recommend that an alternate place be be found for priming grass clippings
further from the wetland. Um, other comments really I think Judy's comments covered everything else that I had noticed in the application. So, if she's satisfied with the responses and then I would be too, I think. >> Okay. Thanks, Joe.
Um, all right. So, the the split rail fence PIB is is new. Is that being proposed or that's existing? >> Proposed. There's one uh Judy's comment. Some type of a a barrier, whether it's
rocks or a split rail fence. I I think the the new owner may uh want to chime in on what he he'd like to have there. I think a split rail fence is a little more attractive. >> So, is that at the very end of the property line? Looks like it's set back
quite a bit. Yep. >> Or is that something you could review with us, Judy, when you guys come out on Tuesday? >> The location of the barrier. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it'll be up to the commission where if they're comfortable with the location of it. Um, but when I come out, I can try to approximate where it would
be based on, you know, the distance. >> So, what is a permanent barrier? Um, it has to be a fence or >> It doesn't have to be. It basically is delineating a line where it's putting a line on the plan and something you know
on the property visually to inform the owner, landscapers, people that there's a resource area beyond this point. We need to we want to protect it. There shouldn't be mowing lawn. There shouldn't be dumping. You know, we're
>> we didn't know that. >> Yes. How come we don't know? We've been there over 40 years and we don't we didn't even know that we had that there >> had wetlands. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, this is, you know, comes up when a lot of times when houses, you
know, go for sale. It's an educational thing and >> um that's why we try and put in these markers so they're on a plan, >> you know, they're out there >> so going forward someone knows. >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. If there's new houses being built, you know, properties
being developed, all the new properties that go in town, they automatically put these up as part of the project. But the house, you know, the older houses that have been there for a while and didn't necessarily come through the commission um to begin with, don't necessarily have
that visual in place or on the plan. So, something we just >> my clippings I've been putting in the area that I think was fine >> and it wasn't. I I pulled some of them out because I stole, but the ones that are left is
>> Yeah. So, for the new homeowner, um >> you'll, you know, have that. You can talk with Judy. I mean, we can't we're not closing tonight because of the uh DP number and whatnot. So there's some time to discuss that and you can talk with Judy and um we do try and keep that
barrier um you know as close to the 50 foot as we can you know get as much space as we can to kind of protect that resource area. Um but you can look at it and make modifications or proposals.
>> Does it have to be a certain height? >> No, it doesn't. It doesn't have to be. It can be a fence. it. The things that we've seen were up to um you know were amendable to working with homeowners on what fits for their property. Um we've
seen split rail fences. We've seen like boulders kind of lined you know to edge lawn areas. Um we have posts like people have put in posts with a um marker on it that says we have them in the office.
Judy has them. They're free. You can put marker medallion we call it and it says resource area and has a phone number. So if somebody's looking at us like what the heck is this? >> There's a rock there's a rock bed I'll walk across there. So >> but I think it's further up they're talking about
>> yeah that looks like it's what were you saying Margaret? You've seen >> so what I've done on some projects is a combination of a a fence and then uh shrubs fruit bearing shrubs and then split rail fence. So it's actually kind of attractive. It's not just a straight.
It's a combination. It's a combination of shrubs and a fence. Gives you the the barrier, but it's a has a little more benefit, >> right? Yeah. >> So you can talk about it and and bring it back for the next meeting. >> Yeah. We just want to make sure we have
what we need to do for the next meeting. >> Judy will let us know. >> Yep. So, between my comments, Joe's comments, um, and if D comes back with comments. Um, it's rare with projects of this nature that they have substantive
comments, but in case they do, that would just be the additional item to address. Um, >> so even if we get the permit, we still have to wait for the next meeting from the D, right? It has to be at a public >> number, >> right? And it has to be at a public
meeting. It can't be in between, >> right? We Yeah, we need to vote on it in at a in a public meeting. Yeah. >> So, our next meeting is December 16th. >> December 16th. >> December 16th. Yeah.
>> North Carolina. >> So, I'll open up if anyone in the audience has any questions on this. >> Do you have any questions, Dan? >> No, I don't think so. So, the fence that's um mandatory, the permanent barrier, >> um some sort of permanent movable
barrier, a fence is great. It could be something else if you want to propose like we were saying. Um posts or shrubs, not shrubs. We usually we do a combination boulder, something that's not going to get just like cut down or mowed through or
>> um Yeah. >> The trouble with shrubs is we can't put a medallion on it. >> Yeah. Yeah, you know, a tree, we can put a medallion on a on a tree trunk, but we can't put a medallion if it's only shrubs. >> So, beyond >> additional markings. >> So, beyond that area, they won't be able
to mow, right? >> We can still like access the area, use the area, just can't put anything like permanent there or >> it depends what use means. >> Have kids like play, run around. >> They're running in the woods, that's fine. If you're building paths through
there, that like >> Yeah. So, you can think about it and look at it in the field and talk with Judy. >> Okay, that sounds can I get a motion to continue this out to um December 16th?
>> Make a motion to continue this out to December 16th. >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> See you in a few weeks. Y have a nice Thanksgiving. >> You too. >> All right. Next up, we have 33 West Elm
Street. Ted, you want to go ahead and read this? The Hopkin Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 at 700 p.m. at the Hopkin Senior Center, 28 Mayhew Street to hear all persons interested in a
notice of intent filed by Ralph Cass to install a sewer connection with associated site work. Location 33 West Elm Street, assessor's map, R22, block 92, lot zero.
All right. >> Evening, folks. Thank you. Joe Midot here on behalf of uh Ralph Cass. He is the owner of 33 West Elm. Um Judy, could you window that out just a little bit?
>> Perfect. He has an L-shaped um property, two parcels that he acquired in 1979, 1.4 4 acres with frontage on West Elm and down to Lake Massock is where his home is. He also purchased the um narrow strip that's
heading to the southwest 40 by 156 that joins his parcel vacant land um mostly lawn. What uh that allows him to do is to make a connection to Priscilla Road. He um has is 92 years o young and is
giving up his home selling his home but the septic system behind the home behind the deck is not functional won't pass the title 5 so rather than replace the system in kind at that location he is proposing that we make a connection to
the municipal sewer system in Priscilla Road he on his own um approached Kerry Reed got the approval for the idea with the condition that they come back with a site plan um that all groups board of
health DBW and this group can weigh in on for the connection and that's the reason for uh for this plan in anticipation of all those steps we reached out to Scottheim at Northeast Ecological to have him delineate the uh
resource area I expected it to be down at the edge of Lake Basmin to the south and He hung flags further into the lawn um and identified that as the limit of the BBW that creates the buffer zones that
are adjacent uh to the home. The home sits between the 50 and the 100 foot. So, what we're proposing is to drop an E1 grinder pump assembly at the back of the existing wooden deck, make a connection to the plumbing in the home,
and then work our way out to Priscilla with that force man that you see on the plan. We're a mixture of woodlands and lawn. What we are proposing is to drop that force mane in the area that is either lawn or ground cover, vinka, some
ivy, that sort of thing. and uh to reduce the potential for um tree removal as we make our way from the wooded lot to the grass lot um that he owns the 40ft strip. So that puts that gives us some issues
with offset to um the buffer zone. The limit of work area um waddles and sil fence the erosion control barrier will be our limit of work that's slightly inside the 50 foot uh no disturb zone
but we feel that the connection um is a much better alternative than reproducing a replacement system in that backyard. We originally viewed it, I assume, down by the W's edge, but we lost that 40 or
50 feet. So now the the connection seems to make an awful lot of sense. We received the file number today via email. Uh Joe and Judy have highlighted a few inconsistencies in my forms. Um I made a couple of oopses on those, so
those need to be tightened up, but we feel the idea is is a good one. >> Okay. Um I see is that a PIB that's proposed there? Those three >> those Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. We figure we at the there's a wire fence a wire fence on thin metal supports something maybe a little firmer but right about that shrub line limit of the fencing. >> Okay. Yeah, that's great. Um Joe, did you want to go over any of
your comments or talk about the delineation? >> Uh yeah, quickly uh if you talk about that the uh delineation looked good, while we thought that flag number two was a little bit low based on height soils that were observed. Uh so we would
recommend that the line would connect from flag one to flag three. um that doesn't really impact the buffer zone um significantly because I think the uh flight 23 kind of pretty much control the uh the the buffer zone um at that
location. As Jigo had mentioned with respect to the forms, there were some a couple of issues up to latitude and longitude. Um some additional information um needed for the waiver request. Um
and uh couple of errors on the BBW determination forms, but those did not uh change the determination of of whether the sample location was wetland or upland. Um I did have uh u a question
on uh how many trees uh were proposed to be removed in the buffer zone if any. Um and uh requested that the just kind of describe how the site would be accessed.
I would imagine um from the street but uh just wanted to confirm that also there is a FEMA uh flood zone 100year flood zone
from Lake Maspan um which is based on an elevation um 350.5 ft. uh the uh elevations on the plan um um uh don't make it evident as far as where
the the flood zone or the buffer zone from the flood zone would be. So I recommended that those also be added to the and I think the last thing I recommended that there be a soil stoppation that is proposed um ship on the plan. I think
that pretty much covers my >> Okay. Um, you mentioned trees, trying to avoid trees. >> Yeah, we anticipate uh you can see the symbol there where the forest man near the the stone wall where the larger
parcel meets the smaller one. We anticipated uh that um pine tree uh would have to to come out, the 12-in pine tree, the odd symbol just above the cursor. Yeah. up and left. >> Oh, here it is. >> Yeah, right in there.
>> They're nestled right against each other, the larger oak. Uh folks don't have an affinity for tall pine trees given how they tend to come down in storms. So, in discussing that, it seemed that would be the best way to go is to remove the the pine tree and leave the oak.
>> Okay. >> The rest I think we can work around and then once we cross that boundary line into the thin strip, it's almost entirely lawn. Okay. Um, do you think the homeowner would be amendable to replacing a tree
replacement? Not in kind, like same kind of tree, different tree, but replacement for the one that's coming down in the B. >> What replacement? What are the particulars? Are we talking um caliber per inch for caliber per inch? Are we talking >> usually usually we do two for one on a
tree? Um, I don't know if anyone has any thoughts. We don't have a stiff policy. Um, shrubs are also acceptable. We'll do shrub replacement for trees. >> Okay. Yeah, I have not discussed it uh with
Ralph. Um, >> I can certainly take that up with him. OB, we have a couple issues here. It all depends on where you feel this hearing is going tonight. Um, with regard to the flood zone, pictorially it's shown right
along uh the limit of the water at Lake Maspanok. So, it would be down in that area that I identified as the approximate limit that we borrowed from Mass GIS. So, um we are on a a different system. We were solving the problem with the septic system and hadn't concerned
ourselves with um the flood zone location. So I feel that is uh south and east of the the work area. So if you feel these issues are something that needs further study um I would be back on the 16th and I would give me time to
talk to to Ralph and and work out a couple of those particulars. >> But if you need a decision now I can certainly make one. But >> yeah, I think before we can vote and make a decision, we would just want to address, you know, some of the cleanup
cleanup comments and and plan comments. So, >> I did >> I don't have I think it's, you know, I think it's a very positive project um getting the septic system away from the the lake, right? >> Um so certainly in favor of of it.
>> Ralph has chosen a contractor. Jeff Diana will be installing the work. I spoke with him multiple times and then this afternoon he does not anticipate uh an awful lot of stockpile need for stockpile. Um he'll be moving very quickly. He doesn't see it as a very sophisticated job. So u that limit of
work certainly functions in his mind and there won't be a a tremendous need for long-term soil stock piles. So that issue that Joe mentioned I think it based on this contractor and what he sees um should not be a problem for us.
Joe Orzelle, did you have something else you were going to just add? >> Uh, no. I think that covered it. >> Okay. >> Um, anyone else on the commission have questions on this or any thoughts?
>> I just had a question about the this was on septic or is on septic >> is on septic now. Yes. >> I don't see that anywhere on the plan and I does that >> the approximate location of existing leechfield. Okay. >> With the dash line that square behind the home,
the tank is under the deck. There's a cutout with a hatch >> circular tank or is that? >> Yeah, it's a square cutout to reach a circular tank, right? >> So that's under the wooden deck and the leech field is lakeside.
>> So the tank will stay and >> will have to be demolished. That was a condition in the permit from the DPW and a requirement of the board of health. So somehow that'll be pumped and filled. My expectation is some kind of slurry, some
kind of concrete slurry to fill that in completely. Getting there with sand would be a bit problematic. >> That's what I was also wondering about, but it sounds like you've discussed that with the DPW about decommissioning. >> It's got to happen. And the idea was
something that we could maybe arrive on a truck flowable fill some although that is expensive. It's a way to get there through a hose rather than with a dump truck and a excavator. >> DPW and and the board of health will take care of all the >> Right. Both Yeah, both groups have a
requirement that it be dismantled and both will want to weigh in. >> All right. And then the other question I had is uh about the the little finger of property that uh where the line is going to go. Is there any kind of requirement
and the and the land uh to you know that can't be separated? >> Right. That was covered by Kerry Reach. She asked for some language from the attorney. That was another one of the conditions in their approval that a restriction be placed so that those two
parcels can't be separated and that that line still remains viable in per in perpetuity. >> Was it were they already split in those like the three sections that that lot that he crosses >> that I think that was a way to expand
Priscilla Road into another phase that never happened. And when Ralph saw the opportunity, he bought both of those so that his parcel and the one next to him would stay undeveloped and he'd have a little extra land. I don't think he ever planned this for this to be the use, but
it certainly works out. >> Yeah, convenient. >> Where is the driveway actually? Is that on the >> There's a parking area there and then it sneaks around to the right to the north the road side of the existing garage.
>> Okay. Okay. >> So, we should just show that limit right there. >> And so, that's where vehicles would access most, >> right? Yeah. I think the construction is going to come from Priscilla. I imagine they'll work back through that lawn area, but if they need to drop off supplies or make a quick trip to the
site, they'll park on the asphalt. Just easier that way. >> Ark Road is a paved road. >> Yes. Yeah. It's a paved driveway. It's a driveway they share. Oh, Ark Road is a driveway or a road. >> It's It's called the road. We never
researched the history of it. They call it a road. It >> sure looks like a drive to me. It's about 12 14 ft wide. Pavement in poor condition. We just went with what the neighbors think >> since all the work was from
>> Priscilla. Looks very narrow. >> Y >> on Google Maps. All around the topic of the septic system in the Bora health, are there any conditions associated with the leeching field that they're asking you to fulfill? >> No, just to decommission the tank.
>> So no no disturbance of that grade, right? >> And there's no changes in grade proposed. >> Nope. >> So from a flood plane perspective, if it's easy to add to the plan, I think it's worth including. But if it's a complicated effort, then >> yeah,
>> made changes. It really could be a effort and paperwork. >> Yeah. To just to put the line on the plan, I think is what Joe was always asking. >> Yeah. Would require a conversion to any VD88 from our assumed system. >> Yeah.
>> So, not a dramatic issue, but my point was we're well away well away from that area and well above it. >> Yeah. >> But we can certainly add it if if you feel it's necessary to to flesh out the plan. Um, I mean, I think for consistency of
what we're asking for people to include on the plans along the lake, if we can add that, that would be great. But I don't anticipate that that's going to change anything, >> you know, as far as how we feel about the project or >> require anything different. >> I think I think it's your point is well
taken. It it will check the box, but it's not going to have material effect on the design, >> right? Um, does anyone from the audience have any questions or comments on this application? Okay. Um, with that, I think continuing out to
the 16th. Is that okay? >> That works for us. Sure. >> All right. Can I get a motion to continue this out to December 16th? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Great.
>> Well, thank you. All right. Next up, we have 15 Montana Road. This was requested to be continued by the applicant. However, we still need to open the hearing. Um, so Ted's going to read it. Happy >> to do that.
The Hopkin Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 at 7 PM at the Hopkin Senior Center, 28 Mayhew Street to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Edward Kelly
for after the fact approval of a barn, chicken coupe, paddics, and associated site work. Location 15 Montana Road. Assessor's map U19 block 40 lot A.
>> You're back, Joe. >> I'm back. >> Are you here for this one? This 15 Montana. >> Uh I guess the comments from uh Lucas were not available yet. So at the suggestion of uh Judy and Anna, we asked
for continuence till the 16th to allow us all to gather those comments and take a review. >> Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to continue this out to the 16th? >> So moved. Second. >> All right. All in favor?
>> I I thank you. >> Um All right. Next up we have Hopington Trails Committee Chamberlain Street Loop Road continuation. >> Chuck, that's you. >> Large rooms do not work well for Chuck
and his auditory stuff. Well, thanks for coming out. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I was plugged into HC cam so that I could hear what was going on. They've got about a minute delay >> now. I'm close enough to here.
>> Okay. >> So, Peter Lgoy, 21 Hayden Row Street and chair of the trails committee. >> Uh Chuck Doy, 25 Sanctuary Lane. Um sort of an associate of the trails committee. >> Yes. our technical expert.
>> All right. So, you guys have an update on You still don't have a DP number, unfortunately. >> Um, I I hope that D is not going through all 94 pages of the storm water report.
If they are, it's understandable that uh we don't have a file number yet, but um I did um uh send an email yesterday um just asking what the status was. So um hopefully we'll have a response
before the 16th. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. And then I understand the other issue was with regard to whether the trail comes down on the south side of that detention pond that's out by the loop road or where it is originally
planned or planned on or shown on our plan which is on sort of the north side of that. >> Right. And um really we don't care too much either way, but just to give you folks some understanding about what's what we're
planning long term over there. Um the idea of putting that trail in there as stone dust. Um the thought was that at some point we want to continue the upper Charles Trail um to Milford. So
from the center trail along the toe of the um loop road sidewalk slope. Um that's why I was interested in the orange flagging and exactly where that wetland is. >> Um and then from there around behind
Charles View connect to Hughes cross granite go down Echo and ideal and over to Milford that way. Um that's not anything that's in the near horizon though. Um probably something that's happened that's something that's newer
but um more likely to happen u in the near term is that the high school cross country team has decided they're no longer going to run their races down at the Hopman State Park. They want a cross country course in by the school mostly
on school grounds. One of the loops is going from um that route. So coming off the center trail along the toe of the slope just inside of the the wetlands and then connecting to this um which could be
either stone dust or just a cut path through the woods for the cross country runners. They don't need the stone dust particularly. Um our our goal is to have the whole course off asphalt so they don't want to be up on the sidewalk but down at the toe will work. And then the
the idea there was stone dust for a little way. So ultimately this will probably be stone dust in some form over here. Um but does it need to be for for this particular project? No.
>> Okay. I appreciate that additional detail on the use of the trail. sort of what's thought we'd let you know what's coming so you can you know >> when when do you want to see it now when it's you know we've worked through it or or wait >> yeah I think the feeling and and anyone
can chime in here but um would be we try to avoid kind of trails and paths and driveways and roads to no to nowhere kind of scenarios um and really have a purpose when you know we're approving
plans um cuz who knows just what the future holds and if things change between now and then on you know even where you want that path to go. >> Um so my thought would be to not
create this portion of the stone stone dust path just stick with you know what makes sense for today and now and and what we need. I don't have a problem with the cross country trail that's not stoned up, you know, just a more traditional
>> trail connection right there. Um, that would be fine with me. Um, I'm open to thoughts from others on the commission on that, but that's a little less invasive. Um, not worried about the stone dust wa then I don't have to worry about the stone dust washing into the
wetland. Um, it's kind of more of a maintenance of the burm that's there really. Um, I don't know. Any thoughts, Ted? >> I agree. As as a cross country coach, they don't normally run on stone dust anyway. They run on the championship
races are on moan grass, so or woods trails. Um, >> and uh, yeah, I worry about although this is different from the what we call the cross country trail. my first meeting with you, Peter, way back in the way back, there was some trouble with
that stone dust for a couple years and that scares me here as well. So, yeah, I I'm with Melissa. If it were just a walking moan path, if other things change in the future, let's have a discussion about Stone Dust in the future.
>> Okay. So, um procedurally then would you um need a revised plan um or uh could it be done simply through the order of conditions
um indicating that um you know from the loop road uh to the cleared area on field 11 uh that there be uh no stone dust simply a cleared earth path. Is that um
>> um >> I think you could probably notate that. >> Yeah. And send >> Do you have Do you have any My only hesitation with not having a plan change is it it notes stone dust in this area.
So, I mean, if you can like take off the little dots or have some indication of the area that's not to be stone dust, um, I would hesitate to condition it if the plan depicts that this should be stone dust, >> right? Maybe if you I mean, I assume you
going back to the engineer is kind of a pain to get a revised plan, right? >> That's a consideration. If you can notate on the plan, even on the PDF with a box of some sort around the area that's highlighted,
>> say this will be moon grass. >> Yeah, >> we did we did this for Hughes. There was going to be a trail that went out to um the Deerrun neighborhood that the Deer Run neighbors didn't want. >> So that I took that off the plan and I
think it was a combination of a letter and then just marking on the plan. Okay. >> And that work. So I I'll check and see what that is and suggest it to to Judy. And >> yeah, we can we can annotate the >> Yeah. >> Um
PDF of the uh full scale plan. >> Yeah. >> And then because we're exist we're keeping to existing road, there's no issue there. Um because I'm sure we're close to wetlands on that side as well, but we
obviously didn't delineate that. >> You mean >> on the actual access road down to that uh field 11 right in there? Exactly. >> Just to the right or the lower end is is almost certainly somewhat in there
>> so there would be no change there, >> right? until we u intersect with the designed road here at at which point um then we would pick up um stone dust or do you want to avoid stone dust until we
get to the old woods road? >> I think we're fine with stone dust after that curve. >> Yes. Okay. >> Right. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's where I would see the stone dust would be right where the >> hand. Yep.
>> Good. That enables us to deal with a a little wet spot uh in the, you know, compacted road >> just where the wetland's closing there. >> Yeah. No, I think that's fine. >> Okay. I think we're on the same page.
>> Peter, I'm curious. Uh do you have This is outside of this. Do you have a concept map of the new cross country route? I'd love to see it if you wouldn't mind. >> Sure. Email >> Judy has it actually. >> Oh, really? >> I I sent I sent it over tonight at what about five o'clock? So, >> I don't know what you're talking about
that route looks like. I'd love to see that. >> The latest I can send it to you. >> Oh, I do have it. >> Maybe Judy can send it to >> Okay. >> Yeah. I actually I sent it and I said, "Oh, we probably don't want to put this up there because we can go down that rabbit hole and be here for a half hour
looking at it. I will send you >> knowing >> knowing your occupation. >> But yeah, I'd actually be happy with your thoughts on it. There's a couple of interesting >> and I think it's great leaving the park and all the people they run on in the park. >> Yeah, I agree.
>> That's not real cross country. And the team as good as the ones we have deserve a real cross country course. >> Well, we we did the one for the middle school kids. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And they started they turned into absolute snobs. My son was one of them. And it's like
this cross country course is on asphalt. >> Oh my god. Anyway, >> them up. Yeah. All right. >> Like father like son. >> What? The snob part or the cross part? >> Take your pick.
>> Thanks, Ed. >> All right. Can I get a motion to continue this out to December 16th? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you both.
>> Have a great Thanksgiving. >> Thanks. >> You all, too. Thank you. >> All right. Next up, we have 47 Ours Road. This is a notice of intent continuation for a single family house. >> Before I kick this off, Judy, is it
possible to have um both color mitigation plans? The one I submitted? >> Yep. I do have both. So, let me know when you want me to switch over. >> Perfect. Yeah, I figured for comparison we can start with the one from um >> from most recently >> this one. >> Yeah, I'll go I'll go with the mitigation plan just because it's
colored up. I think it's easier. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thank you guys. Nice to be in person. It's been a while. Um again, for your records, I'm Andrew Tibo, the wetland scientist with with Goddard Consulting. Um I know at this point the commission is is well familiar with the project. So, I'll give a brief kind of recap of
what we last discussed in October and then um what we've taken into account since then. So, we were last with you all on the October 22nd hearing. That was the hearing in which we had added a slot drain to the patio to assist with with the runoff coming from the patio itself. Um at that time we were
discussing that although the drywalls on the property were sized for the full imperous surface um square footage of the lot in actuality the runoff that would hit the patio would still continue to run down gradient as there wasn't a drain there. So we added that slot drain to um to directly address that concern.
And then we also clarified that there were two um previously existing portions of heartscape prior to all that unpermanented work. it was the approximately 200 foot patio that we show in gray in the center of the site and um the shed that's about 144 square feet at the bottom of that photo. So at
that point that was sort of the I think it might have been hearing number four or five for us and that was kind of a string of we would make a couple additions here and there. We would come back and um go over our revisions. And so at that meeting, you know, in an attempt to directly address the concerns of comm of the commission and and bring
this full circle and forward as fast as possible, I sort of directly asked the commission to give us the rest of their concerns, the things that were holding the review of the project back and um everything that we needed to directly address to to bring this uh more with the intent of the bylaw. So the commission gave us a
few concerns at that time. We still had portions of the existing or the proposed house that were within the 50oot no build zone to Lake Maspanok. We were having a discussion that there was some impervious um foundations underneath the existing deck. We were holding that as the limit of our imperous surface cover,
but that was still holding um at least a decent portion, you know, three to four to five foot encroachments into the 50 foot no build zone. And so that was a concern that we were asked to address. We had the discussion that it is, as the commission knows, we're permitting after the fact hardscape installation. And
there was concerns expressed with the amount of hardscape, the total square footage, and to see what we could do about reducing the coverage of that. Um, and then we also had a discussion that the mitigation that was being proposed, there was concerns that that was adequate for what was being requested, including the after the fact work. So
since then, um, that was really helpful for us to hear those concerns directly and the the most recent materials that you all received. And I know that was not long before the meeting, so I'm happy to run through them and answer any on the spot questions that come up, but we've attempted to directly address each of those. So you'll see in this revised
version here, the the orange that we see for the proposed dwelling has been reduced to be entirely outside of the 50-ft no build zone to Lake Massock. Previously, we had about three foot encroachments beyond. Um, Judy, if that old plan is easy to switch to with the old mitigation plan,
>> the old mitigation plan, >> if you have it, just because it shows the the orange comparison, it's not the end of the world. It would just show how much we cut back. It was approximately um threeish feet in most spots, but we pulled it entirely out of the 50 um to address the concern. Oh, that's perfect
right there. So, that orange shows where we had encroachments into the 50 foot. So you'll see in the northern sections we were we were making the case that we were holding that existing limit of foundation underneath the existing deck and then spreading it laterally across the lot. Um but what that was doing was still keeping some portion of the
structure within the 50. We had had the conversation that you know though it may be difficult architecturally and that's why we were keeping that design that's not necessarily the intent of the bylaw and so we had reduced that that structure to get it entirely out of the 50 as we see here. Um, additionally, actually, while we're on this one, that
existing shed that we see in gray at the bottom of that photo, there's an existing deck there, that's the sort of furthest protruding structure towards the bank of Lake Maspan, that would be within the commission's 25 foot zone. Um, and then it's it's directly adjacent to the lake. So, hearing the concern about the amount of hardcape that we are
seeking um an after the fact approval for, that would seem like the most logical portion to cut as it's the closest to Lake Maspan. It's also directly adjacent to an area that we're trying to restore with native plantings. And so the removal of that would address the concern of both the limits of the heartscape, the proximity of the
heartscape, and then allow us room for more plantings as well. So if you don't mind going back to the most updated plan. So what we did is the site plans were revised. We added a note that that existing deck is now to be removed from the property as part of the project. And that also gave us more planting room. So
we were able to address that that comment as well. So when we were last with you in October, we were proposing 91 mitigation plantings in the rear of the property. Um since then, we now added an additional 19 low bush blueberry. So that's the fuchsia purpley color that we see in the in the middle
of the restoration areas. So that area with the previous proposal was portions of of the existing deck there. It was portions of of lawn that was originally proposed to to be maintained. So, we've expanded the mitigation area. This now
puts us to 110 plantings around the property. It expands the area in which we're removing lawn and removes that deck. And it al it also adds an additional species that was not originally included in the planting plan. So, those are the revisions we've made. The attempt has been to to listen
to the concerns that we heard and and address them directly. I know that the commission did not have a ton of time to review the materials. I hope that the comparison um right now is helpful, but if you do have any more questions, I'm I'm more than happy to answer them here. >> All right. Thank you for that
description and update. Um and for moving the building out of the 50 foot buffer definitely appreciated. Um yeah, this didn't have much time to
digest and look at it beforehand um with the notice here. And the other thing I know Jim is not in the meeting. Oh, we do have two four. Okay. Yeah. Um >> try and make sure that commission members who have been,
you know, present for all the meetings are >> Yeah. Quorum concerns when they go on for a while. No, I appreciate that >> discussion. >> Absolutely. Um Joe Orzelle, you did you have time to look at this update?
>> I did not. Okay. >> Um just uh hearing the the changes right now that were made. Um >> so I really didn't have time to to look at it in any detail. >> Yep. Okay. Um,
I think my preference would be to continue to give a little more time just to digest these changes. But I do want to open it up to the board and see if anyone based on what was presented tonight has any thoughts, comments, questions on this latest version of
plans. Um, Walter too, I know this is new to you. We've been looking at it for quite a while, but um >> I'm mostly looking at it from my experience on the board of appeals. I mean, have you been before the board of appeals about setbacks? >> So, they actually they on this lot, they actually got an approval to move the
front yard setback up 10 feet early on in the process. Just >> I mean the twoft setback on the front corner of the house. I mean, that's >> Oh, that I have to get you an answer on. Yep. >> I believe they have addressed all of that, but I that's something that we can definitely confirm. I mean it's it's not
our domain but >> No, it was just something important to be aware of. Of course, >> they have a lot to work with here between sideyard setbacks, front yard setbacks, buffer setbacks. It's it's a it's been through a lot of iterations. >> Yeah, especially because the existing conditions looks like the proposed I
mean the existing home is is is almost compliant with the setback on the side on that uh north side, I believe it is. >> Yep. But you're you're expanding that substantially.
So, but as I say, that's a question for the board of appeals, but you should be prepared for that. >> Absolutely. >> May he may be back to see us with a revised house. >> Yeah, I believe they've worked on all that already. Um because just because we had to they had to work on they had to
relocate a utility pole. They had to get approval to move the setbacks up. There was a lot that went into this to to prepare for this application. And so I I believe that it's all set, but it is worth, you know, confirming that before any hearing closes on this. >> So you have been before the board of appeals. >> I have not personally. It would have been the engineers. So they're not here
tonight. >> Somebody back there. >> You can come up and speak if you like. >> That would be the homeowner who can certainly speak to that. >> So their their engineers handle that portion of the process. >> I just wanted to chime in. Yes, we did. >> Thanks. >> Can you just state your name and address? >> Tyler DeWalt and I actually live at 470
Kirst. >> Okay, great. Um, yes, we went in front of ZBA and we got it approved to also move it up like Andrew said and on the on the side the northerly side there we got that approved too. >> Two foot. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you for
>> it. It was way I had to go up >> uh for now. Yes. >> Um, it's been a while. What did we decide about the steps into the lake? My memory is but again I get confused with 37 ochres
>> but my memory is that that was approved to be rebuilt but it was rebuilt in a way that wasn't approved. >> You are correct. So >> remind me what the fix for that is now. >> Yep. So there the commission had during the 2020 review process for this said that it would be okay to restore it in
its place but it would have to be done in place. We found out during the survey that there's just one step that protrudes into the lake. We went through that. and we added a note to the plans that that's going to be hand removed at the time of the project approval. So, it's going to bring it back into compliance. >> Um, what is the deck that you're now proposing to be removed? What is that
made of? >> Thank you, Judy. >> It's a wood deck. >> Yeah, we may have photos that in the application. >> Yep. It's a wood deck. >> Photos. It's likely the notice of intent had some and we we would have some to provide if that's helpful as well. But
it's a wood deck there now. So we we're proposing to now remove it and significantly increase the plantings that are within that area. >> Although I I did notice you pulled plantings further away from the steps down from the there's the wood deck. Okay. >> Um
when I compared the plantings there are more plants, but you've also kind of moved around where they are. Judy, do you have um that photo we refer to often for the the plantings as a as a barrier between lawn and lake that we often look at
>> the lakeshore landscaping? >> Let me pull that up. >> That would be helpful. I can address that. We did move the plantings around a little bit. The the goal with this is to create clusters of the same species. And so when we added low bush blueberry, I thought it would be better for that to be directly below. So we clustered those and we shifted some of the the high bush and the um hydrangeas that are a little
bit taller more to the sides. What I'm interested in um when it comes to the plantings is a solid buffer between lawn and lake. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> And we still have quite a bit of lawn
that is not buffered. Um >> can you scroll through that maybe J? >> Yeah, >> there's one there's like an architectural rendering or something that we often see. I don't know if this is the same
document or not. >> Do you know the one I'm talking about? >> Yeah, I think this is it. It's just >> you just got to keep scrolling. >> Yeah. >> Lots of info. >> Oh, no. >> Here we go. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, what I like about this drawing is
there's still access to the lake. It is a curved path so that there is no straight shot from the lawn to the lake for runoff to to get into the lake. That there are plantings protecting the lake at every moment even with access to the
lake still allowed. Um that's a model that I've been hoping that our lakefront residents move towards and I don't think the plantings proposed here are necessarily doing that. I appreciate more plantings, but the lake protection
goal of it, I don't think is necessarily being met. >> No, I appreciate this. That is helpful feedback. I know. Yeah, as of present, we sort of have the the direct access down the lawn with the plantings on the sides. That's something I'm happy to take a look at and sort of discuss with the homeowner. think at least on my
experience as a single family house slot now I think the quantity of plantings here is is significant and at least in my opinion sufficient but I think that the the locations and the design of them I think there's certainly room for discussion to see what we can accomplish this this is actually a helpful graphic if this is available on the website I'm happy to take a look at it >> I can send it to you too
>> with the addition of the the slot drain too I think that was >> we were trying to address that with the runoff right from the patio the slot drains would collect most of that >> I'm thinking lawn runoff >> you're thinking lawn lawn runoff >> is yeah
>> I think in any runoff but a a portion of that is lawn runoff >> and I think so that based on that thought I think at least on this property and actually the plan that Judy has up here is fine the that would be difficult to accomplish because if we look at the the patio now there's sort of the existing retaining wall the first set of steps to lead down to the lower
lawn and then the second set of steps so it the the whole sort of design of the lot in in construction is designed to have straight access through the rear and I I think all of the existing structures that are there that would make that level of a design difficult to
maintain. I think that certainly for new development projects is really cool for stuff like that to do. I think that at least the the concepts of it can be addressed. I think you know there's probably wiggle room to shift plantings around a little bit and at least address that thought. I think that would be difficult to do here. But I think
with the level of plantings that are that are going in, I think the fact that it's still lawn beneath it and is still pvious and the deck being moved, I think, you know, a slight shifting in some plantings and some creativity could definitely address that concern and >> still maintain the existing aesthetics.
>> And I guess that gets to my last comment. I I am very appreciative that the proposed new dwelling has been moved outside of the 50. If these were two separate applications, I think I would have two separate reactions. Um, I like that the deck is being removed, but I
don't know what the official definition of hardscape is. To me, a deck is like semi hardcape. The water still runs through the the planks. >> Correct. >> The patio, if this patio were proposed, I would probably push back and say that
is a lot of hardscape, well within the buffer zones. Can we redesign it to have more plantings to have that model? It's a it's an unapproved massive hardscape that is now perhaps creating a difficulty to have plantings
that serve what barrier plantings might serve. So when I was looking for a reduction of hardscape or a massive increase of plantings, I feel like we got a reduction of again I don't know what the definition of hardscape is, but
semi hardcape >> with some plantings that still aren't acting as a buffer. >> That's a no and I and I appreciate that thought. I think in this case we're using it to describe anything that was constructed. So even if it's a pvious stack, things like that is because it is
still >> it alters drainage patterns, but it also creates, you know, it there's no there's no native buffer there now. So that's what we're using it for. But I think >> I think that's helpful. And I I believe even prior to this unpermitted work, we have the old plan in our original notice intent application that there was still
a straight shot from the wall stairs down to the second set of stairs. So I think that that concern is always going to be there, but I think the concern of course of of after the fact approval is is one we're trying to juggle here. So that that's helpful feedback. All right. >> And that's what we're looking at at tonight's meeting. Right. Made some some
substantial um improvements, but if there are remaining comments and concerns, we definitely want to hear them so we can when we come back, we'll we'll try to tackle them head on. >> Thank you. I know they uh sounds like they moved it outside the 50 foot buffer zone, but it's still uh closer than the existing
dwelling, which typically we don't like for new prop new construction to go closer to the lake than the the current property is. I mean, is there any reason you couldn't move it a couple feet further closer to the
uh >> Yeah. So, I can actually address that because that's something we discussed. I'll have to stand up for it because it's gonna be tough to see, but that's something we discussed at the last meeting a little bit. So, the the existing limit of what you'd call impervious, the existing deck that's there now, because of the color plan, it's a little bit harder to see, but it would be this dashed black line in the
middle here. That's where there's a deck that protrudes up off the existing house. It's actually like a concrete foundation under it. And so, it's a limit of an impervious structure. And so, we were actually holding the line closer based on that >> but the concerns were at least the limit of the structure of the commission to try to pull it out of 50
>> and that's why. So, in my opinion, actually is still holding that line of what's currently there and impervious and disturbed. Um so the intent would be to leave the design as it is here but that was something that we discussed quite a bit and that was our >> new deck is but the new deck is going to protrude closer to the >> it's going to be just on peers um and
there's not this be no new foundation or anything underneath it. So we won't be expanding any of that existing impervious any further. So it's meant to be in areas where there's currently patio it would just be the deck over the patio. So it wouldn't change the drainage patterns there. And then if it's lawn underneath it, like in the northern section, it would say lawn
underneath it. >> Okay, that answers my question. >> Absolutely. >> Anyone else, Ed or Matt, have anything? >> You already had a discussion, it sounds like, about the existing hardscapes that were not permitted.
>> Yes. So, this um So, we're looking at this as as those existing that were not permitted are part of this application >> and what we're looking at. And so, whatever is there is what we will be voting on. >> Okay.
>> Um overall combined. Yeah. >> I haven't had a chance to look at all the files, but is there a notice of intent for the whole project? >> Yes. >> It's in our >> It's Yeah, there's a lot. We can probably go even have a sidebar on this one.
>> Okay. >> Because there's a lot. Yeah. >> Yeah. I saw the folder's pretty big. So, >> there is a good paper trail of we can help >> materials back and forth. So, hopefully it's easy to map out. We We try to >> certainly help you out on that, >> Walter. Because it's a lot to catch up on this one. Um there's
>> So, it sounds like we're all good on the house location if I'm hearing everyone correctly. So that leaves the >> Thank you for confirming that >> unapproved hardscape within the buffer zone. And then Ted's question about the plantings
along the lakefront. Those are the two outstanding items. >> Right. >> I think we talked about the plantings. Is there anything we need to talk about on the hardscape? >> Like what is the hardscape? Well, we
know what the hearts gave, right? It's the pink shown on this plan. >> Well, yeah, I know what it is on the plan, but maybe >> you're talking materials again, >> right? If I may, if I may ask a direct question, then I would the question I would ask the commission is it seems like the location of the updated
dwelling is acceptable with the addition of the slot drain to handle the actual drainage from the patio, the increase in mitigation plantings, and then the the caveat that it sounds like we're going to take another look at sort of the design of it. Is the commission amendable at the end of this to
approving this hardcape after the fact if the remainder of those criteria are met? Like is this acceptable as is is the question that I would pose from that because our our intent is to permit the heartscape after the fact as the commission's well aware of. The intent is to work with you guys. We heard storm
water concerns. The slot train's been added. Mitigation concerns I think we can address even further. So our attempt is certainly to do that. It it's easiest for us and obviously the best outcome for us to to permit it after the fact. But that's the question I would ask is at least based on what you see now, >> are we leaning towards that that this can be approved as part of this notice
of intent? >> I have a couple more questions about the hardscape that's existing. Uh you mentioned a slot drain. Is that on the plan? >> It is. And then in this colored plan, it's right on that cursor. Yeah, it's shown in that like blue uh dash line there. And it's connects to the
drywalls. >> So where's the drywall? >> There's actually two. So the front roofs are split in the southwest corner of the figure there. >> DW Okay. Yeah, the roofs are split and so originally the roofs were split. Front would go to the front drywalls back to the rear and then the patio just had essentially just classic runoff. So
we added that slot drain that now connects into that rear drywall >> and the two dry the two drywall locations are new in the project. >> So yes, there's no there's no storm water management currently and that's one of the major additions of this uh and benefits is that we're so they the engineers simulated one inch of runoff
over all of the existing impervious surfaces including what's there at present day. What is the grade of the existing uh patio? Is it graded towards the lake? Is it graded towards the slot drains? >> It's very very shallow grade, but the general pitch of the property is just
slightly towards the lake. And so the slot drains would would shake the runoff and >> catch all the runoff. >> Correct. That's exactly why they were added. >> Did we get a a detail on the slot drain? Like the side, how big is that? >> Not yet, which is actually something I talked to the engineer about. They plan on providing that. So if that's helpful,
we can definitely have them add that to the plans. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that was one thing that we had asked about. >> Yeah, I make that note. We'll get that to you guys on on the next set. >> Um yeah, to I guess to kind of get back to
both your plan, Matt's to get to the finish line on this. >> Definitely. Yeah, that's exactly our hope and that's why I'm asking more direct questions now because we want to try to bring this to a close for the homeowner. So that's that's my question is if we can continue to make these additions and provide mitigation
elsewhere on the lot, is this acceptable or can this be acceptable is probably a better way to phrase it >> without I'm trying to pick language that doesn't >> uh overly pin me down. I find the amount of hardcape
>> unapproved very very frustrating. >> For me to look past that would take a dramatic increase in plantings. >> That's I think the way I want to phrase it on the record. >> No, I think that's helpful for us to
hear. I you know I to be candid with you I think 110 plantings is probably the most I've ever proposed on a single family house lot of this of this size. It is substantial and I think that >> the hardcape is substantial. >> Exactly. And and that's a fair conversation back and forth >> that if this were originally proposed
and unbuilt that we wouldn't be looking for changes to that plan of hardscape. >> Well, thank you. I think that that feedback is honest and helpful. So I I understand and that's something for us to discuss. So thank you for providing that. Um, >> would it be helpful if we had a
calculation of the existing hardscape within the 25 foot buffer and the in the net increase in heartscape within the 25 foot buffer to inform our plant count? >> Sure. >> I think so.
>> Absolutely. And actually, that's we actually did provide peerreview comment responses today to to Lucas' peer review. is we understand that that wouldn't have been able to be reviewed before the meeting, but um one of their comments there was two comments that were sort of left to address and one of them is to provide updated um tables and square footages because we have
updated buffer zone impacts based on the modifications to the project that we haven't quantified in quite a bit of time. And the the other thing is is we also have VLSF on the property now that we've been discussing. So we provided those today. So that's actually already been calculated. So it's actually pretty easy for us to evaluate that and provide that. So I think that's that's helpful.
My sense is that would help the discussion on the plant count, right? Understanding are we talking couple hundred square feet, we talking thousand square feet, like where do we sit on that spectrum of additional hardscape in that first 25 ft, which I'm hearing is more of the concern area.
>> Um, from a storm water perspective, right, the additions of the drywall I think were were welcomed. The slot drain makes a lot of sense. Having that detail and just confirmation that the inverts are going to work, taking flows from that slot drain, getting it to the
drywall, that'll be good information for us to have. So, we do know those are getting to be. >> Yeah, I think that goes a long way too for future maintenance and homeowner awareness on that slot drain.
>> Absolutely. And that's always an important piece of it >> details in there. Um, >> looking at the existing conditions, it looks like there's several large trees. There's one over in this uh southeast corner. It looks like it's now all going
to be shrubs. Is you planning to remove any >> no >> trees? You're right. There is a large tree there and it it'll stay >> in the tree on the north side of the patio. >> It'll stay. Yeah, it's a beautiful tree. >> Yeah, >> we want it to stay. That might be ought to ought to be part
of the plan so that we know. >> It may be helpful to show it too. >> I think all the north looks like it's there. >> It looks like it is there. It's in >> That's exactly what it is. Yeah. >> Yep. I wonder the southeast is not on there. >> You're right. That that large one in the
south. Yeah, it should be there. >> Bush blueberry is right now. >> It's there. It may not have been surveyed and shown on the plan, but we can we can so we can edit this plan to approximate that in from aerials because it may shift a few of the plantings around a little bit that may bump them even a hair further which would be
helpful. And then we can color the other the other tree to remain as well just so it guides the conversation a bit better with these. But the intent is not to remove any trees. And then off of that, the the dark green circles that you see running the bottom of this of this plant here are all arborites that were planted previously. Also all to remain as well.
So there's no the intent of this is to remove significant portions of lawn and convert it to a native landscape, but nothing nothing will come down. >> Removed to put in the unapproved hardscape. >> No. >> And we do we did have some photos in the NOI from 2020 that show us the lawn and old patio.
>> The only thing that was removed to put in that patio was grass. >> I mean, we left there's a patio that we went over that patio, but the only thing that was removed was >> grass. >> Okay. And when you add the slot SL drain
to that, I would imagine that has to be a positive in our eyes, right? That instead of having runoff from the grass going to the lake, the runoff is going from the stone to the slot drain now, correct? And going into
the drywall. So, I I know it's after the fact and it's not the right way to do it, but isn't that a a positive and instead of seeing the water go directly into the the lake from the grass? >> Yeah. No, I think that I think you know through this process and adding that
slot drain was in my mind um a big positive and a you know requirement to get that water from the patio into the ground rather than having it >> run over into the lake. So, um,
yeah. Okay. Anyone from the audience on this one? No. Any last thoughts? I think I think that's a little laundry list to
>> get us to where we need to be in the next meeting. >> Yeah, I think that makes things clear for us. So, no, I appreciate you guys having an in-depth conversation tonight based on what was provided. >> We can we can take a look at this and that that sounds good to us. Absolutely. >> Okay. And if you can provide it with a
little additional time, we can uh >> That's always the goal and I this time of year is tough and I apologize for that. So again, we appreciate it, but we'll we'll make sure, especially knowing that we may be asking the commission to push towards a vote. We'll make sure you have adequate time to review all the materials before we do something like that. >> Okay, sounds good. Then can I get a
motion to continue this out to December 16th? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I. >> All right. >> Great. Thank you all. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. Nice to see you in person. >> You guys have a great Thanksgiving as well.
All right. Uh 37 Oakstar Road has continued to December 16th, so we won't be talking about that. Um we'll move back down to work session items now. So we have Halt Mightenwood's
exemption request for a trail bridge. Hello. Welcome. So, I'm Mory Gasser, uh, 28 South Mill Street, president of the Hopkin and Area Land Trust. Uh, this is a proposal for a
small, uh, 8ft bridge uh, to span a stream. Uh, what you see here is a generic bridge design uh, which we can adjust the length. So, it shows where the dimensions are are flexible. So,
that's going to be like that but 8t long. And uh the next page shows where it is. This is Mighton Woods off of East Street. Uh that little stream crossing over there. There are already three
bridges, well four I guess bridges across that stream for other trails. So >> that's where the circle is. >> Yeah. Where the circle go. Yeah. >> Yeah. That that stream actually originates within Maiden Woods. that flows out toward East Street.
Uh next, uh that's just an aerial view. Doesn't add much. And uh so that's a picture of the stream. It it was dry all summer. Uh so this is a picture of of when it's dry. Uh has water in it now.
Uh you could see the high banks. Uh so the bridge will be laying on top of the banks basically. And it's uh we'll spend with 8 ft. So that's it. >> Is there uh description of the construction
materials are going to be used like >> Yes. That's in the uh uh the second page. >> Pressure treated lumber and so forth to >> Yes. Yes. pressure PT PT uh 2 by6 PT uh
boards for the decking. and uh that it's not going to have any footings like shows there. It just can be resting right on the banks. Doesn't need any footings. In that case, the stringers will be uh two by they'll actually be in this case
2 by six corresponding to we use different size stringers depending on the length of the bridge. So that's a 2 by six in this case. So the bridge itself is just going to be like a rectangle, >> just a rectangular construction. We could you could pick it up and put it
down. We we'll build it on site. The the material will be cut ahead of time and we'll build it on site. >> Typically how we do all the bridges >> and no need for machines or bobcats or anything >> other than electric drill to screw in the >> Yeah.
>> What's the width of the stream banks bankto bank? >> It's it's less than eight. It's probably you know, the bank angles. Uh, it's >> just tough on the picture because there's no nothing to really measure. >> The eight feet will clear I I would
guess the stream is probably about six and so the bridge will overlap a foot on each side. >> So, you'll clear the bank. >> Yeah, we'll clear the bank. Oh, yeah. Yeah. There's no chance the water will ever get as high as the bridge. >> No, I'm just talking about where the where the bottom portion of the crossing
>> the bottom will be above. You don't want to be right on that bank because it's just going to erode and fall in. >> Oh, yeah. Right. >> Expand it by at least a foot or two. Yeah. >> Before you Yes. >> touch down. Yeah. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Is it Is it fairly level? Is the bridge going to >> It's going to be >> Yeah, we like to make our bridges
perfectly level because if it's on an angle, people will slip off when it's wet. >> So, we're going to try to make the bridge perfectly level >> just by adjusting the ground. You said there wouldn't be any >> Yeah. I mean, the stringers might be a little bit embedded into the ground. What we try to do is we want to make all
our trails bikable and so we don't want to have a big step up to the bridge. So we'll try to have the deck as close to the ground as possible. So the corners of the stringers might be a little bit embedded into the ground. Sometimes we'll actually attach a ramp
to the end of the bridge to make sure that it's a smooth entry. >> Mentioning you want it to be bicycle accessible. Is there any thought to like a 45 degree angle at the end instead of a 90 degree on? >> Well, that's what I that's what I mean.
We're going to try to avoid a step up. >> Okay. So, you will angle the >> Yeah, there might be that much but any more than that, you know, I don't know, three or four inches at most. >> But that you'll do that by lowering >> by lowering the bridge. We hope. Yes.
>> Not putting a 45 degree angle on. >> No, we have done that in other cases. Not 45 degrees, but we've built ramp >> little ramp up >> so that it >> Yeah. When when we couldn't put the bridge down, but I think in this case, we'll have the bridge even with the ground.
>> Looks pretty um pretty typical. >> Very typical. It's exactly the same as all our other bridges. >> Um anyone from the audience have any questions, comments? Anyone else on the commission? Good.
All right, let's go ahead and um This is exemp exemption request. Um can I get a motion to issue an exemption request for this trail bridge? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> All right, you're good. >> Thank you. >> Good to go. >> Mr. Thank you for the trails in Hopkin. >> Welcome. >> Done a great job with those.
>> Next up, PY Homes Legacy Farm North. Request for certificate of compliance. >> This is the one that >> you no applicant in attendance. >> So, I'm happy to give an overview of where we're at with this one. >> That'd be great.
>> It's a huge plan. So happy to scroll to areas of interest. Um the remaining comments weren't really plan-based, so I'll have it up here for reference. Um but to recap, this was uh an order of conditions issued in 2016 for constructions of portions of the
condominium complex um known as Legacy Farms North, uh portions of which were in Concom jurisdiction. PY originally applied for a COC for the um jurisdictional components back in 2023. Uh and the major comments from Lucas
back then um I believe have largely been addressed. So just to recap, they were asked to verify uh drip strips at a couple properties on Spruce uh were functional and installed correctly. Um they did provide verification of this.
We have it in the file. Um they were asked to remove all of the erosion controls as well as some construction debris. So we worked with them to locate um and have confirmed that those have all been removed. A lot of construction fencing in a pond. So
that's all gone. Uh Joe had observed a shallow eroded channel and I can try to find the location of this. Um behind the stormwater basin behind the
properties on Walnut Way. Uh might not be able to find the exact plan sheet. Um but between the applicant's engineer as well as Joe, they confirmed
that um runoff wasn't intended to be entirely redirected to the storm water basin. Um that water that was flowing in the eroded channel was um flowing as intended and wasn't meant to be intercepted. Uh there were a few PIBs that were
initially not able to be located um and one broken one that have all been located and replaced. So those looked good. As of November, we didn't see any mowing beyond the PIBs. Uh Joe had noticed that there were
invasive species on site, but invasives management was not a requirement of the order. uh he asked PY to confirm that the storm water on&m plan was sent to the HOA and we do have confirmation uh email proof of this. Um and then there was a
question about having them confirm vernal pool restoration planting was done as approved. Um the response to this was an invoice of the plantings which is in the uh public folder um between PY and the property manager
that's currently managing the site. I believe the outstanding comments have largely been addressed. Um if Joe has any that I didn't mention um would happen happy to turn it over to him. Um but I think largely I think they're in a good spot. But if there are questions that you all have that I can't answer,
I'm happy to take them back to the developer. >> Yeah. Joe, do you want to chime in with anything to add? Uh I think I'll just add that uh I think the only outstanding issue that I was aware of was the uh uh that eroded
channel that uh the question whether or not it was uh that drainage was supposed to flow to the uh storm water basin and uh I think that's adequately addressed. Uh and I don't I don't have any remaining um comments.
>> Okay. Is there a locust views just to see more closely where this is? >> Yeah, I know this is a a doozy of a plan set. Um, >> that's where it's going. That's where they're asking for the COC. Alston
Nurseries is here. Why am I not seeing walnut on here? pull up what the engineer sent for the runoff question. >> They're finished with this. They're just asking to for
>> the compliance. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And it's taken a little while. I know um Joe's reviewed it and had comments and that they've had to >> Okay. >> slowly address over time. Um, and just to be clear, this is for the whole
entire >> Yeah. >> project because it's condos. >> It's not individual properties >> or road. >> Okay. >> I don't remember, but it sounds like you're not >> plus
>> we don't do it that way anymore. I think that's how it a lot of the big developments used to be permitted. >> Um, but since have moved away from it. Yeah. For individual structures. >> Yeah. That was the only thing that kind of caught my eye. I was like, wait, the
whole thing? >> Yeah. I mean, so in this in the review for this COC, um, storm water basins, all of those things, the asbuilts would have been checked and reviewed,
right, and signed off by the by the storm water consultant. um with planning board. >> Um Judy, you you mentioned vernal poolool plantings, restorative plantings, and we have a a list. Do we know that they have successfully been
planted and are thriving? >> So Joe's original comment, I believe Joe, this was you, um was for confirmation of the plantings as approved because I believe they weren't observed in their entirety in 2023. So,
we have the invoice of the purchased plants. Um, so the question is whether that's acceptable for the commission. >> Yeah, I think we ran into this on another project recently. Um, and when
this much time passes, it's kind of hard to tell what has just grown and what was planted after a couple years. So, I think knowing that the restoration area is in good shape, okay, and having the invoice saying that they
did indeed buy some, you know, something specified plants. >> Um, >> took them to Western Nurseries and sold them, >> took them to a different development, maybe. >> Yeah. Um, I think I'm okay with it. Okay. That because the restoration area looks good,
>> Gordon Joe. So, um, all right. If there's nothing else, I I think I'd go ahead and ask for a motion to issue the certificate of compliance for Legacy Farm North. >> Make a motion. So, moved. >> Okay. And a second.
>> I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I We're in person. I'm trying not to step on your toes. Now, we're in person. I can make eye contact and say, "You going to do this? You gonna do this? All right. Next up, we have Toll
Brothers with a Pew Certificate of Compliance requests. >> Hello. >> Hi. >> Good evening, >> Melissa. Before we get started, >> y issue with the number of members for
these votes. I'm going to next five items on the agenda. >> Yep. >> I'm not employer. Okay. Yep. That's fine. >> Um, do you want to go how you have them listed here? Do you want to do them all
at once or what would be the best way to um go through these here? >> The first four felt like they went together. So, if we could stick with that, but if you have a preferred >> first four or three, >> sorry, I keep saying four. >> I'll take four. >> The first three.
>> Yeah. So, that would be 14, 20, and 24. Sorry, I know you like to go by street addresses. 58 Chamberlain, 25 Wayland, and 33. So, we'll start with 58 Chamberlain.
>> Um, so with all the I'm sorry, Matt Ashley with Bowler Engineering here on behalf of Toll Brothers. Um, so we've gone through a through a couple iterations here. Initially, we submitted the initial application. um as built uh
walked the site in review. Uh from there, Lucas Environmental went out um verified what we observed, added some additional comments to um wanted us to add to the site plan and some other observations on site. Um generally
agreed with our letter, which I think you'll find in his letters back to us. Um, specifically on 58 Chamberlain, um, the big thing here was just adding all the different site features out there, landscape beds, patios, uh, AC units,
whether they were in or outside of the jurisdictional buffer. We were going out there all anyway to pick up some other stuff. So, we went out and picked up all those features as well and added them to the asbuilt here. Um, the other big uh, item here was making sure we had the tree line um, on all the asbuilts going
forward. Um so that way anything going forward um you know you could generally see where the tree line was or if it changes over time which made sense to us. Um so after that um resubmitted those applications back in um um Judy and Anna
uh went out uh to take a look at it from that standpoint. Um and for this particular one um there really wasn't uh anything that was found. I believe at this point mowing has been good uh on this lot and everything's been
documented and and up to date. >> Judy, would you confer? >> Yep. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is this the property that's right next to the the the trail that connects to the trail network in the woods? >> No, I don't believe it is.
>> Well, it's I think the trail runs behind it. >> I'm looking at GIS and there is this little space here. I just didn't know that was >> I'm just trying to locate it in my >> It's not that big a deal.
>> I don't want to slow down. >> Sorry. Figure that out >> through the chair. >> Yes. >> This is the one the trail runs next to. >> It is. It is the trail just to the north of it.
>> Uh just to the left on left >> right. Okay. >> Does cover. >> That's what I thought. >> All right. Uh any questions, concerns? No.
All right. Can I get a motion to issue this certificate of compliance for 58 Chamberlain Street? >> So move to >> and a second. >> Uh amend that with signatures by Anna or Judy. >> So move
>> and I will second with the amendment. >> All right. All in favor? >> I I All right. 25 wheel. >> Sorry, I had a mouth out of order here. Uh 25 uh Wayland. Uh Matt Ash, I don't
know if I say this again. Matt Ashley with Bowler here on behalf of Toll Brothers. We'll keep it clean. Um so similar to the um previous discussion um same process submitted our application Lucas Environmental did a fieldw walk um
we addressed those updated the survey um or excuse me as built uh with additional features uh which you can see are primarily all outside of the jurisdictional buffer here. Um everything was basically aligned um from what we found. Um there was one comment
in there um about adding some additional grass seed. Um it was just a comment from being out on site. Uh however, it wasn't on this particular lot. It was in the area, but I know Tol has gone out there and basically reseeded everything um on site that they can during the the
fall growing season. Um so I'm sure that got taken care of, but um just wasn't a part of this um here. So just didn't want to mention it, but just wanted to bring that up. Uh other than that, um there was really nothing um additional out here at this point. Um mowing was
good. Um and all features were added. >> Uh Joe or Judy, did you have any thing to add or these look good to you? >> Yep. >> Yep. The uh bare areas along the driveway looked stable. Um and we did not see any mowing past the PIV.
>> Okay. Then can I get a motion to issue the certificate of compliance with signatures by Judy or Anna for 25 Street? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
>> Okay, to 33 Whan Street. Matt Ashley with Bowler here on behalf of Toll Brothers. Um similar story here. Um, I'll save the recap of everything again. Um,
everything has been added to the survey. Tree line, um, storm water, drainage features, PIBs, um, and mowing, uh, past the BIBs has not not been observed. Um, taking a quick look at my letter here, submitted to the town, if there's
anything, uh, specific that was done here. Um uh there was an area in between lots 31 and 33 Wayland um kind of in between it is outside of the jurisdictional uh buffer. However, uh that there was some erosion going on um
there from um I think the outfall of the drainage swale toll went in restabilized that whole area replanted um and it was in good condition when I was out there today. So other than that that's the story there. Okay. Y great. You too, Joe. Good.
Um, all right. Can I get a motion to issue the certificate certificate of compliance with signatures by Judy or Anna for 33 Whand Street? >> Some move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> All right. >> How am I doing, Ted? You're doing okay. I feel like you're shooting me the hairy eyeball. I didn't want to have upset you. >> Well, here's the deal. I can't turn my head to the right. So, if I >> Oh, okay. Maybe that's it.
>> Eyeball. That's a new one. >> I've never heard that. >> No. >> Really? >> Oh, yeah. >> I guess back a while. >> What's that? >> I said I guess we're getting old. >> I guess so. >> All right. 53 Chamberlain.
Uh 53 Chamberlain um Matt Ashley here math bowler that means toll you know the story. Um uh so similar to the last ones um as build has been updated with all the features inside and outside of the 100
foot wetland buffer. I was like that doesn't look like it. >> Struggling. >> Oh sorry. Um, and um, pretty much uh, everything on this lot I'd like to note is outside the the wetland buffer and the the PIBs are are
pretty far up uh, towards the rear of the property there. Um, so uh, any of the miscellaneous items that were noted during um, Luc's review or Drew's review have been addressed here. Uh the one comment that I'll say hasn't been fully
addressed is the the mowing which has been a reoccurring uh comment from the board um and al honestly from the applicant to Toll Brothers. They're not the ones mowing past the PIBs. This one has um certainly gotten significantly
better um from when we first came in out here and then Tol wrote a letter and I believe Judy and her team wrote a letter as well. And it really comes down to a single location on here. And yep, there you go. Um, so I'm just gonna walk to
the screen real quick. Um, so really you can see it back here that mowing has really stopped on the rear of the property at the pip and they came right down this line and it kind of hit this corner and it kind of juts out as that last P. Um, I was walking the site today
um, and still the case that I found out there and Honestly, what it almost kind of looks like is whoever's mowing down driveway one, which is consistent with lot one and why it's not in front of you right now, um may have just kind of came around the corner to clear that area
off. It doesn't seem like it's the the landscaper um or the applicant who lives out there that's doing that out there. And it's it's really small. Um and outside of the jurisdictional buffer, I do realize that the PIB barrier is there and it's there for a reason and it
should be respected. Um but I I would like to talk that through with the commission uh just to get your thoughts um based on the fact that it is outside the buffer and that the land owner um has since changed and they are working towards um keeping that all area extra
long back there. >> Um I certainly appreciate the efforts and obviously they're working the communication on on the buffers on the majority of the or the markers for the majority of the property.
Um, however, I think once we close the certificate of compliance and say it's okay, then we lose any leverage we have to
really hold that line and, you know, get get the homeowners to take it seriously >> through the chair. Why why wouldn't we just require they mulch that whole area which
is beyond the and why let it be grass? I mean and and tempt the homeowner if you just mulch the whole thing, cover over the grass, nobody's going to want to mow back there, >> right? they >> get make it try to return it to its you
know its natural state which is I think are the intention of the PIVs >> right I think was grass just kind of the default for stabilization as the construction process went on in areas that grading occurred >> I believe so yeah >> that's probably
um >> is that needed any longer that it couldn't be mulched or put in uh a line of bushes such that it uh wouldn't be tempting to the
homeowner to mow it. >> I think that would be I think we'd certainly like be amendable to that. And if they wanted to plant something or convert it to mulch, I would have no problem >> Yeah. >> allowing them to do that. But I think that's probably on the homeowner to say,
"Oh, let's change this to mulch." Um because it's not something that we necessarily required in our >> approach. Oh, in the original >> Yeah. >> order of conditions was not >> Yeah. It didn't specify, you know, it just said leave it to go natural or, you
know, don't maintain this area beyond these markers. >> I I have a question about this photo. Um, I don't know how many of the PIBs I can see going into the distance are associated with 53. Um,
>> but >> yeah, >> so past the rock is >> like right there. That's the last one right there. >> It all looks moan to me from this. >> The next one over is still mowing. >> So that's what's hard for me is trying to figure out where >> it's like the rock is the property line.
>> Okay. So, in front of the rock, it still looks moan to the left of the PIBs. >> So, it's hard to see, but I will say when we were out there, this all looked okay. The PIBs on the lot we're talking about, >> like it was clearly not maintained to
the extent that this side was. I can't speak for this lot, but >> it looks a touch shaggier to me. I will agree. But it looks like maybe it last got moaned >> in June, >> probably this year. and we didn't have a lot of rain, so not much could grow. It
It gives me real hesitation, even if that has been shaggy since June, especially given what's going on with the the marking closest to us. >> Yeah. I mean, we could say we need to we need to see it. We need to observe it
for a little while. And if we are moving in the right direction, fantastic. Let's keep moving in the right direction. Mhm. >> And then maybe these two neighbors can talk to each other and say, "Tell your landscaper to stop mowing my lawn." >> Does the uh the line between these two
PIBs mark the property corner or uh >> is it? >> So, it's a little bit over. >> Yeah. >> You can you orient that kind of in the way we're looking at it? This dot here. >> That was that far one in front of the
rock. >> This one here. Yep. And this closest one is this right here. >> Where's the property line? >> Oh, this one. >> It's that one right there. Yep.
>> Never mind. >> Where's the property line? >> Property line is >> a straight line. >> It's that one going straight down. Yeah. For lot one. Yep. They kind of share a driveway up to a certain point there.
>> Then, yeah, lot one's driveway comes all the way through and then, you know, goes back down to the other side to the jurisdictional buffer. Well, it's all in the buffer. >> It's kind of funny how it sticks out
a little farther than the other ones. So anyway, my input is I'd love to see what it looks like in June after we've had a spring of growing, a couple months of mowing season to make sure it's truly not been mowed.
>> I'm on board with that. >> And is it possible to give some relief because it is if if you go back Judy to the It kind of does a hill there. Is it
possible to pull that PIB that's kind of stick straight up? Pull it back more in line. So it's it's a more uniform line across there and not I mean it it seems like it's so far above the others that it just almost tempts somebody to mow
behind it. >> You guys >> I mean if we did that it'd be kind of aligned with what's out there right now. Uh I don't I wasn't involved I guess during the initial perving of why that was pulled up so far. Um but
>> um the approved plan says >> like right if you don't if you can find the approved plan just to make sure that's not a >> didn't wind up where because it just seems so out of place with all the other markers >> I was looking at earlier today it was
there for whatever reason >> approved. >> Yeah. Maybe they weren't thinking about the other lot at that time. >> Yeah. >> Or there was additional grading that was done that wasn't really supposed to be done.
>> I think a lot a lot of Yeah. I think like maybe it wasn't and then we had to grade past it to tie it into grade and then they're like, "All right, if you're going to do that, at least give it back to us in the end." Yeah. >> So believe it's this one we're talking about. >> Uh
>> so the dots are the PIB. Yep. You've got one up here and then they come back down. So I feel like maybe they were following lot one like positionwise like going in this direction. >> Yeah, it might have just been the order
that that the individual houses came in front of us and it didn't didn't jive. I'd be fine with it. I think it does make sense to probably bring it in line with with the other P Those two lines intersect back there like the
>> dotted line and the solid line >> right there. >> Right. Yep. >> So roughly in between these two. >> Yeah. >> But like in front of the tree line. >> Yeah. >> What if we even did that? You'd still want to see >> I would still want to wait for
>> still want to wait. >> Yeah. Can we have a move like move it in the field? I would say that that dot if we are allowing to pull it back which in some ways makes sense other ways is frustrating to me. I would say it'd be right on the 100 foot buffer line.
>> Yeah. >> Which the one to the left of it is almost anyway or if you put it the same distance away from the >> 100 foot buffer as the one on to the left is. >> I think that'll remove the temptation to
mow behind it. get around just not be like a telephone pole stuck out there in the >> agreeard. Ed, do you have any thoughts? You good with that? >> Yeah. >> Because I I think someone here is an
optimist. >> Yes. >> Me. So, so yeah, I'm I'm with the Open Space Preservation Commission and we go through this all the time and I'm convinced that the only solution is
electrified barb wire. >> That's why I was suggesting the shrubbery or something to deter somebody just going back there with a mower, but you said that wasn't in the original order conditions. So, >> I don't think we can ask for that because it wasn't in the original.
>> Well, that's what I'm saying. Unless you put it in the order conditions originally. >> Yeah. For historical purposes, we stopped allowing shrubs because the shrubs would die or get eaten and people would just throw them away and not replace them and then their lawns would just get bigger and bigger. So, we've stopped allow I mean they can do shrubs
in addition to but not as right. >> Yeah. >> Put boulders there. They don't die. >> Yeah, boulders are definitely >> those work. Um, so, so yeah, can you provide that feedback?
>> Yeah, I'll see what they if they'll want to move it or not. Or if we're going to wait growing seasons, might as well try and get the stop mowing where they shouldn't be anyways. So, >> okay. >> And then 57. >> Um, 57.
Um so this is two lots down lot four and um same story as the other ones here. So um updated the as with all site features that we have out here. The one
unique aspect about this as built um that wanted to get added was just there is a drainage swale that comes through um the lot there. So, we just wanted to add that to the plans. It's more just for information purposes. If the homeowner were to do anything over there, they'd know that there's some
type of um storm water feature that should be considered with any improvements should they elect to do them back there. Um everything else has been added. Um there is a storm water basin now back under a separate um notice of intent order of conditions. Um
and the only item here um is mowing. Um again, however, this one I think is a little different. Um it's definitely been going on longer. Um um from pictures when or I was out there
earlier today, definitely significantly more. Um in addition, they actually came out further in a good chunk of area. Um I'd say by like 8 10 feet or so uh into the yard that hasn't been maintained. Um so clearly got the intent of what
they're supposed to be doing out there. there a lot earlier than lot one. Um and there's just one small little area that looks like they couldn't help themselves to detail around the PIB. Um um but I I do think um that they have really made
the good intentions here and this was just a maybe a an off day. I'm not sure. Um but I don't know Judy if you have anything else to add on this one, but I I feel pretty good about this one and the intent of what they're trying to do here. Yeah, that swale was pretty ripped
up earlier this year, but it's looking fully stabilized now. Um, >> I do have a picture of their better PIBs. So, I think this is what Matt was talking about. >> Almost all of them look like this. >> Yep.
>> With the exception of this little guy. So, it it does look like maybe the back three feet or so. >> And it kind of goes around in a corner. So it's not like cut fully. >> Can is there like I'm trying to figure out why does
that happen? Is there something about that corner of the yard that is enticing? Is there something about >> So >> why why would that happen? Is there is there more information that would help me? I will say the neighbor to this
property is one of the worst mowing cases and I think with the lawns being connected it can maybe be a little confusing especially for the PIBs close to the property line. Um maybe one thought
>> I my worry especially with the neighbor is establishing a precedent that we approve things when rules aren't being followed. Um and Toll Brothers uh to your credit have tried to let them know what the rules
are and the conservation commission has tried to let them know and it doesn't seem to work. maybe neighbors, talking to neighbors might work. Um, so for that reason as well, I I like what I see with the other ones. I don't like what's
going on there, and I certainly don't like what's going on, I assume, to the left of it, which I know is not the COC we're talking about. But what I don't want is another neighbor coming and saying, "You allowed them to do it. Three feet is only three feet. But three
feet, why not five? Why not 10? You allowed three feet there. Why not? >> Yeah, I have >> 15, 20. >> Mixed feelings on that one, too. Ted, on the flip side of when they're doing so good on the
majority of the property and the neighbors not, issuing them a COC is is an incentive >> um to the neighbor that won't get one >> as well. I think
I think you could look at it either way. >> That's not a bad point. And I also know another letter's going out to the the rest of the lots again. Um, >> showed them the letter. >> Yeah. Yeah, I saw that and I appreciate that. >> It's going to need four votes, right?
>> Yes. The diff the difference between this one and 53 for me as I'm just like seeing them now >> um and thinking about them is is 53 like you said was just >> barely growing a little more grass
versus >> Right. Right. >> The one you just showed Jody Judy where it's like yeah a a true >> truly non-maintained. >> Can we take a look at the other posts? the other posts.
>> The other PIBs that are being minded or >> is that the only have another picture? >> Yeah. No, that's all I got. >> Yeah. When we went and they were still mowing, we were like, we didn't take a picture. >> Okay. >> Just this. >> There's nothing to like just show you're still mowing.
>> So, on the >> Was that a picture of the swale? Because it didn't look like it was a >> It looks horrible. I promise you it looks worse in the picture than it is. That's awful. >> This is dead grass. It's not dirt. So, I was >> Is that the swale?
>> Yes. Hesitant to show this picture because it does not photograph well, >> but I would not call this unstable having seen it myself. >> I'm looking in the background trying to see the >> Yeah. So, there's one right here. There's one. Is that the same one that we saw before or is that >> I don't think so. I think that's a
different one. >> I have a different view when I was out there today. >> So, that's like over here. Yeah. >> Camera, right? >> So, this is the house for the lot we're talking about. That's the neighbor
>> down the side of the property, not behind it. >> It kind of goes like that and then towards the basin. >> All right, Melissa, you might have convinced me. And if we had five, then I could have a
protest vote, but we can't afford a protest vote. So >> affordable. >> Oh, really? >> Because we have four members here. >> All right, that clears my conscience. >> I do think you make a good point,
Melissa. I I >> I'm not dismissing it at all. Yeah, >> the neighbor can look out the window and say, "Oh, look what they did." >> All right. Well, >> and there's no PIBs to the left. It's just strange. They're only on the right hand side of the property. >> No.
>> So, the wetland is over here. Yep. >> Like goes way back and then it like comes back up on the next lot. One over. >> There will be some on the other side. >> It's weird to walk and be like, "Ps." >> Yeah. They're like, "What happened here?" >> Did they remove them? Where did they go?
>> Okay. >> And the problematic one is the one furthest up there. >> It's um 55. >> No, no, no. The one PIB that's being moved. >> The problematic PIB. I believe it's this one. >> It's that one. >> Either this one or this one.
>> It's the one closer to >> to lot. It's that one. >> Three. Yeah. >> And the one above it. >> What's going on with that one? >> This one. So, this one's funky because it's in the swale.
Trying to remember if I have a picture of that one. >> Even still there. >> It might not be because I know Tol is doing work on the swale and it >> Do you remember if that one's there, Matt? >> It was there. Yeah. Today.
I mean, it would for this property it would be hard to check anyway, right? I mean, there there's a foot maybe not even between that PIB and the next neighbor. So, it's probably immaterial. I was just curious.
>> There's a very blurry. Is it this guy? Yeah. >> Right down the property line >> straight up and across. >> All right. >> Okay.
Let's go ahead and vote. Um, can I get a motion to issue certificate certificate of compliance with signatures by Judy or Anna for 57 Chamberlain? >> I'll make that motion. the picture we
just looked at. >> Y said >> this one, >> you haven't got a second. So, we can still discuss. >> And I see all this mode behind the PIB
right there. >> Yeah. So, it would almost connect from here back. So >> I think I see what you're saying, Ed, but it's it's a little deceptive. The PIB
would mark beyond. You see where the arrow is pointing? >> Yeah. >> And then do you see the little stump of a post up the hill? >> Yeah. >> So between those posts and us, they're allowed to mow. They're not allowed to mow on the other side of those posts,
but those posts are running along the property line. So, what we're seeing is mowing in the other property that probably is not allowed. Do you see what I mean? >> You say so.
>> The only real problem one is the stump that we see a little bit and it looked like it was the report was 3 ft of mowing around it. Yeah, I don't think you can see the one that this property is mowing behind in this picture.
>> Is this supposed to be that connects to here on the on the plot map? >> So, >> for the chair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Judy. Yeah, I have some photos um Oh, you do? In the file from the 9th, July 9th, obviously there >> before a lot of vegetation came back in,
but it kind of shows the whole layout of the um uh DIBs in that area. I don't know if you want to pull that up or not. >> Yeah, let me slide through your pictures. This was not jurisdictional.
>> That's a better view. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. So, you can see what they're doing there. >> And this is all stable. But yeah, so this is the PIV with the three feet of mowing and then it connects to the rest of them.
The property line, I believe, runs like here. Yeah. >> So, I'm not sure why that one is where it is. Um I >> think you did have a picture of it in relation to the lot next to it where the
PIBs were there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The preceding photo kind of shows it going that the other direction. >> Yeah. There we go. >> So, this >> Yeah. So, it's it seems like it's the neighboring property. Yeah. That's the problem.
And it's out like they for that drainage soil they came up and then back down on the backside for grading. So all that water would come down and not go out towards the back. So that's I think why it's out so far. >> Yep.
>> Is that clear as mud? >> We could all go there too. You have enough to to vote on it. >> Looking for a second. >> Thank you. >> All right. I go all in favor, but I
think I got to go down the line here. >> Start that there. >> So, all right. I'm gonna say I Ed. >> No. Walter. >> Hi. All right, I'm gonna go I
>> and I hope I don't regret >> Matt will >> accuse myself from all of these. >> Okay. >> And I hope that neighbor looks out the window. If it makes you feel better post COC, if
they're maintaining where they shouldn't be, it's considered a violation. So, >> yeah, but someone's got to look and someone's got to call on. >> The good thing about these big lawns is we can see it from the road. >> Now that this has been voted on and closed, we're still going to be looking at these properties moving forward.
>> So, Judy and Anna are going to be out there. >> That's true. As long as we're waiting on the neighbor, we'll get a good look at this one. >> Correct. >> The budding neighbor is not plan to file for their >> CO. >> Yeah, we've filed, but we're we're
we can't come in under the way it is right now. So, don't want to waste anyone's time. >> I Yeah. Toll wants to close all these out. Yeah. Yep. So, appreciate everyone's time. Thank you so much.
>> Requirement cooperate. It says here >> they have all the the rags and everything that the commission has put on the site. So, yep. >> We want to close it out. We want to be natural.
>> Thank you everyone. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Hopington MVP funded project resilient land >> initiative. So Judy has some things to show us on this >> or tell us about
>> just to keep you all updated on some other things going on in town. Um the town received funding through the state's MVP program. Um that's municipal vulner vulnerability preparedness. Uh they fund um planning and capital
projects related to climate resilience. Um so we did get a grant through them to uh conduct community engagement in the Legacy Farms neighborhood um around sighting and designing green infrastructure installations for the community. Um, and we are looking to
engage specifically with folks who live there. Uh, folks who are, uh, connected to the town's South Asian and Chinese-American communities, uh, renters, older adults, um, folks that would be, um, kind of affected and would
have, um, valuable input into the design of the green infrastructure installations. So, just wanted to put it on everyone's radar. If you want to help spread the word, we have this flyer you can share. Um, and if there's anything, you know, you want to do to help support the initiative, I'm happy to answer
questions and follow up afterwards. Um, so right now we're seeking um participants to join the um core team of community representatives that'll be uh meeting quarterly to discuss the project as it moves forward. Um, and it will be
fully compensated for those folks time. So, yep. Just wanted to >> Is this in our materials? >> Yep. Yep. It's in the uh public folder. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> I'm sorry for not >> No, no worries. >> Judy, how are you pushing this out to the community? Is it on our website?
>> A lot of ways. Yeah. So, we're um working with Siler Climate Consulting and the town sustainability program manager. Um so, it's been put through social media on the town, sent to all of the organizations we think would be relevant. Um, so, uh, faith-based
organizations, the YMCA, HOA, um, word of mouth, we're bringing it up in board meetings. So, I think we have five applicants already. Um, looking to get more. And if anybody has ideas on other ways they can spread the word, um, would be happy to hear them. >> I want to know if the compensation's
better than being fence viewer. >> Is there compensation for that? >> Viewing? >> Yeah. Didn't you say it's $5 a year? >> Yeah, $5 a viewing. >> Oh, a viewing. I did send you something, Ed, that you did not respond to related
to your offense viewing position. >> Not to call you out publicly. >> Unrelated, but yeah, just to keep the commission aware >> of what we're uh what we're doing in other areas. Um, more to come.
And if they're jurisdictional, then, you know, they might need approval anyway, but we'll see where they end up putting them. >> So, at this point in time, they're recruiting people to participate. Is that kind of where it's at? >> Yeah. Yeah. And then at that point, they'll um we'll contract with a design
firm um and they'll be a part of the meetings to site and design where they're going to go, what they're going to look like. Um so, it's it's the very early stages. It's kind of interesting to me. Um, I understand the the neighborhood that was
chosen >> from where >> community perspective, but ideally the whole Legacy Farms community like has a good storm water management plan in place and was permitted that way under the current
standards and whatnot. So, um, is this looking to supplement the storm water that's there or look at issues or >> So, I don't think it's in response to specific flooding concerns. It's more so
how do we direct green infrastructure improvements in the environmental justice spaces that do exist in Hopkin. Um, so how to combine community preferences and and things that they might like in terms of open space with element of
climate resilience. Um, >> so I don't think it's necessarily there's a lack of storm water. It's more so how do we improve it um and relate the improvements we do make to community preferences and input. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you for uh keeping us
up to speed. Yeah. Um, next up, conservation minute. So, we kind of introduced this briefly at the last meeting. Um, as Judy said, anybody can submit any ideas for topics, but just kind of
looking for things that we can educate ourselves on. um you know, renew looking at our bylaws, our regulations, just you know, I've been on the board for quite a while, but I still find myself wondering
why we do things the way we do or what's the best way to do things. So, um the first one I asked Judy to just kind of prepare and pull up was related to vernal pool. um what we were calling buffer kept coming up in one of our hearings um about what the vernal pool
buffer is and 100 foot buffer and when I really dug back into our regulations um vernal pools the term buffer doesn't really apply the
125 ft that we use um is actually a habitat area So, our bylaw actually has clarification in it um because it's confusing. You have a
vernal pool line that's typically um drawn on the plan and then if you look to put a buffer the 100 foot buffer off of the resource area that you would think is the vernal pool line. Um our bylaw clarifi or regulations is this
this is written in the rigs. >> Yep. um clarifies right here in the highlighted uh yellow that that 125 ft is the vernal pool itself and the habitat that it's protecting.
You're not supposed to add another 100 feet onto that. And that 100 feet, that 125 ft is not a buffer. It's a habitat. So that's why we have an extra level of protection on the vernal pools and that
we don't allow anything to happen in that 125 ft. >> Judy, could you scroll back up to the 100 foot part of the line? >> Yep. So that's the state uh summary of the state protection. >> Yeah. And there's other um caveats with
the state protection. And the vernal pool has to be certified through NHSP >> under the act >> under the act and it has to be connected to another uh resource area. So the bylaw creates additional protections for vernal pools that don't meet. >> This is really confusing the way it's
written. When was this written >> 2022? Well, I don't know about this section. We have been starting a list of regs edits and clarifications. So, if the commission wants us to take a closer look at this section, we're happy to.
>> I If you scroll down again >> to that paragraph that says one point, when I deal with, for example, um zoning bylaws, I've never seen anything. It sounds so conversational.
You know, one point needs put I I don't >> know that we have that kind of language in our other bylaws. just seems out of place and confusing. >> Yeah, I'm I'm get I don't know, but it seems like this paragraph must have been
inserted into the regulation because they were having issues with the way people were interpreting it and taking that 125 foot vernal pool habitat like it says right there. And then >> cuz at first when we were looking at that property and talking about it, I
was like, "Oh, wait. We got to go a whole another 225 foot buffer, but that's not the intent of the regulation. >> Yeah, I think the only place we found that that applies is
the performance standards. So, there is a 100 foot septic setback um that starts at the 125. Um, so there's a 225 setback for new septic systems, but that's the only um specification that extends
beyond the 120 foot vertal pool habitat. Um, so this is the performance standard for the 125. Um, >> so I'm sorry, I think you just answered this question, but so for a septic
system, you do need to be 225t away >> for new septic. Yeah. All right. >> For the chair. >> Yes. >> I think some of the clarification in the regulations, so if you think about it, to make bylaw changes, it takes town meeting vote. >> Yeah. >> And to open up the bylaw could also mean
different things. Um where the regulations is a public hearing and the commission decides the regulations based on those public hearings. So I think a lot of times the regulations are used to do kind of some of these clarifications that make it, you know, if the bylaw is unclear. I mean, they can't contradict
the bylaw, but they can add that clarification to the bylaw. >> Can we look at the bylaw >> right now? >> Yep. >> Yeah. I just want to see how these regulations tie back to the bylaw to kind of close the loop. So specifically to the vernal pool
section or more so for the regulations. >> The references to vernal pool just to understand how we >> go from the bylaw to the regulations. Right. >> Is the paragraph on jurisdiction.
>> Is there a definition of vernole in here too? >> Yes. So confined basin depression holds water for two continuous months free of adult fish as well as the area within 125 ft of the mean annual boundary. >> So there's the 100
>> there's the connection right there definition in our bylaw >> but then in the next reference to vernal pool there seem to be that confusing hundred. >> Yeah. Yeah. So it really shouldn't be lumped into the other resources it appears. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah, because we So yeah, this is giving us a 100 ft off of a resource area and it's saying that a vernal pool is a resource. So I think technically it is 100 I mean technically speaking if I read this then we should
be looking at 100 ft off of the 125 ft. >> Yeah. Can you go back to the definition again? I I'm with you on that Melissa. Right. Because if this is the definition of the vernal pool resource, it includes the 125 ft. >> So the vernal pool itself plus the
vernal pool habitat is all defined as vernal pool under our bylaw. And then by pulling it into the resources that are given a 100 foot buffer means my interpretation of it at least is
>> 225 ft off of the the pool, the area that holds the water, right, is jurisdictional. >> So I think our regulations actually are a bit laxed on what our bylaw would otherwise allow. >> Yeah, I think right seems like
So, we I mean I think I think we do need an update one way or another to nail this down. Um, which way we do it, you really got I mean, if we if what we've historically
done is the 125 feet for the habitat and that's that's it. We haven't gone 100 feet off of that. So, if we wanted to continue to maintain that approach, then we need
to change the bylaw. Would it be helpful for me to do some research on what other towns have in terms of >> You're gonna go down a rabbit hole if you do that. Um, >> sounds fun. >> Yeah. So,
I think the the bylaw reads okay given the regulations provide us as commissioners discretion for what happens in the buffer zone. Right. So this is saying you know >> anything within 125 feet of that basin
that confined basin is a resource area that 100 feet beyond it becomes buffer zone and we've got discretion as to what we are willing or unwilling to approve in that buffer and >> yeah that's true and that is how we treat that is it's no touch like no we
don't let anyone do anything in that 125 ft Right. >> So that extra hundred would just be gravy if we um >> it becomes it it extends our jurisdiction that 100 feet and then we have
options as to what how we handle it. Right. So if we go back to the regulations >> sorry Judy for making jump back and forth here. >> Right. We've got the performance standards that lock in like yeah, you're not touching the 125 foot no disturb
zone which is that vernal pool plus the the pool itself plus the 125 ft offset for habitat. If you go back to the highlighted, that was the clarif the clarification. This is not the intent.
>> Yeah, that's the part that's the funny words. >> That's that paragraph is >> they don't seem to be in agreement. which I don't think we can do in our regulations. I don't think we can clearly disagree with what the bylaw says.
>> Yeah. >> No. >> So, it's almost like you have to strike that entire paragraph. >> Yep. >> Maybe does not need further clarification. >> Yeah. I don't think it does. I think I think you just kind of leave that open and
>> on a case-byase basis, we can use that 100 ft at our discretion. >> Yeah. Yeah. It kind I mean it kind of makes sense if you're considering that 125 ft the habitat where you know these critters are breeding and
using and whatnot. You would want to >> you want a buffer >> you would want a buffer around that. >> I wonder when that got added. >> I'm sure you could go search and look at the revisions over the years and find what year that paragraph popped in there. Yeah, the these are not difficult
to change though, which which >> we can do this, right? We can just do it in the next meeting. >> We need to advertise and hold a public hearing. >> Yeah, the regular process. >> So, we would have to put it in the paper. >> Yeah. >> Oh, gotcha.
>> Oh, by today. >> Um, so maybe January. >> It's a 2026 item. >> It's a 20 Yeah, it doesn't have to be. I I guess I was I guess I was being >> I mean literally >> get it done by >> literally the next meeting but it would need to meeting vote. It doesn't need to
be on none of that. >> We can do it. Yeah. Just straight here with us. >> As long as we follow the >> we could so we could get it in by Monday is the advertising deadline for the 16th. So may I suggest that we consider whether or not there are other revisions we need to make because any applications
that have been filed at this point need to comply with the bylaw and the regulations that are in place now. The bylaw clearly states there's a 100 foot buffer off of that that we can rely on despite the regulations conflicting with that. But the bylaw is what carries the
day. So I it would seem to me if we're going to make changes to the regulations, we should >> Yeah. Take a look at >> figure out what changes we want to make and make them all at once. >> Okay. >> Looking at the state versus the Hopkin bylaws when you were switching back and forth.
>> No. So the local bylaw and then the regulations that um clarify the bylaw. So they're both local. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So I think a little homework for everybody.
>> I have a running list so I can share >> mostly minor stuff. This is the one of the more major ones. >> Okay. >> If a thought is to strike that paragraph, it doesn't matter. But there's an annoying punctuation error here. >> The period after
>> it'll all be gone, Ted. It'll all be gone. >> Period after areas is supposed to be inside the quotation marks. Oh, wait. Really? >> Really? >> No, I always put it outside. That's how I would do it. >> Unless you're living in Britain, >> American English, it always, even though
it doesn't make sense. And after the meeting's over, if you want a quick explanation, I'll give it to you. >> I'm sounding a lot like Ed right now. You want to hear something interesting, >> but I I'm a language geek and I do find it interesting. But in American English, it always always always goes inside the
quotation marks. >> I bet that's This is riddled with that issue. Oh, I'm sure it was throughout the whole thing >> and many other documents written and worked on in our lives. >> The safe thing is to use two periods, one before and one.
>> So, do we want to pick a meeting date to aim for like a suite of edits or at least identify sections that need a second glance? I'm happy to to work at like retooling the language if people want to kind of look through it and give me some
ideas. >> Okay. >> Spring of 26. >> Well, when was this? This was what March of 2022. >> Yeah. I think >> I think it's going to take us a little time to >> And I believe that was only um fee
changes that we did in that May of 2022. I don't think it was any real language changes. It was just like the consultant fees increase >> moving periods out of the quote. >> Ted's going to go through line by line and circle every single one of those to correct.
>> Are we using Harvard commas? >> I'm a fan of Harvard commas. >> Unless there's any um particular reason. >> How do the regulations relate to the bylaws? Which is there any precedents or is one >> how they relate to each other? >> Yeah. Um, kind of like Matt was saying,
that the bylaw gets is a town meeting vote for anything that's in the bylaw. >> Oh. >> So, anything that you're going to change or propose in a bylaw um goes to town meeting. Okay. >> And that kind of I kind of think of that as kind of the outline or the skeleton.
Um, you put in there, you know, the the the the big things that you're deciding on. And then it also the bylaw will say in there that the commission is allowed to create regulations
to carry out the clarify the the bylaw >> related to the bylaw. Okay. >> And so then you go into you create the uh regulations just to add more >> detail, add more clarification >> or confuse the matter >> or confuse the matter. Um,
>> yeah. >> And are is this under the >> on the town website? >> It is. >> Yep. So, they should all be on the main page of the concert. >> So, when you think of the bio on the
regulations, right, it's similar to the act and its regulations, right? There's a wellness protection act and then or regulations written to that hundreds of pages long that clarify the intent of the act. >> We should get a new act reg soon too.
They've been in need of an update. >> Some at some point D will decide when the new handbook and new regulations are going to come out. >> Is this those four documents? Is that what drives uh
decisions about the majority of what we do? >> Okay. Through all those. >> Yeah, I don't think you need to worry about the comprehensive permit stuff. >> Ignore that. We can also um D offers a conservation commission 101 for new commissioners. So, if you're interested,
it's a when I did it, it was like a one-on-one with someone from D and it's it's focused. They don't talk about like town bylaws, >> but it's what does EP mean? Great overview. Uh, Department of Environmental Protection. >> Oh, D. >> Yep. The state department. Okay. Yeah. So, if you're interested in that. Yep. >> Or
>> I can connect you with um region coordinator. >> And if anyone else is interested, >> have you heard anything about the new regulation timing? >> I've heard that whispers every once in a while >> submitted uh comment letters kind of demanding that the new regs be
promulgated, but I haven't heard anything concrete about them actually doing it. >> Okay. Yeah, that's consistent with what we're hearing on the consulting side of the world, too. >> Okay. Well, so if you so if you could share what your running list is, I think
that gives us a leg up to get started. >> Yeah. >> And then we just make it our goal to try to get to a point in the spring that we're ready to make some changes. >> I mean, I think we could we could probably do we could probably put it on a couple meetings just to kind of
>> touch base and go over um if we have questions or want to kind of like hash out particular >> conservation opportunities. >> I think the conservation minute items we've listed up to this point all tie back to things we might want in the
regulations like mitigation for trees that ratio what that ratio wants to be >> um some more clarity I think on the lakeside plantings >> and what that wants to look like. So >> yeah, I think it'll kind of naturally
end up those Yeah, you're right. Conversations will turn into changes to >> the next three or four meetings. >> Yeah, >> dial it in. >> I think so. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Yep. Can I get a motion to adjourn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. All >> in favor? >> I. >> All right, >> Judy. What kind of cookies are these? >> Uh, chocolate crinkle. >> Crinkle. >> Crinkle. >> Chocolate crinkle. >> Delicious. >> They're baked with powdered sugar.