Yeah, really is. I know. >> Good evening. The time is now 6:30 and the dates Wednesday, December 10, 2020. >> Here we go. >> 2025. I think all our commissioners are here tonight, >> which is great.
I'm going to um open the meeting and take a roll call. I'm Kina Vanetti and I'm here in uh Jim. >> Yes. >> And Don McFarland. >> Yes. >> Megan Hickey. >> Yes. >> Bazakiano >> here. >> Marilyn Kaz Kazidoy
>> here. >> And Brian Payne >> here. >> Thank you. Please note we're doing a hybrid meeting with inerson and virtual attendance. So, this means that if a a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during a public hearing, please use the raised hand
function on Zoom and you'll be assigned a speaking time. If you're listening in via telephone, dial in, press star 9. That'll raise your hand and then press star six to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded by the local
scene and we're very grateful. and a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene website as soon as they're able. Anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting should notify me at this time.
>> Great. First thing we're going to do is sign some documents. Will you brief us on what needs to be signed, Matt? >> Yes. We have a bill for Plotter Inc. and we have a bill for MS4 support from Apex. And
>> Matt, you might not. >> Just turn my mic. >> I'll turn my mic on. Plotter, Inc. And we have MS4 support from Apex and Wheels and Thomas. Uh, last invoice from the Samson's Brook Headarters Restoration Project. And what else? We got we added
on to this >> the Kalista Farm sign. >> The signage for Kalista Farm. We um we finally printed a sort of interpretive wayside sign for Kalista Farm. It's not installed yet when the ground thaws out a little bit.
>> All right. Super. >> That it. >> That's it. >> All right. You can hand those down. We'll be um moving on to action items. I'm going to reopen a public meeting to discuss the request for determination
of applicability. We call that RDA 428 Rabbath Road. This was submitted by Stenbeck and Taylor on behalf of property owner Frank Dericho and this is for a proposed removal of hazard trees and treatment of invasive plants. The uh
applicants requested a continuence to January 14th, 2026. Any comments about that? Do I hear a motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> There's a motion to continue this matter to January 14th. Seconded. I'm going to
take a vote. Dot. >> Yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Megan, >> yes. >> Colleen, yes. Buzz, >> yes. >> Marilyn, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Motion passes. Thanks, Ale. >> Now, I'm going to open a public hearing to discuss the request for determination
of applicability. As I said, RDA 48 Smelt Pond Road submitted by property owner Daniel Pbe for replacement of an existing concrete patio with permeable pavers within the
smelt pond buffer zone. Let's hear a briefing if you will from the con uh conservation agent. >> Sure. So, this came out of um an enforcement item from a past meeting where there's an open order of
conditions on the property and when we did a a site inspection, there was a area out back where uh there was removed pavement and he was I would say probably halfway through installing pvious pavers. Uh and so we just told him he needed to file for that. So, this
is that filing submitted on time. We did a site visit on December 1st. Um he had put silt sock in place as requested and the um patio was essentially done. He
did provide um specs on the on the blocks being permeable. They were techco mista pavers. Um essentially everything there seems pretty easy. you had an existing imperous surface within the buffer zone
above the pond and now you have uh a pvious solution for it. So, that part's great. Um, all I really spoke with the homeowner about while we were on site and I can pull some pictures up to show you is um kind of the need for erosion control. The orders of conditions called
for the orders of conditions called for reveation of some of the area downs slope. So if you look at the screen, you know, the house is behind me. You have the patio here. There's some there's some rock work and then there's the slope and then down the bottom there
was sort of like a a beach area. A lot of this was slated to be um reveated with uh sort of a meadow planting and native plantings as part of the orders of conditions. Um there's no real timetable on that happening, but I you know spoke with the homeowner that right
now there's nothing protecting this this dirt from washing off. So you have a look at the blocks. Um but then in the back there's kind of this area here where he's going to be doing some more vertical block to to hold some of that back. But there's some area around here that still needs
stabilization. This is looking directly down towards the towards the pond at just kind of open dirt. So I wrote that, you know, this this is really easy to approve in terms of an RDA, the work that was proposed and and done, but the
commission should consider erosion sedimentation control measures between the project and smelt pond and on any other exposed areas and determine specific deadlines for ESC installation, after which enforcement would be possible if these requirements were not followed. Um, I recommended that he
install woven mat with staples to hold the soil in place as well as uh wood chips could be used in areas of the site that aren't as steep. Some of this is really steep and then all you can really do is put you could throw some wood chips down first and then put the woven mat over it. But, um, there are other areas where uh, wood chips would be fine
just to get it stabilized through the winter. And then in the spring, if he's ready, I think he said in the spring to do some of the plantings down there, you could either remove the wood chips or plant in the wood chips depending on what you're what you're doing. Um, so
commission is fine with doing so. They could issue a negative three determination approving the project and may want to add special conditions specifying the necessary ESC measures and deadlines uh through the winter and until vegetation can be established. So
if if you wanted to craft specific language right now, we can do that. If you wanted me to prep that, you know, in advance of you signing the permit at the next meeting, we could do that as well. U but essentially, it's just going to be that, you know, you specifics that you
want to see and what you want to see for a deadline. All right, we're going to open that to commissioner discussion in a second, but first I'd like to ask if there are any members of the public present online or in person who uh might have a concern or information that we
should hear or take under consideration. >> See any hands up? >> Nope. >> No. All right. So, now let's move to commissioners uh for discussion. The applicants asked to remain. No applicant.
>> There's an applicant in the crowd. >> I don't have anything to add. >> Come on up. And then if we have any questions for you, >> just identify yourself for the record. And >> Dan Pepe, the owner at 8 Smell Pond. >> Yeah. Okay. Um and I wonder um if the
commissioners have any follow questions for um the applicant. No, >> I guess I could just ask, is there any change between December 1st and now? >> No, I was at I was in Florida last week, so that's why we ended up meeting on that Monday. But I can Yeah, we we discussed putting some jute uh jute
netting down with some staples, which was easy enough. I can >> taking uh the mats, how long would the mats take to put down or gather and put down? >> 10 minutes. It's pretty It's just unrolls with some staples. It's not a huge deal. I just I was in Florida last
week, so it was >> What about uh chips? You think you can get wood chips on site? >> Yeah. Would you rather those go down? You put those down and then the mat on top. >> I think it makes the most sense. There's some parts that are so steep that you probably aren't going to be able to get any wood chips. But a lot of it, if you get the wood chips down first and then
staple over it with the with the matting, that should really do >> do the trick. It's not the staples hold if there's wood chips underneath it. If you have long enough staples, I mean, you're not I don't think you're talking about 4 in of chips here. You only need probably a little bit to just to assist
because it depends. If you're using, like you said, juke mat, the juke mat's pretty thin. There's not much to it. So, if there's nothing else with the juke mat, then that may not hold much in place. If it's like they make some pretty thick woven mats that can staple down that will on their own provide
stability. But I I think you could probably do the same with with a light layer of wood chips and and shoot Matt's frozen too. >> It is. >> Is it? >> That is a consideration.
>> Anything else? All right. Uh if there's no um reason to continue the discussion or a need to continue it to allow for further
information, can we move to a motion? All right. Can I hear a motion? This would be to issue a negative 3 DOA approving the project possibly with some conditions. >> Make a motion to issue a negative3 DOA. um with the special conditions as
discussed. >> I'll second it. >> What do you want to set for a deadline? >> 30 days. >> Two weeks. >> Two weeks. >> I was being nice, but I'll take Buzz's two weeks. >> Pretty small area.
>> Well, we have a motion >> and we have a second. >> So, take a vote. dot. >> We can actually do roll call. Uh >> Oh, yeah. Roll call. >> Not roll call. >> Yep. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? >> Motion passes. >> Look at that. >> Saves a lot of time. I do like calling in. >> We'll be in touch in a boat. >> Typically, it's two weeks to get the permit ready, but I won't have it ready until after January 14th. So, essentially, you have your verbal
deadline that you have two weeks to get that stuff installed. We might ready to move on to book two. >> I'll now uh open a public meeting to discuss the request for certificate of compliance. That's called RCOC
for 208 Brookdale Street. This was submitted by Herman A mayor Ith in regards to orders of conditions issued to Tom Naba for construction of a barn within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone
and the 200 foot riverfront area. We have a briefing from view on that. >> Yeah. So this is a um not that it matters hugely
from a legal perspective, but this is a situation where the COC is being filed after the property sold. So anything I'm talking about in terms of uh any encroachment or enforcement related stuff is not something that the current owner of the property did. I always like to point that out just even though it
from a legal standpoint it's their problem now, but I do like to point out that. So, the filing was for the construction of a barn on the property. Um, it appears to have mostly been built in compliance with the OC's. There really weren't any
special conditions other than a pre-work erosion control inspection by the conservation agent. Um, there was an asbuilt plan submitted with the RCOC. Um, and the barn was constructed outside of the 100 foot riverfront area as the commission had requested in 2015.
We compared that asbuilt and our observations from a December 1st site visit with a 2015 site plan that was submitted to the building department and we identified there's a gravel driveway that was installed around the barn um that was not built the way it was approved in the
order OC's or may not have been approved in that original OC's. Um we also reviewed a plan for work that was proposed but never filed in 2020. Uh we presented the commission with three the subset of those three plans sort of showing the difference between the three
layouts. Um and you know it does appear that there was encroachment beyond what there was intended to be from that filing towards the wetlands. Um you know including kind of what looks like an area where somebody was driving around through the woods, that sort of stuff.
Um so that that was problematic. And then few other issues. Um there's a gravel path that leads from the barn through a wetland out to where there's a chicken coupe right up against a wetland. Um
not depicted on the asbuilt. Um a lot of item storage stuff like barrels, chairs, essentially stuff long clippings. There's just a lot of stuff that's been pushed out to the edges up against the wetlands or in the wetlands. Um
couple of structures that are built within wetland buffer zones within the 50 foot. Um including also a stamped concrete patio that looks relatively new um within the buffer zone without permits. We don't have any permits on record for any of this stuff. Um there
were a few structures that were on the Asel plan, a few that were not. Um to the east of the stone patio, there was a shed with a fenced in area behind it with like a swing set nearby either in or very close to the wetlands. Um there was also a fenced in area within the
wetlands at the front of the property next to the driveway and the road. And it almost looks through aerials like somebody filled it at one point in I don't know how what recent history is, but um some issues. Um so there are a
few things that that weren't on the plan. There's some stuff that may be concerning from a commission standpoint, some stuff that they may not be concerned with. Um, there was extensive yard waste and plywood dumped along the wetland border and into the wetlands. There's one point where you can tell
they've just been dumping yard waste for years and years just filling the wetland in where it was an old cranberry bug. Um, so essentially there's not much buffer zone on this property. they've sort of over the years um encroached in a lot of
ways. Um so I don't know whether the commission can really issue a COC on this where the structure itself appears to have been built where it was supposed to be built but then a lot more work has happened around it that encroached on areas that were supposed to be protected in that
filing. And then there's a lot of other stuff going on there where the applicant should either provide per proof of permitting for the other structures or apply for permitting and retrospect for those or just remove them and restore the areas um and remove all of the lawn clippings and
all that stuff that's piled in the wetland filling it up. I can pull up pictures if people haven't seen them if you want to go through them on the on the screen and on Zoom. >> Whatever you want to do. >> Well, we So, what you want to do, Buzz?
>> So, you know, I I think my recommendation at this point >> I looked I looked at the pitches. It's obviously there's a lot of things going on there. >> Yeah. I I think my recommendation at this point would be that we reach out to the we can continue this for now and I'll reach out to the the property owner and tell them that they have this number
of issues that that should be dealt with and they can deal deal with it by either putting a filing forward or by making everything the way it was supposed to look on what was legally permitted on the property. >> Well, let's pretend for a minute they want to do that. Do they need a filing to then
say how they're going to do it? Depends. >> Okay. I guess, you know, can they just go in the wellins and clean up the clippings and we're okay with it? >> I would say the way we would typically handle that stuff is if you're going to bring a machine in to do it, you're going to
file. You know, if you're going to go and and I think in this case there's enough material there. They're not they're not bringing it out by hand. So, >> yeah. >> So, fine. >> Probably need a filing either way. Good point. That's that's what I'm I mean looking at the extensive amount of things that need to be dealt with. I
think it's a filing to figure out how to deal with it. >> Unfortunately, I I don't mean to spend someone else's money and >> I'm surprised that uh they were able to close on the property with an open order conditions. >> Typically, there's money held in escrow for this purpose. I don't know how much.
It's not often shared with me how much. Sometimes they'll ask for advice on that. And I I can't really offer much help on that other than try to point out some of the things that have come up in the past, but I I suspect anyways that typically if they are if they're able to close, there's money being held for this purpose.
>> Maybe, but if not, it is buyer and that's that's the way the law. >> Yeah. Again, I I hate to spend the person's money, but they've got >> they got to spend some money there to clean that up. Unfortunately, >> that's a lot. Um, as far as a continuence date,
>> one month. >> I mean, it's a minimum month anyways. We're not meeting till January 14th. So, >> have a motion. >> Okay. >> So, we I'll make the motion to continue. And you're comfortable with January 14th, Matt? >> Yeah. I mean, worst case, I mean, they
can provide information before then that they're not going to have anything ready because >> the ground's going to be frozen soon anyway. So, >> yeah. Um, >> did you make that motion? >> I did. >> I'll second it. >> Got a motion uh and a second to continue
to January 14th. All in favor? Any close? >> Motion passes. Quarter of 10 off. Should we move to public hearings? >> It's time to move to section A for public hearings. This is 420 Marian
Drive. It's also known as one Royson Drive. You'll find that on map 75 um lot 31-1. This is a request for amendment of or um to the order of conditions um
for the proposed installation of a sediment for bay and rain garden within the 200 foot riverfront area of Smilbrook. And this is at one Morrison Drive. Um you want to brief us on that um Matt?
>> Yeah, the applicant requested a continuence to January 14th um on this >> okay >> request for amendment. Um we were waiting on an updated report from Horley Whitten Group which we just got last night or this morning. >> Um and there's still some outstanding
things to be to be dealt with there. Um there was, you know, also a need for Horseley Whitten Group to review the materials that the applicant provided last week. Um but I believe they were already out of money from the peer review. So they provided a proposal um I
think around the time where we started this meeting. I haven't looked at it yet. So I'll I'll be following up with the the applicant on that uh probably tomorrow. >> Do I hear that? >> I'll make a motion to continue January 14th. >> Second. We've got a motion, a second. All in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? Okay, this is uh motion uh carries to continue this matter to January 14th. >> Thank you. Section B. This is 20 >> 2011 Elm Street. You'll find that on ma
map 64, lot 9. This is a notice of intent. Um, I open a hearing for this notice of intent for the proposed construction of an addition to a single family house within the buffer zone to inland wetland resource areas, including
a potential vernal pool at 2011 Elm Street. Uh, could you brief us on that, Matt? >> Yeah, so um, this one was supposed to open up at the last meeting that we, uh, didn't hold the night before Thanksgiving. Um, and that afternoon we
received a request for continuence uh from the from the applicant because we had um we pointed out some issues with the filing both in that it needed it some septic work that wasn't shown on
the plan um and that there were issues with the condition of the property similar to what we just discussed on Brookdale that essentially the entire buffer zone in the property has been um modified over the years um to the point that it doesn't really exist anymore and in some some cases pretty egregiously
and converted to lawn and um all that stuff put up structures like carport stuff like that. >> Um so we haven't had anything since then from the applicants. So we informed them today that it would be continued. So I
would say we should push this to to January 15th and could push it further if you wanted to. But >> did they respond Matt or have we just not heard anything since December 10th? Request >> they requested continuence and then that's about all I've heard. I know
they've been in touch with the health department. They're, you know, running through with with them what they'll actually need to do for the essentially the way the way it was proposed to the commission on the filing it was a garage edition and then at the site visit it came out that it was a garage edition
with a living space with a bedroom and that sort of stuff. So then I said, "Well, that that you may run into septic issues there." And and then the board of health said it would absolutely need, you know, at a minimum a new tank and and it probably would need uh you know, it may need more. So,
>> so just for my clarification, we have an NOI in front of us with incomplete paperwork that we should have just thrown away as soon as >> we should dismiss this because it's they if they don't didn't disclose and we have septic issues because what they requested on the NOI is just inaccurate,
then we need to throw it back throw it out and let them come back when they're ready. So, without prejudices, but I think that that's the right move. You can't come and ask for something that doesn't meet the truth of the situation. >> Yeah, you certainly could. We really didn't know until the site visit that it
had that that component to it. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Would you like to organize that into a motion? >> Make a motion to um dismiss this note. What is it? Reject what's the right term? >> Well, you already are open the hearing.
I think you got to close it. >> Sorry. I make a motion to >> and without prejudice here and then and then you can make a vote to >> deny. >> Yeah, deny. I think it's prejudice. >> Without pre Yeah, >> we're going to take a vote to close the
a motion to close the hearing. We have a second. >> One one second. >> So, close. >> Yep. And then a vote. >> Yes. >> Right. Did we get a second on the vote? >> I seconded. Okay. All in favor of closing the hearing. I >> oppose. >> All right. Now,
>> so I'll make a motion to um deny this NOI request uh without prejudice. >> Good. We have a second on that. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Um any opposed?
>> All right. That motion passes. We're going to move on to section C. This is 127 Whopping Road, map 52, lot 5. This is a notice of intent and I reopen a hearing for the notice of
intent for the proposed demolition of a single family house and cesspools and construction of a new single family house with a septic system. retaining walls, sight grading and paving within
the 100 foot buffer to bordering vegetated wetland and the 200 foot riverfront area to a perennial stream. This is at 127 whopping road. Could we hear an update at
>> Yes. Updates for this meeting, which should have been November 26th, include a septic upgrade to a singular TNT 500 dnitrifying treatment system. Um, as well as decreasing the deck
footprints, including 4,755 square ft of transition to natural vegetation within the 30-foot buffer as mitigation. Um, an aerial photo plan has been included with 2023 imagery and flag
A11 has been corrected due to a surveying error. The narrative now includes cleanup of the property, a vegetable garden, mowing of historically cultivated mode areas. Alternatives for the proposed garage reconstruction are provided, as well as a 1971 aerial photo that appears to show the garage
predating the WPA. So, we were able to confirm the wetland lines on November 24th with John Zimmer. We made some small revisions. Um, flags 8, A8A and B17R were added. Um, I did
have a point on flags not reviewed. That now, so next to the garage, there's a shipping container on recently placed reprocessed asphalt. the asphalt comes up to the edge of the flag wetlands. Um, this in itself is an action that would
require a permit, but it also made it impossible to assess that portion of the wetland delineation because you couldn't see any plants and you couldn't assess soil in that area. Um, so I would make a note that flags A12 through A15 were not reviewed and should not be considered
confirmed in any issued permit. Um, but also that that probably should be moved or removed or something along those lines. Moving back,
they did provide um asked for a letter on the trees. It was provided, but it it was not from a certified arborist that I could tell. It was looked like a landscape company. Um, it was pretty pretty basic. Um, we've
all seen the trees, seen the photos, trees are in rough shape. One of the trees you can see right through it. Um, but I made the point at the first site visit that they did appear to be attempting to heal wounds and grow. And there was some interesting language in
the arborist report about um like tip die back in the canopy. And I questioned whether somebody actually went up and looked at that cuz you can't really tell that from the ground with easily anyways with >> leaf off condition. Um so I don't know if we have a good answer on the trees or
not yet. Um I did talk a little bit more about that later on. As far as the garage, like I said, they submitted 1971 imagery that may show the garage in place where it is. It's not super clear, but it's it's the most feasible answer for what's there. the garage probably has been there before
the wetlands regulations were in place. Um, they did provide an alternatives analysis for reconstruction of the garage and it explains that while it could be located further from the stream, it can't be feasibly located outside of jurisdiction and any relocation at all would require ground disturbance for pouring a foundation
while ground disturbance at the present location would only be due to contractor foot traffic. Um there's I think something to be said about that area over the long term whether that can reveate you know with a lot of use around the area so there may be some
condition to be had about conservation posts next to the garage or something like that but the commission can discuss that if they want to. Um we had pointed out the agricultural activities and everything out back and the cleanup. The proposal now describes all of the work
that's happened to date. Um, it highlights an area of historic mowing or cultivation to be kept open and managed and shows it surrounded by conservation posts prohibiting work beyond them. Um, so that would result in better protection of the area than historically seen provided that the applicant
understands that no materials or equipment could be legally stored beyond the posts. The proposed cultivation or mowing area is mostly in the outer 200 foot riverfront area with a portion of it in the inner 100 foot riverfront area and in the 100 foot buffer of BBW. Um,
as a note, the B series wetland is not delineated east of flag B1. Um, as the A series is not delineated beyond A20. So essentially the wetlands are only delineated around where the house was um where the housework was involved.
there's there's no delineation back beyond that around this area that we're talking about. Now, the only potential issue with KWPR in permitting that area as a you know mode cultivated area would be the 30-foot no touch landscaping to BBW and the portion
of KWPR in 9.01 where the commission may require a 100 foot no touch boundary as a minimum protection measure for streams. Um, but that's all up to the commission. They may take into account the historic use of this area as a mode cultivated area and but they are in no way bound to any grandfathering.
So not counting the A and B series conservation posts the posts around the cultivation and mowing area will protect around 2.75 acres of riverfront area buffer zone and BBW and 19 area acres if you're counting the additional acreage beyond the streams. And that is a
conversation that should be had because essentially where you have conservation posts now all the way around that area. You do have additional wetlands and uplands up in the northern part of the property that would technically be protected by that unless that were specifically called out
somehow. There was an additional variance request for the mowing or cultivation within the 30-oot buffer to BVW that was provided. Um there was an updated variance request
that aligns with 5.23 23 of KWPR detailing the mitigation proposed which now includes that denitrifying septic system approximately 5,000 ft of passive buffer zone reveation prevent protected by conservation posts and that's in the front of the property um and it includes
a small portion of BBW reveation as well and conservation posts around that historically cultivated or mode area to the north in between the two streams. As far as the septic tank, like I said, it's now a Singular TNT500. Um, that system from everything that
I've gathered and the materials they provided reduces nitrate, nitrogen, total nitrogen, and CBOD, uh, which is carbonatous biochemical oxygen demand, and TSS, total suspended solids. Um, it is still proposing the geomat leeching
system. The single air product brochure claims 68% total reduction in total nitrogen while literature suggests the standard system will remove roughly 20% through conversion to nitrogen gas. Um I wrote and and passed on to the applicant
it's worth discussing nitrogen versus phosphorus as it relates to septic systems in wetlands. Um nitrogen being a limiting nutrient nutrient in marine and coastal systems while phosphorus is limiting in fresh water. Both of them are contaminants that can lead to utrofication, which is one of the
biggest issues facing our wetlands and waterways. But they're more damaging in the systems where they are the limiting nutrient and plant or algae production. Were this an isolated freshwater system such as a vernal pool, nitrogen would be concerning, but not as much as phosphorus. As this septic system will be upgradient from and within 200 ft of
a perennial stream that connects to the Jones River and eventually Kingston Bay, both nitrogen and phosphorus are of concern. The Jones already has issues related to utrofication due to development related pressures and the sharp decline in eel grass which is a crucial marine species in the bay is almost certainly the result of
utrofication based on several recent studies. What I've read on septic systems suggests that standard systems are more effective at removing phosphorus than nitrogen as phosphorus readily binds to soil. It's taken up by plants while nitrogen's highly mobile in groundwater in nitrate form.
>> Matt, can I just just on that point right there? >> Sure. You're speaking specifically about the um the leeching field, correct? Not the you said I forget your exact term, but you said >> I said system >> system but you're talking about the
leeching, not the specific, you know, >> right? Because we're talking versus the geo system that that's >> correct. Yeah. Um treatment of phosphorus is a chemical process or one involving specialized media. That's when it's when you're talking about treatment
in a tank. Um it's not clear how much phosphorus comes out of a standard system or this system that's proposed. Um phosphates aren't used any longer in laundry detergents and they're pretty minimal in dishwasher detergents. They are present in human waste, hand soap, shampoo, other consumer products.
Um the ability of phosphorus to travel through the groundwater or enter wetland systems is tied to the soil capacity. If it's exceeded, it's going to move down gradient. And this is more likely in sandy areas or areas in close proximity to surface waters, which this this one is. Um
I not going to talk specific concentrations and all of that, but um there's enough documentation that the amount of waste water coming out of a standard residential system is enough to affect and cause utrification in in fresh water. Um it's unclear to me
whether the proposed geomat system will significantly reduce total phosphorus and I don't know if the the engineer can speak to that at all. Um a reduction of phosphorus and septic systems happens in the soil matrix above the water table and that depends on the types of soil used and the types of cation present you know iron aluminum that sort of stuff.
Um the water table here is high hence the need for the geomat. So there may be less capacity for those reactions but also the shallow nature of the geomat system means there may be more interaction with plants. There may be more opportunity for plant uptake. Um in
this case it's you know it is turf. Um so like any fertilized lawn proper disposal of lawn clippings is going to be important. Um they can't be dumped in any jurisdictional areas or any area where it's going to run off into resource areas even if it's from outside of jurisdiction. Um so I I don't have a
great answer to that. I think it's great that this treatment system was provided. That's anytime you're getting any treatment, that is a win. But it's important and I I try in every situation to point out the specifics of what that system means in that particular location. So in this location, it's a little bit tough because both are going
to be concerning. You're going to have issues with nitrogen because you're tied to a stream system that's going to go dump out in the bay and then you're got your freshwater system itself that phosphorus is going to affect. And I'm not sure whether this system does provide any phosphorus reduction or not. Um,
and just lastly on that, which I only included the bullets that are relevant to this site from the National Environmental Services Center, factors that contribute to problems where on-site wastewater systems can contribute to pollution of lakes or streams, coarse grain soils, sandly sandy, grally soils with rapid flow
rates, drain fields with thin soils or high water tables, which this one has, and systems with drain fields close to lakes or streams, which this also has. So there are factors there that make it worth discussing. Um we already talked about this updated plan and narrative include all
of you know what my recommendations were from the last time we discussed this. Um details the existing lawn, details the area that's historically cultivated to manage as a field. Outlines an area within that for a vegetable garden. creates that 5,000 foot passive
naturalization area. It outlines all the cleanup activities to date. Um doesn't propose any additional tree or brush clearing other than the two trees that were out front that we've discussed. Um back to the garage. As far as a recommendation, the commission's not
required to grandfather the structure, but it does appear to have been there since at least 1971, and the commission should certainly consider that in its decision-making process and balance the potential detrimental impacts of the alternatives over the short and long term. Over the short term, it's certainly less impactful to rebuild on
an existing foundation. Over the long term, it may be less impactful to rebuild further from the stream, even if a new foundation were required. Um, it all depends on how everything is done. Um if the commission does permit the rebuilding of the existing structure, steps should be taken to minimize disturbance behind the building as there
is little protection for the stream. I had said earlier that a certified arborist letter should be provided on the tree removal out front. I feel like we still don't have that. Um I already spoke to much of my feelings on that. Um spoke about the tip dieback. You mentioned sucker growth, but that's a
very common situation for that particular species of tree. It suckers from the base a lot. um and particularly in cases where trees haven't been cared for. Um which in this case I would imagine these trees probably haven't had much any care at all over the the decades. Um
so the letter doesn't really provide any information as to whether the trees would be candidates for any restorative or preventative care or detail any risk to the applicant's property. Um the applicant did mention, you know, concern about if you're going to put a new septic system out there should one of the trees fall, that could crush your septic system and you may end up having
to spend a lot of money to replace that. Um but both trees are between 40 and 60 feet from BVW as drawn in the plan and it's up to the commission how they want to you know allow that. Um there have been no replacement trees proposed for that area.
Back to the septic. The applicant has shown a system that will remove significant quantities of nitrogen and likely reduce the potential for fecal contamination through lowering CBOD but may still be a source of substantial phosphorous contamination into the adjacent perennial stream and the Jones River wershed. Um the applicant may wish to provide additional information on
phosphorus reduction. We have all our variances in now five variances requested. Mitigation is proposed. I spoke to all of that. Um the commission should determine whether the mitigation is sufficient to outweigh any detrimental impacts to the wetlands or the interests they provide for. In that
discussion, it should be confirmed whether the posts are intended to protect the area between the mowing area and the streams or the property beyond. And I already mentioned the different flag issues, you know, not confirming A12 through A15 and that the A series
and B series were not delineated past those points, you know, behind the house. Um, and that conservation posts remain in perpetuity. And I can note that the posts around the cultivation or mowing area have to tie in seamlessly with the A and the B series posts so that they're not just
floating around. They should all be sort of a a loop around the property. That was a lot of talking. >> It was I'd like to invite the applicant or the representative if they are here to come up to the podium.
>> We have Pat Brennan online. >> Thank you. Uh Pat Brennan, PGB Engineering. I'm the engineer for the applicant. Um Matt did a really good job of summarizing the things that have changed since their first hearing. um for the Geomatap system. I'm I'm just
going to read this is out of the one of the manuals for the Geomatap system. Um I just want to read this paragraph just to give you a little information on what it says about phosphorus and so forth. Um so it says the combination of a high surface area to void space ratio and
shallow placement in the soil profile result in enhanced aeration. Shallow placement in the more biologically active soil horizons additionally enhances treatment of nitrogen, phosphorus, pharmaceutical compounds and other emerging contaminants of concern.
BOD total suspended solids viruses and other pathogens. So the Geomat does provide um a little more protection than than your standard conventional leeching field would. Um, so I I believe you know
that combined with the dnitrifying septic tank um will certainly provide a much better um level of protection than what has historically been on the property or just a conventional system
would provide. Um, and I I believe Matt covered everything else. I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any. And I believe that the applicant is in the audience physically there tonight as well. >> Just a quick followup. Do you know um do
they does the geomat do they quantify that at all? Does it say anything about >> Yeah, it it's not quantified, but I can I can reach out to the company and see if they have any numbers on that. I'd like to see I'd like to see the numbers um if we're going to consider
that um as a viable alternative for phosphate mitigation. >> The applicant. Who is the applicant in this matter? Would you mind coming up to the podium? Just identify yourself for the record. Yeah,
>> that way if you have um anything you'd like to say to us or if we have any questions for you, we can get them on the record. >> How you doing? I'm David Gassie, applicant for 127 Who? >> Okay. >> Um do you have any questions?
>> Are there any questions from the commission for this applicant? >> Any members of the public? >> Are there conservation posts on this plan already that I'm missing? >> Is it most updated one? Yeah. >> The most updated >> 112525.
>> Is there a newer plan than that? >> Do you want me to put it up on the Is that what you're asking? >> No, I'm I was going to just I only have one comment. So, the only thing I don't see on the revised plans is uh roof runoff control. >> Good point.
>> Everything else looks fine. >> Okay. >> I guess I do have one question. What What is the plans for the existing garage? You just going to fix it up? >> Yeah, it needs a roof. Put some siding on it and that's about it. >> Okay. So, it's structurally sound. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Did I not see pitches with the roof caving in? >> That's why you said it. >> I knew it needs a roof. >> No, the roof was caving in. That's a structure. Buzz asked about structural. I believe the roof. >> But I mean, it has a foundation. It has walls. >> Yes. >> It just needs to be fixed. I think we
were I think in the filing it was it was pitched as it could be replaced from the foundation up. >> Oh, is that the plan? >> Doesn't doesn't have to do that. >> That's not the plan. >> Related, but that was what was I I said if you're going to rebuild it, you know,
in any of the next >> structural pieces inside are decent. The shingles are falling off on one corner. There's a hole in the roof on one corner, but the main supports are still there. >> Okay. And this is all work you can do by hand. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Anything else from the commission? >> You want to throw up the newest plan because I can't. >> Sure. >> Um in the meantime, if anybody since you know if he's going to look into the phosphorus, do you want to discuss anything else? Do you want to discuss the two trees out front? You want to discuss the garage or any of the other
stuff so that there aren't any more question? I like the idea of um asking them to look into the runoff and show it on the plane if it's not there. And if >> the what? >> The uh roof runoff. >> Yeah. Need some drywalls for the roof.
>> Um I don't know. I've driven by that. Those trees don't look that healthy to me, but I'm not an arburist. So, >> right. I mean, I would like to keep them, but they don't look healthy to me either.
Would you be willing to replace them? >> Um, we plan on planting a lot of new stuff around there >> if you could if you could show that on the plan, the updated plan, that would help what you plan on planting. >> And then if you could get a letter from
an arborist just to have them come and inspect it and outline why they're not, >> you know, why they should come down, that would help, >> right? >> Okay. and perhaps get suggest >> basically it helps us if you show that you're going to replace those on the
plan and if they're not there eventually we can hold you accountable for what's supposed to be there right >> so >> um Matt you also mentioned uh >> get rid of this >> a lawn or cultivated area within the 30 foot what's the purpose of that just
lawn or is it going to be >> I believe that's out back that is >> yeah it's off it's off >> that's not on this plan. It's on um it's on aerial. >> Are you going to clean up all those old vehicles back there and everything? >> Yes, I've cleaned up a lot of junk already.
>> Okay. >> But yes, none of that stuff will be back there. >> So, you're not the >> all the tires, everything will be >> So, you've recently purchased this property? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you. So, this is the the rear of the property here, or at least the the
middle, I guess I should say, because it does go on further back there. But this is the historic um cultivation area here that's in the black. And that does go within the 30-foot buffer zone um specifically, I think, right here, if
not um elsewhere. So, that's all that was. And there is a call out on the plan for um conservation posts >> around that black area. I guess that's where post. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. This this view is I complain
about this in every meeting. The PDF viewer trying to >> the the call outs on a more recent plan. This is not the 1118 is not the Was there an 1125 on this one? >> There was an 1124
>> update revised. >> There we go. >> Beautiful. >> Ah, there we are. Install conservation markers at 50 foot spacing around mode area. So, this is what I was talking about. You have your A series wetland on this
side and on the new plan it has conservation posts called out there, there, there. And then you have the B series wetland over here and you have conservation posts here, here. So just pointing out that if you're going to do 50 foot around this mode area, you're going to carry it from here up and over.
And then from here, you're going to figure out a way to have that tied into there as well cuz you have >> I mean, if they're coming back, Matt, why don't you just have them put them on the plant? >> Yeah. It's cleaner. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just call them out. >> See, you have right here and then you
have a space before this one right here. So, you'd basically have like connect between the two of them. Go up and around. >> And then the discussion that I was talking about earlier was what are those posts protecting? Are these posts just protecting between here
and the stream or are they protecting the area beyond that as well? Because the property goes in both directions up here. Um much of it is in the the riverfront area. There are a few small sections that aren't. >> Well, the posts are going to go all the way around that black line, right?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I think just call out the post and then everything beyond the post is off limits >> unless you come back in the future and get >> it's it's an identification and then >> there won't be any. We we we also need a
statement in there that I see extra like vehicles and stuff outside of that block line. That all has to get removed before the post go in. >> That's in the process now. >> Thank you. >> And you you plan to live at this property?
>> Yes. Me and my girlfriend. >> Right. I noticed that um Pine Dewis has a question and I'll hear from Mr. Bisa. Thank you, chair. Do you want me to weigh in now? >> Please do. Um, so I I apologize for coming in in
the middle of um Matt's uh dissertation on the project, but I do want to I do want to clarify that um the Jones River is 303D listed category 5D,
which means that eventually Kingston is going to have a heavy lift for getting the pollutants out of the river. Um D hasn't completed their TMDL yet, but I'm sure they will get around to it. Uh one of the concerns that I have um has to do
with the garage and its adjacent to the wetland. I don't know what kind of um floor is in the garage, whether it's a dirt floor or a concrete floor. Um, knowing my garage and my garage habits, um, I think that
it's important that, um, there is no potential for, uh, leakage of gasoline or oils or paint or solvents or >> I don't know what he's going to use on
his landscape, but uh, uh, anything into the adjacent wetlands. um that concerns me and I and I feel like you know that needs to be addressed and that the drainage from the garage should be toward the house rather than toward the
wetland. Um, I also want to point out that um immediately to the north uh the water department owns a well site and um that it's important even though it's not an active well
site. uh the town of Kingston is struggling right now to supply the demand that is needed by the by the residents and you know it it would not be unlikely that they might need to develop that area in which case you're
very close to uh what might be a public well. So I I feel like I'm not you know trying to say that I'm opposed to the project or anything. I don't know the the system that you're proposing. I I trust Matt and his ability to evaluate
that uh as well as the as the commission. Um but I do I do feel like this is an extremely sensitive area that it really matters how it's maintained. Um and that it's very easy to goof and
you know we all do that. Everybody makes a mistake all the time, right? So, you know, it's important to really appreciate the sensitivity of the site. The two perennial streams are really uh uh Spring Brook, I think, and that those
are a direct tributary to the Jones River and very important um very close to the tidal reach um and very important in terms of the effort that we've been making at the Jones River Wershed Association to restore the fisheries and whatnot. So, I just wanted to weigh in
on that level. um not really um I haven't looked at the plans close enough to really have a substantial comment or anything, but I I did want to say that. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you very much.
>> This um over here is the passive naturalization area with conservation post behind it. This was the one wetland flag that we moved further forward. So now part of the passive naturalization area is technically within wetland area that had been mowed previously. Um and
then we moved one flag over this side closer to the ship. >> Matt, can I ask just to clarify on the statement about the uh town well whether it's online or offline? Um where is that? Do you know where that is? Is this does this property overlap
with with a protected uh resource in that regard that we haven't discussed? >> Um let me pull up the town GIS and just take a quick look. Um I I don't know off
the top of my head. And um actually I do know off to the northeast um to the northeast of the the uh Polo whopping road parcel there is water department land over there. Um I know that we sent this out to the water department and
they didn't provide comment. Um, but I hear, you know, what what Pine is saying and I think that um >> I'd like that to go on our list because I I do want to make sure that we're not missing something in that regard because that's one of our primary functions.
>> Yeah, the land, if I may. Um, the land the the water department land there's a little piece of it that touches the northeast corner of this parcel. However, you wouldn't be able to sight a well in that portion of it.
>> There it is right here. >> It would be be between the po property. This is between basically between the pole property and and that water supply land where where you could actually put a well. >> Matt, can you show me that
>> um this Oh, wait. Sorry. I thought I was sharing my screen the whole time. Great. So this is the subject parcel right here and this is the water department right here and here and
then this is halfway preserve conservation land >> and we're are right up along the road. >> Yeah, I can show you from the imagery. your house is right here and the septic system is right here. Now, part of the
reason I I had pointed some of this stuff out is and Pat can correct me if I misspeak here, but um the septic system is now the house itself is also being raised up, but the septic system is being raised up in addition to getting the geomat uh because of that
groundwater. So you are going to have a situation where there's going to be a steeper runoff from where the septic system is to where the the brook goes through to the side there. So that is part of why you know that the soils the
geomat everything I think just you know I think a property like this been developed for a long time. There weren't weren't wetland regulations for a long time but most of this property is within wetland jurisdiction between BBW streams riverfront area. um and you want to get
it right. So, I certainly don't think this is a property where the commission's going to look at it and say like you can't build anything here, but I think you want to make sure that if you're going to approve a new septic system here, given that these things don't meet the local
standards, then you want to make sure that it's doing everything it should be doing to protect that that resource area. And similarly with the garage, she she brings up a good point, right? You everybody has a garage. They throw a bunch of stuff in there. Some of the stuff eats through the metal can and then leaks out. And I don't know if
something ends up where it leaks out of the building and then hits runoff from rain. Now it's in the stream, it's in the Jones, it's everywhere, right? So something as simple as second requiring secondary containment on chemicals would be great, but you're never going to enforce that. I'm not going to go to his
house and check in his his garage to make sure. It's just it's it's definitely something to to to take into account. It's not often that you you have a garage within 10 ft of a stream or 20 ft of a stream. It's not it's not ideal, but it's also already there and
it's been there for a long time. So, that should certainly be taken into account as well. >> Do you see any zone one or zone two protections on that map? Matt, my my internet is isn't working. That's what we're supposed to be looking for, right? Zone one, zone two. >> I don't think there is. I think they'd
have to have the uh >> maybe we could just get a cl a confir affirmative um confirmation from the water department, not just a no comment, right? >> I believe we have we have a response
from the superintendent that said that they had nothing. I can follow up again just to say, hey, it was brought up that there is, you know, potential nearby. But I I don't think I don't think something like this necessarily registers with them. But it it does add to the
>> it does add to what the commission's already looking at, which is you have a new septic system being installed within the riverfront area of a stream. The stream connects to the Jones. I don't know the condition of the stream more than just from being there for a couple
site visits, but like Pine said, the Jones is documented to have some serious utrofication issues and they are from, >> you know, this sort of thing. So, you definitely want to get stuff like this right going forward. >> Um, you're going to build a septic system there. It's going to be there for
decades. You know, going to live there and have a family there and and be there for a long time. So this is this is your chance to get something like that right and then hopefully have something like this be an example of how you go forward with this type of development.
>> Any other questions from the commission? >> Pat has his hand up if you don't have any. Um >> I just have a quick question. You said they made the deck smaller. What's the Was that Did I hear you right? >> Yes. Yeah. I believe that was believe that was to get it outside of
the 40 foot setback. It was it was nothing hugely substantial. Pat can correct me if if I'm wrong there, but it was it was a slight reduction, I think, just to shift it away from the wetlands a little bit. >> Okay, >> Mr. Bren.
>> Uh yeah, the deck the decks were reduced in size a little bit. Um when we first submitted, we didn't have the structural plans yet. So when we got the structural plans, we we revised um the decks that match the structural plans. They are
smaller in area. Um and to in with the original submittable, I did submit a a regulatory map which was a print out from Mass GIS. Um that map has the FEMA flood zones, the outstanding resource waters, areas of critical
environmental concern, priority habitat, um certified vernal pools as potential vernal pools as well as zone 2. There's no zone 2 in that area whatsoever as shown from that map that I that I had provided. It's called a regulatory map.
It was 11 by7 that was submitted with the original notice of the tenant paperwork. Anything else? >> No. >> Nothing more. >> Does the commission require um this to
be continued? >> Gather more information. >> Can I have a motion to that effect? >> I'd make a motion, but I'd like to hear timing what they think that they would need for for timing for continuance. >> Do we want to hear from Mr. Brennan or from the applicant on that.
>> I would your next available date, I would say. >> Yeah, next available is January 14th. >> All right, I'll make a motion to continue um this uh to January 14th. >> Second. >> Okay, there's a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right, the motion carries. Thank you for your courtesy. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. All right. So, where are we? >> We are going back to 105 Milks Hill
Road. All right. So, I'm going to open a public meeting. This is uh to discuss the request for determination of applicability the RDA for 105 Monks Hill Road. Um this was
submitted by property owner David Blumenfelt. uh for a proposed replacement of an existing failing well, including site grading and running a new well line into the home. Um could we hear a brief briefing from you, Matt?
>> Sure. Give me one second. I'm going to pull the plan up just so that we have that >> ready to go. Okay. So, um the applicant proposes replacement of an existing well. This is a well for whole house service. It's not
a um lawn lawn only outdoor only situation. Um so there is an existing well there that is failing. Um and they are looking for a new site. So this includes site grading and installation of a new well well line and well pump.
It is on a previously developed area of the property property within the 100t vernal pool buffer zone. Uh the well is roughly 120 ft from the mean high water line outside of the vernal pool resource area boundary within its 100 foot buffer zone. Um the portion of the property
between the driveway and the house is previously developed and would not count as part of the vernal pool resource area under KWPR. Um Vernal pool was marked on a 2006 RDA and I did see it during a 2024 site
visit to this property. Um skip through some of this. The extent of grading and excavation needed to connect the well to the existing home is not shown or explained and no erosion or sedimentation controls are shown. Um I expect a lot of that to
be minimal but we may still want a condition for erosion control. Um applicant has shown there is no feasible location for the proposed work located further from the resource area boundary. Because the area is in a developed state, there are no specific setbacks or
no disturbance zones that apply. There's no structures or walls and no clearing of vegetation required. There is consideration in some situations where a commission may deny a project within 200 ft from mean high water on a vernal pool unless the
applicant proves that the project will have no adverse impacts on the vernal pool or its ability to provide for the interests. Water level would be a big issue for that. You wouldn't want somebody taking a lot of water away from a vernal pool. In this case, being that it is replacement of a failing
residential well, there should be no significant difference in groundwater availability since the existing well is in the same general region and roughly 10 ft further from the vernal pool than the existing. Um location of the proposed well appears to be at the edge of a core habitat
patch number 996 but again the work is between the driveway and the residence. Tree clearing will be minimal. Project should not have an adverse effect on the listed core habitat. Um plans again don't provide much information on the extent of ground disturbance. commission could request
more information about the extent of grading and excavation plan for the site, including information about the specific location of grading and descriptions of any trees or vegetation being removed. Um, but again, I expect that much of this is in a a previously disturbed lawn area. Um, you could also
request more information about where the well line will be placed, although it will likely run straight from the well to the house. So, you may want confirmation, but it seems like that would be a pretty much a no-brainer. And in that area, you're not going to hit anything concerning in terms of resources.
ESC measures are recommended between the project and the vernal pool, but it does appear to be the least impactful location for the proposed well appears to meet all the standards of the wetlands protection act and KWPR. So unless the commission wants more information about any of that grading
and clearing, I would recommend issuance of a negative 3 DOA approving the project. And the well location is shown on the screen here in this yellow area. and it's within where the driveway to the house goes. If you wanted to see that on access, I can pull up the
imagery. You can see the area. >> If you have any questions, I can try to answer them. >> Any questions for the question? >> Um, listen buzz first. >> So, do we know if this is a just a a PVC well or is this a rock? Well, they going to have to drill into a rock.
>> Um, >> do you see? >> Yeah. So, is it a like a you know a casing, you know, a steel casing well or is it just a PVC, you know, with an augur drilling into the ground? >> Let me see if I have that information because I don't think
>> is anybody here from the well people online or anything. >> Matt, did they discuss depth of the well? Because that that tells you what artisal wells go down, thousand plus feet where the shallow wells could be 20t, 40t. >> I'm imagine it's a shallow well. ponds
right there. But the point of me asking that is I I think I'm obviously they need to replace their well. I think my only concern would be is if it's a rock wall, they need to in order for the rock machine to drill in the well, they have to make a little pond next to where
they're drilling to circulate the drilling mud to do their work. So I would say the only condition I would add is if it is a rock well that they need to put you know containment around that area and then clean up any uh they use bentonite clay when they do that work.
So that has to be removed offsite. It can't just be buried. >> Let me read this. Um I don't know that this answers all of your questions but it says project to preemptively replace existing failing well with new artisian well and well line. Current well which is original to property has begun to
show wear related issues and well line due to mineral and iron buildup and can no longer fit or accommodate the recommended 4-in pump due to the same issue. As such professional assessment is that it prevents the failure risk putting the health and sanitation of property inhabitants at imminent risk. Step one grading to flatten area for
equipment access. Two drilling of one new artisian well minimum 200 ft depth. Three running of well line to house. Four installation of new well pump. And there is a photo that shows um >> yeah so I think just in the order of conditions that they have to you know do
a you know a mat sock you know around the work area and that they you know restore the the I think they call it a mud pit mud pit to its original conditions after the well was drilled >> and that and if there and
what are those what's that thing you call when you put the dirty water into it filts the water. >> Uh dewatering. >> No, not dewatering. It's like a >> It's a It's a bladder, right? >> It's a bladder in >> Oh, the bag. >> Yeah. So, they got to use a bag cuz when
they're drilling, they're circulating that mud pump and then there's excess water that comes when they're flushing the well. >> Okay. >> And it's full of clay. >> So, we just need to make sure that that clay doesn't go. You know, if they're just going to work in an area, then just make a mess and clean it up and be done.
>> Yeah. >> Don't spew that water all over the place. Um, any chance you could email me those specifics or should I should you restate them and I write them down because I was I was doing stuff? >> No, I I I can't like right now email you. >> No, you don't have to email me right now. >> Yeah, I can.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> But I think >> just just for the record, there's no orders and conditions. This is just a DOA. So, these are more like if they don't follow them, >> we probably take enforcement action. >> So, I I think based on that, I think we can give a verbal for that and then you can write the details. >> Okay,
>> that sounds good. the gym. >> So Matt, my question was that that image there um is is this something that's pitched there'll be good pitch away from from the wellhead. Um meaning that it's it's raised up above the land adjacent to it
and we don't have to worry about infiltration along the pipes. Is it located in such I just want to make sure that we're not approving a site that is in a depression that could have some water infiltration especially if it's going down that teeth.
>> It appears to be and from my recollection a high point. So I thought you were going to say is it going to be something that could run off towards the vernal pool and the answer would be yes. It's >> this area then the driveway and then it slopes down to the vernal pool. So I don't think there's a situation where
this would this >> I'm more concerned with the making sure that we don't allow any kind of first wash or anything going in towards the pipe where to channel down along a set some ground next to the next to a pipe as it
as it gets older. So I want to prot make sure that we're citing it as such that it's not introducing some kind of um detriment to the groundwater source. And as long as it's on a hill and they
can make sure that it's sloping away, then then that would that that would be all I ask. >> Anything else from commission? >> Mr. Ba, would you like to comment? >> Um, I just I had a question also. Um, I take it this is a drinking water well or
is this a geothermal well or um is it for filling up that pool swimming pool that they've got? You know, that kind of thing. >> You know what is what is the >> My understanding is it's it's the entire house service. It's everything for the house.
>> But I don't know what that means. I guess >> it's your drinking water, your washing water, your >> cooking water, your >> It's a potable water source. Yeah, it's a drinking water, >> but essentially, yeah, legally speaking, it's a it's a drinking water source, a portable water source
>> to replace it's not >> it's not geothermal for the for the heating of the home and that kind of thing. So, there's no there's no external discharge from it other than maybe landscaping >> two
or more >> because it is 200 feet. So, that's nice. I I think it's nice that it's 200 feet. Um >> Jim was saying if it was geothermal it would need more than one. >> You need a I think so. I think so too, but I I'm just not sure that I completely
understand the project. And the pool I saw the pool on the plan that you showed uh there. Is that you know is that you know a concrete pool that gets filled once every few years or once a year or every couple months or you know that
kind of thing? and and is there a discharge associated with that because it would have additional chemicals in it that we should be concerned about it with smelt pond. That's really all. I don't really have anything more than that. It's just a curiosity.
>> I will um just to the commission, I will follow up with the homeowner on that sort of stuff. This is a this is a relatively new owner of the property of the last couple years that's been very responsive to anything that um has been brought up. So, he seems to be the type of person who wants to do the right
thing. >> Um, typically when there are pools, you ask that they don't dump the water towards the wetlands and that sort of stuff. So, I can just sort of bring that stuff up and I'm sure it'll follow along with that. >> Right. Thanks so much. >> And if it's a filter pool, I don't even
think you backwash filter pools anymore. >> Right. >> Right. So, >> do I have a motion to issue the negative 3DA? >> Um, we were continuing. Yeah. Oh, >> we're going to continue this. >> Yeah. Yeah. It is open items. >> Yeah. Was that was there was there specifically something that that you all
still wanted? I thought I heard Buzz say specific conditions that would be >> Buzz. Were we waiting for feedback on that or? >> I don't I don't think so. I I mean it's it's a drinking well. It's failing. We should move it along. >> Okay. >> The applicants very responsive.
Uh, you know, I think we just need to protect the work area and let them >> protect >> in the special conditions >> and add some conditions about the Rockwell drilling in the mud pit and, you know, let them before the, you know, it gets too cold and he won't be able to replace the water line because the
ground's going to be frozen. >> You want to make that motion, bud? >> Uh, that's my motion. >> Motion to Was it a negative three with special conditions? >> Special conditions as I just exposed. >> Okay. Second. Okay. >> Have a motion. It's been seconded. All
in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Issue negative through the uh conditions. So, I'm going to open a discussion on the upcoming grant applications to the community preservation committee, Department of Transportation COVID
program, and the community biodiversity program. >> So, I don't always do this. Sometimes I just rifle off grant applications all all willy-nilly. Yeah. >> Um but in certain situations, I feel like it's really good to have the commission specifically vote in support of them. Um and then we have some
support letters. Um three of them we have with us here tonight for your signing pleasure and the other one I would probably harass you over the next week or so to come in and sign cuz we we um didn't prepare that one for tonight. Um but to run through things as quickly as I possibly can and then if you have any questions, shoot. Uh we're going to
be preparing two CPC applications. One of them would be to purchase the land at 83 Whopping Road. That is Roger Carrera's last uh parcel. Um it is roughly 3.8 acres. It contains our 10-ft
wide easement to access Haway Preserve. Um I'm told that our easement would be fine going forward in perpetuity. However, you can end up with um combative land owners and we've had situations like that in town. So, this is our opportunity to buy that to be able to take the parking area from the
back power lines and bring it up in view of whopping road for safety purposes. Uh, but also to increase access to the property. Right now, the two-track road that runs down the easement is very tough. If you don't have high ground clearance, you're probably not going to
go there. Um, so it's a great property. It's got access to the Jones River. um not access in the you know nautical sense but um it's just it's a great area. It's a great property, good trails um and it just doesn't I think have a lot of access for people. Um we
currently have a appraisal in process. I should have it back hopefully by the end of the week. Um and we're hoping that we can go forward with a purchase on that. Um CPC I have no idea how much money is going to be available this year. I don't know it's going to be that much. We may
not be able to get any of these in, but we're going to try. Um, and then I'll go forward with other grant applications, obviously, as we as we always do. Um, but that one's pretty simple. It's just purchase a plan for conservation property. The only um thing about it um
Fox Rock Farms uh bought the Carrera Bogs and they are farming them um as well as doing uh bees and they plant um native pollinator plants to try to boost habitat for native bees in addition to the honey bees because otherwise the
honey bees just steal everything. Um so they do some really good stuff there and there's one acre of this property that is part of the bogs that they are currently farming. So, we would have the opportunity and I don't know how we would go about the legal portions of that, but we could um have some sort of
a deal with them where they're able to still actively farm that 1acre section. And that's the only thing about that. Um >> now, can I ask did anybody reach out to them? Would they be interested in partnering with us to buy this property? >> I have. Um but,
you know, financially it's a lot of money to put towards one acre of bog. Um but we we will certainly keep in touch with them as the process goes along and see if there's a anything that they feel like they can they can do. Um they were definitely they seemed you know excited about the possibility
that we could buy that and and maintain it that way instead of it being um developed on. There's potential for probably a couple houses or something on there. I'm not exactly sure um what the the legal extent of development could be there, but um we're hoping that we can
can pull something off with that. Um, the other one is the Maple Street property. Um, I called it the Maple Street Extravaganza on the CDC project notification forms because I didn't really know what to call it because I don't know and didn't know and still don't know what that's going to look like. Um, we I had a meeting today with
the property owner, town planner, and a potential developer who's been under contract for the property for a while kicking around, you know, doing due diligence. Um he's realizing that you can't do anything particularly big in that area. This is the property that's behind the fire station property that
the town owns in Maple Street. Um he's looking hoping to do something a little smaller um that fits in a little better and we had a meeting just to kind of talk about options and whether there's some stuff that can be had there. I mean conservation we want the wetlands protected. We want the dam so that we
can breach it uh for fish passage and for resiliency. And there's potential where um the town may want the building that's at 20 Maple Street to replace our fire station where the highway department, fire department, and Harbor Master, if not others, use that for cold
storage. Um affordable housing may want to be involved in a deal like that. They already have money, so they don't need to come to CPC and ask for a large amount for something like this. But um again, I don't know that CPC has the money to fund one necessarily both of these and I don't know how much we're
asking for at this point, but I am preparing applications for the conservation portion anyways um if not the building as well on CPC just to get something on paper and in the process for um discussion purposes.
Next is DOT culvert program. Massdot came out with a new program for culvert replacements and we have had the worst time in trying to find funding for the Lake Street culvert replacement which has been fully permitted now for I think
a couple of years. Um we do have already a grant right now that's paying for due diligence work and bid prep. So, we just had an assessment done of Old Lake Street to see if we can keep it open for emergency vehicles because that was a big uh big issue for the fire department
and uh police and we hope that we can get funding through this one. On top of that, there may be another application in conjunction with Mass Bays to look for removal of the Tuskbrook tide
gate. Um, where I believe it's route three crosses Tuskbrook. Um, and they would sort of Mass Bay I believe would would carry the heavy lifting on that and we may be the applicant on that. So, um, that's that one. And then the state
department of fish and game just came out with a community biodiversity grant. And I believe I already emailed you on all that. If you didn't get it, just a quick gist of it. They want highlight on biodiversity. Biodiversity decline is a big issue. You've heard me harping on it
constantly in the last almost 5 years. Um, I want to apply for this grant to kick off something I've wanted to start for a long time, which is sort of a pollinator habitat task force. I want a group of people who care, who want to do some hard work, who want to plan and
fund raise and implement um, pollinator habitat or beneficial habitat projects in town, wherever it's possible. Lowanging fruit, easy stuff, municipal land where there's a little bit of lawn that nobody needs and where they won't be too mad that it doesn't look perfectly kept. um that sort of stuff.
So, we're going to apply for that. Um I'll stop there. Any questions? >> Do I hear a motion to support the applications presented by Matt? >> I'll make that. >> Are you going to do them separately or as a group? >> You're the CPC chair. Do we have to do
them separately? >> I'm going to abstain from the CBC ones. >> So, I'd appreciate if you did it separately. >> Do CGC first. >> Yeah. But what if I said on the CPC now in dots? I think it's different if you're chair. >> You do what you want. >> Okay.
>> No, I'm confused. >> I was afraid that it would suggest that I'm already approving them. >> I think it's fine for the other members to to vote on it. That's something that happens pretty commonly, but I understand as the chair that's that's so I would say maybe vote them separately.
Just do CPC together and do the other two together. >> All right. So I will make a motion to support this CPC applications. >> Second. >> Motion's been seconded. You want to do a roll call because we have some abstensions.
>> Just do voice. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I abstensions. I >> any opposed? All right. Motion passes. And the >> What's the other one? the bio
>> DOT covert and community biodiversity. >> We have a motion to support this application. >> I'll make a motion to support >> second >> both. >> Yeah. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? Motion passes, too.
>> Thanks. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. We done except for enforcement. >> All right. Well, I'm going to move on to enforcement. 20 Marian Drive, also known as one
Royson Drive. Is this continued from an earlier date? >> Sure. Uh, let me stop sharing. Um, we have attorney Adam Broski present on Zoom tonight, feeling under the weather after a cold site visit yesterday in the 10 degree weather. Uh, not in Kingston.
>> Um, has nothing to do with me. just because um they requested continuence of the request for amendment and I informed him that I couldn't really confirm that the commission would want to continue the enforcement discussion. Um so he made himself available tonight. Um I did speak with town council a little bit
earlier about some of this stuff just to make sure that I felt like um we had kind of everything process-wise good for the request and for the um the enforcement. So, um, essentially,
>> maybe Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Penelo. >> Sorry. >> I haven't talked enough tonight. Give me give me, uh, a couple more seconds. Um, essentially just that, you know, the the quickest recap. you know, this recent enforcement action was September 20 recent enforcement issue was the
September 25th uh release of sediment from the from the work site and there was a continuence requested for the first meeting in November and we at that meeting discussed the uh idea of them assigning an environmental monitor that
the commission would would choose that would be on site uh for certain periods of time. and it was decided at that meeting that we could kind of hammer out the details between us, you know, before the next meeting and come back to the commission with a solid plan and then that that never happened. Um, so it's up
to the commission. If the commission just wants to continue it and let us keep doing that, we can certainly keep doing that. Um, if the commission just wants to put it to bed and issue an enforcement order with specifics on that sort of an environmental monitor, um, we can discuss whatever you want to discuss.
>> Do we hear from Mr. Broby? >> Of course. >> Mr. Broski, Attorney Barroski, >> Chair Vendetti, good evening everyone. I apologize for not being there this evening. As Mr. Panella said, I'm under the weather and uh forgive me. I think
we erroneously assumed that since we weren't ready to tackle the amendment tonight that this would also be continued. But I just wanted to assure the commission that we're we're in agreement with the approach to resolve this. I confirmed that uh Mr. Dear today
that he's he's agreeable to an enforcement order with an environmental monitor. Mr. Panel and I discussed using someone local such as Brett Holmes or John Zimmer. Um we just need to iron out
the details and I again I'll apologize for any misunderstanding. We just thought that this was going to be done all as a pedic play and since we didn't get the horsey witnessed up in time this sort of slid. So I would like the opportunity please to work with Mr.
Panella to work out the specifics. We've already discussed size of storm and different approaches as to having the monitor uh there. But so we're in agreement as to how to resolve this. My hope is that we could have a draft EO
for you uh for January 14th for your review. Excuse me. I apologize. >> Personally, I'm glad you're not here today. >> What uh when what is this when is his order conditions run out?
>> Oh, >> um I mean, according to the governor, probably never. We just got got the free two years like >> Well, I know, but that's got to be a while. I mean, our this was five years ago we permitted this thing. >> I think there's been multiple there's
been at least one extension cuz the commission issued an extension that was that that hinged on seeing the storm water fixed within a period of time, but that I believe was a one-year extension and then the governor issued the two years on top of that. So, >> um
>> I can look it up for you. It's not imminent. I mean that to you know again it's my last meeting but honestly he just needs to wrap this thing up and I've been saying that for three years now like >> it's got a little it's got a little while to go. He's I think in terms of buildings it may be like twothirds of
the way there or half halfway there. But um >> well I would take a close look at that date and probably my advice is that when that date comes up there's no more extensions. my my two cents. He's had he's been
there long enough and it's just flagrant violation after violation after violation after violation. And no matter what we say, nothing changes. He hires another consultant or someone comes in, they come in, it's a feel-good moment, it's all loveydvey. Oh, don't worry.
We'll put the facilitation up, we'll put the barrier up. And that lasts good for two, three months, and then it all goes downhill again. then you have to go out there and we start the game all over again. It's just the goalpost just it's always moving. >> I think and and I think in this case
part of the past discussions has been that that the commission was was approaching potentially revoking the permit if if this type of behavior continued. And that's why I think the the monitor is is a good move in that with the right monitor that's that's
agreed on by the commission rather than just somebody that might be random that you know you don't know has the right training or wherewithal to actually provide that service. Now setting it up in a way where those weekly reports
which don't have to be 50 pages long. It's probably a one-page report for the most part would be issued after every site visit to the applicant as well as to our office. So now, you know, I'm not out at the site ever really. I mean, random times where I might decide to
like take our intern and go out in the rain and see what people are doing in the rain and that's one of the sites that I will stop at in those situations, but they're few and far between. This would be something where at least our office is now going to have an idea of what's going on the site weekly at a minimum. And then I love the idea of
just in advance of these storms having somebody there that's telling them here's my recommendation of what you have to do. And part of I think the condition in that EO is like you have to listen to these recommendations or else you're going to revoke. >> How long are we going to go on holding this guy's hand?
>> Say as long as you have to, right? I mean, if you revoke the permit, you revoke the permit. You don't have to hold his hand anymore. But then >> what then? and you're still going to have to keep an eye on the site for site conditions because it's not going to be done, right? That was something that that hinged on the the amendment was
that the idea all along has been, oh, once we're done, everything's going to be great because we're going to have so many infiltration galleries that the storm water, you know, you won't have any exposed dirt and you know, if if you just stop somebody in the middle and then they can't work on it, then they
have to put a lot more into stabilizing the cider. We're going to be on them constantly for enforcement. So, it's just one step I think that can help having somebody on site that the commission trusts to be a professional that will assess site conditions, make recommendations, and if they're not following them, the commission can
revoke the permanent. >> So, I have a question. >> Sure. >> If this person were to be assigned, would they also take responsibility for all the other special conditions that have not been complied with? I think these are the things that we need to to work on with the applicant is
what exactly does this site professional have to do and it's very easy just to say make sure that they comply with their conditions but there are what 60 special conditions on there and what you don't want is to have that site
professional or wetland professional be there weekly going through all 60 of those taking six hours on site and and charging $10,000 a week. Right? You want it to be reasonable. In my opinion, it's on the property owner to make sure that
they meet all of their conditions, but the biggest issue we've had there is erosion related, right? Site conditions in terms of ground management and erosion. So, to me, that's a that's a given. That's exactly what you want at a minimum is you want somebody that's going to be there and make sure that
every one of those special conditions that relate to erosion and sedimentation and ground conditions there are followed and make any recommendations there. Obviously, if there's something else that's egregious, they should be calling that out as well. But I I don't know if
there's a way or a feasible way to have them like weekly going through making sure every single thing is checked off. >> Maybe that would be fun. >> I guess the reason I'm wondering is because to Buzz Buzz's point, we haven't met with much success in regards to compliance over things as
simple as um having abundance of erosion control materials, >> stockpile on site, right? Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. But I think that that would be one of the one of the conditions, right? That's the first thing, right? If they don't have that week one, they're going
to get condition number blank says erosion control sufficient stockpile needs to be on site. >> We've pointed it out a bunch, but >> yes, we have. >> You know, personally, this is our opportunity to have somebody there weekly that's pointing out those things
in paper form and reporting them to not only the property owner, but to us. Jim has >> Well, I would say it's if it's going to be a written report, it needs to include photographs as well. >> Sure. >> All right. >> I I don't disagree with anything that Buzz said. My question is more to the
proper path um in the future and making sure that we have somewhat of a plan um set up for it. So, I mean, we we have talked about um very loosely, I think, or at least identified the potential to revoke a permit. Um, and at some point
we would have to reissue a permit. The there's tools in our in our regulations that allow for us to require financial bonds and such to make sure that things are going to be taken care of correctly. So I think that my question to you would
be can you talk to Jay and ask him what our legal leverage is if if we need or we feel the need um to implement such a you know corrective course of action
through an enforcement order if we can compel them to go to the next step along with this you know third party if we decide that that's the path because we we've just had enough of this site. Uh, and they're, you know, kind of egregious actions at this point on some of this
stuff. So, >> you're talking specifically about the performance portion of it, like what's our legal authority to say in addition to the EM >> you need to provide us with X amount of dollars in a bond. >> Skin in the game, right? That's the only thing that sometimes that's the only thing that gets through to people and
you know making people see that there's a financial ramification to what's going on and it's outside of you know the $300 a day fine that we could you know start talking about at some point on this stuff that my I would like to know if there's a course of action that we could
we could entertain um that would compel the the applicant to to tighten up the ship and and get it done. Yeah, I'd say there certainly is in KWPR the opportunity to do that, but I would check with Jay on the because this one
is a little messier and that OC's, amendment requests, enforcement, all sorts of stuff. You want to make >> he might say that the only way to get to that point would be to to >> to revoke >> revoke and and then compel them to bring it back in front of us. Okay. >> So, it I just want to know what that
looks like so that we could we could do what we needed to make sure that this doesn't happen again because that's all we really want is that >> they just clean up the site and make sure that there's no more releases. >> Dot, did you have something you wanted to say? >> Yeah, the Husky Whiteton report had some
uh good information on how to um do things a little differently to stop the flooding. And I think we should give them this time to absorb that, see what they can do, uh, and make this the last time.
I think um kind of hearing what everybody's saying, including Attorney Brodzky, I I I think that >> giving them until January 14th to work with me on language while I'm checking with council on some of this stuff is is
likely fine. Um given the site conditions the last week or so anyways, um the ground's been pretty frozen. Hopefully that that trend continues a little bit. Um, and I mean there had there has been
improvement in erosion control there since the September 25th incident. I haven't been on site in a while. We did um just today I threw out some dates at uh at the development team for a commission site visit. Um >> Right. Because we're still waiting for
that. >> Correct. Yeah. So, and I think you know that that seeing seeing the site obviously would have helped before tonight for making this decision on whether you feel comfortable with kicking this a month down the road for for issuance of an EO.
I do think it being winter does help, >> you know, as opposed to summertime, fall for sight stability for the the chance of additional catastrophic input into or catastrophic maybe poor choice of words,
but significant input from the site into a wetland resource area is less likely. It doesn't mean it's it's not possible. It just means it's less likely at this time of year. So, there may be no issue with that. and and I can stop by the
site sometime sooner rather than later just to make sure I don't see anything egregious in the meantime. >> Well, again, it puts the burden on you for have to for spending more and more time until something gets in place and then you'll still have to check on it. >> That's why I'm here. >> Oh, please.
>> Well, we don't Matt, I don't think I'll speak for myself, but I'm sure I speak for others. I don't know who, but you're not supposed to be doing that stuff. This is this is a problem applicant that needs to self police. He's clearly got enough money to to bring in
professionals and he needs to spend that money appropriately, which means he should be already have whoever the third party is that they think that they're engaged coming by just so that they can have a note if it happens again so they can prove that they were being proactive. I don't know that any of
that's going to happen until it we sign, you know, an executive uh an enforcement order. But I think that this this really needs to be highlighted, underlined, asterct, whatever we want to do. um as this is the the last continuation on this one at
least for me um next next if it's not done by the next meeting or if this god forbid there's a you know torrential downpour in the meantime if if I don't see something was done in a positive manner to make sure that there wasn't
another release I'm I'm going to judge that for what it means and it's and it's not compliance >> understandable and I think there's nothing stopping the applicant if they are looking for names for somebody that they can hire for this that they could hire
him before we issue an EO, right? It's not there's nothing stopping them from doing that anyways. Um, just to make sure that >> that doesn't happen, right? I think that it would be probably in their best interest to make sure that there isn't any release between now and January 14th that would
>> tempt the commission to say never mind, we're just going to >> well, it's the permit. >> So, Anything else? Attorneys, >> do you have anything else to add? Attorney Brodzky, >> Chair Vendetti, I I spoke with Mr.
Panella. We have a short list of names of consultants. I will commit to reaching out to several of those consultants and see if they're willing to work with us. And if I can get them engaged ahead of time, I'll prepare with Mr. Panella and we will do so.
>> And do we have a potential date for a sidewalk? Has that been dealt? >> Um, I kicked out several dates to the team earlier. I believe they were not next week because that's the week where I have uh multiple grant applications
due and lots of stuff going on. It was the Monday, Tuesday, the week after and then the Monday, Tuesday, the week after Christmas. >> Vetti, I I did see that email. I left the office early today and I had no chance to circulate it. So, I will do
that when I get to the office tomorrow. >> All right. Matt, >> does this preclude anyone drive just driving to take a peek before we do the official sitewalk? How do how did you feel about that, Attorney Brodzky?
>> Public way that gets you to the general facility. Is that sufficient? I >> I mean, beyond that, it's a commercial. >> No, I understand. But it's not >> We don't want to overstep. Yeah. I mean, >> again, I I don't know the the state of
construction, so I certainly don't want to have people, >> right, >> walking in a construction zone without if if I might. Again, I'm not trying to preclude the commission. I literally went home early because I wasn't feeling well. I just haven't cleared the dates
yet. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't think I mean there's enough language in >> KWPR and all the permits that we issue that say the commission and its staff can at reasonable hours stop by sites. But >> to to his point, obviously you don't
want to be jumping out. >> I think you can see the whole site from your car essentially. Just pull in, >> right? >> Loop around. You can see if there's a big concern there and let >> let my office know. Um but I will I asked them to share their top three
dates. so that I could run them by the commission and try to have as many commission members available uh for a site visit as possible. >> Move this forward. >> Sure. >> Um you might want to sit a little closer to the mic.
>> Is there a motion to continue this to the 14th of January? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries. Thanks a lot. How about >> Thank you very much. And I just want to
thank Mr. Artiano for his service to the conservation commission. It's always been a pleasure to work with him. >> Yeah, Buzz. >> You're here. Y >> hope you feel better. >> Yes, do feel better. >> What about 44 A Rabos Road?
>> Okay. Updates in bold for this meeting. Uh the enforcement issues were discussed at many commission meetings throughout 2024 and 2025. Several of the discussed issues have been dealt with by the property owners. Several remain outstanding. The commission required the property owner to take whatever steps
would be necessary to determine whether the retaining of all would be permittable by the building department as this would be a baseline requirement for any potential variance issuance. The require the required documents were received November 12th. Um, we also received emails, photos, and videos from
the butter to the property who is present uh tonight and I forwarded some information that he had submitted to the commission. Um, we have plans from the engineer and we did get the letter from the
engineer. So, I'm only going to read through sort of outstanding things. I'm not going to rehash everything. Um, there was a dock on the site that I said was there for a long time, if 1971, if not 1960. Um, the dock was replaced and
significantly resized between 2019 and 2021. It is now roughly 50 ft long and 13 ft wide. The commission has not discussed this dock's expansion partially due to the expectation that they would soon release guidance on permitting and refor permitting and enforcement for existing unpermanent
docks. The guidance that the commission since then did issue states that docks built, reconstructed, increased in size or relocated since January 1st, 2015 must obtain a permit from the commission. A 2-year grace period began July 29th, 2025, where the local filing
fees would be waved, though the state fees still apply. After July 29th, 2027, the commission may take enforcement action on any unpermitted dock meeting the guidelines stated above. So that is something that technically I think you
don't have to when you're dealing with an enforcement issue. You could just make them do something about it now. But the guidance says that you give people that probably want to give them that. Um but I need to actually provide that to them. On that note, our intern started putting together a list of people to send out doc guidance to. So that's
good. Um, there was a second smaller dock that was installed. That was the duck dock that was removed by July 6th of this year. There was the floating dock. Um, and there was the whole July 4th fireworks thing. Uh, citation was issued for the
contamination involved with the fireworks and that was paid. And then by August 3rd of 2025, the property owner removed the floating dock from the property at the commission's request. Uh we had tree clearing and the retaining wall construction and the big concrete
parking areas. Um by November 12th, we received a plot plan and a retaining wall as built plan by a structural engineer accompanied by a letter detailing the wall's condition. The engineer indicates that the wall has not likely been built to the block maker specifications. Specifically, that some
of the blocks had shifted, the wall was leaning towards the lake, and there appeared to be an absence of proper drainage and geog grid reinforcement. The engineer recommends disassembling the wall in order for the manufacturer's recommendations to be followed before reassembly. Importantly, the wall is between three and eight feet tall.
According to the engineer, AWPR does not allow retaining walls holding more than four feet of fill to be built within 50 feet of a wetland. In this case, the plot plan shows that the wall is only 29 ft from the edge of Smelt Pond and 14t from the edge of bordering land subject to flooding as indicated by the FEMA
flood zone A. And there's also a little stretch of BBW at the pond edge likely as well. It is important to note that the tallest section of this wall appears to hold back a large quantity of earth, also supporting the unpermitted concrete driveway. Regarding the driveway, the property owner said that the driveway
and retaining wall work was completed in order to keep runoff from reaching the pond. We now see that there may be runoff going from this area towards the driveway of 46 Rabbit Road and into the BVW to the northwest of the driveway. Regarding imperous coverage, KWPR limits
the percentage of a lot within jurisdictional buffers to 15%. We don't have calculations for this property and they likely benefit from the fact that a significant portion of the concrete driveway is on an abuing property. Um, but I have a rough calculation from the
plot plan for their property of 34%. There are multiple sheds in the property within jurisdiction of unknown age, including a log burning stove shed. Commission is not discussed at any length. commission may discuss if they choose. Uh I discussed how a good portion of the alterations were off of
the subject property on land owned by Jennifer Dico um parcel 828. Um I had been told they had a friendly relationship and and all of that. Um I did make sure that the dos were aware of of all of these issues. So they are
aware. As far as recommendations, I said, you know, this is a historic historically developed site long before state and local wetlands rags, but there's been changes to the site unpermitted, including changes over recent years. Commission should require the property to come into compliance, but that's not easily defined in this situation. At a minimum, peritting and
retro would be needed for work involving the retaining wall and parking area. I updated that. Um statute of limitations for onetime infractions under state and local wetlands law is two years which recurs after retransfer of real estate which includes action like cutting trees. For actions where materials or
conditions remain such as a retaining wall or concrete placement each successive day is a new violation and the 2-year clock resets each day. This would be the case for dumping of fill, paving, construction, placing turf, etc. Um I had said before there's minimal
opportunities for mitigation due to the size of the parcel. um reclamation of shorefront with native vegetation could help and in some cases the commission has accepted infiltration of downspouts as mitigation particularly for increases in impervious surface. Um that all remains
true. Um any rectoactive permit filing may include increasing protective buffers to native plantings. We already discussed the dock According to photos and videos sent by the avatar, unpermitted jurisdictional work has continued in the form of earthwork and
dumping of landscape debris as well as setting up fireworks from the floating dock. Um the earthworks are disturbing an area prone to runoff into the wetlands behind 46 rapid road. And I wrote that a lot of these issues have been dealt with in past meetings. Um not
all of them. The commission was waiting for the property owner to determine whether at a minimum they could get a building permit for the wall. The reasoning for that was at times it may be more damaging to wetlands to disassemble something than to leave it in place. Since it's leaning towards the pond and apparently not built correctly, requiring it to be disassembled anyway,
the commission should not consider issuance of any waiver allowing the wall to stay within 50 ft. They may require it be removed with appropriate erosion control and sight stabilization or they may give the applicant time for the wall to be designed in order to align with KWPR which would likely be a tiered
system where each section was shorter than 4 ft. More information may be needed regarding storm water flow on the concrete area in order to make a decision. Mitigation would be needed to leave it due to the percent impervious coverage and any potential runoff related issues should be dealt with.
The commission may want to put this on the property owner by setting a deadline by which to file an NOI for the remaining unpermitted changes. It would be up to them whether to wait on the dock filing given the 2-year grace period. It would likely be cost effective to include it all in one filing. Um I did wrote I did note that it's
highly unlikely that the recently expanded dock will be permitted by the commission. Um it's 13 feet wide versus the maximum standard of 4 feet in KWPR. Um, I can pull up if you'd like just in the staff report I threw in a
leafon imagery comparison where October 2016 was on the left and you can see that there was extensive tree cover um pretty much right up to where the house was and then July 2023 on the right. You can see that there's been significant clearing and site work and the expansion
of the dock. >> Can we move that up? >> Certainly. But I'm done with my portion. >> No discussion. While I do this, >> may I just ask some? I was just waiting. Um, I wasn't at the last meeting, but I just have a follow-up question. Uh, the
last meeting we were expecting paperwork from the engineer. We got the paperwork. They got the paperwork. It was kind of short notice before the meeting. It's leaning towards the pond. It needs to be rebuilt, etc., etc. This is the continuation from them. From them,
correct? Like, we continued it so they could kind of gather their own information and we could gather our own information. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's all. I just wanted to >> Did they not provide us something this morning that I didn't read? Is there something Did you email us something on this one?
>> No. >> No, I don't think we've had um had anything on this recently. Um let me pull up that. >> Was my Have we heard from them since this meeting?
>> Any type of communication from them? only related to the last meeting that we didn't hold. >> So they knew that one was not held that >> they would be they were requesting continuence of that meeting if I remember correctly.
>> Okay. >> And I said that's up to the commission but I will tell them um it was like a travel situation with the holidays and then I let them know that >> it was being continued anyways. >> Um They got extra time. Anyways,
>> this thing's always in the way. >> So annoying. Zoom. 2016 on the left, 2023 on the right. So this just this whole area trees been cleared. This is
the area of the hill that the a butter has sent some information about including the the pictures of um the property owner with the excavator scraping that area um which is is obvious what has happened there. And
that's a part of the the um park the concrete parking area that all of that was sort of scoured back in order for that stuff to be installed. Then you have the retaining wall out here with combination of, you know, turf and other vegetation, maybe like a
garden or something on top of that. Um, and then here you see the the change in the in the dock. Um, it was made significantly bigger. Um, and there is, like I said, they do have some potential for mitigation there
along here. This whole area is all turf right on the right to the edge of the pond. Um, and some of that is some of that obviously predates the wetlands rags, but that's gives them opportunity to, you know, they have some area anyways where they could improve site conditions, but in general, it's it's
it's not good footprint. All the same, Matt, on that house? Any any additions that went on with that dirt work? >> I don't think so. Um, like I think I said early on when we first started this a long time ago was um the only thing I
could find in the building department records on this was they did something in the mid '9s I think where um they were they didn't call it an addition and the building department didn't approve it as
an addition. It was or you know like a second floor addition. was it was increasing the the wall height on the second floor which essentially was an addition. There was like a probably like a crawl space type of situation on the on the second
floor and they were allowed to increase the the wall height but it was nothing >> which created living space. That's >> it was never anything that was permitted with the commission probably because it was not an addition. It was increasing the wall height.
>> Yeah. But >> but in that public bedrooms >> and which triggers all the discussions that we have to discuss >> but again that was you know that's 30 years ago and there hasn't been that I can tell any um
addition on the on the house off of the house any anything like that. So mostly seems to be tree removal, sight work, impervious surface addition, um, and the structural issue with the with
the wall. Did they Did you expect them to be here tonight? >> Um or did you we hear hear anything that they would not be here? I didn't hear anything that they that they would not um like I said
at the la the I believe the night of the November 20th >> 6th meeting that that we couldn't hold um I got a request for continuence and I would more than imagine that I followed
up after that and said it was it will be continued to >> to January 14th. I can confirm that right now in my email if you'd like, but I believe I reached out before I left town hall that night. I reached out to everybody who had >> an issue here.
>> So, we're continuing this to the 14th this morning. >> There's nobody online like representing them. >> I don't think that was what was happening. No. Um Um No, I don't see anybody. Can I stop this chair? Is everybody good with with the visual here?
>> Um no, I don't I don't see anybody for that. And I will check my email just to make sure that I actually did email them giving them the date. November 26th to Jenna Carol. Hi Jenna. Local scene didn't show up tonight, so we had to cancel the meeting anyway. All business will be pushed to the December
10th meeting. Have a great holiday. And no um no response since. >> And no response to that email, right? >> No acknowledgement. Um, I I should read what had been sent earlier that day was that the travel
plans got a bit delayed. They wouldn't be able to make the November 26th meeting. Our attorney is not available either. At this time, we are planning to speak with a few engineers regarding reworking the wall to bring it back into compliance. I have no ETA on anything yet. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Thanks and apologies for late notice.
So again, the commission doesn't have to obviously be lenient in that type of a situation, right? This has been going on forever and it should be the commission should provide clear guidance on what they expect with >> particularly the wall and the the
concrete area, all of that that stuff together. Um, but that's what we have for communication. Nothing beyond that. Should we hear from the public first? >> Do we have any members of the public who would like to comment?
>> Well, if you'd like, you can >> I don't know, but yeah. >> Do you want me to pull anything up from what you sent? Yes, >> the PDF
>> my glasses case. >> Yeah, we can pass them down. >> I did eat butter as a cake. >> And if you go just identify yourself for the record at the podium. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Um, do you mind just passing them down
to them? I'm going to work on this. >> Oh, you can hit them up. Thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah, I believe so. >> Um, I just skipped past your text and went to the first picture. So sure.
>> Well, um, my name is Sean Stangalini. >> Yes. >> And I, um, am on a butter. I live on 46 Rabbit Road. Uh, well, I don't I we built a house. We're still in the process of moving in there. Um, uh, first of all, uh, thank you all for what
you do. Nature doesn't have a voice. and I only made seven copies and I'm glad that I didn't have enough because that means there's more of you. So, um, so thank you for your work. Um, and I also apologize because I have a face for
radio anyway. All right. So, um, I'm just going to sort of So, in terms of format, um, do you want me to read um, like how do you like because I actually have a lot of different pieces. >> You can assume we've all read what you want. >> We have read it. >> Okay. So, if I just sort of read through
the thing, you guys can uh continue to piece together. Okay, great. So, um I just sort of thought I' I'd read about it. Um they're kind of uh two pieces and they connect. Uh the first piece is that it's it's just a practical matter really. I have an um I still have um
pending orders with conservation that I'd like to close, but I also have some concerns of put about putting native plantings in uh because I have concerns about the environment and um so I'll start off a couple of dead birds. Yeah.
>> Um one was a a Canadian geese which um is actually a federally uh protected species and the other one was probably a Canadian geese but I wasn't able to fully recognize it. it was just another big bird. So, um I began to get concerned um in addition about uh the
environment. So, I'll I'll just start uh reading off here and we can will it be like a discussion kind of thing before >> I think um if you can go through just make your points and then if the commission has questions I'll ask you questions. >> Okay. Um maybe rather than reading this
I'll just sort of uh talk about it maybe I can draw a better picture. >> Right. Because we have read it. >> Oh, all right. I think. Yeah. Thank you very much. All right. So, um I got a couple of mitigation areas that um I'd like to um finish up as well as uh take down a tree that's uh rotting in a big
oak tree. So, um at the top um I apologize. I I don't have a map. >> And um >> could you hold on one moment? >> I just time out one second. >> Can I think we're going to say the same thing. >> All right. Go ahead.
>> We're talking about 44 Rabbit Road tonight. If you if you want to speak about your parcel, you have to put it on talk to Matt. We're not co-mingling the two. >> This is for We're talking about enforcement actions at 44 Rabbit Road.
Okay. So, we don't cross the lanes. That's that's all we do. >> Okay. Um may I ask Matt a question because I just want to make sure that I'm not I'm not sure given that criteria is um like how to go about it. Uh, so I guess I can you want me to talk about u
my concerns of the environment and that sort of thing? >> I think based on and I think you've all read it too. I think basically what what he's going to make for a point is that he has concerns about >> the effect of what's going on at 44 Rabbit Road with his property in two
ways. One would be the environmental thing that he's talking about and the other one would be storm water runoff. >> All right. But we're not talking about open orders and conditions. We're not Wait, I haven't reviewed your >> Sure. >> I was here when we approved it. I don't We're not talking about it. >> Okay. No, >> so I'm not going to speak.
>> Okay. I think I better understand um in the way that they would be tied in, it's because things um are happening upstream. So for me to close those or uh o open orders um we probably uh probably should address those order upstream which um include that property. Is that
is that better? Is that helpful? If you're going to keep reaching back to your open orders and conditions. >> All right. >> You can talk about it all you want when that's the subject we're talking about. Okay. >> Right now we're sticking to the facts which is 44 rabbit. >> Okay.
>> I got you. Thank you. All right. So, um a couple of dead birds um >> on and these pictures are on 44 rabbit. >> Yes. Um so actually if you look at you see that little uh flag there to the right is is our property. Um the mitigation uh which is uh part of the
open order is is probably just a few feet off that um off that pole, but there's a dead bird there. And just um on the other side of that boat, there was a Canadian goose like at the water's edge. So it's right there. Um so if you start going, there's a little bit of a
hill upstream. Um and um there there's an old dilapitated shed. There's some electrical wires sticking out. There's pipes sticking out. um and this uh rotted wood and chip paint. And if you go up a little bit more in towards um
that property, you'll you'll see um there's uh uh a wood retaining wall that's leaning forward and there's some um uh it looks like it's a it's not in good shape. There's a picture of it in there. And then that begins to tie into
those other series of walls and slabs. um that um if it's I'm not sure if it's a 50- foot or 100 foot buffer zone, but um there uh it I'm concerned about um them being put there and uh being put
there to change the flow of water because um you'll see in those photos that I put there, there is there's a lot of um petroleum products left around in the yard. Uh there's been a couple of fires as you know, one in the um right of way, the other one on the on the
dock. Um there's the um that wood burning stove or whatever it might be in that metal unit. So there's a lot of opportunity to uh impact the environment and um with those uh retaining walls um and uh the idea that it's training
changing the hydraology and now we have evidence of um dead animals. So that's uh raised concern for me. Uh so that's in a nutshell on that one area down the hill and then over on the other area there's um the carving into the um
carving into the the hill um by the right of way and it's really created um an incredible exposure of roots. uh both a giant tree when you first roll in there's a giant tree with um uh a lot of exposed roots and then right across the
right of way inside the buffer zone there's uh there's like a a jet ski a um an ATV um there has been for a long period of time a a gas can um so if that tree when it falls because its roots are
exposed it's going to wipe out um that area as well as the sheds. And right down the hill is Smelt Pond. If we go just a step on the other side, there's also a um a uh a dumpster. And I think I put a picture with um uh some diapers
hanging around outside uh in the water. If you look at the side of the hill, you'll see a lot of plastics and stuff just along down the the hill and into the water. Again, you know, there's the evidence of dead birds. So, we we've seen signs and symptoms here. uh moving
further along down the right of way there's a lot of actually you you may see actually that picture there so you can see the Canadian goose and there's you know gas in the uh a gas can you know in the water um so uh moving along
down the uh right of way there was a lot of carving and if you look at there's some pictures in there of trees that were really degraded underneath and when they fall um there's an old vehicle right underneath it There is um a boat
next door uh right next to it and as well as a utility pole. So actually there's a utility pole on the other side as well. So you can imagine um uh when they fall it'll have an impact with the environment for the petroleum products as well as um anything electrical
uh what whatever is connected to that utility pole. Um, so, um, I think it, uh, you know, having the the, uh, the boat fires in the right of way, the the soot draining down towards my towards my property with, um,
I've seen, um, uh, soot, uh, oil like um, mix uh, you know, running towards this is like the the planned mitigation area. >> Yeah. You do you mean to say silt or is it soot from like >> soot from the fire from the boat fire?
Yeah. So, uh, soot, water, and oil mix. There was a boat fire in the, um, in the right of way. They were working on on the boat in the right away. Um, so there's just a um a lot of uh concern about the environment. And
then for me, you know, you know, I don't want to, you know, like you said, talk about my my closing of the mitigation area um or excuse me, of the open order, but um I I I just would like from um from your your point of view, you know,
uh uh if you could help, you know, we can take a look at the environment, walk the area, if there's any testing that needs to be done. And actually, I put a couple couple of thoughts down there of things that we could I'd be happy to work with you. Uh doing a sitewalk guidance on um you know, whatever we
could do to help uh clean up the environment. Um be like I said, I'd be happy to be a part of it. Any testing that might be warranted, you know. So, on my end, I I practically I just want to clean things up. Can you just go back to the
geese? >> Sure. >> For a moment. I mean, hunting season, did you see them drinking anything down dead? >> Well, so I I don't Alls I know is I found them dead. It wasn't um it was uh it was in the spring. >> That's from last spring.
>> Yes. So, so and actually I I I sent a Matt Matt an email and um initially I thought maybe like bird flu or something like that. But um then when I started taking a look around, I started thinking about the previous fire, you know, the um the the the firemen were there. I
see, you know, the boat cans exposed and the soot that runs down, the altered hydraology. Um >> yeah, >> I on that it's really hard on that one. I mean, it's entirely possible that
>> those geese could have got into something on that property or in the water in that property and died from it, but it's for sure >> equally plausible that they had that they flew there >> or that they died elsewhere on the pond and the prevailing wind brought them over there or they were killed by
>> animals. Okay. >> Um whether wild or domestic. It's >> or by homeowners could have gone out there, grabbed them by the neck and and whipped them around. It's >> no, it's a hard call to make it really definitive, but it certainly is understandable. It would raise concern.
>> So, um, in my mind, so what do you do if you have concern? Do we do we take a step of like assessing the environment to see if there's some sort of pollutants in there? We like we've had fires, you know, uh, there's gas cans in the area. >> Well, I think again back to as as Jim
said, staying focused on 44. This is exactly what the laundry list is for the enforcement order. I I think Matt's really spoken to the issues that you're raising and and and by the way, thank you for your thoroughess and and the information because again, it really
substantiates the concerns that that we're addressing. >> Yeah. Um thank you for doing it and I know it's a list and I just want, you know, because I live next door and I have concerns and I just wanted to um have an opportunity to speak. Matt, just
to that point, we I believe that we've discussed this. This is all on our list of things that we need to suffer through at some point. >> I don't know if we've talked a lot about just general site conditions. Um, so like we just recently tonight on a on a
filing with somebody's garage near a stream where, you know, discussing what the substrate of the garage was and is there a way for secondary containment because of proximity to the stream. In this case, there's no care for for where anything is is stored at all. So that
that is concerning that if you don't store a gas can in the correct location and it gets knocked over that >> right >> it all or if you're refueling right I don't know if you're and I know when you're refueling I don't know an outboard
>> motor or something like I mean in a lot of cases you probably do bring that especially you have a little tank >> in the boat you go and fill it in on there. I mean, I I get it, but there should be the utmost care in making sure that there's no potential for for spilling. And if you're just kind of
storing things around randomly, then >> the pictures show a lack of care >> and a continuing lack of interest in protecting that property. >> Yeah. And I think that goes >> goes to the opposite of what we've heard from the property owner who has said
that he cares a lot about the pond and never wants to do anything. actually told us he's been a steward of the pond and his family for years. So put a little faith, but yeah, >> the So that sounds like as we get closer
to issuing the enforcement order that's going to compel whatever action we decide that we just need to keep this in our thought about the general condition of the waterfront area and the cleanliness and the store. you know, if
I don't know that we have regulations. I don't believe we do uh about storage, especially when you have sheds and boat launches. I mean, that's something that the town has never brought into consideration, but I bet
you the EPA has and the state EPA EPA might have some rules that need to be followed for that stuff. True. So if we piggyback some of that into our forward path, it might achieve what what the intent is because I'll be honest with
you, the the regulations are very good at some things and then >> and we don't go outside that that >> because what it is basically is if you if we can prove that you spilled gas, >> we can compel >> into a wetland or that it ran off in a
wetland, we can take enforcement action on you, but we can't take enforcement action on you for leaving >> if you're a slug >> a gas can out without a cover on it, you know, right up up up gradient from a wetland area. So, I get that and I think that that your point of an EO compelling
proper storage with the hint that, you know, if this is not followed, we will be notifying D and EPA of this. And I don't know if those types of things meet their criteria. Most of them they're interested with major spills and things
like that. It may not reach there, >> you know, anybody who cares enough to do anything about it, but it may just all in all be enough to compel, okay, I actually need to do this. >> There there is a state code, state regulation as well as um
uh people uh fire codes >> dot. Is that specific to cans like fire um gas >> canable? It's a for storing petroleum products. >> Yeah. really say what they're in, but I'm sure the rule does, >> but I don't think we have the ability to
provide an enforcement action on that more than come into compliance with the local codes and regulations and then that the policing of that falls on somebody else. I think I think we can identify it and bring it to light and >> compel some kind of corrective action,
but >> Sure. >> I I think we're outside of our jurisdiction. >> Could I add a safety concern? Um, >> yes, please. Go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you. So, um, I mentioned there's a a rotted oak tree.
It's a giant big tree and, um, it's like right near um, their property and our property and, um, if it falls or perhaps when it falls because it's rotting, right? Um, it's going to hit like in the buffer zone and create damage. Uh,
there's a shed. Uh, so, you know, it's fall time. There's the leaves on the ground. There's a shed. There's exposed wires um from that shed. There could be an arc and a fire causing damage, right? And you know we So yeah. So um
wires. That's a um that looks like some kind of uh um pipe. That's a little I would >> You have to stay at the microphone if you're going to talk. >> Sure. Uh wires. Wires. Uh pipe. Um electrical box. Rotting shed. The tree
the tree is roughly right here. So if it falls this way, it could cause an arc and a fire. Um you saw you know like the dead the dead birds. Is this technically inside the um is it a 50? >> If if I could just >> Yeah, >> I hear what you're saying. >> Yeah.
>> Hazard trees. There's a procedure in town. So you call the tree warden if it needs to come down and it's within the jurisdiction area. You you contact Matt. He does an admin review and he does uh you get the Matt and the warden. and they go out and they say, "Yeah, this has a tree. You can take it down." Then you can take it down. If it's your tree,
it's your tree. If it's their tree, you can write them a letter and you can as as a concerned neighboring thing that maybe that's your your shed and you're worried about it coming down, you can write it. If he doesn't do anything, we can't compel somebody to take down a tree. >> Okay. So, this is a great point and I'm
glad you brought this up because now we're talking axis because I can't get in there. I can't go down the the right side of my house because there's uh water erosion right from um what's coming upstream down to the left. I can't get a piece of >> You don't need you don't need access to
you've already confirmed that or you've already judged that there's a hazard tree condition, >> but I can't I don't have access to cut it down. And so there's there's a a right. >> Is it your tree? >> It's my tree. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, um there's a the walls block
um the axis that I could cut that tree down. So, if we don't if we don't address the tree, >> hang on. Go ahead. Yeah. >> Take the admin review will bring you through that process. That's >> So, contact 44 rabbit we're talking about. If that's your tree, we're call Matt
>> I can >> take care of the admin. You're talking about the fact that you have an easement across their property that crosses their where their walls and let me let me finish where it crosses their walls and everything like that and you're saying that the only way you could get that tree down is to have safely >> a company come
>> and drive across that easement >> to to remove the tree. >> Yes. So, um those those walls which um are are deviating water are are changing the hydraology. they're they're um moving
down towards the shed and as well as towards my septic, right? So, it's it's putting a lot of um extra drainage, you know, into my septic in that way because there's the altered hydraology just above that um from the walls. >> It's um just sorry to interrupt. I I I
think on this particular issue, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that is a a neighborly property owner, that's a legal issue. Created whether or not you can cut the cut the tree down >> that's in jurisdiction
is a wetlands permitting issue that would have to be filed separately that could be filed as an admin review. Right. Unless the tree was already slated to be cut down on the OC's. >> It was um >> but the displacement of also >> No, but whether or not he can get a truck across an easement on
their property is not a wetlands protection issue. The commission is reviewing wetlands enforcement issues for unpermitted work on 44 Rabbits Road. How those issues affect his property >> is not a wetlands enforcement issue. >> That is a property rights issue and that
is a legal issue between those two. Now, the commission, in my opinion, should take into account the fact that this paved area that they put there may be causing runoff onto his property. However, we can't prove that. >> Is it within the is it in our
jurisdiction first and foremost? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if >> you're already going to be dealing with that with them. So, you would want to look at the fact or the idea that that may be causing runoff onto a neighboring property, especially because that is likely bringing that into a wetland.
What you can't do is prove that that's actually the case or that they've actually diverted anything there. You would put that on the property owner. You wouldn't ignore that and put a situation where now they have to sue their neighbor for stuff that you're
ignoring as an unpermitted activity. But I see that as being different than, well, I can't drive a a truck across here to remove this tree because there's something in the way that wasn't permitted. You're going to deal with the permitting issue on its own for its merits, and you're going to make the
decisions that you make. If you make a decision that you're going to allow something to stay there through either permitting and retro or because you don't think that it's something you should take enforcement action on, that's your decision, right? And at that point in a butter has the legal right to
take action against that property owner for that situation. They could try to sue the conservation commission for if they wanted to. I just don't think >> some of this is is more in planning than it is in in uh conservation. Some of these questions I mean runoff if they
change the pitch of the >> of the of the grade and it now you're pushing water to your to your neighbor. pretty sure there's planning board um rules that somebody broke at that point and they're the ones who can come in >> sometimes. Yes. >> What I'm saying is we don't have anything that points to us being able to
say anything except for the fact that's per that's non-permanented work within the jurisdiction and we get to say something about it at some point. and the fact in that situation where there is a wetland on his property that's down slope from this and so there may be a runoff related >> they may be creating a right
>> impact to the wetland >> right the rest of it I just I don't think it's a conversation that we want to have right now with the access on the e to the wall >> so let's get back to the laundry list that we need to deal with >> yes how do you want to do it what do you got
>> who wants to go home tonight >> I motion that Matt comes up with a a laundry list of things that we've discussed and summarize it and then we move off of that and then we create an action plan um to to try to clear this
this log jam because the more we the more pitches we see of this site that I think the worse it becomes. >> Do you do you want me to try to prep an enforcement order for you to vote on and sign at the January 4th meeting and meanwhile I will email them again and
say, "Hey, you weren't there, but here's what the commission is having me do. you should be there on June. Here's >> what you'll be looking at. >> Really specific enforcement orders for each one of the issues. >> And I think there is some things that we have to talk about here. Namely, the thing that we talked about first was
that wall that they built that is not in built to spec was not built with the permit. And we decided that we were going to just wait to see if it was perfect wall. Maybe we could retro permit and retro. But if it wasn't like in this case where he's saying it has to
be taken down and partially rebuilt then it becomes a all right well now I want an NOI to do the work because I want to approve it and in part of that process I'm not diminishing our 30 or 50 foot setbacks whatever whatever is applicable
to any of this stuff so it becomes a >> in that case I want NOI on it. So, I don't know if everybody agrees on that aspect and then we can come up with some of the other language on recommendations, but I think we we we we set out to achieve an intent with the
wall so that we could understand how bad this was going to be. I think that I think we have all the answers >> to go on. You want to address the increase in impermeable? >> I think you have to absolutely >> you have to include the concrete with the wall because the wall is holding the
concrete and it's a massive increase in >> Yeah. We need to give Matt a little bit more direction rather than just go right >> enforcement orders. So, building off what you're saying, I I think the wall needs to come down and I think that needs to be an eye or enforcement or whether the best way to do it. That's
what I would like to see us vote on next time we meet. I don't know if other people are in agreement with me or do we need to have that debate right now? Is that the direction we want to go? >> Let me throw one one one thing back at that just for for conversation. So, one of the things that I brought up was you
would either make them file an NOI to remove it or file an NOI to bring it into compliance with KWPR. Right? If they had the possibility to tar that so that no particular section of it was holding back more than four feet of
fill, they might be able to minimize the disturbance of the property as opposed to completely removing it. And then what are they going to put there? >> How are they going to stabilize that site is my my question. >> Completely remove it. How do you stabilize it?
>> Let let me just go here. There's images of settlement which indicates that this could not just be oh they didn't put a you know dead men back or or stone behind it. >> This could be poor improper compaction
of the footer which means it's going whatever happens it's going to move until there it's properly compacted and it's they could build it three times and it could still go. I don't know that. But I'm also saying that I'm not comfortable with where it was or
permanent in retro if it's not built properly in the first place. I was willing to um entertain the idea of it staying where it is just because it would be worse impact to move it just to move it.
>> But in this case where the walls deficient, the engineer stated such. I'm not okay with the location of it now. And it's going to have to move into something that's permittable because we wouldn't if this gentleman wanted to put a wall in, we'd hold him to the standard of whatever is is defined by the town.
>> I guess technically we we gave a a variance on on a 4ft wall holding back fill on 46 rabbit road overseas but >> with mitigation. But this is different because now it needs to be torn down and it's not just a oh well if we cut down a couple of feet the wall's still built wrong.
>> No no that's not you misunderstood that part of it. I think I I'm not talking about not removing it. I'm saying they're going to have to file an NOI. The NOI is either going to remove the wall and attempt to stabilize the site somehow or redesign it and rebuild it so
that it meets the standards which would require >> which we can vote on and all that. >> I'm just that's all I'm kind of saying is like >> yeah, >> should I be writing something that says you are you're going to file an NOI by this date and it's going to do A or B? Well, from my perspective, the NOI that
we should be compelling in this enforcement action should be to remove the wall and stabilize. And if they want to build a structure later on, they can come back with it. If they want to combine the two, go ahead. >> You mean stabilized with something other than the wall, a new wall. Stabilize.
>> Stabilize with with our >> plant growth with >> not structures. Because the original visit that the homeowner made said that they needed to build that wall to prevent erosion, but looking at the aerial photographs, that's only necessary because they cut down all the trees, >> right?
>> So, I'm inclined to say remove the wall and replace it with plant growth or or naturalize the site. >> Naturalize the site um rather than rebuild the wall. >> Okay. And and if they want anybody can come in with the NOI at any point and if
and if after they do what we ask them to do they want to come in or even if they want to ask us to consider it in conjunction with the NOI to remove it >> we but we don't have to grant anything that we don't feel comfortable with based on the language in front of us and the language is >> 50 ft right
>> since the concrete is partly on a neighbor's property >> and the trees that have >> I don't think it is I think it's a right away partly not partly >> it's about It's a lot. I was I've been there a couple years ago whenever that was. >> It is on the neighbor's property >> 100%.
>> And as I understood it, he gave permission for that. Is he responsible for that, too? >> Could be. >> Could be. >> That's why I wanted to make sure that they were at least aware of this to be able. >> The only good news is the concrete actually pitches away from the pond, not
towards the pond. So any water that lands on it goes towards the woods. That's the only >> right. Except for that as as you go down the driveway to the neighbor's house, it all goes down. >> The majority of it pitches away from the >> ponds, >> right? >> The only good news.
>> So, what action I What else? >> But we we're talking about ripping it out. How is that good news, Buzz? >> Well, I mean, currently currently. >> Yeah. Yeah. The current situation. >> I get it. >> So, >> what else are we putting on this? What else? >> To remove the drive. >> The talking about also pad concrete pad.
>> Concrete pad for sure. Yeah. So, so you have two now that you're working on. One was the wall. Remove the wall. And the second one is remove the concrete pad. >> Deal with the dock as well along the slope. >> The I think >> I think the dock should personally I
think the dock should be their their decision based on the commission's guidance. Right. You gave everybody else a two-year grace period. move it or >> I think it would be in their best interest if they want to permit the dock to throw it in with an NOI filing they're already doing because it costs a
lot of money. >> You mentioned another survey and the and the engineering and everything to put those plans together for that. >> And how about that wood burning thing that's so close to the pond? >> What is the purpose of those? >> I believe those heat your home. >> Yeah, it it it's a hydronic heating
system. And they just use an outside furnace, outside boiler >> to heat water that goes under the ground. So they would have further permitted. Is that can we find Can you look into >> No idea. >> If that wasn't peritted, nothing on the
property was permitted from us. Let me put it that way. >> That that should have a building permit, >> right? And I know in the past fire department probably has to >> Maryland. I know in the past with another town resident who tried to establish a heating system like that, it was
disallowed. >> There are very specific rules. That's why I'm saying there's a building permit and there's a process for that. >> And if it's not >> and it had to be removed, right? >> I don't want to have, you know, it's heating their home then. >> But Matt, we should definitely take care of that as part of this as well.
>> And doc, did you have >> Yeah, the the the water that's running onto the neighbor's property should be addressed as well. Well, didn't we address that with the concrete or was that a difference? >> I mean, removing the concrete is one thing, but then if everything is still pitched
>> that way, then all you're doing >> the natural topography might be that it pushes that way except it's worse because there's concrete involved, >> but then now you have sediment that can or sand or whatever that can move. >> Stabilize that as well. >> Yeah, they have to stabilize and mitigate the runoff.
>> The site has to be stabilized. whatever corrective actions are out, everything has to be there needs to be erosion control that it needs to be stabilized. >> Yep. >> Um, so there's there's plenty of impervious stuff that can be done in that case, but needs to be on an NOI. We need plans. We need all that stuff.
>> Do an permeable pavement there and that that would probably >> all things that they can do, but let it's up to that would be an option for them on a >> we make a note about trash. If there's trash outside dumpsters, that's not to obviously not deal. And we've already
asked them to clean up that slope multiple times and they said they have that slope behind the dumpster between the house and the pond that was supposed to be cleaned of all yard debris, trash already months ago. >> Yeah. And I believe they they sent photos that >> Right. But if these photos are correct,
then obviously how recent these photos are. >> Well, and also you don't know how long that was like that for, right? If they >> It shouldn't be like that at all. But in our enforcement action, we should memorialize the fact that there needs to be no um potential sources of contamination to the resource areas because that's really what we're worried
about is contamination to the resource areas. So, make sure that they're maintaining the the the buffer zones in in a in a manner that will not contribute to, you know, future contaminations into the resource areas. It it it's broad enough that it's it
should be enforceable if we see a gas can stored next to the lake, right? >> So, no no fuel or petroleum or chemical storage without secondary container. >> We don't want pesticides. We don't want any of that stuff. It >> gas on a boat in a power
>> anyway that could accidentally get run over, squished by a tire, any of that. I do think these all need to be separate orders though. >> No, just all spelled out. Basically, you just say by this date you have to do XY
Z or I should have said like A B CDE E FGX >> by when >> we're going to sign this next. >> Yeah. Okay. And you have, you know, basically I can prepare this and you can modify it as you see fit at the next meeting. I'll I'll try to get this
>> done far in advance and put it >> up to review in advance of the meeting so that you can really digest it and then provide comments at the meeting that we could take notes on. >> And we can go back and forth directly with you if you send it BCC.
>> Yeah. If you're not communicating with >> then it's just us going back and forth and we're not >> Yeah. And then and that that stuff like that can help the commission actually make a a a decision that night that you can sign the document rather than you know we
could have a signature page that >> that you sign that we still have to change a couple of the words based on what you bring up at the meeting but it's a little west >> that way. >> Did anybody else have anything on that >> we wanted to
>> bring the M's attention >> other sheds things like that? I mean, I don't know how you want to go about some of this stuff because while there are no permits on a lot of the stuff on the property, um I don't know based on the the tree cover how long some of the stuff has been there. >> Um again, there's no real
grandfathering, but >> Right. If it's not supposed to be there, then it shouldn't be there. >> Right. Do you want to add the sheds to your list? Ask if the sheds are ever >> I mean, one of them looks like it's hardly >> The more we can put them in, the better. >> The better at this point. We've we've been at this for a long time. to that
point, right? If they put it on the NOI, we could approve the the shed in an area where where it isn't, but it needs to be part of that discussion. It needs to but remember what Buzz used to always say, >> I want it on the plan because then I can tell you when something else isn't there.
>> And if we don't get that plan like that, then then we're not doing anything. >> Yep. It's very reminis reminiscent of some of the previous filings we've had with individuals that have had scattered violations throughout their property. >> Get them to put the entire property on a
file and submit the entire thing and you know what you have and then you can make an enforcement they can get done and then you get an asbuilt and then at least you have a snapshot of a moment in time. So when the next seven people are sitting here 5 years from now and they
compile the file and say, "Gee, that motor home wasn't here, that boat wasn't there, that driveway wasn't there, the addition you built on top of your house wasn't there, the windmill, the extended dock, the slide, and whatever else happens." >> And we do use that stuff all the time in
the conservation department. >> All right. Uh just one more thing just because this is really going to bug me. I would like you to maybe send me some of the details about when that expansion, the second floor edition
>> went went on because likely there was two bedrooms and then it became four bedrooms which would have targeted septic improvements. >> It's an impacted area. >> We might want to talk about that. It's
up to the commission, but we might want So, I'd like the details because a cess poolool at this area with unpermanented expansion is an issue that we should be paying attention attention to when it comes up. So,
there's a lot of cess pools out there in these locations that are creating problems or contributing to the problems that we are solving through expensive measures. And when something comes up like this, we should pay attention and try to take care of it um instead of
glassing over. >> Will you remind me of of that? Cuz I I think I thought that stuff was already in the one drive, but it might not be. I'll I'll make sure it's on there. I know that was on the like we discussed the dates and everything on the first staff report. >> All right.
>> Minutes. >> No. >> So, do you want to do you want to continue this or >> motion to continue? I think I think he he did while we were discussing he did ask if he could make up >> um I think you probably Thank you. I I think you're probably I just wanted to
make sure I is testing easily done just because of the birds is it easy to do you know I don't know but it it seems like >> what testing are you asking about >> to see if the environment is toxic and and if it comes back toxic what is it
and looking at the environment to see um you know what might be the cause >> it is done I don't know who does it are the birds still there >> no >> no this was last spring >> but I meant of the the soil >> because if it it I don't know what a testing kit like that would look like, but if it tests positive for some kind
of petroleum product, >> chapter 21 studies a a very expensive and you can't just go around compelling somebody because we saw a dead bird. >> Okay. >> All right. >> If if we had a reason to suspect that he was dumping agent orange in his
backyard, pretty sure we could do that with the EBA's help, but we don't have any. >> There's fires every day and it doesn't trigger >> two fires in one. My expectation is that if that was a >> persistent contamination issue to the tune that if we tested it would it would
show up as a threshold meeting issue. You would have more >> dead birds and more dead animals, dead fish. >> There would be a chronic display of dead anything that was drinking that water that walking through that you'd see them all over the place.
It's that's how that works. I would say to the butter that if stuff like that continues, certainly um share it and if there's a long-term pattern of things dying there, then I think that would be something the commission would want to >> um mandate some water testing or even
just go do water testing on our own. >> Um but I I think for two birds that's probably not warranted. >> Thank you for your thoughtfulness because you all put some good amount of time into it. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for coming forward. preparing it to us.
>> All right. Now, did we make a vote? >> Did you continue it yet? >> Motion to continue January 14th. >> So, I'll make a motion to continue to January 14th. >> Okay. All have a motion to continue with
January 14th and seconded. All in favor? >> I I'll be right back. >> We can do minutes without you. Yay. He just quit. He's >> like, I'm done. >> Congratulations. You promoted. >> Didn't take long.
>> All right. Make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Uh, I have edits. >> Yep. >> All right. Go for it. >> Um, >> um, is does Matt need to hear the edits or Okay, >> I have to edit. So, we'll just do them individually. How about that? August
27th, uh, 164 Penrook Street. The vote was made by Jim and then also seconded by Jim, which probably is not correct. >> Oh, wait. Which property? >> 164 Penrook Street. >> And then, >> were you the second on that one? >> I didn't know. >> Were you there?
>> But sometimes the um >> Megan was there. She's on the roll. >> Yeah, I was there, but I don't remember. It was just in the the minutes it said made by Jim, second by Jim. So, >> just make Megan the second, >> right? You can go however. >> And then >> do we know who seconded it or
>> probably >> I'll try looking for the video again and make my best guess. >> And then um September 24th we were talking about Rabbath Road and it listed Mr. Derico as the owner of Rabbath Road, but I believe his name is
Tom Carol >> as the owner of Rabbath Road. Like super silly edit, but I just happen to catch it. important. >> All right. >> For which >> uh September 24th, it was page 6 and it says uh it was listed as Mr. Jico, the
owner of 44 Rabbit, but I'm pretty sure his name is Tom Carroll. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the DOS own the land that abuts the concrete pad, not 44 Rabbit. >> That's it. >> And there's one where I was, but I watched it on TV,
>> so I can vote on it. >> Just remember May 27th. So then I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for uh May. Can we do these all if nobody was here? >> Uh I was not here.
>> All right. So I'll do it by one. Um >> September just >> Buzz wasn't at two of them. >> Yeah. >> You want to start with May 28th. >> All right. I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 28th, 2025. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I
>> I >> and then um I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of August 27th, 2025 >> with corrections >> with edits. >> Yes. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I
>> I um I will make a motion uh to approve the meeting minutes for September 10th, 2025. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> I oppose >> abstain.
>> One abstension. Motion passes. >> And then I will make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of September 24th, 2025 uh with evidence. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Opposed?
Motion passes. Thank you. >> Updates. Um, we got our annual notification of Eversourc's rightway and vegetative maintenance is on file. If anybody has questions
from the commission or the public, just reach out. Um, Bates Pond update. We got kind of a late start on on finding out that, you know, we actually had everything in place from our CPC funds. we received
this year for the Bates Pond Trail. So, I said earlier we did not get the recreational trails grant from the state, but we did get CPC funding and we already had Samson funds and they combined together to be enough for us to do the design >> and permitting of that.
>> Good for you. >> So, we did get uh Strong Tree Engineering going on that and they have now started. So, um we hope that will go pretty quickly and we'll be able to apply for more grants and then we'll pester Buzz for uh some lumber
donations. >> Oh, that's nice of you, B. >> Yeah. Um and that's it other than Buzz. This is Buzz's last meeting and I just want to say thanks. >> Thank you, Buzz. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. It's been an honor and a privilege to work with
you all. And who knows, maybe I'll come back back for part three. years. >> We'll pull we'll pull you right back in. >> Sit in the bathroom. >> I'd like to make my >> So, theoretically, if I can get back in, you know, it's a tough This is tough. So, >> getting in. It's usually a full board.
>> It's very tough getting in. >> There's a three strike policy, too. >> Yeah. >> Once you get out once you get out twice, you're out. >> You got to get branded next year. Well, and also u January 17th, 2026 at the
Rison, I'm holding a fundraiser event for Shane Gives Thanks, which is a local food pantry in Carver. >> I will be sending you all an invite. It's $50 a ticket. However, all the money goes to Shane Gives thanks. I'm paying for the party. So, minus credit
card fees, all the money goes to Shane Gibbs thanks. So, hope to see you there. We're going to have a obviously most of you have never been to one of my parties, but they're pretty wild. Uh we're going to have a huge uh awesome DJ and photo booth and special
guests and silent auction and all kinds of wild stuff. So, >> where's the Rison? >> Right in downtown Plymouth. Right there on the waterfront. >> Hotel 1620. >> Huh? >> Is that the old 1620? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. 1620. >> Yeah. It's a They have a huge ballroom there. So, it includes the $50, includes
the the dancing, you get two drink tickets, full buffet. Um, it's a good time. So, hope to see you there. Um, and we're raising money for a good cause. So, >> and then additionally, in 2026,
we'll be coming out shortly. We'll be uh we the goal is to give away an ADU to a veteran in 2026. So, the website will be honored.com. It's not out. It's not live yet. We're still working on the contest rules. We
will be working with uh Disabled American Veterans Association. They will be the I don't know board, if you will, that will pick the finalists. And then the goal is on November 7th when they have their 5K event, we're going to have
10 to 15 finalists in a bucket and they're going to pull one and that'll be the winner. Um the first year I am limiting it to just it has to be built in Plymouth, Mass because honestly the permitting is so friendly there and you can actually be assured that you can
actually build something. So um after that, you know, who knows? But um so I'll be sending you that invite too. There'll be lots of promotion around that and fundraisers and parties and fun stuff. So >> you know, you already took over my newsfeed. So >> you're in my reels.
>> You're all over my for you page. Like come on. Just build baby. That's awesome. trademark. >> But thank but thanks again and I I've enjoyed working with everybody here and I know sometimes I got a little spirited but it's only because I care about what what we're doing.
>> You're just awesome. You're just awesome. Also, >> but I I am confident that I am leaving in good hands. >> Yeah. Well, starting next meeting, the chair will be Jim. >> Huh. >> Um >> No, nobody voted on that yet.
volunte. >> We need to Well, okay. Well, Jim or someone else will you vote in to be uh the chair, but I I'm resigning as chair. >> Well, we'll clap for you and the good job you did next week. >> All right. So, we uh we officially adjourning. >> Motion to adjourn.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I just picked somebody. I think they all said it. >> Everyone did. >> Just like that. I know.