Thank you. Wrong paper. Okay. The time is now 6:34. Excuse me. [clears throat] The date is Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026. Commissioner Franklin is currently absent. Uh, and Commissioner
Vendetti is also absent. [clears throat] Excuse me. Please note, we are doing a hybrid meeting. Nope, sorry. Please note, we're doing a hybrid meeting with in person in virtual attendance. I don't know what's wrong with my voice. If a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during a public hearing, please
use your raise hand function on Zoom and you will be assigned a speaking time. If you are listening in via telephone dial in, press star 9 to raise your hand. Then press star six, [clears throat] excuse me, to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded by the local scene and a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene website as
soon as they are able. Anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting should notify me at this time. Okay. And announcement. The Kingston Conservation Commission is seeking a new member. Commissioners are responsible for protecting the town's natural resources, including through
enforcement of state and local wetlands protection laws. Those interested should reach out to the conservation department by calling 781-585-0537 or emailing Matt Panella at mpanella kingston.gov. m pne
l a kingston ma.gov. >> All right. >> Do we have we don't have any bills? >> No bills. >> So straight to action items. I will now continue a public meeting to discuss the request for certif certificate sorry of compliance submitted by bees and
comments on behalf of the permit recipient Adam Schumacher for construction of a dual use agriculture and solar array system within existing cranberry box at 126 ring road D file number 037-0890 and 131 and 137 Ring Road D file number
0370889 and the applicant has requested continuence to August 12th, 2026. Do you have any comments? >> No. Uh, this was at the last meeting. I had shared the um information they had
provided and the commission felt like it wasn't really close to what the requirements were. So, we passed that back to them and they're still working it up. So, I recommend continuence. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue to August 12th?
>> I'll make that motion. Second made by Marilyn, seconded by Dot. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those no. >> Abstain. >> Abstain by Jim. And also let the record show that Commissioner Franklin is now in attendance. Taking over in a few minutes, but I'll
do the next one. I will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for five Reed Street submitted by Geneva Corore on behalf of the applicants Russell D. and an M. Packer to demolish and rebuild part of the existing home
damaged by fire, including the addition of a master bath within [clears throat] 200 foot riverfront area. As this is the first meeting on this proposal, we will now hear an introduction from the applicant if they are in attendance. >> I can give one if you'd like. >> Just kidding. We're going to hear from Matt. >> And it is Parker, correct? Not Packer.
>> No, Parker. >> Yeah, >> it says Packer. >> Yeah, we had a uh it's the the builder is >> builder is the applicant. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, so this is one that came across from a building permit. Uh, when I looked at the building permit, it had
a plan, an older plan with it that showed the 200t riverfront area of a perennial stream going to about, you know, halfway through the house. There's a section of the house that burned down and their building permit was to rebuild that
section of house. um rebuild that section of uh foundation and to add a small bump out for a bathroom. Um so I let them know we needed some form of filing on that. Uh the builder apologized for not, you know, knowing
that a filing would be needed, saying he just kind of measured off 100 ft from uh from the house and figured there was nothing there. Um, so we received an RDA and a plan.
We did a site visit on July 16th. Um, again, it's it's just partial demolition and rebuilding of the existing house after fire damage within the 200t riverfront area. Um, through further conversation with the builder and review, it's unclear whether this is a
perennial stream or not. Um, from the commission's standpoint, for an RDA's purposes, I mean, it it's in a 200 foot riverfront area regardless, but it's not clear whether it's perennial not or not. We had an old plan that shows it as
perennial. Um, and it doesn't show up on the >> on the USGS map. Um, there was no flow when we were there, but it's been drought for so long that you really can't base it off of that. Um, it has the appearance of
I I don't like saying the word ditch, but it has the appearance of something that has been straightened before or maybe nin maiden origin. I'm not sure. It is associated with BBW and other nearby wetlands. It's not clear where it flows from or to. Um, the project, you
know, largely is in the outer extent of that 200 foot regardless. It is a pre-existing yard area and structure. Um, it is a historic house, so it's a, you know, property that's been developed for a long time. Um, we talked with the
builder about site conditions when we got there because he had already done some work on the site and, um, since then he has stabilized, put out silk fence, that sort of stuff. So we have a stable site now and I passed along to the developer that
the commission may need more information about you know how some of the work meet met the standards of the riverfront area of you know our local bylaw and all that. Um he wasn't able to get with a wetland scientist before tonight. Um we
have the property owners here tonight. They are obviously anxious to get this moving along through issues with the insurance company and whatnot. Um, I can pull up the plans and everything if my computer is hopefully finally a tech on the internet. Um, but essentially what
we have is recreation of what was there before with a small bumpout for a master bath that is no closer to the resource areas. Um, so it we don't have 100% of the information that we would typically have making a decision on something like
this, but I can say that it is largely replacing exactly what was there and we do now have erosion control place on site that should be protective of that resource area. Um, and we have a stable site. So if you want me to pull up the
plan, I can do that. If you want to ask any questions on any of this, let me know. We are way under the maximum impervious surface numbers. It's a very large lot,
majority of which is out of jurisdiction. Um, but there's a large portion of jurisdiction on the property that and the only impervious surface within jurisdiction is a small portion of the existing house. Do we have any questions?
>> No, I think it's pretty clear. >> No questions. [clears throat] Excuse me. >> If you want to hear from the property owners, they are here. They can go up to the >> Do they want to? >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Do Do you have anything you want to say? >> You'd have to go up to the um thing and
just say your name and address if you do. You don't have to. if you don't want to. >> I'll be honest with you. I'm not much of a speaker, so >> not many people here are. >> No, good hands. >> Well, first of all, uh my name is Russell Parker. Uh I reside at five Reed
Street, Kingston. Um first, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to hear my plate and uh do the best I can. Um to be honest with you, the house has been there for
1776. Um back then there wasn't a conservation commission or um you know no rules and regulations of what what had to be done. Um
so to be honest with you, we weren't really sure about a perennial stream. Um, we've lived there for over 30 years and I mean to be honest with you, we got
um we had a fire about 17 months ago. We've had arguments with a um insurance company trying to get us to uh you know they thought we could build off the first floor. We had experts come in
and uh it was determined that it couldn't be built safely. Uh and the only alternative obviously is demolition. Um we are keeping basically the same footprint although there is that uh just jet out. um for a master
bath. And the reason for that is basically cuz when it was an antique, there were no rules. So, you know, when people went in there, they'd say, "Well, these stairways down to the basement are illegal. The stairways going upstairs
are illegal." So, we had to rearrange all those. >> Therefore, it wipes out a lot of the space. We needed a bathroom. That's why we had to have to the uh outside um
addition so to speak. Um we just were unaware of I guess this perennial stream as you call it. I'm not sure if it's perennial or if it's intermittent. Um,
I've actually, uh, taken pictures, you know, today, this morning, after this torrential rain that we had and fully expected there to be water, standing water in there. I didn't see anything. I can show you the
pictures if you'd like. Um myself and my contractor uh Steve is we're trying everything we can to appease people. We're put we moved uh a pile of lom and
we moved a pile of stumps and put them as far away as possible. We put down silt fence and we put down wood chips to prevent any type of erosion or silt infiltration. We just uh we're willing to do anything
that's required of us. We just want to get our lives back together. It's been 17 months and we haven't even been able to demolish the house and it's a long way to go before we get the house built or anything.
I have the uh plan up on the screen over here for the commission. Um, this is modified by the builder just to show you have the existing house right here. >> Existing kitchen here is we're going to be keeping the foundation here. Okay.
And this will be a new foundation here. >> New foundation around this area here. And this is the bump out for the new master here. Your dotted line here is the extent of the 200t riverfront area. Whether it's perennial or not under the local, you'd still have that. It's just
the regulations would be different. Um, and this right here is the silt fence limit of work right here. So, silt fence and then you had wood chips in here to cover some of the area that was already >> right along the road the wood chips and um, >> and I did recommend along the road as
well to keep anything from coming out into the street. So, the builder now has done what I asked in terms of making the site stable and the work rebuilding exactly what was there would clearly meet all the regulations. The only part that's not 100% clear would be the
addition of the other portion of it, but as far as I'm concerned, it it probably would. It's, you know, it's a, like I said, a small area that was already legally, you know, landscaped lawn area for
>> 250 years. Um, >> so it's it's something that while it's outside of the way the commission typically does business, I believe probably fine given that we do have now proper error control, site stability, and I can be checking up on
the site through construction. It's something that the builder should have filed with the commission >> a year ago >> so that you're not feeling like you have to rush your process because you know obviously you feel for the homeowner that's going through with the insurance
company but given where we are now I I don't think there's any issue if the commission wanted to issue a permit. You don't have to. You can continue it. we can get more information from them on, you know, whether this fully meets the standards, but I believe it it likely
does. >> Magna. >> Yeah. >> Um just for for our understanding, could you maybe um go up and show us where the grass is existing now? >> Yeah, sure. So, um
there's a patio here. Um this is gr this is right along here was a a flower bed. Okay. Um and all this out here is grass. Um
it's tough to say. Uh this is all grass down here. The grass actually goes all the way down to the stream. Um >> so it's grassland from the house to the stream. >> Excuse me. >> Grass from the house to the stream. >> Yeah, pretty much. Um that's fine.
>> You know, it does slope down a little bit, you know. Um, and what he's done is he's put down the silk fence 100 ft before the stream and uh to prevent anything from possibly happening when you know they they dig up uh the house
and uh and put in a new foundation. Um >> I have an area willing to answer all the question >> just do whatever you'd like. >> No, it's fine. I just want to visually see it so I can say I looked at it. >> Yeah. So, I mean it um it goes out quite
a ways. Um so where's the stream here? Does this is this a stream? >> No. >> That's a cell pen. So what is this? A stream? >> That's probably the stream there. >> Okay. So yeah, basically it goes right down. This is all lawn here. Uh there
are, you know, maybe a couple apple trees here. There was a row of uh bushes here. Um, and up here is just, you know, this was all I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. I'm gonna pull up the uh
>> Is this like uh the weather where you get the green I'm supposed to plant? No. >> To get these things out of the way. >> Okay. So you have the house here. >> So yeah, this is the house. This comes down. The screen must be Is this the property line?
>> Sorry. >> It's hard to manipulate this on this laptop. >> So the yellow is the property line. >> This right here is the portion of the house that's going to be rebuilt and your stream [clears throat] is done. >> And this part this this part is the
kitchen. Um, you know, the roof and the walls will come down, but the foundation itself on the on the kitchen will remain. Um, this will be demolition here. Um, so this is all lawn down here. I
mean, it doesn't look like it because you got the trees, but it actually comes down where is the stream here. So you can kind of see here the shadowing is going to the to the north here, but you can see the lawn comes down to about here.
And the closer you get to the stream, we're not talking about we're talking like just mowing of, you know, all the plants and everything. So it is a little bit more natural towards there, which is good. It provides a little more buffer for the stream. >> And this over here, so we have the uh
detached garage and then there's a shed. And then these are this is just a a giant um vegetable garden. And >> this right here is the location of the addition. This is like the master. >> So the fence must be
>> I'm assuming >> still fence goes right around here basically around. >> So the stream must be about here because it's right it's pretty close to the border. Is that correct? >> I could pretty much show you exactly where it is off of off a measurement here. measuring from here.
Stream is right about here. >> Okay. >> So, it runs this way. It comes out of Reed Street and goes >> it actually there's there's I believe a a culvert that goes underneath 27 and then it comes through
this this part here. And then there's another culvert that goes under Reed Street. if you need. I mean, I can show you pictures. I took pictures this morning. >> This was this this satisfied my inquiry. >> And I do have pictures from the site
visit if anybody wants to see anything in particular, >> but you probably already seen. >> So, Matt, it sounds like this would be a negative three DOA. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> anyone have any? >> No, I'm ready. >> No, we're ready. you might consider, you
know, if you were going to issue a negative three, you'd probably put special conditions on it, just mandating that they maintain ESC and, you know, erosion any >> site conditions throughout, which really doesn't, >> it's an enforcement issue anyways, but it would probably help get the point
across to the builder, >> but we, you know, we talked about it already. He's already taken steps just to make sure, >> but just to hit the language on it. >> Yeah. >> All right. I'll um I'll make a motion to issue a negative3 DOA with special conditions as described. >> I'll second.
>> Um made by mid Jim so in Brian. All those in favor? >> I no. All right. Motion passes. Take over. >> Thank you. >> We'll be in touch tomorrow. >> It means you're good. >> It's good. >> It sounds bad, but it's good.
>> It's just a process. >> Very much. >> Yes. >> We'll be in touch tomorrow. will explain everyone. >> Okay. >> All right. So, for the record, we issued a negative 3D A with special conditions as described. That motion was from Jim
and seconded by Brian. Uh, it was 5 to 0 to zero. Uh, we'll move on. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Good. Appreciate you hearing me. >> Thank you so much. >> Sorry for the speaking. >> No, fine.
>> Is that clock right? We're at 653. So, we get into public hearings. >> Yeah. >> Excuse me. We're willing and able to do anything. >> Oh, no. You're good. >> You're good. You just got exactly what you needed. Okay. >> Yeah. I'll send you an email tomorrow. I'll explain how everything will work.
You'll be in good shape. >> Thank you all. >> Sure. >> Well, good luck with you. >> Sorry you had to go through that. >> I hope it goes quickly. >> Yes. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a good one. >> All right. All right, we're going to move on to public hearing section A74
Ring Road, map 61, lot 32, notice of intent. I will now open a hearing for the notice of intent submitted by Collins Civil Engineering Group LLC on behalf of the applicant, Patrick Ryan, for a septic system upgrade for a residential home within the 100 foot buffer zone to Inland Wetland Resources
Areas at 74 Ring Road. Uh where this is the first meeting on this proposal, we'll hear from the um hear an introduction from the applicant. They're here. >> Yep. We have uh George Collins online. >> All right, Miss Collins, please um unmute yourself, identify yourself um name and address for the record, and
then um please proceed. >> Yes. Uh my name is George Collins, registered professional engineer from Collins Civil Engineering Group out of West Bridgewater. Um representing Patrick Ryan for a notice of intent associated with the
replacement of an existing septic system. Uh, the project has been issued D file number 37-976. Um, and uh, if you'd like, I can um, share my share my screen and go over some
specifics or whatever the chair would like. >> Please, >> let's see here. Um, can you enable sharing or or unless you wanted to bring up something that I the plan that I already submitted? >> I think it's Is it not enabled?
>> Okay, here. Wait a second. I think I'm here. >> It usually is. >> Here we go. >> It's been a weird >> Can can anybody see that? >> Yes. >> Um, yes. So basically um
uh this is this is Ring Road. The property uh the property is on the east side of Ring Road. Um this is the house here. There's a bordering vegetated wetland showing green that >> can zoom that in a little bit so that um
>> I'm zooming. Okay. I'm sorry. >> Just get past the details. >> Okay, that's good. >> Okay, there we go. Uh yes. So again, so we have a bordering vegetated wetland that uh wraps around the property. Um
the um the 30ft no disturb um zone is shown in red. The uh magenta line is the 50ft buffer and then the um the green line is the 100 foot buffer
zone. So, as you can see, the entire properties uh essentially in jurisdiction with the exception of the uh the small area up here by the street. Um, currently there's a failed septic system in the backyard right here. Um,
and uh what we did is this is actually a uh this is the driveway. This is so the the new septic system is actually going under the driveway. Um and um we can we dug it dug two test holes. Uh it was really good uh sandy
soils and we were able to uh set this up. So we rerouted the plumbing come out the side of the house. We were able to actually place the new septic tank outside of the 50ft jurisdiction uh 50ft buffer. And then we have the uh actual
uh septic system again under the driveway. Um, also outside the 50 foot buffer zone. Um, the these uh the system meets all the uh state title 5 requirements. Um, I I do uh it is my
understanding I do realize that there is a um the town has a 100 foot uh requirement uh in particular for new construction to make sure that all the septic components are outside of the 100. But obviously uh this is an
existing property and the entire the entire site is uh within the 100 foot jurisdiction essentially. Um I we do this orange line is the uh proposed erosion control
and um so basically uh um so basically I believe that we're presenting something that is uh uh you very reasonable that we're again we meet all the state requirements but due to the pre-existing non-conforming
conditions uh you know we're we're not able to meet the 100 um setback requirement. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that the board may have at this time. >> All right, we'll open it up uh for
discussion. Matt, do you want to do you want to start off? >> Sure. Yeah. Um I might repeat some of what he just said, but we have a buffer zone only project involving the replacement of a failed septic system. Existing system consists of a tank and leeching pit entirely within 50 feet of
BVW and at least as close as 25 ft. Uh the replacement system is proposed in a different part of the property underneath a paved driveway outside of the 50ft BVW setback. Proposal also increases the distance between the system and groundwater. It uses pre-cast
concrete leeching chambers. Uh BO has approved the project under title 5 with a mandated deed restriction. So the existing house is two-bedroom and it is deed restricted now and that is recorded uh with that it will stay a two-bedroom.
Um failed systems proposed to be abandoned and filled in. For the record, the wetlands report says there's an offsite vernal pool to the north, but I see no evidence of that on GIS, only to the west off of Milican Drive. Um, when I looked at the area around flags uh six
through two, which is this, you know, finger up here, I initially thought that could potentially be a vernal pool, but then as you walk down into it, you see it is connected to the rest of the wetland around. And while connection doesn't mean it's not a vernal pool, it didn't jump out to me that that was likely a vermal pool. It didn't seem to
have that, you know, confined basin characteristic. Um, so it may hold standing water in that small area seasonally, but I didn't have anything that jumped out as, you know, that that would definitely be a vulnerable pool or highly likely be a vernal pool. Um,
there is intact vegetated buffer between those wetland flags and the driveway. Um, though there was a pile of dumped landscape debris along an informal trail that should be cleaned up. Uh, conservation posts in that area might help prevent further dumping or encroachment. uh straw waddle and street sweeping are
proposed as erosion sedimentation controls. Um at the site visit um I explained that the commission would probably want to see 12in silt sock in place of the waddle given the amount of disturbance that you'll see back there. For the record also the applicant says the proposal was an upgrade of the
septic system but explained that's only as it relates to the language found in title 5. Um, for the commission's purposes, this appears to be simple replacement of a failed existing system without increasing [clears throat] flow.
So, with the recorded deed restriction and the moving of the components further from the wetlands and increasing distance to groundwater, the project appears to meet the standards of KWPR 10.02B2, Note 2B2 where it says that the minimum 100 foot setback requirement shall not be required when a replacement
system is necessary provided that no alternative location is available on the lot or other parcel under the ownership or control of the owner of the system [snorts] proposed for upgrade and that the system is placed as far as possible from the wetland resource areas. And it also meets the standard under three
where it says should a replacement system also constitute a substantial enlargement and increase in flow from expanded use of the existing system, the commission may require that the minimum 100 foot setback distance be observed. Um in this case again there appears to be no increase in flow. Um, if you have concerns about the potential for BO to
dissolve the deed restriction, which I think they'd be unlikely to do, you may consider a perpetual condition stating that any addition of bedrooms or other construction or activity that could cause an increase in flow to the system must be reviewed by the conservation commission through an official filing. Through that filing, the commission
would likely require alternative technology treatment. uh because I think the commission understands that that is the best case scenario for replacing a septic system would be that you would use something that has more treatment to protect the wetlands. Um but the
commission I think in a lot of cases like this would lack the legal backing to force somebody to do that. So any questions for me? >> Um might have some come back. Let's open it
up for discussion. Um, if anybody has any questions that they'd like to go, >> all right, I'll I'll I'll get started. So, I I just had some questions um specifically to the location of the new um tank and field. Um, so some of the
language that we just heard uh indicated that this had this is supposed to achieve a certain setback um where it's a failed system. there's an exemption to that rule um if there's no increases. Right. So, I have two concerns. One,
it's the deed restriction because deed restrictions can get removed. Um so, I would like to see something a little bit more um secure um on that avenue. And then I would like a clarification as far as alternative design of um discussing the
placement of the system. uh because looking at what we see, it looks like we could probably get to the opposite side of the house and I'd like to hear why why we're not uh doing that from the engineer. So, >> Mr. Collins,
>> um basically we were trying the this location over here is heavily wooded. So rather than taking down a bunch of trees over in this location and still not meeting the 100 foot requirement, we basically uh put the system under the
existing um driveway just again so we would not have to do any tree removal. >> Okay. >> I thought also I talked on the on the site with um one of the other engineers about the well being there. Now on the plane it says existing well not in use.
Yeah, it's right here. Is there a well in use or is it >> It says not in use, but is still a well there. So, I thought, sorry, I didn't really push too hard on that for those two purposes was the [cough and clears throat] well and the fact that there were mature native trees all along that that side.
>> They would like to maintain the ability to use that for irrigation. And under title 5, you do need a 25 ft setback if they did want to u you know uh use that in the future for irrigation. And again,
that's there's a 25 ft uh setback requ right right this corn that's an existing. So basically there was that was the original water source for the property >> and what they did is they bypassed it and put in town water but the well is still there in intact.
>> Okay. That that right there that answers my question as far as location. So >> Matt, >> no just um sort of bringing up again the conservation posts. I think putting conservation posts at the existing wood line, particularly where, you know, it's
along the side of this finger of of wetlands over here where we saw the dumping and the little trail would be beneficial, but I mean, it could stretch along the entire woods line on the property to protect the existing vegetated buffer, you know, and I think that would be something that would um be
long-term beneficial and make this pretty easy. And what's the resource area behind the um flags? >> Uh BBW. >> Okay. No streams back there close or anything? >> Not close enough to the project that I could tell. No.
>> Are there any questions um from Matt or the engineer? >> No. >> No. But just uh and then Matt mentioned a couple things earlier. We did change the erosion control detail to uh 12in waddle. And then uh and then we are the
plan does show the removal of uh the consum some construction materials that and these are items that were brought up uh during the site visit that we had we actually have amended the plan. >> Okay, just for clarification on two
things that was 12-in waddle or 12-in silt suck. >> Um sorry, let me see here. Uh I my current detail calls out waddle straw waddle but obviously if we can absolutely change that to uh silt sock
if that's what you'd prefer. >> Yeah. So I I think we could put just as a special condition 12-in silt sock, but it would be good to put it on the plan just so that if a contractor gets it, they don't do the wrong thing and then they're mad at me when I make them put silt sock out. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. I can I can add that to the plan and I I do know the who the the contractor that's doing the work has been selected so I can actually okay >> also uh get him in the loop immediately. >> And then the dumping that I saw was um
or some of the the sort of landscape debris that I saw dumped was closer to wetland flags two and three >> um up in this area. >> Yeah. So, if the commission has no concerns and they think they could issue orders and conditions on this, my
recommendation would be uh special conditions being the language that I mentioned supporting the deed restriction, the requirement for 12-in silt sock as ESC, the removal of all dumped landscape debris, and conservation posts in perpetuity along
the edge of the existing yard where it faces the BBW. Let me >> Okay, so we're ready to close. >> We got to close the Let's Let's just go through the special conditions first. >> No, I thought he just >> Well, he just gave us what he want. Is there any Do we have any other feedback
from Matt on that? >> Okay. All right. Are we pretty confident that we're ready to close the meeting um and take a vote? >> So, do I hear a motion? >> I move that we close the hearing. >> All right. So, we have a motion by Maryland, second by Dot. All those in
favor say I. I. Opposed abstained. All right. So we close the meeting uh five to zero. Okay. >> Now do I hear a motion? >> So I would make the motion that we approve the project with the special conditions mentioned. And do you want me to run through them again or >> um No, it was okay. I mean it was
recorded. So Okay. So we have a motion from Maryland to issue um to approve the NOI issue the permit with the special conditions as stated. Do I hear a second? >> Second. Second by >> Brian. Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I may, if I may. [snorts] Uh I'm not I uh just
procedurally are we supposed to just make sure that nobody in the public has any questions or comments? >> It's probably a good >> That is true. We didn't do that. >> We didn't open it to the public. >> Um we're going to step back for a moment and open to public the public hearing. Uh open to the public. Does anybody
wants to be heard on this? Um >> please come forward. Raise your hand. >> You have a raised hand online from Pine Dubois. >> Pine. >> Hi there. I thank the engineer. Um, uh, I just I I just can't, it's hard to read
the plans online. I I don't know what the elevation of the leeching field is or what kind it is. Um, I'm just concerned that the water table looks like it's at about elevation 40 45 and a half or something like that. So, I I was
just concerned about whether the stone is sufficient. I I can't say that I've, you know, um evaluated it at all, but I I would ask the commission take a take a a a look at that. I I very much like the
restricted uh the restriction on the on the um bedrooms. I I think that's really important. Then I would maybe even suggest that um uh you know maintaining that tree buffer would also be something
that the commission could request in its um order conditions. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> It look it looks like everything is going to either Barisbrook or Jones Riverbrook and it and it's feeding Cranberry Bog. So I I think the the
level of nutrients is important. >> Just based on what I could see, I I there was a comment about 4T separation between the lower extent of the leeching field stone and then there was a bed of stone and then the leeching field above it, but I'll let the engineer um discuss
that. >> Yes. So we do have uh 4 and 1/2 ft of separation and uh I'm sorry uh where is it? We have um we have uh 4.2 2 ft of separation. Uh 4 feet is required. And I apologize the the current plan does call out a 12 in
diameter silt sock. So I I that uh I was mistaken. Uh the the plan uh revised 61926 which should be the current plan of record does call out the silt sock. I I apologize. So that was I was incorrect
when I said straw wall. >> All right. I might need to have you send me that again. I'll I'll double check and see if we have that on file. I thought the latest one that I had didn't have it yet, but either way, we'll throw it in there as a special condition just to make sure. >> Correct. Thank you. Yeah, and the contractor does have that this current
plan, but I'll I'll reiterate it with him. >> Okay. Um, is there any other comments from the um public aside from what Pine had to ask? >> All right. So Pine's questions, I
believe, was um was based on the the height uh the depth of the system. It's um it's above the 4T required and this is a replacement system. So I I don't know that there's much more that can be done on that side of it. Does anybody have
any questions about >> And you were are to her second point already putting in conservation posts along the existing >> woods line. Now, I was not talking about on the I would say southwestern side of the property closer to the existing well. I
was just putting that along the portion as it faces the VBW. Does that make sense? >> So, along the edge of the cleared area next to the driveway and then along the backyard leading down to the southwest. I was not bringing anything up towards
Ring Road. I think that makes sense. >> You mean just another leg of it? Yeah. I wasn't bringing anything up towards >> you L-shaped, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, he's L-shaped versus U-shaped. >> That makes sense, right? >> Yeah. >> Y Okay. Okay. >> That works for me. >> Is there anyone else that would like to be heard? >> I think that's it.
>> All right. So, we're going to close. We're going to take a We're going to have a motion to close again. >> We'll do it clean. >> Okay. Motion to close. >> All right. Motion by Marilyn, second by >> Second. >> Brian. All those in favor? I >> opposed. Abstained. >> That motion carries to close five to
zero. Now perhaps you'd like to make remake your motion. >> So motion to approve with special conditions as stated. >> Okay. So we have a motion to uh approve the NOI issue the permit with special conditions as discussed by Marilyn. Second. >> Seconded by Brian. All those in favor
say I. I. Opposed. Abstain. >> All right. That motion carries 5 to issue the permit. >> All right. >> Thank you very Thank you very much. Uh thank you Matt for your guidance. Uh and um just just quick question uh when do you think the order of conditions would
actually be issued? Uh just out of curiosity. >> So uh it'll be prepared for the commission to sign at their next meeting which is the second Wednesday in August which is the 12th. >> Okay.
>> Thank you very much. >> If that's a hardship, >> shoot us an email and we'll try to speed it up. But that's typically especially because we have three weeks now in between uh in between meetings. So if that's a hardship, let me know. I can see what I can do. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. I
appreciate your time. Good. >> All right. We will move on to section B 18 Smith's Lane, map 67, lot 82-1. This is a notice of intent. Uh, I will now continue a hearing for the notice of intent submitted by Southshore Survey on behalf of the applicant, Ronald
Vernazaro, for the proposed construction of a single family house and associated utilities within the 100 foot buffer zone to an inland wetland resource area and the 200 foot riverfront area at 18 Smith's Lane. Matt says the applicant has requested a continuence to August
12th. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue? >> All right. We'll have a a motion by Megan, a second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstain. >> All right. So, we will continue on
August 12th, 5 to Z. All right. Move to section C. [clears throat] This is Drew and Sber Avenue's notice of intent. Sorry. Um, I will now open a hearing for the notice of intent submitted by Strong Tree Engineering on behalf of the
applicant, the town of Kingston, for the construction of storm water improvements to collect, treat, attenuate storm runoff uh, storm water runoff with lands within land subject to coastal storm flowage and various buffer zones to coastal wetland resource areas in the
roadways of Drew and Sver ABS. Uh Matt, as this is the first meeting, are we uh are we gonna hear a proposal from the applicant? >> Yeah, we have uh well, I guess I am the applicant, but we have our engineer
Justin Lamaro here ready to present. >> Uh Justin Lamro, strong tree engineering for the applicant. Uh the Kingston conservation. So this project wouldn't even be in front of you if it was for the hard work of your conservation department who was
able to uh get the grant from CCM to do this project. So it is a great project. Uh just so we get situated uh we have Deleno AB to the south, we have Rocky Nook Point to the north. Um
the resources that we have that associated with the rocket nook point are uh coastal beach, salt marsh, title flats and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Our project uh was to
mitigate storm water on Drew and Sver Avenue, both finger roads that head head north off of Deleno. Um the approach they're about 600 they're both about 600 ft in length. So the
approach was to break that up into 300 ft uh drainage areas uh which is a standard for uh storm water collection. U so we have two types of storm water systems that we're
proposing. The upper regions are going to be inlets, so catch basins to collect storm water. >> Which page are you on? >> Um, I'm on C3. >> There we go.
>> Yep. So, drop inlets on both sides of the road. We do have water and sewer in the road, so going deep in this area makes it difficult. So, we we're going to go with drop inlets to water quality structures. So all of our treatment will happen in the water quality structure
which is downstream from the catch basins. And then we have underground recharge chambers. So concrete chambers with stone. So pretty standard storm water. We do have a high-end hydrodnamic separator which is the water quality. And that's for both systems. And that's
approximately 300 ft from Rocky Nook upstream. Down at the ends of the streets, we have some pavement, some extra pavement that we're removing, and we're going to put some stepped bio retention systems
similar to the Deleno or Delano uh the systems that were installed over there. Uh these will accept runoff uh currently runoff just flows untreated right to the bay. So they'll accept runoff with four bays to collect trash and debris and
sediment. They'll overflow then into cells. There is a good gradient along the roadway. So we have we have some stepped um cells which we're we're accomplishing with curve to maximize surface area for these fire retentions.
Um both systems do have overflow recharge to get even more storage uh for the systems and more treatment. The upstreams are sized for the two-year storm. They'll fully sell three three and a half inch rainstorm. The
downstreams are sized for the water quality storm. So the first inch of runoff over impervious and then they will overflow up to the 100year control up to the 100year. They're designed to control the 100year with with the curb
[snorts] from upstream from the entire uh drainage area which includes portions of Deleno. Uh we have native plants. We have some beach grass um blue stem various native plants that will be in the buyer attention. We als we have some
stone overflows just to control velocities and then we have erosion control silt sock around uh the limit of work. So I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right, Matt. Um,
>> I think on also we have on both of these and maybe I think it shows it better on a different sheet, but we had the walkway past >> each one to maintain the existing path to the existing. We're not changing the
steps on either one of these. Right. Even on Drew, we're not changing the steps. It ends at the top of the steps. >> Correct. So you still both streets have access steps that are just within the old road layout put in by somebody
decades or you know whatever ago. Um and we're going to this has been designed to basically believe it's grass right it's going to be right now you have grass that comes up to the road that's within the road layout. I believe the plan is
to have grass next to the storm water feature with plants separating that grass walkway so people aren't walking in the storm water feature and then some sort of shrubs on the other side to sort of separate from someone's yard. >> I think with our discussion with CCM
they wanted it distinguished with plantings. So the walkway will will be have plantings along it. >> Yeah, >> obviously native plantings that tolerate salt. And then I did have somebody come into the office today with concerns about maintaining access over time. Um,
you know, not losing access completely. I know when we did, not when we did when the Delano I think it's Delano. >> He's not a Kingston. He's not a Kingston guy. Sorry. >> I'm I'm almost a Kingston person at this point. I think it's Delano. Um, when the
Delano BMP was done, the area residents didn't like the change in access. It had gone from a ramp to a set of stairs. The stairs weren't something that were really um, stable and over time had degraded. We were able to fix that with
um, earmark money from the state and put a iron handrail in. And I think that goes a long way. I mean, people still aren't, you know, I wouldn't say every single person is entirely happy with it still, but it makes it a lot more stable just to be able to hold on to something
on the way down. These stairs, I don't know that the town's going to be maintaining the stairs anymore than they do now, which is we don't. >> Um, and if we can include some version of a handrail in there, I think some people would be happy with that. Um it's just a matter of whether or not [snorts]
then that becomes something that means that we own the stairs and we maintain them with I don't know but it's something worth thinking about that at least with a set of handrails on these it makes it more stable for people and then it's less concerning the condition
of the steps over time. >> Yeah. Currently there's no proposed change to the granite >> right >> steps but >> yeah granite on one and the other one is is concrete y >> yeah sever is concrete >> yeah um so I can really quickly go
through say that we have sort of a mix here we have some improvements proposed out of jurisdiction as Justin said the initial infiltration is happening pretty much halfway up the road uh which is good right now there's nothing on either street to control any storm water
whatsoever. Um, so anything that is in anybody's yard or in the road, any oils, fertilizers, dog waste, anything just gets out into the bay quickly. Um, very sight limited here. We really just have
the road layout. That's it. Um, we did send out mailers just seeing if anybody was interested in talking about an easement or something and didn't get any takers. Um, so we were very limited in the space and as Justin mentioned the depth. So this isn't a system that's going to infiltrate massive storms. What
it's going to do is particularly with smaller storms, it's going to infiltrate the first flush, which contains the majority of the bad stuff. Um, and also provide, like he said, control measures for the larger storms. So you're not just getting
erosion, you're having a controlled release, which is good. Um, two trees do have to be removed as part of this project. Uh, one of them is a Norway maple, which is, uh, not a desirable species. It is not a longived species, but I'm sure the person who
lives next to it and is be, you know, getting some shade from it might not like that. It is within the road layout. Um, and it is right down by the coastal bank. Um, similarly on Drew Avenue, there's a Eastern Red Cedar in almost
the same location that uh will need to come out as part of this project. Um, so not ever really good removing trees, particularly on the coastal bank, but with the benefit of this project and the amount of native plants that are going to be replacing them and things that
stay relatively short and not necessarily damaging to the coastal bank if they were to tip over. Um, overall I would say a benefit. Um, but there is potential that, you know, we could always replace a tree with something that could grow up higher if somebody
wanted that. Um, [snorts] proposed work will decrease impervious surface within jurisdiction by approximately 31 square feet at the end of Drew Avenue and approximately 314 square ft at the end of SVER Avenue. It will be an overall benefit to Kingston Bay. Currently untreated storm water
flows down both streets directly into the bay, carrying trash, sediment, and other pollutants with it. Proposed improvements will remove these pollutants before storm water reaches the bay, constituting a significant improvement over existing conditions. Um 12in diameter silt sockets proposed for
erosion sedimentation control between the work area and the bay. Proposed work appears to meet the standards of KWPR relevant to land subject to coastal storm flowage by decreasing flood water velocity and volume and by attenuating and infiltrating storm water runoff and
because it will improve the ability of that land subject to coast to storm flowers to prevent pollution through filtration and infiltration. It appears to meet most of the standards of KWPR related to storm water systems. Um obviously we don't have the 40 feet
storm water systems but there needs to be a storm water system here and there and there isn't one. So um we don't have an O andM plan yet uh but it will be submitted um before a COC is issued on this and this we've already heard from Justin about the sizing of it which does
meet all of our regulations as well. Um, the last thing for we sent out 300 foot of butter notifications on this. Um, if everybody remembers when the bylaw was redone a couple years ago at town meeting, it called for 300 foot of butter notifications, but our
regulations still say 100 feet. So, we haven't updated that. We've only been requiring 100 feet since we haven't made that change yet. Um, but with this, because it's our project and because it was on Rocky Nook and there would be big changes in there, I felt like we should send out as many notifications as possible. Um, for people who live
directly next to these storm water features that are down by the coastal bank, there will be changes. Um, you know, most of this area, they're really tight lots and a lot of people's yard is in the road layout. So, the good thing
is for the most of the street, there's not going to be disturbance at all. But in the areas where there will be disturbance, there may be situations where somebody might lose lawn space, somebody might lose a parking spot um if the parking space has been within the road layout. And in both of these
situations, we have barriers at the end of the road to prevent um somebody from driving into the BMPs, driving into the bio retention areas. Um, so there will be basically the end of the road is being moved closer to um the upland
there just by way of needing to protect what's being built there. Um, and we did discuss this with the highway department as well because for storm purposes in the winter, they won't be able to plow all the way down the street to the bay.
Um, which isn't ideal anyways for, you know, water quality purposes. We don't like snow being dumped directly in the bay or plowed directly in the bay. But essentially what they said is that there isn't a better way to do what we proposed and they can work with it. Um
they said this past winter it would have been difficult based on the amount of snow we got. Most winters we don't get that much snow. They said if they have to send a machine down there to scoop snow and get it out of there, they'll they'll do that. Um so I think we've sort of covered every angle of this. it
meets all of our regulations and WPA. Um, it may be disturbing to some of the neighbors. Um, we've put as much notification out there as we can. We've had a few people reach out. Um, and we'll keep interacting with people throughout the process just to see if we can keep as many people happy as
possible while still being able to get the project done. >> We'll open up the commission. Uh any any comments or questions for either the engineer Justin or or Matt on the presentation of this? >> No, several of us had an opportunity to
go on the sidewalk yesterday and and see the layout and have it really explained and >> it looks like a good improvement. >> It's pretty tight down there. >> It's too tight. Um we'll open up to public comment. Uh does anybody who has
any questions or would like to be heard on this? Um please step up. Um identify yourself. >> Nope. Just go to the mic. >> There's a microphone. Sorry. Um name and address please. [snorts]
>> Jean Sullivan 22 Delanov. >> My concern is um first of all um why were those two specific sites proposed? Why were they looked at first for grants when there's
a major storm water issue on Cedar Street which is 100 ft from where you people looked from Sver and uh Drew the roads being eaten up and I'm sure all the construction trucks that are going
to be doing this project like every other construction truck that does any work down in that part of the nook goes down Cedar Street and tears up that three and there's a right now it's probably the biggest storm water issue in Kingston. There's there's a swimming
pool in front of 16 um Cedar Street right now which isn't being addressed. It's been there for years. You will you guys put a sewer project a major sewer construction project there. You regraded the street,
so the water just sits in a 50-foot area. There's no catch basins. There's no storm drains. You people keep telling the people that live there that they're in charge of fixing this street that everybody in Kingston uses. It's not a
private, they consider it a private way with public access, but this is not a dead end street. This is a major free throughway where fire trucks, no one can back up if they go down. Ca Street. They have to come down Cedar Street, go up
Delano, back down Cedar Street, um, Drew Aav, CV rev, all the streets there. They any fire truck, ambulance that hits that part of the nook goes up Caesar Street because they can't back up
Delano. So, they have to go that way. The streets is torn up. I have pictures of it right now. I'm I'm pretty familiar with it. >> Right. You guys were there last night >> and I can answer um >> your question. >> Everyone just says, "Well, it's a public way. Too bad for you people." But this
the town put I worked for Boston Water for 35 years and if we did a construction project on a street, we would make sure that it doesn't drain into private property. You have to put catch base in storm drains. >> Right. Let's let's just pause.
>> My thing is hang on one second. >> We're going to ask for a response to your first part of the question because we don't want to bury everything. We want to go in a linear fashion. So Matt, could you respond? And and for for my benefit, do we have any I don't recall
any anything that we were involved with on Cedar Street. And if I'm wrong just >> No, I think what he's saying is it was a sewer project. So it would have been >> the term was you people and it was me. project. >> Um, so we had residents of Drew and Sver
A reach out about storm water issues. Their concern mainly was the scouring down the end of the stairs and the beach and that sort of stuff. But from my standpoint, a lot of what we do is trying to retrofit storm water issues around town and make sure you get
treatment. So when we looked into it, realized there was nothing there for treatment and that it would make a good site for grant funded work like this, I started looking at it and what I ran into was some of the adjacent streets that we could have also done were not public. Um, similar to Cedar Street,
Adams Aav is right next to these and it's a private road. Um, so I can't I can only apply for grants and do projects on public streets. Wow. >> So it's Ceda Street. Nope. Sorry. >> You have to get up there, too. >> Nope. Keep this very
>> very linear or else it just goes goes to pot, right? >> So Ceda Street is is a a private right away. >> That's my understanding. And I the way this stuff goes because I'm no expert on roads and what is and isn't is I ask um
the highway superintendent or the town planner usually like a list of streets, let's say, and I'll say, "Which one of these is public? Which one of these is private? Um, you're 100% right on Cedar Street is I've driven through that >> a handful of times and I've been there when it's a big rainstorm and it's
>> Well, right now >> it is precarious. >> I know you went by last night cuz I saw your two vehicles checking out. >> Yeah. Very slow. >> I saw your vehicles go through the bump that you went through when you went in front of Cedar Street. You had to slow down or you break your axle. >> Exactly. >> Just Just so we're clear, this is
conservation commission. So we we stay in a lane highway department. Well, it's really not. It's a storm water issue that you that the town created. >> Well, the project here is a storm water issue that we're talking about. Cedar Street is not something we're talking about. >> But for their vehicles to do that storm
water project on Drew and SA, they're going to be tearing up Cedar Street because it's the only way that those major vehicles can come >> because they can't make the tight. They have to cut down. So, >> okay. So, this is a road access. >> Correct. And that's why C that's why
Cedar Street is no matter what you do it's getting torn up because I have pictures of 10 whalers constantly going down there. Anyone that does any kind of project in that part of the nook has to use Cedar Street. So for the town to say
it's a private way is just ridiculous. >> Well from a from a town standpoint strictly from how all of the town's regulations and everything works. It is a private road, but what I can do is, you know, this is a project that we're
going to get grant funded. It might require a match funding of 10% or something along those lines usually. But what we try to do now is we get the the permit from the conservation commission and then we go to the next round of CZM funding and say, will you pay for this
project now? And what I can try to do, since what you're saying is likely accurate, that a lot of these bigger vehicles that are taking material in and out of here are going to have to go around and through Drew, maybe there's a way that they can make repairs to Cedar
Street at this close of the project. I can't guarantee that, but I can look into it. >> Why should they be allowed to use Cedar Street? >> It's it's open for them to drive through. Like I said, it's a it's a private road. private road with the public access. So, you're hiding behind
>> I'm not hiding behind anything. >> We're not going to do this like this. We're going to we're going to be respectful of one another. >> What I'm saying is I'll try to help a solution to a problem if possible, but I can't guarantee that I can fix the problem. >> All right. So, so we we talked about the access. Is there another and and I think
you got an explanation. >> Let me finish, please. >> Okay. We don't talk over. I don't talk over you. You don't talk over me. We have the access issue that you'd like to hear more on. You also asked about the location and you were you received an
answer. Did that satisfy your inquiry? >> Well, I guess and that's about as far as we're going to go tonight anyway, I would assume. Right. But my thing also is if you go over the other side, the Adina when they did the soup project over there, there were catch basins
everywhere and I think this there was people from CDM. Is that who >> CDM Smith? Yeah. >> Who came out originally and looked at the issue in front of Cedar Street. It was two women and they were shocked that
the town wasn't correcting the storm water issue before they you know they expressed to my wife this is you know no one's looking at this and I'm just they never come back to the >> just for my clarity this meaning what >> specifically
>> the storm water issue >> if you you have to okay there's people who listen can't hear because there's only one microphone okay >> and in My other issue is I'm listening to find a boy and I'm sure everyone's concerned about issues with septus
systems and all that, but there were people that live right on Cedar Street that came to the town with emails and everything concerned about these issues when they were paving the road and doing the sewer construction and no one did
anything. And you you you're talking about people not being able to cut a tree down and you have people that live with swimming pool in their street and no one ever did anything about it. And now you're going to have all these construction trucks and it's just it's
daily business that everybody uses this street and I don't see why the people that live there should be responsible to maintain a street that everyone's using. >> All right. But that's my >> it's been noted. >> What I what I don't want to do is I
don't want to pretend that we're in a different lane than we are. Okay. You have a legitimate discussion with highway. That's >> well and it's a storm water and Amanda Sullivan 22 Delino app and I spoke to it was two women at is it CZM or that came
down. It was a couple of years ago and I brought them over and um they might have given me their cards. I don't know. But after I spoke to them, they were quite surprised at how bad the road looked, all the water that was there, and that they were going to go back to their office to see if the town was going to,
you know, be looking at other streets and if that was going to be a street that was going to be addressed. That's all I can tell you. >> Perhaps that's something that you could follow up with. >> Yeah, because we've heard when we've had a meeting before with um Mr. Hickeyi, the town administrator, he was saying
how it's a private road but a public way, which I find very confusing going, how can it be both? And is that something that you could look at as far as getting grant money for a public way? I mean, I I don't know. >> I don't think so, but I can look into it. >> Okay. Thanks, Matt. That would be great.
>> All right. Is anybody else like to be heard on this? >> See if anybody's got their hand up. >> Can I just ask one more? Is there someone that does I know the state requires the towns to have a storm water department or someone in
charge of storm water. Kingston doesn't have a storm water because the highway >> essentially that's that's my department. Yeah. >> Mhm. Right. And I I see that when you put out statements about trying to correct areas for storm water, it's a
public health issue. You you're putting all this stuff. Well, there's a major public health issue right right in front of you 365 days of the year. Crickets, you know, >> the private road, >> right? Thank you. >> And the high and the highway guy said we
paved the road to turn into a private property. You know, it just it seems like everyone's walking around with blindfolds on this issue. I appreciate >> we have we have a lane to go tell you tonight. >> I hear you. >> I thought I'd bring in
>> Thank you guys. I appreciate it. >> Have a good night. >> That would be nice. Thank you. >> Is there anyone online that perhaps wants to be heard? >> Let me stop share so we can see. >> Pua, >> Mr. Dwis, >> hi there everybody. Um, thanks very
much. Um, just for the sake of the Rocky Nook people, I think when I first got my job at Jones River Wershed, the first grant I wrote to CZM was for all of storm water in Rocky Nook. It didn't get funded. It's not just that people don't try. People do try, but it does require
money and it requires a lot of investment. So um but my question for um for strong tree is uh the bio retention is that uh is there a a window for in
term in terms of how long uh the water will settle there? Um and the only reason I'm asking is my my current um problem in dealing with mosquito control.
>> Hi Pine. Hi. Uh, yes, we we have we have an under drain. Um, these will be standard, you know, 72-hour max, but there be much quicker. We did do test pits down there, and we had some test pits from when they did the sewer. It is
rocky, but it's fairly sandy. Um, but like I said, it it will be under drained for uh Drew A has the existing outfall that we'll connect to. Yeah. Excellent. As as long as as long as it I think 72
hours is okay. Um it's a little long but not not terrible. Um if it if it's longer than that, we have to put the eels in there. Thank you. >> Can I ask a question? Yes. >> Have you um done test pits or anything
to find out where the clay level is under under the road? >> We did test pits. We hit refusal where the these systems aren't very deep. We're definitely we have separation of groundwater. Ground water is around elevation three. So the bottom is around five. So that's about as deep as going.
The elevation down at the bios is around 8 and 1 half nine. So we're not going too deep. Um we did do test fits. We didn't find any silt or or clay. We found, you know, it's it's not the finest material. It's rocky nook, but it
we didn't find anything that wouldn't perk. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> I know where you were going with that. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, it's a it's a glacially formed area from dug up clay and just mounted up. I I don't know how
how deep where it is. >> That's why I was asking. The other question I have, the last house on the left, is he going to be able to turn into his parking his driveway? >> Which road? I think it's sever. So any
parking within the rightway is is going to go away. So you're talking about Yeah, I think it's right here. >> No, I was talking about the driveway. >> Yep. >> We're not taking any driveway. >> Yeah, I think both of them will be able to access the driveway and they should even be able to back out
>> towards the ocean on both streets. At least on >> Exactly. We kept all the driveways where you'd have turning radius, >> but parking sometimes they park at the end of the street. You can't do that anymore. >> All right. Any additional questions?
>> I don't see anything. >> What do you think, guys? Are we are we ready for a vote? >> Excuse me. >> Well, Matt, did you have a question about the O andM plan that we should have it before? had said before uh >> before COC we'll have it um Justin will
be >> correct me if I'm wrong you'll be putting it together yes >> at the a wrap up of construction before we file for a COC >> correct the specs are I have the specs done we'll tweak the plans after this and we'll put together the onm
>> are we ready for a vote Are you wanting to close the hearing? >> We would have to. >> Okay. >> If we're ready, if we're ready for it or or this is where somebody would say, well, I move for continuence. So, >> I'll make a motion to close. >> Okay. A motion by Brian, second by Marilyn.
>> Uh, all those in favor closing the hearing. Uh, say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Abstained. All right. So, we close the hearing five to zero. Do [clears throat] I hear a motion on the NOI? >> Sure.
I'll make that motion to approve the project with conditions as stated knowing that we'll be looking forward to that O andM plan when they ask for the COC. >> Okay. We have a motion by Marilyn. Do I hear a second? >> Second.
>> Second by Dot. All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. >> Abstain. All right. Motion carries 5 to 0. Um to issue the uh NOI, approve the NOI and issue the permit.
Thank you very much. Section D, 17 Old Orchard Lane, notice of intent. I will now uh open open a hearing for a notice of intent submitted by Grady Consulting LLC on behalf of the applicant, the new Orchard
Realy Trust for the raise and rebuild of a single family dwelling within the buffer zones to various coastal wetland resource areas [laughter] at 17 Old Orchard Lane where this is the first meeting on this proposal. We'll ask to
hear introduction from the applicant. Mr. Uh thank you, Rick Brady from Grady Consulting along with Mark Pabone, the applicant. Uh this is a property at uh number 17 Old Orchard Lane. Uh it was before the commission a few years ago which I believe was withdrawn by the
previous owner at that time. Uh Mr. Guabone has since acquired the property uh and also lives next door to the property. Uh the existing home on this property is a concrete block foundation located partially within uh the flood zone VE elevation 13. That flood zone
cuts across the back corner of the existing block foundation. Uh we have the resource area needed by Brad Holmes. Uh they're depicted here on the plan. Uh the existing home existing foundations
about 19 1/2 ft off of uh the coastal dune delineation line here. Uh and as mentioned previously within the land subject to flooding. It is uh currently in a state of disrepair as the people on the sidewalk
saw yesterday with toilets and sinks falling through floors and whatnot and in dire need of being replaced. Uh Mr. Pabone has come up with a house design on this uh where the house is narrower than the previous house. The previous house was about 34 ft wide. Uh
this proposed house uh that he wants to build is 28 ft wide. He would also like to pull that house closer to the property line. We have a 15 ft zoning set back. So, we would like to bring it about 15.4 ft uh from that uh property
line here to the uh east, I believe or southeast. We'd also like to pull the house forward uh towards the existing access, existing roadway, old Orchard Lane. By doing this, we're able to relocate the foundation entirely outside
of the velocity zone, elevation 13. would also like to elevate it a little bit higher on a foundation so that the basement slab uh which is also a garage under slab here is at approximately elevation 13.7. Uh [clears throat] so our slab of our
foundation will be elevated above the flood zone uh to eliminate having to deal with that being within the flood zone. There's [clears throat] uh two parking spaces proposed to conform with zoning requirements. Uh these will be crushed stone parking spaces uh accessing the
existing uh crushed stone and partially paved driveway coming in from Old Orchard Lane. Uh again, those will be crushed stone to be impervious. Impervious, sorry, not impervious. Um we're also proposing a 3- foot wide,
1 foot deep crush stone drip trench around the perimeter of the house here. uh that's about 124 feet in total length. Uh it's giving us enough storage capacity. Uh so that holds a volume of about 4 in of runoff off of the entire
uh imperous surface. So 4 in of runoff basically off of this roof uh will be collected within this crushed stone uh drip trench around the perimeter of the uh proposed house. There are two retaining walls uh on the law on the front here to transition the
grade from the garage under here up to the main entry. Those [clears throat] two walls are approximately 20 25 ft long. Uh and they're about 3 and 1/2 ft tall. So it'll be um basically a stepped retaining wall situation there. 3 and 1/2 ft 3 and 1/2 ft. Uh so that we can
access the main level uh at the front uh walkway here. Uh there is a set of steps proposed to get back down to grade on the back of the structure here. He does have architectural plans that he can share with the commission [clears throat] if you'd like to see it. Uh we have
proposed mitigation plantings around the perimeter of the property and proposed swale uh within uh that's native plantings and mitigation plantings. >> Could you show me the swale please? >> Uh yes, the swale is denoted right in this area here uh within the planted
area. Um, [clears throat] excuse me. Uh, so as mentioned, the proposed house would be moved further away from the resource area. Uh, he has proposed a post and rail fence to permanently demarcate the limit of the lawn area here. Uh, and we've talked about conservation uh,
signage there uh, similar to what he had done on the house next door that just uh, was completed, which he did a very nice job on. Um the split rail fence will match some of the other fencing in the area as well. Uh we do have a 12-in silt sock proposed around the full
perimeter of the uh site. Um not a lot of grading going on here, especially around the back side. We're maintaining existing grade, not bringing in uh fill. Um we will be connecting to town sewer and town water. Uh, so no need to worry
about septic systems in this area. Um, and with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions the commission may have. >> All right, Matt, could you um could you bring [clears throat] us a seat? >> Sure. Um, [cough] portion of the site, portion of the existing structure is located within the
velocity zone at elevation 13 ft. Uh there is no Azone at this site. of the flood zone or land subject to coastal storm flowage ends at the landward extent of the Vzone. As Rick showed, the new structure is proposed slightly landward outside of the Vzone. New site structure is proposed to be
located 25.3 ft from the coastal dune and 30.4 ft from the inland bank of the mapped intermittent stream versus 19.5 and 20.5 respectively for the existing structure. So in other words, proposed structure is nearly six feet further from the coastal dune and 10 feet
further from the inland bank. Um, initially we didn't have architectural plans. We have had those submitted now if anybody would like to see them. Uh, you have a two-story house with a garage underneath concrete foundation. I'm not going to repeat everything that he said for site conditions there. We
have about 180 ft of native plantings behind eight conservation posts. Um, I have mentioned that we've allowed before including at his other property that placards can be attached to fence posts. So where they are proposing a split rail fence here, they may be able to do
without the conservation posts and just put the placards on the split rail fence and that would be mentioned in conditions that in one fashion or another they have to stay there in perpetuity. [cough and clears throat] Uh retaining walls meet the standards from KWPR by
being less than 4 feet of fill being held back. We had the deline we had several delineations on this. The most recent one by Brad Holmes. An earlier one mentioned BBW along with the inland bank. Um I don't see BBW on this plan
and I didn't notice any BBW on site other than associated with 18 Old Orchard Lane. There is BBW. Um but that in a way sort of just gets at the status of the stream. Um, we did a site visit on the 21st.
I didn't notice anything that looked out of place in terms of wetland delineation, where the coastal dune is, where the inland bank is, all of that. It's notable that I've never seen the stream dry or without flow. Its intermittent status appears to be based on it being clearly straight and of a
human excavated condition. Um that doesn't mean that it's not natural or that it wasn't at one point a natural stream. Um but they're making a contention that it is a ditch because it comes out of a series of culverts after coming out of uh Main Street underneath
Main Street. Um my take on this, we haven't dealt with this before. We've had several filings in this area um that we really haven't paid much attention to what this is as a feature. partially because everything in this area is already very developed,
including this particular property. Um, so rather than get down and then the commission absolutely can if they want to, but if the commission wanted to get down to exactly what this feature is, my recommendation would be go to peer review because I have no idea. I don't
know where this stream comes from, what its headwaters are, what its um, you know, total drainage area is. Um, but I don't think that the commission needs that to make a decision on a filing like this. I don't think it really makes a
difference one way or the other what the status of that stream is, whether it's an intermittent ditch or it's a perennial stream where we have historic legal development up very close to it and we have a project that is improving conditions in some capacity and adding
restoration plantings closest to it. What I would say if that's the way the commission feels is that they put a special condition in there specifying that you're not affirming that resource area type. Um, again, the boundary to me looked accurate. I just don't know what
it is. Um, as far as the stream, so I thought that was worth mentioning and can be laid out in special conditions. Um there was an NOI support memo that came from ECR. It typified the stream and discussed compliance. Um it did mention
that this met the standard of maintaining an existing structure that I disagree with. Um if that's the point that he was trying to make in that. So just from a procedural standpoint, I thought it was worth calling that out as a redevelopment of an existing structure. Um but I do agree with the
point that it makes that the proposal increases the distance between the structure and the stream and other resource areas and provides mitigation plantings in between. Um so I imagine the commission will take into account the presence of an existing structure. Again there is no grandfathering and no requirement for the commission to allow
development here if they find that such development will be detrimental to the well and resource areas. plan states the existing imperous coverage at 149% or,080 square feet and proposes 15% or,089 square feet. So you're increasing by four square feet. Um 15% is the
maximum under KWPR. Again, for procedural purposes and for the administrative record, wetland memo number two incorrectly states the proposed percent impervious at less than half of 15%. So I don't know, I didn't reach out to Brad on that. It probably was something copied over from a
different filing, but just for the administrative record noting that that's incorrect. We do have a 15% proposed very minor increase. Applicant proposed to construct a new site structure on a concrete foundation entirely within the 50oot and mostly within the 40 foot. No structure
setback. So KWPR calls 50 foot for wall type, 40 foot for open pile and that distance is to LSCSF which is the velocity zone. uh foundation is also within 40 and 50 feet to Coastal Dune and Inland Bank. We talked a little bit about the pvious
nature of the proposed parking spaces uh but we didn't really talk about proposed deck steps and landing. Be good to have some information of whether that is pvious and if so should probably have special conditions talking about board spacing typically 38 of an inch. We have two variance requests that were
provided. one for putting a structure with a wall type foundation within 50 and 40 feet of wetland resource areas and one for failure to place the structure to the furthest maximum extent from resource areas. Um variance requests are just a section of the narrative. They do not specify the specific resource areas and do not
follow the requirements of KWPR 5.23A and B. Regarding the second variance request, KWPR says the commission will require all structures and activities to be moved as far from resource areas as practicable. Here the applicant is requesting relief in order to comply with zoning in that on-site off-
streetet parking spaces may be provided. Um my understanding is that zoning relief in this case would not be possible. I did reach out to the commission if they had questions about well can you just move the house further and not have those spaces there. From what I gather, the answer is no. That
those spaces would be required. >> And those spaces were technically there before because of the grass area in front. There was the ability to pull off of the road. From page one of the narrative discussing the mitigation plantings says, "Plantings will be provided as
well as a swale to direct storm water into said planting area. this area is expected to catch not only storm water from onsite but that coming from neighboring properties as well. Um wondered if we could have a little more explanation on that. Just said whereas the proposed planting area is only 5 ft wide that was a little concerning
guiding storm water towards wetland resource areas particularly where adequate infiltration systems are not provided often results in detrimental effects to those areas. In this case, we do not have sufficient information to determine what the volume of storm water will be or that it won't cause detrimental effects when reaching the
stream or coastal resource areas. It's unclear what the storm water flow pattern is presently and whether the proposal makes significant changes in that flow in including from offsite as was mentioned in that statement. Um, compliance with the mass storm water standards is not required for single family house projects, but the
commission has the authority to question potential storm water issues where they arise in the normal course of review under WPA and KWPR. Um Rick talked a little about I had a comment about the trenches um you know 3 foot by one foot depth and just saying
the commission may have questions about sizing it seems um Rick is saying 4 in >> so they can they can store >> full volume without accounting for infiltration. >> Okay. >> So >> and that's for the footprint. >> The footprint is basically all of the
impervious. So yes. Yeah. It's really the house that's the impervious on this site. >> I said the narrative has errors that should be addressed for the administrative record ma record mainly involving the stream status. Many sections refer to the stream as perennial where the application is
contending it is a type four intermittent stream. Um for instance number seven says no known perennial streams exist within 100 ft of locust property and number eight says not not applicable the on-site stream is perennial. Um, other than as described above, the
project appears to meet the standards of WPA and KWPR, including the standards for work in previously degraded riverfront area. Um, I did again I want the commission to talk about the proposed deck steps and landing as far as pvious nature. Um, and I had noted
that the applicant should explain how a concrete foundation is appropriate in this situation. Well, there's already a concrete foundation there in place closer to the resource areas. The commission does not need to approve proposed work when it's feasible to use best practices that would be less detrimental to the resource areas given the proximity to the current Vzone and
sea level rise projections. It's entirely feasible that the Vzone will encompass the area of the proposed foundation during the lifespan of the proposed house and potentially soon. While a piling type foundation is also prohibited by KWPR within 40 ft in this area, it is more appropriate than
concrete wall type particularly given the proximity to velocity zone. narrative states that the first floor elevation will be 21.7 feet while the Vzone is at 13 feet. But this does not explain the concrete foundation where you have a note saying garage under slab elevation is 13.7. So it's entirely
possible to get the same elevation and prevent any obstruction or scour which may help protect the structure and the resource areas over the long term. The commission should consider that the proposal removes roughly 100 square feet of concrete foundation from land subject coastal storm flowage being velocity
zone right now and utilizes native plantings to restore roughly 180 foot of the area. So you do have improvements in current vzone. So what I'm saying is not you have something that violates the current standards. You don't you have something that meets the current standard but for a best practices well
protection standpoint. Are you going to have an issue here long term where you likely will have the velocity zone increasing in elevation at this site? Um, understand the applicant's not going to want pilings here where right now you're talking about parking underneath
the house. So, right now what you have is you have a garage that you're pulling in underneath there. [snorts] >> You did say that you had architecturals, right? >> Yeah. I don't know um if we have them digital. I know you you gave them to us earlier and I'm not sure if we scanned them in yet, but we do have
architecturals that can be um shown tonight. >> Mark has paper copies so he can share as well. >> Perfect. Um I noted again the applicant should provide appropriate variance requests following the guidelines in 5.23A and B. Applicant should show that the post development storm water flow patterns will not have detrimental
effects on the resource areas explaining the difference between existing and proposed conditions. and commission should specify whether they're affirming the stream type in any issued OC's. In order to ensure a true pvious condition, the commission may wish to include a perpetual condition requiring
the driveway and any other pvious gravel areas, parking spaces to consist of nothing smaller than 3/4 in stone, gap graded, and that fines or sediment will be removed should they accumulate to the point where water no longer infiltrates quickly. Other coast appropriate special conditions would be covering dumpsters
when not in active use, immediate fines for trash found in the bay, no outdoor fertilizer, chemical use, and conditions related to mitigation area establishment, maintenance, and conservation post in perpetuity. That's all I got. >> All right, we'll open it up for discussion. Questions from the from the
U commission either the advocate or Matt. So I know on the sitewalk yesterday you started to talk about how the construction underneath would allow some pass through of water flow
and not >> so we had originally looked at >> hazard I think is what you were talking about. >> Yeah. one uh we looked at there is a door that uh Matt didn't make note of and the garage door itself is going to allow the uh the concrete it's essentially turning it more into a
piling structure than it is an actual foundation. So the water will be able to to act um in the event that it exceeds the velocity zone it will in fact blow the door open or or blow the garage door open. Garage doors down in the Florida
uh area are used typically as the the fail safe that that creates the pile area. If the commission so uh wishes, we could put the blowout um what do they call? Smart flood vents uh in the foundation.
>> Smart vents. >> Smart vents. >> Smart vents. It's a flood vent that allows the water to to uh to permeate into and those could be up, you know, a little bit higher than the 14t floor. or say at 15. So that still it's not going to create a structural issue.
>> So those were used on the brain a NOI filing I think last year or the year before to create that pass through. But as I was saying on the site visit yesterday, in that situation that was with a crawl space where I believe all that was under the house was gravel or
you know some sort of sediment, soil, whatever under there is in this situation where you'll have a a garage saying you're going to have vehicles parked in there. My question is is there a situation where even when you have that you have the potential for
contaminants to be brought back in? Is there anything that can be done in that sense? >> Just on that one, I I mean I understand how the velocity works and I understand, you know, blowout doors versus, you know, vents. I um the thing that complicates it I think a little bit is
is the storage of things that naturally accumulate inside those garage areas. Um so I understand the need for parking. I need the desire for garages. Um but from that perspective that um that's a tough
one to to I guess weigh against you know a detriment um to the area. So, um, thoughts. >> One of the commission members brought up yesterday of the electric car issue and having a electric car in a garage like
that. And, uh, the electric uh, port would be on the upper the the parking spot that goes up towards the front door. That's going to be up at 20 ft is where the electric car plug is proposed for that parking spot. >> Um, I looked at your architecturals. I
didn't see any mechanical rooms. Is this is the mechanics uh mechanicals going to be in the basement as well? >> If we put mechanicals, they would be elevated in the construction. So your typical heat pump water tank stands about 6 ft tall. So it would have to be
on a 24T platform up to allow for that. But that's one of the high highest hardest things to locate in anywhere in a house because of the height requirements. They're about six feet tall. So um while Jim's thinking any comments on
the deck steps landing is that all it seemed like in the filing it was proposed as pvious but I didn't catch >> uh narrative or anything. >> Yeah. The intent is to provide spacing between the boards 38ighs of an inch you had mentioned. That's a perfectly
acceptable condition and what we had anticipated for the construction of the deck areas. Under the deck area, there'll be the inch and a half stone like we did over at 18 Old Orchard, which will allow any water that goes through the the deck planking to permeate without any erosion
of any of the subs soil that's below the deck. So um the the other reason we did the swailes around is to eliminate gutters because gutters tend to concentrate water flow and cause more erosion than um so if the water falls freely into the
stone swailes. They'll provide that u drainage and and m and percolation into the ground a lot better than creating a a turret from a gutter and a downspout. The other thing is the uh question came up in in Matt's braille on the swale
that's the swale that's in with the plantings is designed only to handle the lawn area that's currently there. So that that that's the only water because all the water from the impervious surface of the structure will be taken care of with the
stone around it. >> Right. It was the narrative where was talking about taking water from other properties. Is that meaning the other side, the east? Uh, what is that? Southern side of the yard. >> This particular property is the lowest grade property at Old Orchard Lane. Um,
so naturally the water sheds off of all the rest of the properties. Now, most of the uh water is mitigated. 18 has much better mitigation now because we've added the stone um and and addressed a lot of the issues over here at 18. 18 is
over here. Um, but there's still some of the water comes down the existing paved roadway to the the stone, but we we'll be mitigating a lot of that because the entire driveway will now be stone as opposed to the well, I don't know what's
left there now. It's not G draft. It's pretty much dirt. Um, so this a lot of the the water that we mentioned as far as mitigating it. We're trying to funnel that into a some kind of a treatment before it gets either to the I call it
the brook or the uh or into the ocean, but most of it runs down this way and it it it goes into the lawn pretty good. We're not having any any kind of uh active erosion at the time between Old Orchard and the uh stream. I don't recall and I know because I asked at the
site visit any detail or anything on the parking spaces because initially I asked like is that going to be turf and you said it was going to be crushed stone. Is there any specification on that? Like does that itself have a storage volume? Are you going with a certain depth there or is that just going to be like a top dressing on dirt?
>> Yeah, I would suggest a minimum of six inch depth. And yes, that does also store uh storm water runoff and does also promote uh infiltration as well. That another component to it that'll help with the storm water. >> And was that designed at 3/4 stone or
something along those lines? What was your plan for the parking spaces? >> Uh, I would suggest 3/4 would be appropriate. >> Okay. >> Can I ask something? >> Yep. Are we allowed to um ask for sorry I said maintenance of these gravel
swailes because I did notice on 18 that some of them have weeds going through them already. So is there a way to make sure that these are maintained clean weed free because then if they're not weed free are they going to drain the way that they're supposed to drain? Are they going to maintain? Are they going to
>> It's a tossup. I think it I think more than likely the property owners are not going to want weeds growing out of there, but it can be sort of a double-edged sword. Like when we do a bio retention area, we want plants there because plants help with uptake. Um, but
you could also have a situation where they're contributing to sedimentation and filling [clears throat] of the gravel. So, >> um, >> well, if there's not any other way to catch the water and if it fills up, then >> I think, like I said, you definitely
want, and this was only for the swale, but I think you would include the parking spaces in that same condition, that you're mandating that they stay at a minimum 3/4 in gap graded stone and that if they get over time or through
some incident, you know, filled with >> sediment or other material to the point that they no longer infiltrate that the commission can mandate that they be repaired. Um whether that's just from completely removing it and replacing it or whether it's through some process of
screening or whatever. Um you know, you would have the ability to have that conditioned. You could throw a condition in there that the the areas have to be kept weed-free, but it's it's hard to >> just like maintained as >> I would say it's more important just to make sure that you're writing that
they're maintained as something that is actually pertaining water in it, you know, after a rainstorm, then I think you can make a pretty good case that it's not infiltrating properly. >> Well, it might be worth asking, too. Perhaps they have a plan for this. Um,
what kind of stone you're going to be planning on using? Is it going to be a wash stone? Is it going to be, you know, something that's going to have a lot of sediment on it that's going to accumulate in the bottom? What What's your plan there? >> No, all the stone that we use on site is a wash stone. Um, I use the inch and a
half stone at 18 >> because it has a bigger spaces and and has more retention of water. And as as you're discussing this, I was thinking a base of inch and a half with a three quarter on top would give you a better um volume of storage. I'm going to refer
to my engineering though. >> Yeah, I think for a special condition we would say minimum of 3/4 in and you're welcome to to do as you wish there. Um and I think yeah, I think that would that would suit your needs. I I I think
I think there's a lot of good going on on this one and I understand that it's a existing um parcel. The you know the one thing that that still sticks with me is is the classification of what you just called a brook, right? You grew up in this area. You know what it is. You know
that it's wet. Intermittent versus perennial. I I'm not comfortable voting on anything that doesn't line up with what our interpretation of it is currently. So if we do close tonight, if we do vote, if we do approve, I'd like
that plan updated and remove the reference that kind of spins it in the wrong direction. So that's what that's what I would like to see done on the plan. So remove the reference to the intermittent stream because you don't have as far there's no proof in front of us that that's an intermittent stream.
So if if we're tied to that on your application, then it's going to be my recommendation that we continue and and and require the work to be done to either accept that or or or deny it. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay.
>> So you want it changed from what intermittent to what just to be specific. >> Yeah. We got to remove the references to intermittent because it could be referenced somewhere else and you know >> talking stream of unknown status. >> Yeah. perennial stream is is is by
default we we kind of go that direction. So >> stream >> stream >> stream. >> Yeah. >> Then then you have to deal with it with Grace Beach and tennis courts and 18 recently. And so >> yeah, I mean we've we've uh we've dealt
with it with we dealt with it with the playground by essentially barely looking at it because you the whole thing was staying within a previously developed area. And the same thing with I think the the tennis courts. It's there's no change to the you know when you're not
changing anything really on the site in terms of on you know ground conditions it's pretty easy to overlook something like that. But if we ever need to get to the bottom of exactly what that is, it's going to be, I think, a little more of a bear than you want to deal with on a
single family house property. >> And and that's that's >> So what do you want to see personally on that? >> I want to see the >> stream of unknown status. Just say stream. >> It's just as long as it's open. We're not agreeing to any of it. That's that's that's my point.
>> Okay. Um but on that point, Mark, you I mean you grew up in this area that stream comes from is it Baker A? >> It um >> under the hut. >> Is that is that where you guys are? >> It really does initiate at the storm
water for what is now uh Route 3A. Um, understanding that Crescent Street was 3A and years ago the bypass of Crescent Street was the new 3A closer to the the ocean. That was before my time. But
>> so there's no up there's no upgradient portion of that on the other side of Main Street that you >> that you can find that water accumulates. I would say the groundwater is pretty high. My father years ago said that that was a swamp when he was a kid and they put the road through there. But
I can't tell. I don't know. I >> It could have been a mosquito control thing, you know, 100 years ago. >> Definitely was has been maintained in my lifetime as mosquito control by Plymouth County as a drainage ditch because it did accumulate water and track and of
course the public park was there to mitigate the mosquitoes. They clean it out, but they do all that by hand. There's no machines involved. Um, but it does drain a very small wetland that's uh behind six old orchard lane, but it
doesn't meet the requirements that and that's why it's hard to define because it doesn't have the the wershed. So, um, but the origin point is the storm drain system of 3A, which is catching water all the way probably from
both ends of Crescent Street. um groundwater and um but at this point I think it's been too well developed to really pin it down as having any natural water source. >> Interesting. >> Is this separate now? This is gone
bananas, right? >> That's gone bananas. This is gum bananas. And this was a previous >> Yeah. >> This isn't tied to that. >> That is that >> that is it. >> This is where it comes out of the ground. Right in their backyard basically. >> The ones that just had
>> Yeah. >> So, okay. So, this >> So, we would be more over here, right? >> Yeah. >> There's a lot of water over there. >> Yeah. There's a big pond here.
>> All right. Um, we also had a question on a red maple tree that we're dealing with, too. Um, it's near the mitigation area. Uh, he would like to remove that if possible. It's not in great shape. >> Um, >> Matt didn't want to do it administratively uh because it's within
the resource area as opposed to being in the buffer zone. Um, but he would like to remove uh that maple tree. >> It's within your swale. Does the swell not go that way? >> Right. So I would assume that that if we're looking at the swale as a
>> benefit that we would see that that tree would have to go through the >> couple um thoughts on this. Right. So the tree is definitely in striking distance of the existing house and probably would be in striking distance of the proposed house. Um it's not in
the best of health. There's definitely some broken branches and some sign of decline. There might be some structural instability to the trunk. Um, I would say there's not really an issue with removing that as part of this project. I think when the commission makes you keep a tree that is
potentially damaging to the structure, it's it's it's been done, >> but it's it's depending on the situation risky. I would say you wouldn't want ground disturbance. You wouldn't want to be grinding out the stump. And you may
even like >> Mark had just suggested that as well. We could cut the tree, leave the stump, let it grow back. >> That's kind of what I was thinking is it's it's a beneficial species. It's a native species. It's a wetland species. If you flush cut it, it probably starts sprouting up and you might you either
just let it bush out or you select the strongest leaders and then you'll end up with a tree again. >> Planting bed and that will suck up a lot of water. So, as part of having that in a swale, like red maples hold once it gets to be mature again, red
maples, you know, they hold a lot of water just in the trunk itself. So, it's going to do a pretty good job of soaking storm water up. >> So, what height would you expect was acceptable? >> I don't really care as long as it's above ground. I mean, it's just a flush
cut and let it let it pop back up. >> Is it not within the plain dimensions of the swale or is it within those? It is within it. Yes. >> Right. So, in order to create that swale, I assume you have to do some excavation. Correct. >> We don't need to remove the stump. >> You don't need to.
>> Well, the swale was to lead back to that area, right? The swale was more >> there, too. It almost captures too. It's almost a little bit of a dam. So, leaving the stump there, keeping it slightly elevated helps capture that surface. Right. >> Great.
>> All right. Any additional questions? So, are we agreeing that the concrete foundation is okay even though we had the discussion about the velocity zone and we're going to accept the door design is the pass through and >> I think they offered the um flood vents
>> the vent thing. Yes, we're good with that. >> Yeah. I think we would want to make that as a as a condition just >> for safety. And we're talking on the the ocean side of the foundation, correct?
>> Well, there's there's going to be a engineering recommendation. I think I think we just leave that to >> Okay, Mr. Grady. And I don't know if it's Do they have to be opposing? >> They're supposed to be on opposing or pass through walls. So, the suggestion
here would be uh one on the back wall and one on the sidewall here. >> Um Yeah, they do make them for the garage door as well. So, yeah, my suggestion would be one in the back, one on the side, and it's one per 200 square feet if we were in the flood zone, which
today we're elevated above it. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions, comments? We uh I'm sorry. Let's open this up to uh public discussion, please. >> Anybody from >> Find
>> Thanks you guys. So, good luck, Mark. Um, so I I just this is a general question for the town really because it has to do with planning and the fact that we're what we're facing in terms of sea level rise. Um, I see the visone is
13. Your your your slab is 135. When I look at the December 2025 Woods Hole Group um analysis for the Adena, you know, they're saying by by 2050 we're likely to have a 2.5
rise in flood. Um that's not very far from now. And uh the Vzone um creates a whole another dimension to that that I think we need to start appreciating in terms of you know how crazy our weather
has been. Um and I and I just wor I worry for you and this and this project um that it's not quite high enough. I think you know it's great to to talk about um vents and all that stuff. I when we're at the landing, I always open the back door of the boat shop to let
the water out, you know, that kind of thing. But um but I don't live there. And um I think that it's really worth um the both the town and um and the applicant, you know, along this area to
to really evaluate um the practicality of what we're facing and the and the idea of what we really need to do in order to be resilient um in the face of everybody ignoring the fact that we're
creating higher sea level rise. Um, and I just wanted to I I did want to say um about the stream that I've been looking at that thing since 1981 um or so. It's been I've had fights with
with people putting septic systems in the stream because they're digging down a couple of feet and the stream is running there right underground. And I do believe that it comes from across the street and probably from Smith's Lane. So, um I I I thank you for for
addressing that and calling it a stream. Um it it um it it has been active for the entire time that I've been involved in conservation in the town. And um I think that we really need to appreciate um the fact that it runs all the time. So, thanks very much. Good luck, Mark.
And um and you know, Rick, if you could like do do a little work on projections for sea level rise for us, we'd probably appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Hearing no no other comments or
questions. No, no other hands raised. Um does the commission feel that we're ready for a vote on this? Uh or is it continuence um the path? Well, we talked about about a lot of things and >> it sounds like you need to add some
little tweaks to the plan and stuff like that to get it to where we've just discussed it going. So, should we continue this in order to get that plan back or what are you thinking, Matt? >> It's up to the commission. Um
you they can either come back with some of the stuff as notes on the plan um or they can be in there as special conditions. You can require the plan be updated before orders of conditions are
officially issued. Um I don't think much changes in terms of your your review within these things. Um, yeah, and to to Pine's point, that's yeah, I sort of agree on on all of that,
but I think some of it comes down to builder beware, >> you know. Um, the commission does have the ability to to push back on situations they think are going to be, you know, clearly detrimental. And I I
believe you do have the ability to factor in some of these projections. Um but at this point, what they're showing at least currently does meet those standards. So >> it's just on that note, I think, you know, we've had we've been around for a
long enough time. We've had some filings where you have to think about the the land um subject to coastal flow and then subsidance, right? This is a single family lot. there's if we apply certain standards
to that extent on something that was for you know whatever it was 70 units it's not the same thing this is a taking if we if we get into >> not allowing Mr. We vote to rebuild a house that exists currently. So, um,
>> and it's not necessarily that as much as, and I think you're 100% right on that, but it wouldn't be that as much as saying in its current form >> that it doesn't meet the standards. Again, it's debatable as to whether it would or
wouldn't because you could come back with a dwelling there that does meet the standards and does prepare for sea level rise in the velocity zone. >> You just probably can't park vehicles under it. >> So,
>> all right. But at a base level, I think what's shown does meet the standards now and does provide some things to mitigate, you know, some of those concerns. >> I would like to see the plan updated before I approve anything so that way there's not any confusion on what should
and shouldn't be done. >> Okay, >> that is my input. >> Yeah, that's general >> consensus. Could I share my punch list with you here? >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> Could I share my punch list with you here? [laughter] >> So, we don't have a tool. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Um, we talked about the flood
vents. Um, we'll label up the crush stone for the driveway and give you a little section of inch and a half for the base and 3/4 over that. Uh, we'll put a note on there to cut the maple, but to leave the stump. Uh, we'll put a note on there about the spacing on the
deck. Um, I think that was >> you had parking spaces in addition to the drive driveway. Um yes, >> you may meant the parking spaces because I don't Is there a >> section of driveway that's you you do
have proposed crushstone driveway? So you are modifying the driveway. So be both driveway and >> Yeah, I intend I meant driveway and parking space, >> right? >> Uh plan update stream. >> Oh yeah. Okay. [snorts] >> Did we get the placids?
>> Thank you. On the fence, >> but to be maintained in perpetuity as well. Yeah. post. >> And then um Mark mentioned >> Well, you could do the post, but I think you prefer. >> Yeah, he'd like the fence to look. >> Mark mentioned the one and a half inch stone under the deck. Same thing, gap
graded, washed, all that. >> Yep. >> Okay. And then maybe um the specification on I don't think you need a full detail on it but somewhere the specification on the parking spaces and the driveway in terms of the depth of the furvious stone.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. We'll give you a little cross I started sketching up a little cross-section here already. So >> nice. >> Any other questions for us? >> No, I just wanted to make sure that we agreed on the items that you were looking for on the plan. That's >> the events.
>> Three weeks. Sorry. Uh, I did get the flood vents in here. >> Vents on there first. >> Yeah, that was the first thing. >> Oh, that's right. That's the first thing you said. I checked it off. Nice. >> Do you think three weeks I think meetings at August 12th, correct? Would that be sufficient?
>> These are very minor. This couple of days really I mean even if the commission was comfortable enough to have us submit it before issuing uh order of conditions, that would be fine too. Whatever you guys comfortable with. Okay. >> I think the consensus was that you wanted to see updates.
>> And did you need to re label the stream on the plan? >> That's on the list. >> And you'd like it called stream, right? >> Stream. >> Okay. >> Non-discriminating. Okay. >> We don't We don't need to fight that. >> You didn't care about the of unknown status. You're >> no stream.
>> I think Yeah, that says it all. >> Stream. Stream. >> It's a stream. >> Stream. >> It's a stream. It has water in it. >> Protected area. >> It'll be stream on the plan. And you'd still have a special condition that would specify the commission's not >> right >> calling it >> typifying the stream or confirming the status.
>> Just to be clear, the paperwork on the just resubmit the paperwork that was line seven line or item seven item eight. Strike that out unless you're willing to prove to us. Just amend those two so that it doesn't say that there
isn't one. Just just check that there is and and and I'm fine with it. Yeah, there were a handful of things for the administrative record I think that should be updated as well. >> So, just just one minor comment on this plan of yours. >> Um, it says on the bedroom floor it says
first plan. >> Excuse me. >> This says first plan when it's the second. >> Well, you know, the architect was >> just minor. >> Yes. Thank you. That was
>> All right. So, if there's nothing else, do we hear a motion to continue? >> So, I'll make that motion to continue August 12th. >> August 12. >> Okay. Second. >> All right. We have a motion for Maryland, second by Megan. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. >> Abstain. All right. That motion to continue to August 12th.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> All right. So, we got to jump back. We're in action items >> on >> 11 speech. >> I'm gonna hit the bathroom real quick. >> All right, we're going to take a five minute.
>> If you want, Justin can present. >> Well, let's let's take a five minute recess. >> We'll take a five minute break. Thank you. Turn your mic off if you want. Okay, we're back. Uh, I will now open a public meeting to discuss the request
for determination of applicability for 11 Graves Beach submitted by Strong Tree Engineering on behalf of the applicant, the town of Kingston to remove and replace the existing tennis courts within the 100 foot buffer zone to inland wetland resource areas. Uh, where
this is the first meeting on this proposal. Uh, we will hear an introduction from the applicant. >> Yep. Justin Lamro, strong tree engineer again for Susa Woodworth at the Kingston Rec Department. So, pretty straightforward project. We have a wetland on the other side of the the
tracks here. This is Grace Beach Park. Um the tennis court shown in both the existing and proposed here and the uh basketball court which is outside uh buffer zones. But we are replacing the tennis court in the exact same
footprint. Uh we'll remove the existing asphalt. We'll regrade just to get out some of the uh low spots in the in the court and then we'll repave. The fence will stay in place. Um and we're not adding any impervious. We have silt sock
around the entire perimeter and we'll put silt silt sacks in the uh catch basins that are adjacent to the project. Matt, do you have any uh comments, please?
>> Sure. Um I get into discussions of the stream and how it is referenced on several other filings. Um I wrote the work proposed in this filing is not within riverfront area because the riverfront area runs perpendicular
to the stream ends where the stream ends instead of wrapping around the bottom. So this is a buffer zone only project because this the stream comes out of a culvert just to the you know just past where the court is. Proposed works
limited to the area of the existing tennis court will not increase existing impervious surface or cause other disturbance within jurisdiction. Work is mostly outside of the 50- foot buffer zone with around 59 square ft of the court inside the 50ft buffer zone to the
southern BBW. Thus, the work is mostly in accordance with KWPR 8.01c1 01C1 particularly and that the tennis court is not changing in size and has been placed as far back as has been in place as far back as our local aerial imagery shows. I think maybe the 1990s this was
>> that sounds right. >> Yeah, >> I started working on the praise beach around 2004. Yeah, >> give or take. uh sediment silt sock at least 8 inches wide is proposed for ESC around the north east and half of the south boundary of the court as well as
silt sack in the downslope catch basins. Um the RDA asked not only for a determination on the work but also regarding the resource area boundaries. The resource areas adjacent to this project are not clear-cut and would require significant effort to determine beyond the scope of a simple project consisting only of restoring an existing
paved area for public benefit. So I wrote commission should decide if the proposed location and type of ESC is sufficient to protect nearby resource areas from effects of the proposed work. The commission should not affirm the wetland boundaries. Should issue a positive 2B determination stating that
no boundaries are affirmed as part of this review. Otherwise the project appears to meet the standards of WPA and KWPR and should be approved through issuance of a negative3 determination. So unless you have other questions or concerns, it would be issuance of a
positive 2B and negative three determination. >> Okay. Uh we'll open up for discussion. Um any questions from the commission? Um is there anybody from the public that would like to be heard? >> No,
>> no, that's his hand thingy. It's rain. >> So Matt, it sounds like a pretty straightforward project whether just uh >> removing replacing tents. >> Probably even easier than >> it's a CPC project, right? >> It is. >> Correct. So yeah, why do we know this project? >> I was going to say this is probably
easier than even the the uh playground one was. It's just it's >> put essentially repaving, but you are grading. You're removing and grading. It's just >> you're putting back exactly what's there. you're protecting down slope. It's It's very easy to
>> Are you doing the restriping as well? Like the line painting? >> It It's not planned to re the parking lot or the >> parking. Oh, yeah. Yep. We're removing the asphalt and >> it'll be uh painted similar to Reed School, the blue.
>> Have you been up there? >> I have. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So Matt's recommendation is a positive 2B and a negative 3A DOA to uh >> so move. >> Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Megan. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I
>> oppose. Abstain. >> All right. That motion carries for positive 2B and a negative 3 DOA. >> Thank you very much. Good night. >> Thank you. >> What do you need? >> That motion expired. Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Next. >> All right. So, we will uh I will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for a certificate of compliance for 63 Christmas Tree Lane submitted by the law offices of Sataryi Sugaras on
behalf of the applicants Daniel R and Moren E. Rosen planter for construction of a single family dwelling and associated utilities within the 100 foot buffalo zone to inland wetland resource areas. Matt, can you uh brief us on this?
>> Yep. Uh COC's appear to have been issued to this property in 2017. Uh but during a title search, it was discovered the COC's were never recorded at the registry of deeds. Uh sellers could not locate the original copies of the COC's. they were advised to refile uh using the
2017 engineer certification and asbuilt plan. There were three special conditions in the OC's. One was conservation agent inspection of ESC before start work, two contact agent prior to any dewatering and three conservation posts at the 100 foot no disturbance zone to the vernal
pool in perpetuity. During the July 16th site visit, we observed the posts in place as depicted on the Asbuilt plan. Um there was some like slight degradation of the posts and signs, but like they were still fine. It's just it should be noted and will be passed along
to the new owners that they will need to be updated whenever they are not visible anymore or whenever they need to be made visible. Um, we did observe some dumping of minor dumping of things like uh keystone,
gravel, uh, mulch and like the plastic bags with the mulch in them past the rear boundary of the yard, but not past the conservation posts. So, jurisdictional um should be removed, but not a big deal, and it would be easy enough to get those removed. Um, the
2017 engineer certification states the project was built in compliance with the OC's. We verified the property was largely in compliance with the OC's during our site visit including connection of the rear roof downspouts to the infiltration system. Um there have been some changes made to the
property since the 2017 as plan. Uh the conservation agent uh previous conservation agent approved replacement of the existing deck uh with a slightly larger footprint through administrative review in July of 2019. And then between
March and October 2021, approximately 600 square foot stone patio and path connecting to the front driveway were added at ground level off the back deck. Um, approximately 200 f feet of that is within jurisdiction. It does not appear that this work was permitted, though it was done within the existing lawn area
very close to the house. Um, it does appear that it would be permittable, likely through an RDA. Um, and we measured out it's approximately 11% uh impervious surface within jurisdiction. So, it it meets the standards on that. So, the commission
could require retrospective permitting for the stone patio behind the house before issuing a COC. They may also just determine that it's not a huge deal. It's it's a little bit of stone within a turf area. um commission should require the removal of any dumping and the new owner should
be reminded that dumping is not allowed as well as what I mentioned with the conservation posts. Um I think we can handle all that administratively with the new property owner and I would recommend issuance of COC's on this >> a recommendation of
>> issuing COC's with everything we discussed being handled administratively. Okay. If the commission wishes, like I said, you can make any of that a requirement before a COC is issued and we can just kick this uh to another meeting. But I think I think we can get it handled. Yeah.
>> All right. We'll open uh discussion up for the commission. Any questions from that? No. >> Is there anyone from the applicant like to be heard? >> I don't think so. >> Is there anyone from the public that would like to be heard? All right. Hearing none. Um
what what's the what's the consensus? Do we are we prepared to issue the COC's? >> I would be ready to issue the COC and again in keeping with Matt's offer to handle the discussion administratively
with the loose ends of cleaning up the dumping and and those items. >> Okay. So Matt, um what's the wording we want to say on that? um subject to the close out of the issues we discussed
here. We're voting. >> Yeah, I would say your vote is to issue the COC's with the agent handling any of the other issues administratively. >> Perfect. All right. >> I'm going to abstain from it's in my neighborhood and could have preceded my own property.
>> Forgot this was in your area. >> All right. So, we have a motion from Maryland. We have a second by >> second by Dot. Um Brian's abstaining. We'll take a a roll call. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed and one abstension. So this is a
401 vote. Um just for clarification purposes, the unpermitted roughly 300 square feet of patio and walkway. Does the commission It's in the turf area, right? >> Yeah.
>> So, >> anybody does anybody want to see a filing on that? >> No. >> It's a I think it's a wrong direction for us to want a filing on that one. We can do what if we want, but the turf is the worst that it could be, right? And anything less than that, it's almost
like we they gave it back. So, we all generally >> I'd be fine. Maybe explain to them that anything else needs to start coming for us. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Communicate that there's jurisdictionary, I guess. >> [clears throat] >> All right. I will now open a public meeting to discuss a request for
determination of applicability for 48 Pond View Drive submitted by the applicant. Um Steven Haynes for removal of two trees within a 100 foot buffer zone to inland wet wetland resource area. Matt um is there anyone from the applicant?
>> No. >> Okay. Were we expecting >> I don't know. Um, this is one that we did a administrative review site visit for a hazard tree that was clearly in striking distance of the house. Um, I approved that administrative removal
with leaving 6 ft of trunk in place so that it was short enough that it wouldn't ever fall over and hit their fence. While we were there, uh, one of the property owners inquired about two trees behind the the yard. Um, and I
said that I I wouldn't really approve those administratively. Um, or that I I think I might have said that I would approve those administratively with the requirement that 10 to 20 ft of trunk stay in place. Um, and said, "Well, that I don't like that." And I said, "Well,
if you don't want that laid in play staying in place, you can file an RDA. You know, they are things that are within striking distance of if not the house, the rear yard area. I think there's a pool. Um I said you can bring
it to the commission for um having them review it to be flush cut. So I don't know if they were planning on on being here to discuss it. >> Okay. Well, >> we have no applicant. I think we just um
either dismiss it or continue. >> Just continue. >> Make a motion. >> Give one chance to come back and then we put it. >> All right. Do I hear a motion to continue to August 12th? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Motion by Maryland. Second, Megan. All
those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Abstain. Okay. So, that motion carries. 5 Z4 continues to August 12th. Matt, could you make sure that they understand that if they're going to have something before us that they either need to
cancel or not? >> And was that continued to August? >> August 12th. Thanks. >> All right. Now we're going to move on to enforcement 22 whopping road. Um, could you brief us? >> Um, before you do, I'm going to recuse myself. That's my neighbor.
>> Um, >> well, oh, okay. I was just counting how many people we >> Yeah. So, uh, yes, 22 Whopping Road. I had noticed from Whopping Road, being familiar with 24 Whing Road, which was originally subdivided from 22, that
there was some understory, what looked like understory mowing it or cutting. It looked like somebody was cutting the understory underneath the trees. Um, I could tell I knew the Jones River flowed through back there, so I figured it was somebody trying to just cut the understory, make sure they could see the river or something like that. So, I sent
a notice of violation um and went out and saw the property after the homeowner contacted me. Um and then we had a commission site visit uh earlier this week, I believe. Um where we had several
commissioners on site. Um it was more than um I had anticipated. There was a lot more mowing. Uh there was clearing with a big machine. like there was a lot of riverfront area and BBW that was uh
directly impacted, directly mowed. Um you know, trees taken out in some areas. Um you know, there were areas of of upland within the riverfront area that had been cleared and really kind of disturbed in a way that there really
wasn't vegetation left. Um, you had a bridge installed across the river and what I would call, I guess, stealing pools in the river built out of rock, sort of, um, dams essentially. Um,
couple of culverts on either intermittent streams or ditches that lead to the river. Um, essentially in talking to the property owner, he was saying he was just trying to create like a picnic area back there that he could hang out with his family
and um, I explained jurisdiction how extensive it was there and and the requirements for permitting and and he, you know, he said, "I I understand. I understand. I probably shouldn't have done this and I, you know, felt bad about it. Wants to make
it right." in between the initial site visit and the commission site visit, he had already made some repairs. Like I there was a really sandy exposed dirt area near right on the bank of the river. Um and I said, "You're
going to need erosion control on this." And by the time we got back, he had in his own way, he had used a down tree to create, you know, a >> a sort of backs stop and had used some of the shredded uh tree material, wood
chips or whatever or leaf litter to cover the area so that it was a little more um stable. Um, there was a a what I think was intended to be like an ATV or dirt bike track that was cut close to 24
whopping road back around to that area and there was again a big area of random clearing that when I asked what was the purpose for that, he said that wasn't supposed to happen. Um, so there's there's a lot going on back there. Property owners working on it. He has
engaged uh Brad Holmes. So, I'm not sure if there's a signed contract or anything, but I know Brad has been to the property to look at it, as well as I know Pine Dubois and Jimmy Powell from JWR have gone out there to look at it cuz they know the property owner. Um, he wants to do the right thing. Um, he said
he's also in touch with Wildlands Trust about and has been in the past about um some sort of a CR or something in that area. Um he said that Karen Gray from Wildland's Trust is supposed to come to the site I believe on the 27th and had
asked if we could continue this discussion tonight so that the commission didn't make any decisions. Um I told him that it was important to get the commission on site to see things and that it wasn't likely the commission was going to make any big decisions in one meeting. um that typically the way these things were handled is that if you're
working with somebody on a restoration plan, which I understand he is, that typically we would just continue it for a month or so to wait for that restoration plan before issuing an EO. Um so it was pretty bad, pretty egregious. Um
but we do have a property owner who is willing to do the right thing and and get restoration going. And I think in this case, a lot of it is going to come down to conservation posts and letting things grow back naturally. There will be some areas that will need planting or
seeding or some form like that. Um, but largely the work that was done there is easily undone. Um, I just sort of told him for now, don't don't really do much else to fix it. I said he was talking about removing the bridge and I said just leave that in place, leave the
little check dams and everything in place until we have a plan to properly remove everything to make sure it's all done right. So, >> any questions from Matt? >> He did specify that he was not going to be here tonight. Um I think partially just out of
>> I wasn't going to say fear, but he was pretty nervous about being here and speaking to the to the commission. And I said, "You don't have to be." I said if and you know I said if you can't have somebody here speaking for you and you're not comfortable with it I said I can pass on to the commission everything that I saw here and the commission typically in enforcement issues is just
happy to hear that somebody's willing to make it right which he was. So um if anybody has any questions I can answer questions otherwise my recommendation would be to push this a month give him time to work with a wetland scientist on making this right. If you have any re
any requirements as far as anything in terms of stability, we could do that as well. Um, you know, I think what he did was was okay. It's not the best, but >> it was a sincere effort. >> It was an effort
>> questions from Matt. >> I don't think you really need anything from us at this point. Correct. >> Uh, just a motion to continue. I guess >> I'll make that motion if that's what you want. And we'll say a month. >> Yeah, which would be August 26th.
>> Okay, we'll have a mo we have a motion to continue to August 26th. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I >> oppose. >> Abstain. That motion to continue. Um carries. >> It's a beautiful spot you got back
there. Yeah, >> I like I like seeing people use their property because that's that's a good thing. But might have miss >> miss some uh >> I'm like I want this riverfront >> and we have commissioner um
>> McFarland coming back. >> Yes. >> Okay. So Matt 19 Blair Drive continued from an earlier date. Uh would you brief us? >> Uh continuence. So the
representative uh Paul Brogner reached out to CCM to Jason Bartner. Jason asked for specific materials in order to be able to give some feedback. Uh Mr. Brognner provided those materials. Jason's feedback was that
largely um his opinion was that there would be no ability to approve a revetment there. Um >> no to approve a revet >> a revetment. No ability. >> No ability. >> That is his, you know, that that's
that's largely what I took out of the the letter. It it, you know, said a lot of things. Um, I haven't fully gone through to prepare it all for the commission yet, but essentially after that, uh, Mr. Brogna asked, you know,
for continuance so that he can work out, uh, some of that and have a site visit with, uh, Mr. Bertner um just so that he can actually see the site to because he's basing all this on aerial imagery and and plans and everything that it would be good for him to see the site.
He might have the same exact feeling at that point. Then it's up to the applicant and how they want to go about things and then up to the commission how they want to handle it as well. Um, I know at one point, you know, the chair mentioned that, you know, you potentially will have a situation there
where you have one unprotected property between two existing houses that predate those regulations. Um, but there are things that the the applicant can do to try to, you know, get at some of that or mitigate some of that. Um, so it's back on their court. They're going to try to
schedule something with CZM to get down to that more. Uh, so my recommendation was to continue to August 12th. So, we have a recommendation to continue to August 12th. Do we have any questions from Matt or >> we all right? We're continuing to 12th. >> Do I have a motion to continue to August 12th?
>> I'll make the motion. >> All right. Motion by Brian, second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Abstain. So, that motion par carries 50. >> Six Prospect Street continued from an
earlier date. Matt, do you have an update? >> Yeah. Um and just I guess procedurally I would caution the commission even discussing this one much. You know we have a situation where we've is we're issuing fines still. There's four different violations. Fines are being
issued. Uh that's that's continuing. My understanding is that um Mr. E has appealed the initial batch of fines to the magistrate's office. I haven't received any word on that yet, but we'll see um what happens there. But it wouldn't surprise me if if something
like this ends up in court one way or another. So, I would just caution the commission on on discussing this in open session and say that I'm still issuing fines and coordinating with town council >> and no update on on addressing the site
conditions that um resulted in the fines in the first place. Nothing. Okay. So, no, no action. >> All right. Um, well, we don't need to continue something that hasn't been opened. Um, >> so you'll keep us in >> that will just be on
>> the agenda going forward. Yeah. >> Unless you specifically want to kick it down to a particular date. It will just be on the agenda until it's >> keep it rolling. >> What I would ask is I would ask that you review the situation with council. I'm sure you have and make sure that um
council doesn't have any direct guidance for us on this. >> Yeah. And I and I have and um if you know if we think that um executive session is something that would be needed um you know fitting into
the specific reasons why you do that then we can definitely do that. But for now, we'll just we'll just keep continuing this and we'll keep um going until we hear something back in terms of any change, which I haven't in a while. Just my take on executive session is is
everything we do is above board and it's in front and if it comes to a legal situation, then it's probably out of our hands and it becomes a you know a town leader um town council discussion. So yeah, we've done I think what you know
the town bylaw requires and and you know just knowing that it's no update is is enough of an update for us I guess. Yep. >> Um Jones River Estates. Matt, can you brief us on that? >> Ask me the >> Yeah. So,
in several situations, um, there have been developments that have gone poorly in Kingston that were not wrapped up by the developer. Um, particularly orders of conditions and COC's. There's a ton of them out there where they got a
partial COC and then never followed up with a final once they got the final occupancy and and all that. It's a pattern. Um the Jones River Estates development was in progress when I started here. Um it went
relatively poorly from a from a site management perspective. Um there weren't too many wetlands related issues there. Um but there were issues where one developer I think walked away from it and the other one finished it and it it was a little messy towards the end. Um,
at this point the permit has expired and there is no COC on the project. So, um, I put together enforcement orders under KWPR and WPA to compel the
applicant of record, which is the original developer on the project to file a COC as is required by the orders and conditions. Um, in this particular situation, the LLC that was used for,
you know, building the project for getting the orders of conditions has not been dissolved. Um, hence just having you sign the enforcement orders and not going through the process of sending out a notice of violation, which then would likely result in the LLC being
dissolved. Um, in this case, we do have the actual person in charge of the LLC, their name is on the the permit itself anyways. So, uh, we do have that, but it's sort of a two factor thing where you do have both
entities still solvent. So, um, essentially what this does is it's to Donald Gillespie and Wellby Builders LLC and we are ordering the filing of a
complete request for certificate of compliance for work performed under OC's issued under D and KWPR file number SEO 0370852 and that's the applicant of record for the project located at 1517 and 19 whopping road One of those is Dot's
address. Um, but this is because the property was subdivided. So, the lot numbers that are listed here, lot numbers 46, map number 44, lots numbers 46, 461, and 462 have all been subdivided. Now, this is all the, you
know, Captain Captain Jones Way and Barrowsbrook Circle. Um, these OC's were only relevant to, I believe, two of those house lots. Um, the rest of it was strictly for road and storm water
layout, things like that. Um, so it's not necessarily a matter of it being a problem for every homeowner having to do their own thing like we've seen on a lot of these before. Um, but still we want to make sure the developer closes things up the way they're supposed to.
>> Hey, I um appeared before the commission regarding my numbers, my um street number. on there and asked it be removed. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Uh I can only assume it was. Perhaps it wasn't, but it would be on the original papers. >> It was on the original papers, so that's
why it's on here. Just But there should be nothing here that ties ties you to this. If you want to recuse yourself because you're in a butter to it or because your lot was included in this or no, whatever, you're welcome to, but you don't have to. >> I don't need to. Um, but what this says,
it goes through facts um [snorts] detailing when the orders of conditions were issued, when they were extended, and when they um expired, and it talks about a request for a partial COC being dismissed given that the work the
request was unnecessary. Um, and that was while work was still going on. That was in 2019. Um, and it says at this point the permit has expired. All work appears to complete and no RCOC has been filed. Remedial actions to be undertaken are the applicant shall file complete WPA and
KWPR requests for certificate of compliance with the Kingston Conservation Commission for work performed under that file number by September 24th, 2026. Any certificates of compliance subsequently issued by the commission shall be recorded by the applicant at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds within 30 days of
issuance and does the usual failure to comply with that is $300 a day. So, if the commission has any questions, I can answer questions. Otherwise, I'd look for a motion to issue these enforcement orders as written, and I'd have you sign them tonight and we'll issue it tomorrow.
>> Okay, I'll make that motion. >> Any questions for Matt first? >> All right. Perhaps we have >> because No, because it's crystal clear where we're heading. >> I don't question. >> No, we don't have any questions. >> We We're done with the questions.
>> Do we No. >> Do we have a motion? I was trying. >> I know, but you steps. You got to step dancing too fast. All right. What do you What What do you What's your motion? >> My motion is >> is the enforcement order >> to issue the enforcement order. >> All right. We have a motion by Maryland.
Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Dot. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. >> Abstain. Motion to issue the enforcement orders passes. 500. It's pretty contract. >> All right. Matt, do you have those ready
to sign? >> Yes. There's two signature pages. >> Do you want just to pass the signature pages? >> Everybody's he read it. We're all good with the pages, right? >> There's one.
>> There's two. >> Uh, date >> 27. >> 22nd. We are way ahead of time. >> It's Yeah. 7:22. >> Put another two on that. Oh jeez.
>> There you go. Too many twos. >> It's not even. >> Okay. Um, so it looks like we're into the updates while we're signing. Matt, do you want to provide an update on 12 Alpine Run Road administrative approval?
>> Yes. Uh, property was sold. uh new property owners wanted to remove three hazard trees uh within what was the 100 foot vernal pool envelope when the property was built um
being 100 ft from mean high water. We approve or I approve the removal of two white pines and one oak within the 100t vertal pool envelope. I mandated the typical 10 to 20 feet of bull to
remain on the two trees that were behind the house on the slope on the top of the slope that leads down towards the wetlands and vernal pool and the pine that was out in the lawn area. I said flush cut.
>> Any questions from Matt? >> All right. How about ongoing projects? I'll give you nothing on really like general projects um other than um
I issued a notice of violation today to the developer of the Barrowsbrook Village 40B. Um that's three Rivers Drive Sun I believe it's Sunset Circle. Um, this has been a sort of known
problem for a long time that the the project was never fully finished and closed out. Um, either from the comprehensive permit standpoint, which is ZBA issue, or from a conservation commission issue. So, I realized that there was never a COC issued on it. Um,
and there's there's major concerns there with um, you know, there was a bridge that was built, there were extensive storm water features that were installed there. Um, and there's supposed to be ongoing maintenance of all of that. And
the permit was very specific on how this was all supposed to go. And [snorts] it was all supposed to be part of homeowners association maintenance documents. And the homeowners association would be responsible for all of this maintenance. Um, and from what I have gathered, the homeowners
association was enacted but never funded like never transferred fully from the developer is is what I understand. Um, regardless, at this point, it's just that the developer never filed for a
COC. The developer, as far as I can tell, still owns all of the open space land that was supposed to be preserved as part of this development. Um, some portions of this are only relative to the comprehensive permit and not the OC's, but some of them are related
together because it is certain things that you know you can't really have compliance with the OC conditions unless you have a functional homeowners association. Um, so it might be messy in this particular one. Um, the LLC that that received the permit and built the
development, Delwin LLC, was dissolved I think in 2019. Um, but again, the permit also has the name of the person responsible for the for a Delwin LLC, which was Peter Delprit. Um, so I sent a
notice of violation to Peter Delprit today saying that he's in violation by not having filed for a COC and that there are issues there that likely need to be dealt with and that he should get in touch with my office um as soon as
possible to discuss, you know, his plan for getting into compliance. and I said that this would be put on the September 23rd agenda um regardless of of whether he reaches out or not. So it gives him the time to come in and have conversations and talk about a plan
forward or if there's nothing over that time period then in September it can be as simple as the commission having a meeting and I can give you more facts on it and you can vote to issue an enforcement order same as we did earlier. >> Questions? >> All right. Um, is there anything else,
Matt? >> Uh, just signing another document that you approved earlier. It's on the green thing. This is the, uh, DOA for Reed Street. We were able to prepare it in advance in case the commission was interested in this.
>> It's a single signature page, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a combined permit. [clears throat] >> All right. Well, uh, the next meeting will be held on August 12th, 2026 starting at 6:30 p.m. The time is now 9:15.
Uh, do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Move by Megan, second by second Brian. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. >> All right, that motion carries.