Okay. You don't mind doing the intro? That'd be fantastic. Happy to do it. This is just for Jim Cerillo. This is the July 1st, 2025 open meeting of the Hopkin 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 laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at
the meeting location remains suspended. For this meeting, the Hopkin Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom as posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join.
Additionally, the meeting may also be broadcast by HCAM through one or many of its channels or platforms. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, 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 ch
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. Ed Harrow
present. Jim Cerillo present. Janine Leblanc present. Heather Burton. Nope. Matt Moy gonna be a little late. Okay, Matt, are you here? Matt's going
to be late. Uh, Melissa Ricos, the chair. Present. And I am Ted Barker Hook. I'm present. I will now confirm staff that are present. Judy Day, the Hopkin Conservation Administrator, present. Anna Rogers, the environmental
and inspection services coordinator. Present. And Joe Orzel of Lucas Environmental. Present. Great. Uh before I pass the gavvel on to our chair Melissa, I would like to let everyone know that we have three meetings on the agenda that have
been continued. Uh if anyone is here for those meetings, you're welcome to stay, but they will not be discussed tonight. One is 8589 West Main Street. That's the Starbucks parking lot. Also, Zero Wood Street has been continued and 47
Oakhurst Road has been continued. That's it for me for now. Melissa, it's Trisha. All right. Thanks, Ted. You're welcome. Um, so with that being said, we'll look at the work session items. We have no
documents for review. Um, no draft minutes. So, we're on to number three, which is trails committee, Barry Acres 0 West Main Street exemption requests for trail bridges, boardwalks. Um, Judy, did
you want to give an intro on this one or um, do we have someone on the line to uh, do that for us? Uh, through the chair. Yeah, I'm not sure if I saw Chuck Douchy enter the waiting room. Um, happy to give an overview of the
request. If not, okay. Um so Chuck Douchi of the trails committee um submitted a request to construct four new boardwalks and replace one existing boardwalk in the Berry Acres Trail which is off of West Main Street right across from Golden
Pond. Um we walked the trail with Chuck last week and are in agreement with the low uh sort of wet spots that people are just tramping through right now um that are indicated on the plan. So this is West Main Street and the main trail
passes by a flooded area um that we think is caused by beaver activity. So it's pretty much ponded here. Um one longer boardwalk here, another here and then two here. And then their
replacement is at the end here. Um they aren't going to be cutting any trees to install the boardwalks and the uh boardwalks are going to be in 12 foot segments placed side by side. Happy to try to answer any questions if
Chuck hasn't joined yet. Um okay. I have some pictures as well if that would be helpful. Um sure if you want to throw a couple up there. Assume these are all similar to the construction of the boardwalks we've done in the past with Chuck. Yeah. Yes.
Yeah. A couple of the wet spots. There was some aquatic vegetation growing on the trail which we thought was interesting. And this is the one that they're looking to replace. Okay. Yeah, that looks like it needs it.
Yeah, this is a tort. Yeah. Um, seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't have any issue with it. Does anyone else have any questions, comments on this? Anyone from the audience? Go. Yeah.
I don't see any hands. All right. Do we want to go ahead and um It's just an exemption request, but um we could go ahead and take a vote just to support it. Anyone want to make that motion?
I'll make a motion. Second. All right. And I'll do the roll call ahead. Uh, I Jim. I Janine. I Ted. Ted is an I. And Matt, I think I saw you jump in. I am an I.
Yes. Thank you, Melissa. Awesome. Um, so they're all set. If you could just share that with with Chuck Judy. We'll do. You voted, Melissa. Oh, I didn't vote. Yeah, I'm I'm an I. Thanks,
Dad. I'm a little rusty. You're welcome. All right. Next up, we have a 181 Hayden Row request for certificate of compliance. Um, Judy, can you go through that with us? Uh, sure. Through the chair. Um, this is a request for a COC for an order uh that
was issued in 2005 for septic replacement. Um, let me pull up the plan. So, here is the as built. Oops, there we go. That we received as part of the COC request. Um, changes as reported by the
applicant are the bulkhead was slightly larger than what was proposed. Um, there is a garden near the septic tank, believe marked on the plan right here. That was not on the original approved
plan. Um, and the driveway, which is right around here, it's sort of a triangle driveway. Um, in this area, is wider than was originally improved. Um, and Joe as well noted that this shed
here was not on the original approved plan. Um, happy to run through some of Joe's notes or if he would prefer to do it himself. Um, either way. Yeah, Joe, you want to chime in? Sure. I didn't have too many comments on this one. I
actually Devon did the site inspection on this one. Um the site is well stabilized. Um no erosion issues were observed. Um and the erosion controls are no longer in the field. Um as Judy
had mentioned, there was a shed located within 50 ft of the wetland that was not shown um on the uh originally approved plan. Um and uh really the only other notes note
was that uh on the uh form 8A request for of compliance u there was a box that should have been checked yes uh indicating that a U as plane would be recorded and that's pretty much it for
the comments. Okay. Um do we have anyone on the line? um for this project. Anyone homeowner or anything? Yep. Melissa, uh Dave Mquidant, um David and Nancy Haynes, uh
the applicant are also on the line. Um I think it was explained pretty well. The septic was installed very much as it was shown originally. Uh it was shown on a plan in 1991. uh as built in ' 9192.
Uh uh David and Nancy purchased the property in 93 and they've maintained the property since then. Uh they just recently sold the property and as as Jim had mentioned, it's you know it's well stabilized. It's it's manicured lawn um
and no erosion control. So um seems uh very stable and straightforward. It's good. Was the shed there? Um, the current owner put the shed in there or was that prior to I don't have any uh I
don't have any info on on the I can answer that. Yeah. Um, we had the shed put in, um, I think it was around 2010 and I had someone from the conservation commission walk the property with me at the time I and um, they said that I
could locate that was the only place we could really locate it safely and but but I had to put it on um pillars, not on the ground. To minimize the effect. Okay. It's on gravel. Um, there's some
gravel around it. Yes. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Okay. But it's not set on the ground. It's on pillars. Okay. Looks like it's pitched away from the wetlands, too. It's pitch towards the um driveway and Yeah. And road. Yeah. Okay. Yep. In
line. All right. Um I don't have any um major issues with this one. The only thing I would bring up to the commission, I think, is whether we want some PIB markers installed being that this is going to a
new new owner and just to establish, you know, that line um and the awareness that the wetland is there. Um I don't know if anybody has any any thoughts, chair. Yeah, I'd be very happy to get
some PIBs along the wherever the lawn ends right now. I don't not looking to pull back any lawn or anything. Just wherever things are established now given that we're um Can I see the the plan again, please, Judy? Just to make sure what I'm about to say
is true. Yeah, given that we're inside the 50 foot buffer for a lot of that backyard. Um just if we could get some PIBs along the tree or shrub line there, that would make me happy. Yeah. Is that something you all are amendable
to? They're just little uh plat medallions, right? Yeah, medallions. Yeah, that you can get from the conservation office. They don't cost anything. Question. Yeah, Dave. Yeah. Uh Nancy and David, uh since you don't own the
property, would that be okay with the new owner if we put uh like a cedar post with a medallion on it about two to 2 and 1/2 ft high? That's what I was thinking. It'd be right on the tree line. Do you think they'd be all right with that? I
think they'd be all right with that. Okay. Are we thinking like two or three? 30 ft apart. Yeah. 30. So like near each corner of the system. Near each corner. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. And
then maybe one over by the shed. driveway area. Okay. Between the shed or along the driveway there, between the road and the shed. Yep, we can do that. Okay. All right, Judy. Can we condition that?
Uh, yep. Through the chair, if you want to uh vote to approve the COC, we can wait to issue until we have confirmation of the PIBs in place. Okay, great. Can I get a um Can I get a motion to that effect? I'd like to make that motion.
That I'll second that motion. And through the chair, I would like to offer my hellos to David and Nancy. Thank. All right. Roll call. Um, all in favor, Ed. I, Jim.
I, Janine. I, Ted. Ted is an I. Matt. I. and I am also an I. Great. Thanks for coming in. Thank you very much. Yep. You all right?
Um it's just about hitting 7:15 through the chair. Yeah. Uh real quick, uh Chuck Doy just um arrived. So, if you want to just give him his good news and then we can move on to the next item.
Hey, Chuck. Um, welcome. We uh talked about your your project in the um there in the uh I am still not hearing you properly. We um we went over your project with the
trails and the boardwalks and we approved it. We approved your exemption request. Thank you. You're all set. And and I I apologize for my tardiness. However, um
I do suggest that um on your agenda when you are having a remote meeting. Um you indicate that that is the case explicitly. um um because I I just did a nice tour
of town um looking for um the in-person meeting, but um the uh um anyway um I made the erroneous assumption that you uh guys were meeting uh uh in person as
well, but um but um I do thank you for dealing with u our request Uh, so thanks. Yeah, no problem. Okay, good luck. Thank you, John. Thank you.
Good night. All right. Um, we're going to jump up to the new hearings, 109 Winter Street. Uh, Ted, do you have those handy to read? I sure do. I can open this hearing. The Hopkinson Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 1st, 2025 at 7 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in in an amended notice of intent filed by the Beng
uh to construct a stream crossing, driveway, storm water system, and site work associated with the construction of a single family house. Location 109 Winter Street, assessor's map, R16,
block 23, lot zero. Thanks, Ted. You're welcome. Um, do we have uh Joe, is this your project market on? This would be me. Yes. All right, take it away. Um, what we're talking about is the 4.4
4 acre parcel at 109 Winter Street. Um you may recall we had some discussions about this project um an extension request uh an RDA recently. Um the order
is existing was issued um to the owner back in June of 2017 and has been um extended several times since then. as I mentioned a moment ago is is still viable. Uh the genesis for this
discussion is the sitewalk we had with Anna and uh and Kim chair Micholy um back April of 2024 when we identified steps to move this project forward. Uh the biggest issue
was the storm water. Although the original approval had an element of storm water, um things has changed with regard to storm intensity and the impacts uh storm frequency, storm intensity and um although the the
commission sometimes shared the the role of uh reviewing storm water, it's been kind of pushed back to the planning board. Um I think everyone feels that that that is the spot where um it is best served. So we have developed a new
site plan and um sought and received a storm water management permit from the planning board along with a uh special permit to to utilize a common drive for the two homes you see on that plan. Um
during that sitewalk, we also identified a couple of issues with updating septic plans, uh the SWIP, um and then some more mundane stuff like uh the sign, the D sign, uh file number sign, and and those sorts of things. Um but the key,
uh was the changes to the the site plan. Um, we've had a couple discussions with Judy and with Anna about when was the best time to contact this group um about the changes in the plan and see how it fits with that existing approval. We
feel that the time is now and that's the reason that uh we made the filing and and I'm here tonight. Um the original plan um was approved by the the commission as I said in 2017 prepared by Dan McIntyre at Mass Corp. Um we are
utilizing elements of that plan where it makes the most sense. Um we're going to utilize that section of driveway from Winter Street um up to the stream crossing highlighted here on the plan in
orange. Um we maintain the the same location for the box culvert for the retaining walls um for the replication areas. We really want to leave that section of the site um alone. Um what we
um what we did do was uh rework the plans for um I guess greater clarity. the home that was on that original plan. I see more of a cookie cutter uh plan than uh what we have developed. We have
now an architecturally generated plan specific to uh Sally and Frank that shows on the plans. We have changed the driveway that used to loop up to the northerly side of the home to access a garage on the side of uh the dwelling
now. And um we have taken that driveway which was generated before the Hopkin Fire Department uh policy on driveway construction and now have adapted it so that it meets those requirements. I
think those requirements came out shortly after that plan was approved. So um I think the biggest change if you wouldn't mind scrolling down a little bit who's ever controlling that picture other way please.
I want to see the top of that plan. There we go. The biggest change was is that um infiltration basin that you see adjacent to the home. We've got closed drainage systems, catch basins that will convey water as well as sheet flow from
the home to that location there to handle our storm water issues. The original plan focused all the work along the driveway down adjacent to the stream and the BBW right there at the bottom left of the plan. So there was a
tremendous amount of work in the 0 to 50 foot buffer that we have shifted up and out of the 50 foot so that we're between the 50 and the 100 in line with uh the commission's regulations. We have uh as I mentioned the the basin
and um the uh closed drainage system on the easterly side and one outfall on the westerly side to replace um all the the previous grading. the chief benefit to that whole thing although we are
slightly more on total sight disturbance and I think that's generally ba because of the tennis court adjacent to the home that was not part of the original filing but um even though we have a slight increase in the um the total site
disturbance what has decreased is the work in the buffer zone and we have dramatically decreased uh the work in the buffer zone zone 0250. We do have an increase in the 50 to 100 and that is chiefly the construction of
this basin and some grading down at Winter Street to satisfy the planning board and um their requirements for the the special permit on the common driveway. Um there are totals in the submission package. I can run through
those now. uh what we see is a decrease in the impacts to resource areas especially the the 0 to 50 uh from the the BBW associated with that for that stream channel. So we are here with this
plan um this is the plan that we want to construct. We think this um is more in line with where uh 2025 the commission and the wetlands protection act uh where the thought process is now and uh is an
improvement on the on the 2017 plan. Okay, thanks John. Um so does this um drainage system have an operation and maintenance plan associated with it?
Yes, it does. Y we took that through um standalone operation and maintenance at the request of the planning board. We can um we can furnish that that info uh to you folks. It was um part and parcel of the storm water calculations and they
asked us to break it out into a standalone plan and we can certainly share that information with this board as well. Okay. Yeah, I think that would be great. Um, Judy, do you happen to have the previous plan just for the benefit of
everybody to see visually what the old version was? Yes. It's a little grainy, but um, this was the original approved plan. So, the crossing, the side loading driveway, and then the
house sort of just generic rectangle shape here. Yeah. Through the chair. Yes, that home that you see there, the cookie cutter, that shifted about 50 feet northerly from that location and that teardrop turnound, that is what we
saw as the chief benefit from this change is all that pavement went away and it now feeds the southerntherly side of the architecturally designed home. Okay. All right, Judy, do you have any additional
comments or thoughts you want to add to what Joe explained um through the chair? No, I guess the only thing is we got uh Joe's comments a little late this afternoon, so I haven't had a chance to review those uh nor have I had the chance to send them to the
applicant. Okay. But I can do that as soon as I can take a look at it tomorrow morning. Okay. Uh and I would also mention the um at the time this was approved the crossing metream crossing standards. Um so that was found by the commission at the time. Okay.
So Joe Warzel, you you made some comments. Do you have any highlevel comments you want to bring up now? I mean obviously we got to go through your letter and Yeah, maybe just a couple. I had a a number of comments, but I think a few things that might be worth mentioning at this point. Um
I didn't have any uh I look at the area where you know the uh detention basins are the infiltration basin is proposed and I had no issues with that. Um I took a look at the proposed uh stream frosting replication area. Um and I did
note that uh there's currently um some invasive vegetation growing uh very close to where that replication area is proposed. Um there's some frag mighties in the stream and the banks um have quite a bit of bittersweet and multifloor rose. I didn't know if the
commission might want to um discuss the possibility of a construction phase invasive species management plan. Uh I know invasive species management is a requirement of the uh order of conditions for the replication
monitoring. Um but uh it may be worth u discussing something relative to construction phase. Yeah. Um I did also notice that uh there's some uh new work proposed at the end of the driveway
along um Winter Street. Um which some of that falls with within the buffer zone, the existing buffer zone shown. There's also a wetland across the street that wasn't uh apparently delineated previously uh because there was no work
proposed out the end of the driveway. Uh it looks like that wetland would cast an additional buffer zone onto the end of the driveway. Um so I think that there would be some additional buffer zone work at the end of the driveway that is not indicated on the current planes.
Okay. Also, I think one of the other uh bigger items um I think uh the confirmation of the actually the uh exact dimensions of the approved
uh cover bottom cover. Um I I think the current the submitted plans here had a uh detail with a 16 foot wide coverver um and with a note to refer to the u plans by others for for additional
details. I looked at the uh approved uh plan under the order of conditions and it was unclear to me um what the actual size of the approved culvert was because there were three different reference references on that plan to a
12T 14T and a 16T culver. Um, so I would probably want that to be clarified um to make sure that the proper size is used and it meets the the stream water or the stream crossing standards. Other than that, uh, I don't think there
were any other major issues. I think those were the the biggest things that maybe to mention at this point. Okay. Thank you, John. Um Joel, uh m Mr. Marodon, the work at the
end of the driveway, can you talk about that for a minute? Sure. We had hoped, um well, let me back up a second. The existing number 109 that just left the screen had a driveway um that was lost to the construction of a replacement
septic system for 109. system had failed. The driveway went straight out. That is all that is a very difficult spot to access Winter Street. Uh right there at the base of Snake Hill. Um there are a couple of blind spots as you come down that hill from the or from the
south on this plan. So what we had proposed was utilizing that existing paved driveway um bringing um whatever traffic through that and setting up a common drive for zero and 109. The
feedback we got from planning board was take this to the fire chief and make sure that access can be achieved for all his vehicles. So, we had to augment the existing pavement along uh the sidelines of that driveway with new pavement to
keep the uh chiefly the ladder truck on the uh pave surface. Uh they also wanted us to maintain the regulation that has a maximum of five% grade for the first 75 for the first 40t, excuse me, from
Winter Street from the existing edge. So, the change in grade and the additional pavement to satisfy the fire chief results in those cross-hatched areas, those slight ears, uh, with the dots along either side of the driveway.
And that work is in the buffer zone to flags NESB through E just off site on the land of FIPS. Okay. So, it's to satisfy the requirements of the um planning board in order to to uh
gain approval for that special permit for the common drive. Okay, I think that makes sense. Um I guess the question is, do you have any issue with the wetlands across the street um getting that accounted for? We can. I
didn't realize that it it curled up. I thought it went straight across right towards Whiteall, but we'll double check that. Okay. You're the chair. Yes, Judy. I'm not sure now looking at this plan if I'm seeing a PIV um which might be good to have around the house and potentially
the replication area. Yeah, that's a good catch. I think we would I think we would. Um All right. I think that's enough for me. Does anyone else on the commission want to share any thoughts from what they see? So far,
this is Ed. I just have a question. Yeah. Um to the east and maybe north, not on this property, either in the town forest or perhaps on Ross Fipps's
property, is a pond. And I'm curious, does the stream from that pond go through this property or does it stay entirely on Russ's property? entirely on Russ's property. So it's northerly of the flag you see
bank. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone from the audience? And if I can make one more comment. Somewhere to the the north and east in that same corner are the remnants of old
growth forest in Hopkinson. Two trees their circumference is in the vicinity of 11 ft. They are unfortunately both dead but they're there. Good fact. I like that. All right. Well, with that being said,
we'll give um everybody a chance to review Joe's comments and um I'll ask if we can get a continuation for this to the next hearing. Is that enough time for you to um
review the comments, Mr. Mark? It's fine with us. You're up. You want to continue it out one meeting? Yes. I think we can well I'm hopeful we can handle uh Luca's comments between now and then. But
can I get a motion? I'll make a motion to continue this hearing till our next meeting. Second. All right. All in favor? Ed. I. Jim.
I. Janine. I. Ted. Ted is an I. man. I and I am also an I. All right, you're all set for now. Um, we're going to move on to 27 Jamie Lane and we'll hand it over to you, Ted.
I got you. The Hopkins and Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 1st, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed
by Daniel Delvono to construct an addition portico and walkway with associated site work. Location 27 Jamie Lane, Assessor's Map, R15, Block 83, lot
zero. All right. Do we have anyone on the uh call here to present? That would be me again. All right. Go for it. Okay. This was uh you may
recall back in November um a COC was issued for this location 27 Jamie Lane uh file number 188636. Um Daniel has purchased the home in
November and has been uh planning changes um to the home. the um it was originally in the Hopkins Springs subdivision. Oh, built circa 1993 on a 42,000 square foot uh lot. Uh what um
and it's a residential use uh lawn, driveway, some plantings, um that sort of thing. Um what um Daniel would like to do is to make some upgrades to the home, some internal and some require uh
additional site work. Um when he reached out to us, we called Scottheim at Northeast Ecological and asked him to uh re-review the site. Um, we had closed out the 93 order but
needed something 2025. Scott delineated uh the BVWC down in the the bottom of this plan uh along the the southerntherly side. He also identified a stream channel offsite to the south that after stream stat analysis proved
to be a perennial stream. So we have the buffer zones from the BVW 50 and 100 and then the 100 and 200 from that perennial stream that crisscross the site. Um we
have about 33,625 square ft of riverfront area on the site. The changes associated with this plan are the family room addition along the southerntherly side of the home, the 20x 24, the entry portico on facing
Jamie Lane that replaces the crumbling concrete stairs, and then a reconfiguration of that brick walkway to meet that new front entry, that portico. Those are the changes that we have
proposed and they come out to oh 3308 square ft or 10% of the riverfront area on the site. Um of that only 612 is the additions um the rest are I guess in
essence temporary. We will create an access road over the lawn. Um, we have highlighted on that plan a couple of uh stockpile locations and uh an anti-tracking pad at um at Jamie Lane
to knock off the soil and keep it out of um the roadway. Um the idea is to to stockpile the loom that's out there, stockpile the shrubs, get them alive and then u replace them, put them back in kind after um the site work is done on
on the site after the the construction is done. um areas around the site were reviewed for potential locations for the for the work, but um given the driveway and the fact that it means wholesale changes to the home, given the zoning
offsets, uh the offset to the existing septic system in the front yard, the only spot that makes sense is here on the southerntherly side of the existing home in order to place that that family room. Um once we're complete, once we're
stabilized and reveated, I think all the things that uh were positives here, the the heavy vegetative cover, um the plantings, the all the the um the gradual slopes, I think all that stuff
comes back into play and um this turns out to be a project with very little impact um to the the buffer zone and to the the uh offsets to the stream channel. Okay. And uh we did before I forget because we
we forgot to touch on it with the last one. Uh the commission asked us to place three PIBs uh to close out that OC from November and we've also shown a couple more on the plan here to add to those three. So we will have a few more PIBs
at the edge of uh the site at the tree line. Okay. Thank you. Um Judy, do you have anything to add here? Uh through the chair. Uh we don't have a D number for this one yet. So um would
not recommend closing the hearing tonight. Um other than that, I don't have any comments personally. Um and we do have several from uh Joe. Okay. Uh Joe, do you want to run through your comments?
Sure. Um I was out uh at the site on the 17th. Um reviewed the delineations, had no no issues with the delineation and also concur that the stream is perennial
based on stream stats. Um I did note that uh there is a very very large pile of grass clippings um and yard waste located upgradient um in the general area of weapon flag 4. Um and that's approximately within
approximately 20 25 20 to 25 ft of the wild edge. Um it's it's an enormous pile. Um it must be coming from several properties. I don't I don't know. It would seem like it had to be based on the size. Um, and it looks, you know,
it's feet deep, several feet deep. Um, so that's something the commission may want to discuss. Um, also noted the uh the front portico area. Some excavation work have been done on that um already,
but there's no issue for any kind of potential erosion. It's a it's an excavated hole. There's no stock pile, so nothing can escape from the uh the hole. Um there's also
fair amount of invasive vegetation uh present along the tree line. Um more maple, honeysuckle, and bittersweet and burning bush. That may be something the commission may want to discuss as far as
potential mitigation for fun area. Based on on what was submitted, it wasn't real clear how much of the um site is currently considered uh degraded. Um we recommend, you know, just maybe a table showing existing,
degraded, proposed, degraded, existing, developed, proposed developed. Um and just to be sure that those numbers um are in keeping with the riverfront requirements. Um, also, um, would request that the
applicant provide a narrative, um, kind of a point by point, um, how the, uh, proposal meets the performance standards for redevelopment in the river area. That's something we we typically ask for work in the river area. Um, as was
noted, there was a comment on the PIBs. I think those two dark uh marks are probably PIBs, but I didn't see any u legend indicating that. Um so uh just recommended PIBs be shown in the plan.
The riverfront areas are labeled as um bank offsets instead of riverfront area. They recommended those uh be labeled riverfront area um because they are resource areas uh and didn't have any issues with the
uh erosion control erosion control that those are all um good comments. Thank you Joe through the chair. Yes. Um I think according to Joe's pictures
too, the um rear existing porch is no longer on site. So I don't know. Um I did speak with the applicant and it sounds like there is a plan to replace that either in kind or slightly smaller. So I don't know if the applicant wants to touch base on that as well. Okay.
Um, yeah. I think at this point in time, does the applicant have any or you, Joe Maron, have any response on those items? Particularly the porch, I think, and the
um the dumping of the yard waste. Yeah. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I I appreciate you hearing me tonight. Um yeah, the the porch when we had the uh home inspection done, uh the porch had rotted. They had put it in afterwards.
Uh and the roof they kind of it was a threeseasons porch that had mold um in the roof. So the plan on the porch was obviously to remove it before everything spread. Um and then to Anna's point, um you know, just replace the existing
porch, but probably a uh smaller footprint. I believe the porch was uh 12 ft wide by 15 ft deep. Um the plan was to kind of keep that same 12t width. Um but the depth would probably get scaled back a little bit. Um so they had
removed that just to get rid of the rotting and then the uh the molds at the top as well. Um, with regard to the clippings, um, as I believe Joe had mentioned, uh, obviously we we just purchased the house not too long ago.
Um, we I think we've had it mowed three times. Um, so my my guess is it's probably from multiple properties, so I have no problem um, removing the clippings from that one point, as well as I believe Joe also noted there was a couple other clippings. um I have no
point removing those and I can reach out to um the abuing homeowners just to make sure that uh future clippings aren't uh aren't placed in that section. So, okay. Um yeah. And then the last uh the last point I think Joe made the
um uh the proposed portico I think uh Mr. Marquat said that the existing it was steps in a uh steps in a porch there. It was 6x6 and it was uh all cracked and pulled away from the house.
So, uh my contractor had removed it um with the assumption that because it was past the 100t barrier, there was no issue there. Um he has since kind of held off uh because I was not aware of the 200t barrier. That's uh that would be my fault for telling him to go ahead
and and remove the broken steps if we got to replace as is. It is what it is. So, okay. Well, that makes sense. Yeah. And I also have no problem uh uh with the invasive species. I would I would just ask that um a member of the
commission just kind of let me know which one shouldn't be there and I have no problem removing them. So I'm far far from a uh botonist when it comes to the plants. Okay. Yeah, I'm sure um Judy and Anna can can help with that as well as as Joe. Um I
think it probably makes sense. Judy, chime in if you think otherwise to um identify on the plan that that porch is being replaced so that it just gets captured in this approval. Um and then you're all set and don't have to worry
about it ever coming up later. Um do you have a couple pictures, Judy, just of the area where the addition is going just so we can see the existing conditions? Yep. So, it's the side of the house
here. I'll scroll around. These are Joe's pictures. So, I believe coming off here. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Existing disturbed lawn area. All right. I'm I'm going to open it up to other commission members. See if
anyone has any questions or thoughts. and we will continue obviously because the DP number and to address those comments in Joe's letter, but if anyone has any thoughts, speak up. Melissa, I have one and I think it's pretty small
and probably inconsequential, but I thought I'd raise it. Yeah. Um, if we can see the plan again, I'm just wondering about the oval stockpile location. Um, it's probably fine, but I'd love to hear Joe or anyone else's
thoughts. It seems to me you could not find a spot closer to the resource areas to put a stockpile and might there be a better place for that one through the chair. The issue was the excavation through there. That material
I assume would be used for back fill. So once the the foundation was cured that would be used right back around from that same general location. So in my mind it made sense rather than out by the street away from the work area.
And so if I may Melissa, so it probably won't sit there for very long either, I imagine. No. And it's this is the underlying soil all sands and gravels. So it makes perfect backfill material. Okay, I'm okay with that then. Okay.
Anyone else? Anyone from the audience? No. All right. With that being said, I'll um ask if we can get a motion to continue this to the next hearing.
I'll make that motion. I'll second. All right. All in favor? Ed. Jim I Janine I Ted Ted is an I. Matt I and I
am also an I. All right. Great. Well, thank you. Yep. Thanks. All right. Number three for our new hearings 38 Downey Streets. Go for it, Ted. Great. Uh, the Hopkinson Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 1st, 2025 at 7 PM virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Alex Nem to replace a dock with
associated site work. Location 38 Downey Street, assessor's map, L37, block 10, lot zero. All right. Do we have someone to present on this from the audience? Yes. Hi. Good evening, Madam Chair. Um, my name is
Matt Marorrow. Uh, I'm here representing Alex Nem who is also present. Um, it's been quite a number of years now since I've appeared in front of you guys. Um, so just to give you a reintroduction, my
name is Matt Marorrow. I am a professional wetland scientist, a professional wastewater treatment plant operator and a certified storm water inspector. I have been a consultant for the past 27 years now. Um, some of that was part-time because I was also an
agent for over 30 years. Um, now it's reversed. I am retired doing some part-time agents work here and there and a full-time consultant. So that's the believe it or not the readers digest version on me. So what
we're here for tonight this actually isn't it's it's a little bit of an unusual circumstance which is why the NOI was filed the way it was filed. So, what we have is the applicant was
simply wanted to come in for a replacement of what was a permanent dock that was removed with a temporary dock that would be on posts. So, essentially, he would just place it in the water at the edge of the shoreline. It wouldn't be pinned. It wouldn't alter any shoreline. There wouldn't be any post
that would be required for it. and he that way he would be able to just pull it out um during you know if there was going to be a highintensity storm like a hurricane or after the season in winter time to pull it completely out of the water. So it was as temporary as
temporary could be it is in 64 square ft in total dimension. Um, however, when I researched the history of the file, which was kind of like there was a lot of information that was light and a lot
of information that was kind of conflicting. What I found was you can see there's there's what was a BVW I had put on the plans which was based originally on a plan that was filed years prior by the
former owner. Um, a couple of years ago, my clients bought this property. It was contingent upon the issuance of a certificate of compliance from the conservation commission. And enclosed in the notice of intent was a
copy of the certificate that the commission issued back then um along with a report from Joe Orzel um who is also obviously present tonight. And what I found was apparently
Paulie, the prior owner of the property, um, essentially just cut the wetland out, didn't fill anything, cut everything out, and just planted lawn where there was some, as as Joe, I think, aptly put it, fringe wetland
coming off the basically the the the top of bank. Um, and replaced it with line. and it was noted in his report and somehow I I'm not sure what got lost in translation somewhere but the commission
issued the certificate despite that being shown in the report. My clients had no knowledge that there was a a wetland on the property or a BVW on the property uh and one that was altered. So this is now turned into how do we handle
this? So, I'm looking at this. Obviously, my client wants to dock. Obviously, there was a wetland that was altered by the prior owner. The real I don't know glitch here is that there was a certificate of compliance issued despite the alteration. So, what my
client is offering is I drew in two rectangular areas which I just wanted to give the commission a general idea of where it would go. um I can scale in something a little bit different and flesh out more of a narrative
um on the you know the plantings the plant numbers etc. So what we're proposing is to basically replant that wetland in those places which would be the larger box would be
approximately 18 by 20 which would be about 360 square ft. Um the smaller area to the I guess you could say the west of the of orienting to the west would be 10 by 20 for 200 with a total of 560 square
ft. Um my rough measurements based on what was there would indicate that would be about a one one which would be now a restoration of area that was there. Um the area that you see
right by the water line which has a like a very large circle with hash marks is actually a large boulder that is in the ground there that's been you know that's a geological feature. Yes. Um I don't know who's doing that but thank you for circling it with your cursor.
Um the edge of water is actually the edge of flood plane as well. I noted it in my notice of intent that the flood plane was limited to the internal watermark of the lake. So what you see is is edge of high water. Um which I had
survey located in the elevation shot. Um that is the edge of 100year flood plane. There's really no work proposed in flood plane at all. I mean there would be a dock placed in the water like you know a lot of people do on the lake but considering it would be removed during
any flooding events it's not really any impedance on that. Um the chapter 91 waterways license will be applied for and Joe had asked for a copy to go to the commission you know obviously more than happy to do
that. We started the process, but when I discovered the glitch in the history of this property, I wanted to, you know, we kind of put a stop on the chapter 91 until we got this item cleared up. I mean, with that,
um, there's not much more I can really say. I can address the commission's questions, Joe's comments, smoke signals, Morse code, whatever you guys need to do. Um, I'll be more than happy to work with it. All right. No, thank you for that. Thank you for that
presentation. Um, yeah, the doc looks pretty straightforward to me and thank you for coming to us with the glitch and identifying that um, and proposing some mitigation. This is exactly what we're
looking for people to do along the lake. Um, so we encourage that um, and want to work with you there. Um, I guess I'll turn it over to Joe for a minute and see what he has for
comments or thoughts that he wants to add. Sure. Um, just a few comments. Um, uh, the the stone wall as was mentioned um is the uh the bank at the site. I would recommend that be labeled as bank
on a plan because it is a resource area. Um as was discussed there is uh there was previously a delineated wetland along the the upgrading of the bank. Uh the previous delineation if you kind of scale that off that shows it between you
know a couple feet maybe four to five feet from the uh wall. Um that was I know that delineation was done about 15 years ago. I did look at soil out there vegetation is is mode grass very low
mode. Um what I could identify was a mix of hydric and non-hive species close to the wall. Uh hydric soil extended generally from a couple of feet to as much as maybe 10 ft from the wall. I don't know if the commission um would
want the uh a new delineation on the site. Um that's something to maybe consider. Um uh just knowing that the previous existing permanent dock has been removed. U
Matt mentioned the uh uh flood zone at the lake and we typically even though it's a zone A without elevation we typically request that uh it be uh scaled onto the plan from the flood map.
I know that the tank at this location is confined within the lake. It doesn't extend up above the bank. Just based on looking at some of the aerial images, the plan does not show uh 100 foot buffer zone or any other offsets from
the top of bank. Northern no waiver request was submitted. Uh work is occurring apparently uh on the bank and uh possibly in land underwater. Um, so a big waiver request should probably be
submitted for that. Also, I didn't see that bylaw checklists um, which is required under the the bylaw regulations. That should be submitted. Maybe it was and just didn't get in the file.
The man had mentioned he could provide a more detailed planting plan which I had recommended. Chapter 91 license that was mentioned. Uh kind of a a minor item that the Northwind 10 form that was submitted was
the old 19 2020 form and D does recommend that the most current forms is used for filings. Did also note no control barrier is proposed which probably is not necessary as based on what was described. no
excavation um is proposed, but if uh anything had the potential of uh you know mucking up the soil uh or causing some disturbed soil area, I would recommend a lot of be placed along the top of the bank.
I think that covers my comments. Okay. Thanks, Joe. So, Madam Chair, if I could just go over those comments if that's okay. Sure. Okay. So, first of all, forgive me if I keep doing this with my glasses. I'm at that point in my life where I can see
fine with the computer screen, but I can't see anything else without my glasses on. So, Gotcha. Um, okay. So, going over the um the the BVW delineation. Yeah, I did see spots of hydra soil out there, too. What I'm
finding is that the soils actually look like they were turned around and turned over and whatever uh I believe it was Paulie Xi was the prior owner. Whatever she did on that to till it and turn it to grass kind of beat those soils up. Um
as far as actually red delineating the wetland, I I'm just not seeing the point doing that because we're taking the wetland and basically a wetland that was basically eliminated and you know passed over. um for whatever reason we're taking that we we're we're proposing
restoration in the areas that we have um doing any extra delineation work really would be it it wouldn't yield any benefit at this point um the zone A point taken the uh person I had doing this plan who actually I'd
have to have somebody I have another engineer lined up if I have to make changes because this particular gentleman had a severe injury and is no longer able to practice this um he actually was supposed to write edge of water and edge of flood plane just that
got left off. Um the buffer zones uh we didn't think the 100 foot buffer zone is essentially well around the top of the dwelling. Um we're working basically right at the W's edge. We didn't see a benefit to putting the buffer zone on there. it can be added if
it's really the commission really has um a desire to have that done. Um a waiver request form was submitted. It was submitted under a separate cover. So maybe Joe didn't see it. Um the bylaw checklist was also submitted. That was
submitted under separate cover. So that's probably why you didn't catch it, Joe. No big deal. Um the planting plan, I agree 100%. I mean, if we can settle on these numbers, I can do a planting plan with a landscape calculation that
would be based on those square footages and give the commission something a little bit more detailed that my client um is willing to do and you know is actually um actually had something like that in mind to begin with. So, this actually
fit in with some of his future planning. Um the chapter 91 waterways license. Yeah, that we'll be more than happy to submit a copy. Um, as far as impact on bank, land underwater, etc. We're basically
just taking the dock and it's a temporary dock. We're placing it in. There's no real impact other than the placement. It can be removed any day, anytime, any point in time. It just lifts right out. It's not anything that's permanently installed, pinned to anything, requires any post and barrier.
um adding the um the top of bank to the boulders. Um I'll be you know that we can have done as well. Um I suppose that's basically it. Um again, thank you for affording me the
opportunity and be more than happy to take it from here with you guys. Okay. All right. So, I think the the biggest item there um is the wetland line and what what the commission
thinks about that. Um, I think either any approval that we issue, if we do not redo the wetland line, since this one is old, I believe you said quite a few years old, um,
we would have to approve without approving the wetland line on the plan. Um, if I could interject on the wetland line portion of it, Madam Chair. Sure. The the the restored wetland area would wind up being the wetland line. So, the
restoration area is basically a wetland restoration, which is what we're proposing on this site. Two areas here, one area here, one area here would be 540 ft, which essentially would replace this linear finger that was wiped out. Okay.
Okay. So that'll be yeah that'll definitely be important to see obviously in the detailed planting plan um that'll come to light I suppose um with the types of plants that you're
planting and establishing that that line um Joe do you have any any thoughts on that creating the wetland line with a new planting area. Yeah. Um seeing as it's how how it's as it's
restoring a u a lawn area. Um you know, as long as it's not, you know, u one line of plants along the along the bank, I I don't know that I would necessarily
um be comfortable defining it as the edge of edge of wetland um after it's blank but um it's probably going to be pretty close. Okay. Okay. Through the chair, can I follow up on that? Yeah, go for it. Ted, um Mr.
Marorrow, I I love your openness and and in talking about what happened with lawn going up to the lakefront. I'm curious um since it doesn't seem like we're closing this tonight anyway. Did you say what the date of approval on that COC was? Actually, it's in the notice of
intent and I believe that's what's on screen. Um hold on one second. Let me look through my copy of the NOI. I don't know if you guys have any copies of this. I don't have one right in front of me. Let me see if I can find mine. I'd be interested in going back to that
meeting and and if Joe was here that means I was definitely on the commission and I'd be interested going back and listening. Yes. Um 2010. What was the date when the order was issued? 2010. Order was issued on 2010, but the NOI has a certificate of
compliance in it. Hold on one sec. Just bear with me. You're saying the COC was 2010? No, the order was issued in 2010. Okay. I'm curious when the COC was issued when that discussion was 2022.
Yep. 2020. Do you have a day and date? July 29th, 2022. July 29, 2022. Cool. I'm going to go back and look. Um, but about those plantings, um, it seems
to me that you're offering a lot of area and that's great. I wonder, although with the hydraulic soils that Joe is pointing to, maybe that messes things up. I wonder if the planting bed could kind of follow the shoreline and not just be two kind of squares that leave a
a chance for the lawn to to kind of creep to the lakefront in other ways. Maybe the same amount of area of planting but just spread differently from from edge of the property, edge of the property along
the shoreline. Yeah. So, the boxes that I drew in as as I had mentioned to staff, which by the way, thank you both of you, Judy and um Anna, for all of your help. You guys been really awesome to deal with. Um I
drew I'm sorry, what? I said we think so, too. They're awesome to deal with. I'm glad. Well, good. We're all in agreement. Um, I drew the boxes and basically like to start a discussion. This is a situation that I've never been
faced with before where I mean I'm looking at Joe's report from 2022 and he cites that there were trees that were cut down in the 50oot zone. Uh, the OC was based on a, you know, he referred to the plan review. Um, he said it was
mowed lawn all the way down to the stone bank of the pond. um states that the BVW was vegetated with red maple and high bush blueberry um and that it's basically lawn now and it was gone. And that was in his report
and it's in my NOI. Um his report was dated June 27th, 2022. And you guys issued the COC in um believe you guys just had a date, but I have it here July 29th, 2022. So, I
don't know what happened. I'm not doubting you. I'm just curious. I want I'm interested for my own curiosity to go back. No. So, I mean, I'll go back with my client and talk to him because I'm going to have to have the plans fleshed out a little bit. Um, I just wanted to make sure we had a, you know,
a frank discussion on what happened here and that my client's willing to do wetland restoration work. Um he just wanted to you know he wanted to have the discussion be a little bit productive because you know where he wants to put his dock
if there's wetlands that we scatter there it probably would be a herbaceous wetland like mix close to the bank so you could get to the dock or should he basically come back a little bit more here and you know back on the on the westerly side where the small box is
maybe go back a little bit more and leave an open path to the dock. Um there are areas that he's going to want around the dock probably not have like vegetation that would grow too tall because his family swims in the lake. So he'd like some visibility for his
children. So we're looking to put back the the square footage in an area would do them, you know, the most good on the the two different sides of the lot um in a similar square footage than what had been wiped out. Okay. All right. Uh, so yeah, I understand
watching out for the kids. That makes a lot of sense. Um, I just wonder if Yeah, the next plan we see if it could be a little more follow the the shoreline rather than estimated boxes. Yeah. No, I I'll get you something a little bit more specifically drawn in
with the fleshed out narrative. Again, I just wanted because the situation was was kind of not straightforward. Um I just I wanted to make sure that you know the the produ discussion was productive. Thank you. And Melissa, if I
may, one other point. Sure. Yep. Um as long as we're going to include the 100 foot buffer line, which I agree might be well, it doesn't too much matter to us right now. It's way up there by the house. Um, but as long as we're including it, I think a 50-foot line
would also be helpful in case there's a future application. We tend to get um, in my mind far too many patios and fire pits and stuff that move closer and closer to the lake. And if we could put in the records memorialize where that 50
foot line is, um, I think that might be good to have for the future as long as we're doing the hundred anyway. Yeah. Okay. um through the chair. Um I noticed that there was a on one of the pictures there was a drainage pipe. Do we know anything
about that and where it's what where it's coming from? I know we've seen a lot of those on down your street. So, hi. I'm the homeowner. Al, I can actually address some of this stuff if you would like. Sure, that'd be great. Thanks. Hi, thanks for hearing me. Um,
so if you that's So this drainage pipe I am not sure is in operation anymore. Um, this is coming from the north side of the house on the left side of the drawing and I haven't had a chance to track it down yet. There is a drainage pipe on the south
side of the property that our sump pump drains into. Um so in the drawing it's on the right side next to the larger planting box and it runs adjacent to the neighboring property. Um so kind of on that that area of
planting the larger box uh directly to the right of it is where that sump pump drainage pipe exits. It's probably like 20 feet from the water's edge. And so that is kind of creating an area
of almost kind of like constantly wet soil along that side, which is why Matt has that larger box there. Um, so to address one of the questions about having the plantings go to the shoreline,
um, that will be a yes for each of these boxes of plantings. Um, and there is room to expand either one. Um, so some of the plans here that match her up were just kind of based
on some guesstimations of of what were there. Um, but again, it's it's very happy to kind of uh reestablish a lot of native plants in either area. And on that larger box that's closer to the southern edge, that would actually
extend over to the neighboring property. And there's a narrow strip there where that drainage pipe would exit, which would kind of go almost directly up to where that pipe is exiting. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Oh,
good. You're welcome. Thanks. Um, all right. Did anyone else on the commission have questions or thoughts on this? Anyone from the audience? All right, Mr. Maro, do you have enough
to go on? Did you get enough feedback? Yeah, absolutely. This is very productive. This is exactly what I was hoping for. And please feel free to call me Matt. Okay. Excellent. All right, then we'll go
ahead and um continue this. When's your next meeting? Um July 22nd. Is that enough time for you? Yes. Okay. Can I get a motion to continue this to the 22nd? I'll make that motion. I make
that motion. Oh, come on, Ted. Give me a chance. You can make that motion. I will second it. All right. All in favor? Ed, hi Jim.
I Janine. I Ted. Ted is an I. Matt. Hi. And I'm also an I. All right. Well, uh, we'll see you at the next one then. Matt. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time. Thank you,
Ed. I just want to let you know I'm happy to have anyone make the motion. I just get frustrated when we sit here in silence waiting for it. But but if you're going to jump in, I will leave the door open to you every time. Thank you, Ted. You're welcome.
All right. Next up, under continued hearings, we have 30 West Main Street, Zelm Street, 0 West Main Street, continuation for the single family house. Good evening. Hi. Um,
for the record, Sam Alfronti, registered engineer in the Commonwealth. Um, I'm here with solely engineering offices at 11 Vanderbilt Avenue in Norwood, Mass. Um, Judy, if I could share my screen, if that's all right with you, chair.
Yeah, that's fine. All right, should be good to go. Okay, let me know um when my screen is visible. I got it. Okay. So, since the last time we were beu I was before you, um we've made a few uh relatively minor
revisions um that addressed um Lucas Environmental's second comment letter which um one of them I wanted to address here was the um showing a construction entrance for the construction and that will be
maintained until the installation of the Geoscale driveway. Um we did a provide a detail as well of that which is just a standard um standard detail. Um and then the the other changes or or revisions
that have taken place um were largely on the mitigation plan that we discussed la last meeting. Um we heard the the commission's um request that we thought that the trees the planting of the trees was largely um too dense. Um, and we I
took that back to our landscape architects and we did reduce the tree count to um I I will zoom in so we can all see it, but I I reduced the tree count to 48 trees. I believe previously we had 60
61 I want to say off the top of my head. Um, and we had 20 shrubs planted. So, we've reduced the tree count to 48. it still satisfies the 2 to1 mitigation rate for um the larger large trees that we've uh we're identifying and then we
are proposing 60 shrubs um kind of in staggering between trees it provides much more growth opportunity. I did also um I heard one commissioner comment last meeting that um it was interesting to to
have additional plantings. Um, previously we didn't really have any to the plan left um of the lawn area and and in the resource area that is um jurisdictional. So, which is the riverfront area. So, we did revise that
to to address um the locations. We added and relocated some of the trees. It looks like we have three, six, maybe nine trees in the riverfront area now. Um as well as some shrubs throughout. Um, so that was the main revision. Um, we
did add a tree and shrub maintenance program onto our plan that was requested as well. Um, this was submitted on June 20th, I believe. Um, we haven't heard any comments back. Um, but I'd be happy to
um discuss with the commission as well as we did um per the commission's request, we did submit a driveway interpretation classification letter. Um, I was trying to be as formal as possible with that letter and and
provide a regulatory summary as well as um provide some administrative and peerreview confirmation relevancy in that letter. Um I I did think that that was relevant to have in the letter. Um just so it's on the record. Um and I did pro provide
or try to um verbalize what I was discussing at the last meeting regarding um that crossing or area of concern. I shouldn't call it a crossing. Um but yeah, like I said, I'd be happy to discuss further if there's comments,
questions. Um yeah. Okay. Um Judy in this revised application did you have anything to add to what was just presented
uh through the chair? No, I don't believe I had anything to add. Okay. Um driveway letter is in the public folder. And one additional thing that I forgot if I may. Sure. Yep. Um I I did also re
label the stone walls. Um I know on this plan they are difficult to see because they're underneath the property lines, but they are labeled on I believe all plans um protect and maintain existing rock walls um along property line to remain as PIB. Um I know that was
requested through through staff. So Okay. Thank you. Y Joe, did you have anything else to add um on this? No, I I did you the most recent responses and most recent
information and I think all of our comments have been adequately addressed. Okay, thank you. All right. So, it sounds like everything has been provided, comments,
um, addressed as requested. Um, one of the things I had in addition to that, well, we talked about at the last meeting, um, there was a D comment about it as well. Um, as far as this entire property is concerned and the the
parcels that go all the way back to Elm Street, um, Judy, I don't know if you can. Yeah. Or Sam, thank you. Um, so the entirety of this property, it's obviously a very big piece of property.
Um, and if we're talking about this, you know, development on this one upland area, is there a restriction or would you be amendable to a condition or restriction um around, you know, any other
development that might come from potentially Elm Street or subdividing? Who knows what happens in the future? Um, could we do something? Would you be amendable to know further encroachment on the riverfront area um given you know
the for mitigation basically for what we would be allowing for this house property? Yeah, I I did see um that comment from from the D. I think it was in the it was the initial comment when they the file
number was issued. Um, truthfully for for a single family house, I've never seen um a common or or restriction been uh been placed or proposed. I know conservation restrictions are a very lengthy process and have to get approved
as well. Um, so I'm not sure this would necessarily meet that restriction or that requirement. Um, but I I the applicant um has been open. We've had conversations actually this I I suppose it was last week um regarding
potentially doing an ANR um and donating some land to the town that can be uh I would assume under the control of the conservation commission. I'm not sure how Hington um does stuff like that, but there's obviously a large area
that's um resource area. We just have to make sure the property lines associated with that provide the frontage. um to make it a a conforming lot. Um so I would have to look into that a little bit further, but the applicant is willing to do that. Um
I'm not sure how from a condition of approval standpoint how how that would be worded. Um but we we can certainly the applicant is is willing to um donate some some land to the town um or deed it to the town and and
basically restrict the the development further. Okay. Yeah. Um I'm not sure exactly on the best way to do that either. I'm not sure if anyone else on the commission has
thoughts on that, but that I think would go a long way um to making this a palatable project to approve um given, you know, what we're working
with here in the uh riverfront area. Yeah. If if I may, I could I just um I sketched something out just to for I my initial thought when I when the applicant brought this to my attention, I'm drawing in blue, but I can change it
to red. So, it's uh a little I mean, this the only area that is upland, I suppose, remaining on the on the property is um is is this little rectangle here. So, um
I think if if the property lines were kind of realigned and and a new non-buildable parcel, it wouldn't have frontage um was created here. Um I I think that would be something that I think the applicant would be willing to
donate that to the town. Um the remainder of the land would would largely be resource areas and and almost entirely within the riverfront area. Um most of it within within the 100 foot
repairarian buffer um with the exception of of this little area here. So I I I we would definitely be I mean it would take a little bit of um little bit of leg work on our end to go through that process, but the applicant has made
um has voice that she she's willing to do that um for this. Okay. Do you have thoughts on that? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, the D comment read as a restriction on future development within
Riverfront. And my concern is that the box shown on the screen doesn't capture the majority of the riverfront area owned by the applicant. Um, so if that comment was to be followed, I would imagine it would expand quite a bit to
include additional riverfront in common ownership. Uh yeah, if I may, the the um what I was referencing um is is creating this parcel and donating deeding it to the town. Um a condition of approval for restricting riverfront development could
also be um we would be open to that. Um, I I would think that the deeding of the parcel would be something the commission would rather see, but I we can we can certainly be open to either, I I suppose, or both. And through the chair,
I think if the proposal was to pass ownership to the town, I believe the select board would have to be involved and have input into whether they want to accept the land. So, I don't think that's something the commission would be able to approve independently.
Um, so maybe a more fleshed out proposal around that that we can share with other boards might be helpful, right? Yeah, I think I would definitely be in favor of the condition for the
riverfront area as described by D and I would be supportive of, you know, the effort to donate the parcel. In addition, if if the applicant
wanted to um was amendable to that or wanted to go through with that. Yeah, she she's based on what I've my correspondence with her. Um I'm not sure if Yan's on tonight, but um
Oh, she is. I I'm here. Yeah. Do Yan, do you want to speak on um I Sam, I think I am definitely aligning with you. Okay. So yeah, you feel free to represent me and uh I'm willing to do anything that
you you know that's necessary. Yeah. Yeah. So, Madam Chair, I think um going on that I think we'd be open to that condition of approval and and we are likely going to go through the process of donating um at least a portion of the land or trying to donate it to the town.
If there if it's not accepted, then obviously okay, we'll we'll circle back on that. Um, we we're going to go through the process to to get that done. Okay, got it. This is Ed. I wonder if it would be
worth your while to talk to John Gich, who's the town planner. Um, I don't know if you've spoken to him about what you'd like to do. I think he would be a good resource for you. I haven't, but um I'm sure we we will engage with him, especially through the
ANR process if if that's um or if we're going to reconfigure the lot lines, I will engage with him. Thank you. The chair. Yes, Matt. Sam, do you know what the minimum frontage requirements are for a lot in
this zoning district? And I'm kind of putting you on the spot here. Yeah, I have it. Um, so it's 150 ft. Okay. And the frontage on Elm on Elm Street is what? 175. Yep. Okay. So
there's there's not enough frontage to subdivide this property and have two conforming lots. The two adjacent properties are already developed. I think at least from my perspective, I would be most comfortable if we conditioned an approval that prohibited
any future development within the riverfront area. Whether that means some land gets donated or accepted by the town, I don't think that's of any real consequence. Either way, um knowing that there's not a second developable lot here because there's they're not going
to be able to meet zoning. Okay, thanks Matt. Without some substantial efforts of buying another property that's already developed and you know everything that's involved with that. So never say never, but it's it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to to
do anything else out here. Okay. All right. Appreciate that comment. Um, Judy, you want to or uh Sammy, you got the screen, right? Yes, I can. I can stop sharing. Sorry. No, that's fine. I
was just going to say if um does anyone else have any thoughts or comments or do we want to bring the close-up plan again? I think we have all the information right now. I think it is time to vote on this project. Um, I think the applicant has provided
everything and um, what they want to present to us to vote on. So, I guess I'll just open it up if anyone has any other final thoughts, comments, questions. Um, feels like
need more information. Yeah, go ahead, Jim. Um, I I'd rather bring this up when we vote. I'm going to have to abstain as an indirect butter. Um, I've thought long and hard about this, but I've decided that I will
abstain from voting on this. Okay, Melissa, are there any other conditions we want to consider here outside of the no future develop in the roof area? I know they've this plan is in my mind much more appropriate from a landscaping mitigation perspective. So I think
that's that's a great improvement. We haven't really talked about any other sight specific or project specific conditions, right? We haven't Joe, did you have any identified in your in your letter? Give me a minute. Yep.
You're the chair. I could jump in. Um, one suggested by D and that we've used in the past is a minimum percentage of survival on the plantings um, prior to a COC. So, if there's a number that you would suggest for you want to see this
many of the plantings survive and if not be replanted um, we can write that in through the chair. Yeah, Santa. And typically as a part of the survival, how many growing seasons versus just planting them right before the COC and
having them be alive, right? May I suggest a condition then? Sure. I would suggest we have 80% survival through two growing seasons before the issuance of a COC. Okay.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on that? Seems reasonable to me. This is Ed. My question is, has the applicant checked with the fire chief as far as the driveway is concerned?
Through the sheriff, if I may. Yeah. Yep. Yes. So, we have been in correspondence with the fire chief. Um we do have his turning um sweat path analysis for the the I believe it's the ladder truck. Um this this development
is also I I know it's not really um it is in the resource area so or buffer too. Um but it is less than 500 ft in length and that's their requirement for um full turnaround. Um but we we do have the sweep path analysis for them to to
pull in and back down. The radiuses, widths, and um dimensions of the driveway are in conformance with their requirements as well as um the zoning requirements as well. Yeah.
Um that's fine. Um, and go back to Matt's suggestion. See if we can button that one up to I'm good with that condition. Does anyone else have anything on that? The tree
plantings 80% two seasons. All right, we'll go with that. Um, I think the other thing that I just would I don't know that we need a condition for it, but I would just go out of my way of saying that, you know,
this is a really tight site. you know, the um the limit of work, the tree line, you know, we're what's shown on paper here is what you're presenting that you can build within these limits. And we're
expecting that those be kept. We're not expecting that you come back during construction and need to clear more trees because you can't get equipment around the house or, you know, whatever reason you need more clearance. The
house is so close to the tree line. Um, you know, just based on our experience, we see people come back to the commission and say, "Now the trees are too close to our house. We need to cut some down. we're afraid they're going to fall on the house or we're having, you
know, issues with maintenance or equipment. We can't get vehicles around, whatever it is. Um, it's not something that the commission is going to be friendly about if you come back um
and ask for additional areas of disturbance, you know, because that wasn't presented here up front. Um, so I just wanted to bring that up again. I It's not something that we condition, but this is
the plan. I don't think we would do a condition. Um, I don't think there's a reason for it because this is what we're approving. I'm just laying it out there that this is a tight site. This is what we're expecting. Um, and I I really, you
know, would caution that I don't see the commission having much lenience for coming back and expanding any envelope of development. Um, that's
my two cents. Um, did you that the septic was approved as well by health. The septic is not approved yet. We were um with the contentiousness of this application. I was hesitant to submit
and and go through that process. Um but we will likely be submitting soon after an order conditions is issued if if it be okay. Melissa, I assume um one of our standards conditions, and I it's been a
little while since I've read them all, is that projects obtain all necessary local, state, and federal permits. So, we'd be covered on that front, right? If the board of health has changes that would increase or modify
the area of development, then I would expect the applicant would be back in front of us looking for an amended order. That's that's my understanding. That's right, Judy. Yes, that's correct. Condition. And I think that would that would also go if
the fire department had a change as well and didn't agree with the driveway for some reason. All right. If you're ready to entertain a motion, I'll happily make one. Um to the chair, would
we consider bifurcating the vote? We can do that. Okay. Thank you. Um Joe, I can't I can't remember if I went back to you. Did you have anything from your letter with I do not have any uh thing in in my letter
that uh called out any any recommended conditions or conditions that uh we might want to add. Okay. All right. With that being said, Matt, did you want to make a motion? Sure. I'll make a motion. So, we're going to
bifrocate this, right? Can I do both at the same time and we'll vote separately because it's going to be the same motion for both? Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Vote to issue an order of conditions for the project with two special conditions. The first being no future development within
the riverfront area. The second being 80% survival of landscape plantings through two growing seasons prior to the issuance of a COC. and signatures by Judy or Anna. All right. And can I get that motion
under the act or second under the act? Second. All right. All in favor, Ed. I'm thinking. All right. I'll come back to you, Ed. I'm gonna pass over Jim because you're abstaining.
Janine I Ted I Matt I Ediously I All right I'm an I and then can I get a vote under the
bylaw in favor Janine? No. Ted. Very hesitatingly. I
Matt. I Ed. I'm going to go with Janine. No. All right. I I will vote I. So you are That is majority in favor. Thank you very much. Yep. You're
welcome. Judy, will these uh will the order of condition be mailed out or do you want someone to pick it up? Um we will get it written up within 21 days and we can either mail it to you or have you pick it up. So, your preference. Okay. I'll just be in touch with you.
Awesome. Thank you very much. Yep. Thanks for working with us. Bye. All right, let's see. I lost my agenda here. You want mine?
What's up next, Ed? Revity five Parkwood Drive. I took it from you. Yeah, I noticed that's difficult. Thanks, Dad. You know, that's because you're younger than I am. Makes me slow. You always assume I'm younger than I am,
though. Do we have um the applicant on the line? Yes, Madam Chairman. My name is Mark Bodri from Civil Works New England. And welcome. It's good to be back. I was with you uh last month talking about the
uh request for determination um for the um park five parkwood maple project and uh I mentioned to uh Anna this morning that I would review the uh the negative determination conditions in detail. I
have since done that and I find them acceptable. I will confirm that with uh with Revity and and whatnot, but I think it's going to be fine. So, I just wanted to add that the uh the reason we are before the commission tonight is to um
discuss the uh certificate of compliance request that actually is for the original project that you can see on this plan that was for the uh warehouse addition to five Parkwood and the office edition to 68 Elm that were uh known at
the time for as Perkin Elmer. who has since uh become Revity Health Sciences. So, uh can almost use those two terms I think a little bit interchangeably, but um everything has been filed for Revity at this time. Uh
we did submit originally um a certificate of compliance request was submitted to the commission back in 2014 that I recall. And uh Don McAdam, the conservation administrator at the time,
issued a memo just identifying a couple um areas that um he wanted uh you know you know looked into a little bit uh before the commission uh granted the COC. And unfortunately
that uh that kind of fell through the cracks and one of the reasons was is that the uh the memo and everything went to uh it was it was a little complicated and that the formal request for the COC was made by the uh construction manager
at the time utilizing the asill plan and stuff that was prepared by the office, the company I work for at the time. And uh so uh I I think the uh Dawn's letter ended up going to or memo ended up going to
that um construction manager and um I it kind of fell through the cracks. So um we were all a little surprised when it surfaced again um you know a couple months ago when we were going through this process uh for the IDA and whatnot.
And um so anyway, what we uh what was re we we we those those items were looked into addressed uh by um uh you know, Revity and fortunately their um
facilities manager Don um Ron Extramm was uh also you know at the time you know with Perk and Elmer and he's been there a number of years which is great. So there's a lot of continuity here and um in fact I'm dealing with Ron every October for the uh storm water
inspections and everything else. So um that are that are ongoing here. So anyway, the um since that time um the commission actually asked that a new uh request be made, a new form AA be
submitted, which we did uh with a a whole new application and uh I I did end up uh submitting an appendix E uh again that was pointed out in the comments that has since been submitted to you folks. And um we uh we did get some
comments back from Lucas Environmental that we addressed uh in an email form and then formally and we also had some additional comments from Judy um that we we also addressed uh over the last couple weeks. So I
think we're in very good shape at this point. And the um just going over the uh the the issues kind of quickly, there was a some landscape debris that was in the u at the end of Atwood Drive
and um kind of in the in the buffer zone area getting down into towards the wetland and it you know frankly uh you know Ron Extramm Revity didn't even know if it was anything that came off of
Revity's property because there were a lot of different businesses you as you know uh served by that that roadway that private drive but Ron had their landscape contractor go in and clean it out. So that has since been done. Also,
there was um some uh Ron uh originally in his I'm sorry, Don McAdam in his original memo um had u mentioned also an area at the back corner of um uh
I shouldn't say it's the original back corner of the uh 68 Elm parking lot near the double catch basin that a couple trees were planted there and he was thinking that there might have been some grading done in that area. We did look into that and the grading appears to be,
you know, done associated with the with the tree planting back in 2013 or whatever when the site was built. But uh we did also we did notice that there was some landscape debris in that area too that was removed
in uh Ron Extramm facilities has uh told basically directed their landscape contractor to um make sure not to continue that practice. Now, the last thing on Don McAdam's uh memo
was regarding just um you know, making sure that everything got stabilized with good vegetative cover and whatnot on the two infiltration basins. Uh one was on 68 elm, the other one was on five parkwood and over the last 10 years that
have u um that stabilization has certainly occurred. They're very well vegetated. Uh that's actually one of the things I look at every um October when I'm doing my storm water observations to make sure everything is uh nice and clean and stable out there and it's it's
very well maintained actually. So um that was all good. So we think we've addressed everything in Don McAdams original letter uh memo. Um, since that time, um, Lucas Environmental had a a couple comments. One of which
was um an additional uh uh looked like a small debris pile that was to the near the five parkwood basin that was right along the tree line and and it was it's 60 60 ft from the
wetland um area so in the outer buffer zone area but it was quite a small pile but that has since been removed also. And um another thing that um was pointed out was that there and if you zoom in
you can see the shed on the back of the five parkwood building and um it's uh just to plan north of infiltration basin 2. You can see a little shed there. Yep. Right there. So there was that that is
actually the um irrigation uh you know system pump house and um there's also a stone pad that is uh between the shed and the wetland area with the tree line actually you could see going out into
the wetland and the um the basically that stone pad has been there. It was actually there you go. Yeah, it was shown on the uh original uh existing condition survey for the
uh for the Perk and Elmer project. So, it it's been there for, you know, gosh, um, you know, 13 plus years. And Ron remembers it being Ron Extram remembers it being there as long as he's been
there. And he said it's probably he thinks it dates back to the original five parkwood building construction there. And maybe even prior when the 68 building was built. And um just so you know, that manhole that cover you can
see right there is uh that that uh Lucas Environmental did not mention, but um it uh that is an old uh pump chamber that is uh is is no longer utilized. And um it's uh it's a
pre-cast uh pit that a traditional pump chamber that's frankly full of water. Um, but presently there's a well just to the right of that in the photo, a little closer to the wetland. The wellhead you can um uh that's that uh it's just right
behind those ferns. That well head um services the uh you know the the equipment that's in the pump house right now which are basically pressure tanks that are very similar to you might see in a uh in a uh you know basement for
your uh for your water supply system of your house that might that that would be on a well. Uh but there's a couple of them. There's some other you know equipment in there. It's pretty pretty lowkey actually. And that well services the irrigation system for the campus.
And um so that's been there a long time. And Ron was thinking that they might have freshened up that stone a little bit over, you know, the last, you know, decade or whatever, but only to be able to get a truck in there to service the um the well.
And um they've uh I think he said they've had to service that well a couple times over there since he's been there. So um that that stone pad has been there as long as anyone can remember. So I just wanted to uh clarify
that. Um, another thing mentioned in the Lucas report was invasive species and I think they were seen coming up um at the uh I I you know in the areas of the site I
think that were I'm trying to remember the original comment letter but the thinking was is that I think in my response was that you know nobody likes invasive species obviously and perk I'm I must perk them but revity is um more
than happy to work with uh you know Judy staff or whoever and um to uh um you know uh make sure that stuff is eradicated and and doesn't spread. So we're we're happy to work with the uh with with the town on that and um so uh
but yeah, it's uh it's something that they weren't even aware of and I'm certainly not a botist. So, I I know Japanese knotweed and stuff when I see it because I've got it unfortunately in my yard. But the uh otherwise it's Yeah, some of this stuff is a bit of a mystery
to me. My wife just bought two beautiful lrass uh perennials that we did a little research on them and found out they're invasive. So, we returned them to the store. But anyway, it's uh you just never know. But anyway, so we're happy,
like I said, to work with uh work with the town on uh on the invasive species. And um I think that was it. He did he did mention the the end of Atwood again. And um and so I believe that those
comments were addressed. And since the um over the last couple weeks or so, um Judy had mentioned to me the fact that there were five raised garden planters along the edge of pavement in the back
of five parkwood. And um I don't know if you have a photo of that, Judy, but what I did was field locate those and um the uh and and prepared an asbelt uh plan supplementing the original asbuilt that
was done in 2014. Um so that those are on on record. Yep, there we go. And if you look at look at uh Google Maps, Google Earth, you can see them fairly clearly on the property as well. But yep, you can see there about 8 ft off the pavement. And down at
the toe of that slope, that heavy, you know, wooded area is down where the wetland is. And looking at this plane, you can see the building in the background of the photo. That's, I believe, 86 Atwood. That's so the end of Atwood Drive is kind of down in that
vicinity. So, this photo is in the parking lot at in the back of Five Parkwood looking west. So, if uh Judy, if you want to pull up the uh Dasville plan that I prepared, I think that'll show it pretty clearly.
There you go. So, the red lines uh on the plan were from the original as plan and uh by others. Um, and the uh the five uh raised
planters were uh field located by by me personally. And uh I prepared this plan with my stamp on it as you can see showing the 5 10 foot uh 4 in planters that are pretty low in profile as you
can see in the photo. They're only uh I think the edging are like 2 by sixes or something and uh that I recall. So they're in the outer buffer zone. Um and uh and they're they're they're vegetated really. There's no real impervious
associated with them with wood uh low-lying wood um uh you know uh boxes on them. So those are now reflected in the asville condition as well. Okay. All right.
Thank you. So that yeah that is uh I think that's about it and uh we're hoping to get this uh this closed out um tonight ideally because there is some I think I mentioned last time that there there's some kind of find you know transaction real estate transaction
going on here that um this needs to be closed out for um that to be uh be able to um be closed on. So, we appreciate um everyone's attention to this. And as said previously in the meetings, I really want to uh you know, thank Judy
and Anna for their uh you know, working with us on this and uh I think we've it things have gone well and the communication I think has been very good. So, thank you both. Great. All right. Okay. Well, certainly um appreciative of the uh landscape efforts
to pull everything out of the um resource areas and jump on that. Um Joe, did you want to expand or comment on anything in regards to your comment letter and how things were addressed?
Yeah, I think I think u things were pretty pretty well addressed um regarding the stone around the the shed area there. Um, I would agree probably those have been refreshed. That stone's probably been
refreshed fairly recently. It shows up much more clearly on their old photos than it it does on older burial photos. Um I also noted that there's um
in that area u some uh plastic hosing u irrigation type ocean that was dumped close to the edge of the wet uh and um you know that probably should get picked up. I don't know that it's being used
for anything there. That could certainly be cleaned up. Yeah. Other than that, I I think the other comments u have been addressed today. So, we don't have um on either of the
plans, it doesn't show the limits of the gravel area. And is that does that extend into the wetland? It does. Okay. So, is the extent of the gravel
essentially the edge of the tree line? Correct. Madam Chair, if you look at the um the original plan, I think that uh maybe Judy had up. Yeah. If you zoom in on that, you can see the tree line.
There you go. See that? You can see the uh the the manhole is outside the wetland, but you can see the well. Yeah. wellhead is actually just into the wetland. So the wetland um was actually mapped on either side of that of that
stone area and at the time when it was drafted they just connected those two flag numbers. So but yeah the I would say the stone probably follows roughly the um the tree line. Okay.
Needed to get to the uh well head. Okay. All right. Um Melissa. Yes. Ted, could I just get a little bit more clarity on the stone and getting to the wellhead? Um, I did see
in the photos because we can't see the well, those ferns were in front of it. Um, is that because it looks prettier to hide the well? I'm wondering if we can pull some of the stone out of the wetland. Looking at the plan that I see
now, it seems like you could get a truck straight into that wellhead without having stone on the far side of it. Um I I have a picture of the uh the
wellhead that might that's I don't know if you want to uh I could I could try to share screen if you'd like. That's fine Judy if you want to turn it over. And if if it helps me understand why we need that much stone
then I'd appreciate it. Is this it here? No. No. That I think that There you go. Let's see. Hold on a second here. Let me sorry here. Um trying to get out of full
screen mode here. Oh, there we go. That one doesn't show it. I thought it was on this plan. Are you seeing this? No, not yet. Okay. Um
while while um let me see if I can find one more picture here. Okay, let's try this again. Okay, can you see my screen now? Yes. Great. Okay. Again, the the wellhead is located
like kind of behind these ferns. And so we just we see your email. Yeah, we don't see a photo yet. We see your email inbox or outbox. That was weird. We couldn't read your email, but
All right, let's try this again. All right, so again, it's behind the ferns. Yeah, we just see double click to enter full screen. There. Okay. Yep. Now you got it. You got it. Beautiful. All right. Let me now
try one more picture here. Wh There it is. Can you see it now? We see a photo where hoses are coiled right in the center of the photo. Oh,
it said my uh screen sharing was paused for some reason. Well, maybe can you just explain why maintenance to the well needs to go around the back of the well to get to it? Why can't it just go straight over
those ferns? Why can't we pull some of that stone? Probably could out. Still not seeing the whale head, huh? No, we do now. It's got a blue cap on it. Yep. You got it. Yeah. So, you would barely even be able to see it from the
road. There's nothing unsightly to hide. I mean, it's not pretty, but So, if we were able to see the plan, I'm wondering if we can't get a lot of that refreshed stone pulled back. Okay. So,
that there's direct access to the wellhead, but no need to drive behind it. Maybe Judy, if you could put the plan up again and kind of sketch what you think I'm trying to say. Yeah, there you go. Right. So, if you draw a straight line from the shed
through the uh manhole to the well, right? Anything I don't know if that's north or not. Anything on the other side. I don't know why we need that stone. Yeah, that is north. Kind of northwestish. So, yeah. I mean, you
could be um you'd have to get down some stone as you can see the the the tree line going down to the uh east side of the shed down past the manhole and the truck could go straight I mean that
stone pad could be maybe you know uh you know 8 10 feet wide at the most. So I think stone on the uh well the the truck's probably eight. So let's say let's say 10 to 12 at the most. There might be some outriggers, but get I
think we could uh definitely remove some of the stone kind of uh you know uh above that flag 119 for example. And yeah, like Yeah. Yeah. So if you draw a line from 119 to the well, everything to
the north of that, I don't see any reason why that stone needs to be there. And can we pull that out? Yep, we could. I think we could do that. But um I don't know if any other commission members have thoughts. I don't mean to dictate for the whole commission, but Well, the well is the one with a W in it, right?
It's like in the trees. That's correct. Oh, I thought the well was the half black, half No. Okay. Well, in any case, draw a line from 119 to the well. Same thing. Yep. That stone back there isn't. And maybe there's even a little more
stone that's not needed if I'm understanding that. Yeah, I think there was a little stone uh Ted beyond the wellhead even. So, uh that could I think that could definitely be cleaned up and um you know, maybe we could work with uh
Judy to uh to make that happen as a as a condition of the COC. And um I would appreciate that. Again, I don't know if other commission members have thoughts, but yeah, I mean, maybe as part of that, Ted, we could put up a couple PIBs and actually get it on the
plan as you know, the limit of stone so that because I think it it probably just it's probably one of those things where they dump it and it just kind of like creeps out a little bit, creeps out a little bit. It's harder to pull it back. It's eerier to just dump a little more
stone each time. Yep. Stone creep. They call it stone creep. Very appropriate term. Okay. I I I I think uh Ron and Revity
would be fine with that. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this one? No. All right. And Judy, you're good with that
condition and working with them? Yep. Happy to do that. Okay. Awesome. Judy, when we're when we're working on that, maybe we could talk a little bit more about the invasive species. Sure. Yep. That sounds good. Yeah.
All right. Can I get a motion to issue the COC with those conditions? This is that I'm going to beat my alter troublemaking vice chair Ted and make that motion. Will you include signatures in that
motion, Ed? I will do that. Then I will second Ed's motion. All right. All in favor, Ed. Jim, I. Janine I
Ted Ted is an I. Matt I and I am also an I. All right. Thank you very much for working with us on this. Absolutely. Thank you. Much appreciated. And uh you know Revity thanks you as well. So Yep.
All right. We'll be in touch Judy. Thank you. Good night everybody. Good night. All right. Annual commission reappointments for serving on other boards and committees. Um
yeah, so um we have obviously we do this every year. Um and those who are on boards and committees know who you are, but um Anna gave a short list here. So CPC
open space and Zach. Um, so I think that's Ted, Ed, and Jim. How are we feeling about reappointments? Are you up for another term? I'll take another term on Zach unless
somebody wants it desperately. And I'm having too much fun on open space. Good. And then I can't remember what's the new Janine, are you on the newer trails? And what is even the name of it? I am not it
because it does not have a concom uh representative or liaison needed. So I'm not Okay. So no nothing for you. No. Why? Um,
Melissa. Yes. Yes. So, what about what about reappointments to the commission? So, I think mine expires now. So, I believe the select board was doing that tonight during our meeting.
Okay. Okay. We don't Okay, I got it. Okay. All right. Good. Yeah. In that case, I have nothing else to say. I knew you were going to say something. Is this something we need to vote on, Anna?
I don't think so. I think last year you guys just discussed it. And if anybody is opposed or wants it, then, you know, we can have a discussion about, you know, switching it up. But typically, you guys are good with whoever has been serving that wants to continue to serve. All right. That's sounds good to me.
Thank you all for uh your continued service and representation. Yeah, it's good stuff. Yeah, keeps it interesting. Um yeah, any public forum requests? Nope. No.
All right. So then, um I did see your email, Judy. We have the farmers market this Sunday. Right now we have Ed and Jim. I'm gonna see if I can come over a little bit. That'd be great. I'm gonna
come over tomorrow and pick stuff up. Jay, Anna, Yep. Everything's ready for you. Yeah. All right. Pull. Okay. Yeah, we're excited. I'm looking forward to it. We have better than the last one.
It's windy. I hope. Oh, yeah. Well, I hope it's not like like today's temperature. That's for sure. But that's okay. The chair is that I just want to thank the attention that is
being given to the bane of my existence, these various invasive plants. And to who is ever um helping to focus on that, thank you. It's everybody's fine. Yeah.
had a lot of people interested at the last farmers market. Some people were saying they would attend like a talk on local invasives in town, how to manage them, how to identify. So, if that's something of interest, happy to try to put something like that together. Well,
you might break uh viewing records on Ed TV. There has been an ED talk on invasives. Um, no, Judy. It would be a good idea to do something at like the library opened up.
Yeah, they're doing an internal training on aquatic invasives at the library. So, I thought it could be like a cool pilot. See how that goes. Maybe try our own for terrestrial. Yeah, I forgot. So, on that on that note, you
said aquatic and it just made me think um and maybe you guys discussed it at a meeting prior, but how did the presentation go to the Lake Maspan Association group? Oh, it was good. It went really well. It was um big group of
people. Everybody was interested in um you know, the permitting. Had some questions about uh what we can do to stop people from dumping leaves. So, I mean it it went well. It was um people were a couple drinks in at the brewery, so it was Are you being honest? It was
fun. I mean, Ed was there. He can give an honest opinion. Judy did an excellent job. Um, I'm not trying to blow my own horn, but I have, you know, like 40 years of history of dealing in presentations and 20 years
dealing in cryogenics all over the planet to a variety of people. So, I speak with some experience and when I say that Judy did an excellent job, um, I think I bring just a little bit of credibility to that. Thank you. Awesome.
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Judy. Were there any um surprise findings that people talked about being concerned about or wanting or you said dumping leaves in the lake? Yeah, someone asked if there was any like penalties for it or anything we can do. I mean, I wonder
if it was the same people. We got a complaint a couple weeks ago about dumping. So, we were sending letters out about um you know, don't blow your leaves into the lakes. So, you know, I think people might be interested in maybe more like bulletins or, you know, not coming after folks, but like more uh
preemptive, you know, don't do things that are harmful. Yeah. So, we can beef up our outreach. Oh, goodness. Okay. On on a different note, um I'm I'm sure
that people are aware of the work that Kim and Carrie did with the Longwood drainage. And I have I wrote a a very extensive letter to DCR uh back I think in February to which I
have received no response. Carrie Reed got a phone call from someone at DCR, but there's been nothing since then. And then I've done a followup um to those parties and I have had again no response. All right. And that was looking for
funding for the project, right? That was the that was that was that was my emphasis. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Squeaky wheel. Keep being a squeaky wheel. Yeah. I like
to be a squeaky wheel. It's fun. All right. Well, thanks, Ed. Um, all right. Well, if does anyone have anything else? Good. All right. Um, then I will look for a motion to
close the hearing, the meeting. So move. Second. Second. All right. All in favor? Ed. I. Jim. I. Janine. I. Ted. That is an I. Matt.
Hi. And I'm also an I. That's it. All right. Thanks everybody. Good night everybody. Good night. Thank you everybody. Enjoy your weekend. Happy Independence Day. Don't don't forget to keep an eye open
for me on Friday afternoon.