with an act ex act extending 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 Hopkin Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the
Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join. Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being
recorded and that 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. Please also keep yourself on mute unless and until called on by the chair. Supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website. This
meeting will feature public comment. After commission members and staff have 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. I will now confirm which commission members are present. Chair
Melissa Recos >> present. >> Ed Harrow >> present. >> Jim Cerillo >> Matt Moyan >> present. >> Walter Garland. >> No, I was hoping he came in while I was
reading. And I am Ted Barker Hook. I am present. I will now confirm staff that are present. Judy Day Hopington Conservation Administrator >> present. >> Anna Rogers, environmental and inspectional services coordinator. >> Present.
>> And Joe Orzelle of Lucas Environmental. >> Before I pass to Melissa, I'd like to let everyone know that we have two hearings on the night that have been continued. Those are Holmes at 37 Oakhurst and DeWolf at 47 Oakurst. Both
of those have been continued to the new year, January 6, 2025. >> Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> All right, that being said, we'll get started with our work session items. So, draft minutes for review. We have
minutes from August 5th, 2025. Does anyone have any comments on those minutes or have not had enough time to review them? >> No. All right. If that's the case, then I will ask for a motion to approve the
minutes. >> I'll make that motion. >> All right. Second. And all in favor, Ed >> I. >> Matt, >> I'm going to understand. I wasn't present. >> Oh, okay. >> Jim,
>> I >> Ted >> Ted is an I. >> And I am also an I. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have 41 Front Street. This is a request for certificate of
compliance. Um Judy, can you go over this and let us know your recommendation for where it stands? >> Sure. Uh through the chair. Um this was in order of conditions issued in 2024
for an addition and a deck off of an existing house. Um so right here um work within the 100 foot buffer to bordering vegetated wetlands as well as within the 125 ft vernal pool habitat
area. Um comments from Lucas are fairly minor. Uh so Joe said the site appears stable. Erosion controls have been removed. All work done was within the approved limit of work. Um Joe had a note to add that
the um split rail fence shown on the asbuilt serves as the permanent immovable barrier. Um so they did add that note to the plan. Um and the only sort of discussion item I believe for the commission is of the
14 required tree plantings um all were done but three of which were cultivars. I think there was a little bit of confusion with um uh Weston nurseries. So well-intentioned, but three of the 14 are technically cultivar species and there are nine additional non-native
shrub plantings um on the property that were done. Um so I think you know concom to discuss if you're satisfied with the plantings given that there are cultivars and non-native shrubs. Um but otherwise I think uh this is in a good position to approve the COC.
>> Okay. Thanks, Judy. Joe, do you have anything to add from your review? >> Uh, no. I think Judy covered it pretty well. >> Okay. And do we have the um homeowner on the line
>> through the chair? >> Yes, Ed. >> Do I see a typographical error here? 125 foot burr from PVP. Should that be buffer? probably
although um I think the terminology for that line is 125 foot um habitat. But yes,
that you know that. Thank you, Ed. That's that's correct. We can probably get that that fixed pretty easy. Get some white out. >> My white out pen. Um, did is the homeowner on the line?
>> Yes, I am. This is uh Sam Woodson. Hi, Sam. >> Hi. >> Did you have anything to add? >> I don't think so. Um, you know, we've we've done, I think, just about as much as we as we can as homeowners to to get the right trees, the right plantings.
Some of the the plantings that are uh the non-natives um were there before and our our survey team uh added those to the So, those most of the ones along the fence there with the exception of the three behind the shed, those are part of the 14. Um, and then the shrubs across
the front of the addition there, the living room is um those were not part of the 14 and those were not um not natives, but um all the 14 are native. So, I I feel like we've we've done as much as we can as as homeowners to kind of fulfill the the
needs and requirements of the the order of conditions. So, um just wanted to be here to answer any questions. >> Okay. Yeah. No, we appreciate that and appreciate you you working with us here. Um, obviously we have the improvement here of the PIB going in and the plaques
and whatnot. So, that's that's great. Um, >> awesome. >> On this project, I am comfortable with issuing a COC on this. Uh, but I'll open up to the commission see if anyone has any uh additional thoughts or questions. >> Through the chair, I have what I think
is an easy question. >> Yeah. >> Um, I assume, Mr. Woodson, that plaque on the plan means medallion. It's the little plastic markers that are on the the fence. >> Yes. Yeah, they're the um do not disturb placards from you guys. >> Um I don't I'm not I don't even think
plaque is necessarily the wrong terminology, but I'm used to hearing medallion in my head, so I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. That's all I got. >> Awesome. >> Anyone else or anyone from the public? >> Okay. Can I get a a motion to approve
this COC with the spelling update on the 125 foot line from the PVP and signature by Judy or Anna?
>> I'll make that motion and I'll second. >> All right. All in favor, Ed. >> I Matt. >> Jim. I >> Ted >> Ted is an I
>> and myself I am also an I. So thank you so much for um all your work on this project. >> Awesome. Thank you guys. >> Yep. >> Appreciate it. >> All right. Next up we have 10 Exchange Street restoration plan discussion.
Judy, can you run through this one for us? Sure. Uh through the chair. Um so uh the commission issued an enforcement order on November 4th um after reviewing the wetland delineation provided by the
applicant and confirmed by Joe. Um this new enforcement order required the homeowners to submit a restoration plan and an invasive species management plan by November 26th uh to be discussed today. So those timelines were met. Um
the changes to this plan versus the prior one um as additional isolated vegetated wetland was found um north of the garage. Additional PIBs were added. Those are those pink stars here. Um and there are also some along the driveway.
There's a planting list on this plan. Um they are meeting the 1 and a half to one ratio for uh replacement replacement plantings versus removed. um that the enforcement order required. Um I don't think we have comments from Joe yet
unless he has some informal. Um but I think at this point, if not today, um at a future meeting, we'd be looking for the commission to uh confirm that they are satisfied with the restoration plan and the invasive species management plan if they have any feedback. Um and kind
of get the homeowners in a position to start uh work this spring, ideally. Um and additionally if the commission wants to specify um you know survival rate, measure of success for the plantings, any monitoring requirements, those are things I think we can also talk about.
>> Okay, great. Um Joe, I guess I'll kind of turn to you. >> Yeah, I could make some informal comments. I do have a draft review ready
to send. I just haven't hasn't gone through internal QAQC yet and we'll get that out to you shortly. Um, but I would say uh generally speaking the uh the plantings uh look appropriate as far as species um as Judy had mentioned the
numbers uh seem appropriate. um the PIB uh locations. Um I was going to uh suggest the commission discuss whether those need to be extended
um the the more northern ones kind of along the driveway and and back toward the garage. And the uh this other one's more toward the garage. Um let's see. Um, I also had uh several comments on
the um proposed uh invasive species management plan that was required under the enforcement order. Um, there were specific items that were required. Um, and some of those are not uh included in the uh plan that was submitted. So,
there's a few things that I think need to be beefed up in that. Um, and that I think in generally at this point is is what I have. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks, Joe.
Um, so I think we'll look forward to seeing your port your report issued and um, being able to digest that as will the the applicant. Um, I think we should talk about the PIBs
for a minute, give some feedback there. So, what you're referencing, Joe, is along the existing driveway that kind of um well, I guess from the garage, north south driveway and u well both
driveways. There's a there's a east west one where um you know potentially could fit get another PIB between what they're showing in the garage >> and then the north south driveway. Um that wetland essentially u borders the existing driveways all the
way up to the garage. Um so I thought that that would be the spot in particular that you might want to consider some additional. >> Yeah, I' I'd agree with that. Um, do we have the the homeowner or engineer on the on the line? We got a lot of
people on here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. >> Yeah, I'm here. Um, my Yeah, my name is Padma and um Yes. Um, I'm just looking at it. So, um, uh, uh, Dave will uh, he's I mean, you
know, we'll join if needed like in the next session, but for now to this session only, I'll I I'm present. So, yeah. Okay. Please let me know uh what questions you have. >> Okay. Um yeah, I think it would be I guess for this topic of conversation, it
would be are you amendable to adding a couple more of the PIB medallions in that area around the driveway that Joe is talking about. So because I mean uh I mean honestly I
think the you just want those additional um um PIBs just to make sure like the wetland area is well protected like the even in spite it's isolated. Why do we want that additional PIBs? >> That's correct. Just so that it's
identified if someone is out there. Um I mean you are probably getting very familiar with where they are just through this process. But for the next homeowner or if you ever have a landscaper or some you know something like that that it is very clear that
this is an area that needs to be protected and and respected. So I think along the driveway there is that isolated wetland that is not so apparent and it is right next
to the driveway. So, um, it could be an area that's easily encroached on if it's not identified with some >> medallions. Sounds good. Thank you. >> Okay. Um,
and then All right. So, you'll go through with Dave when when Joe issues his comment letter. Um, you can look at those with with Dave. Obviously, there's some comments on the invasives report that we'll want to be addressed. And
then as far as Judy referred to, the commission will need to just issue or add to the enforcement or the schedule to actually have this work done. So, at the next meeting, we'll be talking about
that and Judy can probably draft that up in the meantime for us to look at. Um, but Pad, are you in a place that we could anticipate for these plantings to happen in the spring? Is that >> Yeah. >> reasonable schedule for you? Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Good. >> You're the chair. >> Yes, Ted. >> I I was looking for a place to jump in. I didn't want to interrupt. Um, I wanted to circle back to the PIBs for a sec if >> Yep. >> Um, I agree with what Joe said and with what you said and I'm happy, Padma, that
you're happy to put a few more in along the driveway. Uh, I would love to see and and it's not clear to me why they're not there. If we look at the northern PIBs, they're all inside the 50-foot no disturb zone. And that to me doesn't make much sense. I would love to see
them pushed to the 50-foot no disturb zone, not be put inside of it. Um, and then the entire driveway, the driveway that runs east west on the south side of the property, that's all
inside the 50 foot, I'm aware. But I would love to see those PIBs also closer to the driveway. Um, I don't know how many feet away those little stars are from the driveway, but they look like they're at least the same width of the
driveway. And that seems like quite a swath of of of land within the no disturb zone that we're allowing to be disturbed further. So, I would love to see those kind of pushed even further away both on the
north and the south from the uh resource areas. the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> I would like to echo Ted's comments. >> Um, I think my question or yeah, spin-off question on that would be Ben
is can you describe the area? Is it grass or what is what's the ground makeup there along the driveway between where the PIB markers are shown now and that 50 foot is that? >> So, so almost straight to that garage is
kind of like a driveway. It's not grass. So, uh I can't really tell um exactly, but um if they are located like on the grass or the driveway, but straight onto that garage is a driveway.
>> Mhm. >> Through the chair. We only have the plan. We don't have a photo, I don't think, but the plan seems to indicate they're not along the driveway, though. But I I get your question. If that is the the the concrete drive accurate on
the plan, what lives between the concrete drive and the plantings? That's I think what you were asking. >> That's what I'm asking. Yeah. Sometimes we struggle with um you know, these medallions floating in the middle of a grass lawn area. >> Yeah.
>> Um Okay. >> Through the chair. Um, this is kind of an old picture. Um, right after the clearing was done earlier this year, but it's um, this is coming in. So, the Oh, wait. No, I'm turned around.
This right here is the driveway. Um, that's the north south driveway. I'm trying to find a picture of the entrance. Um, but I wouldn't say it's grass. Okay, >> I can keep scrolling around. I'm not sure that I have an angle of that.
>> That's okay, Judy. I think this is something that maybe Pamela can talk with Dave about um and address the comment cuz it the comment will obviously be in Joe's uh letter about the medallions and can take our feedback to look at those and
where they're placed and that the commission would like to get that as close to the driveway in the 50 as we can. That's reasonably possible. And on the north side along that 50 foot buffer as well.
>> Yes. Yum. Um and I don't know. Okay. So it does say on here the proposed PIB will be 4 in by 4 in wood 2 foot high wooden posts with medallion. Okay. So the plan is to put them on
posts >> through the chair. >> Yes. Joe. Um I don't know if Judy uh if you can pull up uh the photos um from September 4th. Uh there there is a couple the first couple photos show the
exact area that we're looking at looking up the driveway and then to the left and it is it is grassy. Can I pull them up real quick? I wouldn't wait on me. This might take a minute. >> Yeah. Then I think I think we'll just look for this um to continue the
discussion at the next meeting and we can prepare um to look at the revised medallion locations with you and Dave Padma. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um but that's kind of the message is we Also, the the putting them on wooden
stakes is just one option um for them in this scenario. A a fence could also be an option. Um and that might make it more clear and easy. Sometimes the wooden stake medallions just if they're in the
middle, like I was saying, of a grass area, they get lost or they get knocked down or people don't pay attention to them. Um, so we're really looking for something that works with the site. And in this case, it might be moving a couple trees over there so the medallion
can be on a tree or um considering a split rail fence or something like that might be a better option in this case. But you can think about that and you can talk with Dave and we can we can discuss that at the next meeting.
>> Yeah, sure. I will ask him to attend the next meeting. Okay. Um, I think that's it. Is there anything I'm missing, Judy, that we wanted to cover today? >> Um, I guess if there was anything you wanted me to write into the enforcement
order, like survival rates, um, >> if you want like a monitoring report per growing season on the knotweed and the plantings, anything like that. Um, I could also just pull from similar examples we've done in the past and have you review at the next meeting and just include some of those common things what
we normally >> that would be helpful for me I think in my opinion um usually going on what we've done on other sites is what I defer to. >> Okay. >> Does anyone else have any strong feelings on uh conditions of that enforcement
>> through the chair? I don't necessarily have strong feelings. I think going on what we've done before is good. Um, in a recent meeting, our measure of success was 80% survival rate of the plantings through two growing seasons. And if it seems like that's been a kind of
consistent range, then that's perfect. But I know that that was one from earlier this year that we used. >> Okay. Thanks, T. >> Yep. >> All right. So, we'll go ahead and continue this out to the next meeting, which is January 6th.
>> Thank you. All right. Next up, we are going to jump up to the new hearings. So, Ted, could you please read for us uh 19 Chamberlain Street to open that hearing?
>> You betcha. The Hopkin Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 16th, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by
Steven Kimolei to construct a mudroom and garage with associated site work. Location 19 Chamberlain Street, Assessor's Map R24, block 18, lot zero.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um, excellent. And do we have the applicant here tonight or anyone on behalf of the applicant? >> Hi, this is Christine Data with Kimolei
Construction. I'm here representing for um the contractor. >> Okay. Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Um would you like to present your project? >> Um sure. We're uh proposing to build
what as was stated a singlestory 12x 12 mudroom in a connecting 26x 36 garage and a new driveway in the same spot that it is now. And so we're just looking to get that approved.
>> Okay. I have submitted everything that was requested um to the D because we're looking for that determination. Yep. Okay. And this is an RDA
application. Um, Judy, do you have anything to add to that description? >> Um, nope. My initial comments were fairly minor. I just asked them to add the 50ft buffer to the plan as well as
add some PIBs, um, which were done. So, um, looking for feedback on the placement of the PIBs from the commission. Um, and then I know Joe had several comments as well. >> Okay, we'll turn to you then, Joe.
All right. Um I did note that uh there is a mapped certified vernal pool in the wetland uh to the east of the property, the one that is delineated. Um it looks like the edge of the pool
comes fairly close to some of those flags like flag six. Um I think it's probably within about 10 feet um of that flag or possibly a little bit closer the uh the high water line of that pool. Um
it you know I think the question is whether or not the commission um needs to have the that mean high water line delineated to see whether a new work is proposed within 125 ft. Um I
think it's probably fairly close. Um uh the also the entire site uh just as background is in a OW uh as a tributary to public water supply. Um
also within a zone A and zone C surface water protection zone. Um there's an unnamed intermittent stream um uh to the west of the site. U
based on current mapping uh it looks to be about 235 ft from the site. Um so the commission to discuss whether or not that needs to be delineated u and the uh
um uh the day uh streams um uh review done to determine whether or not that is in fact intermittent.
um was in in agreement with the wetland delineation. Um didn't have any any issues. There is a large leaf file located upgradient of wetland flags uh five through seven. Um it's it's a really
large leaf pile. Um would recommend that that be moved out from the wetland edge. It's probably partly in the wetland also. Um, and uh, as a note, the U
PIB wasn't on the plan, but I see that that has been revised and added. Um, and also erosion controls. I don't know if the erosion controls, Yep, they have been added to the plan. So, those issues have been addressed. Um, I think that covers my comments.
>> Okay. Thanks, Joe. Um okay. So our discussion tonight is revolving around whether this whether we would consider this uh issue a negative determination
um or if we think it requires notice of intent um or more information to figure that out. Um, looking at this property, do we have any pictures, Judy?
>> Yeah. Shows up. >> Okay. >> I think I have these ones. >> Um, the thing I'm looking at is that the, you know, the proposed addition is I'm guessing in previously disturbed
area. There's not a it's it's not a lot of area that's actually in the 100 foot buffer and it's between there's already the house that's there in the yard area developed between the addition and the
the wetland. So to me, I feel like the impacts from this addition, there really would be no impacts from this addition to the wetland area cuz it's so far away and it's got the house in between.
That's a great shot. >> This is a show the photos. I was just going to agree with Melissa given that it's on the west side of the house. Uh Sally in the 100 foot transition deserves a negative. Go ahead and show
the photos. >> Um do you have a picture of the right side, Judy? Just to in looking at the PIB locations. So the PIB. Okay. So I see the stone wall. I think it's somewhere along this is
facing the wetland from the house I believe. Not sure exactly where in here. If it's along the tree line. Okay. Can do you mind going back to the plan? You jump back. See if the stone walls on there.
>> Yeah, stone wall is not on there. >> All right. And All right. So, we're talking about PIB medallion supplied by the town. Um, Christine, can you can you talk for a minute about the PIB that's being proposed, what that's going to look like, and kind of how it lands on the property?
>> Um, we were going to use the medallions that you were going to um provide with stakes. >> So, wherever you want them, we'll put them. If that where they're delineated right now is not acceptable, we can move
them wherever you want us to do. >> Okay. Where they're delineated now, is there any rhyme or reason for their positioning? Are they like along the limit of the lawn or >> I think it was just along
um out of the buffer zone and just along >> 25 ft out. >> Yeah. >> Um All right. I think that it would make sense to put those along that stone wall tree line area where the limit of the
grass is right now. Um cuz if they hang out in the middle of the lawn, it's going to be confusing unless there's a major restoration effort and I just I I just don't think that's warranted for this project. Um does anyone have any other
thought opinion on that? uh through the chair. >> No. >> Okay. >> Melissa. >> Yes, Ted. >> Um I think you're probably right. Even if the stone wall is right along the
property line, I think it would create confusion or in this case it wouldn't be right to ask for plantings to restore buffer. Um, I only wonder about the existence that Joe points out of the vernal pool and whether that should
change some of our thinking assuming this plan is north south normally up along the northern side. If there is a vernal pool right near WFA6, I wonder if that should change a little
bit our thinking for PIBs up that far. I thought it was on the west side, not the east side. >> I may have misunderstood. Maybe explain to us again. >> Yeah, Vernal pool is on the east side and within the delineated
>> there's an intermittent stream, you know, a little bit over 200 feet to the to the west. Assuming the plan up is north. So maybe Ted, if if we continue the the PIB along the property line in that
stone wall all the way to the to the north. >> It's I generally I'd say okay with the stone wall, but not knowing where it is, you know, in relation to the lines we see on the plan, it's hard for me to say >> the line
>> immediately. Yes. Um because I it I can't tell from the photos. I think if there were no vernal pool, I would say great, follow the stone wall. The vernal pool is the only thing that gives me hesitation and I don't know where the stone wall is on
the plans. >> I mean, if if the stone wall comes within 15t of the vernal pool, I think that's a bad place for a PIV. >> Is uh uh for you, Melissa, I got a question for Joe. Isn't this a stone
wall we're talking about along the uh entire western boundary of the property up by the shed that right you get the shed and then it looks like this if that's the same stone wall you're talking would be behind the addition all the way
up the western side >> through the chair I think there's stone walls on both sides >> yeah I think so >> in the front Okay, >> Melissa. >> Yes, Matt. >> My suggestion would be either along the
stone wall or the larger diameter trees on the western property line, whichever is more upland side, right? So, there's a clearly delineate defined lawn on that side of the home. And then you either hit the trees or the stone wall first. It's tough to tell looking at the
pictures in the street view. I think whatever's closest to the house is where the PIBs want to be. Whether that's the stone wall or the trees, it looks like the trees. >> Yep. >> No, I think I think that makes sense.
>> Yeah. Um, I hear you, Ted, about the the vernal pool, but I think that even if the vernal pool is identified on the plan, I don't know that it would, for me anyway, I don't know that it would change my feelings on this being an RDA just because it is lawn and it's a very
clear line of that wall. And I just don't see critters using the backyard sp like, you know, getting over that barrier of the wall that exists right now. um >> to the chair. To be clear, I'm not talking about changing an RDA at all.
I'm just talking about placement of PIBs. >> I wonder I wonder if since we are going to be continuing this tonight anyway, I think >> that's the way it felt. >> Could we table that discussion and have the plan updated so that we can see where the
>> trees or wall is on that side? Um yeah, we can we can ask for revis um that shows the wall and the PIB revised location.
>> That would be helpful to me and I might be completely with you once I see where the wall is. >> Okay, that's okay with me. Then we can feel comfortable with the decision >> through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. I apologize if I missed this.
Do we know when this home was built? >> I do not. Hello, Christine or Judy. If you >> me, >> let me know if I'm Hello. Uh, hello. >> This is Roy Recctor, the owner of the
property. >> Oh, welcome. >> And, uh, the home was built in 1964. Thank you. Yeah. So, Melissa, given the time when the home was built and the clearly defined line, I'm I'm with you. Like, I
I don't think it any of the vernal pool discussion changes. My opinion is to negative determination or not. And I think we can condition a negative determination with clarity that the PIBs be located along the tree line
andor stone wall whichever is more approximate to the edge of lawn >> because you said like you said the the vernal pool habitat has been non-existent for the last 50 plus years,
>> right? Mr. Chair, this is Ed. I have to bow out. >> Okay. Thanks, Ed. >> Quick, Melissa. >> Yes, sir. >> I heard someone say that I heard Chad or someone say since we're going to be
continuing this, what did I miss? Why are we continuing this? >> We don't have to continue. We I I think we could certainly vote on this. >> I don't think we're missing anything. It's just a matter of this PIB line, I think, and if we're comfortable with
that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I might have gotten confused. I thought that with um without Joe's report being officially submitted that we might not want to, but maybe I'm wrong.
>> I think your your report was submitted, right, Joe? >> It has been submitted. Correct. >> Oh, I must have confused it with the last property we talked about. My apologies on that, Ben. >> Yeah, I think most what Joe's comments were um primarily around the resource
areas, what we as the commission want to see identified on the plan in order to be able to make our decision if we're comfortable with shown on it now or do we need additional >> I think it was the exchange exchange street property and I still had that comment of Joe's in my head. So, I'm
sorry for creating that confusion. >> It's okay. So, that being said, Ted, >> I I like what Matt said, and it it also occurred to me looking at this map that the big bold line is a property line,
right? Um, that runs north south. So, obviously the PIBs are going to be within the property line, which means we still have some distance from that vernal pool that Joe identified. So, I like what Matt said. I think I'm okay with that. >> Okay.
Matt, would you like to make a motion? >> Sure thing. I will make a motion to issue a negative determination with conditions that the PIB be located along the tree line or stone wall, whichever is most approximate to the existing
edgelon with signatures by Anna or Judy. >> Can I get a second? >> Oh, Jim will second. >> All right. All in favor? Matt? Hi >> Jim. >> Hi >> Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> And I am also an I. >> So you are all set. Thank you for coming in tonight. >> Thank thank you very much. >> My apologies everyone for making confusion. Sorry. >> It's okay. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. All right. Next up we have 100 Ash Street. This is another new hearing. So, if uh Ted, you could open this for us, that would be great. >> I'm ready. The Hopkinson Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 16th, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by Oleg Guerellic for construction of a patio and walkway, completion of a
detached garage, and after the fact approval of a shed with associated site work. Location 100 Ash Street, assessor's map, U22, block 60, lot zero.
>> Thanks, Ted. Um, okay. Do we have a representative for this project on the call? >> Uh, yes. Hello. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes. >> Um, hi, my name is Jacob Crossson. I'm a wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting and I'm presenting this
application on behalf of the applicant Oleg Gorlick. Um so beginning with existing site conditions. Uh it's located at 100 A Street and consists of a single family house with a paved driveway uh detached uh garage foundation and uh BBW to the north that
has a 100 foot buffer zone over almost the entirety of the house. So the primary purpose of this RDA is seeking retroactive approval for an unpermanented shed uh in the uh left of the yellow block there. um that was placed within the 50oot no disturb. So the applicant received an enforcement
order that uh essentially called for the removal of the shed from this location. However, after review of historic aerials um showcasing that this was a historically cleared area, the enforcement order was updated to reflect that reflect this stating that the applicant were to either remove the shed
or submit an RDA uh seeking approval for the shed. So we are submitting this RDA for primarily the shed. In addition, the applicant wanted to include several minor activities that we believe are exempt under the bylaw and the act um as reiterated by the Lucas environmental
letter um kind of just to include these into the submission we are already submitting. So to the right we have the expansion of the existing patio with an egress staircase down to a stone patio with a stone walkway. This is all over existing lawn and uh about 54 feet away
at its closest point. So outside of the 50oot no build. In addition, the applicant is um proposing the completion of the garage foundation. So to the left, this garage foundation was approved under a prior um COC site plan. Um so the applicant is proposing
completing this uh in accordance to the priorly approved um footprint. So that kind of wraps up what this RDA is seeking approval for. So I'd now like to open it for comments or questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I know we talked a lot about this in a previous meeting. We
talked about the shed. We talked about the foundation. Um I think the deck is is a little bit new uh tonight. Um and then the PIB locations that I see on there is that those are the edge of the
grass. >> Uh yes, there's an arborite line there that kind of demarcates the difference between the grass area and kind of the beginning of the buffer zone of the wetland. >> Okay, great. I know we had requested those at our October meeting, so thank
you for adding those um to the plan. Um Joe, you it was alluded to that you reviewed this application. Do you have comments that you would like to go over for us? >> Yeah, I did submit comments. Um there
there was a subsequent response from the applicant which I think addressed a lot of them but um uh with regard to the delineation um I didn't have any issues. I thought it was um actually somewhat on the conservative side meaning
slightly upgradient of the actual wetland boundary. Um and um it was um the locations were located by uh GPS. So I had requested some information on the accuracy of the GPS uh which the uh
applicant provided um I'm trying to think I think it was sub meter within uh within generally within a 6 inch range of of error. So I think that's uh fine for this purpose. Um
I had noted that the delineation flag numbers were not on the previous plan. Those have been added. Um I had uh noted that previously we had when we reviewed um a COC for for the
project uh there was some discussion on um the use of the garage um whether it was going to be uh used for any u vehicle repair uh activities or just for storing vehicles. I brought that up
again and uh from the response uh from the applicant, it's going to be generally be used for storing your vehicles and not maintenance work. Um see there was a uh proposed planting bed uh
on the uh edge of the uh 100 foot buffer zone. I just recommended that u the applicant provide some information on the plans that were proposed were being proposed and I think that that uh has not yet been determined.
Um I think the discussion item is with regard to the location of the shed um and whether um it can be allowed to remain with partly within the u no disturb zone.
I had noted that a waiver request had not been submitted and I think that that uh was submitted subsequently um with a discussion of alternatives. I think that pretty much covered uh my comments.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Thanks, Joe. So it sounds like those were mostly address. You said the waiver request was submitted has been. Yeah. Okay. >> Correct. I I think maybe the applicant um uh could describe the waiver request
and and so the commission can discuss that. J, >> would you like to to just >> Yes. Yeah, I could go over that. Let me just pull it up real quick. All right. Um, yes. So, I kind of went um bullet by
bullet um in accordance to the bylaw. Um, going kind of starting with there's no uh practical conditions or alternatives that allow the project to proceed in compliance with the regulations. Um and kind of just reiterating the fact that this is a previously um historically altered area,
historically cleared area and relocating the shed um anywhere else would be over existing lawn and kind of have a similar um impact. Um and following that the project's natural and consequential effects will not have any uh adverse effects upon any of the
interests protected by the bylaw. So again, um this is kind of the the shed did not clear any vegetation to be placed there. It was um an old I think storage area for wood um or something like that. So it was historically
cleared and then um kind of alternatives analysis, relocating the shed would um also additionally potentially result in uh tree removal. Um, so, uh, again, kind of the the scope of alternatives to where
the shed are now would kind of result in a similar kind of lack of impact or lack of change. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And, um, can you just describe for a
minute on the I I think I said deck, but I'm reading on the plan and it says patio that surface. >> Uh, yeah. So currently there is a deck um with a staircase that kind of goes down to right now it's kind of just dirt and gravel. So the applicant is it's dirt and gravel and kind of lawn. So the
applicant is proposing placing a stone paper patio there with a stone walkway that kind of leads up to the existing um driveway. >> Okay. Okay. And that's all outside the 50. >> Uh yes. >> Um okay.
This looks pretty straightforward to me and I think we've approve or uh issued RDAs for these type of activities in the past. Does anyone have any questions or
comments or discussion items on the commission? The only comment, Melissa, is I think we've I agree. We've looked at this being outside the 50 foot for the patio in particular as a minor activity.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Are there any comments or questions from the public? Oh, okay. Hearing none. Then can I get a motion to issue a negative determination
with I don't think we had any conditions. No, no, no. Um yeah, a negative determination with signature by Judy or Anna. >> I'll make that motion. >> Real quick before someone second, um the PIBs, are those red circles intended to
be PIBs and do we need to condition it to include those? They are PABS. Judy, if that's on the plan, is that >> scooped up in there? >> Yeah, through the chair. Um, we do by default have like standard conditions
for negative DOAs. I think a PIB is one of them. Okay. >> Um, and then since it's on the plan, there is a reference uh condition that says work must follow the approved and reference plans. So, between those two, we should be covered. >> Perfect. I will second it then.
>> All right. All in favor. Matt >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> And I am also an I. >> All right. Thank you, Jacob, coming in
and good luck on the project. >> Great. Thank you so much. Have a good evening, guys. >> Yep. All right. Next up, we have the Hawkington Trails Committee Chamberlain Street Loop Road continuation. Judy, you want to go over where we're at
on this one? >> Sure. Uh through the chair um the long long awaited D number has been issued for this project. Um with fairly minor comments um one of which was they wanted to see erosion
controls extended. um through the limit of work in areas where they were not previously. I believe Chuck has made those changes to the plans we see here. Um and then the major outstanding comment from the commission was you uh
all wanted to see this kind of proposed extension of the trail between the wetland and the uh stormwater basin off Loop Road um to not be constructed with stone dust at this time. Um, so the plans have been uh noted to connect the
trail to the existing access road off of the uh field here. Um, so it appears to me that all outstanding comments have been met, but we also have Chuck here for any additional context. >> Okay,
Chuck, do you have anything to add? Uh uh Chuck Dachi, 25 Sanctuary Lane, um representing um assisting the trails committee. Um the uh uh No, I think uh
we I believe covered uh the concerns. We also show stockpile areas which were requested previously. Um and uh uh we trust that we've uh
addressed all the uh uh issues. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yep. I'd agree. This is what we were looking for. So, can I get a motion to approve this application?
>> Listen, I'll make a motion in a moment. Chuck, I just wanted to thank you for understanding our hesitation with that part of the path and not pushing back too hard. Um, I appreciate that. So, with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve this with signatures by Judy and
or Ann. >> Okay. >> Hello. Second. >> All right. Well, in favor, Matt >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Jim. >> I.
>> And I am also an I. >> I didn't miss anybody, right? We're still Yeah, >> Ed's out. >> Ed's out still. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. D. Good luck, >> Jack. I look forward to walking the new path when it's in.
>> Um hopefully uh we'll I think this will be completed by next summer. >> Beautiful. That's about when I start walking again. >> Thank you uh to all and enjoy the holidays. >> You too.
All right. Next up, we have 15 Montana Road. It's a notice of intent continuation for after the fact work. Um, I think we opened this and continued it right away last time. So, this was
the first time we're we're seeing anything on this property. Um, other than what we read in the file, obviously. So, uh, Judy, can you give us the background on this? >> Sure. Um, through the chair. So, the
homeowner at 15 Montana, um, has filed an NOI for after the-act work in conservation jurisdiction. Um, this was originally noted by During their review of the notice of intent for 12 Maple Street Extension, um, which is located
approximately, uh, here to the east. um as they noted some work done on the neighboring property that didn't appear to have been permitted. Um so the work encompassed by the
application is um this paddic here. There's a barn um in a coupe structure. Um I think there are some questions about how far the delineation extended. Um, but I guess just as an overview,
that's what the applicant is seeking is after the fact approval um, with flagging done uh, around BBW on this side of the property line. Um, and I think there's questions about how far it extends. So, I think as a high level, um,
that's all I have, but happy to provide any other details. >> Okay. Thanks, Judy. Joe, have you looked at this one yet? >> I have. Um I did go out and take a look
at the uh at the site. Um with respect to the delineation that is shown on the plan. Um uh I agree with that delineation. It was previously approved. Um it's a a very straightforward um
uh stone line stream channel. Um uh it's been ref flagged in the same uh location as previously approved. It appears didn't have any issues with that. Um I did take a look at the the rest of the site. Um, as far as you
notice that there's a blue line swale um indicated on the plan that goes um south from the uh area where the uh delineated wetlands are along the property line and
then turns to the west along the property line. Um there's also a swell that continues from where that swale turns north. uh that continues west along the property line all the way to the western property line and then
swings north up along the the far west property line. Uh for the most part uh there are no wetlands along that swale and the swale itself um does not have any uh hydric
soil but uh it is a swale um and could be considered um as a intermittent channel under the bylaw. Um
the uh western part of the property u the soil does become uh hydric and there are hydric soils located upgradient of that swale on the property as well as off the site to the west uh where there's a forested wetland.
Um, looking at some of the, uh, historic aerials of the site, uh, it was, I think prior to I think 2016, it was um, uh, prior to 2015, it looked like most
of the site was was forested and a lot of clearing took place out there. I know the applicant um is stating that the activities uh that have been completed qualify as a limited project under uh wellness protection act agricultural
use. Um, I I would think the commission may want to uh take a look at that language um and see if the activities that have occurred on the site um within the buffer apparent to buffer zones um
to the the wetlands and the swailes um do meet the the definition of agricultural use. Um let's see. I know under the the bylaw agricultural
use um can be exempted. However, it uh I think the key term there um uh for the for the bylaw is with respect to um if it's an agricultural use at the time of the filing or at the time of the
activity maybe. Um so I don't know if the site was previously it was previously wooded forested based on aerial photographs. I don't know if there was agricultural activity uh which could include um
commercial uh logging activity or uh on the site that was occurring. This is something that um the applicant might uh want to provide some additional information on with respect to agricultural activities that were uh occurring on the site previously.
I think that pretty much covers my comments. Oh, also sorry, um would recommend that the the the Banks of the Wales and the BBW areas get uh delineated.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Joe. Do we have the the homeowner or the applicant on the line? Uh, yep. This is Ed Kelly. I'm the owner of 15 Montana.
>> Welcome. Um, would you like to chime in and give any any >> Yeah, I can give some perspective on the activity on the lot. I mean, our families lived on this property for 108 years. My great greatgrandfather bought
the property from the Harvard University. Um, at which time it was all fields. It was all farmland. Um there was an apple orchard. There was a produce farm. Um there's been some level
of agricultural use on the property historically through the family lineage since that time. Um there has been as far back as 1978 dairy activity with with goats. Our current activity is
dairy farming. We have dairy goats. We have horses, we have rabbits, we have poultry. Um, my grandkids are the sixth generation on this property. So, our work out here is to be good stewards and sustain and
enhance and grow the property to keep it viable for the family in the future. So from a standpoint of the development work we've done, it's all been related to the agricultural activity that our
family has been committed to. Our family obviously is a little more in depth in it in that we're involved in 4. We've got more animals than previous family members. There's been three other dwellings on
this property that go back in as into the 50s and 60s, even before that that are on the old assessor's map. So, um, most of the building loc all of the building locations are places where there were previous buildings prior to
the ones that we've put on the property. Um, so our response on the swale activity was just a function of knowing that the number nine stakings that were done for the bank were
needed to be addressed. So we specifically focused on that area because that was the order of conditions that was open at at the time. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And we've also, you know, we've planted over 30 trees back
into the property. We've um continue to to do those types of developments. There's a fruit tree orchard there. We've got full-time agricultural on strawberries. There's there's other activities that obviously aren't represented on the plan, but um
that's been the extent of the activity and the purpose for it. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you for that background. That helps. Um, so I think I need to, as Joe
had said, look into the bylaw exemption, understand that for myself and how it applies to the property now that we kind of had that background information for you from you. Um, is there any are are you amendable to as
Joe had suggested getting the banks of the swale and the BBW delineated for the rest of the property um you know not so that we have it for this and for future work that you might be doing on the property. Yeah, you
know, I I would need to understand what that actually means and obviously I can talk with my engineer who's Joe Marquidon about what that actually means because to some extent I have a pretty good understanding being, you know, in construction what that means. But I
would just want to know the scope of that in this case. You know, the the the swailes in place now just keep the paddic from seasonal wash out, keep the the meadows and the riding in the in the
um round pen from being overwhelmed during mount off and things like that surface water. So, um my concern with anything that addresses those is that they still function. So obviously we're open to cooperating with the board and
to do what we need to do so that everybody understands what's going on out here and has the the same perspective that that at least they need to have to make the decisions you need to make. So >> the answer is yes, we will cooperate. I just need to understand what all that
means. >> Okay. >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay, >> great. Thank you. um and open up to the commission and see if anyone has any questions for Mr. Kelly.
Any thoughts on this one? I think we're a little bit in the information gathering stage right now. >> Melissa, I have a question. I think for Joe, if he can answer it quickly, but I don't want to slow us down. While I've
been listening to Mr. Kelly, I've been pouring through the the bylaws looking for the agricultural exemption. Joe, could you point to where that is for me and then I can do my reading of it afterwards like Melissa's suggesting? But
>> uh section 206-4D of the bylaw chapter shall not apply to any activity performed for the normal maintenance or improvement of land. Oh, >> actively devoted to agricultural use, etc., etc. >> Okay, thank you. I went right past the I
was reading the bigger paragraphs. I thought there'd be more on agriculture. Thank you, Joe. >> Through the chair. >> And further further um section 206.2 regarding the definition of agriculture. >> Thank you.
>> Through the chair. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Ted, in your research, I would also point you to the definitions in the Wells Protection Act. >> There's a definition for agriculture as some subsections. land and agricultural use is defined. Normal agricultural
activities and maintenance of that land is defined. I think that's probably where you're going to find the information you need to make a decision on this particular case. >> Yeah. In fact, our town bylaws, if I may listen, point right away to uh the state
regs. >> Yeah. >> They don't even give a definition. They say just look what the state says. It's because the Wild Protection Act has like three pages of definition for agriculture. >> That's what you were looking for. >> You don't need to copy and paste into our bylaw. >> No, not at all.
>> One question I I guess one question I have just in anticipation of this discussion continuing uh into next meeting sounds like there's a lot of historical agricultural use of the property. It looked like on the aerial imagery it
had been inactive in the area we're considering um under this particular discussion. So it would be helpful to better understand if there were any like USDA contracts in place or any other documentation about commercial
activities for the land in question. I think that'll that'll help educate us as well. >> Yeah. I mean, I can tell you right from our knowledge there there hasn't been any USDA documentation filed. This property was originally also um part of
the parcel at the end of Nebraska Street and that is where the original one of the original homesteads has been for probably the last 75 years. And that that house had like I said apple
orchard, two barns and the uh some of the farming activity that was goes back to the mid70s. But during that period probably from late7s8s until 2010 111 when we started to receive
approvals to to build and and continue to to grow the farm there that that's that portion of the property had not been other than car path access some places where there was limited firewood
forestry going on for personal use and things like that. the the part the part we're talking about now was relatively unused during that period. But historically back in the I think 1917 is when the pro property was purchased
the the entire property the stone walls everything was was fields and so I think it was just a function of depending on what section they were using it grew up and took over. >> Um
Do you think uh Mr. Kelly could you put a little could you put what you're speaking of in writing um just to give us >> sure >> you know a timeline and in your understanding of of this history so that we can look at that kind of side by side
with our documentation in the act and the bylaw regarding agricultural use. >> Absolutely. Yeah. I have a narrative generated which I could clean up and present in writing for sure. >> Okay. I think that would be helpful.
All right. Then I think at this point in time, uh, we'll continue out to the next hearing. The commission will do some homework, um, on agricultural use and our bylaw in the act. And if you could speak with
Mark, your consultant on um, the uh, stream or the swale banks and BBW delineation and what that might look like. We can talk about it on January 6th. >> 6.
>> Okay. >> Does that Does that sound okay, Mr. Kelly? >> Sounds good to me. Yep. >> Okay. >> Appreciate the time. >> Yeah. No, thanks for coming in. Um, can I get a motion to continue this out to January 6? >> I'm happy to make that motion.
>> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> And I am also an I. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Next up, we have 10 Clinton Street. Notice of intent continuation for a septic replacement. Um, all right, Judy, what do we have here?
Yep. Through the chair. Um, so the last hearing this was discussed. Um, there was no D number issued yet. Um, that has since been issued with no comments from D. Uh, a few of Joe's
outstanding comments were a gl grass clipping pile um that he saw around wetland flag four and between two and three. Uh, so we have confirmed that those grass clippings have been removed. Um,
the applicant added a little bit more information about the plantings. So, there are two ornamental shrubs within the limit of work um that they said they're going to try to transplant and plant elsewhere and and keep those shrubs. Um but in case those don't make
it, they have proposed two additional high bush blueberry to be planted. Um I don't believe they've specified a location, but the idea is to save those shrubs and and add supplemental plantings. Um they did add a note on the
um new proposed patio that is going to be uh the same size as the existing patio which has to be moved to make room for the septic system. Um so there's a note that the patio size of the new one will be the same size as the existing. Um and then a uh brief alternatives
analysis was provided by the applicant via email um to accompany the waiver request for work in the 50. I think the only sort of outstanding comment that Joe had was that there were no um wetland field data forms provided. Uh but as he did agree with the
delineation, I think it's up to the commission whether you would like to see that information or not. >> Okay. Okay. Sounds like it's in pretty good shape. Joe, did you have anything to add to Judy's summary?
>> Uh, no. I think that that pretty much covers it. >> Okay. Um, and it seems like did we talk about that split rail fence permanent barrier last time? Looks like it's in a similar location and everyone was okay with
that, I guess, on the applicant side. Um, >> do we have someone here from the owner or representative? >> Hi, we're here. >> Claire and John. >> Okay. Welcome.
>> Thank you. >> Um, do you have anything to add at this point in time? Looks like you're in pretty good shape. >> Please just approve us. All right, let's move on then. Uh, I'm fine with the wetland
forms uh not be included in the file being that Joe agrees with the wetland line. Um, so that being said, can I get a motion to approve this notice intent >> move and
>> thank you. Can I get a second? >> We need a number though, right? >> They have a number. >> Oh, they do. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. One second. >> Second. All right. All in favor? Matt.
>> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> And I'm also an I. >> And I'm an I. >> I'm an I. >> Thank you. >> Good. All right. Good luck with the projects.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> It's nice to get a round of applause after a vote. >> I think we ought to have that more often. You want to do it again? >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Next up, if we have 33 West Elm Street, notice of intent continuation for our sewer connection. Uh we went over this one in our last meeting. Judy, can you point out the updates? >> You like me to take a stab at it or you
want to do it? Go ahead, Joe. >> Here. >> Yeah, Joe. >> Okay. Evening all. Joe Modern here. Uh, since we met last, we have added uh some info to this plan uh in response to um feedback from Judy and from Joe Orzelle.
Um the chief um issue we felt were the buffer zones and the different resource areas. So we have converted the um the site plan which was on an assume base to um the elevation base that matches the
federal flood hazard maps. Um, we did micro topo in the backyard and established that limit of the flood zone AE uh the 38550 elevation which shows up in red on the right hand
edge of this plan within the area of hydric soils. That is also the the um uh the limit of the bordering land subject to flooding. So the the 50 and the 100 from that kind of run generally with the
100 foot buffer from the BVW edge which is shown in green here. So our limits of uh of the jurisdictional areas are very similar. Um the um we cleaned up also we
cleaned up uh some issues I had with uh some of the documents and what was left was kind of an issue that caught me by surprise. Um in the meantime since we met last the homeowner has contracted
with Stumpy Tree Removal and six trees within the buffer zone were removed. Uh those are those black um polygons, those the circles that you see there at the edge of the 100 foot
buffer. Uh we lost um to that activity, we lost a 40-in oak, we lost a 15-in maple and four arborites. So when we left last time, we were discussing one tree and the replacement for that one
tree. Uh I believe the conversation now should revolve around six trees lost and what will be added uh in their place. So we developed a planting plan that highlights a combination of trees and
shrubs equaling 12. So 2 to one if you will for what was lost. Um, some white pine, uh, some white oak, some northern red oak, uh, dogwood, service berry, and, uh, low bush blueberry sprinkled in
that area right there against the tree line against the buffer zone. Some fall inside the buffer, some fall out. uh we were trying to space them I was trying to space them for maximum success with regard to the growing uh and in general
area around what was lost. That is the the major change from uh the items that we kind of ticked off last time was this unforeseen uh tree clearing. >> Okay,
that's unfortunate. Um, all right then. Joel Orizzel, did you have a chance to look at this their planting schedule and whatnot?
>> I did. And, um, the, uh, the plants all look appropriate. Um, I know Joey mentioned that some of the plans were proposed uh, outside the buffer zone. That was one of my comments uh for the commission to discuss. I don't know if
there would be other locations within the buffer zone where they might be able to to fit a couple of those in. Um the uh previous comment was that no alternative analysis have been
submitted that has been submitted and appears appropriate. Um trying to think if there's any more outstanding comments. Um the buffer zone as Joey described from
the uh high water line has been u added to the plan. And I think that pretty much covers all my comments. Not too much outstanding. >> Okay. >> Just primarily the the buffer zone uh
plantings. >> Yep. Um, I like the comment about trying to keep the plantings within the buffer zone. So then they are in our jurisdiction going forward.
Um, so Mark went on, is there any place to put them even if it's not near, you know, that area where the force man's going in? Is there room to put them down by where the existing leech field is? It kind of seems like there's some
treeine space down there that >> Yeah. would you ask the cursor now? There is a a foot path there >> that gets you uh probably to a neighbor's home. It doesn't look like it it serves any real purpose. Uh at the
site, you access the shed against the boundary line in a different way. So there are spot that is a spot where uh something um could take place um up on the other side of the deck. Um you maybe a tree could could end up up
there. Um there there are some possibilities. I think I have four uh outside um outside the limit of the buffer zone and I think they're all trees. So be a
matter of moving those trees and and finding locations. My big concern was putting them too close together that um we jam them on top of each other to reach a certain number and then they don't flourish. They don't succeed
because they're too tight to each other. So certainly spread them out. Um that was the motivation. We can certainly if you disagree we can we can find other spots for them. Yeah, I think I would prefer to see them spread out um and putting them closer to
the wetland area that we're trying to kind of create that resource area buffer is a plus I think in my mind. Um does anyone have any else anything they want to share or ask
from the commission? Keep waiting for Ed. He's not here because we're talking about trees. It's silence is deafening from for Ed. No. Okay. Um, I guess the question is
if this is the last outstanding issue, um, Judy, do you have any hesitation on should we continue this out for a revised plan? I think if you really want to see a
revised plan with the plantings shifted, then yes, it can be hard to get a revised plan and issue an order of conditions within the 21-day deadline. Um, so if you don't want me banging on Joe Marquon's door, um, I think it would
be easier, but I think it's up to Joe >> to the chair. We can certainly develop a a revision to this plan and work it out with Judy if this is the the only item left. >> We can also add a special condition. All replacement plantings need to be within
buffer zone if you really want to get this closed out tonight. Okay. >> Joe, are you under the gun to get this disclosed out tonight? >> Uh, I'm feeling a little pressure. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, I think I'd be okay with putting a
condition in there. Um, and if you can provide an updated plan, Joe, if we have the condition in there, I think it covers us um from an if you have to issue it, Judy, without the plan. But Joe, if you
can get a plan to Judy so and work with her to get the tree locations agreed upon, you know, off the record or, you know, for for use when they actually go on the ground. I think that
would be great. >> I'd be happy to. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. For the plant things, are we thinking six within the 50 foot buffer and six within the 100 foot buffer or like what what are we thinking numbers wise just to give Joe a sense of the
expectation? >> Um >> or Joe, if you have if you're suggesting a certain number, we'd love to hear that because I think it's helpful for everyone if that special condition quantifies expectations to make it clear. Right now, Matt, I have one
proposed within the 50. Just trying to to leave that area um alone. So, if we go into these areas that are currently cleared are the foot paths around the property that we mentioned a second ago, then we could easily get um six inside
the 50 and six between the 50 and 100. >> Is it problematic for the landowner to have plantings in that footpath or is it something that's not used? Uh, I would say that that if it as long as there's a width that allows it to be
used as a foot path. Right now, I look at that and I say we're 10 to 12 feet wide. So, if we left him something 3 to 4 foot wide to still allow that access for whatever that use is, I think we could accomplish both goals.
>> And they don't need the existing leech field. I mean, that because it's it's getting pumped to sewer now, right? So that area is available. >> Correct. What's there for soil? >> Um yes, >> that's the only qualification I would
offer is that if it's an oldfashioned bed full of crushed stone, uh then that becomes difficult. Remove that, replace it with soil that would allow a tree to flourish, finish it off with loom, that becomes a little bit bigger. But if we
get to the edge of that leech field and we find soils, normal soils, native soils, and I don't see any reason why a tree shrub couldn't survive there through the jar. Judy, can you scroll down a little bit to the planting list?
I see the Yeah, okay. So, we've got there's some shrubs mixed in there. Okay. So, I mean it sounds like Joe, your sense is we could maybe plant a tree and some shrubs within that foot path and not prohibit its use. >> I would agree with that. Yes.
>> So, how does this sound for a condition uh this for the special condition? We're conditioning the approval with the understanding that a combination of trees and shrubs, six will be planted within the 50-ft buffer and the other six will be planted within
the 100 foot buffer. I think that works. Does >> that work, Melissa? >> It works for me. Yeah. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yeah. Um I did have a comment regarding um the service berry that's proposed,
the avalancher. Um the species is not provided in the plant list. While most of those or many of those are native, there are some that are not native. So, just want to make sure that um a a native amalancher is uh is is utilized.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Would you like me to attempt a motion here? >> Yes. >> All right. I will make a motion to issue an order of conditions with two special conditions. The first being that the
amalanch or species be selected from the list of plantings uh that the commission has. The second being that six of the proposed plantings, trees and/or shrubs will be placed within the 50oot buffer and the other six will be placed within
the 100 foot buffer. >> I'll second that motion with signatures. I'll second that motion. >> I accept Ted's amendment. All right. All in favor? Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> Hi, >> Jim.
>> I >> and I am also an I. >> All right. All set. >> Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thank you. All right.
Next up, we have 12 12 North Mil Street. This is a continuation single family house. I see Mr. Petrozy's on the line. >> Hi there. >> Hello. >> How are you? >> Good.
>> So, uh, since we last met, um, we did a couple of revisions to the plan. First of all, we went out there and we located uh the substantial trees uh 10 in diameter or greater.
We provided um an existing condition sheet showing the trees located. We also uh reconfigured the house to move it a little bit further away from the uh edge of wetlands
uh where we to try and take more advantage of the variance that was given to us. So the garage area is now pushed forward to the u to the 30foot setback that was given to us or granted to us by
the zoning board. And then we also created a replic a wetland replication area. I think the commission was a little bit concerned that uh not providing any replication wouldn't be compliant with the uh wetland regulations.
So we have a wetland replication area that's a little bit over one to one of the area that's being proposed for filling. And uh that's pretty much it since we last uh met.
And I will be meeting with the uh board of health to uh request a waiver from their regulations regarding the location of the well within closer than 50 ft from the to the wetlands. So that's uh
pretty much all I have to report. Um, and that's I guess I think we've kind of maximized this area. We were only using out of uh 79,000 square foot plus plus or minus lot,
we're only using about 18 18,000 square feet of it in the front portion of the lot. >> Okay. >> All right. Thanks for that that summary update. Um, so you said you added on the
existing conditions plan trees greater than 10 in. >> Yes. >> Um, okay. >> And you can I think in in terms of the replication area that we're proposing on
the uh on the right side of the lot, there's there are no substantial tree. I don't think I think there's maybe one substantial tree in that area and uh so we'll be adding some vegetation in there that would be more than what's there
today. >> Okay. So that was going to be my question. It's safe to assume that all all of these trees that are identified are probably are coming down since we're you're squeezing the most. >> Yeah. Moore like more than likely. Yes.
>> Okay. Uh, do you know offh hand? >> I didn't count them. There's got to be maybe a couple dozen or a dozen. Maybe 20. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I didn't really count them to be honest with you.
>> All right. Did we get the vernal pool 125 habitat area corrected on the plan? >> I'm not sure if he did or not. Uh, no. It's still at 100, but certainly would take care of that. >> Okay. Yeah, that'd be great.
And then you referenced replication of one to one or a little bit over one to one is what you have shown. Yes, I added uh I requested a waiver from the uh uh bylaw regulations because I think you
require 1.5 and it really would become very uh difficult to um provide that extra 500 square ft. >> Okay. So you you sent us a waiver for that.
>> Yeah, I >> that's something we have to look at. Okay. >> I updated the waiver request um when I filed the revised plan.
>> Okay. So we'll have to look at that. Um All right. Does anyone have any questions on on this what's being presented tonight? I think we need to um hear from the board of health. See if you're successful uh with your waiver there. And
>> well, the uh it would you know back in 1998 they did grant the waiver before. I'm hoping that they will, as you know, board members change and a lot of things change over the years. I'm hoping that they will consider this
favorably, but it certainly would be helpful if the commission expressed their uh support for the waiver uh because the only alternative would be to cross the wetlands to put it in or vice versa with the house in the driveway. So,
>> Mhm. >> I think I think a lot of it will a lot of the board of health uh would will welcome uh the commission's input, let's say, to if of course I don't want to put words
in the commission's mouth, but if if the commission were favorably inclined to support this proposal, then the the waiver is essential to the whole the whole scheme of things. Yeah. No, I agree that the waiver is
essential to this plan that we're looking at in order for it to move forward. Um, Joe Orzelle, have you gotten I don't think we have comments from you on this version of the plan yet. Is that
correct? >> That's correct. My understanding is that we were waiting for a full response to our initial um comments um before going on with any further responses or any further comments. >> Right. Yeah. Right. We did we did touch
on that in the last meeting. Um Oh, Ed, you're back. >> I am back. >> Thank you. >> It was an fabulous extravagant event. >> Okay. >> Um I would like to comment on this. I
think it's absurdly silly that we we require some wetland filling and then we require the replication. And to me, it seems utterly absurd that we say that yes, you have to have
you have to fill in some wetland here to get some setback requirements. And I kind of understand, but then then you got to come over to the other side and you gota you got to attempt to make some wetland. It just seems a silly thing to me. That's all. >> Mhm. >> Unfortunately, we don't make the
regulations and so we're just trying to apply the regulations evenly so that it allows us to limit the disturbance to the wetlands. Th >> this is not a comment directed at you.
This is a comment on the situation that's right here in front of us. That's all. Sure. No, no problem. Thank you. um >> through the chair, I have one comment. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Um I I think Mr. Petrosa, you you
thought that maybe 20 trees would be cleared. Uh 20 significant trees, 10 inch DBH or greater. Is that right? >> Uh to be honest with you, I didn't count them, but I >> No, but but is So yeah, we're in that ballpark. So, what I'm wondering is in
that replication area, we're only getting three trees back. Uh, a bunch of bushes certainly, but I'm wondering if more trees could safely fit in there or even I I realize it's about a one
replication. I was looking at the the the specks on the pink shaded and it's about equal. But if that purple were expanded just a little bit to maybe where the wetland line hits the road, add a little strip. Maybe there's even more spot for trees. I'm just curious on
the the tree to bush. >> Sure. >> Replication ratio. you know, there's no magic formula to uh how this was set up. It's perfectly amendable to adding um some other, you know, types of u tree
canopy in there if you if that's uh what the commission is preferred. You know, >> maybe I'll throw it to Ed. Ed, maybe I shouldn't ask given your last comment, but do you have thoughts on the replication tree to shrub ratio, Ed?
I guess not. >> No, >> no. Well, I I for one would like to see more trees. If we're going to remove 20ish, uh I'd love to see a few more than three come back.
>> Rising the question that way, then then I would I would be sympathetic to your opinion. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Well, I'm certainly well. I'm certainly willing. I mean, obviously, I know this is a unique situation. I'm perfectly
happy to try and um address that particular concern about adding a few. You know, I don't know how many we can fit in there. I I I don't know what's in there presently for vegetation, but certainly we could try to um add or
supplement the vegetation that's there. One of the things that you know obviously when you t depending on the size of the tree, you don't want it to have a way to grow overturn over time. So you can't just plant trees on top of
other trees. I I understand that and I'm not proposing a number for that very reason. I just eyeballing it, it looks like maybe some more trees could fit in there. But >> yeah, I think I think we can go out there and take a look at it and um you know, if we can put more in. It's I'm
listen I I understand the accommodation here if if it gets approved and certainly willing to work with the commission to uh add wherever we can for vegetation uh and even along it doesn't necessarily
have to be in the wetland replication area. It can be a border along the existing BBW to the rear of the house too. I mean, >> sure. >> We've had other situations where we've supplemented that in the past and we certainly can do that again.
>> Thank you. That that's my only comment right now, Melissa. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm sure there's some um guidance documents on on this too and George can maybe chime in when he does his review
um of this particular application. But that kind of brings me back, Lou. Um, like we talked at the last last time we talked, we talked about you issuing a letter just in a response to Joe's comments, the ones that apply.
>> Oh, I I I didn't do that. I mean, I I >> Okay. Quite honestly, I thought most of his comments related to, you know, the other alternatives which were all involved crossing the wetlands in some fashion and didn't really apply to this
particular plan. Um, so if you would like me to do that, I'd certainly willing to do that, but I I just didn't think it was the comments were were applicable to this particular option.
Yeah, I think or at least what I was thinking is if you could go through and you can put NA not applicable on the comments that don't apply and then the few or the handful that do just provide a response. I think that'll help
facilitate Joe's review going forward, save him some time, you know. >> Okay. >> In, you know, it'll it'll it'll Yeah. save you some billing. hopefully and then he can focus on additional
comments, you know, related to the new layout here. >> Well, I hope Joe is going to be supportive. Joe >> through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> The the 50 foot wetland buffer line we see on this plan,
just looking for a little clarity. Is that from the existing wetland boundary or from the new wetland boundary after the fill occurs? >> I I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that we had to
draw the line of where the replication area is so that we maintain the 50 foot distance to the septic. So, we're we're straddling a a line here for on both sides to to comply with the setback
requirements for a septic system. So, um >> Judy, any chance you can measure it? I I know you've got it up on your screen. I don't >> I I don't, but I mean, if you look at where it crosses the driveway, um
there's a d a solid line there. the dash solid dash solid cutstone that >> I think that's the 50 foot line from um the corner of the wetlands down at on where it intersects North Mil Street and
then it just moves over uh and stays 50 feet away but at that point it's more than 50 feet away from the septic system if you follow that >> I think I think it looks to me just the dimension and the way that points paint
is there to me it looks like it's 50 feet off the existing >> or no the I mean the yeah the existing well >> yeah the existing it's kind of strange the way the regulation is written in terms of the setback line
um because it's any point of the of the wetland and this happens to extend out in that particular corner I mean if we were to fill that little section of of wetland there, then we'd have a little bit more flexibility, too.
But at this point, we're not proposing that. We're just adding to it as replication. Are you thinking, Matt, that once the replication's built, the septic's then going to be within the 50 of the new
>> wetland line? >> Uh there's there's two things I'm thinking. One is, you know, are we are you kind now going to be in the 50 foot from the new line and two is is that wetland fill needed to be 50 feet away
from the septic system >> to make that work or you 50t away from the existing line. That's what I was trying to figure out. Yeah, I I think um quite honestly I mean we would be spinning our wheels if we weren't coming up with a plan that would be compliant
with uh the regulations and that's why the that's why the replication area is a straight line down because that complies I'm pretty sure with the 50 foot on both sides.
>> Yeah. I'm just doing some through the chair. >> Yes, Joe. Yeah. No, that that was a good question. I was just looking at that on the existing conditions plan where it shows the uh a little more clear where the 50 foot is located.
Um it actually looks like the 50-foot buffer on the the western edge of that 50-ft buffer may actually still be from the original wetland line and not the revised wetland line.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. >> Yeah, she's just me terrified. I think >> I can have them darken it up. I I mean, I can have them put another these colors are my colors and crayon. So, I can ask I can put put another color on there and
sort of amplify it a bit for you. But I'm pretty I'm pretty sure that how this is laid out is to comply with the 50 foot distance on both sides. >> Yeah. So this plan definitely makes it easier to to see and I could see it on
the other plan. So my what it looks like to me is from like flags GC 16 to 18 >> that dimen distance to the 50 foot buffer is 50 feet.
>> Yeah. where you have flags GC 26 27 28 it's clearly a shorter distance so it seems like that 50 foot would be from the >> the new edge of that's what I was trying to figure out >> this plan makes it easier to see and
figure out >> the share >> yes Annie >> so I think Joe were you saying that you think down where it says like where the 50 foot comes in above of that mill. You know, the word mill that they're measuring off GC10 versus GC10R.
>> No, that looks like uh I think probably GC10R. >> I was looking at the other the other side of the U the 50 foot buffer which looks like it's drawn from the original like from roughly from GC25
um and not >> Yeah, it's drawn. Yeah, because that's the area where we're filling. So, >> Right. That's where you're filling. So, it looks like it's probably drawn from the edge of the proposed fill. Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> Mr. Petro, is there a way to locate the septic system that so it would be compliant without having to fill the wetland? >> No. >> Okay. If there was, we'd be doing it. You
know, when >> I had to ask just to >> I mean, it's just it's just the rules are just cra crazy. And quite honestly, if we could move the house a little bit more forward, uh, we try to do that, but they the requirement is from for 20 feet away
from a basement or 10 feet away from like a like the garage, which is a filled area. There's no basement. So, that's why we can move the garage forward. In that particular case, they can be that can be a little bit closer to a septic field.
>> So, our waiver provisions say that wetland alterations intended to make lands buildable as by fulfilling septic system setback requirements. Flood elevation, other minimum construction setbacks or to achieve
minimum lot areas are prohibited for a waiver. No. >> Um, so I don't know that we can re reading that. It seems like we can't approve a waiver
for one to one. >> You mean just the replication area or >> Yeah. So what you would be what you're saying then is that I would need 1.5 to one replication area to
comply. I think so. I think the way I'm reading it, and I'm not necessarily liking that, as Ed alluded to, creating wetlands in a forest is not my not the way I like to go, but um you're
the chair. >> Yes, Judy. >> I think there's two sections that apply here with slightly different meanings. So, section 4.0 zero of the regs state that wetland alterations intended to make land buildable like you just said
are prohibited uh but don't reference you know if they meet performance standards they are that section is covered in 4.3 so that states the commission can grant a waiver from the regs for alteration if
they're meeting performance standards so that one and a half to one so that 4.0 zero section. It doesn't say that there's a situation in which wetland alteration to make lands buildable is allowable as I'm interpreting it.
>> It's like a riddle. Well, that I you know the whole thing is uh you know like I said >> it's it's this is the best alternative other than >> Yeah. >> know doing what we
could do. >> Yeah. Through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> So I I I think I agree with you Mosa. It's it's just a a matter of meeting the performance standards for the fill
having that one and a half to one because if you do look at that vegetative wetlands alteration, it gives us the ability to evaluate feasible alternatives and if there are none that
provide fewer impacts to what resource values, um it would give us the ability to approve approve a vegetated wetland alteration. But I I don't see any way we could grant a waiver for the for non-compliance of
the performance standards to make the law buildable. I think that's the hangup. >> Y So I'm a little confused. So what do we uh what what what are we
>> Yes, Joe. uh the lot um it's making it buildable for this portion of the lot. I mean >> the lot is also has other buildable options um potentially. Um
so >> right >> okay >> this is I think this would come under the category of avoiding minimizing or mitigating to the best extent possible as part of your alternatives analysis
and that's where this alternative uh uh deserves more um credit I guess should call it for what we're proposing to do rather than trying to disturb significantly more of
the lot >> to make it buildable. >> Right. Yeah. I'm just um not advocating against the this particular proposed plan. I'm just trying to make sure that if we are issuing a waiver,
we're checking the you know, making sure that it's valid. I understand. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I I still read it the same way because it doesn't say lots, it says lands. So, I think we need the one and a half to one
performance standard to be met to to eliminate that waiver discussion because it appears to be prohibited because it's lands, not lots. So, the land would be the land in the front. And then the other three waiverss we would
be able to consider and grant if we so chose because we have the ability through the alternatives analysis to decide that this is the least impactful to the resource areas. >> Yeah. So, if I'm hearing this correctly,
if we showed this as being a 1.5 to one replication area, the commission would be um favorably inclined to approve project.
>> Yeah, I think we could consider it. Yes. >> Okay. So, how do So, what would you like me to do? Would you let you want me to respond to uh the comments as best I can? >> Yep. >> I'm going to revise the plan to
see what 1.5 to one does for the replication. Obviously, it just diminishes the amount of the lot. Um, I think it would add I think it would add roughly 10 feet width to the replication area by the
depth. Um, so I think we could probably do that. Um, and then I just would need support with the board of health to uh allow them to grant the waiver from
their regulations. So, however you can help in that respect, that would be great. >> When are you going to the board of health? Is that >> that's scheduled for the 12th? >> Okay. >> So, we have one more meeting
between now. You you folks meet on the what the 6th. I think I heard you say >> we do meet on the 6th. We meet on the 6th and then the 27th. >> Yeah. So, I could I could have this revised the plan revised.
uh and submitted next week um or even maybe this week. >> Okay. >> To show the >> Yes, Judy. >> I think there was just a few additional things that were mentioned um that we would need to see. The um vernal pool
habitat needs to be adjusted to 125 ft. >> Yeah, we talked about that. >> I think we need a count an exact count of the trees that were marked. Um, and then I did send an email about the bylaw supplement form. It doesn't have the 0 to 50 and 50 to 100 disturbance
breakdown. Um, so we need a a corrected uh bylaw supplement form as well. >> I saw that Judy. I was I was wondering because with the whole area that we're talking about as within that between the wetland line and the street is all
within the 50 and the 100. You know, it's kind of like a calculation that's in fact in fact the only thing that's not within the 50 is that little quadrangle that's in the front of the lot. Other than that, the whole thing is
in the 50 foot buffer zone. So, well, if you want me to make that calculation, I would. I just thought I' I'd just put in the number of for the whole upland area that's in that in that where the house is being built. So
>> yeah, I think we just complete the paperwork and >> Okay. >> I have it all there. >> Okay. Is that the only thing, Judy? >> Uh, yep. That was everything on my list. >> Okay. I chair. >> Yes.
>> Maybe you were going to do this. I just wanted to make sure that you asked if there was any input from the public that maybe we should hear before we wrap this one up. >> Yeah. Thank you, Ted. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> Oh, I see a hand. Yes, Bruce Homegrren,
you can unmute and go ahead and uh sit. I think you're still muted there. There you go. Thank you. Y >> yes, Bruce, uh 9 North Bill Street. Uh
the my primary concern uh has been the integrity maintaining the integrity of the intermittent stream. Uh and so anything that uh is done with this particular uh arrangement or the other
arrangement which in which the lot was developed in the back uh concern me a great deal. In fact, the talk about additional uh trees. Uh the reason that I don't there are no trees in the front uh is that that area even though it's not
wetlands, it's uh prone to flooding uh on a an occasional basis enough that there's nothing much of any size that's grown there in the last 50 years. uh it was part of the original farm, but uh that area in the middle here uh had
no cows and it had no corn because nothing could uh to grow there. So anyway, I'm still concerned about uh what happens to that intermittent intermittent stream both off the property and and on it. Uh the uh the
proposal originally that uh was developed was to have the house in the back and I realized that that uh had a much bigger disruption in the wetlands in the center. Uh but uh Mr. Petro's proposal to install a box culvert
seemed to be a workable solution to that. Maybe not. I'd leave that to the you folks to decide. Anyway, I just want to make a point that uh that intermittent stream uh should be protected because that area the the water just flares out all over the place
really. It doesn't it's not quite as constrained as it shows on uh on the drawing here. >> That's that's the my thoughts here. >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And if we have to consider that with the
plantings as you said, what makes sense? Yeah, I think bigger trees, more bigger trees. In this case, I'm I'm a big tree lover. We've got a lot of big trees on our side of the road, but uh here I'm not sure it may it may meet one objective, but uh it also uh potentially
would have an impact on that strain and I would see that I wouldn't like to see that happen. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? No. Okay. Hearing none. Then can I get a motion to
continue this out to January 6th? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Yes. Anna. >> Mr. Petrosi. Are you also asking to continue the soil uh access for soil testing hearing as well? >> Oh, sure. Why not?
>> Okay. Can we just continue both of those? >> Please make that amendment. >> Yes. >> I'll make a motion to close or to continue the uh the other notice of intent filing as well. >> And I will second.
>> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Matt. I >> Jim >> I >> Ted >> Ted is an I >> and I am also an I. >> Great. Thank you very much and I'll get
those revised plans to you as soon as possible so we can have a conversation on the 6th. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Thanks every have a nice holiday. >> Yep. You too. >> Byebye. >> All right. That wraps up our continued hearing. So, we're going to jump back
down to work session. We are up to Legacy Farms Road project change request. Good evening. This is Mark Ar with GDRD Consulting here on behalf of Legacy
Farms LLC for this change request. Um, glad to give the commission an introduction unless um Judy or Joe would like to. >> Uh, nope, I think. Go ahead. >> Great. >> Uh, so if you don't mind, I'm just going
to share my screen. I could just get that request. I'm just going to share basically um the letter we submitted which has some tables which is helpful to understand the um the matter as well as
just some photographs and the plan. Look like sharing is still turned off right now. >> I'm I'm okay with it, Judy. >> There we go. Excellent. Thank you so much. So, uh we submitted this letter back on November 24th. So um just to recap what
the per where this kind of lands in terms so um we had uh work we're working under an enforcement order with um this commission which we appreciate you granted to us to allow us to close out the the wetland mitigation and monitoring on the property and one of
the things that we had to document um to confirm compliance was the BLSF mitigation area that was to be constructed for the Legacy Farms South Road. Um this was for the major pond crossing at the south road and the um
the confirming that the BLS of had been built correctly in terms of did the bank get restored um as required did the um did the land water bodies get restored acquired and also did BLSF get mitigated as required. So, uh, we've been working
with control point, um, for quite a few months now on getting some some detailed plans that have multiple pieces of information, um, on this them to help the commission understand what was there before, what's there now, what would you delineate the wetlands and resource
areas as of today. So you can confirm that the actual areas were correctly restored or mitigated appropriately. But also the flood plane calculations which took a little bit of of back and forth in terms of figuring out what was actually done and and and were there
actually um field errors made in the field or something else because we did find some discrepancies in terms of the BLSF um grading that was for the mitigation. Um I can report that we do believe um based on the asbuilts they did not fill more BLSF than they were
supposed to. So in terms of what the project was supposed to do in terms of impacts that did not change. Uh but in terms of what was supposed to be mitigated, there was um some discrepancies that we'd like to kind of walk the commission through as to what we found because there's a a few ways to look at the discrepancies in terms of uh
the volume of the flood plane being mitigated and and and how that could be um remedied or left in place potentially just because of the way the actual um volume was actually mitigated in terms of the actual um area itself. So, um,
just to recap, um, for the commission, so this mitigation area was built back in 2014. VHB was on site. They did some reports, um, and it's unclear if they were even watching carefully the the the
volume of the BLSF being mitigated. Um, but basically, you can see on the left side of the screen here, this is the approved grading plan and planting plan for the BLSF area. You can see how flat um this area is along this lower section up to this contour here which is your
flood plane contour here. And you can see here that this contour is actually pushing out to the near the 100t buffer zone from the original bank of the pond. So it was supposed to flatten out quite a bit from the pond and then slope up
from there in the back here. Um and then the the the bank restoration and landed water bodies had this kind of centric kind of a pond extension kind of like a lagoon um that was going to be in there with wildlife habitat features and all of that there.
So um in terms of what was built we um we have basically kind of two conditions. One is we we went out to the site and if you look at it a year and a half ago it looked basically what was supposed to be there. there was a a
lower lagoon area and kind of a wetland area and then it transitioned into upland. Um this year if you go out there you'll find the whole area underwater like the the water has gone up about a foot or so because the beavers have actually damned up the lower reaches of
the wetland. So, um, this table I kind of did kind of in two different ways just so the commission understands there's kind of weird conditions going on where we have conditions that are artificial by the beavers. And so either way, basically we comply with what's supposed to be there um close close to
that in terms of if you um if you don't have the beaver activity, the bank impact is bank restoration is a little bit under what it's supposed to be. if you have the beaver activity, um, it's there. So, it's it's and in terms of that, that's
basically right on on par in terms of what was supposed to be there. Land underwater bodies, it meets it regardless of whatever condition we're on, whether it's beer activity or not. Um, and the other thing is we have actually wetland replication that was artificially made by what was graded
here. So, they actually built wetlands without intending to on the site plants. Um, and so at this point right now it's 250 ft because it's flooded out. But if you if the pond drops down, you actually end up with more wetlands in this area,
1,700 ft². So, um, we just wanted to let the commission know we we told the commission we would delineate these areas, resource areas. And we actually didn't just delineate the bank, we actually delineated BVW as well because we actually found BVW upgrading the pond that was created by the actual work. So,
as a net result, there was more BVW made as part of this mitigation, although it was never proposed. So, on page five of our letter, I have this table, and I I know it may look large, so I'm just going to walk through it. And I think um some of the commission may find it educational in
terms of understanding BLSF um work. So, BL BLSF mitigation and work requires that no fill be placed at um in in the flood plane. And if you do place fill, you have to mitigate at 1 ft intervals
um at a minimum. So um this table here basically walks you through the 1T intervals of where the the the impacts work. So we worked in the flood plane from 272 up to 278.9 which is the FEMA flood plane elevation on the plants. So
in every interval we have um an approved fill. So this was the approved number here. This first column here is what was supposed to occur as part of the roadway work and that was 10,524 cubic feet. The approved cut um basically per the order of conditions um
was to basically almost double the amount of flood plane volume on site to 24,200. And you can see here um basically every every interval there is a a negative number. A negative number meaning larger
flood plane volume on the site. And you can see here that basically each of these numbers is larger than the column to your left. So your your fill is is either the same or smaller than your cut to ensure that you do not fill the flood
plane. So um now under the asbuilt conditions um and this is the current conditions as of today. We basically have all the flood bane mitigated except for this top elevation here which is 278 to
278.9. But when you look at the total flood plane mitigated, we do actually comply with the order of conditions. So there's a there's a a sense of we do comply with the volume net. We just do not comply
with the one foot intervals at this location right here. Um, and that's if you look at apples to apples, which is what was um um basically filled versus what was actually cut. If
we were to comply with the order of conditions explicitly, we would have two intervals that we'd have to mitigate for um at 277 to 278 and 278 to 27 278.9. Um, and the reason why we split these up
is we wanted to kind of help the commission understand that there's kind of two ways to have compliance under the act and under the bylaw. One is to fully comply with the order of conditions and require um disturbance and and regrading
in these two elevation contours to create more floodplane storage or to actually mitigate only at this upper contour for 527 cubic feet of volume. And you end up with a a net result still
of basically being more volume than proposed. And and just for sense of understanding that that volume is actually created at lower elevations in the flood plane. So as the flood plane is rising, the mitigation is proposed
lower down, which means the smaller floods are mitigated um better and the the higher floods are basically already mitigated at a lower elevation, which means your net flooding at multiple storm levels is actually better than just mitigating only what's
minimal at each elevation of the flood plane. So that's what we've discovered basically as part of our asbuilt review. basically what was did they did they do what they were supposed to do in terms of building the roadway? Yes, they did. So, they didn't fill any more. We wanted to make sure that was correct. And then
the question is, did they actually mitigate everything correctly? And it looks like what happened is when they got the um the the lagoon all graded out, they built that area, they didn't pull the slopes back the way they were supposed to. And that was really only at
these upper elevation intervals. So um in terms of the conditions in this area um basically going back to here. So we have a very wellestablished vegetated slope upgradient of the BVW around this lagoon um with nice um maturing um white
pines um and other native shrubs and stuff in in in the understory there. And we've managed the invasives in this whole area right now. So it's it's coming along really nicely in terms of just naturally establishing itself. And because of that, we we wanted to bring
the commission um kind of an inquiry and and and request which was if if we only if we could only mitigate this this area here to to comply with the wetlands protection act and the bylaw and still have a a net volume of mitigation. So,
we would meet the net volume, we'd meet the the the minimum requirements of the intervals, we just would be mitigating at lower elevations um rather than higher elevations. Um if we could do that, that results in less disturbance to to close out this mitigation item as
a whole. And what we've looked at is also, you know, is there a place we could do this where we can minimize disturbance to mature vegetation, trees, shrubs, and native areas. And what we've um come up with is actually there is an
area um that is um right right along that crossing. Um if you've been on Legacy Farm South, right near the crossing, there's this nice gravel parking area. It's like three about three car spaces. Um it has access to the walking trails. And this area
outside of these this uh kind of parking area just below it is actually dropping into um the flood plan itself um in these areas. And you can see here it's actually fairly open. Um, and these are some photos we had taken actually when we were installing the habitat features in the area. Um, just to show you that
basically this is an area that's mostly herbaceous over cone kind of meadow area. It was part of the again nursery area was pretty heavily disturbed. Um, the edges have kind of filled in and grown up a little bit, but the the most of this area is kind of an a trail
junction and an open area. And what we'd like to do is to basically um build a a flood plane mitigation area in this location that would basically avoid us from really having to take down any
major trees. Um minimalistic damage to shrubs. Um and in terms of that, we would actually be transplanting the shrubs and putting them back in place once we did grading. Um and so to end up making a very small envelope. Um, and so this is kind of what we had in terms of
that. And actually, so my apologies. I should have shown you the actual asbuilt here. Um, so this this is this is actually the as of the mitigation area that was built. And you can see here, this is the lagoon coming in here, coming in there, and coming back out.
Here's your your your bank and and wetland flags here. Um, the edge of the water. >> Mark, I think Are you showing us a plan? Oh, >> not a picture. Right now, we're just seeing a picture. You know what? Oh, I'm sorry. You know what? It's I'm >> Yeah, sometimes. >> There we go. I'm I'm sorry. I changed I
changed the PDF plan, but I forgot that I have to share individual files, which is actually nice. It is actually good that way. Um Zoom does a good night job with that. Um so, my apologies. So, I'm sorry. Let me just take the step back a bit. So, um what actually was built? So, this is what was built. Um you have this
lagoon here that comes up like this. And this is where the edge of water is, where my cursor is. This is where the edge of water was um last summer and then when the beavers came in the water flooded out to actually up here and up to here. So basically right now we have a larger pond because the beavers
flooded the pond actually higher. So the whole pond rose and because we made this nice flat area here. This is basically wetlands if the pond isn't flooded out. Um it's actually really nice speckled alder and stuff like that. All stuff that's used to heavy flooding in that area. And then this is that slope here
which is all has the white pines and the other native herbaceous and and woody vegetation. There's a lot of like blackberry in there as well in this area here. And so basically you can see on this plan here these contours are very tight to each other. And this is where these contours were supposed to be
pulled back farther into this hillside here. So, um, rather than going back to this same location and opening up this whole hillside to pull the contours back to mitigate where, um, the mitigation was supposed to be built. We'd like to
basically go up go on the other side of the road into this area where we've got this here's the parking area right here. Um, here's those larger trees which we can leave in place. Here's that this this trail connection path right here. And here's the existing shrub, the tree
line here. And basically, we've got some overhanging canopy right here from trees that are leaning in. And basically a lot of meadow area right in here. So, we'd like to basically regrade this area here um to provide the
floodplane compensatory storage for that elevation of of 278 to 278.9 278.9 um to provide that mitigation that would comply with the the regulations um to
the to the minimal standard while also still providing the net volume um that was originally required. So um in terms of of compliance if you look at the actual like order of conditions it has like your your net volume of flood
plane. So we are going to meet that the net volume. It's just the intervals are going to be changing because we prefer not to go back and disturb um possibly 10 15,000 square ft or more of area to
regrade um the area by the mitigation area because it's a it's a it's a steep slope which requires a lot of grading to pull back the slope to drop the elevations where the flood plane is. So this area is basically lower in elevation. So we're able to quickly cut
in these grades very smoothly with very little by the time we're done it's not going to be that noticeable. Um and and basically get the flooding all mitigated in that respect. Our plan is to have this supervised by Goddard Consulting. We're going to basically any native
trees, any native shrubs and small saplings that are here, we would move them out of the way, do the grading, put them back in place, and basically restore everything back to the same thing. Add your native seed mix, conservation seed mix, and then maintain
um the paths that are there, which are the the native walking trails, which are are really used by um the whole the community there. Um, but that's basically what our our our request is is basically are could we mitigate the BLSF
over in this area and um hopefully save um a lot of disturbance from complying in the other area. And we think that's a a reasonable request that would mitigate what's necessary here to to comply um and and and and make sure that the applicant does comply with your order.
at the same time um understanding the mitigating circumstances of the the inet level disturbance that happens there and again it's unfortunate that that it was when it was being supervised with VHP and and other people there at the time again back in 2014 2013 that this wasn't caught back then. So um that's our our
request. Um we think it's it's it's simple. It's um we're mostly we do have the the buffer zones shown here just so the commission knows. So we are in the 50ft buffer here, but we are um holding to the existing brush line in that 50ft
buffer. Um otherwise we're in the outer buffer zone in that area there. These is um this is basically bank of um that pond there. Very steep slopes. There's no change of of wetland delination there. And then we did show the old wetland lines back here just again show
you that we're we're still far away from anything else that was known to be wetlands there. So, um hopefully, um I was able to give a a clear enough description. Again, this was a lot. So, if there are questions um from Lucas or Judy, uh we understand that. Um and
yeah, any questions? Glad to take them now. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I think I understand where it's going, but I'm gonna turn to Joe Orzelle to get his thoughts on this.
>> Yeah. So I'm um reviewing this now. I haven't completed um I guess um first comment is um with respect to the area that's proposed um for the u additional storage. I know
there's there are some trees out there that is shrubby, but there are some uh primarily boxer. did go out and look at that with the sidewalk um with Gutter Consulting and Judy and Anna were out there on the sidewalk also. So there are
there are some trees in there um but like I said primarily boxwood trees um a box elder tree, sorry. Um my my I'm confused by table three um I guess is one of my biggest questions. um
as far as where some of the numbers are coming from um and I know that uh there was some explanation there but with respect to primarily the uh uh let's see the last three columns with
the the asbuilt actual uh um the asbuilt approved the cut and um and what's required to comply. Um, so maybe some explanation on on how those numbers were determined because I'm I'm
trying to figure out um the actual if you look at the differences for instance um as built the actual fill um as built approved cut. Okay. And then
you have the uh uh approved approved cut uh in column uh three. Um I'm just trying to see where
the differences are where the differences equate between those two in the next column. So that I think just maybe some more information on on where those numbers how those numbers were derived. Uh and maybe I'm just not
understanding it and other people do, but uh that was one of my big questions looking at at this initially. Um >> yeah, understood. And if if Joe needs more time, um Melissa, glad to to to give him time to look at this. We know
it's kind of um a confusing table. This table was confusing even for me to develop. Um, and I can see some of the differences and I'm I'm looking at some of the wording. I think I I probably should I think the best thing is for me to update this table with some more clerical notes about where the each
column was kind of derived and and the the reasoning behind it. Um, just to make sure it's clear as to what's what's going on. Um I guess the the the main thing I guess is if you look at if you look at these first three columns Joe I think that's the kind of the the the meat of it which is you can see right
here that um >> as you go down this asbuilt column these numbers are larger than to the immediate left larger they're larger they're larger and then right here is where we fall short right here >> right I think those columns I think are
are pretty straightforward it's it's the remaining columns where it gets a little confusing at least for um and how those were derived. Um >> y >> it was it was an interval kind of thing that we had to look at. But yeah, I I
think Joe, I understood. So I think um we can definitely get you something revised um tomorrow just to walk through those tapes again. I I'll have someone else at my office look through it to just to give a different um balanced view. Um probably different >> and it may it may be just the the labeling too. It might it may be just
the labeling that's throwing me off. I don't know. Um, >> yep. >> But that would be helpful. Um, >> yeah, I think that's that's that was pretty much my my questions at this point. >> Okay.
Um, I just have a quick I guess bigger picture question. Um, I think what you're saying makes sense for this 527 um, number and and kind of moving that from one area to another at the same
elevation. It makes sense. Um, but the required to fully comply with the order of conditions because this was from so long ago. Um, why would the order of conditions
have a different number than the wetland protection act, I guess. Do you know where that comes from? >> So, um, so the I guess the the the order of conditions required more mitigation than what was minimally required by the
bylaw and the act. And that's something that this whole project had, which was a lot of mitigation because there were a lot of extenduating circumstances about this project. There were multiple crossings, there was old disturbance and all these things. And so, and also this
project had larger wetland impacts originally proposed that were withdrawn and reduced when the final order of conditions was issued. And so I my understanding from looking at the files, I believe that this over mitigation was actually kind of left over from the
original grand mitigation scheme that was designed as part of this massive site with a lot more impacts that ended up getting reduced down to small areas. And I think they decided that you know what, this is one area where it's easy just to keep the mitigation without actually reducing it to kind of balance
out what's actually occurring. Um, >> a little also a little bit more history on Eric Swson from Legacy Farms LLC. Um, we a lot of the land that was left over as open space was was was supposed to be used as agricultural land and that did
not come to fruition. Um, so a lot of that land has been renaturalized in in that process. So, you know, they in doing so, I believe that because of that, um, a lot of these were were
assuming that land was going to continue to be used. Uh, and and since it hasn't, we've, you know, we've we've far exceeded what what has been allowed to go back into naturalization at this point. I think,
>> yeah, >> I was just gonna say I think that would be helpful to add >> as we're looking at this and making a decision because I have a hard time just saying, "Oh, no, you don't need to make that condition anymore." Um, but if
there's some reasoning behind it and like you were saying, if there's other things that were done in place of this that we can say that take the place of that condition, it would probably make me feel a little bit better. But just looking at this presented the way it is
right now, I feel like I'm um, you know, just kind of throwing to the wind what the commission wanted done back then. and I don't really like doing that. >> So just to clarify that most I think a little bit is is basically it's it's
these two intervals that are not in compliance with the original commission intent. So that's the first thing is it's just this these bottom two lines here. That's where the discrepancy is because you can see here that what was supposed to happen was 5,100 cubic feet
of cut but only 4,113 cubic feet were cut. So there's a there's a there's a there's a loss of flood plane at that interval. However, if you look at the interval just before
that, we actually exceeded the cut at the lower interval by a,000 cubic feet of volume. So that's why when you look at the totals, we actually have more flood plane volume, but it's at a lower
elevation. Um but the wetlands protection act doesn't say you can do that. It says you have to do them at the one foot intervals. And so um again our our plan and I guess this is where I think one thing I think I I we missed in the
clerical information was our our plan does have grading from 270 um 7 to 278 and 278 to 278.9. So, we are actually mitigating at both of those
intervals. Um, but we're only going to mitigate the mitigate the um the bare minimum to um comply with this column, this this row right here. So, you can see right here we we filled
2615 cubic feet at this interval. We've already mitigated 4,913 cubic feet. So we've well mitigated that interval already. However, this interval here, we're short by 527 cubic feet. So if you compare
what was filled to what was actually built, we are technically short at that interval. So reading the law regulations, this is absolutely a non-compliance issue and it has to be resolved in some manner. Um, so but if if we wanted to comply with the order of
conditions, then we'd have to mitigate at both of these intervals. And so we're trying to reduce the interval mitigation to still comply with the wetland protection act, which is making sure that this column is mitigated, which it has been except for down here. um by
only mitigating that this elevation versus chasing elevations down below to 277 which ends up expanding our grading area. The lower in elevation we go on this site for flood plane mitigation, the larger the disturbance is. And it's
like an it's an exponential number. Basically, if you have, you know, 500 cubic feet, if if we're doing 200 cubic feet at this elevation, it actually ends up being like, you know, 5 10,000 square feet of disturbance because we have to chase the grading to find the volume in
on the site no matter where we look at it. So, in terms of that, so again, complying with the order is, you know, we'd have to follow these numbers here in the this middle column right here. But if we could only comply if we only
have to match this column here at this intervate at this interval, you'll end up with more flood plane volume net plus all your intervals will be mitigated. So the the intent of this the the approval was to mitigate all the
intervals and increase the flood plane. We're doing the exact same thing just at different intervals. And in this case, the intervals are actually better because they're lower in elevation. So you could mitigate up here, but the best mitigation is down here. And that's
where we have significant volume mitigation um in terms of that. So if there's a flood, the flood plane is going to be coming up very slowly in this top interval because we've have so much volume down below that we've made as part of the the uh the actual
conditions that are out there right now. So, does that help? >> No, I I understand what you're saying. Um, I also feel like you they wouldn't break it out into requiring it at these intervals unless there was a reason to
do that. Otherwise, it would just be one big category. So, um just in order to feel comfortable with that piece about um complying with the OC, uh I just I just want to be careful and
make sure I'm not we're not undoing something that was intentionally um required. And that's that's that's at least for me uh the piece that I'm stumbling on. But maybe when Joe reviews a little bit
more, he might be able to add some clarity to um and look at it from that perspective. I don't want to, you know, it's it's getting late. We still have a few other things and I know we're going to continue and have more time to think about this. So, we'll digest it some
more. Um I do want to open it up and see if anyone else on the commission has questions, comments, uh to, you know, for Mark between now and the next meeting to think about. I don't have any questions, Melissa, but just a comment.
>> Sure. >> Not knowing the history of this project, but if you're looking at if I'm looking at it just as it applies to the act and the bylaw, it's it appears to me that what's being proposed would would be in compliance
with the requirements for compensatory flood storage. Okay. >> And and that the original approval and this happens all the time that when you're trying to do compensatory flood storage, inevitably you provide more at the lower elevations just because the
way you have to grade the site to get there. It just that's just generally what I've seen happen. >> Those upper elevations are the hardest to accomplish. Um, so I think as from from that
perspective, if the if we're compliant with the approved fill at least at the the square foot or cubic foot to cubic foot perspective, then um not again not knowing the history that that this would be consistent with the requirements.
>> Okay. No, that's helpful. I don't I haven't worked much in this. So, um and it does make sense that you would end up doing more at the lower lower elevations. I can visualize that and see that
happening. Um I just don't have the background on Yeah, if that's acceptable um to count that. >> Yeah, you wouldn't higher. Yeah, you
wouldn't count the lower elevation instead of the higher. But if I'm if I'm reading this chart correctly, and I think I am, right, if you look elevation by elevation, the fill the really the the the two that
matter are the approved fill column and the asbuilt cut column. And as long as that cut column exceeds the fill column, you'd be compliant with the compensatory flood storage requirements in the act of the bylaw. Where it's not compliant is
that 278 to 279. That's the issue that needs to get into compliance to to meet the regulations. And to get that in compliance, they're inevitably providing more volume at the 277 to 278
just the way the grading needs to be done to get there. >> So it's it's gravy on top all that additional volume. But the key is that upper 0.9 ft needs to get into compliance.
So the question that we're being asked is if that upper 0.9 not being in compliance with our order conditions is okay. >> No, Melissa, we're we're ask we're asking can we can we can we mitigate only that area to bring the site into
compliance with that interval. We want to bring that area into compliance by doing this grading. However, we don't want to have to match this middle column here with our asbuilt column. That's
we're asking we're asking for relief on because if if we have to meet the actual grading that was originally proposed in a volume standpoint, you can see here we're supposed to have 8,000 cubic feet at this elevation, which is again your highest elevation is your hardest
elevation to mitigate. They were almost doubling that flood the volume up there and we would like to just only mitigate one one up at that top elevation interval versus go up larger. If we do this interval, we're looking at 10
15,000 square ft or more of buffer zone work to regrade and build BLSF mitigation. And in when you look at the total, we've actually exceeded the total proposed already. So, we're going to match per the act the
left column and also provide the net volume. And it's just instead of having 8,000 up here, we have it down here. It's down here. >> Mhm. >> In these numbers here. And that's actually better for everything cuz if
you have a 50-year storm and whatever if say the ele the flood plane goes up to 273 274 well it actually may not go up that high because we've actually mitigated more down there cuz we only fill 260 but we actually added 2,437
cubic feet. So, it's actually a net benefit to have more mitigation lower in the flood plane than this massive almost doubling at the top in terms of the actual functions of the actual area. So, again, we we we we're going to fully comply with the wetlands protection act
and the act requirements. We're just looking for relief in terms of matching the actual proposed grading volumes in terms of the intervals that were there, which were quite quite large up top here. And that's where the excessive grading was coming in. And we looked at it and said that's a lot of disturbance.
And so we said we should look at an alternative that may actually be um better for everything we think is um in terms of just the the the net disturbance at this point. So looking forward to Yeah. Any other members commission have questions? Feel glad to
take them now. And again we'll we'll we'll continue this discussion in January. >> Okay, that sounds good. Um, I don't think we have to vote on continuing because this is just a work session. >> Just making sure that Ted or Ed didn't
have any questions. >> I'm good. I I think I I started catching on to that discussion in the second half of it. I'm >> good and I look forward to hearing what Joe has to say. >> Thank you, Chair. All right.
Okay. Thank you, Mark. >> Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. >> Yep. >> All right. Next up, we have Zero Wilson Street. This is the trails request for certificate of compliance. All right. Do we have anyone on the call
for this to present? Huh? Peter earlier. >> Oh, yeah. I see him. Peter, are you here? >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm not using my computer so I'm trying to
use my phone. But uh we are um we've completed our work back in um in the fall of uh of 24. And uh this is for the work at Zero Wilson, which is land that is owned by the town of Ashland. Um but storm water from the trails entered onto
this property uh traveled east to the box culver. Well, actually originally traveled west uh do the down to the um the water treatment plant as part of an Ashlin public works project. Oh god, it was
probably you know 8 to 10 years before the trails project uh was done. Um and this water seemed to us to have naturally wanted to go to the east. So the rework that we did here was to bring that water back east to the box culvert.
the um the work on the north side of Wilson Street, House Street, um is in the town of Ashlin. We had a separate order of conditions for that work and that work is was completed in the same timeline and we have received our uh certificate of compliance and that's
recorded for that. Um now it's time to get the area to the south. Um Beta did a review. uh we addressed their concerns and uh I further uh complied with that in that beta was unable to um assess the
vegetation because of the timing when they were there. I did provide some photography that we had um showing that all the plants were still healthy in the fall of 25 after the drought that we've had in and in in the summer of 25.
Um, but I'd still made a further commitment, you know, because we still have to get a COC for the overall trails project at at some point in the future that, uh, when we do go to get that, I have no problem revisiting this area and seeing if there's any vegetation that's
in distress and replacing it. Um, so that we can just give you more assurance that we're not trying to just get this work done and off the list. We're trying to get this work done and have it done right. Um, a lot of effort went into creating this area and um, you know, we
want to stand by it, but I would like to try to get this paperwork uh, completed and get the certificate uh, recorded because it is land that we do not own. So, I would look forward to your approval of this request this evening. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um, Judy, do you have anything to add to that? Particularly, I know you've been out there, so you've seen the planting areas. Do you want to speak to them? >> Yeah, not much to add. Uh, we just had Beta do this review because they had reviewed the NOI originally. Um, concur
that they said the swale was constructed as approved and it's functioning correctly. They didn't say they didn't find the plantings. It's just that they couldn't confirm the health of the plantings due to the time of year. Um, but we're out there all the time and haven't necessarily been looking at the
plantings, but you know, haven't noticed like any massive die offs or bare spots or anything like that. >> Okay. All right. Um, I think I'm I'm good with this one. Um,
I'll open it up to commission members if anyone has any questions or comments. Anyone from the public? No. Okay. With that, I will ask for a motion
to issue this certificate of compliance for zero Wilson Street with signatures by Judy or Anna. >> So moved. Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> And I am also an I. >> Great. Thank you. Enjoy your holidays.
>> Yes. You too. >> Yep. Good night. Right. >> Uh, next up we have Nation Whisperway subdivision request for certificate of compliance. >> Hello, this is Mark Arnold again here on behalf of the applicant.
>> Welcome back. >> Thank you. So, this is a request for um the Whisper Way uh subdivision um order of conditions issued back in 2019. Um so this uh project had kind of two parts to
it. One was the widening of the existing Whisper Way roadway um to conform to planning board requirements for a subdivision. Um this resulted in a widening of the crossing and some wetland impacts. Um, as part of that
crossing, we had wildlife um uh uh coverts put in to allow wildlife movement through the the the the crossing because there were retaining walls there. Um, that area there also had a storm water basin which you can see on the screen in front of you and
that um work is basically all been completed in substantial compliance with with the order of conditions. Um, oh, and there was one other minor wetland impact up in the the bottom left corner of your screen there. You'll see the orange lines there. There was a a small wetland impact there again because we
widened out the crossing there. Um, that was an odd stream situation where you have a spillage from a wetland with a vernal pool off property on the conservation land that spilled across into a covert and underneath the roadway. So that was designed with the
engineers to have an overflow from the wetland so that way we didn't drain or cause any disturbance to that hydrarology. Um and we had some minor there was like 170 ft of of wetland fill there. So that was the the main whisper way project. And then as part of the
subdivision there was also a common driveway that was built as part of the um two lots on the other side. And this was done to prevent having a loop subdivision road that would have looped the whole property had a major second wetland crossing near the the lower
Vernal pool and um everything else. So that crossing is now been completed. It's just a common driveway. So very narrow kind of asphalt roadway. We have a very um engineered and controlled um stream crossing that allowed us to
basically maintain the vernal pool elevation. We've been monitoring that Bernal pool elevation for the last 5 years. We've seen no changes in terms of the elevation of the water in that Bernal poolool through all the vernal poolool seasons out there, which has been great. So, that wetland is is working well. The crossing's working
well there. Um, and as um you're you may remember from a few weeks ago, that's where the accident happened with the truck. Um, so as part of this project, we had again several wetland crossings. So, we have a wetland replication area.
um because we had work near um the Verna pools as well. We did have some reforestation mitigation as well as part of that. Um and um if I could share my screen again, I think I'd just like to quickly walk through some of the photographs of the area and then I think
it might be best to have Joe kind of give the commission where we are in terms of his comments. There were some issues that he thought just the commission should discuss. Um and glad to um provide some more updates there. So the first one I'm going to show is the uh the replication area report. Um
so just so you can see what the replication area looks like. This is from July of um why isn't Oh, this is not sorry wrong year. Here we go. 2025. July of this year. Uh here's the replication area here. Um very good
establishment of herbaceous vegetation. Um diversity of species, vows vegetation. Um, we actually found a bird's nest active actually in July there, which was kind of neat. Um, kind of tucked in in there. So, that's been uh coming along well. We did have um
some high mortality of of plantings, but otherwise the area is established really well and healthfully in terms of everything else. We do have 75% wetland vegetative coverage in the area, good hydrarology, and it's definitely continuing to develop as we've gone through the years. It's been monitored
for four years now. Um, so it's been it's been quite quite a busy. It's it's hard to remember when we built it. I was there, but uh I don't remember um the exact year, but uh it's been it's been we've been there for at least 3 four years now. So, it's it's definitely coming along really well. We've been
managing some minor invasive species by hand pulling um and and the nations have also been very good at um being proactive and going around and hand pulling when we're not even there during the months that um we're not monitoring. So, that's been really good to see there. So that's the replication area
and then the reforestation area it was in a different report. Um so um we did have um again high mortality in in the plantings. Um in terms of some of this the shrubs um we
do have um um 78 trees uh and 37 shrubs. Now there um we were supposed to have 53 trees and 133 shrubs. And just just to help you see what the area
is, this is what the area looks like now. And and um just just so you know this picture here um the nations had been um trying to keep some paths open so they could um you know walk through the areas in transexs to look for invasives and stuff like that. Um they
might have been a little zealous about um mowing this versus kind of brush cutting it to kind of give the path. This didn't in cause the plantings to be like, you know, clustered in other areas. It's just kind of like, you know, your natural path between plantings is was just kind of kept more open so they could actually walk around and see
things a little better. Um, they're not planning on keeping these paths open. They've ceased all the mowing there, but that's what they were doing just to help with the the maintenance particularly on on the invasives to monitor there. And here's another example here. So, you can see it's not the whole thing being mowed or anything. It's just just some strategic paths that were being that
were put through um but didn't impact necessarily. We didn't reduce plantings, didn't really move them around. We just kind of had paths where we could actually had space between plantings that were put in the ground. So, those are the um in net summary. That's that's the um the the request. Again, we the
the systems the storm water systems been inspected by the professional engineer. He's submitted a certification that everything there is in in good working order. The storm water basin is all in good shape. Um roadway is all in good shape. and we're hoping to get the road accepted at the spring town meeting. So,
we're looking to get a certificate of compliance um for the project. And again, uh Joe I know has a few things that I think that commission could discuss um in terms of that. And then Joe, I can definitely kind of um opine as you walk through some of those items just to add a little more um information
just to clarify some of the stuff that we've been working on and collecting and in some situations we had some data that we were not able to gather because we just couldn't find the vernopool species breeding where we thought they'd actually be breeding. So Joe, I I think if you want to take that over, I think
that might be the this might be a good spot to hand that over. Yeah, Joe, I'll turn it over to you if you could give us high level comments. >> Uh, yeah, I think um we had requested in our previous um
comments uh some additional information and and some of that was was submitted. So, the yearly monitoring reports for the crossing areas were submitted. Um and
um they revised the uh plan to uh um fix the labeling on on the as well plan with regard to the existing condition for for some of the drives. Uh so those items were addressed. I think um the
outstanding items are really items that I had uh previously mentioned uh for the conservation to discuss and I I don't conservation commission to discuss. Um I don't know if you want me to go through those one by one or um how you'd like me
to to look at that to address that. >> Um yeah, let's go ahead and go through the >> Okay. So I that there were uh uh erosion control barriers uh the mulch
filter tubes and straw waddles. Um the uh applicant has responded that the all the plastic has been removed. U apparently the the filter tubes u the mulch tubes and and straw uh were left
in place. So just noted the conservation commission to discuss whether or not they want the uh those mulch filter tubes removed or not. Uh apparently it was only the plastic that was removed uh from the applicant's response. Um
the uh with respect to the replication area uh the well replication area the native vegetation um coverage looks good and appears to satisfy the 75% wetland
coverage. U there was uh quite a bit of of mortality on the the trees. Um so the conservation commission should discuss uh whether or not uh the
replication area meets the desired functional requirements of the um of what was approved. Um which is how it was stated in the condition that it needs to meet the design functional requirements. Although those and then
there were a lot of trees proposed. um the the low rate of uh survival for the woody vegetation may indicate that it's not functioning in the way that the commission had um expected. Uh so that
is something to discuss. Um let's see a similar similar comment um regarding the uh the upland area to be reforested um the number of surviving um
shrubs. It was well below the required planting number. Um and again is uh is that functioning in a way that the uh commission intended with respect to the uh number of plantings that were required.
Um there's also the mode paths that were showed. Um and I think the uh it was indicated that those are going to be left to naturalize. Um, and should those be replanted, those are fairly fairly
wide. Should some additional plantings go into those areas. Um, there was a note on uh some invasive vegetation uh that was noted along the edge of the reforestation area. Um,
there was there was some oriental bit an area of oriental bittersweet multifllora rose. Um the applicant has responded that the invasious UC's measurement plan is was implemented with good success. Um and the edges of the existing existing
wooded areas were not managed um to the maximum extent practicable. However, this is not the edge of the existing wooded area. It's in the edge of the reforestation area. So the commission should discuss whether or not they should have some additional um
management in that one location. See, uh, commission to discuss whether the project should engineer should confirm that the, uh, uh, clay dams and seepage collars were installed properly at the crossings. Um,
the homeowners agreement was supposed to have been submitted. Um the uh apparently uh the on&m plan uh was submitted but I don't know that the homeowners agreement was uh commissioned
to discuss that. And regarding the vernal pools, um veral pool number uh two met the requirements for certification during several inspections. Um we were not aware whether the vernal pool
certification documentation was submitted to the conservation commission. Apparently that was certified in 2024. The conditions I think required that the documentation be submitted. Um, Pearl Pool number three, which is on
the townland, uh, also met uh, certification requirements during several of the inspections. Um, but apparently that was not certified as it was offsite and gutter consulting has stated that they can provide that data to the town uh, if
requested. and burn number one was the one um that was not found to meet the requirements for certification. However, they only did one apparently only did one
inspection annually um rather than you know typically we do at least two sometimes three when you're trying to certify your vernal pool um just to spread those inspections out a little bit and and try and be sure you don't miss anything. Uh they also did not look
at those apparently with respect to um uh facultative species method for certification um uh which may have allowed them to certify that burnable or to or to find sufficient evidence to
certify that burnable. So the discussion point there is whether or not um additional information should be looked at for that pearl pool um regarding certification. I think that covers it. Sorry that took so long.
>> That's okay. Thanks Joe. >> So Melissa, as you work through these items, glad to just add a little more color to that as you work through each one, but I' I think it might be better for you to maybe start with each one versus me trying to go through any type of clarification that may be good.
to some of the the the what we actually wrote and some of the reasoning behind it. >> Yeah. So, I guess the ones that that um jump out at me um the vernal pool certification
seems to me like that number one needs a little more investigation. >> Yeah. So, so I I talked to our biologists about this and and and this this past spring in 2025, they they spent a lot of extra time out there this
spring looking and trying to find enough egg masses and they couldn't find enough egg masses out there. They did find um egg masses of of of salamanders breeding in that vernal pool. However, we did not find enough egg masses to certify the
vernal pool per natural heritage requirements. Um, and that's the criteria there. And and this vernal pool is basically it's it's a shelfed vernal pool on the hillside. It's shallower than the other vernal pools on that on
site and offsite. Um, so it has a longer duration. So we found egg masses. Um, it's possible that they are not even viable or they hatch at all because of the shallowess of the water. We've been there for 5 years. Um, we had other biologists look at this too. So, this
there's been three biologists on this site looking at this these um these areas and and and really our our biologist's opinion is that it's really the vernal pool is just it's not the greatest vernal pool and that's why the species are going to the other vernal
pools nearby. I mean, the other two vernal pools are within about 300 ft of this one. So, you have three vernal pools and there's two better ones nearby. So if if if you have species moving across the site, it's a lot safer
to to go to a deeper pool and breed there than go to a shallower pool and breed in a shallower pool in terms of just the the species there. So um I mean if if um I mean we could we could attempt to to ask natur we have can you
just certify? I mean they may be fine with just certifying it with the information that we have but in in technicality I asked our biologist like it's really we it just they there's just not enough there and it again he looked at it from again what is this this do I expect this pool to be something that's
popping with lots of species and the answer is no because it's a very small pool with very small deep pockets most of it's very shallow dries out quickly so viabilitywise it's it's a it's a low quality verna pool that may only work for wet springs where the water does
stay deep enough long enough. And in in terms of what the wildlife is likely to do, they're going to lean towards the areas that are clearly more likely to have longer viability for water. So that's that's kind of the situation there. Either way, it doesn't impact the project. The project was designed
assuming this was a vernal pool. There's no other work that's approved or proposed in this area at all. We're not going to be doing any work uh the house lots that have stuff that's already been done. So there's no other work within 125 feet, 150 ft of these these frontal
pool anyway. So um um that's the kind of condition that we're in right now is basically the two biologists went out this this this spring and they told me they were really trying hard to find it. They were looking everywhere they were there. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. And I was more alluding to the, you know, Joe made
mention that just going out once um to inspect and look versus, you know, a couple times at different times of year was more my hang-up, I think. Um, so if that if that's the the case,
um, I guess I was curious if that was the case, if it was one one trip. Yeah, I think it it um Yeah, it didn't it Yeah, we didn't have Yeah, I guess our our documentation that
was approved didn't necessarily say how many visits we were going if we were to do more than one. I don't think it mentioned multiple visits. Um >> Okay. Well, maybe you can look into that and and respond to Joe. I just want to make sure we're
>> Yep. And we can we can talk heritage too again and whether this pool is certified or not it doesn't mean anything to us. So we're glad to certify it's just a question of the data and so I we can ask we can also reach to natur say hey can you know is this enough data for us to certify the vernal pool if that's the case then maybe
>> we can do that and then it just resolves the issue. >> Yep. Okay. Um the HOA was that not submitted yet? So, so there there's no homeowners association for the subdivision because it's going to be a
town accepted road. So, the we did submit assigned on& and M from the owners, the nations who are managing and have been managing this property since it was started construction. They've been doing all the maintenance and all the upkeep. Um, and they expect the road to be accepted by the town at the Springtown meeting. And at that point,
the town would take over the operation and maintenance of the subdivision. So um we don't think a homeowners agreement is necessary for that um in terms of that because there's the homeowners are not associated with the maintenance of the roadway itself. So that was
>> does that include the storm water because I know a lot of times >> yeah so the storm well yeah the storm water basin is I believe it's all designed to be per planning board. So I think it it from from my understanding I guess and Craig you may be able to opine but I
believe that the storm water is included in part of the town acceptance here. >> I Craig is Craig you're muted. I just just he may be able to opine. He he did more of the planning board into this project. So >> as far as I know yeah
that that's why we didn't need the homeowners agreement >> or the plan the planning word. Okay. I think that's probably more of a planning board cuz because I assume that's all um
through the planning board approval in the stormwater permit that that was talked about the homeowners association. >> Yeah. And this was kind of a this was already a roadway of sorts with multiple lots on it. It was kind of funky the way it was originally developed, but this
wasn't like a brand new subdivision and brand new unfor undeveloped land. This was already kind of a roadway of sorts that was basically improved to meet up-to-date zoning requirements and planning board standards for the whole property. And that's where the storm water was added in to kind of bring the
project up to snuff where this this road didn't have any storm water maintenance until it was improved >> and the and the other crossings of driveway. So, I mean that would be covered under the the owners of the driveway. >> Yeah. Judy, maybe you can just we can
you can check in with planning board just to see if they're on on that. Good with it. >> Can do. >> Um for us, I think it's just more of a maintenance, making sure things are taken care of, catch bases, whatnot, so we're not getting um you know,
pollutants and stuff into our welllands. Um, yeah, it's getting late. Does anyone on the commission have anything in particular you want to highlight here? >> I would happily take the uh vernal pool
data for the one on town land if you want to send that over. >> Absolutely. Glad to provide that, Judy. um mode pass up plan I guess. Where are we? So you have Joe so Joe's comments. Did you respond to
all of Joe's comments? I'm sorry I didn't. >> So we didn't we So Jo um several comments that Joe had. I mean we they were more like this is the information that I'm seeing and there's a question of compliance with the the vegetation
for so for example this orders from 2019 there were no requirements as to vegetational survivability in terms of the replication and the reforestation so we didn't have a density planting survivability requirement we had a vegetational coverage requirement so um
we know that uh I mean it seems like the that this area is definitely wild a lot more wildlife than maybe some other areas and so we had some more browsing by the wildlife. So we don't believe we need more plantings out here to comply with the original order of conditions. Um I do understand the the concern of
the the mode pass. However, that is just it's a grass area that's fully stabilized. There's no erosion happening and that grass is just going to reestablish and naturally, you know, convert to field just as as as nature has. And there's no invasives necessarily in those mode paths. So, um,
and I think Craig, you may want to actually opine quickly on the invasive species comment because I think you actually gave me some more information actually on our call today about the fact that you've been out there actually since Joe went out there and actually did some more management.
>> Yeah, I know the exact spot that he's talking about that was inside our mode loop. Uh, that there was a little bit of bittersweet. I did pick that. It's It's one of those weird things where bittersweet all of a sudden there's not there's nothing there and then all of a sudden there's a whole big bunch of it
and I was able to grab it just before frost this year. So I did pick that corner out pretty clean uh myself. Um and that was one of the reasons for that mode path. The one down the middle was because we had enlarged that replication
area at one point and that was the uh then and then the the the doughut around it that sort of kept the bittersweet that was on the outskirts of it that sort of kept it down and it just made it easier for us
to go and and picking at that and I don't think we were even tasked with getting any of the bittersweet out and um it was all just notweed was the only thing I think we were tasked with and we sort of went above and beyond there and I'm happy to keep working on that invasive stuff, too. I,
you know, I'm I drive in there every day, so if I see it, I I'm happy to pick at it. And I' I'd like to keep picking at it if I if I see it. >> Yeah. >> I wouldn't like to be prohibited from from taking out bittersweet if I if I
was able to. >> No, we definitely appreciate that. and you can take as much of it as you want. Um, I think in order to move this forward, Mark, if you could just uh respond to Joe's comments so that the
commission can, you know, feel comfortable with some of these things. So, a lot of we were talking about functional requirements in regards to the tree mortality. if the functional requirements are there, the upland reforested area below the replanting
numbers, but is that you know functioning properly? If you can put >> I can put some address that. Yeah. And then up and running so that way you can have that information. Again, we we we again we we do believe we there is there is some it's it's starting to function
the way we intended it to. It takes a long time for these things to establish sometimes and and so in terms of that that's our response will be basically we believe that the areas are developing and functioning and again in terms of what requirements there were there was no performance standard in terms of of
planting survivability here. So that's um and and it seems like we've got a lot more wildlife that's been browsing our plants more than usual. Um and and other than fencing in the whole area with a nice big tall chainlink fence, um it's nature is kind of naturally working
itself out and and and I think the the key thing that's been established here is we have now a native area that's clearly native and it's restoring and coming back and nature does a great job at at restoring itself um often better than we can do. So yeah, I'll provide that stuff in writing just for that and
um we'll get that data Judy to you about the vernal pool um and talk to Natural Heritage about whether or not we can get that other ver certified and we could also circle back with the planning board as well as what while Judy does her side of the channel. Oh, >> can I say one thing about the
reforestation area just to add to that if I could there if you look on the other side and people may overlook it but it was also part of the reforestation area where the house was. I think everyone's focus is on the area adjacent to the wetland replication but
if you look where the house was like there's a that has done awesome on its own. There's oak trees there and there's literally hundreds of them and I had moved some of them around but I mean they are that side's popping. I don't
know if it's the wind or what it is, but that side's doing awesome like on its own where the we call it the the meadow where the car was that is uh you know that was a field that had the the bittersweet was popping up and uh that was definitely tough but I think it
looks awesome and if you if you look in there this there's trees there's shrubs to me it looks great. >> Okay. Yeah. Know that's good feedback. Whatever Whatever it says on paper is one thing. I encourage you to go look at it. It looks awesome.
>> All right. >> You can drive right in and see it from the car actually a lot of the areas. So, >> it's very easy to access. It's Yeah. Plug in. >> I was really hoping we could close this tonight. I mean, I I know that this everything moves at a glacier speed, but
um I just feel like we've been going on back and forth for years and like every time there's like something new like with this vernal pool thing. I know that's not new. We've been there since 2019. Um and and it doesn't make any difference
to the project whether it's a vernal pool or not. Like why do I have to be burdened with that in a sense? I guess I'm not understanding how that can hold this up. That that's a frustrating point to me. >> I'm not Joe. The vernal pool certification, how
does that tie in with these? Well, it was uh uh a requirement of the order of conditions was that it's one of my one of my last comments actually. Um uh
we noted that it was not clear in special condition number 109 which vernal pool or pools were being referenced as requiring certification. >> Okay. So it's not it's not specified in the order of conditions which pool or
pools were required for certification. It just says vernal pool. It just required that the applicant attempt to certify the vernal pool. >> And and to be clear, there's only two verna pools on site, one's offsite. We
can't we can't certify off-site wetlands certain vernal pools. Um and we'll provide the data to Judy. and the two on-site wetlands, Verna pools, one's already been certified, the other one is the one we we didn't provide that we couldn't get the data. So, we've attempted to collect the data. We could
not provide the data. And that's kind of the situation we're in. So, we we feel we've we've tried um and um and um the nations would are are glad to let the commission go back this um this spring and and try again. Um, but our biologists are kind of on the grounds
that, you know what I mean? Unless you like play the the the game of when you go out there and if you can find a one salamander um swimming around that may not even reach full viability and call it a vernal pool versus actually looking for enough egg mass to say there's actually
a lot of activity here. That's kind of the that from what our biologist just kind of came across. So >> through the chair I I did not look specifically at those vernal pool areas. um when I looked at it, it was, you know, dry anyways. But, um, you know, based on Mark's description, I
can I certainly, you know, understand what he's talking about with respect to, um, those types of vernal pools that are very borderline and and may have some limited use. Um, you know, I think the the question we just presented was, you know, whether or
not the enough investigations were done um to definitively say it was not certifiable or, you know, looking at the facultative species method. Um, I think u in in favor of of their conclusion um
they did go out there six different years. I think it was six maybe five or six years of monitoring um at that location and did not have sufficient evidence in any of those years um even though it was only one inspection a year
apparently. So, um, you know, I I raised the point, um, uh, that maybe not enough inspections were made, but based on on what Mark is saying with the how that vernal pool uh,
looks, you know, it's it's understandable that it could be a very borderline area that that may not support sufficient species for certification. >> Okay. Um, thank you Joe. So we could
essentially come to the conclusion that that ver that that's just a potential and we're not identifying it one way or another and if something happens in the future where
um you know this comes in front of us again for some other I don't know reason why there would be more development but it would have to be relooked at potentially. It it's rep it's protected by your bylaw because it does meet your bylaw requirements for a vernal pool and
that's been documented in our monitoring reports. So it is protected under your bylaw. It's just there's no mechanism in I guess under your bylaw to certify locally a vernal pool and put it on your GIS I guess. Um but it is protected and that's the way this project was designed
was to protect that vernal pool um in that in that same nature. So that's the the the situation we're in again um in terms of that and so we we'd request some um that we we really we've done our best um I mean yeah we could have gone
out 10 times a year um but we did go out every year we had multiple biologists look at it and it's it's we don't think it's really a very largely functional verool and that's why the the activity been as low as it has been since 2020. >> Okay.
All right, that that's fine. I think um my opinion is that if we could just get the ends tied up by your response to Joe's memo, we have something on um the other questions that would
make me feel comfortable with issuing a COC at the next meeting. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, we can definitely provide that. just that clarification that way you have it on record that we did respond and and then and and therefore every um everything was at least covered in terms of that.
>> Okay. Um yeah, I don't think we have to vote to continue. So >> we appreciate your time this evening. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. All right. 30 West Main Street project
change request. We still have We have someone on the line for this. >> Yes. Can you Can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Oh, there we go. Um,
good evening commission. U, for the record, my name is Casey Burch. I'm a senior project manager with Soleie Engineering. uh office is out of 11 Vanderbilt Avenue in Norwood, Massachusetts. Um sorry about the brightness. Uh unfortunately, my
colleague Sam Malfe, who you guys have dealt with in the past, um he's on vacation this week. Uh so I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant uh to discuss some modifications that we would like to pursue uh to the previously
approved single family residential development located at 30 West Street. Um so since the approval our client has been coordinating with the project architect obviously to advance this building permit process and as part of
that effort the architect revised the originally approved box style layout of the building and um has developed into like more of an aesthetically refined building footprint as you can see here. uh in in accordance with your ordinance, any changes that we had made to the
plan, we obviously have to come back to you for to formally present and explain these modifications and to and to receive um your input on the proposed changes and what we need to do moving forward. So, I have some numbers that
I'll spit out. So, the original house was 3,696 ft footprint. This one was revised to a 2,935 foot footprint for a reduction of 761 square feet. Um, the garage in this one
got a little bigger. It originally was 766 ft. It's now 950 ft for an increase of 184 square ft. The asphalt area um, as approved was 1553 square ft. We're
reducing that number to 1,390 square feet for a reduction of 163 square feet. Uh and then we're removing on the side of the house. It used to be permeable pave walkway. Um we're removing that completely. So that's a 332 foot
removal. And then we're adding a deck in the back, a wood deck, um a patio area in the the rear there for that's 495 square ft. So overall surfaces we did
reduce about um -251. So 251 square ft of reduction total. Um some other modifications that we made we just uh well just to let you know that um the the distance from the house to the
nearest uh wetland that stayed the same. We're using the same edge of the house. Um and then our proposed leeching area shifted about four feet over, but the limit of disturbance total um that outer
edge is the same as the approved plan. Um so the pretty much the only difference is we moved the garage around and we carved out that 700 square ft in the back for um for a little al cove
area. Um but everything else is is essentially the same with no with no more encroachment. >> Okay. Um Judy, do you have a sheet that shows the
previously approved footprint on top of the proposed or revised? I think that >> I I do. If you don't, Judy, if you want me to share, >> was that submitted as part of the
request? >> I believe we did submit. It was a red overlay. >> Yeah, I think I have that. >> Okay. >> That helped me just kind of understand the limits they're working within
for these changes. >> Not sure if I do. Oh, there it is. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So, the red is everything new. Um, and we put that over the the black. So,
as you can see, the the garage shifted. um that that PA area along the side that I referred to the 300 ft that is removed now because that's not on our the red you'd see it you'd see a red overlay if that was the case um but our our limits
our sil fence our um limits of disturbance around the edge it's it's exactly the same as the approved and and you can see the the um the leeching field shifted over a little um just to provide the appropriate
distances from the house in the garage area. >> Okay. So, I know in a in, you know, when we approved the plan, you know, we went to extensive, you know, discussions on
maintaining the limit of disturbance regardless of what comes forward with changes. And it looks like you've done that. um and maintained kind of the footprint
area of the house where the garage is. Um, one of the concerns that jumps out at me though is in rotating that garage there, what kind of maintenance does the septic system need? Um, and how are like what's
the plan to get a truck back there to pump that septic tank? Um, how are they how are they going to do that? >> Yeah. So, um, this the the end garage here will have a a garage door on the backside as well. So, there will be a
clear path um for the the one furthest out. Um, so coordination with the homeowner would have to be done for for a truck to go through that. And and pumps can be put because the um yeah, pumps can be um distributed that way and
then they leave out that way. So like a fullsize. >> Yeah. On both sides. The garage door will be on overhead on both sides. Correct. >> Okay. And I um I guess a subtit pumping truck can get through a regular sized
garage door. >> Yeah. um they have other means to do it too, but and and they could also just have a longer pump as well to their to their to their um tanks.
>> I have the similar situation actually in my house where they they can't get to my backyard, so they have to they use a hose, a long hose to get in. >> Okay. >> Um All right. And the the deck, do you have square footage on the deck? Yeah,
it was um we have a number of 495 um square feet total. >> And that because that's not included in your your table calcs, right? >> Oh, no. It it is. Um we have it at the
bottom. It's below the permeable pave walkway. Um, >> Judy, if you scroll uh a little bit, I think it's got a table. >> Yeah. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's not. I had on the one that it was sent
to me. Apologies. Um Sam sent me We have an updated one because Sam sent me um one that has the deck. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then he and below it he puts uh he has he puts net impervious
then net permeability and then he put net wood deck below that too and he put plus 495. Um >> okay >> and then I added that all together and it came it really comes out to a negative of 251. >> Okay. That's where your I was wondering
where your 251 came from. Okay. >> All right. That's enough of my questions. Um, others on the commission, do you have questions, comments on this? >> I I do, Melissa. It is so late, but I have a quick question. I've never had a
septic system, so I don't know how often these things happen, but it seems to me pumping out a septic system might be a different uh uh job than if something goes wrong with the septic system and they have to dig it out. Um,
maybe these garage doors are big enough for larger machinery to get out there to do bigger work. Um, it really, really, really gives me pause to have no access to the back except through
standard garage doors. Um, the other thing that gives me pause is permanent work inside the riverfront zone, whereas before it was going to be temporarily disturbed and then um
put back. So that's it. But it's so late. I don't want to talk anymore. >> Yeah. Any anyone else? I share on the on the garage just not having access to the back yard. It's just is a concern from
the commission's perspective because usually when this happens, we see people being in a situation where they need to get a vehicle back there and then they're coming and asking to clear trees in a path, you know, then around that garage
um to get to their backyard. Maybe a twocar garage would be sufficient and provide >> Oh, it's actually it's a three it is a threec car garage right now. Um that access is only through the the top one
which is the it so it goes straight through with another overhead on the other side. >> Oh, this is add to the chair. >> Yes. To to Ted's point, if you had to get a backhoe
through a standard garage door, I don't think it would fit. So, are we talking standard garage doors? We talking oversize? I believe I believe they're st um the applicants on UN
I believe they're standard, right? oversize would be you're you're looking you're talking about 14 ft. >> Oh, I would say um I really appreciate this concern. So, for that scenario um I can definitely build a garage with the
um you know extra um extra oversized garage door. can instead of doing three separate doors, I would say what the structural engineer will allow me to do um if not three doors all connected into
one big opening at least do two within you know uh connected without anything separating them. Also considering this very important feedback, I think at the back instead of having one entrance, I
can do actually the back will be just identical uh garage door opening as the front. So the truck can go through the garage without any issue. And also I can do research about the height of the truck. Um if something happens to the
septic system um and uh build the garage with enough height because there's no house above the garage. I can easily make the opening uh tall enough to fit the truck. Yeah, this is very very important. Uh feedback.
Yeah. The reason why I want three cars because we definitely we are moving in and we do have three vehicles. So, it's uh kind of uh you know um but but yeah, but I I think we can do a cut through garage door like just both on both ends
identical. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. If I could just say I encourage you to consider maybe one of the cars does not get a garage so that there's real access to the back that two cars get a garage spot and one does not.
I encourage you to consider that option. >> Okay. All right. Why would you? >> Yeah. Yes, Jim. Okay. >> I was just saying I I agree. Um going
through the garage front to back, you know, sounds like a a great idea, but I can see some issues in not being able to get around the garage. But if you want to look in applicant to putting large enough doors, it'll definitely have to be uh higher than
they than they are now. Um look into that and come back. >> Okay. Um other question is so is this septic system approved by the board of health or you still got to go through that step?
Um, I know that Sam has coordinated with them and and gone through all their comments. Um, I'm not sure if he's met he's gone in front of them yet. I can definitely ask that, but I I know that we've had several comments that um that we've addressed.
>> Okay. So, you're feeling pretty comfortable with this footprint in this design as being approvable. Um, >> yes, >> by the board of health. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Um, all right. So, I think what we're looking at now is this is being presented as a project change request. Is the commission okay with looking at this as a project
change request or are we looking at the route of an amended notice of intent based on the scope of work? Um, I think my gut is telling me they're they're
working within the footprint that we previously approved. Um, and the impervious area seems to be or is shown as being consistent with what was proposed before
or a little bit reduced. So, um I think I'm okay with a project change request. Although, Ted, you did bring up the point about um the septic system in the um riverfront
area and whether that changes anything. Once it's said and done, it is buried in part of lawn, which is what it was before lawn area, but you do have permanent structure underground. So,
I would be interested in thoughts on that if anyone has any. >> I would be interested to hear if Matt has thoughts on that. I often look to Matt for help in thinking through these things. Thanks for putting me on the spot at
10:40 p.m. Uh yeah, I mean there's a change. We've got permanent structures in the in the riverfront area. whether or not that changes our approach or makes us reconsider, you
know, some additional mitigation plantings over in that area. Um, I think that's certainly open for discussion. To Melissa's point, right, it was approved as lawn. It's still going to be lawn at the surface.
the performance standards allow u you know 5,000 square feet or 10% of the lot for an area to be developed. This is on the outer riparian zone. So I think there's merits to a project change
discussion. I do recall uh you know there when we approved this there was some talk about you know changes would likely require an amended order you know seeing these changes I don't
know that necessarily rises to that level um so I I I can see where most is coming from for But I'm I'm with other commissioners and the the lack of access to the backyard is a little concerning.
And I, you know, having a septic system, yeah, I I get, yes, you can, you can run a line back there and pump the septic tank out, and that's all great and fine for your, you know, annual or by annual, you know, tank pumping,
but if you ever have to get back there for any type of work, not just septic related, any work on that property, you're constrained. And that's that's where they it comes into, you know, we want to cut these trees down to
get access to the backyard. Um whereas the original approval had access to the backyard. That's the change that I think is more concerning than the septic system, you know, clipping the riverfront area >> through the chair.
>> Yes, Ted. Uh, one other thought I have, although it's it's not necessarily uh, under our purview, but it strikes me that the fire department might be interested in this plan given if there's a fire on the back of the house and a
truck and a hose can't get to it. Um, that might be something that the fire department might want to weigh in on as well. Yeah, that's that's a fair point, Ted, because right now you really only have access to one side of the residence with the truck.
>> Yeah. >> Uh you don't I mean you have indirect access to the front. You would have no access to the back um on the left side of the page or on the bottom side of the page. >> Okay. >> That's a good point. I'd be curious to
hear what the what the chief thinks about >> the new building. >> Yeah, I thank you. I think I I will definitely um consider Tad's um recommendation um um putting one car outside of the garage
um just doing two that way you know we hope do yeah if that way can solve the issue then yeah let's do that way okay I think this is good discussion Um,
and if if you do that, work through with the board of health, I think that we can just address this with a project change request and not have to go through an amended notice of intent, which makes things easier.
Good. Does that does that um was that your intention for tonight to kind of get that kind of feedback? >> Yeah. Yes, it was. Okay. Um because obviously if we didn't figure that out tonight and then we came back to you guys and then you said we'd like an
amended NOI, we wasted time. So we I'm glad we're getting this out of the way now because we can definitely proceed with updating the plans and getting you guys a full plan set. >> Okay. >> Okay, great. Thank you for hanging on late at night.
>> Oh, no problem. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate your patience. >> Thank you. All right. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Okay. Being that it is quarter till 11, I think maybe we want to skip the conservation minute. Judy,
>> you read my mind. Melissa, >> send an email. >> Yeah, you can send an email >> through through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes. I just want to publicly sing Ted's praise for catching that
about a fire truck. I mean, that's like totally outside of purview and everything. And we're thinking about septic systems. Excellent call. >> Thank you, Ed. >> Thank you, Melissa. Could I do something super quick? It's so late. I want to go
to bed, too. >> Yes. Joe, before I lose you, I like to try to make sure I'm pronouncing people's names correctly. Is it Orzel or is it Orzel? >> It is Orzel. >> Orzel. So, we've been doing it right the whole time, but nobody could confirm it
for me. So, I wanted to make sure we were doing that right. As long as I'm reading the script, I want to make sure I'm pronouncing names. >> You got it. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks everybody for hanging in there. Um,
and happy holidays. See you all in the new year. >> Do you need >> Oh, don't we have to have a motion? >> We do need a motion. Yes. >> I would like to make a motion to adjurnn. >> Can I get a second? >> I'll second. I'll second.
>> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Ted. >> That is an I. And I am also an I. >> Thank you everybody. Happy holiday
>> all the things. See you in 20 seconds. Bye >> bye. Okay.