I did. I They gave me one of those on the board of appeals when I served there. So, >> all right. >> All right. Here we go. This is the November 4th, 2025 open meeting of the Hopington Conservation Commission being
conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency. The new law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely. The open meeting
law's requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the 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 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. Melissa Recos, chair >> here.
>> Jim Cerillo, >> Ed Harrow, >> I'm here. >> Walter Garland >> here. >> Matt Moyan, >> present. >> And I am Ted Barker Hook. I'm present. I will now confirm that staff are present.
Judy Day, the Hopinson Conservation Administrator, >> present. Anna Rogers, the environmental and inspectional services coordinator, >> present. >> And Joe Orzelle of Lucas Environmental, >> present. >> I'd like to let everybody know that
we've had a couple continued hearings tonight that we will not be discussing. Those are Holmes 37 Oakhurst Road. That's been continued to November 25th and DeWolf 47 Oakhurst Road continued
also to November 25th. >> Melissa. >> All right. Thanks, Ted. >> You're welcome. >> Um, so first off, we welcome Walter Garland, our new member uh to the commission. And yeah, um, Walter, you
want to give a little introduction or background on yourself just for the rest of the group here? >> If you don't mind, put you in put you on the spot. >> Sure. Yeah, no worries. Uh, my name is Walter Garland. I've uh been a Hopkin resident
now going on 30 years. I love the town of Hopkin and as I said in front of the select board, I like to do whatever I can to help preserve the unique nature of Hopkin and its natural
resources. So very happy to serve on the commission. I u was a member of the board of appeals for a number of years and left that a few years ago. I uh still working full-time, so it does
limit my uh free time a little bit, but I will always make time for uh being part of any of the commission activities. So, very happy to be here. >> Great. We're happy to have you. Thank you. Um and just for everybody, if you
missed the pregame discussion, I guess, um Walter's not technically sworn in yet. Hopefully that'll happen this week or next week before our next meeting. >> Definitely. >> And I guess fortunately our next meeting on November 25th is in person. So we can
meet you um not just on the screen but in person. You can meet all of us. So >> great. >> That works out well. >> Did you hear that Ed? In person. >> Um all right. So, we'll start off with a couple work session items.
Um, first off, draft minutes for review, April 29th, 2025. Does anyone have any comments on these or not have not had enough time to review them? Oh, hearing none. Would anyone like to
make a motion to approve the April 29th, 2025 minutes? >> So moved. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> And I am also an I. Next up, we have Maro 88 Franklin Road. A request for certificate of compliance.
Um, Judy, can you go over this one and let us know what your recommendation is? >> Uh, sure. Through the chair. Um, so this is a request for COC to close out an order issued in 2021 for the
construction of an addition off of an existing barn. Um, so this is the asbuilt here. The addition is this back portion. Um the request came in last year and the commission originally discussed um last fall. Uh so Joe's
comments um from last fall were um adding a few items to the asbuilt. Uh removing soil and brush piles in the areas of flags two and four which have been removed. um
confirming the size of the mitigation area that it matched the proposed and approved size. Um and a rip wrap area northeast of the barn here to be added to the asbuilt and
commissioned to discuss its presence. Um the applicant has asked to keep it as that area of the driveway was eroding. Uh, so the reason it didn't get closed out last fall is the restoration area and the plantings hadn't survived long enough and there was some confusion over
the row of boulders. Um, initially they were further back and there was a row of medallions on posts. So, it was a little confusing having both but not in the same location. So, the applicant has since moved the boulders to be in line with the posts so they're all in one
continuous line here. Uh the applicant has confirmed that the size of the restoration area matches the proposed and approved size. Um I think it's actually a little bit bigger. Uh and we confirmed that the plantings are doing well um and have survived about
two to three growing seasons at this point. Um area is stable. There's no erosion controls left in the field. I think at this point um staff recommend the COC be approved. I'm happy to answer any questions and I think we might have um
one of the marquidons on the line who worked on this as well. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Judy. Yeah, I do I do remember going over this one last fall. Um Joe, do you have anything to add to what Judy summarized there? >> Yeah, I really haven't looked at the uh
the new information in detail. Like I did see that the new plan was submitted. Um I guess the only question I would have looking at my previous uh review was the status of the plantain if they were um native
you know the cultivars were not explicitly um prohibited and they'll be ordered but I think it was supposed to native plantings in the the restoration area. So I think it would be my only question
>> question. Yeah, Judy, you said I think um our concern from the last meeting was not the type of plants at that point in time. It was the growing seasons. Okay. >> Yeah, I believe so. It was the growing
seasons and the um row of boulders matching up with the medallions on posts were the big issues. >> Okay. So, maybe we can assume that was checked the plant types last time.
That sounds good, Joe. Um, Mr. Mark, do you have anything to add? >> No. >> Hello. This is Dave. >> Dave. Hey. >> Hi. So, I think uh part of the time frame uh as to why we're here at this
particular point to answer one of Joe's questions. Uh I think some of the plantings uh previously were not native. So I think we uh uh the uh the owner had purchased additional plants. So we
wanted to give it more time to to ensure that they were going to last and survive and they have. So I think that's kind of why we're have kind of a little bit of a time difference between uh when it was first presented uh to this point now as
well as the boulders and the size of mitigation. So >> Okay. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> Anyone on the commission have any questions here? >> Melissa, I have one small question. >> Sure. Um, I I can't seem to get on my
iPad the the plan to focus, so I apologize if this is very obvious, but I'm looking at the red dots, which I assume is the boulders around the barn, and then I see two black dots, which I assume are PIB markers. Am I reading
that correctly, Dave? >> That is correct. Yeah. So my question for the commission or Dave is did we really want only two PIBs and if we did it looks like they've satisfied it but it seems odd to me that we didn't have
any assuming north is the top of the the plan that we didn't have any south of the barn. >> That's correct. Uh we had only shown two originally and part of the confusion previous was that the boulders in that particular picture the boulders were
more to the left. So we wanted to put the boulders in in kind of align with the PIBs but uh there was no discussion from the commission uh providing additional PIBs. >> Okay. Um then I guess I can't ask for more but uh
a little bit I regret that it's not something I noticed a year ago or so ago. So unless the uh the applicant would say sure I'll put one in. I don't think I can require it for the for the vote today. So >> yeah, this might have been one, Ted,
where >> when we originally looked at the plan, like approved the plan, >> we were accepting just the boulders themselves and things like that. And >> in more recent years, we're doubling doubling down. And >> I I assume that's what happened, too, is
that we've learned some things about PIB since 2021. >> Um, >> so okay, that was my only question >> through the chair. Um, yes. Yeah, this is the approved plan up here. So, there were PIBs specked um around the full
barn, but um boulders were I guess approved as the PIB option. Um so, I think it's maybe more of a funky situation that we have both. Um but they were approved and and boulders are something that we often
recommend using. So, um >> Okay. >> All right. It sounds like everything's been satisfied for this CFC. So, can I get a motion to approve um the COC with signatures by Anna or
Judy? >> This is Ed. Show. >> Can I get a second? >> I'm not muted. I'm happy to second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Matt. Hi, >> Jim. >> I >> And I am also an I. >> We're all set there. >> Thank you. >> Yep.
Um, all right. Being that it is 7:15, I'll jump up to the beginning of the agenda and the new hearings. This one is request for determination of applicability. Ed, do you have the sheet to read off?
>> You betcha. >> Thanks. >> Coming at you. The Hopkinson Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 4th, 2025 at 700 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for
determination of applicability filed by the Hopkinon Water and Sewer Department to install a replacement public drinking water well. Location 0 Fruit Street, assessor's map, U3, block two, lot one.
All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Do we have someone representing the DPW here tonight? >> I am. I'm Laura Callahan from Callahan Consulting. >> I'm a hydro geologist representing um
Hington DPW in the water department. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Do you have a um presentation you want to give here? >> I can quickly go over it. Um the town is proposing to replace Fruit Street well number one because it's old. It's lost
its capacity and it's proposing to in addition to a replacement well to install 15 ft of water man to connect the new well to the main station facility. Um like all infrastructure facilities, public water supply wells get old, uh
collapse or get clogged and need to be replaced. Well number one has served served as a source of drinking water since its construction in 1958. Uh in 2019 the well screen collapsed and
the town installed a sleeve which means they dropped down a smaller diameter screen and that significantly reduced the capacity of the well. Um, you may be aware that the town is investigating
potentially joining the Mass Water Resources Authority for water supply. Uh, it's a very long process and in the meantime, the town needs to maintain its water distribution system. um they are currently needing to run all its wells
simultaneously to meet peak day demand and um that means they can't turn off a well to clean it or maintain it or uh replace a pump. So um they need to stay off it's a very
stressful way to manage a distribution system. So they do need to u continuously maintain these and replace them. Um so they selected uh well number one as the first one or or one to replace. Well number one is located as
you said at uh zero food street. Um it's a 12 acre parcel owned by the town. It is partially forested has open grassland. It has an unpaved access road that um goes to each well and the main
uh fruit street station there. And it also has an intermittent brook that flows through the site. Um the brook was um identified as intermittent on USGS stream stats as well as topographic maps
and the water department staff has observed that the uh brook goes dry um over several summers in the last 10 years. Um, additionally, in 1996, EarthTech did a pumping test out there
on their wells one, two, and three. I didn't mention that they were also on the site. Um, they did a pumping test to redelineate the zone 2 protection area for the wells. And at the time, we put in um monitoring wells in the stream and
beneath the stream to see how connected the stream was to the aquifer. And it was determined that it was not in good connection. So, as we pumped the wells for the pumping test, the water table declined in the aquifer, but the surface water in the brook did not. Um, there
was the report, rereading the report, it identifies 6 in of silt and muck at the bottom of the stream, which usually isn't enough to um prevent an acryer connection, but it did have the acryer material beneath the stream is a very
fine to fine sand. So it did provide a confined acryer in that area. So the acryer is not contributing to the brook which is why it goes dry. So I think that was the evidence we were using to to confirm that was intermittent.
Um, water supply development in Massachusetts is regulated under the mass D drinking water program and the drinking water regulations and their guidelines um provide criteria for replacement wells and basically they
very much if you were to reply well they want you to replace it very close within 50 ft of the existing well. Sometimes we can go up to 250 ft. You might hear that for the larger wells if you can improve
uh the zone one protective radius or if you can reduce impacts to a a stream or something. Um but basically within 50 ft of the existing well and also they want you to be drawing from the same material. So they want you to have the same depth. So the town is proposing
to replace um this well within 15 ft of the existing well and that's because the it's a very tight site. The existing well is very close to the brook as are all the wells there. Um it is within 15
to 20 feet. I had originally measured it from the map but um your consultant went out and measured it in the field. It's very close. So, we don't want to get any closer to the brook. We don't want to get any closer to Fruit Street or to the main station. So, we're going to the norththeast just 15 ft. And then the
well DP would require us uh existing well number one is an 18in by 24 in gravel packed well with a depth of 33 feet. So, we are proposing the same thing. We would uh replace it with an
18x 24 well to 33 feet. The original well log indicates that at 34 ft you encounter till and then bedrock. So, we couldn't go any deeper. Anyways, >> um they don't want you to change the well very much because they don't want you to create a new impact or they don't
want you to have to change your zone one or two. So, that's what the town would be um proposing. Um I think uh we mentioned that um replacement wells are exempt and um
of the Mass Wetland Protection Act and the Hawkington bylaws and um that's under 10.022A2 022A2 which states that activities conducted to maintain, repair or replace but not substantially change or enlarge an
existing and lawfully located structure or facility used to service the public and used to provide electric gas, water, sewer, telephone etc. So that's this project would fall under that category. Um
furthermore, there are no natural heritage protected um species or areas on the site. Um it would be within the buffer zone for the intermittent tributary, but because it's intermittent, it wouldn't be the
riverfront 200 foot protective area. It is in a FEMA flood plane. Mass Mapper identified it as um being in a flood plane, but I think your your consultant um
referenced current FEMA firm um data which indicates that it is the bordering land subject to flooding is not present on site. I believe the site has flooded in the past. So, we would be constructing that
well um to extend above the flood plane uh two feet above flood level that's required by the state and we'll go ahead and do that. Um as far as protecting the resources the
first thing we would do was would be in installing si you know silt fencing hay bale type things. Um, but we would go out there with a small drill rig and install a test well at the proposed location, a 2 and 1/2 in diameter test
well, just to confirm that the soils are the same and suitable. And then the project would go out to bid and um hopefully a couple drilling companies would bid on it and then we would come out with a larger drill rig and
construct the um 18x 24 in. If you want me to go into the details of that, I will. I think the important thing um would be the soils that come up. We would store them properly. Um we collect a lot of them to do grain size analysis on.
But once the 12-in outer diameter casing is installed and the soil's removed, we would install the smaller 18-in diameter well inside, pull back the 24-in casing, and begin to pump and
develop the well. And that's um an important issue because it's what we would do with the water that we pump from the well. Um, typically on sites that allow us, we we through a soft 6-in diameter hose bring the water far from
the stream or wetland. But if we do need to um sometimes it's valuable to um put the water into a dry stream town um concom let us if that's the case or if we if water starts to get near the
stream we would put in splashboards and catch um basins that catch the sand and only clean water would run into um overland flow into the brook. Um, I'd be happy to answer. Oh, sorry.
The next thing after the well is developed and constructed, we would then install a 15 foot main, water mane, 8 in diameter. It would go from the new replacement well to the existing well.
The existing well has over it a vault that houses um items like um there's a heater in there. There's a sump pump in case it floods. There's a motor for the pump and a check valve. Those would all be replaced. The new water mane would
run through there and and connect to the existing water man that goes from to the main station. So it would go from the replacement well to the main station. And then finally, um, public water supply wells that are
replaced are required to abandon the existing well that we are replacing. So we need to abandon and decommission it. So what that um entails is pouring sand down the old well to fill up the screen
and then treming down like a bentonite grout to uh to the surface. And this prevents contamination from going down the existing well and into the aquifer. And then there's paperwork for all of this that has to be filed with D.
Be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Um I think I'd like to turn it over to Joe and um because I know I was reading through his letter as well. Joe
Orzzel, can you talk about maybe some of the things that were just brought up you had comments on? Um, as well as any other thoughts you have. >> Sure. Um, I I did, as was mentioned, look at the distance from the existing
well to the stream. Um, and it's about uh 20 ft. Um, I just wanted to to note that because it was described as 50 ft in the project narrative. That might have been a typo. Um, there's a fringe
of BBW along the stream, not very wide. Um, the BBW edge is roughly 16 to 18 ft from the existing well and corresponds pretty closely with the edge of the uh current mowing. Um
the uh the there was no delineation. The applicant is not uh looking for any um approval of delineation, but I thought the commission might know and how close the level the with regard to the um uh exemption for replacing the well. Um
it it does appear to to um meet the exemption with. I think the only uh point that might be up for discussion is whether or not uh putting in a well 15 ft away and then a uh
a new pipe connected to the old well meets the language of not substantially changing the existing um well. And um I think that's might be open to some discussion for the commission. Um and
that language is included in both the protection act exemption and the the bylaw exemption. With respect to the uh bordering lands of flooding, uh the area is mapped in a
a zone X uh two u 0.2.02% flood. So, a 500year flood zone outside of the 100red-year flood zone, but the the full description of that um zone X also includes areas of 100-year flooding
of less than one foot. So, I had recommended that the applicant provide any information on whether there's known to flood in that area, and apparently it is. So, um, even though it's mapped as a zone X 500year flood zone, it looks like
it would be within bordering zone boring lands to flooding based on observed flooding in the past. >> Yeah, I think one town staff said one year over his his term it did flood a bit and so they installed a sump pump
and they haven't used it since, but it did it did flood one one year that he remembered >> who and they weren't all on site. It was just one of the guys. So, >> okay. And I also commented on the the project narrative stated that u in a kind of a
general way that efforts will be made to ensure sitation was not entered the adjacent stream. Um and I recommended that u erosion and setting controls um should be installed with an erosion control barrier between the work zone and the stream located
upgradient of the BBW or or upgradient of the edge of mowing mode grass. U locating any stock piles as far from the stream uh and BBW as practicable including an additional version control
barrier around any stock pile that is required. uh keeping the watering activity and discharge as far as fractable from the stream and using strawberry straw bales rather than hay bales as was narrative and I think uh there was a
soft point erosion control barrier detail that was submitted um shuttle silk fence and straw bales um I think the uh the other items could potentially be um commissioned by the by the commission
with respect to location of any discharge or any stock piles in additional control during this. >> Yeah, >> I think that covers my accountance. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah. Um and in just regard to the
flooding, um I think the flooding came off of the road now that I'm remembering our discussion. A lot of because you know how that turn on Fruit Street comes in. >> So there was just an awful lot of water. However, in regard to flooding, um, we're required now with with wells, you
know, to build it 2 feet above the flood elevation. So, we we're'll be studying that and determining what that is with the EP because they'll regulate that for us. >> Okay. >> So, although we don't at the end of the site, there'll be nothing um we won't be
dis displacing any flood waters, but there will be we can't bury the top of the pipe. It it will be extended up a couple of feet to get the top of the well above the flood plane, the flooded elevation. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. >> Hi through the chair. >> Hey Carrie. Yes. >> Hi Carrie Reid. I'm the DBW director. So we're very aware of um the flooding issues out there and um we have the flooding is really caused by undersized
culvert where the stream goes and it's been backing up. and um really causing you know some concern for this well. So, this project is going to build more resiliency to our our program, which is we really do need. Um, but we do have a
grant from um what is it? EIDCR um a covert grant that we've been working on on Fruit Street in this area to try to uh improve the culvert, improve connectivity of the ecosystem with the wetlands across the street, which you can see beautifully in
this picture, and to reduce that flooding. So, it's a simultaneous project um to try to, you know, do all those wonderful things that we've been talking about. >> Thank you. I was unaware of that. I appreciate that.
>> Yeah, that's helpful. >> Who the chair? This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> Carrie, is this is this flooding something that's still going on or is this from some time ago? And it it still goes on because it's an undersized coververt. So when we get
these like really um intense short duration storms, this the stream and the culvert doesn't have enough capacity. Um we also have some issues because there's the property is on this great amazing conservation area. Like it's there's so
much conservation, but there's wetlands up upstream. So depending on um the capacity and how much room they have and beaver activity and all that stuff that contributes too. So um we do have periodic flooding. It is absolutely uh
related to like the flashiness of the storm. Um and as Mara pointed out, it also dries up like so when we've had drought conditions recently it's been dry. >> Thank you. All right.
So, I think one of the important things I guess just to discuss with the commission and decide is um or being asked if this can be considered looked at as an RDA
for whether we need a notice of intent or not. And kind of parallel with that, if this is a could be fall under an exemption um based on the definitions like Joe
brought up or that Joe brought up in his letter and Mara included in the the proposal. Um so I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that. I think it is a little
bit of a gray area with you're not replacing the well where it is. So, it's kind of different than our replace a pipe in the street with another pipe in the street. But, um it does sound like it's replacing the existing well with an
equivalent well in approximately the same area. >> Yeah. So, it we can't physically replace the well in the exact same spot, >> right? Yeah. And the state did include um public water supplies in that for this reason
>> replacement well in these this exemption. Um, I don't know if anyone else has thoughts on that, but either way, you're asking for an RDA, not an exemption request,
I think, is what we're voting on >> through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> Yeah. Well, so my understanding of this situation is it would be exempt under the Wellness Protection Act.
At least in my opinion of the replacement being as approximate as it is, it's not a entirely new well that we're dealing with here. So I'd be of the opinion that for the request this would be a negative determination.
>> Okay. Just just to reiterate that the replacement well is to replace infrastructure and we are to design it to withdraw the same water from the same geologic um formation to not change
potential impacts to natural resources. That's the um criteria for a replacement well. >> Gotcha. Okay. Um, and I do find Joe's comments and
recommendations just in regards to the erosion sediment controls during the construction. I think that's probably the most impactful part of the project for us anyway. >> Um, >> so I do appreciate Joe's comments and
including the erosion control barriers, some language that that's required between the work zone and the stream. Um and pumping I think as far as possible from the stream
um would also be desirable from our point of view. Um does anyone else on the commission have any comments or thoughts or anyone from the public? No.
Okay. So, I think with that being said, I'll ask if anyone would like to make a motion for a negative determination of applicability um including
the conditions that um Joe had written up on his letter for erosion controls, erosion sedimentation controls during construction. I'll make that motion.
>> I'll amend Jim's motion with signatures by Judy or Anna. >> Thank you. >> All right. All in favor? Ed >> I. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt >> I. >> Jim
>> I. >> And I'm also an I. So you are all set. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Yep. >> It was nice to meet you all. >> You too.
All right. Um, next up we have Hington Trails Committee. This is a continuation of the Chamberlain Street Loop Road Trail Connection and stream crossing. All right, Judy, you want to give an
update? Uh, sure. Through the chair. >> Um, so we haven't um discussed this project in quite a while. the applicant's been working on a storm water report and checklist uh for D um as that was one of their requirements
prior to issuing a D file number. Um so we do have a storm water report, storm water checklist, um discussion on how the project is meeting storm water standards to the extent practicable. Um
it's quite long so I haven't sent it over to uh Joe for his review yet. I just wanted to make sure the commission um whether or not you wanted peer review for the stormwater report um as it was it' probably be a pretty sizable chunk
of time to spend on it. Um and D I believe has the report but has not issued a file number yet. Um so I think we have Chuck on the line um if folks have questions about it um and if the commission can uh discuss whether or not they'd like peer review on this that
would be helpful. >> Okay. Oh, and we also have updated site plans showing the um soil stockpiling area. That was a request at the last discussion. >> Okay, thank you.
Um Chuck, did you want to add anything as far as updates >> from what Judy just summarized? >> Well, uh regarding the um Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. uh regarding the um need
for a detailed peer review of the storm water report. You know, frankly, I would hope that is not necessary. U this is a 94page report, most of which is
boilerplate geared to serious development projects. Um and the um the bottom line is that um there
is no practical alternative um to reduce the um any possible storm water impact from this very minor project. Um that would um
be practical um you know financially or even environmentally uh to create um additional storm water controls along the route
which is following an existing uh uh Woods Road and uh uh already established path. path would mean additional clearing, grading, etc.
Um now, um you know, to the degree that um the commission wants another opinion, I certainly understand that. Uh but frankly, um um
I think this is one indication of bureaucratic overkill. the uh D wanted a report to check off. We now have one
uh but this is uh a project of very limited impact and uh you know we're certainly happy to go through the review but uh I would hope
that it would not be uh have to be a u time consuming and costly uh to the down um peer review. I do appreciate u uh you know Joe's um
comments on previous uh elements, but I think we've established that this is not uh a significant uh impact in terms of uh storm water.
>> Gotcha. Thank you. Um I did flip through um the stormwater report today. Um and yeah, it's a it's like you said, exactly like you described a pretty
lengthy boiler port boilerplate stormwater report. There's no like detailed calculations. There's no BMPPS for this project. I don't see personally um I don't see a need for having it peer
reviewed. I think DP is going to take a look at it and they'll provide you with comments. They're the ones that are requesting it. So, um can see what they have to say about it. Um, obviously I'm open to thoughts from others on the
commission, but I think we have a couple knowledgeable storm water folks here on the board that can give it a >> give it a look. Um, the only thing that I saw on there was, like you said, it is kind of boilerplate. There were some things in there about
um like portallets, dumpsters, concrete wash out areas. Are you you're not needing any of those on this project? No. Right. >> Um uh no those um again um I think I'm afraid that boilerplate is to some
degree the proper term. Um the uh uh this would be something that would be appropriate for a major development of a storm water pollution prevention plan. Um but uh it is
uh you know way beyond what's required for this. We uh uh we will be doing uh basic sediment uh controls
um uh minimization of any cleared area uh and uh reestablishment of vegetation in in uh areas that are cleared uh but uh not
covered by the stone. dust path itself which is going to be pretty minimal. This is following a narrow uh established path. Um the so I do not see
uh where there needs to be uh you know further significant review. Um obviously we um because uh we meaning the uh trails committee uh uh and
representatives will be on site during the construction. This is not something we um we turn over to the contractor and say just go do it. Um, as has been the case with our other stone dust paths,
um, in town, uh, we keep close tabs on it. So, um, I would trust that that would give the commission the faith that u, this will be properly monitored.
>> Okay. Um, and a couple things I saw in there, too. Again, they have a long there's a long-term operation and maintenance plan, long-term pollution prevention, and there's things in there, too, that seem to me probably
not applicable. Um, but I did want to ask cuz they're in the plan, it talked about snow plowing. Um, you're not going to plow this trail, right?
Um uh no we will not be plowing. Um the uh the management of this trail will be similar to the center trail uh the Hughes trail, the echo trail, uh the other stone dust paths in town.
>> Okay. And um there was notes about storage of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and how those are managed. I imagine that's not occurring on our >> not applicable.
>> Okay. So maybe um that would be maybe an overarching comment on the storm water plan from from me um was maybe we can put some not applicable notations
um on these things so that there's no confusion or we're not you know saying yes to something that we expect not to be happening. I thank you.
>> No, I I do I appreciate your consent and that uh was a concern I had as well in looking at it. Um okay, >> the um you know, procedurally um you know, this plan has been stamped by an engineer
as a requirement. Um uh I we can go back to the engineer and hopefully um if they understand that the commission has the opinion that that
you've expressed um that um they will agree to um those caveats. um then hopefully there would be no problem. I just don't want them to to
have to totally reframe their report >> at no >> at the town's cost. >> Right. No, I I hear you. Um does anyone else Matt, do you have any thoughts on this? >> I concur that a peer review is not
necessary here. Okay. Um, all right. In regards to the project itself, the plans, >> yes. >> Um, this will open it up to
the commission and see if anyone has any comments at this point in time. I one thing I'm still a bit concerned with is this section that we're looking at right here that goes along >> the basin um and with potential over like that
that basin when it fills up. Um it looks like the low point is right at the trail and that would be where it would overflow if the basin was going to overflow in a storm. Um and you it is pretty steep coming
down from the loop the loop road the proposed grades well the existing grades and the proposed grades >> along the wetland there. So, that's my biggest concern with this plan is that you're going to have some erosion issues
um with water coming down the path because of the the the slope off of loop road and um that basin if there's water that comes over the top when it reaches capacity because I think that is the overflow
uh location for this basin. The see the drain outlet right there on the side. >> Yep. Yep. The um no I u I understand the issue. Uh the um uh one I would note
that the uh uh you know approximately a little less than 200 ft coming from the loop road down to that low point that you know um um all that is elevated. Therefore,
um the any accumulation of runoff there is very minimal. It's just from the surface itself. So, we're not dealing with um erosion um you know runoff uh coming from the basin there.
Um there was not and I was somewhat surprised when I first looked at it to see that there was no um overflow design from the basin. So the the obvious overflow point is at the low um that at
that point we are at essentially at existing grade. So we are not changing the hydraulics or hydraology of that basin. Um the um any overflow would be as it
was originally designed. If it were designed, it was not obvious. Um uh and then uh uh we continue from there. So um
if the overflow there was considered to be stable, we will not be changing that situation. Um I I go back to ancient history when I worked with the what was then the SCS
NRCS. Um we um we tried to design our overflows where at existing grade because it was less erodable than fill.
And that's the situation here. through the chair. >> Yes, Matt. >> I know we talked about this, but I'm struggling to remember why. Um, there's the existing gate and path on the south side plan south of the basin. What was the logic
behind going with this alignment versus utilizing that? I just can't remember. >> Okay, thank you. the um there um is thought in the future. Um
you know of uh potentially um uh turning and and a a continuation effectively of the center trail
um uh along uh the toe of the slope there. that would require some additional engineering and cost um uh that would connect to the south end of the center trail
u by the yellow post um rather than going along the loop road sidewalk if that were in the future to be uh uh part of a quote upper Charles Trail. Um so
that's the reason for the rooting there um historically um the uh but it works um you know very nicely and also frankly um since it's
good management to keep u large woody vegetation off a storm water basin embankment. Um this will help with that aspect of management there.
Matt, are you done? >> Yeah, I'm I'm good. >> I don't mean to rush you. >> No, I'm I'm good. >> I I would just say if I may, Melissa, through the chair, um >> Yeah. My only real hesitation is the same one that you and Matt have. This
part of the path. I think when we first got it, I asked about why it needed to be stone dust at all. I had just it happen stance had walked the trail, but I accept for um certainly wheelchair access or or baby stroller access. Putting
>> the dust down makes sense. I kind of accept for kids on bicycles, although when I was a kid on a bicycle, I didn't need stone dust. I ju I just don't know that the stone dust is needed there and certainly right next to the wetland there. Um, I do like what you say,
Chuck, about getting rid of the woody ve vegetation at the edge of the retention basin, but we can do that without making a stone dust trail. And and to build one that close to the resource area that might be helpful to us if some other
things break the right way just gives me pause. Um, having walked there, not ridden a bike, but having gone down onto that football field, I I don't see why we need the stone dust to go all the way to the loop road, uh,
that it could pick up right where it has that nice bend to the right as you head along the field. That feels like for now that could be adequate to me. Other than that, I've I've accepted the stone dust for the rest of the trail. And that's my
hangup right now. my my hesitation. >> I've um I understand your concerns. Um we feel that the uh alignment we've proposed um can be done uh you know without um
impact on the resource area. Um the we have not discussed with the school department because often they um uh chain off uh the uh access to field 11
and um you're concerned I I assume u you know with uh unauthorized vehicles Um so this uh proposed alignment would
avoid that issue as well. >> All right. I think um yeah I'm I'm having a hard time with it too. And it, you know, heads point to the trail, the stone to trail ending at the curve there. And then
for the time being since this future seems uncertain on the connection. >> Yeah. >> With center trail allowing the use, you know, just to connect at that point and people can come down the field 11 kind
of gravel gravel road. I don't I mean I don't remember I'm sure it does get chained off at times. I don't remember um seeing it chained off when I go by, but I think there probably is room to
look at, you know, where people could walk around or you could formalize a path kind of around the chained off section to get to the sidewalk. Um if that's an issue. Um
>> well the in terms of the overall um uh intent of the project um changing that route would not defeat it. Um the of the current project
um you know in the future uh that may be another matter. I'm I can't say that I'm in a position u u to speak for the trails committee u in terms of uh
how the committee would feel about that. Again, I'm u I'm not even on the committee anymore. I am a a volunteer. Um but um uh the that is something that uh the
committee would have to consider. But if the commission were to feel that that was um a critical point then so be it. >> Okay. I think at this point it is if if
the committee could convene on that. >> Yeah. >> Um we don't have a D number anyway so we can't vote on it tonight. Hi. >> Um, >> so if you don't mind taking that feedback to the committee and um, we can continue
this to the next meeting and see what they have to say. That makes sense. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, are there um, looking forward to the next meeting, are there any other
issues that you think we should be ready to address? Um, does anyone else have any issues? >> No other issues. No. I mean, I think my suggestion would be when you go back to the committee, uh, frame it in a way
that, you know, we're not entirely opposed to the stone dust path at some point down the road, but at this point in time, given the unknowns, it seems to be a better use of the existing gravel path to accomplish their goals
uh, while saving some construction costs on a on a potential connection that may or may not occur in the future. I Well, we appreciate the u comment that uh it will save some construction costs.
Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. You want to just make sure there's no one from the public who wants >> Yeah, that's a good call. Does anyone from the public on the line have any comments or questions on this one? No. Okay. And our So, our next meeting
is November 25th um in person. Does that give you enough time to go back to the committee and get feedback or do you want to push it out a couple? >> Yes. Yes, certainly. And um hopefully by then we will have a file number.
>> Yes. Yes. Okay. >> All right. Can I get a motion to continue this to the 25th? I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ted.
>> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> And I'm also an I. All right. Thank you, Mr. AI. >> Thank you. Okay. Good night. >> Good night.
>> All right. Next up, we have 75 South Street notice of intent continuation on the boring remediation work. Um Judy, can you give us an update?
>> Sure. Uh through the chair. Um so this is uh again a notice of intent to conduct um borings soil remediation and install monitoring wells within a parking lot at 75 South Street uh
related to a past um hazardous material release. Um at the last meeting there was just a few outstanding uh comments that um we've received responses to from the applicant. Uh so they have addressed the
question of whether the work qualifies as a limited project. Um it appears that it does, but since there's no work within the wetland resources, that doesn't really necessarily change the outcome of any decisions made. Um
since they aren't proposing any alteration, there isn't a expectation for replication. Um, additionally, the applicant has added PIBs um, along the main BBW where most of the work is going to be. Initially, they were just down in the
south side of the property, but they've added additional PIBs along this parking lot here. Uh we can confirm that the applicant has paid the additional um town portion of the state filing fee that the commission
determined was needed uh to cover each of the monitoring wells being installed. Um we do have a D number and they didn't have any substantive comments. Um, and I believe the outstanding items to discuss
are if the commission is happy with the placement of the PIBs. Um, and I believe it was discussed at the last meeting, but the applicant is not proposing formal invasive species management as part of the scope of work. Um, and I
believe Joe had comments um that were largely addressed, but um, if he has anything additional, I would turn it over to him. >> Okay. Um Joe Orzelle, you do you have anything to add? Uh >> really nothing to add. I think June
covered everything pretty well. Um my only remaining comments I think were let the conservation commission confirm the CW additional fees which was just confirmed and as mentioned whether any invasive species management
wants to be discussed. Everything else that has been as discussed. Okay. So, there's is that three um PIV markers that were added? Is that right? Three.
Okay. Yep. Those look fine to me, I think. Does anyone have any uh comments on the PIB markers? Appreciate that they were added.
Um, and then the invasives management. Did we want to talk about that at all? Um, I was of the opinion that I think I'm okay being that this is kind of
restoration type work, not new development. Um I know that Judy you provided educational materials to the applicant correct right? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> Um Ed I know you had other other thoughts felt >> um feelings on this one >> so please share if anyone else wants to chime in. Not exactly related, but I was taking
down turtle signs today and came across a bittersweet climbing up a tree and the trunk of the bittersweet was as big around as my wrist. >> I've seen bigger ones somehow. >> Oh, I have seen bigger ones. This was just an observation of the day.
>> Yep. No, it's definitely definitely an issue uh for people to be aware of and management on the property is important, but I guess whether it's tied to this
particular project work >> through the chair with apologies to Ed and gratitude for all the work Ed does with invasives. I think I'm in line with you, Melissa. >> Okay. Um, anyone
from the public have any comments or questions on this? Nope. All right, let's let's go ahead and take a vote then. Um, can I get a motion to approve
this application with signatures by Judy and Anna? >> I'm not going to wait for Ed to make that motion on approval. So, I'll go ahead and do it. >> I'll second Ed to the second. >> All right. All in favor, Ed.
>> Well, all is abused. I think I'll go last. >> Okay. >> Ted, >> I I'll approve. >> Okay. >> Ted is also an I. >> Matt. >> I. >> Jim. >> I.
>> And I am also an I. All right. These guys are all set. >> Great. Well, thank you. >> Welcome. All right. Next up, we have Wall Street development, 12 North Mill Street. Notice of intent. Um,
continuation from the single family house. We did have a sitewalk out on this property. Um, since our last meeting, Jim, myself, Ed, uh, were out there along with Mr.
Petrozi. Um, Mr. Petrozi, do you want to give an update or do you have uh did you provide additional or new plans documentation? >> Well, >> I didn't see it in the file.
>> Hi. >> Hey. >> How are you? Everybody good? >> So, yeah. So, since we uh walked the site uh a couple weeks ago, um we did I did revise this plan based on um
what I believe to be the least impactful area where um uh any BDW filling would occur. So I moved the location of the proposed well in um and this is the alternative that I
think we were talking about in terms of the least um vegetation uh for filling BBW. We also talked about locating uh some trees.
Um but I was on you know I think my um in in the past the trees 10 in diameter or greater but then I talked with Judy. Judy thought it was 4 in and that seemed a little bit about a little overkill.
So, I thought we'd talk about that tonight to see what the preference would be to um have us go out there and get a sort of an assessment of what kind of trees would be uh out there taken out.
And also to I think there was a general consensus that we should try to do this in the front portion of the lot with the house and state the house out. And I also so this this plan that's on the screen right now is kind of the best um
alternative that we're looking at for this particular property. I I did also do the research on the conservation restriction that's on the adjoining property. Uh and I did provide a copy of
that um today and sort of uh blew up their plan that shows the location of this property in relationship to the other properties that are already under the conservation uh restriction. So that's pretty much it. I think what we'd
like to do is locate the trees for the commission and stake out the box of the where the house would go and stake out the location of the well proposed well in the area that we're proposing to fill and then come back at your next meeting
and sort of get the feeling of the commission how what we should do next. >> Okay. So feedback on um size of trees for tree count. Um
I think what we've done in the past on past projects I I believe it has been or 4 in diameter. I think the one over on lumber
they got all trees even below 4 inch. Is that right Judy? Um, I believe the one on uh zero west Main, 30 West Main counted all trees. I'm not totally sure about lumber. Um, but the 30 West Main single family home
proposal flagged um all trees and then just bucketed by DBH. >> 0 to 12. Yeah. So when you say count them, are you just going out there in the field and counting them or are we us talking about actually going out there and field locating the substantial
trees, putting them on a plan? So I don't know if we're talking about the same parameter, I guess. I mean, it's easier to go out there and count them, but if you want to see them on a plan
and actually have survey of what size each tree is, we would do that. But I think 4 in down to 4 in would be you almost locating every tree on the property in that particular location. So,
>> yeah. Do you do you recall, Judy, on West Main, did we do have a survey? No, they just counted them. >> They counted them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We need to create some consistency. Um I think
well let's see for not on anything um scientific but I'm thinking 4 in and greater identified on the plan. >> So, may I may I make a suggestion? How
about if we count all of the trees and we locate by survey only the ones that are 10 in or greater? >> 10 inches and greater. >> But we count all of them like you know from a physical standpoint, a numerical
standpoint, but locate the ones that are the substantial ones. It's not that not a lot of them out there, but I think >> No, there weren't. Yeah, they were mostly they were mostly smaller. Anyone have any thought? Go ahead, Judy.
>> Yeah, I mean they could just within the limit of work I think is reasonable now that you know there's one plan that's being proposed. Doesn't necessarily have to be the full property I don't think. >> Right. >> Yeah. The object here is not to have to
cross the wetlands with any kind of disturbance and um but I'm happy to go out there and count all the trees and just locate the ones that are the substantial ones, the 10 inches or greater. >> Uh do others on the commission agree
with that approach? Will that provide enough information to >> evaluate the alternative or evaluate the proposal? >> My only comment is that we should standardize, excuse me, to the chair. My only comment is we should standardize
what the heck of counting. >> Okay, I think we're gonna do that now. Um, okay. So, you're good with that, Matt, Jim, Ted. Okay. Thumbs up. So, um, so the like I said earlier, the
only other the other thing that I provided was a copy of the conservation restriction. I think I discussed previously that under this proposal, we would be putting a rest conservation restriction that's similar to this particular
uh restriction. I haven't read through it entirely, but it's quite a lengthy document. It's like 18 pages. But so what we're talking about in lie of replication, we're talking about segmenting the back portion of the
property, adjoining this other property in the back that has a conservation easement on on top of already and and that would be the uh substitution for replication. >> Okay.
And then >> yeah, no, thanks for providing that documentation. Um, I think something that I we just need to look into as a commission, maybe you could look into it on your end as well, is to just confirm and be sure
that that's an acceptable or the act um to allow conservation restriction instead of wetland replication. if that's allowable or if the act
specifically says that you need to replace >> wetland um I don't >> I' I've really never had come across this uh situation >> before >> yes m
>> my recollection of the act is that onetoone mitigation is required at a minimum Okay, >> through the chair, this is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> Is there a way that we can avoid
requiring this fill? I mean, this fill is because someone says that there's got to be x many feet between the leeching field, etc. And it's I'm sorry it's it's
in this particular case I would describe that as well I won't say it but you know what I'm going to say. >> Yeah. So the the reason for the filling of the wetland on this scenario is the distance between the septic and the wetland requirement. That that's correct
Mr. Petrosi. That's why we're filling there. >> Yes. >> Not just for grading or anything. >> No specifically to meet that requirement. >> Yeah. And from the chair, I do understand that. And I'm saying, is there a way that we can >> avoid it?
>> Require that. >> Right. >> The other the other thing I'm looking at the plan right now, there may be an opportunity to replicate in that corner on the closer to the I don't know what side that is, but on the driveway side
in that corner there. I I I'll have to look out. I think we'd still be uh able to replicate and still be 50 feet away. But I'll let me explore that a little bit deeper
and see what the options are. >> You're the chair. >> Okay. Yes, Judy. >> Uh the regs for um Hopkin do require 1.5 to one ratio um for replication. So, it's a little higher than state requirements um to keep in mind as
you're exploring replication, >> but it's a but because we're under 5,000 square feet, it's actually a discretionary it's a discretionary uh kind of uh decision on the part of the board. I mean, so but let's let's look at it a
little bit closer. I I would hate to have to cross the wetlands to do replication. Um it would be temp, you know, it would be a temporary crossing of the wetland to get to the to do replication, but it would be
crossing. So we we are I just don't think that it would be practical to try and do that. Although we can do it. >> Yeah. No, I think if you can look into a few scenarios there. Um, sharpen the
pencils on that one. I I've said in the past too. I just >> because the two >> I hate to do replication in when we're taking down. >> Yeah. The two purple areas there only uh are about a thousand square feet. So, to
the extent that I can squeeze at, you know, squeeze it in on that right side of the property, I'll I'll try to do that. And then it'll be up to the commission, I guess, to decide whether or not they want the extra 500 ft somewhere else or
something along those lines, I guess. >> Right. Okay. >> Through the chair. >> Yes. that >> can you help me understand the need for the wetland filling to the left there? But you know,
>> so on the on the on the you're talking on the left side where the purple is. >> Yeah. Not not the well, the the other area. >> Yeah. So, we're just trying to we have to keep 50 feet away from the septic system
from a wetland and then we need to be 100 feet away from the septic system with the well. >> Okay. So, the corner of that septic system to the existing wetland is less than 50 ft. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a tight one. Um, okay. Is that all through the chair? >> Yep. Judy, >> just wanted to bring up a couple of things that were discussed at the last hearing for this project. Um,
>> in case they got lost in the shuffle with the um alternatives. Um, so Melissa, you had said you want the potential vernal pool as well as the 125 ft vernal pool habitat line added to the whatever is the um proposed plan.
So I'm not seeing that on this plan if that can be added. >> Yeah, the the 125 foot is on this plan. >> So the hund it says 100 foot. So it's 125. >> Well, again I think I mentioned that in your your bylaw
has two different parameters. One is jurisdictional only 100 ft. So, I think you really, as I mentioned, I think the bylaws needs a little bit of uh we need to look at it a little bit more closely.
Yeah, there's I I did look at this um over the past week and I'm actually going to go over it later in the later in the meeting um what our bylaw says about the vernal pools and buffers and
whatnot, but technically and per the ANRED that was approved and what is written in the bylaw, there's a couple places that clarify buffer versus vernal pool habitat. And so the vernal pool habitat is 125
ft. So it's not a buffer. It's the actual what the bylaw categorizes as potential vernal pool habitat is from the um vernal pool flags 125 ft out.
>> So on the ANRAD it has 125 foot uh PVP boundary line. It's not called a buffer. Um, >> yeah. No, I'm h I'm happy to put it on
the plan. I think obviously if if we we don't need to approach that um if we're going to proceed along this wetland, I mean along this alternative of trying not to cross the wetlands to do any work, you know, that becomes a
mood point really. So, you know, I don't at that point, we don't care whether you make it 100 feet or 200 feet at that point. So, >> yeah. No, it for this particular um plan we're looking at, right, it doesn't impact >> Yeah.
>> um the area that's being proposed, but just if we could get the line to match the ANRAD >> for consistency, that'd be great. >> And was anything else, Judy, or >> Yeah. Um Matt had asked um when there
were still multiple alternatives for a breakdown of buffer zone and resource area impacts. Um so if Matt you still want like a table for the alternative selected um on what exactly the proposed
resource and buffer impacts are. Um >> I think we're down to one plan at this point. It's it's a bit of a moot point. My request was more when we were considering or evaluating multiple alternatives. So, I think if this is the
proposed plan, we're good. >> All right. Um, and then last, uh, there's a suite of comments from Joe and D that haven't been formally responded to. Um, so it's it's common place to get a response for both the consultant and D
comments. >> I think Joe mentioned, D, that most of those comments applied to the original plan that was filed, not any of the alternatives that he hadn't had a he hadn't de viewed any of the alternatives at that point. So, u I'm
happy to take a look at those comments, but I think for the most part if if this alternative is the one we're going to proceed with, those comments also really don't apply to this wouldn't necessarily apply to this plan. So, but I'll take
I'll take a look at those and uh if there's an answer required, we'll certainly provide it. >> Okay. >> So, uh so for the next meeting, I will get the the area the house staked out,
the trees counted, the major trees located, put on a plan, and I'll check into the possibility of replication. um primarily not to cross the wetlands, but we'll deal with how much we can get
in compliance with the uh with the with the regulations. So, I don't know that I'll be able to get all that stuff done by the in the next two weeks. So, when you have a first meeting in December, >> December 16.
Sure. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this out to December 16th? >> Let's continue both of those. Uh do we have the two hearings? I wonder what the other one said. >> Okay. Both 12 North Mill.
>> So move. I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? Ed. >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt. >> I. Jim. >> Hi. >> And I'm also in I.
>> Great. Great. Thanks a lot. Have a nice Thanksgiving and we'll see you in December. >> Okay. >> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Thank you. Bye-bye. >> Bye. >> All right. That completes our hearing. So, we'll move back down to work session items.
Um, Whisper Way truck accident discussion. Um, Judy, you want to fill everyone in on this? May have heard the highlights in the newspaper, but
Sure. Uh, through the chair. I'm happy to give an overview. And we also have um the nations and um Mark Arnold on the Zoom if they have anything to add. Um but last Thursday uh we heard from Mark that a truck had gone off the road
leading to the Whisperway subdivision and dumped a load of ashvault millings into the wetland that flows out of a vernal pool um on the other side of the road. So not uh in the vernal pool, nothing was going into that side or flowing into that side. Um but did
impact a wetland um on the other side. Uh so we came out after the truck was removed. Um saw a ton of work going on to remove the material from the wetland uh by hand before the rain hit. Um since we got a lot of rain that night um and they had also installed erosion controls
around the area of the spill to prevent anything from getting downstream. Um definitely acted quickly. were in really good communication with us. I don't believe there was any sort of lasting damage um or anything they could have done differently in this case. Uh but
just wanted to have them present what happened to the commission um if they'd like any feedback on um anything else you would all like to see. Uh and they also prepared a report with pictures before um after the cleanup had happened.
>> All right. Thanks, Judy. Um Mr. Arnold, do you want to >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, just just to just to just add to what Judy said just to make sure that >> um Yeah. So I uh you can see here on on the screen that Judy's sharing now. You
can see figure one is the uh is a sketch that we provided just giving an approximation of what happened. Um so this is the um this is actually the asbuilt of the crossing um that was built. This is the common driveway. This is not the whisper way subdivision roadway. It's the common driveway for
two lots. Um so this is a common driveway. Um we had um crossed this location where there was an old crossing. Uh widened it out slightly, added um controlled pipes to maintain the vernal pool elevation which has been working well and um so the truck fell
over on the downstream side thankfully and not the upstream side. So the vernal pool was not impacted. Um nations were very quick to contact us. We got on site very quickly, got erosion controls in place. um used um equipment with a lot of shoveling of of the asphalt millings
into the equipment to to get it out as quickly as possible. Um and as you go down these photographs, you'll see what we did. Um so the first photograph is just this is from 2023. And just to show you this is what it looked like originally. We had a pretty thick um
vegetation along the toe of this um the rip wrap slope there. A lot of sweet pair of bush and stuff like that. A lot of that vegetation along the edge of the rip wrap was actually um just pushed over by the dump truck because it fell and the side of the dump truck fell on the vegetation. So when the truck came up, that vegetation kind of popped back
up and you'll see that in the photographs. And the area that was really damaged was just beyond that, which in this photograph you can see it actually is a little less thick. You can see it actually gets less um thick in vegetation, more a little open. The stream was very kind of braided in that location, more hummicky, some exposed
rocks, etc. So, as you walk through these photos, um Judy's going to just flip through now. You can see this is the uh accident as it had occurred, there's the truck that came over. Um we did have um some damage to the bark of that red maple um that was hit. Um
structurally, the tree looks okay. Didn't have any issues from the windstorm the last few days, which is great. Um so, we're hoping that the tree can can recover um um there. Um otherwise, everything else that was damaged was basically some shrubs and and herbaceous. Um so as you go down
these photographs you'll see um this is kind of the erosion controls. There's the asphalt millings. Um most of it has been removed in this photograph but you can still see kind of the extent of where they had been spread over to. Most of the vegetation in this area was like sweeter bush um high bush blueberry and
herbaceous. Um and just keep going Judy if you want to just slowly go through the next set here. Um so just another shot of the millings. You can see here in this photograph here how there's a still kind of a vegetated strip between the the rip wrap and the impact because the truck had fallen over that and
protected that kind of strip area. Um which is good to at least provide some protection along the edge um as as things um restore um from what we've done. And then just keep going down. So another picture here you can see there's the um the coverts coming out of the
crossing there. And then the next set of photographs should show um after this the millings are removed. So there was some soil removed um as part of the um removal of the millings because we needed to make sure we got the millings all out. We didn't want to leave them
impressed into the soil at all. Um so we worked hard. So there was a little bit of um top soil removed. U we tried to preserve as much as we could. Um but there was a little bit scraped out because of just ensuring that we got the millings out rather than leaving them in. This wasn't like sand or gravel that
could be left part a little bit could be left on the surface and it would impact the soils. So, um we did have to take the ad out. Um so, but overall pretty pretty minimal impacts otherwise. Again, a lot of a lot of hand shoveling work here by the crews and ourselves. Um another picture here, photo seven, just
showing um the the where the stream comes out into that area. And then you'll see the next set of photographs um are going to show what we did afterwards. So, this is now showing you're starting to see some green in this photograph. And then so those are we uh we planted two willows. Um well,
let me look let me pull up what we actually put in there. So, we we we found um a a pocket of um wetted wet vegetation that was coming up inside the subdivision outside the buffer zone just from activities and stuff like that over the years. And we were able to
transplant um some two willows, three pie bush blueberry, two white pine, five sensitive fern, two royal fern, some golden rod, hops edge, and rushes into this area. So you can see the white pines on on the left side there kind of on the drier part. We've got ferns and
high bush blueberry and willow in the middle there. So just trying to replant, restore some of the vegetation that was there that was damaged. um just to kind of give this area a little bit of a boost of life. Although this was an accident, not deliberate, just just trying to do our best to figure out how
we can restore as quickly as possible. So the next photograph will also show some of that greenery going in there. Um so those were all scattered throughout. Um I was able to get a little bit of hops edge seed which I did spread as well um underneath on on any areas that
we had soil exposed. And then after that, we did spread about a good thick layer of leaves. Um, pretty thick as loose leaves and then they'll settle down. Um, we did it pretty heavily for two reasons. One, to make sure we had good erosion control. Two was also to
help quickly um accelerate soil regeneration within the area by adding um organic matter, basically by letting leaves matter work in process over the winter, which will build up your soil matter in the springtime. Um and so that was our our intention there. We left the
erosion controls in place. And then you'll see um the next set of photographs are actually taken the day after the accident after 1.2 in of rain. We went back out after the storm to see how everything was working. Did did we see any shifting of sheen? Do we do we
see any oil sheen? Do we see any sediment? Do we see any movement? Is the water clear? Um and so everything was was nice and clean. No sheen. Nothing was seen downstream. Um, so it seems like we got everything kind of pretty much out and and mobiliz and and and and any type of erosion immobilized. So, um,
at this point, um, we don't think we need more erosion controls. Everything seems to be pretty stabilized. Again, the leaves are really doing a good job at just providing that natural erosion, um, there. Um, and so that's what um, that's what happened here. We did we did provide um, again some some some general
numbers again just just for clarity. So, there's about about 230 ft of BBW that was was impacted. About 375 ft of the stream bed, 25 ft of bank. Um, again, this was all an accident. This was not deliberate with machinery operator um
just going off the re reservation like that. It was just a vehicle that happened to um be out at at night um early or sorry, early morning and um I think just misjudged the edge of the asphalt um and went off. So um we hope that this matter can be resolved without
any further enforcement. Um the Goddard will still be on the property for at least another 6 months or so um doing monitoring for the replication area for the back crossing and stuff like that. So we'll continue to keep an eye on this area because we know what happened and um we hope that u we don't have to do
anything else in terms of compliance with this commission, but we wanted to make sure you were aware of what happened and um to be upfront. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and for jumping on this so quickly. It looks like um you
definitely definitely took care of it in a timely manner. Appreciate that. Um does anyone on the commission have any questions? >> Hi Melissa, I just have a quick question but I think Mark answered it right at
the end in his summitative statement. >> Uh if I may. >> Yes, sure. Um, Mark, it was a little unclear to me what crossing this was, whether it was the one that we approved a couple years ago. Um, but it sounds like when you said you're going to be
there looking at the back crossing, this is on what I might refer to as the driveway that had been there a long time. Is that where this this crossing is? The one that kind of runs parallel to 135. Um it it this this is the
crossing that was behind 129 Wood Street, the old house that was taken down. This this is the crossing near 495. >> Um if I can share my screen um >> I I can actually I actually have an aerial shot
>> that would be helpful to me. >> So let me see. Here we go. Perfect. Here we go. All right. So, this this is the crossing that was um so here's the aerial. Here's 485 here um going northbound. Here's Wood Street.
>> Here's that driveway that came up to the house. The house was right in here. >> Okay. >> The driveway has been narrowed up here. We've got reforestation area in here. This is that crossing, that common driveway. So, it's nice and narrow. And the the incident happened right here where my cursor is showing. >> Okay. That's where and the hearings we
had a few years ago are further south along that road. Correct. Correct. The hearings you had Yeah. are are south are down this direction about >> Right. Okay. Thousand feet. >> Okay. All right. That I just wanted some clarity on where >> and that's and that's the site that
we're we don't have a certificate of compliance yet. So we are monitoring the replication area which is over in this area right here and the crossing. So hopefully we'll be getting as built together um and then closing that out in the springtime. >> Thank you. That was my only question trying to figure out where it was.
>> Great question. Oh, thank you. >> So, do you think in the in the springtime when you're looking to close that stuff out is when the erosion controls would potentially be moved for this um >> I would I think we can remove them now. I don't like the idea of leaving the
mulch waddles with the plastic mesh in those locations over the winter um just because I don't like them being left long term, particularly in a wet area like that because they can get entangled very quickly into vegetation growth. Um, so just that's that's my preference and
I think from a stabilization standpoint, I don't expect there to be a problem. Um, however, if if you wanted us to leave it there, say, for until Christmas time, I don't think the nations would would have a problem leaving it there for another month just to let anything else that does want it move down potentially get to the water and the
water can absorb anything and then we could pull it out then. So, we're really at your pleasure as to when you want us to remove those controls. I think we can remove them now, but if you wanted us to leave them there a little longer just just for natural um settling of things in the next month, I think that would be fine as well.
>> No, I think as you know, as soon as it's stable or if it's stable that that's fine. I was more concerned about um the back end not having them be there forever and making sure that they were out before you know it would be something we would look for to have them
removed before anything else gets approved in the future um be on the checklist. >> AB absolutely yeah we would yeah knowing that we I was personally there for everything so I I knowing that it's there I would definitely make sure that nations pulled it out just because I know how sensitive it is particularly in
that location. So, um, yeah, what I I think we'll do is we'll keep it there for a few weeks and then we'll follow up with the nations probably around Thanksgiving or just after that and pull them out so that way um we let let nature settle down a little bit more with some more rainstorms um and then um
and then pull it then >> Okay, that sounds like a good plan. Anyone else have questions >> for the chair? This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> We don't want to disappoint. Uh firstly I want to to thank nations at al for
their quick response to this. I am incredibly impressed and I'd like to go back to the original presentation um to a particular page which will have to go down until the page comes up and I say stop uh right there. Stop up a little. Right
there. See? See the helmet? >> Yep. >> Did you get the guy out or is he lost? >> Uh, pilot change. >> That's all for me.
>> Yeah, nobody was hurt thankfully. I had my I had my still toaded muck boots on Ed. >> Good. Good. Okay. Well, thank you. I think we're all set. Um yeah, just keep us posted. >> And just just a note um to the commission, we we did submit some
supplemental information for the certificate of compliance for the whole subdivision um to the the the the staff today. They're reviewing that um and it should be in your uh your files um shortly if it isn't already. Um and we look forward to um having that
discussion at the November 25th hearing. >> Okay. And just to note, we are in person on the 25th. Um >> Nope. That sounds great. I like I like I like in person meetings. So >> Okay, good. Good. Right.
>> Thank you. Have a good night. >> We'll see you then. All right, next up we have Hopington Historical Society. This was the request for certificate of compliance. Um we talked about this in the last
meeting and Judy um was nice enough to go out and do a review um for this project. So Judy, you want to go through what you found? >> Sure. uh through the chair um for my
first COC review. If anyone has any feedback, let me know. Um but I put together a memo uh that's in the public folder um covering the work approved um reported deviations from the uh
applicant um which included area disturbed between the building and the brush line at the northwest building corner. Um so that's up here uh being a little bit wider than approved. Uh they reported that the rear sump pump
um is being discharged by a separate pipe to the stone splash pad and the left front quadrant of roof runoff um couldn't be connected as approved. So it's uh being redirected to the splash pad at the back of the property here.
Um, so just straight back. Uh, also noted from our site visit, um, the site is stable, but the erosion controls are still out there, so those, uh, should all be removed. Um, there's also leftover, uh, waddle stockpile. Um,
it's outside of jurisdiction, but, um, probably best to have that removed. Um we obviously couldn't observe the you know the foundation drain and the subsurface features. Uh but these were affirmed by the engineer through the COC
request. Um we did observe the surface sort of visible features in relatively their approved locations. Um except for a few minor discrepancies. Uh so the new ashvault walkway south of the building.
Um, so this walkway here was approved to be flush with the building. Um, and there's an existing walkway that was supposed to be uh gotten rid of and converted to lawn. Uh, looks like the new walkway was just paved over that existing one. So, no new disturbance.
It's not any closer to the wetlands, just in a slightly different location. Um, the approved plan also shows the Boulder PIB extending all the way to the north side of the property. Um, but the existing PIB stops roughly flush with
the building. Uh, so it stops here. It was supposed to kind of go all the way out here. Um, and this area was also intended to be uh treated for invasives and be a restoration area, but that kind of remains um tangled with invasives. So,
this area was not treated as approved. So, I think that's something for you all to discuss if you'd like to see the PIB extended and the invasives in that area uh dealt with. Um we did observe there were 12 uh approved plantings uh six ink berry and
six spice bush. Uh we saw the six ink berry and those seem to be doing well. Um but we did not observe any uh spice bush. Um so a discussion point on whether you'd like those six additional plantings installed after the fact. Um,
in general, the restoration area around those plantings, um, looks like it's, uh, vegetating well. Uh, no invasives in that immediate area have, uh, grown back up. And we did see some minor landscaping debris dumped past the erosion controls
near the wetland. So, we've uh, requested that that be removed. Um, and landscapers instructed not to dump past here. Um, happy to answer any questions, pull up some pictures. Um, that's everything I have. >> Okay. Thanks, Judy.
Um, all right. Do we have Was this uh Marquon? Dave, was this your project? >> This is uh McIntyre. >> McIntyre, are you here? Good evening. >> Hey.
Um, >> I think Judy explained it quite well. Okay. I wanted to ask if you had any feedback on that north corner or the north side, the PIB limit and the invasive
management over there. Is there any backstory or on why it ended up where it is as opposed to um the approved plan? Yeah, I think the contractor just needed uh, you know, more room as they
excavated around that foundation for the footing drain. Um, the equipment just couldn't uh couldn't fit in there. So, it it ended up larger there than we originally anticipated. >> Mhm. >> But the the in the invasives we had
prepared, if you remember, we prepared an invasive control plan as part of the NOI. uh and that's going to be you know taken over by the society members to or whether they use for a
landscaper to take care of that. But that particular that corner right there uh I don't think we were going to do any invasives right there because that's actually in the wetland right there. Whereas the other invasives
we took care of were more into the into the buffer part of the wetland. You can see the wetland line coming right up to that flag A9. >> Yep. >> So, we didn't really trudge into that and start ripping open bases.
>> Okay. So, the so that corner got extended because of the machinery. So, it didn't make sense. It basically doesn't exist anymore that um >> well the invasives in the buffer zone don't exist anymore because
>> you know we're we're right up to the edge of the flag a dime there about >> yeah okay I see >> this is the approved plan I just pulled it up to show um where the boulder is
meant to wrap around sort of flush with the end of the building here and then on the asbelt they just kind of end up here instead of coming down around. So I think it's this area that we were talking about like in front of the wetland line. >> Okay. They they would like to try to
maintain that as is just in case they have to get around the building again because the other the other side is blocked up by the uh the ADA ramp and the walkway to the uh handicap parking
space. The the reason that that asphalt walk had shifted a little bit is because the previous 80 ramp that we had to take out in order to excavate around the foundation. Uh we were going to put it back to the
same dimension, but we found out that it was not ADA compliant. So, we had to actually make that ramp a little bit longer, which pushed the asphalt walk out further from the building. So there's really no longer access around that corner of the building. They
had to get back behind the building. >> Okay. >> Can you bring up that picture again, Judy? That kind of shows where that brush line is. So the question is whether
The rocks should the rock PIV line or medallions or something should extend further along where the erosion controls are. That's the question or that's what's missing. >> We we could we could certainly bring in
more rocks. They they ran out of rocks to do this. But I think at this point they probably do more damage bringing in the rocks than worth it considering this is not a residential home where people are living here every day and you have the
you know the possibility of encroachments or trying to people to get their lawn to be bigger. Mhm. >> You know, this is a out of a private historical society that uh you know, they're not they're not trying to make a yard out there,
>> right? Is that slope up? It looks like it slopes up, but maybe >> Well, this particular wetland is kind of a not quite a finger-like projection, but it it kind of heads up there to about, you know, that tree with all the
bittersweet growing on it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then it stops as a stockade fence of the neighbors where it stops there and then on the other side is the neighbor's yard. So it's not a not a big part of the well. Like I say, it's almost a finger-like projection heading up there.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Really chair. >> Yes, Ted. I think Dan is right that we often worry about lawnrete from a homeowner, but we also worry about uh lawn clippings or yard waste being put
into the wetlands. And I imagine I I'm trying to picture the front of the historical society building and there's not much lawn at all, my memory, but I can't picture the backyard. If there is landscaping going on, it would give me a little pause if we didn't have some
indication that there shouldn't be any dumping of yard waste over there where the erosion controls eventually will no longer be. >> But if there's no lawn mowing, if if there's no lawn that grows back there, that concerns me less.
>> Yeah, you're looking at the backyard. So, there is lawn mowing there. They tried we tried to establish a lawn between the building. You can see the the river rock we put around the foundation. >> Yeah. >> Got got this grass section and then the
the rock pivot of the wall there. >> Yeah, maybe we need another medallion. Maybe it doesn't have to be rock. Yeah, we could we could put up a one or two either pressuret treated posts or metal
posts right there with with the medallions on it. >> And and I think and I may be okay with this, but I think that we're also moving that line of PIBs closer to the wetland from the plan that Judy showed us. So,
it seems to me it's a two-piece discussion. Do we want more PIBs? And if I'm reading the plan correctly, are we comfortable pushing them closer to the wetland than the plan shows? I think is is what's going >> I think it is. I think you're right, Ted. We are by putting them along the
erosion control line, we're putting the um the PIB line closer. But I appreciate what Dan says that that, you know, if they want to be able to get back in that area, this now kind
of has become the only way to do that. >> I get that, too. I just want to be sure it's clear that we know what we're all talking about. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think I'm okay with it if we just put a couple more medallions at that brush line
in my my opinion. Certainly open to others. Um and then the the six missing plantings, Dan, do you know if what was going on with those? Yeah, I I talked to Jeff. Uh
Jeff Diana did all the work for us. He planted those bushes. Um, and we think we found one of those, but um, we're not sure what happened to them, whether they died or they got eaten or we're really not sure,
>> but it does look that buffer area that we planted with the wetland seed mix looks like it really came in nice. >> Okay, move the chair. Those missing plantings,
those are the bittersweet They're the bittersweet. The bittersweet took them or >> Oh, come on, people. You got to laugh. I'm trying desperately to put some humor into this. >> I got it in. I got it. >> Thank you.
>> So, those are the ones that the six surviving plants. >> Yeah. So, these are the uh ink berries. And then we saw a little flag on like a night shade, but it it it was definitely no spice bush out here.
>> Is that what we flagged the night shade? >> Yeah, I think so. They're all over my garden. >> Okay. So, I I you know, I think we need the other six plants. If the kind that were
planted just didn't survive because they're not a good fit, maybe we pick a different type of plant. That would be okay with me. Um >> well, obviously we'll defer to your good judgment, but just by looking at that
picture, I think the buffer zone is really looks pretty good. It looks stable. Yeah. No, >> it's only given it It's only been one season. Um I think if we just let it go and maintain the invasives with the spar
roundup applications twice a year as indicated in the hazard from the uh invasive species uh uh report. >> I think I think overall it's an improvement of what was there.
Okay. Does anyone have any any thoughts on this replication or this um mitigation particularly Ed this is your >> Yeah. You know my point the only good invasive is a dead one >> and it and it takes it takes years to to
do that. So it know the society members have to be be conscious about going out there every year and doing those spot applications. >> I I am painfully aware >> and that's why when we
you know cut him some slack we pay for it later. There's there's there's no way but a full court press and we're not doing it. >> Yeah. And we can only deal with that, you know, 10 foot of buffer zone between
the rocks and the and the uh silt fence there. Once once we get beyond that, we're on to somebody else's property and we're actually in the well back there. So, I don't think this historical society's going to go in there and start uh
wholesale invasive species management. Okay. Um, so if nothing else, we would like to get those two additional PIB medallions on the
north side there at the erosion control line. And um, we'll need to have the erosion controls removed at this point. because everything looks stable and we've been really kind of digging our heels in on
getting those erosion controls removed before we approve a certificate of compliance. >> Understood. Yeah, >> we're trying we're trying to get Jeff back there, but uh
moving erosion control is not on contractor's high priority list, but we're we're pushing them. >> Oh, we know. >> We know. >> The chair. >> Yes, Judy. um if you're not uh requiring, you know, additional plantings or invasives management, if
it's um just the additional medallions in the erosion controls, uh you could always uh vote to approve the COC and we can hold on to it until we confirm those items have been met. >> Okay.
>> Um is anyone opposed to that suggestion? If not, then I would take a motion to approve with signatures by Judy or Anna and holding off on the COC
till we get those two items addressed. >> I like that plan. I'll make that motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed. >> I >> Ed.
>> Ed is an I. >> Matt. >> Jim. >> Hi. >> And I am also an I. >> All right. We'll get we'll get on on that. But thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm happy to report that the overall
project was a success. the uh the basement is dry now and uh they can store material down there, all their artifacts without uh getting all damp and moldy. So, >> good. Good. That's Yeah, they've definitely been tested with some of the
rain we have, I'm sure. >> Thank you. >> Good to hear. All right. Next up, we have Tan Exchange Street. Um, returning from a violation for violation discussion. All right.
Um, Judy, I guess, do you do you want to start kick this one off or >> Uh, sure. Through the chair, I can give a quick overview. And we've also got Dave Markon and the um property owner on the line too. >> Okay.
>> Um but we um when we last talked about this um enforcement issue, the commission had asked for uh a wetland delineation to be confirmed by Joe. Um so uh we had the original delineation
that showed BBW on the south side of the property. um a ditch that kind of runs through the BBW uh riverfront and bank flags across the street um past Exchange Street. And
originally there was one isolated vegetated wetland behind the existing garage. Um when Joe went out to meet the applicants uh wetland scientist uh they found an additional IVW uh just north of the garage um sort of
between the garage and the driveway here. Um so that's been added to a plan with the associated buffer zone. Uh the original kind of restoration and and original planting plan hasn't been updated since this additional wetland and buffer zone was added to the plan.
Um so the stumps are shown in these black circles and then the proposed plantings are the um colored dots and colored circles with a legend on um the right side of the plan here. Uh so I think um discussion on what you all would like to see with additional uh
wetland impacts being found on the property um in terms of that restoration and planting plan. Um and then there's also originally PIBs proposed along the um one IBW if if those should be moved or additional added to account for the
additional wetlands found. Um so happy to turn it over to um Dave or Padma or even Joe if if Joe you have any additional comments on the delineation that you reviewed. >> Okay. Yeah, let's go to Joe for a minute just to talk about the delineation while
we're on that topic. >> Yeah, sure. So, I met with Scottheim, you know, the applicant's web consultant. Uh we reviewed the uh existing delineations, made several revisions uh to the existing flags and
as Judy mentioned, we did uh discover that there was another isolated wetland um and that was delineated. So, I've uh reviewed the revised uh plan and uh and am in agreement with the delineations as
shown on the plan. Um I have not uh gone into any detail on reviewing the the mitigation plan at this point, but I can say that the uh the delineation on the plan looks accurate at this point. >> Okay.
Um, all right. Then I'll jump over now to Dave. Um, uh, as Joe had said, the wetlands have been agreed to, uh, riverfront across the street. Uh, as Judy had mentioned,
uh, the the restoration plan, uh, was developed by Scott Scottheim. Uh it's exactly the same as it was on the previous plan. Um we uh wanted to uh get
some feedback uh on the plantings uh and we thought we would make uh all the changes at the same time. Uh Scott had uh tried to uh incorporate all the plantings in and around the existing
stumps. The hope is that it's it's uh that the stumps would regenerate and uh the intention is to leave the stumps and hopefully it's at some point uh they would reestablish themselves. Uh but
with respect to the uh uh two isolated wetlands um we realize that we need a few more plantings uh in both of those because the sizes have increased. Um, but we wanted to come tonight um to uh
explain what kind of where we're at and uh and get some guidance to uh uh the plantings. >> Okay. Um quick question on the So on the stumps, the black circles that show the stumps,
there's some that are just circles and there's some that have a like a plus sign or an X in them. >> Yeah. So uh what we what we developed uh the the black stumps uh uh is we
numbered them and then on the left hand side of the page there's a chart as to the approximate size and type. So, uh, we have we have the I think it's uh I think the 79 uh that are numbered more than that, but
79 that are inside the inside the uh jurisdiction. Uh seven that haven't been numbered. Uh but we wanted to uh there's a there's a number sign there with a symbol uh corresponding to the type of tree.
>> Okay. And is there any reason Why? I don't know, Judy, if you can zoom in. Why some of them have a different icon than than others? So, like the one um Oh, is it just
whether it's >> So, so the black the black one the black ones the black ones are existing the stumps and the colored ones are proposed plantings, trees, and shrubs uh at that location. But the so the stumps, some of
them have like an X inside of them. I don't know if you can point to one, Judy. So 49 and 50, one of them has a plus sign in it, one of them doesn't. Is there any Does that mean anything? >> No, it does not. It it just it was probably just like an AutoCAD symbol that indicated the location of where we
got the lo the the sump location itself. So there's no there's nothing associated with that. >> Okay. things. Um, all right. Okay. So, we're looking for
feedback on the plantings and then to talk about this new wetland. Um, which I think probably there should be discussion around the PIB
that's proposed. >> Mhm. >> And how that might change or would change with a new wetland on the plan. >> Y >> um cuz we'll have to incorporate that. >> Yep. >> As well.
Um Joe, you said uh Joe Orzzel, you did not look at the planting yet. >> Correct. >> I have not reviewed the mitigation plan any detail yet. >> Okay.
>> So, we'll definitely need some feedback from Joe >> um on the plantings. Can you give Dave just like a a high level on the calculation of how many new
plantings are proposed compared to trees cut? >> Yep. Um, so I count uh 86 trees cut and we're providing um 32 to be planted,
trees to be planted and 28 shrubs to be planted is what we have on the plan currently. >> Okay. And that's 86 cut in
uh in buffer. >> Yes. And >> some of those might be in wetland as well. >> Yes. Correct. Yep. Um it doesn't include anything over by the house.
Judy, is it possible just to Yeah, right there. Yep. Um a lot of those were were I thought were fairly small. And every time we go out and take a look, it it seems to be that area seems to be thriving. So, we didn't add that
to the total. >> Okay. >> The ones right adjacent to the house. And then just below the house right there against the wall, those little four that are right there, uh, were not included, but the rest of them are inside the the buffer and riverfront.
>> So, everything in the 50 is included in the count. >> Yep. and the 100. Yep. And the 200 riverfront except for around the house. >> Okay. Yes, Judy. >> Yeah, I'm just seeing a couple more that aren't numbered. So, this one, these two
here, the 9 in, the 22 in. >> Yep. >> Um, so were those included in the count? Are you saying the ones by the house that these are the only ones that you didn't count up? >> No. I stated earlier uh we had 79 that
were numbered and seven that weren't. So that's part of the seven that weren't. A total of 86. Okay. >> Okay. >> I might recommend to the commission that these be counted just because that's the bulk of the riverfront disturbance, but
um >> yeah, we'll number those. Yep. Okay. Um, all right. I guess I want to open it up to the commission on thoughts, initial thoughts. Obviously, we need Joe's
feedback on planting plan. Um but as far as the number of trees and shrubs we would be looking for in this situation given that 86 so 86 cut
and there's um so 60 32 trees and 28 shrubs being proposed for planting >> 60 total >> through the chair Um, yes, Ted.
>> Dave, uh, just to clarify, please, I think I heard you say the hope is that the stumps will be left there hoping that shoots grow out of them and they become trees again. Is that what I understood? >> That is correct.
>> Yep. >> Um, so I I guess then I have two comments. one is a question for the commission andor Judy is I don't think we've ever taken that into account as replication and I don't know if we can
or should um but I also don't know how often that's successful. Um maybe it's successful 98% of the time. I have no idea how often trees successfully respout and become healthy again if
they're chopped down to stumps. Do you have a sense of that, Dave, or Joe or anybody? >> We weren't we weren't um using the trees with the sprouts hopefully respouting
as part of a total uh as restoration. >> Okay. Uh Scott um has seen in the past uh on other projects that sometimes these trees will respout and come back
to life. We're not counting these 86 trees as part of our restoration. That's that's not the point. >> Okay. >> That's not the point. Um you can see um with the black circles, it's pretty congested.
>> Yeah. So, we're not we're not looking to take out the stumps and create more of a ruckus. >> We're we're hoping to leave those. We'd like to leave those and work around those with our plantings. >> Okay. So, then the numbers again were 86 trees
cut down um but not including that little cluster right next to the house. >> That's right. And your your proposed uh uh reestablishment was I think 50 something combination of trees and shrubs.
>> 60 60. >> Okay. >> All right. It seems like a small number, but I think we have some some thoughts on on where wetland is going to be and things like that. But my first thought is that
seems like a small number. I think I also saw as I was about to hang up, but when Judy flashed the side of the plan, I think that there was only one tree labeled as dead of the trees that were cut down
>> that I think this I think does uh we have two >> two. Okay. So, I might have missed the other one. So we're talking 84 healthy trees within the res or within the buffer zones. We're clear. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Clarifying the numbers. Thanks. >> Pretty good range in sizes there, too. >> Through the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes. Ed, >> don't we normally go
like one and a half to one? or something like that. >> We do. Yeah, we do. >> So, we're we're we're far from that at at this number. >> Mhm.
>> Yeah. To the chair. >> Yes, Joe. >> Yeah. It uh it's not unusual to have um some of the cut trees respouting from the base. So I wouldn't u be surprised that a number of those cut trees might have
some sprouts that survive >> that um depending on the type of tree is it certainly >> it does vary somewhat on on trees. Red maples do it very well. I've got um a red oak in my yard that I'm trying to get rid of that constantly respouts.
They they um but I maybe a little bit less with the sugar maples. Um but I know definitely the the red maples will also do that also. >> Yes. >> That Norway maples do that very very
well. Um American chestnut also does it very well but American chestnut unfortunately doesn't doesn't survive beyond maybe 20 years. Okay. Um,
okay. So, I think as far as giving feedback at this point in time, um, my feeling, I think other's feelings are iss we're short here. Some some
trees. Um, we like to see one and a half to one. Um, understanding that that's a lot of trees and we do want them to survive, not be overclustered
either. Um, but there's seems to be a little bit of a gap here. >> Yep. Um, and then we'll need uh Joe to take a look as far as you know types and give his feedback as well.
Um, as far as the we'll need to update the plan with PIB for the isolated wetland. So I imagine that going somewhere, you know, along the driveway, um,
and, you know, connecting back with the the PIVs that that are there shown. Um, so maybe that factors into to plantings as well. >> Okay.
>> Additional plantings. Yep. Um, anyone else have thoughts on that >> through the chair? >> Variation. Yes, Judy. >> Just a couple additional notes. Um, if you want to specify how many of the
plantings you want to be trees versus shrubs, um, that might be a good discussion point. And there's also significant amount of notweed on the property. Um, so this might be a situation where you might want a invasive species management plan, um,
monitoring periods, uh, treatment schedule, that sort of thing. >> Mhm. That's a good point, Judy. Um, as we've harped on a couple projects here, I think invasive species management can go
a long way with the commission for mitigation. Would you agree, Ed, in this scenario? >> I concur that there's a lot of notweed there, and if we're going to try to eradicate notweed, we need a multi-year
plan to attempt to do it. From my own unfortunate personal experience on open space. >> Um, I know we have the homeowner Padma here on the line, too. I don't know if you had anything that you wanted to bring up or share. Um
>> um not really. First of all, I want to apologize for chopping the trees. Um the the main thing was there were lot of thorns and uh poison ivy. I mean unfortunately there was it was like all
like cre um creepers and it was very scary. Um, and I could I could not even like park my car and um, you know, it was so I mean bottom line it was like a forest and I was uh I if it was like you
know because I bought this like in se end of September, October, November that was the time where um you it it gets dark uh where one of my neighbor invited me to like some Thanksgiving or some kind of a holiday. I just and I wanted to stay there but I just could not
because I was scared to get to my car just crossing the road. So that was very scary. So to me like in that dark road I know then you would go ask me like why did I buy the home like but I did not look at it during the night when I bought it and I fell in love with it.
That's a different one. But I just don't want this very scary creepers and thorns and I just could not even step like you know to my car. I just don't want I didn't I don't want that like in the
property because I want to at least be able to walk to my car and like if I wanted to stay at a party at my neighbor's place, I should not worry about going to my car in my home to just get home. That was the scary thing. So that's
um I mean I can plant any number of trees if you really have if I have to, but I don't want that forest that creepy forest back in my yard. Like that's the main thing. I want I want the trees to be like um little bit channeled or at
least like like you know like a like a home. I don't want to live I don't want to have a forest in my home kind of thing. Scary one. That's all I have to say. Sorry. But >> yeah, no, that's okay. Um, the overtaking characteristics of
invasives, I think we would agree, Ed would agree, is very scary. Um, you know, those vines and things like that. So maybe um maybe you know focusing on that and working on that
for invasives because you know we don't want that to overtake new plantings either and make them unsuccessful. Um so this this might be a situation where
um invasive management around the property is just as important as planting the trees and making sure that you know it's woods and trees that you enjoy and provide um you know the
habitat and environment that we're looking for to to protect in in the wetlands. So that that would be my two cents or takeaway as far as um what to move forward with on the restoration plan um
and how we can add value to that and make it something that you know the commission can really jump on board with. Does that make sense, Dave? >> Yeah, we'll uh we'll get together with Scott and Patmer and um we'll
re-evaluate. We've heard what the board had to say and their suggestions. So, we'll we'll go back to the drawing board a little bit and uh come up with a with a new planting plan um and re-evaluate the PIB's uh locations
and um we'll get ready to present a new plan to the board. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. >> Yes, Judy. Um, just because this is sort of an enforcement situation, I would recommend um the commission voting for a revised enforcement order uh and a date
when you want all of these materials by and I think we're looking at spring for plantings at this point. So, you know, using the winter to really get a plan ironed out. >> Mhm. Okay. Um Dave, what do you think's a reasonable time frame for you all to get
together and turn around um a revised mitigation plan? >> Um what what would be your first meeting in December? >> The 16th. I think that's yeah the only one we have
on the calendar in December right now. I think I think that's realistic to come up with a new plan and then get that in time and get that to Joe. Get that to Judy to Joe in time for the 16th. >> Okay. Judy, does that work for an
interim date? I guess it doesn't give the the long game, but >> Yep. Yeah, I can set um a deadline just the filing deadline for that meeting for materials to be sent in. >> Okay. And yeah, that gives you time if there's revisions um before the growing
season starts, >> right? >> Okay. >> Um then can I get a motion to do you a revision to our um enforcement order? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Updated enforcement order with
signatures. >> Would anyone like to make that motion? >> I'll make that motion. Second. >> Second on that. Okay. Uh, all in favor, Ed. >> Hi, >> Ted. >> Ted is an I. >> Matt.
>> Hi, >> Jim. There Jim. Wait, Jim might have stepped away. Um, I am an I. That's enough for for a vote. Okay. We'll look forward to um seeing
your plan and meeting with you again on December 16th. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> Yep. Thanks. >> Thank you all. >> Yeah. >> All right. Next up, we have 32 Granite Street. This is another violation
discussion. Um, I see we do have the homeowners on the line. Welcome. And, um, Judy, do you want to go over what we're looking at here?
>> Sure. Um, through the chair. Um so the last time we talked about this violation um we had mentioned that we saw several stumps within jurisdictional areas uh cut from the street level but we couldn't kind of get onto the property
and see exactly how many there were. Um so we've been working with the homeowners. They provided a sketch uh depicting their uh review of the stumps on the property. So these kind of circles here show the stumps that they identified. Um and then they did allow
Anna and I to come onto the property to verify their sketch. Um and we did find quite a few additional. We kind of split them up by area, but in total we counted 71 um stumps within jurisdictional areas, at least according to this kind of old
delineation we have on file. And of the 71, they kind of ranged, I would say, from about 1 in diameter to I think the largest we saw was around 6 in. Um, so I think the um commission to decide
next steps um for Exchange Street, you know, kind of similar. Um you all had asked for a new delineation um stump survey and then a restoration plan. Um, so I think you know any var any variation of that um or if you have any
questions on um anything that we observed um let me know. >> Okay. All right. Um, yeah. So, it sounds like sounds like our Yeah, the information is
a little choppy here. Um, my thought and be open to hear from other commission members as well. Um, this delineation is that 85. Is that what that says?
The previous >> I think it might be 86. >> 86. Okay. >> Yeah. This is a scan of a scan. Sorry if it's a little fuzzy. >> That's okay. Um, >> is the year the house was built? >> Mhm. >> This was the year the house was built.
>> Okay. >> 86. Okay. So, it's the very original original. Um, I don't think it would hurt to get a to get a new delineation. Um, to get a better understanding of
where we're at. Although, I guess even based on this one, the whole property is pretty much in the 100 foot buffer. Um, and then yeah, it's hard going right after a 10
Exchange Street for consistency sake. Feel like um I I feel like a stump survey is probably probably warranted. Um, being that, you know, staff numbers and homeowner numbers are
are off here by quite a bit, does anyone on the commission have any thoughts one way or another? >> Melissa, just briefly, I agree. We need to be consistent with how we deal with these types of violations.
>> Okay. Um, yeah, I think it if that's the case and the rest of the commission is on board, that would mean uh stump survey and a and a delineation
updated delineation of the wetlands. We have an enforcement order written on this one, Judy. >> Yeah, that was to get the original sketch. Yep. >> Okay. All right. So, this would be another amendment >> to the enforcement order.
and you'd like to um wait on a restoration plan until you have that um delineation and survey in hand. >> Yeah, I I think we I think so. Um that is the next step. So,
you know, I think to the homeowners, they can start thinking about that. Um, but in this in this order, I think we'll just update it to require the stump survey and the new
delineation. Um, and you're going to want a date on that, too. >> Is that something we need to arrange or would that is that something the town will arrange? Um >> it is
>> it is it is your responsibility to arrange for that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. And the term survey is different from what Judy did yesterday or because Okay. >> Right. Fortunately not a professional land surveyor.
>> Okay. >> Um Judy can probably give you help identifying if you if you need references. Um, >> that will be helpful. Yeah. >> Yeah. She can probably point you to a few.
>> Sure. >> So, can I get a motion um to update our order to require the stump survey new delineation and we'll look for that um
for our December. Well, may want to give him a little more time. >> Yeah, if we want >> to get somebody to confirm it might take a little longer. >> Yeah. End of January. Would that be
reasonable? >> I mean, we go by your judgment. Um >> uh we don't know like how much time it takes but we will like once we maybe reach out to Judy we'll contact the >> yeah we'll start our process as soon as we get references uh again we don't we've not done this before so we don't
know how much time will they take to like uh create the new plan and do the stump survey I think the stump survey should be relatively faster than the del de del delineation >> yeah uh but if you guys think Jan end is
a is a reasonable time we're okay with Okay. If it if it gets caught up, then you can of course contact Judy and request additional time. So, say end of January. >> Sure. >> January 31st.
Um, can I get a a motion to that effect? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? Ed. >> I. >> Ed. Ted is not >> Matt. >> Hi,
>> Jim. No, Jim. Jim, I see you. >> We got We got a thumbs up. >> Oh, you got a thumbs up. Okay, that works. And I'm also an I. All right. So, thank you. Thank you for coming in again.
>> Thank you. for continuing the process with us. >> Sure. No, we we we'll be there till y'all are satisfied. So, no worries. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you so much. >> See you later. >> See you. >> Okay. Um, next up, old brothers
violation discussion. Um, yeah, I see Ted's here. U but I'll let Judy go ahead and give a rundown on on this one first. We're just pulling up some pictures.
All right. Um so we heard from Melissa on October 26th um that she had seen silt in the stream that leads off the um offsite basins that the Elmwood Farms
development is connected to. Um, so just a couple pictures of the silt in the stream. Um, definitely not as bad as we'd seen earlier this year, but um, still clearly turbid. Um, and then I have some pictures a couple days before those were taken. Uh,
we go out pretty regularly. Um, so this is a plug in the lower basin where that stream immediately comes off of. Um, it was open at the time or not fully closed, so water was coming through here. Uh this is the larger basin at the top
of Blueberry, sort of in between that lower basin and the development. Um about as full as we've ever seen it. Um and and pretty filthy, but at the time um they were not pumping it out or releasing any water from this basin. Um
so this was a couple days before the 26th. Another couple angles and then I'll just show some pictures. um from the Monday after the weekend of the 26th. Uh so stream running mostly
clear but a little bit of um turbidity in there. Uh water coming through the lower basin and then that water level had gone down significantly over the weekend. Um
so Melissa had heard pumping. Um not sure exactly what was going on to to make that water level go down so far. Um because this basin was fixed. It's not leaking anymore. So it sounded like they were pumping out. Um
see I think there's questions about how Toll is planning to manage the volume that's been in this basin. Um given that it was a a significant rainfall but nothing groundbreaking. um and what the thresholds are for when they start
pumping or releasing water. Um long-term plans to stabilize the site. Still, you know, we're still having issues with dirty runoff getting into this basin. Um so, we just wanted to have Ted in to talk about um some of the issues they're still dealing with.
>> Thanks, Judy. I'll just turn it right over to you, Ted. Yeah. You wanna >> Sure. Um, so forgive me um for this wasn't framed um initially as a violation discussion. So I might have
approached it differently um had I known that but I will try to answer um the questions as they come across. So, um, in terms of the the pictures from the 26th,
um, the how uh, it was sort of explained to me and and me trying to piece it back together. I don't believe it rained um, over that weekend. And we had um
been monitoring the basin leading up to that storm and um had determined and I had seen some pictures that allowed uh you know thought that the water was good enough to let out and I have one of
those here that my contractor sent me if I could share it if you'd like um of the water coming out fairly clean. So, he had opened that basin up, I think that Friday, um, and allowed water to release, which
which saw that drop in the basin that you showed. Um, and, um, got notification or or found when I met with Judy on whatever that was, the
Monday morning following that there was turbidity in the waters. She showed me some of the pictures that you're showing here. Um, and the contractor over the weekend had closed that basin up seeing that there was turbidity coming out. And
the explanation that we had gotten is that something changed within the basin to um go from clean coming out to turbid coming out. Not sure if somebody pumped into the basin uh over the weekend from working
on site. Um but that wasn't the seridity that I had seen uh that previous Friday. So um we closed that up as soon as we knew about it. Um, and I I guess the further
comments or or questions that Judy raised of how do we control that basin and when do we determine the water can come out? And it's it's really a very intensive constant process that um mainly our site
contractor goes through, but he's relaying that information both to me and I think at times to Judy and Anna of what the basins look like and um what we think is appropriate to let out. And at
times we pump it out through a silk bag. Um if the the basin is call it I'll I'll call it minorly turbid. Um and if it is clean um we would open that valve up to
allow water to get out faster. So, you saw the drop um I think in the two different pictures that that Judy um showed and that that would be the rate that that basin could be let out if we open the valve up. So, I it's it's a
lot of um looking at the upcoming forecast and um potential rainfall and deciding um whether we need to start to pump the basin down due to um what we think is
going to come in to, you know, exceed capacity within the basin. And you know at at the call it best point you know we would try to release all of the water in the basin so that we start from zero. But as you
know storms come in we keep it closed and and allow the type of water to build up hopefully sediment to filter out uh or settle down and then open that valve up to to let water out. So, um, you know, that that's sort of the
process and and it, you know, our guys are out there looking at it a couple times a day, every day to see where we stand. This one happened to happen over the weekend, so people were there less.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. No, there definitely it definitely wasn't raining and it was a lot of water. So that was the uh so it was definitely a um intentional pumping or release or whatever that showed up downstream.
Um so yeah, those were the the questions is the process and it sounds like uh I don't know. I don't I feel like that basin never looks clean. Like I I don't know. It just never seems to
be that it's settled out recently. That would be um acceptable just to pump it without treating it through a filter bag or something. I know at one point in time early on we had talked about
um that system that had been set up on the side of the basin to pump water through to try and get the sediment to settle out so that you could pump it clean um that had like flock logs in it and but that that's completely underwater at this point.
>> We we adding fauulent by hand to >> accelerate settling out. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I think it just obviously this wasn't a this wasn't a rain event
over topping of basins causing flow. It was definitely um you know somebody's choice to turn on the pump and allow the water to leave the basin um in this condition. So, I think it's
a must be a breakdown in um communication or oversight or um probably shouldn't be happening on the weekend unsupervised. Fair. Um I I think that that's probably
the weak point in in this one. I mean, I I've got a picture up on my screen. I'm I'm happy to share that that our contractor sent to me of of what it looked like coming out that was very clean. So, I you know, thought that it
was appropriate. Um but obviously that that changed at some point and and the lack of oversight maybe over a weekend um lent to that. So, um >> yeah, I don't I think that the pump I don't um if the pumps are running too, I
don't get the feeling that somebody was there watching it all weekend. Turn the pump on and walk away. I think >> the the valves were open over that weekend, Melissa. So, it it wasn't >> somebody running a pump.
Gotcha. So I I think hearing that concern um I think either we need to be manning it while something is open or it needs to be during the week while people are working.
>> Yeah, I I'd agree with that. Go to the chair. This is Ed. >> Yes, Ed. >> This is not the Toll Brothers first rodeo in Hopkin. And we've had issues like this before. This is a continuation
of the same sorts of things we've seen before. And in my humble opinion, it's a failure of management. Yeah, this is definitely an avoidable avoidable one. Anyone else have any
thing they want to share on this one? event. >> Hi, Melissa. I don't want my silence to be misread. I'm just at my wits end. I I don't know how many times we need to have Ted, who seems like a lovely
gentleman, Ted. I mean that sincerely. But how many times we have to have Toll Brother reps here? I I just don't know what we have left of it. It's so so so
deeply frustrating. Yeah. Um, you know, I guess to to wrap it up, um, we should definitely or I guess we have the expectation
um, is the commission that the contract character cannot have the authority to just open the valves or do any dewatering of the basin without oversight
from someone from Toll Brothers um on site like pre-approved and on-site observing what they're what they're doing there. Um, >> we we can make that part of the protocol. >> Okay.
Um, and can you also let Judy know or just notify Judy, keep her in the loop on >> Yes. means no Saturdays though. >> Noted.
So yeah, again I'm sorry that we're here again. And I think like you said, this this is avoidable and we can um we we'll communicate the plan both um you know with us present and then uh
through Judy uh moving forward Melissa, I don't know if we can't hear you. >> I don't think she can hear us. Is she talking? >> I can see her moving, so it doesn't seem to be frozen.
>> Been on too long. >> Yeah, something's clearly going on. She was trying to figure something out. >> This won't happen in two weeks. And >> thank you for that spot of humor, Ted. I sorely need it. >> It's not going to happen in two weeks because it's going to happen in three,
guys. >> Just in time for Christmas. Thanksgiving. Oh, I'm skipping that one. >> Can't skip that one. It's one of the best holidays of the year.
>> For all you meat eaters, maybe. >> Um, >> it's more about the pumpkin pie. >> Matt, I wonder if you or I I don't know if Melissa had more for Ted. I wonder if you or I should
move us along. It felt like we were near an end of talking to Ted. I think we were. >> You want to take the ball and get us across the goal line here, Matt? >> Sure. Do we have anything else? I mean, I don't think we need to vote on
anything here. So, I think the expectations have been laid out. Ted seems to understand what they are and hopefully we won't have to talk about this again. >> Sounds good. Thank you guys. Thanks, Ted. Appreciate it.
I unfortunately do not have the agenda in front of me at the moment. All right, I think that brings us to the end. We've got a conservation minute. Anything on the docket there, Judy or Anna? >> Yeah, so this was a new idea Melissa
had. um kind of sprung from the discussion about vernal pool regs bylaw interpretation. Um so to have a time at the end of every meeting, you know, if they go really long, we can skip it. Um
but to have either myself, Anna, or you know, one of the commission members take ownership over a topic that the group wants to learn more about or brush up on. um and just take a minute to go over it, answer questions. Um
so we can go over the vernal pool stuff a little bit more if folks are tired. We can skip it having talked a little bit about it before. Um but I think it could also be helpful to take a minute to throw out ideas if there's topics people
are rusty on or would want to volunteer to >> cover. Oh, my echo voice. But I think we might have Melissa back. >> Yeah, something's going on there because >> Yeah, sorry about that. >> Sorry, I jumped on a different computer
and then died on the audio. Sorry, >> Melissa. I don't know if you know, we we said goodbye to Ted in the Toll Brothers. >> Okay. >> Began talking about the conservation minute. I don't know if you were able to follow along or not. >> I did not. I was not able to follow along, but that sounds
>> You didn't miss a whole lot. Yeah, I didn't didn't have much else to say on the Double Brothers piece. Um, >> sounded like you wanted to talk about Vernal Pools. >> Yes. >> Do we want to talk about that tonight or do we want to talk about that when we're
are together in person? >> We can talk about that when we're together in person. That sounds good to me. It's late. >> Sounds good to me. It's 10 o'clock. I'm I'm okay with pushing that conversation. >> Yep.
Um yeah, if that's that's agreeable, then uh we can go ahead and get a motion to adjourn at this point. I think through >> the chair really quick. >> Oh yeah, go ahead, Anna. >> Yeah, so I think for um conservation minute, if there's something that um members want us like Judy or myself to
research ahead of time, um you know, feel free to, you know, we can kind of keep an ongoing list of topics or like I said, bylaw sections, reg sections. Um, you know, the goal over the next year, I think Judy and I are, is to kind of, you know, take a look at the regs, you know, there's some, you know, some typos, some
clarifications that we need, so we can kind of take chunks at a time and, um, bring it up. But if there's a particular topic that you guys want some more information on, um, a heads up would be helpful and then we can do some research to get it onto a future agenda for this conservation minute topic, which is
awesome. Love the idea. I I have one suggestion that's a relevant topic as is the vernal pool discussion mitigation requirements and what we must do and what we have an option of doing.
>> Yep. >> I think that's a very relevant topic not only for what's going on right now in our hearings but what I've seen in the past and I'm sure what we'll see again in the future. >> Yeah. And I know Judy and I have been talking too about um PIBs with new
construction um to try to figure out what we can do about this mowing past the PIBs and this constant problem we seem to be having especially on new construction too. So maybe some different you know PIB standards for you know existing lots that are developed
versus you know new construction lots and stuff as well. So something else we can play with. >> Yeah, >> I love that topic. Yeah, I think the more we can document some of the decisions that have been made over the years that don't necessarily live in our
bylaw or regulations, I think that's helpful to all of us to be able to, you know, refer back to. >> Yeah, there's there's definitely there's a lot of things where it's like I know we do this for a reason. I know we tow
this line for but I just you know why or um yeah all good stuff. So think of those topics. Um and then I think we could also look like for tree
counts. That's another one. The tree count stuff we talked about that that goes along yours with Matt with um mitigation and coming up with some numbers. Sure. There's things out there on other like sometimes I'll look at other conservation commission websites and see if they have any good guidelines
or things we can kind of like reference and and use as well. So, um to Judy and Anna whether whether you guys have time to look at some of that stuff or we can bring it as well if we know a topic's coming up that what we're seeing in some
of our neighboring commissions um practices would be good too. Oh, okay. Um, yeah. So, next time in person,
that'll be great. And, um, I'm sure Ed will bring something yummy to eat. >> Oh, does anyone have dietary restrictions, allergies, anything? You mean for our in-person meeting? >> Yeah.
>> Awesome. >> So, so you have to know that I will say that someone has offered us a kitchen, but we at the moment are operating with a non-functional kitchen. So, if you're looking forward to me baking something, um, it's going to take some cooperation
from someone outside our household probably. >> Okay. I think we can let you off the hook with baking, but you know, stores the stores bake some stuff you might be able to snag on your way in.
>> I'll offer you my kitchen. >> And I think I I don't want to lose sight of I think Walter has to bring the Marzipan Cornucopia, >> I believe, as the rookie for his first Inerson meeting. >> Yeah, I might be right.
No reaction. >> Yeah. Get off. Had to get off. >> In yet, Walter. You can back off. >> I'll have it, but it'll be filled with bourbon. >> That's cool. I'm with you. >> All right. Can I get a motion to adjourn
the meeting? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. All in favor, Ed. >> I. >> Ted, >> Ted is an I. >> Matt, >> I. >> Jim, >> Jim disappeared at some point.
>> He disappeared. Okay. >> Um, I am also an I. All right. Thank you everybody. >> Good night. Good to meet you all. >> Good night, everyone. Nice to meet you all. Good night. Bye. >> Bye.