Good evening, whoever's there. I see Lou. >> Hey, Jim. >> Hi, Judy. >> Hey, Jim. I'm here. I'm just scarfing down some dinner before uh >> Hi, Melissa. That's acceptable. You can
do that. >> Okay. Get two more minutes. >> I'm going to go scarf down. I'm going to go get a coffee to start that. >> Okay. All right, let's see. We I see Matt.
I heard Jim. >> Hear me? >> Yeah. Hi, Ed. I hear and see you. Okay, let's see. Oh, I see M.
I heard Zoom. >> You hear me? >> Yeah, I am. >> Is there a recording repeating here? >> Certainly sounded like it. That is
>> Oh, maybe it's H cam through someone's microphone like someone's speaker >> because I got to imagine there's a you know probably 10 second delay or something. >> Yeah, I've never experienced that one before. >> Hi everyone. This is Ham to the chair.
We are live and we are recording now. So feel free to start whenever you're ready. Great. Thank you. All right. So, we have four of us. Judy, um I know that Ted is not coming.
Were we expecting our other two? Walter, >> we do have Peggy. She just joined. Peggy. Oh, there you are. Hi, Peggy. Welcome. >> Have not heard from Walter.
>> Welcome, Peggy. This is Jim. Can you hear us, Peggy? >> Um, yeah, I can now. My audio is a little bit messed up, but I'm here now. >> Awesome. So glad to have you join us. >> Glad to be here.
There aren't many opportunities to join the concom so it must be a great place to be because nobody seems to leave. Yeah, we have a good group here. All right. Um
I'll call the meeting to order and read the script here and we can do an official introduction with Peggy. So this is the January 27th, 2026 open meeting of the con Hopington Conservation
Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extenduating certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body
and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended for this meeting. The Hopington Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom app as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join.
Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you
and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This meeting will feature
public comment. After commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda, the chair will open the discussion to public comment. Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address. Three minutes will be afforded for each public comment. Each
vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members. So I will now confirm which con commission members are present. Ed Harrow >> I'm here. >> Jim Cello. >> Matt M.
Margaret Shaw present. >> All right. And Ted Barker Hook is absent. Walter Garland, you here? Um, okay. Walter is not with us at the moment. I will now confirm staff that are
present. Judy Day, >> present. >> Anna Rogers, >> present. >> And Joe Orzelle, >> present. Great. All right. So, before we get started tonight, um just want to welcome Peggy
Shaw to the commission. Um Peggy, do you want to just introduce yourself and give a little background for the rest of the commission members? >> Sure. Um my name is Peggy Shaw. I have lived in
Hopkin for about 25 years. One of the things that um that brought us to Hopington, one of the things we really loved about Hopington and one of the things that brings me to this board is um Hopington seems to have a an appreciation for preserving green space.
Um we we appreciated all the trails and the conservation land in addition to the the state parks. Um professionally, I have a scientific, legal, and regulatory background. I've worked in environmental protection my entire career.
um more in the in in in the realm of um remediating hazardous waste sites. So, a little bit different than wetlands protection and open space management. Um but hopefully my my background will help me get up to speed fast on um on what you what you folks do here. Um I I I
admit I was a little overwhelmed. I looked at all the material before this meeting, but um hopefully I'll get up to speed quickly and uh I'm looking forward to working with all of you. >> Great. That's that's fantastic. love having some regul regulatory background um on the board and
um we definitely learn as we go here. So if you have questions feel free to ask. Um and there's also some resources I'm sure. Well, obviously Judy shared resources but there's some conferences coming up and some other things like
that that can help do conservation commission 101. Um that would be great. >> Thank you. Welcome. All right. So, to start off um our meeting, Judy, I know we have one continuation
from Is it still just one one that got Yeah. >> Yes. Just the one. >> Okay. So, for everybody on the call tonight, I just want to point out that the 15 Montana Road notice of intent continuation, um the applicant requested a
continuation to February 10th, so we will not be discussing that tonight. Um so, we'll start with work session items. First off, we have draft minutes for review from July 1st. Um, so I ask
commission members if anyone has any questions or comments on those minutes or didn't have a chance to review them, please speak now. All right, hearing none, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve those
minutes. >> I'll make that motion. >> All right, can I get second? All right, all in favor, Matt. Hi >> Jim. >> Hi >> Ed. >> Hang on here. I
>> um I am also an I and Peggy will let you abstain from that one. >> Correct. >> This is Ed. I'm going to be running in and out here periodically because I'm having an argument with our cook stove. So just bear with me when I disappear for a second. I'll be right back.
>> Okay. Okay, good luck, Ed. Um, next up we have the trails committee Windsor Apartments to Berry Acres Trail Exemption request. Um, we talked about this the last meeting and asked for some additional details on the plans and to
explain the project for the file. So, um, do we have someone on the call to go through this or did you want to cover it, Judy? I believe we have Sean Kimell on the call with the trails committee and Chuck Douchy as well. >> Oh, I see them. Welcome.
>> Thank you. Judy, did you want to walk it through or do you want me to talk it through? >> Yeah, either way. I can give an overview of where we left it at the last meeting. Um, so, uh, commission had already heard, um, the trail committee's request for an exemption from filing for a
permit to install, um, a new boardwalk over a stream crossing at the Berry Acres Trails. Uh, right now there's sort of a plank there. Um, they're also asking for an existing portion of trail that runs along the wetland to be
relocated upland to this pink location. Uh at the last discussion, the commission wanted additional notes added to this plan about what is currently being proposed versus what the uh trail committee uh future plans are. Um so this other boardwalk here that's over on
the Eversource property that's now labeled potential future. And this work here is what's being um requested under tonight's request. Uh, we've also got a narrative from Shawn going a little bit more into what those future and current plans are as
well as um what exactly the prep for the new trail would be, how wide it's going to be, etc. >> Hopefully that covered everything. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Okay. Um, no, I looked through it good. I think this is the level of detail we
were looking for unless anyone on the commission um has any additional questions or comments at this point in time. I'll open it up. No. Um anyone from the public have any questions or comments?
All right. Hearing none, can I get a motion to issue um I guess issue an exemption for this project? >> This is Z. I'll make that motion. >> Okay. >> All right. All in favor? Matt.
>> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ed. >> I. I am also an I. And um Peggy, we do have a quorum. So you don't need to vote on anything tonight
being your first meeting unless you would like to. So um I I I will I will I will abstain um since you don't need me. So and I'll just listen. >> Great. Thanks. >> All right. So um trails committee, you're all set. >> Excellent. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Good luck with the project. >> We'll do. All right, next up we have Legacy Farms Road project change request continuation. Um, so I think where we left off with
this one was for uh Joe, you were looking at the information that was provided to address your comments. Um, giving that a review. So I'll turn it to you, I think, and see how it looks.
>> All right. Thank you. um did have a chance to go through the uh most recent information submitted um and I think the vast majority of my comments were adequately addressed. I had a couple of uh items that I had had
noted. Um um regarding the uh table which was revised um I did note that the as built fill total totals uh were equal to or less than the approved field totals uh at each interval
um which um I don't know if that was pointed out uh previously but that that is as it should be. Um um we had commented that uh the commission may want a qualified engineer to review the calculations.
Um the applicant responded that doesn't believe additional review is warranted. Uh that's for the conservation commission to discuss if they feel any additional review is required. Uh the applicant provided information on um why there was a difference between
the uh required uh compensatory flood storage uh under the bylaw and uh under the um WPA and I think the commission um or the uh response addresses that. I
think the commission um uh should discuss if they had any more questions on that regarding the core of engineers permit um that was discussed at the last meeting which initially had additional uh fill and that bill was uh removed but
the compensatory flood storage was apparently not uh updated accordingly. Um we had uh uh recommended that um the uh report for the um
uh monitoring report for the inspections um were required uh to be conducted twice a year. Uh and it wasn't apparent that that had been done. Uh and we continue to recommend that the uh report be updated to include the dates that
site visits were conducted. Um also uh requiring or recommending that the report include photos of the habitat features um that were monitored at the time of those inspections.
Uh there was a a slight change in the habitat evaluation or the habitat um mitigation as far as uh installation of three nest boxes rather than some snags. I think it's a
relatively minor item, but the commission may want to discuss that further. the stem count of the um willows uh that were um planted along the stream uh was quite a bit lower than uh what was
recommended. About 87% of the uh stems were not located. I know there was a good uh density uh of uh shrubs along the stream when we did the uh the quick site inspection. Um I don't know if the
commission u would like the applicant to provide some any further information on um the uh observed mortality. I think there was probably drought related and they were um live stakes which don't typically survive quite as quite as
often and they're also hard to to count and find afterwards. But just more or less pointing out that there were 87% of the number uh proposed were not located during the inspections. Um
>> uh I think the final item was that uh on the M2 downgradient uh BVW determination form um there was u an apparent uh error on the forms. Um and uh
we recommend that uh the corrected forms uh be submitted for the record. But I think overall with respect to the uh compensatory flood storage um I I don't have any real um major outstanding items and just a few of
those minor items with respect to updating the uh monitoring report for the um habitat features uh and the inspection dates. >> Okay,
thank you Joe. Um, Mark Arnold, I think I see you on the call. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Um, I guess I'll jump first to
the comment on updating the forms, kind of the clerical things, the monitoring report, adding >> those dates and photos. Is that >> Yeah. So, all the clerical questions on the report, dates, information, we can definitely include everything we have. We may not have photos of everything,
but we'll we'll definitely add in whatever Joe's asked for in terms of additional data there. Um, so all those all those comments will be addressed as just part of an amended monitoring report just to clarify that. And then in in in 2026, we'll make sure that we're covering all these things very closely
um with a little more detail going forward. This was clearly kind of the first big kind of report coming through. Um it's a lot of information, a lot of detail. Um and thank you for Joe for sorting that out. So that's that. Um, in terms of that, so the the the live staking thing, it's a, as Joe pointed
out, it's hard to locate them. The area is very robust. We we we proposed the live stakes there just because we knew that was really the only viable kind of stream area that we had in the mitigation areas that could use live stakes versus elsewhere. And so we moved them from other mitigation areas here.
Um, high mortality is expected usually. That's why you put so many in. I mean, you don't put 300 shrubs along a bank, but you put 300 lives because you're expecting extremely high mortality. Um, but at that density, you still get a lot to take. So, even if we had 600 liv 620
live sticks go in, um, we we couldn't find 87 87%. I mean, 87, they were dead. So, most likely there was we could have found more, but we didn't count the dead ones. We just counted the live ones. Um, so high mortality, but as Joe also noted, the area is pretty dense already.
So, we don't think that going back and trying to hammer in more livakes would really kind of add additional to that bank stability and and its functions. So, we we do think the applicant has put a lot of effort into the expense of the the purchase of that material and also the installation, which was quite a bit
of cost there. and and we think um we've done our best to kind of support that area as well as you know um nature doing that for us as well previously. >> Okay. Um, I think that I I I follow that logic and
I think um similar to other projects that have been established for a few years and have good density, I think that's meeting the intent of what we were looking for um with reestablishing. So, I I think I'm comfortable
um with leaving that as it is and not planting any more um stems. Um um I'm also comfortable with the numbers uh as they're shown and personally don't think we need an
additional engineer review um or review of the the core permit or or fledge storage. But I'll open it up to others on the commission to see how we're feeling about this if anybody has
any concerns. I concur, Melissa. I don't think additional review is needed. >> Okay. Um, Judy, let me ask you in regards to the clerical edits,
um, how do you feel about those being made in the amended 2026 report as opposed to revising and resubmitting before we approve or conditionally approve the
change? No, I think either way works. Um >> Okay. >> Yeah, the report was kind of submitted separately from our flip plane thing. It's kind of two items, but again, if you wanted that report amended in the next week, we could definitely get it
over to you. Um so, it's it's on my list to get done by the end of the week. So, either way, you'll have it very shortly um with all that data. >> Okay, I think that works for me. Um, that being said, can I get a motion to
approve the project change request as presented? >> I'll move. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Matt? >> I. >> Jim, >> I. >> Ed,
>> I myself I and uh Peggy will have you abstain. Um, all right. Thank you for providing the additional details so we could be comfortable with this one. >> Absolutely. My my pleasure. And we'll
we'll keep in touch closely with Judy um as we come to the spring um and the work proceeds. We'll make sure we're documenting carefully. We may do some pre-construction visits with Judy to make sure she's happy with the layout and everything. So, we'll be in close coordination to make sure that she's happy with anything. And if anything comes up, I'm sure she'll let you know.
Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay, I'm going to jump up to the new hearings now. So, we're at about 7:20. Um, and I need to read this one. So, here we go. The Hopington Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 27th, 2026 at 7 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by the town of Hawkington for roadway improvements on the loop road with
associated site work. Location portion of 90 Hayden Row, portion of 104 Hayden Row. Um, okay. So, this loop road improvements, I know we
had kind of an informal discussion previously, but I will open it up to whoever is here representing um representing the town to kind of give us an update if there were any changes and
bring us up to speed on the current request or application. Hi. Yes. Uh through the chair, Claire Hogabone, wetland scientist with LEC Environmental Consultants. Uh we submitted the RDA on behalf of the applicant. Um you're correct since uh we
we did informally discuss this project at the November 25th conservation commission meeting. And uh really there hasn't been a material change in the proposed project. It's essentially um maintenance uh including a combination
of mill and overlay that you see in the light gray on this plan sheet um and also full depth asphalt replacement uh which is shown in dark gray. Um portions of the work actually a majority of the work um overlaps with resource areas
including riverfront area and a series of buffer zones. We have the 100 ft buffer zone. Uh municipal buff buffer zones include the 25- ft no disturbance, the 35- ft no build. Um and a small portion of the 120 foot 25 ft no disturb
to a potential vernal pool in this portion of the site. um as well. The only change that we really did since the November meeting was a member of the public expressed some interest in a um creating a little opening at the
multi-use path in the northwestern portion of the loop road. So, uh proposed conditions there will include a sloped BM to allow for bicycle access to the multi-use trail. Um,
I think other than that, no changes um to the rest of the project. We received uh Joe's report from Lucas Environmental on Friday and reviewed that and I don't think we have any major concerns with the comments. Um,
you know, we're requesting a negative determination for the exempt project. I understand Joe um agreed with that under the wetlands protection act and he has a comment for the bylaw. So, I'm just happy to pass it back off to the commission and we we can discuss that as
Joe reviews his report. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I'll turn it over to Joe then. >> All right. I did get out and take a look at the site and uh did walk the wetland line, particularly where it was close to
any proposed work. Took a look at that and was in general agreement with with the delineation. Uh there were two locations where I just wanted to mention um one is uh from flags E11 to E13.
um between E11 and E12 and E12 and E13. It looks like the wetland actually bumps up um maybe 2 feet from uh a line between those flags, which is pretty minor, I realize, but it's the point
where work is very close where the road is very close to the the wetland line. So I just uh recommend that the applicant verify that um the limit of work in that area will not be within two feet of the delineated boundary. It looks like on the site plans it's at
least four feet. So I would also recommend you know caution in installing any uh erosion control barrier in that location. Um the other location was flags M1 and uh from M1 and M2. Uh
there's it looked to me that the wetland actually continues north more or less parallel to loop road which doesn't uh impact the project in any way other than extending the buffer zone um further along uh the road. So the buffer zone
numbers might not be quite right. Uh with respect to the um uh uh exempt activity under the protection act uh I I do believe that uh it meets that exemption. However, one of the
requirements of that exemption is that no work on the drainage system is performed. And I don't think any work on the drainage system is performed. But there is a reference on uh page six of the project narrative references made to catch basin improvements and uh just
recommend that the applicant describe what the catch basin uh improvements are proposed to be. Uh with respect to the bylaw exemption, it applies uh also but on any pre-existing lot of record as of at the time of the uh bylaw uh would
recommend that the applicant just provide information that the lot was uh pre-existing at the time of the bylaw um to meet that uh exemption. There were some uh some issues with the
uh uh BBW determination forms. um some some errors which actually resulted in or could result in uh changes in the conclusions as far as one or upland. However, uh that said uh I don't have
any issues with the delineation uh other than what I had mentioned. Uh on the site plan um on sheet C uh 1.2 two, there's a parking area labeled add alternate.
Um, and it wasn't apparent. Yeah, that was it right there. Wasn't apparent on the um plan notes or legend what is proposed at that location. It's a different shade than the um full pavement removal or the milling. Um so I
wasn't sure what was proposed there and the um if any um disturbance is proposed there. The buffer zone line should probably extend to uh show the full extent of the buffer zone, but they're not going to uh result in any impact to
a wetland. It's just a buffer zone um location issue. Um the last thing I would recommend is that uh any plans that are approved um be dated. um uh just as a a matter of
record. Um I think that covers my uh comments. >> Okay. Thank you, Joe. Um Claire, do you want to to respond to the any of those at this point in time?
>> Uh sure. Yes. I was just taking some notes on a few that I wanted to talk through. Um just one with the catch basin improvements. I believe um we talked about it a bit in November. We don't necessarily need to structurally
improve any of the storm water management infrastructure. It's just cleaning out any sediment or debris that's accumulated in the catch basins that will be a part of the contractor's scope while they're in the work area. So, it would just be limited to that. Um
the time frame for the bylaw exemption, I was looking into that further um because 104 Hayden Row um and 90 Hayden Row were acquired by the town in 1996
um for the purpose of building the school complex. And uh I was looking back into the registry of deeds because I believe I went through this exercise for um Hopkins Elementary when we were working on that project a few years ago.
And sure enough, there are plans on the registry of deeds for both of those parcels. 104, the largest one, is dated uh January 11th, 1996 with the parcel in its current configuration. and 90 Hayden
Row is September 25th, 1996. So any plans prior to that I haven't really been able to dig up quite yet. Um, but it appears at least with 104 Hayden Row, my presumption is that either the lot was in its current configuration at the
time of the bylaw being adopted in May on May 2nd, 1995. um it was either in it its current form or it was a couple of parcels that were you know consolidated into one for the purpose of transferring the land to the
school. So I don't know if that in itself could be enough of an explanation that I could provide all the plans and the deeds to the commission for your records or if you'd want me to look further into that to meet the bylaw exemption. >> Okay.
Um, yeah. I my gut feeling is that we should go ahead and do the homework on that. Um, does anyone else have thoughts? No. Okay.
just to make sure we're we're following procedure there. >> Mhm. Okay. Um, as far as this add alternate on the screen, do you want to describe what's
going on there? >> Uh, yeah. I might ask Steve Powers with Sami Odis to chime in on this one since he prepared the plans for this. >> Sure. Thanks, Claire. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes.
>> Um through the chair to the commission. Um Joe, thank you for the comments. Um as far as the add alternate goes, we've set that aside. That was not part of the basic scope that we were looking at. We were just looking at millan overlay or full depth replacement of the entire
loop road. We were trying to leave the parking lots out of it. Um we wanted to include this area as it is right across from some of the ball fields as an ad alternate. So if there is some budget left um we would be looking at it either
as a full depth replacement or a mill and overlay. We have not um fully um made a determination one way or the other whether we're going to do it. Um if if there is an issue
with the uh we understand the buffer zones and the you know wetlands flagging does not extend all the way um through to to to get a full idea you know especially on the on the southern side of of the parking lot there.
um then we we can certainly remove it. Um but the the intent was just a mill overlay um or full depth replacement. Um we did go move forward and and in install or propose to install the uh compost filter
socks along with the silt fence in case we do decide to do anything. That's pretty short money and they're going to be installing it for the entirety of the loop road anyways. Um and then from there we'd be restriping it. exactly how it is um now. So that that is the intent
of the Ed Olson and we just didn't know if we had the funds to be able to move forward with it. Um and we can we can certainly if the commission allows it we can certainly just elaborate on that more. I agree it's a little the note is a little vague in our heads we knew what we were doing
but we are conveying this to the commission as well. >> Okay. Um yeah, I think if you can just describe that at alternate as you know either whether it's because you're already doing both of those things on the road just that it's going to be one
or the other full depth or overlay with and it's within the existing footprint I think is the important thing there. Yeah, >> there'd be no expansion. Correct. Um,
okay. And Joe had noted about the catch basin. Joe, you said there was a note on the plan about catch basin improvements. And I know Claire described it's it's just cleaning, but maybe we can if we're revising the plans anyway, maybe we can
tweak that note. Please. >> So unmute. I'm not I'm not sure. I thought we covered it in the plans, but we can certainly go back and double check. It might have been something in the narrative. >> Okay. >> Where instead of catch basin improvements, it was, you know, catch
basin cleaning or, you know, the conveyance system. >> Yeah. It was noted I think on page six noted as catchbas improvements. >> Okay. >> Was a little vague, I thought, as far as >> you're 100% correct. Um, but I do believe it's covered in the plan view.
We'll make sure we add additional >> Okay. Um, and while you're making that plan edit, will you also be able to address the um flag Joe was referencing that's
within a couple feet of the road? >> We can absolutely uh do that. I wasn't sure exactly where it was. Um, Claire, did you did you take a note on which flags those were because we can go just go over it tomorrow and we can make that >> Yes. Uh, so there's the M series there
and uh Joe, you said that it essentially continued parallel with the road in your opinion? >> Yeah, from from somewhere in the area of M1 M2, the north end there, it it runs more or less parallel uh north to the road.
>> Okay. Um, considering the significant amount of snow cover we have, um, >> I think it would be difficult for us to identify a more accurate depiction of this M series and I think the E series as well. Joe had three flags over there.
Is there a note that the commission would prefer we include or maybe just an approximate dashed line to depict it on the plan? >> Yeah, I think a note is is fine to capture that. Um Joe, you were just looking to verify that the work's not
within 2 feet. >> That's in the other. Yeah. And in the M series, there's work is nowhere close to that. And the line is just a buffer zone would extend to the north. The the area where it's close is the E flags E1, 12, and 13. Uh where the uh wetland is right
next to the edge of the road essentially. >> Okay. So maybe for this we can just say that we're not um approving possibly if sorry through the chair if there was a way that a note to state
that uh no work would be done within um two feet of that um delineated line I think I think as as it's proposed it looks like the work limited work is about four feet from the line okay so
Okay. Um, does anyone on the commission have any other questions, comments? Anyone from the public? Okay. I don't see any. So, I think if you're okay with um continuing to make those few changes,
then um February 10th is our next meeting. We could probably get this wrapped up. >> Yeah, that sounds great. We'll request a continuence to the following meeting. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this out to February 10th?
>> Moved. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt? Hi >> Jim. >> Hi >> Ed. >> Hi. >> Um and I am also an I.
>> Great. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Next up we have 37 Oakurst Road. Notice of intent continuation for after the fact lakefront work. Um, it's been a little while since we've
talked about 37 Oakst. So, Judy, can you uh kind of bring us up to speed on this on this application? >> Uh, sure. So, the last time this
application was discussed was October 7th of last year. Um, and then just to bring Peggy up to speed, um, this was a situation where there was unpermitted work um, at a lakefront property at Lake Maspan. Um, so the homeowner was asked
to file for a permit to document the unpermitted work as well as get approval for any additional work that um, the homeowner wanted to do. Um at the time of the October meeting, there were outstanding comments from both Joe and
DP that the commission wanted um responses to. Um commission also wanted a breakdown of existing imperous surface as well as current and proposed impervious um to get a sense for what is being done
um and what is being approved after the fact. Uh, and folks wanted the D and Lucas environmental comments addressed prior to making any decisions on allowing the homeowner to finish the um, work that is currently under construction.
Um, I think it took a little while to get certain measurements because of the water levels in the lake. So, um, I think that's why things took a little while to get together, but we have Dave Marquon as well as the homeowner on the line to kind of go over what the, um, most recently submitted materials
include. Thanks, Judy. Um, Dave, >> good evening. Hi. >> Hello. >> Oh, which Dave? Mr. Markon or myself? We're both Davees. >> Which Whoever wants to uh
>> I'm gonna give it to Dave. >> Yeah, I'll go first. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um after uh Judy's in fact right after our uh last meeting uh we had to go back to the site to clarify a few things uh
to get some elevations uh that the state was requiring. Uh so kind of in in in short what we did on sheet number one which is the sheet that uh uh that is sheet number two but the
previous sheet there we go. Um we had uh identified what we thought were uh uh the features uh the porches, the decks with numbers. Uh we had uh labeled the retaining walls uh existing
uh uh existing buildings uh were hatched. Uh we uh the board uh sent us away requesting so those impervious calculations. Uh we had done uh uh kind of three calculations uh impervious for
the lot for year 19 existing prior 2019 to 25 and 25. We did impervious uh calculations for the 50y year inside the 50 foot buffer. And then uh Judy reminded me yesterday that uh the board
was looking for figures from 0 to 25. Uh we had provided those uh uh this morning. So in gathering our in uh retaining wall information and floor elevations of the
pond uh lake Maspan uh we verified uh one of the retaining walls which uh uh we call it retaining wall number 1A which is on the right rear corner of the property. Uh we had previously indicated
uh that that was uh that wall had got moved into the lake uh after serious conversations with David Holmes regarding uh trying to verify
and and clarify the uh location of wall number one in the existing dock. Uh we went out and relocated uh retaining wall number 1A which is existing today. Uh
David Holmes uh very strongly uh uh knows for a fact that he did not uh change that wall. Uh he only refaced that wall. Uh we did verify the location and that's plotted correctly as shown on
all three sheets uh labeled as uh wall 1A. um the same uh the uh on the existing dock uh that you see on that drawing uh at the top of that drawing. Uh the in
2019 uh it was unsafe for us to even think about locating that uh uh that dock that dock. Uh it was tipped significantly. Uh so we had located the dock that's there
currently and David uh definitely uh has made it clear that uh that dock is the same as it was in 19. So we did uh we did our calculations uh for the different assignments on the different numbers uh on values for for
the lot. Uh in in a quick comparison from year uh 2019 to uh 2025 uh for the lot itself there's a reduction of 8 uh9 square ft. values
inside the 50ft buffer. Uh there's a reduction of 667 square ft and the values today that were generated for the buffer uh out to 25 uh is a reduction of 155 square ft. Um we also went back
through our notes on the uh building extent of number five and stand by that uh location. uh our notes as you can see on that drawing uh building number five uh snugs
up to uh upper deck number four. Uh the the value of building number five is what's specified on the drawing at 491 square ft. Uh and then deck number four is its own. Um so uh moving forward to
uh the proposed condition I guess is there any any questions regarding uh the extents of the 2019 uh uh plan to date. Can we We're trying
to establish to make sure that we have the correct baseline in our comparisons from year 19 and and 20. Does the board have any concerns as to uh what's currently shown on on this drawing? >> I don't think I do. I appreciate you
going through and identifying all these values because it it's very helpful for me to see this Um, does anyone else Does anyone have any questions? I don't want to speak for everyone. It's a lot of detail to look
at. >> Okay, I think we're okay at this point, Dave. So, you can keep going. >> Perfect. Okay. Um so uh previously the flood zone had been uh had been added. Uh it's it's a converted flood zone. Uh
the limits have been shown and the associated buffer has been shown. Um after we left last time uh we had a smaller uh we are proposing two planting areas. Plant number one on the lefth
hand side of 62 square ft. uh plant number two. Uh in talking with David, uh he David has decided to remove uh an additional 188 square feet of patio uh on the north side of the existing
shed. That's that hatched area there uh between the shed and Lake Maspan. So, we're removing 188 square ft. Uh we're replacing uh a small strip on the north side of the shed with a crush stone
apron of 2 feet by 14 feet. Uh so the total planting area has been increased by 91 square ft to a total of 245 square ft. Uh same type native plants uh are being proposed uh as the
remainder of the two beds. So we're sort of in compliance with the native species. Um, David Holmes, uh, adjacent to the western edge of planting bed number two,
uh, we have an existing patio, uh, no, a proposed patio. Uh, it's existing now. Uh, David through the enforcement order was not able to finish and square off the patio. He's
proposing to finish off the patio uh which is another 14 or so square feet. Um the uh so I guess uh one of the questions that uh the
state had uh requested was verification of some of the heights on the retaining walls. Uh in 19 uh and in 25. Uh so in both cases we are either at
exact flood flood zone converted is elevation 352.9. So our highest wall is at 352.9. The remainder of the property is underneath the flood. So there's ample
uh spots where flood waters would be able to go over the wall and seek its course of action. Um so uh a couple of other comments that I just
wanted to mention. Uh I think there was a question about uh doc number nine uh on on uh sheet number one. Uh both docks,
we had three docks originally back in 19. Uh the dock that's straight at the top of the page, we had a dock uh that is parallel to that retaining wall number 1A. Thank you. And then we had another dock
number nine uh number eight that uh uh extends kind of a up and down north south uh direction. Uh no elevations were ever obtained on on that particular dock and that the eastern side of dock
number nine was sort of a ramp. Uh I think there was a comment that maybe one of those docks uh was underwater. Uh it quite it could be. I never received I never got an elevation on it. So I I could never do a comparison of it.
Regardless of that, um we've removed those dock number eight and dock number nine. Um so therefore we're sort of reduced the qu the state had a question about shading of the water. So we've done a reduction we have a reduction in
the shading of 52%. Um so I know that um we we do fully intend uh all said and done to file with uh chapter 91 uh and as part of that
process we do have to give uh copy to uh the immediia butters uh m municipalities and certainly conservation is on that on that list. So certainly we'll provide that data when we have it. Um, and then I think uh uh Joe had had some some
comments. Uh Scottheim is also on the line. Uh he and I are going to uh work together again on providing some some detail uh on what Joe is uh up looking for some updated information on the the
bank requirement uh land underwater and the uh sub land subject to flooding. So, we'll we'll provide those in the very near future. Uh, all the same information uh has gone to the state uh and we've CCed uh Judy and Anna as well
as as part of the process. Um, I think that's kind of where we're at. >> Okay. All right. Um, Joe, do you have anything
to add to what Dave said? Any any comments that he didn't mention that you want to bring up that weren't addressed? >> No, I think he uh covered it pretty well. Um I did have a couple of comments as he noted on um clarification of the
length of bank on the property and the location of bank location of land underwater. Um the couple of minor items um there was an area that we had initially uh noted there was some minor erosion.
Um, and they've replied that uh it's appear stabilized, which is probably the case, but I just point out that I can't confirm that. Um, see,
with respect to the plantings, I think the density and the species are uh appropriate. Um and with respect to the uh comments from DP uh some of which uh mirrored some of our
comments um as was stated uh it looks like any flood waters could um reach um would not be uh prevented from reaching u the flood elevation. by the walls as there as you know in the beach area the water would
seek its elevation at that point and and um get around the the walls if if necessary. Um and the chapter 91 uh issue was addressed and let's see
yeah I think uh that pretty much uh covers my my comments. I think uh those were all touched on by Dave. >> Okay, great. Um Judy, do you have anything to add?
>> Uh nope. >> Okay. Um I do appreciate the impervious area calculations. To me, um it's important to see that the
proposed condition is reducing the impervious area in the especially in the 25. Um you know, we're encouraging that in the lakefront on all properties um to try and to try and reduce
impervious area and put in planting. So, um I think that's definitely some positive mitigation um for work for work being done here. So, thank you for that.
Um let's see. I would say that so this is a notice of intent. Um, so whatever we approve here
are things that the applicant could do or not do after a notice of intent is approved versus um an enforcement order where, you know, we're requiring something to be done. Um
so I think it would be worth just discussing for a minute with the commission um what exactly you know we're considering under the notice of intent and then what might need to fall under an enforcement order if we think that's um the path and
enforcement order you know having to be done because of the impervious surfaces that were worked on here under the proposed condition. Um, so I know Judy, if you can bring up the plan that has the proposed work on it, or there's the
red line that shows both, which is a little hard to read, but um, is maybe helpful. Um, so in this case, Judy, procedurally, um, would we approve all of the work
under the notice of intent and potentially issue an enforcement order for anything that we require to be done in order to finish the project? >> Yeah. through the chair. Um, I would
recommend including in the if the commission chooses to issue an order of conditions, including uh structures you're allowing to remain um as well as any new work that the homeowner wants to do. So, squaring off that patio is really the um the request. And then I
would suggest um all of the plantings and the patio reduction be done under an enforcement order. um the order of conditions gives someone permission to do something whereas an enforcement order requires um them to perform a certain action. So that is my
suggestion. >> Okay. Um and I guess to be clear, I don't know, we still have the few outstanding comments that need to be addressed. Um, and I think we need to do that before we can actually take a vote on the notice
of intent. >> Um, but I'll just open up to the commission if anyone has questions or comments on what's being proposed here and what we like or don't like, if we're happy with um what's being shown on this
plan, so that, you know, the next time this comes in front of us, we can have everything addressed. Um, I'd like to get anything out on the table at this point. >> Sure. >> Um, so just ask commission members if the mitigation that's shown here with
the plantings and the extent of the patio and improvements looks acceptable. >> Is it a chair? >> Yes. Can I get a little more clarity on the the changes that were made from the
pre-existing beach area to what exists out there today? It looks substantially wider than what was on the property in 2019. >> Uh yeah, D e either Dave want to take
that question. Um, I I I honestly don't know the extent of the beach uh uh left uh or right of the two retaining walls
shown there in black near the beach area. Uh I honestly don't remember there was not to get into the trash thing but I don't know the limits uh of the beach exactly
in 19 uh I would have to refer that to David Holmes if if David uh recollects where that was in relation to that vertical wall that goes uh we call
3A up and down on the page. Do you have any feedback, David? >> Um, at the time, like, uh, when I when I hired Mark on to do the plan in 2019, it was more to decide
whether I was going to, uh, build a new home or work with the existing. And um so his focus was not really the water, but I did offer the 2019 plan for
you guys so you could I reference that um at in these discussions um and you know David maybe be able to confirm these numbers. Actually, these came from um you that we did remove uh 2,165
square ft of impervious structures from the property. Uh to go back in history, the previous owner uh treated it like it was a super fun state uh site. You know, I removed oil tanks, propane tanks, gasoline tanks,
car engines. He buried his trash. He so on and so forth. The left side also caved in and and nothing but trash was on that left side. So to say exactly where it was
um is really hard for me to even recall and for David as well. Um everything else as you see from the patios, things like that were all pre-existing. Um, I was working closely with the
building department and back then even talking with the conservation up on the third floor office about the site. So, everything I've done was under the watchful eye of
the town. Um, so to answer Matt, I'm sorry. Um, I do not recall exactly the line, but I also want to let you know that it was not egregiously,
you know, expanded for my own personal use. So, even the new P um that was not a new P. Well, it's patio stone, but on the right side where we're doing all those plantings, that was a shed that went right down to
the water. And there was an old uh ramp in there that I removed during this time when the retaining wall started caving in. And there's some confusion on this 14 square ft area. There was a patio there. It caved in when the retaining
wall, that section caved in. And so I treat it like a repair and I call the landscapers and instead of going to you guys first, which I do apologize, but the end result of this, I did remove 2,100
square ft of impervious space. I did not encroach. I did not add. I did not build new walls. Did not build bars, you know, nothing. So everything you see is I've took away and cleared. I removed 30 dumpsters
of trash from this property. He buried everything 2 ft above the sill line in this house. He was a very sick individual. So if you talk with Mike Shepard or Chuck, they will also tell you the same
thing. So I worked very closely with you guys throughout this whole process and my neighbors. And so I'm very happy to do these plantings and everything else you're requesting for of me, but to say to know
exactly draw a line of sand and say where it is that I don't recall. Nor nor does David because our focus at that time in 19 was more to see if I to determine a building envelope for the property.
>> Understood. So ju just if I I hear what you're saying. If I understand this playing correctly, there's a note in the top right hand corner that says the items in black are the locations from 2019 and 2020. Walls 3A and 4A, those were there in
2019 or 2020. Correct. >> I know that the wall on the right side because I encapsulated that because that was falling in. So that's a newer wall 2020. The
um the wall to the right that caved in was existing and there's a do old dock there. Um the wall to the left was caved in and
we removed the trash. I mean, that's all I I can recollect, honestly. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just I mean, Melissa, what the way I'm viewing the plan, and I don't know if you see it the same way, but it looks like we have a new wall in red that's call it 10 to 15 feet to plan
West than the existing wall. >> Yeah. >> And looking at the aerials, that area used to be or appeared to be some type of vegetated area. So the gist of where I'm what I'm getting at here is looking at 2019 2020 I understand there's a
bunch of impervious that's been removed but it also appears a bunch of vegetated areas along the lake lakefront have also been removed and either replaced with beach or patio. So I know Ted's not here. I'm sort of speaking in his absence on this front.
uh knowing his sense and his input on other projects, I I think this project is probably lacking in terms of plantings both location and count particularly given the the la the loss
of those vegetated buffers between the developed area and the lakefront. Mhm. >> Um, you mean the back in prior 2019, was that a vegetative area?
>> It appears to have been looking at old are aerials. I can't say with any certainty other than >> I pulled old carpets out of Oh, refer to the pictures I sent Judy um in beginning of October and September. You'll notice
um countless pictures of trash removed from that side alone. No, there was no, it was trash. Yeah, I think I think this is um that part of the story isn't depicted on the plan
um because it can't be. It does portray a situation that I agree with you, Matt. Looks like the beach was expanded and that previous mulch planter was cut in half
almost. Um, you know, losing some of that filtering action that we're looking for, buffering against the lake. Um, I do appreciate the removal of trash and and cleanup um of the property for sure, but
I think also right now the commission is looking at the long-term effects of storm water runoff on the lake and going forward um and trying to make sure that we're taking measures to have longterm
lasting um practices in to kind of help the water quality. Um as opposed to, you know, the onetime removal of trash is fantastic, but um
we're looking at it big picture as well into the future and and trying to make improvements on these type of properties where we can. No, I I do understand that and that's why I do um even though that's not on my property, but the previous the my butter would agree it
would allow me to do that. Put a a planting bed there on that wall. even um the fact I did remove 2,100 square ft of imperous areas
has significantly impacted the quality of the lake. So, um, you just need to talk to my neighbors, too, because even the water all around us is much
nicer now. So, um, I'm happy to do the plantings to the um the right behind the shed, even though there was a um a shed that went all the way to the water there um that
was removed. So, um I'm happy to add, you know, the buffer along the walls. Um and anything else. Um but yeah, I just, you know, I'm
I'm getting at a loss as far as what else I can do with you guys. I've been more than willing to work with you every step of the way. And here we are like 6 months later. Over 6 months a going on almost a year now. >> Yep. >> And um I would like to
think about spring is around the road. I would like to try to order these plants as soon as possible cuz uh Mr. Mark would said that the he checked for me and he found a place that has these shrubs.
So I'd like to get an order on those. and I would like to repair the uh damage that was done from the uh old wall that caved in. >> So, I don't know. I'd like to work move forward with you guys as much as
possible. >> Agreed. We'd like to move forward, too. Um the total for the plantings, that's about 307 square ft. Those two areas added together. Looks like
>> 307. Yep. >> 307. >> So, we have a reduction of you're saying 2,000 square feet of impervious area across the property. >> 2,1 the chair. >> Yes.
>> Not to interrupt the your flow, but I'm looking at the plans right now. I'm just I'm I'm really having a hard time understanding where this 2100 number is coming from because I see an impervious values 2019 2020 of 7379
and an impervious values 2025 of 6570 >> that's that's not 2100 square ft that's 809 square feet. So, I apologize if I missed something, but or those are the numbers I'm seeing on the plan here.
>> Um, the old dock to left side was 900 ft². The upper dock, right side, was 144 ft. The shed to the water was 600 ft. The greenhouse was 64 ft. the the recent
removal of the dock and ramp was 275 square ft. In my own calculations, I came up with 19,8 uh 83 square ft. Um and so when the last
time we met, uh the marons calculated out to be 2,165. D Mark Melissa. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Yes. Uh um I have a question. Um over by uh
Judy on page number two uh over by planting area number one. uh if if David and David Holmes and myself went back and thought about that particular area uh how would how would the with David
Holmes's approval I'm just sort of scheming at this point that that existing uh washstone area uh kind of to the northeast of uh planting area number one I if if the if we were able to divide
advise a and expand on planting area number one. That new additional planting area would have to be slightly higher than existing grade.
How would the board feel and how do you think the state would feel if we created or enlarged area number planting area number one but at a different elevation and then contain that planting area with
the small little rock retainer wall to provide uh more mitigation. How would the board in the state receive their proposal to have a raised
uh planting bed that wasn't there prior? Would the board be in favor of something like that >> if David Holmes approved it? >> I would be okay with that. I think, you know, using the same logic as before, the water can get up and
around that planting bed through the beach. So, >> yeah, >> I feel like that would be acceptable. Um, does it have to be does it definitely have to be a raised planting bed, you think, or can you just vegetate like
take that stone out and >> Yeah, that that that's that's pretty low right there. Um, uh, I don't know if we could go deeper. We'd have to go up, uh, you know, and that that corner of
that retainer wall that's sitting right there at where the retainer wall uh, meets the washed stone area on the northwest corner of that stone area. If we sort of took off from there and not go right to the water's edge, but use
use the limits, maybe not go as high as the stone limits, but a little bit away from the water, but try to convert that into the bed. >> Mhm. >> I don't think we can put it at the same elevation >> through the chair. >> Yes. Joe,
>> I was wondering uh possible thought about uh maybe some kind of a planting like a button bush or something like that which can survive being inundated um and that would survive the draw down also could potentially go in there.
>> I don't know that type of that type of plant. We can we could look at that. Uh but I still think it needs to be raised a little bit. I don't know if this how much it needs for a root structure, but I think we have to go a little bit higher. And what I mean by higher is it could be as little as, you know, six or
seven inches, something minimal. >> They they can survive a couple feet of flooding um for prolonged periods. Um >> I think it's definitely worth looking into. >> Okay. Dave and seeing if there's places
where can explan expand um those plantings a little bit kind of with the mindset that we're looking to you know offset that imper you know impervious area with planting
>> beds as opposed to lawn and you know things like this and >> filled up that filter strip and like Matt said is as far as the plans depends on paper look. Um it, you know, looks like the beach area
was expanded. So that's kind of a, you know, expansion of re into the resource area use. Um that would be appreciated and I think would go a long way. >> That area was always kind of a trouble
area originally. >> Mhm. So, um, you know, I was able to control all the water and dry wells and, um, erosion control and everything else. So, back in the day, I had all the
I put rocks there and everything else. Um, so yeah, to have it raised going from that one section that proposed area one and even loop that around to the like the corner where that little plus
sign is. I I honestly don't really have a problem with that cuz I think it would honestly uh be better if there if we ever had that 100year rainstorm or something and it it ever did create a problem again. I
mean, I've basically have done everything possible to get the water away from the house and the sides and everything else. So, in the last four years, I've never had a problem
in that area. So, but I do think that can't hurt, you know, to have something I'm I'm not opposed to that would that'd be fine with me, too. >> Okay. Yeah. I think one of the one of the conditions that I would think about including with the notice tent is you
know that the beach not be uh expanded obviously not be renourished not be you know bring more sand in or anything like that. Um we don't want those type of activities
going on. So that being said the sand that's there is there. So any plantings that you can do, you know, to keep that stable and slow down that water that's going to be running over the sand is going to is going to help you out too.
And just keeping that area stable. So I think >> sure >> protecting it with plantings, bushes, as opposed to just um lawn has a few different co- benefits. >> Okay. Is the is the house on have roof
leaders? Does it splash to the ground surface right now? >> No. Um both Mike and Chuck recommend we do um dry wells. So the all the gutters go to offsite like you know >> underground. >> Underground. Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay. Yeah. No, that's great. It's good. >> Yeah. >> Is that noted on the plan D Mark on? >> Uh no. I I'm not aware of where that would be. So, uh
>> I think it it might be worth just just putting that on the plan, too. So, I think that's helpful information cuz um you know knowing that the roof runoff is going into the ground, >> okay, >> for the homeowner to know where those
infiltration basin or infiltration units are for, >> you know, maintenance and making sure that that's um stays in place going into the future. I think that's definitely a uh a you know mitigation and and
benefit to the property. >> Okay. Yeah. I honestly don't know the location of those drywalls. They were never marked. So, um I know that's where they go, but um the previous landscaper that did them, I also had to fire them
and never got around to locating those things. So, um I know they're there. I know they're working, but I don't know where they are. I mean, I know they're off to the sides. Like, I know there's one somewhere down where it says existing concrete pad. I know there's
another one, you know, to the right there. Um but I do not know the ex where they are. >> Yeah, maybe if you can do some a little digging or looking in in approximate locations or something on the plan. um
just to kind of memorialize that. I mean, you might know where they are, but for a future owner, getting it on the plan, I think is a good idea. >> Yeah. >> Awareness and Yeah, >> I agree. I always thought that, too. You know, it was more uh under, you know,
when that house was it was just a you know, I don't know. You can talk to Mike and Chuck about it. They'll tell you more, but it was just really a night it was a a nightmare, honestly. >> Yeah. 30 dumpsters legit. So, >> sorry.
>> Okay. >> Yep. >> That sounds good. I think we can can work with that. So, um are you amendable to continuing out to our February 10th meeting? Does that sound good? >> Um ordering shrubs and trying to line up
uh landscapers and things like that. Would I have permission from you guys to go ahead and order shrubs at least on the um proposed areas to the right? >> Um yeah, I I >> I just don't want to lose my
opportunity. You know what I mean? If I can't get them if I wait another month again. I don't want to lose >> Yeah. No, I think I think you I think you could go ahead and place orders. We're definitely going to look for at least you know what you have shown here. Um,
so I don't have a problem with that. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> What would be your next meeting after the 10th? >> Uh, the reason why I say that is that the state is is backed up uh quite heavily on some other stuff that we have
in >> February. Difficult to get comments. Yeah. >> 24th. >> Yep. >> Yep. Let's I would suggest we do the 24th. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue to February 24th? >> Before we do that, Melissa?
>> Yes. >> Do we feel like we've provided enough direction on expectations for the plans for the 24th so we can make that a productive hearing? >> That's a good question, Matt. Does anyone have any additional requests or
comments? Obviously, we made the general comment that we'd like to see some more planting bed areas and like to see the roof infiltration documented on the plan >> to the chair. >> Yes, Jill.
>> Uh I guess the uh the question at the commission is okay with the retaining walls being the PIB or if they're other PIB proposed. >> I'm okay with that. I think that's consistent with >> I'm okay with that. >> Done.
>> Absolutely. >> Same. >> Okay. Um, any other thoughts? Should also open it up to the public and see if anyone has comments
through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Uh, we did receive comments from in a butter. They're saved in the public file. um mostly concerning labeling of of certain features on the 2019 plan. So those are there for the commission's um
review whether you want um anything adjusted per the abut's comments or any feedback on them. >> Right. I do remember seeing that in the file. Um, >> I have a couple comments to that.
>> Sure, Dave. >> Um, so I I sort of hit on some of those during uh the brief explanation uh uh building number five unit uh back in uh 2019. The the long hatched area
>> uh was did not fully extend and connect to the deck number two. it was under a portion of number four, deck number four. Uh she also had a comment about uh existing dock number eight uh near
retaining wall number one A that might have been underwater. Stated earlier that we had no elevation, so it it could have been underwater regardless. Uh those two docks have been removed. Um the uh rubber surface number 12. I
remember that that section was pellets. Uh it was hard to scuff away with your foot. It was at least uh 2 3 4 in deep. Uh she she claims there might have been plastic underneath it. I couldn't attest
to whether there was plastic or not. Alls I could say that uh there were rubber pellets. they were red uh for whatever reason painted if they come painted or he painted them previous person. Um and then um
I guess uh and then lastly uh dock number nine on the eastern edge of dock number nine uh was a ramp uh like might have been six or eight feet long. Uh so the deck on the left side, the west side
was level and then as you get to the east, as you go to the east towards number eight, uh it went down a ramp. Uh so those are some of the just kind of the the comments I think uh well documented. Uh I think we've you know,
building number five and the two docks uh and then the ramp and then the rubber sheeting uh you know, we acknowledge all of that and uh I think we show that. >> Okay. Are you is the rubber surface counted as imperous?
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Um and then that last line, majority of work done outside the property line and into Lake Massock. How is all of that calculated? That's included in your calculations, everything.
Yeah, that that's in the latest one that Judy had recommended asked that we do for the 25 foot buffer >> and was slightly less >> the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. I've been sitting here very quietly trying to take this in. And this
this closing sentence in this email is what I've been looking at trying to comprehend how stuff that's happening that's not even on the owner's property figures into all
of this. I'm just I'm I am I'm I'm very lost and I need I need someone to make me feel better as as uh Ted might say >> that the area between the property line and what's in Lake Maspan and
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean it's that's that's that's all we're talking about. Yep. I know. I mean, we've this happens, I think, on all these properties to
varying degree. This is an extreme example, I think, of the amount of work that's beyond the property line and has historically been there. Um, I don't know, Joe or Judy, do you have
any any comments on that? I mean, all of our orders say that, you know, you need to get permission and approval, you know, from whatever other agencies or groups
to do the work. Um, so we're not necessarily permitting work on other entities property, but you know, we're looking at it just from the resources that we're protecting. I don't know if you have any additional thoughts, Judy or Joe.
>> And through the chair, if I could interject one last thing, I do not mean to imply that the owner put this there. >> Yeah. >> But I I understand that it was there, but the question still remains
>> to the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> Yeah. To my knowledge, nobody technically owns the lake itself, but it is managed by the state. So they'll at least have purview on um what's been done and what's being proposed through
chapter 91 and through the wetlands permitting process. So I would think if they had qualms about what exactly was going on, they would at least have the opportunities to provide comment through both of those processes. Um but yeah, I mean I think this is something we see a whole lot and I don't
have a great answer to either >> for the chair. I I would chime in to saying we do see it a lot on on Lake Maspanok and um legally I I don't know the uh the answer. Um as far as the standing uh I know projects have been
approved with this situation uh in the past um and it is pretty common. >> Ed, I'm guessing that probably doesn't make you feel any better. No, not exactly. But I I think that, you know, that that I can say that what I
see looks fine even though I don't know that it's legal. I I'm going to, you know, I I I don't think that that that we want to run the Concom's flag up this thing and say that, you know, we agree with what's
there. We might agree with what's on there, but we don't necessarily agree with what is there. If that makes sense. >> No, I think it's a good point that we're, you know, like I said, we're not giving permission to do this work
outside of the property line, but we're >> I I'm I'm fine with it. My butter my neighbor is fine with it. the previous owner egregiously uh encroached on her property.
You know, you just have to look at the old plans, but um so she is so on board with, you know, everything I've done and so these things that we're
discussing now and even the plantings along that wall and all that. um you know, she's on board with it. I know I'm going to have to be the one to pay for it all. Um she's a retired um librarian
and um but she could have been more ecstatic that I removed um that one upper deck uh 900 ft of decking that was encroached on her property.
Um >> yeah, I think I think we'll go with that. I mean, there's history of course, but it's all now, you know, the previous owner really, you know, had problems with both butters
and abused both uh sidelines and I made everything right. and and you know, you can talk to both butters now and you'll find that we're all on the same page of better, you know, beautifying the lake now,
>> right? I think the point um that Ed's making in the and the letter that we're talking about is not between your abuing neighbors. It's from the property line that's shown there on the plan. property
line shown on plan 1020 of 1951 between that property line beyond into the lake. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yep. >> Seemingly apologies. >> Right. Right. Cuz that's that's all, you know, based on the property line, not on your property.
>> So, we're just speaking that we're not >> giving permission to do that. That's that's on that's on you. >> Okay. >> We're not Thank you. allowing that, you know, or >> Yeah. >> Um,
so all right, with that being said, does anyone have any additional direction or requests? Just circle back to you, Matt. I I mean, it's not a clear >> amount of how much planting are we looking for, I guess.
>> Um, >> my suggestion, and I'm just hearing Ted's voice in my head right now. Yep. >> My suggestion is like like Miss Marodon said that washstone area, look at some additional plantings there. Over by the
shed, the strip between the lawn and the lake seems very narrow and there appears to be existing patio and walkway to nowhere when those plantings go in. That may be another opportunity to increase that buffer from the lawn to the lake
just for consideration. Um, but I can see those being two sticking points at the next meeting uh when the when the remainder of the commission's present. >> Okay. >> All right. With that being said, can I
get a motion to continue this one out to February 24th? >> So moved. >> Second. >> That I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt? >> I. >> Jim. I >> Ed >> I
>> uh I am also an I. >> And Peggy, you want to abstain? >> Um I Yeah. Okay, great. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. Go Pats.
>> All right. Next up, we have 47 of Cursed Road, notice of intent continuation. >> Hey everyone, this is Danger Tbo with Goddard. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you. Um, do you mind if I share my screen?
>> I don't mind. >> Perfect. Thank you. Yes. At this point, I know the board is is well familiar, so I figure I can share my screen and and pan back and forth forth between the last plan and um some of our recent updates. >> Sure.
>> Should be all set. And sure, >> perfect. Does this come up? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Thank you guys. Um to kick things off tonight, again, I do want to just say thanks to the commission one more time. I know we were last with you guys on January 6th. We had um about a
split down the middle on opinions if the previous work proposed was approvable under the bylaw. The commission ultimately voted to continue us out tonight and allow us to make a few more revisions. So, um we really did appreciate that gesture and hope that that helps us find some some
resolution here. So, first up, I have the plan that we had at the last meeting just to give a quick recap as I typically do. Um as I had said, we were last with the commission at the January 6th meeting. At that time, we had presented a few um revisions to the project that we did not have previously.
That was centered around the removal of the patio and this fire pit area to be replaced with crushed stone. That was about a 146 ft reduction in patio. We had added a few more low bush blueberry plantings to slightly extend our planting area. And we had labeled the
retaining wall as a PIB. And so at that point that had given us um about 189 ft of patio that was still within the 25 ft that was seeking approval. We had about 840 ft of mitigation. And as I had mentioned, it was a it was a split
decision that we were um whether or not this was approvable under the bylaw if we had met the request of the commission. And we ultimately continued out to this meeting to to make further alterations. So at that meeting I'd asked the commission for a little bit more direction if we were looking for a complete reduction in
patio additional plantings and the the general conversation um only spark noting not to speak for any specific commissioner was that we needed to either see more reduction in patio or a combination of of some reduction in patio some additions of plantings and then we again discussed the lakefront
planting guidelines that the commission had shared with us. So that included the the more sloped pathways trying to limit straight shots to the lake, um decrease of lawn cover, things of that nature. And so at the end of last week, we had submitted a revised site plan and
mitigation plan that was intended to incorporate a few of those comments. So with this overlay, I can kind of pan back and forth and show what's been added. But the first thing that we added was to remove additional patio that was on the lakeside of the slot drain. When we were last here on January 6th, there
was still some patio that was on the opposite side of the slot drain. So, the way this would be designed is the the vast majority would have flowed down, hit our slot drain, and been delivered to the drywalls, but there was a bit that was on the other side of the slot drain closer to the lake. We did propose to remove that in the same manner. Now,
this is about 65 ft. So, what this does is it now reduces the total patio within the 25 to only 124 ft. And then I will make one more note on that that upon reviewing this um Joe did provide an additional comment that there was some
confusion of whether or not the steps down to the lake were were permitted back in 2020 when that old minor project exemption was filed. The steps were intended to be built under that. It was discussed with the commission. So we did include that in our calculations to make sure that we're being conservative here. That way everything we ask for approval
is is included. But there was an intent to build these steps back in 2020 back in 2020. So if we do call those existing, that would be 40 ft that was already there. So that would bring the numbers down to about 84 ft. So we're in the ballpark of of 84 ft to 124 ft if we
want to be conservative for patio that now seeks approval. And what we did is we also added additional planting areas and I modified the mitigation plan a little bit. If I pan back to the January 6 plan, what we were doing is we were showing plantings along the lake and we were talking about general planting
areas where we wanted to remove all the lawn and build up a native buffer along the lake. Um, seeing more of the lakefront planting guidelines that the commission was providing us, it made sense to establish more defined planting zones. So, I added a polygon with lines
to it that would portray exactly where we're planting so we can try to clarify that that curved walkway a little bit. So, the intent is we added these two new planting areas that we see on my my cursor. It's nine creeping flocks plantings. So, it does bring up the
plantings from 114 to 123. But, um, truthfully, the main intention behind that is to to remove more lawn and create more curved access to the lake that's more consistent with the guidelines provided. So the intent is around the sideyard. We'd have we'd have curve access points to the dock and then
when we come down the steps that are there, these steps are a straight shot between adding these curved lines in sort of curves the access a bit. It reduces the lawn cover in this area. The intent was made to the cut back on the lawn to comply with that lakefront planting guideline we were given to the
extent feasible. And what this also does is it increases our total square footage of mitigation. So at the last meeting we had 840 ft of planting area on the site. By adding these two areas, it does increase that total up to 950 ft. So I
said that we were using the 124T measurement of work on the 25 to be conservative. If we use that number, then the mitigation would now be about a 7.6 to1 ratio of mitigation to impacts to the 25. If we use the 80 square feet,
assuming that the stairs were already there, it puts us over a 10 to one. So, it was an intent to to beef up the mitigation and to remove additional patio. At a high level, those are the the changes that we've made. But, I think I'll I'll end this meeting with one sort of additional
um comment and image to show. I think at the very end of the meeting on January 6th, we had a good discussion that I think has been included in a few items we've submitted, but it hasn't been discussed at every meeting that um though large portions of this backyard are being reconfigured. Uh I wanted to
bring it back to an old aerial of the property just to show the conditions that we were talking about prior to any of this work taking place. So in the NOI we had we had discussed that there was no storm water management on the property and so storm water from both the existing dwelling the old patio
that was there shed it all generally just pitch down gradient toward Lake Maspan um over the lawn there was no there was no dry wells um no no French drain system anything like that um and then it was lawn essentially up to the rear of the pond and so this is 2008 so
it shows the old conditions long before any work was done um in the backyard or any of the work that we have proposed here. At the last meeting, we were just discussing that I'll go back to the plan here that the patio is now back here. Taking all this
storm water from both the house, the patio, routing it to subsurface systems, in my opinion, is an improvement over existing conditions. And I think that the extensive mitigation provided is now um much more consistent with that. One final note I'd make is the drywalls have not been reduced in size at all as we
have reduced um portions of the patio. When this was first sized, these drywall units, we we had the engineer simulate an inch of runoff over every surface on the property. That includes the existing footprint of the dwelling and the driveway. And then as we're removing patio, we've kept the drywall size the
same. So it gives them a bit more capacity than was there previously. So, all that to say that um again, we appreciate that the commission continued us out to tonight to continue to discuss this. We think that these revisions um really do represent an improvement over the existing conditions of the site
prior to any work taking place. And um with that, I'll I'll leave it up to questions. >> All right, great. Thank you. Um, and you know, I also like to say thanks for
taking the extra effort um to, you know, really listen to the commission and and try and address address comments to make this work. Um, I think you did take the feedback that
we gave um removing the impervious area beyond the slot train. I think that's that that's definitely was a key factor um in my mind and in you know Ted's comment on
the um the winding pathways and and following those guides. This looks better to me. Um I'll open it up to commission members to see if anyone else has comments or thoughts on
these changes. This is it. I'll just say a positive step. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. No, we we appreciate the feedback and we also appreciate the um the comments given at the last meeting. It gives us clear marching orders. So, we're we're happy to see that positively
received. >> Okay. Um, are there any comments from the public? All right. I don't see any. Um, that being said, Judy, I'm going to ask again on this
property. Similar to the other one, um, we're voting on this or we will be voting on this as a notice of intent, but there is a certain degree of work that should fall under an enforcement order as well. Would that be correct
statement? Yeah, now that you mention it, I think that does sound accurate since you're dealing with unpermitted work. Um, so yeah, I mean, I think it's up to you. I'm happy to draft a separate enforcement order just for the plantings and patio removal if you'd like to
separate it out that way. Um, okay. Okay. So something to think about there before we but I think first step um I think we can go ahead and take another vote now that you know the additional feedback has been incorporated.
Um and we were splitting this vote believe under the act and the bylaw. So can I get a motion to approve this notice of intent under the act? >> So move. second
>> and I'll amend that with with signatures by Judy and Anna. >> I'll accept that amendment. >> Okay. >> All in favor? Matt >> I. >> Jim
>> I. >> Ed >> I. >> And I am also an I. Peggy. We'll let you abstain because there's a lot of history on this project. >> Yeah, I'll abstain.
>> Okay. Can I get a motion to approve under the bylaw with signatures by Judy or Anna? Matt. >> So, now Matt. All in favor? >> Jim? >> Yes. I
>> Ed. >> I. and I am also an I. >> Thank you guys. And um through the chair, just a comment that I heard um about how we're going to handle the work that is after the fact. I'll preface
that by saying it's it's our intention to work with the commission. However you guys um want to move forward with that. In the past, I've seen it done two ways. Either through the enforcement order or through a condition that requires the the removal of patio space and the plantings to be installed prior to other work being completed. I've seen it done
either way. I just thought I'd throw it out there that we'll we'll work with commission however we want, but um we do appreciate that. >> Okay. Um I think Judy, I would prefer to do the enforcement order route just because in case the work isn't ends up
not being done or is delayed, then we still don't have a mechanism to do the in enforcement as a condition. If that makes sense. >> Yeah, that sounds good to me. I can have something drafted for the next meeting. >> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> Yeah, that sounds great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, thanks for thanks for working with us and I think this is positive and kind of gives us something to point to for other applicants as a you know way to work together um
on the on these type of lakefront projects. So, thank you. >> Yes. No, thank you to you guys as well. After the after the fact projects are never easy, so we we appreciate the back and forth and I think it it got us a really good project in the end. >> Okay. Good luck.
>> Thank you guys. Have a great night. >> Yep. >> All right. Next up, we have Wall Street Development 12 North Milt Street. Notice of intent continuation with the single family home.
Um, all right. Since we met last, Mr. Petrosi, I believe you were in front of the board of health. Um, we did re receive a letter from them in the file. I don't know if everyone got a a chance to take a look at it. Um, but do you want to
provide any updates at this point? Well, uh, since we, uh, met, you know, the commission itself asked for some additional information that be included in the plan. We've done that and, uh, we did meet with the board of health.
Um, we've continued that, uh, discussion until their first meeting in February, February 8th, I believe. I'm not quite sure of the date, uh, but it's in February. So essentially, as I
represented to you at the last meeting, you know, they're not going to act on anything unless they get a final plan that says what they're acting on is approvable by the commission. and they, you know, this the message
that they read wasn't um I guess wasn't convincing enough from the commission that uh that was the plan was um favorably inclined to be approved by the commission. So,
we're in this catch 22 situation. We can't get to step two unless we get something in step one, which is, I think, primarily the commission either approving the plan or issuing an order of conditions or
giving a stronger indication to the board of health that this is the plan that you'd like to see uh happen on this property. And then you know again it's it's um it's one of
the things that need to convince they some of their concerns are legitimate in the sense that they're concerned about a failure of the well in the and getting um something of equipment back there in
the future. And that, you know, we've accommodated that arrangement on this plan by flattening out the slope and allowing for a vehicle to get back there in the event that there is in some some fashion
something to be um done in the in the event of a of some sort of a repair. Usually, you know, a pump a well pump may need to be replaced from time to time. you know, batteries, I mean,
electrical issues can occur, but uh overall, I don't see um I've never seen a well not produce, um its required yield over over I mean, I've done hundreds of wells, so I mean,
I I don't see it as an issue either way, but they raised it as a concern, but principally speaking, we need to start somewhere. And I think the start of the process is with the commission, >> right?
Um I did read through their letter and I I do think they bring up a valid concern on the access to the well. Um, one of the things that we've run into on on multiple projects is not just, you know,
in the future for replacement of the well, but initially for installing the well, um, that's a it's a 10 foot wide path, right? >> I I don't know how wide I don't know how wide it is. that have to work with.
>> Well, I guess the question question being how did you determine that with the fill and is that realistic for the equipment that needs to get back there to drill the well and you know for all their you know slurry and work and and
whatnot that needs to happen. Um temporary impacts to the wetlands. What does that look like? Is that enough room? Or are we going to be looking at an issue during construction where all of a sudden, >> you know, we're way outside the limit of
work and having to deal with with that >> from an access standpoint? >> No, I I agree with you. I mean, they do produce a lot of slurry as as the well is being drilled. I'm told that this is enough room, but um certainly willing to consider,
you know, anything outside of that area would be only a temporary disturbance at best and be would be restored in place. But we have provided if you uh as I mentioned to them, you know, the well is the first thing that goes in goes
into the construction process. We can't get a building permit without a well. So we're going to know well off you know at the beginning of this process we're going to know whether or not we have a buildable lot. These will be the
drinking water well. So without the well there is no lot in this configuration which would then bring me back to the commission to pursue uh the other the original plan which is a well in the back a house in the front
or some vice versa scenarios like that. So but I do think this is a viable plan. Um, I've been told I've had uh consultations with our well uh subcontractor
uh if they tell me that it's it's not uh feasible then we won't we won't start the job quite frankly. But uh they tell me that it's a sufficient amount of area um and that's what I'm basing it on on
how we designed it. I mean, if if you know, would you um not quite sure where we we could do additional replication if that were necessary, but this is our best shot for
this alternative be uh instead of doing the original plan, which was to cross the wetlands with a driveway or with an access road to put a well in the ground.
Okay. Um, I guess I'll go back to I'll go to Judy and Joe in regards to whether all of the comments and information we asked for
last time around was provided and addressed. at this point >> through the chair. >> Uh I have not sent Joe the most recent revisions. Um we were working with Chris Lucas to see if there was money in time
remaining in the initial uh scope for um initial review services from Lucas. It seems like they've reviewed more than was initially uh estimated. So we're just trying to make sure all of Lucas's review services are covered. Um, so as
of this point, Joe has not reviewed any of these materials. >> Okay. And have we gotten any I can't remember. Have we gotten D comments on this new plan or this
particular plan scenario? >> Uh, not in any formal sense. No. I think some issues that I saw is the 100 foot is still labeled on the vernal
pool um in addition to the 125. So I know one of Joe's comments has been what the commission wants to see labeled. Um there's no PIBs on the plan. And then there's also some issues with
the proposed disturbance numbers on form three not being accurate to the current version of the plan. Um and until we have those updated proposed alteration and proposed
restoration, I don't think the commission can vote um on any permit because you're essentially approving a certain amount of disturbance or not approving it. So, that is something that should be addressed as well. >> Okay. Uh, but there might be more. It just I
haven't been able to get this to Joe yet. >> Okay. Um, all right. I'm going to I'm going to open it up to commission members. See if others have questions, comments, other addition
other information that we might be looking for. I personally I do share the concern from the board of health with the access to the well and um you know if this is if this is the
best shot and this is what we're looking at to vote on. I I do have concerns that we're going to come back um and not have enough room to actually do the the construction um to get that that well in within the
footprint that's shown on the plan right now. Um but I'll open up to others for feedback concerns. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. I'm putting on my TED hat again because he did point that issue out
about access to the back of a piece of property on another piece. Would we be u appropriate in asking for a letter from Mr. Petrosy's well driller that the access is adequate
for the a initial installation of the well and then that access is available for future work on the well that would be within their needed parameters. I'm I'm happy to provide that. Um in fact uh you know ju just let the
commission know that you know in terms of a construction sequencing of things there is no problem accessing the well location because there'll be nothing on the lot. The lot nothing's there to interfere
with the construction of the well. The concern from the board of health is after the house is in 10 years go by and the well isn't yielding the required amount of water. The concern is
how do you get a rig in there? What would have to be done to the well after the lot is all built up? That's the concern of the water health. It's not getting access to the location prior to construction of the house.
That's, you know, that gets cleared. It's there's nothing on the lot, nothing to get in the way. So, but I will I have no problems getting a statement or something uh from our well vendor or subcontractor
regarding the amount of amount of area that's required um to install a well of this sort. Um, it's not really I'm sure that they they've come across
it from time to time because a lot of wells are in this kind of proximity to a wetland. Yeah, I think I think it would be in along the lines of requesting kind of a means and methods sequencing for for the
installation, how much room they need, and you know, what they do with the slurry, how, you know, what practices are in place to protect, you know, any of that from from getting in the wetland in this tight space? What are they
>> going to have in place to do that? >> Sure. No, I understand. and and you know usually there's where in tight com constraints you have a like a little a sump that you that the slurry goes into so it doesn't over top or enter into any
areas like in this case the wetland areas. Um, so I mean I'm happy to get that information for the commission. Um, or have it as a condition of a of an
approval. Um, but I think Judy's asking me to revise a form three, I think it is to put or revise the impacts and that thing in into the form when
if you're you you're essentially telling me to revise the plan and and sink or swim with this plan. And that's really not where we're at. We offer this plan as an alternative to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts
to the resource areas. If we if we can't agree on this plan, then we're going back to the other plan, which is a limited project with other impacts and um more disturbance and use of the
whole lot. So, I'm I'm just simply trying to get to square one to see what this is. Uh, I think it's a good idea and I think it's doable and I'm not really concerned about whether or not the board of health grants a waiver or
not. To be quite honest, I don't think their regulation holds any water. >> No punishment. >> Well, I think so. Your intention is for us to vote on this plan. Correct.
>> This is what's presented. So, we can't vote unless we have those numbers in there because once we vote, it's done. It's official. >> I understand. But if I revise the if I revise a plan and you vote no. If I revise the numbers and you vote no, then
what are you asking me to do? Refile another notice of intent for the exact same project for what we filed originally for? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Well, we can't I mean, if we if we vote no, then you would
Yeah, I think your next course of action would be to submit another notice of intent or withdraw. >> I'm not >> make a change, you know, substantial enough that we would take a another vote. But,
>> well, well, I you know, I'm not going to do it that way because that's kind of backwards. you know, I offer this plan uh as an alternative. We've gone through this probably for the last three or four months with this being considered to be
a you know a a better alternative than the other the original uh plan. So, I'm happy to work with the commission to try and get this plan approved. And I don't see any reason why the
commission can't if they're in favor of this plan. I'm not going to I'm not throwing I don't want to put you words in anyone's mouth. But if you're in favor of this plan and allowing us to proceed with the board of health and to
give you like um affidavit or information regarding the information of the or the installation of the well and that no construction should start until you've received that information, that that's a step forward. But to say
that, you know, we can't make a decision on whether or not you want to have this proposal move forward, I don't think that's I don't think that's productive in any way. After all, we've had these discussions. So, I mean, we're talking
about administrative type of conditions, nothing that's relative to the the actual plan or the resource areas. >> That's those are my thoughts, >> right? Um I do I do think that the
uh means and methods from from the well drilling perspective are necessary in order to feel comfortable because you know that the wetlands aren't going to be negatively impacted by the construction of the
well. Um >> so I think that that's important for >> you can't you can't condition that in a in an order of conditions. I mean, it's pretty simple. >> Uh, no, cuz we might not agree with it. Um,
the level of detail or the information or if he decides when he puts the means and methods together that he needs more area, then um, we're going to be back here again. So I in my mind uh that
piece of information is needed for me to um >> okay >> but other commission members might feel differently or want other information. Um, so I'll open it up to
others to express or share with you any additional information changes that they need in order to be able to vote on this. >> The chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> My actual question remains unanswered.
My actual question, and I apologize if I wasn't clear, my actual question was, if access is needed to the well site post construction of the house, does is there adequate access to the
well site post construction? >> Yes. If you notice, the uh contours on the left side of the house are very flat. We flatten out the con the contour so you can drive can drive a truck all the way
to the back of the house and back it in. No problem. >> I would want to see that from the well guy. >> Okay. >> So means and methods for installation of the well and for future maintenance.
>> Okay. Is that the only concern or is there other concerns >> through through the chair? Mr. I just want to make sure I understand what you just described. So you're saying on the left hand side of the house, so page left, >> right?
>> I see sloping contours that look to be 31, 4 coming down and then it flattens out in the wetland mitigation area. >> Oh no, that's the fill area. That's the area that's being filled. So, that's going to be, you know, a solid
ground lawn area of some sort. >> It's labeled as proposed wetland filling. Okay. Yep. Apologies. >> Right. >> I I saw the I saw the tight dashing in the back going to the well and assumed that was the only fill. All right. >> Yeah. No, that's the that's the fill.
And it's going to be drive, you know, you just like a landscaper or whatever would be able to drive a truck truck. Keep keeping in mind that you know maintenance of a well is different than actually installing the well. The stalling installing the well you need a rig a you know big rig that you'd be
able to drive in here. There'll be a turn around you back the back the rig in and the only concern as Melissa has mentioned is the slurry. You know that you know depending on how deep they go you know that can be an excessive
amount. I do agree that we should have some game plan in place to deal with that and that's something that I think the well installer can provide. But as far as access goes, there is no problem driving a rig in the back of this house.
You get 20, 30 feet backing it in, driving it in. It's not a problem. And keeping in mind these these contour lines are one foot contours. They're not twofoot contours. >> Relatively flat. Yeah, the between the 281 and the 282. I see you're talking. I just I
misinterpreted the hatching, so that's my bad on that front. So, you're talking a rig could come in behind the stone wall along the street front, between the stone wall and the septic system, >> right? >> Back down to that area where the wells. Yeah, I I tend to agree that that access
makes sense. Um, I agree with what Melissa is saying about the just understanding means and methods for the installation and whether or not these permanent wetland impacts to install the well are the extent of the impacts or if there's additional temporary impacts
needed. >> Yeah, I'll have to check that out. man. But, you know, I I'm not an expert in well, a bunch of them in, but I uh certainly know that there is uh a a sequence in terms of how they get
in, what they have to do to set up and what they do to um you know, they have the outriggers that have to go and so that the well is the rigging mechanism is secure and stable. So, there are there could be some issues there. and um
but they wouldn't involve any permanent alteration of the resource area >> to the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> I just wanted to note that there are not PIBs on this plan yet and considering the commission generally does not like
the PIB to be right on the wetland edge. Um you might want to have a discussion about where you want to see PIBs uh as that might affect the access to the well question. Right.
Yeah, I I agree that that should be something that should be added to the plan. Um, as far as where they should land, um, you'd have to I I think you'd have to have them at the limit of
well that 281 topo line probably so that you have the access open to the backyard to the well. um >> typibs I mean in my in some other instances
we've uh come up with a planting of along the edge of the wetlands that creates a sort of a hedge that discourages anybody from going beyond that uh sort of what a PIB I mean your PIBs
are in the ground nobody can see them particularly But in this particular instance, you know, I would probably suggest that we do some sort of a planting uh of I have to go back to some of my other projects, but along the wetland
line like a a planting a hedge of some sort that clearly sets out the the wetland area rather than having something in the ground. Uh, I think I mean
my preference would be a a fence. >> Well, that's possible, too. I >> edge. >> Yeah, I I' I think that would be a better idea than to try and put these things in the ground. That's
such a tight area. What, you know? >> Yeah. I think it's going to be hard for this homeowner not to encroach. Yeah. >> Um, so I think in this instance I I would suggest a fence or that's what I would like to see. >> Okay. Well, we can do like a split rail
fence or something of that along the lines. >> And I think that would be a better idea uh than trying to put these uh bounds in the grounds. Very little room there. >> Right. Does anyone else on the commission have
input on that? I like that idea. >> Okay. Um, any other any other thoughts from commission members? I'm going to open it up to the public.
Anyone from the public have comments? No. Okay. Um, Mr. Petrosi, our next meeting is February 10th and then we have February 24th. So, uh, yeah, let's what I'll do is I'll
probably continue my meeting with the board of health because it doesn't make any sense to go there unless I can give, you know, whatever I give the commission in terms of the sequencing or the means and methods for the well, I'll probably be h, you know, giving it to them as
well so that they feel confident as, you know, of what we're trying to do. So, I would say uh let's continue to the 10th and then hopefully I can get that done by then. If not, we'll just continue it again. >> Okay. So, we're looking for means and
methods on the well. We're looking for PIB on the plan. We're looking for updated numbers on the notice of intent um if in order to be able to vote on this.
>> Okay. And so all the other information, Judy, that I was submitted, that's all in good order. >> We do. So the other outstanding item, I guess, is for Joe um to take a look
as well. >> It's just really construction sequencing and um replication protocol. I mean, it's not >> there was the uh invasive species management plan, uh replication
narrative, few other things that um I wanted to get Joe's eyes on. >> While we're on the issue of invasive species, I mean, his comment was there wasn't very much com uh invasives on the
lot, so I'm not quite sure where all of a sudden now we needed. And that was for when the original proposal was cross the wetlands and build the driveway. >> Management during construction, Joe. Management of invasives during
construction. >> Yeah, let me check that comment. Look at >> I feel like that was >> it. It may have been if there weren't a lot of invasives. I think that's typically what I would say is just managing during construction so you're not spreading spreading other sites,
>> right? >> And I and I think what I provided is pretty much what that does. >> It's not elaborate. I mean, it's just just not much there. >> Yep. >> All right. Well, so, um, let's, you
know, if the board, if the commission is willing to continue this to the 10th, I'll work on getting this, uh, schematic, the footprint of the rigger, the rig that they use, and how much they need for space and we'll get more definitive answers on on that because I
think that is, you know, a legitimate concern that we should pay attention to. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this as well as the soil testing
um notice of intent for 12 North Mill to February 10th? >> A second. >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt >> I. >> Jim >> I.
>> Ed >> I. and I am also an I. Okay, >> great. Thank you very much. Can uh can you get me on can you get me on a little earlier next time? >> Not that I don't mind. Not that I don't mind listening to everybody, but you
know, >> I'd appreciate it if you could. >> Thank you. >> No problem. >> Byebye. >> Okay. Um gonna jump back down to work session items. So, we are at 30 West Main
Street. Project change request continuation. >> Um, >> how's it going? >> Hello. Good. >> Judy, if you don't mind, um, I can share my screen >> if that's all right with you, Melissa.
>> Sure, that's fine. >> Should be all set. Okay, let me know if you guys can see my screen. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so for the record, Sam Fronti, uh, registered engineer in the Commonwealth with solely engineering.
Um, so this is our second time before you. We realized the first time wasn't a complete package submitted. Um, and there were still some things in question at that point. Um, since we've been before you, which I think was in in
early December, if I'm not mistaken, um, we have received septic approval from the health department. Um, and there is a well application um, that has been submitted as well for this project. So the conservation
commission um permitting is is kind of the next step um of this process. I can walk you through. Um so there's really two things. Um it's the changes in the septic area which is kind of to the plan west and then there's a proposed well to
the southeast corner of the building. Um now I've created this overlay sketch which it um ah it was working earlier. I think this is probably the best
depiction. There we go. Um of really what has changed here. So, we recognize that the commission um we're adhering to the 50oot buffer um to the isolated wetland um to the east. Um we recognize
that the well wasn't on the original um approved plan. So with that, we've kind of tightened up the the resource area, which is the riverfront area to the plan west and reduced the impact um to that area um pretty significantly in
comparison of what's proposed. Um Judy had did have a comment back to us if we could tighten it up any further. Um we're we're really constrained um with space here just uh with the grading
setbacks for for title 5 as well as the setbacks from the foundation of the building. Um we did include that 10-ft um access way to the north of the garage, which it's probably easiest shown here. Um we're proposing kind of a
stone uh a field stone wall 10 ft off the garage. Um, she was able to maintain three car garage, three car um, a threecar garage, excuse me. Um, but we were able to to include that
10-ft access way to the rear. And I know that was a comment that that the health department had as well for access to the septic tank and um, leeching area in in the event that it does need to be replaced or or maintenanced or anything of that sort. Um so with that I can I can go through I
submitted I would assume this comment letter has reached the commission. Um but the really comment two is I think the the relevant comment that's worth um going over. Um so the overall
disturbance remains just about 27,000 square ft. Now one thing that did change um was was regarding the water service. So we we finally received affirmative confirmation that a waiver would not be granted for for this type of project um
for a single family residence. So we kind of pivoted and and the only option is a proposed well. Um I know I was just listening to the previous hearing so you guys are very familiar with um this but the construction sequence I spoke to the well driller this afternoon. Um the
construction sequence for for this project is the erosion controls would have to be installed the because of the access way to this it's it's not close to the roadway. Um so the driveway and and clearing of the the building pad area
would be required um prior to to the well being casted and um drilled. So that was something I I spoke to the well driller about today. Um, so really that'd be that'd be step one would be clearing the well, step one would be installing the erosion control. Step two
would be clearing the trees. Step three would be stumping the area. And then step four would be grading the building pad as well as the driveway to a suitable access path for the drill rig. Um, very similar to the conversation you all just had. Um, but so back to the the
the changes of areas. Um, so we refined the house footprint. So we have a a net change of minus746 ft. The garage footprint increased by 64 square f feet. The asphalt area decreased by 153 square ft. We removed
the permeable pa pa walkway which was located previously on this this eastern side because the if you remember the door the front door was going to be on the eastern side facing the wetland. Um, and then she she did add a 492 ft deck,
which the deck will be um wood with typical spacing. Um, but we have a net impervious area, a reduction of 835 ft, uh, a net permeable paver area reduction of 332 ft. And then we obviously have
that net wood deck increase of 492 ft. Um, the riverfront area disturbance as approved was 2,875 ft. We've reduced that to 2290, which is a 585 foot reduction. Um, which in
comparison to what was approved is is fairly significant from a percentage standpoint. Um, but yeah, that's that's I can gladly go into more um detail or or if you guys have additional comments, I I did
provide explanation on the the water service, the viability of that. Um the moratorum is is until summer 2028 if I'm I believe yeah summer it was repaved in summer 2023. So the 5-year moratorum
would be summer 2028. Um and I spoke to Kerry Reid the director of public works on that directly with her. Um and then there was a conversation between Judy and I regarding the determination of applicability that was
previously issued for this project. to be utilized for the well. Um, after conversation with the well driller today, I I think realistically that would be covered under this NOI. Um, and like I said, all the erosion controls, the construction of the
driveway, the grading of the building pad would all be performed um before the well would be actually drilled. Now, I did hear just previously access to the well um for maintenance in the future. Um, now
granted we are kind of hugging this 50- foot buffer. Um, but the only the only reason that a drill rig would ever have to go back to the well would be to recast the well. So reinstallation of a
pump, regular maintenance, testing, that can all be done on foot. Um, so the and typically well cast and casing what last between 25 and 50 years. So I I don't anticipate that really being something that is really
something that needs to be considered here especially with the moratorium being lifted in 3 years two years I guess actually. So in the event that a water service could be installed um in the future just something to bring up. I know it was just talked about previously
so um figured I'd address that comment now but I'd be happy to answer any other questions. >> Um all the plans were revised. We have the updated landscaping plan um which has the same amount of plantings.
Um some of the the seedings were um modified to to reflect the difference disturbances and such but it's the same amount of plantings and trees that were previously approved as well as the PIBs that were previously approved >> through the chair. This is Ed.
>> Yes, Ed. Mr. Alfronte, am I saying your name right? >> You are. Yep. >> You might want to check your letter because you have commented about a Mr. Reed. Carrie Reed is a female. You might
>> Oh, I apologize for that. I apologize for the error. >> I'm very well aware of Carrie Reid being a woman. I actually I went to Worcester Polytech and she was a a senior adviser to my senior project actually. So
>> I've known for quite some time. >> I do have a question about the waiver uh policy. Is it that you can't connect at all or you can connect but additional measures need to be taken um you know to
repave or something like that? Yeah, I can I can explain further on that. So, the town's um I believe it's the roadway opening policy is what governs that 5-year moratorum. >> Yeah. >> Um and Carrie explained that there are
scenarios where the 5-year moratorum can be waved for a hardship. Um she she referenced the hardship as being catastrophic to life um as well as emergency scenarios for utility
companies. Um and she made it pretty abundantly clear that connection for a single family home is is not um something that she would ever wave. Um, so yeah, that that it wasn't something like I I posed the question of curb to
curb like flowable fill and and expanded mill and overlay areas and and she didn't um she didn't really waver on that. So >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy.
>> Uh yeah, not to be contrary. Um, but I did speak with Carrie about this and she did say there were certain best management practices that could be proposed in which she would consider allowing the moratorum to be broken for
connection to water. I don't remember the specifics of this. Um, and she also said the moratorium is up in 2 to 3 years. Um, so once that's up, they would be able to connect. So, you know, I would maybe suggest getting something in writing from her so we know exactly what
the options are at this point. >> I I I'm pulling up an email right now that just completely contradicts that. So, if that's the case, I spent a lot of
wasted time and effort here. So, So, here here's an email from Carrie on November 26th. She responded to to me as well as the applicant. Um, there's a couple other folks from DPW on this email and she said, "You can set up a
meeting with me, but this point it would not qualify as a hardship. See more guidance on what I would consider a hardship." and she the situation must involve a serious unexpected hazard which if not immediately remeded will result in
injury, death and order damage or destruction to public infrastructure or private property. Under that I I took that as a pretty clear guidance that a project like this wouldn't classify as a as a waiver for a hardship. And and we
did have a meeting with her. It was Carrie Yan the applicant and I on this. So I don't know how much more clear we need here, but I can certainly pose the question to her. I mean, she we had a
pretty in-depth conversation and she didn't mention any best management practices that that would suffice beyond the the waiting till it's over. She did she did reference that as you get closer to the end of a moratorum,
she's more likely to potentially issue a waiver. But the waiting game for for the applicant is not something she's willing to financially um burden really. This this is a project that she's owned this project this property for a couple years now. Um and
she she's hopeful to go to construction in the spring. So >> the chair. >> Yes. Matt, >> is the proposed well location outside the 50 foot? >> Yes. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay.
Um let's see. Obviously, we just had discussions as you referenced on access. Access to put in the well doesn't seem like an issue. >> Um but to >> maintain it definitely
would be would be difficult. >> Yeah. I mean, if in the case of 15 20 years down the line that it did need to be recast, I think realistically um another notice of attempt would obviously need to be filed. We would
have to encroach in the 50oot buffer. Definitely not in the resource area um like previous proposals that have been discussed. So I I there's significant buffer between the resource area and and and the well. So
>> right >> in that event and and like I said the moratorum well 25 years maybe we're dealing with another moratorum at that point but um hopefully that that point if if that were to were to happen um
there'd be an option for connection to the service too >> through the chair. Yes, ma'am. >> Do we know where the trees are approximate to that 50 foot buffer zone? And if you don't,
that's fine. I'm just out of curiosity, do we have a sense of where the actual trees are versus where that proposed canopy falls? >> I I do not know. That's fine. I just was curious if you had it. It would be great information, but not not a huge deal.
>> Yeah, I will say and and Judy could probably attest to this. I don't know if other commissioners have been out here recently, but as you go past the the isolated wetlands, it does open up a little bit um on this upland area. Um
but there are some some extremely large >> diameter trees that the the removal of the tree process is going to be um quite the exercise on on this property and and the applicant has received a couple quotes already and and has had a couple
tree companies out to the site. Uh I believe the limit of disturbance is is staked out there um so they could get an idea of the trees that needed to come down as well. >> Okay. Do you have a sense of I think the more likely scenario than the casing,
right? If you had to frack it because you weren't getting enough water or if you had to pull the pump because the pump failed. Do you have a sense of what the access requirements would be to get that equipment back there? >> Yeah, they they would need um they would
need at least at least 10 to 12 feet off off the the house. probably closer to 12, maybe 15. Um, so I think right now we are just go back to this plan here. Uh, I
had it on one of them originally. So we are 59 or just over just under 60 feet from from the wetland resource area. So I think blue game open, right? >> I do. Yeah. Can you pull Can you scale it?
>> Yeah. >> Might as well use the tools you got, right? >> Yeah. So, um I mean 15 feet would be about there. So, >> yeah, >> I think that's realistic. Um so, you're talking about an additional clearing of
maybe five to six feet to and there would probably likely need to be some some grading associated with that. Um and and realistically we're we're proposing quite a bit of planting in that area too. So there'd be some
disturbance to to what's being planted to these shrubs and >> Yeah. >> the PIVs as well. >> Yeah. I mean my my sense of it and this is just my opinion, right? in the event that the well needed to be fracked or
the pump needed to be replaced or some other maintenance beyond, you know, the tools you could carry back there by foot, um you may or may not have to remove a tree depending on where where it is. So unlike some of the other
projects we've reviewed, we're talking buffer zone, not wetland area. I mean, my sense is in a scenario like that, I'd be more amendable to an encroachment into that footprint for ensuring a
residence has a water service versus, you know, driving through a well and to get back to a well that's installed in in a situation like that. So, that's just my opinion on it, >> right?
Um yeah, we are you are compensating with some giving some area back over by the septic system too. Um which is positive. Would you just
would you run water just for a future connection at this point in time while you have everything opened up? >> I don't believe that's um something the owner has uh I mean she's going to be spending the
the money for the well. I think it's the intent to utilize the well for the service of the well. Um, >> but I can certainly pose the the question. Um, I don't believe she's on today.
>> Yeah, that's okay. I was just >> Oh, I >> Oh, hey D. >> Yeah, I I I am on um I mean I honestly I don't know. I mean, everything costs so much money at this point, so I don't
know. I mean um if I don't have to I I I I don't know how much more it will cost me just to lay the pipes for future connection. I mean uh it's a difficult question
how much more. Yeah. >> Yeah. If if it's a small fraction um additional then definitely it will be a good idea to have it ready uh for future purposes but if it's significantly
more then I would hope to um you know utilize the well if I already have to spend a lot of money on the well Yeah. Okay.
Um All right. Is anyone uh else on the commission have questions or thoughts on this? >> No, I know. >> Ed, I don't think there's anything we can say to make you feel good.
Um, anyone from the public have any questions or comments? Melissa, one thing I don't know that was touched on the obviously the limit of work to the west plan west of the home where that
grade was pulled back. >> We shrunk the limit of work in the roof area which I think is a good thing. Are we losing any of the proposed mitigation plantings back there? Was there a trade-off or just a reduction of footprint? Same number of plantings?
>> Yeah, it was it was the same number of of plantings. I just pulled them in um to be within the limited disturbance. >> There's no there's no changes to the to the trees or shrub count.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, this is a project change request. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I guess um I I don't think there's any additional
informationation at this point that we need. It seems like you did your homework. You got the email from um Carrie looks pretty straightforward
there. Um, I do appreciate the swap for, you know, the pulling back the limit of work uh by the septic kind of to make up for the encroachment
on the other side. Um feel like the future access is going to come back to haunt haunt me haunt us um down the line. I don't think anybody's going to want to
connect in the street in the future. I don't know. The Yan can probably speak to this, but the cost for for drilling the well is not cheap. Um, >> no, it is not. >> So, it it really is is it's close. Um, even
if >> What does it cost? What does it cost to drill drill? Well, what are you getting for or did you get a quote? >> Yan got a couple quotes. Um, and they were in the 15 to 20,000 range. So,
>> I can concur with those quotes being aligned with the right to drill. >> Granted, this is this is quite a run for a water service. We'd probably need a booster pump, too. Um, but it it's it's comparable.
>> Yeah, I know it's five grand just to get the permit to connect water in the street. >> Yeah. >> Without doing any laying of pipe. >> Yeah. or materials or anything. >> It's usually a one or the other, not a plan for one and do the other.
>> Right. Yeah. >> I mean, in my mind, the I think the location of the proposed well makes a lot of sense given it is outside the 50oot buffer. Looking at this plan in front of us, any other alternative location that provides
separation to the septic system would inevitably put the well into the 50ft buffer upon construction. So, we're really just talking about potential access for maintenance at some time in the future, whether or not it
would even require removal of a tree in that buffer to get the rig back there. So to me that's that's the better alternative is outside the 50 foot buffer today when it's constructed and then if or when something were to come
up with the the yield or the pump itself and I and I think when they took the pump out of my well they just set up a little tripod over it and pulled it out. They didn't need to get rig back there. So you're really just ultim I think in my mind you're really just talking about if the well were to fail
that you'd have to get a rig back there again. And you know that's that's a low probability situation in my mind. >> There's there's a history I believe in Hopington of wells that that don't measure up and have to be reworked.
Maybe as simple as fracking but maybe more than that. I do not know. Now that history is in some uplands, right off of Wind Street, SAN, it's the only one I can think of. I >> I I can't say.
>> Yeah, there's there's some on the Westboroough side of town. There's some history in Upland, Rocky, Bedrock Wells that, you know, the fissures in the rock don't last and you got to frack it. I mean, I'm with Matt in terms of overcoming
uh any future possibility to to have to frack or do something else with the well. And it just doesn't seem worth it to me to to pipe in for uh a water connection unless the applicant's certain it's going to
happen. It would just save her money to do it now when everything's open. And this is um the best side of the house for a while because that's was going to go to the street. It'd be going through there, wouldn't it? So, uh I don't have a problem if they don't
plan ahead for uh soundw. >> Okay. Um, did you have any other utilities coming in? Electric. Is that overhead? I forget. >> Uh, we're proposing it to be um
subsurface. Um Oh. wasn't going to run conduit um from the utility poll that's out front of of 30 West Main. >> It goes to the poll. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Um All right. I think we can we should go ahead and vote on this one for the chair. >> Yes, Judy. Uh, just to clarify, I guess you have the decision between a minor
project change or an amended NOI. Um, I guess I would suggest thinking about if you're leaning towards approving it, what kind of conditions you would want to see imposed. Um, a well is outside the scope of the original approval. So,
none of the original conditions in the order are really applicable for a well or testing. So just in terms of what the approval looks like, >> I think a minor project change with a ton of conditions isn't something we've
really done before. >> Oh, that's a good point. >> What are the uh just out of curiosity, what are the conditions beyond what's um outlined in in our order that are appropriate for when a project has a
well, I guess. >> Yeah, I'd have to pull them up. It's like how you're protecting it while it's being constructed. Um there's some other things that I just don't have open in front of me. >> Um
can we issue a separate set of conditions and approve it as part of this approved date? Uh this is a minor project exemption. or minor project change. I >> think you can. I haven't done it before.
So, what I could do is write everything up in a letter. So, when I normally confirm votes that the commission has made regarding minor project change approvals, I'll write a letter just
memorializing the vote. So I could in theory append a list of conditions onto that. Um >> that would still have to be recorded, right? >> No. So that's Yeah, it would not have to be recorded or attached to the original
order. It would just be I guess something that would be looked at when they go back for a COC post construction. uh >> only an amended order would be uh recorded with the registry
order would >> well when we do when we do a minor project change or exemption okay if we do a minor project exemption how do we do that we just issue conditions with it right but that's not getting recorded
because it's separate >> correct >> you know a new a new thing a new one. >> Yeah, it's added to the project file as as a reference document, but it doesn't get brought to the registry. No. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we have that revised um limit of
disturbance area on the backside, too. >> Oh, that's not part of the original NOI. Well, yeah, that riverfront area that's getting kind of mitigated mitigating for the the well area.
>> Um, all right. I'm I'm towards an amended. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> No, that was it. That's just where where I'm leaning. So, let me let me understand this because this is this is a little bit of a unique situation in my
mind. >> Um, the order is recorded, right? We all we all agree that's the case. It references a plan in our records. If we issued a decision for a minor project change,
it would be in our files, but it wouldn't necessarily be recorded against the property. Do we feel like the changes are substantial enough that we want them recorded?
Well, they don't seem to be >> Yeah. Yeah. They don't seem to be significant enough to me. But this plan is not recorded. Is that correct? >> No. There'd be a reference in the order to the plan, but the plan itself wouldn't be recorded. >> No, but as of now, this plan's not
recorded. It's the previous one, >> right? >> That's correct. Yeah. So, can it be recorded as a revised plan or a final plan? I don't know how they
how they marked their plans up. >> Final or >> Yes, Santa. >> So, we attach a copy of the plan to the order. So, it's the last pages of the order is the is the plan of record from
that order. So yeah, you'll see all the pages that are there. >> Okay. >> I mean, just if I may through the chair. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Under that kind of thought process, any project change that you guys ever come across wouldn't be the updated plans
that's recorded and then that would kind of nullify you guys having the ability to make an insubstantial project change. >> Yeah, that that's that's where my head was going. Uh, so I think we're on the same wavelength on that front. So the the debate I'm having in my mind now is
right, we've got the original plan that's recorded that shows an extent of disturbance, >> including in your own >> in the riverfront area that is further into the riverfront area than this plan otherwise would imply. >> Somebody's got some
>> Yeah, we got some background noise. >> Background noise. >> Yep. I think that's a great change that right that that footprint's been reduced on the page west in plan left of of the project.
I don't think the addition of the work for the well, you know, would have changed my mind in that western boundary. And given it's outside the 50ft buffer,
I would yeah, I could see it either way, but I'd be comfortable with a a notice of project change or, you know, an approval of a a project change versus a going through the amended NOI process.
>> Yeah. And ultimately the asbuilt is going to have to be filed >> which show the well show the new boundary. >> Yeah, there's that but then there's also this plan is going to be in our commission's records. So when when the applicant comes back for a certificate
of compliance, this is the plan we're going to look at and if that western limit is the western limit that's shown on this plan, we're probably going to take issue with that. Yeah, I >> yeah, >> I agree. I The only the only hiccup I
would just ask if maybe Anna um if the property sells before before this is built and new property owner picks up the plan, will it live with the change? Will that
be an obvious um obvious to them the change without an amended notice of intent? to the chair. I wouldn't think so, but I mean, you know, like you've you've had the
point of, you know, we make minor changes. Typically, it's, you know, reducing the scope, keeping the same limit of work. So, >> yeah, I I agree with with Anna there, but I'd also point out that if they got that plant, it wouldn't have a well on
it. It'd have a water connection to the street. Yeah. >> So, if they wanted to do it, well, guess where they'd be coming back, >> right? That's true. That's true. Okay.
Um All right. Let's go with that with a minor project change. Yes. Minor project change with our standard conditions that go with the well installation.
>> Yeah. And I got to imagine those are tied to like erosion and sedimentation controls, right? Which we've got on the plan >> today. So, we at least have some representation of controls around the well, which is a good thing. Um the
minor project change also includes the new building footprint. Is that >> right? >> A fair understanding. Right. So it's a reduced building footprint. >> Reduce building footprint and yeah change in the limit of work on the
west page west. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I mean having gone through amended NOIs before I can understand the pain that's tied to them which is part of why I be I think I'm comfortable with a project change
approval of project change but I could certainly be convinced otherwise Okay. >> So, you looking for a motion, Melissa? >> A motion to approve the changes
as minor project changes with a new order of conditions relative to those changes. Anything else? Signatures by Ann and Judy. issue a new order of conditions without um an amended notice of intent.
Just to clarify, >> that's what we've been talking about though is doing it without an amended. >> Yeah. So >> I thought >> Yeah, that's what we're talking about. But but we can't issue we can't reissue the order. It would just be >> no issue a separate order for the
changes. can't we can't >> we want to issue an order >> we have to do an amended NOI if we want to hold our current order as it stands but allow for the changes depicted on the plan we could do a project approval
of the project change so the if we go approval of project change and if I'm speaking out of turn or incorrectly please please feel free to jump in and stop me um but If we go with approval of the project change, we're basically accepting that our exist
the conditions we've issued up to this point are still adequate for the project and that we're okay with the reduced footprint of disturbance on the plan west. the addition of the proposed well and the change reduced footprint and
change to the building. And if we feel that those are too substantial relative to the order we issued, then I think we're putting ourselves in a position where it has to be an amended NOI.
>> Well, the only seems to be the only substantive change to the original order is the well. So, how do we get any standards in for the well installation access?
We can't >> Yeah, I think we want to say that we're approving a project change with conditions with our standard well conditions.
>> Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. So, You want to make that or you want me? >> Well, let's let's confirm what the motion is. >> All right. So, I'm thinking the motion is >> uh a motion to approve the project
changes depicted on the plan >> with the plan. >> Sorry, say that again, Jim. >> Add the dates to the plan. Add the >> Yeah, I just don't know it off hand. Yeah, we should have the date of the plan. um with conditions with the standard
conditions we would issue for a private well installation. >> If that's acceptable, Melissa, I'll second it. >> Okay. Um all in favor, Matt >> I.
>> Jim, >> I >> Ed >> I. and I am also an I. >> Thank you. >> All right. You're welcome. >> Have a good night. >> You too. >> Thanks.
>> Cheers. >> All right. Um 32 Granite Street violation discussion tree vegetation clearing. >> Uh hi, we are here the homeowners. Um I will hand over to Dave for going into more details but before he goes into
more details I just want to mention two points for uh consideration to this conservation commission. As you will see the st survey you will see that um around 70% of the cuts were for.5 to 1 in um twigs or the branches. Uh so from
Dave's perspective and our perspective uh things that are such small uh there should be different consideration between a violation which is a tree cut versus what is.5 to 1 in cut. Um second point to mention and then I'll hand it over to Dave is that most of the cuts
were for three species. Uh the witch hazel, the pepper bush and the ses. And I shared some materials with Judy that those three species uh regrow from the stumps and they have been documented by the US Department of Agriculture and by state agencies. And Judy was here last
week to do a site survey. and she can also see that there have been sprouts and things are regrowing on their own in that area. So just want to mention these two things before I hand over to Dave for more discussion in detail.
>> Okay, thank you. >> Um >> uh good evening. >> Yep. >> Um >> uh 32 granite. So we were asked uh to delineate the wetlands. Uh we have uh 11
flags uh on the ground. Uh wetland delineation was done by Scottheim of Northeast Ecological. Uh lot lines were determined. Uh we had located some minor features. Uh the well on the left hand side, left rear side of the lot, an
existing shed, rear portion of the house, portion of the driveway. Uh and then uh a head wall out by Granite Street. Um we uh
had we have located uh as many as uh 189 little little trees to some medium-sized trees on the property. Um six of the trees are uh outside the buffer zone on the northern part of the
page, top part of the page. uh are outside the buffer zone. There's six of those. Uh we have uh nine uh trees that uh we don't know the species of. And uh we've been sort of examining
uh prior to the snow uh what we feel was maybe cut by the previous homeowner. Uh we've come up with about 21 odd trees that were cut by the homeowner. Uh and some of the trees uh and bushes that
we've located uh are quite small. Uh Judy had asked us to go down as is as as little as a half inch. Uh my personal opinion is I I think that's uh a little bit small uh to locate, but
nevertheless, we had located it. That's part of the total. um some of the uh trees and shrubs. Uh Judy, can you raise that up just a little bit?
Yeah. The uh the circles with the black dots are the wetlands. Uh, and it it sort of starts at the head wall at Grana Street, then goes in the southern direction down the page, and then goes sort of weaves itself around that dash
line, which is the property line, and then starts heading kind of uh diagonally up the page all the way to the shed. Uh, this there are trees inside the wetland that have been cut. Some have been cut by the previous homeowner. We feel uh some of the trees
are are trees and shrubs are a half inch like I've said. Um we've located some PIBs. Uh some are the PIBs are in the wetland. I think the PIBs were put up uh
based on a uh the the previous COC that was I think uh finalized in May of 25. Uh so I think using that drawing uh before the new wet these new wetlands were done uh they had uh had uh
installed the P uh the PIB medallions. So now they they may have to get modified a little bit because they're uh too close to the to the wetland uh or in the wetland. So uh we've had discussions with Judy uh and Anna. Uh we had a
sitewalk on Friday uh prior to the snow. Uh kind of looking at what was cut uh in the wetland uh and then we were kind of examining uh the left hand side of the lot as you look at it and then slightly
behind the house. Uh we didn't go to the far right hand corner. Uh uh but um so we're here this evening uh per the request of the enforcement order to to locate the trees. uh we've done so uh
and now we I guess uh the homeowner is thinking uh that the sizing of the trees uh for replacement and the the total number might be more representative from uh higher than an inch and above is what
we should u kind of replace. I I need to mention uh as you can see that dash line at the bottom of the page that runs from uh the street uh bottom right hand corner a diagonally left is the lot line. So some of those trees that were
cut uh are off property. Uh so I think we need to be uh aware of that and and and obviously in our in our planting scheme uh we need to sort of focus on where we're um where we should
uh propose these these new plantings. So we uh we would like to ask uh I guess the board as to what the limitations are on the size uh to be replaced and then based on that we could uh tally up what
needs to be uh replicated uh and restored uh implanted. >> Okay. Um okay I do I I agree that uh you know
these small small things will grow back. Um >> yeah, >> what would you say? So you're throwing out an inch. How many trees inch and larger were cut? >> Uh the image that I shared with you with
a distribution of the trees with the color coding. >> I'm going to switch to this view. So as you can see on this screen um there were like 100 that are.5 to 1 in uh 36 that are 1.5 to 2.5 again like
those are small things and then 15 are 2.5 to 4 in >> okay >> and also like we have not done the distribution on this table here but again like if you see the species 80 to 90% are three species that I mentioned
that witch hazel pepper bush and cyprress. >> Okay. Um, I guess the thing that comes to mind for me is I think that when we replace when we call for replacement trees, um,
I think it's usually like 2 or 2 and 1/2 in that we ask for them to be if a tree is cut down, it needs to be replaced with at least a 2 in or 2 and 1/2 in tree.
Um, so I might be inclined to say replace the the 15 2 and 1/2 to 4 in. >> Okay. >> Or the 36 and the 15. I don't know if on
the if anyone has a differing opinion on that. I could be swayed either way. the 36 plus the 15 or the 15 and above. I think that the smaller trees, you know, it will reveate. You might cause more disruption
planting a, you know, half inch. Um, >> can we zoom out to see where the trees of those diameters are located? >> So, it's the purple and the green.
>> Purple and green. Yeah. And is that just representative? That's representative of all trees in the buffer regardless of 50 100. That's just all buffer trees. >> Yeah, that's that's the total through the buffer. Correct.
>> For the chair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yeah. Um I haven't looked at there or reviewed this, but I did see just looking at what was uh on the screen that a lot of those um plants are shrub species and and you know trees may be
being used loosely as a a woody plant, but um just looking at that list there a lot of sweet pepper bush and um witch hazel. Um those are all shrubs. Um
>> yeah. Um and with respect to the uh car the comment on the uh size I know uh in doing wetland delineations um the cut off for a tree what what's considered a
tree is 3 in um so that might add some helpful information. >> Okay. No thanks. >> Yeah. three. >> My my immediate reaction, Melissa, is the 15 for sure, the two and a half to 4 in.
>> Mhm. >> replanted. And then the question is whether or not any of those smaller trees, shrubs, etc. would be beneficial to plant versus to reveate naturally. If
this if this area was just cut and not converted to lawn or some other maintained area then you know nature's a better option >> my mind because if nature brings it back
it's meant to be there and you it's more likely to survive. That's, you know, from an engineer standpoint, not a landscape architect or, you know, landscaper. But, uh, >> one comment to to the chair and to Matt, um, Judy has taken a picture and we can
see that those little trees are already re like those shrubs or like twigs are already regrowing and we have taken pictures for those as well. >> Yeah. And our intent was never to uh sorry for my voice but our intent was never to like make anything or create
anything there. It was just uh a a um I think a comment from our landscaper um >> and judgment and decision on >> on our side. Yeah. Again our our intention was never to like build anything out there. >> Right. Okay.
>> Plant more trees. Uh, so it kind of it just Yeah, bad decision, I'd say. Okay. Um, okay. Can you can you zoom back out,
Judy, to see the full property on this plan? Um, so okay. So I guess I guess I'll propose to the commission
replacement of the 2 and 1/2 inch and greater. So those 15 15 trees or bushes. I think it would be fine to replace them with
um whatever was removed. So, if it's considered a shrub versus a tree, can replace the shrub with the shrub. >> Okay. >> Um, and as far as where to plant them, I I want
to say, you know, near to where they were cut. Um, unless maybe we want to see that on a that on a plan. I'm not sure how that lines up um or what makes sense from being in the
field. >> Yeah. Can we jump back to the color version? I don't know if that's something you had Judy or Yeah, >> I think there's one which is number 175 which is 3 in saffras which is outside
the line seems like. >> So it can be planted there. >> Number 175 it is right in the below like left side. you. No, it's not. >> Do you have to scroll down?
>> I'm trying. My eyes are going fuzzy. >> Down. Down. 175 down. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So 17 is that purple one. Uh like you see that? >> There it is. >> 25. Yeah. So that's the 3 in seph casses.
>> Okay. So you're saying that's the one that's off your property? >> Yes. Right. >> Yeah. Can we can we plant it there? I mean, we're okay planting it, but um that's something which we can do, right? >> Yeah. I mean, I I think you could plant it on your property. Um
>> we don't have to be that exact with the location. >> Sure. >> Through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes. >> Who's is the abuing property? >> Do you know the owner of that property?
>> There's nothing. um next to it. I don't know. >> Yeah, it's just a it's a it's a stream. So, I think it's a wetland. Um and there there's no house. >> There's no house next to it. There's just like a >> a stream >> through the chair. >> Look like there is a house.
>> Oh, is that what you were going to say, Anna? >> Yeah, it belongs to 36 Granite Street, which is two houses down for you. They kind of wrap back around. >> Oh, girl. They're pretty far away. Okay. Melissa, I think it would be good to see
a plan that shows where the plantings are proposed. >> The for the trees that were located outside the 50ft buffer, it may make sense to pull them back in
to the 50ft buffer to kind of offset some of the smaller stuff that was cut down. I think in terms of protecting the resources, more substantial vegetation in that first 50 feet's got some value versus on the fringe of the hund.
>> Yeah, I' I'd agree. I think keeping them within the medallion line so they're protected with that line, too. >> Yeah, >> within the PIB. Um, and the question came up about the
PIB being along the wetland line or maybe wanting to revise that. Is that correct? Is that over by like on the left hand side there by all the blue dots? >> Uh, it's kind of behind the deck in the
house that that long line. A lot of a lot of the PIVs are uh right at the lot line right on the lot right on the wetland line or just inside the wetland line. >> Okay. And then it's but it's so it's lawn
right up to those trees that were cut. >> No, it's there's not really a finished lawn. Uh >> okay. >> In any of these areas. It's kind of a it's a it's a brushy area. It's it's uh you know, we went out there uh Friday to
look at where the sprouts are and uh things are thriving out there already. Uh so, you know, planting something on the house side of those might be appropriate. >> Okay. And those so those medallions could be moved toward the house to a
closer tree pretty easily. >> Probably not. A tree would have to go to a post. >> Okay. All right. So, I think if we could get a uh a plan, a revised plan that shows the 15
>> Y >> um bushes or trees. >> Yeah. >> Um and the types and the revised medallion locations here on the back, then I think that
would that would be good for me. Um I don't if anyone else has additional requests or thoughts >> through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> I just wanted to confirm Joe had mentioned it earlier but he has not
reviewed this wetland line. He was out there for the COC but not for the anything with the enforcement. Um, so whether or not the commission wants this wetland line confirmed, um, I think is a decision that you can make or if you're
okay with PIBs being revised based on what's been presented. And so the wetland line came from this from Dave. >> Yeah, from Scottheim. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I think I'm I'm fine with
this. um revising the PIBs just based on Scottheim's delineation, but maybe we um just note that we're not approving it through this process here. >> Yep. >> You're the chair.
>> Yes, Anna. Um, and you're okay with just straight one to one replacement for cutting because a lot of times when you've done cutting, we re we require more replacements. So, >> yeah, that's a good point. >> Something to think about.
>> Does anyone have thoughts on that? >> Yeah, I do. >> Okay, man. >> So, >> let's hear it. If I if I heard what you said earlier, when we have replacement plantings of trees, we
typically require two to two and a half inch caliber trees. >> Correct. So, I think any two to two and a half inch caliber trees that were cut, a one would be an equivalent replacement. When we get to the 3 to 4
inch trees, it may be worth considering either one and a half to one or two to one more in line with what we typically would require when a large diameter tree like a 12 15 inch diameter tree gets cut. Um, I air on the side of maybe it's
one and a half or one one still just because the these are small diameter trees versus like the pines we've seen cut the oaks, the maples that are, you know, 24 30in caliber trees and we're asking for 2:1 or 3:1. I think this
it's it's pretty close to inind replacement of what was cut in my mind. >> That's a good point. It's a good thought. No, I agree. Usually what we see cut is larger, hence the multiple trees.
Um, we really got to get these regulations updated so I could just point to this stuff. Um, all right. Since we went through the effort of you know documenting the
diameters and the you know the trees um I'll propose the two and a half inch trees can be replaced in kind.
Um, and above that do 1 and 1/2 to one. >> 2 and 1/2. Whatever's two and a half, we replace one. Okay. >> One and a half to one for the larger. >> Yeah. Over two and a half.
And again, we're replacing bush to bush and uh tree to tree. What we're calling, right? >> Yeah. Replace with uh sim similar to what was cut from >> what was cut. >> So, can I make one other suggestion,
Melissa? Yeah. >> Is it worth providing an option here where it's truly inind replacement if the property owner wants to go out and buy a
3 and a half or 4 in caliber maple for example as opposed to multiple 2-in maples? Would we view that as an acceptable op like an option A option B situation? Right? If there's a 4 inch diameter tree
and they want to replace it with a 4 inch still in kind versus two twoin caliber trees. I just it may provide some >> flexibility >> flexibility
um and disturbance. >> Yeah, I'd be fine with that. because I mean once you get above four like you're better off planting the small trees anyways but because we're talking about such small trees you know 4 in caliber tree has a pretty good
survival rate still in but you get above that and I don't love the chances of it surviving >> yeah I guess in my head I was thinking any any replacement tree would be two and a half they wouldn't need replaced by four. But
yeah, no, I I I agree. You're not going to It's not practical to replace a four with a four. Um >> Well, no, it may be what I'm saying is it may be practical. So like say there's
say there's three 4 inch diameter trees out there. >> Yeah. And instead of planting six trees, the cost to plant the footprint of disturbance that would occur if the landowner chose to plant four 4-in trees instead of six 2in
trees, we would view that as an equivalent >> Oh, >> restoration. >> Yeah, I think that would be fine. So, I think if we're all in agreement that that option exists, I think what we'd want to
see, if I'm hearing correctly, like a plan that shows the plant things as well as the diameter of those plant things to show whether or not it is a true inind replacement or if it's a one and a half to one with smaller trees, so we can have that math
broken out and and clear on on the plan. Yep. Understood. Yep. >> Dave. Okay. >> As long as you understand, Dave. And I see an option from the homeowner. So, >> yeah.
All right. That sounds good. Um, we need to vote to continue through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. Uh the way the previous enforcement order was written required the homeowners to come with a stump survey. Um so if you'd like to require a
planting plan per the um conditions you all had discussed, I would suggest a new enforcement order. >> Okay. >> Cuz right now they are in compliance with what's already been asked of them. So if you're asking for new things, we
just need a new new document. >> Right. Okay. Yep. No, I agree with that. So, the enforcement order would be I'm going to write it at this point to present
present a planning plan. >> Yeah. >> The commission's approval. Yeah. Okay. >> And I can add per, you know, what was discussed, >> right? Okay, that sounds good. And if you have um a date where you
would like to see that by um you know what might be reasonable to try to get something in before planting season. >> Yeah, >> maybe Dave um I mean I would like to get this resolved as soon as possible so that we can order the trees. Um Dave,
not sure if you can get it done in the next two weeks, but if possible, can we resolve in the next couple of weeks? >> Yeah. Could we do uh what was it? February 24th. >> That's Yep. Yep.
>> Okay. >> I think that's probably a safe bet for how we write the enforcement order. And if they come back on the 10th, great. >> Yeah. I don't know if it matters. Sorry. Go ahead, Melissa. >> No, go ahead, Matt. I was gonna
>> I don't know if it matters like if we specify that the planting plan also includes the proposed relocation of PIBs. I don't know if that needs to be a separate element of how you write this up or if it all can lump in together. >> Yeah, I can add that as a requirement of
what should be in the planting plan if you if the commission wants that. >> Yeah, I like that. I I would go with that. Yeah. Keep it all together. Okay. Do you need a vote for that, Judy? Or
>> Yes, please. >> Okay. Can I get a motion uh to write an enforcement order to that effect with signature by Judy or Anna? >> So moved. Second. >> All in favor?
All in favor? Matt >> I. >> Jim >> I. >> Ed >> I. >> Um I am also an I. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Um okay. 10 Exchange Street enforcement order document for review. We have two different items here.
Judy, do you want to do the enforcement order first? >> Sure. Um, >> yeah. >> So, I revised the enforcement order that was presented at the last commission meeting per uh notes from Joe and the
commission regarding the amount of time for the plantings to be monitored. Um, so everything is the same until you get to condition 15. Um,
specified restoration plan remain in effect for two growing seasons. Reports at the end of each growing season, what the reports need to contain, and then a definition of a growing season. Um,
so this is to change it from the five growing seasons it was before. Now we have two. And I think I just separated out the planting plan report from the invasive species report because they're on two
separate timelines now. >> Okay. >> Um, I don't believe we have a revised invasive species management plan. So, I don't think this is ready to be voted on at this point. Um, so I guess it's just
to make sure the commission is is happy with the way this is written, but I don't think we have all the information we need at this point. >> Okay. >> Um, so that being said, did anyone take a look and have any comments at this
point in time for Judy? If not, you got another opportunity to take a look at it, I guess. till we get the planting plan. But if we have any comments for Judy now, please share. Okay,
so we're good on that. Change this to two. Happy we have several opportunities to catch my typos, so I will fix this one. >> It's hard when it's Yeah. the end of the night. Um,
okay. So, we'll jump over. Same property, but now restoration plan discussion continuation. We have a new plan. Um, this is you as well, Dave, right? >> Yep.
>> Um, >> okay. So, for updates, revise the P, >> right? >> Yep. So, uh, the tree count is exactly the same what you voted for on January 6th. Uh, 54 trees, 74 bushes. Uh, we've,
uh, enlarged the limits of the erosion control measures. Uh, we have, uh, have a total now of 15 PIBs. Uh four of the 15 are on the kind of the
top part of the page are on the 50- foot uh off offset buffer zone. Uh the next three are not on the buffer zone. Uh I've had some discussions with Judy and Anna. Reason being is uh future planning
on the septic system that's just above in between the 50 and 100 foot buffer. uh at our existing cesspool. So, we decided to put that little purple figurine as our PIB shown on the screen uh sort of straight across the driveway
and then we came down along the driveway uh right along the edge of the isolated wetland and then up to the barn. Then down the barn on the other side on the southern side of the driveway. We have one, two, three, four, five there that
average about 3 to 5 feet off the driveway and that's our total of 15. So no changes to trees or bushes. PIBs have been expanded to 15 nearer the driveways per some of the comments on January 6th.
Uh Ros and then uh we haven't addressed completely uh the invasive species concerns that that Joe had mentioned. Uh we need some some updates on that. Uh and then uh um
I think other than that I I think we're kind of in line. Does do you have any questions? >> Uh yes I have um I have two things. Um so one is um given uh the current snowstorm and um I'm motivated to kind
of make sure that uh you know I control the invasives on on my property. Um however um because I haven't really paid attention uh other than I just gave this to to contract to that company and at that time I did not even know how to
identify a notweed. Um, but I also want to learn how to identify different species um of the things that are located at least on my property and kind of like like have a nice plan like because I need to um mitigate them on an
ongoing basis. So, but for that um I I really don't have a sustain uh I I need them to grow back um at least to a certain leaves uh uh state to to be able to uh and I also need some help. I
probably will call somebody and ask them to identify to help me identify and maybe identify together with those whatever those you said is MP or some some kind of a professional. So um but but the timing is the real issue here.
Um because um a we we I I I kind of agreed to plant in a between April and June. So I don't know when these leaves would come out to be able to identify other species. So I have uh I I really
um want to request um uh if possible some extension. But again if you have any other suggestion how to um identify them I'm happy to uh to work with you on that. That's one thing. The second issue
is um I would like to like uh request you know uh uh it's a humble request if you can like kind of contain um any of the of the of the weeds that are in the adjacent I don't know unknown owner like some kind of a plastic or something only
at the border not the whole thing I know it's the whole thing and only at the border so that like I can be a little bit more comfortable because if you put black plastic probably um it's going to be like there for a while so that like
you know anything would in my mind I'm thinking if it is crossing it would die out. I'm thinking again I don't know how it works. So these two things are in my mind at the moment. >> Okay. Um so for the first one I guess
maybe I'll ask Joe Orzelle as far as identifying invasive species. um because we had asked for those to be identified on on the plan. Is there a time of year kind of restriction for
when you can do that? When would be the next opportunity um to do that? Do we need full leaves? Can we >> Well, it certainly makes it it certainly makes it easier when the leaves are out um especially if things have been cut.
um you know wintertime shrub identification. It depends on the on the shrubs. The ones that are out there are pretty easy to identify. Um there's multifllora rose, glossy buckthornne, and the u the
Japanese knotweed. Um and those are all pretty easy to identify. So I think they could be done um in the winter. It just depends on if if they've been cut. Um, you know, it might be easier to see the sprouts with some leaves on it. Um, so
then with the snow on the ground, it's going to be tough. Um, >> yeah. >> Um, so maybe the mapping could potentially um be held off. I think the um an an
invasive species management plan can certainly address the other species without um having a a complete map of their locations um completed. Uh it can address how they will be um treated.
>> Okay, that's a good point. >> Um what did we have? Oh, I guess we're writing the writing the enforcement order right now. I can't remember what timeline we we had put on this Judy currently.
So, I think we had started all of the reporting with the consideration that plantings and invasives management were starting this spring. And I don't remember the exact date we had asked for the ISMP and planting plan to be updated.
>> I think you mentioned third week of April till June if if that's um the plantings would happen. >> Okay. So there's um I know we talked loosely about it in one of our previous meetings on how
these how tied together these two plans are um and whether you can do the plantings before having the invasive species management plan in place. But we can go forward with the invasive species management plan. Like Joe said, we just
don't have the mapping um complete until the spring. So maybe have we have a split timeline um for that and keep the planting schedule um and and have the invasive species
management plan be in line with the planting schedule or before it maybe by a month or so in case there's some considerations. that need to be accounted for with the
planting. Does that make sense? >> I think so. >> Okay. And then we can say that the invasive species map piece of it
um can follow up in you know like the May May June time frame maybe. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, and then as far as you were talking about the neighboring property,
I mean, maybe that's something that you can ask to be looked at in conjunction with the invasious species management plan. Maybe they consult me of working on that would have some ideas. Um, I
think that's probably my best suggestion there. Um, to see if they can work that into that plan, any tips they might have. >> Okay. So, uh, so you're saying I would,
uh, I would start the, uh, the plantings before the invasive management, invasive species management happens. Is that Did I understand right? Sorry. >> Um I said yeah. So if you get the invasive species management plan
completed like a at least a month before the plantings before you need to order plants because that I think that that is going to tell you if you need to do anything in particular in regards to the plantings.
Does that make sense? So that can advise you on the plantings. And maybe it says in there, don't plant whatever in this area until after you do some invasive species management. So maybe you can't plant them all in the spring. I don't know. Maybe that'll come out of that
plan. But I I think you really need to get that plan in place so that you know we understand the time frame. And then if you have that, we we can look at it. you can show it to us and say, "Well, I can't, you know, I can plant over here, but I can't plant over there." And we can have that discussion. But
>> until you have the invasive species management plan to guide you, you know, it's all kind of theoretical. And I wouldn't want you to order plants and then not be able to plant them or have them at risk. >> Okay, that that makes sense. Sorry, I
did not quite catch that, but that's that's Yeah, I think that's that's good. Now, uh do you guys know when approximately um the leaves would come? Uh probably April, May. I don't know. Sorry. Yeah, probably April, May. But that
piece, the inventory and the mapping piece can be separate from the invasive species management plan. That's just the guidance document. And then the map just gets attached to it or added later.
>> Yeah. I mean the reason why I I'm even asking this is because I now that like we are including all kinds of invasives I don't know how far they are spread um and how much it costs I don't know that so that's what I'm worried so if at all
like it's too many if if it's all over uh and it's going to cost significant amount of money so then what would be so that's that's the only reason why I'm asking like you know um uh uh because I know uh at least uh there were there
were greener green stuff all over. I don't know if that's invasive. So, >> right. No, I understand. We need to get the ball rolling though. I mean, I think we >> had some opportunities before and missed the window >> here. Now, we're in the snow scenario.
So, um we need to make some progress. So, I think that'll I think that's what we need to do. >> Yeah. I think that answers my question. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Okay. Yep. Thanks for hanging in for her late meeting,
>> Melissa. >> Yes, Dave. >> Um, so you're still looking for uh for Joe's comments to be addressed, >> right? >> Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Uh, Padma, when do you think those items
could get back to to the commission for review? Oh, >> that would be those items would be created by the invasive company to answer Joe's responses. >> I I mean I'm I'm sorry. My understanding is I would have to wait for I can wait
until the leaves come up. No, >> no, that's just for the that's just for the um You don't need that in order to answer all Joe's comments. So they're looking for >> they're looking Paba they're looking for
uh kind of the sequencing and in and in and some of the uh the answers to be answers to Joe's questions outlined in a response from the invasives company and give this back to the commission. We need that we need that sort of resolved.
It sounds like the plan is all set. trees and so forth, PIBs, all set, but we need to get the comments back to the commission so we can finalize this. So, we get the comments uh addressed, approved by the commission, and then
we're ready to we're going to start dealing with the invasives about a month prior to planting. So, we're hoping to do plantings. We want to do plantings in May. So, we're we're looking to deal with invasives in April. And already
it's now it's February 1. >> Do you have a feel as to when we could come back with answers? >> Do you think we could come back on the 24th with answers? >> Oh, I don't know Dave because what happened is last time uh when I asked
the u you know um when when they were like cutting the things. So there was a quote before and when the trees came up they gave like four times more coat. So I don't know if these guys um if I ask them to come the the do the the digging
right now because in the snow they would probably charge me hourly and like may ask more money. I don't know that. Right. So >> no Padma this is just this is responses not coming to the site. This is responses in providing information that
the commission needs to feel comfortable that this is a qualified company. >> Those type of things they they need the basics. Do you think you could contact them ver relatively soon and have them re give them the comment letter and then
have them address the comments with the with the response? >> Oh, okay. Sorry, I misunderstood. So, maybe I can I can talk to the same people and then um then maybe send them uh and I will I will talk to you later, Dave. Sorry, I misunderstood some of the stuff. So, maybe maybe I can get that
thing that that thing rolling. Yeah, I don't know when they will be able to provide though, but uh um but I I can I can start on that like right away. >> Do you think we could get come back here two weeks in two weeks and and uh
and attempt to dry it in two weeks and if we can't then we can come back on the 24th at worst case scenario? >> Yeah, I think so. I I mean I I I Yeah, I think so. So, I will have to like uh talk to the same person and Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah.
>> Does that sound uh something that we could strive for, Melissa? >> Yep. Let's let's do that. So, we'll continue this to February 10th um for an update.
Um, >> and if we don't have it, then we'll discontinue for the 24th, but we need to make contact with them in the next few days. >> Yeah, I think if we don't get, you know, you can't provide us with some dates or
some progress, then we'll probably have to issue another enforcement letter with a date. Um and then >> call them I I will I will call them right away um like in the next couple of days and try to get as soon as possible.
Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Right now we'll try and put it in your court and give you some flexibility on the date. But if that doesn't work, then we'll have to pick the, you know, it'll be in our hands to kind of set that date and it might not be
um what you want it to be. So, >> okay. Are we okay with the plan? PIBs. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I think so. Anyone have any comments on the plan? I think we're good. Anyone
from the public? >> No. Yep. I think we're good with that plan, Dave. Planted plan. >> Thank you. >> Yep. All right. Thanks. >> Okay. >> You need a vote. You can do a vote.
Uh, vote to continue. We can vote to continue this out to February 10th. Can I get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? Matt >> I. >> Jim
>> I. >> Ed. >> I. >> And I am also an I. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. Um, okay. Two West Elm Street violation discussion.
Um, Judy, you want to give us a rundown? Sure. I will try to go fast. Great job, everybody. Um, yep. So, this is a new violation. Um Anna and I were
driving around doing site visits on the 16th and we noticed significant earthwork occurring at 2 West Elm Street um which is the location of the Islamic Society of Greater Milford. Uh we had issued administrative approval for the conversion of a few areas of
lawn on the property to pvious grassy pavers. Uh but the disturbance that we saw appeared to be outside of these approved areas. Um, we were also told that they were working to install gravel and a trench for drainage, which is not in the scope of what we had approved.
Uh, so we did issue a cease and desist that day. Asked for erosion controls to be installed and the fill to be removed. Um, got some pictures in here. We've been out a few times since then. It's a little hard to tell with the snow, but it does look like a the bulk of the fill
has been pulled back. Um, I mean it was about 1 to 2 feet thick right on the wetland edge. Um, so it looks like a lot of material was pulled back. Erosion controls were installed as best as they could be with
the ground frozen. Um, it's not perfect, but nothing is melting yet. Um, so right now under the snow it's it's probably still unstabilized, but we think a lot of the fill has come out. So, I think we have the a representative
from the Islamic Society on the call and potentially the contractor who did the work as well. If the commission has questions for them on what they're working on, um, and if you have any feedback on anything additional you'd like to see, uh, past the erosion
controls, um, they put in silt fence and straw waddle, you know, whether you'd like a stronger PIB. Right now, they just have medallions. um any plantings in the spring of this disturbed area or additional stabilization um that sort of thing.
I will turn it over to you, Melissa. >> All right. Thanks, Judy. Um I guess I'll give the the Do we have the the owner contractor? You want to introduce yourself? >> My name is Abdul.
I'm volunteering the at the Islamic center just helping when they need some help inside outside and mostly outside. >> Okay. So you you work at the Islamic Center, you were doing the construction
work or both you were >> um No, I'm just volunteering over there. I'm not basically working over there. But uh when they have some uh like I manage like when they have like a snow removal uh cut the grass and stuff like
that. I make sure it's done and clean all all these stuff and uh cuz I do uh I have my company for irrigation and lighting. It's nothing to do with this but um you know when it's I help them sometimes as a volunteer.
>> Gotcha. Okay. Um so are you familiar now with the uh the wetlands the limits of work on
the site? Um >> yes. Yeah. Now this area where is the picture sees like um they dump uh not they dump I told them to put just to be honest and clear about it to put some uh
some soil from the fill uh we took from the trench and we brought it here in the back. Um but uh when I realized this is we're not supposed to do this and we
take everything out and uh there was no trees here or anything. It's one small shrub and it's actually still there but uh before this area was like some u brush and uh
um wood chips. Um, and after the snow melted, I'm going to check it again to make sure still the same how it was before. And um, we'll take care of it. If we
need to put some seed or some, you know, whatever uh required just to make it looks more um, wetland how it was before, we will take care of it. >> Okay. Yeah, I think I mean we're we're
definitely going to need to see it uh restored um stabilized and >> did you did you have a plan for what you were going to do here after they finished
>> here in this in the same spot here? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Nothing actually. No, it was like each time the guy who come to take the dumpster, this dumpster and it keep falling down because it was a little bit deep and I told him to throw some um
fill here from the trench we dig. That's where uh >> Okay. >> What's happening? It's like nothing. We're not going to do anything in this this area at all. >> Okay. Um,
so at this point in time, it sounds like Judy, you said there are erosion controls around the limit that there's not much we can do with the snow. Um, or see, but I guess what we can do is
work on a plan, a a restoration plan to actually call out what we're going to do here. Um, so that being said, um, this is a violation. So, we have a
letter. So, we need an enforce we probably need to do an enforcement write up, Judy. um specifying that we would like you to come back to us with a restoration plan for this area
um at one of our future meetings. I don't know if you can do that by February 10th or the 24th and Judy can help you and give some guidance on on what a plan would look like or what the commission would be
looking for. Yeah, no problem. Whatever you guys request to uh to do for this area, I'm uh I'm happy to to do it and take care of it. You know, it's uh it's my fault and I apologize for Judy and Anna for
this and it's like a mistake I did and uh we clean it out right away. No, I appreciate your responsiveness once um it was brought to your attention. I think there might have been
you know initially our staff there are certain things that they can give permission to do that are minor activities like the pavers um that you originally talked to Judy and Anna about
that were within the parking area. Yeah. >> Um but anything more than that really needs to come in front of the commission. Um and then we can talk through it and talk about erosion controls, talk about stabilization.
Um, if you want to do any trenching or things like this where you're disturbing earth, um, even the the trenching work that you were doing probably should have come in front of the commission um, so that we can make sure we're protecting the resource areas and on the same page
and and taking No, >> absolutely. >> I I got the listen. >> You got it. It's late. You got it. All right. You're gonna come back. Does anyone have anything to add? Um,
>> and just like about the the the trench, can we finish it up and put the gravel and close this uh the other section? Not the the wetland here. >> What is the trench for? >> Um, if you
if you back to Yeah. This area here, you see where is the far the far cones? >> Yep. >> Um, this area we we We supposed to put like uh what I send Ann and Judy um we're going to put the bavers and put uh
grass in between the pavers and uh because of the budget wise we switch it to gravel. Next next to these cones we we dug like a a trench here to put some gravel to hold the water inside coming
from the slope. Um that's it. Uh, we're not taking the water to the left or to the right side. It's going to be just only in the bottom to avoid more water going to the >> gravel area. What we're going to put
here. >> So, you're capturing water that's coming from the like area toward your parking lot. >> Yes. Yeah. >> And you're trying to keep it from getting onto the parking lot. Is that
>> Yes. Yep. It's actually this area is not it's not a parking lot. It's going to be like a it's like a playing area for the it's like when you have activity at the at the the mosque or something. Uh they always go and sit here.
uh because there's no cars here park and it always wet because of the water coming from this slope and uh that's why we're trying to fix this area a little bit and u put some gravel that's way to keep the the water down not goes to the
grass area. Okay, I think this probably deserves being put on a plan along with the stabilization um on the other side there and maybe
come back to our February 10th meeting and we can just talk talk through it and make sure we're all on the same page as far as what that area looks like and and whether whether or not it basically
it's asking for an RDA to for us to determine whether you need any additional permitting or you can just go ahead and finish the project. Um cuz it's kind of hard for us to gauge, you know, based on pictures and not having a good handle on the extent
of of what you're proposing. That's my that's my thought. I don't know, uh Judy, if you have another thought or anyone else on the commission to go a different direction with it. I think that makes sense. So, you can make a decision on permitting. Just have a simple sketch plan of the restoration.
>> Yeah. >> And what they're planning with the trench and the gravel. >> It is like an open trench right now, so you know, maybe just make sure people don't go back there for safety purposes. >> Yeah. I guess there's no harm in in in
filling it if you wanted to make it safe and given the the conditions, but um I think that would be about it. Fill it to kind of stabilize the area, but we would need some more details to review. I think for
>> you mean like uh can I put gravel in it to fill it to make it same level with the with the area with the grass and uh then we can talk about it. >> I I think so. I I would be comfortable with that. um once you bring it in front of us, I'm not sure what we'll decide
and if that can stay or need to be, you know, changed at all, but in order to kind of stabilize it and >> I think that >> yeah, I feel more safe to fill it to be honest with you, just more safely, but
uh to take it out after that is uh um yeah, let's let's fill it. I'm let's fill it right now. and just to for more safety and uh and uh we can talk about it uh later on and see what you guys
would like to do for this one. >> Okay. Does anyone else have any comments, thoughts? >> Just that filling it for public safety is a a wise move.
>> Yeah. Okay, then we will Can I um get a motion to continue this out to February 10th and for Judy to draft up a letter
and for Judy or Anna to sign? So moved. >> Can I get a second? I'll >> second. All in favor? Matt. >> Hi, >> Jim. >> I.
>> Ed. >> I. >> Peggy, if you want to vote on this one, you can. If not, you don't have to. This is the first royal hearing of it. >> Sure. Um I >> All right. And I'm also an I.
Okay. Thank you for coming to us tonight. Thank you. >> Yes. >> All right. Um I think we're going to skip the conservation minute for tonight. >> Oh, really?
Longer. You want to go to midnight? >> It's only a minute. We can do it in a minute. >> That's right. Minute. Um, I'm assuming there's no public forum requests. Judy, is there anything else?
>> No, that's to talk about. >> Okay. >> Yeah, probably they're not all four hours long. >> I know. I'm sorry, Peggy. This was like a really rough one to start off. >> I was wondering if this is normal. >> No, my mind.
>> Don't Don't believe what they're telling you that this is not normal. The last one was the same thing. >> Oh, no. We've had a couple items on the agendas that have taken a bit of discussion, but as a relatively new member, I can attest that over the last,
you know, year and a half, these are the outliers. >> They are. We try to finish bank. >> Yeah. Just remember back to the days when we were in person. Ed, you would appreciate this. In person, you get kicked out of the senior center
at 10 o'clock. So, >> that's right. That's right. That's right. >> I mean, >> one of the downsides of the >> I think we should implement that rule virtually, too. >> Maybe we will. >> I was on the board of appeals before and
they they they had to end by 10 by 10 p.m. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Which was kind of nice. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We might have to implement something like that. Well, to figure out the logistics of that. Um, >> I was saying Boston has five minute rule
for presentations. >> Yeah, >> there's a couple of commissions I've been in front of that do that. >> I can think of a good application for that five minute rule. >> Yeah, there's there's the one fallback
on that and it's it's I think up to us to enforce. A lot of items on the agenda never come off the agenda because there's so little time to talk about them. They just continue to go week, you know, meeting to meeting. >> So, it's striking that balance, right,
between >> finishing something and not talking enough about it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Will be in better shape. >> Yeah. Yep. Definitely. Well, we got rid of 47 Our tonight. So, not got rid of,
but we like closed that one out. So, that one's been on there. >> Yeah, >> I heard them celebrate as they left the meeting. >> So, we can put that as a conservation minute uh topic. Judy, how to any
suggestions for um expediting our meetings? I'm completely open to. So, I'm gonna make somebody a timer. >> Nice. >> If anybody wants that,
>> maybe Zoom can time out three hours >> maybe >> somehow. >> AI bot. Yeah. Cut you off. >> Yeah. >> All right. Uh, >> I'll make a motion to uh adjourn. >> If anyone wants to second
Jim Matt, >> all in favor? Matt. I >> Jim >> I >> Ed >> I >> Peggy >> I >> and I am also an I. All right, thanks for hanging in there everybody.
>> Good night everyone. >> Good night. >> Great job Moza. Thanks >> as