This is the April 28th, 2026 open meeting of the Hopkins Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new law authorizes all
members of the public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting law's requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkinson
Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be
broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that all attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you
and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair. Supporting materials that have been
provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have discuss discussed each project application on the agenda,
the chair will open the discussion for public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting
will be conducted via roll call of the members. I will now confirm which commission members are present. First, the chair. Melissa Recaus >> present. >> Ed Harrow >> present. Walter Garland,
>> present. >> Peggy Shaw, >> present. >> Jim Cerillo, Matt Moyan, both absent, at least for now. Uh, I am Ted Barker Hook and I am present. I will now confirm that staff
are present. Judy Day, the Hopkins and Conservation Administrator, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present. And finally, Orezel of Lucas Environmental >> present.
>> Before I give it back to Melissa, let everybody in the room know that we have some uh hearings that have been continued. Those include both of the Wall Street development hearings. Um and Kelly 16 Montana Road. Um all three of
those hearings have been continued to May 19th. That's it. >> All right. Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Um, all right. With that being said, let's start with a couple work session items.
Um, we'll go through the draft minutes for review. We have December 16th. I'm not sure who was present for each of these meetings, so I'll go ahead and split them up. Does anyone have any comments or have not had
enough time to review the December 16th minutes? >> Melissa, I haven't had a time the time to review any of them. So, I don't know for sure which ones I was in and was not in. >> Okay. Um,
>> try to do that right now or whatever you wish. >> Let's see. We can pull them up real quick. So the one the um January 6.
Oh, I'm going backwards. Hold on. All right. 1216 2025 present was Ted, Jim, Ed, Matt, and myself. Ted, myself,
Ted. All right, we'll skip that one. 127. Present members were Jim, Ed, Matt, myself, and Peggy. So, Peggy, myself,
Ed. All right, we'll skip that one, too. Uh, January 6th. >> No members absent. >> Yep. Everybody was >> No members absent. >> January 6th. Does anyone want to make a
motion to approve the January 6, 2026 meeting minutes? >> This is Ed. I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. Ted.
>> Hi, >> Walter. >> Sorry, I had to get off mute. >> I uh Peggy, >> um this this was pre me on the board, so I am. >> All right. Okay. And myself, I'm also in
I we're all set there. >> Okay. Next up, we have REC Hawkington LLC, 77 South Street. This is a request for certificate of compliance. So, I'm going to turn it
over to Judy if you can let us know how this looks. Sure. Um, so this is a request for COC for 77 South Street. Um, Lucas comments dated September 17th, 2025 have recently largely been
addressed. Uh, outstanding items until recently were confirming that the erosion controls have been removed. Um, and a no mo barrier had recently been installed around the IVW replication area. As Joe had noted, it might have been being mowed. Um, so confirmed
that's not been mowed recently. They've put up a nice barrier there to prevent it. um and also removed quite a bit of trash that we had noted during a previous site visit. So um remaining discussion items from Joe's memo are there were no interim as built
plans of the replication area submitted. Um I don't believe we can get those retroactively, but that is a discussion point for the commission. Um and then confirming that the replication areas met the required monitoring period. Um,
and I believe u Mark and Joe might have some more information about that, but to my knowledge, most of the comments have been addressed. >> Okay. Yeah, I'll turn it over to you, Joe. >> Uh, yeah. So uh with respect to the
monitoring reports, there was a uh monitoring report submitted subsequent to my uh memo and uh that did cover the the uh required period. Uh based on my observations, uh I thought the areas
looked uh good, the vegetation looked good. I didn't see any uh major issues with the uh replication areas um other than the mowing that Judy had mentioned. Um and I think that really um
was all that remained of my comments other than what uh what Judy had mentioned. >> Okay. >> And just to clarify, did we say that the erosion controls have been removed at this point? >> Yes. Correct.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, Mark, did you have anything you want to add? >> Uh, no. Unless Joe has any tips for the next replication area we built in Hopkins. So, I built a few of them and always want to improve. So, if you have any tips, Joe, feel free to shoot them
my way. >> All right. >> Does anyone on the commission have any questions, comments? >> I don't. It looks to me that everything is in order here. So, there's no other questions, comments,
anyone from the public? No. All right. Can I get a motion to go ahead and issue the Susie >> to the chair? I'll make a motion to approve the COC. >> Okay. Can I get a second?
>> Melissa, do we need signatures on the COC? Yes, with signatures by Anna or Judy if we can amend that. Walter. >> I'll amend the motion if Walter is amendable to it and I will second it. >> Okay,
great. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted >> Ted is an I. >> Walter >> I. >> Peggy >> I. >> And I am also an I. >> Thank you so much. I saw. Thanks.
All right. Next up, we have 126 Fruit Street exemption request for trees. And I will ask you again, Judy, if you can give us an overview on this request. >> Sure. Uh through the chair.
So, I'll pull up a very old asbuilt plan of the property for context. Um, so in July 2025, the commission approved the removal of three trees um on this property in this row here that were
damaged or touching the garage. So, one touching the garage and then two around this area that were showing physical signs of damage. Um, at the time the commi commission requested that the applicant return with a report from an arborist with more information on why the entire row of trees was requesting
to be removed. Um, so the homeowner is on the line and he did provide this arborist report for the commission to review. It's in the project folder and I'm happy to pull it up. um and looking for the commission to discuss whether they would entertain an exemption with
any conditions or if you would like a permit to be filed for the tree removal request. >> Okay. Yeah, if you want to uh pull up the letter, Judy, and maybe the homeowner can just describe,
you know, what it says and what the request is here. There we go. Hello everyone. My name is Chaz Boini and I reside at 126 Fruit Street. Um, good evening to the commission and thank you Judy for the
intro there. Um, you know, as you can see, that is a very old asbuilt, but that's just what I have with uh with the property when we purchased it a little over a year ago. Um when I came before the board or the
commission last summer, we had gotten the approval to remove uh three of those trees, as Judy noted, um that were leaning up against the um the second um building there, which is the twocar garage. That was done um and all was
good until we decided that that was going to be the main entry and exit for our home. And what had happened is you can see in this report, it is just years and years of neglect and we had the heavy snow which was really what brought
this to my attention and it was even with the pruning that we had previously done um extending over into the walkway almost touching the house and it has just made it um you know very difficult to get in and out of the house and I'm not saying that we cannot enter and exit
the house by any means but um with that said it something that I'd like to move forward with to make it a little bit uh easier for myself and family to maneuver in and out of the house. Um, another thing that I'd like to note is I believe
it was Judy and potentially uh Anna had taken a look at the two maple trees that flank that row of hemlocks um that that has been um overgrown and invasive vines um have
grown throughout it and and we have the approval to move forward with taking those down which again allowed me to take a closer look at the um the leftover row of hemlocks that remained. Um, so as you can see there in the picture, that
was the initial tree that had been removed that had obviously taken over that corner of the garage and that is the entry and exit way there through the by way of the brick path as you can see to the uh to the house. So um pretty clear as to what I'm looking to
do. Um that report has a few uh extra details as well as to what we look to do to mitigate and replace um those trees. So um you know here to happily answer any questions or discuss what we can or cannot do.
>> Okay. So just to clarify the plan or the intention is to replace these trees. that that is and that is my plan and I am just going off of what I believe is
um required of me. You know, I could be wrong, but that's why I say that. >> Right. Okay. Um if you want to bring up the Can you bring up the plan again, Judy? Um, so my thoughts are
it looks like that although it's not called out on the asel plan, um, I believe or it seems like these trees are probably acting as the barrier, the permittable the permanent immovable barrier, the PIB that we like to call
it. um to kind of delineate where you know you can't encroach any further on the buffer zone to the wetland area. Um so I think that maintaining some sort of a PIB along
that area is important um to me. Um, and we see those in a lot of different ways. But I I do think taking down trees kind of is, you know, what we've seen in the past is replacing um with trees. I do realize from the
pictures that you sent, those trees are very close together. Um, there's a lot of them um very closely spaced, which might be part of the problem. Um, not maintaining them over the years.
So, I'll open it up to commission members to see what others think as well, but I would be in favor of replacing um at least some of the trees. Definitely establishing a new barrier
there, whether that's with plantings or a fence medallions, something like that, I think is in order if we're taking these down, but I'll open it up to others. Sure. Through the chair, maybe I'll ask a
question or two. >> Sure, Ted. >> Um, to Joe and probably Ed most of all as the two people that know most about trees. Um, I I am not contesting the arborist report. If the trees are unhealthy, then that's fine. That's what we look for. I'm curious what the a
healthy hemlock what its uh impacts are around. Is that a really desirable tree? Is that a mostly decorative tree when it's healthy? That doesn't really give us much. Do the birds and the critters like it? Does it create seeds that things like I don't know much about
hemlocks and its relative benefit. If we're thinking about replacing, I am curious how valuable the hemlocks have been up until this point where they're not healthy. >> Chair. >> Yes, Joe. Uh yeah, it it certainly has
uh some wildlife value. Primarily, I would say cover. It's a good cover tree. Um it does have some food value. Um the uh recommended uh replacement tree by the arborist is a western cedar,
which I'm not sure if that was recommended because it may be more resistant to the bullyadelit or not. Um, but uh I I wouldn't recommend replacing it with uh the same species uh if there's an indulgent problem out there
because it's just going to um continue. Um but as far as a replacement tree um an evergreen u uh tree or a mix of evergreens um with maybe some other shrubs uh I think would be would be
suitable. >> Okay. I I thought maybe I'm misremembering. I thought I saw Abbervite. Is that the cedar you're talking about? A form of Clearly they're all pine trees, conifers, fur trees.
>> Did I misread that, Joe, when you said >> uh I think the one that was being recommended um the recommendation of western arborite. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, that that's not a native species. Um >> okay. >> It's native to the Pacific Northwest. uh
not even doesn't even show up on Gobotney um for this area. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I guess given that Melissa, I I I think I don't necessarily need a onetoone replacement on on the quality
of the hemlocks, but I agree with you that there needs to be something either a line of trees, um, a fence, a combination to clearly delineate that that is a a PIV.
But I as far as numbers I I am not wedded to a onetoone replacement. >> Okay. >> Through the chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> The issue with hemlocks has been well pointed out. Um and it would be a
totally silly thing to replant the same thing because the same thing will happen again. Um so perhaps you know the native local area aravite might be um appropriate. Um but I think I think what
we need is a commitment from the homeowner that when these trees go out that whatever we agree as a replacement will be going in. Um and so that this
doesn't end up as um just an open piece. Thank you. >> I think to that point, Ed, that this can't be just an exemption request because I don't think we can specify
um with an exemption request. We're just allowing the trees to be cut because it's what's being requested and we don't have any conditions. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. Our first hummingbird
Nice. >> Um, is that correct, Judy? >> Uh, through the chair, you can put conditions in an exemption letter. Um, >> okay. >> But if you would like a more formal formal permit
documenting the work and documenting the conditions, then you know an RDA or an NOI would be the way to go. Um, but you can put conditions in the exemption and then um, us as staff can confirm that the replantings were done. It's whether or not you want the work, you know,
formally documented through a permit application >> or if you're comfortable with it being documented through the letter. >> Okay. >> Yes, Walter. Uh uh can we give the homeowner the
latitude to perhaps move the replacements uh closer to the property line? I mean I know part of the reason they're asking for these to be removed is because they're like encroaching on the house. I can see you know with these arbits
any of those they're fast growing and they spread out quickly. So, uh, can he put them closer to the property line? Therefore, probably get a good 30, 40 years before they might grow to impede on the And I'm
assuming the property line is the the blue line there. Or where is the property? >> No, that's the wetland line. The um the line with the dots on it is the wetland line. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Could we give them the latitude to, you know, to put the replacements
along that line just so again we're not here back here again in 15 years asking for those to be removed again because they've grown into the house. Um well so that would be moving the PIB
um you know which was established when the plan was approved. Um so kind of what I was saying when those trees went in that line of trees obviously was you know put there for a reason to create that that line to protect the
wetland and that buffer zone um to the wetland which is resource area. So, if the homeowner wanted to move the trees and move that line closer to the wetland, then I think that would be um that would
definitely be an RDA or a notice of intent request because I think we'd be uh moving that line which would be more significant than just replacing. Well, we're not we're not moving the line. Perhaps
moving where the if you know the PIB you're calling them >> placed. >> Uh so is that what you mean? The PIB line. >> That's what I mean. Yep. Yep. The B line. Yeah. Yeah. >> And do we know that there was a previous order of conditions that said that that
I mean those are in place as a PIB and it could be the homeowner the previous homeowner just put them there as a screen. I know a lot of people use uh those types of trees as as a screen for their neighbors, have more privacy in their backyard. So, do we know for a
fact that that was a PIB line? >> Yeah, I don't know, Judy, did we find the approved plan in the file? >> Yeah, through the chair. This is an extremely old filing. So, >> okay. >> The materials we have are very limited. Um,
the reason it was assumed it was the PIB is because it was called out on the asbuilt. Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, Chaz, is there fencing here currently? I'm not sure if there is already fencing in front of the trees that you had a plan for, but I think
there was something. >> That's right, Judy. >> Yeah. So, I think there is already fencing. What I might suggest is sometimes with replacement plantings, we'll see the commission state that the replacements have to go in a certain
distance to the wetlands. So maybe in the 50ft buffer, so if they don't go in exactly that location, they do maintain um vegetative cover in the sensitive buffer zone area. Um, and you could separately condition that the fencing be
maintained and maybe add medallions to it. But I I believe there is currently fencing there. >> Okay. >> Is that represented on this plan? >> No, it's not. I mean, this is an old plan, but today there is fencing in front of the trees >> in front on in front of the trees like
on the house side. >> Let me see if I've got a good angle of it. >> Yes, they are on the house side. >> Okay. >> Yep. So there's fencing looking towards the garage. And then you can kind of see here it's
not along the whole row. >> So you could almost separate out maintain that boundary with fencing or similar PIB. Um and then allow the replacement plantings to be elsewhere if you'd like. That's that's an option. >> Okay.
I would be amendable to that. Um, >> okay. Is there a door of any kind in the back of that garage? Just curious. >> No, sir. >> There's not. >> No, sir.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Did you have any uh plans as a homeowner for, you know, for the location of that fence or relocating that fence or do you have any kind of landscaping plan for the backyard?
>> Um, no. We we we actually don't. um the the the fence, you know, that was the initial reason uh for reaching out uh to the commission was to do that to keep the little guys and dogs contained. Um >> so with that said, that was kind of the big piece and then as we had trouble
getting in and out of the house. Um that's what brought this to the forefront of what we were looking to do here. So to answer your question that landscaping that that next piece has already been has been done which I I guess might be advantageous for this
conversation to maintain the PIB that Melissa is talking about >> as the fence as the PIB and then you can have a little more latitude with the placement of the trees for the future so you don't you're not back in the same condition 10 years from now.
>> Right. >> That makes sense. Yeah, I think that makes sense. And I would be comfortable just conditioning that with the exemption request. >> The defense be maintained as the PIB and then the trees
behind them >> can be planted. Yeah. Between >> the buffer zone >> like Judy said within that 50 foot somewhere. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. >> Yes. Um, was that assuming a one:1 replacement ratio as proposed in the
arborist report or did the commission have thoughts on the ratio? >> I personally I think those are too close together. >> Yeah, >> especially for him. I I've had property with hemlocks and those look like
they're no more than four or five feet apart. They got to be >> chair. >> Yes, Ted. Um I it sounds like uh we're all including the applicant in agreement that the fence would be the PIB. With that said, and I'm comfortable and happy
with that. I I am not interested at all in moving that closer to the wetland. Just looking at the plan, it looks like we're maybe 25 ft from the wetland where the fence is right now. And making that smaller, I think is a bad idea. Um, when
I was thinking that I don't necessarily need a 1:1 replacement, I was assuming that they were going to be in the same spot if we are allowing flexibility on the plantings because the fence is the PIB. Um, I would be interested in
getting a planting plan and an understanding of whether we're going to do a onetoone replacement with a lot more ground to work with. I think that a onetoone replacement is not necessarily unreasonable given that we do have um
habitat impacts with the hemlocks. Um I feel like even if we're guaranteed the PIB, we might be offering too much flexibility on what the plantings are and that may establish a precedent that we'd regret.
I know um it is common to allow the applicant to plant shrubs as well um as replacements instead of trees. So not looking for 26 um pine trees, he tucks to be planted,
but it could be some combination of bushes and trees. I don't know what's in that area. If there's other trees back there, you know, it might not make sense to plant more trees if it's already treed beyond these. >> I agree. I think that's all the more
reason I would rather see a little bit more detailed plan. I don't think we need an NOI, but I think moving towards an RDA, a little bit more formalized and make sure we understand what we're approving is the direction I would recommend.
Um >> Melissa, do we know or the gun to this homeowner can tell us if behind these trees is it forest? Uh I mean you look at a look at a plot plan, it looks flat and nothing's there.
Uh is there natural vegetation behind the trees? Um >> is it mowed behind there just or is there any pictures, Judy? on the other side of the trees. >> Chaz, do you want to speak to that, too?
>> Yeah, if I can. >> Yes, please. >> Um, so I don't have any pictures. I don't Maybe Judy had taken some when she was out here, but um there was never uh any pictures taken of what's behind that row that I had shared with Judy and Anna. Um what is behind there is your
typical wetland. There's like a bunch of big trees that are like maybe falling over, maybe not with skunk plants everywhere. And it rolls right up. It's probably 40 to 50 feet, maybe a little bit more um to the White Hall Brook. And
then on the other side of that, if you've ever taken a walk down, it's the trail system that leads to the Fruit Street Fields that cuts down to the White Hall Brook on the other side of my property. And it's a lot of not much to do with in terms of like I think it
would look again I'm obviously not a professional. If I were to plant, you know, even an arborite or even these maybe the hemlocks in there, I don't even know that they would take I don't know what type of plant is going to actually live in skunk plant territory
because that's all that's all it is. >> Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. chill chill. Um, all right. With that being said, and is your the planter mulched area on the side by the driveway, is that all
planted out? Um, talking on the street side. Um on the street side, your question is remind me again. >> Um that it's called on this plan. I know
this is a really old plan so it's not reflective of current conditions, but it says planter mulched area. >> Let me take a look if it's if it's still up. >> Okay. Planter mulch area. Let me find where you're looking at here.
It's uh along the driveway on either side. >> Oh, along the driveway. No, that is um that was a few shrubs and is currently the fence runs along that with um with grass
with two trees that are at the end of the driveway in a mulched area. So, I'd say sort of >> okay. Um, in my mind, if we really want tree replacement, that could be an option.
Um, cuz I agree if there's established woods and wetland vegetation in the buffer there, don't necessarily want to disturb that and plant things um where things are already growing. That doesn't make sense either.
Um, so in order to kind of I guess move move this along, um, if we issue an exemption request with conditions for a, um,
I guess to work with you, Judy, if we specify a number of plantings that we're looking for, Um, it wouldn't have to be in the area between the fence, maybe just within the
buffer. Would that make sense? >> Sure. Through the chair. Um, so in our regular administrative tree exemption letters, we say conservation staff need to be notified within 6 months of uh replacement planting. So, I'll just
include standard language around um after the removal the plants need to be installed and us notified if that standard language sounds good to you. >> Okay, that that makes sense to me. Ted,
do you have any thoughts on that or Ed or anyone else on the commission and how many trees we or how many um bushes ve I'd say bushes or trees trees or shrubs be looking for? >> My only thought was I was going to say
I've offered my part and I'll look to Ed for guidance. >> Yeah. Such weight. So I'm looking at an aerial picture and it is clearly um don't misinterpret my words a jungle back there. Um,
and there's certainly no no obvious place to plant trees behind the trees that are there. >> Um, the chair >> and and and they're hemlocks and they're going to go
away um and they're going to die and then they're going to have dead trees back there. Um, so it comes down to, I guess, you know, normally we talk about, you know, like one and a half trees for everyone you cut down. That'd be crazy. Um, and and
it's funny. I'm I'm I'm I'm going off on a tangent. Excuse me, but I've been reading a book and it talks about how we obsess over the process and we ignore the final result. And here's a perfect example. >> Yeah. No, I hear you.
Joe, did you want to add something? >> Uh, yeah, just um possible suggestions for um some plantings um again looking for natives. Um some evergreen shrubs um might be appropriate. Um something like
roodendrin or or mountain laurel. Um also something like a eastern red cedar would have a similar habitat value to the uh to what's being removed. um or possibly are providing. So, I just want
to kind of put those out there. >> Okay. So, with that being said, >> just to share one other thing, Melissa, I mean, I'm looking at the overhead shot
as Ed was just referring to, and there's nothing but trees behind there. So is it really a necessity for them to be trees? He mentioned rooadendrrons, you know, perhaps just some kind of landscape, not necessarily
trees that might have a better chance of surviving. Yeah, I think I think Joe might have been um kind of spinning off of my suggestion that they could go in the planted mulching planter mulch area potentially on the other side of the
driveway and provide some more valuable habitat over there rather than you know trying to plant in the woods. Um, >> and Melissa, I am completely comfortable with that from what it sounds like. Trying to put anything back there is
going to fail or it's redundancy anyway. So, I like looking at other spots on the property. Um, >> but I will still look to Ed to give me a number that I should be happy with. >> Okay. >> Through through the chair perhaps in in in this particular area where the
hemlocks are um along with what Joe mentioned, high bush blueberries. Yeah. >> Yeah. How about why don't we um suggest if you're amenable chase to chance to um
say 12 and they can be shrubs, anything native. And they can be planted anywhere within the buffer. could be on the by the driveway um in other areas of the yard that would provide more
valuable habitat. Um which is really the goal here is just trying to maintain some habitat that being lost. >> Yes. To me that sound that sounds great.
you know, um, beautify the the property for sure and and provide habitat to the uh the environment that we're living in. So, um, I'm totally okay with that. >> Okay, great. >> Then, can I get a motion to issue an
exemption request signatures by Judy and Anna with the conditions that we discussed? >> The chair, this is it. I'll make that motion. All right, >> I'll go ahead and second. >> All in favor? Ed
>> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Walter >> I. >> Peggy >> I. >> And I am also an I. All right. So, you're all set. Thank you, Chess. And Judy can help you out
with the plantings however you need. >> Very good. Thank you and have a great night. >> You, too. Melissa, at the risk of it opening up into a story, Ed, what do you call that plant that smells like skunk? >> You mean like skunk cabbage?
>> Yeah, I call it skunk cabbage, too, but I didn't know if that was a New Jersey thing. I thought maybe that was from my growing up in another state, but Okay, cool. >> No, but I I I can if you want to come over sometime, I can take you for a walk and you can witness some up close.
>> Oh, I I get to see it plenty. Thank you, though. To go completely off subject, my son couldn't remember what its name was and he used to call it raccoon cabbage. So, I mean, you can go with that one, >> but everyone's using cabbage. Okay, because that's what I always learned it
was. >> All right. Um, it is now 7:43. Normally I would move up to the continued hearings um which is the DPW filing which I need to recuse
myself from. Um Matt is supposed to be on the call around 8:00 p.m. Um so I'm inclined to I don't know. Ted, do you think we should start that one or do you want to
hold off for Matt? >> Uh, I would rather wait for Matt so that if we run into a voting situation, we have as many members present as possible. >> Okay, that's fine. Then we'll jump back down to work session items.
So, next up is informal discussion dewatering from Charleswood project site. And I will turn to Judy to give an overview of how we got to where we are. >> Sure. Uh through the chair. Um I've got
some pictures in the uh meeting file, so happy to turn over to those, but I'll just give an overview of what's going on. Um so conservation staff over the past couple of weeks have observed high volumes of runoff that has sometimes been turbid uh leaving the Charleswood
project site and entering zero Brier Cliff Drive which is a property owned by the conservation commission uh as a result of the geothermal well drilling that they are currently doing. Um, so while there are no documented wetlands at this property, there have been
concerns voiced by in a butter about the volume and the quality of water as well as whether the conservation commission gave permission for dewatering activities to occur here. Um, so last Wednesday after receiving a resident complaint, I requested that the
dewatering in this area here cease until documentation was provided that the commission had given approval for that activity to occur on this property. Uh, on Thursday, the next day, I observed additional turbid water leaving the site and getting into the conservation
commission land and then clear water still being pumped out through yesterday. um a large amount of sediment remains in the forested area. So there's a concern that even if it's clean water coming out, it's mixing in with that sediment that's still there. Um
we are currently waiting for direction from town council on whether the use of land for this purpose at all was warranted and what level of permission may have been needed at the time that the activity started. Uh but regardless, nothing dirty should be leaving the
site. So, I have been speaking with the planning department um with regards to compliance with the project storm water permit. Um, so I just wanted to bring this to the commission's attention. Um, allow you the time to ask questions of
the project team who is on the call today about the nature of the dewatering activities as well as next steps that you want to see as the owner of the property and sort of the administrator of the deed uh, of which I have a copy saved in the public folder. Um, but as there are no
wetlands here, um, it's a little bit of a different situation. So, town council has said they're willing to meet to answer any questions you might have um and come to a resolution. So, I'm happy to organize that or pass along questions. Um so, whatever else would be
helpful for me to pull up or answer um let me know. >> Okay. Thank you, Judy. Um, I think it would be helpful to pull up the plan, um, if it's the SWIP plan or the erosion control plan that just kind of gives the
layout of the site and where the dewatering basin is in comparison to um, the property just so we get a feel for the lay of the land. I looked at it earlier, but for the folks on the call to speak to.
>> Yep. So, there are several iterations of this plan. um many different versions. What I'm pulling up now is the sediment control and erosion exhibit that was presented through the initial filing um
back in 2024, the first time the commission reviewed this project. Um, so the concom owned property is down in this kind of southern corner here and there is sort of an extension off of the limit of work where dewatering is
occurring. >> Okay. And um I did take a look at the deed um that we hold as conservation commission. Um
and you know the the one that sticks out to me is that no refuge trash, rubbish, debris, junk, waste, or unsightly or offensive material will be placed, stored or dumped on there on on our property. So, um I guess I would just
point commission members to that is I feel like that points to our responsibility as a commission to be a steward of that piece of property um in this situation. So, that being said, I guess I'll open it up to I know we have some
representatives here on the call from the um builder. I see vertex if if you all want to introduce yourself or if you have someone in particular who is going to speak tonight to answer questions.
>> Yeah. So this is uh Joe Amara, project manager with Brave Builders, general contractor. Uh I'm here and I also have uh Nicholas Greatate with me uh site superintendent uh for Brave Builders. So uh with regards to this plan here, so there it
is. So this is one of the drawings that was part of the exhibit within the order of conditions when that was filed. Um so there are also additional drawings uh that go with this. So there's the storm water management plan drawings which there's multiple versions of that just
because of the site um the size of the site. So, um I don't know if Judy has all the plans on hand, but there's a drawing specifically C5.1, which is the storm water management plan, which shows that little finger
that sticks out um which would go beyond the limit of work from what you see here. So, that finger is within the limit of the documents. Thank you. So, you can see that at the bottom of the page. Uh is that
So this might be an older version. So I don't know if we have the most up-to-date adenomized drawing, but so that area you see down at the bottom of the page, you see a flared end structure. So that on the construction documents is within the limit of work.
Uh and that is the point uh of one of the discharge areas right now. So we are discharging clean water within the site and it's making its way um into the Zero Brier Cliff um property. So with the the
geothermal well drilling that's taking place currently and we have probably two to three more weeks worth of geothermal well drilling uh it has increased the volume of water being generated. So, as part of our initial plan, we were going to be dewatering to the temporary basins
within the project site, uh, which would then be transferred to a frack tank for treatment. So, when we first initially started the geothermal, uh, more water was the volume was much higher than what was anticipated by anyone. So, we went
to now a four frack tank system. So, we're now treating the water that's being generated through four frack tanks. uh and then it's being discharged clean um within the site and it's making its way out of the site. Now I know
based on what Judy said there is some uh I would say sediment minor sediment uh outside of the construction limit of work um within that property which we've reviewed that and I I was on site today and I walked that area. It's mostly uh some sediment covering some of the
leaves that are on the ground, which in this case, we would be more inclined to just remove those leaves from that area um where it is an upland area. It's not part of the wetlands, but we would clean those leaves out so that way the sediment isn't left behind, but the
water that is being discharged is clean water. And we are taking uh turbidity readings. And as part of that, we do we're doing daily turbidity, but we're actually going to do twice per day. Uh so I know EPA regulations require once per day uh but we will be doing twice
per day readings and we are well below the 50 NTUs uh which is the EPA requirement or uh threshold for discharge which would even be to a service water which we're not discharging service water. So we're I think Nick correct me if I'm wrong today
we were somewhere at eight NTUs. Um same with yesterday with the discharging. So, I know I know last week when when the water was coming off the site, it it looked as though it was higher levels,
but the turbidity is low. Uh it's it's well below the EPA threshold. So, um I just want I just want to make it clear from from the general contractor standpoint that we're not discharging high levels of turbidity turbid water
into uh these this property. It's it's well below what the regulations um require. And what the next steps we're taking now is we have three rigs on site drilling for geothermal. And we're actually working
with the subcontractor drilling to reduce at least demobilize one of those rigs so we can at least lessen the volume per day um that is being discharged. So that way it's um it's not creating as much volume uh in
that location. So that should should help. And again, that would be for the next two to three weeks because this this wasn't I would say it's not wasn't an issue prior to the geothermal. The geothermals generates um
a very large amount of water and it's that's that's what's the cause of this at this point. So was there um so the pictures from the first event
it was extremely turbid water and the sediment that's been left there from that. Is that a specific event in something that happened? is this picture right here does not look acceptable
um for discharge off of a site to anyone's property. >> So I guess my question is is this are you saying that this right here meets your turbidity requirements and is okay
or was this an episode that you've corrected and you feel like you have it under control? Was this from last week, Nick? >> This was from the storm water basin. Um, >> so that Yeah. So that has now been
corrected. So anything that was coming from the storm water basin is now going through the frack uh treatment system. So this water that has come out that looks higher in turbidity which is probably created or left behind that
sediment on those leaves. That is what has now then since been corrected. Yes. So that um you will that will not be seen as we move forward. So the I don't I don't have a picture of it to show but the water even coming out today um was
clear to view and again low on the turbidity readings. >> The chair this is Ed. >> Yes Ed. I am so reminded of Captain Renault's commentary in Casablanca. I'm shocked that all this water's coming
out of this site and that no one expected it. >> Um, >> so I think I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. So to kind of speak to that, and I know we have members from the design team here as well, but um when the test pit was drilled for the um in
the geothermal field, there wasn't I I don't believe there was really much evidence of water at that time. Again, I don't know. I I don't recall what time of year that was drilled, but again, um there wasn't much if any evidence of water being drilled. Again, we didn't it
wasn't that we didn't anticipate um coming across encountering water, but I think the sheer volume that's we're encountering during this well drilling um is much more than anyone anticipated. But again, from the initial steps we had
in place with a single frack tank to treat, seeing what volume that we've um encountered, we've taken the steps to increase that. And I forgot to mention, we've also enlisted a third-party um consultant. So, LRT
um Lockwood Remedial Technologies LLC. They specialize in water treatment and dewatering. So, they've they've actually been on site daily since the end of March um monitoring and witnessing the deatering activities. So, they will be
remaining on site until the geothermal uh process is done. As I mentioned, that's going to be about two or three more weeks. So, I'd say three more weeks and uh geothermal drilling will be completed. >> The chair. >> Yes. Is that
>> uh so Chris Ely um Vertex Companies where the owner's project manager um we do take exception to what Joe said there that no one would have anticipated the amount of water that we're seeing. uh braate was furnished with the borings that were done prior to construction and
those borings very clearly showed a high water table. There was less um water at the time of the test wells, but there certainly was plenty of evidence that there was the possibility that there was a great deal of water on this site that
would need to be managed. and the documents that were given to them expressed that and charged them with managing that water through their means and methods. So, I just wanted to to state that for the record that um it was known that there was water here and Brad
should have been aware of that. >> Yeah. And I and Chris, I don't disagree with that. Right. So, we've we went through that from the beginning of the project. We we all were through this through the construction management plan process. We we all anticipated um hitting groundwater during the tree
clearing and grubbing and stripping phase and as we all know we we really once that once that site was clear it was it was pretty dry considering the time of the year where we cleared that. So it wasn't that it was disregarded. It was the
matter of what we saw from that test well in that area and what we reviewed with our subcontractor. That's what I'm stating that it was it was unant not unanticipated. Let me rephrase. We didn't the expectation wasn't as much water to be hit in that location. We
were we were we all understood that there was water present on this site. But, you know, as part as we worked through the process and site conditions changed, we realized that the water that we all thought was going to be there wasn't present at the time. So, that was the the assumption that we continued
upon. Even during the foundation phase, we didn't come across as much water as we anticipated. The only time we really came across the water was when we had rain events that were uh dealing with surface runoff. So, um but again, I don't disagree.
>> Yeah, I think that this project has been very lucky over the summer and with the dry weather and the drought, um I think it, you know, it's been on on on your side. It's been drier
than expected. Um, this might sound like a simple question just because I don't know the ins and outs of um, geothermal well drilling, but just because you start pumping um, for the wells, you
don't need to continue pumping continuously, right? I mean, you get to a certain volume or amount of water. um you can stop. It's not like a rain event. Am I correct in saying that? You
can control the amount of water that's coming off the site. >> Yes and no. Uh but Nick, you could speak to that probably better than I could being out there on boots on the ground. >> Yeah. Um well, one, yeah, you when
you're not drilling, there's no water being discharged. And when we're discharging, it's, you know, over the course of a 12-h hour day, the um the pumps are on floats and they'll be discharging, you know, for maybe, I don't know, a half hour at a time and
then take a break and then um we also stop pumping and recirculate to allow the uh water the the you know, sediment to happen. But um yeah, we we can control it for sure. >> Okay. So,
so really if the volume um and the turbidity and whatever issues the water coming off the site are causing is completely in your control as far as is how much comes off the site and it might affect your schedule, but um you know I
guess I'm I guess my point is if you can't pump as much water out and need to slow down um in order to address offsite issues, then by all means, that is your responsibility.
>> No, I agree. And um we're like Joe said, we're going to be removing one of the rigs. Uh we've also reached out to DPW to see if we can pump directly into a catch basin, which they've said we can do um as long as we get permission from the um a butter there. So, that will
hopefully prevent um all discharge into that property. So, we're hoping to have that meeting tomorrow and u if all goes well, you know, there'll be no more water going out there. Um and and just to Joe's point about um you know, the
gist of the way that the project has gone, uh we were told there was going to be a lot of water, but we dug all the footings as foundations and didn't hit any water. We've drilled um we drilled a irrigation well and didn't hit any
water. That was 800 ft which is 250 ft deeper than these geothermal wells are. So those just kind of pointed us in that direction. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um I do have a another question
looking at this plan. I don't remember this outfall um that is coming. It looks like it's from the subsurface infiltration system. Is that correct? on to the conservation property. >> So through the chair, I I can speak to
that and if I can get permission to share I can share sort of some of the history here. Um I wasn't able to pull up all of it in the time that I was preparing for the meeting, but I do have a significant amount of sort of the permitting progression. and Steve Powers
from Sami Odes who led the permitting effort um for the design team is also with us tonight as is Jason Springer who is um Perkins Eastman the designers um contact on the call with us tonight. >> Okay.
>> Is that all right with you Melissa? >> Uh yes. I'd like to hear some history on that >> or to um let them share their screen. >> Yes. >> Okay. So um when we initially submitted for um
both planning board and concom um the storm water presented as it shows on the screen. So I'm zoomed in here. This is just the portion of the site that we're talking about. And initially we proposed um dry wells at the edge of the site.
You can see um to the bottom here is um the abut's lot and to this side of the line this dash line is the separation between the um the parcel in question and our parcel.
um through the process of review and submitting for um both the storm water permit and also the permit with concom. There was evolution of this design that led us to where we are today which added a offshoot from
the infiltration system as you mentioned that discharged south of that line. um it was not flagged at the time by um any of my review. Um but again, that is why we're asking town council to weigh on weigh in on whether or not there was
something that was missed or um uh whether the permitting as it was done was adequate because that at the end of the day is is a question of whether or not we're meeting the legal definitions that are within that deed. because this
outfall was added. What occurred as a result is um what appears in the order of conditions and what was shared by I think I have the right plan set here. Um bear with me. I've got a lot of
um what ended up in the CMP plan. So, the construction management plan, in addition to getting an order of conditions and a site plan review and a um storm water management permit with that offshoot, we also submitted from
bra this uh construction management plan which included a dewatering plan. As part of those drawings, as they were finalized, erosion control was wrapped around where that offshoot would be. And so currently there is um from the
information that Judy shared there is this area that is fences and erosion control that matches the permanent plan which is where we're infiltrating into the soil. The discharge that you're seeing is where it is um percolating
after moving through all the other um layers of u management practices to remove sediment from the soil. And then this is where that final water is leaving. As um I think we noted in a lot of the correspondence since Judy brought
this up, we are not satisfied with the degree of attention that's being paid to the filtration of this. And as has been noted already, there have been a number of breaches that have occurred. There was one that led to a violation last year in another area of the site. And as
the spring thaw and subsequent rainstorms have come, there have been a number of times that um containment of water on the site has been challenged. Um the turbidity testing, we have asked Braate to provide us with details of
their turbidity testing for the days in question. Um I don't believe we've seen that yet, but um Brad has said that it is available. And so because that was the designated zone, we are using that
designated zone as where we're infiltrating water onto the site. When it breaches this um with sediment, that would push it on. And that has happened very rarely. And um it was noted in a
number of the um the Ty bond reports as part of the stormwater permit that they have cited that there has been um sediment leaving the site and we are aware that there's a trail of sediment that goes into the
land that we believe needs to clean up and we certainly want to make sure that we clean it up in a way that is acceptable to all of you. Um but because this is the extent of the erosion control that is where dewatering is
occurring on the con parcel. If it is determined that that is not permitted then we would revise this and I think that there was some uh conversation that went back that referenced a cost. If if this was not permitted correctly, then
we will have to vis revisit that cost in terms of what it takes to get the project permitted correctly. But as it is currently, we do have this outfall that goes on to that parcel. And we are using within the erosion control
management practices to limit any of that dewatering going off site. I can't find in all of my review um any anything from Ty Bond, anything from Lucas that spoke to the ownership of that parcel. I've also not been able to track down
anything from the applications that spoke to that ownership of the parcel. And from everything that I've seen, it was a good faith effort to believe that we were proceeding in the right way as we approached all of you for this original permitting. um believing that
we had permission to use the narrow portion of that site as was permitted in the order of conditions and the other documents as part of this permitting and as was shown in the construction management plan that was submitted to all of you last September. >> Okay.
Oh, thank you for that background. That's helpful. Although obviously still a few questions um lingering >> through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> Picture 17
that showed what I think is that egress onto Concom property. So we're not talking just a flow of water. We're talking a physical structure, if you will, fencing and clearing uh on
Concom property. Is is that correct? >> We are showing the erosion control that was on the submitted drawings that were permitted. Yes, it's the fencing and erosion control that was on the drawings that were permitted as part of the order of conditions.
And and was it known that that was Concom property at that point? >> I have not been able to find a clear reference on that. That's why we share um Judy's opinion that we should reach out to town council as to whether or not this was permitted appropriately.
>> Gotcha. Okay. I'm up to speed. I'm not happy clearly, but I'm up to speed. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, it sounds like we we have a little homework to do, Ed, with town council um to figure that out, that piece of it. for the long term.
Um, for the short shorter term on cleaning up the sediment that's in the woods, um, I think that that should be done. I think it's probably easier to do in the spring now before
um, things get vegetated. Joe, do you have any thoughts or advice on on that? I mean, we're not talking about a resource area here, but it is, you know, habitat. >> Yeah, I think it all depends on on how
deep the sediment is. It was um not real clear on those. If it's a thin layer, it's not that big of a deal. It's just going to work itself into the soil, but um not having seen it, it's it's kind of hard for me to to comment directly.
>> Yeah. Um, Judy, is that something we could have Joel take a look at next time he's in town? >> Uh, I think we have to figure out, yeah, what the, um, billing would look like.
So, I think I can touch base with the school department and see, >> okay, >> if that's something we can do, >> okay. Um because that I I think that might be worthwhile for everyone because I don't want to just assume that it
needs to come out if it's going to cause more harm than good or you know if it's warranted then absolutely then you know it should be done. Um just not sure which way to go on that >> through the chair. >> Yes.
>> Uh we do also have um Tyen Bond is the third party for the planning board in conservation. So I can have them look at it as well and they're they're currently contracted so that might be a little bit easier. Um >> okay I'll defer to you on that Judy as
far as what's the best avenue to get an opinion >> through the chair. Sorry. >> Um so some of the area where there was turbid discharge the leaves have all been removed already. Um so now the soil is much more exposed um but not in all
the places. And then there's now more um sediment now on the bare soil as well. >> Okay, >> Chris, did you want to add? >> Yeah. Uh through the chair, the um the
town's contract with Bright um has Brit responsible for not only containment of the settlement, but also the costs associated with um any violations that they are found responsible for. Um, I have no problem putting Joe on the spot
and asking that um, he accept the cost of the Concom peer reviewer just like we would for any other a butter whose land was impacted by a discharge from the site that should not have happened. >> Okay,
that makes sense to me. >> Yeah, Chris, I don't have any uh any issues with that. Okay. Um, if we could do that sooner rather than later. Um, Joe Orzelle, that I think that would
be helpful if you're amendable to it cuz I I do assume that you know the timing is better sooner than later to do any cleanup here. Yeah. If there's concern that we have um spilled into Concom land
and that any ongoing dewatering is making the situation worse, we would agree that we should clean it up sooner rather than later. >> Yep. Um I'm going to open it up to other commission members. I asked a lot of questions. See if others have questions,
comments, thoughts. >> Uh through the chair, this is Ted. I just have a I think a small question. >> Yes. Um, are we sure I I think we're sure that the turbid water is being contained on the property that Kong
owns? Um, is that true? No. No turbid water has gone on to other properties besides the Kong parcel. Is that true >> to the chair? >> Yes, G. Uh I haven't been as directly involved in this, but there was a
release of turbid storm water onto in a butters parcel, but that was not the conservation's parcel or wetlands. So I was not directly involved with that. As far as I could tell, the sediment on the conservation parcel, it gets pretty darn
far, but I didn't see that it got all the way to a private residence. And then my followup is when the water is clear water, is that staying within the Kong parcel or is that running on to other folks properties?
Do we know >> through the chair? If you'd like me to >> go ahead >> answer that. Um, so I do believe I have seen clean water coming off the site making its way all the way down to Briercliffe.
Um, I can't speak for the individual properties, but there has been a a pretty large volume of water um, running down seemingly from the project site getting down to Brier Cliff. Um, that's what I have observed and I believe the
DPW has received similar um, comments from folks. >> All right. I goes without saying that's a concern. >> Okay. Um, I will open it up to the public
kind of as we're segueing there if anyone has comments they'd like to add. Scrolling through. I don't see any hands or anything. >> Hello. Uh, >> yep. >> Hi. Um, my name is Steve Souza. I'm the
property owner at 7 Brier Cliff Drive that directly abuts the conservation land. Um when I originally saw a proposal um prior to the land being cleared for the school project, I saw mentioning a
bladder that was going to be retained on school property. And I went and spoke to the town planner of at Hopington's principal town planner, John Kelsich, who informed me that that was in fact going to be on town property and not on
the conservation land. And um that any additional water that would go onto the conservation land would have to be the same amount of water that it's getting today prior to the the site being cleared. Um this past uh end of
February, early March, I got water in my basement. Um it's not a typical basement. It's the first floor because it's a split level raised ranch. And I thought it was just probably because the excessive amount of snow and um melt
that we had, but it continued for two months and it continued to run across my driveway down to the street on Brier Cliff into the storm drain. And I'm really concerned because we have a very very high water table. That whole side
of the street, all those yards are very wet with a very high water table. And I'm very concerned when I went back and I saw that they had they had cleared an 83x 21 foot rectangle on conservation
land. It had been with what I count four large trees cut down and it had been completely bulldozed and it looked to me like that the the water had flooded back a couple hundred feet. Um based on my
just looking at the trees it looked like the water was up to like six inches on the trees. And um I'm very concerned with the high water table that that that conservation land is being flooded and it and I was told that there was no
water going to be pumped onto that property. Um I I've had discussions with other neighbors who have water and and same similar comments. I don't know if they're on the call as well. Um but I think they can provide additional
information. Okay. >> So, I guess I guess one of my my question is where where was the approval to cut an 83x 21 ft rectangle on the
conservation land and start pumping um what I could tell looked like three or four fire hoses of water and and the amount of water that was being pumped on there. Where where was that approval given? Yeah. No, I appreciate your question
because I think it's this question that all of us are asking right now and there's not a clear answer >> at the moment. So, we need to we need to figure that out. Um, I'm just flipping through the order of conditions and this plans in the
order of conditions don't appear to show that. um >> except for the the outfall that I highlighted earlier that is on those plans. >> Yeah. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, Judy.
>> Uh that I guess a couple points. Um the plans that were approved by the commission originally through the original hearing that was not the interim post construction term plan. So that that permanent outfall that's a
permanent fixture proposed. Um, and then I would also point out that the order of conditions regulates and approves work in wetlands jurisdiction and with wetlands buffer zone and and resource area. So, this wouldn't have necessarily
>> granted private property or other property encroachment. >> Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, I do I do see it on the plan. It wasn't on the erosion control plan, but I see it on the permanent permanent plan. Um, okay. So, we need to look into that
further. >> So, are you saying that they're they're suggesting that that's going to be a permanent? >> Um, there's a per I guess there's there's the two there's the two phases. There's the construction phase which is I think
where all this water is coming from the pumping of the um you know the pumping of the the wells for the thermo geo which is the substantial amount of water that's been coming recently and that's a temporary
discharge during construction and then there's the permanent which is what's shown here um the outfall onto the conservation property coming from that infiltration basin and the flow coming from that according to the you know storm water
calcs and the things that go into that shouldn't be increasing flow from existing conditions because water's being sent to the infiltration chambers infiltrating there first and then this would theoretically be the overflow from that system coming onto the town
property. So, I think there's two different flow sources and that we're talking about here. Um, but we, you know, we need to get a handle on both of them. Um, I think the one thing the commission can do
potentially in talking to town council um is to prohibit the temporary discharge onto our property um from the well drilling.
Um, >> so I guess my question is that rectangle that like was their permission given to to to basically clearcut and bulldoze that the conservation com uh permanent
conservation land. Like wouldn't that have gone through this this board? Wouldn't they have said yes, you can bulldoze an 83 by 21 foot section of conservation land and start pumping water onto it? >> Wouldn't they have had to have pro
approval? >> Yeah, I mean it it appears that there's approval as Chris was saying. Um I don't remember these discussions or how it got to that point and that's what we need to
have some conversations with uh town council I think is if legally that can happen and whether that was vetted during the permitting phase and we're I think Chris has said you know he's supports speaking with town
council on that and ensuring that that's the And I guess my my only other question um that I'd like to ask is do they have records of the volume of water that they've been pumping onto that conservation land?
>> Um that is a good question. I know um the contractor can speak to that. He should. I believe that's required by the state. >> Yes, we have those records. It's about um it's about between
anywhere from 7 to 10,000 gallons um on the days that we are drilling well well drilling which was I think it's been about 24 >> I think 24 days.
>> So at this point Judy um we're kind of in a in a data information gathering, but I don't think it's out of our purview to issue a cease and desist on the pumping until we have things
figured out if the commission wanted to do that. Is that correct? >> Uh, yep, that's correct. So, the conservation commission has jurisdiction over the administration of the deed. So, if there's activities that you believe are
contrary to the language in the deed and and that don't seem to have been preapproved, um you have the authority to make that decision. Uh or we can also um touch base with town council as well um in advance of the next meeting if you'd like.
>> Right. >> Does anyone on the commission have any thoughts on that? through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I will happily make a motion for a cease and desist order. >> Excuse me. Through through the chair. >> Yes, >> if I may. Um, so John Graziano, I'm
chair of the elementary school building committee. Um obviously we're you know continue to be committed to working with the conservation commission but um on this but just worth noting in this ambiguity um
cease and desist will probably incur significant costs uh to the town because we're talking about potentially shutting these drill rigs down for a period of time while we wait for council's
opinion on this. Um, so I I I want to make sure that that's that that's clear here and I I think um the contractor can uh Joe if he can remind me or Joe or Chris to remind me of the the numbers we're talking about here, but that is a
factor the you know it does appear that that as I said at best that there's some ambiguity as to whether or not the contractor has been doing this correctly or not. Yes, John. Thank you uh for mentioning
that. So, yes, the so with with a cease and desist and downtime, it would uh incur a cost of $10,000 per day per rig. So, where we're shutting down one of the rigs, it would be a a $20,000 per day um
downtime cost um until anything would be determined where where we are following the procedures of the order of conditions per our contract which was part of our general contract. uh where we are discharging clean water um within
our site um per per the order of conditions and per the storm water management plan uh in our best practices. Yes, that would that would incur a $20,000 per day cost. Um >> I appreciate that and you know certainly we always
>> through the chair if I could sort of clarify something there. >> Go ahead. >> Uh the town procured the contract based on the permanent drawing. So the permitted drawing showed that sliver of land as an area where we could um do
work. If that is in error and that's determined by town council, then we would need to rework and the town would bear the cost for that rework. And if that's what the law says, that's what the law says, which is why we thought and tried to expedite um getting an
answer from town council and I've spoken with town manager, with John, with Judy about this multiple times over the last few days trying to expedite that answer. What I would also say is that I think that there's two questions there that
need to be answered. One is are we permitted to have the permanent structure? And if the answer is no, if we pull that line back so that it is above the parcel that is um by Concom,
are we permitted to dewater at that location from townland onto town land that's run by the conservation commission even though the infiltration is um what's naturally leaving the site and only affecting the conservation
land? So I think both of those questions need to be answered. We can certainly um we'll follow whatever the commission says because at the end of the day that's you're the authority having jurisdiction. But those are two questions that need to be answered in
terms of was this permitted in appropriately or not because it was permitted by this body and it was permitted by the planning board. And once that's determined, we adjust the design. if we're not allowed to discharge on the town's land because the
water seeps through the erosion control and ends up on the conservation commission's land. I I need town council to weigh on whether or not that's appropriate or not. I do not know that answer. >> Yeah. No, I understand.
Um, and I can't say that I'm completely opposed to a responsible discharge of clean water on property if town council agrees that the you know the D says that. I
don't mean to be or intend to be a um roadblock, but as I was kind of alluding to before is, you know, there's a responsible amount of discharge and then there's a ridiculous unresponsible amount of
discharge where it's impacting not just the conservation commission's property, but obviously um others in the neighborhood. Um and they can also take their own action on that as well as property owners. But
>> and through the chair, >> yes, >> we share that opinion and our correspondence both with um you included as the chair >> have echoed that sentiment that there's a responsible way to do this and an
unmanaged irresponsible way to do this. And we believe this needs to be done in a responsible way. If I I would if the commission's feeling is that they would like to do a cease and desist order, my preference would be until we have this
dis discussion with town council that we direct the contractor to pull back the limit of their erosion control and their infiltration to the edge of the parcel until we can get the broader legal questions answered. And that would at
least bring that the source of that water off of the conservation land. And we are, as Joe alluded to earlier from discussions we've had over the last few days, looking at ways to lessen the amount of discharge and increase the accountability for that discharge to
make sure that that that this problem is addressed. We agree that this is a problem in terms of the irresponsibility of the discharge when turbid water has left the site, but we don't want to create a new liability for the town in
the way that we try to solve this problem as quickly as possible. >> Right. Yeah. No, I I appreciate that concern, too. Um Judy, can we can we word um
and we word an action such that it's not a complete um I guess not allow the discharge onto the commission's property. reiterating that um only clean
water that's not causing um I don't know exactly what the right language would be but um like detrimental velocity um trying to get at you know an amount
of flow that's reasonable without you know I can't put a number to that um on the fly >> yeah through the chair Yes, >> I did forward the um resident complaint that I received to the OPM for the
project. So, um I guess a question would be who's responsible for looking into what those detrimental effects might be and what level of volume is needed to be under to avoid any potential detrimental effects. I
don't know that I have a a number for you that I could, you know, put in a letter that would >> Okay. >> confidently avoid that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. This might be something we need to include in the evaluation by
peer review. um whether that's Joe or the consultant that's already on board to you know um provide just the same way you would size erosion controls and detention bas you know temporary
detention basins putting some thought behind what is uh not detrimental coming onto the site >> through the chair >> yes >> um I'll allow John to overrule me here if he feels it nec necessary, but I
would not object to paying for a day of Joe or Tyenbond's time to have them observe an 8,000 gallon discharge from the site and weigh in on how it is affecting the um the abuing properties
in terms of where that water is going. I think that that would be useful to have a third party not associated with um the project itself and representing the board to assuage the neighbors concern that that water is headed straight into
his backyard because then we would have that third party report to say where seven or 8,000 gallons of water goes when it's discharged at the edge of the site. >> Okay. >> Yeah. and through the chair just to tie a loop on that. I I would not overrule
Chris. I I would the committee we get the committee to support that. >> Okay. Um I think I think that makes sense. I think that's reasonable and responsible um while we wait to kind of work through the rest of it with town council because
I think that's going to take a little time and um I just don't want to allow a bad situation to continue for a couple weeks while we're waiting to have discussions with town council and the rest of it. Um,
so with that being said, can I get a motion from commission member to have I guess what format would we put this in, Judy? It's not an enforcement order.
>> No, I can draft a letter um and send it to you in advance. So you can look at it as um as property owner. >> Okay. Um just to make it official, can I get a motion to that effect to have Judy draft draft up a letter as discussed
>> uh through the chair? >> Yes, Ted. >> Not to get buried in formality. Do we have to do something with Ed's motion or because it didn't get a second, does it just die? >> Um, I don't think you >> It wasn't seconded, so it just
>> Yeah, I don't think >> Okay. No. Well, there was a motion. I just wanted to be sure that without a second, it just withers down the vine and we don't have to do anything. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the motion you were looking for was one again. Melissa, could you repeat?
>> Um, to have Judy uh write up a letter based on the conversation we just had. >> I'm happy to make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed?
>> No. >> Ted, >> that is an I. >> Walter. I >> Matt, >> I'm gonna >> because I wasn't here for the whole conversation.
>> Okay, Peggy. >> And I'm an I and I'm also an I. Okay. Any other last thoughts from commission members? Anything else?
uh through the chair. >> Yes. >> Um once it's determined whether Ty and Bond or Lucas are the right folks to do that walk, Judy can get in touch with my team um to schedule that when um an
appropriate time can be determined. We'll ensure we have the right flow of water and we can share our testing procedure as well as our testing results at that time and arrange for someone to walk in the woods to um show what we've seen to date and also um that'll allow
us to weigh in on um the cleanup method and also the um tracking of the water as it uh percolates through the site. We from a project team perspective don't feel we need to wait or the letter from Concom
to move that forward because if we're affecting in a butter we want to make sure that we're moving on it as quickly as possible. We did get the letter from Judy this morning. Um and so we do want to take action to make sure that the construction is not over creating an
over um burden situation for any of the abutters. >> Okay, that sounds that sounds great. And in the meantime, um Chris and Judy will continue to work on the research and the documents and
setting something up with town council to discuss the um I guess the uh the long-term discharge and whether
that needs to be um looked at And oh okay thank you all for your time coming in and uh the discussion >> thank you
>> thank you >> okay >> thank you >> all right let's Without further delay, jump back up to continued hearings. I'm going to go ahead and recuse myself from
this DPW notice intent discussion and I'll turn it over to Ted. >> Thank you, Melissa. Um, all right. So, we will pick up this discussion that we started last meeting with uh the DPW and um townwide maintenance. Um, I believe
we got a um D number today with brief comments, but um I was unable to look at the comments. I just skimmed and saw it was a one-page thing. Um, so even if we have a number, I I don't think I'm ready to
move to any vote with that short notice, but we do have some stuff to discuss. Um, I know that we got responses to Joe's initial uh comments. Um, and I wonder if maybe it would be appropriate to kind of
work our way through them with the applicant explaining their responses. At least the highlights. >> Do we have an Do we have a member? Um, >> Maria Johnsonberg with Tyen Bond. Perfect. Thank you.
I guess before I start, I was hoping to confirm that Joe had had an opportunity to look at the responses so that if there are things that we think need further response that we can kind of focus on those.
>> Yeah, we can do that now. I as of my look yesterday, Joe had not had a chance, but we can check in. Joe, were you able to look at their responses? Uh we we received those on Friday. I'm working through those right now. I have not had a chance to finish my review,
but uh I am working on them, but they're not completed at this point. >> Okay. Would it be helpful to to go through the responses right now, or do you think that is is not a good use of our time? Joe, would you rather be able to look through them yourself first?
Um, if the applicant feels that they want to go through the responses and the commission uh feels that would be helpful. Uh, I think that's fine. Um, it may clarify some of the the questions I'm developing as I go through this, but
um, I'm not ready to to present those at this. >> So, why don't we try to do that then? Given that it's it's almost a quarter to 9, we'll we'll try to be somewhat quick. Um, but if it helps Joe with some clarification for you as you finish your review of it, uh, it could be
worthwhile. So, let's take a a look really quickly. Is that helpful to you? >> Yes, that that's fine. I just wanted to understand where we were in the process, particularly given um the
comment about not really being ready to potentially make a decision this evening. Um, so I guess with without further ado, um, we received comments from Lucas
Environmental and we provided responses. There were a number of comments. We also received comments from the conservation administrator with some additional recommendations that we incorporated
into this. So the first portion of this common response document is to Lucas Environmental's comments and then the second portion is to the recommendations that we received um from Judy. So the first comment that Lucas
Environmental had was related to how we're going to confirm that an area is not within isolated land subject to flooding. And our response is that the
procedure that's outlined in this NOI is really about a communication framework between the DPW and the conservation office to allow the conservation office to weigh in and say yes, you can go
ahead and do that or no, you you need to come to us with an individual filing, be it an an RDA or an NOI. I um so essentially in in a case like this we would be relying on that piece of
communication if there is suspected isolated land subject to flooding near where work is proposed. Um that is a resource area that does require delineation and calculation to really
categorize it and it's typically something that in practice comes out of analysis from doing a field visit. Shall I keep? >> Yeah, I I think I would invite the
conservation members or administrators um to jump in if you hear something, but otherwise, yeah, just kind of plow your way through and and we can uh hopefully again that'll give some clarity to Joe as he prepares his hopefully last round of comments. >> Yeah, I I guess feel free to interrupt
me if you want me to pause so that we can talk about something. >> I I am offering the same thing to the conservation. Cool. So, the second note from Lucas Environmental um commented on that we proposed that no
work that is authorized under this NOI would take place within outstanding resource waters. um and noted that there are outstanding resource waters and ACEs which are areas
of critical environmental concern that are mapped within the town of Hopkin. And our response was essentially that, you know, again, as part of the initial review in the communication process with the conservation department,
the DPW is supposed to look at these mapped resources and are we near these areas or in them? And if we are within a mapped area, then it would just automatically throw it into category 5 of this NOI, which is the category that
requires an individual filing. Um the next comment was regarding um providing additional information about why the project is not subject to the mass D storm water standards.
D has actually ruled on this that when a project does not propose a point source or storm water discharge within a resource area or buffer zones that it is not subject. The maintenance activities that we have asked to include under
categories 1 through four in this NOI are activities that do not increase imperous surface and don't create new point sources. So by that definition they would not be subject. Um, we do
acknowledge that activities that fall under category five that need an individual filing, depending on the activity, they may very well be subject to those standards. >> You're the chair. >> Yes, please. >> Um, just a quick comment on that one. My
my reading of that particular decision um is a a little bit different. I might recommend that commission members take a look at that um for themselves. Um, again, I'm not u a legal um
professional, but it seemed like what the decision was saying was that in that specific case, um there were storm water discharges, point store storm water discharges that were located outside of the buffer zone. Uh and it found that those were not
subject to storm water uh management um uh criteria. not that um if a project does not have a storm water point source discharge uh it is therefore not subject to these uh
storm water protection um regulations. So um based on my reading I would think that some of the work that is proposed maybe other than even the u category 5 projects would still be subject. Um,
that's one of the things I'm still looking into, but the commission members may want to take a look at that for themselves. Um, and and may it may be something that the uh uh town legal council will take a look at for for an opinion on that finding also.
>> Uh, thank you, Joe. I wonder, Judy, um I certainly am not a lawyer, but I wonder if there's an abstract of that decision that might be manageable for us non-legal folks to kind of look at and understand that you could dig up for us. >> Yeah, I can look around.
>> Thanks. That'd be great. >> I appreciate the additional information on that. I would also comment that in the same vein
of how this was used in our responses that it is extremely typical to consider a project exempt from the storm water standards when no grades are being
changed because the storm water flow on the site is not being changed. And the vast majority of the activities that are proposed do not change the grades of the site and they don't increase the impervious area. So they are not
changing from that standpoint >> through the chair. I I don't have much issue with with that uh part of the comment. Um it was um mostly a question on the uh uh decision that was cited.
>> Great. I I saw a a fairly firm nod as as she was speaking at the beginning. So anyway, it's probably worth looking at. And if Judy, if you could do that without much hassle, that'd be great. >> All right. Shall we shall we keep moving?
>> Yes. Um there's there's apparently some numbering off in our sectioning. I apologize for that. >> We can blow right by that then. >> Yeah. Um, uh, Lucas Environmental recommended that we describe how it will be determined that work is not proposed
within the 125 ft of a vernal pool, especially those that are not necessarily mapped by natural heritage as either certified or potential. Um, and going back to our response to the first comment, um, we would rely on the
communication mechanism with the conservation department, um, to alert us if we missed something essentially. Um, certainly the goal is to not do work within that area. We did specify later
on in the NOI that work within that 125 ft zone of vernal pool habitat um does fall under category 5. So certainly if we think that we're in that zone, we would want to be coming back to you with an individual filing >> through the chair.
>> Yes, Carrie. >> Oh, that's me. Judy, not >> Judy. Sorry, you sounded like Carrie's voice and I just was on the meeting. um just because it's come up twice. Um so I'm happy to provide if we have, you
know, a past filing or evidence of ILSF or or PVP in an area. What I don't want to do is sign myself up to be the confirmation of that. Um I don't think in all cases I have the skill set to do so and I don't want the commission to
make any decisions assuming I'm going to be going out there and verifying. So, I'll definitely provide all the information I can, but just want to make sure you're aware that I I don't feel comfortable signing up to confirm presence of new ILSF or PBP.
>> That's understandable. Thank you, Judy. >> Um to to tag on to that the we appreciate all the information that you can give us in a given situation and area. the purpose of
the the back and forth is really so that there's an opportunity to say, you know, we we think that there's something else there potentially and we want you to do something more formal. um in which case the DPW would have to go out and do formal delineation of the
area like you the intent of this process is not to make you make those particular determinations. It's it's more to say you know we think that this is is borderline that you need
to go check it out more basically. >> Great. Thanks. Um the next comment was about a discrepancy in our references under chapter 206 with respect to the minor
activities. Um and really for some reason there's a difference between the document as posted on the commission's website versus as posted um elsewhere on the town's website through the e-code 360
link. um the same language is in both places. One just happens to separate the language out under a section I and the other does not. >> All right. Seems pretty minor. >> Yeah.
>> Um we were asked to provide specific regulatory references for the exemptions that we listed in table 22. um we provided an updated table 22
instead of adding a column. We did it um through footnotes to the table just because there was a lot of repetition with the way that the activities are laid out. Um there are multiple references that go to one activity
um in in the table. I will to the chair. >> Yes. >> Um yeah, I did like the changes to the table. Um I do want to note at this
point that there the u the MISA um citations, the regulatory citations have the wrong number. So those just need to be corrected. I think they're listed as uh I don't have it in front of me here. Hold on. It's 118. There's supposed to be 114. I
can't I can't remember off the top of my head, but just look at those because they are the wrong the wrong citations. >> You're correct. I'm sorry. Well, it is supposed to be 10.14, not 10.18. >> I was watching your facial reactions as
you were looking at your screen. It went from confusion to a little bit of a whoops. Well, there are so many citations on this table that I had to scroll through a few pages to find the ones
that were being referenced. That's what I was trying to do. >> I I'm not I don't have the um the tie and bond sheet with responses open. How many more do we have? It looks like these next few are simply uh updating tables, revising tables. Are
there any more bigger issues that are worth >> um I think well the a comment a couple of comments related to public notifica not notification for the NOI.
>> Um >> one was about the notification for this NOI that we are talking about right now. um which we because it would be a financial burden on town resources to send certified mail
to every single person in town. Um we requested at the time of filing that the legal ad serve that purpose in this case. Um that was essentially done with the caveat that we would notify residents in advance of specific work
under this NOI happening which the second >> procedure really is and again we don't want to send certified mail out to individual property owners because it's it adds up. It's it's a drain on town resources especially throughout a given
year. So what we proposed was that the town would use several public distribution options for that. Um they would use their existing distribution mailing list. They would use the DPW's website and they
would use the DPW's Facebook page to post notices. We did in the original NOI include in a butter notification template um which would be used for those notices. >> Great.
>> Um so there was that the only the other major things I think were actually in response to the recommendations that we received from Judy. um one of which was adding several
activities to table 2-2 um that we had just been discussing. Uh essentially our understanding is that the commission is currently working on a revision to the regulations that would include additional activities
as exempt. So Judy recommended we add those to the table which we did. Um and the other I think major thing is that our original procedure for communication was that we
give the conservation department at least 48 hours notice. Um and Judy's recommendation was that we provide at least four business days instead. Um, and I think, you know, especially given the earlier conversation we've had about
um, her needing time to look at an area and tell us if there's past filings or something, um, that's very reasonable. So, we did include an updated table for that that included right >> a 4 day four four business day notification instead of 48 hours. I
think that was the only other >> particularly major change. The other table updates that we made um were fairly minor updates. >> Okay. Okay. Great. And Judy, you feel pretty good about the response you got.
>> Yeah, I guess I would flag for the commission. So the um these are all proposed additions to the minor activities list. So I know the commission has not voted to include these yet. So I would just recommend taking a good look at these and make sure you're okay with them being
included in that category. Okay. Um, because I tried to open the door to commission members commenting as we went along. Um, hopefully we're we're done looking at those for now. Does any commission member have any comment or anything on the responses to Ellie and Judy?
So then I think the only other thing um is something I've never seen before in my handful of years on the commission, which is a letter from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife that we received. Judy, can you tell us a little bit about
this? >> Sure. Let me pull it up. So, this was I guess in response to work being proposed in um an area flagged by the natural heritage and endangered species program.
Um I have not had a chance to reach out to DP regarding permitting uh procedure if order of conditions or MISA comes first. So, I don't have a ton of background on this either, but I'm
happy to reach out and get some advice unless Joe you have experience with um misanp. >> I I can also speak to this, but certainly give Joe an opportunity first. >> Great. Thanks, Joe. Have you looked at this? >> I have not. This is the first I'm seeing
it. >> All right. Well, why don't we then give you a chance to look at it and uh I I'm sorry I've forgotten your first name. >> Maria. >> Maria. Uh if you could give us what your thoughts are on this document. I again in my couple years here I've never seen
this. So, >> okay. So, I had a conversation with Natural Heritage after we received this just to confirm because it was a little different, but we sent the NOI application to Natural
Heritage because you have mapped areas within the town. So, the NOI says, "We're not going to do work in these areas, but because it's mapped, we still sent it to them for their review." So, that's why they sent this letter. Um,
essentially there are some things in this letter that we did not propose in the NOI, particularly relative to beavers. Um, so I did have a call with Natural Heritage to ask them, well, why is there work in here that we didn't propose? And they
said that essentially they had been receiving a lot of these bundled NOI filings. And what they've developed is this letter that includes some things that maybe we didn't ask for, but other towns have asked about. So, it's their
way of putting it out there to make it clear what their standpoint is on it. Um, so essentially what this letter says is that there are certain instances where DPW would still need to notify
natural heritage of work and there are instances where that work is exempt and they wouldn't have to and this letter is supposed to help clarify when that is for DPW. >> So let me just ask because I I don't understand all of
this. When I look at the second paragraph, the one that begins based on a review, uh it ends with additional information is required in order for the division to complete its review of other portions of the project. Um and then as specified below, are you saying that
those are portions that you didn't propose anyway? It's a little bit of a form letter line that's been thrown in that doesn't directly apply to your application >> a little bit. Judy, do you mind scrolling down a little so we can see the table that's there? So,
when I spoke with them, I did confirm that no additional information is needed right now. Usually, when we have um a specific project and we file with them for concurrent review, usually they have to issue a letter eventually that says
that there's a take or no take or, you know, relative to a specific species. And because this is a townwide thing, they're not doing that um right now. Basically, they said there's some work here. So, if you look in this table, anything under the MISA column where it
says exempt, they're saying that work is exempt. Go forth and do the work. Um, if it says file MISA in that column, then that's an instance where if it's within mapped area, >> Natural Heritage wants to hear from the
DPW before the work happens. >> Okay. >> Um, and there are if it's a few columns down, it's on the second page of the table. There's there's some information about um installation and repair of beaver deceivers. That is an example of an activity in this table that we did
not propose. >> Okay. >> Um because honestly it typically happens in resource areas that would require filing an individual filing with you. So we just that wasn't even an option.
>> Okay. Great. Great. Um so we can give Joe a chance to look at that to make sure that he's fully but it it sounds like it won't be a problem then I guess. Um, all right. Um, what well are there
any any commission comments or questions at this point having reviewed the new material we have? Are there any comments or questions from the public? I'll flip through looking for the little yellow hands raised.
And Carrie is here. Carrie, do you have any final comments or anything to offer? Nope. That's a no, it looked like. All right. Well, what I would like to do since the D number just came today and there's a a short comment. Did I lose
you guys? No, there you are. Um, I would like and I do want to give Joe a chance to to fully kind of process everything that happened tonight. Um, I would love to continue this to our next meeting. Uh, Maria, if you feel comfortable with that as well. >> Um, before we do that, would it be
possible to just have very brief discussion of the D comments so that we can make sure addressing those appropriately? >> Sure. >> With the, you know, fingers cross to pull those up, please. Uh, commission members, I think this
arrived today, so if you haven't seen it, that would be completely understandable. >> Yeah, pretty late in the afternoon, so sorry about that. Um, so the the first note from DP
is really about that sometimes rip wrap can be considered fill within bordering land subject to flooding. Um and our general feeling on that is that that yes technically it can be viewed that
way. Um so there are a couple of different approaches we can take. We can say that that we would like to rely on the communication about, you know, are we saying that we're putting in like not a whole lot of fill right here or is this
a big enough amount of rip wrap going in that we really need to do more consideration? Because again, this is for maintenance of of areas that already have rip wrap in them. generally um um the the other way to approach it
is to essentially say that that RIP wrap stabilization is not an option under the work approved under this NOI. Um, so I think from the DPW's point of view, the first one of those options would be
nicer for them, but you know, you're the authority, so we would just kind of like some direction on which path we should go down to make sure that we revise any materials appropriately to reflect
which way we should approach it. >> Okay. Um, I'm wondering, um, I often look to Matt for a lot of this stuff when it comes to to well, this stuff.
Matt, Matt Moy, are you out there? >> I'm out here. Um, I'm wondering if you have thoughts on this brief par, even if you didn't get a chance to read it, hearing what Maria said in reading it over. I wonder if you can help me with what
our next step should be, what advice we should give Maria, what guidance. >> Just let me read the actual language real quick here. >> Sure. Of course, >> we'll play some hold music >> through the chair. Yes, Judy.
>> Just a thought that I had with Maria's response. I wonder if D was considering new fill or a distinction between maintenance of existing RIP wrap. So maybe that would be worthwhile to see if
D has a distinction between the two. Yeah. I mean my my take on it is their their presumption is we the rip wrap would be placed in a manner that it is actually creating fill um which would be if you took grade and dumped a bunch of
stone on top of it. Yes, technically that would be fill in bordering lines subject to flooding. It would be dimminimous. Any compensator flood storage for the protection of an outlet in my mind is doesn't rise to the level of compensatory storage. Um although
technically I suppose the regulations would require it. Um, so if this is focused primarily on refreshing existing outlet protection as part of a maintenance exercise, I don't really see any issues
there. >> Is that helpful, Marie? >> Yes, that that is. and and that is essentially how we view it for the activities that we're trying to have covered under this that it it is just maintenance and dimminimous impact.
Um, for the second one, um, with respect to bridge replacements, technically the way that the table is currently worded, it does
ask to authorize inind replacement of bridges when they are in essentially upland areas. um bordering land subject to flooding is typically over what we usually think of as upland areas. Riverfront area in a
lot of cases is that buffer zone is an upland area. Um that said, in my experience, bridge replacements typically end up impacting other resource areas anyway and therefore
would end up in category five. Um, so I guess my ask for guidance on how you'd like us to approach this is um if you just want us to add further clarification
on it because the the item itself is for repair or replacement. Um, we could split it into two items and take the bridges out of the replacement item. Um, or we could lean on that bridge replacements are pretty much going to
fall into other resources and require individual filing. >> Ed, would you like my thoughts on this one, too? >> I always want your thoughts, Matt. >> Uh, yeah. I think the the simplest path forward is to keep repairs and
replacements isolated from one another. Pull bridge replacements down into category 5. Cuz you're right. If you figure out a way how to replace a bridge without impacting another resource area, please give me a call. Uh but yeah, when you replace the abutments, you're definitely going to be
dealing with other resource areas. So if you isolate, repair, and replace, I think that solves the problem. >> I feel good Matt asking. That's where I would have gone if you weren't here. But >> look at that. See, you don't need me anymore, Ted. >> No, I need you, man. I need your >> um does that help you out, Maria?
>> Yes, I I appreciate that. Um we will wait on responses from Joe before we do any other updates, but that's helpful. Um we'll add those updates into the next round. >> Wonderful. So, one more time before we
look to continue. Commission members, any final comments or questions? public. Any final comments or questions? >> Ted, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed, please. >> I have a special request for Maria. >> Oh, boy.
>> And and you as the the presiding officer. Uh we have on the in the discussion towards the end a thing on the Longwood drainage study which was done by TNB. And I firstly want to thank Maria and let her know how much I
appreciate the work that they did. And secondly wanted if if she could hang around for our discussion on that. >> That's up to you, Maria. >> I can hang around for a little while on my own time. >> Okay.
All right. >> Uh thank you, Ed. All right. With that then, um can we get a motion to continue? Uh, I think May 19th is our next meeting. Is that true? >> Yep. >> May 19th. And And hopefully we can close then, but I I can't make a promise.
>> I'll make that motion. >> And >> I'll second. >> Was that a Was that a Peggy? Did I hear Peggy in there? >> Yeah, Peggy beat me to it. >> We'll give Peggy that second then. All right. Uh, so we need to do a roll call
vote on continuing. Um, Peggy, how say you? >> I >> Ed. >> That sounded like Ted, but I'm going to assume it was Ed. >> I'm not calling my own name. And >> I >> Walter.
>> Hi. >> And Matt. >> Hi. >> Ted Barker Hook is also an I. >> Thank you, Maria. And if you stick around, I hope you enjoy it. Uh, and I'm very very happy to give the steering wheel back to Melissa.
>> Well, I was just going to suggest if you're requesting Maria and talk about Longwood, then I should probably just stay off and go for it now. >> Okay, we will then. >> Do you want to jump out of continued
hearings and go down to work session and do that then? >> Yes. >> Okay, >> that's what I would suggest. All right. Um, so let's go down to the informal discussion work session item number eight. Longwood drainage storm water. I think this was yours that you brought to
us at it was mine. >> All right. >> This has been this has been an issue for a hugely long time like going back into the 80s. And over the past year,
I have been um asking DCR, I had to write to the state secretary of energy and environmental affairs twice with a return receipt requested letter to get responses that turned out to be what I
expected in the end, which was no, we're not interested in helping the town pay for the work that needs to be done to that that Titanb blonde did the um the study on to ameliate the phosphorus
that's coming into Whiteall from the White Oaks subdivision through Longwood Drain and Ralph Road. This is on the town meeting agenda for something over half a million dollars and I'm hoping that the members of
Concom will be supportive of it at town meeting. And that's basically the I can go on about this for hours, but I know that no one wants to hear about it for hours. >> Um, I I would like to hear just a little
bit more. Um, I wonder, Judy, is there a chance you could pull up a map so I can have a visual of what what we're talking about. Can Can you just pull up a >> Yeah, let me see if there's one in the report. >> I don't know if you were prepped for this or not.
And while she's doing that, Ed, could you um could you rephrase what what the town Well, just let me know what is the town meeting warrant actually what will the vote be on? What what is the specifics that you're
asking to be done and by who? the the vote is to implement the work required to resolve the phosphorus coming through the storm
drains into Whiteall. So the study was done to determine if there was something that could be done and this would be a replication I think of two previous
um similar installations resolving a similar problem. Um, and Maria may have some comment on that, but if she wasn't prepared for this, I wouldn't expect her to know, but I believe it was was two towns where it has been done
previously. >> And and who would this be a request that DPW do the work that that the developer of the street? >> No, I I think >> deal with the phosphorus. This would be an outside, you know, this would be for a bidded contract. I do not think this
is within the purview of the DPW to do. >> Okay. >> Um, Maria, I I don't want to put you on the spot if you're still out there. I don't see you on my screen right now. Oh, you're still here somewhere. Maria,
if you have absolutely nothing for it, that's okay. But I wonder if you have anything to offer. >> I I do not specifically have something to offer for this project. I really appreciate Ed asking me to stay to listen to it. Um,
but it it's not a a project that I am directly involved with right now, so I I don't think that I should comment on it. >> Okay, great. I I I certainly don't want to put you on the spot at all. Um, >> Ted, if I can interject, >> please do. >> I don't expect to put you on the spot,
but I do want you to take back my appreciation for the work that that you guys did. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you very much. >> Um, commission members, do you have any questions for Ed or any thoughts to share?
>> Going once. I don't see any yellow hands. All right. Um hopefully we see everybody at town meeting and hopefully everyone gives all the Warren articles a a consideration. Um it's a new thing this year moving it
to a Saturday Saturday morning. Um which I know is difficult for those with kids in youth sports and things like that, but um I don't know. We'll see how it goes. All right. Thank you, Ed. Thanks very much.
Now I'm going to try again to give you the controls, Melissa. >> Okay. Thanks, Ted. >> Thank you. >> Um, all right. Continued hearing. So, we'll go back up
to 75 South Street. Amended notice of intent. The parking lot. We provided feedback on um the last meeting and I guess I will open this straight up to you Joe
Marquant to um show us your revised plan. I know you made some updates based on our comments. So if you want to run through those that would be appreciated. >> Sure. the uh evening all Joe Makan here. Um the two um major changes to the plan,
most significant changes to the plan were the introduction of potential snow storage areas. Um I believe that was part of the u the memo from from Lucas. So we we identified uh two spots, one in each of the parking lots, one in the
east of the smaller of the two and then one in the um sele area uh the larger parking lot. Um we also heard that there was um uh some concern about the extent of uh storm water mitigation. So we have
um expanded that um vegetated filter strip the area that we were going to resaw, recede uh remove the uh torn and broken asphalt and replace with a grass area that now become uh a formal vegetated filter strip that leads to a
rain garden right there in that southeasterly corner. um same spot the about the only spot we can really effectively um uh introduce any storm water mitigation. We've examined again all the potential uh locations and
that's the one with the least amount of buffer zone disturbance. Um the remaining information was just trying to quantify some of those issues with regard to the extent of the work in the buffer zone. Um, there's a summary page
in the package and we've al tried to include that in the narrative just folks get a handle on what we're talking about and and again the bulk of it is down here in the southernly parking lot. Okay, thank you Joe.
Um, Joe Orelle, I saw you issued a comment letter. Um would you like to run through some of your comments? >> Sure. I think I think a lot of our
comments were addressed. Um just a couple that u we're continuing. Um again, number one was um the conservation commission to discuss whether the um amended uh notice is the
appropriate way to go. Um the plans are updated. Um as uh Mr. Maron had had described the uh operation and maintenance plan was also
updated uh to include the proposed vegetated filter strip and rain garden that are uh now at the end of that parking lot. Um our recommendation is that the OM be uh revised to include
mowing of the vegetated uh filter strip at a frequency to maintain the grass between 3 and 6 in uh so it's functioning maximally. Um and also grass clipping should be collected from that area. Um
mowing should also be removed as a maintenance item within the rain garden itself. Um, typically you don't mow those, especially if you've got shrubs growing in there as part of the vegetative mix. Um, also noted that on page five of the OM,
it states that snow will be plowed along the entire length of the roadway. Um, just wanted clarification because there are proposed snow uh storage areas. Um, and I didn't know if that was referring to just a partial portion of the
driveway or um if that's an error and needs to be revised. Um, also noted that the uh detail uh of the vegetative filter strip um on sheet
1.6 Six includes the a two foot wide keystone diaphragm u and that functions to act as a level spreader for the uh the bed shaded filter strip. Uh that's not indicated on the plan view. I know it's pretty narrow but I don't know. I
think it probably should be indicated on the plan view also that that is there. Um the uh applicant provided a TSS removal uh uh table and it appears that the uh TSS
removal value um of 0.25 that was awarded for the vegetated filter strip seemed uh seemed quite high. the regulatory value of 0.1 um is uh established for a vegetative
filter strip with a minimum width of 25 ft. So we've got a narrower vegetative filter strip and a higher TSS removal value. So I think that that needs to be um looked at or explained where that value came from. Um
also recommending some information on sizing of the uh rain garden for various with respect to various storm events. Not sure what what it's storm event is sized for. Also noted that there was a decrease in
about 2200 square ft of buffer zone impacts. wasn't clear where that happened. So, but uh like if Joe could just explain where that occurred based on the the response uh there is no
work proposed offsite uh on the parking lot. Um however, there is uh erosion controls being proposed offsite. uh would recommend that uh if any of the work is done even if it's just the erosion control installation offsite
that the uh uh signed permission needs to be obtained from the budding property owner and that a budding property owner would uh the uh that would also need to be notified. Um the option would be to
move the uh erosion control barrier to the property line um with with just a uh some kind of a uh filter tube installation or something like that uh and keep it off the abing property. And I think the last comment was with
respect to the vegetated filter strip that the applicant investigate the use of native grasses for that area. And that's it. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Joe. Um,
sounds like there's a few things in there. Joe Mara, did you want to discuss any of those now or I know? >> Certainly. Yep. I think the uh the um the easiest one to clear up would be the uh note number nine. Uh comment number
nine. Uh that was uh a mistake on my part. uh with the original figures. I double counted uh the buffer zone um to the isolated um vegetated area offsite. So I
overstated the um amount in the original plan and corrected on this second one. So it was simply a brain cramp on my part. Um with regard to um the arro control, I guess we would like to
simplify this um rather than extend notifications um continue on uh involving the owner of 77 who has indicated he is willing uh to allow the work to happen. Uh we would move the RO controls back to the
boundary line in the middle of the parking lot. We were simply trying to make this easier for the contractor. Anything that could escape would be caught by uh the arro controls in the grass area of number 77. Um but um I we
are in have no interest in complicating this. So, we will remove move the um the location back inside the bounds of the uh parcel owned um by Lance at number 75.
>> Okay. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> Um >> the chair. >> Yes, Judy. just because it doesn't seem to come up a whole lot. I wonder if um Joe, you had any suggestions for stabilizing erosion controls if it's on
pavement. I mean, usually we suggest staking, um trenching, silt fence, that sort of thing, but I don't know if there's best practices we can suggest if we're approving erosion controls on pavement. Yeah, I think uh probably a mulch filled
filter tube would probably be a good choice because it's it has some heft and weight to it and uh would probably seal better to the uh uh to the pavement. I don't I don't see it very often. Um so I don't have any real good
recommendations, but off the top of my head, I think that that might be a solution. to the chair. We anticipated the same sort of thing and then at certain points tacking it to the asphalt in a manner
that doesn't destroy the asphalt but creates a tighter seal um against that surface. Okay. So Judy, I think to address your question and clear it up as far as the so on the
details page for the erosion controls, we might want to see a detail of what they look like on the pavement. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think if the commission is okay with that option versus getting permission to put it on the neighboring
property. So, if you're comfortable with that, maybe just more information on how it's being kept in place. >> Yeah. Okay. I think I think I'm okay with that keeping it on the property. Um, as long as we have a clear picture of how that's going to be
accomplished. Um, okay. So, few other things there um for you to work on, Joe, to address Joe Orzel's comments. >> Um the one it's still, I guess, an
outstanding item. I can't remember if we addressed it in last meeting or not, so I'll just bring it up again. Um Joe Orzel, you mentioned whether this is uh amended notice of intent appropriate if we if we deem that's appropriate. Right, Judy? We didn't
actually make a decision on that or not at the last meeting. >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. So, just to I guess make that clear or clear that up now. Um,
I think we should decide if that's acceptable or not to the commission. Um, I think I'm of the opinion that it is. Um given that this plan is coming back with all of the comments and
additional requests that we asked to include some storm water control measures and improvements to the site. Um I think that you know looking at the regulations um amended notice of intent when a
change is permitted in project has occurred that the commission deems of sufficient magnitude that will require the imposition of additional conditions to ensure adequate protection of the wetland resource areas andor the interests covered by this bylaw and
regulation. Um, so unless I'm missing something, I feel like what is currently in front of us for a plan is providing some additional conditions um to, you know, adequately protect and
improve on what's there for the resource area. So, I'm feeling comfortable with amended notice of intent, but if others would like to weigh in, I'm like to hear what you have to say.
similar or alternative opinions. >> Melissa, to break the silence, I'm with you. >> Okay. I was just going to say >> I was just finding my mute button, but yes, I think in a minute. I know that makes sense. >> All right.
So, we'll go with that. I don't know that we can or should close it tonight without having Joe's comments addressed um and the plans updated with those those things. So I guess I'll ask you
Joe Marquon if you're amenable to addressing those comments and closing this out at the next hearing. >> Certainly that'd be fine. >> Okay. Um then I'll just ask for a motion to
continue and also just bring up uh Peggy had you had mentioned um that you would recuse yourself I believe. Do you want to speak for a moment just on that topic based on your uh current position with
>> Yeah. No, I I work in the um the way site cleanup program at Mass D and this property is one of only we only have seven active sites in Hopkins and and this is one of them. Um so since I work in the wayside cleanup program, I opted
to recuse myself from this just to um to eliminate any um I guess perceived conflict of interest issues. >> Yeah, thank you. We appreciate that. So, um, that being said, can I get a motion to
continue this out to May 19th? >> I'm moved. >> And seconded. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Walter. >> I.
>> Matt. >> I. >> Peggy is abstaining and I am also an I. All right. So, see you next time, Joe. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yep. All right.
See where we are going down the list. All right. Informal discussion item draft Hington wetlands regulations update. So, being that it's 9:30, we'd hope to have
some discussion on this, but I think um it's been expressed, myself included, could use a little more time to look at the rags um to have better discussion. Um if anyone has anything in particular
that they want to talk about, we can touch upon it. But while the commission continues to look at the regulations um and give feedback to Judy, I'm thinking that it would make sense to go ahead and
send them over to Lucas. Um, we had voted I think at our last meeting or maybe the meeting before um to go ahead and spend um some money to have Lucas give it, you know, a uh a
professional review and give us feedback on our rags and any suggestions that they would have for for changes. So, um I think we should probably talk about sending that over to them if everyone's amendable to them that at this point
while we continue to chew on them. >> I'm the silence again and say yes. I think we should do >> Yeah. Okay. >> I'm all for pushing it out for others. >> I'm quicker on the mute button than you, Matt. >> You sure are.
Okay. All right. I'll take that as all in agreement. So, Judy, you want to go ahead and send that over to Lucas? >> Yep. >> I think since we already voted to approve it, I don't think we necessarily
need to vote to actually send it. >> Nope. Nope. Since you already approved the scope. Yep. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, all right. Next up, number seven, Lake Massock Weed Citizen Input Group Liaon.
Judy, do you want to >> uh talk about this one? >> Sure. Uh this should be quick. Um so the Lake Maspanok weed citizen input group. It's a um separate board that meets remotely two to four times per year to
discuss topics related to the lake such as uh treatment recommendations and water quality. um they have historically had a liaison from the conservation commission attend those meetings. Um but we have not had a liaison to fill that
role since a uh past member left the commission. So I think I've mentioned it maybe once or twice but haven't had any takers. Um it did come to my attention if nobody actively serving on the commission wants to fill this role that the commission could choose to appoint
um somebody who's not on the commission to serve as your liaison and discuss what your expectations might be around communication. Um we did get a recommendation for um Don Kaiser was
recommended by a resident in town. So if folks want to appoint somebody, if you want any additional information about that person um or want them to come into a meeting or have any suggestions on who might um best serve as that leaison, I'm
happy to facilitate that. Uh but we did receive a recommendation from somebody. So happy to answer any questions on that. Does Don currently sit on that group?
>> I do not believe so. No. >> Okay. >> And do you know if it's invitation only or >> I do not. >> Okay. All right. Um, does anyone on the commission
have a burning desire to be a liaison to the weed group? >> I'm pretty booked. >> Yeah. No, it's fine. I just I wanted to make sure and ask. >> Okay. >> Doesn't say Melissa. Jim's not here. You
can always appoint him when you don't show up to the meeting. >> That's right. That does tend to happen, doesn't it? I won't do that to Jim. >> And I guess with the new information that you all can appoint somebody who isn't on the commission. Um, if you want
some time to think about who you would maybe consider putting forth for that, um, I can share the recommendation that I received for Dawn. So, you know, take more time to think about that as well because that is new information. Okay. Does the recommendation talk about why they're
recommending him? Like Okay. Yeah, I think that would be helpful to be shared. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Give a little background. >> And >> was that Sorry, Melissa. Uh was the recommendation of Don did that come from the the SIG themselves?
>> No, that was from a um representative of the sustainable green committee. I think just personally making that recommendation. Is it possible we could just ask the SIG if they have somebody that they would recommend that could be brought before us as well?
>> Up to you all. Um, however you'd want to go about it. >> Are they asking us though, Judy? >> So, they just want somebody that either is on Concom or is in a position to be in communication with Concom to serve on
the group. um just so that that level of of communication is there between the two. >> Um >> they haven't been breaking down my door or anything, but it's just been on my list to try to get somebody to serve in that position. >> Yeah. No, >> could we uh could we ask one of them to
be the liaison with us that they >> they attend more of our meetings? I'm not sure if it if it you know which way it goes if >> if they want us to sit in on their meetings or they need somebody to sit in on our meetings. What's the le which way
is leaison going? >> So as I understand it they want someone to serve on their committee to give the conservation perspective for the lake treatment recommendations. Um so it's not necessarily they want I mean that
isn't really how concom works because you all are appointed by select board. Um, >> so this is more so having someone from Concom be there to um if it's not you just communicate back to the commission or if it's someone on the board just be
there to provide that that perspective. Melissa, I'd recommend that if if no one on the concom is interested, that that's the response we just give to the SIG instead of appointing an outsider.
That's not concom, >> right? I think if if I was going to take a recommendation or a point, um, we just need to I think it would be our responsibility to make sure that that person is knowledgeable about
conservation, you know, regulations, um, you know, initiatives and the things that we would want to weigh in on or could weigh in on. So, um, if you mean we can certainly ask SIG, but if they're
asking us for someone, um, I'm thinking it's probably more than likely because they're lacking that knowledge, you know, looking for, um, someone with a background. >> Seems like all the all the current
members are full up right now with with volunteering. >> Yeah. No, I know. I know. there's some like, you know, prior members who we could reach out to, you know, who used to be on the commission. I think Judy did reach out to one that we haven't heard back from. Um, you know, and other
people who professionally, you know, in their professional lives touch the uh permitting world that might not want to be, you know, a fully committed conservation member meeting in, you know, every other week or meetings but still have an interest
to to share. So, um, yeah, I think it's I think it's worth spending a little time looking for the right person. Um, >> um, Melissa. >> Yes, Ted. >> Um, I think it's, at least for me, worth
a little time trying to understand the group a little bit better. Um, while we were talking, I Googled it and I came up with different groups. Um, and but I couldn't find a listing or a description of this particular group and what they
do. Um, is that something Judy that maybe you could help us with in in the next packet of documents? Um, who's on this group? What what the group is charged with? Are they underneath another group? Are they their own group?
I was just want to learn more about the group. I think >> I see Carrie's still on the line and she might have an answer to this question. >> I think they advised the DPW on management of the of the Lake Maspan
as I recall before. >> Yeah, I'll let Carrie >> Yeah. through the chair. So, the um citizen advisory group, if you look under like boards and commissions, you should be able to find it in the current members. it was established by the select board. So they're appointed by
the select board. Um there's at large members and then there's representative from the conservation commission and I think that's it and then there's like another caveat of like one person needs to live on lake and something like that.
Um but it's a it's a direct report to the select board and their purpose was you know when the initial treatments were proposed the select board wanted more research and survey and work into that. So that's how it got
formed. Um and there has been a member from the conservation commission on it for quite a while. Um Janine was the last one right? >> Yeah. It was Jeff and then >> Janine. Yeah. >> Yep.
>> But the purpose and they advise the select board directly and then they give input and DBW helps eventually um depending on what kind of >> recommendation they make. >> I just found some minutes from 2019, so I'm on the case. I'm starting to learn
more. But thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it sounds like it can't be someone that's already in that group. There's an empty seat basically for a commission member, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. I forgot about the parks and rec commission uh designate. And so, the parks and w commission has always
designated somebody. It was a person who was on the commission and then was no longer on it and still want to serve on this advisory group. So, there's is a designate, not an actual commission member. >> Okay. Um, and do we have any idea when they
their next meeting is? >> I don't know. I don't think they've scheduled it. I think they're going to wait. They generally meet maybe once a quarter. So, their next meeting would probably be after >> probably be in early June to try to figure um schedule the next
um survey and sampling event. >> Okay. Is is this the one Joe Bald digger is >> correct? >> He's the leader of that. Oh yeah, there there we go. >> Okay. So I think that's our goal is before
their next meeting we can double check that Judy in the meantime if that's June, but give ourselves a timeline to try and nail that down. So Judy, what you just showed us, that's
the same group because the title is a little different. I found that group too, but that title is a little bit different from what's on the agenda. I'm not trying to be corrective or I'm just trying to understand. >> Yeah, it's funny because it's also it's in the description as citizen input
group, but you're right. It has a different title appear. I don't know if it just has a multiple names or >> I I've just always known it as the SIG CI. >> That's it. It's had multiple names, I think. And initially was the SIG and
that's what people called it CIG. And then when the select board um >> made like official thinking about this official long name, but nobody actually uses it because it's too long. But it's one and the same.
>> This could be the KAG. That doesn't sound as good. >> Um, >> they like the weed group. They enjoyed that one. So, >> anyway, that's helpful to me because I did find this group, but when the title didn't match, I I didn't know if I found the right thing.
>> Okay. >> Sig sounds a lot cooler than KAG. >> I don't know. >> I I wouldn't want to smoke either. >> Okay. There's some homework for us. Thanks. Thanks, Carrie.
Um, all right. So, we already talked about the longwood drainage retrofit feasibility study. I didn't realize that was on for town meeting. Um, it's good to know.
In-person meeting dates. We wanted to pick it. We haven't had one in a little while, so we wanted to go ahead and uh pick a meeting date. Does anyone have any thoughts on that? Looking below, next meeting dates are May 19th. I don't know if we could do it as early as May 19th.
>> We can We haven't advertised for that yet. >> Yep. >> So, any of those are available. >> I suggest some place where we can serve alcohol >> or smoke keg. you have to stay online then >> um
so I I don't know if I should bring this up. Um there was some chatter about moving meeting start times to 7:30. That might be worth folding into an in-person meeting as well. >> Yeah, we can talk we can talk about that. >> Sure. Sometimes I have done meetings
from Chestnut Hill because it worked out for me better because I couldn't get home in time for a 7:00 meeting. Um, but if it were in person and a 7:00 meeting, then I don't have the option of staying late at school. >> So for me, that kind of factors into
what I think would be a good date, the meeting start time. >> Okay. Yeah, that was the thought that I had that I wanted to open up to the commission. Um, being that, you know, we're kind of in the spring season, there's a lot of after school sports
activities, things going on, daylights, um, longer. If folks would prefer to have our meeting start at 7:30 going forward instead of 7, if that extra half hour would give um, people a little more time
to be able to make it make it to our meetings. >> Not not if we go until midnight. Well, the thought would be >> the thought would not be sir >> would not be to try and uh go later be
to shorten them up. >> Yeah. I mean I I'd be against pushing it back to 7:30 for the reason Walter just shared. We've had so many nights that it's getting to the point where it's become exhausting >> to be on the commission to be quite frank.
>> Totally agree. We say seven to nine, but we don't It seems like we don't mean that. >> Yeah, >> I I agree with those comments. I'm already falling asleep till 10. >> So then, Melissa, my own input is if
that's the vibe and that's fine. I would prefer not to have an inerson until my school year is done because of my commute and my my responsibilities at school. >> So June 30th would be the earliest that I would vote for. Well, I would hope for
an inerson meeting. >> I I'm totally flexible on that regard, so I don't care. >> I I agree with that, too, because I'm actually going to be away for the the first two dates. My daughter's graduating from college.
>> Yeah, congratulations. >> Thanks. And then I'm on vacation, so June 30th is not not that I'm the biggest contributor to this, but I' I'd like to meet all of you in person. >> Yeah. No, >> possible.
>> That would be good. Okay. So, June 30th you could do, Peggy, or that >> Yes. June 30th I could do. >> Okay. Let's go ahead and put that in then or in person. >> Sounds good. Um, okay. Anybody have anything
else or any suggestions for how to shorten our meetings? I am always open. >> Yeah, >> I can take constructive criticism. >> Have less on the agenda. I don't know. Or meet more meet more often or something. >> I would much rather meet twice as often
instead of going till, you know, 10 11 o'clock at night. meeting more often would be every week. >> Yeah, that that doesn't work. >> That doesn't work. Nope. >> Just tell the public we're busy >> and it wouldn't change how many items are on the agenda, honestly.
>> Would just ask to be on the next agenda no matter what. >> Good point. >> Yeah. I mean, >> I we've talked a little bit about this before, Melissa, but my my one suggestion would be is to just hold applicants feet to the fire. If they don't respond to comments in an adequate
time, we don't discuss the project on the agenda. It's just we receive your comments on Friday. We haven't had enough time to review them. Recommend that we continue. >> Yeah. >> And that eliminates probably 30 45
minutes of the meeting right there. >> I like that. That could be actually a standard, Melissa. I mean it no discussion unless your input is received x number of days before >> I think we were talking about rolling something into our >> not to put in the rags
>> not necessarily in the rags maybe it's in the rags but at least on the website or something I know a lot of town >> you know materials are required one week two weeks whatever it is they give it they have a meeting date and they have a new submissions deadline date and a new materials deadline date and if an
applicant doesn't meet that Hey, they're not on the agenda. >> I think it's a great idea. >> Or they're on the agenda and it's just an immediate continuence. Right. >> Right. Right. Um, yeah, we can look. So, Judy, I know the town of Needm does
that. They have a posted for the year and I think you have to have everything. I forget two weeks before a week. gets a little it's a little funny if it's a new hearing or an old hearing, but >> yeah. Yeah, we can
>> I think the the most common I've seen, Melissa, is it's it's two weeks for a new filing and it's one week prior for new information on an ongoing filing. That's the most common I've
seen. That's not to say it's the only one I've seen. most common I've seen. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I think that should be pretty easy to post and I don't think we need to do
anything. It's just a policy. Maybe we vote on it in the next meeting to make it official >> and I can let applicants know as much as I can, but um it is up to them if they want to show up. So, in those cases, you
might just have to enforce it, >> right? >> Y >> um I think the other thing we bump up against, and I know we're at 10, but this stuff is important in trying to shorten the meetings. Um >> I'll take I'll take this one going a little longer to help shorten the ones in the future. >> Yeah. Well, so the attend so attendance
and who can vote on hearings have been doing a lot of Judy and I have been doing and a lot of research over the last week as we come against the um 12 North Mill which has been going on for over a year and we get to a point where
we don't have enough people who can even really vote on it because of the rules in place of missing a number of meetings and when they keep getting kicked out to your point Matt if they like if they can't, you know, come to a hearing because they don't have their materials
available, then in the long run that's better for them because otherwise if you keep showing up to these meetings and rehashing old information, you're setting yourself up for quorum issues, you know, when the commission eventually does have to vote. Um,
>> yeah, >> so that's important, too. And I think Judy applicants can be made aware of that that this is something that helps them as well um by limiting the number of meetings that they have to attend if
they're ready to go um kind of keeps them out of that predicament where you end up without a quorum when you want to vote on it. >> Well, I mean it helps keep them honest too, right? it it they're they're the ones controlling when they get us the
information. We have it's completely out of our control. >> Yeah. >> So if you know if they have a desire the applicants to to move something forward more quickly then it's in their best interest to file the information in a timely manner so that we can you know
fulfill our roles and you know our consultants can fill their roles. >> Yep. Um, I do think that your detailed agenda was helpful, Judy. Um, if anybody has any feedback for that or things that could be put in there, if
the amount of information Judy had, if that was helpful to speed up conversations, um, feel like that could be another tool. you have things at the fingertips rather than having to ask questions again and
whatnot. But well, um I guess that's enough for now. But again, I welcome any constructive thoughts >> on that. I liked it.
Trudy, >> you like the a detailed agenda? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay, if it was missing anything, let Judy know. >> Thanks, Judy. Hopefully that wasn't too much extra work in your week, but
>> no, it'll it a lot of a lot of it'll be reusable, so it was >> okay. >> Work the first time that'll pay off. So, yeah, if anybody has suggestions, I was thinking about linking to the sections in the regs so it wasn't just a list of text, but >> Oh, yeah, that would be helpful.
>> Bestful if it's not the time I had. Yeah, I will. >> Okay, it'll pay off. >> Okay, I think that's it. Does anyone make want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> Wait, wait, wait.
>> This is Edy. Judy, don't you have anything to talk about for this weekend? >> Oh, yes. Uh, native planting um block party. I sent out the flyer for the location that was posted. It's um near
Weston Nurseries. Um so if anyone's available Sunday 1 to 3 should be a lot of fun. Ed and Cheryl will be there. Um so hope you can make it. >> Okay. >> What more do you need to know to know that it will be a lot of fun
>> and that you'll be there, Ed. >> Awesome. Sounds good. All right. Can I get a motion? >> I'll make >> Oh, I will second Walter's motion. >> All right. All in favor? Ed
>> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Walter. >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Peggy. >> I. And I am also an I.