##VIDEO ID:XBuBCMPqcqo## the November 12th 2024 open meeting of the hopkington Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the State of Emergency the new law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely the open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended for this meeting the Hoppington Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom app as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join additionally the meeting may also be broadcast by each cam through one or many of its channels or platforms please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating um some attendees are participating by video conference accordingly please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording supporting materials that have been provided to the members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website this meeting will feature public comment after commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda the chair will open the discussion to public comment members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address 3 minutes will be afforded for each public comment each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members so I will now confirm which commission members are present and myself Melissa Ros Jim sillo present oh he's that's right Annie you said he's G to miss this meeting correct um Ted Ted Barker Ed Harold Ed is here Janine here Matt Mo present Heather Burton present all right and then I will now confirm that staff are present um Kim we have you tonight for a bonus around I'm here all right Judy hi present Day present Anna present Rogers and Joe present awesome thank you okay so um before we get into the agenda I'll just point out that um we have a couple items that have been continued the hackington stone and garden 28 Lumber Street notice vent has been continued request by the applicant to November 26 so we will not be discussing that tonight also Wall Street development 12 North Mill Street the informal discussion um has been moved to December 17th so that will not be discussed tonight either so all right that being said we'll go to the um work session items we don't have documents for review other than the draft minutes September 10th 2024 um which I think we're recently posted so does anyone have any questions comments or not had enough time to review those minutes this is AD I have not reviewed them okay is everyone else all set we can uh continue those add to next next meeting so you have a chance to take a look is that all right Anna through the chair yeah that's okay okay um all right next on the agenda we have Burton 178 Ash Street request for certificate of compliance continuation um so I believe we have Mr Burton on the line I'm here welcome um would you like to give us an update since last meeting certainly um I sent some pictures in I created a little burm at the end of the driveway to deflect water onto the lower part of the yard um up to the left one of the other pictures is the Barb itself did a flow test dropped a couple five gallon buckets of water into the center of the driveway and uh it sheds off to the left with a two degree pitch off the driveway I can't really do anything about the fact it hasn't rained much in two months but um you know it seems pretty complete now there's no erosion and there's no pollution okay um um all right yep definitely haven't had any rain doesn't look like there's any in the forecast so I understand um you know the interest in trying to get this buttoned up sooner rather than later um so at this point in time that was the biggest concern was um whether you know I think originally the plan had a burm across the whole um asphalt Drive driveway to deflect the water from getting into the road and that's what we were concerned about when we looked at this last time um does anyone from the commission have questions comments on the mitigation here I guess I would say that's been implemented as opposed to what was originally uh approved on the plan and um what we need to do here to close this out the chair this is Ed yes Ed if if if we approve this and it looks I I mean I have Fair confidence in in Jim's work that that it will do as he says but suppose we approve it and we end up with ice on Ash Street at the end of his driveway does that put us in any predicament um I believe once we approve and close it out I don't think we have much recourse for Action so um hope that answers your question Ed um I think the certificate of compliance is kind of the last last teeth we have um in holding an applicant to you know what was approved and what we're looking for to protect resource area and um I know that DPW was concerned about water coming down you know the driveway onto onto the street here um but yeah other than just you know taking a vote I think the the applicant is is ready to be done here so think it's either we we approve um approve what's here or we don't um and go back to the original design I think uh that being said we'll just go ahead and put it to to a vote the commission so can I get a motion [Music] to approve and close out this order conditions the chair if you're looking for a motion I'll make that motion thanks Ed second all right um so we're going to go down do a roll call on this um on fever say I Ed that was Ed I'm an i if it was Ted it was Ed you're first every time now Ed well I know but the last time you didn't do me first so you threw me for a loop J uh Ted Ted is an i Janine I Matt I Heather hi and I'm GNA give it a uh a uh no so with that majority rules you are all you are all set Mr Burton excellent what's the process moving forward at to file something with the registry Deeds through the chair yep go ahead Anna so in um two weeks at the next meeting the commission will authorize will review the document authorized signature and then I will email you the directions okay thank you you're welcome okay um next up we have Toll Brothers um wood Farm Newberry Glenn discussion on condition number 69 um we have someone oh we have someone here um from Brothers yes Rich Kirby from LC is here I believe Ted Merchant may be on the line um Ted you still there maybe not I know he had another hearing tonight he might have had to jump off okay so uh I'm rich Kirby from LEC and uh to Brothers hired us to oversee and monitor the installation of the Wetland replication area um that was approved by the commission for the Newberry Glenn subdivision off of Blueberry Lane and hopkington um the uh the Wetland replication area was a was approved to be a 7,800 sqt ex expansion of an isolated Wetland within the southern portion of the site and so uh lec's been working with the site contractor and the landscape contractor to get this installed this fall uh we were out there a number of times between the end of October and uh and uh the first part of November to oversee the layout of the Wetland replication area we modified it slightly to preserve some large trees that didn't quite make it on some of them didn't make it onto the uh onto the previous plan uh ran that by Kim in a discussion and followed up with a with a memo basically just overviewing we're gonna keep the trees in this area and expand the replication area elsewhere that memo talked about three trees and over the course of the installation we we found two more that we could also preserve um I'll get into the the methods briefly for a moment but as it turns out we are well over our um the 7800 with nearly 8,500 square feet uh while preserving five large trees as a as a result of the uh uh the reconfiguration so the um all this is outlined in a memorandum that I produced tonight but basically we were the order conditions and the approved plan specified that we use the soils with in the Wetland alteration area for the Wetland replication area uh we looked at the soils within the Wetland that was altered and it was really just a thin uh veneer of top soil just a few inches thick fair amount of root matting and boulders in that um in that Wetland soil and you know if you use an excavator to try and scrape off that top few Ines the teeth of the excavator are thicker than the soil so you'd end up mixing a lot with the subsoil and you'd lose the organic Integrity of that soil um so we ended up going with using top soil from the site a pretty organic Rich top soil but we mixed it one to one with Leaf compost and and used that uh mixture to create the Wetland soil for the replication area and that was of course applied after Excavating by about 2 feet to get to the appropriate subgrade we observed redoximorphic concentrations uh within the subgrade and were able to uh confirm that we intercepted the groundwater the top soil was then backfilled within the area to a depth of 12 inches and the uh and the plants were installed um all the plants that were specified on the plan were delivered uh some of them were a little smaller than that specified on the plan but in my experience it can be challenging to obtain plant stock in that size that are native and available so we most of them were were were pretty good there were Arrowwood viburnums that were between 6 and 12 in tall coming out of the pots so we rejected those and uh the landscape contractor got some replacement shrubs that were appropriately sized uh this is a photograph of some of the staging that we did uh of the of the plants um at this point all the plants are installed the buffer zone seed mixture for the access road has been installed the only thing that remains is the Wetland seed mix and some straw to stabilize the soil over the winter and early spring months that Wetland seed mix was ordered for FedEx delivery tomorrow the seed mix and the straw will be applied tomorrow that's my understanding so that that's where we stand we know the order of conditions requires that the W Wetland replication area uh be installed prior to the issuance of any building permits we are 99% % there and we'll be 100% there tomorrow after the landscaper applies the Wetland seed so that's all overviewed in a in a memorandum that we submitted this afternoon and I just wanted to go over it with the commission and be available to answer any questions that you may have okay thank you um I guess first I'll open it up to Anna and um Joe if you had any and Kim Judy if you had any comments in addition to what uh rich just want to over through the chair sure yeah um thank you Melissa so we I had asked um told Brothers to come in and just verify with you guys that um you the commissioner is satisfied with how the word application area is um based on condition number 69 in the order as Rich was explaining um it states that the replication area must be constructed at the same time or prior to the Wetland alteration which has happened the replicated Wetland must be constructed in full and conditionally approved prior to the construction of any structures so to Brothers has submitted that first set of building permit applications and the building inspectors have been holding off on them until the commission um either staff or you guys have been satisfied that this condition has been met so I did ask um to Brothers to come in and just make a presentation to you guys um and at this point staff unless Kim or Judy fails otherwise or Joe um we are recommending the release of the building permits and feel that the condition has been substantially completed at this time based on the information provided okay so then obviously we'll come back in the spring and keep monitoring um make sure the plants you know survive the winter and the seed continues growing is that correct you are correct LC is under contract with to Brothers to perform all monitoring Services uh as it's as it's required in the order conditions and we'll be preparing those uh those regular report reports that the that the order of conditions requires as well okay does anyone on the commission have any uh follow-up questions concerns on this one uh this Zed to the chair sure is it possible to approve this subject to to the final steps being completed tomorrow such that they would have to come to the office and tell Anna yes we have done the seating we we've done the other work that we need to do to have this be done I think that's a good suggestion Ed I'd defer to Anna if you're um okay with that and maybe taking a look before the building inspector proceeds through the chair um we can do that I know Judy and I have some site visits scheduled for Friday morning so we can make this one of our stops to um swing by and take a look at on Friday morning okay I I can also um I'm happy to forward along photographs I'm going to be out there uh or me or someone from my office will be out there tomorrow after the seating and straw application is completed we'll take some representative photographs for you receipts for the um for the Wetland seed mix and that way everything will be complete and it'll be on record with the commission that'd be great if you could do that thank you um all right so then can I go ahead and get a chair yes Kim just recommending that the commission um State for the record that the commission recognizes that this condition is not completely um fulfilled as it states that the Wetland replication area must be constructed in full but um will allow the applicant to move forward with the building um permits um while also recognizing that approval tonight does not constitute approval final approval of the mitigation area for the record thank you Kim for those words welcome um would someone like to make the motion according to um Kim's suggestion so moved I get a second I'll second all right uh and I will go our names here starting with Ed so I still have a question does that mean that that we will get roof from Rich and LC I I would be happy with photographs in Anna's hands that says this is done um and is as long as we have that as a stipulation I'm good um yes I was that was part of my motion I was thinking that for clarifying um okay so Ed you are an i with that clarification yes okay Ted I Janine I Matt I Heather I and I'm an I thank you thank you so much everyone appreciate it and um as far as I know I'll have those photographs in receipt to you tomorrow if it spills into Thursday then I will uh I'll let Anna know awesome and I think um Melissa you know obviously the discretion of the commission but I think at this point um Ted and Toll Brothers you know has an understanding that the commission expects the mitigation area to be completed before issuing certificates of compliance on any of these um Lots yeah absolutely yeah awesome thanks everyone yep thank you thanks for doing this of course have a good night okay all right being that it is 7:22 um let's jump up to the new hearings and let me grab my my hearing notices um so first up we have an RDA 60 North Mill Street so let me read this before we get into it um the hopkington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday November 12th 2024 at 700 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by salil sh um Shi to replace a failed septic system with Associated site work location 60 North Mill Street assessor map r26 block 18 lot Zer all right Dan McIntyre is here representing the homeowner hi Dan welcome um do you want to give us a sure a breakdown here so this lot was developed back in 1985 uh the current system is starting to search charge to the ground and needs to be replaced so to orientate you uh North Mill Street is over on the left hand side there's a well on the front yard the existing septic system is in the backyard there's a septic tank right here and some leeching trenches going through the backyard uh we had Wetlands delineated by GD consulting which takes up uh quite a bit of the the lot over here so just about the entire lot is within the buffer zone the only practical place to replace the septic system is right back where it is now so we're proposing to uh take out the existing system put it in a new system uh new septic tank and because of the groundwater conditions we're mounding the backyard up a little bit so we're going to need a pump tank to make this all work so we've got U as I say we're mounting this up a couple of feet we're grading it back down within the existing lawn area and we're proposing to limit the grading and the lawn to some large rocks here and try to take back some of the lawn area that got close to the wetlands and turn that into a no moow area probably the the biggest impact might be the construction access the only way to get to the backyard is to come down the paved driveway and around this side of the garage there's a there's a retaining wall here and a a very large Boulder and then there's a a tree here uh there was a tree here we can talk about that in a moment uh that need to come down for the trucks to make the access through here in the back we're proposing to take down one tree here but two reasons one the grading is going to be filling up over the trunk which we didn't think was good but probably more important than that when we dug this test pit here the root system of this tree was all through the backyard uh and we didn't want that to interfere with the new septic system so we proposed to take this tree down so as as Lucas found out when they did their site walk the homeowner kind of jumped the gun a bit here because he's he's anxious to get this work done and took down a couple of the trees prior to the hearing okay said one tree there hang on not loading very well okay sorry so on on this one here they took down back sorry it's so weird it's showing on my end and then I know once I drag it into Zoom it's not happy okay we'll take your word for it okay through the chair yes Kim the um the pictures that were in Dan's memo that he submitted this morning I think he has he shows kind of what was cut what wasn't I think they're still standing but it that showed a good good one I don't know if that might help I'll see if I can find it yeah it's in his response yeah we had some photos from early this year that showed the actual trees standing but this this one was cut and they they ground the stump down this tree is still standing and the homeowner is hoping that the contractor can fit his equipment between the Boulder and the tree because he he doesn't want to take that one down and then this one has come down as well uh there's a small tree here that he had relocated already oh there we go oh there we go so that this top picture is a view from the driveway North Mill Street's behind us these are the two trees that we were proposing to take down for construction access uh the one closest to us has come down the one in the in the background is still up with the homeowners hope that the contractor can get his construction vehicles in there the bottom picture is in the backyard the tree in the uh in the back there is proposed to come down has already been taken down the septic system is over on the right hand side uh you can kind of to see you put in an approximate line where we're going to put a line of Boulders and create a noo area there and then when the tree contract was out there they noticed this dead tree in the foreground so they they took that down as well okay okay um I think with that I think we could open up to questions that I don't really have much more to explain okay thank you thank you Dan um Joe do you want to jump in with any additional comments from your memo yeah sure I think uh Dan hit most of the the points I had raised regarding just explaining what was going on with the trees um I did also note that there was an area near Wetland Flags GCA 15 to 17 where um the leaves are being within about 10 ft of the Wetland just recommended that a different location be found for the leaf leaf filing okay I did review the delineation didn't have any any major concerns with it um uh it was described for the mitigation uh they proposing to allow about a 500 foot area of existing lawn uh to uh revegetate naturally um I thought the Conservation Commission might want to discuss um if implanting would be appropriate in that area considering that they are cutting down a couple of trees I had uh ask about any soil stockpile locations and U the response was that they don't anticipate any any significant stockpiles and other than that no real issues okay so this is an RDA application so we're looking um to cons whether we agree This falls under an RDA and um I I personally um like your suggestion Joe for um replanting a couple trees in that that no MO area to establish it a little bit more of a buffer zone um and do you know if the applicant would be amendable to that well I did talk to him uh we really don't think trees are appropriate M if you look at the plan there are still two mature trees we've we've got a wetland Medallion going to be attached to one of them and there's another tree here that provides really good over story of that noo area yeah um if if you looked if you went on site and looked at it close it's it's more of a Mossy area than a lawn area so it doesn't get much sunlight in there so I think we got plenty of tree canopy for for the Wetland uh down there so we don't really don't think trees are appropriate okay through the chair yes Anna Dan what about a couple of shrubs I didn't think you would ask you the homeowner is amenable to some shrubs in there if the commission so desired okay I do appreciate the Wetland medallions too I think that's a good addition to the property hopefully um helping with that leaf piling um issue as well does anyone have any um anyone else in the commission have comments or questions on this thoughts this is AD and I have a dumb question I'm assuming there's no Poss ability for the septic system to be put in the front yard now that's where the well is Ed that reminds me of a joke okay yeah Melissa quick quick question obviously I'm still only been around for about a year is it common place for the commission to go just with an RDA for work within 50 feet of a resource area it's not considered a minor activity under our B yeah we um I think on these type of applications and Kim and Anna and G I were talking about this a little bit um in this situation you're right um within the 50 Foot we certainly could require notice of intent so that's part of the question here I think it is at our discretion though and Kim you can jump in here if you like but um I think it's up to the commission as to what whether this project can be done without impacting the Wetland um the chair yeah go ahead yeah I mean the the question that the commission is being asked with an R da is um you know do you feel that this work is going to result in an in in Impact to Resource areas or can it be considered you know no net effect a negative um so you know the line between an RDA and an noi is really usually the commission's discretion um that being said the commission has in the past um kind of held a obviously a higher standard for that 50 foot no disturb um it's up to you guys we we feel that the U like I said this was constructed in 1985 it's all previously Disturbed in that 50 foot no buffer zone or no disturb Zone that we have now um the the applicant really has no alternatives to to doing this and we feel that U by bringing that lawn back area back in and creating a no MO area we're leaving it better than we found it Melissa yes Ted I have a question for the applicant if we were to approve the RDA how soon would work begin uh I think they would like to start it as soon as possible right right now they're kind of on a pumping schedule in their septic tank so that's kind of why the homeowner jumped the gun on the trees and then they want to get somebody out there right away it's already it's already been approved by the Board of Health for the commission's benefit I ask because we're still in this period of it doesn't rain anymore and I would be less concerned about being within the 50 Foot during this very very dry time we have so that's where my question came from thanks Ted no that's helpful I think because it's true we do have to weigh whether it's a RDA or an noi but I think in this situation um I agree with you Ted I think especially since of the type of the project it's all within a previously Disturbed area um I don't think there's too much of a threat to the Wetland and I think there are improvements that are being proposed I I would like to see the bushes um added to that that noo area um we can U revise the plan we'll show a a put together planting table and and resubmit the plan okay do you do you have a sense or the commission have a sense of how many bushes in that area um 3 six something like that I think so we had two three trees three trees are taken down maybe six okay if anyone else has thoughts please jump in that's just my uh through the chair yeah go ahead Kim typically what we recommend is 6 to 8 ft on Center um for the Inland replication guideline um just as a general rule of thumb so I'm not sure how that maths out there but it might be similar it's not a very big area yeah okay all right chair this is Ed maybe High Bush blueberries which would typically be found in a place like that okay I like the do you want you want some variety or just all high Bush through the chair I think that diversity is better so I would suggest some other apparently it's a shaded area so probably some shade loving natives okay um okay anyone from the public have any comments on this questions all right um so with that Anna should we wait for the updated plan to vote on this through the chair that is the typical procedure and then um at the next meeting in two weeks we will have um a jump so they will be getting we try to get the RDA drafted okay does that work for you Dan uh sure okay all right thank you thank you through the chair can we just have a vote to continue to November 26 please yes can I get a motion for that I'll make that motion and can I get a second second all right in favor Ed hi Ted hi Janine I Matt hi Heather I and I am an i all right um next up we have town of hopkington DPW Granite Street right of way it's another r e application for Wells um let me go ahead and read this public heing notice the Hoppington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday November 12th 2024 at 700 p.m virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by hackington DPW re uh exploratory geotechnical borings location Granite Street right away between 4 Granite Street and 2 dear run um all right so do we have representative here yes W okay members of the commission good evening my name is Lucas ROM of tyan bond and I'll be representing the DPW this evening so we are seeking a negative determination of applicability for a set of two geotechnical borings within Granite Street in advance of project planning for a proposed cfort replacement so as you'll note on the plan we currently have four proposed locations marked out that's just so that when our crew goes to the field they will be able to select the best two locations just based on site conditions so we are seeking a minor exemption as the proposed work is for planning and design purposes and is temporary in nature so so Crews will go out conduct the two borings and then that same day they will use cold patch asphalt to see all those locations and leave as is with all proposed work cons occurring within the footprint of the existing Granite Street uh we did note um Lucas environmentals review they had some concerns about the wash generated from our proposed activities so for that we are proposing to pump all wash into the surrounding Upland areas to dispose of it outside of the Wetland resources and cause no impacts so with that I think that's my general overview if the commission has any questions okay um so in response to your comment discharging the washwater Upland where exactly would that so you'd have to go a little bit of a waste to dispose of that wash water it looks like correct we would have to pump it a good distance of the town is amenable to that but we have a few of these Upland areas a second option we've talked to the DPW and they said that we could potentially use their V truck if need be to collect the wash generat kind of right at the borings and then we won't have to deal with the bumping okay um Joe did you want to elaborate it all on your um comments uh yeah just a little bit um I had a couple of minor comments on some of the flag locations but they really don't significantly impact the buffer zone or the proposed work um also just regarding the exemption I agree it's exempt under the WPA um although it under the bylaw it's not quite as clear because U the work is occurring within Riverfront area um and there under the bylaw exemption um it's Fuller work that's not within a resource area so it doesn't appear that the ex necessarily Rees under the bylaw although the work is clearly within you know paid right away to the road regarding the wash uh I like the idea of the back truck um if it is pumped to an up on location um I think they still have to be a little bit careful about uh you know run off from that up location to U so Wetland or to the stream um so there might might be re some erosion control I don't know how much um what kind of volume of water would be expected to come from those from those pump holes from the drill holes borings I think that pretty much uh addresses addresses my comments okay so to the applicant do you have any um estimate of how the quantity of water that might come from this activity so the bore holes will be 2 in in diameter or um excuse me 8 in plus or minus in diameter to a depth of 20 ft so overall quantity of water generated should be relatively minor but we could throw down some straw waddle if it would please the Commission in our discharge area just to ensure we're not causing any erosion or discharge into the Wetland areas MH okay um the chair yes yeah and I would just suggest that um you know either that uh discharge location be shown on plan or be approved um maybe with a site visit or or some kind of information s to the commission prior to actually uh utilizing it okay through the chair yes Kim lot lots of ideas going on here yep um so I'm just looking at the location on mass mapper and so this is Granite Street this is the um Milford Water Company site um so I'm just not sure like where what's around that's owned by the town that it could be discharge discharge could be pumped to other than like the ms4 system you know the into the catch Basin and the the town storm subst storm water system um I'm wondering if it's just more appropriate to anticipate this water being released and just require something like a dirt bag um like a like a Corral and a dirt bag I don't know if that's possible or if a v truck is easier or I was going to say um it might end up that the vac truck is just the way to go and that but so I think maybe we'd be looking for a confirmation of what you're going to use for discharge of wash water um and like Kim said if it's not the V truck then uh provide provide um measure um to like Kim said either a bag or um and location y we can definitely accommodate that okay you're the chair yep I'm sorry if I missed it earlier from um Luke did we confirm whether it's two borings or four borings I think there's some discrepancies between the application and the plan there it is too boring so we proposed four locations on the on the plan just so that when the crew goes to the field they can decide the two best locations but we are only conducting two borings thank you um okay and then I think uh the only other thing that came up just probably speak about for a moment is like you alluded to Matt um the riverfront and the exemption um whether falls under an RDA under the bylaw um given the minor activity designation um again I think it kind of falls into a gray area being that it's under the bylaw um it's within the roadway it is a minor activity um it's in the riverfront so I think this is another one that's kind of at our discretion as far as how we think um the Wetland and the resource area might be impacted um personally I think I'm comfortable issuing an RDA uh as long as that washwater um you know condition is in there to determine how that's going to be taken care of if anyone else on the commission has any thoughts on that RDA um designation for this project I would agree um yeah I mean it's an temporary activity for design purposes so I think under the under the bylaw language that that's clearly qualifies as a minor activity the question is right it's within 50 fet in the RAR front and I think in this case because it's a paav surface that that seems to be okay by me and you know we just deal up the wash water yeah okay um anyone from the audience have any questions or comments on this application the chair this Ed I have a question yep I'm assuming this is going to be an open bottom box cul that's Critter friendly so this proposed activity now is in advance of the Calvert design so once we conduct our geotechnical borings we'll provide a culvert design and go through a more robust permitting process but this is for that initial planning stage I know I'm pushing my luck I'm just making a point thank you who the chair yes so I happen to know maybe Luke can't reveal yet um I happen to know that this is um a covert that will be funded through FEMA um so it will be something that's an overall Improvement in terms of stream Crossing standards very good um all right so in voting on this and uh issuing an RDA can we um Anna do we need to wait for that clarification on the washwater or can we get condition that um with the vote I would determine that to either Kim or Judy on this one yeah sorry um I would say we can condition in this case okay then can I get a motion um to go ahead and issue a negative determination with a condition um that that washwater treatment get squared away um provided to to the commission advance of the work I'll make that motion second all right all in favor Ed I Ted Ted is an I uh Janine I Matt I and Heather I and I am also an I wait now I do feel bad that we needed to ask Judy and we didn't Judy do you feel comfortable coordinating that yeah absolutely okay thank you um all right good luck Luke all right thank you thanks everybody by Carrie Carrie was here I know she's so quiet till the end I'm always watching thanks thanks all right so we're all set on that moving on to our next new hearing which is another RDA I will go ahead and read the notice again the hopkington Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on Tuesday November 12th 2024 at 7:00 p.m. virtually online if your all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by J Gallant to construct an accessible ramp with Associated site work location is 71 West Main Street assessor map R23 block 80 lot 0er um all right do we have um someone representing the applicant on the line yes yes great um would you like to go through the project or uh have Anna give a description I could so my name is Jay Gant I'm the uh applicant and the architect for the project working for uh Mike glatfelter who's also here um I yeah I could I could walk through it if if uh if you'd like okay okay yeah let us know what you're looking to do okay so the property was a house when it was originally constructed and it was converted to commercial use at some point I don't know exactly when clearly it was a dry cleaner for a while because there's an awning sign that says cleaners um but it hasn't been in use for a while so the you know my my client the current property owner is wants to open a bakery at the location and um basically the lower area where the awning is uh is going to be a takeout retail space and then the rest of the building which is higher you can sort of see it there it look like it was a garage at one point where the where the uh retail space is going to be and then the majority of the house is where the kitchen itself is going to be where the baking will be will be uh done um you know there going to be it's going to be a legitimate commercial kitchen and it's about 30 Ines higher in elevation than the floor level of the retail space we're doing enough work to trigger full handicap compliance for the entire building there's uh in the lower leftand corner you see that picture of the back of the house or the back of the the building where there's a current staircase and a landing we want to convert that into a handicap accessible ramp the ramp would go to the right in that picture to the corner of the building through where the propane tanks will be which which are are now which will be relocated and there you go and uh wrapping around to the parking area so it'll it'll help for Access for uh any employees that may need to use it and then also for deliveries and it would free up the the the lower space the retail space for its highest and best use and um unfortunately for the construction of the ramp there's a there's a wetland directly behind the property which uh and you see the 50 Foot buffer line there um the majority of the structure that we're proposing will be within that 50ft zone um it is previously developed you could see in the photograph and you can see in this drawing that there's a concrete slab there and we we just want to essentially build on top of it so the pier Foundation that we're proposing the the screw pile the metal screw piles techn medical techn metal post is the is the most common local supplier and installer drill through the concrete and then drill through into the ground to to set these posts and there would be uh five of them and then um and then a landscape PA base and a landscape paver walkway so we're trying to limit the disturbance to negligible disturbance in order to um to create the ramp and um we're proposing straw water erosion control as you can see and also it's not noted on this plan we discussed it with with um the shed that's shown there the big the big box that says shed and if you took a look at the if you went out to the property the shed is in disrepair we want to remove the shed and um you know perhaps use the space for um either smaller shed or maybe do some native plantings or both and um that's the proposed project all right so this looks like a great great project it would be great to see this um property in use again um Joe did you take a look at this you had some comments I did I did go off at the property um and reviewed the the application um with respect to the Wetland uh you know was had been previously delineated um there wasn't much left for wetland flagging but it's a pretty clear uh toe of slope uh fairly steep slope behind the building there were a couple of flags up uh remnants stubs um so I think it's it's it's probably pretty accurate based on the previous location of the of the delineated Wetlands I don't think there really any movement of the Wetland because of the confining slope so I didn't really have any issue with the delineation um or lack of uh as was noted the rear of the property is previously developed with lawn is extending pretty much to the uh bag property line one of the things that did come up um that hadn't been noted previously um in other filings uh is that the maap intermittent stream to the east of the property um it is mapped intermittent but if you run a stream stats analysis it comes out as meaning the criteria for a perennial stream um and I think that uh some work that had been done previously had been uh reviewed by a previous peerreview consultant and didn't catch that um and when we review this for the COC previously we generally don't um look at the resource areas in detail because they they've already been determined under the COC or the order of conditions um but it did come up in this review um the work is located within approximately 150 ft um of that perennial stream so it is in the outer raring Zone with respect to um the ramp being a my interactivity um it's again kind of maybe another gray area um accessible ramps are included as a minor activity under the WPA but the language also States U uh ramps that are for structures that are accessory to residential structures um then again with this being a commercial structure it's not clear that it would be necessarily considered a minor activity do only which does say res accessive the residential structure the other the other comment I had was just I know there was just a mention of possibly removing the shed and maybe doing some plantings so we just recommended that uh the applicant um show all the work that um was being performed within the buffer zone or within 200 feet of that of that stream on the second okay that pretty much includ my comments all right thank you Joe um so as part of this application I think Anna you mentioned some Alternatives um jade do you alternatives for alternative layouts or something that you looked at is this the only place for the ramp it's not the only place but it's the most practical um okay we I did a study and and um sent it over to to Anna basically we could go around the garage which is on the left um and still end up in the same place because we have to get access to that kind of main area in order for it to be feasible so essentially that would that would put us closer to the Wetland because it would um it would be along the back side of the garage it I think what we're proposing has less impact and if it was the front of the building it wouldn't really make sense and um we could do inside the building we could do some sort of lift there so where goes the letter that I wrote and then um you know we could do some sort of lift inside the building but it kind of kills the space as you can see and then there's the ramp that I just mentioned which would kind of wrap around and still end up in the same place because that's the that's the door but essentially you see the stairs in there I mean the the layout of the interior of the space kind of stairs take up quite a bit of space we we really um we're really we really don't have too many Alternatives in terms of using the space differently or creating different entrances or anything like that and and none of what we would propose would would really help um to change the the condition of having the space higher first of all and then the ramp that we're proposing seems to be the furthest away from the Wetland and the Stream and um has very minimal impact okay all right so um so I agree that it's you know it's it's a minor seems a um minimal minor impact um proposal here with the the piles and the ramp um I think the thing that I'd like to discuss with the commission is whether um this Riverfront area issue would would kick it into a requiring a notice of intent um I believe based on our discussion discussions that I had with Anna and Kim and Judy um and whether that's something that the commission you know want would uphold and require for this project um because it is within 200 ft of The Perennial stream um again it's this is the night of the gray area RDA applications it seems like um does anyone have thoughts on that in the commission with the chair yes just a question for Joe um first of all Joe very thorough job on finding finding that as Riverfront I read the memo and I was like no it's not I had to do it for myself I was like it is I was surprised to yeah that was that was totally a surprising one um the it's hard for me to tell on looking at Mass mapper exactly where the um where the bank or the high water is if I do it off USGS it looks like um maybe only the right we'll say plan right has of the property is in the riverfront area do you have any idea about where the extent of the riverfront area might hit yeah I was just doing it off of available mapping also and it seemed like uh proposed work was within about 150 fet at at its closest okay so I mean I am looking at this Alternatives thinking that this alternative ramp that goes off of the um garage does bump it it's plausible that it may bump the work out of Riverfront it might it might I um again just relying on on on mapping at this point and not a delated stream ve yeah and um this area back here is already previously Disturbed it's grassed based on the photos I'm seeing as well that's correct yeah so I don't know I just just just just my take kind of desktop looking at this high level um that may be that may be a slightly less impactful alternative that's all I had Melissa from a permitting perspective from a permitting perspective yeah yeah okay chair yes J is this ramp specifically for Ada access compliance primarily so would the ramp coming around the garage actually comply given it's not near the parking stalls well I mean technically it would it would be within what 200 feet or whatever the maximum required distance but it certainly you know the the um Massachusetts architectural access board regulations is that the parking would be convenient to retail space and it's or to or to um employee space and it and it really isn't if it's um if it's in that location yeah I considering I in my opinion considering the ramps on a concrete slab that's already existing pretty much um and the intent is for accessibility and having the the other two Alternatives really aren't accessible um to those who would need it I'm I'm okay um with this as proposed as a RDA even though it's in potentially in Riverfront anyone else go ahead um I I I consider myself generally more protectionist on the board but I'm in I agree with Janine I think because of what the current conditions are where the proposed is it it doesn't concern me what much I guess I haven't enough thought through precedent that we're setting tonight with all of these gray area decisions and uh that's my only concern is that an applicant in the future will come forward and say well look what happened on November 12th why aren't you allowing me and I guess that concerns me um what we haven't talked about and maybe we won't tonight or maybe it's not time um I have more concerns about the shed about knocking down appropriately and the proposal of rebuilding the shed that to me would push my decision concerning an RDA decision one way or the other more than the ramp would okay yeah agreed and I know one of the the options was or or you know replanting I would like to see the space replanted rather than replaced with a shed well we're we're amenable to to whatever with that you know the shed if you look at it clearly needs attention and and um just figured we could talk about it okay I think um as Joe had mentioned earlier if you're going to address the shed I think it as Joe had said it should be noted on the plan one way or another or I guess the way the plan is written right now I would assume it's not being touched um we could yeah we could definitely leave it or or you know paint it or whatever too but it's just um it's going to need attention eventually I I think you could certainly take it out I just if you're going to take it out I would I would just call it out like that on the plan otherwise um you know it's not it's just not consistent with what's being being approved and then you're doing something that wasn't approved by the commission so um I don't necessarily have a problem taking it down but I would just identify it on the plan if you are Melissa yes I I I think I would go a step further and say a little bit of give and take that we will allow this that I would allow the ramp as proposed as an RDA but the shed must be removed by hand without machinery um and replanted um with with natural Shrubbery trees that that that would help make the gray area of the ramp a little bit easier to stomach there the chair yes Kim I think what you're trying to say Ted is that for mitigation for the increase in impervious in the riverfront area we will ask for the impervious associated with the roof of the shed to be removed I was trying to keep it in Lay what was in my head okay so with that being said um yeah I I actually you know I really agree with what Ted said I I have this gut feeling that it's like the slippery slope issue with you know when you again I'm I'm new so but this idea of notice of intent um yeah I just I'm not 100% comfortable with it I think that this is definitely a little bit different situation than we had with the other two rdas where it was just um you know an RDA in a disturbed area um yeah through the chair yes Joe and just want to note that under the WPA if you're working within a resource area uh you are supposed to require notice of intent okay the chair this is Ed yes Ed isn't the entirety of the project of this ramp within previously Disturbed areas just like the previous two ye yes but the difference is the riverfront area well yeah I understand that yeah so I think to Joe's point or Joe the point you're making is um it is actually required and not necessarily at required but we might again we might have an Exempted activity it's the language says for residential you know handicap accessible ramps accessory to residential structures which but this isn't being used as the residence yeah it's zoned in okay um so I guess so this was submitted as an RDA correct through the chair can I just ask a question about the alternative um granted it has negative potentially it's not as desirable but let's just hypothetically say that it is outside the it is outside the riverfront would we need to delineate that and how does that work I think so Joe um in order to determine where we need we need to determine where that riverfront line is correct that is correct cor um One Way or Another One Way or Another right and from what I'm looking at right now at some of the aerial photos um it looks like there might be some possibly some Beaver activity in there that area is pretty well uh ponded I don't know if it's how easy it would be to actually find this dream Channel but you know now it might be a good time if it's a water levels are pretty low Okay so so that I think Jay you're asking what the effort involved is in that process I I think that's what I'm asking so Joe would require um Iden I would require um delineating the mean annual high water line of the stream on the west side of of that stream Bank within within 200 feet of the proposed work the chair yes ma does the applicant own the abing property no no or are we asking them to go on to someone else's property to delineate something and have us confirm it because if that's the case that that doesn't feel appropriate I don't believe it would be appropriate I think we have to we have to make an estimation of Where the River Front area is and just be in agreement that that estimated River Front area is accept acceptable to this commission agreed and there are certainly times when um the river has Rivers have been estimated from aerial mapping okay but either way regard um based on on what you're looking at Joe I mean we've determine that it it it would impact this project and it would I'm I'm looking at M mapper right now and um I've got 154t from the southwest Southeast corner of the building to the stream okay so I agree with you Matt um I so the effort J would be um not actually going in the field on the property but from the best resources available translating it onto the the [Music] plan it's a little easier the chair yes um it looks like Anna's telling me that we might have information on that adjacent property through the public files so we could try to look for that as well okay all right um does it make sense to I guess as far as the commission's concerned we should just determine whether or not um we think this should be a notice of intent at this point in time or an RDA um so we could we can vote on the RDA I guess through the chair I I would also leave it up to the like does the applicant is the applicant interested in pursuing the alternate layout and if so if it's out of the riverfront that may would that change the commissions opinion on the required application um I I I suppose we would consider the alternative it would if it would um if it would make the difference between an RDA and a notice of intent is that that you're asking yep um if you'd like we can we can hold off and continue to the next hearing if you'd like to gather a little more information Anna's showing some documents here it looks like or maybe that's Kim yeah we might have some more information that we can go through and share um we're kind of just trying to yeah this might be an exercise for offline exercise to grab this information and then extrapolate it okay yeah okay Melissa real quick question before we move on as it relates the Alternatives and whether we would consider an RDA versus an noi one way or the other um there there was some discussion about the shed and the potential removal of the shed or replacement of the shed that's going to be in Riverfront area regardless so if the commission's desire is to see that shed removed as mitigation for the work and replaced with plantings I don't know that it's an either either or depending on the alternative I think it's either an RDA both ways or it's an noi both ways because you can't get out of the riverfront area unless the shed St stays right so as a commission I think we should be asking ourselves whether we think the removal of the shed as mitigation for the proposed work is more valuable than the rerouting of the the walkway outside of Riverfront area just just my two cents and could I just add uh bring up one more thing if you feel that if the if you feel that a site visit might help you know we'd be amenable to that that's worth if if an RDA is with if if we're allowed to just say an RDA we're not required to say in noi my preference is the original um ramp with the shed removed and replanted with natives versus the ramp going around the back and the shed staying who the chair yes Ted uh I have a question for Matt Matt are you suggesting that if the shed is touched because it's certainly in the riverfront area that were almost guaranteed to be an noi because of work there is that what your thought is whereas if we allow the shed to stay then we could maybe keep this an RDA if the shed isn't touched is that kind of what you were saying yeah that's what I'm getting at right if we're saying it's an N because there's activities occurring within the riverfront area then either option that touches the shed has activities occurring within the riverfront area whether it's the ramp coming through the garage or the ramp coming from on the right side of of the building the sheds in Riverfront either way I misunderstood was thinking that the since it's mitigation it's was sort of offsetting yeah I mean from a from a practical standpoint the shed going away and being planted with Native species would be an improvement and having the pervious walkway to the wood ramp close to the parking spaces likely the ADA Compliant parking space would make the most sense um whether it's rearfront area is involved or not I'm I'm struggling with how a commercial project wouldn't be subject to an noi under both the wellons protection act and our and our bylaw I know it's is kind of in the gray area but you know septic system replacement for example that's a that's more of a public health issue more of an urgent item to address whereas a commercial Improvement project is it doesn't have that public health component to it so my I guess what I'm getting at the long and the short of it is this feels more like an noi regardless I agree with Matt absolutely and through the chair just to throw something else out there um the uh conversion the shed to uh lawn area or or pervious area could also be considered a minor activity and exemp minor activity but again it's the language is uh accessory to a residential structure for conversion um of an accessory structure to lawn uh the conversion of impervious to vegetated surface uh provided erosion and sedimentation controls are implemented during construction does not have the caveat of uh being uh tied to a residential structure right no that makes sense I think the the the um delineating Factor here is the commercial versus residential is a big um holds a lot of weight as far as president and what we're trying to do here um and the regulations so um I think Jay the you know you probably get a sense of the feeling from the board um that notice of intent is is probably worth the uh worth the effort or if you want to continue collect the additional information that Kim has maybe they'll you know shed some light on something that we're not seeing right now um you could do that and come back at the next meeting um with some more information and and hopefully maybe a better decision on whether it should be a notice of intent um in your mind or if you want to proceed with the RDA or switch over to a notice of intent chair this is Ed yes Ed I have a sorry I have a question about this shed does this shed have a foundation or is it merely sitting on blocks uh that we have not investigated if it has a foundation it is it it doesn't have a pour Foundation I think I'm pretty certain of that it's probably sitting on on some sort of block if if you brought a don't laugh if you brought a crane in reached out and picked this shed up straight up off the ground so that physically no work was being done on the shed or around the shed does that get you out of any of this angst as the question was about bringing Machinery in and working you know within the riverfront area but if you just plucked it out of there just a thought yeah I think it depends out on which which alternative he goes with and um and and also you know it kind of sets the stage for any Renovations or any work or any anything that you want to do on the property in the future um you're going to run into the same question um so I think maybe just establishing it up front at this point in time um might be in your best interest um because hopefully things are successful and you you know might have additional um work that you want to do on this site is the next meeting in two weeks it is it probably makes sense to continue okay okay then um can I get a motion to continue to the next hearing sure I'll make that motion second all right all in favor Ed I Ted Ted is an i Janine hi Matt hi Heather I and I am also in I thank you thank you thank you thank you all right um all right we have one more new here ing 12 Maple Street extension um grab my notice the hopkington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday November 12th 2024 at 7 p.m. virtually online to your all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Nicholas and Kathleen D'Angelo to construct a single family house with Associated site work location 12 Maple Street extension ass map u19 block 41 lot z um all right do we have anyone on the call representing the applicant or the applicant themselves yes uh Chris freri Wetland scientist with Gard Consulting on behalf of Nick and Kathleen D'Angelo uh I do believe I saw Nick online as well perhaps um but in any event we are uh proposing a new single family home on this lot uh 12 Maple Street extension um thank you Kim so if you recall in the spring I believe April we were in front of you with a with an anrad for this site and you did Issue an oad so uh our Wetland boundaries are locked in here the site is essentially entirely encircled by Wetland resource areas uh up at the North which I think this will probably be our biggest topic of conversation this is the bank to a small intermittent stream um my understanding is that it really never convey as water but being that it flows out of a of a resource area it is an intermittent stream in and of itself uh and then surrounding the rest of the site we have uh your generic everyday bordering vegetated Wetland mostly forested uh over on the west the West Side uh it kind of runs into a little bit more of a sale type feature but a wetland nonetheless so existing conditions on the site it is primarily existing lawn uh we do have this current existing dwelling in the South Eastern corner here uh that's the existing residence of the D'Angelos and again most of the site is lawn you do see that tree line shown around the perimeter there um it's kind of a a Brushy sort of vegetated area with some trees especially along the northern portion here yep those are some good photos thanks Kim so on this one uh you mind going back for one moment um just on the other side of this couple of these couple of trees here to the right hand side of the photo this is that um bank that intermittent stream you might even be able to see a blue ribbon hanging there so in any event um as we move along here we'll get to proposed conditions on the site um but essentially oh and I guess while we're here we do have this uh this pave driveway that terminates slightly before the existing house and then expands out into sort of a hard-packed gravel area as an extension of that Maple Street extension and then that stream thank you so our proposed work consists of uh dividing this lot into two and constructing a new single family house on the uh Northern of the two lots because we are essentially encircled by resource areas you know the entire site is within in the commission's jurisdiction um that buffer zone you see is the 50 Foot and the entire Center of that 50 foot line would be the 50 to 100 foot buffer zone line uh we are well aware that we are proposing work very near a resource area and well within the 50 Foot buffer zone um we are proposing the construction of this house over entirely existing lawn uh I believe there are two or three trees that's a good annotation there thank you um there are two or three trees kind of in the center of the lawn that will have to come down for the proposed house but otherwise we are entirely within existing lawn we're also proposing this pave turnaround being that this is the end of Maple Street extension We're Dead ending here uh we do need a fairly substantial turnaround for fire access so the existing gravel area will be paved over and um kind of updated as well as a fire lane easement that will essentially split the two proposed lots to allow fire access and fire turnaround in that area uh beyond that we do have erosion control barriers proposed all around um due to the the pavement we do have them over here on the Eastern property boundary as well and then around the proposed house as mitigation for our encroachment into the 50- foot buffer zone here we're proposing a pretty substantial mitigation planting area um to both along the northern property boundary between the house and that stream Bank as well as along the western property boundary of proposed lot one that uh we're going to be planting about 4,300 square feet with Native vegetation we're going to be removing the lawn seaing it with a nice conservation Wildlife mix and installing a nice mix of shrubs and trees in that area we think that that serves to protect or um serves to protect the interests of the Act and the bylaw uh by providing wildlife habitat value um providing attenuation of pollutants and I think we are going to scroll down to that plant plan right here there we go so this is just a nice colored up version um we are going to be planting essentially all around the the northern and western sides of this lot one here as I was just describing uh a couple other minor things we don't have a septic because we do have the Good Fortune of of having Town sewer here um so we haven't done any test pits here we anticipate being fairly shallow to groundwater and you'll note the foundation drain around the the perimeter of the proposed house that's because we are anticipating being fairly shallow to groundwater um we haven't done any test pits to investigate that yet but that is our understanding and that will have a su pump discharge running off the Northwestern portion of the house there um I think that that essentially sums it up as far as the proposed work here and I'd be happy to take any questions the commission may have um I will just say we are also in receipt of Lucas's letter uh reviewing the project materials there are a lot of fairly easy things that we are more than happy to address um that Joe mentioned in that letter I think probably the major topic of conversation will be uh the orientation of the house which we are already looking at with the engineers and Architects um seeing if there's anything that we can do to perhaps relocate or reorient the proposed house okay thank you um on that note Joe um are there other any other bigger picture comments that you wanted to highlight from your letter uh think Chris touched on on on most of them again the orientation of the house was was was one of the comments I had uh thought possibly it could be rotated 90 degrees and it might possibly be less impactful or less work within the 50 Foot of the wetlands or the stream um I do agree that the stream is um fairly minimal um and doesn't provide any well any significant habitat value although it does uh add some value um uh with regard to the proposed planting plan um I thought it looked appropriate um I would just recommend that the again although I know they're not proposing Wetland restoration but I would recommend as we had discussed previously today that the numbers meet the uh either the bylaw or the u d guidelines for spacing I think they're showing about trees about 22 feet on Center um where the recommendations are generally 10 to 15 feet for trees so maybe just double check those numbers um uh the planting schematic had a note regarding pibs uh but I didn't see any pibs on the plans though should be added at some point um I did note that there was one snag dead tree standing out there that would likely be removed uh close to the stream uh thought the applicant might consider maybe some nest boxes as potential mitigation or loss of potential law of cavity habitat also uh mentioned that the there was no details no details provided on management of surface water runoff Le not that I saw that should be provided by the applicant uh no construction entrance or soil stock pile locations are indicated on the plans those should be added in addition they should provide some detail regarding dewatering how dewatering will be handled because it's uh probably pretty likely that they they might hit some groundwater out there I think it's pretty shallow on this site uh the Water connection is not shown um that should be added to the plan regarding the site plan there's no vertical data indicator on the site plan that that should be included and the site plan the minor minor note but one that all fing comes up the site plan is not at least the one that was uh reviewed was not prepared in the colors required under the uh the B and that should be uh revised to meet those color requirements um with regard to the evotion controls they looked appropriate didn't have any major issues for that and as far as I know D has now yet issued file number for the project okay is something I will have to check on for you okay I think that would just mean more uh groundwater more during construction after construction that we'd have to think about and deal with um one thing I wanted to bring up on this property in the Swale on the North Edge there um we had an applicant on Montana not too long ago um adjacent to this property where they were doing some work and we required creation of a 15t wide buffer off of the off of the channel there or off of the Wetland I think the Swale um as part of their mitigation work um so that's something I would just point to as yep there we go um I would expect us to uphold the same requirement um for the neighbor here so if you could take a look at that when you're considering relocation of the house or any tweaks that you're going to make to the plan um just look at what we had them had them do um I know your house the house right now is within 12 feet so it certainly um is encroaching more um than than what we allowed on this adjacent site um yeah and with that being said I mean it's this is a this is a the owner is splitting the property correct so it's correct self-imposed hardships on any any uh development here um just remind the commission of that and the applicant um those are my thoughts in addition to you know everything Joe said that obviously needs a little attention on this plan does anyone else on the commission want to share some thoughts looking at this the chair this is Zed yes Ed and my first thought would be to move the house to the South which would get more of the house out of the buffer zone um as it stands right now um I I'm not terribly impressed than yeah through through the chair if I may yep uh I will just note we are a little bit constrained in terms of having to provide that fire turnaround um as far as turning radiuses go and certain other reorientations of the house that we've looked at would also require additional pavement Beyond what's proposed right here so those are just a couple of the things we're kicking around in terms of um considerations as we look at this have you considered any alternatives to tradition pavement for these turnaround areas uh it's certainly something we can look at um just my initial thoughts sort of looking looking at this plan I can't help but think there was a reason this was only one lot or is one lot um that it may not necessarily be feasible to put two houses on it because of the W ones the chair yes T um looking at things now this is a hard sell for me um certainly reorienting the house is something that might make it workable I think resizing the house is a different discussion as well I'm only eyeballing the plans but it looks like the proposed dwelling is 50 to 100% larger than the existing dwelling um and a reorienting and resizing might help but the the addition of all of the impervious surface within the 50ft buffer is is really really it makes me uncomfortable thanks T yeah through the chair I may be misreading our regulations here but uh I understand we do have some discretion on the buffer zone uh but the no build zone for a new lot of residential is 50 feet no buildings are allowed with or permitted within 50 feet if you go by the letter of the law so I'm I'm with I'm going to Echo the sentiments of the other commission members that this is not only in conflict with our no build setback distance it feels overly aggressive in asking for our relief and I'll add if I may Melissa I think we've been pretty firm and consistent on that 50 foot no build in recent years I'd agree through the chair and thank you for those comments Ted and Matt um and Janine because my question was what is the history of allowing for um you know building within that 50 foot buffer zone and it seems like the history is that it's not allowed for new builds yeah I think as a commission we've done a pretty good job Towing that line um unless there's [Music] some you know previous again that wouldn't be a new construction some previous development previous grandfathering in of lots um you know that had been permitted you know way back the glot created um historical pre prior to some of our bylaw requirements I think we've shown some leniency but this obviously is not the case because they're creating new lot through the chair yes Kim I was just wondering if the applicant could walk us through the Alternatives that they did to support the waiver request yeah absolutely um do you have that handy I don't have that handy Kim um I can grab it in a second if you give me one second here that might be useful yeah I'm not exactly quite sure yeah where time all right you're right um let's see so uh the first alternative that we considered obviously no change to existing um we end up with no house being built and the site remains essentially entirely as lawn um the road and driveway remains unimproved and we lack a essentially a fire turnaround there um we also contemplated relocation of the proposed house to be further outside of the 50 Foot buffer zone um it really constrains our ability to create that paved turnaround that the fire department's looking for and it essentially remains as that kind of UN improved hard pack gravel um we would that that may also result in a reduction in the plantings proposed um and you know lesser uh tree canopy being installed and habitat value and buffer Effectiveness as well on that on that um on that front there's also a paper Street here uh laid out as as Buckland Street that's shown um the exact legality of developing something like that is a little outside of my expertise but as I understand it that may be a viable or at least a technically allowable alternative here um which would essentially through a large uh adjacent Wetland there which we obviously want to avoid here uh and then our fourth alternative we contemplated is that current proposed design that you see in front of you we do construct single family home we're able to install that fire department turnaround that they're looking for uh we converted about 4,300 Square F feet of lawn into naturalized area and that serves to better protect the Wetland resources than Simply Having lawn in those areas thank you okay so I think you've um obviously you know you got Joe's comments to address and you've gotten a lot of feedback from the board tonight so um you can take that and and come back to us you want to continue out a little further than the next meeting or um do you think you'll have progress in the next two weeks we we've already kind of had the benefit of talking about this for a few days now now let's continue out to two weeks from now and if we need a little more time I'll reach out to to the staff okay um do anyone else have any last minute uh thoughts or anyone from the audience before we continue I don't see any hands or anything okay um can I get a motion from someone on the commission to continue this out to the next hearing second all in favor Ed I Ted Ted is an i Janine I Matt I Heather I and I am also an i thanks folks we have uh we've got some thinking to do and we'll be back to you thanks for your time okay thank you all right hang on I lost the agenda there we go yeah I did too sorry about that lost it okay thanks Kim um all right so that finished up our new hearings um continued hearings 150 Fruit Street notice of intent continuation um did we have anything come in for this one I didn't see anything in the file through the chair we did late this afternoon oh okay yeah I don't it was forwarded to Lucas but I do not believe that Joe had time to review it and I barely got to look at it and I don't think Kim or Judy got to look at it either yeah okay is anyone on the call for this this Mitch Mass Lan with got her Consulting okay hi Mitch hey there um do you want to run through what you presented I'm not sure how much we'll be able to do with it you know getting it at the last minute but you can go ahead and present your changes problem through the chair yes Kim Mitch do you mind um grabbing the screen I don't even think that I I'm trying to pull up your documents but I don't think I have ready not a problem I should be able to share looks like yep okay all right so um last time we were with the commiss couple weeks ago um actually can you guys see my screen yes all right great so last time we were with the commission a couple weeks ago uh we had a few items to add to the site plans uh for the commission to be uh ready to approve the proposed single family house so I'll walk through those couple of revisions very minor ones so we have this D series Wetland over here are you able to see my cursor yes okay great so Yep this is the D series isolated vegetated Wetland so there was much conversation at the last hearing about this area um the commission was uh agreed to uh condition that this D series WWI would have uh stumps and Woody debris removed from the area and that we would show on the plans proposed tree uh plantings in here so we've got two red maple or my bad a one red maple tree and two highbush blueberry shrubs um and that so that area will be restored back to a nice natural isolated vegetated Wetland and then 25t off of that Wetland a post and rail fence fence was proposed here at the 25t buffer zone line so that this area could be protected uh and we have pibs shown as these small pentagons so we've got two pibs there with the post and rail fence uh scrolling down we have the E Series Wetland um much smaller the area is going to be planted with one single red maple tree and then we have uh IBS off of this one we've got one 25 ft off and then um we added one here 75 feet away matching up with the edge of forest here so that'll provide the homeowner with um visual um pibs to be able to tell hey you know I can't really go into these wood um clearing vegetation and and disturbing soils and whatnot so we added those along our erosion control Bearer here as well of disturbance will be marked with a pib there and a pib here so we've got four main ones here and then we also added some along that pathway back there to alert whatever homeowner um that there is this protected Forest Area here and protected um Forest area of Upland and BBW so those were those were the only oh um and then for the a series Wetland over here this A4 flag was labeled A1 incorrectly so that has been revised to A4 and we um have shown the Wetland boundary connecting over to the um property boundary for Lucas's uh recommendation that has been done as well so I believe that satisfies all of the commission's um requests for or plan changes uh but if I'm missing anything uh please let me know um happy to answer any questions okay thank you um yeah this um that's what I remember but um I'm going to assume that the staff wants a data at least a day to uh get to take a look at it um but Anna Judy if you feel otherwise um let me know and if anyone from the commission has any questions comments speak now the chair Mitch appreciate the updates to the plans and the summary definitely helpful to have have you walk that through with us um but I I personally haven't had a chance to really look at any of the documentation that came in I suspect the staff's the same boat so I wouldn't feel comfortable as a commission member making a decision [Music] tonight I'm in complete agreement with Matt who the chair this is Ed Y in addition my question is these various and I should probably know this and you can yell at me later but these Wetland boundary markings are these record reported in the deed to indicate that the areas on the other side of them are to remain untouched so who the chair yep go ahead Anna so the approved plan is attached to the order of condition that is recorded against the deed before the contractor is allowed to start work it is one of the pre- um construction conditions so while it's not called out specifically on the deed the plan and the language and the order is linked to the deed and then I would add to that that typically the pibs are one of those conditions that's carried um through the the COC and in perpetuity um so there you know when this process is concluded there are several recordings on the deed showing the plans and the associated pibbs thank you okay so um we're going to continue this out Mitch that um agreeable with you to the next hearing uh so I guess I just want some clarification if is there anything that's um you think missing from the site plans um I guess I would say and Echo what the other Commission commer said that I mean nothing jumps out um at the moment but we really haven't had a chance to give it a good look and look through all material to confirm that um otherwise we would be voting on it so yeah yeah um well do you guys have notes of the the previous hearing to maybe run through real quick right now through the chair yes if if I may add to what you're saying yeah um it's an unreasonable ask of the commission Mitch for you guys to submit something a few hours before our public meeting and then expect us to make a decision on the noi so to be blunt you know if you want us to vote it it's it's not it's not tonight tonight's not the night I would do that yep no that's that's totally fine and understandable I just I just don't want to uh be missing anything if there's something you guys have in your notes um from last time I'm sure if there's something that comes up when the staff reviews it then they will let you know um it advance to the next meeting okay all right so can I get a motion to continue this to the next hearing so moved thank you a second second all right all in favor Ed I Ted Ted is an i Janine I Matt I Heather I and I am also an I so thanks for the run down Mitch and we'll see you next time sounds good you commission okay um all right that got us through our hearings we have a couple more work session items next up we have Maro 88 Franklin Road request for certificate of compliance um Anna do you have a download on this one absolutely through the chair um 88 Franklin Road was the construction of an addition to the existing barn on the property um part of the that order of conditions required um a just over 2,000 ft of mitigation area um and the order specifies talking about um survival and monitoring of the plantings the when the asilt was submitted um it was about only a th000 square feet of mitigation um Lucas did review it and provided feedback to the applicant who has increased the size of the mitigation area um a square footage has not been confirmed on the site plan um and it does appear that all the plantings were just recently done so um we don't know if they are going to survive um over the winter this year um and I have not gotten a chance um to get out there and do a measurement of that proposed mitigation area so that applicant did request to speak with the commission um and has requested the certificate of compliance but I don't feel that they're quite ready um but obviously it is up to you guys as the commission okay thanks Anna um so do we have someone the applicant on the call do they want to speak uh yes I'm here also I don't know if uh if Dave mark would on on the call as well Dave there I am here y okay great um so Dave do you want to kick it off or do you want me to yeah so um the area uh the East to the right of the uh Barn area uh was just recently replanted we had uh 12 plants that that weren't native uh Sean uh aborted that and uh has recently replanted uh Native uh plants a total of 13 in that particular area uh we have a row of pibs um uh rocks a row of rocks uh between the plantings and the barn uh and we've also uh installed two posts with Medallion uh closer to the walkway uh the area to the east of the new plant plantings is pretty much to where it was originally in the way of where it was to be restored the area in question uh was recently uh tilled and pl uh and planted with uh wild seed mix is the area between the walkway and the row of rocks right in that little area there um that was just recently done uh but Anna is right the the the plants are there uh they're brand new and the seed mix is brand new um the site is stabilized um we have pibs going all the way uh to the south of the barn uh Barn's right where it's supposed to be uh but I think the question uh that's that's here is is the uh is the plantings and and uh if that grass is going to take yeah just a a little just background on that as well so uh I was working with my hard Escape guy uh who worked with shrubs and trees to plant um what you know he was told was native trees uh Native shrubs which were um two of the three types uh Lucas said were not approved upon the review those were uh junipers and rad dendrum um so what I what I did is basically took the Lucas report that was um uh dated October 2nd uh went through made any changes I could to make uh the site um as to spec as the original plan uh went back but new shrubs um was able to keep the uh the dogwoods um so three of the 13 uh shrubs uh have been planted since uh June um and that's you know that's kind of the background uh of you know the shrubs in the in the plantings and the pibs okay um thank you for that that rundown appreciate it um so an it as you mentioned you haven't been out on site Joe has been on we haven't had anyone on site actually um confirm and look at this since it's been completed correct correct the applicant um supplied some pictures but we have not had a chance to get back out on site yet yeah okay um I think in my in my opinion I wouldn't be ready to sign off on the SEC certificate of compliance until um we have someone out there take a look and give enough time that the plantings can um you know establish themselves we can feel comfortable with them surviving who knows what the weather's going to do in the next couple months but um that's my thought does anyone else have thoughts on the commission yeah Melissa I just have a question or a thought yeah um I agree that we need to wait to make sure that the plantings take and live um but if they do are we at the right square footage now for mitigation it sounded like we came up short initially or do not know for sure what our square footage is I think that's something we' be looking for Anna to to confirm in the field so that's a question mark as well whether the plants live and whether we're at the right amount of mitigation yeah t so yeah Ted so what I did was The Hardscape guy again I guess just didn't um follow the plan exact a spec and planted uh not planted but um installed large Stones you know greater than 2 by two um which is you can see kind of along the perimeter um that wasn't tight enough to the building uh you know lessening the square footage area so um what I did to increase that is you know installed myself you know Cedar Post uh 4x4s with um you know the Hop Hoppington conservation Wetland medallions uh so that I could um you know meet the square footage as as close as I I could okay but is the and then it's a seed mix between those posts and the stones correct that is correct okay all right I might can um Anna or Kim can you pull up the original plan with that showed the location of the PS the little stars are like the the PS yeah so really on the on the final plan the asilt plan um it shouldn't be the stones that are labeled is pib I think if you go back again the p IB is we don't want that to be the existing line of Boulders we want it to be the the stakes yeah so really it's a combination so I followed the form W uh the WPA form five item 59 um and used a combination I guess for the revision a combination of the large stones and the cedar post with the medallions okay I think Dave we might need some to clarify that on the plan um you know so when it's recorded and the next person who wants to do something here where looking at what that pib line is um it's it's clear are you are you allowing the RO of rocks to act as the pi well it sounds like it sounds like there's a combination right now of rocks right yeah and posts but that's not what we approved as far as the actual Line in the Sand right so it's a little confusing looking at this plan and seeing that note that says pib existing line of Boulders out outside of where the two stakes are on the ground one on the back side is fine I think the pib existing yeah that one right there but then once you get on the other side of the barn it Transitions and Melissa if I may it's not only confusing on the plan it would be confusing in the yard and we have seen so many of those posts recently completely ignored by homeowners um I I think we need a much more clear delineation of the pib in real life and on the plan so is it t you suggesting to go above and beyond the form uh WPA 5 I I'm not sure what I'm suggesting I think I'd really want to see the yard more than I would the um and you did show a picture I know or Kim did but what I know is if I were a new homeowner if you sold the house to me and I saw those rocks and a couple posts I would assume the rocks are the pibs and I would be mowing the lawn right up to the Rocks if not moving the rocks and saying I want some more lawn because don't have any indication on them either yeah but I guess even with the post and the medallions though we are seeing all over town people completely ignoring posts and medallions and so to make it even more confusing by having two lines I I just think it's a recipe for the whole thing to be a waste of time okay I mean I tried to follow that no I understand that and I think we've had discussions about updating that form I I get that you're trying to follow it I I just I don't know that what is out there now is going to make any sense to any body if the Rocks were pulled up along with the posts that would make some sense I think but to have two different lines I think is probably a bad plan yeah I think I think that's what it comes down to for me too having two things that we commonly use for pibs shown in two different locations um be confusing okay yeah I supp I could have um get a bobc cap back there and just push the stones in line with the post I think that would be the best case I concur okay with with regards to the plantings establishing um um I guess how does that typically work obviously we're you know approaching winter um you does that mean that this is going to get delayed all the way out until Springtime or how does that typically work um I think in the past what we've seen is if if there's not you know assuming there's not an urgency to close out the COC um we we like to have the time to um see things establish um if there's some reason a house closing or something like that sometimes we'll look at exceptions um in the past am I speaking out of line there anner Kim um I think we like to see him established in this you know in the spring season yeah through the chair it it is a typical practice for the commission to see at least um you know one growing season um it's it's I know it's a been unseasonably warm but November is a bit it's it is pushing it for plantings um so just having that confirmation that they're going to come back in the spring is helpful through the chair this really a question for you I think um I think we had the the approved plan up a couple of minutes ago uh can you help me understand how we got from these pib locations to to those posts that look like they're in a different location I'm just I'm having a tough time following right we so basically yeah basically mattt I just I knew that the so from the feedback from Lucas like I knew that my Hardscape guy installed those Boulders too far out I couldn't physically move them myself uh so I thought a solution would be to install the cedar post and I wanted to do if anything have it tighter to the building than at least what I saw on the plan just so that the commission would be you know favorable of that solution gotcha okay I apologize if I missed that earlier I'm just cetch up I'm not familiar with this particular property but so it looks to me if I'm if I'm reading this correctly in the north south the first one two three the first five Stones starting from the southern end look like they fall in line with the pib locations on the approved plan and then what should have happened was they followed that 50 foot buffer line to the to the corner basically to the corner of the building and then came straight across straight North on that blue line Kim has drawn on the plant sheet I'm just I'm just looking at it from the perspective of you've been overly conservative with one of those markers from from my perspective and I don't want uh home M to have to give up additional yard area that wasn't part of the original approval right so I don't know if you're following me Kim if you can draw this out yes thank you I think you kind of did yeah yes so so that area on the southern half where you've got that pib stake you've actually you know some of that lawn area that was approved as lawn I would hate to see you give it up right so if you if you're going to move these Boulders back which it sounds like you're you're open to doing I would suggest doing so in a manner that's consistent with the original approved plan to both meet what the commission's expectations are and to maximize your area of lawn that was approved as part through the process understood yeah and if anything I just want to be on the more conservative side just because you know I'm just trying to be as you know consistent as I can to the plan and if anything I'd rather be on the more conservative side than anything okay any further qu questions does that make sense are we on the same page you think yeah I mean that so I guess from my perspective um you know my job is just to make make sure that these shrubs survive uh the winter um maybe can bring in some straw um and then um just get the boulders pushed in to be just in line uh with the original plan or even tighter um and at that point in time you know I guess is there any other uh items with the the plan that you know that the commission sees as like an issue um yeah no the only thing I would add to that is just Dave moving those Boulders when you move them on the plan you know to reflect that movement in the field um I I think that was it that all that's what I understood from the comments um and then we would have Anna go out in check it in the fields the chair would be helpful on the um revised Asal plan once those was moved for that square footage number to be added to to verify for the engineer to verify for that versus my math skills we can do that and it would be best to reach out in the spring because so you could look at the boulders and the plantings at the same time I think so yeah through the chair yeah if we have the revised as belt from marant and then we can uh staff can verify survivability of those plantings in the spring all right um if you're all said I don't think we need to vote on on that I think we just invite you back when you're ready y all right thanks commission good yep thanks for coming in great thank you all right um last up we have 34 down E Street this is another request for certificate of compliance through the chair I'm happy to speak on 34 Downey Street yes please so 34 Downey Street was an after the fact a notice of intent for a dock and a boat lift on Lake mpano um the applicant has obtained the chapter 91 approval as required in the order um when the applicant applied for the certificate of compliance um they did not include the required um plan with the PS or PLS stamp um stating that it was after the fact nothing had changed so I did advise the applicant they can request a waiver of that condition from the commission if the commission so chooses um so they have requested that waiver Lucas environmental did go out and do a site visit um noting that the site is stable but without that um PS stamp and statement they can't verify whether or not anything has changed um since the original um Dock and Bool lift was put in um and Lucas also noted that there's no um required signage of the public passage as part of the chapter 91 approval although it is not part of the condition the commission's approval so at this point I think the commission needs to decide whether the PE or PLS um statement is required or if this um meets the commissions um okay to issue the certificate okay so Joe you were out there did you take recently actually it was uh Devin who was out on this site I did not VI the site myself okay um all right and we have the applicant here on the line is that correct that is correct hi Paul piot hi thanks for hanging in here with us um for the Long Haul um did do you have anything to add to what Anna outlined uh I just wanted to clarify that the uh noi was not for the dock the dock has been existing for I don't know 50 years or something I'm not sure how long well before I was here it was only the addition of the bull lift the chapter 91 though did include the boat lift the dock and all the retaining walls okay so what the stamp was supposed to be for was that the deck didn't change is that right Anna uh the boat left the lift okay through the chair if I can yes speak the location of the boat lift when we because this was after the fact we had a survey as part of the commission's request when we were the noi so we had a land survey which located it it hasn't moved it's adjacent to a wall that's been there since 1950s or so uh next to the next to the dock so at this point to incur a cost just to say it hasn't moved seemed like it was unnecessary yeah in addition I mean it is a this isn't secured to the ground anyway this is just placed on the bottom of the lake okay okay um yeah I mean that seems reasonable to to me to issue that waiver that it hasn't moved um and so you are aware of the chapter 91 access sign requirement that's not under our perview but yeah I do need to get one made up it was uh I thought it came with the permit but it didn't and then I honestly just forgot about it okay so take care of that um is anyone on the commission have any thoughts or concerns with issuing a waiver for that uh PLS requirement okay hearing no concerns I think we'll go ahead and ask for um ask for a motion to issue the waiver is requested can I get that I'll make that motion okay thanks Ted can I get a second the chair yes do you want to amend that motion and also issue a certificate of compliance yes good idea Anna that's exactly what I want to do does anyone want to second that this is DED second all right all in favor um Ed H Ted Ted isn't I Janine hi Matt hi and Heather I and I am an I so you are all set Mr pick thank you very much have a nice evening thank you you too all right um that's it no no public forum requests not tonight think okay all right um I think that's it uh we can all officially welcome Judy today was her first day Judy longest first day ever Judy seriously learned a lot today good hopefully you didn't get too overwhelmed um and you can yeah spend the next couple weeks recovering before um you running a meeting for us so but you have Anna so yes it'll be fine and I just want to say hi Heather I didn't get to say Hi H last meeting well oh hi that's right you weren't here our first one were you Janine um okay and Kim to say um thank you for coming to another meeting bonus on core by Kim absolutely but guys this is really really my last one we've heard that before like seriously all right can I get a motion to journ the meeting don't moved second all right all in favor Ed I Ted Ted isn't I Janine I Matt I Heather I and I am also an I thank you all and have a good rest of your night night good night everyone good night everybody thank you e e e