Um, Commissioner, [Music] uh, I'm not sure exactly who is going to be absent. Um, because there's some members, uh, who are going to come online when we see their names. Um, I'll let you know. But right
now, I don't see um, Commissioner Jim Franklin's um, presence online, and he is not here. So, I'm going to mark him as absent for now. Kina, he should be zooming in shortly. Oh, great. Then I'm going to change that. And Commissioner Dart McFarland is
not here today. Um, I'll now open the meeting and I'm going to take a roll call. I'm Kina Vendetti and I'm here. Megan Hickey here. Buzz Aiano
here. Marilyn Kaz Kazidoy here and Brian Payne here. Super and Jim just logged on and Jim Franklin is here as well. Super here. Thank you, Jim. Please note that we're
doing a hybrid meeting and that's with both in-person and virtual attendance. If a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during a public hearing, please use the raised hand function on Zoom and you'll be assigned a speaking time. And if you're listening
in via telephone dial in, press star 9. That will raise your hand and then press star six to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded by the local scene and we're very grateful. And a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene website as soon as
they're able. Anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting should notify me at this time. Okay. I have one announcement. Kingston's open space
committee is still seeking a new member. The committee assists the conservation in assists conservation committee in over and the department in overseeing the management and use of conservation properties to help us all better access
and utilize these resources in a positive way. This is an opportunity for a resident to assist in implementing the town's open space plan, help improve parking and trails, and identify future conservation
and passive recreation priorities for the town, among other benefits. You may inquire by calling the conservation department at 78158537 or by emailing Juliana Denim at jde nu
m kingston do at kingstonm.gov gov. That's J D N U M at K I N G S T O N M
A.gov. Um Juliana, will you please bring us up to date on what needs to be signed? We have a DOA for 58 off Boundary Street and a DOA for the MBTA. We also have an invoice from Beiel and
Thomas for the Samson Brooks uh water restoration project. Thank you. [Music] Okay, we ready to move on to an action item. I I will now open the public meeting to discuss the request for
determination of applicability called RDA for two Wildwood Circle. The applicant has requested a continuence to the June 2525 2025 meeting. Um, do you have any comments on this,
Julia? I don't. Do Do you, Matt? Um, no. This is just uh they filed an NOI for the same project. So, they requested a continuence on the RDA until their NY is decided on.
Uh, is there a representative or applicant who would like to have a comment? Any comments from the commission? And are there any comments from the public present here or online?
Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue this matter to June 25th, 2025? I'll make that motion. Thank you, Marilyn. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Uh Dots absent.
Jim. Megan? Yes. Colleen is a yes. Buzz. Yes. Marilyn and Brian. Yes. Yes. Okay. So that Sorry, I chipped the yes. I couldn't unmute. Sorry. All right. So that's unanimous except for
Dot's absence. So we'll continue that to the 20th. I'll now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability. that's called RDA for 88 ring road for the installation of a
deck revisions to the driveway and relocation of a native planting area within the buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. Matt, do you have any comments? Uh, we should have Brad Holmes there. Why don't we have him give the presentation first? You want to make your presentation, Mr. Holmes? Sure.
Good evening, members of commission. We filed an RDA. Can you put your mic on, please? Mic. Oh, there it is. Thanks. Um, we filed an RDA for some minor activities at 88 Ring Road. The commission issued an order
conditions for u a single family home improvement project and wetland and buffer restoration uh which we're working under now. But there's some minor activities that we're including in
on site that we've included in this RDA that we we were able to coordinate with Matt prior to our submitt of the RDA. Um that way that doesn't cloud up the existing order. So what we're proposing is there's some modification
to the proposed gravel driveway. We're looking to just increase the the size of the gravel driveway as you come in off a ring road and then move it around the side of the uh garage that occurs with an existing lawn. So, it's actually a good thing where it actually reduces the
amount of lawn on the site. We're also proposing a deck at the rear of the the house. The deck is within an area of existing permitted lawn. uh it has the 3/4 inch spacing so it is not considered
impervious. And one other aspect is that as part of the extension of the gravel on the side of the garage, there was an area of native plantings that were supposed to be placed there. So we're going to move those native plantings further uh down towards the buffer zone
within an area of yard. So overall the activities reduce the amount of um lawn by with new gravel and decking and the mitigation plantings stay as proposed. U everything's within the buffer zone all
with within the appropriate setbacks doesn't in increase any of the uh imperous nature of the site. And with that I'll bring it back to you. Did we get anything to besides that?
Any comments, Matt? Yeah, sorry, I think your mic's off. Um, so yeah, this was a previous enforcement issue from 2021. Um, for those who weren't around for that, there's clearing of trees, extension of the yard, uh, leveling of ground, storage of fill, uh, really kind
of filled the wetland area. So, restoration of the area was mandated. The site has established well. Um at this point I think their orders and conditions they're at the monitoring phase for the um for the restoration areas. Um the work that led to the
enforcement was carried out by an individual no longer associated with the property. Um at this point the land owner has complied with all commission requirements this deck we confirmed uh was already constructed pvious with the 38 spacing. We confirmed that on the site visit May
21st. Um applicant agreed on a 3/4 inch minimum aggregate size for the driveway and that could be stated as a perpetual condition to make sure that it drains going forward. And the native planting area
being shifted um really just impacts what was permitted as lawn. It doesn't affect um any of the restoration areas that were already uh permitted. And one other kind of weird thing about this was um you know there's
a little bit of a front porch area that's on the plan outside of jurisdiction. Um this project was the orders and conditions were issued before the commission standardizes treatment of vernipool envelope. Um so this project was approved in I believe
2022 only showing the 100 foot buffer from mean high water of the vernipool. Um and that permit is still valid, meaning that wetland delineation is still valid. Um so just it's a little different on this one that the plan does not show the typical 200t from meanhigh
water area around the vernal pool uh because of that prior permitting situation. Um but also modifications that are proposed would be significant to that vernal pool more than likely because of the elevation of the road as was discussed
during the initial permit. So I enlist commission has any um questions. I didn't see anything with this that um was concerning and would recommend issuance of a negative three um with perpetual conditions that the decking remain pvious through that 38 spacing
and the driveway uh with the 3/4 spacing. And if the applicant is fine with that, I would suggest that these be added to the COC on the greater orders of conditions as well. Um just so the perpetual conditions follow the deed. That sounds accept acceptable to us?
Yes. Thanks. Um, Mr. Holmes, any comments from the members of the commission? Any comments from the public present? Any comments from anyone online? Great. Do I have a motion to
accept the request and issue a negative 33 DOA? I'll make that motion. include the perpetual conditions that met including the order of condition. Second.
Okay. Have a motion to accept the request issue a negative 3DA with orders of conditions. Um Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Colle Buzz,
yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. Okay, there you go. Thank you very much. I'll now open a public meeting to discuss the request for certification of compliance for 23 Spruce Street. Um, is there a [Music]
representative? Matt, do you have any comments? Um, after the last meeting, I reached out to them and let them know what the commission said at the last meeting. um that if there was no movement by the meeting that they would likely um deny the request and then the applicant would
just refile whenever they're ready. All right. Thanks. Um any comments from the commission on this? Does that mean nothing sorry nothing's been done then done? No actions been taken?
Um I have no communication for a little while. So, the last I that I had heard um was after we found out that the conservation posts weren't in the right place and the restoration area was was not built um big enough and they were
going to work on that and I haven't had any follow-up okay communication since. So I would I let them know I would say um it's not a it's not a tall lift for them to refile and in the meantime we have the spreadsheet where we track all filings and so if this starts to get
lost over time then you know you can always issue an enforcement order to to mint and date filing at RCOC. Uh, do I hear a motion to do I hear a motion to uh from the commission to deny this
request? I'll make that motion. Do I have a second? Second. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Clean is a yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. And Brian, yes. Okay,
this request has been denied. I'm going to open a public meeting and we're just on the edge of starting the hearing. So, I'm going to just finish this last um public meeting um before we start
hearings. Um, I will now open the public meeting to discuss the request for amendment or deviation for 126 and 131 to 137 Ring Road. This was submitted by Beals and Thomas on behalf of Ringroad Solar
LLC. Is there a representative? Yes. Uh chair chair, this is Greg Samson with Sullivan and Worester here on behalf of the applicant and also um with us is uh Ian
um can Ian are you on? Sorry. Oh yeah, I'm here. Sorry. Ian Ward um who's the operator of the site. So I could be happy to present uh the last bit of correspondence we provided to the commission about what
the proposal is if that would be acceptable. That'd be great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So um we understand that uh bills and Thomas was before the commission previously with proposal to add the fence. Um we sent a letter in
supplementing that filing. Um, as as you likely know that the fence has been requested by the building officials in the town of Kingston and the town of Plimpmpton to fully enclose the um solar arrays in the in the bogs that on which
they're located. Um, so we we had tried to work through a few different proposals with the town. um this was the one that they accepted as being the um proposals that achieved the code requirements um
and were willing to do the work. Um so we we looked at this from the perspective of you know how it would be consistent with the agricultural operations and I think you're aware that um these are active bogs. They are farmed annually and you know there's a
number of other activities that occur there. So, we worked with Ian to develop a proposal that would be fencing that's consistent with normal agricultural practices, and that's what we ended up proposing. Um, it is the fencing that's
used on bogs to keep deer out uh when deer become a problem and start to uh consume the cranberries. Um we have a number of places where the the fence the fence will be lifted six inches off the ground so that uh smaller you know
animals can can pass but it'll be high enough to prevent the uh larger animals like deers from from getting into the bog. Um and we are we were mindful of some of the concerns that the commission may have. Um you know we are limiting the
location of the fences fully within the cleared area. It's almost all on bog roads or on the outer edge of the the farmed area. Um so we're not anticipating any tree clearing or really any significant disturbance. We'll be accessing all the work will be done from
the existing agricultural areas. Uh we will we're happy to work with the commission with respect to materials on the fence. I understand there may have been a concern about pressuret treated. Um, so we're happy to address that if that's a concern, but we think this is
consistent with agricultural practices and and obviously happy to have Ian present any comments about how this is consistent with uh what they do on other bogs. Where is the plan located in the one drive? Matt
Matt, where is the under action items? Uh, ring road solar ring 88 ring road IDA. No, that's Hold on. It's 126 and 131 to 137 road. Well, it's action items. Ring
road solar. Yeah, I got it. And so, is there a plan in here showing all that? Mhm. Yeah, we had a plan that showed um the layout of the fence. It's under the request for the
modification and in the email or separate. It's a PDF. It's uh it's like 344201 LTO00001 certified PDF. Okay. So, no. And then you go down to
page three and I believe four. Okay, I got it though. Thank you. Kina, may I? Yes, please. Jim, I'd like uh the applicant to give us a little bit more of a background. So from from what I've gathered and what I've put together
and I have asked for clarification here uh something about the the the work that we permited was not built to the plans and it necessitated some type of additional grounding um or
clearance to grounding um electro um conductors because somebody could accidentally come close enough that they could get zapped by this. So, it sounds like from what I heard and and I I've not seen any of the code references that
I asked for that this was a a not an agricultural request that this was a public safety request because something wasn't done. Now, the plans that were submitted to us showed that there was a 10-ft clearance to the ground and that I
expect was was sufficient from the design uh to achieve what What in the installation or the uh construction process did did the applicant miss that's requiring us to consider putting
a mile of fence in resource area? Yeah, if I may, um my understanding is that it was actually built according to the plans that were approved. Um there happens to be a little bit um that as we got closer to
commissioning uh the building officials, the wiring inspector saw how that was built and raised concern, but the it was built according to code. I mean according to the plans that were approved by the town. So the All right. So So let me let
me ask you this. This is an errors an error or an emission by the design professional. Is that what I'm hearing? Well, again, our our position is we met the code requirements, but the town has asked for additional measures of
protection. So you you were I I if that's true then you asked for and you received a a a code reference and the inspector circled a whatever the NEC applicable language
was requiring you to put this uh this fence in place and if that's the case then this is something that is an errors or emissions and it goes back to the design professional to fix. My my problem with this is that you're asking
for a bylaw to accept that, okay, we're going to let you in through an agricultural exemption for something that isn't agricultural nature. if there's a problem with this system that was installed, the language that you guys uh that your client gave us um
basically said, look, if if if this inh u prohibits uh the the farming at all, this system gets removed. That's that's basically the language, right? So, if the spacing isn't sufficient to to keep
the cranberries alive, the the solar array is supposed to be removed. That was part of that was how it was walked through when we did this filing three years ago or whatever it was. So I need you to give me very clear language here that says no no no this this isn't us
just taking a shortcut because we don't want to take out the outside 10 foot of the array so that nobody can touch it. I need to know more about what's brought you here requesting this agricultural exemption for something that's not
agricultural related. Mr. Samson. Yeah. Um, so I I I will say I I mean I think the the fact that it is being proposed for the solar does not necessarily mean it's not agriculturally related. And I understand by definition
I would say that you're wrong. I appreciate that. I'm I'm just our our position is that it you know if it's normal m if it's normal if the normal improvement of agricultural land includes fencing this can qualify because the primary use of the property
still remains agricultural. And I appreciate you may not agree. I just that has been our position. Um, and again, we're trying to, you know, it's it's an active farm. There are measures of protection that as we spoke with the
code officials in the town that the the farmer and the the operator of the felt were um good solutions to propose as well to make sure there's Hold on, we're crossing lines. Let's keep it very clear because I don't want people to get confused. You were talking about two
different processes. They're not speaking on the agricultural side of it. They're not they're only speaking from, hey, this is unsafe. This construction project is unsafe. We're not signing off on it until you fix this. How are you going to fix this? Right? So, that's
basically what we're discussing here. you I don't believe that you're trying to stick get us to um accept the fact that that uh cranberry bogs have to have fences around them because we can drive anywhere throughout town and I can show
you probably every other bog in town does not have fencing around it because it's not an issue. cranberries there. There's lots of things for deer to eat around here. And it's they're not just sitting there, you know, I'll drive by this lot 30 times
next year. I'll not see one one one deer in there just eating cranberries. Will they eat some? Sure, at some point, but they're not you don't see 50 deer just grazing in there. Or else every other cranberry bog would also have fencing
there. So from that perspective, you're asking us to consider an agricultural exemption for something that you're saying is normal and customary. And I'm saying it's not normal, it's not customary, and this is only being brought about because somebody had some type of deficient condition safety-wise
on the electrical code side of it. And this is your outside of the box contemplation of how you can get around taking out the array. When you take out part of the array and create the clearances that you guys should be required to have, that's somebody else's
box. It's still if it's a risk as it exists. Now, the fencing on the other side of the bog road doesn't eliminate that risk and and that should never have been something that was that that was contemplated. Bog workers who come in
there are not qualified electricians who know not to touch something. We're not making this any safer with a fence on the outside of the property. It's just keeping the random kid that might uh accidentally walk onto the property from from accidentally dying if there's some
kind of unsafe electrical conditions. So again, I'm going to ask you, are you trying to tell me that all the cranberry bogs just don't have fences because everybody else in this world is stupid? What are we where are we where are we going with this? What are you asking for me to believe?
I if I may, uh, Ian Ward, Kramer Grower, um, the the code in on the site visits, the code enforcement officers and the fire department were were there. And as the
farmer, we're we are trained we're we're being trained on the operation consistent with the the power being in place. Uh the fence was really for not for for the farmers and people working by.
It was for the a hunter that was coming through tracking a deer uh or a kid that was ice skating on the pond that that could come in. It was it was for the general public. Uh they made that very clear. So they they they wanted that. Um
and there you're right that there's not a lot of deer fencing around cranberry bogs. I can say I on my bog I do have deer fencing. Um and we're looking at revitalizing fresh fruit. Um dry harvesting cranberries is a you know
used to be a staple for Massachusetts. Uh it's gone out of out of popularity with the advent of of water picking. We're looking to re-engage with fresh fruit. Um so fresh fruit as with the former owner Roger Carrera. um you know,
he's got some of the best fresh fruit bogs in town or in the state and they happen to be in Kingston. This property, his former property is is one of those and we're looking to take advantage of that. the fresh fruit industry uh has
shrunk for more than one reason, but the the amount of handlers that are receiving that fruit are are there's two and they're both requiring global gap certification, which means you've got to keep uh make every effort possible to
keep deer poop out. Deer on occas when they're on the bog, they eat about seven pounds of cranberries per night. and you could talk to fish and wildlife and they could verify that that's that's the case from a from a from a you know while I'm not sure from making lemonade out of
lemons with a fence but from an agricultural perspective u with fresh fruit you will see increasing if people are going to stay in fresh fruit business they're going to you're going to see deer fencing it's pretty popular in Wisconsin we haven't had as much here in Massachusetts but
NRCS USDA NRCS in the state department of a resources they offer our grant funding for for this very reason. So, just wanted to to on you know to to to talk about that on the agricultural front. Well, Ian, let me let me just respond to that real quick. What in any
of the paperwork that you've given us indicates that that what you're what you're laying out there is actually happening right now in this and makes this fence a requirement for that. You're talking about French fruit. I expect that you're only talking about cranberries. Correct. Correct. Okay.
Yes. Because I mean you got you got solar on your blog now, which was which is a program that I think everybody who sat on this um commission at the time said, you know what, this makes sense for the cranberry growers. It needs to be done um you know to give these guys a
fighting chance. And we saw that there was, you know, the potential for this to be a good thing. Okay. What wasn't discussed at that time was any kind of fencing. If you had come to me back then as one of seven people who sat, if I saw a mileong fence in that area, I would have said no. My vote would have been a
hard no and I would have advocated for the resource area. So just because this went through doesn't mean that it goes all the way through. Just because we're going to play tick tock one way or another and I respect that you're a farmer and you work hard. All I'm saying is that this right here, this fence is
only being discussed for one reason. And it wasn't something you were talking about coming to us and oh by the way it just happens that look what we found. This is this makes it safer for everybody. This is was discussed because of a a defect in the installation for
the solar and the easy fix for everybody. a safer fix. Meaning that farmers, no matter what kind of training you get for working on a um you know an area where there is a solar installation, you do not meet the
qualified standard for the National Electrical Code. And that is what the code reference would would would point to. Meaning that this fence doesn't achieve what people are trying to um use it as an outside the box solution. So, if that's the
case, I'm not seeing anything that's that's precipitated this conversation on the fence except for the fact that this was just used to cure a a safety concern about how they built this array. If it's a height thing, if it's a if it's a
clearance to the fog roads, it's easily fixed by deleting the the whatever the grid's facing the outside. The array owners don't want to do it. It costs money to do it, but it's a safer thing to do. So, if there's a safety concern, solve it. Don't just put up a fence in a
resource area just because it's a thing. And don't come to me as an agricultural request for, you know, a workaround and us us accepting it just because we're good people. Okay? So, I'm going to I'm going to back out of it. I'm going to let everybody else talk, but um it's not
personal. This is a this is a resource area and the fence should never have been part of the project. And if they couldn't design it properly to begin with, we don't give, you know, the the easy outs. So, Kina, may I add a couple things? Yes,
certainly. So, to Jim's point, I can't confirm or deny, you know, whether or not the project was built um to the design or not. My understanding from conversations with the other permitting departments is
that um the building department was never reached out to during construction to set up progress site visits. And so that led to when they did do a site visit post construction to try to get occupancy um led to the building the
electrical inspector you know finding these issues that needed to be fixed. And some of it I think was easy fixes, you know, adding conduit, you know, over wires or something like that. But, um, that led to the rest of of the discussion and and some sort of an agreement to, you know, allow, you know,
the permit to be signed off on by the electrical inspector with the fencing. Having said that, I would ask maybe Ian or or anybody who wants to speak to this. Um it looks like you know on page
was it on the last page of the plan like there's about I think it was 660 feet of wetland edge that does not have a fence. So, it's not like the entire bog is fenced in. And I think that was brought up during the planning board approval
where the planning board for safety reasons um wanted to see the entire bog be fenced in. And the answer I think was that completely fencing it in would be um detrimental to the agricultural
operation. So, I don't know if anybody can speak to that just because the CL, you know, I understand that deer eat cranberries and that there may be a food security issue with them defecating on the bogs, but um you know, if you have 600 and something feet of BBW that's
unfenced and deer using that habitat, aren't they just going to come in that way? Before Before we Before we answer that, could I just ask one question? Yes, Mr. Artiano. So, I'm going to go back to way way way when you started this journey of
the fence and Jim and I both asked for the code reference that you were flunking under with the electrical inspector. We've never been provided that information to so for you to say this is why we have to do this and this is why the electrical inspector is requiring
it. I don't see that information anywhere in the one drive. So, is that available to us to look at? that has not been provided to me. I um spoke to Kingston's electrical inspector and he got the code book out and started reading to me from it and I said that no
no no um I asked if he could sort of photocopy some of that stuff and highlighted it and um no no if if they have a violation if they have a violation and we asked for this way long ago. We want to see it in writing from the electrical inspector from both towns
what the code they're violating if they are with a signature with a code reference and it's on a town letterhead and it says I electrical inspector of Kingston Massachusetts find you in violation of section yada yada yada and
he's going to provide the code sections to us and he's going to sign the bottom of it and he's going to provide it and honestly until I see that piece of paper I am not interested in moving this forward at all myself personally. Just just one more thing just just for
my side. This is Jim just real Yeah, sorry Kina. Um the Matt just touched on something real quick and I believe that in the previous correspondence that that I reviewed it was the fence couldn't be installed because they couldn't they
couldn't um get the you know float the bog or whatever right there was a reference to that and now literally we're talking about fresh fruit and we're going to dry pick all these bogs. So there's just a lot of back and forth. I 100% agree with with what Buzz is saying right there. I really think that
we need to table this until we get more clarification. Um because right now I don't think anybody's going to give us that. I think that there's there's an issue. I understand the safety side of it. I understand this, you know, the clearance requirements, but the clearance requirements can be achieved a
number of different ways. And just because somebody said, "Well, offense if you could get it by uh uh the conservation commission." Yeah, we we'd accept that because it's it's some kind of mediated approach between the line that they were walking and where the
other people want to move to. So from our perspective, I think we table it and we say, "Look, we're not we're not taking this right now. We've requested the information, come back with the information. we'll have a a public discussion on it and and if we think it's something that you know is is the
only suitable option to to you know uh contemplate what you're requesting then we'll we'll judge it on its own merits. Right now I'm not even close to that. Okay. Any um other comments from the commission? No, I would concur. We need
to table it and move on. Okay. We've had a very lengthy discussion. Yeah, I thought it would be clear how the members feel. All right. So, do I have a motion to I just before we do that, Kina, just want to have clear expectations from the applicants. I'm
just excuse me, clear expectations of what I'm expecting from the applicant. I want to see in writing, and this is like my fifth request for this from the electrical inspector or the building inspector, whoever's driving this fence from both towns in writing referencing
the code that that they're forcing this fence to be done for safety reasons. and why it has to be done this way and it has to be on a town letterhead and it has to be signed. If they can't bring that to the meeting well ahead of time so I can look at it then I'm I'm not
interested in setting another date. This is my fifth request for that. May I ask a clarifying question to Matt? Um so just just for my own edification uh separate and apart from
the solar question the codes I'm not not I didn't want to get into that from an agricultural perspective I'm under the impression that 310 CMR 10.04 4 allows for normal improvement of land and agricultural use, the installation
of permanent fencing and that as a grower again separate from the solar project that or farmer in general that I if it's land of use I can put up a fence tomorrow without an RDA or notice of intent.
Then go ahead and do it. If you think you're legal to do it then go ahead and do it. I would I would I would answer that. That's my understanding with with normal land and agricultural use, you have the right to make normal improvement to it to protect
your agricultural operation. I think um I just think the obvious thing with this one is that it's slightly different. That's why my recommendation when we first discussed this was to review all of the smart program regulations and see if there was some tie in there because I think it's clear based on the way this
was brought out that this is for the electrical operation, the solar operation. Um it's it seems like it's it's kind of a side benefit that it will give you some protection against deer, although not entire protection if it's not fully fenced in. and it leaves open,
you know, over 600 ft of of area for them to get in. That area that is that that doesn't have fence is at the water's edge specifically so that we can still access the the and dredge out the reservoir. So, I think what you'd find
is that all the all the upland wetland areas uh down to the water's edge would be fenced and the areas that are water are are not. That's where that 650 ft comes from. Okay. Thank you. shows up at VBW on the plan, but that's part of the
the Bogard reservoir. That's the reservoir. Yes. All right. We're ready to move this matter. Paulina, I'd like that. Before we move on, before we move on, so Ian, if you if you feel like you have an agricultural
exemption to move forward, then I think you should make sure that it's true and you should go ahead and do it and withdraw this application. I I do feel that way based on experience uh and consultation with the Cape Cod Primary Growth Association. Um I I think
this is I think it is exempt. Uh I again I I don't know. I'm I'm telling you that you know if it was me and you are confident in your legal right to do it then withdraw this application and go ahead and do it. Well, Buzz, Buzz, to frame this if if I didn't frame it, you
know, already, that's that's essentially what their case is now. I mean, they they requested to be to have time with the commission to discuss an amendment and then we got the letter from um from Attorney Samson claiming an agricultural
exemption for the fence. Um so, when I checked with town council, you know, he said, "Yeah, absolutely. You can still have the meeting and discuss this with them." Um, you know, I didn't get I'm I'm not in the business of guidance beyond that, but you know,
essentially I'm not in that business. I'm in the conservation commission purview. If he has an agricultural exemption, he's to proceed without our permission. He doesn't need our blessing for that. That's the whole point of having an agricultural exemption.
I don't disagree with Buzz. What I will say is that it just because you move forward doesn't mean it's it's it's it's over. You guys brought something to us. We saw a certain action. If this is something that we feel we bring enforcement, then we bring enforcement and you can deal with it through that
method. But there you it was very clear this fence is only prepared or offered as a as a um afterthought because there was a safety issue with the installation. There is legal language
that was provided at the permit uh permitting stage that if you do if if there's a some kind of conflict between the solar and the agriculture that the solar loses it gets removed. So if if the solar
um developer wants to take that risk and play the the legal game he can absolutely do it. But I I would I would advise you to to tread lightly because you've already put all your cards on the table as far as the reason for the fence. It's not something that we just
look the other way. So, it's not something that I close my eyes to. This is a this is an issue. You ask, you got a couple of different opinions saying that let's I think there's a path where we all make sure that we're doing the right thing here. And I think that that's that's the one that you should
do. You can do whatever you want. It's a free country. you're you're an American. Do it you do your thing. At the same size, there's there's other things that need to be contemplated. So, that's where I'll leave it. So, if you if you're I guess be in touch with Matt and
let uh let him know how you want to proceed. Can I hear a motion from the commission to continue this matter subject of course to um the um applicant choosing to withdraw their
application in its entirety? Do I have a motion to continue? I'll make the motion. Is that Buzz? Yep. I'll second it. We have a second. Um Jim
Megan, uh yes. Colleen is a yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. Okay. Thank you. The motion carries. Um so, thank you for your time. What are you
Did I I didn't hear a date on that. Pardon me. Was that a continuence? Yes. Yeah, we need a date. We need a date. Aren't we waiting for more for more information before we can set a date? No. Oh, let's just set a date and then
they can always, you know, extend it. So, let's set a date for the next hearing, whatever that is. How much time would you need? Um, Mr. Samson. June 25th. The next hearing would be fine. Okay. June
11th. Going to continue this matter until June 11th. We look forward to hearing from you before then. Thank you very much. Appreciate this. Thank you very much. So, we're going to move on to public hearings. Section A of public hearings is 20
Marian uh Drive. This is also known as One Royce Drive. This is a request for amendment for the proposed installation of a sediment forbay and rain garden within the 200 foot riverfront area of Spelbrook. Um, this I'm reopening this
and uh do you have any comments, Matt? Um, this will be a continuence. The peer review uh report is not ready yet. I did check in with them last week and um we
should have that soon. I did want to um so I I did let the applicant know that this this was not going to be um discussed tonight, but I do have one thing just to inform the commission of and you can if you would like give me some guidance and how to um bring this
up with the applicant. So when I reached out about the peerreview report, um they brought up that apparently their initial proposal pointed out that they have no calculations on the sizing of the rain
garden or what uh I believe the area surface area that that the sizing is based on. So they said with what they're doing right now, they can comment on everything the commission asked them to comment on, but they can't comment on the sizing of the feature and whether
it's appropriately sized or not. Um, so they said there would be additional cost. I asked them how much and they said the additional cost to be between $800 and $1,000, but they would also need um the applicant to provide those calculations that were used. Um, so I
have not brought that up yet with with the applicant. I don't know if the commission just wants to go with what they've already done and discuss it at that point or if you'd rather me approach that with the applicant now and see if we can fasttrack that part of it and have that prepared as part of the
initial report. How does commission feel about that? I would like to see that included. Otherwise, I would consider it as lack of information. So, what's the timeline on that, Matt? Don't have a set timeline, but I'm imagining if we include this, you know,
that will definitely push it back a ways. Um, again, there's they're in I just did a site visit, I think two weeks ago or or a week ago for the start of building number three. So, they're still in the middle of construction. Um, I
don't think this is something I'm sure it's something that the applicant would like to get wrapped up so that he understands what he has to do, but it's not something that's that's um, you know, an imminent issue. So, do we want to call them in and um to
update us like June 25th or do we want to just let's um certain let's do a second meeting in July. July 23rd have a Yes. Do I hear a motion to continue this matter to July 23rd? Just
I had a question before we make a motion. Matt, was there any other concerns about an alternative analysis being provided? Uh the alternative analysis was provided and sent to the peer reviewer before they got started. Yeah, I think that was
maybe a couple months ago. Okay. Do I hear a motion? I'll make that. I'll make that motion. Okay. Um, I have a motion from Maryland to continue this matter to July 23rd. Jim, is it second? Do we have a second?
Thanks. I'll second. Um, I think Megan, did you second this? Okay. Second by Megan. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Colleen, yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. All
right, we'll see them on the 23rd. Going to move ahead to section B. I reopen a hearing for the notice of intent for retroactive construction of a large play structure within the buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland and the
outer 200 foot uh reach riverfront area to a stream. Uh is a representative here? Yeah. Oh, hi Mr. Holmes. Let's hear from you. Good evening members of the commission. Brad Holmes on behalf of Dan Cleette for two Wildwood Circle. Um, this is a
continuation. This is a new notice of intent, but it's a continuation of a discussion with the commission. Um, there's a play set that was constructed within an area of an above ground pool and small play set. It's a very nice play set. Now, um we proposed the
permitting of it through an RDA and I we we discussed it and I in my opinion I think the commission was um in agreement that the proposal of mitigation shrubs to offset or mitigate the place
structure uh seemed like a good idea but couldn't be processed through the request for determination of applicability because it would involve a wa a waiver. So therefore, the only way the commission could handle that would be to submit a notice of intent. So we're back in front of the commission
with a notice of intent application to permit this place structure um by offsetting the potential impacts with mitigation shrubs within an area of the buffer zone that's somewhat sparse and could handle this and and make a
ecological improvement. Um, we looked at the possibility of trying to space out the planking um, so that we would be at least three 38 of an inch and it sounds easy, but the way the play set and railings and configuration is put
together, it would not be possible without really uh, a whole lot of work and uh, the mitigation shrubs, you know, wouldn't be done at that point. So I think that it by proposing this
hopefully it's it works for the commission, works for the applicant and we can process it through the notice. So that's what we're here for. What what plan set am I looking at on the one drive please? Did you hear that? The planet he asked on the one drive I'm not sure I'm not
including it's the 55. Um, so the address again is no to Wildwood Circle. Yeah. So it says tenative. Now I'm inside here. So where is the plan that
he's describing this swing set play set? The planting plan is on page four of the um additional information. It's the April 29th, 2025 additional information.
And let me get you to the and there's the plan set. Um it's 5525 that does not have the uh proposed mitigation plantings that simply shows the um the aerial imagery with with the
wetlands. Um to to clarify on this one, um they did submit this without full survey grade plans. Um I said they're welcome to do that um and see if the commission thought that was sufficient. It is ultimately up to the commission whether it's actually required or not
for NOI filings. Typically, I would say they are very important and should be required. Um but for some of the cases like this where NOI is used for a smaller projects it's up to the commission's um
decision. So you have two pages there on the May 5th where there are um just kind of different views of of the existing conditions. But but what am I I see like an octagon looks like a pool.
Yes, that's a pre that's a previous condition. Um, yeah. And then the and then so the playet is closer to the buffer. It looks like like a little fence in the picture. Sorry, Buzz. I didn't give a big background on this just because I thought everybody was familiar from the
RDA filing, but this was an enforcement issue uh from a just a lack of filing standpoint. Yeah, I remember. I remember they did disassemble uh what was an unpermitted above ground pool, you know, deck structure put up by the previous
home owner and built it mostly in place of that. The the fence line has not changed. The fence line that you uh see sort of at the edge of the um cleared area there has not moved. It's just all of that open area has been converted to
decking and uh wood chips and swing set things like that. And what was supposed to be there in terms of from a permitting standpoint? What was legally permitted to be there? Yeah, I
believe lawn up to that fence line. And I believe and there may have been some unpermitted clearing, but we're going back I think 2012. All right. So, can I can I share my screen, Kina? Sure. All
right. Can you see that on your end? Yep. Yep. Yeah. So, Brad, is this what we're talking about? No. Um, yes, that is what we're talking about in the sense that that is a near map image from 2019. Um, that showed the the pool and
the little decking around it and the playset prior to the new playset that's been constructed over that area. Um, the purpose of that image was to show that would be at the back the the sec the
last page of this notice of intent all the way to the end. I have Buzz. If you go to the May 5th document, there's two pages. One of them shows the previous condition for the pool and yeah, the Wildwood plan set
right above where your check mark is. There you go. The first page is going to show the previous condition with I'm sorry. Yeah, the first page you're on page two shows um Okay, so this is what it used to be like correct and then it
showed what it is now. Yeah. All right. So, let me zoom in on this. So, now this is all built. Correct. Yes. Right. And so this all
happened as all un unpermitted work. Yes. Yes. Yeah, we reviewed pictures of it uh during the RDA process. I can I think I can pull them up if you if you want to see it again, but essentially as he described it, it's a play structure for
kids. Um so it's it's you know it has like walkways connecting different sections. Um and it was just sort of the fact that it was built not pvious uh that was that was problematic. There had been a lot of previous work done there
increasing impervious surface on the property under previous ownership. Yeah. I Okay. But I'm trying to understand how we went from tear out the pool and clean it up and I believe we
issued the order of conditions to fix this. The pool was under previous previous ownership. Um the pool was an unpermitted addition to you know there was an NOI filed years and years probably a couple decades ago
I think to develop the property and then I believe it was around 2012 the previous owner put in an above ground pool without a permit. Um, and the commission never, nobody ever caught on to it. And the current owner in building, you know, a structure that,
you know, ultimately sticks up bigger than that was noticed and and enforced. The current owner bought the property as it was in with that pool. He wasn't aware that that wasn't permitted. Um, he
built that playet structure now that you seen in that image over that area. he he wasn't aware of permitting needs. So yes, he needed to to file and the enforcement order was applicable. Um because it was somewhat more more minor in nature, we
we went with the RDA, but because as the commission we discussed at the last meeting, the mitigation with a waiver wouldn't be possible for the RDA. So the only way we could do that is the notice. So that's why we're here.
um to try to rectify the situation. All right. So, let me unpack that and you stop me if I'm wrong, Brad. Sure. Okay. So, and I've been wrong plenty, so just stop me if I'm saying this wrong. So, the current owner bought the property
that had the octagon pool in place. Correct. Correct. Yes. He he we did an enforcement order and he tore it out. No. No. No. As the enforcement order was issued, essentially the the new
homeowner did not think he would need permitting to dismantle the above ground pool and build what was built here. Okay. No, the enforcement order was issued to this property owner for retroactive permitting for a structure
built in jurisdiction. Okay. And the per and tell me what these lines are, Brad. What's the purple? Sure. That's the 100 ft uh riverfront, I'll say, to an intermittent stream. So, you got a you got the bordering vegetated wetland
further down. That's the 50- foot buffer in green, the 100 foot uh riverfront, and then you got the 100 foot buffer there to the BVW, and then the the 200 foot to the intermittent
stream. And the Okay. So, this is the 100 here. That's the 200 to the stream. Yes. This is 100 foot BVW and this is 50 feet to the BVW. Correct. So the issue is he's inside the riverfront protection area under your
bylaw. Yeah. And then and then addition so he doesn't have any structures inside the 50 foot BBW. Correct. Right. He does not and even the the 100 foot the outer 100 foot riverfront area
um was pre-existing disturbed area. So the the real the bigger issue with this was the impervious surface coverage. Okay. So, so from here to here is our 100 to 50 and that's in our jurisdiction under that bylaw. And then from here to
here is under restriction under the riverfront protection act. Well, no, no river. There's no perennial stream. It's an intermittent stream, but it's covered under the Kingston bylaw with a intermittent riverfront.
So now we have a we've got a new structure built with no permits and you're saying the decking and everything that there is too tight together and it can't be spaced. Correct. It would be because of the railing and the configuration that you wouldn't be able to take just take it off and reset it.
So but there is an o but there is an opportunity to improve the 50oot buffer zone significantly as mitigation. Okay. So all right. So take me there now. What where where is that improvement? All right. So what right on
the beyond the place at where the 50oot buffer is, there's an area that's open. Um we're proposing native shrubs in there, 12 native shrubs to offset the potential impacts associated with the play set that isn't pvious because of
the tight spacing of the planking. And that goes back to that page page four of the the notice of intent with the shrubs spaced out over that 2019 image. So this is so this is a
better image. So you're going to put some shrubs in here. Yes. Correct. So that was that first image I was looking at showing the handdrawn handdrawn uh the little shrubs in there. Right. Correct. So that's this image
right here. That's correct. And Buzz, that did overlay with um remember I took a picture from the site visit that showed a a pretty bare area that we discussed right when we had the enforcement meeting. Okay. And so from a structural standpoint, Matt,
do we have the ability to do this? How do you mean from a from a bylaw perspective? Do we have the ability to grant this? Yes, I believe so. Um, I believe the only the only issue needing a waiver was the imperous surface. So, it's up to the
commission as to whether they feel that the mitigation that was shown is sufficient to weigh the increase in impervious surface. And do we have a calculation of what that increase is for percentage-wise, Brad, of the area of the lot versus what's made impervious by
these new boards? We did. We provided that in the process. Um, I don't have it handy. I think we did that with the RDA. Yeah, I have it up. It um, as proposed, the site exceeds the allowable 15% impervious coverage by 2.3% or
approximately 690 square ft. Okay. So, it's essentially that whole play area is what's kicking them over the limit. It's about, I think, 50% of of that area. Okay. Yeah. May I jump in for a sec? Yes. Jim, can we hear from Jim?
Sure. So, I I remember when we first discussed this and and there was some pictures in there and I didn't see them in the folder this time. Matt, are you able to locate those um those images? Yeah, I believe so. Just I think it was important to to see that a lot of this
was I think peace on the ground. Um so that so the image of an image might look a little bit more um disturbed than than what I recall from those pictures. So there was um I remember some peace stone on the ground and then this was kind of
like a raised little like 4 foot wide with railings type of you know connectivity uh from one you know shedlike structure to to another just as like a a play pen and and even though we weren't at the 38
inch there was gap and and we were only talking about something that was four feet and and that four feet was four feet off the ground or whatever. So impervious was kind of a stretch I think in my judgment, you know, to to that we were going there and I think that we all
kind of looked at it um with similar lenses when we were there. So I just think that if we look at those pictures, it might refresh our memories that we're not talking about a concrete structure or sidewalls or, you know, um gutters and drainage components. We were looking
just more as as kind of like a play structure. Matt, you're going to show those pictures. Yeah, I was just navigating the wonders of the internet. Amen. One drive is not fantastic sometimes.
Yeah, tell me about it. Okay. Uh we Oh yeah, there are notice in the notice of intent itself. There are photos. Can you see that now? Yeah. Yeah, I can. Yeah. Okay. I see what Jim I see. Off to the right is the is the slope that that
we mentioned before that has nothing has no vegetation on it. And then you see the new places on the left. Yeah. And that that chain link fence is right on the 50ft bread. Yes. And it goes all the way goes all the way across the property at the 50 feet. Uh
not it it the the 50 foot kind of arcs um away um it doesn't go all the way across the property. The fence it's going to it's going to keep it's going to keep them out of that buffer zone is my Yes, for sure. You can't get from the place that down the slope.
Okay. Or you even from the backyard with that fence. And do and do we have conservation signs on the fence? Uh we don't. We can certainly include those. Yeah. So now that I've seen Thank you, Jim. I appreciate the you pointing out
those pictures because that definitely changes my opinion. I thought that the fence was existing too. So that might help you a little bit. Just No, I'm I'm f I'm fine with it. I just didn't understand what was going on there. you know, so uh I think my again one man's
opinion, I'd like to see conservation signs on the existing fence every, you know, 50 ft, you know, permanently affixed to the fence. And then uh I'd like to see a double or planting from 12 to 24 my opinion. And then I'm fine with
it. We can accommodate that. Anything else from the commission? I'll make that motion. And this is a what? NI. It's an Yeah. Kina, did you There's no public um is there any public questions
or comments? Are there any public the public is you know has heard this conversation is satisfied. All right. I'll make them I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Second. Second and issue the um Oh,
wait. Let's close it and then we'll do the Okay. So, there's a motion to close the hearing. It's been seconded. Jim? Yep. Megan? Yep. Paulina is yes. Buzz,
yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. All right. Now, I'll make a motion to issue the NOI with the standard order conditions that we always have with the inclusion of instead of 12 bushes that they're going to double the amount of bushes shown, just basically take the
species zone and double them and and make sure they're spaced accordingly appropriately from Brad Holm's direction and that they add conservation signs to the existing chain link fence every 50 ft in perpetuity. In perpetuity. Thank
you. Do I have a second on this? From now until the end of time. I'll second. Who second? Was that Jim? Jim. Yep. We have a motion. It's been seconded. Uh to approve the NOI and issue the order of conditions. Jim. Yes.
Megan. Yes. Colleen is yes. Buzz. Yes. Marilyn, yes. And Brian, yes. All right, that motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night, Brad. Thank you,
Melina. I'll be back in one second. Going to take one second break. Times up. The break. The break is over now. So, Jim, where are you calling in from tonight? Indiana. Muny in Indiana. Nice. I don't
know about that. How you been, Buzz? Good. Good. Feel like I haven't seen you in person in like a year. Yeah. Hit or miss. One of one of us isn't there, right? No, actually, we did. We were in a
hearing together probably two months ago. Yeah. Time flies when we're having fun. It's not a bad thing if we're busy, right? Something Yeah. Theoretically, but he's back.
Matt, are you back? I am back. Apologies for the delay. All right. I'm going to open a hearing for the proposed updates to the Kingston Wetland Protection Regulations abbreviated key WPR. Uh do you have any
comments, Matt? Um yeah. Did everybody have a chance to look at the red line? Yep. So, this was basically this came up um in review of the shooting range that
was proposed behind the transfer station. Um I went out to review found a vernal pool out there informed um you know police police department about the 200 foot setback there and just the need for
filing and and that it's typically a a no touch zone and um you know they kind of went in and pointed out that you know while KWPR regulations you know do clearly protect
the area 200 ft from vernal pools, the language in the work subject to jurisdiction did not. Um, so it created this weird loophole where somebody could claim that while there was a 200 foot jurisdictional area, there's no work
that actually triggers that jurisdiction. So there was still language that needed to be cleaned up. I think um what we did there works um and ran it through council. Council said everything looked fine. Um so it just sort of changes you know where it
defines um not defines but where it discusses areas subject to protection in section 2.01 um instead of saying vernal pools and land within 100 ft of any vernal pool it says vernal pools to 100 ft laminate of mean high
water seat definition in section three. So that way we don't have anything confusing in there. And then under activities subject to regulation rather than specifying every single resource area which was the issue before um it says any activity proposed or undertaken in an area specified in section
2.01 or within 100 ft of and so that cleans that up. So I can read through them all if you want me to read through them or if the commission has any questions or the public has any questions we can go with that. But essentially, this was all just language that cleans up areas of our regs that
still were confusing about the 200 foot um jurisdictional area for veral pools. And just pointing out, we are planning a major rewrite of KWPR. If you recall, the idea was to change the bylaw first
and get the bylaw to all make sense and then to rewrite the rights to make sure they all match. Um, our bylaw rewrite got held up in the AG's office for a long time, uh, just being challenged and so everything has been okay with that for a while and I just haven't had the
time to get into it and put together a solid draft to share with the commission and have you all uh, comment on it and and suggest your your edits to that. So, this is just something that in the meantime in case anybody wanted to, I don't know, be cute and try to get
around something like this, we don't, you know, lose in court over some technicality and language. Do commissioners have any comments on this? Okay. Any members of the public? I had a chance to review these bylaw changes
might want to comment. Anyone online? Do I hear a motion to approve the proposed updates? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Great. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Cleaners, yes. Buzz,
yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. Great. That motion passes. Going to move on to section D. This is um 49 Old Mill Road. This is a notice of intent for an addition uh and a porch
along the rear of the existing home within the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and the 200 ft riverfront area of an intermittent stream. Uh do you have any comments, Matt?
Let's get a presentation first. I'm sorry. Let's get a presentation first. We should have a representative. Certainly, Mr. Holmes. Good evening, members of the commission. Brad Holmes on behalf of the Shepherds for their property at 49 Old Mill Road. Um the property, as you just explained,
contains a bordering vegetated wetland in an intermittent stream. And with that brings a 100 foot buffer zone and 200 foot riverfront area under the bylaw. The uh that the entire property is within the jurisdiction of the commission. The site contains a single
family home with a typical driveway and land lawn and landscaping. And at the rear of the house, there's an a sun room and small deck. And the proposal that's in this notice of intent is to construct an addition and porch over the footprint, basically the footprint of
the existing uh sun room and deck. Uh it's no closer to the wetland than exists now. The work as I said occurs within existing structures and we are proposing a mitigation planting strip within an
existing area of lawn to increase the vegetated buffer where there where there is very little uh we are under the the impervious calculation requirements and with that I'll bring it back to the commission.
So where is this one's in the one drive because I don't see this one either. I'm having a hard time. It's in it's in the May 28th folder under uh NOI 49 Old Bill Road.
Oh, so it's at the top. Sorry. When in doubt, scroll up. There you go. Yeah. All right. So, I'm looking at which plan? What am I looking at? What am I supposed to click on? NOI revised site plan May 19th. What am I looking at?
Yes. Yes. should have yellow on it. The one with the yellow on it, I believe. So, I think it's 51625. You see the first one? That's the most recent date. Yeah. I
would say always default to uh organize by most recent first. That way, if we have an obsolete plan, it'll just show up further down the page. We have a revised site plan from May 5th. So it says revised site plan
2025 0505. That's the one you're referring to. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we'll get Brad Holmes night tonight. This is a little easier. Current conditions. We don't have to go back in
time. All right. I'm looking at it. Is someone gonna put it up on the screen? You want me to? If you could. Um, I'm using the one drive for my staff report, which is frustrating. I understand. All right, here we go. So,
is this the right picture, Brad? Yes. Correct. And so, you see the outline in red is what's proposed uh for the proposed addition and it's proposed porch just off the edge. new stairway coming down. And the gray shading underneath,
which is a little harder to see, is the existing sun room and deck. That's that's off the back. Uh the existing So the the new the new the new porch is actually a little bigger then than the existing. Yes. Right.
Okay. All right. Go ahead. the ex the existing closest edge is 28.7 feet and we're we're increasing the set back a whole two inches so 28.9
instead but um as I said it's generally within the existing structure it's all lawn um we are the whole house is within the restricted setback so that's that's the the proposal for the mitigation
area. So this is the yellow is your proposed mitigation. Yes, that area is of lawn would be turfed off and vegetated with native shrubs and a seed mix. Okay. And this addition is an addition with a roof on it and rooms inside of
it. Yes. So all right. So, first thing obviously we're going to be looking for roof runoff control into some type of drywall or some type of swale. Uh I should have noted that there is a proposal proposed
roof infiltration system is over to the uh to the Thank you. I All right. And we're going to pipe What are we going to pipe in though? Are we going to just do the addition? We're doing the house. What What are we sending over here? Um,
I'm not sure if it's been sized for the whole house and I'm not No, I'm not saying the whole house, but are you picking up like you're going to, you know, you're going to pick up this, you know, I think we need to I I'll need to understand that. And then, uh, my final comment would be, you know, make
sure that this decking is spaced, you know, properly so we so we don't have to count this area. Agreed. Is this this looks like it's a little slightly bigger? I get what you're doing, but I'm saying this is slightly bigger, right? So, uh, and then
what are we doing for foundation for this? Uh, uh, on tubes. So, the additions on tubes, I believe. So, I'm going to check. I thought that's what we put in there. Okay. Because the existing structures are like that.
Oh, they have. Okay. Yeah. So, I guess we need I need more detail on how we're supporting the structure. For me, again, I'm speaking as myself. I need more details of how the structures being supported, including the deck. Um, I'm okay with helical piles if you want to
go that way. I I apologize. I it we proposed a frost wall type foundation. Okay. So, under the addition is frost wall and then the deck is on something else. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, we need to see those details and then I need to see which
roof, you know, what's what's going here into this uh roof roof infiltration system. Um and then uh that's it for my comments. Thank you. Thank you, B. Anyone else? Kina. Yes, that Jim. Yeah. Okay. All
right. So, I I think I I see where you're going with the proposed roof infiltration system. um just due because of the proximity of of how close you are to the to the resource area there the um would you say inter intimate
intermittent stream that we're at? Uh yes, it's an intermittent stream. Okay. I would I would like you to see I would like to see how much of that gutter area you can actually um get into that infiltration system. um the fact
that you're pushing it up to the front, even if there's an overflow uh built into it, uh at least you you're it's it's starting its journey to the wetlands further away, if you will. So, I'd like to see if um if you could pick
up those as me as much of the front area as you can um into that infiltration system. That would be my comment. Anyone else on the commission have a comment or anyone in the
public? No. Matt, anything else? Um, I just confirmed from the site visit that the existing deck is uh impervious because they were making that claim. So, that is confirmed. Um you know it is work proposed within the 50 foot no
disturb boundary and um I believe in the application Brad made the point that uh KWPR 10.08 B6 provides a standard for structures not being closer to resource areas when lot constraints exist. Um to me it's unclear whether that would apply
in this situation where you already have development on a single family lot. Um, and based on the way sort of lack of grandfathering has been described to me by town council, I would believe a variance should be requested and would have to be issued for this project. Um,
they did provide the mitigation, you know, for that in form of the infiltration system and the mitigation area. Mitigation area is in a good location down slope closest to the wetlands. Um, again, without conservation posts, it's just a garden
bed. So, you'd want to see conservation posts and you'd want a perpetual condition on that. Um, we did have yard waste dumped in and near the wetlands, including um some I don't know like old chairs and stuff like that. So, I pointed out during the site visit that
they should get that out of there. Um any permit that's issued should basically say that they have to do that before um before the project starts. Um but beyond that it didn't look like there was you know heavy impact from the
existing use. Um so basically I think a determines whether you know they want to see a variance request on this and b determine whether the mitigation is sufficient which to Buzz's point. Having more information on the infiltration system would help. Yeah. And then we
need some wetland post. Um Brad. Sure. Yep. So, how much time do you need to get that together? Brad, a couple weeks next meeting or uh Yeah, I don't think it's a heavy lift. Um we want to have it in a week
ahead of time. So, that gives us what a a week to get it in for the week a week and in two two weeks of your meeting. June 11. So, June 11. Okay. That would do. Okay. So, you're okay with Deborah? Yes. June 11th. June 11th. So, you'd have to have
it in by June 4th. We can do that. All right. Then, do I have a motion? So, can I make a motion that we continue this to June 11th in order to receive the requested information? Sure. And do I have a second on that?
Second. Yeah. Okay. So, have a motion by Marilyn, seconded by Megan. Um, and this is to continue the message to June 11. Um, Jim, yes. And Megan, yes. Cleaners, yes. Buzz, yes. And Marilyn, yes. And Brian, so
we'll see you on this on the 11th. Thank you. Have a good night. You, too. You mean you don't have the rest of the hearings as well? There you go. All right, going to move on to section E. And this
is um I'm going to open a hearing for the notice of intent for the proposed construction of an addition to a singled family house in place of an existing deck and the reconstruction of the existing dwelling on the existing
foundation, including addition of a second story. Um, do you have any comments, Matt? Yeah. Do we want to hear from the representative first? Would you No, I can I can give you an update. Kina, this
is 35R East. Buzz, thank you. Okay. Did you find it in the one drive? I got it. You got it. All right. Um, so at the last hearing, um, we sort of went through everything with this. If anybody needs, um, any
update on this, let me know. Um but the applicant was asked to come back with um or it was suggested that the applicant come back with more information about um what would happen if the foundation needed to be replaced just so that the permit covered it. Um and they did that.
They provided an updated plan that has details on the potential foundation protocol and they appeared sufficient to me for protection of the wetland resources. Um we have not gone through any special conditions on this. So, I guess I'll just ask if any commissioner
needs more update to as a reminder on any of this or need your memories refreshed. Good. Yep. But Marilyn has some points she'd like to make. No, no. I said I have a copy right here on Oh, you're good. All
right, then. All right. You want to hear from the representative? Was that a question for me? Yeah. Do are we ready to move to the representative? Yeah, it's up to you. Yeah. You want to
just identify yourself for the record, please? And um Yes. Uh my name is Rick Savant with Stack and Taylor. As uh Matt stated um at the last hearing um we just went over wanted us to include the potential if we did have to replace the
foundation to include some wetland protection in that case just to save the commission some time if we versus amendments or anything like that. So we have done that uh included that on the plan. Uh we don't still don't anticipate having to do that but it's in place if
if uh by chance it does occur. So that's pretty much the only changes on the plan. Okay. And actually some conservation markers was discussed which I've added um quite a few to the uh proposed it was
six markers total that we added. [Music] Okay. Do uh I have any comments from the commission? Did have any more comments? I don't know. Matt, anything else? We can go through I can go through uh what my recommendations were on special
conditions. Um we would have confirmation of variance requests under 10.08b2 and five. Um any dumpster used as part of this project must be covered. Any yard waste including but not limited to lawn clippings installed
on site must be removed before work commences. Uh the usual outdoor chemicals and fertilizers blurb. um mitigation area must be well established before a COC can be issued. The two years of inspection and reporting should begin the year after
project completion commission to determine whether that begins after issuance of a COC and conservation posts in perpetuity with any allowances for vegetation management in the mitigation area. Um let's see if there's anything else
that I missed here. We have the mitigation planting area being maintained in natural state in perpetuity. And yeah, that's it. If the commission has any other questions or concerns, we can go through that. Yeah,
I think just if I may, I just want to make sure we have in order conditions that all of the downspouts from the gutters are going to be connected to the two roof drains. Okay, may I? Yes, please. Jim, um just for my clarification, um I don't know
east east um east road or whatever. Um East Avenue. Is this in the nook? Is there is there sewer um is the sewer in this area? Is it connected to sewer or Okay, it it is Jim. It's high high pressure zone. High pressure HDP
pressure sewer. Yeah. So what All I see I see the leeching pit and I just wanted to make sure that we weren't we weren't talking type five. Yeah, there's two roof drains that look like leeching pits but they're roof drains. All right. Right. And then the Matt, this is the one you called me about the helical
screws right on the deck probably. You and I had a text message about helical sauna tubes versus helical piles, right? Is this is the one that was revol involving that? Might have been. No, I actually think that was a that was an existing permit. Yeah. Well,
anyways, they're showing their deck with helical piles rather than foundation. So, um Yes. So, so I think it's good. I'm ready to move forward. Is this an NOI? This is an NOI. Yeah. And and I would say that I
think I said at the last hearing that I think this this is what you want to see with these types of projects. Sufficient mitigation protected resource areas. Yep. All right. Are we ready to close the hearing? Everybody good? I'd just like to ask if there are any comments from members of the public, either present
online or in person. None. Do I hear a motion to close the hearing? I'll make that motion. Okay. Um, and I have a second. Second. All right. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Yes. Buzz,
yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes, the hearing is closed. Um, and uh do I hear a motion to approve uh the NOI and issue the uh orders of conditions? I'll make I'll make that motion. Okay.
Thanks, Marilyn. Um, and do I have a second? Second. Thanks, Jim. Um, I Jim Buzz, can I just can I just ask if we're going to clarify that we're asking for as part of that that we're we're requiring the all the gutters to drain
into the leeching. Yeah. As per discussion. Yeah. Order conditions. As per discussion plus that plus that condition. Okay. I'll second. Okay. Okay. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Clean is a yes. Buzz?
Yes. Marilyn? Yes. And Brian, yes. All right. So, thank you very much. That motion carries. Thank you. And thank you. I'd like to thank uh Juliana and Matt for all the help on the project, too. They're very help helpful getting through it. Thank you.
Unless anyone objects or needs a break, I'm going to move along to section F. We good? We're good. Section F is 10 Adams Avenue and I open a hearing for the notice of intent for the proposed construction of a garage
addition to a single family house within the buffer zones of several coastal wetland resource areas. Um is there a representative? Yes. Uh Paul Seabour from Grady Consulting. Would you like to um make
some comments? Um Mr. Seabberg. Sure. Is it okay if I share the screen, please? Okay. Does everybody see the plan here? Yep. Okay. So, since we met at the last um meeting, um we've submitted revised
plans in response to comments from the commission. Um the site plan has been revised to include the 4 foot strip of uh natural vegetation along the top of coastal bank um as part of the previous order of conditions that was issued in
2009 2009 um in perpetuity. Um we've increased the size of the storm water mitigation system shown here uh size and storage volume as requested. Uh we've reviewed the sewer
connection with the sewer department. Um we've had added additional notes to the plan to ensure that the construction sequence is followed and the service shut off is coordinated with the sewer department. And I provided my correspondence with the sewer department as well. Uh we've added a stockpile
location to the plan shown here. Um we provided all the applicable variance requests for setbacks to the resource areas and we've also included um conservation posts as requested shown in red here and there are six total. Um
and with that said I'd be happy to turn it to questions from the commission. U Matt, do you have any comments? Uh yeah, let me just quickly scan through so I don't duplicate everything that he just said. Um,
so he showed the 4 foot wide native plantings. I just want to make the point that that should not be considered mitigation with this filing because they were already required under the 2009 permit. And if the commission were to
issue a permit for this project, um that portion of it should be called out with a specific um timeline with stating that if it's not done by a certain time, then um an enforcement order will be issued just so you don't run into the same
issue where they have three years to get it done and then if it gets extended by the governor another two years. Um you know, essentially they're not required to build this project if they don't want to. But that portion of it should definitely get done regardless. Um I
believe they've answered all all of my questions on the sewer issue and I did talk with that uh talk with the sewer department about that. um just making sure that um sufficient protective measures are taken. Um and
Seer essentially said that um they would need to be a part of the process uh regardless and they would be able to sort of not make sure but you know they they'll be able to assist with making sure the right steps are taken to you
prevent a catastrophic release into the bay. They added the stockpile location and we got the formal variance request. So at this point I think it's up to the commission as to whether um you know they think that there's
sufficient mitigation provided with this project that it's not more detrimental to the resource areas. Um if you have any more questions about how they upsized the the storm water infiltration, I know that was a that was a you know point of discussion at the last hearing. Um, and that that may be
something that that helps with that. So, it's all I have questions. Yeah. Can we hear from you, Buzz? Yeah. So, Matt, let me unpack that. I just want to make sure I have this correct. So, there was already in order conditions and the conditions saying
that they had to build put that 4 foot wide needed planning before they even filed for this request. Correct. Yeah. But basically it was um I believe in 2008 the previous owner of the property um it seemed sort of like a builder um you know bought the property,
redeveloped it and then sold it. Um so the builder had the orders and conditions and the orders and conditions stated that the lawn could not encroach uh within 4t of the top of coastal bank and that you know any disturbed areas within that would need to be planted
with native plantings. Um, it also specified in a little bit of a confusing way, um, essentially the point they were trying to make was that there should be no chemicals used on the lawn and the lawn should be, um, it said a native fescue type, uh, which I don't know I
don't know that that would have been the case, but it's pretty clear not what the what the conditions are now are not what the permit requirements were back then. I think we can backtrack back on some of that with the you know conditions that the commission uses now with no um you
know chemicals or fertilizers within uh that area. But yes, so why was supposed to be like that a long time ago, right? So if our concern is that this mitigation, this native planning is going to get done, why can't it just be
stated in order conditions that that that has to be done before the project is even started? Yeah, that's yeah, basically my only point was that it should be stated what the deadline is. So if you want to make you want to make that fee before, but it should still also be specified that if
they don't build the project, there's still a deadline. Do you see what I'm saying with that one? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I get there's two bites at the apple. I'm saying if we're nervous, it's not going to get done. Let's just It's not in the way of them doing construction, so there's no reason they can't do it ahead of time. Right. Right.
And it and if and if they're required to do it, then we're going to give them, you know, whatever two years to do it, even if they don't do the job. Is that what you're saying? Correct. Yeah. Timeline up to the commission. But yeah, it should have a set deadline so it doesn't end up like some other
projects have in the past. Yeah. So that those would be my only the rest of it looks fine. That would be my two, you know, suggestions is that we make that 4 foot native plantings along the bank requirement to be completed or at least installed. I know it's not going to be completely growing, but has to be
installed prior to starting the rest of the project. And then if they don't move forward with the project, they still have to do it within two years. Okay. Is there a representative for this project? Would you like to come on up and make your comments, please?
And would you mind identifying yourself for the record? Certainly. My name's Kevin Hines. Can you can you stop uh sharing the screen, whoever that is, so we can see? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Hines. Yes, my name's Kevin Hines. My wife Beth and I own the property. Um I understand
the mitigation requirements, the 4oot buffer and the grasses, etc. We can start that anytime you'd like. It really doesn't matter. Okay. Okay. So, you would not object to having that done before you start the other part of the project? Not at all.
No. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission? Is there any member of the public who would make a like to make a
comment? Okay. Are you ready for a motion to close? This is an NOI, correct? This is an NOI. Yeah. So, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do you do you want Matt to run through Do you want to run or are
you all set with everything? Um I actually don't think we did not go through any special conditions last time, correct? No. Okay. All right. Run it. Run it. So, um, special emissions will be confirmation of the variance for
10.05B. Any dumpster used must be covered. Uh, the usual outdoor chemicals and fertilizers blurb. Um, you may even specify that even more just to say no fertilizers at all. Um, with this proximity to the resource areas, but
that's up to the commission to discuss. Um, typically we have two years of inspection and reporting on the mitigation area. Again, for this um that was specifying for that kind of ovalshaped mitigation area they were talking about, but you could have the
same with the 4 foot area at the top since that would be new and also covered by this permit. Um conservation posts in perpetuity, detailed allowances for vegetation management within mitigation areas, mitigation planting area in a natural
state. And that's all that I had. If you Unless you had any questions. Does anybody want to discuss those? I just have a quick question. Um the 4 foot against the shoreline is old
necessary to bring the property up into compliance. Correct. So technically the only mitigation we're getting for the impervious increase is this island or an existing island. Yeah,
it's the the little island area and the storm water infiltration. Okay. And the outdoor fertilizers thing is an interesting I mean already it was it was not allowed on the property from the earlier perpetual condition, but I mean
from my standpoint they shouldn't be allowed on the nook within jurisdiction anyways. um you know any storm any runoff from an application of any fertilizer or pesticide in that area technically
should be treated as enforcement in my opinion. It's just hard to stay on top of all of those things. So, um I think anytime we put these special conditions in and make sure people understand them is great. And we may want to go out with some sort of information campaign on
there too because um see I see a lot of really really green lawns on the nook on properties that slope down uh to the bay. Right. Do any other questions or issues? No, but to Matt's point, just get that statement in there that none of that
will be allowed. The fertilizers will be allowed. Well, that would be one of the order of conditions, right? And there is, you know, our typical blurb now on special conditions does state that the homeowner should keep records of any outdoor chemical treatments and provide them to the commission upon request. Um, and that
failure to provide records could be caused for issuance of fines. Do you have any comments on that? Okay. Can I have a motion to uh close this hearing? So moved. Do you have a second?
Have a motion and a second to close the hearing. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Clean. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. Okay, this hearing is closed. And do I hear a
motion to uh approve the NOI and issue um orders of conditions? Take a stab at it. Okay, Buzz. Yeah. So, I'll make a motion to approve the NOI with the conditions as outlined
by the agent. Additionally, that the 4oot native plantings be done prior and completed prior to the start of the balance of the project. And um I think that was my only a special
condition beyond that. Do I have a second? All right, we have a motion. It's been seconded. Jim, yes. Megan, no. CL is an I. Buzz,
yes. Marilyn, yes. Ryan, yes. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. There's uh the matter of 164 Pemroke Street.
This is an enforcement Madam Chairman, I need to recuse myself. All right. Consider yourself recused. Ma'am, the minutes will reflect. All right. You want to update us on that, Matt?
Sure. Yeah. Just give me one second to pull up. Okay. So, um, in 2023, you know, essentially this property has a long permitting history. Um, the whole property is within
jurisdiction. There have been perpetual conditions placed on the property from prior permitting. um prohibiting pesticides, chemical fertilizers. And in 2023, I had reached
out because there was a lawn flag that I saw out there. Um and it's a super green lawn. I mean, it's it's a lawn that you you can tell um is being fertilized at kind of a heavy rate if you know lawns. um it is right up slope from a certified
vernal pool which is uh part of the concern with those those conditions. Um in 2023 um you know I was told that um by the the I don't know if it's the manager or owner of the application company that
everything that was used there was organic and slow released. Um it turns out that based on the way the the conditions are written that that really doesn't matter. They're not supposed to be there anyways. But at the time I thought that was sufficient. Moved along and didn't um take any enforcement
action on that. Um so recently on I believe it was sorry let me get back to this page. April 28th um I observed an employee of the same company driving a spread one of those ride-on spreaders and spreading a granular substance on
that front lawn area. And so I stopped to talk to him and asked him what he was spraying and he sort of said, "Oh, it's just the regular, you know, fertilizer, you know, with pre-emergent." And I got the product names from him. Um, then he said he was going to go around and spray
spot spray broadleaf weeds with herbicide. Um, so I, you know, informed him that the property had, you know, you know, prohibitions on things like that and he was not aware of that. And I said that I was told, you know, before that everything that was used on the property
was slow release and organic. And he said, um, he said he said that it would be news to me. He said, I've been doing this property for a couple of years and this is all we've ever used. Um, so once I got back to the office, I looked up the names, uh, MSDS sheets and, uh,
labels of all the products that he mentioned and, um, several of them have, you know, prohibitions themselves about being used near open water, um, highly toxic to aquatic organisms, things like
that. Um, so nasty stuff that you do not want draining down into a vernal pool in any way. So um there are there is uh perpetual condition stating the use of pesticides, salts, herbicides or
pollutants is strictly prohibited. This condition is ongoing and will not expire at the end of three years. Um in this situation the chemical fertilizer would be a pollutant and the pre-emergent weed pre mixed in with the fertilizer would be an herbicide and the spot spraying of broadleaf weeds would probably violate
the same condition by applying herbicides. although it may not be as concerning as a granular substance being sprayed around and available for when it rains. So, I sent out a notice of violation to the property owner to just come in front of the commission and talk about that. And here we are. Is the
property owner here? Representative, please identify yourself for the record. Thank you. Sure. My name is Ed O'Aine and I am the maintenance landscaper at 164 Pemroke Street. And some of the information I'm going to
speak about now, Matt, has already mentioned. Um, Mike Stevens, the general manager of Always Green of Cape Cod, uh, Lawn Service was unable to make tonight's meeting. In September of 2023, Mr. Panella requested that I meet him at
the property of 164 Pemroke Street. We tooured the entire yard in which he pointed out two piles of glass grass clippings that needed to be removed from the side of the front yard. This request was promptly carried out. Within that same week of September
2023, Mr. Stevens sent an email to myself and Mr. Panella stating that Always Green uses as described as natural fertilizer. That being said, I assume that the property has been in compliance with the Conservation Commission's
requests. Upon being informed of the last month's first fertilizer application at the property, I learned it was applied by a different new technician who may have been unfamiliar with the surrounding environment. And I'm here this evening
to uh mention that it could have been a mistake. If any mistake has been made, we will rectify by adjusting the upcoming fertilization program immediately. If you have any future specific questions, I will personally
communicate with Mr. Stevens and get get back to the commission as soon as possible. All right. Thank you. Um, do members of the commission have any questions for the representative for [Music]
164? Any questions, comments? So, I'm assuming I'll just wait for the commission's recommendations to go further. Matt. Yeah. I mean, just to follow up on that, I mean, and again, I'm not trying to be
punitive here. I want to get things into a situation where wetlands are protected and that's it. But um this kid, now I say kid, this this man that was applying on site said that he had been the
applicator on the site for years. So um yeah, there's been a violation. All we know of is on that day there was a violation. I suspect that for years we've had, you know, this type of high
nitrogen fertilizer used on site and at least this one time, if not according to the applicator, for years they've been applying this pre-emergent crab grass killer which is highly toxic to aquatic life. Um, so that so that just brings me
to a point and I think this is a good reflection moment. So obviously this property has a long history with this board. Um and the reason we pushed so hard to have an existing condition plan was that we could you know be mindful of
any future encroachments. So as you were just speaking Matt it occurred to me I know we put these regulations in about no fertilizer in prep in perpetuity etc. But you know what we haven't said and we need to add in my opinion to our
regulations that there are signage that is posted right on the on the property that states what is allowed to be used on the lawn surface for when someone shows up that's working for a company and and is not
doing maliciously. You know, he's just being told go hey go take care of that property. uh he can at least see the signs and say, "Gee, maybe I shouldn't be putting what I'm putting on the lawns." So, that probably should going forward should be part of our standard
order of conditions. How many languages are you going to put them in only because that came up on another enforcement issue where it was our landscapers don't speak English. I understand. So, I think we do two languages. I mean, we can only do what we can do. We can also add a QR code
that would take them to multiple languages. Um, so I don't in today's world with technology, I think we can get there. Um, but I I think it's a it's a mistake on our part not to we put up wetland
sign. Let's put up another sign that says, "Hey, don't we've said don't use this stuff." Right. So, at least we have a fighting chance for it not to happen. Yeah. to Buzz's point, um, you know, on the existing conditions plan, one of the things that I wanted to bring up with
this is that, um, there's still open orders of conditions on this property and the homeowner understands that they need to be closed out. Um, part of the issue there had been plantings in the front of the property that were not
originally part of the permitting process. um he had been working with the landscape designer on trying to correct that and come forward with you know a plan that would be uh that would allow a COC to be issued on that and ultimately we ran into disagreement in that I
maintained that you know the area around the vernal pool was not supposed to be planted with landscape plants that was supposed to be native vegetated buffer that's one of the issues that I had talked with um Ed about on site was that you know not only landscapers were blowing going through there and blowing,
you know, debris downhill into the vernal pool, but you know, cutting back the native vegetation so that it didn't encroach on the rodendrins and the, you know, the landscape plants on that slope. The vernal pool does not have the protection that it's supposed to have based on the permanent history. Um, so
at some point this has to get closed out. Um, you know, they they're going to need to file for a COC on this. And this is indicative of why that vernal pool needs protection is that, you know, It appears that for years there have
been harmful chemicals applied up slope of that vernal pool within very close distance to it. Um and it's very easy to see the effect that could have on on the water quality and the organisms that would be growing in those in that pool.
So um yeah, a lot of lot of issues there that do need to be wrapped up. And to Buzz's point, I don't know if signage like that may be a way to to you know, get through to where that doesn't happen again. I don't know.
I've always thought myself that um you know, some of the conditions we put in there are, you know, highly uninforcable because nobody's ever going to read them on our order of condition at the registry of deeds. So, I like the idea of signage. Um the more the better
because it's just it just takes that whole I didn't know comment out of the future discussions that are going to come up. So, I'd be all for that moving forward. And um I don't know if it's it's it's a curative, but you know, how do we work
that into the current enforcement situation that we're in? Um you know, as or where are you putting, you know, what's the size requirement? Where are the where are the signs going? Um it's not the easiest thing to to pull
off. I'm not Yeah. No, I'm not I'm not trying to say it is by any means. It's but I I do think there's there's good to be come out of it. So, if you know, we could hit anybody with a fine 250 bucks probably not going to make a dent, but
putting up something would put it in front of somebody. So, the next time we see it, it's it's a willful violation type of situation where we don't have to say, "Oh, well, we they didn't know." Uh, and take that at at, you know, its face value. So I think I think I think
it if we could do some work and figure out maybe somebody else has already figured out this box and then you know somebody else in Massachusetts already has some kind of language that um you know uh we might be able to plagiarize a little bit to the betterment of this
u community. any comments from the board commission? Well, I per I personally think that if you have a violation um that it requires a sanction
uh whether a person was just doing his job and not aware or or um intentionally violating um uh you know uh a restriction.
So I wouldn't hesitate to um issue a sanction in this issue in this instance. Kina, if I may, I I don't disagree with you at all. Um, I just think that if we are going in that direction that no
matter what, our baseline should be, you know, to include signage and and have that signage, you know, in in front of things, right? So, every landscaper, you know, from now until there's none of us left is going to have to drive up the
driveway to to get onto the property. and um you know putting you know a similar to the conservation post um putting something that's a little bit more in your face about what the requirements are in this case maybe not in every single case just but in this
case obviously there's there's I think a bigger need um I think I think there's I think we want to tie that to whatever enforcement everybody else feels is proper for this do we have the authority to um expand in that direction Matt
I don't see why not. Um I I'd rather do the signage in lie of fines because you know where the fine thing's going to go. So Okay. Um I think you could do the signage through an enforcement order than you could state that signage is not in place by a date
certain that you know you'll issue $300 daily fines until it is. Yeah. Yeah. I think I just think you have to be specific about the type of signage and I don't know that we're ready to spot that. That's why I'd like to I'd like to kick this over to the next meeting so we have time to think about what that whole
signage thing is. I agree. I'll I'll do a little I'll do a little research. Like Jim said, somebody else has already done this. Just to be clear, just to be clear, you are you talking about
having the signage to be the on this particular property. Correct. Yeah. On the in the on the lawn. I just want to say we're make sure that we're staying focused on the the infraction we're dealing with at the moment and not talking about what we're
going to do in the future for future endeavors, but we need to stay focused on what's happening at this moment in this property. You're suggesting about ordering signs. Thanks for your thanks for your guidance. Thanks for your guidance on that. We'll decide what we focus on. We appreciate your comments
though. Um, so the the focus is you have a violation on the property and we have every right to give you a fine. What we're talking about is instead of lie of a fine, working to cooperatively together to get some signage so that this won't happen again. Just to be clear, Buzz, that was me speaking.
Brian, not the Oh, sorry. Representative. Sorry, Brian. Sorry. I just want to clarify that what you and Jim are suggesting is that the enforcement order is signage, not a fine. Right. Right. That's where I'm leaning. My thank you for the clarification. I'll make sure the public
has an opportunity to speak to and I'm open. I mean, if if if personally I I am open to whatever you guys decide. I just my my stance is that I I want to see the signage requirement in in that. Again, again that we we've gone down this road
with finage. We we put a fine in, they appeal it, we go down the court, blah blah blah, right? I mean, I'd rather have the signs. You know, we're never going to see the $300 alls or whatever it is. I'd rather have the signs. I would absolutely rather see the signs myself and and and just keep it simple
because I think it's easier for a fine to get waved than it is for a sign requirement that tells them they're doing it wrong and not to do it wrong than, you know, Yeah. And then once the Yeah. Then once the signs are in place, then it's, you know, that well, we didn't know was kind of off the hook at
that, right? Sorry. Yeah, I'd like to um ask is it Miss Kazare as a member of the public not a member of the commission wants to comment on this? You do. a citizen I I would like to just approach this in
a rather logical fashion and suggest that to my understanding normally when one has a lawn service there's a contract involved and it would seem to me one would be able to contract for the type of treatment one wants on one's property
which would then again allow for stipulating what materials are used. I have no reaction to your request for signage. I'm trying to think of something that would have an immediate effect because by having a contract and requesting
organic or whatever and what area can be utilized and what area can't be utilized from my perspective it would disallow some of this confusion and it would also disallow saying oh golly gee I didn't
know. So that's my suggestion. I I have a question for you. Do you think that would obiate the need for signage? I think it's possible, but I would I don't need to go toe-to-toe with my colleague. Well, thank you.
Um, could you come up and speak onto the just to get it on the record so we know just talk to me. I'm just I'm trying to understand what she just mentioned. That's all. If you don't mind explaining that again what she just mentioned, you have to speak to
her through the chair. Try to speak to her. Okay. It's my first time in this position. Don't get don't get by it. So, I'm not quite understand. I know I'm here for a change in what's happening at the property and we're more than willing
to do that and I'm a little confused now if I understand you want to put some signage on the lawn or you trying to avoid that, excuse me, and come up with a new fertilization uh ingredient. I think that those are the two um I want
both suggestions that have been brought by the board and to to the commission by the commission. Okay. So that would be either to put signage that would inform you for instance I guess anyone coming to put something on the lawn. Yeah. or
else to require a contract that specifies you know the type of fertilizer that can be used on this particular that can be done but I think it's important to note that we haven't decided the whole yeah and and the representative has to step away so
he can hear you Jim he has to see you to hear you okay can you hear him now if he speaks sure so so what I just want to make sure that the gentleman understands is that tonight's not the night where we give you the answer. Tonight's night where we just discussed it. We've asked
Matt. Um Buzz is going to look up some some data, some information, come back to it. Um and I think that, you know, at the next meeting we'll be able to to kind of have the the final, you know, discussion on what the requirements are going to be moving forward. So, um, what
was discussed with signage and then, you know, Marilyn's to Marilyn's point as, you know, not a member of of the commission at this point, um, was that, you know, there is paperwork trail, um, for each one of these properties that we could
see some kind of definitive document showing that, you know, uh, the the Mr. Kasner has has done everything in his power to communicate the expectations moving forward and and purchased through contract for certain services so that we
know that he's done everything on his side of it as well. So like both those ideas it's just we haven't voted for anything we you know so I don't want to move in a certain direction until you get the full marching orders. Okay. So we want Mr. Kasnner to understand
that he'll be coming back next meeting so that we can finish the discussion. Is that correct? So, is that what Yeah, because we're not we want more information first. I think everybody's agreeing on seems to be in agreement on where we're going with
this. So, but let's let's make sure that we have the answers before we somebody breaks down. Yeah. But my to a bigger point though, I'm saying I want these signs going forward on all these projects. I 100% agree with you. I think I think it should be a standard condition that if we throw that in
there, whatever number it is, um, you know, the colon does that mean colon attached to it and you know the sign goes behind it. So yeah. And I agree with Marilyn for the short term we should see the contract, but you know, he could contract with another company next year, right? So,
do you want to see the existing contract if there is one? Is that something that I mean are we that would be my I would say we want to see the new one that says they're going to comply with what could be used on the lawn. I'd like to see Madam Chair. Okay. I would like
to see a current contract. Okay. I can I can talk to the general manager. Yep. For sure. Is there a timeline on that, Matt? How much time do you need? Uh, actually, he's been really hard to get in touch with. There's been a death in his
family, so I haven't been able to um contact him, but I'm sure before the next meeting, which is a couple of weeks. Yeah. Couple of weeks. Yeah. June 11th. That's why he's not here tonight. We would need to see it by June 4th. I'm sorry. We would need to see it by June 4th in order to have it ready for the
June 11th meeting. Okay. Could you get the existing contract for lawn services to Matt by June 4th? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Do we have any uh meeting minutes to uh Miss Cot you're coming back on? We got we got to kick this over, right? You need a vote on that or not? Right. We're going to continue this enforcement matter to uh June 11th.
Yeah. Matt. Yeah. You need a motion and a second on that. Make a motion to continue this enforcement order until June 11th. Second on that. Second. All right. Um Jim, yes. Colleen, yes.
Megan, yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, no. Not Marilyn. Brian, yes. Okay. So, we'll hear from them on the 11th. Matt, when's the last time you were on that property? Well, recently, right? Um, I
didn't I did not step on the property that day. I just pulled over on the side of the road. Um, it's been a while. I think a portal order. Are we allowed to continue this conversation when property owners have are not here? It's not the question. I'll text you. I have a
never mind. I have an afterthought, but it's fine. Do we have any meeting minutes to review? Yep. Yes. February 26. I don't have a copy of them.
Did everybody else get February 26th or not? I did. Oh, the one thing I actually did find What did you find, Buzz? The minutes. Oh, okay. You didn't find
something in there. Do I have a motion to accept the minutes of uh February 26, 2025? I'll make that motion. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Got a motion by Megan and
second by Jim. [Music] Um, Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Kind's going to abstain. Buzz, yes. Brian, forgot one.
Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. Okay, those minutes are accepted. Thanks. Are there any update? Any updates? Um, just a couple quick ones. I know it's late, but um we now have a path forward for
finishing up the um the trail restoration work at Blackwater um and the installation of bridges. So that should start I believe first week of June. Um so I'm hopeful to get that property open as soon as possible because people are very anxious for it.
Been getting a lot of messages on that. Um, second update is I don't know if you all remember a while back we did a sort of postumous peer review of the Tall Timbers phase 4 development after having several homeowners reach out uh when they were trying to sell their
properties not knowing they had open orders and conditions. Um, the developer only got a partial COC in order to get the road uh the road approved so they could get occupancy and then never finished. uh which was the case with a whole bunch of
developments in town uh before my time here and before most of your time on the board. Um so I delayed you know any enforcement action on that for various reasons including reaching out to
somebody who was no longer with us um that was representing it. And then recently I reached out to the firm that was the uh surveyor and engineer on the project and just said hey can you get in touch with with you know the the developer on this you know before we go
through the enforcement process. I'd love if they would just comply and get it done and they got back to me and said the entities involved in the construction of that project have been dissolved and are fully liquidated. And um so I scraped up as
much background information on that as I could and approach town council about it because um you know from looking up things through the um the state website you can look up all of the officers of any organization and they're all still in existence in Kingston. And
um town council's viewpoint was we can't enforce on anybody who was a member of any of those organizations unless their personal names were listed on any of the permitting paperwork, which they're not. So Tall Timbers LLC and Southeastern
Sand and Gravel have been dissolved. They don't exist anymore. They are not going to finish that development and apparently we can't force them to. So, at this point, I'll take whatever information I have and reach out to all of the potentially affected homeowners
uh that still have open orders and conditions so that they're at least aware, you know, and they can try to deal with their own deed issues before they go to sell their property in the future. So, just found that one out recently and wanted to update the
commission on that. So what comes to mind is is the the language I think Buzz had had noted it too you know a while back that that we have in the bylaw bonds are requiring bonds um you know as a financial tool to
ensure that whatever is required is delivered as part of the project. So, um, you know, I just think it's it's a good note just to keep it in our mind when something like that comes
up where we think there's, you know, any outcome that isn't what we expect or or what we want. um because it's very clear that profit rules the day for um you know businesses and you know they have very responsibility to make money
and I get it but they also have a legal obligation and you know just folding up without doing the work and leaving you know essentially their cl um their their their buyers you know in the lurch is is a tough position for all of us and especially us coming in as the enforcement people behind it and so you
know I think I think we should yeah thankfully I think we're beyond most of the big developments in town that aren't going to go 40B. Um, you know, with 40B, you really have very limited ability to do any of that anyways, but we're at least aware of the issues. There were a lot of developments that went this way
and it's left the town and homeowners with with some problems. Um, so at least we have the awareness now and definitely if we get something similar like that, the commission can can use those tools. But um unfortunately in this case um
it's left on the homeowners and rather than just take enforcement action on all of them, you know, I'd like to give people, you know, the time to to figure out if they need to do any work or just apply for for certificates. Yeah. And just, you know, I've been doing a lot of work for some for another
thing in town and, you know, the um the southeastern parcels, I forget which development it is, looks like there's, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes associated with those conservation restriction parcels. So, you know, I think it's important to,
you know, think about that as well, uh, when we're coming in to make sure that we're not just leaving these things that are essentially going to be, you know, supported by the community that's coming through and come up with a better solution, right? Yeah, I've been involved in that in that discussion too
about you know is there a way that the town can not accept those because again yeah you have these things that are offered up as a you know as a as a tool to you get a development through and show the benefit and then ultimately they end up being town's responsibility when that was not part of the part of
the equation. So yeah, it's that it's that outside the box thinking that everybody thinks they can just get around a rule, right? It's you know we discussed that earlier. It's a it's it's The rules are there for a reason and we got to do our best to make sure that we don't feed those in the poll. So, and I
think you did do a great job with it, Pat. So, Brian, that's all I got for updates for now. Super. Do I hear a motion to make a motion? Thank you.
We have a motion to it. [Music] It's been Jim. Yes. Yes. Megan, yes.
Yes. Marilyn, yes. Yes.