is now 6:34. It is Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025. Commissioner Franklin is currently absent as well as Commissioner Payne. Uh, Commissioner Adiano is attending
virtually. And I will now open the meeting and take a roll call. Kina here. Dot here. Uh Buzz here. Marilyn here. And I Megan I am here. Please note we
are doing a hybrid meeting with in person and virtual attendance. If a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during a public hearing, please use the 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 and then
press star six 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. Kingston's open space committee is still seeking a new member. The committee assists conservation and overseeing the management and use of conservation properties to help all of us better access and utilize these resources in a positive way. This is an opportunity for
a resident to assist in implementing the town's open space plan, help improve parking and trails, and identify future conservation and passive recreation priorities in town, among other benefits. You may inquire by calling the conservation department at 781-58537
or by emailing Juliana Denim at jd denim kingston.gov. jde den kingston.gov. Uh, will the agent brief us on what needs to be signed?
Yep. We have a invoice from Environmental Partners Group for MS4 Support Services. We have the orders and conditions for 54 Shore Drive approved at the last meeting. And we have the ratification of the enforcement orders for 44 Rabbits Road and Pilgrim John Holland Society uh voted on at the last
meeting. Okay. Uh do we want to open and discuss the standards for the unpermitted docks? Sure. So
a while back um you know we ran into an issue of having a lot of unpermanented docks in town but some of them being old, some of them being relatively new. Um not really having a good feel for what the commission was going to enforce or wasn't going to enforce. Um,
enforcement is always discretionary by the commission. They can always look at each situation on its own. There's never a requirement for the commission to take enforcement action. Um, but the idea was to have some standardization that the commission could put guidance out. Um, so the commission asked me to look at
what different towns were doing. Um, I put a question out to other agents through MSMCP's message board and just did some research on what local towns were doing. Um, I believe I shared all of that guidance a while back with the commission. Um, but more recently,
finally, I was able to put together um, my best stab at a policy that the commission could discuss and when they're ready, um, vote on it. Did not I ran this through town council. This does not need a public hearing notice the same way it would if we were changing
the regulations. This is not a change in regulations. Um it's essentially just guidance for how the commission plans on going about um dealing with unpermitted docks. Um so if any commissioner didn't
get this or read this, I can read through the entire document. Otherwise, I can go through sort of the key points. Um I did get review from council and updated the information for the commission today. Um I would say most of
what the changes were by council were um not major in the sense that you know where I might have written docs they added docs peers and floats things like that to make sure that everything is covered from a from a language
standpoint. Um and also pointing out that the policy is intended to provide guidance to the commission and the public on how the commission intends to handle the issue of unpermitted docks, peers, and floats fairly. It's therefore not subject to the procedural requirements of section 299-13 of the wetlands protection bylaw. Additionally,
the commission may rescend or amend this policy at its discretion and the commission may in appropriate cases wave any of the above requirements when in its discretion the commission believes protection of the resource areas under its jurisdiction requires it. So, how do you want me to go through um just sort
of breaking down what we have here? Do you want me to read through the whole thing as now written by council or do you want me to go through just sort of the Can I sub question first? Can we get a little more volume on Buzz? Is that possible? Mhm.
Can you hear me now? Yeah. Yeah. Much better. Okay. Uh how did we arrive at uh 2010 as the cut off? um that was strictly off the top of my head and was going to be one of I think the key points for commission discussion
for me. I was trying to determine what would be a good time period in terms of something being more historic. Um you know something typically along the lines where the commission would typically enforce something versus work towards
compliance. Um, one of the things that some other towns did was use the same type of statute of limitations that the building permits apparently use, which is, I believe, 10 years. Um, so I think I just sort of split, you know,
added a little bit to that and thought that might be sufficient. Um, we're obviously not, and I did confirm with council, not held to those same statute limitations as as building permits. um statute of limitations for wetlands law are a little funnier in that I think
technically they're 2 years to 3 years you know unless the property has changed hands but when you do certain activities each day is the violation so if you are to fill a wetland every day that that
fill is in place you're violating so you never get past a two or three years and the same can be said about putting a structure in a resource area that every day that that structure is there unpermitted constitutes a new violation. Um so that was sort of the the guidance that I got
on that. 2010 15 years seemed to be I think a pretty good number for separating what would be considered you know older docks in place not in need of um immediate action on permitting and less modified. Um, but that's up to the commission's discussion if they want to
push that back to 2000 to be a nice round in this millennium number or if they want to make it closer aligned to the 10 years of the building department. Um, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer as long as it's it's fair. If I can just interrupt, Jim is now
virtual. Commissioner Franklin is attending virtually. Can you call him um out and just roll call him? Kina or is Kina running? Yeah. Sorry. I thought you was You could keep going or just keep going
if you want. Sorry. I'm not used to you. Jim, you here? Yes, Cleaner. I'm here. Okay. Okay. All right. So, can I just ask clarification on the 2010? Yeah.
So, if if I'm understanding what you're saying that anything that was built prior to January 2010, we're not going to look at unless it gets uh changed or edited or expanded. And anything 2010 forward, there's a
there's an opportunity for us to say, "Hey, that wasn't there. We need to talk about it." Yeah. Essentially, you're correct. The way this is written, anything that was in place before January 1st, 2010
um or modified before 2010, so in its current condition before 2010, would not need permitting unless it was modified in the future. Um anything between then and the time of issuing this would get a grace period uh
which I believe I wrote down in here as two years during which time we would wave local filing fees. uh we don't have the authority to wave D's filing fees, but um D's fees are, you know, sort of a fraction of what the local ones are. Um so there is an opportunity for people to
try to get things permitted at less cost um during that 2-year period, uh with the commission, you know, not looking to take enforcement action against any of these in the meantime. Um that does not prevent the commission from taking enforcement action in special situations during that 2-year period um if they
feel that it's necessary. But that would be the general way that the commission would go about it is you'd have that two-year period um where you could permit, you know, any dock that was in place between January 1st, 2010 and the issuance of this policy um you know, to
get it permitted a little bit cheaper and just get it get it legal. I don't know. My my gut tells me 10 years is far enough to go back, but that's my vote. Other than that, I understand the rest of it. I agree with
Buzz. I like 10 2015. Yeah, that would be let's say January 1st, 2015 or I mean you could make it more you could do the exact date but January 1st is probably cleaner. January 1st. Yeah.
Do we need a vote on that or I would say if the commission wants more information in general, we can continue this. If the commission feels like everything else in here is pretty okay and they're good with it, then the commission could vote on issuing this and then um what I would do is, you
know, put it on our website and we would work to try to get this out to people that um currently have unpermitted docs whenever we have the time to get around to sort of we have some of them I think that we already know about, but there's others I mean that sort of a quick aerial imagery search could just
identify and get letters out to people just so they know what to expect. I just had a quick question. I know previously you had mentioned something about great ponds. Is that you mentioned great great ponds? The great pond um stuff is administered
by chapter 91 program. So nothing that we have in here really means anything towards the need for a chapter 91 permit. That's all administered by D's uh chapter 91 waterways program. Um there's a requirement for a chapter 91
permit for any great pond or river um believe coastal um there's most situations other than I believe smaller non you smaller ponds non non-gra ponds um but any dock any float anything um
temporary or permanent the only situation where floats I believe weren't under the chapter 91 program is where there permitted through an annual harbormaster mooring license. Um, and I'm not I'm not sure whether there are any situations in Kingston that would
fall under that, but they they need that permit. Um, and nothing that we do in here would wave that requirement. D does not frequently enforce. Um, and I think they rely on the towns to enforce those things. I did put language in here. The way our regulations are written right
now, the way our standard conditions for permits are written. If you come to us to build anything, including a dock and we issue a permit, you need to have all other permits in place before you start construction. So, when somebody permits
a new dock with us, they need to go get a chapter 91 permit or license and provide that to us before they can start work on constructing it. If you have a situation where the dock has already been built and it's unpermitted and we're issuing orders of conditions to make that legal, I wrote in here that
the commission would require evidence of the chapter 91 permit or license before issuing a COC. Um just a way of ensuring that they are going through and satisfying that program as well. Um, and the chapter 91 program is, I think,
going to be more they're going to show more scrutiny on Great Pond docs than the commission will. So, I think it's helpful to have them reviewing these at the same time. Does the commission feel that the two-year um timeline for the grace
period would be sufficient? I think I think there's plenty of time in my opinion. Anything else the commission had questions on about this? Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the
guidance document as written by and edited by councel. Second. Okay. made by Buzz, seconded by Marilyn with the um with the edit of the January 1st, 2015. Yes.
Replacing the January 1st, 2010. Correct. Correct. Thank you. That is correct. Sorry. I'll I'll amend my motion to the uh start date of January 1st, 2015 instead of January 1st, 2010. Okay. And we'll do a vote. Dot.
Yes. Jim, I'm going to stand. And we're going to miss the the first part of that speech. Okay. Kina, hi. Buzz, yes. Marilyn, yes. And I am a yes. Motion passes.
Going to hearings now and coming back to this. Okay. We are moving on to public hearings. 20 Marian Drive, also known as one Royson Drive. Request for amendment for the proposed installation of a sediment for bay in Rain Garden within the 200
riverfront area of Smeltbrook. I reopen a hearing for the request for amendment for the proposed installation of a sediment for bay in Rain Garden within the 200 foot riverfront area of Smeltbrook. Just so it doesn't look like I Does the agent have any comments?
Yes. Um there was something we um talked about before where the peer reviewer talked about not having the um information or the funds to properly assess the uh sizing of the rain the storm water
feature and the commission wanted to see that reviewed. Um the applicant agreed has dropped off the necessary check. Um we are waiting for the storm water calculations from the engineer. Um he did stop by my office I believe about a
week ago and did indicate that he is working on it. Um so we're just waiting on getting that from them and we pass that along to the peer reviewer. Then they finish their review and then we can finally talk about this in a more substantive way and and get things wrapped up. Um, so I would recommend
continuing I would say at least another month because I still don't have the the information to pass to the peer reviewer. Okay. I'm just curious when the check was dropped off because this was back in May
when and it's now mid July week or two ago. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. And I think again we've we've talked about it before. Um
I don't think that there's any any immediate issue that you know again obviously everybody I think wants to get this wrapped up but I don't think there's an immediate issue there in terms of um
needing to have this immediately wrapped up. I think the the storm water issues there appear to have been taken care of in the temporary, you know, in terms of having immediate runoff related issues. Um, so it's more about the long-term getting this right so when they're done with the project, they can get a COC on
it. So, well, but they're still looking for an the amendment. They are still looking Yeah, exactly. I think they will need no matter what an amendment in order to get a COC on the project based on what has already been provided as far as planning board
requirements and you know potential storm water issue long term. Um so I think either way it obviously needs to be wrapped up but um yeah I think in terms of not having to keep having this pop up longer term um continuence is
probably better. I would say the earliest to continue this to would be the August 23rd meeting, 27th, sorry. Um, but September 10th is probably more likely in terms of, you know, having the information, getting the peer reviewer to process it. I don't know how long
that's going to take them. I know they've already done a lot of the review on this, but they got held up on that part of it. Right. So, we need a motion then. So, would you like a motion to continue this to September 10th? I'll make that motion. Second.
All right. We have a motion to continue to September 10th made by Marilyn. All right. Um Dot. Yes. Jim. Jim D. I don't know who that was. I'll come back. Uh Marilyn,
yes. Buzz, yes. Kina, yes. Uh, I am a yes. Jim, did you answer? Jim's a yes. Can you hear me? Oh, okay. You confused me. Yes. Thank you. All right. That is continued to September 10th.
All right. 135 Indian Pond Road. Uh, I open a hearing for the notice of intent for the proposed construction of an accessory dwelling unit, decks, a hot tub, and a septic system upgrade within the 100 foot buffer zone to inland wetland
resources. areas. If the applicant or representative is present, please come forward to represent your information. Right. Um, good evening. Uh, my name is Rob Carlo from Grady Consulting. U, this is the plot plan for addition and septic
upgrade plan for 135 Indian Pond Road. Um, so just a little background about the property. Um the house is set back well off Indian Pond Road. Um there are uh two abandoned cranberry bogs and a
wetland out in the back. Um the existing house is sort of wedged in between the abandoned cranberry bogs and the wetland out in the back. Um wetlands were delineated back in 2013 by South River Environmental.
Um turn the page here. Um might be able to see on the screen or on the plan. Um the existing house currently um is very close to uh the abandoned
cranberry bog that's shown on the left side of the plan. Um may be able to zoom in to see it closer, but um it's within within about 16 feet. Uh you can see on the left side the uh wetlands are
delineated in a blue um dotted line. Um so basically what our client is looking to do um he has an elderly uh mother-in-law um is just looking to put in a a proposed addition with an ADU within it.
Um, and the proposed addition is shown in that light brown color shade uh off to the right side of the existing dwelling. Um, you can see there um is this um sorry to interrupt. Is this
easel in your way of seeing the screen or are you good? You're okay. I'm fine. Okay. Just checking. Sorry. Okay. Good. Um we do have uh some proposed decks um just to attach to the um existing house
well to connect the existing house in the proposed addition. Uh one in the front and uh sort of a decking system in the back. Um client is also looking to uh build a hot tub out in the backyard
um just to enjoy views of the um existing cranberry bog. Um to accommodate the uh proposed addition and the increase in flow, um we do have a septic uh upgrade as as part of this
plan. Um so we are proposing a propo uh another septic tank um that's proposed in the front of the house. Um that's required by title 5 in the board of health. Um along with that we've also
proposed to increase the existing leeching field uh which is shown it's um the existing leeching field is actually outside of um the 100 foot buffer zone to wetlands and the entire expansion is
also outside the 100 foot uh buffer to wetland. Um that's pretty much uh the gist of that. So, I don't know if you guys have any questions. All right. Thank you for that information. We'll let you know if we have any further questions. Uh, we will
now hear a briefing from the conservation agent. Sure. Just as slight clarification right here. It does look like the existing leeching field is slightly within the 100 foot, but right about at the edge of it. Um, and it was a little tricky that this is the dividing line right here. So, the existing leeching field is below
that line. The proposed addition to the leeching field is above it right here. Um the green outline on the screen is the 100 foot buffer to wetland resource areas. So the area of this um leeching field is outside of commission
jurisdiction, but everything above and below that line to the left of it is within jurisdiction. Um one of the more I don't know, one of the one of the issues I have with this and I I think in my review I should have kicked this back. Apologies to the commission. Um
plan is deficient in that it does not identify the FEMA flood zone as BLSF. Um and the wetland setback lines that you see coming off, of course, they're not on the screen right now. These 30, 40, and 50 foot setbacks are not from the
most landward resource area. Those all come off of that wetland upland line. Uh that's flagged right there. Um but under KWPR, this flood zone right here. And also, I believe under WPA in this instance, these should be off of that
line as well as the minimum setbacks right here to where the septic system is, um, those are not off of the most landward resource area. So, typically that is something that we kick filings back for and don't accept them. I didn't catch that until review, so here we are. But, that's something that is deficient
on this. It doesn't appear to me that it would be something that would create an additional situation of non-compliance. I believe that these minimum setbacks would still be over 100 ft um if they came off of that FEMA flood zone, but I
I can't really confirm that. Um already you do have sorry I'll before I get to that the other issue I had from a wetlands standpoint um were that there are no streams shown on this and I know there was a wetland
delineation done but I looking at the aerials looking at um older maps and typically when you see these cranberry situations they've in a lot of cases taken a stream and modified it to run in the ditches. Um, that
doesn't make them not a stream. So, I don't have any concrete evidence on this. I did ask um JRWA because they have a lot of knowledge about different streams in town. They did have historic knowledge of the property and believed there probably is a portion of stream
there from Trout Brook. Um, but I don't have any confirmation of that. But that is something that I question. If there is a stream there, and I believe it would probably be around where that C series or B series uh wetland edges or somewhere in that vicinity, that would obviously change jurisdictional
boundaries, setbacks, um performance standards, all of those things. Um and if it was a perennial stream, not only under KWPR, but under WPA as well. Um so that is something I think that the commission um should want to look into. Having said that, what's shown already
doesn't meet the standards of KWPR um in several ways. There's um you know sort of the obvious thing like he said this already is a non-conforming structure in that the existing house is only 16 feet away from the wetlands and
you have septic components within the 100 foot buffer um which nowadays is not allowed under KWPR um but you have proposal to put um structure within 22 feet of the wetland edge in the form of the hot tub or 35
feet in the form of the deck um which does, you know, it's it's sort of laid out in red on the plan as something that does violate the standards of KWPR. Um KWPR also does not allow any septic components to be within the 100 foot
buffer. Um that includes tank pipe connections to the house, everything. And that's come up several times under commission review. Um, in this case, there is already a septic system in place that I imagine predated, you know, at least the local wetland regulations.
Um, I can't really speak necessarily to the whether that is legal and all title 5 compliant, everything like that, but what is proposed right here with that tank being within the 100 foot buffer does not meet the standards of KWPR. Um,
so I think already this is something that the commission had should have a lot of questions about. Um, and there's no variance requests, there's no mitigation, there's really just a project that's shown right now that does not meet the standards. Um, let me just
see if I have anything else to run through here. Impervious coverage is very small. Um it's a relatively big lot and the driveway is not paved so you have a pretty small um imperous coverage even
with the addition. Uh we did have comment from the planning department and the health department related to the um ADU. The planning department wanted clarification of whether this is being
proposed as a byite ADU. Um and the health department said they they could not, you know, obviously fully review the the septic plan here because they don't have um anything filed in front of them other than what we've sent in, but they had questions about again the the
square footage of the addition being supposedly above what the maximum standard is for the buy right ADU um things. So that I think is outside of the commission's purview, but it it should be pointed out that this may be something that also
needs um I believe a special permit. It would not be a byite situation. From the commission standpoint, you have an existing septic system, but anytime there's a substantial enlargement, regulations still apply as though it was a new septic system. Um so I I think for
right now unless that can be moved outside of the 100 foot completely um this is something that doesn't meet the standards of KWPR and if there is a stream there that could substantially change things and change whether there
is the room there to to get everything out of jurisdictional areas. Um, see if there's anything else. There's notes about um an owner's opinion that the abandoned cranberry bog may be upland. Um, again, that that's
not really um substantial for this filing. It was delineated as a wetland. Um, in these situations when somebody believes it is upland, there is a process to try to get that documented. Um and then sometimes that ends up going up to D for review as well. Um but for
these for this filing it is a wetland. So we are going forward with what's shown on on the plan. I wrote that the proposed project is located within an aquifer protection zone 2 water resource area. The project narrative um said that it is not. Um,
that's just based on what I have for the town's um, zone mapping. Come through. I can read through any of the septic regulations in KWPR if the commission would like to, but essentially what we have is
hot tub 22.7 ft away violates KWPR 10.08b. The deck steps are located 30 to 35 feet away from the bog. That also violates 10.08b. [Applause] Septic regulations 10.02A
is the presumptions of significance on why the commission cares about septic systems being in jurisdiction uh for the contamination and um nutrient loading factor and performance standards under 10.02b 102B um say that no portion of
the system can be within 100 ft of any area subject to protection under KWPR. Based on the plans and narrative shown, this proposal would constitute a substantial enlargement and increase in flow if it is not considered a new system in its own. It does share some of the
existing plumbing, so it likely would be a substantial enlargement and increase in flow. So yeah, sorry I went about this in a really roundabout way, but narrative discusses standards and proposed work, but does not fully indicate compliance and where obvious compliance issues exist. Does not explain how they could
meet the performance standards. For instance, under purpose, which is 1.02C 02C surface water. It says there are no surface waters within the vicinity of the proposed construction even though the wetland summary form says pond for the C series wetland. This narrative falls short of detail in compliance with
the relevant regulations and performance standards. The commission may deny the project for failure to meet the standards of KWPR or continue the hearing allowing the applicant to make edits. It should be noted that the project appears to meet the standards of 310 CMR10, the Mass Wlands Protection Act. So, the project would ideally be
approved under the WPA and denied under KWPR if the commission should choose to deny the project. However, I I don't believe that if there's a stream there. So, that's a big caveat there that um really in this situation, if the
commission were voting on it today, they would likely deny under both. And under the WPA, it would be for lack of information, I believe, because it it is I believe likely that there is a stream there. So that would be up to the commission how they would want to handle the potential that if there is no stream there, this may pass the WPA standards
and not the local. I'll stop talking. Okay. All right. We will now open the hearing to public comment. Please, you are welcome to share any relevant concerns or information you believe should be taken into consideration. Uh is there
anyone in the room that would like to speak to this? Is there anyone online? Matt, can't see. Let me stop sharing. I do not see anything. Okay, seeing none, we will now move to
commissioner discussion. The applicant is asked to remain at the podium. Commissioners may have follow-up questions which you are welcome to answer. Please keep in mind that this is not an open forum, a debate. The commission's role is to deliberate on your request within the framework of local and state regulations.
Um, does anyone have anything they'd like to add? Say, uh, Megan, if I may. Yes, you may. I apologize. I'm I'm in an airport, so it might be tough to hear, but let me know and I'll I'll stop if that's the case. Uh, there's a couple things that
that I think we need to discuss here. One, if we have improper plans, we should be continuing automatically so that we're only adjudicating one. uh accurate information. Uh that should be the first and foremost thing that we do. I say it every time something like this
comes forward. Um two with the wetland lines that are delineated, you know, apparent site uh space that you know some of these things could be shipped out. the fact that they haven't moved some of these things once they through
those lines to come into you know compliance with what you know the regulations state um should be a you know a concern for us um and three you know is there a stream is there not a stream I think if there if we don't
prove that there isn't a stream then at least we have to take you know that into consideration as it's probably there until we know otherwise um so we should be you know treating everything as such until they, you know, are able to, you know, go through and and prove that
there isn't because I think the anecdotal evidence and and the locals say that there is one. So, um, that's that's the wetland side of it from the, um, we've we've had some of these filings where we had the septics and the title fives and people say title five
compliant. Um, there's there's a there's a lot of stuff that goes into, you know, that statement whether or not they're you're title five compliant or not. And it boils down to okay there's there's flow rates there's calculations is it big enough okay well you can expand it
need more line um linear feet of um you know leeching field um but the truth is that if you read the regulations there's a lot of pages in that and it boils down to the fact that if you have your system
within the 100 foot um buffer zone you are not in compliance with title five so the rest of it doesn't matter Um, and where that comes into this is that this is an expansion. It further plans it says five bedroomedroom house and then it's talking about five
bedrooms getting added to it. So that's a potential or on on paper that's that's a significant increase over the size of flow that's there that you know might be grandfathered in. Okay. So from that perspective, you can't just increase the
leaking field size to keep everything else. if you have to come into compliance if you're going to say that you're going to be in compliance with title five in the title five um statute there's there's there's a pathway for that but
like we've used on I think rabbit road u previously where you have to you know pursue alternative technologies and I don't see anything in this so you know as it stands right now I think this is one that needs to be um you know denied uh because it doesn't in my in my
personal one person's view, it didn't even come close to to to trying to get us to a point where we could approve it. So, I'm open to, you know, uh a continuence and I'm also very open to just saying this doesn't even come close. Let's uh let's deny it. That's
that's my two. Anyone else? Um if the addition is an ABU and I should have been allowed. That's another reason for us not doing more tonight but
continuing because that has to be settled. So I can comment on that. So um while the actual proposed footprint is more than the allowed ADU square footage of 900 which is the maximum um only a
portion of the addition will be considered the ADU. Um the rest of the addition will be connected to the main existing house. Um so that just to clarify what's going on inside the house that has to be made clear. Yep.
On the floor. Okay. I just think common sense as we continue. Your mic's off. Your mic is off again. I think we should continue it and give you a chance to take another whack at it.
Okay. I also do have another comment um just as far as title five compliance. Um the existing system um as is is a a title five compliant septic system even though the tank is within the 100 foot buffer zone um under title 5 which is
the state regulation. Um you can put tanks as close as 25 ft to a wetland and still maintain compliance. it may not meet local regation regulation, but I just want to clarify that on at on a state level. Um, as
proposed, this plan does meet Title 5. It does comply with Title 5 setback regulations. Again, it may not meet um local conservation regulation, but I just want to clarify that. Um, on that front, may I um add something? Sorry, I keep
looking at Colleen. It's just it's reflex. Um, when the health agent was looking at this, and again, this this may be outside of commission purview, but something that the applicant should hear, um, she pointed out something along the lines of that, um,
making a modification like this on the property would require review of the septic system to see if it still meets Title 5. So I believe she commented that she has no evidence in front of her that the existing system is title 5 compliant and that that may need to be a part of
this process not necessarily in front of the conservation commission but the process of getting this type of a project permitted in general. So um I would recommend more than the usual two week continuence on this because I believe one week
turnaround time on this is likely insufficient. Um, in addition to that, I will be out of the office between July 30th and August 8th. And given that town hall is now on a 4-day work week, that means I will not be back in the office
until August 11th, 2 days before our next meeting. Um, conservation office will be open for half days during that time period. Uh, typically 8 to 12. But our capacity for preparing this stuff and and you know
having the week for the commission to dissolve to you know assess information will be will be limited. So I think given how much work this likely needs and
those limitations that um I would recommend at least a month for for continuance on this. I don't know if you want to check with the representative to see if they have an idea of when they could have this stuff together. I think that the
commission should be asking for information about whether there's a stream on site and then if we get that information we may be able to assess that as staff on a
more involved site visit or if the commission determined that that was not the route to go put something like that under peer review. Um, but I think that should be part of this that you know whether or not there is a stream there has a a real implication on not only
KWPR standards but what the jurisdiction is and the regulations are under a WPA. Am I allowed to make a motion since I'm chair? I just had a question before you make a motion. You can. I just always um indicate that it's better not to and then Jim and I
always kind of argue back and forth on it. Okay. I guess I'm g today. Would it be prudent to set up a potential sitewalk for the commission, especially in regards to the stream issue? I would rather the commission have more
information about whether there's a stream there or not. Um, similar to on recent filings where, you know, you you ask the applicant to come up with the information. We have a wetland report, but I thought the wetland report was was a
little lacking in that sense. Um, so I didn't feel that we could assess that during a a quick, you know, department site visit. Um, so I don't think that there would be a ton of merit in the commission going to see the site before
we have that information in front of us. Um, you know, we could try to do a little digging through the aerials and indicate exactly what locations are more likely, but I would rather that the applicant do that leg work for you. um and then have something that you can
directly be going to look at. So, so am I allowed to make a motion? I think I already No, the chair should really not make any motion. So, see what a motion to uh extend the hearing for one month.
I'd like to just bring something to order if I may just on that discussion. Um, but it's not to cut you off, but it's it is a point of order. Sure. The rules state that the chair may make a motion. It's it's it whatever Matt
thinks on this one. It's it's it's you're totally allowed. when you get into like a town meetings type situation where you have a hundred people then it's it's frowned upon for or a town um whatever they call them town
moderator to to make such motions under Robert's rules but in this case where we have a board with only seven people it would be disingenuous to have a commissioner not have the right to make a motion if they feel that there's something that needs to be done so
that's the the technical rule doesn't matter what we feel differently upon. It's it's you have the right to it's you know some people just cooch so and I would like to point out I have seen plenty of other boards and commissions chairs make motions and it's
never correct I've never including okay I've never said that it's not legal generally frowned upon and there's typically not much reason for the chair to make motions you don't necessarily
I got reasons though I have feelings Sure. And you I mean you're more than welcome to discuss the you can make a motion, right? There's nobody that's going to tell you that you can't do it. It's just if there's any gray area at all, why you know Jim feels very strongly that there is, you know, there is no gray area.
I think it's in black and white. I agree with Jim that I am allowed. Well, then make the motion. All right. Well, I make a motion to deny this on the bearings that we're It needs to know if there's a stream. We need the proper um boundaries, setbacks,
and there was another one, but now I'm all confused. Yeah, there was the um failure to meet failure to meet guidelines. So, there's no mitigation. There's no variance request submitted. This is an incomplete NOI and agreeing with what Jim said in
the beginning that this shouldn't have been in front of us until it's complete. And that's my motion. and IM123 4106. So my motion is that it's denied. They can gather all the information we've asked,
come back instead of continuing it. I second. All right. Well, we will take a vote made by myself, seconded by Kina to deny this NOI. Do you want discussion on that or just
straight to We can discuss. Yes. Discussion with the board or discussion with the applicant with the board. I was talking about the board. You can hear from the applicant if you would like. Nope. Discussion on a motion with that's been seconded can only be the board and
it has it has to be specific for the motion. Correct. So, does anyone on the board have anything to say? We're good. So, just to clarify, if a a yes vote is made is to deny. If a no mo defeats your
mo a no vote defeats your emotion. Correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. I will now do a roll call vote on my motion to deny. Marilyn, no. Dot. Yes.
Um Buzz, no. Jim, yes. Sina, yes. And uh Megan is a yes. So this motion has passed. This is denied. So,
do we stick with the date we have? We u back in a month. No, they will come back when we Okay. Come back when they're ready. Yep. Procedural question. Did you close the Did you close the hearing? Close it right now. Okay.
I will take a motion to close the hearing, right? Um, Maryland. Yes. Scott, yes. Buzz, this hearing. Yes. Yes. Jim, yes.
Kina, this hearing? Yes. Yes. Uh, I am a yes to close this hearing. 135 Indian Pond Road. I guess I'm a little confused. So, this was denied. I thought we were going to ask for a continuence.
No, I made a motion to deny it because of the lack of information that was submitted. You're welcome to come back. Okay. All right. Thank you. So now we go back to enforcement
uh action items. We had Ringroad Solar. Oh. [Applause] Oh. I will now reopen a public meeting to discuss the request for amendment or deviation for 126 and 131 to 137 Ring
Road submitted by Beiels and Thomas on behalf of Ringro Solar LLC file number SE037 0889 and 0890. The applicant did not provide updated materials by the submission deadline.
Therefore, this meeting should be continued to August 13th. Do I hear a motion? Do we need to Oh, before before we get to that, so how many continues? So, we just denied the last guy. Why aren't we just denying
this one? I think um may I You may. All right. I think because situationally I think it may be in I don't want to say everyone's best
interest but it it may be beneficial for you know the commission and the applicant on this not to work together but to continue the dialogue on um how they can meet all of the standards they need to meet on this. I think if the
commission just decides to deny it outright, um more than likely what we then see is um work start on the project under a claim of agricultural exemption. Um and then the commission needs to decide if they want me to take enforcement action and immediately move
towards um some sort of a legal standoff on this um rather than trying to um talk through with them how they can get this project into compliance and start generating electricity and um and go from there. That's just my opinion. The
commission's always welcome to do whatever they want. I just think that um the way things were left, they think that they have agricultural exemptions. The commission had rightfully questions about that. Um and they should be coming
back with more information on that. Um if the commission wants me to send something saying that this is absolutely going to be discussed at a meeting on this particular date, um you know, we can do that and hopefully they will, you know, come to the table to discuss
further. Um, but if if you do want to deny the request, then I'm certainly happy to send that out as well. I'm open to giving them a month and then letting them know that we'll be discussing. Anyone else?
What was the date for continuance? A month out is August 27th. Thank you. August 27th. Yeah, I could be okay with that. All right. Do I hear a motion to continue? I'll make a motion to continue to August
27th. I'll second. All right. We will take a vote. Carolyn, yes. Dot, yes. Uh Jim, Jim D. Buzz, yes. Kina, yes.
And Megan is a yes. All right, motion passes. Now we move to enforcements. We will start with 176 Main Street. Yeah, let me just pull this up. Um, ready for me? Yep.
Okay. Um, sorry. Get my notes here. So on this is on the corner of Main Street and Brook Street. Um you have an existing driveway area close to the
freshwater marsh that associates with the Jones River. Um on July 7th while driving by noticed vegetation between the driveway and the marsh had been cleared and grass seed had been put down. Um and it was likely that lone was probably brought in because it typically
would be in those situations. Um I also had a commissioner notice and report it to me. um a few days later. The whole property is in the 100 foot buffer zone to resource areas. Uh the portion in question or the majority of it is also likely in the outer 200t riverfront area
to the Jones River. Uh we sent the notice of violation out. The landowner responded and wants to make it right. Uh we fit in a site visit today and I got photos and also uh was contacted by an
environmental consulting firm who went out yesterday and put erosion control in place um and is starting to prepare a restoration plan. So, when I get to the site today, um here you're at the driveway looking um sort of upstream of
the Jones River is off to the left and then you have the marsh uh much closer to the uh driveway. The purple you see there is purple loose strife which grows in in wetlands. Um and you see the erosion control that was put in place. Uh you see one of the new lawn areas in
the back there up against I believe a garage or barn. Um backing up a little bit. This is taken from I believe the sidewalk. Um this is one of the areas. This area did have some existing yard area at the edge of
the driveway. Um, I believe maybe some of the stuff that was on the right hand side of this picture was existing yard space and much of what's on the left was vegetated uh with shrubs. I don't know if it if there were any trees cleared there, but it it
probably was more like um sort of brambles. Um, and then I think there was a large tree clear. Yeah, maybe the applicant can speak to that in a minute. We do have um Adam Dennis. He is online and I did meet him today. Um this is another view from the
sidewalk showing that edge. We do have erosion control now at the bottom edge there. Um but I did notice on site today what is a large cut um of erosion through that area that was modified. Um the roughly July 4th storm that came
through that dumped a lot of water in one night uh did a number there with water running off of main street. Um so they will have sediment removal to do. As you can see in the back part of that picture, they have erosion control behind it now. Um it's some substantial uh mulch sock, so that should hold it um
going forward, but they can um start to take steps to stabilize that and work on a uh restoration plan for the area. Um the homeowner also indicated that they're working on a plan for an addition and understands the need to
file for that. Um, and I spoke with the wetland consultant and he was asking similarly, what would the commission be looking for for a restoration? Would they be wanting to do it under an NOI? And I said, "No, typically the commission does those under enforcement orders." Um, so typically the commission would issue an enforcement order
mandating that they see a restoration plan by a set date and then discuss the restoration plan when it's sufficient, issue a second enforcement order mandating that the work happen by a set date. So homeowners here if you have any questions or I can try to answer any questions you have as well.
Megan, may I? Sure. All right. Matt, could you explain that? I mean, this looks like I mean there's a lot of water. Where's this water coming from? Is this runoff from the street or I mean
it appears to be um runoff coming off a main street? There is a little bit of a burm to the driveway. Um, but I I think when you have I don't know how many inches of rain we got that that night, but when you have a you know a huge amount of rain in a short period of time, I believe there was a lot of water running down Main Street that ended up
on the property. Um, you also have DOT that was doing work on the sidewalks. Um and it appears that they did not do a fantastic job of protecting their work site um towards getting sediment down
stream down gradient towards towards the river. Um you know I know is there a storm sewer um here Matt? Like do they have they have clogged up because No. So, the the um the homeowner said that the the storm grate in front of the
house was clogged up, but there was no um filter fabric in it. And when we looked at it today, it appeared that it had been cleaned. U but at the time of the storm, he believes it was um filled up and that they likely do DOT had some
sort of a crew out on the road scraping, shoveling up sediment after that storm uh because a significant amount of it moved. Um, so in terms of what you're seeing there for sediment, I don't know if a portion of that came off of the road or if all of that came from the pretty massive cut that you see there
right off the driveway. Um, but he is aware of it. They are um they are working on it. All right. So, my only concern is that whatever whatever we do here and and I'm not saying it's one person's fault. I'm saying that if there was this much water
coming off the street, then then this is something that's going to have to grow a little bit of wings and get into the town side of it and then have them talk about it because no matter what we put in here, what the owner puts in here under our blessing, um this type of
runoff will wash all of it out. So, um that's let's just keep that in mind as we go. But that's all I have to say. Does anyone else on the commission have anything to say or do you want to hear from the homeowner? I I'm um very pleased surprised but very
pleased at the quickness of their response. I am as well. Yeah. Um well, I'm not surprised by the scuff law approach to doing it in the first instance with no no notice, no permission. But
uh you you said Dennis is there. I can't read the names off the screen. Yeah, his name is Adam. He's on He's on Zoom. Adam Dennis. Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah. So, um I was just I'm sitting here with my wife, but u she let me know that
um the day after the storm um I was traveling for work, but um the I don't know if it was the DOT or the construction crew that's redoing the curving up the hill was just in front of
the driveway shoveling up the street for you know, the the morning couple hours. So, um it was a big storm and you know um I think that it was a you know kind of a unique event but you know
definitely kind of rain again and um the uh catch basin that catch basin was just cleaned by the DOT um was it this week? last week. Yeah, something either this week or last week. And what happens is is the surface
of our the surface area of our driveway doesn't help, but the um with that catch basin clogged with sediment, um that that portion of Main Street gets a ton of water in it, standing water, and then
people drive, you know, there's obviously a lot of traffic by the house and it come it splashes up over the even over the little burm and you know, it's it just is like a you know, it's kind of not a river, but it's pretty close to that. Um, so that's kind of what you're
seeing here. And, uh, yeah, you know, whatever we we need to do to make it right, uh, we'll fix it. And I've got Riverhawk uh, involved. And, um, so yeah, that's uh, that's my two cents.
Um, what was cleared from there? Was there a tree cleared or is it just like brambles and bushes? There was there was a lot of poison ivy and dead trees and um a couple like
one one tree that was like right next to my driveway that was kind of dying and all vine covered and stuff like that. So I I cut that I cut that down and then I I got rid of uh some knotweed that was kind of that's already coming back to be
honest, but that was kind of it. It was just, you know, and then and then, you know, I I spread some loom over it and and put some grass seed down. So, not my intention to do anything that I wasn't supposed to do. Just just trying to clean the place up a little bit to avoid the kids getting ticks and stuff like
that when they go in there for the ball. And that's, you know, that's really it. So, like I said, I'll do whatever you guys need me to do to fix it. So I think um they'll put together a restoration plan. It will come back for commission review
if the commission feels it's insufficient. They can say it's insufficient and there'll be some back and forth on that if necessary. Um, and we should be able to get that area fixed up, providing buffer to the marsh
and the river. And, you know, I think Riverhawk will understand the need for some pretty substantial erosion control to prevent water from continuing to cut through there as things are establishing. Um, I spoke with Riverhawk and asked how
much time they thought they needed to get a restoration plan together. um and they didn't think it was going to take terribly long. They're already working on it. My recommendation would be to require that they submit it to uh the conservation department within a month.
Um and then put it on, you know, either August 27th, probably August 27th. You could do August 27th or September 10th. Um but having it the discussion on August 27th allows more time for um fall
planting and not running into a situation where all of a sudden it's too cold to get any seed established or any of that stuff. So I think if you say um you know you want to have them get it to my office by August 23rd that gives a
few days to um of course I said August 23rd that's probably a weekend. um should double check that. But with just a few days for me to be able to review it before the August 27th meeting, putting continuing this discussion to August 27th in order to have the
discussion. Um if you do not receive a restoration plan by August 23rd, the enforcement order would be saying that you'd be issuing fines of $300 a day until you receive one. Uh but I don't expect that you would need to go that route.
Nope. I'll I'm happy to do what you know what you guys need me to do. So that would be August, [Music] let's say, as long as we have it by August 25th because that's a Monday and we're now closed on Fridays. So August
25th would give me two days to give it an eyeball before the commission meeting. I don't think we need a full week um on an enforcement action like this. So, does anyone want to make that
motion? So, you want a motion to continue this to August 27th and issue an enforcement order for a restoration plan by August 25th. Right. I'll second that motion.
All right. Made by Marilyn, seconded by Kina. All right. Um Marilyn. Yes. Dot. Yes. Jim. Yes. Buzz. Buzz.
Did he lose? Let me see if we still have Buzz. Is a yes. All right. Megan is a yes. We seem to have lost Commissioner Aiano. Okay. Um All right. That would be continued till August 27th.
We will now move on to our second enforcement which is 39 Winthre Street. I will say that this is they are diagonal from me. We do not technically but each other but we live
on the same street diagonal from each other. So if the commission wants me to step away, I can step away. If the homeowner wants me to step away, I can step away. Um, but I thought I would bring it to everybody's attention. Megan, may I?
You may. All right. I also have I have to recuse myself. I'm a direct on this property. Thank you. All right. Okay. So, in this situation, we had a report of unpermitted work in the backyard. Um,
a driveby showed a new structure next to an existing shed in the backyard. Um, I had no evidence of the shed permitting, but it does show up as early as 2005 and potentially even earlier. It's hard to uh be sure. There also used to be an above ground pool in the backyard that shows up in imagery as recent as 2008.
uh the frame of that is still visible and I believe this is a relatively new um homeowner to the property ref um related to those two um structures. I didn't double check the exact date but um so anyways um what we have is a chicken
coupe that was built next to the shed. um not the biggest deal in terms of enforcement but more an opportunity to you know provide knowledge, attain compliance going forward. Uh we've had some other issues with agricultural
situations whether it's chickens, goats, whatever with um sort of unfettered access to wetlands and wetland buffers which can cause some contamination issues or some water quality issues, habitat quality issues. Um, so this I believe is an opportunity
to um, again set the tone going forward for what's allowed, what's not allowed. Um, I did send out an NOV and got an immediate response from the property owner who is on Zoom tonight. um
eager to do the right thing, you know, has already talked has already engaged a wetland scientist, is already talking about filing an RDA um sort of to to see what's allowable in that area and so that they can make use of their property while making sure they take care of the
wetlands and wetland buffers. Um yeah, so that's about it. That's a picture of I believe the front these pictures were sent by the homeowner. I have not done a site visit in this situation. Um, looking towards the
backyard, there's the existing shed right behind the tree and the new chicken coupe behind that. And then that's a view looking off to the side. This is the shed or I'm sorry, the chicken coupe that was recently built.
So again, not a massive enforcement issue in need of tearing down or restoration or anything like that. U more than likely this was a part of the yard already in terms of being grass and you know something that's been used for years just in need of permitting.
So they're working on it. I will say before the chickens there were goats housed in that ship. Okay. Yeah, it does. Um, I think look in this picture like there was a pen off
of the shed. So, yeah, I I think it's it's a good idea. The town did come up with agricultural, you know, non-commercial I forget exactly what they called it, non-commercial livestock regulations. Um, so the town does have now
regulations and guidance on best practices for keeping uh farm animals in a non-commercial setting. Um, we did weigh in on those, but essentially what it says in there is that they also need to comply with the wetland regulations.
Um, so essentially in order to keep livestock in an area in jurisdiction, you would need some form of permitting for that, especially when it involves structures or it typically involves degradation. Um, so even in a situation
where there's no structures, you may have goats or other animals kind of destroying buffer zone andor wetland habitat, which in itself is a violation. So it's just better to have everything permitted. um have the commission able to review these things and sort of
define where your animals can access where they can't. You're putting essentially a fence up to keep them out of certain areas. Um you know, it's an opportunity to do things such as conservation posts um on a fence, you know, conservation placards on a fence, things like that. Um so I don't know
necessarily if that's needed or not in this area, but um they are working on a filing. So it's up to the commission how you want to handle something like that. I don't like to let things linger in terms of the commission saying, "Okay,
you're filing. That's great. See you later." Because that's when we run into issues of non-compliance down the road and less ability to enforce. Um, so I think and it's great. They already have a wetland scientist. They're already working on a filing. They're already in touch with my office on that. Um, but you probably still want to set a
deadline. Um, yeah. Yeah. So, just a matter of the deadline. Yeah. You can kind of also just to kind of add to that, it it's my belief that in relatively simple situations like this,
you do have the ability to save me time of office work and not issue an enforcement order. Um, you know, you I believe do have the situation where we can communicate to the applicant that you have until such date to provide a filing or else an enforcement order will
be issued. We've done that before where essentially we're saying you have 30 days to file with the commission for the unpermitted work. If you don't do that by that date, we will issue an enforcement order mandating that it happens within a set date. And if that
doesn't happen, fines every day until you submit that. So that in my opinion that would be the better route because it saves me the time of having to write and issue an enforcement order for a situation where they may just file anyways. It's also consistent with what you would
discuss previous so 30 days is typical. Yeah. I think for something like this I think I think they're looking at admin review or RDA depending on what they're looking to do. Um, so I think either way
that's a pretty easy thing to submit. But in each case they've offered positive, right, solutions? Yes. We will take a motion if somebody wants to take a motion or is there any more discussion? Um, does the homeowner want
to speak? Hello. Hello. Uh nice to virtually meet everyone. Um we did so I'm here with my husband. Sorry if you can hear our children. Uh we have littles. Um but we did start we
did start filing for a permit. We just were unclear of like what we should add on it, how we should write it, and we didn't know if we would have some clarity here in this meeting, but we can work with Matt on that. Um I just literally we haven't pressed send but we
have we started the paperwork. We had a wet wetland consultant work with us to kind of take a look at the land itself flag down um the what the parameters are to try to figure out what the best location is. He also said that it was um
probably in our benefit that the coupe isn't touching the grounds. it's it's shaped and so that we do plan on having the chickens enclosed so they won't, you know, run out into the wetland or anything like that. I mean, obviously there's also tons of predators, so why
wouldn't you want to do that? But but yes, we've already filled out some of the forms and I guess we can work with Matt and send it send it to the commission and we appreciate the notice because we were considering doing other things. We really didn't know. No idea.
Uh we knew the wetlands were back there. We really didn't know about the bucker zone and you know now moving forward with anything it would be through you guys. Yeah. Thank you so much for being very responsive and positively responsive. We
appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Um do you want to say um what did we say for a date on 176? We said August 25th for the restoration plan on that one. Why don't you say August 25th for a
filing to be received by my department, my office? Um, if we do not see a filing, I would issue an enforcement order mandating a filing within two weeks or fines would be issued daily until we did. And I think that should be
plenty. Does anyone want to make that? Wait for a motion. Yeah, I just need a motion. And I I make a motion to um issue using um Matt's exact language. You want a second? Second.
All right. Uh do we need to vote? We'll vote on that. Yep. Um I'm sorry. I just name Marilyn. Yes. Dad. Yes. Jim. Oh, did we lose him? No.
Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, Kina, yes. Megan is a yes. All right. That it continues a month. Did you understand what Matt said about the filing for a month? Yeah. Uh, our understanding is that we have to file within these 30 days. Yep.
No. A August 25th before August 25th. Yep. Correct. Yes. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good night. All right. I will now move on to enforcement for 164 Pemroke Street.
I have to excuse myself. You got it. Thank Yep. Megan, I have to I have to leave. I got to catch a flight. All right. Safe travels. I'll let the record show that Commissioner Franklin is leaving. We do run into a uh
do we have a quorum anymore? Quorum issue then. Yeah, we only have three with Buzz dropping off. Should have done you first. Do you want me to call Buzz and see if he can jump back on? Sure. Why don't Could you do that? Could you
try that? Be great. just for this one thing. While you're doing that, can I give a handout to everyone? No. No. We don't want to open until we're sure we can move forward. Hey, uh, we ran out of quorum for the
last enforcement issue. Are you capable of jumping on? Uh, it might take me a minute, but yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you. I have to text him the link, which is going to take me a second to look up. Okay. Okay.
Can we do minutes? Yeah. Why don't we do this? I don't know if you can vote on Oh, yeah. I guess you can take her back. Hold on. We'll do um let's approve the April 9th, 2025 minutes. Let me just make sure we were
all there. I make a motion that we approve those minutes. Second. All right. Let me just make sure we're all here. All right. We were uh let's vote to Well, we'll do a roll
call. Marilyn, yes. Dot, yes. Kina, yep. And Megan is a yes. So, the meeting minutes are approved for April 9th, 2025. All right, I'm back. All right. Thank you so much, Buzz.
There he is. All right, we will open our enforcement for 164 Penroke Street in Maryland. We'll So I recuse myself again. Again. Yes. Thank you. You start. Sure.
All right. Um so obviously this is a continued discussion that started with the um the application on the front lawn area up slope of the vernal pool. I have had um discussions with the landowner about that. Um he does not believe that
application of fertilizer in that front lawn area could produce detrimental effects in the downslope vernal pool. Um I disagree with that based on my knowledge of the site and hydrarology and whatnot. I think um
there's you know in my opinion two issues here that the commission should be looking at. One of them is you have an instance of known contaminants and
herbicides being applied there um in the form of a high nitrogen chemical fertilizer and an additive that is an herbicide that is known highly toxic to aquatic life um being broadcast spread right at the top of that slope that goes
down to the vernal pool. Um that would be a violation. that is something the commission should discuss how to deal with. Um, you know, in my opinion on that, that is a situation where, you know, anything more than the
standard one-time $300 fine would be probably pretty hard to to justify. Um, you know, we've had other discussions about, you know, with the land owner about applications there in the past, but that was um sort of a different
different I don't want to say chemical, a different substance. Um, and that gets to the second part of this is I I think it's important for the commission and for the landowner to have a clear understanding going forward of what is allowed there, what is not. um there's
perpetual condition on the property that says no herbicides, no contaminants. Um what constitutes a contaminant, right? And I think that's something that the commission can discuss with the land owner. Um I think given the first part
of what I was talking about sort of the disagreement about whether um application of fertilizers on that lawn would constitute a you know you know ongoing violation situation there. I think a site visit
should be informative to the commission and to the landowner. Um, one of the other things that that he's brought up is runoff from Pemroke Street getting into that vernal pool and that being the main driver of water quality issues there. I've seen no evidence of that. Um
and I I think that the commission seeing those things, seeing the position of the lawn and the downs slope plantings, the just the condition of that site, you know, will give you an impression of going forward, can there be applications
on that lawn of organic fertilizer, of lower nitrogen fertilizer without it being considered a contaminant. um you know and also seeing whether or not there is likely runoff off of Pemroke Street that could be contributing to um
what we see over the summertime there as being um what would I I would indicate as likely utrophic conditions where you have a lot of algae and aquatic vegetation blooming in that in that water. Um, you know, we
have photos of that pool that appear to indicate nutrient loading coming down off of that hill. I don't think we have anything that's super definitive that I would hang my hat on as a wetland scientist and say we have a smoking gun here that absolutely we know that that is
happening. But it indicates it and I think that it's worth the commission being on site and seeing that for themselves and just you know again to have a clear understanding going forward what's considered contamination, what is not. Um so that the property owner can
enjoy his property and go about his life and stay out of your way and we stay out of their way and everybody's happy going forward so everybody knows what they're supposed to be doing. So that's my uh my open to that. Um, if anybody has any questions at any point, I can add more
detail about anything you'd like from the scientific side of that to the regulation side of that. But for now, I think we can hear from Representative. May I ask first? Um, sure. We had asked a month or so back for a contract between them and the
landscapers. Ever receive that? There is no contract according to the the company owner. they just were asked and and he may be able to to provide some more um feedback on that, but essentially they were just asked to take care of the lawn. Um so I
I tried to sort of get a little more information out like you mean you just don't have contracts and and essentially that that's what it was was there is no contract. It was a from my understanding like a verbal hey come treat my lawn and
they say okay. Um, they did provide what is their routine on the property, which is early in the season to put what was put down the day that I saw the application, which is that dimension high nitrogen chemical fertilizer with built-in crabrass pre um, and they use a
spot spray um, herbicide for broadleaf weeds. Um, which in my opinion is is not as concerning from a wetlands protection standpoint. it it still violates the conditions, the perpetual conditions on
that property, but from a a practical standpoint, the stuff being in the granular form um almost surely finds the lowest point and gets into that water. Um and that is something that I mean
the label on that product says should not be applied near open water because it's so toxic to aquatic organisms. um you know the person applying that that close to open water could lose their applicator's license for that. There may
be some there may be some gray area for MDAR who oversees those sort of things to determine what close means. You know close to them might mean your wheels are touching open water. I don't know what they mean by that. Um but certainly
it does not meet the perpetual conditions on the property and that is you know not something that should be applied the rest of the year according to the company um which is always green Cape Cod and I've been speaking with um either the manager or
the owner Mike uh I believe his name is Mike Stevens um but he said for the rest of the year they're using what we discussed back in 2023 which was sustain ain low lower nitrogen organic fertilizer.
Um and and they apply that throughout the season, I believe monthly, it might be bi-weekly in some situations. And they continue to apply the spot sprayed broadleaf weed sprayer as necessary. So, um there is no contract, but according to
them, that is what they've been doing. Um, and so again, that sort of leads to my wanting the commission to a just deal with this enforcement issue so that we can get past that, but in the process
make it clear what is allowed, what isn't. Um, this is a tricky property. This is something that has wetlands on three sides of it, including what is now a certified vernal pool. Um, it has been a certified vernal pool for a while. I'm
sure before it was certified it was and acted like a vernal pool. Um you do have obligate species breeding there. Um but maximizing enjoyment of property with grass plantings, things like that on a
property with wetlands on three sides of it is difficult without violating, you know, some form of local or state wetlands regulations. Um, in this case, we have surely a violation of the
perpetual condition forbidding herbicide use and contaminants on the property. Um, as well as a likely contamination issue which would trigger certain portions of KWPR and potentially WPA itself. Um I
think you know in my conversations with the land owner he's eager to make this right understand what he has to do going forward and not be in you know here essentially and
from the commission standpoint I think you would want the same thing you want an understanding of the land owner for what can and can't be done there and what needs to be done to protect the health of the wetlands around the property. I have some comments.
Sure. I spent 20 years talking to children and adults about wetlands, teaching them why we protect them. Um we have on many occasions had people
come to in front of us and not agree in their mind that we are talking about saving something that's very precious. Wetlands
collect water. They purify it. When it goes through the dirt it becomes our drinking water. That's one of the reasons that it's important to us as people. We also have animals and and uh
some plants that can only breed in a wetland um by damaging the wetlands in a vernal pool part of the wetlands. Um we kill them by putting pollutants in the in the
pool. One of the reasons that lawns especially come before us many years ago we all had lawns that had clover in it. Clover makes nitrogen. Clover keeps the green
in the lawn. But the pesticide company said, "Oh, you don't want dandelions. You don't want these things." You know, in my opinion, personal opinion, what's wrong with a couple of dandelions? You know, every kid grows up learning how to blow the seeds away.
But they say now, okay, we've got this broadleaf killer and you will have a smooth carpet green lawn. And I've lectured about this before many times. I've told many, many people about this. Why should you have a smooth green
carpet? What does that mean to you to have a smooth green carpet? It means using pesticides and and fertilizers. Uh the and little critters that live in the grass get killed or they be
poisoned. If you have birds in the area or other things that are going to eat the bugs on the lawn, they're poisoned by it. Uh all because it's important to some people to have smooth green lawn.
Uh I obviously disagree with that. Uh, one of the problems here is also with the applicators. Applicators, and I've spoken to them to make sure I'm right on this, must study wetlands and what the protections are.
Okay. The fellow who was here before, he didn't say anything about that. I wish we could ask him. In fairness, do he was not the applicator. That was the landscaper of the problem landscaper interacts with and landscapers don't have to take any
training which is another problem. The same with people who cut down trees. Agreed. There's no training. You just have to know how to cut it down and not hit yourself. Um but they do have to learn that the material safety data sheet. You alluded to this. It says do not apply near
wetlands. In fact, it says water. Um, and I'm I'm speaking for everybody who's listening, everybody who has come in here and and said, um, in effect, I
don't want to listen to your rules. I'm going to do what I want. There are reasons why we do this. And they're important reasons. And I hope that by saying what I'm saying that maybe a couple of people will understand and decide that, well,
maybe Culver would be better. you know, you might even find a fourleaf one out there. Uh, so I I find it very difficult having people come back and discussing the same problem over and over again and and it's just not right and they have to
understand what the reason is and why we do this. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else have a comment on the board? Yeah, I have a comment. Sure. When a person buys a property that's um
surrounded on three sides by wetlands, it's very hard to say that they haven't come to the nuisance themselves. And it's um impossible to reconcile the same kind of private enjoyment of your property when you've come to an area
that has regulations and restrictions that run with it. And so I think the balance shifts a little bit in favor of the um the wetlands in this case. You you don't get to come where they are on
all sides and then assert that you can't enjoy your property because the wetlands are encroaching around you. So would you like to see something? Sure. Sure. Uh James Free Jr. Creedaw LLC of Marshfield representing the property
owner. Um, first I'd like to thank you for accommodating my conflict on July 9th and continuing the hearing till tonight. Um, with that having been said, I apologize to the me the commission member on Zoom. Um, I was unable to
print these from the registry of deeds today, so I had to go there physically. I was the the lone ranger at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds because everybody does everything electronically. Now, if I may, I have a handout of those public documents. Sure.
Thanks. Thank you. Can I have one for you, too? Oh, you're doing that. Thank you. Okay. So what you have before you the first page is the um the first page of the order of conditions cited by agent
Panella SC 37471. The second page that I have and it skips I'm not giving you all the order conditions but is specific condition 17 the perpetual um restriction that agent panel references.
The next document is the certificate of compliance for 37471. And what I've highlighted in purple is the box that wasn't checked, which is ongoing conditions, which reads, "The following conditions of the order shall continue." Now, notwithstanding the
language that was in the order of conditions at condition 17, in order for those that condition to continue, this certification of complete of uh compliance should have included
that condition as an ongoing condition. And the final document is the order of conditions SE 37543. And what I've highlighted in yellow is special condition two. No herbicides or pesticides shall be used on this site
within 25 ft of any wetland resource areas. This condition will remain in force permanently and shall be recorded as such on the certificate of compliance. So we would agree there is a perpetual restriction but the perpetual
restriction is the restriction that's set forth at SE 37573 or 543 rather than the one at 471 which is cited by agent Panella. Um it's it's clear from the documentation that the
intent at that time because these were going on simultaneously. The um the SE um 37471 was 1999 and the certificate of compliance I believe was 2005.
The subsequent order of conditions was filed in 2002. So it's it's clear to me from the recorded documents that the subsequent condition was a superseding condition that replaced the perpetual
restriction that was originally uh uh included in SE 37471. So while we would agree there's a perpetual restriction, the restriction is the later imposed restriction, not the one cited by agent panel. With that
having been said, what we'd like to do is come up with an agreed upon protocol for the use of pesticides and herbicides that are safe and meet your requirements
to preserve um the the vernal preserve and protect the vernal pool as opposed to uh looking to enforcement. May I have Yeah. Yeah. I have cleared um all of this with town
council. I was aware of all of these various uh conditions and and before taking any enforcement action on this, I believe it was actually a few years ago before, you know, reaching out about the previous um application issue. I double
checked with council. I said, "Listen, the original orders and conditions mandated no herbicide use and no pollutants." But then when the commission issued the COC, no one checked off the ongoing conditions box,
which is is not uncommon. Um, it's for sure best practice to make sure you check that off and make sure you have the accompanying perpetual conditions attached to that document so that it gets recorded at the registry of deeds. Um,
and then with what I believe is the pool orders of conditions, there was that 25 foot one on there. So, I ran that by council. I said, "Listen, you have a situation here where when this property when the development of the house was permitted, they were not
supposed to use any chemicals on the property. Then they did not check that box off under issuance of the COC. And then further on another orders of conditions for what I believe is the backyard area they specified 25 feet and
council said while surely that is best practice to do that I do not feel that one supersedes the other it's likely that both conditions still hold up. Um, so again, I agree more with the second comment
that Attorney Creed made that this is something the commission should be looking for an understanding and agreement on. Um, but saying that one clearly supersedes the other when the property was permitted, the development of I believe the house
and the gardens was permitted with the understanding that no chemicals would be used on that property. When I say no chemicals, it specifically says no herbicides and the other relevant thing for this conversation would be no pollutants. Right? So that's council's
view on that. Council felt that there was really no clear-cut issue there of that first perpetual condition going away because they did not check that box or because an order of conditions that was issued after that for the pool area
said that nothing within 25 ft would be applied. It's certainly not best practice. It's something that today we're certainly more mindful of when we issue permits, but it does not mean that that condition goes away. At least that was not council's field. May I?
Um, yes. Not unsurprisingly, two attorneys disagree. Um, and if two attorneys disagree, um, what we're looking at is a property owner. So, the property owner has these orders of condition. One's
perpetual, one says perpetual, but not within 25 ft of the water resource area. It doesn't limit it to the pool area. the language of that of that subsequent order says water resource areas. So my point is this that how's the homeowner
supposed to discern between the two when you've got two orders that say different things and what he's told his applicator is to avoid going within 25 ft of those resource areas. If the applicator
violated that, we apologize. They've been told not to. Uh I we'd rather work with the commission to come up with a protocol and something that works for you and works for the homeowner. But I think an enforcement order given the two
conflicting um perpetual restrictions is a bridge too far. Um is it what a bridge a bridge too far? I would actually argue that it was up to the homeowner to make sure his applicator was within his
order of conditions, was working within compliance of his orders. And if he was confused what was current and what wasn't current, it is up to the homeowner to either come to the conservation department to make a phone call to do
due diligence before they end up here again. because we've had a lengthy discussion with this homeowner on what is and what is not allowed a little I don't even know the word we have a perpetual condition for the
the entire property that was issued in 99 I believe they said it was 99 and then the pool which was right here project description inground pool has its own order of conditions which under here specifies 25 ft so in my mind this
goes with the pool. The other one goes with the property. If there is confusion under the homeowner, it is his obligation to make sure he is in compliance. We've gone back and forth with this homeowner multi multitude of times. I
can go back years. We had an understanding when we issued these. Somehow that got convoluted into a massive confusion. I don't even know. Mayor,
you may. So, I mean, again, I I'll reiterate again that in general going forward, I think an understanding is important. As far as what's already happened, which was a violation, that's
up to the commission. I have checked with council. Council feels that the commission is in their right, that that condition was there. And you're right, that it is the homeowner's responsibility to know um all of those things. There is the the fact that the
pool OC's were not recorded until mandated by the commission recently under under enforcement. But, you know, it's it is convoluted. So, the commission decides to issue a single day $300 fine. They have the right to appeal
that to a magistrate. The magistrate might overturn it. Happens. Um, that's up to the commission. If the commission wants to decide that there is some convoluted stuff here and it is a complicated property with a long permitting history and we'll give them
the benefit of the doubt that you know the homeowner actually didn't know that they weren't supposed to do stuff like that out there. That's fine too as long as we have an understanding of what's going forward and there's very clear guidelines for what constitutes a violation and what doesn't. So there's
no gray area going forward. the same rate. If the commission feels there's been a violation, the homeowner is responsible, we want to issue a violation on that, they're more than welcome to do that. Um, my opinion on whether or not the com that would be upheld by magistrate review, I have zero idea because we've had some situations
in the past where I felt like it was a no-brainer that the magistrate would support the commission and then they didn't. So, I think sometimes it depends on who you get and sometimes it depends on, you know, what they think about all of these, you know, different things that are brought up. a magistrate might
easily think, okay, there's there's enough confusion there that I could understand a homeowner being confused. I'm going to wipe the fines away. It is what it is. So, my my take on that, it it doesn't really I often guide the commission on what I think would be the
best success, right? There's been times in the past where I've told the commission, here's what I think is the best move, and the commission didn't take my advice. And there's times where that's been successful and unsuccessful as far as when things have been uh
challenged. So you have a long history on this property. I like to look at everything separately here. We have a separate issue of contaminants being used that appear to be affecting that vernal pool. It's in
my belief something that is worthwhile bringing before the commission for enforcement action. Whether or not the commission chooses to take enforcement action in the form of, you know, issuing citation or anything like that is up to you, but there's an obvious need on this
property for long-term understanding and agreement. Other portions of the property that has already happened. Um, not everybody has to like the way that those things have played out, and I mean the homeowner and members of the
commission, but there have been agreements made. From my understanding, there have been agreements mostly followed. Um, and this, in my opinion, is a standalone issue in a way. You know, it is related to
general property maintenance issues that we've had there. We've had enforcement discussions about, you know, landscapers blowing all of the leaves out of the landscaped area down slope into the vernal pool. Um, grass clippings on the slope to the vernal pool. But from what
I've seen, the homeowner has been responsive to those. You know, I said, "You can't dump grass clippings here." There was a big pile of grass clippings on that slope. They were removed very quickly after that. I said, "You can't be blowing stuff into the vernal pool. have to leave that stuff on the ground in order to be able to allow some of
this stuff to get into the ground and not run into the vernal pool. And from everything I have seen, it has stopped. I haven't been on site in a while, but it's part of that progression of trying to get the landscape activities on the property to not violate the wetlands
regulations and special conditions. And this is just a part of that process. But I do think the commission should look at this separately from the larger years of back and forth between the land owner and the commission over various wetlands protection issues and look at this
specifically as you know application of contaminants and herbicide that's highly toxic to aquatic life in an area where it is likely to run off. And again, if the commission needs a site visit to view that in order
to make a more informed decision, I think that's I think that's a good decision. I think that's a good thing to do. We can bring a tape out. I know we have the plan of record. We can bring a tape out into the field and measure from the edge of the vernal pool to the edge of the lawn and you can get a better
visual for what it would be like when somebody comes on a ride-on broadcast spreader around that curve fleeing, you know, pelletized substance from there. Um, so I do think that would be something beneficial for the commission to see the
site and see the surrounding area before making a decision on this. um including a decision on any long-term agreement. I think it's worth seeing the site. One of the confounding issues is that this lawn slopes
down to the vernal pool which is going to enhance the runoff. Any anything that's soluble is going to eventually end up downhill. At least the area between the lawn and the pool slopes. I would say a pretty
pretty solid grade, but I'm not positive on the lawn itself. The lawn itself may be more flat. But there, you know, anybody with a broadcast spreader is not keeping that stuff on the lawn, right? That it's it never happens. Um, in most situations where you have a street
abudding a lawn, they're supposed to go around afterwards with the blower or a broom and get the stuff back onto the lawn. In a lot of cases, they don't. It rains. The stuff ends up in storm drains and streams and causes utrification there. In this situation, there's nobody cleaning it up from the edge beyond the
lawn. They simply go around, spray it, and leave. So, I I do think it's worth seeing before the commission makes decisions on this. I think it's important to see, you know, the physical location there. The if the commission
goes to the site and looks around and thinks that I'm crazy, that somebody spraying stuff there with a broadcast spreader is absolutely not going to affect the vernal pool at all. then great. They would agree with the homeowner and what he, you know, thinks that there was nothing wrong there. Um,
and they don't have to take any enforcement action on that. They could determine that nothing that was done there technically was a contaminant, you know, but I think it's worthwhile seeing the site. Is it so that if you say something at
one time that this condition is ongoing and will not expire at the end of three years, ongoing and not expiring seem to say it's going to go on in in perpetuity. And then when you have different projects that happen, does
that have to be reiterated legally every single time? It's a legal statement. It's enforcable. Does it have to be reiterated every time a new project like I'm putting in a pool now and I still can't put um herbicides near my vernal
pool. You know, I would say why would that have to be repeated every single time? I would say and by the way, we still mean what we said three times ago. I would say that depends on the lawyer that you talk to. So, town council doesn't feel that that is absolutely necessary, but clearly best practice
dictates that you do it because the COC having that point in there gives you the opportunity to make sure that the special conditions, the perpetual conditions are following. And by the way, it's clearly best practice, but you have differences in staff and
commission members over time. I don't know if there was the same staff between one and the next and and the third or if there were the same commission members. I don't know. But there is enough variance over time in those things that things are often handled very differently. It's hard for these things
to be consistently, you know, completed at the high level of professional service that you guys are used to dealing with from Juliana. Um, so to answer your question, no, I I don't think that goes away.
But, you know, this attorney is going to say at least that it creates enough confusion that the commission would be wrong to enforce based on the earlier standard because how could the homeowner know for sure when they received
conflicting information from, you know, the next two documents? Well, I wouldn't say it's conflicting. It's just overating. I'm sorry, Mr. My my response to you would be how do you harmonize the first restriction which precludes
any herbicides, pesticides, or deicers on the entire property? Okay, that's your position, right? But the second one, even if you take the position that it only relates to the pool, how do you do that? because then you can put herbicides and pesticides except you
have to stay 25 ft away from the area. So, so there's an inherent conflict between those two perpetual restrictions and they can't be justified or harmonized because if the first one applies as you want to say then how do
you justify and harmonize the second one and if what what's the pool area? How is that defined? I mean that that in and of itself leads to the confusion and because the certificate of compliance is
the vehicle by which you would perpetuate the conditions that are in the three-year permit which is the order of conditions. And because that box wasn't checked, it would be my position as the homeowner's attorney if we were to argue this, which we're look not
looking to do, that because that box wasn't checked, that that perpetual restriction went away and was replaced by the second restriction, which is in either 543. Yeah. And I disagree with that. And I'd say just because redundancy is nice
doesn't mean it's necessary. That's the law. Unfortunately, I'm also a lawyer and I could say just because redundancy is nice does not make it necessary. It's something it's a format and it's not my format. It's DP's format. Those are those are
their documents. That's the certificate of compliance that that D mandates that you use and it's a simple checking of a box and putting in the perpetual conditions which wasn't done. Can I ask a clarifying? Yeah, I actually have something to say as odd
regarding to these boxes that weren't weren't checked. You can go. I'll I'll hold it. Just a a question that has popped up in my head a few times when reviewing the the permit history on this property over and over again.
I don't believe that anything on this property has been permitted under the local bylaw and regulations. Every permit that I saw was issued under the WPA only, but KWPR was enacted in I think 1997.
Do you feel that this property has ever been permitted under the local bylaw? Do you feel that that could be problematic? from I believe earlier tonight, we discussed statute of limitations being short other than things being put in place that are
continually in place triggering things every single day. Do you picture there being a situation here where nothing was ever permitted here under KWPR? So, we're talking about whether one supersedes the next and that this box wasn't checked, but in general, it appears that nothing has been permitted
on this property under the local bylaw. is that I'm I'm not trying I'm just asking you for your input. I haven't looked at the issue so I'm not and I'm prepared to give you an answer on that. I think that is an interesting wrinkle in this and I I I think getting back to
the last one from the pool in 2002 where you have no herbicides and pesticides shall be used on this site. What constitutes the site? Right? you have in some situations site will mean the property but if this permit was only issued for the pool area does that mean
that the conditions here are only relevant to the pool area this did not have it's the permitting record on this is amazing this did not have a plan of record other than I believe a handdrawn sketch of the pool um would that be considered the area
I would I would take it as the area under this order of conditions is the area of the construction of an ingground pool Fiberglass construction 20x 40x5 50 ft away from the adjacent wetland resource area. That is the area in
question regarding the 25 ft boundary of pesticides. It's still a weird thing to do. No matter what that's something that you know doesn't happen anymore, right? We try not to anyways. We try to be way more consistent about these things for this reason that you know
part of what we do is education, right? We've heard that several times tonight under enforcement where people don't know or they say they don't know. Well, you know now and a lot of people that you know now know because you've told them that what happened to you and people who might be paying attention see these things and
they learn from them and it it attains compliance over the long term. Um that's ultimately the goal. the goal and in my tenure here, I don't believe that the commission has been punitive in
situations. It's it's always about gaining compliance so that these problems go away and you don't have long-term detrimental effects to the resource areas. Like I said, very tricky property. The permitting history on this one, in my opinion, is questionable for many reasons, but we're, you know, we
have what we have in front of us right now. You want compliance over the long term. I recommend a site visit to see that front area around the vernal pool. Council has weighed in that they feel
that the earlier first special condition that was perpetual or the first perpetual condition is still valid. Um, I think the property owner knows now and and I think that we can go forward and and get compliance on this and put it
away, but I think the commission needs to see the site first. Can we ask see what Can I ask a question? You may. So, I'd be interested. So, this property has a long history with me in front of on the board
and it's it's always the next thing. So my question to the representative is what is the owner proposing for uh an apual condition? Has that been is that been in writing?
Do we have that yet? We do not. Um because we wanted to come here tonight and and get a get the temperature of the board. What we're what we're looking for is um you know some kind of an accommodation so that
the um the homeowner can take care of his lawn um grow it without causing any damage to the vernal pool. Sure. And we're we're open to any suggestion with regard to what we can use, what kind of a product we can use
um safely and with your blessing and then we will educate or use a different applicator to make sure that we're not here again on this same issue. I doubt if you're going to find anything that doesn't contain nitrogen
um that is going to work with the possible exception of clover seed my favorite well there might be ways to make sure going going into what you're talking about in perpetuity etc that vernal pool
and the other wetlands are still there just because it didn't say in perpetuity Okay, it's been it's been a year or two years. I guess I can go pollute the pool now. So, I disagree with you altogether. Well, I didn't say that. I didn't say
that that there was no perpetual restriction there. There were two perpetual. You brought So, what you brought up an argument it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. The pool is there. The wetlands are there. Just because some time has
gone by now. I can throw stuff in it. No, it should be obvious to somebody who is thinking logically that this is a perpetual thing and it's not going to last 10 years. It's not going to it's going to last a lifetime of you on the property
because the pool is still there and the wetlands are still there. I understand. Thank you. Can I can I finish my question? Sure. I didn't realize you weren't done. Yeah, no problem. So assuming that we
reach some type of agreement on what can and can't be done, what are you proposing as far as making sure that it actually happens? I would work with uh your town council, Mr. Talererman, to come up with a
perpetual restriction that we can all agree on and that would be enforceable to avoid the confusion. And so you're ask you're asking us to come up with that formula. No, I what I said is I'd work with your town council. I would propose language to him.
No, no. In the in the in the first part, like what what is allowed there? You're asking us to tell you what's allowed there or you going to come with a proposal? I'll do it either way. I just need to know. Again, as I said, I'm trying to take the temperature of the commission
as to whether they're open to that um that protocol. If that's the case, then we'll come up with a with a product or products for your review and you can comment on them. If you have a preferred product, you know, we'll use that and
we'll try and come up with a protocol that satisfies both your concerns and the property owner's needs. Is that is that a road we want to go down having um people work with council rather than the commission? Pretty sure that's what we're here for.
Go ahead, Matt. Um, I guess to answer Kina's question, no. Um, I'd work probably with them on that and then we could have council review it for legal soundness and whatnot. But, um, site visit is my recommendation. And I
don't think the commission should be making any decisions based on what could or should be used there to best protect the resource areas or to avoid detrimental effects without seeing it. Um we talk about this a lot in coastal
areas lately when any permits coming in front of us. We are including conditions that prevent the use of fertilizer that can run off into the bay. um you know when you have even standard resource areas but
especially in resource areas I think that that need a little bit of help against utrofication affecting more species like vernal pools the bay streams things like that you know it's really we we throw things around like
organic doesn't really matter if you're putting nitrogen or phosphorus into a wetland resource area you are likely contributing to utriofication, algae blooms, low oxygen levels, all of those things. It's very difficult to apply
any fertilizer to a lawn area that is adjacent to a wetland resource area, particularly UPS slope of one without affecting it. There may be some situations where that may be lessened like applying liquid
organic you know you have some pro some companies that use things like compost tea right for even agricultural fields things like that right that goes down into the soil when you apply it it's likely uptaken mostly by plants before the next time it rains the next time there's a situation for runoff um but
really what we rely on in a lot of cases is natural buffers and that's why a lot of my conversations with with the homeowner over the years have relied on the area between the lawn and the vernal pool. Now, more recently, the homeowner
said that area was permitted and was covered under the COC that was issued in 2013. And look back in the aerial imagery, and it appears to be that way. Unfortunately, the way permitting histories are with D paperwork, you most of the time can't tell what's been
permitted by looking at the recording record if you don't have all of the files, you know, with you. And, you know, in the past, there weren't strong requirements for detailed project narratives. So, you know, I don't think we have a definitive answer to that, but
looking at the aerial imagery history, those plants were installed before a COC was issued. So it is pretty easy to make a logical connection that in order to issue a COC on the development of the house and the property, they would have looked at that area and if they had an
issue with that not being permitted, they should not have issued that. Again, I can't speak to what happened there, whether it was legal or not. But it does appear that way still from a protectionary standpoint. If you're applying stuff to the lawn and all you have is landscape plants between there
and the vernal pool, that's not ideal. That's part of what I discussed with them. earlier on about not only were they blowing all of the stuff down through that landscape bed into the vernal pool, but they were cutting all of the natural vegetation that was trying to grow up and protect the vernal pool so that it
didn't encroach on the larger roodenderins, things like that, the landscape plants. So seeing the site is going to be crucial for the commission to come to any decision on this. You know, I think have the commission see the site, no deliberation, and then the commission
you know, kind of can lay out what they think is reasonable for there that could protect the resource area. It may be nothing. They may not be able to put anything on that lawn. If that's what the commission feels, then that's what they'll issue. I mean, it'll be a back and forth between, you know, their
council and and us and our council. But ultimately the commission needs to guide a process where the resource area is protected and the land owner can live within the guidelines of the permits that were issued for the development of
the property. Um because I I believe that's not what we have right now. But I think you have to see the site first. Okay. All right. Well, let's schedule that site visit because I have a hard stop here in four minutes. Do you want to ask
them about scheduling? Ask the homeowner or us. I'm sorry. Mr. Kasn is pretty much immobile. So any anytime you're available. So you're at the house anyway, right? So any anytime we come, you'll be there
pretty much. Whatever you want. Make it easier on yourselves. Okay. So can we do that by email or do we need to do that right now? I don't think we have to do it right now. I can email around. And I can email the both of you about. I mean, notice you don't have Unless he's out. Yeah. Well, he is mobile now, so that's that's good. It's good to see.
Well, not with the food. Yeah. Um Yeah, let me email around and um and set that up. For now, do you want to kick this down the road a ways and we can deal with that? I don't know. In terms of getting this back in front of the commission for a another discussion.
Yeah, I'll make a motion to continue it for one month. So, because you're out a bunch anyways, we have a a voice in the audience. Yeah, I'm not we're not ready to close it out quite yet, but hold on. Um Marilyn, remember he has a hard stop, too. Uh oh, right. Marilyn would like to
address the uh come to the podium, which you can replace you for a minute. Sorry, Marilyn. That's okay. I just had identify yourself. Oh, Marilyn Kazidoy a butter 160 Pemroke Street. One question
that I have is what happens in the meantime as far as application of anything, right? Because you're you're moving this on. You have to set up a sitewalk. You're pu you're pushing this ahead as to the next time you meet. I can speak to Matt identified this problem in April.
This is July. Yep. I um in talking with Ed O'Aine, the landscaper on the property, he had that question months ago and my answer was I would not apply anything until the commission discusses all of this and comes to an understanding of what is and
is not contamination. So I don't know what has continued there. I don't know if they have continued applying the sustained fertilizer, but um it was my input to them that best practices would dictate they don't do that until the commission determines that. But that can
be up to the commission tonight. You can let them know now whether you think it's acceptable for them to continue applications until this is wrapped up. I would suggest that that it's not I would say rather strongly it is not. I'm not done. Um
she keeps it. Um okay. I'm sorry Marilyn. Go ahead. I just want you can't address each other. I'm sorry. You have to talk to her through me. You have to go through the chair. Yeah, I understand that. If I could get back to the mic, I can respond to this
question. Uh, not at the time. Can we ask Buzz what his deadline is because if we need a vote out of him? That's why I'm I'm worried about time forum. And did you have anything else to say? Um, I would give it up in order for you to have a vote while Buzz is here. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Um, I know Matt's not a big fan of me making motions, but I will make a motion for a onetime fine of $300 for the application of the fertilizer or I'm sorry, I'm so confused on chemicals, but what
was used when Matt saw them? I can't remember the date. Sustain. Sustain. Thank you very much. um a onetime fine of $300 for a violation of the COC order of conditions is violation of the original order of
conditions perpetual condition from and this was April 28th, 2025 application of dimension uh which is a high nitrogen fertilizer with a built-in herbicide that is highly toxic to aquatic life.
Thank you. Um, yeah, that's my motion to uh onetime $300 fine. I would like to schedule a site visit via email and continue this two
weeks or a month. Oh, in the meantime, I would also like no applications done to the line. Wait a minute. You got to That's too many motions all in one thing. So, let's handle the fine first and then do the rest.
We got a second. Or do you want to modify your motion to just include the fine for now? Sure. Do we have a second on that? Do I have a second? I haven't gotten a second. Okay. Okay, that motion's fails. Let's move
on. Didn't get second. All right. My second motion would Oh, I thought you said you got a second. I did not. Second. Okay. What is this on? Is this on the final loan or this is your first motion with everything? Yes. Okay. All right. Dot.
Yes. Kina, yes. Buzz, no. All right. Megan's a yes. So, passes three to one for the $300 fine. My second motion
would be to um I'm sorry, my brain just shorted out on me. No applications till this is continued till we can come up with either a site visit and or my brain is dying outside. Sorry.
Oh my god. Just scheduled a site visit. What did you say? You either say no application until the next meeting with the commission or no application till you have an agreement in place. That would be my recommendation on that. We're going to schedule a site visit. We've already discussed that. You don't need a vote on
that. We're going to schedule schedule that by email. Um what you want is to set whether or not they can apply anything in the meantime. I would suggest that that be no. And if you're continuing it for a month, I would say no application until
um further input from the commission, which would be on that date of the meeting. Okay, that was where I was confused. All right, I apologize. My motion is to continue this a month. In the meantime, there is to be no applications made to
the lawn. Yeah, that it I believe so. Second. My brain is so tired. All right. Um, thank you, Dot. It was seconded by Dot, made by me. I'll take a roll call. Dot. Yes. Kina, yes.
Buzz, yes. Megan is a yes. All right. So, that passes. So, that's August 27th for the next meeting. Yes. Now, do we need to make a vote to continue it for a month? I think we do. We just did.
Okay. Do we have to All right. Can we return to the I mo I make a motion to adjurnn because I need to leave. No, I don't think we can adjurnn yet. Can we? Um, he needs to leave, but she would be
able to come up to finish the meeting. So, Buzz can go. Buzz, you are all set to go. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night, everyone. Thank you. You can come back. All right, we have no updates. We already done the minutes.
We have just one thing um that I didn't update the agenda for that um Marilyn had sent in. It is the mass ready act um is being taken up by the state legislature. Um it is proposing
significant changes to the wetlands protection act. Um I received some guidance from MSMCP uh urging its members to provide comments by July 29th. Um so I'll read through um very briefly just some of the issues that they pointed out with this. Obviously,
any commissioner should go in and look at um it's very easy to find the uh changes um and what the language of the act um online, but I would say what they're looking for is for commissions and conservation departments to provide
comment and we have a very limited time amount to do it. So, we sort of um need a vote from the commission tonight. If you don't vote on it, I can just provide comment from the conservation department. Um, but I think it's probably better if I'm sending it in saying I'm I'm sending this on behalf of
the Conservation Commission as voted at this meeting. Um, there are what MSMCP thought were some good changes um in terms of streamlining processes or making some filings easier. Um, you know, adding the interest of
resilience for climate change to the wetlands protection act. Um, you know, talking about that standards and guidelines will be based on scientific information. Um but there were some parts that were concerning um and aimed
at what you could expect which is the push for housing. Um the state obviously is pushing very hard to get housing everywhere. Um so there are sections that include undefined priority housing
projects um that are sort of inconsistent with you know other things like nature-based solutions and ecological restoration. Um so they're essentially trying to make it easier to permit priority housing projects without
defining what that means. Uh which is um I would say pretty concerning. Um there's something that transfers review of any linear projects where work is proposed in three or more adjacent municipalities like road and utility projects out of conservation commission
jurisdiction and relying solely on D to review and issue the permit. Um obviously lack of local oversight is never good and D tends to in my opinion be pretty light with some of these um reviews. is another that transfers the
appeal process of certain wetlands permitting projects um which would include things like restoration, wetlands resilience, but also priority housing projects from D to superior court review. Um, I think that's pretty
bad given that, you know, as as light as D can be sometimes in in their standards on these things, they are subject matter experts in it and your average um superior court judge is not. So, um those things are pretty concerning. Um
they're talking about creating guidelines that would define um what priority housing would be. Um, and it's not clear that there's going to be a public process to determine that, which is concerning. Um, and there's a
section that would expedite permitting of certain culvert projects that would create a general permit where the local conservation commission will be required to issue a permit within 42 days after the filing of a complete NOI. Um, and it states that local wetlands bylaws and
ordinance would not apply to these projects. Um, so anytime we're eliminating local bylaw review on projects, that can be problematic. Um, there's no evidence that local bylaws are a major obstacle to culvert replacements. So there's really no need to do that. Um, and if
you're exempting one category of project from local bylaw, then it's pretty easy to start overriding it for other things, including housing. Um, so those are the main issues that MSMCP pointed out with this. Um, if the commission has any questions, I can answer any questions
or, um, you know, I suggest that you also look things up on your own. You could even send a letter from yourself. But I think it would be good for us, whether it's just my department or at the behest of the commission, to issue a letter just detailing some of these
things that we feel should be removed from this act before it gets passed. Could you do issue a letter um authored by you but issued by the commission? I think that would be probably the best
bet legally is I mean the commission can vote right tonight just to say, "Hey, we want you to issue a letter saying the commission supports removing this language from the act before it's passed and I can write it from that standpoint." So that way I'm not having to have you all sign the letter before I
send it out in six days. I can just okay get it vote on that. Right. And that's what Matt had talked about. If we could vote and initially Matt wanted to write a letter, obviously they ran out of time. If Matt writes it, we just vote to support. Yeah. To and to have him do
that letter. And and again all of the points they sent out a four o'clock today they didn't get to read it but huge summary. the language is right there and I I don't think there's an issue. We'll take a vote if you guys are comfortable taking a vote um to support
Matt writing a letter on his behalf and our behalf in um in support of Matt's position on this bill. How's that? There you go. My brain is done. I'm sorry. Marilyn, yes. Dot. Yes. A second on that.
Was it a Who made the motion? You made the motion second. Marilyn must have seconded. Sure. Made by Megan. Seconded by Marilyn. Good. Marilyn. Yes. Dot. Yes. Kina. Yes.
Thank you, Kina. Megan is a yes. So, we are in full support of said letter. Oh, on a good note, the vice chair of the committee reviewing this is Dylan Fernandes, who's our senator. Oh, he's very good. He's a good kid. Yeah, I can say that because I'm an old lady.
Yeah, I'm actually going to see him tomorrow. Tomorrow is the uh rally rodenticide. Um the anti-rodent anti-rodenticide. They're trying to get the state to take on the statewide ban on escars. So at the state house
at the state house. So um a couple of local residents who are taking the charge on Maryland is one of them but not available tomorrow. um is going on this and I'm just sort of going for support. Okay. And we have a meeting with um Senator Fernandees and Replenat.
Great. I I I talked about that with somebody recently and she said, "I don't care. I have mice in my cellar. I'm going to use them anyway. We use the bucket of death." Well, I guess my take would be there's other things to use that that work better,
right? Yeah. So, safer, right? All right. Um, we got anything else or can be closing. We did the minute. Oh, sorry. Yep. And other than that, I think we're good. All right. Are you good, Matt?
All right. The next motion to adjourn. Nope. I got to do my remarks. Sorry. The next meeting will be held August 13th, 2025 starting at 6:30 p.m. The time is now 8:57. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second.
All right. That's definitely seconded. All right. We'll take a vote. Marilyn, yes. Dot, yes. Cleina, yes. Megan is a yes. Our meeting is adjourned.