The time is 6:30. They're not He's not up yet. Who's not up? We're not. Okay. There you go. Good evening. The time is 6:31. The date is Wednesday, September 24th,
2025. Um there are no commissioners absent. Um one uh commissioner commissioner Buzz Artiano is virtual and uh commissioner
dot McFarland is also um virtual. I'll now open the meeting and take a roll call. Kina Vendetti, that's me. I'm here. Jim Franklin. Yes. Dot, you're here. Yes. Thanks. Megan Hickey
here. Bazartiano here. There you go. Marilyn Kazado here. And Brian Payne here. We're all here. Thanks. Please note we're doing a hybrid meeting. That's
with in person and virtual attendance. So if a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during this public hearing, please use the raised hand function on Zoom and then you'll be assigned to speak in time. And if you're
listening in via telephone dial dial um press star9 that will raise your hand and then press star six to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded by the local scene. We thank them very much and record of the meeting will be
posted on the local scene website as soon as they are able. Anyone interested uh anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting should notify me at this time. Anyone? Great.
Well, I want to say that the open space committee still has one open seat. Please contact the conservation department for details in that regard. Uh first order of business, signing documents. Is there any anything else to
be signed? Nope. We had the KWPR and WPA enforcement orders for 164 Pemroke Street. Uh they hadn't got enough signatures at the last meeting. And we had invoices for Benomi Welding, Bills and Thomas, Kingston Landscaping, and Environmental Partners or Apex.
All right. I'm going to open a discussion on the request by troop 49 to camp outway preserve. Um, does the representative have any comments? If you do, come up to
the podium, identify yourself, and we'll get you on the record. Thanks. Yeah, my name is Dylan Baraka with the Boy Scouts. Uh, I'm going to be doing my Eagle project this weekend, and we have some new scouts in the troop. Uh, so we're going to roll a camp out into it.
We're going to, uh, do the project and then just camp right there on the land when we're done. Okay. I just want to have permission before we go out there and we're going to have a small fire. We got permission from the uh fire department, so should be good for that. Super. Do you have any comments, Matt, on this?
Um, no. All good on my end. I got the email from the fire chief that they're they're good with it and I think it's going to be a great project. Uh, this is the roller coaster boardwalk at Hathaway Preserve and he's going to be fixing that. So, it's a nice
It's a good deal. And it's good. Always good to get the scouts out there. So, do any commissioners have any comments? No. Except for me. I'd like to say that I think it's wonderful. Thank you very much for your service to the community. Um, is there any member of the public?
No. If you'd like to sign in, that would be super. Okay. Just so we have you on the record. Um, so do I hear a motion to approve the request? I'll make the motion. All right. We have a motion. Uh, is there a second? Second. And we have a second. I'm going to take
a vote on that dot. Yes. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Colleen, is a yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. Brian, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck. Very good. Thank you. Thank you,
Chris. Good luck. I'll now open a public meeting to discuss the request for a determination of applicability. We call it RDA. This is filed by Ring Road Solar for the proposed installment of a deer fence
within the buffer zone to wetland resource areas including Riverfront area on their properties at 126, 131, and 137 Ring Road. Um, we will hear a briefing from you, Matt, if you have one.
Um, yeah. So, this is an RDA uh to have the commission make a determination on a proposal by the applicant to install uh whatever you want to call fencing, security fencing, deer fencing uh around the bog
properties um claiming exemptions under WPA and um the Kingston wetland protection regulations. So, I think we can have a a quick presentation by the applicant. Is the applicant here? Applicant's online.
Online. All right. Well, let's hear that brief presentation from the applicant, please. Yeah. Hello. Um, uh, thanks for having us. Uh, I'm John Clavens from Clayven's Law Group here as uh, council uh to Ring Road Solar, um, which you might hear
referred to as Greenbacker, um, which is the, uh, larger solar developer um, that owns Ring Road Solar. Um, Ringro Solar is the owner not just of the uh dual use solar facility installed at the site um
but also um the land and uh existing cranberry farms at the site. Um with me um and uh presenting a little bit tonight is uh Jess Rhoden um who's a senior project manager at Greenbacker
as well as uh Ian Ward um who uh some of you may know already um Ian's a very experienced uh cranberry farmer um with deep experience in cranberry farming um as well as deep experience um
with dual use solar facilities. Um and he is the cranberry farmer um for the farms at this site. Um so as you know um uh Ringro Solar um back in February
requested um a minor amendment to add some additional fencing. Um the basis for that amendment was clarified in uh April um to be a agricultural exemption.
Um and then some discussion ensued. Um, we ended up in August, uh, withdrawing the request for amendment and substituting the request for determination of applicability that is
before you today. Um and the request is uh simply to determine that the uh proposed installation of this mesh fencing
um is exempt as a normal improvement of land and agricultural use under both the state and local wetlands regulations. Um so uh as Matt said um both the state and
local regulations provide an exemption for normal improvement of land and agricultural use. Um the state regulations expressly state that installation of fencing um is deemed to be a normal improvement because it's
just um uh such an ordinary thing uh to fencing farmland. Um even beyond that um uh a mass D um and other state agencies have explained that what is a normal improvement uh can
change over time. Um and you'll hear from Ian that that's what's the case here. Even though um uh it hasn't been that many people see uh fences around cranberry farms um uh you will be seeing
that over time. Um D has clarified that a normal improvement for this purpose can be something that's new and innovative. It also doesn't have to be a a best practice uh or the most effective choice. uh just simply something that
would be an improvement um that would aid uh the farming activity. Um Ian's going to talk in more detail about why the mesh fence is a necessary improvement to address the uh deer issue at the cranberry farm. Um I wanted to
mention that you're all aware I believe that um this mesh fence will end up addressing another problem as well. Um after the project was built, um the Kingston and Plimpmpton wiring inspectors uh ended up determining that
the electrical code uh required additional fencing to help keep unauthorized people away from the solar facility. Um and that's okay. Uh an activity can be a normal improvement of land and agricultural use even if it has
other benefits as well. Um it's also helpful in this context. um uh quite unusually that um in each and every one of the four orders of conditions, two original, two amended
um that were issued for this uh dual use project. Um uh this commission has already made a written determination that the entire dual use facility constitutes normal improvement of land and agricultural use. Um we're not
relying on that here. Uh even if there were no solar facility, um just a cranberry farm. Um this fence would be a normal improvement of land and agricultural use. Um but helpful historical information uh for this
property with this project before this commission. Um so lastly uh exempt agricultural activity um is still subject to uh some minimal performance standards regarding prevention of erosion and saltation of
wetlands. Uh we're very aware of that the um uh fencing and the plan for its installation um has been designed with those performance standards in mind. Um, and the narrative we submitted uh walks
through um how the installation will comply with those performance standards. Um, so I'm going to turn it over to uh Jess Rhden from Greenbacker uh to uh review um the uh specifications
and layout for the plan fencing. Um, and then he'll turn it over to Ian, uh, who will talk about the, um, problem with, uh, uh, deer coming on the cranberry farm and threatening the crop, um, and how the fence is designed to address
that. So, Jess, I'll turn it over to you. Thanks, John. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. Um, you'll see that that Matt is sharing on his screen. Would you just identify yourself for the record,
Mr. Roden? Yes, my name is Jess Roden with Green Backer, project manager for the Ring Road Solar Project. And so, yeah, Matt is sharing our updated layout,
showing where the the mesh fence will be installed. This is largely consistent with what you guys have seen previously. Um, in terms of the layout and the amount of fencing, we have made a couple of updates to the
layout to include some fencing where we had initially intended it along some of the reservoirs. Um, and that was based on those changes are based on some discussions and suggestions made while we were on site with a few folks
from this commission and other agencies in the the town on Monday of this week. So, we made some updates there. Um, but you'll see on the screen the site is now fully enclosed with the
mesh mesh fencing and there's there's several locations of key points of access where we have gates either single swing or double swing gates. You can see an example there. Again, this is the other side of the
road we're looking at. Um the fence will have a 6-in wildlife gap. It'll be woven wire mesh. So the a style fencing based on suggestions from the initial conversation with this
commission. We've we've removed the the pressuret treated post and we're going with a galvanized steel post. Similar type of material that was being used or was used for the racking solar racking structure within the bogs.
um some means and methods that we're using to to minimize disturbance and erosion and and runoff or siltation close to the wetlands. John pointed out we'll be using a silt sock as as required in the performance
standards. It's also called out in the narrative and we'll be we'll be driving the posts rather than augering. Um so there won't be any additional soil disturbance for the installation of the posts. Most of the installation can take place
off of the existing fog road which is a fairly hard surface road which will also help to mitigate any soil disturbance. So that that's the sort of the gist of what we're going to be doing. I would point out that there's some
existing fencing on site and you'll see where that the red markups of the new proposed fence ties into the existing fencing that's installed currently on site. So, it's it's the new fencing is
not entirely proposed for the perimeter, but it is tying into some existing fencing up there. So, I can turn it over to Ian. to discuss sort of the agricultural use
of defense. All right. Thank you, Ian. Uh, thank you. Hopefully you can hear me. All right. Yes. Okay. Great. So, Ian Ward, Solen LLC, uh, Cranberg Grower at the Ring Road
Solar Project. Um, along with SK Wayne Bogs, Inc., um, we manage over 100 acres of cranberry bogs at the Kingston and the surrounding towns. Um, deer have been an increasing issue on the cranberry bogs in our area, both from
personal experience, um, and in in conversations with the Cape Cod Cranberry Association, um, and and citing information from the Mass Department of Wildlife, um, where where we've personally and collectively they've been engaged with, uh, with
issuing nuisance permits because of those those issues. And so hunting is um is a is a viable option. Uh but the the deer fencing is is a an expensive but but effective alternative. And the
reason why that that we're we're looking to do this in the first place is the deer are out there, but as as more um development pressure, I guess, occurs, they're the deer eat the cranberries. They eat
the vines. Uh they poke holes with their hooves when they're out on the cranberry bogs. And from our perspective too, one of the in addition to that the the the fecal matter their poop is a food safety concern um especially with fresh fruit
production which is what we're focusing on in the ring growth projects. So there are there's there is cautionary uh that's either available through the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service um in
parts also with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. Uh there's conversations about additional uh direct grant funding for fencing. So it's going to be something that we see in the cranberry industry uh more and more as John alluded to. Um, and that's
so that's from a from happy to talk through more on the egg side, but those are the the main highlights for why uh deer fencing would be important and necessary at the site. All right. Thank you very much. You have anything to say about that, Matt?
Sure. Um, I think I have about an hour and a half of of notes and references in here. If you'd like, I can kind of sum everything up pretty pretty quickly, I think. Um, So, like they mentioned, um they made a
few changes to the layout of this, including the swap to galvanized poles. Um they already had the wildlife passage underneath. Um they're driving the poles instead of digging. Um I pointed out that digging silt fence in itself would
be destructive given how close a lot of these locations are to the wetlands. So, they're switching that to silt sock. Um, and then changing the layout. So, one of the considerations for this is that it was supposedly for animal prevention and safety, but
wasn't completely encasing the bogs. And now, what they've shown on both of these plans, like along here, this whole area was open in the past iteration and now that's been closed off. um you know based on you know discussion at the site visit about you know access to that
reservoir and how they could kind of move the fence to get both um I think the application is spoton in terms of its exemptions from WPA um if it's not agriculturally exempt under WPA
which it appears to be then it it would be a minor project um so I think either way they they would meet the exemption there um under KWPR All I disagree pretty strongly with the concept that the commission that this commission has
come to four determinations that the entire solar project is normal improvement of land and agricultural use um and not in a way meaningful to this particular project but for the administrative record and going forward I think it's important to to have this
stuff stated um the way it is. Somebody could make a case obviously in court that the commission has made that determination because they did. They made the determination in 2020 that the project met the performance standards of KWPR 5.19 and 5.23. So the agricultural
and the variance standards. They then gave an explanation for how the applicant demonstrated compliance with the variance standards but provided no explanation of how they determined that the project met the standards of land and forestry and agriculture. Um, I suspect that's something that they did
because the smart program was new enough that they felt that the local regulations lacked the ability to approve that project. Um, but I I disagree with how they went about that and I absolutely would not put a permit forward today that would say that and
saying that the comm now saying four times is because you're issuing two permits in each situation. One under the local bylaw, one under the state permit. And then in 2021 was the amendment. Well, in an amended order of conditions, you're not going back and going through
every single condition of a project, nor do I think we'd have the legal authority to do that. You know, your review of an amendment, you're reviewing what they're bringing forward for the amendment, and you may add conditions or you may even subtract conditions as is necessary for that particular purpose. But the idea
that we would go back and change kind of the fundamental, you know, first special condition, the reason why they felt they could issue that permit in the first place, I disagree that we had the authority to do that and therefore that that was actually the commission coming to a determination. So
I think if the commission felt in 2020 the project was actually exempt from KWPR under 5.19, then there would be no reason for them to issue orders or conditions at all. the project would have been exempt. And to say that an entire solar array like this is is normal improvement of agricultural use,
I think, is is not correct. And smart program regulations, I think, would have to have a lot more language in there for that to be true on a on a municipal basis. But having said that, I do think that um what they've shown
would meet KWPR's agricultural exemptions. And I've, you know, done a little research on my own. You know, obviously everybody knows the deer population is is up there. Um I am seeing deer out on bogs as I'm driving around. Um, I did check with uh
Cranberry Station employees, not specifically about this project, but just as a general concept, have they been seeing deer on bogs and our deer problematic? And what they said to me was essentially the same thing that the applicant um or that Ian had said in his um description of it. um specifically
that they can be problematic for people trying to do dry harvesting which you know if you're looking to get more money per barrel which I think a lot of people are trying to do nowadays then that can be seriously problematic. Um we did get comments from Brian Wick of the Cranberry Grows Association but it was a
couple hours ago and I haven't had time to pass those on to the commission but they essentially mirror you know the rest of the talking points about that that deer are concerning. Um, so I do think there's a legitimate deer concern. You know,
the idea that it serves two purposes. I agree that there's nothing in the the regulations that states that they can't also be a safety, you know, a benefit in terms of public safety or site safety or something along those lines. So, I don't think that precludes
it from having agricultural exemptions. Um, and I think that, you know, as Ian said, this being covered by the solar project stops the grower from having to then go for grant funding and compete with other growers. And that was kind of the idea
behind the smart program in the first place was that it helps the grower survive by matching it to, you know, an industry that is, you know, I don't want to say flush with cash or making a lot of revenue off of off of
these sites that that can help the grower. So that was kind of the concept behind it. So um the one thing I thought was also worth pointing out was that riverfront area was not mentioned on this at all. Um but wetlands protection act also provides the same exemption
under just a different statute. So it's not really problematic in terms of an agricultural exemption on this. It's just that for the record this this also is in the riverfront area. It is a perennial stream that runs through there. So that should be brought up for the record.
Um I thought it was worth pointing out in my opinion commission should be looking at this filing on its content. This is an RDA filing asking the commission to make a determination on whether these actions meet the exemptions that they
stated um rather than weighing performance related issues from the site development. You know, we've talked before in when we were here talking about the amendment and at the site visit about performance related issues during the development of this site. And I think that you know any performance
related issues can be dealt with through either enforcement or the COC process. But I think in this case, the commission has to look at the facts and come to a determination based on that. And I would recommend issuing a negative 5
DOA under WPA and KWPR. Negative 5 states that the area is jurisdictional under WPA and KWPR, but the proposed work meets the requirements of the stated exemptions. Those exemptions would be 310 CMR 10.02 2 2B2B and 10.04
C1 under the WPA and under KWPR will be under 5.19. That's all I have unless commission has questions. You will move to the commission. Um um are there any uh comments or concerns
from the commission on this? No, I think after the sitewalk yesterday, Matt's summed it up well. Okay. I have a couple things I'd like to just put on the record, right? If I may, please.
All right. So, this what's been said up to this point, I agree with a lot of it. Um, I disagree with a lot of it, too. So, I won't say that if we put this to a vote and I vote affirmative that it means that I subscribe to everything that's put in front of us. I think
there's some some things here that we should keep in mind as we move forward, right? So, can I understand a benefit to a cranberry grower to allow them to put solar? Yes. Is it commercial array at the same time? Absolutely. Um, in this project specifically, there were
mistakes made, right? It sounds like still um you know the the the fire department and the electrical inspectors are going to have them dig up some of this stuff and show that it was done right because there was no inspections, right? So the lack of oversight on this one is troubling for me. If this was
installed at the right height and and all the NEC concerns were addressed in the in the beginning, I don't think this comes back to to ask for 3,000 ft of fence in a in a resource area. So from that perspective, if if there's a need
for a fence and it's beneficial, then then it it has a cost return to to the grower that it's worthwhile investment. There's programs out there that they could get a fence paid for outside of their operating budget. But in this case, the the solar developers picking
up the the the the bill and it has a dual use and they've admitted the dual use and it came in as a single use, which was to take care of a safety concern. Now, we had a site visit yesterday. The I heard the inspector's state definitively and
and the fire chief also or the either the fire chief or the deputy chief, I forget who made the comment, specifically call out, you know, the clearances. Um, and what they what they basically made me aware of, which I didn't know existed until uh yesterday,
was that there's there's extra height concerns when you're bringing water into the equation. Meaning that if if the designers designed it with a 10- foot height and that would have been sufficient, we lost 10 foot as soon as they dropped down into drip legs,
meaning that they were down at 8 foot at some point. And if the water comes up 2 feet to float the bogs and then ice is over, everything's very accessible. So in this case, it's a clearcut. you got to put a fence up to keep people away from it because the smart people in the
room have a concern about safety. So from that perspective, I can see the merits of it. I don't necessarily know that this is something that's asked for outside of the fact that this this commercial solar development went on above. So from that perspective, I'm I'm
I'm not going to fight that this is something that we can approve. I think it does come in sidewards, but I do want to point out that it is something that's coming in sidewards and I don't necessarily agree with that uh from the thing, but I think they've done everything that we've we've asked to outside of that. And I'm just going to
go on the record for it, but I'm not going to get in the way of it. So, before I ask for more uh commissioner discussion, I I'd just like to make sure that we have heard from any members of the public who might have a comment to make on this.
See any hands raised online? There's no one in the room. Okay. Any other commissioners? Do we have a hand up? I don't see any hands up. No. No. All right. Uh,
are you looking for anything else? Um, I am actually, but anything else? All right. So I So I'm looking for a motion to issue a negative 5 DOA approving the project. I'll make that motion. Second. As further clarified by the agents to recommendation.
All right. Let the record reflect. Um Dot, yes. And Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Yes. Buzz, no. Marilyn, yes. And Brian,
yes. Motion passes. Thank you very much. All right. I'm going to reopen a public hearing uh a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for the 28 Rabboth Road.
Uh this is submitted by Stenbeck and Taylor on behalf of property owner Frank Dericho. Um the applicants requested a continuence to October 8th. Anything from you men in that regard? Um there were some materials that they
were asked to provide um at the last meeting and they hadn't provided them. They emailed a few days ago and asked for continuence to give more time to work on that. Do I have any comments from the public in regard to this?
Do I hear do we see anything on that? No. Do I hear a motion to continue to October 8th? Uh, still requiring the incomplete restoration be addressed. So moved. Okay, we have a second. Second. All right, we're going to move to hearings.
Well, let's finish the vote. I'm just going to take a um a vote on this and then we can move. Oh, sorry. I thought you need to finish that continuence. I'm sorry. Yeah, that was my fault. Pause. I thought she was done. All right. So, a vote to continue. Dot.
Yes. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Clint is yes. Buzz, yes. And Marilyn, yes. And Brian, this is continued. Thanks. Okay, so we're moving on to public hearings. We're going to move on to section A,
public hearings. This is section A, Baker AB. This can be found on map 58. This is lot 92-6. A notice of intent for the construction of a single family home with a driveway, garage, deck, roof water infiltration
system, drinking water well, utilities, grading and landscaping all within the 100 ft buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland and the 200 ft riverfront area to an intermittent
stream. So, our reopening hearing for the notice of intents for the Sper AB app a project. Um, can we have a briefing from you, Matt, on this? Yeah. Um, I'll just say I don't know that we have anybody from the development team on. Um, but we may want
to see if there's public comment just because I don't know what, you know, if anybody it didn't get posted on the agenda as a continuence, but if you remember the last time we discussed this, it was going out to peer review. We were waiting on information. Uh we needed to get information on the stream
uh categorization and information on the future storm water um drainage calculations. And we just got that information probably a week ago. We had the stream stuff a while ago, but it we just got the storm water stuff I want to say about a week maybe maybe a week and
a half ago. So um I just put out the requests for bids for peer review. I informed the applicant that uh this would need to be obviously continued and I recommended we push it out to October 22nd. Um and I requested that we get
bids back from consultants by October 15th. So if we continue this to the 22nd, by the 22nd we should have uh bids and I should have had the time to go through the bids and analyze them to make a presentation to the commission. Okay. Um is there anybody in the public who
wants to comment on this continuance? Anyone in the commission? All right. Um, so do I hear a motion to continue this matter to is it October 27th?
So second. All right. I have Brian and Marilyn. Okay. Dot. Yes. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Clean is a yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. I'm going to continue this matter
to October 22nd. Thank you very much. All right. What else have we got on here? Should be just enforcement. Let's go to enforcement. This is 44 Rayoth Road. Matt, what can you say
about that? Uh, nothing. I have nothing. Okay. Last time we spoke on this um they had just gotten the plan from the structural engineer. Um I had questions
on some of the information on that plan and uh let them know we needed information on that and I think it was discussed at the last meeting as well. um what the commission is looking for for information. And uh Paul Armstrong, the building commissioner, has also
reached out in terms of what the building department needs in order to um complete their filing for building permit. Um I'm not sure if um if they're in the Zoom crowd to speak to this or not.
All right. Is there anyone in the Zoom crowd who wants to speak on this matter? Not hearing anything in that regard. Any one on the commission wants to speak on this. All right, let's just move on. Yeah, I don't I don't know. I mean, this
has dragged on for probably a year at this point. We knew it would be kind of a tricky one because there was a lot to look at. Um, so we've dealt with some of the smaller stuff and now I think it's up to the bigger stuff at this point, like the wall and the big concrete area at the top of the wall that the wall is
supporting. Um, I don't know if it makes sense at this point to push for a a timeline for specific things. Um, I don't I don't have great I don't have great advice on this one. I'm not sure.
Do we want to establish a timeline on this? Well, is the hold up with our art department, our building department? I mean, it sounds like they got their engineering stuff. There has been some delay, I think, from
a transition in town staff, right, in that department. I mean, I'm just wondering what timeline we have to put on the owners if they've submitted the information we asked for. I don't know that they've submitted all the information because basically we got
a a plan from a structural engineer but it doesn't have any real information on it. You can't really tell if what's on that plan is the existing condition in the field which it was supposed to be or if it's what it should be built like based
on not as built. It's it's that's what I couldn't tell from a quick review. Um, and that's sort of what I reached out about was we need a letter from the engineer stating what was done and stamped and signed. Um, and also
there's nothing to be showing it on the landscape. He didn't work with a surveyor or anything like that. And that's what the building department said that they need as well is, you know, they need a plan to show where that is on the landscape and they need information and they need somebody
basically to state state that that wall was built to the specs according to specs that the block manufacturer provides. They need engineering review with an built in the stand saying that it meets the intent of the design and that it, you know, is structurally sound so that
they can make a determination and we're basically sitting here waiting for that to happen. I think Right. And that's essentially what's happening is we the commission last year said with the wall, why don't you see if it can even get a building permit first and if it can,
then come to us about a filing to try to permit it in retro. We already know it doesn't meet the standards of the local bylaw, but it's up to them to come forward with something compelling enough to provide mitigation or something else to try to get it passed. Otherwise, they
would need to have it rebuilt. there might be a way to rebuild it, you know, in tears or something that would meet the standards rather than completely remove it. I don't know, but that's up to them to to come forward with a filing on that. But yeah, I mean, you said it. I think
somewhere in there is what I heard is is we've been dealing with this for a year and at some point we need to put a timeline on it. Exactly. Um, and I'm all for that and I'm I'm open to whatever anybody else thinks, but I'd be in forward uh I'd be for moving forward with
expectations and timelines to make sure that this doesn't go on for another year. So if you could reiterate the things that you mentioned previously as the demand and the timeline I think that would be the simplest way to go
in writing to the um then or to rape. Well yes. Yeah. You're talking an enforcement order. Well, at this point
it could be or you could continue your correspondence if if I could just just to simplify. Um I if there's an engineer involved, I don't know if it's, you know, uh one from the the the block
company that just, you know, does things online and stamps and says, "All right, build it by that. That's your thing." Um, if that that's the type of engineer they engaged, might not be local, might not be able to get out to do an asbuilt, they'd have to get some digging done to
to show that it went down below whatever line they would require in that in that design, right? Um, so if that's the case, it might be harder than um than they anticipated to get that type of a
letter of response stamped by that engineer. Um, so I think that we need to give them a little bit of time um because it they should if we were to say 30 days, right, to get that letter and submit it so that
we see forward progress and at that time at that date, yeah, we would start assessing fines because there's been no movement. I think that would give them enough time to move, but there just understand there's a lot of moving parts that they it sounds like they still need to
um get complete in order to get that letter. It's not 30. Just to update you a little bit on on what you uh were saying because it's refreshing a little bit. Um Jenna had said that they were not able to get in touch with anybody at the block company. Nobody was getting back
to them. So they did get an engineer just third party. Um, but it was somebody who didn't do the surveying portion of it because it says on the plan, you know, uh, needs to be fieldlo. So, she told me she had reached out to a land surveyor to try to see if they get
somebody to come down. And I said, why don't you hold off on that until you know specifically what the building department needs cuz at that point there had been no communication um, directly from the building department recently, you know, since the plan was created. So since then the building department did
say like that is what they want. They want to see it fieldlo and they want a statement saying that it is built to the specs of the block manufacturer. Um so now they have that going forward. But I would agree that um anything right now
is taking a lot of time. We reached out to a land surveyor. is taking people, you know, people are being told by land surveying firms or engineering firms like that it's going to be months before they get to them or just find somebody else. So, you could always grant an extension if
they come with Yeah. evidence that they've been doing more than what we've seen because from what I see we aside for taking care of some of this extra stuff that that popped up in the past year um this is still sitting out there and it to my
where I'm hearing where it's still at square one I mean we haven't made it to step two um and I think that we really should have. So, I would be fine um putting putting a date on it and and calling it a date and uh if you guys are have a date in mind, I'm open to all of
them. But I I think 30 days would be the minimum that that we should I think that's enough time to to pull some things together and come back and demonstrate. And if not, then then we know what we have to do to compel
differently. If it was 30 days, um, you're saying the letter from the engineer stating that what's shown is is the asbuilt. Now, I don't know if they would write a letter stating that, but essentially, no
matter what, the building department, and I think the commission wants to see a letter from an engineer stating that it was built to specs, right? Specifically, I'd want to I'd want to see positive substantial positive movement on both aspects of what the building inspector is looking
for. Meaning that they've had enough time to engage um to get to get it put on a plan um that would take a couple hours in the field plus some CAD work and then um and then the the ads built. Somebody's going to have to go out and
take a look at it and say one way or another. And that's that's a marching orders. So I I think once once they they can document sufficiently for the building inspector that then this clears up pretty simply I think after that because we've dealt with problems like
this before and we know how how to make it as right as we can coming in after the fact. So so I would I would say 30 days uh for both. All right. Anybody want to comment on the 30-day
time framework? 30 days is fine with me. Fine. As I said, just ask for what we need, make it very clear, and call it 30 days. And then if it doesn't happen, we move on it. We'll look at it further. Again,
do I'm sorry. The the 2nd in October, is that the 24th? 22nd. 22nd. So, it's a little less than 30 days. Somebody, do you want to do first first meeting in November? I would think the first meeting in November. person.
Did we have a raised hand? We have Sean Strangalini. I'm sorry. Sean, he's muted. Can you unmute yourself? How's that? There you go. That's good,
Sean. Thank you. Thank you. Um, am I on? You are. Oh, okay. Pardon me. Um, I just wanted to add that it seems like got to state your name. My understanding of the discussion. Sean, I want to stop you right there for
one second. Will you just state your name, your whole name clearly for the record? Sure. Thank you. My name is Sean Stangalini and addresses too. And your address? Uh, sure. Uh, 46 Rabbit Road, Kingston. Thanks a lot, Sean.
Thank you. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh I would just like to add that um the last time that this uh meeting was held um it um the discussion was that you gave um the
people at 44 Rabbit Road um up until today to to produce the document uh from the engineer. I I could So So Sean, I don't know if you heard what Matt said. the docu he did receive a document. So factually I
didn't hear that a document came in. It's just it doesn't appear to be exactly what was asked for and so there was some that I believe it went back to them with some questions and it hasn't come back. So what we're discussing is is the next step because I
think they Thank you. I just to clarify um it was my understanding that a document was uh produced before the last meeting and then at the last meeting they asked for the clarification. So at this meeting um
you could make a decision and move forward. Is there a question? Well, um, so yes. Well, so, well, I guess we could start with, um, do you recall the last
meeting, um, what was asked of the, uh, folks at 44 Rabbath Road as it pertains to what document they were supposed to produce for today? I mean this I'm trying to pull up my
notes from from the last okay Sean hold meeting. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into it from this or not. That does not run for me. I don't recall a hard deadline. I just say we've continued it two weeks. I don't remember us I have no notes of
saying two weeks or else or two weeks this day or two weeks fives will acrew. I just I 107 recall saying we'll continue this matter for two weeks while we ask for that information to come in. Brian, can you add to that? That's correct. That's my recollection
as well that they did produce a document last week or last time we met with them. We believe the document was not accurate and provide the information we need. We asked them to go back and clarify it. We continued it but we did not include a specific deadline for it. So,
so logically we're on the next step which is I think the next a little bit more forceful. Yeah. Yeah. All I have on my notes for that in terms of actionable tasks was continuence to tonight.
But I I agree with Jim that I think it's time to take a more forceful step by providing a hard deadline. So, um, if I may, please, now that Sean is here and it has come up a little bit in past meetings, you know,
46 Rabbit Road was built through a wetlands permit, and at one point I had gone to do a site visit with Shawn to go over remaining tasks of what needs to be done and pointed out a storm water issue where the storm water's coming off of the driveway or whatever you want to call the end of Rabbi Road and coming
down into the wetlands on his property. And I said, 'Well, you got to take care of that. Um, and he's been working with with ECR on, you know, trying to kind of wrap everything up and we're supposed to have a site visit and we keep um getting delayed. ECR is very busy. But one of
the things Sean brought up was, well, all the runoff is coming from their property and from the work that they've been doing there without a permit. and the owner of that property came in and told the commission that the reason why he built that wall and did that paved parking area was to keep water from going down into the pond and instead
it's now going onto my property and going into the wetlands and becoming my problem. So, just pointing out that we now have an enforcement issue that spans multiple properties, three properties in fact, because the area of that's closest
to Shaun's property where some of that digging was done um is owned by the owners of 28 Rabbit Road. So, I have made them aware of of the issue as well, just because there's an ongoing enforcement issue now that involves their property as well. So, well, man, I think that's really important to discuss, especially when we
revisit that I mean, if if they say it's it's it's permittable in its in its form and they decide to permit it, if it's creating an issue that we can't overlook, then then it becomes a well, that's not the only obstacle. It's just we shouldn't be
discussing this until we know that somebody in town, you know, is going to permit that and let them keep it there structurally, right? Because it just made it simple for us to say if it can't live there anyways, we're not going to let it we're not going to debate it. So, um, but if it is causing problems, then
we need to discuss those at that meeting. Absolutely. 100%. And I just thought it's worth bringing up cuz it's now it's pretty messy. Obviously, I this is all hearsay until somebody actually looks at the engineering behind it. And for all we
know, the water was running that way all along. Or maybe something was changed during the development of 46 Rabbit. can't really speak to any of that, but we do know that according to the owner of 44 Rabbit Road, things were done there in order to change the way that water flows. And so, it's entirely possible
that that's that's the case. So, would you want to set a timeline on this? Personally, I I would I would be fine with the the the next uh second meeting in October. I'm sorry, first meeting in November. November 12th. November 12th
if if acceptable to all. is would you be looking for me to issue an enforcement order saying that we need these things by November 12th or else fines are issued daily or are you looking for get this stuff by November 12th or we're issuing an enforcement
order? Um my my intent is here is to compel action where there hasn't been action. So I would I would feel more comfortable with that being built into this enforcement action. Meaning that show us what we're asking for. Bring us to the
next step by the state certain. And if you don't the um the fines will will start racking up on a daily of of um let's call it $250. It's 300. 300. We can go up to 300. It's 300. 300. It's just a flat. It's 300. Yeah. We Yeah. Now it's just
300. Yeah. That is something with town council when we redid the $300. Yeah. $300. All right. So So I would make that motion to um issue that um enforcement action to 44 Rabbit Road to compel um
the the engineers asbuilt certification um stating that it's it's it's structurally sound uh and built to the specs um and that it has been reviewed as an asbuilt. And second was um that it
be um that the survey be done and located on a survey showing grades and location on the plot plan. So a real survey because we're going to be needing it. Sounds like the deeper we get into it, we're going to need more something
like an NOI um level of um documentation on that. So that would be my my motion. And and you do have a hand raised. You do have a hand raised at Sean, can we hear from you?
Sean, are you unmuted? I think that's a brief. Oh. Oh. Um, thank you. I'm sorry. Um, okay. No problem. Okay. Just time. Sorry. Didn't want to miss them. No problem. Thank you.
And so we have a motion. Um, there's a second on that. Second. All right. I'm going to vote on that. Dot. Yes. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Yes. Buzz, did that come out okay? Yes.
Mhm. Marilyn, yes. And Brian, yes. Motion passes. Thanks a lot. We have no meeting minutes, no updates, no public hearings. You get nothing. What? What?
I said you get nothing. No minutes, no updates. Nothing. Yeah, an easy meeting. We'll see them all. Well, they'll they'll all rain down on us eventually. We do. We are uh contracting a KTU employee uh from the library to do our
minutes. Perfect. Speaking of minutes, I was contacted by said employee at the library and she said it is very helpful when we make comments on who made the motion and who seconded the motions for our meeting minutes. Okay. Sorry, I should have probably remembered that about an hour ago. But
going forward, all these people boss me. We usually do, but she said it come. It's very helpful uh for meeting minutes. All right. So, the next meeting will be held on October 8, 2025. It will be starting at 6:30 p.m. Jim, before we go,
there's a lot of people here and we have somebody in person who hasn't been heard, too. So, I don't know if there's something more. Is there something from a member of the public present? Nope. Nope. Sorry.
That's no problem. The time is now um 7:28. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Make that motion. And do we have a second? Second. Megan has made that a motion. Motion seconded by Jim Dodd.
Yes. Jim, yes. Megan, yes. Kina, yes. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. and Brian. Yes. Passes. I thank you all very much. You're wonderful. All right. Have a good night, everybody. Good night, Don. Buzz.
Good night. Off. Good night.