Hey everybody. >> Hey Jim. >> Hey Jim. >> How you doing? We got enough folks for tonight, right? >> We expect to. Right now we're You make three. So, we still need one more commission member.
>> I know we had that select board meeting for a little bit. Anyway, >> yeah, I did I did hear that. >> Talk about ebikes again or something. The big thing ebikes.
>> Ebikes. >> Ebikes. Yeah. Yep. They're out of control. They're out of control. We got to do something about all that. I know we get cut off here.
Do you have a light agenda, too, huh? >> Um, >> pretty light. >> No, we'll see what I think we have a few hot topic. So, >> um, yeah, I saw that.
But we're going to get through them. >> We're going to get through them. Yep. >> Going to get through them pretty quickly. >> Try and be efficient. >> Yeah, that's right. We have a time limit of 10 o'clock. >> Yeah. So, I know we did have Walter
confirm that he's coming. Don't see him. Yeah. vacation. the college schedule kind of >> Yeah, the independent schools tend to do it this way. >> How long have you been doing that? Forever. >> Well, as long as I've been a teacher,
I've only taught in independent schools and it's always been two weeks in March. >> Oh, that's maybe better. Although it's not Well, you got to go to some place warm, right? Well, this year I spent a week in the
Dominicans, so that was nice. But Hopington for two weeks, so >> Well, that's nice. Well, welcome back. I'm glad you made it back. >> You can see the tan. >> You're in one of those all American resort areas?
>> No, absolutely not. I I have a friend who lives in Santa. Domingo and who used to work at my school. And my two kids and I got to see what I like to say is the real Dominican Republic, not the foreignowned resorts, the beaches.
>> Ah, you got to see the military running around with the machine guns and stuff. >> Well, maybe maybe has probably not changed much in 30 years. >> I've led a couple student service trips to the Dominican where we volunteered in
a school and we built homes for Haitian immigrants in the middle of sugarce fields and >> Oh, wow. Cool. All I've ever done in the Dominican is see the real Dominican, not the foreign own. >> Yeah. Yeah. Is it as some kind of a
mission or habitat? No, not Habitat have a mission. >> No, but there there are different groups that are working. It wasn't Habitat for Humanity. It wasn't through a church. >> No, they do. Yeah, they only do that. Habitat. All right. See, open documents.
>> Still waiting for fourth. We are see Walter. >> Oh, really? >> So, you there, Walter? >> Yes, I am. Sorry, I had to get off mute. >> You want me to start reading, Melissa? >> Yep. Go for it, Ted.
>> All right, here we go. This is the April 7th, 2026 open meeting of the Hopkinson Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during this 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 Hopkinson Conservation Commission is convening by v video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the conservation commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be
broadcast by hcam through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being muted and that all attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not
to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Please also keep yourself on mute unless until called on by the chair. Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission
for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have discussed the project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion for public comment. Members of the public
who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via a roll call of the members. I will now confirm which
commission members are present. The chair, Melissa Recos, >> present. >> Jim Cerillo, >> there was a present. Walter Garland >> present. >> Uh Peggy Shaw, Ed Hara,
Matt Moyan, and I am Ted Barker Hook. I am present. I will now confirm that staff are present. Judy Day, the Hopkinson Conservation Administrator, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator,
>> present. Joe Orzelle of Lucas Environmental >> present. >> And before I give it back to Melissa, I want to let everybody in the room know that we have at least the last I heard one continued hearing. Uh the planned
Kelly uh hearing at 15 Montana Road, a continued hearing uh is requested to be continued again. It is now on the agenda for April 28th, 2026. And that's what I have so far. Melissa. >> All right. Thanks, Ted.
>> You're welcome. >> Um, okay. So, I know that we have quite a few people in the audience for a couple of our work session items. So, we're going to kick off the meeting with those tonight. I'm going to skip over the draft minutes for review. We can
come back to them at the end. Um, and I'm going to go down to work session item number three, which is the informal discussion for the trails committee Barry Acres Parking Area. So, do we have someone on the call? I believe I saw Mr. Kimble.
>> Yeah, I'm here. >> Hey. Um, would you like to present to the commission your proposal or I guess what you're looking for tonight? Um, >> yeah. So, I um I sent a proposal. Oh,
there we go. That Yeah, this is it. Thank you. Thank you, Judy. Um, so for those who are unfamiliar, there's a um there's a parking area that's not really formalized or finished. I think it's just an old
driveway, an old parking area off of Main Street going into the Barry Acres system. There's a curb cut. So, the curbs already cut. And what we want to do is to encourage more use of the Berry Acres Trail system while people don't
have to cross Main Street from Ice House Pond. And the proposal here is to bring in stone dust and even off the driveway in and then create a parking area for maybe five or four or five cars.
The the reason why I'm reaching out to Concom is we believe Concom is responsible for this property. So barring any wetlands issues, this proposal is all right, Concom, you the the board is responsible for this
particular property. What does Kong think of the idea before we even start exploring the wetlands impact? >> Okay. >> And I presume it's going to be wet. though. >> Yes, definitely is wood over there. I
think um most members are probably a little at least familiar with where this is. Um driven by it many times, maybe worked on a um crossing here or there, Eagle Scout projects.
Um, it reminds me a little bit of our property over on College Rock where we have a parking area. We are the holders of that property as well or we maintain um and are responsible for College Rock.
It has kind of a small parking area um that's really very unfinished. I guess guess you'd say the biggest difference being that West Main Street is just has so much more traffic on it um obviously
than College Rock. So my I guess only con concern or hesitation would be um if you get a lot of traffic there, a lot of people using the parking
area um how much creep might we expect even if we do have a defined parking area proposed or you know with a crush stone. Um, I imagine people are not going to be able to back onto West Main Street out
of this parking area and would need to be able to turn around in that parking area to come back out on West Main from a safety perspective. Um, and if they can't do that based on the number of cars that are there, you know, are they going to end up in the woods, in the
wetlands, you know, creeping outside of the parking area and causing um, you know, encroachment, damage to our resource area would be my my biggest question and thing I'd want to vet maybe even with the sidewalk. >> Yeah. No, that's a I I can't answer
that, Melissa. What I can say is that I brought in my pickup truck and I was able to do a three-point turn to get out, but the lot was empty, >> right? >> So, I can't I can't say you can do it with a full lot. I I don't want to say. >> Yeah.
Okay. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I was kind of looking at it um looking at your plan and having driven by. But I think I would encourage either I don't know if anyone else on the commission is interested in um scheduling a sitewalk
out there to check it out. Um maybe we can try it out with a couple cars, see what we can do. >> I think that's a great point, Melissa. And we could actually as part of the the contract, we could kind of say, okay, make sure that we put in something to
allow cars to pull in and turn around when it's full. because I agree with you. You don't want to back out without a doubt. >> Yeah. >> Melissa. >> Okay. Yes. Ten. >> Um I love the idea of a sitewalk and I
love testing the parking. Um and I know we don't have an official wetlands analysis. That costs a lot of money and this is just an informal talk. Um, I will say I am worried about the proximity to the wetlands and it's a pretty extensive wetland system that
that little area is part of. Um, I am always so supportive of the trails committee and so thankful for the trails and I never like offering less than robust positive responses. I worry a little bit about parking cars in there
and uh oils or gases from the car. I know my driveway has two cars leaking into my driveway and I picture that next to the wetlands. And on top of that, I I don't do any ice skating on the pond in the
winter, but I could actually see that parking lot becoming overflow for pond skaters as well, which means now it's full season car parking. Um, and I just worry what that might mean with that proximity to the wetlands. Um, I think
your worry about parking lot creep, it makes sense as well, Melissa. Um, but even without creep, I'm a little nervous about that becoming a home for cars 9 10 months of the year. >> Yeah.
>> But I think it's worth a sidewalk and it's worth looking at. I'm certainly not saying no, no, no, no, no. But those are my opening concerns. >> Okay. Um, anyone else? Jim or Walter, did you have any thoughts?
>> Uh, yes. So, the chair, I am looking at that that area now. I'm wondering if a a better location for a parking lot might be off of Wayan Road. It looks like there's a lot more
space there for a parking area. You don't have to worry about Main Street that way. Uh if you look in front what's on the screen here down towards the bottom. I'm looking at a uh maybe if you if can you scroll up
there a little bit. >> Yeah. >> Culac there. >> Yeah, there's a a little there's a road between those two culde-sacs. I mean I think it looks a little different than it does now, but and there's a dotted line over to the trail
system. if it would be possible to there's a lot more of an area there kind of between the two where it says 2025 2025 that area might be more conducive to a parking lot and you're not going to
attract ice house pond traffic it would be you know much more for nature lovers kind of put you in the middle of the trail system there as well >> I don't know Sean if you want to speak to that or any other options that you've looked Aside from this one,
>> uh to answer your question, we have not looked at any other parking alternatives. I can speak to this connector between Whan and Chamberlain. So Chamberlain, you could probably get eight cars in the culde-sac, just in the culde-sac itself. Now, that road between
the two culde-sacs is a gated road and only used for emergency access vehicles. >> Oh, I've seen it. It seems like it's open all the time. I maybe I'm mistaken. >> I thought it was gate. I mean, I'm pretty sure I've seen the gate closed
and um there was open when they were doing construction on Chamberlain when they put the uh speed hump in, they opened that up to allow the residents to get in and out without using Chamberlain. That was for a short stint that summer. >> What I can say is on the west side of it, it's very steep. And that blue
dotted trail where you see the two 2025 markers, that's all wet and it's and it's down, >> I don't know, 30 feet from the road. >> So on that west side, you really can't do any parking. >> And then
yeah, to access the east side, you'd have to go on that access road, which you wouldn't be able to do. >> I see. Uh I was I was just thinking of potential alternatives because No, I hear you. I guess I share I mean I love
trail systems and but I do also share um >> and the other thing is Windsor is not really I mean they've been accommodating for us doing trail work on very specific days and hours but they're not open for
public access on the residents because it's for the residents >> and that's all on the west side of the Berry acre system. What about at uh at the far end of it at Lumber Street?
>> So, so there's a trail. Actually, there may be some homes in there. I I'm just looking at the >> Yeah, I think I think Sean will probably, you know, obviously look at different options. Uh the trails committee, I guess, will look at different options. Um,
but just looking at the one you're bringing to us right now. Um, how about we Judy, can we do a maybe you can set up because we don't have all of our commission members on the call right now. We're a little shortanded. Um, can you do a doodle poll for the
group offline to maybe find a a weekend that we can do a site visit? >> Yeah, I can do that. And if we get more than three people, um, we would just have to advertise it as a it would be open to the public. Um, so we can see
how many folks are interested in coming. >> Okay, I think that sounds good. Does that work for you, Sean? >> Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, Judy, just let me know and I I definitely be interested in attending. >> Well, do.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. Well, thanks for spending the time. I appreciate it and um I do think there's a right solution here. Not sure what it is, but I hope there is. >> No, it's good to look at all the options. >> All right. >> Thank you for including us. >> Right on. All right. See you later.
>> Hey. Okay. Um next up we have Hopington DPW 2026 Lake Massock update and treatment recommendation. Um, do we have
someone from D? Oh, Carrie, I see you. >> Hi, everyone. I'm here. >> Welcome. >> Welcome. Um, so I'm trying to catch up on this, but hi Carrie Reed, director of public works. Um, I have some other members here with me, but I think, um,
we provided a presentation. Judy, are you able to bring that up or do I need to bring that up? Here I have it. If you >> fabulous >> want to just let me know when you want me to proceed.
>> Yeah, that's great. Thank you. Oh, awesome. Fabulous. Um, so yes. So, we're here to give an update on the Lake Maspan Queen Management and review what we did last year and go over
our plan for next year. Um, I think is Joe. Joe's on the call. Joe, do you want to introduce yourself, too? >> Hi. >> Oops. >> I don't know why. >> Do you have another device on? >> My wife does. We'll see if that makes a difference.
>> Yeah, it sounds better now. Oh, is that better? >> Oh, something changed. >> Yeah, she's not on either. All right, you know what? I'm gonna go on my screen. So, somebody else introduce yourself and I'll be right back.
>> I'm sorry. It's just the two of us for now. So, um I'm the director of public works and Joe is the chair of the Lake Maspan weed control citizen advisory group which was formed by the select board. So, um, both of us will leave this and
then we'll bring in some other speakers as we go. But if you want to go to the next slide. Thank you. I can't remember which ones I hid and which ones I didn't. Um, so just to bring the commission up to speed, um, you've heard some of the stuff already before, a little bit of the background
of why we're, um, here before you today. So we currently have an order of conditions for a toolbox of weed management options and this was based off of a lot of years of work um going into it. So this has been before the
conservation commission before um going back you know when this first came up there was a lot of concerns about some of the ideas that were happening and what kind of weed management there were. So almost 10 years ago now the select board created the citizen advisory group
or CIG as we call it but the study of the lake has been going you know back for a very very very long time. Um but we have about 10 years worth of data that got us to this point. Um we were issued the order of conditions in 2022.
The DPW is the one that has the order of conditions with the recommendation from the CIG and um we've been implementing several of these things since then which we'll talk about and we will update the plan as we go along. So what we got
next? Next slide. So, at this point, you know, part of our order of conditions is to do annual surveys and to bring those recommend um the results back to the commission. To give you an update, as of last year, our former limnologist who had been helping
all along, David Mitchell, retired. Uh the town went through a process and we hired a new limnologist to help consult us, which is Aquatic Restorations Consulting LLC. Um, and I believe we I don't believe we provided their report which was the annual summary and Wendy I
think I saw was on here. So I would like to introduce Wendy to introduce herself. Um, kind of explain what their role is and provide some summary and then I'm going to assume the commission probably wants to wait till the end to answer any questions
or ask any questions. >> Yeah, that's fine. We can wait till the end. All right. >> Hi, good a good good evening. Thanks for having me. I'm Wendy Gendin. I'm a certified lake manager and I run and own the company Aquatic Restoration
Consulting and I used to work with uh Dr. Mitchell. So, uh we're very familiar with each other's work and um I learned a lot of things over the years from him and uh also Dr. Wagner which you may have run into here and there with your lake work and your conservation
commission. issues. So, what I just wanted to talk a little bit about is um you know this this past year was the first year on the lake. It's a beautiful lake. It has um about we did a survey in the early spring or June and then we did
another one in August. And there's quite a bit of diverse vegetation out there. Unfortunately, the lake does have five different non-native species. And I think that's kind of what we're here to talk about tonight. Um, Judy, if you
don't mind advancing the slides, please. >> So, um, here are some of the invasive the here are some of the main plants that are in in the water body. What's really the invasive one that's probably the most dangerous to the lake is fan wart. You see that up on the uh upper
left hand corner. You also have variable mil foil as well as Eurasian watermill foil. Um tape grass, while it's a native, it can get very aggressive. Same thing with collapsing leaf pondweed that's also a native. Um that can get aggressive. And then brittle niad was
something that has really taken off in the lake in the late season. Uh and that is a non-native species. uh pomegranine crispus or curly leaf pondweed not shown here that can be uh very problematic early in the season but it c tends to
die off around uh late July but brittle niad comes and sort of takes its place and that's uh kind of takes off in its growth in the later portion of the season. The ones that really choke off um other native plants and limit habitat
for fisheries are your fan war and your mil foils to some extent collapsing leaf pondweed. But some of the other ones are more nuisance species to human recreation. But those other ones can really destroy the ecology of the lake if left to completely spread. So just
like us, um believe it or not, plants do consume oxygen over the evening. And when you have way too much biomass, it it strips the oxygen out of the water and that oxygen is not available for fisheries uh and other organisms that
consume oxygen. Uh and it also limits the habitat the swimming open water area. So those are the two main mechanisms in which uh aquatic plants when they're aggressive and extends ecology. So Judy, if you don't mind
advancing the slides again, please. So the next couple of slides are just showing you the presence uh where we detected fanport variable mil foil and the two other main ones. What I wanted to point out here for tonight uh which
we'll turn it over to Dominic um from Solitude later, I'm sure, but historically you've seen only the the non-native plants up in the northern end of the lake. We have now starting to see them down in the southern end of the lake. So this is kind of problematic and
fan wart has the capability of really taking over this entire lake. Um so it's it's very important to control it while you can when the biomass is minimal before it gets to lake shore to shore and you can almost like walk across the
lake at some sometimes because it's so thick. So you can advance the slide again please. Uh here's the brittle niad that again it's just like the other ones in in Eurasian mil foil. It's really coming in or kind of abundant in the northern end
of the lake. Uh they haven't reached down to the southern end at least during the surveys that we detect we performed but again they are also plants that are um something that we should watch and potentially control. Like I said,
there's a lot of native vegetation in here that's that's helpful and we want to protect that. So, the goal is not really to remove all the plants. It's to be selective in what we remove. Judy, if you don't mind advancing the slide, please.
So, I think from here, um, turning it over to to somebody else. >> Yeah, I'll take it back over. Thank you, Wendy. Um, ARC has been a great resource. um they've been doing a great job. So, we definitely are thankful that they're here. And if you guys have any
um technical questions about that, they'll be around to answer. So, that's great. Um so, one of the other concerns has always been the water quality. We do a considerable amount of water quality sampling, sediment sampling. We work with the CIA and the LMPA. We work with the health department. Um we have to do
additional sampling that DBW does with the consultant for storm water. Um, so I just wanted to point out that there's been plenty of water quality sampling that has shown that Lake Massach has pretty good water quality. >> All right, next slide, please.
>> At this point, I was going to turn it over to um, Sabine to kind of give a a little um, overview of some of the public education outreach efforts they have done. >> Sure. Hi everybody. Sabine St. Pierre, president of the Lake Maspan Preservation Association.
So our main focus has really been on putting together a collective effort on some proactive preventative initiatives. Um so we've been educating people again in the spring and the fall most specifically on the fertilizers. you know, we've been working with Judy
Day um and Concom on educating people about the law as well as companies, landscape companies, and um Judy, I believe, is actually going to has probably already sent out, I think, almost like 30 letters um to local landscape companies
just, you know, letting them be aware of the law and making sure that they're using non-phosphorous fertilizers. We're really trying to control what's running off into the water. So, educating people on buffer zones, dos and don'ts,
spring and fall cleanup. Um, Judy came last year to our general meeting in May and talked about buffer zone dos and don'ts. She and I are actually going to meet this Thursday to talk about uh what we want to talk about at this year's general meeting um in May. We also have
been researching um the boat ramp monitor program through the DCR because we also feel like if we can start to control what's coming into the lake that will also be helpful in mitigating future growth. Um, so we're going to
trial possibly some volunteers that'll get trained and just see how it goes during some of the busy times and educating people on, you know, clean, drain, dry, what the aquatic aquatic hitchhiker law is. Uh, so people are
just aware. Also working with parks and wreck on when people buy season passes. Uh, we'll be talking about this at our Sandy Beach meeting on Thursday. um having a little flyer again that just tells them about um the aquatic
hitchhiker law and clean draining and drying their boat before before they put it in. Um we also had an email that I sent out with um Melissa and Judy to the state uh who did the boat certification
uh class that people are required to take over the next couple years. Hundreds of people are going to be going through that. Um, they talk about aquatic invasive weeds and washing your boats, but there was really no information on it. So, I just requested
that with the amount of people that have to take this course in the next couple of years, maybe including a handout in their class and they already have the handouts made. Um, I haven't heard a response back, but uh hoping that we'll hear something. Um, so I think we're
going to continue just working with we're also talking with sustainable green uh committee and working on some initiatives that we can do together. It it takes a village as I think many people on this call are aware of. Um, we all kind of have to work together. So,
it's um and all the stuff obviously that Carrie put on the slide, but it's just a continual effort in hopes of, you know, preventing future growth um while we work to maintain balance in the lake. Thanks,
>> Carrie. Can folks hear me? Can you folks hear me? You see me? >> We can now. >> Yeah. >> Awesome. Thank you. Go ahead, Carrie. Sorry about that. >> No worries. All right. Thank you, Savine. So, what we got? Um, this is just a highlight of some of the, you
know, additional work that we've been doing over the past year. Um, this was a really cool event, uh, aquatic invasive species workshop. It was hosted by the, um, Suaska, which is Sunbury as
conquered cooperative invasive species management area. I think SISM um all these acronyms aquatic invasive but basically it was the watershed group that partnered with the DCR lakes and ponds gave a great workshop we were able to host at the library um there was a
lot of members um you can see conservation commission we had some interns we had some folks from the lake some folks from the sustainable build green committee so it was a really cool event all right what do we got next slide thank you all right so the crux of
Why we're coming to you before you is we have this order of conditions for weed management at the lake. Um that was based off of the research and stuff like that. A bunch of conditions. It has a summary of a toolbox. So it has this all these tools that we could use. Um, so
this slide just provides an overall summary of all those tools that are authorized, kind of the estimated cost, um, how how intensive they are, how we think they will do, and then the probability of success for Lake Maspanok, and you can go over that. So,
a lot of times you hear about why aren't you trying this, why aren't you trying that? Um we've evaluated all these tools and the advisory group which has been tasked with evaluating these and making recommendations has reviewed all these.
So what do we got? Uh next slide please. What has been used and what has worked and what hasn't. So we've do our regular draw downs. They've been you know somewhat successful. We had an extended draw down this year. Um we will wait to see how it worked. Um, we had early ice
out conditions this year which caused not the best conditions. You know, we really like to have exposure so we can all that freezing it, but we had the ice out early. Um, and then it kind of created a little bit of insulation and then some safety concerns. So, we weren't able to draw down as much as we wanted or expose those sediments as much
as we wanted to the cold, although we did have a lot of nice cold weather. Um, but we also had a lot of snow that provided a lot of insulation. So we'll evaluate that um in the spring and see how that extended draw down did. Uh benthic barriers and hand harvesting has
been done at like small um local areas and it works okay but it it's not good for a broader thing. We have not tried mechanical h harvesting but we have done some additional research the cig and the LMPA
um and we've been speaking to another you know a couple different folks about those options still don't think it's the best option for us and then the herbicide treatment was last done in June 2024 and that was pretty very successful um but then the weeds
reemerged in the summer of 2025. Next slide please. So again, this kind of summarizes the options that were implemented. Um these are all based on recommendations from the CIG and from um the toolbox that
that was available with the the order of conditions. At this point, Joe, do you want to add anything about um the CIG's kind of impression of how these have went and why they're recommending the herbicide treatment for 2026? >> Yes, and thank you for the good summary.
So the weed control group um you know we we get I don't want to say accused but we folks in opposition to the herbicide sort of suggest that we sort of knee-jerk just recommend
herbicide and don't really explore other alternatives in the toolbox. And I just really want to stress that that's just not the case. And we do spend quite a bit of time looking at other alternatives. Carrie went through the toolbox. The one thing that we are
spending quite a bit of time looking at um as recommended by folks on the sustainability green committee and other folks is the mechanical harvesting to see if that would be a feasible alternative for the north basin as compared to the herbicide.
And uh about a couple months ago, Sabine and I both uh observed participated in the the I think it was the Sbury Co-op invasive species uh group where they had folks from four or five towns come in and talk about
their weed control uh experiences. And a big part of that was talking about their experience with mechanical harvesting. And we have followed up on that with conversations with uh Welssley who has a no weed no herbicide policy period. So
they spend a lot of money and time doing mechanical harvesting. And we've also followed up with uh Echoh Harvester company whatever that company is that uses the Echoh Harvester which pulls the weeds up from uh further down so you get
more of the weed base. And so we are exploring those alternatives. Um at this point we don't see them as feasible alternatives to uh using the herbicide particularly this year on a very again
limited basis but we are exploring it. There's a lot of logistics and a lot of costs. Um, so that might be something we're hoping maybe uh use one of the harvester devices, maybe part of a pilot program for next summer if the weeds
come back. Um, it seems like the herbicide does a pretty good job uh the year it's applied, the weeds start coming back the following year. So, you know, we'll maybe try harvesting on a pilot basis. But even the towns that we
spoke to that are using uh some of these mechanical harvesting devices, they're doing maybe 3 acres in a day, two or three acres in a day at a very hefty cost. And logistics are you have to have
a place to dump the stuff that's very close by because you have to keep making trips. These harvesters don't hold a lot of the weed material. Um, so you know, we're treating when we do the herbicide last time and what we're proposing this time is 50 acres really in the North
Basin. So, you know, I could see us doing maybe some harvesting down the road to complement the other tools in the toolbox, but I don't see it supplanting uh what what we're recommending. Um, it's just it's just not going to it's
not going to work. in the other items in the toolbox, particularly for the North Basin, as we've told uh folks before, uh other tools in the toolbox just aren't a practical way of doing it. So, and even the towns that are using the
harvesters, um those towns other than Welssley are saying that they are using these other devices and the harvesting in combination with limited herbicide. So even those towns who do have the
experience with harvesting aren't using those as a substitute for limited herbicide. So I just thought that's important because we do spend as a committee um and with the LMPA and with Kerry, we do spend a lot of time
exploring all the alternatives and I think sometimes it gets sort of lost in translation. So >> all right, thanks Joe. >> You're welcome. Um Jay if you can go to the next slide please.
All right so we basically um went over this. Um so our recommendation for 2026 is um to continue the vegetation surveys to do herbicide treatment and continue the regular draw down um and solitude would be our applicator. So if you go to
the next slide. Fabulous. Um we have I believe Dom and Tanner here from Solitude. So they can kind of it's very similar to what was done in 2024, but they can give a a brief overview of um what we intend to
do. So, I will point out though before I put them on the spot that we just got under um a contract with them. Obviously, we had to come before the conservation commission to get approval. So, we haven't fleshed out like the full
plan yet and there will be several submitts that are required under or order of condition that will be submitted after this discussion um if we if the commission decides to allow us to go ahead with this. So with that being said, um Donic or Tanner, are you
hearing you? >> I am. Can you hear me? Well, >> yes. >> Y perfect. All right. So for 2026, oh sorry, uh Tanner solid lake management uh project manager. Um and pretty much so for 2026, we decided to go with a
couple of different uh products to effectively treat the invasives found within Lake Astronaut. Um, starting off we have uh Tribune, which is more of a uh a contact herbicide. It's really good for treating those uh sparser pockets of mil foil kind of like where they're less
established. Really good for that. And as well as those uh kind of high use areas, you like your rec recreational areas, your boat ramps or your uh kind of beach areas. We also have uh excuse me also the
chosen pcella course sorry for its uh effectiveness and selectivity for mil foil. Um it's really known for controlling dense pockets of mil foil and keeping those uh those plants away for a good amount of time. And lastly we're going to use flioisin from fan
wart. It's another contact herbicide but it's very good at controlling fan wart and keeping it down for the season. um anticipated treatment is later this summer kind of June July around time frame when biomass is starting to grow but not kind of when we've reached like
peak biomass and our treatment areas um like said are pretty much based on 50 acres but we kind of based out our treatment um with the amount with the herbicides and we're pretty flexible based on how the pre-treatment survey
will come back. we can you we can use those numbers and be kind of flexible to where we need the herbicide to be. >> Yeah, thanks Taran. I just like to add too that um obviously we're we're going to finish tailoring kind of the herbicide program once the pre-treatment
survey is done and we see where the plants are returning. Uh but you know we did make some assumptions at least initially for the contracting and the bid process and using the 2025
um survey maps from ARC. Um you know ideally um we're also obviously working within a a certain budget as well. Well, I mean the the priscella core is sort of preferred for mil foil growth because it is systemic and will
provide multiple years control but it is very expensive herbicide. So I think the idea here is just to try to tailor and when we did the treatment in 2024 we kind of treated all the treatment areas the same. Um there wasn't a lot of fan
war back in 2024 but there's and there's definitely more fan war this time around. So, we we're just trying to really tailor the program for um the specific areas and of the different types of weeds and trying to
use the products that are most uh most selective and most efficacious on those particular plants. So certainly some more details to be kind of worked out here after the survey, but you know, I think that's the general plan here.
>> Great. Thank you. So with that, I think the next slide is just questions. Um, but I hope you saw that we've done a lot of research. We've got a great team here together that's working together. Um, and everybody's available if we have any specific questions from the commission.
All right. Thank you, Carrie and team. Um, and thank you all for for the efforts on this. Sabine for the public education and outreach efforts. Um, all that that crew does and Joey appreciate the exploration of um continued
exploration of of different options. It's really what the commission will continue to look for um going forward. So, there's obviously a lot of people working on this and and we appreciate that. Um, I do have a couple couple
questions. Um, one of them in regards to the the types of weeds changing, concentrations changing um, seemingly quite a bit over the past few years. Is there any explanation for that or does that have to do with previous treatments
and other things growing in or are there any theories on why um you know the variety of plants changes so much or seems to have changed? >> Yeah. Trying to see who's still on here. Wendy, are you still around? Can you answer that?
>> Yeah. So unfortunately my involvement has been really limited to this past year but I will say that there is natural variability that occurs within the same lake year to year. Um some lakes are like we see with the weather
you know it depends on when the warmer weather starts. You may something might start off really strong in the beginning and that kind of overtakes so something else may not grow up. Clasping leaf pondweed is probably a good example. Dominic can speak to some years he goes
out to one lake and treats for clasping weed and then all of a sudden you don't see it for five years and then it's back with a vengeance. Same thing with bladder wart and some other plants. So a lot of it is unpredictable. We think it has a lot to do with weather
and competition between plants themselves. Obviously new introductions are always interesting um when you get something new for the first time and to see how that competes. We've seen fan wart is probably the most consistently out competing just about everything out
there. But other times you see even non-native non-native species compete among themselves. So some year one non-native species will be more abundant than the other. In terms of what your history has been for this league, I'd have to rely on those that have been monitoring. The volunteer group I know
does a pretty extensive monitoring themselves. Maybe they have an opinion as well as Dom. So I'll stop there. Thank you. Yeah, that's good. >> Melissa, he can I can speak to that. Joe Balder. So, we've been doing the surveys, as you know, on the boats twice a year for the last I've only been doing
it for maybe six or seven years, but other people have been doing them for 10 or 15 years. And we are always amazed at how different from year to year. Um, the different invasive species that we see. Sometimes you see the tape grass, you
know, curly or the one that curly cues. Sabine always knows the names, but sometimes you see the curly Q1 coming to the top. Other time other years we go out and you don't see that at all. So even before we did the uh limited herbicide treatment in 24, that
variability was uh present year to year. >> Okay. No, thank you. That definitely speaks to the importance of the pre pre-ervey in the the spring, I'd say. and it's great they do that. Solitude really does go out and look at every
inch that they're going to treat. So, it's pretty good. >> Okay. Um, one of my other questions was, so I know just, um, we talked a lot about the steps that have taken to get to the point that we're at right now.
Um, but I know that also our permit or order conditions for this expires in 2027, so this time next year. Um, so we'll have to be looking at renewing the plan, looking at it again, another notice of intent or, you know,
whatever the DPW wants to do there. And I I did see in the 2025 vegetation report by ARC some recommendations in that report for going forward and considering shoreline invasive species
and developing a watershed based management plan to kind of identify any um potential nutrient sources and loading in things like that. Um are these things that you anticipate
you know looking at coming up continuing these efforts? >> Yeah, I can answer that. So I think we are looking at implementing those. Um we've hired ARC to um continue to provide consulting services for us. They're going to help us with the update
of the plan um the weed management plan which we do every 5 years and then as part of that process we'll look at the rest of those recommendations. So, I'm hoping that we'll be able to incorporate some of those recommendations into the plan update. Um, and then I think we should, I agree, the watershed based management plan. I think I even saw some
some grant come out with that, but um to try to have that that matches like the state standards and might qualify us for some additional grant funding. But I think that's where we want to go. Um obviously our first step is to get past
the summer and then um something that we can look at when we get all these results and all the survey results. And we talk quite a bit with the LMPA that their education efforts really have to be broader than just, you know, the folks who live adjacent to the lake or
immediately, you know, across the street or something because if you look at the watershed, right? I mean the waterershed is all the way up at school street and other folks and we really have to educate more broadly as to use of
fertilizer and picking up dog waste and things of that sort, right? Because that's all flowing right down West Main Street coming right into the lake. So So that is a big part of what we talk about with the LMPA. >> And okay, can I jump in for a second?
>> The chair. May I jump in just for a moment? >> Um, okay, Ted. Yeah, >> I am just in my role of Concom timekeeper. I just want to let you know that it is now 8:52. >> Okay, thank you. >> 7:52
>> 7 I'm sorry, but we are 52 minutes into the meeting. I'll just real quickly say um yes, so as Joe said, you know, thinking about our outreach, more than just waterfronts um you know, reaching the people up at the top of Hayward School Street, we did a uh Lake Health
campaign in September and we put some signage out over on West Elm as well. So broadening that scope is definitely a piece that we're looking at. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and thank you, Ted. With that being said, I'm going to open it up to other
commission members for any questions or comments they have at this point in time. I think the ultimate goal here or the purpose tonight is we do need to vote on um you know this recommendation by the DPW.
So that's where we're headed. Um go ahead Jim. >> Um I just have a question for Joe. I guess I think you mentioned Joe doing boat surveys. You someone's been checking out the boats to see what kind of weeds whether they're clean or not.
Has that been happen is that part of what's been happening? >> Yep. So the surveys I was talking about was when we go out twice a year and check on the weeds. But the point that you're making, Jim, or the question you're asking is something we definitely uh are concerned with. And I think
there's been signage added to where the boat ramps are and we are talking with the LMPA uh and the DPW how to enhance those efforts. You know, we we don't have the ability to have a boat wash
stand at the boat ramp. So, that's a big problem. Um but it really is. So, how do you what do you do with boats that come in from, you know, other areas, other states that, you know, maybe don't care or they're not uh the recipients of our
outreach in the education program. You'd like to think they're already knowledgeable about that, but they aren't necessarily. >> So, when we treated Whoops, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Savine. >> Sorry, Joe. Just sorry to interrupt you, but so that's the boat ramp monitor program I I referenced earlier from the
DCR. Um, you can have people trained and for now it would be a volunteer trial basis that we would do during busy times where we would have someone monitoring the boat ramp and explaining to people, non-confrontational, but just explaining
to people um, and educating them on the hitchhiker law. We do have signage down there, but we're thinking this is a good next step to really kind of proactively educate people. >> Yeah, I think that's good. and and and at this point I mean there are state
whole states that have uh you know advertised or what I put out there especially Maine that you've got to you got to clean your boats before you bring them in. I would hope that most voters are responsible. I like the idea of the volunteer program. Let us
know because um you know if possible I'd like to volunteer for that. Thanks you guys. >> Great. Thank you >> through the chair. I have two questions. I'll throw them both out. >> Yep. >> Uh the first is kind of building on one
of Melissa's questions. Um I heard chatter and chatter can be completely worthless, but I wanted to throw it out. I heard chatter that a theory was that the last herbicide treatment was so effective that it opened the door for even greater growth
or new growth or different growth in weeds. And I wonder if there's any validity to that theory. Uh my other question is I do remember reading that after the last herbicide treatment the water quality was looking good and there didn't seem to be any lingering effects.
I don't remember if there was a test of the soil after the herbicide treatment underneath the lake and what that showed. >> So I'll answer the second question first. Um because there was sampling because there were concerns. And so the board of health did some sediment
sampling and didn't see any residual herbicide or anything of concern for the and um we continue to do water quality sampling uh as both with the volunteers storm water and then at the beach and last year there was no concerns that were brought up with the water quality.
So that's an easy one to answer. Um and then the first one and I'll let others chime in too. I mean there's some truth to the chatter, right? So the herbicide treatment was successful and it got rid of some weeds and it was targeted at trying to get rid of those specific
weeds. So other things did take their place, but that's kind of the natural cycle of how things things go and that's why we do the pre and post survey. I don't think based on how I saw the survey results that we saw like
like a significant like return with a vengeance or uh density issues or different areas. I think it was mostly just the types of weeds that came back were different >> and that's exactly what happened, Carrie. And don't forget, we're not
killing all weeds. We're not killing native weeds, right? It's very targeted selection. So, yes, we had a different population of some invasive weeds come up. We also had increased growth of non-invasive weeds, which is what we want. Um, it's not a desert out there,
right? It's there's a lot of growth and there's always going to be a lot of growth. The lake the uh north basin is very shallow. So, it's not like if we kill stuff with the herbicide, nothing's going to grow, right? Stuff is going to
grow. But I think a measure of success is we did not get just a repeat of the same invasive weeds coming up which to me was a sign of success not a sign of uh you know the fact that that stuff
grew stuff is always going to grow and you got to attack it. >> So Melissa if I may then one quick followup. Uh, I'm aware of all of the the difficulties in doing mechanical harvesting and some of the other tools
in the toolbox. Um, in cost, um, whether the rocky bottom makes it more difficult or whether the machine can bump off the rocky bottom. Let's just pretend we did nothing but mechanical harvesting and all weeds were removed. Would we see the
same type of regrowth? Would we see a different type of regrowth? Would it be? Do we have no idea because we've never done that? >> So, don't forget Whoops. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I was going to say we have no idea because we've never done that. But as
part of the research, um the folks that we've talked to said it comes back. The weeds come back. So, any of these are a management technique that has and it has to continuously be managed. Um it's just a a matter of which management technique we choose and some as you point out are
less feasible, some are you know more labor intensive. Um but any which way it's a natural system are going to come back. If the town wants to use it for these recreational purposes and wants to keep that ecological system a little bit more in balance because it is a man-made
lake, we're going to have to manage it in some way, shape or form. And the harvesting and the harvesting does not discriminate then. >> Yeah. >> Right. When you're harvesting, you know, people are concerned about I've heard a lot of concerns, right? Oh,
what are you doing to the fish population, right? They need the weeds to live in. >> Well, when you're harvesting, you're doing exactly what people have accused us of doing, which is you're creating a, you know, Darth of natural weeds, right? That's what harvesting is. It's not
discriminated. So here we are. But but at the same time again I can envision us a year from now coming in front of this board and saying you know what let's try it on a pilot program in a small area and see what kind of results we have.
But >> yeah and I get all that and and I I I think I understand it. My only real hesitation then is are we building a cycle where every two years we're putting more chemicals in the lake when we have hesitated for so long. If it
works as well as it did, but it also invites the type of regrowth we have. Is this now a tool that comes out every two years and that's just a bit of a worry. I I know that nobody likes having the idea of a lake filled with chemicals. I I know that that's true of every
resident on the lake and everyone who uses it. Nonetheless, I just want to throw out that's my concern is that we're starting to build a cycle where every two years now we're doing more and maybe widening applications. >> And I and I and I hear what you're
saying, but there's no indication that this is in any way causing us to widen the application. If anything, I would suggest it's the opposite because what we were starting to see before we did the herbicide treatment were the
presence of weeds in areas uh past South Beach, south of South Beach, I'm sorry, Sandy Beach, because the weeds were getting chopped up in the North Basin and they were starting to migrate to the south of Sandy Beach. So,
that's without treatment. And one of my and I and I you know the the way you phrased it is that we're by doing the limited treatment we're somehow I forget what your exact words were but inviting
enhanced growth of invasive weeds. And I just I disagree with that as a starting premise because I don't think that's the case. And I know opponents to herbicide keep throwing that out without, you know, science to support that. I don't
see us as doing that. Is there always going to be growth where the water is 5t deep and there's a lot of sediment at the bottom? Absolutely. But just because we're killing invasive weeds doesn't cause there to be more growth. Anyway,
maybe the scientists on the line can talk to that, but I just I think that's an incorrect premise. I'm I'll be quiet. I I'm not trying to propose incorrect premises. I'm just trying to process the different things I've heard. So, I apologize if I didn't represent myself very well. >> But that's it for me.
>> I I think you good comments. >> Yep. Let's Let's go on to some other questions. >> Walter. Yes. >> Yes. Hi. I I I've been watching this process for over 14 years. uh I've I've seen how it has progressed and the
amount of work that has been done by the town by the citizens the the CIG was an excellent uh choice by the select board people have worked very hard on this
process they've taken input from every person in town uh the the toolbox that they came up with I think was a very rational one and I have to say that the you know the treatment that took place in 24 was wildly successful. Uh I've
never enjoyed the lake more uh period. Uh and we knew or at least my understanding was and that that's why we're looking at this now. Occasionally we would have to revisit it. My view is
that as as you treat the weeds, you over time are going to have less. So yes, we may be at this point now. Uh but who knows maybe it's five years for before the next time we have to uh have this uh
discussion. Uh but I kn do know that the other uh methods that have been suggested and they are in the toolbox. uh one is you know pulling up the weeds but uh in my viewpoint that's almost identical to mowing your lawn. If you if
you go p you cut off the weeds and harvest them uh you're just essentially mowing the lawn and they're like your lawn. It it it comes right back. So we're not dredging. We're not digging up the bottom when when you do the
harvesting. So, and it's very expensive. Uh, and I I just don't think that's the way to go at all. Uh, and I heard some comments about putting chemicals in the lake. These have a very temporary life.
Uh, and I know the the wetland scientists can speak to that. It's not like they're remaining. You you put them in, they do their job, they dissipate, they're gone. Uh Carrie talked about testing the the lake bed.
So uh it's it's something that I feel is necessary to protect this incredible asset for the town. Uh and I I know that everybody
that saw what happened at 24 appreciated it. And I I hope we continue to have the due diligence that people are using here to manage the process and
make recommendations. Uh I think they're doing an outstanding job and and it's all volunteer, you know, with the exception of the folks that work for the town. Uh, and I I I hope we can see fit to to pass this
tonight and uh keep these outstanding efforts going. >> Um, >> it's my two cents. >> Thanks, Walter. >> Sure. >> Um, anyone else on the commission before I open it up for public comment?
Okay, I'm going to open it up for public comment. Um, and Ted, if you don't mind watching the two minute two minute marker. Um, and >> I think that in the in the script it's a three minute marker. >> Oh, three minute. Okay. >> And since you hired the guy who can't
tell time to be the timekeeper, I'll do the best I can. >> Thanks, Ted. All right. I'm going to open it up to public comment. And if we can take comments um just in the I want to get everyone's views but if we can avoid repeat comments um new information
is is much appreciated. Um and if I see hands I will call on you. Uh Mr. Sutherland. >> Hi. Good evening everybody. Um uh thank you for the opportunity. Um I'm Don Sutherland, 205 Winter Street. I'm chair
of the environmental working group of the Hopkin Sustainable Green Committee and I want to commend uh the Lake Maspanog preservation association SIG and DPW for their due diligence over the years. We've uh we've seen a lot of work
in terms of assessment and options that have been laid out uh to handle the difficult test of managing lake uh vegetation uh both for the public. The lake also serves not only boers but other life
forms. Um that's to be kept in mind. Um there's an ecosystem not just uh and these plants aren't all weeds. They've been referred to by the way as just that. They are plants. Some are invasives.
Uh but basically we uh we are in alignment with SIG and Lake Maspanox Association's first choice which is to manage uh Lake Massen's uh uh vegetation without chemicals uh without chemical
pollution. Uh that's the first choice as I understand it from both groups uh that they that's their first choice. Um what we do oppose is the the fact that they haven't held on to that choice and tried as they've been researching recently and
and developing more of an approach uh less towards chemical pollution. Now, as far as the science goes, which has been brought up, and this is EPA science, the science and studies on the use of toxic chemical herbicides clearly show the
plants, as we've noted, are only mitigated in the short term and will return. Uh, federal and state uh environmental agencies also warn the nutrients released from the killed plants cause more future plant growth. You know, they just don't disappear.
They die and they settle into the bottom. uh they so it grow it promotes future plant growth and also that in itself can lead to toxic algae blooms and more applications of herbicides that is known as uh Ted was mentioning as a
herbicide uh treadmill you know they but it's it's be kept in mind that these these chemicals are chemicals that are only one purpose it's to kill life that's it that's what they're made to do and the use of toxic herb icides designed to kill the
targeted unwanted plant life forms also target non bene the non-targeted group that are beneficial and it also uh harms the invertebrate and vertebrate
life forms. Now, just to give you an example of that, one of the two chemicals uh used in 2024, Daquat, is banned in Europe. Banned in Europe because it's toxic to humans and it kills. >> Mr. Southerntherland, if you could finish up, I'm sorry, that's three minutes. If you could give
>> That's it. That's I'm just setting up one of the chemicals has been banned in Europe for the very reason that it does kill invertebrate uh and vertebrate life forms as well as harmful to humans. So, I just want to mention that the DP and the DCR do not use chemical herbicides
on Quabin and the Wattus uh lakes reservoirs. Those are not used for a good reason because they are harmful and that's to be kept in mind even though they are permitted. So, I just want to mention that that we are more in favor
of working with the group as it was laid out as they've been mentioned in the Lake Maspan aquatic uh vegetation control and watershed management plan of 2021 to use the other uh four uh tool box. >> Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate those
comments. Do I have any other hands? Sorry, just scrolling. Um, Donald's iPad. It's not what I see there. Now, now I'm unmuted. Um, Carol
Esler, 16 Oakst Road. 40 years of having a dock on the lake and swimming in the lake. Um, I am completely opposed to the ecological irresponsible and dangerous
requests to use poisons in our lake. Um, I will mention I'm also a member of sustainable green committee. Um, and I will mention that one of the chemicals used last time in the quote unquote successful um, weed management was not only banned
in Europe, but banned in 70 countries. That's not not 17, that's 70 countries worldwide for reasons of problems with potentially very harmful harms to human health. I'm
not um educated as to the new chemicals that people are proposing. I will say that I have some trouble with the word targeted. If any of you would like to take a bowl of clear water and put a drop of food coloring in it, you can see
how targeted things are in the lake. Um not very targeted at all. I'm very much opposed to poisoning our lake and I think our tool box which was made many years ago needs a lot of updating. The
only things we've used so far are draw down and herbicide. Now herbicide was supposed to be the last the very last possible thing to use. We have not used pin pulling and people say oh pieces get
away. Well, we've not used diver assisted suction harvesting. We've only begun to look at the echo harvester, which really needs to be used. And the proposal to use it in that little patch of lake where that nobody swims in and
nobody can get a kayak in is just ridiculous. It needs to be used in areas that we really use. And I do want to question what we are managing the lake for. Are we managing it wholly for human
convenience or are we managing it to preserve and respect an ecosystem? An ecosystem that includes zup plankton and copapods and things that eat algae. Things that might prevent a toxic al
algo bloom. things that are part of the total biome of our lake. Who are we managing this lake for? I do not see the the 2024 application as successful. It reduced weeds. Weeds always change and
come back. Um, and it also reduced the amount of waterfall. I don't know who else in here lives on the upper basin, but I'm >> You have You have 15 seconds remaining. and notice that. >> Miss Hler, you're at three minutes.
>> I'm Oh, there I've got someone else here. I'll >> Okay. Um, new new information. Um, let's just not repeat what's already >> Yes. >> been said. And I also just want to say um as we're taking public comment, we'll
just remember that this is a toolbox that you know we approved through the notice of intent process, you know, for for the five-year permit and it's in place and we vetted a lot of these things. the commission um you know took a lot of comments,
the toolbox was created um for use and the decision presented to us tonight is whether you know this is an appropriate measure um for this year given the data um that's been collected. So, um, I'd really like to focus on that for this
year. And as I said before, you know, this permit expires in the next growing season or next year. Um, and that was very purposeful by the commission that we have a finite timeline and then we get to re-evaluate
um, you know, the notice of intent and how things were working and and what happens into the future. So, um, go ahead. You can proceed with your comments with that in mind. Thank you. Okay, Don Kaiser. I live on the lake. I spend I swim every day. I spend 45
minutes, an hour in the lake every day. I particularly don't like herbicides. I do want to deal with a plant. Um, I'll just have a question here for Wendy because she's probably the extrovert among all of us. I keep hearing people
talk about herbicides that are specific to a particular invasive and I don't think there's any herbicide on this planet that only attacks a single plant and does not have collateral damage. And I'd like Wendy to
address that question. Thank you. >> Hi. Uh good evening again. Uh I sure will. And you're right. There's not one thing out there that attacks one single plant. It is a matter of dosing and so there's a lot of scientific studies that
have been done where they dose uh certain uh misoc uh basically buckets and they look at at what dose can you apply a particular herbicide without a lot of non-target impacts. So there's
nothing what people would call a safe herbicide. Everything is to me a risk. you know either it's very low risk or it can be very high risk and even the selective uh herbicides in certain
circumstances can impact non-target species. So everything comes at a risk u in terms of um why herbicides may or may not impact micro macro invertebrates or fish. A lot
of these herbicides are attacking specific cells that only exist in plants. Uh so you're talking about anything that's photosynthetic and a lot of the obviously fish are not photosynthetic organisms. Neither are a lot of the macro invertebrates. So they
can be selective for photosynthetic organisms and then they can be further selective within that range. And so each species, just like humans, respond to different cancer treatments in different ways. Same thing applies here.
>> Thank you. >> Um, okay. Do we have any other hands raised from the public? Anyone else that would wishes to speak? Right. I'm just scrolling through to
make sure that I don't miss anyone. Okay, I think I got everybody. All right, thank you all for your your comments. Um, as I said,
we're going to make a decision now on um or we're going to vote take a vote. I'm gonna put it to the board on this uh proposal for treatment. >> Melissa, do you need to >> make a motion? Do you need any emotion
or just are you going to just call for vote? >> Yes, that's that's where I was going with that. I do need a motion to approve um DPW's proposal. >> I will make a motion to approve the DPW's recommendation.
Can I get a second? >> I'll second, Melissa. >> All right. All in favor, >> Ted. >> Uh Ted will say I. >> Jim, >> I.
>> Walter. >> I. >> Matt. >> Hi. And I will also say I. >> All right. So, thank you all. Thank you Carrie um and team and we'll look
forward to continuing to work with you. As you said, it takes a village um to tackle this. It >> Yes. I I also I just want to specifically thank Sabine and the LMPA.
Um when we first voted on this a few years ago, I was kind of skeptical of how much the LMPA would do to help us out and I've been really really impressed over the last three years and I really appreciate the work of Sabine and everyone else over there. >> Thank you, Ted. That means a lot.
>> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Thank you, folks. >> Have a good night. All right, next up I'm going to jump up to the new hearings. Um, first up we have Town of Hington DPW
notice of intent. Um, I'm going to recuse myself from this hearing because Ty Bond, uh, who I work for, um, is presenting on behalf of DPW. So, I'm gonna let Ted take it over.
>> Thank you. Um, so yeah, we we had some emails today and we kind of scrambled to figure out how to deal with this one. Um, and what votes might be for going forward. Um, because I because I am still wrapping my head
around what this new Oh, I got to open the hearing though first. So, let me do that. >> I I have an administrative question for you all too before we get too far. >> Um, Judy, should we do that or should I open the hearing first? Uh it might be good to open the hearing first.
>> Okay. So, let me do that and then um Johannes Johnsonberg, we'll we'll run to you in a second. Um Okay. Public hearing. The Hopkinson Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 at 7 p.m.
virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Hopkin DPW for routine roadway, drainage, and utility work and maintenance throughout the town of Hopkin. Location, townwide Hopkin
roadways and easements. Okay, with that, uh, why don't you go ahead for your, uh, quick question and then maybe I can get Judy to to get us started on what we have in front of us. >> All right, so Maria Johnsonberg with Tyen Bond on behalf of the DPW,
I wanted to ask because I I wasn't expecting to have quite so few members of the commission here tonight. Um, because Melissa is recusing herself for this hearing, I wanted to confirm that
commissioners that are not here are going to have access to the recording so that we have enough members to vote at a subsequent meeting. That's that's my administrative question that I want to confirm before we go too far. >> And as a matter of fact, that was a part
of the emails we were exchanging this afternoon in preparation for this meeting. So, I wonder if Judy if you could help us out understand um where we are as a commission and what things look like going forward, what we can cover tonight, what might need to be continued. Can you help with that?
>> Sure. So, even without Melissa, I believe we do have a quorum between you, Matt, Walter, and Jim. Um, but basically the advice we got from town council was that since Melissa works for Tyen Bond, she would need to recuse herself uh or
obtain special permission from the select board to be able to participate in the hearing. Um, we just learned that today. So, there was not time to go to select board to get that permission. Uh, town council did advise that even after recusing herself today, if she gets that
permission in the future, she can participate in future hearings. Um, and recordings will be available for the members who are not present today. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Um, maybe our next best step is Miss
John. Uh, I'm sorry. I I keep wanting to say Johannesburg when I look up in the corner and I know that's not right. uh Johnsonberg, if you could give us a summary of the presentation. It was a very very thick document. Um but maybe you could summarize a little bit what it is you guys are asking for and the DPW
is asking for. >> Yes. So a little bit of background on this. The DPW has historically done this work through an RDA with the commission and more recently Mass D recommended
that it really be done through an NOI and order of conditions instead. So what we're proposing in this NOI is all stuff that has previously been approved through the RDA process in the past. Um, but the last RDA expired, so
instead of an RDA this time, we're coming to you with a notice of intent. Um, I know it's it's a complicated document. Essentially, the DPW does a lot of maintenance work around town and for a lot of reasons, we want to
streamline the process for them getting to do that work. Um, sometimes it's a safety thing. It needs to be done immediately. Sometimes it's just something that is routinely exempt anyway. So it just streamlines the process a lot both for you and the
DPW and overall town funds etc to have a streamlined process. So that's the goal for this. Um what we've done is we've split the kinds of work that might happen into five categories. The first
two categories are essentially types of work that are categorically exempt under the wetlands protection act and your local bylaw. The third category is stuff that is not
categorically exempt but that usually when we come talk to you you would give us permission to go do. And then the fourth category is very similar to the third category. The
difference is that it asks to be able to do what's in the third category within your no disturb and no build zones. And then the fifth category is pretty much everything else which would require coming back to you with a separate notice of intent. That's that's the
large breakdown of these five categories. Um, so do do we have any questions about that before I go into further because I I want to make sure that we understand that before we dive in too deeply.
>> I I'll look to the commission. I'm ready to hear more, but I'll look to the commission if anyone has any questions at this point. And if you do, I'm flipping through, but feel free to speak up. Okay. I don't see any. So I think please keep it rolling.
>> Sounds good. So generally speaking, the wetlands protection act and the wetlands bylaw allow kind of regular maintenance and repair activities
particularly when they are in the buffer zone and within upland portions of riverfront area. So that's really what's in category 2 is that these activities are usually exempt
in those areas. I don't want to go through the regulations line by line because that's not fun for anyone and can get confusing. So generally speaking, the activities that get covered under those first two
categories are maintenance of unpaved pedestrian walkways, plantings of native non-invasive species, shrubs, ground cover, conversion of imperous to vegetated surfaces. So any gravel or
paved areas, converting those into vegetated surfaces. that's generally allowed. Um, maintaining fences, stone walls, wood cord, things that don't provide a barrier to wildlife movement, mowing of pre-existing lawns, and
pruning of pre-existing landscaped areas, vista pruning in some limited cases. Um, yeah, you you have the list there. Conversion of lawn to use as accessory to residential structures. Removal of
dead and dying trees which are essentially a safety hazard. Repair of existing structures provided that you know we're not changing the footprint of the structure. Um and activities that are temporary in nature. These are typically things like installing
monitoring wells or exploratory soil borings or other kinds of sampling that are done in preparation of future work or to inform design for future things that typically then come back to you as their own notice of intent. Um so those
are really the kinds of activities that fall under those first two categories that are just typically exempt. If we go to category three,
we have a much longer list of activities that we're asking to be able to do. And again, these activities are typically considered pretty minor, especially when they're in buffer zone and riverfront area. We have also asked that we be able
to do these activities in land subject to flooding. Um for the larger audience, land subject to flooding under the wetlands protection act is defined as the FEMA 100year flood zone. Um, and that zone can oftent times come out and
cover a lot of areas that are well outside of what we would typically consider our wetland areas um, and tend to overlap a lot of roadways and things like that, which is why we're asking to do this.
So, we'd like to be able to resurface parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways. This is really an an inind resurfacing. It's not expanding these areas at all. It's it's repairing what is already there. So, it's not really an overall
change in state. Um, similarly, pavement repair and resurfacing within the right of way, generally speaking, maintaining unpaved access ways, cleaning catch basins,
flushing or cleaning, repairing or replacing storm drain pipelines, stabilizing existing embankments with rip wrap vegetation or biodegradable materials. Maintaining public recreational lawns, athletic fields, and recreational
structures. Repairing or replacing signs, signals, posts, and associated infrastructure around that. Maintaining roadside plantings and vegetation within existing roadways and right ofways.
Maintaining, repairing, and replacing subterranean utilities. Repairing or replacing public infrastructure. Maintaining gravel or stone dust roads, parking areas and paths. Maintaining swailes and drainage channels. Repairing head walls
associated with existing outfalls. Cleaning and maintaining dam embankments. Cleaning and maintaining bridge decks and abutments. Maintaining storm water management systems. Snow storage and disposal. and removal of trees when they've been authorized by
the tree warden. Um, I'm going to pause there. That was a very long list. Are there any particular activities that I just threw out there that you'd like any more details about what they
include or don't include before I keep going? Uh I'll again look to the commission for a moment but I I do have uh I think I hope a quick question. Um again this document is
120 pages I think and a whole lot of the back end of it is uh common practices. Um so when you hit one for example like repaving of road surfaces on the one hand it's already impervious material and generally we are okay with work to
but there's also erosion controls involved in those kind of things. Um can you just touch on maybe for some of these which seem like they could be more impactful um how we have the certainty if we give a blank um approval of all
these activities that those kind of precautions will be carried out in a way that we probably would vote in favor of if we got those projects individually. >> Absolutely. So, the reason that we included all those practices as attachments, which if
we're being really blunt, make up a large portion of the document, um, is because those are the practices that we are recommending the DPW use and that we are recommending that you as the commission require them to use for this
work. So these are essentially the practices that that we're saying they should use and that we very much want you to say you can only do this work if you use them. Um so to that end we would expect that if you issued an order of
conditions for this that you would require in that that we use these practices. Um, your your question is a good question because when we go about wanting to do this work, we we haven't
gotten to it yet in this presentation, but there is a process that we are recommending for how the DPW notify the commission about work that they need to do, etc. Um, so when we get to
that section, we should definitely talk a little bit more about what level of information you want the DPW to provide about what they're planning to do. um there's a a form that we included for them to fill out, but certainly if there's a more intensive piece of work
that they are asking to do that falls into this category, then we would probably expect them to give you more detail about where they're going to put erosion controls related to it. >> Cool. So maybe I should have just held off until we got to that section, but thank you.
>> No, no, no, it's fine. It was an excellent point, an excellent question. >> Thank you. I'll take that compliment. Are there other commission members who have any questions at this point or should we just keep things moving forward? I see that Ed has joined us. Welcome Ed.
>> I I do have questions and it's more >> Yeah. through the chair Walter Garland. Uh I I'm looking at this and I being fairly new to the committee uh am trying to grasp what this project is and I'm
looking at the back of of this presentation. There's a site location uh and so forth. Is there a a a cliffnotes uh Melissa of what this is
this whole thing is about? Has is is the town trying to subcontract with this company to do this project? I I I just need a little more background than uh 120 pages of
presentation >> through through the chair. Yes, please. >> Hi. So, this is Carrie Reed. I'm the director of public works. Um, >> okay. >> Our main purpose, as Maria like mentioned earlier, is that we had a successful ND. Uh, yes, whatever notice.
Um, we're switching to an NOI because of updated kind of interpretations by the state. But this is our normal operations and maintenance work that the DBW does. um it's not exempt under the regulations
or the the laws. So it changes like based on need year-to-year. So this would be like our annual repaving program which we evaluate every year but we use the same processes and this is focused on as I said replacing in kind and developing a notification procedure
so that the commission is aware of when we're doing work within your jurisdiction and you have an opportunity to say yeah you know we're good we're bad and have a chance to make comments. That's kind of why it's switching to this order of conditions so it provides more opportunity if there are specific
areas that you're really concerned about that you can have more of a say I suppose but the general idea is that this is our normal operations and maintenance just fixing the stuff that we already have um and to provide like
this communications so that you're notified so that you know so nobody's surprised if you go out and you're driving you're like why are they working over there um in our jurisdiction and anything that's a big big project like a cover replacement would be its own separate NOI. So this is really designed
for our day-to-day kind of activities. >> Okay. >> Does that help? >> And it it does help but is it looks like this is specifically referencing a a storm water restoreration project on Longwood Drive. Am I looking at the
right thing? I I I think you might be looking at the wrong document. This this project is specifically for DPW maintenance throughout the town. Um so it it is not really what your standard NOI looks like because there isn't a
specific site. Um because >> I guess what I'm conf I'm trying to follow our agenda, >> right, Walter? We jumped from the work session items up to the first new hearing after the Lake Massan chat. >> Oh, so we left the work session. Okay.
>> Yeah, we'll we'll return to work session at the end of the meeting. >> Okay. I missed that. So, we're on number one. >> We are on number one of the new hearings. >> New hearings. Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other commission questions? >> Because it doesn't say anything there
about Long Long Longwood Drive, >> right? This hearing isn't about the Longwood uh drainage storm water discussion. >> And where is this document that's referred to? >> It is in the uh the documents that Judy
made available to us under Town of Hopington Department of Public Works. It's labeled pretty much the same way it is on the agenda. >> There it is right there. >> Okay. >> Oh, I know. I I went to the work session
items. >> Understandable. I can see how you were flowing down the work session. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right, Melissa. Um maybe just by way of speeding us up a little bit, maybe some highlevel items on category 4, but then category five might be the most
interesting section where there would be more notice uh needed for us, I think is what you said. So, so I I think that category three is actually the biggest category. Okay. So, so category 4 is the same as category 3.
Category 4 is actually just asking the commission to allow the work that's in category 3 to happen in your no disturb and no build zones. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> That's entirely what category 4 is. Um and then category five is actually just
recognizing as Carrie mentioned that there are larger DPW projects that you know in occur in other resource areas or just larger in general and those would be coming to you as separate NOIs. Um so category 5 is really just acknowledging
that there are plenty of other projects that the DPW would have to come to you individually about outside of this particular order of conditions. >> Right. And I guess I thought why that might be interesting is that might alleviate some concern about what could
be done without coming back and checking to us. >> That that's what I meant by why that one might be interesting. If there was someone saying, "Wait a minute, are they going to put a brand new road right through a swamp?" No, that's category five types. >> Exactly. So, so the the biggest thing in
category five is that in in category three, we talked about work in the buffer zone and in riverfront area and in land subject to flooding and those are areas where typically you have upland portions and paved areas and
things just pretty commonly. other resources that are not those three areas. Work in those areas requires that we come to you with a notice of intent regardless of what kind of work it is. >> Yeah. >> So even if it's the activities that we
already talked about, if it's in those areas, we have to come to you. If it's not in those areas specifically, but it's not those activities that we talked about, then we still have to come to you. um is probably the the broadest way to
define that. Um but essentially new infrastructure, expansion of infrastructure rather than just replacement in kind. Um >> so Maria, if you don't mind that go
ahead Carrie. >> Go ahead, Carrie. Please help us out. >> Yeah. So I'll give you some examples. What we just talked about the weed treatment at Lake Maspanox separate NOI. Um the Hayden Row uh improvement work that's part of the Charleswood school
where they're expanding the row, they're making it wider, they're adding impervious area came in as a separate NOI. Um when we go to do the Grand Street Culvert replacement, separate NOI because those have much more impacts on the jurisdictional areas and you guys
are going to want to comment on them and you're going to want to make sure that there's other things included in there. going to want to look in a lot more detail if we have um to like divert a stream as we're doing construction if there's going to be direct impacts to wetlands um you know with some of the
bigger roadway work I know there's a big concern about invasive species in the right of way maybe not in the road so those things would be separate projects um that would have separate NOIs but the work that we normally do like um under this would be we have a broken drain
pipe and we need to do a trench in the road and replace that drain pipe in kind, that would be covered underneath this. Uh our normal repaving work, our catch base, like if a catch basin fails and we have to rebuild it, that would be covered underneath this. So any kind of
work like that because drainage is not covered. Um yeah, I think that's kind of the the the crux of it. And then we would notify the the ones where I think we're going to kind of run in between and that's where we'll have the real thing is like if a head wall is
failing because those are usually like very close to the the wetlands themselves sometimes in the wetlands themselves that might be a point whereas like if we're just resetting it repointing it we can probably do it underneath this but if we're going to pull it out and then put a new one in you guys might say you know what we want that as a separate NOI.
>> Right. >> Right. So, I think it actually might be really helpful to go down to section three where we talk about the procedures for work. Um, because I think we covered some good examples, but >> um, essentially the procedures for this
are, you know, the DPW will identify that it needs to do work and tell you what it needs to do and where. um if you feel like it's too close to some resource areas, then you can come back to them and say, you know, you need to
delineate this so that we can make sure it's being protected adequately. Um, and this procedure that we have in here, um, allows for the commissioners or their agent to go on site and look at
things with the DPW before work happens so that, you know, you can make sure that things are being adequately protected. Um, Judy, if you don't mind scrolling down just a little bit more, I want to show the table there. Um, so we
talked about the five categories and essentially categories one and two are the things that are just generally exempt. Um, so we'd provide notification to the conservation commission about those. We would probably expect that the conservation commission would say,
"Okay, go ahead, do what you need to do." Category 3 and category 4 is really where we might expect the commission to say, "Hey, we maybe we would like a little more information." And particularly category 4 we expect is
when the commission would be most interested in going out and looking at the site potentially. And then category five is you can't do it under this. You just have to come to the commission with a different application.
Wonderful. >> Um, and then, uh, down in the appendices, if Judy, it's PDF page 44, there's actually a sheet that we had drafted um, with
essentially the information that would be provided to the commission for those notifications. Um, so just like kind of the starting level of of what the commission would receive. So it tell you where the work's taking
place, why the work needs to happen, a description of the work, and the schedule for the worker are the basic pieces of information that you'd be provided with to start. >> Great. Melissa, is there anything else that you
think you should touch on before we go forward with chatting more? >> Or do you think you covered >> Maria? It is. >> Oh, Maria, I'm sorry. >> Say Melissa because I keep thinking you're talking to like the chair Melissa. >> Oh, no, no, no. You know what's funny is
when Walter asked the question, he said Melissa. So, when I saw Maria M. Jo, I actually wrote down it's Melissa. The M is Melissa. Maria or Carrie, is there anything else we should hit on in our overview of this
or should we hear if other commission members have questions at this point? >> Unless you think there's anything particular that we haven't covered, Carrie, I think that we've covered the highlights. Um so I'm certainly ready for more questions. >> Yeah, I think we've highlighted the one
example that came up that we're excited to be able to use this on is um Sandy Beach parking lot. We're working with parks and wreck on redoing the parking lot and we're like, "Okay, well, we need to do test pits ahead of design." Test pits can probably be done with this
under this, but then when we redo the design because it's so close to the lake, that will come back as an NOI. That's one of the ones where we're like, "Oh, this would be the perfect tool to use that to be able to kind of move along with some projects, but also give
the commission plenty of opportunity and oversight to and u make comments and and add to the conditions as we go along." >> Great. Thanks. Um Carrie, I can I ask you before I even go to the rest of the commission or back to Judy. Um, is this
something you're hoping to get a vote on tonight or is this something we could put a a continuation till the next meeting? And the reason I ask is because this is not to me an alarming proposal, but it's different from what we've done before. And I would really like to be
sure that we can have as many commission members in on the vote as possible so that if Melissa was able to get approval to vote so that if uh Peggy could join us so people could give all of this a good look. Would you be open to uh continuing till later as well?
>> Yeah, continuing. We expected to continue anyway because we don't have a DP number. >> We actually can't close without a DP >> and and that was part of the prep meeting that I completely forgot. So, >> we have to continue because we don't have um that number yet.
>> All right. So, then I'm going to turn to the commission, but I just wanted to ask really quickly, Judy, um this is a different type of NOI, and usually we have Lucas look at NOIs, but because there's so little specific, uh I know there's nothing in the folder from Joe,
is this the kind of thing that we would ask Lucas to look at normally? Is this so different that we don't know? Yeah, through the chair. Um Joe did look at it. I received comments after my uh regular office hours today, so I'll send them over to Carrie and Maria tomorrow.
Um but we did have Lucas review it. I have some comments as well that I'll summarize and send over um in the morning. >> Okay, great. Yep. One more reason to continue. All right, then let me just look to the commission to see if there anyone else I know, Ed, I could see you
studying everything very carefully as it went by your screen. Um, but I don't want to put you on the spot, Ed. Does anybody in the commission have further questions right now for Barry or Maria? >> Was that a yes, Ed, or no?
>> Through the chair, Ted. This is Ed. I was faking it. >> You did a good job. I I was faked. Uh Jim or Matt, do you have any questions? Walter, do you have any new questions?
>> I'm set for now. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Not on my end, Ted. >> Okay. >> Yeah, almost set for now. >> All right, then. I think that we're at a place where we're ready for a vote to to continue the hearing. Um I think our
next meeting is April 28th. Does that feel good to you, Carrie? Carrie Reed, >> I think so. Um, >> yep. >> Okay, great. All right. I wonder if I
could get a motion to continue this hearing and a second to April 28th, 2026. So moved. Second. >> All right, let's get a roll call vote. Um,
here's my roster of players. Um, Ed, >> hi >> Walter. >> Hi, >> Jim. >> Hi, >> Matt. >> Hi. >> And Ted Barker Hook is an I. We will see you in three weeks. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you both. And Melissa, please, please take over from me. >> And you did great. I was just thinking I could retire. >> No. No, no, no, no, no. >> Um, yeah. No. Council said I needed to make myself invisible,
not present, regardless of how many times you try and say my name and call me back. >> I didn't I didn't mean to blame Walter for that, but when Walter said Melissa and I saw the M on the screen, I was like, "Oh, her name is Melissa. Let me write that down."
>> Is Melissa no longer to the chair? I'm the chair. I had to recuse myself from that hearing because I work for Tai and Bond. So, >> I understand now. Okay. >> I had to step away. So, now I am the chair again.
>> Okay. >> Um, >> get all these parliamentary procedures. I gota >> Y >> make sure I understand them all. Okay. >> Keeping you on your toes. Um, all right. Next up, we have another new hearing which is 75 South Street.
Ted, can you read? >> I got you. >> All right. The Hopkinon Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in an amended notice of
intent filed by Magna Realy LLC for parking lot modifications with associated site work. Location 75 South Street, Assessor's Map R29, Block 7, lot zero.
Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Um, let's see. We have Joe Joe Marquon. You're on for this one, correct? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Do you want to go ahead and present? >> Sure. Evening all. Joe Mquidon here. I'm
here on behalf of uh Lance Lefave at Megano uh Realy LLC. um the owner of 75 South, that 4 acre parcel at the corner of um Haywood and South Street. Um as
Judy has displayed, the the plan, South Street's to the left, Haywood is up top, and that's 495 to the right. The commission may remember that we were um here back in November. Um they issued uh you issued an order under file number
188-1856 for um soil borings uh and injections to mitigate hazardous materials left behind by the previous owner uh Valpy Fischer. Delpy Fischers uh occupied the building from 73 to something like 2012 and they
were sold to a multi multinational CTS and now Mungo Realy has taken it over. Um as part of this whole process, we were going to start in November with what I've been calling phase one, the hazardous waste mitigation. uh the co
that early onset of cold weather and the the long stretch of cold weather did not allow us to start that those borings in November, but they're on tap to start shortly. Uh Lance has been in contact with Judy and Anna about preparing to to
begin that phase. You may recall back in March came in and see if the commission would be willing to allow us to combine uh phase one and this future phase two so that we could get a timely review
because we're in the planning board at the same time. the commission seemed willing. So, we filed um for what I've been calling um phase two and it's generally on the southerntherly side of the building against number 77. Um the
existing building that you see here um was light manufacturing and industrial. We're going to transition to office space and warehouse. And um because we have frontage on both South and Hayward, we have the main
driveway down to the southwest into a large uh 60 odd space parking lot. Um you you head up and take the right onto Hwood Street. Halfway down there is a driveway that accesses a loading dock.
you head all the way down uh towards 495, there's access to the smaller 20 space parking lot. The issue we have as a warehouse is that center area has a that center driveway, excuse me, has a loading dock that um creates issues both
inside and outside the building. Inside there is a slab 16x 12x 4t tall. So, anything that gets offloaded needs to get offloaded from the truck and then a separate apparatus has to take it, drop it that 4 feet and move it around inside
the building. Um, outside the building there are issues. Uh, 71 South on the opposite side of Haywood um had a less intensive use. You may remember um there was a a granite place, Galaxy Granite.
Uh there was aerial lifts of New England. They rented scissor lifts and uh construction equipment on a on a very informal basis. That has since changed. Over there now is Riverside Properties. They're a landscape landscape
construction outfit that is um using every inch. They're very intensive use of their property. Several employees during this current season, the landscape season, park along Haywood Street. The driveway
that semiis used to use to uh back into the loading dock is now not available all the time u because of the constant use of riverside in that um that location. So trucks don't have the ability like they used to queue up use
the neighbors driveway to back down to the loading dock. So, McGunk Realy asked us to review um the potential for a relocation of the loading dock. We looked on the easterly side against 495,
but that BBW on site um does not allow us and the narrow width of that pavement doesn't allow us to uh do truck maneuvers with any large vehicles. and the fact that employees park along Haywood Street now makes it extremely
difficult to do anything but accessing that side of the building. So, we focused on the southerntherly side. Um, on that side there are, if you've been by the site, there is some air handling equipment. Um, that is a perfect spot to
carve in uh two new overhead doors and relocate the loading dock. that location um is about a third of the way back from the front of the building. We want to take that area, which is now uh a walk
and grass, and um remove that and construct um a new parking area so that folks the the trucks will access will go back to using the South Street driveway as the main access and then back into
those two docks. And then when the deliveries or the the shipping is done, the trucks will pull out, make a loop down easterly towards 495 and then head back out the South Street driveway. To
do that, we need to lower that loading dock area, the future loading dock area a couple of feet and then carry that down to the southeast towards 495. So what we intend to do is to excavate that area across that parking lot and lower
that by a maximum two feet at the dock to zero when we reach the end of um the asphalt. Now currently uh sheet flow is northwest to southeast along that side. So we
intend to uh replicate that with the the future grading and uh paving of that parking area. So, we will take that area um lower it um shape it and then repave it. But then we'll continue on up the
driveway to South Street so that that area of crumbling pavement will be upgraded as well and then down the final um set of activities on that side is at the southeast corner. We're going to remove
some asphalt paving that is crumbling. is in poor condition. It's a mix of asphalt and gravel. We'll excavate that area and we'll replace it with loom and seed so that when we're done there is no net increase in imperous area. Those are
the most um intensive uses that we have on the site because we have buffer zones that were were reviewed by the the commission and the staff for phase one. Uh we realize that we have buffer zones
across uh the easterly side and across the southerntherly side. Some from wetlands on site, some from wetlands at number 77. So we have buffer zone issues for variety of the variety of these activities. Those are the most
intensive, but we have other things that we'd like the commission to consider which are amenities to the site um but but less damaging to to the the buffer zones, if you will. Um for instance,
there's a a concrete walkway that leads to the smaller 22 space parking lot. We want to add some low voltage ballard lighting 36-inch tall to make that a safer walk for the employees to the smaller parking lot that is intended to
be the the main parking lot for the Mungo realy people. Um we're going to in order to satisfy the planning board we have to add some EV electric vehicle station um heads along uh the building both on the southerntherly side and the
easterly side at all the bargaining lots. So, we've got some drenching to do, some heads to install. Um, and then we've got a a small driveway through an area of mulch and crushed stone on that same east side that is right at the edge
of the 100 foot buffer. So, we've got some more intensive work and some less intensive work within the different buffer zones. Um, we have just started down the road for permitting. We were at the uh planning board last night to talk
about our a minor site plan application. We have a couple of applications pending with the DPW um to talk about a connection from the failed septic system to the municipal sewer and Hwood Street
and then we've got to file for a couple of permits for them. We're waiting to file those until we get some more feedback from this board and the planning board, but uh we're aware of a couple applications that are pending with those folks and eventually we'll
have to abandon our failed septic system and involve the board of health. So, um this phase two is um a bit more intensive than that phase one. Um, but it seems like since it's the one site,
it makes a lot of sense to combine it all and review it all now and would certainly make life easier as we bounce back and forth between the different boards. >> Okay, thanks Joe. Um, yeah, there's a lot there's a lot
going on uh in this site more than than I envisioned, but um I know we got a letter of comments from Joe yesterday, Joe Orzelle. Um, and I don't know if you've had a chance
to look at them, but those will need to be addressed. Joe Orzelle, do you want to hit any high points on those those comments or anything that we should discuss at this meeting? >> I think uh as you had mentioned um it
seems like uh there's a little more work involved uh in this application than than maybe was anticipated after the initial discussion. Um, I think the commission needs to uh consider whether
um at this point the amended um order is the correct way to go. Um that did include a quote from uh D uh program policy regarding amended orders. Um and
if there is a substantial change generally they they recommend a uh new notice of intent filing. However, it is um uh the determination of the issuing authority to decide whether or not that
uh change in scope is sufficient enough. Um I I just want to a couple of items. Um recommended that the applicant confirm that all the work is within proposed or existing uh paved areas. Um,
also was looking for a little more uh description of of all the work that's proposed. Um, maybe a narrative. Uh, I know Joe went over some of that uh in his discussion, but I think there's um, you know, EV stations, uh, utilities,
and other things proposed. Um the uh uh information that was submitted describes say an existing storm water system as an enclosed storm water system in the parking lot. That's not shown on the plans. I don't know if that's an
error or um needs further discussion. Um u recommend snow storage areas uh be identified in the plan. uh also recommend that uh the applicant demonstrate that storm water is being managed to the maximum extent um
practicable uh for the redevelopment. Um it looks like they're just uh maintaining existing drainage. I don't know that there's any uh proposed uh storm water treatment uh other than possibly flowing over vegetation before
it gets to the wetland. Um also um uh looking for clarification on whether any work is proposed on the portion of the existing parking lot that is offsite to the south. Um if that is the case um
also whether u the abuters to that property uh were uh appropriately notified. And I think finally just recommending a specification for a seed mix um for the area that's proposed for reestablishing
vegetation. I think that covers it. Oh, Joe Mark on. I um I see there's one catch basin and a drainage pipe. I actually took a swing by the site yesterday and didn't see any drainage system in the actual parking
lot. Is the drainage system referenced in the operation maintenance plan referring to that one catch basin in the grass? >> One existing catch basin in the grass. Correct. Everything else is sheet flow across the parking lot as you find it now.
>> Okay. And with the proposed grading, which I don't know if you can go to the next sheet, Judy, maybe that shows the grading lines on it. Um, it was a little more extensive than I had originally thought. Looks like the majority of the parking
lot is being regraded, including the driveway. Um, and then are you going to have a low point at that overhead door area where you need like a trench drain or anything like that you're going to have to deal
with? We reviewed um once we chose that location and we're cutting down the uh the two feet in order to create that 4ft lip uh that the delivery truck needs. Um, we examined a closed drainage system, some kind of catch base and
piping, but when we got to the um edge of the parking lot, the limit of the buffer zone, um we would had to excavate and create a trench down to the wetlands edge. That's where we chose to eliminate
uh a pipe system and go to the regrading of the parking lot and the sheet flow. We weren't sure how we were going to get rid of that water uh once we put it in a pipe. >> So, it's not So, the 2 ft down is not going to create
a ponding area. >> No, it pitches away from the the doors and then down through that area down to the southeast. >> All right. So, you're cutting down two feet kind of across that whole swath of
the driveway and parking lot, not just at the overhead doors. >> Yeah. 2T at the doors, 18 in the middle, and zero >> at the southeast corner. >> Okay. >> And that, as you can see, that parking
lot um that last row of spaces hangs over the boundary line. Manka realy has rights to use that area. Um I'm not sure. I have not explored um rights to reconstruct in that area that um he does
have a Lance does have a good relationship with Paul Mastriani at Bevlio. Um but we're proposing to leave that alone and do all of our work on 75 to keep all the work inside the balance of number 75.
>> Okay. I think it would be helpful to maybe shade the work area in some way. rather than just the the proposed topography lines. >> Sure. >> Um
Oh, I'm thinking about that. Does anyone else on the commission have any questions or comments right now on on this? I >> through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. I'm assuming that people have talked to Riverside and they haven't been able to
work out an agreement. I mean, if some of the Riverside people parked in in this guy's lot, maybe that would clear the room for the truck and it would be a whole lot cheaper. But anyway, just a thought. >> But that does not address the issue
inside the building, Ed, with uh that concrete slab. Gotcha. Okay. Um, in regards to the process, has this been sent to DP for a comment?
>> Yes. Both electronically and due to some issues with file size, hard copies as well. >> Okay. All right. So, we should be expecting comments from D. um I imagine that they would weigh in on
um their thoughts hopefully whether this is okay as an amended or not. But regardless of that, um, you know, I think between now and the next meeting, working through Joe's comments, I think that operation maintenance plan could be
more clear um, as to because I I had the same confusion that Joe did in reading it of it makes it sound like there's a whole storm water system. Um, so identifying exactly what that is
covering. Um, and I think that if we're regrading and sending water and now we're factoring in trucks
making deliveries over here, uh, maybe a little more pollutants. I think there should probably be some thought given to implementing some BMPPS for the drainage system, you know, to to treat drainage runoff um from the
parking lot. Not saying it has to be a closed drainage system, um, but potentially there's some improvements that can be made when, you know, we're grading this much of a site and, um, introducing some new impervious
area. Um, >> well, no new net impervious, >> right? We pick up 400 square feet by the building, but that h cross-hatched area down the southeast corner gets returned
to Pervious. >> Okay. Is that is that quantified in a table? >> Yes. >> Okay. I missed that. >> We'll we'll highlight it. >> Melissa. >> Yes, Matt.
I I understand there's no net new impervious but this is a redevelopment activity and they should be looking at improving storm bar to the maximum extent practicable. So if there are no improvements proposed I think we would want a justification as why none are possible.
>> Mhm. >> Yep. >> Okay. Does anyone have anything else to add? >> Um, I I'll just say really quickly, Melissa, you and Matt are the storm water experts here, but I I was thinking something similar um because it looks
like a whole lot of water can be sheeting towards our 50-foot buffer line to that uh BVW there in the southeast corner. Um Joe, I I think normally I'm pretty good at reading contour lines. Um,
but I'm a little confused on this plan and I wonder I can't remember if there's a crosssection of the paving. What confuses me is we're creating um a depressed lane kind of. So at the garage doors it's 427.9
ft in elevation. Then it drops a little bit to 425 then 426. So all of that is downhill, right? But I also see the 428s which are kind of the edged of the depressed lane. Is
that true? That's what creates kind of a path for the water to run off to the southeast. Am I understanding those lines correctly? >> Correct. >> Okay. So then my big confusion is
how does the 428 line to I'm going to try this new thing we discovered last week right here the 428 line just kind of stops where does it go from there similar to here >> meets the
>> does it just this part I'm having trouble understanding what a cross-section would look like that's where the 428 meets It's the existing 428. So that line near the pink, the dashed line,
>> yeah, >> is the 428. >> Except this is 426.5 going right through the 428. >> So the 428 would go off this way. >> So that tries to convey the idea that
we're dropping it from 428 down to 426 and a half. to try to drop 1.5 feet there >> through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> Ted, this this may be helpful for you. >> Go ahead. >> The 427.9 up by the overhead doors
that's bookended by the 428. >> Yeah. >> All of the storm water from the loading dock area is going to travel down towards the wetland in between the two 428 contours. >> That I think I understood. I just don't understand when the 428 contour ends.
And yet there's an old 428 contour that goes right through the 426. >> Yeah, the 428 contour that's between the two proposed 428s that is being removed as part of this project. >> So that part drifts down to 4265 at the center of that little lane.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> It's like a big wide channel. >> Right. Right. Yeah. No, I think that's what I envisioned. I was having trouble where Walter circled how those contours fit together. Um, but I guess I get the idea now.
>> Thanks everybody. And that was a nice little tool we used. I like that. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. I think that's some decent feedback. >> Oh, there's some green lines. Well done by whoever did that. >> You're welcome.
>> That's the new 428 line. >> That's the new 428. >> Great. >> Um, yeah. Okay, then our next meeting is the 28th of April. Would you like to continue out to that
meeting, Joe? >> Please. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this out to the 28th with signatures by Judy or Anna? I'll make that motion. Is >> that I'll second? >> All right. All in favor? Ted. >> Ted is an I.
>> Jim. >> I. >> Walter. >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Ed. >> I. >> And I am also an I. All right. Thanks, Joe.
>> Great. Thank you. Good night. >> Okay. Next up, we are now moving to continued hearings. We're on number three, just 28 Lakeshore Drive. This is a notice of intent continuation. Great. So, I saw in the file that we got a planting plan, which was something
that we talked about quite a bit at the last hearing. And um Joe, did you have a chance to look at this one? I can't remember off the top of my head.
Joe Orzel. >> Uh I sent in a review previously, but I have not looked at the planting plan >> at the new one. Okay, that's fine. >> Um I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any new comments. Um Okay. and your
comments have not been addressed since they were provided at the last last time around yet. Um, all right. So, we're looking at the planting plan here. Judy, do you want to
uh give us some highlights? Uh, sure. I think we have the um applicant on the call as well, but this is a separate plan just showing the plantings. Um, so they're represented by symbols on the plan and then referenced
in a table with the species here. Um, >> okay. >> We also have a revised um, civil plan as well that may have addressed some of Joe's comments, but I would leave that to the applicant to um, confirm. >> Okay.
>> What's been changed? >> Sure. The applicant representative like to speak? >> Yes. Um so Stephen Bosvich here on behalf of Land Planning Inc. representing the applicant and property owner Allan and Chrisanne Connell. Um so
we haven't formally um supplied a a response letter um because they were addressed on the plan. So we didn't feel that it was you know necessary to create another document uh just to walk through the remaining items since the last meeting that have been addressed. Um the
first was uh storm water management uh system infiltration system soil tests. Um so shortly after the last public hearing uh we were able to go out in the field and kind of stake the locations
and dig uh soil tests to determine the textural classification and the depth to seasonal high groundwater if groundwater was not observed. Um so we have um as indicated on the sheet kind of adjacent
to those uh basins we have test pit one and test pit two. Um there's a icon. Um if it would be all right uh would the chair be okay if I shared my screen just so I could point this stuff out? >> Yes, that's fine.
>> You good to go? Okay. Um, everybody can see my screen. >> Yes. >> So, we have up in the um top corner of sheet one is the actual soil data itself. Uh, as I mentioned, test pit
one, test pit two. Um, we were able to catch the corner of the infiltration system. Test pit one uh right here. Test pit two unfortunately was going to be kind of within like that patio existing patio area. So we went adjacent to it.
However, we're close and we did determine that there were consistent soils on site. Um the second um comment was in regards to the resource area delineation. Uh so prior to this revision um there was
wetland flag one, wetland flag two. Um the commission's um representative, peer reviewer, recommended that the line be uh reviewed and possibly hung uh four to 5 ft towards the existing uh driveway and
dwelling. Um so we hung uh wetland flag 1.1 and 1.2 uh in agreeance with that comment. And we've also updated on sheet two uh the necessary buffer zone areas. Um so we
had a table on sheet 2 and I'll show that when I get to that sheet of the various 0 to 25 ft buffer 25 to 50 and the breakdown of impervious pre and post uh for the for those areas.
The other um outstanding comment was regarding the planting um as we uh kind of discussed um we put the plantings on the site plan um and we noted that we will surround it as discussed with the
commission uh with a mulch sock through construction. Um, so when they're planting this, there will be a separate barrier independent of the primary barrier here. Um,
another comment that was uh needed was the tree line was not plotted properly. So I made sure that was accurately depicted on the plan. Um going to sheet two, we had discussions uh regarding these
three trees in the back and after um kind of coordinating with the proposed plantings and the removal of the trees, we were going to retain the two oak trees. Um however, because of the proximity of the house, I believe uh the commission was okay with us uh
continuing to remove this pine tree located here. So at this point we've uh proposed to leave these trees and this table here was updated to reflect that uh amendment. Uh the tables as previously discussed
for the um buffer zone areas pre and post impacts uh were updated. Those tables are shown here. Um another comment made by the peer review in the last letter was regarding the infiltration system. So we were able
to add the calculations on the sizing of the overall system. There's two fields of six chambers uh each. So 12 total chambers with the surrounding stone. Um and we demonstrate that we're providing
1 in of infiltration from the proposed imperous surface. So, the entire driveway and the roof area. Um, if the commission uh has any additional questions, this again is the tree
planting plan with the uh species as indicated. I'd be happy to address any additional comments at this time. >> Okay. >> Thank you for the overview. um appreciate the the soil test work and
the um accommodation of of that oak tree remaining on site. That's that's great to see. Um the breakdown of the tree planting schedule, grasses, shrubs, and perennials.
Um I think it would be helpful to have shrubs broken out from grasses and and perennials. I don't know. Um I'm not as familiar with the plant species as maybe
others are on the board to um identify which ones are shrubs based on the name. Some guess you know I see blueberry which would be one of my guesses but um the rest of them look very much like grasses and perennials. So I think it
would be helpful to to break that out. Um, and I do want to revisit, we had talked about the significant trees on the site, the large size of the ones that are coming down. Um, and the count being
provided. Um, within the 50ft buffer, I think we have a 26-in pine and a 26-in oak and a 14-in oak that are all
uh coming down within 50 foot buffer zone. um in my mind although we don't have it in our in our regulations yet but some of the conversations I think we've been having about incorporating them into planting guidelines for the board where
you know identifying a significant tree size maybe of 20 in and larger which would be those the pine and the oak um and having an increased ratio for replacement based on based on diameter
Um so that's that's one comment I have. I mean the guidance there would be looking for and I think more tree coverage and specifically
um mitigation. A lot of times the commission will take shrubs in place of trees. Maybe you know three or four shrubs might equal a tree. Um, and looking at the planting plan, back at the planting plan and the filter
strip that we talk about, um, in the guidance documents that were provided, it looks like it's grasses all along the shoreline there. Um, so in my mind, I think we'd like to see that
beefed up a bit, um, for lack of a better better term or or I would, um, to really provide mitigation for all the trees that are coming down on this this site. Um,
but I'll open up to others for thoughts and comments as well. through the chair. >> Chair. Oh, go ahead, Ted. >> Um, I I want to mostly echo Melissa's last thought. Um, I asked and I remember last meeting that Judy showed us the the
sample and she assured us she sent to the applicant the the sample drawing of what a filter strip, an ideal filter strip would look like. Um, and I don't think this plan reflects what that drawing was, the the the ideal situation
that Judy uh offers to us. So, I very much would like to see a more rust robust filter strip. Um, as for tree replacement, I know we have a line of abbervite and I understand that not all abbervite are the same. Um, but abberite
as a replacement for oaks doesn't quite seem to me to be a fair trade. Um, unless I need to be taught Ed about abbervite more. But for myself only, I could see myself
not insisting on more robust tree plantings if we could get the model filter strip that we could hold up to all other lakefront residents that I am sure the LMPA would love us to see. um one that protects the entire shoreline,
one that does not allow straight line access of water runoff and potentially fertilizer runoff, be it phosphate fertilizer or not, directly into the lake. Um this project gives us a chance to really show what lakefront protection
ought to be. Um and I would love to see that in the filter plantings along the lakefront. Um, so if I if I may, could I I just make a point uh regarding the trees. Um,
so we're also not uh subject to >> who who is that speaking? Sorry. Is that >> Stephen? Uh, Steven Bosuch, the representative. >> Um, so we're not subject to any storm water management um requirements. So
subsequent uh to removing the trees, we're also providing increased recharge for the imperous surface. So we're we're not increasing impervious. In addition to that, we're also infiltrating the imperous surface that basically
exists now um because we're not increasing it and there is no means of recharge. So in addition to the plantings, we are also providing uh recharge and a reduction in in impervious surface for the site which is
entirely within the buffer zone as well. >> I appreciate with the um with the recharge systems that are being in place that certainly does help >> um reduce some of the runoff coming off off the dwelling.
Um, does it capture the driveway as well >> to the >> Yes. >> So, there's a trench drain across the front of the garage doors. Um, and that's going to be tied into infiltration system one. Uh, so we are
collecting the driveway runoff. We did not want to create additional runoff to the municipal drainage system here. Um, so we're actually pitching the driveway towards the center of the property and collecting it with a 4-in trench drain
and directing it to the infiltration system. >> Okay, thank you. Um, go ahead, Walter. >> Uh, yes, I'm have a few questions. talked a little bit about it last time, but the the
solid line and the two dotted line that goes around like 3/4 of you of the property up to the street. Is that the current limit of work? What is that address? >> So that dark line is the perimeter uh
erosion and sediment control. Um we have sub the initial >> So the dark when you say the dark line, you mean the dark line with the two dots? >> Yes. >> All the way around. Okay, that's the erosion. >> Yeah, >> erosion barriers. Okay. All right. That answers that question. You know, to me
it also seems like the call call it the limit of work based on other projects I've seen on the lake. Uh, and I'm I'm wondering why, Melissa, that we're uh trying to enforce
uh a order of conditions on a part of the project that really isn't in my view in this phase. uh it seems like we're imposing a a lot of additional cost uh
on the homeowners and if they want to if they just left that area as it is, they're not making any modifications to it. Really, they're just trying to build their home. So, if they want to come back as a phase two, you know, before the board for this uh area close to the
lake where all the plantings are and so forth, uh it just seems like we're putting a lot on the homeowner who's going to be stretched un sure enough to to try to build this home to address something they really don't plan to
touch. Uh it it is there how did that happen? How are we able to do that? If they're saying they don't want to change that, they just want to leave it as it is and maybe have that as a phase two of their project. What right
do we have, I guess, as a commission to say, "Nope, you got to do this if you want to build your house." Um so as a commission we are protecting or we're charged with protecting the resource areas um which would be the
lake and the wetlands um and any work that's within the buffer of those resource areas is within our jurisdiction. necessarily the entire site. Um because that 100 foot buffer, you know, expands over the entire site. And part of our regulations say that,
you know, where we anticipate or we expect that that buffer is there um and maintaining that protects the resource area. And if someone tries if someone starts to encroach in that buffer zone, then we're just responsible for making
sure that that encroachment um is either mitigated or isn't going to cause inverse impacts to the resource area. Um so understanding that there's a house there today and you know weighing the you know when you redevelop
something you need to make it it's better. it's the opportunity to improve the site and improve um the protection to our resource areas. So, we look at that buffer zone and the closer you are to
the resource area is really our only tool um or the most important tool for for for protecting. Um so yeah it's a balancing act and that's where the commission has um
>> okay because jurisdiction to >> yeah it's all it's all within our our jurisdiction within the buffer zone. Could I if I could also >> add to that uh Walter because I I appreciate the comment because uh in the
beginning stages of this um we tried to propose like a phase two type thing for the planting uh because we still had to go for a demolition permit for the existing structure and we still have to go to the ZBA
>> for a uh special permit. Um, so I think we've demonstrated our willingness to improve that buffer at this point and we would >> very much so like to um kind of continue
this discussion as we go through the next phases of the project and keep continue to work with the commission regarding the buffer strip and planting and species. uh because we still have a significant amount of work permitting
wise with other boards um at this point. Um so >> and I guess that's also what I'm saying is that >> we're delaying this project >> for I I don't want to call it window dressing. It's not window dressing, but
it this is not the main gist of the project. The main gist of the project is kind of everything to the right of the dotted red line. Not sure what that is, but Stephen, I understand what you're saying and I I would agree is do we need to hammer this out,
you know, before you get the homeowners get approval for everything that that that's really the purpose of what they're doing is to, you know, build a new home here. We can we can certainly get to the the the the left side of the red line,
the red dotted line, but >> yeah, once we once we once we issue our decision, we we don't have an opportunity to come back and work on that phase two. So, if we're providing
if if we would like mitigation, you know, for the building of the the home, we need to do that now as part of this application. Um, otherwise, we don't see it again and there may never be a phase two. >> I'm going to move on. Jim,
>> could we condition that there is a phase two that um you know we need to appro have an approved um planting and buffer zone strip prior to the construction. Um so basically after we get possibly the
special permit and the demo permit uh before we get construction we need to at that point come back to the commission and work through this planting stage. Um so could we not condition you know that there is another step following this
because we also uh mentioned that this is not the final floor plan. Um so we are coming back for that as well um when that gets worked through with the architect. Um so we will be coming back
for the floor plan. I think along along the lines of that planting also uh kind of falls in line with that. >> Yeah, >> it's kind of what I'm speaking to as well is it
>> it is it possible uh Melissa for us to say okay we're we're comfortable with this building envelope that you're looking at. Uh you do need to go before the board for setback I mean the plan I mean the ZBA for the special permits and
so forth. that is it required to issue the order of conditions before the ZBA weighs in or can that can this can >> I don't know why it's I don't know that it's necessarily and I don't know but my question would
be why can't you get the ZBA permit why is this holding up the ZBA permit >> so applicants >> the applicant wanted to work through the conservation or at least uh get through the conservation portion of it before
they started designing with an architect. Um, it's currently underway and being designed. I just sent the updated site plans over to their uh architect. So, they are working on that and we will be going to the ZBA I believe within the
next uh two to three weeks um getting that application in. I need to verify you know submission package deadlines and stuff like that. But as far as our submission to them, it will be soon, >> right? Yeah. I just
>> in my experience on the in my experience on the ZBA, uh, Melissa, we would ask, you know, has the conservation commission approved where you intend to put the house before you go to the ZBA? And it it doesn't seem
like we're talking about any of that. we're addressing seems to me everything that doesn't have to do with the construction of the residence. >> Yeah. I mean, maybe it's a chicken or an egg because we've we've definitely had applicants, we've asked them to go to
the ZBA and get permission to move the house closer to the street >> um to be away from area. So, I don't see >> Yeah. far along. It seems in our discussion, maybe let them proceed. I
don't see anything that would prevent them from you going to the ZBA getting all their spectrums, everything approved. It seems like we're comfortable with everything to the right side of the red line. >> Yeah, I don't think we need to close it for them to go to ZBA,
>> right? >> But go ahead, Jim. I want to take Jim's comment. >> Thanks. There lot first I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of bifurcating the landscaping and
the uh and the buffer uh plantings and so forth. U so I I would not be I wouldn't approve that. Um if there's any changes uh as have been discussed by Stephen uh that may be coming up, we're
going to be looking at the the whole thing again anyway. We're going to be looking at the plan, see what those changes do. uh impervious pvious so forth. Um, now as for the trees, I hope I didn't hear Stephen say going
this is going back a bit. You didn't say that removing a tree is beneficial for infiltration that were you? >> No. No. >> Okay, that's good. Um, I don't have to
go any further on that one. Um, as far as trees and the plantings go, um, Melissa, I recall looking at the plant list, the only two things that or the only three things that are shrubs are the berries, the choke berry, the
blueberry, and the u service berry. Everything else is are um including the grasses, which depending on when you cut them, they're there. Um, but I would I would definitely like to see more shrubs
and the tree replacement uh as we've discussed and and uh I think that's it on my list. >> Okay. >> No reply needed. >> Thanks, Jim. >> Melissa.
>> Yes, Ted. Uh very quickly I would just point out while it may be that we're not really focusing on the house structure because maybe we are okay maybe um I don't think that means we're okay with the right side of the plan because the right side of the plan has a lot of tree
removal and that's part of the mitigation plantings and that's why it's all one big project >> right >> there the chair. Yes, Judy. >> Just as an FYI, in general, um the commission can't really review new
material after issuing an order of conditions. Um and plantings and restoration are a major tool for protecting resource area, which is really the focus of the conservation commission. Um not necessarily the home construction or
home placement or really matters that might be better handled by ZBA. So, I would really encourage having a robust planting plan in place prior to considering issuing an order of conditions is that's really been the expectation for similar projects in the
past. So, just putting that out there. >> Well, would I mean we've demonstrated we are going to plant down there and we can amend a notice of intent order of conditions. So, would that not necessarily new material, it's amended
material. um we're substituting, you know, three of the uh shrubs down by the water with two smaller trees and three shrubs. Um it's not necessarily new. I I would agree new would be we're not
putting anything down there like earlier uh prior plans and then we come back with all this new planting. Uh but at this point, we're showing vegetation down there. Mhm. >> We've definitely had situations where
we've had plants swapped out um and had the applicant work with our commission staff just to make sure that you know the plants that were being swapped out were native and comparable um plantings and things like that. But I
think the what we want to hash out here is just to make sure we have a plan that shows, you know, the number and the the type of plantings um and captures that in a way that the commission is comfortable with the variety and the number that are being
planted. And I think um as Ted was alluding to in his comment, you know, just a row of plantings along the edge is not what we typically look for in a filter strip. We're looking for a little
more density, a little more um variation, and um that that's what we're getting at. Um, I don't know if you want to add anything, Judy, or anyone else, but
>> I don't think we're I don't think we're trying to like, you know, hold your feet to the fire for, you know, every little type of planting, but we just want to have a really solid understanding of how many density, you know, and where they're going to go. >> Go ahead, Matt.
>> Yeah, I I have a couple of questions and and then a thought, I suppose. Um, is it a fair understanding that the impervious cover in the 0 to 25 and 0 to 50 ft
buffers is decreasing as part of this project? It appears that's the case looking at the overlay plan, but like I didn't see the specific numbers um within the 0 to 25. Uh so the dwelling
I just going to pull calculator It just look that way on the overlay, but are always most helpful. >> So in the 0 to 25 existing imperous surface is I'm calculating 669.
Um the proposed uh project is providing 562. >> Okay. And how about the 25 to 50 So existing 1,553 um proposed 1,592.
So we have a net increase of just under 40 square ft. >> Okay. And the two infiltration chambers that are proposed are capturing the entire roof and the entire parking or the entire driveway. >> Yes. Uh trench drain for the driveway
and then uh pipe uh system for the roof gutters. That is correct. And then on the the tree front, the proposed replacement ratio, it's 2 to1 on the trees plus the additional
shrubs and perennials down by the water. Is that a correct understanding? >> Um, yes. So, um, we're kind of, you know, kind of substituting, uh, several shrubs and grasses for, uh, trees as
well. So, So we have nine trees coming out. Is that the current removal? And then >> nine trees. >> Nine trees plus >> well is nine and two additional. So that's 11 trees and then the remaining
shrubs to offset the additional um trees we're not placing in there. >> And that's four shrubs to one tree. >> Um I don't know the ratio. Um I like one of the other commissioner members. Um I don't know necessarily what is perennial
and what is shrub. That's why I kind of grouped them all together. >> Okay. So >> you're the chair. >> Yes, Anna. >> It also looks like two of those arborites are outside jurisdiction >> right top right corner. Okay.
>> Yep. So, I mean, my my sense of the situation here personally is we've got a reduction in the 0 to 50 ft buffer of impervious cover, which is an improvement over
existing conditions. We have two subsurface infiltration systems that are taking all the roof and all of the driveway and providing an opportunity for recharge, which is an improvement over the existing condition. And we have
tree plantings and shrub plantings that seem to be close or meeting the ratios we've been requesting from other properties around town, not necessarily lakefront, um, which is I'm not going to say an improvement, but
you know what we've been looking for generally. Um, so I, you know, as a whole, this is seems this seems to me like an improvement at the property. And I understand we want to see more
plantings along the lakefront to provide some additional treatment of runoff, particularly from lawns that are fertilized. There's a lot of benefit to that. I I 100% agree with everyone's sentiment there. Um, however, the the net benefit here uh to
me carries some weight, particularly given this is an applicant that's come in with a notice of intent prior to conducting any work. And it feels like, at least in the short time I've been part of the commission, where we've really forced
the hand of an applicant to plant a substantial amount of vegetation directly along the lakefront in an area that either had been previously disturbed or wasn't planned to be disturbed is when they've gone and done unauthorized work within our
jurisdiction. So, while I could see the value of some additional fun things along the lakefront, you know, where where do we draw that line given the other improvements that are being proposed to benefit
um or to improve the property? That's just where I'm at. >> Thank you for saying that better than I could. Yeah. No, they're good. They're good good points, Matt. We don't often see the infiltration systems either.
>> Yeah. I mean, for for me, that's just as important as the plant things along the lakefront because it eliminates that runoff that's going over the lawn and picking up those nitrogens and phosphoruses and pulling them into the lake. If we're taking that, in this
case, almost what probably 40% of the lot. for taking that water and not giving it an opportunity to run over the lawn. That in itself is a is a benefit. >> So, it's it's to me it's like it's great to have both and we've we've made
applicants that have done work without our authorization give us both, right? Give us a recharge and give us a substantial planting along the late front almost to pay their penance for doing something that was illegal. Um, in this case, we've got an applicant that's coming to us the right way, and it's,
you know, to me, it's like we're we're getting a lot of benefit here. Um, that's that's just kind of my sense on it. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Go ahead, Ed. >> I sympathize with much of what Matt has
said. My I guess my concern is if we accept this as it is, then it becomes something that someone else will point to perhaps and say, "Well, you didn't make them plant the filter strip. Why are you making us plant the filter strip?" And I just want
to be sure that we don't box yourselves into a corner. >> Yeah, that that's a great point, Ed. And my take on that is if we have lakefront properties that are going to reduce their impervious cover and the 0 to50 which what we care most about and
recharge their all their roof and all their driveway and provide some plant things along. I think that's a good example of what we'd want to see um from a from an applicant that's doing it the right way. Now, if you're someone that goes out and builds a patio and puts a house in and does all this work in those
buffer zones and comes to us after and says, "Oh, I did all this. I'd like you to approve it after." That's a different scenario and I think we're going to hold a harder line with those folks. So, I guess the question becomes in a different situation if an applicant
were to come to us with a similar scenario, right? Reduced impervious recharge some plant things along the lakefront, would we be happy with that? I guess that's ultimately the question that I'm trying to answer. >> Yeah. >> Through the chair.
>> Yes, Ted. >> It's getting late and I don't want to slow us down, but I wonder if Joe or maybe Ed um could talk about replacing oaks and pines with abbervite. Um
because while we might add up tree stumps and maybe we get close to what we're talking about, what our general guidelines are, the type of tree I think probably is part of the discussion as well. And like you said, Melissa, we're moving towards also thinking about the
the size of the tree being removed and whether that is a one one or a 2:1 or a 3 one. But I'm just I don't know enough about trees and I wonder if Joe or Ed could talk about oaks and pines versus
upper body along the edge. >> Yes. Go ahead, Joe. >> Yeah. Uh I think uh the arbor body will provide some similar uh you know evergreen cover obviously habitat uh as
a pine. Um but certainly uh not uh what the oaks would provide as far as um habitat value for uh food value for mass crop um primarily. Um so that that's I
think a good point that you raise. Um they they don't really u replace the the habitat value of the oaks. Um, I would also just just comment um uh
just point out uh that the plantings along the lake are all uh grass uh species. I don't know if the commission um generally likes to see something more diverse along the lake. Um but uh just wanted to make sure that that they were aware those are all grass plants. And
the other thing I noted in the planting schedule is that purple cone flour is listed and that is uh not listed as native in Massachusetts by either Gobotany or the USDA plant uh list. So that one should probably be uh switched
out for something else. >> So if I may, Melissa, I'd just like to reiterate I might be able to look the other way at the Abbervite if we had more robust plantings along the lake. To me, that's a trade worth talking about. >> Okay.
>> Um I'd also like to u make note uh that property line there's also uh in a butter's dwelling is very close to the lot line in that area. Um, so I just want that to be stated that we would
want to create a hazard for an ab butter by by planting uh some of these trees. And I know there is I believe there isn't a um garage um so their vehicles are parked in front and stored outside
of the dwelling. So that is also uh just a point I'd like to note. Um we wouldn't want to create a potential hazard down the road of this tree. Um the other question I had is um I know the
commission feels that oaks provide uh a beneficial habitat but where we are proposing to take a an oak down of sub substantial size how long will it take for that oak to retain that habitat
back? Um I don't believe oaks grow very fast whereas these arborites they grow uh from my understanding pretty uh pretty quickly um over a short period of time. >> Right.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't know that I have an issue with the arba varieties and if they're providing a um you know visual barrier as well I can see why you might want to plant those opposed to something else
but um yeah like like Ted said it's you know nothing against planting them but are they meeting >> the what we're trying to achieve is that Jima Yes. >> Yeah. Um, briefly,
I recall that arboride are a type of cedar. So, if that helps Ted at all or anybody, and I'll be happy to correct it if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they're cedars, just goes by a different name. And they
they're relatively fast growing, and they provide an excellent screen, visual, and and sound. I don't know about anything about wildlife habitat. >> I I guess things can hide out in the aride in the winter time. And there are
certain varieties, by the way, that deer love and will destroy one one winter and others that uh that don't get destroyed. So that's it. >> Thanks, Jim. I learn something every day.
Um, okay. So, at this point in time with that discussions back and forth, obviously there's a few things that like Joe mentioned that we might want to tweak on the the what's presented here on the grasses, shrubs, perennials to make sure.
>> Yes, Ted, >> I'm sorry to interrupt you. I see that Alan and Chris Anne have >> Thank you. Yes, go ahead. Take your comment. >> Thanks, Ted. Um yeah, I just wanted to ask a few questions and also just make a few comments just kind of after
listening to the discussion. Um so with respect to the examples that were sent our way in terms of coming up with um the planting plan. So we literally took this um the plan that's on the lower right hand side over by the um
what what side of the lot is that? like with all the colorful markers. Um, we took that directly from the planting plan that you guys sent along, the guide to healthy lakes from Vermont. And that is the edible
beach eden example. And in there, I mean, I'm not a a botist, so I'm not sure what exactly constitutes native, but it was listed as a native species to our hardiness zone in New England, the cone flower. So that's why
I had that in there, but we can certainly swap that out. But um in terms of like we're really trying to comply with things that we weren't originally planning to do. Um so that's an example of something we took directly out of a plan that you guys shared with us. I
also called Judy and talked about the replacement. Like we're actually taking out nine trees. for not taking down 11 because we decided after the discussion last time where the committee was very um concerned with the two oaks that were going to be taken down that are directly in our view of the lake. We decided like
okay we're not going to fight on that because yeah I it's a habitat situation that they have significant root system. They're large caliber like we totally understand the reasoning behind why you wanted to see those stay. So we're not arguing to take those down. Um, however,
when I called Judy and um, she was super helpful in kind of talking through the documents that were sent like the Sudbury native plants and the Vermont Lake plants guide to healthy lakes
document. um and said although you know obviously she's not on the committee but um she said that because you guys don't have an actual guiding document yet like I understand you're working on that like I asked about caliber like okay so if we take down these trees are we is there
like a number you're looking for like a 3 to one or a 2 one cuz the lot is not infinite we can't fit like oaks everywhere that we take down an oak so we're willing to do that um but there was no guidance. She said that you guys are working on that. So, we just did our
best with our due diligence um to try to replace more than we're taking out. And you can see that with the number that we listed there that I thought we did a significant job of replacing, you know, you know, it's not like a one for one. We're not trying to say we're going to plant like a cone flower to replace an
oak. Like we're we're trying to be reasonable there. Um, and given the fact that there is no actual guidance from the town yet, I think that it's a little bit unfair to go back and forth in the meetings like, "Okay, now show us what you have. Is that okay?" Like, >> like, "Give us some guidance and we'll
abide by it." But I just don't want to draw this out forever if we have no actual guidelines to work by. Um, the other thing, um, is the arbivite was also in the Sudbury
list. So, I'm glad to hear some of you think that is an okay replacement. I literally read about it and a bunch of books I took out of the library that it's a great habitat for like native species that live near the lake. Like, I'm really trying here to be a good steward of the land. Um, not just for
the hedge. Like we even talked to our butters who happen to own like a tree farm and we're like is this going to block your view? Is this going to be good for like the land around it? Are the roots going to be good? Like we really are trying um to be good neighbors, good lakefront homeowners,
all of the above. Um and I guess the last thing I would say is I understand that the ideal would be to have like a meadow in front of our house with a little meandering path going to the lake, but there's literally no precedent for that. Um, and I think it's a bit unfair to
make us the precedent for creating like a 30 foot buffer of like grasses and plantings and all of this. Um, I just that's just my two cents on it. Like we're really willing to work with you guys. Like we don't have to make it all grasses in the front. Maybe we can
swap out for some bushes. But I would personally love to hear from the committee specifics on what you would like to see if we were to swap out from some grasses without putting in like a huge meadow like it showed in that document. Um
I'd like to see just some some examples we can work with so again we don't come back and you're like no it's not quite right. Like do you guys have any suggestions like any actual species or anything specific? because I mean like Steven was saying like we're trying um I
think we're doing more than the average lakefront home builder in terms of what we're replacing. So that's just what I wanted to share. Oh, and also it was my understanding we don't have to come back again after we have our actual floor plan that you guys in the first meeting said we're okay with getting the box
approved. That was another thing. >> All right. Um yes, thank you for those comments. definitely appreciate them and the and the work you're doing and I I don't we don't I don't want to string this along any more than we have to
either. Um so we'd like to to to get it done as well. Um and I do appreciate that feedback. I think that's that's good feedback for the commission um as we try and develop, you know, some real documents to point to examples.
um we're we're going to continue to do our our homework um on that to try and make this easier process um for all applicants. So, I think to that I would say um I'll just ask Judy,
are there any particular conditions that would be helpful if we were to go ahead and vote on this um as far as plantings and swapping out plants and trees and working with you um to
finalize what actually goes in the ground if are approving, you know, essentially what's shown in here in number and general location. So, I would just discourage I mean, if
you're if anyone on the commission has substantial concerns that the planting plan as presented is insufficient, I would caution against approving anything with a condition that the planting plan be revised. I think like
you said the only thing I would feel comfortable doing as staff because I mean after it gets approved most of this is administrative is like this native grass wasn't available at the nursery we're swapping it out for this native grass that sort of thing. Um but I just
wouldn't suggest conditioning any major revisions. I think that that opens a can of worms that you might not be able to, you know, chase down exactly what you would want to sufficiently protect the lake. Um, and then I would also point
out that I sent revised materials to Joe and I don't believe he's issued a formal review letter. So, if the commission wants to see that in advance of making a vote, I think that that would be something to consider. Mhm.
>> Okay. >> Do we know what those outstanding items are >> from Joe's comments? I'm not sure >> through the chair. >> Yes, Anna. >> Yeah, I think it'll take a little bit longer because as Stephen pointed out, he did not revise his memo or narrative.
He just ch made all the changes on the plan. So Joe's gonna have to go piece by piece and actually look through it. So >> there planting plan >> there weren't very many comments. Um that's why a formal letter I felt was
not necessary. Uh because there was one comment was regarding the resource area which you can see there's welton flag 1.1 1.2 soil test sheet one uh very clear marked on the plan. Um, as I
stated tonight in this open forum, the buffer zone tables were updated and other than that there and the planting plan he highly recommended we provide some sort of planting plan prior to approval which um those are to my
knowledge the four outstanding comments that I don't think are necessarily have to make it to a a formal memo to observe the plans that are amended. at this time >> sounds like there's still non-native species in the planting plan. So those are the sorts of things that that Joe
would be looking at with this new material provided. >> I mean it was just a cone flower. I can swap out a flower. That was it. That was all they said. >> Yep. It's just commission standard to have the plans accurate and clear
through a third party prior to um issuing an order of condition. So that's just standard practice. Melissa, can we go back to the are we good with the plants as shown despite the species? >> Yes. >> There are there
are there any concerns? I don't have any as expressed before. >> Okay. Does anyone else have concerns about the plants given the conversations that we've just shared and the mitigation
that's present aside from planting? Um, does anyone >> Melissa I I do and I just want to be clear, I'm not looking for 30 feet of meadow. I'm looking for a planting plan that makes it so there is no straight
line runoff to the lake. And I think that can be done very simply without 30 ft of meadow. I'm looking for a way that there is no straight line water. And I I love that there's more retention basins. There's going to be less water runoff.
That's not zero. All I'm looking for is some plantings that block the path before the steps that are that are something a little more substantial than than grasses. But that's the planting. I'm not looking for a meadow. I'm not I would love
meadows, but I'm not asking for that. I'm not looking for the backyard to disappear. >> Would you be able to give us an example concretely? Because the example you showed us and the one you referenced again today was that picture of literally a meadow. So, is there something?
>> Well, I don't I don't have it with me, but I think that Judy pretty quickly >> and and I don't have the scale on that plan, honestly. If if Judy will show it to me, >> I'm just trying to I'm trying to just understand what you're looking for what they had in.
>> Hopefully, this will help. Let's Let's see. And again, I don't know if there's a scale. That's not the one. So, yeah. So, if you could just zoom in on that, Judy, the width of that, I don't know what it is, but that is that's one
tree. But all I'm looking for is so that we don't have a path that goes straight. And I could see a path that is a winding, I don't know, six flagstones just that has plantings on the little bend just so
there's not a straight line to the lake. Um, and I really don't think it needs to be in width thicker than I haven't I'm not a landscaper. I haven't done it, but honestly thicker than four or five feet as long as there's a little bend to the path before the steps
that creates a full planted filter before the lake. >> So, if we did that with like six flag stones and >> that kind of just does a little jog. >> Well, I I I don't know enough about the grasses. Um, I don't know what kind of grasses we are. I think we tend to ask
for a small shrubbery. I don't have that list in front of us. Um, I don't know what we mean by grasses. I I know my wife plants decorative grasses and I think that those are actually bigger what I'm picturing from my yard um than
taller blocks more view of the lake. So, I don't know exactly what you mean by grasses. I guess it's just if we keep like I want to we want to do the right thing. Like if you guys literally drew on the plan and we're like this is what we're looking for, we would be like yes.
It's just the resources it's going to take for us to go to a landscape architect and have to redo this a bunch of times because you guys aren't giving us like specifics. Like >> I don't think that's fair as a homeowner that we have to take on that brand. If you guys tell us what you want, we'll do it. But you're not doing that.
>> Right. Right. Well, through the chair. I mean, Ted, just give me a moment to speak here, too, because uh we're going way past our time for today. I would I would want to suggest, Melissa, that >> we don't ask the homeowner to do
anything else. I I am concerned that we are going beyond our jurisdiction of of 206.3 of the of the bylaws. there, the homeowner is not uh trying to remove, fill, dredge, build upon,
degrade, discharge uh or any of the into the a resource area, they're they're not going to touch that space to the left side of the red line. And as long as they aren't doing anything to the right hand side of the
red of the dotted line, just using that for reference purposes, that I don't think we have the ability. Somebody needs to show me where in the bylaws it says we can require homeowners who are not trying to do anything in this area. It is a resource area.
There's no question about that. But our restriction, unless they're trying to change it, you know, remove, fill, dredge, build upon, discharge, >> we we don't I don't think we have >> jurisdiction
about that. And I think as a I think as a commission, we need to have a separate discussion about that because I'm I'm not comfortable at all that we're doing the right thing here by the bylaws of the town. Well, I that's that's not
accurate, Walter. Um, >> well, but okay, then show me where it says in 206.3 our jurisdiction where what they're doing, we have a right to make them do something else >> through the chair.
>> Go ahead, Judy. >> Walter, I'm happy to follow up with you outside of this meeting. >> Sure. Sure. But there are protected areas outside of the physical resource area that maybe um you just haven't you know come across the language in the
bylaw. So I'm happy to go over that with you. But um >> sure >> in this case almost this entire law is jurisdictional. So that's why there's so much focus on making sure there's strong protection because building a house on this lot is going to have a huge impact on resource area wherever it goes. So
that's why the commission is taking so much time to to talk about the plantings. So I am happy to go over it with you, but I assure you that almost every square inch of this site is jurisdictional. >> I'm not I'm not debating that. I'm not debating that one iota. I am saying what
they are proposing to do does not impact this area to the left side of the red dotted line. uh absolutely everything within 100 feet or whatever it is on the right side of that. They are they're proposing to build a new house. They're doing all
this stuff. But if they're if they're not doing anything to cause uh water to flow into this other area that they don't plan to change, I'm just not sure of a jurisdiction. And I I'll be happy to talk to you about it offline, Judy, but I I I
>> So I think there's there's jurisdiction and there's discretion that the conservation commission has and as conservation members, that's why we're, you know, that's why we're a board and that's why we vote on these things because not everyone shares the same
opinion of, you know, discretion, I guess. >> Well, Julie, I appreciate your willingness to educate me. Melissa. >> Yes. Go ahead, Matt. >> Quick question. >> Y >> there was a mention of of field stones leading down to the stairs and the docks
that are entering the lake. >> Yep. >> Under existing conditions. Are there field stones out there or is it all lawn? because I I would be opposed to the suggestion that we add impervious cover
near the lakefront >> and you're right. I I think that I was I'm just trying to picture a path and I use the word flag stone I think but I think you're right that is more impervious. I a gravel path would be better. I think I was careless in my >> I just feel like that
>> and we can have a vote. I I feel like I'm in the minority and we can have a vote if we wanted to. Um, >> yeah, >> I think that you don't need a meadow to be able to have a barrier to any straight line water runoff. That's all I'm saying.
>> Yep, I hear you. >> Once it >> may be worth a straw poll here to see where people are at and we can either decide to give the applicant clear direction on our expectations for the next meeting or vote to approve
>> uh through the chair. >> Yes, Joe. Yeah, just uh for my two cents, I'm looking at my previous comments. Um and I think uh essentially all those comments um have been addressed tonight. I think the uh one
outstanding item which I may have missed was um the extent of hydro soil. Um I had recommended that that be looked at. I did see it out there. Um I don't know that was addressed and I missed it. The other item um that I just noted was that
the uh BBW uh forms were uh revised and resubmitted. Um just looking at them quickly, um there are still uh errors on those, but I don't know if that's significant enough for the commission to hold up. Um
another revision on those. >> Okay. Thank you, Joe, for >> Yeah. looking. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> If we are moving toward a vote, I have one other super minor thing that I think we're all going to be in agreement with that I think fell through the cracks
tonight. So, if we could just see the um the the other plan again, please. I think this will not be controversial for anybody. Um so, I'm really really thankful that those two oaks in the backyard are staying. I'm just a little nervous that the line that shows the
limit of work includes those trees. And I think if we could have on the plan a mention of some sort of fence barrier around the trees so there's no mistake when the work begins. >> Yeah, I think that's something that we could condition Ted. >> Yeah. that the remaining trees be
protected with um >> some sort of visible >> some sort of visible >> right just so there's no confusion when the work starts. >> Yep. >> Yep. No, that's fine. Um okay. So
>> on on the straw pomos if if you would entertain it, I would suggest a couple of conditions for consideration as to where people stand. >> Sure. All right. So, uh the first condition would be as just mentioned adding tree protection notes to the
plans for the two oaks and the vegetation along the perimeter of the property to remain. The second one would be to replace the grass plantings along the lakefront wall with shrubs selected from
the native plant list. any non-native Massachusetts plants being replaced with native Massachusetts plants. Um, and would be reviewed by Judy or Anna for concurrence.
And I think that's in line with what we've done with swapping out plants, but not changing the number or the location of them. So, that that's where I'm at, and I would be in favor of of that order. Um,
>> okay. >> You're the chair. >> Yes, Anna. >> Um, you guys had talked about a PIB along the adjacent property line where the BBW is, and I I believe Stephen had said that that had dropped off one of the
last revision. I do not see it back on this. >> Um, so that was the tree line that got dropped off. If you go to the sheet, you can see CCS along the Southernly property line and a fence uh sign post.
Um >> Oh, yeah. I see three of them. >> Three of them. Um we also added the detail that the length of that line's about 90 ft. So, every 30 feet more or less uh denser if there's a tree available. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification
>> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. does look like that PIB is behind some of the plantings, which is something the commission has not been in favor of in the past. Um, usually you have the PIBs in front of plantings. Okay, so we would just All right, so
that would be potentially another condition. >> Junior, are you talking about the It looks like maybe four light brown or tannanish colored. Yeah, these guys >> the propo those are proposed plantings, I think.
>> Okay, very planting plan looks like they're um >> a there. Okay. >> Yeah. So, those would probably just get mowed right over if they're in front of a PIB to be honest. >> Um, so I I will note that the commission
was okay with uh placing the placards on trees. Um, so if we need to put them on the high side of these plantings, uh, there may not be any trees there available. >> Yeah, I think
you know these are so these are four ferns. They're small. They're small, right? Those I envisioned would be somewhere between the trees. >> Yeah, between kind of in front of the trees. The this is kind of the the tree line was located by the stumps of the
tree. Not the stumps, the trunk of the tree. Um so they're kind of in front of at the base of those trees. So um although they're not, you know, on top of they're going to be right adjacent to these ferns. >> Yep.
Okay. >> But we can condition that to be moved um as requested by uh Matt. Okay. I think the condition is that the PIB isn't just that the PIB is in front of
the mitigation plantings whether those plantings get moved or the it's it's a field call really. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But if it make the condition general enough that it's saying that that's that's our intention is you know that the PIB protects those plantings from
getting like you said mowed over um with grass cutting. Okay. Um All right. So, I guess we take us just I guess I'll take a straw poll first just to make sure everyone's comfortable
um voting with those conditions. >> Um Matt, >> I am. Yeah. >> Walter, >> no. >> You're not comfortable. >> I'm not comfortable voting. I I think
we're going beyond our jurisdiction. Uh we're also talking about the limit of work is not where or the erosion control is not really where it should be. If you're talking about they have to disturb all the area by the lake wall. I think the the erosion barrier
essentially needs to be moved all the way up to the lake wall because they're going to have to have a skid steer. There's going to have to be equipment in there. >> So they do have >> well they do have erosion control along the wall. And I I can I can echo what Melissa and Judy are saying.
>> Yeah. >> Everything we are reviewing is within our jurisdiction and to our discretion to make a decision on. >> But but I I disagree. So some and Judy's going to show me that. I'm I'm I'm willing to be educated. Uh but right
what I read in 206 says no. >> Okay. So you're not you're not comfortable voting on anything tonight regarding this application? What are you proposing? I'm sorry. Let me just ask the question again. You said a straw vote.
>> Yes. >> Uh is that mean we're voting? Is that I'm not sure what straw means in our but accurate. Does that mean a yes or a no? >> We're trying to get a sense of whether or not you would be comfortable issuing an order of conditions with the
conditions I just shared. Uh if the homeowners are comfortable with it, I'll support approving it. >> But yeah, I mean >> I can't speak for the homeowners other than the fact that this what we're
talking about voting on is what they've proposed to us for consideration. >> Okay. If that's what they proposed to us, then yes, if if if we're comfortable with as it is now, I'll vote. So, I changed my mind.
>> Okay, Jim. >> Um, I am okay with the, uh, the motion for >> Yes. >> And Ted, >> and I'm just stuck by the plantings along the lake, not protecting the
stairs. So, I would, my straw poll vote would be I would vote no on this. >> Okay. So, it sounds like we can go ahead and and make a vote. Participate. >> Ed, I missed you. Ed, where are you? >> Do I get to speak? >> Yes, please do. I couldn't.
You fell off my screen. I caught you before you said anything. Are you comfortable voting, Ed? >> I'm not I'm not totally happy, but I don't think we have a right to be totally happy. And um I'm comfortable to vote. >> Okay. All right. With that being said,
can I get a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to uh approve the plans as presented uh by the homeowners >> and with the conditions that match. >> Yeah.
>> Yes. With the conditions that we've already stated. >> Okay. >> And with signatures >> and with signatures by Judy and Anna as as amended. >> If Walter accepts that amendment, I will second it. >> All right.
All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is a no. >> Jim. >> I. >> Walter. >> I. >> Matt. >> Hi.
>> And I will also vote I. All right. So, you are all set. Thank you for working with us. Yes. Thank you all for your time. >> Yep. >> Thank you guys. I know I you're all
volunteers, so I really appreciate how much you care about the lake and we will do our best to be good stewards. We will not put any fertilizer on our lawn. >> I hope you enjoy it. >> Good luck. >> Thank you.
Okay, next up we have Wall Street Development 12 North Mil Street. Mr. Petroszie, >> Melissa, the timekeeper just points out it is 10:33. >> It is 10:33. I got that right.
>> Let me say this that the timekeeper should I'm tired. I don't know about you guys. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would vote uh to move this to the next agenda. >> Oh my god. Sure. Why not? >> Well, I think with that with that being
said, um I saw Lucas's comments um were submitted. I didn't see anything from you, Mr. Petrosi. C >> can I just like Well, we we'll do this quick and I'm happy to I'm happy to continue. But >> Yep. If you look at if you look at the
the comments by Lucas, most of them have to do with the conservation to discuss conserva, you know, if you look at one a conservation to discuss uh onee regarding invasive species. Uh
everything in the area that we're talking about everything is being cleared there are no there aren't going to be any invasive species. um siltation barrier erosion control. We're suggesting an orange siltation fence instead of a plastic construction
orange construction fence. Um all of these things have to do with the conservation commission discussing that don't require more information from other than a plant list. It doesn't require us to submit any more information. So I'm happy to continue
this to the next meeting. I hope you will put me a little bit further ahead on the agenda. U but if you look at Lucas's comments pretty closely, these are commission uh related items that the commission
needs to decide. >> You know, we've had we've had this conversation going back and forth for many many months, but the commission has to express itself relative to these comments here. And I don't know if the if any of the
commission members have read the comments, but >> yeah, I did I did read the comments and I um would say there's definitely a few in there that are that are plan maintenance items, making sure things are shown on existing conditions versus
proposed and just cleaning up some plan edits. So, those are pretty straightforward. >> Let me ask you a question, Melissa. So, one of the comments here since the last one is uh showing a profile of the sump area like
a you know, we're talking about a 4x6 foot ditch of do you really need a do you really need a profile of what a 4x6 ditch looks like? I mean, it's kind of
uh infantile basically is what I'd call it. It's a ditch. You dig a hole, that's where the water goes and that's where that's a sump. It's not like uh we don't need a a plan to show that. It's that's ridiculous.
So, I'm happy to I'm happy to continue, but these these are such minor these are such minor comments and they're all discretion. They're all up to the commission to discuss and give us direction. Do you like orange construction fence or
do you like an orange siltation fence that does some good? You know, these are like simple simple things. >> So, I mean through the through the chair, Melissa. >> Yes. >> I'll withdraw my request to continue. And this gentleman is has waited very patiently. I I'll stay as long as you
need. So, >> no, no, it's okay. I don't mind. I'm tired, too. I haven't even had dinner yet. I'm so I'm sure you guys are tired, too. >> I'll do whatever you need. >> Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it. But I I just want to make sure that the commission understands that these comments
>> are all up to you, >> not up to me. They're up to the commission to decide. But I'm I'd be willing to continue if you put me first on the agenda next next time. All right. I mean, >> I don't know that I can make promises like that. But if I do I I don't want to
keep drawing this out either. So I think um >> can we >> just to go through go through quickly? Um >> we can do we we can do that. Um so the first
comment whether the proposed work has been staked in the field. >> Well we we did the sitewalk and um it's everything in that area in the front of the lot. That's what's really getting clear. It's all cleared. It's there's no
reason to stake it out. Um I mean if you want a box or if you want the ro, you know, you just you have the wetland line that's there. Everything inside of the wetland line. >> Okay. >> BBW is being cleared. There's no staking
out. It's red. It's redundant. >> Right. Yeah. I went on the sidewalk and have a have a good feel um for that. So, as far as the session goes, I I feel comfortable >> and >> that I know what the proposed work area is.
>> Okay. >> Um, >> the second thing regarding invasive species, if we're clearing the whole area, there aren't going to be any invasive species left on the property. It's nothing. >> I believe I believe this refers to, and Joe, correct me if um wrong, but this
refers to the actual construction treatment of the invasives. So during construction if you're pulling them out that they're being responsibly managed and not just >> they didn't want to end up back in the wetland somewhere. I think that's the point of this. >> Well, if that's what he's asking for,
we're going to remove everything off site. That that stuff doesn't stay on site. It's removed completely. Roots and everything. So when you grub out the lot down to it subs soil or there are no roots, there are no there's nothing. It's a bare bare spot. So
>> is that Joe? Joe Joe, am I did I read that correctly? >> Yeah. So there's there's the construction phase. Obviously, you don't want to be moving invasives uh offsite somewhere else where they're going to be reestablished. Um and just uh you know,
typically u invasive CC management plan, you know, lists the invasives that are going to be treated. I don't think that that was actually provided in the in the plan, but I think it's primarily glossy buckthornne that's out there. Um,
also the the other uh issue is that you know uh you don't want to be bringing anything onto the site from offsite during construction. Um, so, uh, you know, vehicles, um, should be looked at as they're coming on the site from other sites to make sure
they're not dragging new invasives onto the site, uh, during the construction phase. >> Good. Well, >> so I don't think this is this is something that we we typically ask for or have, and it's not anything, you know, super extensive. I think it's just
acknowledging that they're on the site that into the >> Right. But that's a statement. That's that's an acknowledgement. That's not like a plan change or anything like that. It's it's it's a condition that you folks can put into your order of conditions and that we're required to
comply with. And obviously we comply with it by whatever means we can comply with. Um but to say that we have to make plan changes for something like this, that's not accurate. I mean, it's really
kind of In fact, Joe's initial comment is there's not many invasive species on the lot. So, I don't understand the comment to be quite honest with you. >> I think the comment is you provided a an invasive species management write up, a
brief write up and Joe is just asking that you identify what the species is. So, the contractor and whoever's working on the projects. Um, >> what's I only provided that I only provided that because that's what the commission was asking for through the
peer reviewer. So, Joe's Joe's comments was there's not much there's not much of invasive species on the property. But yet, we're going to remove everything that's within the siltation barrier out to the street. So, what is going to be left? There's no invasive species to be
treated. >> Okay. So, I don't, you know, don't want to argue, but for clarification. Yep. >> Yeah. And you and like I mentioned, you also want to make sure you're not bringing anything onto the site that's not already there.
>> Who does that? >> Somebody did or it wouldn't be a it wouldn't be a comment. >> Correct. >> And I I think I think that could be conditioned u like right. >> Okay. And so the other things the in
innovative alternative septic system again that's a board of health issue I don't know what the commission has to do to discuss that but that's really kind of not your jurisdiction. Yeah, I think I think normally if there was if there was a situation where we
thought that a alternative septic design could decrease the footprint of >> unfortunately >> but I mean in this case I think I I don't think there's much else. Um >> and then >> yeah we do so I don't think we need to discuss that one.
>> Yeah. Uh let's see a checklist of replication guideline checklist. I think we did that but I'll have to check. Uh then the next thing is um number six about I don't know about trees says the commission to discuss. I don't know what
we to discuss. I mean >> so >> like I said there's not a lot of things in here for me to do in other words. So, um, >> all right. So, >> the, uh, the trees. Yeah. The, so, in
regards to the tree locations, um, I would just tie that to the comment about the the fence and the erosion control um, barrier. So, I believe the orange fence, the way I interpret that comment, and
you can correct me if I'm wrong, Joe, but the orange fence is more of a visual to the contractor that they shouldn't be clearing or going anywhere beyond this fence because we have absolutely had contractors where really tight sites like this,
>> cut down trees by accident, didn't you know that >> and I chair that is correct. Yep. Okay. >> So, that's why I'm that's why I'm suggesting an orange siltation fence in addition to the filter mitt because that
serves two purposes. It gives a a clear demarcation that's orange and it also provides some erosion control that's there. The on the construction fence, this plastic thing, it lasts, you know, maybe through a windstorm or whatever and then it's then it becomes a
nuisance. By that time, the trees are all cleared and everything. is really kind of a it's it's up to you. I'll do whatever you want, but in my in my experience, the orange siltation fence does both. Does erosion control and it
provides a uh a demarcation that nobody goes beyond. So, it's just my recommendation, but you guys can decide whatever you want. I do I'll do whatever you want there. Um, >> I'm not familiar with the orange colored
filter fence, but if that's an option, then you know >> we use >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, then I think as long as that's specified, I'm I'm >> How about you do it? Either or.
>> Orange construction fence or orange siltation fence? I I just think it's I think it's better. It's all gives you more protection. >> Yeah, that's fine. That's the the essence of the comment and what we're trying to get across. So,
>> through the chair going back to comment six. >> Yes. >> Just wanted to to clarify it looks like there's maybe four to six additional trees that would need to come down that weren't indicated on the plan. Um just wanted to clarify that. >> Need to come down or don't need to come
down. do do need to come down. >> Okay. Well, >> yeah, >> we'll take them down. >> Y >> um the the only item I see here that we need to do according uh Joe's comment is that uh we need to label
on the existing condition sheet should show the existing buffer zone and not the proposed >> plan change. Correct. 17. Other than that, there are no other plan changes except that this profile of uh proposed
sump area, which is like a it's a ditch. It's a it's a it's a 4 foot by 6 foot 8 foot wide hole where the water goes into the while they're drilling the well. Other than that, there really isn't anything else
left to do on this thing. >> And that sump those some size that sumsizes called out on the plans. >> Yeah, we call it out on the plan, but we don't have a profile. I mean, what's a >> through the chair? >> Yes, Joe.
>> That's that that is located uh that's a temporary disturbance in the wetland. Um which is why I had added that comment. Um just wanted to make sure that the wetland was being protected uh beyond that area. >> Right.
>> Well, we do have we do have erosion control around that area and obviously we're going to restore it. So that'll be part of your enforce, you know, your condition that it be restored to its natural condition. It's pre it's a pre-existing natural condition which
could require some additional plantings or other kind of vegetation to go there. much better than what's there today, which is practically nothing. >> Okay. >> So, so I'm willing I'm willing to continue so that we can have a very good
discussion at the next meeting for I mean, either the commission's in favor of this proposal or they're not. I mean, we've gone this route. >> I agree. I agree with you. I think it's, you know, I I don't see any reason why we can't vote at the next meeting. I think, you know, the meat and potatoes
is here. Um, if you just address the comments as we discussed tonight, then we can feel comfortable that we're all on the same page as far as what exactly we're voting on. >> Okay. >> Right. So, we're not
>> Appreciate it. >> Does that make sense? Okay. >> I'm going to go get a nice dish of apple pie right now. >> Good. >> Left leftover from Easter. So, you know, I'm gonna go feed my face. So, but thank you very much. It was a very enjoyable
meeting tonight. I enjoyed every moment of it. >> Good. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jersey. Enjoy your >> We'll see you next week. So, you can >> Oh, we got to continue. Yeah. Can I >> 22nd? >> The 28th. >> 28th. Wow. Okay.
>> Um Yeah. Can I get a motion to continue this out to April 28th? through the chair. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Or second. >> Can you just clarify in the motion that it's for both hearings for 12 North
Mill? >> I thought I just did, but we might have talked over each other. I'd like to make a motion to continue both hearings 1881845 and 1881839
to April 28th, 2026. Second. >> In favor, Ed. >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> And I am also an I.
>> And Walter is an I. >> Oh, sorry. Walter. >> Thank you, Walter. >> I keep losing one person every single time on my screen. I don't see. >> Thank Thanks very much. And we'll see you the next time. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Jersey. >> Judy, try to put me up first. All right,
please. >> I will. >> Thank you. Bye. Bye. >> Bye. All right. Um, I think being that it's 10:50, Ed, do you mind if we kick the Longwood
drainage? >> Please. >> Okay. >> Please, >> we'll do that. Um, >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. >> Based on Ed's reaction to that second.
>> Can you take two seconds to approve the minutes? >> Yes. >> Oh, yes. >> All right. Can I get a motion to approve the assuming no one has any comments? If so, speak. All right. Can I get a motion to approve
the minutes from November 4th, 2025? >> So moved. Can I get a second? >> This is Ed. I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted. Isn't I? >> Matt. >> I.
>> Jim. >> All right. >> Walter. >> I'll abstain since I wasn't there. >> Okay. And I am also in I. All right. So, um, yeah, I think I think that's I think that's it. I think the only thing we
would have said on the conservation minute is to remember to review the draft rags and hopefully we have a lighter agenda. >> Talk about them next time. >> Good night, everyone. >> We need a motion to adjurnn, don't we? >> Oh, I thought we had that.
>> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt? Hi >> Jim. >> Jim already adjourned. >> Jim adjourned. >> No, he's still here. >> Hi, >> Ted. >> That is an I.
>> Oh, Jim just gave us a thumbs up. >> All right. And I'm Ed. >> Yes, I'm an I, too. >> Okay, I'm an I. We're all set. Thank you all. Everyone get some rest. Good night, everyone. Bye. Done. Yeah.