I can hear you. I'm seeing the uh bars and tones still, but I can hear you. Yeah. If you uh want to switch it when you while I'm checking audio while you're checking audio, I'll run some audio for you real quick.
Check. Check. One, two, check. One, two, three. Check. One, two, check. One, two, three. Checking. One, two, check. One, two, three. One, two, three, four. Check. One, two, three, 4, five, six.
Checking. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Awesome. And I'm seeing you so we are good. Have
a great meeting tonight. Thanks. Um, I'll now open the meeting and take a roll call. I'm Kina Vanetti. >> Jim Franklin, >> yes. >> Dot McFarland. >> Yes. >> Marilyn Kazidoy. >> Yes. >> Brian Payne, >> yes. >> Great. Please note that we're doing a
hybrid meeting with uh in person and virtual attendance. So, if a member of the ver virtual public would like to make comments during a public hearing, please use the raise hand function um on Zoom and you'll be assigned a speaking time. If you're listening in via dial
tone, telephone dial in, press star 9 to raise your hand and then press star six to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded by the local scene and 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. So we we already signed our documents, Matt. >> Yep. We had a invoice for 20 Marion
Drive peer review. We had a invoice for Kalista Farm Trail Mowing. uh invoice for the assistant conservation agent job posting and reimbursement for commissioner Kazidoi for purchase of wetlands enforcement manual. >> Super. Going to move right along to action
items. I'm going to reopen a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for 28 Robbath Road submitted by Stenbick and Taylor on behalf of property owner Frank Derko um for proposed removal of hazard trees and
treatment of invasive plants. First, we'll hear a briefing from the conservation agent. If um any uh clarific clarifications needed from the applicant during or after the briefing, uh we may ask you to respond to that, Ron.
>> Yeah. Um I don't have any update on this. We have no updated materials. Um Mr. Dico stopped by my office either last week or the week before just to discuss um the area in question. Stated that he wanted to continue mowing it. Um, I
suggested that, like I said during the meeting, it's just that it's not legally permitted. So, it either needs to be permitted or restored. Um, and they're here tonight so we can hear from them if you'd like and see what they have to say. >> We'd like to hear what you have to say. Would you please identify yourself for
the record? >> Sure. My name is Ann Soilleski. I'm from Prince Lobel and Thai and I represent the applicants. >> Certainly. So, >> I don't I don't think that's on, is it? It's on. >> We can't hear anything. >> I can't hear anything.
>> It has a green light. >> I can't hear anything. >> Are your micro bus working? >> There's no speakers in here. >> It's not a speaker. >> So, it's all for the for the um >> for the TV and the and the Zoom thing >> if you just >> But we can try to speak loudly >> as best you can. I' We'd all appreciate
it. Thank you. >> Absolutely. So, um, this is a request from the property owner for three specific tasks. Um, as you know, there was a report that was provided to the conservation commission back in August
indicating the presence of invasive species. So, the first component of the request was to be able to remove the mugwart and the tree of heaven that has colonized the property. Uh the second request was for the removal of some damaged trees in particular some trees
that are located proximate to the residence that is number 30 to prevent them from falling on the residence. And then the third component is the request to mow the area that had been reed and rehabilitated. It's a banked area. Um, I
will say that we do have some photographs of the area prior to any of the disturbance uh that was remedied previously. The area was an area that had short vegetation in it. It was not a
tall grass area. the applicant. Um, and in the course of, you know, evaluating the situation would like to continue to maintain that as a short grass area as opposed to long grass for a number of
reasons. Primarily, the need to cut down on the tick population. They've had a lot of limes disease in um both uh one of the property owners has had limes disease twice and Mr. Dico is currently
on antibiotics for limes disease. It's a desire to keep the ticks down in an area that never was tall grass. Um and I think it would be reasonable to permit mowing of that area just to keep keep
that tick population down. They're not proposing to use any um pesticides or anything. It would simply be preventative. Um as Mr. Dico has told me, his dogs will go out in that area and will come back with 60 ticks on
them. So, we don't think that it is unreasonable to ask to be able to mow in that area in addition to the proposed removal of invasive vegetation and um and the and the trees. >> All right.
Thank you um very much. Um do you want to respond to that? >> Um >> um I can move >> only sort of I'm trying to look back at the original RDA filing and
I think that if they have evidence of that area being maintained, then they could provide that evidence and we should continue until we have the time to review all of that. um because it pretty clearly was a vegetated area before in terms of it may not have had
tall grass, it had tall trees. So allowing allowing a large area of riverfront area to a perennial stream to be clearcut and then maintained as lawn
area off of an RDA filing. um is something that would require a little more attention. Just give me one second to Yeah, I don't recall this having anything to do with mowing in the first
place. It did say proposes maintenance of existing landscaping including removal of danger/damaged trees and removal of invasive vegetation. and it was brought up through our review that there was an area there that had been restored as part of the enforcement process that had
since been mowed. Um, so I think my recommendation would be to continue this and have them provide whatever information they have um on that being part of the, you know, maintained part of the property previously and maybe
modify the RDA to include mowing that area and we can go about it from there. >> Do you have any other comments? >> Just so that I understand. So, is the specific request that we submit in
writing um an amendment to include mowing in that area? >> I think that if you're saying that this RDA is to include mowing of that area, then it should include that. So yeah, I would say um modify that. But also, you're saying you have evidence, photo
evidence that that area was maintained >> because the only thing we have is aerial imagery that shows that that was >> um a forested area with a you know a two-track driveway going to a house out near the pond. >> So any evidence you have would help the commission come to a decision on that.
>> We certainly can provide that. And I will just say, you know, that looking at aerial evidence where there had been tree cover, which we agree there had been tree cover and that was part of the restoration project to restore the trees in that area, but from the aerial photographs, you can't actually physically see what the condition of the
ground is like underneath the trees. Very well. So, we will provide you with additional information. >> I'll make a motion to continue. Uh, when what do you how much time does Afghan need? >> When when is your next meeting?
December 10th. Oh, December, I'm sorry. November 26th and then December 10th after that. >> December 10th. >> December 10th, please. >> Um, all right. So, I'll make a motion to
um continue this to December 10th. >> Just um quickly, we would need that information at least a week before the date of the meeting. Otherwise, it would be continued again. Understood. >> I will second that.
>> We have a motion and it's been seconded. Um, I'd like a a vote on the motion. Dot. >> Yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Colleen is a yes. Marilyn, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Motion carries. We'll see you on the 10th. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> I will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability. We call that RDA for 19 Rocky Nook Avenue. This was sub submitted by uh Robert Nardo on behalf
of the property owner. Um Ted Tamulionas for a proposed demolition of a single family house. Uh could we have a briefing from the conservation agent? the conservation agent's going to give us a a quick briefing first.
>> Um, okay. And maybe is >> I'm Lisa Barlo. >> Lisa Barlo. Thank you very much. And is it T A M U L I O N I S? >> That was just me sabotaging. And you said Ted
>> and And it's it's I said Ed. I said Ed, but it's um it's Edmonton. I'll fix that though. It's good for the record. >> Well, Edmond is, you know, a great name. Let's use it. Okay. So, um let's hear a quick uh
briefing from the conservation agent. Um and if any clarification is needed um during or that we'll be asking you for some information. Okay. >> Applicant proposes demolition of the existing single family house at 19 Rocky Nook Avenue within the 100 foot buffer
to Coastal Bank and other coastal resource areas. Um my understanding is that Grady Consulting is working on an NOI filing for a replacement dwelling. Um the application shows erosion control across the front yard in between the dwelling and the coastal resource areas.
Uh we had a site visit November 5th. It was discussed that the silt saw should also be run up the edge of the driveway after demolition and that stabilizing the open dirt area beneath the house would be crucial during the period between demolition and reconstruction. Again, there has been no NOI filed for
construction of the house. So, there could be months in between when this is being uh demolished and when anything be put in its place. The reason this came to us was the contractor was at the building department looking for a demo permit and planning on starting work right away. Um, and so we informed him
that he needed to have a permit from the commission for that. >> Um, I suggested a thick wood chip layer as an option or large tarps weighted down. Um, the applicants having trees removed from the backyard. They are invasive nori maples. Um, but they are out of commission jurisdiction. Proposal
appears to meet all the standards of WPA and KWPR requiring no further filing. Um, the applicant should be aware of the potential for $300 fines to be issued every time or every day sediment laden water reaches Kingston Bay. All necessary steps to prevent that must be
taken. And that's related to what I was talking about with stabilizing the area that's currently beneath the house. Um, the commission, unless they have other questions, may issue a negative three determination approving the project as shown as it appears to meet all the standards of WPA and KPR. Um, and you may also want to add a special condition
regarding that site stabilization. Um, as I mentioned, it might be months before anything's built in that place. >> Mr. Timonis, would you like to comment? Anybody want to microphone if you have any >> Come right up to the microphone, please.
Um, identify yourself for the record, your name and address. And >> my name is Lisa Barlo. My address is 23 Chilton A, Kingston. >> Thank you. >> And I agree with everything he said. We plan to stabilize in between the
demolition and the build in on the ways he um spoke of. We understand about being fined if any debris reaches the water. >> Okay. Have any um
discussion from the commission on this? All right, we're in agreement then. Um, can I hear a motion? >> I'll make a motion to issue a negative three uh DOA um with the uh special condition regarding site stabilization.
>> Super. Do I have a second on that? >> Second. >> All right, I'm going to take a vote on that dot. >> Yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Clean is a yes. Marilyn, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. And so the motion's been made to issue a negative 3D DOA approving the
project possibly with conditions and that's passed. Okay. >> You know what? >> We're not. >> You're not alone. >> I'm sorry. Go home right now. Lay down.
>> Good luck. >> Take care. >> Thank you. Right. So, >> ready to move on to enforcement. >> Uh, hearings. >> We have a minute. It is long. One minute
to go. All right. All right. Um, it's quarter of and so we're going to move on to the hearing part of the um, commission meeting and section A. This is the Baker A uh
matter. Uh it's on map 58, lot 92-6. This is a notice of intent. We call that NOI. So, I reopen a hearing for the NOI for the proposed construction of a single family home with a driveway, garage, deck, roofwater infiltration
system, drinking water well, utilities, grading, and landscaping within 100 ft of the buffer zone to a bordering vegetative wetland and the 200 ft riverfront area to an intermittent stream on Baker Avenue.
Um we could hear a briefing from from you Matt if um >> sure >> you wouldn't mind. >> Um so this was opened much earlier in the year and uh it was decided it would go out to peer
review. Uh we needed to wait for the applicant to provide several things before we put it out to peer review. um including the wetlands report on the stream and the storm water calculations for the
future use that's shown for the infiltration gallery. We received those. We requested three quotes for peer review. We only had one reply. It was from V and Thomas. They quoted it at uh $5,100.
Um just very quickly um from KWPR hiring outside consultants conservation commission may impose reasonable fees for the employment of outside consultants engaged by the conservation commission for specific expert services. Um they be deemed necessary by the
commission to come to a final decision on an application submitted to Concom. Skipping through some of the bulky language, commission may require the payment of the consultant fee at any point in its deliberations prior to a final decision.
Commission shall give notice to the applicant of the amount of the fee to be charged for hiring an outside consultant and a request for payment of said fee in its entirety. Such notice shall be deemed to have been given on the date it is delivered with return receipt requested. Once payment is received, an outside consultant shall be chosen and the applicant shall be notified of the
selection and identity of the consultant. no such costs or expenses shall be incurred by the applicant if the application or request is withdrawn within 5 days of the date notice is given. Um it essentially says that the consultant has 10 days um after request of payment to pay the fee or else the
commission shall deny the application. Um so bottom line on this one commission should choose whether to go forward with the proposal by Bills and Thomas or to request further quotes. We have used Bills and Thomas for several projects including a retroactive peer review. Um
I have never used them for a active peer review for a filing in progress. Um but they have done a good job with um everything else that I've used them for. They do occasionally you we we do occasionally see them here representing applicants but it's a large company and
I don't think there's any real conflict of interest in using them on a peer review or I wouldn't have sent them anything in the first place. So, up to the commission how they want to go forward, but um if you're okay with it, I'd recommend going forward with the $5,100 and I can notify the applicant
tomorrow. Um I'm not sure if there's any anybody on to that. I did notify the applicant when I when the deadline had passed and I only had the one response. Uh but I haven't had a response back from them. Do you need a vote on this matter or or
just >> Yeah, I think the commission needs to vote on going forward with the Bills and Thomas peer review unless you want more quotes. If you want more quotes, I can go back for that. >> I'm comfortable with Bill and Thomas.
Um, any comments from the commission on that? Bees and Thomas versus >> No. So, if you need a motion, I would make the I would move that we go forward with Beiel and Thomas. >> All right. Do I have a second on that? >> Second. >> So, there's a motion to put this out to
Beals and Thomas for peer review. It's been seconded. Do um >> Scott, I'm sorry. A yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> Okay, that motion carries. Thank you
very much. Just as a um point I forgot to mention earlier, this is the rare event where there's no commissioners on Zoom. If you want to do just voice votes on everything, you can to save a little bit of time. You can just do all in favor, all
opposed. >> All right. >> If you want to moving on to section B, this is 45 Rocky Nook Avenue. You find that on map 39, lot 24. This is a notice of intent.
>> We got to continue that close and continue that or continue that meeting. >> Yes. Um >> All right. So, I'm going to ask for a motion to continue this matter. >> Let me let me give you a date on that really quick. >> We have November 26. >> No. >> No.
>> No. We'll continue that. Um >> Thanks, Jim. We will continue that to it first meeting in January 14th. >> So there's been a motion to continue
this um matter to January 14th. >> Yep. I'll make that motion. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Yes. >> I >> opposed. Great. The motion carries. So we're going to move on to section B.
This is 45 Rocky Nook Avenue. As I said, map 39, lot 24. This is for notice of intent. I open this uh hearing for the NOI for the proposed construction of a previous deck and a twoft by 11.2 foot
addition to an existing single family house within the 100 ft buffer zone to coastal wetland resource areas at 45 Rocky Dunk Avenue. Um could you brief us on that? Um Matt,
>> um I'll pull the plan up here. We have uh Paul from Grady. He can give a presentation first. >> Would you like to Paul, please identify yourself for the record? >> Uh Paul Seberg from Grady Consulting. >> Thank you. >> So I'm here for this notice of intent application for a proposed deck and also
a small addition at 45 Rocky Nook Avenue. Um this site currently consists of an existing single family dwelling. Um there is an a driveway to the west of the existing house um and an existing deck located um east of the existing
house. Um there's a 100 foot buffer zone that's associated with the top of coastal bank that's located on the opposite side of Rocky Nook A. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing deck on the front of the house and construct a
new deck um to the north and to the east of the house. Um the deck will be a pvious deck with a crushed stone put beneath it. Um they are also proposing a twoft by 11.2 foot addition off the south side of the house um shown in that
light um brown color. Um the addition will be can levered with no foundation below. We are proposing a silt sock erosion control barrier between the work and the resource area shown in orange. Um, that said, I'd be happy to answer any
questions the commission may have. >> All right. Do you have anything for him? Um, Matt, >> not repeating anything that he just said. Uh, we did a site visit November 5th. Uh, one of the things we had to do was confirm that the existing deck was impervious. Um, just to make sure the
calculations were all there. Um and it for the most part was u Marilyn was there and can speak to um it's one of the harder things I think sometimes to figure out when we mandate that it's pvious we say it has to be larger than 38 inch
>> spacing but something less than 38 can still be pvious depending on the situation. So it's um typically when we're looking at something like that you want to see that nothing's getting through that it's mostly really tight and that was mostly the case. few boards where it was wider than that, but for the most part, I would say it was uh
impervious deck existing and they're proposing pvious. Um area underneath the pvious deck was going to be dressed with 6 in of crush crushed stone to help with infiltration. Um the deck was ending on the
I think west side or northwest side at a outdoor shower uh 5 foot x 7 foot outdoor shower. Um, I did question um drainage on that. I wasn't sure if there was any sort of drainage system for that, if it was supposed to be dug down
or drywall or anything like that, just the six inches on top of >> just to make sure that I don't know how often those things get run or if that can be problematic with um a lot of water kind of running out from that. But that was the only thought on that. Um
ESC is proposed along the limit of work a 12-in mulch filled silt sock which should be perfectly fine for this. Um there is a paved public way between the property and the wetland resource areas. Um and the addition is proposed outside of the 50oot buffer to the most landward coastal resource area coastal bank. Um
so it does meet the structural setbacks of KWPR plan details existing jurisdictional impervious coverage at 37.7% proposes a 3.9% reduction. So propos is at 3 33.8% and I did confirm those
measurements on the plan. Um we don't need a variance request since the property has already passed the 15% and the proposal is reducing the percent cover. Um the usual point I've been making about the fact that this is landward of one of the mass shellfish growing areas open
under conditional approval after being closed for a long time due to bacterial contamination. >> We should make every effort to limit runoff in this area. Eel grass beds are declining throughout the bay um and they are declining because of uh utrification and um siltation.
Commission should discuss construction sequence and methods. Will the ground be disturbed before the gravel is placed? If not, will water simply sheet off towards the ocean? In other words, is there too much compaction there for water to truly infiltrate even when you
have 6 in of crushed stone on the top? Um, if that's the case, then salt sock might not be enough if there's a large rain event. Um, and what was the plan to minimize disturbance for deck supports? I would say this is an easy project to permit provided that the area beneath the deck actually infiltrates water
rather than shutting it off. Um it doesn't really violate any specific performance standard of KWPR or WPA and does reduce the percent impervious coverage within jurisdiction. We had a comment from wastewater that they recommend protection of the sewer line during construction. Um the water
superintendent had concerns regarding possible impingement from footings on water infrastructure. Um, I did throw a couple of potential special conditions in there. Um, decking to remain in perpetuity with at least 38 in spacing between boards to
maintain a pvious condition. Um, I put down that they could have painted stakes in place detailing the sewer and waterline locations during construction and that should help with um, avoiding any issues there. Um, proposed additional stockpile of silt sock on
this one. There was nothing on this, right? You didn't propose? >> No. >> Propose it on this one. >> We can certainly have any sort of materials surrounded by isol. >> Again, I don't know that it's that it's hugely necessary here unless there's going to be more ground disturbance. Um, but you're saying there's not.
Basically, you're just putting 6 in on top of what's there. >> Any dumpster used as part of the project must be covered. And the usual blurb about outdoor chemicals and fertilizers. Um, you know, no pesticides and herbicides within the 100 foot buffer
zone, only organic fertilizers. Um, and again, organic fertilizers, not sure that that those should be used in these situations either, really close to the to the ocean, but that's up for the commission to discuss. And honestly, I don't know that there's much grass on
this property, particularly after this project. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Um, that's about all I got, unless you have questions. Um before we move to the commission um because I know there'll be discussion um are there uh any members of the public
who would like to um join in to a public comment on this matter? >> Do you see hands? >> All right. So now I'll open it up to the commission for discussion. >> Um >> I just have a question if I may. Mhm.
>> So, it sounds like you're you're talking about adding six inches of stone above the existing whatever's there. What's there? >> It's currently just uh somewhat grassy. There was a little bit of a planting bed that kind of run along ran along the side of the house here.
>> Sorry, I just closed that out on you. >> Trying to pull up >> trying to pull up pictures. It's a little bit lower against the house with those planting areas, but ideally we might might actually remove a little bit of material just to have that crush stone set, you know, level within flush
within the adjacent grade. My the reason for my question is because in this area we we often see complaints of of water once something's disturbed and we establish a positive 6 in slope away from the foundation wall that ends up
pushing water on somebody else's. We don't want the water running across the street or, you know, running into, you know, any of the sewer, you know, grates that might be there or may not be there. I don't know. Um or running beyond it to the to the bay, >> right? the the six inches of stone will retain that that water and infiltrate it
and >> before it runs off the sides. >> Okay. So So you guys will disturb the soil enough so it the it'll allow the water to >> Exactly. >> accumulate in the stone and perk into the soil. >> Yeah. We'll let that stone stone be a little bit lower than the grade so that
it allows for it to retain and infiltrate. >> Okay. All right. as I'm okay as long as we're holding the water on site and and if you're telling me that you're grading it back towards that stone area so that it's not dispersing then then I'll >> Yeah, it essentially be level and then
allow it to fill up until it reaches the peak and then it would overflow over that. But there's not going to be a significant amount of water actually entering that stone. >> Right. I just don't want to I don't want a mound where it's just pushing and running. Yep. >> Um that's my main concern. Um there
there's other ways we can do it where we can get into some dry wells um recommendations, but that's you know that's up to the commission. >> Could you have something else about >> Yeah, just on that note for anything like that. I think you would probably need a special condition because I don't
think that was that was in here. It was basically putting the stone on. We don't have any grading on the plan. Right. >> Uh right. There's no there's no grading, but it's not really going to require any grading. It's going to basically maintain that existing grade only maybe
a small excavation of you know four to six inches to set that stone in but essentially maintaining the existing grade. I'd like that to be on what ultimately what we >> will be approving. >> Special condition on that. Otherwise, essentially you could come in and just
dump 6 in on top of what's there and it would meet what's shown, right? So simple condition on that could do the trick. And then it does seem like the only thing that's adding water is the shower. Everything else under existing conditions, the water is coming down to
whatever's there right now and either infiltrating or running off. the plants that are there now will will be removed. Correct. They would end up underneath the deck. >> If I was looking at the pictures correctly,
>> um plants were already removed when we were at the site visit. >> Oh, they're already gone. Okay. So, this all has been disturbed anyway. >> Minimal. It was more like flush cutting. >> Okay. >> Anything else from the commission? Right. Do I hear a motion to uh close
the hearing um to approve this um subject to the order of condition? >> I'll make a motion to close the hearing. >> Second. >> Okay. So, I have a motion. It's been seconded. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Closed.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. No, we have to actually vote on >> the path >> uh issuing the the NOI. >> NOI >> approving the NOI. >> Make your motion. >> Make your motion. >> All right. So,
Matt, give me the give me the broadstrokes again. We're approving NOI. >> Yeah, you're issuing uh orders of conditions to approve the project with the special conditions as discussed. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to uh issue order of conditions with the special
conditions as discussed in the meeting. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Again, it's um we have a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion passes.
>> Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Nope. Just did the closing. >> All right. Um section C, this is 28 Marian Drive, also known as one Royson Drive. You find
that on map 75. This is at lot 31-1. This is a request for amendment to order of conditions and I reopen a hearing for the request for amendment for the proposed installation of a sediment for and rain garden within the 200 foot
riverfront area of Smill Brook. Let's hear a briefing from um the conservation agent if we may. >> Sure. Um, let me stop sharing my screen for a second.
And okay, we do have Amy. So, we have um Amy and Janet online from Horesley Whitten Group. They handle the peer review on this project. Um, they submitted a updated peer review report. It was November
6th maybe. Um, and essentially what this came down to, not rehashing everything we've already discussed on this, is the peer review is supposed to answer three questions. Does the project proposed in the amendment request meet
the RFA standards of WPA and KWPR? Does the alternatives analysis incorporate all feasible options? and is what has been proposed the best feasible storm water management option in that it's the least impactful to wetland resource areas. The November 6 updates a peerreview
report answers those questions in the following way. I have modified the answers for conciseness for our purposes here. Um answer to question one. No, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the RFA performance standards. Um and they went into it in a
little more depth that um the rain garden itself does not qualify as mitigation uh for disturbance in the riverfront area because it needs to be maintained over time. So it's not the same as having a passive naturalization area or something else protected behind
conservation post or something along those lines. Um you do have to go in there and clear vegetation out of it and um remove accumulated sediment and whatnot. So it is not not the same. Um the answer to number two also no proprietary act practices could have
been showed shown and that would mean uh storm water BMPs or SCMs. Um Whitten Group does say that type of alternative would likely result in greater disturbance to the riverfront area but at the time they didn't realize Royson Drive was a private road under
the control of the applicant. combined with the fact that the creation of a proprietary practice could occur in portions of the riverfront area consisting of turf lead me to believe that all feasible alternatives were not shown. And number three essentially says
a rain garden is likely the best solution to address the roadway runoff. Um I sort of made the same notes about them not being clear on the roadway ownership and possibly not factoring in all feasible alternatives. Um, I asked Horses of Whitman Group to be able to be
prepared to speak tonight uh to the commission as to why additive possibilities weren't considered. Um, for instance, if the best answer is a rain garden with an SCM for pre-treatment or infiltration galleries under the roadway in addition to a rain garden, why was that not discussed? Um,
so we can probably stop there before I get into recommendations if you'd like and we can hear from horses group. we can hear from the representative um and go from there. Does that make sense? >> You ready for us to hear from you then?
>> I'm sorry. >> Would you like to identify yourself? >> Oh, well, thank you. Good evening everyone. My name is Adam Brodzky. I'm a local environmental and land use attorney and I'm representing Royson Properties LLC as well as Lawrence Demar
this evening. Mr. Demar is actually home ill but attending virtually and I'm here with Rick Grady our professional engineer with Grady Consulting. >> So do you wish to hear from Ms. Ball prior to us responding or how would you
wish to proceed? Go >> um let's some hear from um the um from you first. Yeah, let's hear from Horley Whitten first. >> Is that Janet? >> That's uh Amy. Amy and Janet. I think Amy is probably um ready to speak.
>> Okay. Would you just um identify yourself for the record? >> Amy, for the record, Amy Ball, senior associate with the Horley Whitten Group. >> Can we get a little more volume on >> Sorry, turn that up. >> How's that? Is that better? Can
everybody hear? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. >> Uh, one second, please. >> Give another shot. >> Try one more. >> Um, how about now? >> Yeah, that's better. >> Okay. Uh, for the record, Aiden Ball,
senior associate with the Hoy Whitten Group. I'll let Jan introduce yourself. >> And I'm Janet Bernardo, professional civil engineer with the horsey Whitten group. >> Thank you, Miss Paul. Okay. So, um Matt did a pretty good job.
We we had a a conversation with him yesterday about um our our responses and and as he pointed out, we were not aware that the Roy and Drive is actually private. So, that may have changed, you know, the way we would have um answered some of the questions. I can speak to
the first one fairly clearly, which is in terms of the riverfront area and the new proposed um alteration with the riverfront area. Um because you're uh you're considering this under the
redevelopment regulations under 10585, the applicant must meet those standards. Um and one of the standards is to not get any closer to the river than under existing conditions. and with the
proposed rain garden um they are and so they would need to consider the um the provisions under FNG which is to provide some sort of mitigation um and in this case they're proposing some plantings
um but it's not at a minimum of one um ratio as as required in the regulations. So to that end, our recommendation would be if the if the commission were to consider this that the applicant should consider um uh supplementing the
plantings and to maintain them in a you know an unmaintained uh fashion like not part of the proposed rain garden but you know allowed to to grow naturally in this area to to provide the habitat that um that was
being lost. um as for the the uh storm water practice and how what is the best practice for this um this location and and whether or not all alternatives have been considered. The applicant did
provide a number of of um alternatives that were considered including the no build zone and you know the proposed practice and then a couple of other um practices in between. there may be some additional um considerations
for for resolving this the flooding situation here. We're gonna let Janet take it from here because she's our storm water engineer. Uh yeah, again uh my name is Janet Bernardo and um so we originally looked at this assuming that the road was a
town road and that that was not part of the the the project uh so to speak because it was an existing roadway. But um then the proposed
actual original design included um constructing some buildings and putting in some relatively large storm water infiltration chamber systems um to manage the runoff from those buildings as well as the parking lots. uh that
work has been under construction and the management of the erosion controls has not really been up to par and so therefore it's been a a problem with sediment getting into the road getting into the existing catch basins in the
road and allowing that to discharge into the river. So now they really need to show that they can manage that better. Part of their design is to take the existing catch basin, cut the pipe and
put that into a for bay and take the paved waterway that's existing on the roadway and put that into a for bay as well. And that's over tops into a rain garden and that rain garden will somehow discharge back into the river. That
means of discharge was um a question in our in our last letter. But going back, so that design isn't so horrible if they were just trying to manage the runoff from that one catch basin. But reality
is that they have a lot more runoff coming off the site and from the properties than they probably were anticipating or or calculated for originally. and they should be looking at what they can do on the north side of
the road um to manage whatever is coming down those slopes particularly because of the amount of sediment that it seems to be washing into the road. So putting in um either they could put putting in some type of rain gardens on the north
side along to manage the the driveway aprons that they are not capturing with their proposed designs and even under during construction to put in uh erosion controls on the north side and sediment
basins on the north side. So that that runoff that that seems to just be pooling into the roadway and causing a flooding issue is held on the north side of the road and not impacting those
catch basins. And then the catch the existing catch basin um a water quality unit of some sort can be added to that. Um, and it seems to it was hard to tell if it's capturing the water that it
should be capturing. Maybe there's water coming down the slope that under under the overhead wires. It seems like the road is pitched towards the the brook and not towards the catch basin system, which is a
little confusing how that even got constructed in that way in the beginning. But managing really managing everything that's on the north side of the road and then managing the road runoff separately uh would be a
preferable design particularly because of the amount of erosion that's going into the system right now. Did that was that confusing? >> Can I um just really quickly? >> Sure. So, um, obviously we have we have
two things going on tonight on this property right now. We're talking about the request for amendment to OC's and then later on we do have it up for enforcement about the sedimentation and all of that. It's not that discussing it right now is is out of line, but what we're looking at here is and what was
asked originally was what is a a long-term fix, right? and and the case that I believe the applicant was making was that well once all these infiltration galleries are finished then there won't be any issues down there and that was part of what we were trying to
kind of get out of this was some confirmation of that and I think that's um somewhat hard to get. I think Janet would confirm that she said it appears based on the calculations like that could be the case that once all these infiltration galleries once the whole
project is built out there should be s there will be significantly less water coming down to the road question from the commission standpoint is that going to be enough right are those systems all built for certain size storms that we're seeing these days that aren't freak
accidents anymore they're annual or a couple times a Um, are we still going to end up with situations where all the water is coming down the access driveways into the road, pooling in that same spot? When it pulls in that spot, every vehicle that drives through, every truck from anybody who works at any of
the businesses there, any vehicle drives through there, any of the oils, anything that's stuck to a vehicle now is getting washed out through the puddle back and forth. And then when that stuff runs off towards, you know, when you have a situation where that rain garden will then get overtopped, then that stuff's
not settling out of the system and getting into the ground. It's getting into the empowerments of Small Brook. So I think that's what the commission wants to see out of whatever this is is is the best possible solution for this rather than just trusting that well it'll
probably be okay because at that point then what does the commission do about it, right? down the road, a couple years down the road when everything is all done and that's the new condition now where you still have flooding there, you still have inputs of contaminants into
the brook. Like it's kind of hard at that point to to prove as the property owner is aware because we've talked a lot about, you know, different contamination issues in the area. It's really hard to pinpoint that stuff through enforcement
other than being there on the ground, seeing a plume come out into or seeing the brown water getting into the water and then seeing a plume in the water. Um, so I think it's really important to get it right now. >> And to your point, if I may.
>> Yes, please. >> We had the NOI filing. we approved it and that management approach has failed. I think because our responsibility is protection of the riverfront which is a
resource area not a buffer zone that it's incumbent upon us to have the best engineering approach put into place rather than hope for the best. So that's just my opinion.
Do we have anything else from the commission? >> I share I share the opinion, but I guess where I'm a little bit turned around is is is I thought that I heard um Janet say that there was additional steps that she was recommending.
>> Um not that just when everything was built it would it would work it might work enough. >> Right. So, if if I misheard it, I apologize, but I thought she was making recommendations along the north side, doing four bays, two two of them. Um, I'm not I don't remember this one well
enough to to say that I remember exactly what what we had been discussing as it's going to be there anyways, but I think there was a disparage, >> right? So you didn't you didn't mishar that. But the but the part that required me to kind of preface a lot of that was that like essentially that's not what
the peer review report said. And so when I first the updated >> So we need an updated peer review report. >> That's I I don't know if that's accurate or not. I just when we got the peerreview report I looked at it and my first questions were like how or why,
right? >> Why are these results this way? I don't see support of that. And so I had questions of like, okay, how did you get to these these answers? And and were these types of things considered? And and the answer was no. And the reason
was, well, that's in the road. Figured you can't do anything in the road. Well, that's not true. And the road is where some of these issues are, and it's a private road, so that should definitely be part of looking into all this. Um, but no, no, you didn't hear that
incorrectly. And it has been it's been a a different process. What was proposed in the first place, when I say the first place, what was proposed when we first got the the request was not what was ultimately submitted for peer review. So, it's already gotten a little bit
better in that aspect. What was submitted in the first place was one rain garden on the south side of the road. By the time >> it went out to peer review, it was now two. Um so now you know additional calculations had been run or calculations had been run and it was
determined they needed more storage space. Um so it has improved from what was first put in front of us. The question now is is still is that the best feasible option? Um from what I can
tell from everything that now has come out of peer review and discussion is not necessarily. I don't think we have a clear answer on that because there are other things that could be done that would likely have a benefit on storm water management on site and that
I don't think be unreasonable. Um so >> no and again I I don't think we're talking about the elephant in the room which is staying out of the riverfront area. the fact that if you have to do work in the riverfront area right there, I mean, we had a a special condition that no other work will happen in the riverfront
area without a filing, which we do have, and without good cause, right? And then with what um Amy was talking about in terms of mitigation because you're not supposed to get closer and this would make it get closer, right? So I think
if there are feasible alternatives that are further from the riverfront area that's obviously or further from the river obviously the riverfront area on this site is large and was considered to be or portions of it were considered to be previously degraded during the previous filing um
>> and that's why work was allowed there. >> Right. But if there is something better that can occur there that will help with storm water management over the long term, then the commission should want to see that. If
what is proposed now is the two rain gardens is truly the best possible feasible solution there, then maybe that's it and that's what the commission should approve. And >> but I think we just heard Janet say that that wasn't the case. I I I don't think that in what she said and Janet speak up
please if if if I'm misquoting you but I don't think she said that this is great you're good to go. I I think that she was indicating that there's more that could be done to stop this from occurring again and then again and again and again. >> Was that was that accurate? Yeah, I I do
think that there could be more things done on the north side of the road to capture any runoff that's coming over the lawn areas and over the driveway aprons. Um it's a matter of capturing that runoff before it hits the road and
then cleaning any you know providing water quality which a rain garden will do for the rain water that goes into any catch basins that are within the in the road itself. So, so but it would be if there's a lot
I I guess part of the confusion has been the amount of water that is ponding. We were on the site after a rainstorm. We definitely saw a large puddle. Um, and so how much water is actually ponding
and how much are the cars having to drive through that water and what are they leaving on the road when they drive through a large puddle. So the goal would be to not have any puddles on the road at all and not have um and provide
water quality for any water that eventually will get into the brook. So that's managing whatever is coming off of the properties, which a lot of the water is being managed by the proposed designs, but they're not built yet, all
of them. Um, and then then where what's happening with that rest of it is something that the applicant can >> So is this an open-ended question that we're just not going to know the answer to, which we're going to see how it performs ultimately is >> well, really quickly, >> we're stuck. And this is part of why I
brought up what I brought after she spoke the first time is that the first time Janet got into a little more discussion of the enforcement related issue, which is the the day that we had a lot of sediment in September coming off of the
work area and pooling and getting in pooling in the road and getting into Smel Brook. I told the property owner, you need to contain what on site in terms of where the work is happening, right? And so when Janet was talking about doing some work to keep that
sediment from getting down there, that's enforcement related. That's permit compliance related. They have to do that anyways and they have started that process with putting extra silt sock up there. I've already told them do whatever you can to stabilize open areas, keep that from coming down. But
Janet did mention and it's good to now have the clarification that that is those are things that could be added there. There there is room there are other options there for getting more where then you wouldn't likely have that you know question about is this enough
right? You're at least doing the best possible try at designing something that can take care of excess water. So, is this an engineering problem? >> I think it's been an engineering problem >> from the get
>> the whole time. And I'm not saying that to to knock the engineers on the project. I'm saying that storm water management is an engineering problem. Okay. >> So, if it >> Yeah. >> Did Let me ask you this. >> Does the applicant have
a design in front of us that captures everything that we need or do we need to ask for an update? based on the results of the peer review. >> Who are you asking? >> That's a Janet question, not me. That's why we put it out to peer review. >> Well, I don't think that she's even seen because you're saying that she she's
only seen it with one rain garden. Correct. >> No, no, no, no. When it was first submitted to the commission, there was one rain garden >> and then >> has she seen the most recent? >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. What went in front of them for peer review, it was already an improvement on what was first submitted to the
commission. There were now rain gardens on both sides of the street. So that was >> but it sounds like there's still some more that the peer review is re recommending. I think that we need >> there's more that can be done >> time to to >> there's more that can be done >> to now that they have some more
information take it back draw it up and then bring it back. I think that's that's the the right path here. >> And again in keeping with the whole idea of an alternatives analysis and other approaches I I I think it's important to entertain this. >> Can we hear from
>> Chair Vendetti? Could I speak to the regulations because I think there's some confusion and intermixing of different regulatory concepts. >> Please, >> would you please? >> Thank you. So, I I think we're all in agreement that this is a previously
developed riverfront area, at least this portion of the site, which is subject not to 10584 of the uh wetland regulations. 310 CMR 10584
which includes your alternatives analysis but subject to 310 CMR 10585 which specifically deals with redevelopment and in fact your wetland regulations call that out in uh section
604 subsection 4 performance standards for redevelopment where the proposed project involves redevelopment of a previously altered riverfront area to a perennial stream, then the criteria found in 310
CMR 10585 apply in lie of the alternative analysis performance standards stating in the Afroed subsection C2C that relates to new undeveloped riverfront area where you need to show one like there's no practicable
alternative and you have to meet the no adverse effect standard which is a dimensional standard under section 10584. So I I I fully understand the commission's concerns regarding design alternatives, but because it's a
redevelopment project, it's not subject to that alternatives analysis. And if you actually look at 10585, it actually gives you the specific criteria by which you evaluate previously developed areas. And I don't think there's any dispute. This portion
of the site is all previously developed. It includes large areas of degraded uh areas, the roads degraded. In fact, my recollection is and I I did I was involved in this back back in the day. Those are all man-made structures and
ponds and whatnot. We we certainly have a protected stream. We certainly have riverfront area, but I think this whole section of the site um was previously uh developed and also degraded. So if you're dealing with redevelopment, then
you look at um subsection A. At a minimum, the proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions. So I don't think there's any question that what we're proposing, the additional storm water BMPs are an improvement over existing conditions. We're trying to solve a problem. We have
a time problem in that we think once the project is fully built out, we're not going to have this issue, but we're in the middle of this. And so we definitely have a temporary problem uh that needs to be addressed. Subsection B, storm water management is provided according to standards
established by the department. So I think that's the technical issue here and perhaps a dispute regarding the two consultants. Uh Grady Consulting our professional engineers say that the design that we provided meets the stormwater standards.
I think there's some suggestion uh by horses wind that perhaps it doesn't. And so I I think that's that's I'm not suggesting we can't talk about that. That's that's that's I think that's where we are. C uh the proposed work shall not be located closer to the river
than existing conditions. Again, we have previously developed uh riverfront air all the way down to the banks of these things. But let's assume we have and so I don't think we're proposing anything closer than existing conditions. But
there's a another section that says except in accordance with 310 CMR 1058 F or G which Miss Ball indicated that's the provision that says well if you provide mitigation you can get closer than existing conditions and so I think
it's perfectly appropriate to be talking about mitigation. Our position is is that we're actually not getting any closer because that's all previously developed um under the regulations. But it's certainly appropriate to have a conversation if the commission wants to see additional mitigation. >> Colleen, may I?
>> Um >> Um Yes. Could we hear a question from the commissioner? >> This is your process. I was just going to go through each of the >> before you go to Matt. Have you received anything um in writing from Mr. Broadsky so that we could review this before it
comes to us in front at a meeting? >> I don't think so. >> No. Well, I figured you had already reviewed the regulations when you were viewing this previously. I'm just reading I'm just reading you the regulations. >> The question was to Matt, so I'll I'll continue to speak. >> If you're going to present something as
a challenge as to a legal defense of what you're doing and why we shouldn't be considering it, it should be put in front of us in writing before we get into a meeting because when you come and you just start reading regulation to us, then there's no time for us to review it and to consider it. So, I'd ask you that
if you're going to come in front of us again, you submit any kind of legal opinion to Matt so that we can have town council review that legal opinion before you come and try to kind of supersede what we understand as
performance standards, right? So, if we have a problem and we see something that needs to be done and we talk to peer review and they say, "Yes, I in this case, I don't think it's adequate." and we say, "All right, looks like you need some more time to discuss it." Then I say, "That's that's that's the path that we should be taking. If you want to come
back and and discuss it with legal references, then I think you need to start going by the rules that we have for the engineers and you need to submit that to us so that we can fact check it and it's not just done in front of us because we can get spun around real easy here." I'm sure you can understand. We're volunteers. We need time to review
what what seems very um common to you is something that I like to review so that if you misquote something I want to know that you misqued it and I'm I can't fact check you as we go along. So that's my understanding.
>> I want to add something to that. >> Go ahead Mary. >> Given that excuse me dot go ahead. Given that we've gone through this process before, we had town council actually attend meetings when it started to get into some of this back and forth. I
personally feel it's important to have town council on board since we're getting into more of this now. I I don't feel comfortable without our own legal counsel. and dot when a project is under construction
there are rules about keeping the water under control and the sediment etc. From the pictures that I saw it is not under control and so what you're saying may be true. I sorry I don't know those regulations. Um
and I think that something has to be done to protect the the river now from the runoff and sediment. Um, and it has nothing to do with those regulations. >> And before you comment, I there's been a
very patient member of the public that I'd like to hear from right after you, Matt. >> Yeah, I I think that's all valid concern and we can certainly do all of those things. Um, at the same rate, if somebody wants to bring up references, maybe
we didn't have a lot of time for review after getting the last peerreview report. you can always take information and then continue. But ultimately, I think in a lot of what was was just said, it's it's not necessarily about whether or not you know each one of
those regulations in and out. It's it's interpretation. >> Um, one person's going to interpret it one way, one interpret it one way, another person's going to interpret it differently. So whereas Mr. Brodzky or Rick might say, "This is all previously degraded and therefore there's no need
for anything. We're not getting closer because it's already previously degraded. Somebody else will look at it and say that's in a natural condition. The fact that a hundred years ago somebody damned up, and I'm obviously throwing that number out there. I have no idea the exact timeline of it, but that somebody damned up that section of
the river and changed the land form around it. You know, since then, you have a lot more of a natural condition to that. And there certainly is no development proposed on that side of the river or that I'm sorry that side of the street closer to um to the brook rather.
>> And in fact during that NOI process I'm reviewing some notes that I had. It was an agreement to restrict all activity outside of that area. >> Yes. And and there was a special condition that says unless a variance,
excuse me, unless you came back in with an amendment, which is what this is. So, I'm going to be quiet. I I I hear you loud and clear. I agree with Miss McFarland. I'm not offering any opinions. I'm not offering any interpretations.
I was a little bit surprised that that that I mean, these are the performance standards. These are the state wetlands protection act performance standards for riverfront. I'd assume that they had been reviewed. They've been actually addressed in in part well actually addressed in our project narrative where they're actually spelled out. I'm
repeating some of the information that's in the project narrative. They've been addressed by your peerreview consultant. Uh I was just providing clarity because we're talking about for example an alternatives analysis which is not relevant for this discussion. So all I
was trying to do is is is and and I'm I'm literally reading the regulations. So, um, I figured everyone had that all in front of them and had been addressed. So, I'm not trying to make any legal arguments. With with that said, would it be appropriate for for Rick to actually address what I think is the technical
issue here, which is does what we're proposing meet the stormwater standards? >> Can we just hear from Mr. Bisah first, member of the public? >> And again, I don't mean to interrupt. I mean, don't you want to hear from the applicant before you get public comment from people so we can complete our
presentation? That would I think would only be fair. >> All right. >> You've already stated what what you feel that you want to do. >> Yeah. I'd like I I want to hear what Mr. Boy has to say and perhaps then there'd be even more that you can respond to.
So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, shall I go? Uh, >> please go here. >> Uh, thanks. Thanks so much. And I I don't want to step on anybody's toes or take too much time or suggest that I have been following every uh nook and
cranny of the advancing degragation of the site, but let let me just say that that I'm here for Snowbrook. Um I believe that there's a lot of damage on this property that has evolved since it
was a cranberry bog um through the development of the industrial park, let's call it. Um, and and I would like to know who is the owner of the culvert under Marian Drive. And I I just want to admit that I've been a little confused
by who's talking about which road, whether we're talking about the Royen Drive so-called driveway or or Marian Drive when we talk about some of the puddles. Um, >> Matt probably answer that for you. >> Yeah. Every everything we've talked about so far, unless anybody can correct
me, is Royce and Drive. Okay. I I was assuming that um uh but but but let's just remember that the regulations are there because we we're trying to protect the ecosystems and the ecosystem of Smoke Brook runs from Smoke Pond all
the way um to to the estuary of Jones River. And uh all of that has been manipulated over time. And there's a lot of us um both both locally and in the state that are trying to restore some of these areas because we're losing so much
of our natural resources, especially the fish. So, we know that the dam at Foundry Pond is no longer necessary and we we know that the the culvert under Marian Drive is way too small.
And we know that most of that that site has been altered by cranberry agriculture production and how the industrial um evolution took place. I really I I haven't been in touch with that. I don't know where the where those
orders and permits were. But I do know that um the conservation commission as I know it and I believe in all of the members there um are are would be interested in the restoration of the brook. So, who is responsible for the
culvert? And can we start talking about it as a a living brook that that needs to help smelt pond uh ret re regain its health because smelt pond also is degraded as we know and part of that
reason is because it's lost its migrating fish population. So, I I think that there's a lot more to it. I appreciate everything that the peer reviewers had to say. Um although I don't have any plans in front of me so it's a little difficult but but I think
that there's a bigger thing here and if we're talking about redevelopment then talk about restoration please. And um let's let's put that on somebody that really wants to continue to alter a site that not that long ago in the life of
the world um was a productive fishery. Um, so thanks very much and I appreciate the time. >> Okay. Thanks, Mr. B. Would you like to come up, identify yourself for the record, please? >> Uh, thank you, Rick Grady from Grady Consulting. Um, so the problem, as I
understand it here, when we've been talking about this for quite some time now, year and a half or so, I think, and I'm so sure the commission's getting tired of talking about it. Um, the problem that was described to me was ponding and puddling on Royson Drive.
There's an existing catch basin and there's an existing paved swale. The paved swale just charges overland to Smelt Brook and the man-made pond uh in that area. The grade of that roadway there is approximately elevation 90.
At the end of that, there's quite a bit of accumulated sediment. There's been erosion controls put in there over time. A combination of a lack of slope coming off that roadway, accumulated sediment, and the erosion
controls created the puddle within Royson Drive. So what we're proposing is to lower that grade immediately adjacent to that paved swale from elevation 90 down to
elevation 87 within a sediment for bay. The sooner we can lower that elevation, the sooner we can remove that puddling from Royson Drive. That's why our sediment forbay was very particularly designed in that location so that we can
drop that grade from elevation 90 down to elevation 87. Very simple science here. Um, if we can lower that grade, we can get that water off of Royson Drive. Along with doing that, if we can introduce a rain garden
in a previously disturbed area, we're going to promote infiltration. We're going to promote storm water protection. We're going to add vegetation. Uh we are proposing to expand on the
passive naturalization area uh in an equivalent area to what we're disturbing for the rain garden. Uh and again as Mr. Brodsky had said that our position is that this is a previously disturbed riverfront area. So we're not going any
closer than previously existed. However, if we can get that water off of Royson Drive, a private driveway, uh we can fix the problem and in doing that, we can also get additional
infiltration uh further protect the riverfront area. We have addressed numerous uh comments from Horsesley Whitten on the north side of the roadway. We did add a swale. We did add another rain garden. So those going to further infiltrate.
I I do feel confident that had we had this infrastructure in place then whatever discharges have occurred I heard September um I think we would have captured any of that within these items. Um
>> Rick M without interrupting your float are you saying that you've taken some of what Whitten had had recommended and already incorporated into a new drawing? Yes. >> For my misunderstanding. >> The the work on the north side of Royson Drive was not part of the initial submitt. Um we didn't feel it was
necessary at the time. Um we did provide it to try to come to a middle ground on something the commission could approve. Um so we did add the swale on the north side. We did add the additional infiltration on the north side. Um, and I I really feel that if we can lower
that grade near that paved swale, we're not going to have puddling in Royce and Drive anymore. We're not going to have vehicles going back and forth between the puddle. Um, but we need to do it in order to to fix that problem. And the longer we wait,
the the more the problem is going to persist. So, we're we're just asking the commission to work with us on that. That's all. We think it is a good solution. Can I uh member of the public when you're done? >> Just a little clarification, not
conflating again the enforcement related issues right now with long-term, but you you're saying and I I heard the same thing from from Larry on site the day of September 25th where we had the big storm water release there. Do you feel
that if this system was installed that all would have been contained? >> I do. >> That's That seems wild. I'm not an engineer. That's just That was a lot That was a lot of water coming off of that site.
Like >> having something there is substantially better than having nothing there. >> Better, yes, but to say that it would all be contained is is I I think highly unlikely given how much water moved off that site. And again, I'm not trying to make a huge point on this because I
understand that a couple of, let's say, years down the road, you're going to have multiple, you know, pretty sizable infiltration systems installed up there. >> And in fairness, I wasn't there on September 25th. So, I'm unfortunately just hearing the story and I'm assuming that's when we got the 8 inches of rain
during that storm event. >> I'm not sure that that was the 8 in that was July >> that hit Kingston during that storm. Yes. Yeah. Not sure if that was eight, but >> I I measured it myself and the news also said it. >> What was it that you're saying? That was the 8 in.
>> Pardon? >> Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, C can I ask a question? >> And obviously, there should be controlling off the current construction site, too, which I imagine was the problem and should have had some temporary controls in place up there as
well. I'm not disputing that. I'm sorry. the the swale. You said the water from the swale goes into the river. >> Uh from the paved swale, it flows overland into the river. Currently untreated. Correct. >> There is a pipe
>> from the from the catch basin. Again, probably piping directly out into >> Well, that's just >> the brook from whenever it was installed a long time ago. My understanding is that pipe is is clogged up. Um, and Horsesley Whitten's recommendation on
this was to cut that pipe and leave it cap it and leave it in place and have the water flow from the overflow of the rain garden across land into >> could the swale be turned into a rain garden instead stop the flow into the
river? >> That's essentially the >> essentially >> that's essentially where it starts. That's, you know, essentially the plan right now is to take the area that right now does have a little paved area there um that I could have sworn at one point I saw a catch base on that side of the road that was all clogged up too, but it
might it doesn't show up on any plans or anything. >> It's just a paved swale paved extension of the road. >> And we did bring Hodley in at one point to clean the sediment out of the catch basin. We had them camera that 8 in discharge pipe. It is clogged. It is broken. It's not working correctly. So
really what's probably happening right now is it's going through that pipe to the bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro bro broken part and then forcing its way out of the pipe and near the edge of the water and I know Horesley Whitten had suggested relocating the discharge to the area of the uh invasive olive tree which we're proposing to remove. We
certainly willing to do that. We think it's a great idea. It'll shorten up our discharge length there, too. We're I thought it would be more amendable to utilize the previous location rather than relocating it because know that's always a sensitive topic, but we're
certainly willing to relocate that to where the olive tree is as suggested. I'd have to get clarification from them because my understanding on the latest was that um that they would thought it was better to just let it spill overland from that location rather than overflow
spillway out of the rain garden and let that go overland. That would >> that would be even better than a pipe because that would allow us to discharge at a higher elevation. >> May I please before we hear more from the commission, may I hear from member of the public identified as JC?
>> That's not a hand raised. That is the most sorry. >> Very good. Then yeah, Jim. >> All right. So, Matt, h, how do we get to the to the point where I can feel confident that we've we've listened to our peer review and we've we've communicated it all appropriately and
we've we've received an update plan that we can feel confident addresses everything that our peer reviewer has indicated to move forward so that we can move forward and let this all go behind us because I think Rick will do a great job doing it once once all the
information is there. How how do we make sure we're not dropping eggs? >> Multiple ways. Um we could ask Corsley Whitten Group to weigh in now with specific recommendations which they may or may not be ready to do. We could ask Corsley Whitten Group to update their
plan with recommendation or their report with recommendations because um there was an issue during the process of of reviewing all of this. Um >> I think we want it written down, Matt. >> Of I mean of course we want it written down. It's just that's unfortunately
that's the way this this went. Um we can take some time to review some of the stuff Attorney Brosky brought up and see how much of that um our council agrees with. Um but as he said they're willing
they're willing to work on it. >> They're not because Rick is saying that he's already got most of it. >> Rick's a good engineer. I'm sure that if he says he's got it he's got it. But I'd like to hear from I can't do storm water. I'm not I'm not I'm not the guy. I
I'm not trying to be. But if they say that you picked up the big pieces and there's something small, then we can debate the small thing. But if if you guys are already close to it, we don't need to complicate it anymore. >> I believe we're close. >> So, let's let's give you a little bit of
time to to nail it down. And if there's something that you absolutely can't do it, then tell us you can't do that part and we're going to have to make a decision. Or if you say that you checked off all of them, then it's awesome. That's all we want here is to make sure that this doesn't become a problem that is sustained beyond the project and it's
recurring every single time because it rains five, six, seven inches because we didn't do enough here. So, let's put the smart people together and and come up with the answer. >> I think the one thing that I would request clarification on is whether the intent was relocating the discharge pipe or whether it was to let it go overland
out of the spillway out of the rain garden. Um, and I like the spillway idea better if that was the intent, but I just want to make sure that we're saying the same thing. >> I mean, I can I can quickly speak to that and just say we never want
discharge directly into a resource area or we want discharge as far away from resource areas as we can get it. >> Um, unfortunately in this situation, you're not left with much space >> regardless. So every foot of
>> space of overland potential infiltration is >> is helpful. >> Yeah. So we could come out of that um swale. Sorry, >> Janet. >> I just want to can I cl make one quick clarification? Um, our original letter
suggested having a overflow weir with a V notch to just allow water to rise in the in the rain garden and then flow overland. Um, the applicant did not show that on their revised plan set. Uh,
continued to have it go through the broken pipe and so we we said we really don't like that idea. They should go back to at least having a discharge. So, we kind of said two different things, but we really like the idea of uh an
overflow spillway with a notch in it to have this the lower flows and then it could get higher. So, it's designed that way. That was really the the goal. >> Okay. >> Of the of the report. >> Thank you. So, could I make a motion um
to continue this meeting? How great how much time do you think you guys need to get together? >> A week. >> The first in December. >> Yeah, a week's plenty. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask for a small clarification? >> Sure.
in a week. Are you coming back with the existing plan with just the change in that overflow or is the plan to try to take some of what was given from Horesley Whitten Group tonight in discussion and see if there's something
that can be done better to kick this home for the commission so they can have an easy yes on request for amendment because taking some of what attorney Brodzky said along with the fact that this is an amendment request and all of the thresholds for that, right? Can you
make it as easy as possible for them to say yes to this and we can put this behind us? Or is it you're coming back essentially with the same thing, so therefore we should look at some of the rest of the discussion that's been had tonight. >> My nature is primarily a problem solver. I'm not real good at drawing up a lot of
things that we're not going to build. Um >> well, here here's my motion. Let's continue this until the first meeting in December, which was the 10th, I believe. >> 10th. >> And we're gonna ask you to get in touch through Matt, however you guys do it, with Horse and Whitten Group, come up
with their recommendations and show us something that hopefully we can um we can feel comfortable approving and moving forward on it. That's that would be my my request for continue >> that will fulfill that request for necessity for good cause. I'm sorry.
>> Use that phrase good cause to go to um change up that riverfront area because you've got that special condition that says no further activity there unless there's good cause. I need to feel comfortable with knowing you've
demonstrated good cause. >> Okay. I think the good cause is quite simply that we're solving the identified problem of ponding water within Royson Drive. Um, >> but we've looked at different alternatives, forgive the use of the word alternative, and and now listening
to Janet, I I really want to see those things incorporated. >> Okay. >> Can I make one other comment? >> Not sure we'll ever satisfy that quite honestly, but we'll do our best. >> Then take your best shot. >> Janet, can we have Yeah. One last thing?
>> I just have one other thing. Um the plan that was most recently reviewed um has kind of a a big square in the middle that says that these other areas were dealt with with the order of conditions. And so I didn't go back again. I did the
first time, but I didn't go back the second time and look at those uh custom areas. But um going back this week, I realized that the grading um the topography, the proposed
topography on the south side of each of the buildings means that the grass and the lawn area south of the buildings goes into the road. So, but that is not
what's shown on this plan. the plan shows that those those grass areas are caught in the original order of conditions. I just want um Rick Grady to understand that this this catchment area that is
shown on this plan does not match the order of conditions and the original notice of intent with the lawns. they are now directly sheet flowing um onto the road and they should be caught before it gets onto the road or included
in this calculation. >> Does that make sense? >> So I I'm a little bit confused. We have a valid order of conditions that was approved by the conservation commission. >> This plan doesn't match. Are we going back to I'm sorry. Are we going back?
>> This plan doesn't match. They don't match. She's just saying that there's information on there that it says that this is all covered by that, but she's saying that it doesn't match what's being shown now as the catch. Essentially, is this >> talking about the calculation of the watershed area? I I I need clarification, please.
>> That was >> Yeah, it was about the lawn area in this version is shown as not being part of the the catchment area, right? What you call it? that is part of the area that drains down to that particular
area. Um where physically it does, right? Physically all of that area slopes down towards the road. So where you have very minor storms, I'm sure it all infiltrates, but on larger storms it won't. And that's going to run down, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, Janet.
Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, that and so the catchment area that's shown on this plan is not the same as the catchment area that was shown on the notice the original notice of intent. So, it just should be corrected with any
new submissions and make sure that it's all what what wasn't originally included in the buildings and the chambers and the for the parking lots is actually shown going onto the road. So, it's caught it's it's
caught in whatever the design is, all those areas should be cut. double check on that. If you have any cl if you have any questions about clarification on that, shoot me an email and we can we can coordinate all that. >> I understand the question. Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion. Do we have
>> I have a question clarification though. Are we asking the peer review to submit an updated version or we just using the notes from today's discussion to guide the Rick and his >> We want it written. >> We want it. So, we're asking the peer review to do an updated
plan. Is that the motion? That's not the motion. >> It's not part of the motion. The motion is continue to allow them >> to do that, but Matt said that we need that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, the motion is the continue this matter to December uh
10th. Um a second. >> Motion seconded. I'm going to take a vote on that. Well, all in favor? >> I. Any opposed to that? All right. That motion carries. So, we'll see you on the 10th of December. >> Thank you. Thank you both very much.
>> Just for clarification, we're going to discuss this property in the enforcement section after the hearings. >> All right. Have a seat. >> Move on to section D. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We're moving on to section D. This
uh involves 127 Whopping Road. You find that on map 52, lot five. This is a notice of intent matter. I open 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 the septic system. retaining walls, sight grading and paving within the 100 ft buffer to a bordering vegetated wetland and the 200 ft riverfront area to a
perennial stream at 127 Who um we could hear a briefing from you Matt if you're ready. >> Matt um >> before you start >> I I don't know the folks who live across the street but it is directly across the street from my sister's house. she has
talked with them and so I'm aware of a lot that's going on. I I don't know if I should recuse myself uh or not. >> I don't think so. >> Do you feel that there's any reason that anything you've heard would change your mind on making decisions or do you
>> probably not if you don't have any like stake financial stake or directly tied to the project? >> Direct. >> No, >> I think you're okay right? >> Okay. I just want you to know that. Thank you. Thanks for bringing it up though, Matt uh Dot. All right, so let's
see. >> I think it's a new one, so I think we would um let Pat give a presentation first. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Please identify yourself. >> Um Pat Brennan with PGB Engineering. Excuse me. I'm here on behalf of David Cassie. He's the applicant for this
project. Um >> I don't know if you if you want to put on the screen or um >> long meeting. >> I have I do have a board. No, you're good. I'll I'll pull it up on on the screen. >> If you want to get started, I'll >> So, this this is a 22 acre parcel. Um
there's an existing house, garage, shed, um and a bunch of debris on the parcel. Um there are wetlands as you come into the parcel off a whopping road. There's wetlands on both sides of the property. Um there's a perennial stream on the
left hand side as you come in which is the west side of the property. Um whopping road is on the south. Um the the proposal is to raise the existing house and um construct a new house in
its place. The existing house is a three-bedroom. Uh the proposed house is a three-bedroom. the um when we went out to do perk tests for the septic system, groundwater was very high out there. Uh it was about 28 in
down in the two test holes that we did. Um which means there's two cess pools now on the house. Uh so right now the cess pools are actually in the water table. The the basement of the house is um constantly filled with water. Um, so the
new house will be placed the the floor of the of the uh basement and it's a garage under will be placed at least 2 ft above groundwater. So it'll be almost at existing grade. So in order to do that we need to do some filling. We also need to do some filling in the front
portion. >> Can you still hear me? >> No, you need um there is a portable one we can get if you if you want to >> I can I can just >> I can um I can guide with the mouse if everybody can see the mouse. Will a laser pointer work? >> Sure. I think so.
>> Nice. A laser pointer. One of those you want. I like it. >> All right. Okay. So, this is the existing house here. Okay. It goes like this and it goes back like this. So, right here it's about just about 12 ft
off the wetland right in this back corner. Proposal is to get rid of that house. And then this rectangle is the foundation of the new home. Uh we're moving it 20 ft further away from the wetland. Um but as you can see there's
wetlands over on this side of the property here and they come out like this over on this side as well. So it we have a pinch point in the middle out here. So everything that we're doing is within buffer zone. There's also perennial stream over here. This is the 100 foot
riverfront area. We're staying out of that. This is the 200 foot riverfront area. So we're in we're in that outer riparian zone. Um septic system is going to go in the front yard. The existing there's one cesspool in this location. The other
cess pools in this location. The proposed septic system is going out here. We're keeping it a minimum of 50 ft off of the wetlands. We're kind of center it on the lot in between the two wetlands here. Um because of the groundwater issue, we have to actually raise that septic system to get the
separation we need from groundwater. So there is some filling out here. Um to reduce the filling, we're proposing retaining wall off of this corner of the ho house and then off this back corner of the house and fill around there so that we we're reducing the fill around the backside getting close to the
wetlands on the back side of the home. Um the septic system is a geomat system. It's a um it's an alternative system that provides better treatment than a conventional septic system. Um with the
geomat system, you're allowed to reduce your separation of groundwater. You're allowed to put it within 5 ft of a foundation of a home. Um so there's there's benefits. It's a it's basically a a sand filter. It's it's sits in C33 sand. Um so it's a it's a system that,
you know, works on this site. Um, like I said, by title five, the existing house is set as is a three-bedroom. This is a three-bedroom. So, we did submit to the board of health, we got approval for this as being a repair system because it's replacing three, it's three
bedrooms to three bedrooms. So, no additional flow according to title 5. Um, there are two trees, large trees out here, here and here. Uh, apparently they're lynen trees. We did submit a report um I think just uh yesterday or
the day before. Um there is um substantial decay in both of those trees. Um so the intent is to remove those two trees as part of the project. Um the um when we did the sitewalk last week,
uh the garage um is it's still standing. Um, obviously it needs to be repaired. So Matt had suggested that if if that's going to be that's that's not, you know, in the in the proposal right now, but we did include it. We updated the narrative
to include the garage mainly because if it's going to be done in the next three or five years, we wanted to include it under this filing. Um, but right now he's just looking to do the house. Um, part of it, the existing driveway comes out like this. It actually goes up to within a couple feet of the wetland
here. Um it's a garage under from the back. So where the portion of the house is coming out, would like to pave this area so that we have a connection from the driveway into the garage under. Um there are some variances we need from the KWPR.
Um one of them is for that driveway um within the 30-oot buffer. The 30-oot buffer is right here. So, a portion of that driveway is in the 30- foot buffer. The second um is one of the peers for
this deck on the back is within the 40ft buffer. Um and the third is that the the dwelling itself, the foundation wall, um and the a
portion of this retaining wall where it retains over 4T is within the 50ft buffer. Um the retaining wall is actually right on the it's actually replacing the back the existing back foundation wall of that portion of the home. Um
and then the found the foundation wall again it's it's further away from the wetland than the existing um house. So the ret one of the way one of the variances is about 5 ft of the retaining wall in this
location and then the foundation in this location here. Um moving it forward is going to push us into setbacks over here. um or over here. So there's wherever we move it, we're we're
going into those setbacks. Um we're and we also wanted to kind of put it in the location of the existing dwelling. So we're really not changing too much on the property. Um you know, we have our erosion controls here and here. Uh Silock, this is our
stock pile area. Um and I think that's that's it for now. um like I'd answer any questions that you may have, but I'm sure Matt has his comments that I'd like to say.
>> Matt, >> um just I guess big picture before I get into the um talking a lot about just all the detail. Um obviously four variances. Um
septics. I think we're we're seeing a lot of of septic issues coming up with um all the ADU stuff and everything like that and KWPR is pretty restrictive on septic systems. Um on this one um they make the case that you know according to title 5 that's an existing system and
that this is a replacement. Um some commissioners may feel otherwise. Um when and I know we've dealt with before conversion from uh cesspool to uh to a new construction. um not the easiest
thing for the commission to approve. Um no mitigation shown. So, I'll run through everything, but essentially, um, the commission can kind of handle it as they see fit if they want to give them another chance to come
back and provide a more compelling, um, case that they've done is the best that they can for um for the need for the commission to to issue the variances. Um, if the commission wants to say no, there's appeal processes for all that stuff. I
would say on a project like this, um, this would be one of the ones that you'd be approving under the WPA and denying it under the local. >> Um, and they would then have to they felt like it take it to court, you know, and see if they could get a judge to
overturn that. Um, so I'll go through everything and then if you have any questions, uh, let me know. One of the, I think, more important things, we did not confirm the wetland lines. I had some questions in the field and the way I typically do that rather than just start poking holes all over the property
is to uh coordinate a visit with the wetland scientist and we weren't able to coordinate a time before this meeting. Um so we're going to try to get out there as soon as we can um to just make sure that you know we've it's really
tough confirming wetland lines in the absence of vegetation. Um obviously the property has been developed for a long time. there are fields and up against wetlands. Um, and those could be pretty tricky uh with the soils and everything like that. Um, so I
do want to get out there and do that. You can get away with an RDA or some, you know, certain properties not confirming wetland lines. You could get away with stating that certain ones aren't confirmed, but for an NOI, obviously we should have confirmed wetland lines for this. So, um, so I
think no matter what, we would we would have to continue for that. Um, the other thing about wetlands, the application says there are no vernal pools on site, but there are two potential vernal pools uh that look like they're on the northwestern and northeastern property lines. Um, they're outside of the site
plan extents. So, in I believe their 200 foot areas are well out of of this as well. Um, but the applicant should be aware of that that each one of those has a 200 foot jurisdictional area um and protected area from mean high water under KWPR. They are referenced in the plant notes. So, it's not that there was
that it was completely unaware, but I believe it did say in the application that there were none on site, probably meaning on site for the actual site plan, not the property itself. Um, the two trees are substantial. Um, I made the point during the site visit
that they may be historic. Not that I think there's any real regulation component to that, just um just kind of adds to the cool factor of trees. But um they are clearly impacted by decay and structural issues. Still, when we were there, I pointed out there were parts
that appeared to be actively growing and trying to cover over and heal around that. So, we recommended um having a certified arborist take a look and provide a letter, which um they did provide a letter saying that um they're both, you know, in a bad way and they
would be problematic for, you know, you putting a septic system within a certain distance of those trees. then you know they may fall over and cause property damage. Um just to point out the proposal the
updated proposal said that the only jurisdictional portion of the garage work is clearing vegetation around the back of the building to make room for the work. Um for reference the garage is about 20 ft from the bank of a perennial stream and roughly 10 ft from the edge of BVW. Um, I don't have any evidence
that the original structure was legally permitted or that it predates the Wetlands Protection Act, I believe. Was it you you might have emailed me today on >> Yeah, >> I got an email of a 1971 picture maybe. I have not reviewed that yet. >> Y >> um if that is obvious obviously that
helps. Um but our guidance from town council has been essentially that there's no such thing as grandfathering and wetlands law. Um and also with you know a case particularly like this that even building on the existing foundation or even the demolition of the existing
structure on there are both jurisdictional activities their activities at the commission would likely have a higher likelihood of determining that they're not going to be impactful to the wetlands based on lack of ground disturbance. So rather than have somebody rebuild that garage nearby
in a, you know, similar distance to wetlands and have to disturb the ground, it would obviously be more beneficial just to rebuild it in place on the existing foundation, but it's all jurisdictional. Um, for that, the applicant would have to show that this was the least impactful location due to the
pre-existing foundation. Um, because it's much closer than what's allowed in KWPR. you'd have a 50- foot setback for a garage structure like that. Um, one of the things that I didn't get at in the site visit that I then through
thinking about things like this, um, thought of when I got back to the office was, you know, this property has been developed for a long time. There are portions of it that were probably in agricultural use. There's fields, things like that. Um, you know, we when we were on the site visit looking at the wetlands that are on the the right side
of the plan here. Um, you know, in between the house and the wetlands looked like it had been recently tilled. Um, and I remember that agricultural exemptions only exist for land actively farmed. Uh, and there's a 5-year time period on that and it's actually related
to commercial agriculture as well. Um, so I believe from talking to the applicant that there hasn't been anybody living in that house for I think it's 10 years or so or at least 10 years. Anyways, it has the appearance that longer than 5 years has passed if there was a commercial use there. So, the
reason for bringing that up would be that essentially any land on this property that's in jurisdiction, which is a lot because you have two streams that come through um there's another stream that comes through sort of the back part of the property on the other side and all of the BVW. You have 200 feet from any
stream, 200 feet from meanh high water on vernal pools and then 100 from BVW would all be jurisdictional and any modification to those should have some form of permitting or approval from the commission. Um, and I I did sort of hint at when we were there and the
application points out that the new homeowner has been cleaning the site up. Um, but part of cleaning the site up, I pointed out like there are trees that have been taken down, probably trees that were things that just popped up in the middle of fields around junk. Um, so I get it all, but it's important to
point out that, you know, any jurisdictional area on this property has protection from WPA and KWPR. So somebody who may want to buy this property, live there and make use of the fields, things like that for some form
of an agricultural use or even a residential use. Those things should be permitted that the commission has the ability to make sure that the wetlands are protected. Um he already mentioned they requested multiple variances. He detailed which ones they were. Um it's my take that the
garage also would would be a variance based on proximity to BVW and stream. Um the applicant claims no increase in septic flow rate due to existing and proposed houses having three bedrooms and that this is considered a repair or
replacement under title 5. Um, I one second. I wrote that like he pointed out the current septic system consists of two cesspools around 30 or 40 feet from BBW and in a groundwater saturated area. While the proposed septic system uses
geomat and increased elevation to reduce the impact to groundwater from a practical standpoint, the property has had very little use over the years if not decades. So it is tricky to say that there would be no increase in flow here from a practical standpoint. Not strictly talking title
five, but from from the commission's standpoint in terms of effects to wetland resource areas. It's likely that use will significantly be increased over whatever the peak use had been in including when you consider things like gray water, right? The house that's there was built in some form of the
1700s. I don't know what was in there for, you know, I don't know you had dishwashers, washing machines, things like that. New house more than likely has all of those things. We use a lot of water in those types of systems. Um, proposed system, the claim meets title
five. ably was signed off by the health agent, but neither of those are directly relevant to KWPR's performance standards based on septic systems. If this commission actually does constitute an increase in flow, then the commission would be within their right to deny the project under 10.02 B1 and three under
KWPR. Whether or not conversion from cesspool to septic system during house reconstruction or addition constitutes increased flow has come up in earlier hearings. Often it's resulted in the applicant proposing alternative technology treatment tanks to mitigate bacteria and pollutants like nitrogen
and phosphorus. The applicant has already proposed a geomat leeching system, but that's due to the high groundwater in the test pits. So its intent is to mitigate high ground water, not its proximity to wetlands and a perennial stream. Um the proposed leeching field is in the outer extents of the 200 foot riverfront area. Um but the topography does seem
conducive to runoff from this spot towards the stream if there are any system issues. um especially since the field will be elevated over existing conditions based on the fill that that he was discussing from KWPR 9.01. The conservation
commission may require a 100 foot no disturbance zone as a minimum protection protection measure adjacent to the following sensitive wetland resource areas. perennial streams. In addition, a 100 foot no disturbance zone adjacent to wetland resource areas is required for new septic system installations in
according with the project specific performance standards section 10.02. Again, it's unclear to me whether this constitutes a new septic system or replacement. Um recommendations. The applicant may request a continuance to add any proposed agricultural or other property
uses to this NOI as although that area has or had and continues to have extensive signs of historic use, including many dumped vehicles, tires, and materials. As far as I can tell, the area is in a natural condition as far as the WPA and KWPR are concerned and
should not be modified without a permit. They already have in some capacity as described in the findings above and the description of, you know, trying to clean the site up. Um, we already got a certified arburous letter. Uh, the commission may request information and continue the public hearing. As I've stated, we don't have, you know, a
consensus on wetland delineation anyways. Um, or close the hearing and issue OC's either approving or denying the proposal. Um, that any denial should be under KWPR only with approval under WPA only. Um, I don't recommend that at
this point. I would recommend, you know, the more information version of this on on both sides. Um, but as I said before, the applicants shown a proposal that improves the property from an assessing and community standpoint, but it is a tricky project to permit under the wetlands regulations, particularly the
local. Um, the existing house is only 12.4 ft from BVW. The proposed is 32.4 ft away. So, it is further. The current septic system does put the system further away from the resource areas and elevate and create, you know, a better system than a cess poolool that's in
groundwater. But again, those systems aren't being used. They're not something I don't think you could start using today. >> Um, so applicant requested four variances of KWPR performance standards, may need one or more others, uh, but has provided no
mitigation. Request discuss benefits such as moving structures landward um, and removing the basement and cess poolools from the groundwater. Um, but again, property has been in unusable condition, been vacant for a long time. If the commission feels that the variances are worthwhile, they may choose to approve the project through
issuance of OC's, but typically mitigation is offered in these situations where variances be needed to approve projects. >> I'm done talking. >> Can I address a couple of things there? >> Yes, please start. Um, the house has been in agriculture
for many many years. uh back in the 50s and 60s it was a chicken farm and um vegetables had taken and sold in a little stand. Um the house was occupied by a man and his wife until I'm I'm I'm
not sure exactly about three and a half years ago the man died. U they used to sell vegetables too but quite a long time ago he was disabled and u he couldn't garden anymore. The house is a hoarder's house. There's no question. I mean, my sister,
>> it is a what? >> Hoarders house. >> Yeah. >> My sister's been in there and she knew the the people who lived there. Um, so she the woman died again. I'm not sure about like two and a half years ago. So, it's been empty probably three years or
something like that. Um, and it's damaged. Uh, it's in terrible shape. Uh, it's been it's been struck by trees, etc. are going down. The other thing is those big trees out front. Are they white? Are the trunks white with black
kind of black spots sort of on them? >> They're uh basswood trees. Pardon? >> Basswood Lynden trees. >> Bass. Okay. Then they're not what he said. >> Yeah. And they do have large hole. You can see right through the the trunk on on one of them. They do have significant damage.
>> Yeah. Oh, I see. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, I did see that picture. All right. May. >> Yes, please. >> All right. So, so I have some concerns with this one. Um, specific to the septic. All right. This is a raise and
rebuild uh in a different location. This is a new house for the new septic. It's the cess pools had failed prior prior to >> sure >> um through documented through the PNS agreement that they provided
the buyer accepted responsibility for the failed septics. It's it's on the last page, right? >> So, this isn't something that's a typical, you know, a 30-year um member of the community has to replace their septic. They're keeping their same
house. It's a repair. This is a a new construction project, >> right, >> on a existing developed site. >> The house is unlivable as it is, >> right? Yeah. >> So, so from that perspective, I think it's important to understand that when somebody says this is alternative
technology. This is a alternative um leeching field technology. This is not the type of technology that takes bacteria, nitrogen out of the effluent discharge at the end of the pipe. So, we should have serious
concerns with approving any kind of septic system in this location within the 100 foot buffer without getting something that makes us feel that we're not contributing to an increased load >> going into it. Right. So, we got
downgrade There's concern about breakout as you go down gradient. There's only I think per the the soil logs, it was only 20 inches before they got to saturated soils. So, this is a a real concern to the resource area
>> on the septic side of it and I can't get past that. I'm going to need something that there's no way I'm I'm voting for this. Can I understand the setbacks and where the existing buildings are and yeah I can we we give a lot of leniency on that stuff but when it comes down to
at the end of the day can we grant a variance we can but only if there's no increased impact to the resource area that's the the rules that we have to live by so in that case that that's my main concern I wanted otherwise I I'm not opposed to seeing this this
redeveloped I just I got to go on the record that the septic is is a non-starter for me. So, >> so this basically that a true alternative technology is something that cleans the water, removes the nitrates,
the bacteria before it comes out the end of the pipe and then it goes into a leeching field from >> but it's not the it's not the um SAS that that we typically see. And there's other alternatives, too. They could if there's other places on site that's outside of jurisdiction area, they can put it in a
in a in a tank and pump into a a remote location. They do that all the time. So there are alternatives if they don't want to go that direction, but >> what we see here, I don't think is something that we can. >> So I think I I would lean towards giving them more time to see if they can they
can come back with something that we can approve. >> Okay. Anything else? Well, see if we can have a motion to continue this. >> Can Can I ask how much time, Matt? >> How much time >> you guys would like? >> You guys
>> um I mean I can I'll talk with the owner, but we can go we can go for the 26th. We can get on the next one. Um I can turn I can get stuff in right away. Whatever's requested. >> Okay. Um, just know that it has to be here a little early. So that especially
that's the day before Thanksgiving. So >> we we Matt, what's our guidance? >> Uh, for continuence, one week. So if you can get something to me in a week, we can keep it on the 26th. If it's too close to 26th, then it'll get pushed to December 10th. >> Okay. So I'll make a motion to continue this to November 26th uh with a request
for any updated information minimum of 7 days prior to that. >> Did you get that? Okay, >> I'll second to just >> All right, we have a motion to continue this to the 26th uh with a condition that um any updates are received seven
days prior. Um >> all in favor of that I. >> Any opposed? That motion carries. So we will see you then. >> Good luck. All right.
Is that it? >> We have all sorts of other stuff we got to do. >> 127. Yeah. So, now we got to do enforcements. >> Let me um just take two minutes to stand. >> All right. I'm going to take a two-minut break. If anybody needs to stretch their
legs, please do. >> Want some chocolate? >> What do you got? How are you? I just want back on the record and we're moving to the matters of enforcement. The first is
44 Rabboth Road. Um, this has been continued from an earlier date. Matt, >> yes. Um, just give me one second to get into that folder. >> Um, the commission
last time we discussed this asked me to issue an enforcement order. um which we did and it mandated that they had until today to provide a stamped signed letter from a state certified
professional engineer on letterhead certifying that the plan asbuilt retaining wall 44 Rabbit Road is a true asbuilt plan and that it was inspected in the field and drawn as it was constructed rather than drawn to the recommended specs of the block manufacturer. A signed stamped copy of
the plan must be provided in conjunction with the letter. Two, provide a stamped signed letter from a state certified professional engineer on letterheads certifying that the existing retaining wall was built to the recommended specifications of the block manufacturer. Three, provide a signed stamped plot plan showing the location
of the wall and concrete parking area. Um, I did get an email today from Jenna with um those things. I can pull up now on the first one. I'm not sure that in the letter he
actually said that the asbuilt plan was a true asbuilt and all of that, but there is a lot of detail in the letter that I believe means roughly the same thing. I can follow up with the engineer directly. I do have an email address and phone
number um for them. So, I can pull up what we have. In some cases, I think the commission may want to continue something like this so that we can have more time to review everything. Um, but we can also get in and talk about it now because it was
requested by the state. So, why don't I run >> We received it. >> Yes, we received >> I fig we quickly run through it and if you want to continue from there before you make a decision on anything, that's fine. Um, but this is what was provided for I'm not sharing my screen.
Here we are. Um, let's see if this works. There we go. So, uh, here's the pond right here. Um, the hash blue line is the approximate limit of the pond observed in the field. Orange is the extent of the flood zone that would make
that bordering land subject to flooding. Um, so technically this is where your buffer zone >> starts. Um, which is is I think not a not a great thing for the for the property owner. Um, this right here,
this um, funky shape is the retaining wall in question. Um, I do have the asbill plan in the letter. Um, off to the side here you see a concrete driveway that was put in. That's essentially what the wall was holding
back. There is a area here that's kind of sparssely vegetated. I don't know if it was all grass or there might have been like a garden or something, but um essentially this was all to hold back this um concrete area. Only a portion of
this is on the subject property. Um the rest of it is on uh property owned by the doos. Um so for from a impervious surface standpoint and we haven't talked about that yet on this
property because they haven't filed anything yet. Um but 15% is the cutoff. The good thing for them is a portion of this or a a big portion of this impervious surface is not on their property. So the way the regs are written that that part doesn't count.
It's kind of invisible. Um these sheds are also not on the property. Those wouldn't count. So, you'd only count what was in here. The downside is that it is going to be awfully high between um the building and the driveway. It's it's my guess would be it is significantly over 15%. Um the wall
itself we had already discussed is is within the 50 foot in KWPR for any retaining wall over uh 4T. um the wall is significantly higher than four feet and that you know I I thought I
estimated at about 30 feet but that was based off the edge of uh the pond not the edge of the bordering land subject to flooding. Um so we already had covered that it didn't meet that standard of KWPR. The thing the commission wanted to know in advance of even telling them that they should file
to have this permitted in retro is would it be permittable at all from a building standpoint and is it structurally sound? Was it built the way it was supposed to be built and that sort of thing. Um that looks like the exact same
thing not working. Great. Here is the asbuilt plan that came with the or specifically from the structural engineer on the retaining wall. Um believe this is the rough outline of the
house. This is the outline and measurements of the wall. Um still not a lot of detail to that. Um yeah, it it is stamped and signed. It does say as
built, but again, all of the contractor notes treat this as though it's um a permitting plan. So, I can follow up with uh the engineer, but they did provide a letter
as requested. I visited the above address on July 28th to measure and inspect the existing retaining wall. um specifies the brand and model of the units and the size of each unit. Um wall height varies from approximately 3 ft to
8 ft. Um during the It says, "Please refer to the asbelt retaining wall plan attached separately." During the inspection, it was observed that some of the blocks had shifted and the wall was leaning toward the lake. It is assumed that the movement was caused by a lack of proper drainage and the absence of geogrid reinforcement.
According to the retaining wall specs, manufacturer specs, geog grid should be installed between each course of blocks. Please refer to the manufacturer sketch provided below. Weep holes and a perforated PVC drain pipe should also be installed behind the wall to prevent water accumulation. I recommend temporarily removing the
existing blocks, then installing proper geogrid reinforcement and a drainage system with perforated pipe and crush stone per the manufacturer's recommendations. After installation, the blocks should be reset in their original alignment. Please call with any questions. So,
um, what the commission knows now at this point is that this a that the wall is leaning toward the lake, which is not ideal. Um, and b that it does not appear to have built been built to the manufacturer specs. So,
I think if the commission had had a different answer than that, you may be tempted to tell the applicant, why don't you see if you can apply for a permit? See if you can get this permitted in retro from the conservation commission with any mitigation that you may need to
get over the fact that it's within 50 ft of well and resource areas and the pond. Um, knowing that it has to be disassembled and reassembled as it is, I would doubt the commission would take that standpoint. And you'd want to see
anything that was submitted to the commission meet the standards. And you may have to tar that and make sure that each section of it is lower than 4 feet. Um, so I think at this point what the commission should want to see is the property come into compliance. And the
things that are standing out in my head right now, and correct me if there's anything else that I'm forgetting, is the retaining wall, the paved area at the top where the retaining wall is is holding back the dock that was within
the last handful of years significantly increased in size. um which from basic measurements on aerials is bigger than uh KWPR would allow and related to the pavement at the top of the slope and I I
suppose the wall itself the drainage in that area. You know, you have the situation where we were told that that was built in order to direct the drainage away from the pond. And now we have the abuter um that just built the house at 46 Rabbit Road where I told him that he has a drainage issue that he
needs to deal with before he'll get a COC is claiming that the runoff is coming from this property um after this property owner essentially said that they did that in order to divert drainage. Um, so that's what I see being
the big issues here that should be wrapped up one way or the other. Um, if the commission wants to take some time to absorb all of this and have me put together recommendations on it, um, you know, that might be the that might be
the best way to go forward. >> I think that's advisable. I um I mean the the wall is already leaning towards it. I mean it could be water, you know, and and and uh soil pressure, you know, turkey pressure in
the soil, but it could also be uncompact to fill underneath it and maybe there's not a a sufficient footing for the height of the wall. I don't see anything in the engineers, you know, um data that shows that he excavated to tell what it
is. So this what I see at face value is that this is not a conforming wall and this is something that you know we should treat as something that can't stay and then we're going to have to figure out what the best path forward on it is is but I think it needs to be an
NOI moving forward if they if they want to keep this here. They're going to have to do it right um from scratch and and that's going to be expensive and it's it's unfortunate that that's the case but the walls already fallen over and it wasn't built right. So I I I was hoping that wouldn't be the case, but
>> as I remember it was fairly new, wasn't it? >> Yeah, it's only like a year and a half or something. >> 20 off the top of my head, I I want to say roughly 2021. >> Yeah. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> Too bad. >> I could look at the timeline, but right now >> I would recall what he said.
>> Super relevant. >> But continuing. Yeah. >> How long have the homeowners had this information? How long has the homeowners had this information? the inspection about the wall >> that we just looked at. >> Yeah. Did they just get it today, too?
>> Likely. Okay. Did I checked in last? Hey, the deadines's coming up. Is there anything, you know, that you need? And and she said she was just waiting on one of the >> the remaining components. >> So, they're going to need a continuation for for them to think about what they want to do. >> So,
>> I think I would recommend we push this to November 26th. And I'll put together a recommendation for the commission. >> You want a motion? Do we need a vote? >> Do we need a vote? >> Might as well. >> All right. Then there's uh a recommendation that we move this forward to November 26. Do we have a motion?
>> Make that motion. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Great. We're going to move that to November 26th. Thank you all. Moving on to 20 Marian Drive, one um
drive. that. >> Yes. Um, I'm just going to pull up >> Is this in the same folder under >> No, enforcement.
>> There's a um >> Oh, wait. Is it? >> It is. Yeah, it is an enforcement folder. I'm not seeing it for some reason. >> Oh, there's an enforcement subfolder. Yeah, sorry. I thought I put it in there separately. >> No, he it's inside the the the NOI file.
Um the RA Oc. >> All right. Um September >> first amendment. Okay. September 25th was out doing rainy day compliance checks with my intern and we went to
the subject property as part of the stuff that day. We went after the first uh group of storms um and there was a lull and I drove through. There was flooding on Royson Drive but it was not
brown which was good. Um, and I noticed as I was driving through that the lower empoundment, there's two empoundments of Smelt Brook on the site, right? There's the one that's right behind the area we were talking about during the amendment discussion and then
further downstream, right where you first pull on to Royson from Marian, there's a second empoundment. Um, I noticed a real cloudy condition in that lower empoundment. I stopped. I got out. I looked around. I couldn't see any real reason for it. I went up and down Marian
Drive. I went down to the edge of the water looking around seeing if there was a storm water output from Marian Drive. Um trying to figure out if it was coming from elsewhere. Couldn't come up with a good explanation. Um, so I came back later and when I came back later, it was in the rain and
um, there was a big brown puddle in the road and the owner of the property was there at the time and you know, we talked about it all and I documented water going past the erosion control, brown water going into the upper impoundment and the little plume from that. um and documented the sediment
coming off the active work area because essentially that day they'd had two machines pushing dirt around on site. You know, they had piles there. Piles weren't covered. Uh nothing to stabilize uh the area, the work area, which was um
you know, ups slope of the road or I think north of the road. Um, I should clarify and because Larry, the owner of the property, was very adamant that um that my photos of the downstream empowerment were deceiving because none
of that came from his site. And I said, I'm not saying that it came from your site. It made me think that there may have been a issue there. So, maybe come back later in the day. Um, and I don't know that it didn't. Um, I said what what was there was was bad enough um
from the work site and and the upper empoundment, but I don't have any evidence. So, if any of those photos of the lower empoundment made anybody feel like this was somehow worse, I don't know what that is from. Um, Larry has somebody who works for a different environmental company who supposedly
said that they thought it was all biological in origin uh for utrofication and that may well be true. Um, my take on that is that his site has likely added to utrofication in that system. Um, maybe just not in that particular
day or maybe I mean I'm not out at that site all the time. I'm not a hawk on this site like I'm not driving by every day or in every rainstorm checking it. So I don't know that there wasn't already um a release there. So anyways, like to focus on what we do know, which
is that the site was not properly maintained and we had yes a big rainstorm but um we had water come off the site in an uncontrolled manner towards the erosion control. Um property owner had hinted like I
mentioned earlier, oh I wish that we could just get this amendment done so we could have had the rain garden here because then this wouldn't have happened. And I said, "No, that has nothing to do with this. This is site conditions. This is not stabilizing the site, like especially working in the rain on a
site or, you know, disturbing a site in advance of a large rainstorm and not having that maintained." Um, so I have a whole list of history and all of that. I mean, this is not the first time we've we've dealt with site conditions here. I have a whole timeline
of stuff dating back to March of 2023 where we've had multiple similar issues on this site before. Um the property owner has been responsive in these situations, including this one. Um you know, he said, "I'll have my guys out here within the next day or two to, you
know, to fix this or maybe it was after the weekend or something along those lines." Um but we've talked about all the different conditions a handful of times here. There's a condition that you're supposed to have a stockpile on site, right? all these things. There's there's tons of conditions in here that
it's on the property owner. The orders and conditions are very specific on how things are supposed to go as far as erosion control and making sure that we don't end up with sediment entering Smokebrook. Um, and that has not been happening. Um, so again, he has been
responsive in there will be action taken afterwards, such as if I said you need more erosion control, he'll put more erosion control up there. Um, in this case, I did point out you probably need something up there, put erosion control up there. I said if you need to wood chip the whole area that's disturbed,
wood chip it, keep stuff from moving. Um, he did take some steps after that. Um, in my opinion, this has come to the point that the commission has threatened to revoke the permit in the past that came up when
we talked with the extension request when we talked about the need for a storm water fix. I'm certainly not suggesting that we do that now. Um, my take on a lot of this is environmental monitor. You know, a lot of permits like this have an environmental monitor that's supposed to be on site whenever there's any work in a sensitive area. In
this case, we have the whole 200 foot area and a lot of that currently is draining down towards the road and the brook, right? So, we have a situation now for years where the current system is not working. We have a lot of conditions in place that detail how this
work is supposed to happen in a way that's going to keep what happened on September 25th and the other days back to March of 2023 from happening. And it's not happening. So, we could discuss all sorts of things. I know he brought attorney Brodzky to speak to this and we
still have Rick here. Um, my take on this would be an environmental monitor. That's a third party >> which is special condition number 28. >> Hold on. Get there. Environmental monitor essentially wetland scientist.
Somebody with experience doing this stuff. I believe should be somebody that the commission approves and not just anybody that the applicant chooses um on their own. But I think you should have somebody on site in advance of any large
rainstorms and potentially weekly while there's site disturbance. I mean if there's going to be a condition where the site is going to be stabilized completely like no exposed soil for a period of time like the winter um which
is sort of also in the conditions there where if you have an area that's not being actively worked or you know site should be stabilized through the winter with seed and this and that. If you have a situation where the site's going to be stable for a period of time then you
wouldn't need the person to show up. It's not something to try to make the project you know unbearably costly for the applicant. But at this point, I think there have been enough issues on this property that I I don't think like if it keeps going
the way it is, we're going to see more of what we saw >> um on September 25th. So, I think having somebody on site who understands the wetland side of it and the erosion control side of it that can make recommendations and if the recommendations aren't followed, then
the commission has the ability to issue fines. They have the ability to revoke the permit. You know, I I think that it would be a good step in this case to have somebody that has coordination with conservation department and the applicant that can
assess these things during the most important times, which is when there's going to be a rainstorm rather than the way it's been now is I'm sure they just want to get the project done. They're working. They're working, but apparently not paying attention to the weather. Um, and what's been told to me now from several people, including the applicant,
is, "Well, that was just a freak rainstorm." Well, we get those now. Like, we get freak rainstorms maybe once a year, maybe more at this point. And if you have your site properly stabilized, like that shouldn't be a huge concern.
Um, but when you're not doing anything more than I would say the absolute bare minimum, which still isn't meeting all of your special conditions, then that's not the case. So, I can get more into specifics if you want. I can answer any questions. I can read through the whole
thing if you want. I want to know what level of detail you want to go to. We can pull pictures up. I'm sure you've already reviewed all the pictures. Um, they're very clear. questions from >> I don't have a question. I have the list of infractions from what January 22nd
back to March 2023. >> Yeah. So I um started in March of 2021. I don't know when I became aware that there was an active permit on this property. Um, you know, I had talked with Larry several times about
conditions in the area, um, before really getting in tune with the fact that he had a open order of conditions with all of these permit conditions. So, it wasn't until about March 2023 that um, it was brought to my attention that there were storm water issues on the
site. And that's when I started to periodically pay attention, you know, and communicate with the applicant about, you know, the need to to do more. um which is you know to sort of wrap up all of the conditions and everything together is like it essentially says
that it's on the applicant to do whatever is necessary to prevent input into Smel Brook. Melbrook was a big sticking point in the original filing and we've discussed it earlier the difference between riverfront area and
previously disturbed riverfront area but you're still talking direct inputs into the stream itself right into the empowerments of that stream. So um not ideal >> adverse effects. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would say obvious adverse
effects. you have several instances through this timeline of a plume of sediment laden water getting into that system. Um so >> and again as I pointed out under that special condition there should have been
an erosion control monitor involved >> right? The erosion control monitor wasn't specified to be a wetlands professional or no >> anything of that. So essentially the general contractor the the the manage
the site manager for the general contractor is what I was given as here's our erosion control um person. So I just I think that's not good enough that it's clear that that's not good enough. Um, and I think having somebody on site, you know, I specified it as,
let me see, I wrote, "One solution that could help is to require a third party environmental monitor to be on site for portions of construction. In this scenario, the applicant would contract a wetlands professional with sufficient experience in construction oversight to be on site during important portions of work." Yeah, they should be on site in
advance of any substantial rain event. I threw out half inch or greater as a placeholder. I don't know if anybody wants to discuss that. Um, and once per week in the absence of such an event. Again, doesn't have to be three, four hours on site. I mean, the person could drive through the site probably 15, 20
minutes if there are no issues and be gone. If there are issues, they're going to stop. They're going to talk to contractors on site. They're going to call the general contractor or they're going to call the property owner and they're going to make recommendations based on what they're seeing to make sure that site is stabilized before the
next rainstorm so that we don't end up with further um sedimentation of of Smelt Brookke. You don't have further adverse effects. Um, I wrote they would have the authority to require changes to erosion sedimentation controls and site conditions in order to
prevent further sedimentation of Smelt Brook or fines would be issued by this office and the commission would consider revoking the OC's. This requirement could be put on hold for any periods of time where the site was determined to be stable and no ground disturbance would occur. I wrote, "The commission does have the
authority and likely has enough evidence of wetland impacts to revoke the OC's now if they so choose. I would argue that the use of an environmental monitor is more appropriate, but that's up to the commission. >> Yes, please. >> So, Matt, it sounds like on the orderly conditions, we have the ability to
compel them to have the monitor. It's just that we didn't require it to be an independent party. And at this point, we're feeling that um we can no longer trust their ability to manage this on their own. We need a third third independent third party to come in and
kind of give them a passing grade or a failing grade and tell them what to fix um before the rain falls again and we have to deal with another sediment release into whatever resource area we're protecting here. Is that is that it?
>> Yeah. And I mean, I would think that an enforcement order under, you know, state and local regs could compel that. I think that would work fine. I mean, we have several other instances of fines
being issued, you know, to this applicant for inputs into Smelt Brook. Um, so we don't have, you know, and we have a clear violation from September 25th that has yet to be dealt with that we're talking about now. So I mean we have you know plenty of example there
that the commission can make a determination like that and issue that Matt in the previous respon um episodes where you had to go out there. Is this a matter of them not putting enough erosion control up or putting it
up and then taking it down and not putting it back up again because it's such a long pro project? What are we looking at? Should we be thinking about compelling additional steps like wood chips in in this enforcement order as well? Because there's they're just all over the place and they're going to make
a mess, continue to make a mess and it's construction. I get it. It's going to be messy. But what what's what's your recommendation on that? Should we is is a monitor a third party monitor enough or do you think that there's we should be compelling more action proactively because this has been such a problematic site?
>> So those are two questions. The first answer is all of the above. Um it has been old erosion control fell apart over time. Um it has been additional erosion control was not added where it should have been added. It has
been stock piles not being covered. Stock piles being stored where they shouldn't be stored. Um in this case we had a a a portaotty in right up against where the road is right where all of this sediment laden stuff was coming through. And it specifies in the in the
special conditions no whatever they called it portable toilets within the 200 foot uh port riverfront area portion of the property. Um so there's there's a lot over the years. Um to answer the second question I think an environmental
monitor can handle all of that. I think I recommend wood chips now like to a lot of different contractors where we have these issues and I get laughed at sometimes or they say, "Oh, that would never work or that wouldn't, you know, then we'd have to remove them or these all these things." And it's like if you have a property where you're going to
make a mess and leave it a mess for a long time, wood chip it 3, four inches of wood chips. By the time you finish the project, they may be degraded enough that you can just lone them right over them and and do your grass or whatever you're doing. If not, you scrape them off, either get rid of them or push them
to the edges of the property or something along those lines. I mean, it's enough wood chips on a disturbed area, especially with going over it with a machine, will likely make a significant impact in keeping sediment from moving off site. In this particular situation, I'm not going to recommend mandating
that because I don't know how long they're going to keep a particular area open. And I recommended that to to the property owner that if they're going to disturb an area and leave it open for a while, get some wood chip stumps, too. You can get wood chip stump for free. Spread them all out, run them over, flatten it, add whatever erosion control
around that you need. Keep the stuff from getting out into the driveway and the road and from going towards there. But I I think an environmental monitor would recommend anything that they think is appropriate for the different situations. And I think it's two things. One is that they're going to bring some
expertise to it. They're going to bring the attention to it of making sure they're paying attention to where there could be potential issues, but it's also going to get the property owner and the contractors that are currently working there to be thinking more about this stuff because they know somebody's going to be showing up in advance of storms or
once a week or whatever it is to make these recommendations. So there it's it's just going to I think help in general to get the project where it should be which is in line with the conditions >> in compiance >> finishing right because if the commission revokes the permit at any
point that it's in the middle of of disturbance then we're using the enforcement process constantly to try to get them to stabilize the site while they're trying to figure out what their next steps are. And that's not really ideal. Like the ideal thing is that they just get it back in line. get everything
in compliance and keep building it and get all these infiltration galleries built so that they're getting more water in the ground and everything can become stable and everybody can be happy. I think this is one way that that can get done that I don't think is a huge
financial burden, you know, to somebody that's building a project, especially of this size. I don't think it's something that we're not recommending a frequency that's so, you know, disturbing to, you know, you're going to have somebody there every day for, you know, you're
paying somebody's salary for an entire year on a project. It's as minimal as it needs to be to make sure that we don't have to do this again and we don't have to get there and see brown water going into Small Brook. >> And this just can't continue the way
it's been going. All right. Well, let's hear from >> Well, good evening everyone again. Adam Brodzky and I represent Royson Properties LLC and Mr. I would certainly recommend Mr. Demar that we work with Mr. Panella to come up
with a condition for an environmental monitor. It seems perfectly appropriate to then have that environmental monitor determine whether we may need additional erosion control measures such as wood chips. I I certainly don't have the expertise to speak to any of those
issues, but it seems like a reasonable bull path forward. I can't speak to any of the historic events. I would remind the commission that there's a statute of limitations for violations, two-year statute of limitations under 131 section
91. I was going to focus on the events in September. And I'm not sure anyone's using it as an excuse that it was a freak storm, but I'm led to believe that was the highest amount of rain received in the shortest amount of time, at least in
modern recordkeeping. Um, but there's no question uh that uh uh that we need to do a better job of managing erosion on this site. So, if you give us the opportunity, recommend that we work with Mr. Panella and come up with a stronger condition
with respect to an environmental monitor that addresses your concerns. >> Just as an aside, that storm with the 8 in was just over Kingston. Surrounding towns didn't get it. We just
got hit with that odd storm. I >> think we got six inches in Situ, which is again a very large storm in a >> still every everybody got a lot of water, right? But >> no, no, no. Again, I'm I'm not I I'm not suggesting that we're not going to see storms of this. >> No, I mean,
>> we're going to have to start thinking about things differently. >> Um I'm I'm already dealing with uh changes to the storm water standards, the the design storm events are being changed. We're the regulations are catching up to >> y >> climate change and this is all part of
that. So, we we rec, >> you know, I I represent obviously the development community. We recognize that and we need to get ahead of this. Yeah, just that Kingston was a bullseye, that's all. >> Yeah. >> Um, we have this property on the
December 10th meeting for um the continuence of the request for amendment. Do you want to because obviously we can, you know, I can work with with them on a solution, but at some point it should come back before the commission to
bless whatever happens. Since it's already in a special condition, do you need a motion that authorizes you to require the environmental condition? >> The special condition isn't >> it's not as tight as you're describing that you're >> I think we need a motion before we can
continue. >> I don't know if we need it if we're going to work on it. So my take is, you know, we need to wrap up enforcement issues before they come off the agenda. So us agreeing to to come to something doesn't >> do anything. you'd have to have me issue
an enforcement order to compel something which then just wastes my time. Please don't um >> putting it off to December 10th allows us to come to an agreement before it comes back in front of the commission. The commission hopefully hears what we have to say and goes fantastic
>> and we can rescull you can do it one of two ways. one, you could you make this a condition of your enforcement order. Or second, I guess you could roll this into an amended order, which would contain a more robust condition. Again, the
existing conditions of the order remain in effect, but that doesn't that wouldn't prevent you from, you know, providing more detail in an amended order. So, you have two, I think, regulatory avenues to address the same problem. >> I think for now, I'd rather keep let you
guys put it together. so that we can vote on it next time. >> What I would say, >> so you'll bring it finished for us >> and it's convenient that it's also going to be the same night as the request for amendment. So if they come back with the most compelling requests for the commission in that sense and you were going to actually
issue amended orders and conditions, potentially something like that could get wrapped into that instead of having to issue an enforcement order with those specifics in there. So that there are multiple ways to go about it and we can >> make a motion to continue those. >> Was that uh December 10th? December
10th. >> Have a motion to continue this uh enforcement matter on 20 Marian Drive 1 drive to December 10th. Do I have a second on that? Okay. Uh all in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? The motion carries.
Thanks a million. >> Thank you. Come in person tonight. >> It would have been impossible to do in my car. Yeah, that would be great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much, >> Rick. Have a good night.
>> Night. Good night, Mr. Grady. >> All right, we got uh meeting minutes. >> Yeah, I'm okay. Great. Has everybody seen this? Did we sign this? >> Um I don't know if everybody saw them. We could ask. Did everybody see the
meeting minutes from July 9th, >> 2020? >> One one of those I I looked at them just a minute ago and I couldn't find it. >> The DOC regulations uh the date to for it to go into whatever is um 2015
>> the look back >> you huh >> the look back period. >> Oh, is it wrong in the in the thing? >> Well, I don't I don't know. Um >> does it say 2015? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that was that was >> that was the commission voted that uh to be a 10-year look back.
>> Okay. Okay, I got it. Yeah, I do remember that now. It just didn't make sense at the time. >> Okay, we have to vote towards those. >> So is is everybody ready to vote on this? >> If everybody's seen them and I didn't specify who was at both of these
meetings, so everybody just voted >> attendance was >> bring it back up again if that's problematic. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes. Well, which one are you going to make to approve July 9th minutes of July? >> Make a motion to approve July 9th minutes. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? >> I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes of July 23rd. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Okay, the minutes are approved. >> Um, and the updates then on the CPC. >> Um, I submitted two CPC placeholders. Uh, these were just the project
notification forms. Uh, one of which would be to buy 83 Whopping Road, which is the remaining >> car. Get that. >> Is that yours? >> I don't know. >> It's the remaining uh parcel owned by Roger Carrera on Whopping Road. Um, Roger kept the westernmost parcel which
is just shy of 4 acres and it contains our easement to Hathaway Preserve. Um, he did indicate that he may be willing to, you know, work with us on our timeline. So, I I had already thrown something into CPC for that, but now I'm a little happier about putting the rest of the
application together. Um, obviously there's always issues costwise and appraisal wise and all those things, but um, we are going to attempt to move forward with that because that is um, something that adding to our existing property and adding meaningful access to
it um, would be a big benefit. I also put in a placeholder for um 8 and 20 Maple Street. Uh we've discussed that at length where we were going to try to do a project there between conservation and and maybe affordable housing. Um it is currently under agreement with a
developer. I'm told that they only had a short period of time left to either complete their purchase or uh walk after doing due diligence. So I wanted to throw something in um as a placeholder in case that happens. Um, I don't know how much money is going to be in CPC
this year. We're a 1% town that spends all of their money every year seemingly. So, uh, we're certainly not going to have enough money to do both of those, but >> placeholders. >> Okay. What about grants? >> Uh, grants. Um, I was going to write out a whole detailed thing on this and I
didn't. >> Okay. >> We did I tell the commission already we got a grant on Rocky note for storm water? We got a CZM uh coastal habitat and water quality grant to do design and permitting of storm water BMPs on Drew and Sever ABS. Um two roads on Rocky
Nook that are residential that have a steep slope that go right out into the bay. Um and we had actually had complaints from residents of um one of those roads about the runoff down there. So we're going to try to do something about that. Um, we
are rapid fire throwing applications out there for all sorts of stuff now. Lake Street Culver is one of the biggest ones we're trying to get funding on. We did not get funding on the Lake Street Culver from MVP this year and we did not get funding from the recreational trails grant for the Bates Pond stuff, which is
unfortunate. Um, but we're continuing to put stuff out there. Uh, DOT just came out with a covert grant that can cover up to I think it's a million dollars. Um, so we're going to be throwing all sorts of stuff out there with Lake Street as our biggest focus. Um, and that I think is all I have for grant
updates at the moment. Need a motion to think that's all we got. >> Before we adjourn, I'd like to thank the local scene and Zach for your courtesy. A motion to adjurnn. So moved.
Second. Thank you. All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. See you next time.