the date is Wednesday March 26 2025 uh Commissioner um Jim Franklin is um Miss is absent today um and Commissioner Brian Payne is
attending virtually thank you Brian um I will now open the meeting and take a roll call i am Kina Vendetti and Dot McFarland yes and Megan Hickey and Buzz Artiano here and Marilyn Kazido here
thank you and Brian's here yes here thank you please note we're doing a hybrid meeting with inperson and virtual attendance if a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during a public
hearing please use the raise hand function on Zoom and you'll be assigned a speaking time and if you're listening in via telephone dial in press star 9 to raise your hand and then press star six to unmute
yourself this meeting is being recorded by the local scene and we're very grateful and a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene website as soon as they are able anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting should notify
me at this time all right here's an additional announcement kingston's open space committee is still seeking a new member the committee assists conservation in
overseeing the management and use of conservation properties to help all of us better access and utilize these resources in a positive way this is an opportunity for a resident to assist in implementing the town's open space plan
help improve parking and trails and identify future conservation and passive recreation priorities for the town among other benefits you may inquire by calling the conservation department at
781585 0537 or by emailing juliana denim at j denim kingston.gov that's J D E N U M at K I N
G S T O N M A.gov thank you the first order is signing documents what needs to be signed we have the orders and conditions for 10shore drive and we have a bill
for Hunts photo and video for a camera we print today mike's on he said okay we're okay now y okay yeah um I'll start over we have the orders and conditions for 10 shore drive we have Hunts photo and video for a
camera for site visits uh we print today for hard copies of the open space and recreation plan uh which is now at the library if anybody wants to see it in person and we have a copy in the conservation office and we have Apex for MS4 support for February and we have
Sunco for the phase one uh construction for Samson's headwater restoration project okay are they floating down this way yep they all in there all right so that's
done moving on to action items and I'll now open up public meeting to discuss the request for certificate of compliance for Eversources Carver to Kingston reliability project this is file number SE037-0920 can you tell us uh any
comments on that Matt yeah so there was an issue last time with the language not really having a certification on the asbuilts so we did receive a letter February 14th from uh the survey manager at VHB uh who was consultant on the
project and it details that they received the asbuilt structure data certifying the post construction conditions and says the data was compared to the proposed locations as BHB staked out
located within areas under the commission's jurisdiction and they found the installed pole locations to the plus or minus within 10 ft of the proposed pole locations and found that the asbuilt locations caused no additional impact within jurisdictional
areas um I had sort of hinted to you know the applicants that I thought that language was still a little on the weak side um and they did follow up with a letter from um Brian I think it's Bernier the project manager at
Eversource um detailing that the installation of that line for the Carver to Kingston reliability project was completed in Kingston and that as the project manager overseeing the work line 147 was built to design specifications and as proposed in the original NOI
application without deviation from the approved plans all work was completed in compliance with the orders and conditions issued by the Ken conservation commission and on the modified OC's that were received in 2021 all work was completed fall 2023 and final restoration of the work paths
was reached in fall of 2024 so it's up to the commission how they feel about these things it's a transmission line project um on one hand you see that everything was within the OC's and on the other one it was plus or minus 10
feet um plus or - 10t could be a really big deal on some projects on this project i I would I would doubt that that would be the case um given you know what I know of the project and what all of the project looked like after they were done with site establishment so
um can ask any questions i know they're they're here right now uh through Zoom if you have questions but I have no real concerns on this i just think we needed better language than was provided at a minimum and we did at least have something now where we have two people
who have stated that you know more or less everything was in compliance do you have any comments Mr defesco hi good evening my name is Peter Defusco i'm a senior environmental specialist with Eversource uh the only comment I have is it's actually three people that
we provided certification from two professional land surveyors and one project manager i can give a briefing um of the project madam Chair I believe last time it was the vice chair who was present if it would be helpful to you um would it
be help in summary we completed the project as proposed it's buffer zone only uh we've closed out in Carver and Blimpton as well as a notice of termination under our construction general permit we're just trying to cross the tees and dot the eyes here and close out here in
Kingston tonight any um questions or comments from members of the commission i think we're good is there anyone here from the public uh in person or online who has any comments no do I hear a motion
i would make a motion to issue with the certificate of compliance second second all right we have a motion to accept the request um and we have a second um we'll take a vote dot yes megan yes colleen is a yes buzz yes
marilyn yes brian yes okay motion carries thank you very much thank you have a good evening thank you thank you i'll now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for two Wildwood Circle
filed in retrospect for uh construction of a large play structure within jurisdiction the applicant has requested continuence while they file a notice of intent okay i'm going to continue that do you
have any comments Matt um I would just say we have to pick a date they just filed the NOI i haven't even reviewed it for completion yet do you have any idea how much time i mean I would say a couple months to be
Okay just to keep it from continuing to pop up um so what is it now through 26 so are you looking at May let's say May 28th is there representative or applicant here online
no all right are there any comments on this from the public present in person or online okay so do I hear a motion to continue this matter to May 8th i'll make that motion second okay there's been a motion
and it's been seconded to continue this to May 28th i'm going to take a vote on that dot yes megan yes colleen is a yes buzz yes marilyn yes brian yes all right that motion carries
great i will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for map 48 lot 16 on Howland's Lane filed by Pilgrim by the
Pilgrim John Howland Society do you have any comments Matt um yeah i mean we could either have these guys get up and kind of present why they wanted to do the project or something like that and then I can give my staff report after if that's Would
that be more comfortable for you sure i think it would be helpful to the public if we do it that way please come up to the podium and just identify yourself for the record make sure the mic's on yeah look for make sure the little green
light is on on your mic okay great thanks uh my name is Peter Aaron Stam i'm the executive director of the Pilgrim John Howland Society and um we've been working towards getting a national register of historic places um
designation for our land at Rocky Nook as a way to preserve protect as well as uh promote it on a national level um I'm going to read what Elden just gave me um the purpose of the project is the
conservation of Joseph Howland House archaeological site for visitors and wildlife to share the open space that was once an orchard and meadow removing the undergrowth will allow the exposure of the ancient stone walls that are the oldest in New England this plan will
restore it to its original state and allow management of the area for conservation purposes in a natural setting as well as serving as the buffer for the wetlands behind the tree line thank you matt do you have any comments
sure and I can um can share my screen as well pull the plan up please have a seat thank you very much okay do you have any way of like orientating
me where that is on the property sure so right up top here where it says Howland's Lane that's Howland's Lane [Laughter] i tried i love you man i was gonna Yeah I was gonna I was gonna kind of point that out you just like pull up Google
Maps and like show us the aerial view because I was staring at this thing and I you know I'm pretty familiar with that piece and I for the life of me couldn't figure out where they were going it's right after um Cole Street isn't it not too far down do you know where the Joseph marker is on
okay i don't know what that will Yeah let me uh just give me a minute i'll I'll pull up um pull it up on maps you wouldn't tiny across from Okay so
right here so you have um Standishav lay road here's the Nook Preserve the Wildlands Trust property it's in between the Nook Preserve and private parcels to
the south um I believe it's actually to the to the just to the north of the 48 Howland's property that was in front of the commission a few years ago so there's just this little clearing right here near Howland's Lane is the area that you'll see on the the plan that I just had up the sketch plan um that I
had just shared so essentially most of the site is forested um down slope you have the salt marsh and the river but up here you're you're pretty pretty well away from that but the wetlands do come up higher here than than in other parts
of this area um so does that answer your Yeah I see it now okay pull the other one back up all right so existing conditions at the site are mixed between native floodplane
forest successional areas often dominated by invasive species um has pretty heavy garlic mustard in the understory which is going to be problematic for them I'm sure um and disturbed areas a lot of the site is covered in like a black plastic sheeting
underneath some of the a lot of the dirt and vegetation i think it was something that was left as a protective layer after archaeological surveys um the wetlands it's a BBW was delineated by Michael Ball of Marsh Matters Environmental on January 25th of
2025 um the filing does not request determination of resource area boundaries only whether the work is work proposed is subject to the state and local regulations um the wetlands are I said here but are much
closer to Holland's Lane than I had thought i visited the site with Elden in November of 2024 before they filed um I did not inspect any soils or hydrarology just from looking at plants and general conditions i had thought the wetlands were much further back on the property
um so since then they have updated their sketch plan to eliminate work within the actual wetland um so they have changed their plan for that which is good um the sketch plan has notes on it through some
of the um you know scheduling and and the way work would be done but most of it it says to be determined uh from conversations with conservation commission and a professional archaeologist the sketch plan shows mode grass areas created using a short grass seed mix
which is mixed native and non-native species interspersed with what they called forested areas to remain as is um the sides of the property would receive a tall meadowrass seed mix so anywhere you see on the plan these sort of taller grass icons that's the meadow grasses um
the meadow grass mix is primarily native grass species and it does have a couple of fescues for quick green up and establishment because the native ones often take a few years to fill in um there's a couple of small areas of roadside erosion control mix but those are out of jurisdiction when you look at
this sketch plan blue is the wetland line green is the 30 foot no landscaping setback and the red is the 100 foot buffer i know that's not the typical color pattern you're all used to but it wasn't
an NOI filing so I didn't didn't beat it up within the 30-foot no landscaping setback from KWPR 10.07B 1 and two mode grass area and mode grass pathways are proposed as is a wood rail fence and
interpretive sign there's a I believe right here in the blue indicates a spring or what they what was called a spring years ago now it's a a boulder it's just sort of a big rock pllopped on top of it you don't see any water typically there at least not
when I was on site um they had intended earlier to have and I think that actually showed up as further back on the previous plan and it showed a trail to that with that stuff back here um so that was a little unclear as far as you know where all of that actually is and
what's happening there um it's debatable as to whether the mode areas and the mode pathway areas count as landscaping in this in this instance given the existing conditions uh the fencing certainly would count as landscaping um the project may have
special consideration of the public benefit and walking paths connecting the historic features but there may also be ways to minimize potential impact one would be specifically conditioning the project that no chemicals pesticides or fertilizers could be used within jurisdictional areas and no grass
clippings will be dumped on site um in that case you'd have a mode mix of native non-native grasses close to the resource areas but without the typical detrimental impacts of turf another would be to reconfigure the pathway surfacing to something that would not be considered landscaping and replace the
mode grass area within the 30 ft buffer with the tall grass mix um even in in that case if the meadow were tall the well would still be visible along the trail so that was just sort of an idea i mean right now technically you have a situation that
may not meet KWPR setbacks because of the no landscaping but it's a little bit of a different situation um my recommendations were that the commission has concerns or suggestions regarding the removal planting or maintenance of vegetation at the site now is the time to discuss them in
general I believe these practices will enhance wildlife habitat and ecological health at the site as well as the buffer zone's capacity to protect the BVW and any resource areas down slope but we'd also need to make sure no heavy machinery were to be used and if so specific conditions would be needed um
specifically if you have concerns about potential landscaping activities within 30 ft of the BF BBW they should be discussed now um so I would say you'd either issue a negative3 DOA or continue the meeting suggesting that the applicant meet the 30-foot no landscaping requirements and I did
include all of the landscaping section in KWPR for reference with some sort of bolded areas as I kind of went through already it's probably enough from me i'd like to hear what the commission has to say i have a question about the plastic
sheeting how extensive is that well it's in Barry where are you need to go up come back up to the podium so we can get you on the record thanks a lot sure um the black plastic as Matt mentioned is um placed there after
archaeological digs so uh they dig in the ground find artifacts of historic value and then later cover over with plastic to protect the site um and it's mostly in where the foundation of the
house site correct me if I'm wrong Elden um where the foundation of Joseph Holland's house foundation was so not the entire area but just around that house foundation is it your plan to
remove it the plastic I don't believe so they usually put grass over yeah the plastic will deteriorate and end up making more fine plastics that wash into the river i in my opinion it should be removed i don't know what that does to
the dig but if it's just going to cover grass anyway it's generally um covered with dirt so it's not on the surface it doesn't matter it's still there it's still there sure it would Yeah i I actually believe it should be removed
uhu maybe you have to talk to the archaeology people about it right um it doesn't belong there well is it Craig Shard's common practice to leave that in place i think it's a common archaeology not just Craig Shardier um
and because it's a ongoing archaeological site uh we have dug there multiple years in the past uh the last time was two years ago I want to say now um you're going to dig through the grass anyway so there's no reason to put that
stuff there no and anybody that will tell you that's in the business anymore do not use that plastic stuff it's just uh negative all around i I can't speak to it archaeologically i
can't either i don't know that you Yeah yeah okay thank you anything else from the commission so um Matt I'm assuming you've been to this site yep and so is it all this area they're talking about work on this is
all previously disturbed a lot of it is previous I mean at one point it was all a meadow you know a couple hundred years ago but has grown in over the years like I said a lot of it you know if you look at where it says where the wetland line is that blue line everything south of
that is intact forest but none of that is being touched um some of what's between the blue and red line i mean you saw the aerial imagery there's plenty of trees there it's not like it's completely cleared but the understory has been cleared obviously they did the archaeological work in there um a lot of
invasives have been established in there i told Elden they're going to have a tough time with this project trying to get meadow established when the site right now is covered in garlic mustard it's really really hard to to compete with um you can see wire fencing and
Elder was just saying there's barbwire fence in there too so yeah it's definitely a disturbed site not by any means you know taking a pristine forest site and what's that landscaping it it's just what's that little blue block down at the spring in the middle with the
wetland line so yeah I I pointed that out before that that I assume is in place to to mean the spring but I did notice that on the October 24 version of this plan that was further to the south
so that was a little bit concerning in that we want to make sure whatever's approved here is actually what ends up happening and on the old plan if you can see the cursor the blue blob was more down here and there was a trail leading to it yeah I have a a copy of that
I don't know if this is okay to show this way i could pass it down so everybody can see it i mean I could pull it up here too but it's And so what is the purpose of the little trail that goes close to the wetland line the blue wetland line isn't the blue wetland line on what we're passing around is exactly
the same as what's on the on the screen for line the blue blob as you call it represents the spring for Joseph Holland's house place where they got water and our thought was uh to have a pathway to it with some sort of sign
sort of describing what it is and why you're looking at it okay so is there any reason why the path just didn't can't just go to the well and then go back instead of making that big loop look at that it might not pass
the spring uh I think in reality that's the way it's going to be uh it'll be a path to that spring and back out well I guess my question is to me when I'm looking at this drawing again I I'm not sure how to
read it 100% but it says mode graph pathway 5 to seven feet in width and it shows a loop which I get it's a nice area to walk but unfortunately it's between the 30 and the 100 I mean 30 in the wetland so you know technically
you're not supposed to be in there at all i get that it's a previously disturbed site and I get the historic value of the the water source i'm just wondering if we can limit that path and you know to to I get why you want to do
what you want to do and I respect that i'm just wondering if we need to make that big you know loop in other words instead of just going straight from you know where it says short grass area down to the well yeah i think
Oh okay we uh what we could do is just a single bath and use mulch and not grass so I'm okay with the grass i I just you know you're asking to do a lot there and I'm
not sure that we can even let you do that so uh I'm Listen I'm fine with it i love the idea i want you to make it beautiful 100% behind it just we got to make it work for everybody right yeah perfect thank you
so uh it's our intention to to respect the environment the archaeology the 100% ecology etc so um we're not trying to get not saying you are at all you shouldn't and I'm not you know I'm not I'm not sure I'm not alluding to that at
all yeah i'm just wondering if we can just again I don't know if that little spring is maybe to the left or the right but I don't know if you can just you know I don't know why Bob um Bob Hawky the um some of you may know his name uh
landscape designer um historic landscape designer um has drawn these plans um and the one that I that you're looking at now I think represents more closely the actual site Yeah well so this one's
actually worseer worse than that one so for a lack of a better word it's not you're actually So you're on the other side you're in actually in the wetland on this plan on that plan you're on the edge of the wetland so I you know again I'm I'm fine with it if you need a
little path to the to the well um but this big horseshoe thing I don't I don't know that we can do that but okay i don't again this is one man speaking sure sure i'm not the board so um point of information for me uh we take this
information from you and what's the next step for for us okay could we hear from Commissioner Payne he's uh raised his head thank you um I'm I'm behind the proposal i think it's a very good idea i've seen similar things in other towns i can
think of specifically one in Norwell that I walk by pretty pretty frequently very similar setup like this but um as a historian and educator I I I don't see a ton of value of extending it so close to the wetlands just so that visitors can
see this spring i'm not sure of what the educational value comes from that that you're not getting already by by what else is there i think if you could basically go up to the green line with your site development and then between
the green and the blue line um try to do something that's more focused on the ecology and less on the history and I I say that knowing that I'm a historian that it's kind of weird for me to say but um the second thing is I'd also like to support the the comment about
eliminating the plastic i really don't think that's common practice anymore i'm not an archaeologist but um I don't see that very often and I think there are better strategies to use to preserve historical underground historical sites uh than than plastic these days so I
would like to have something in the proposal that specifically states that that plastic would be removed otherwise I'm very much in favor i had a question understanding that you want people to recognize what this site
is and what it was is there some way to do an interpretive piece that would stay out of all of our jurisdiction have a a map a sketch and identify the spring and whatever else the foundation of the house and and stay out of our jurisdiction yes very much so
we um on the John and Elizabeth Holland side of east side of the street yeah uh we have a kiosk there with some maps i don't know when the last time you folks are up there but it's been a while um and so it would be something like that probably back by the monument uh that's
Holland Society monument there in the middle where it says existing large cedar tree um so you're on the site kind of orienting you and uh with some sort of illustration right uh that might help people the the
tricky I think about is when you tell people there's a spring back there in the woods people are going to want to go back and see it so uh but even how visible is it well you can pull up a picture of it i mean I saw the picture of the rock well maybe you could add
something on your little kiosk about it's located within the buffer to the wetlands yes we're trying to bring back ecology to the area and restore it to naturalize it so maybe it'll help keep people out of there that's a good good uh you know but this project also
includes restoration and not making a path to it right sure but that way at least you're you're giving them that historical info and hopefully keeping the mountain bay and just to point out though some of
that well you think it well because it's circulated with stone but also there's deer trails come through there so long that walking trails
right even if we didn't anything there still be access to that area because of the deer trails that is a good point there are already trails there people and deer already use them somebody had a deer camera strapped to one of the trees when I was there
checking the site out at one point the only other thing I would also bring up having heard you mention barbed wire is could you get it out over there only a little bit well
see if I if I may add a little bit just in terms of the staying out of jurisdiction completely they definitely have the ability to do that as it is right now i I think that's the way it is the site is just used passively um but has a pretty high load of non-native
invasive species so I definitely think there is potential for improvement to the site while also making the site more useful for people i think that's a great idea talking about the 30foot minimizing the amount of work that's in the 30-foot for
sure yeah again I I I respect that you know everyone's opinion but if I'd rather control that everybody's just walking in a certain path than just let them go willy-nilly so I mean I'd like to go see the thing so it doesn't look
like this that's it right now on the screen that's the spring right looks you know it's pretty cool so they want to come back really cool yeah i don't think I've ever been there i've never seen it do we have any
comments from members of the public present or um present online all right how do you want to go forward with this do you want to continue this so should we continue and give you the opportunity to chew this over
how long would you uh how long would you need we have meetings roughly every two weeks yeah come on um we'll have Bob Hawky work on a new plan taking in your input and um come
back in two weeks okay does that work april 9th does that work Elden did you say April 9th april 9th do I have a motion to continue this matter to April 9th i'll make that motion second okay we have a motion to
continue to April 9th um and it's been seconded dot yes megan yes colleen is a yes buzz yes marilyn yes and Brian yes great so we'll see you then terrific thank you very much thank you thank you
and we have public hearing i'll make a point to go see it now been down there a lot when I was a kid but never noticed it if there's anyone who hasn't signed in who's come into the meeting would you please take this opportunity to sign
in meanwhile um I reopen a hearing for the request for amendment for the proposed installation of a sediment for bay and rain garden within the 200 foot riverfront area of
Smountbrook um Matt do you have any comments um I got And this by the way is 20 Marion Drive no oh yeah sorry yes 20 Marion aka One Royce Drive um I
had thought we didn't have um a time necessarily to continue this to we hadn't received the alternatives analysis yet i did receive it uh this afternoon so I haven't really had time to look at it yet but I did forward it to For the Whitten Group um to ask them
to provide a rough timeline for when they would be able to review it i did not hear back from her let me double check my phone see if I got an email while we were sitting here not nope so my recommendation was going to be to
push this out to May 28th and assume that within two months she could probably get everything together and get back to us you went by the site and it was stable yeah
um I went by the site Thursday of last week with uh with Larry mainly to look at you know we had talked about the areas where the ESC had already been removed and he said they were stable um they were this is the area you know
closest to Marian Drive um so I thought there was no point in putting more erosion control back there where I pointed out that there was some trash that needed to be picked up which he said he would do and I said he needed to talk to his landscaper about not blowing things towards the wetlands and he said
he would do that as well um so I did send him an email today just stating all of that so that he had the documentation that he does not have to put ESC back there um and I also felt that he had taken significant action to protect the area around the catch basin that had
been problematic before uh and I just told him you got to keep an eye on it i mean it it was significant effort that I think will do a good job but it's you know if it gets passed again you have to jump on it I guess is it's a tough site
before I ask for a motion is there anyone uh in the public present or online who has comment on this do I hear a motion to continue this matter to May 28th make that motion second okay there's a
motion that's been seconded to continue this matter to May 28th um Dot yes megan yes colleen is an I buzz yes marilyn yes and Brian yes okay that motion carries
we're going to move on to section B this is 105 Monks Hill Road this is for a notice of intent for the proposed construction of a dock on smelt pond and permitting of a pre-existing shed within
the uh inland buffer zones um so I open the hearing for this notice of intent and do you have any comments might as well get a presentation we have Paul Seabird from Grady online i beg you pardon me we have Paul Seabourg from
Grady online we might as well have them give a presentation on it first would you like to do that Mr seabourg yes uh Paul Seabberg from Grady Consulting here um would it be okay if I share my screen yeah please thank you
all right can everybody see that okay yep perfect so this project is located at uh 105 Mugs Hill Road um this site currently consists of a single family residence on a
158,920 ft lot um the property Butts Smelt Pond which is to the north um and consists of bordering land subject to flooding um land underwater bodies and waterways and bordering
vegetative wetland resource areas associated with the pond uh the no disturb setbacks in buffer zone are based off of the bordering vegetative wetland shown here in blue since that is the most landwood resource area there is currently an existing dock
on the property shown here and an existing shed um adjacent to the pond the condition of the dock is deteriorating uh the applicants are proposing to remove the ex existing dock and construct a new dock in the same
location um so their family can continue to enjoy access to the pond and recreational activities the proposed dock is uh consists of a 4ft by 8t ramp a 4t x 16t
long dock section and a six uh 10x 16 ft long platform at the end in addition there's an existing shed that's located approximately 19th from the bordering vegetative wetland um the
shed was installed by the previous property owners and appears to be constructed around 2016 I would say based off of historical aerial images the current property owners were not aware that the shed did not comply with Kingston's wetland regulations so
they are seeking a variance in order to maintain the shed in its location within 40 ft of a resource area there is space to relocate the shed to meet that setback requirement um as an alternative
um but that would require additional clearing of vegetation at this point and construction of a new foundation um so in order to minimize disturbance to the buffer zone and potential impacts to the resource area the applicants are proposing mitigation consisting of native plantings shown
here in green um and with that said I'd be happy to turn it over to any questions the commission may have do you have any comments Matt sure so I won't repeat everything that he
just said so I'll skip through this a little bit um conservation posts are shown as a plan detail it says post locations to be determined by conservation commission um I usually say without conservation posts it's just landscaping plant species detailed are
appropriate for the situation uh the amount of mitigation seems appropriate for the situation so they also proposed to remove an existing unpermitted aluminum dock um saying it needs repair i did I told Dave
uh the owner of the property you know in seeking retroactive permitting for a dock if you think you ever want to make it any bigger or better or anything like that now would probably be the time so that I think is what they're looking to
do now is remove an older aluminum dock the one that's there is seasonal it is has the supports in the water and the bulk of it gets pulled out seasonally at least it appears to on the aerial imagery um the dock appeared between
2008 and 2012 on GIS imagery i'm not exactly sure um but they're looking to replace it now with a permanent dock design built to meet the standards of the chapter 91 program the state um this is a great pond it was pointed out to me earlier today that with great ponds you
only own up to the edge of the water so technically that dock would be installed on land that you don't own but my understanding is the chapter 91 permitting process deals with that um they that is the program that does
oversee the great pond um issues spacing meet the minimum standards on the decking it details minimum 3/4 inch spacing between 6-inch wide decking to allow light through so that meets standards of
KWPR uh the dock overlays the existing one it looks like it expands less than one additional foot lengthwise into smelt pond it adds an 8ft ramp landward and increases the platform at the end of the dock to 10 ft by 16 ft which is the maximum allowable in KWPR that
commission may require that no float or terminal portion of a dock shall exceed more than 160 feet in area um the dock itself is well within the maximum set by KWPR um which is 4 feet by 150 ft and the proposal makes the case that there are
no better locations to build the new structure that would be less impactful to submerged vegetation which is sensible given that there's been a structure there since 2008 to 2012 support spacing meets the standards
set in KWPR as well um 6 in posts times 20 is 12 in or 10 feet which is what is proposed so it just barely meets that standard um project as proposed would result in 2.3% impervious surface within jurisdictional buffers which is far less
than the maximum under KWPR calls for an increase of 0.4% over the existing shed obviously does not meet the structure setback in KWPR as it's less than 40 ft and this is an open pile
um foundation so it's less than 40 ft to the BBW BLSF and uh land under water bodies and waterways it's only 19 ft from the BBW um the applicant's representative provided a formal variance request that explains why such a variance should be issued he got at a little bit of that there and talking
about the impacts of even just moving the shed you know directional out of that 40 foot buffer um and I have to say I emailed Paul and said that's the best variance request I've seen written i'm going to use that now and send that to people when they you know have issues with variance requests because it was
fantastic so um did a site visit May 29th 2024 so a long time before the NOI filing but it was part of part of the process um during that the applicant and I walked near the edge of the vernal pool
near the front of the property it's on the other side of the house um so the jurisdictional area is not shown on the plan it may actually the jurisdictional area may be off of the plan i'm not 100% sure i just wanted to state that there did appear to be a robust natural
vegetated buffer to the vernal pool um and the applicant understood the importance of that feature and the regulatory protections of it um there was something from a prior owner of the property where there was a filing where there was discussion of them certifying the pool but I think that filing ended
up in a denial so that was not a condition that was ever held to regarding the shed variance that's up to the commission uh they provided a coherent sensible rationale on the variance request formatted as KWPR 5.23 requires and they have provided what
appears to be sufficient mitigation provided that we do get conservation posts installed in the right locations um regarding the dock what's existing is likely less impactful to the resource areas but is in need of repair at least according to the
applicant the proposal as shown appears to meet all the standards of WPA and KWPR a chapter 91 license would also be needed but typically receiving OC's is the first step and we do have a condition I believe in all of our permits and I would make sure it made it into this one that says you need all
other permits in place before you build anything so that would deal with any potential property rights issue with great ponds and I had kind of a slew of special conditions that could be attached to any permit if one should be issued conservation posts in perpetuity
detailed allowance for maintenance of mitigation area um there's a special part in KWPR that calls for certain performance standards to be included in all orders concerning peers as continuing conditions um boats mored to a dock
shall not be allowed to release contaminants yada yada you can't store those substances on it and then structural maintenance of peers or any portion thereof shall require the owner to inquire of the commission as to whether the work will require the filing of a new NOI maintenance of a wooden
structure shall not include the use of hazardous chemicals cleaners paints or wood treatments i did note final approval of the pressure treatment type uh should be through my office um as we've dealt with before KWPR has a
little bit of a wonky section on uh pressure treatment that really deals more with human health and not aquatic health so typically we don't necessarily need to have those you know we can we can find something that is the least impactful to um the ecology and then the
usual blur about outdoor chemicals and fertilizer use okay any any commissioners uh have comments or questions my What is this path this path
right in this location here yep yeah so there's this is an existing path that runs along the water's edge here do you want me to pull up the aerial imaging yes because there's also a drive there's a driveway on the other side of that too right do we know what
what that path is made out of like dirt m it's just it's just dirt um dirt and grass that kind of extends all the way up here back to the existing driveway um and it carries all the way through down through here to the adjacent property
one more thing I didn't mention earlier is the sand area that is shown right by where the um dock is was legally permitted i believe it was in 2006 uh a DOA was issued by the
commission to allow redeposition of sand um so that area was sort of formalized by that as being not actual permitted beach area which I don't think necessarily would be permitted today
so yeah veral pool is down this way oops too much oh yeah sorry I'm not sharing screen yet just give me one second do you need me to stop sharing that uh I shouldn't I should be able to Oh yeah
you can stop you might as well stop thanks okay so Vernal Pool is out front here somewhere um and here's the pond here's the house there's like a back lawn area and
then there's stairs connecting from I think it's here down through here and this is that beach area that I was talking about that was permitted in 2006 the shed shows up in 2018 um and then you can see there's no dock in that
for 2023 if you switch to 2021 there's the dock you can't see the path the path is um vegetated i think Yeah it's I think it's just a kind of a path through the trees what about the
fire pit is that allowed down there i'm not sure if that's something that was in the 2006 filing off the top of my head i don't know if I have it in the Hey Matt this is Dave the homeowner here the uh the tire pit was included in the
2006 five my knowledge yep yeah regarding the path the the path I believe actually shows up on site plans that go back like pretty much as long as the property existed i believe it it was captured as like a cart path um that's existed for some time for access to the
small pond is the fire pit a brick stove yeah that's what it says for the 2006 RDA filed for paving the existing driveway to rebuild a brick open stove and reand beach area the associated DOA that was issued was for paving existing driveway within a 100 ft of vernal pool
reanding beaches adjacent to Snell Pond within the 25 ft no disturb zone and rebuild a brick stove any other comments from the commission questions so let's start from the beginning so what is the ask
so the ask is permit the dock which is replacement of a non-permitted temporary dock with a permanent permitted doc that does appear to meet the basic
standards of the state and local um and issue a variance to keep the shed in place as opposed to saying you know with mitigation with the vegetation there hopefully providing additional protection for the pond you know as much buffer as you can get to there the
better um or the commission doesn't have to do that there's nothing that says you have to it's just you know I'm sure they bought the house with the shed there they'd rather not have to remove it or move it that sort of thing for them it's the best case scenario if the commission
can permit it and keep it in place it's up to the commission to determine is it better to have mitigation make them move it which would provide some disturbance on its own or make them remove it
and reveate the area to what it was before 2018 which would be you know I would say for sure the correct route if the person in front of us was the person who had done the done that work you know um this wasn't kicked off
through an enforcement process just by having a conversation with the homeowner saying like this is something that you know this may end up an enforcement issue and he you know took it upon himself to start the process of trying to get everything permitted so that he
didn't have any issues going forward and so once again I'm going to make an assumption for now that the duck would be approved in our language you said that he would have to then go and get the 91 9 chapter 91 approvals and then and only then he could construct it
correct and what is in the shed now just uh some photos right now couple of kayaks and some like fishing materials and things of that sort okay so uh so I'm fine with the shed staying there with think we should add to the order
conditions if we do this that there can be no storage of any hazardous materials no oil gas grease bubble pesticides yada yada yada so my my opinion and uh I'm fine with the dock so
I just had a question as far as the mitigation area goes oh and wait sorry I thought you were done sorry i I thought I was too uh where would the where would the I don't see conservation post on the plan where where are we wanting the conservation post right essentially it's
wherever the commission decides they'd be most impactful i think we had a rec similar recent filing where it's a smaller area than you would typically have for spacing usually we would space them out 50 feet but in cases of a smaller mitigation area or one with you know more curved lines or something you
would put them closer closer yeah so normally normally let's pretend we weren't working in the buffer zone between the 100 and the 30 wouldn't the post normally go at the 30 foot no disturb zone
posts would go either at the edge of a no disturb zone or the edge of a mitigation area okay but why can't we have both you could i mean from a wetlands protection standpoint my biggest issue on this property is the
cleared area right up against the pond that's just not good for for anything but that was permitted already so you know I think any any additional vegetative protection for the pond is a plus
um you know have to check legality of it but you could even potentially have some sort of a condition that states that that shed can't be rebuilt that once it degrades it has to be removed in the
area reveated could be a long time could be a long time but if if that's you know you wouldn't typ you certainly wouldn't permit in any other situation somebody putting a shed 19 ft from a PVW and 20ish 25ish feet from a pond so I guess
where I was going with that is at some point this property is going to be you know sold in the future whenever that is and that's not a dig against the current owner that's just the nature of property right so I was thinking that we would allow the
mitigation put some posts around it and add additional posts at wherever the 30 to 40 or the 50 along the entire line at every 50 ft and have that monumented in the plan so that when the next owner
comes along they can't claim ignorance that they didn't know what was there does that 30foot line go through the trees yeah the 30 foot goes between the goes the 30 foot definitely goes wouldn't in
the trees and it would be landward of the path that's shown um so they really would show would they not especially again they're going to be on the plan so it just gives us you know down the road
documentation just like we've done in the past right saying this is what you have now we have an asbuilt of the entire property and so that some point when something else occurs someone can go to the file 5 10 15 20 years from now and
say this is what you knew what was there this is filed on record you know you don't have the excuse of I didn't know that's Um Matt would it be okay if I pull up the plan again real quick here so we can
kind of look at that area again yeah go ahead um let me just share my screen so are we saying that we want to put posts along this 30 foot no disturb line here is that exact some somewhere i'm
just I I want to again one of them goes through the shed so maybe maybe it's the 40 foot so I don't know the right answer all I'm again when we have properties like this that come in front of me and I'm again I'm speaking for myself now i always say okay we got to deal with
what's there i understand the system you know you're trying to make things right i appreciate the mitigation but now I want to say okay this is what you have is a full plan there's post so that someday in the future similar to some
other properties that have come back recently you say "Listen you've had this plan it was recorded there's no reason that you can stand here and say plead ignorance." Here's a um idea Matt what
about conservation posts on the pondward edge of the cleared area as it shows on the 2006 DOA if we can't if the 2006 DOA plan is not sufficient enough because it was a
sketch somebody put on the back of a napkin then you know I could figure out with Paul what makes the most sense basically the point would be that as landscape maintenance practices over the years it doesn't get expanded little bit at a time with a we
whacker you know that sort of thing and that might get to what you were getting that's where I'm going with that so I'm Yeah yeah well again we're just establishing where we're at today and no more right yeah and I would stay that you know as
far as you know the area of the path there to the to the right i mean there's really no legal abil no legal authority to to clear anything over there anyways so I think with a plan you wouldn't necessarily have to
put conservation posts over there you could you could put them at the 30 or 40 or something over there and the path itself would be on the plan as pre-existing okay but there may or may not be benefit again the more documentation we can get
as it exists today then later on they can't say oh we didn't know right so again just to summarize my position I'm okay with the shed I like the mitigation I'd like to see some way of monumenting what's there today so we have that for
the record and then I'm fine with the dock with the proviso that they have to go get their 91 permit and it can be nothing hazardous stored in the shed and then the material used
and the material use of the duck needs to be approved the post so I did have a question regarding the mitigation area i know we talk a lot about chemicals the runoff the potential for for negative impact that way is
there a way the mitigation area so that it would disallow using anything on it and it just grows yeah absolutely i mean you may have nursery stock that already has a ton of chemical in it yeah
going in the osma coat and everything soils but I mean you could even specify maybe that it doesn't i don't know i'm sure there's a way to fund plants that aren't already burdened by that but it would be pretty easy condition to say you know but going forward
I would say you're going to put a the general outdoor condition anyways and maybe specifically call out no fertilizer application within I don't know 50 feet
it's the typical outdoor special condition that we use does not ban fertilizer which is in a way problematic because we use that kind of natural language but natural fertilizer so that's why I'm asking yeah that would
be easy enough to to do now they're looking to increase the dock did you say they need a variance for that or no no no it um it meets all of the KWPR and and state standards for the for the dock
like the size standards as well okay like the maximum and and you're deciding upon the material i would say they're coming to me with hey this is what we want to use and I
say yes or no okay because what is it ACQ and copper asol is there are there other options besides those two things that I read about off the top of my head the copper is very common now it's
like the home right is it MCA i think I think MCA is what the contractor I'd spoken with had proposed but open to accommodating anything that commission commens yeah I would have to check my records but I'm pretty sure MCA is is one of the least is one of the most benign now from a wetlands protection
standpoint i mean no matter what you put PT in a water body or in a wetland you are leeching something but that is as far as I know the least impactful Are we all set any comments from the from the public in this
regard present over online all right do I have a motion to close this hearing uh I'd make a motion to close the hearing second okay it's been a motion to close the hearing it's been seconded dot yes megan yes ina yes buzz
yes marilyn yes brian yes okay so the hearing is closed uh do I have um would someone articulate a motion at this point to I'll do my best so I'll make a
motion to approve the NOI with the following provisions one you have a cheat sheet for me you're the best you could say the special conditions as stated by the agent because I read most of them okay yeah I'm gonna Thank you so I'm going to
say with the special conditions as read by the agent with the addition that nothing hazardous can be stored in the shed that conservation post should be installed around the proposed mitigation area
uh that we grant the variance to leave the shed in its current location with the understanding that it can't be expanded or enlarged in any way uh and that conservation post will be placed
along the beach area with direction from the agent to establish a firm boundary so it does not expand over time so we have a motion we have are we ready do I have a second hold on one second do we have um also we were going to make
sure that chapter 91 permit before construction and and thank you and they need to go once we're done with us they need to go get the chapter 91 permit and provide that to the commission prior to constructing the dock and Marilyn had
suggested no chemicals or fertilizer in the mitigation planting and no fertilizer within 50 ft of wetlands yeah that well it says that right here in our There's no use yeah she kind of she added some complexity to it oh no use okay some situational complexity which
which I like all right so I will add the f friendly amendment saying no use of okay so we have are we second we have a motion it's been seconded um
Dot yes megan yes yes buzz yes Marilyn yes and Brian yes all right thank you very much Mr se thank you have a good night you too okay we're going to move on to
section C this is 18 Old Orchard Lane this is for a notice of intent for the proposed demolition and rebuilding of a single family house and the moving of a shed within coastal buffer
zone sounds familiar would you do maybe and would you remember um to sign the um did you sign in okay thank you okay can't reach that we don't want to lose
[Applause] that here you go this was handed in Matt for the commission do you have any comments Matt um we'll let them give a presentation first this is a new one all right thank you very much just identify yourself for the
record uh Joe Webbby Webbby Engineering with me is Mark Guidaboni and this is uh 18 Old Orchard Lane uh currently there's an existing dwelling on the property um
it's on this side and what they would like to do is demolish that existing dwelling and create a new dwelling approximately the same size it's a little bit bigger um in the same area uh we had Brad Holmes from ECR delineate
the wetlands resource areas just hold on one second Mr webby can you pull that up Matt yep just for people looking online you're on the next page right the second sheet well you can start with whatever
one you want on that okay don't like the way they do PDFs on this it's frustrating so the the existing dwelling is right in this area uh we are proposing to uh build a new new dwelling right in the
same area uh there is a I guess I'm not sure what they're calling this now either perennial or intermittent stream i'll leave that up to Brad and Matt uh but we also have a an associated BVW with that and we have our 30s 40s and
50s and 100 um I know that uh Matt and Brad have been there's some letters going back and forth so I I can't speak on that issue i don't know if Mark has anything else to say would you like to um
would you just identify yourself for the record so I'm Mark Woodoni the trustee of Old Orchard Realy Trust i'm one of the owners but there are uh several um that uh I represent moving forward so the reason for this request is that 18
Old Orchard Lane is a a very old structure it was uh located by my grandfather off of Route 3 when they built it so that was just a little while ago and uh it was placed on the ground and it's structurally unsound it's uh it's rotted away and there really isn't
anything to replace within it there's no foundation to speak of it has some uh concrete blocks to stop the wind from blowing under it but but basically uh structurally it's not really sound it is currently occupied um but it it is a
situation we need to address with a new structure so we've asked to uh replace it we're hoping and seeking a rectangle because this footprint of um 24 by 36 meets a myriad of different house plans that are are easy to do you can see the
area with the cutout for the porch right now it would be very hard to build a a structure so we're going from 726 ft to an 864 request that's 140 or so square foot we're limited um rather strongly by an existing 20 foot wide
permanent sewer easement so we can't build on that so we're we're bringing the the building as far from the resource area which again I'll let Matt speak to i think his staff report uh gave it a lot of discussion that I'm sure you guys have read um so we're
moving it further from that um and in an effort to move it a little further away from uh the velocity zone which is not really a factor here um and to accommodate um the needs of the Abutter um at 17 Old Orchard Lane that does have
a um a deed easement over our property to get to their their structure at 17 um that house is currently in disrepair and will probably be seeking a permit I assume at some point from you so by sliding the dwelling a little further
from that um both the ocean resource and from that dwelling we're giving them a little bit more room uh to accommodate that um we understand that there's a a PBW that was identified uh by Brad Holmes um on his site if you could slide
it back up we are prepared to um also remove the 8 by8 shed it's a structure that weighs about 300 pounds um Matt and I discussed that the impact would probably be minimal to have eight guys
pick it up and just walk it out of there instead of turning around and trying to make it some kind of a project with an excavator if necessary we can demolish it in sight and uh and rebuild it on the other side somewhere else um the location that we were proposing
on this plan did have some review from the building inspector and he was going to get back to me because currently they have to define with this weird shaped lot what exactly is the front yard so zoning doesn't allow a shed in the front yard so we would have
to address that issue at one point uh if it really gets to the point we'll demolish it and seek a permit to construct it somewhere else outside of your jurisdiction at a different time we're removing all the uh concrete walkways and patio area in an effort and
we are actually providing less impervious surface with the new plan than we currently have uh I think that's about it from right now unless you have any questions matt do you have anything to say
sure um we received a couple NOI support memos from ECR um the original narrative from Webbby was never updated um so what ECR sent did meet the filing requirements got the date everything like that but just for the
administrative record we're still left with some conflicting or erroneous information on the older project narrative um and that was just kind of hard to put together during review and just wanted to state that for the record that the there may still be things in the official record of this file that
are not representative of what we're discussing now because of the way that came together um skip through some of the specifics so they are moving essentially there's an existing single family house and as you said
they're moving it further away from um the inland bank of some sort of a stream ditch um essentially stream um it is getting closer to the BBW but I would say regardless of what type of stream
that is streams have higher level of protection than a BBW associated with a So I would still consider that to be moving it you know and I believe restrictions on easements make it
difficult to move it away from both resource areas um I did and I spoke with Mark about this the other day say that you know the sewer easement precludes moving the structure any
further unless it could be cited on the southeast portion of the lot this is an odd shaped lot it has this kind of horseshoe over here where there is what appears to be sufficient space
to build a house um I sort of brought that up with Mark i said "Hey just that'll be something that's on my review." Um there are mature apple trees there so that is basically an apple orchard that has been I believe historic on the property so um that would be I
guess one reason for for not doing that um but it needed to be brought up anyways um if it could be cited there there would be no filing with the commission needed and that inner repairarian area could be naturalized um they proposed a
stone drainage swale around three sides of the proposed residence and a 250 foot mitigation planting area which I'll pull up on a different plan in a second um project proposes to reduce jurisdictional impervious surfaces from 4.59% to
4.44% stream verse ditch verse perennial stream verse intermittent stream how much how much you want to get into well I think we ought to clean it up and just get it defined once and for all this keeps coming up and chances are it'll come up
again you're not interrupting me are you i would never think of that the uh when that when we did the permit for the uh playground slash uh concession stand I'm pretty sure with the fine back then no
sort of yeah we didn't even look at it what about the playground no no we looked at it i don't think we even looked at it i remember I remembered that when I had the first conversation with Mark I said "Yeah that DOA only approved the project it didn't confirm the boundaries and I was completely wrong they checked off the box for
confirm the wetland resource area boundaries and we definitely did not do that um so that was that was a mistake I'll say on my office's end that we did not you know consider that we did not look at that resource area um I don't I
don't know what it is truthfully i don't know if it is man-made or not um I've said a few times in recent history that it really doesn't matter whether it was dug straightened a lot of times streams were straightened they're still streams
um something that you dug that has water flowing still a stream it's functional um I can't test that it's been there 75 years yeah and I think the and I haven't really spoken with Brad about this but just in reviewing the two different memos that he sent you know at one point
it seemed that um that he was indicating that it technically met you know perennial stream and then in the other one was saying type four intermittent stream um personally I've never seen it not flow um but personally I get where
Marilyn's coming from on this she likes cleanness and getting things done i think in this particular situation I don't think it matters what that feature is i think the commission is going to make a decision based on the
project meeting the guidelines and based on getting the best protection for the resource areas possible i don't think it matters whether it's perennial or intermittent when the area in question has been developed for a long time therefore it would meet the redevelopment standards anyways which
this they did design it to meet that anyways so my standpoint from it after writing you know a entire page of of background on all of this for you all to read is that I don't know that we need to do that on this filing and I I think
it would be feasible to issue a determination one way or the other on the project itself with a special condition stating that by no means does this decision render a decision a determination on what that wetland
boundary is that's my take on it any more conversation on that part of it before my take would be why not figure it out now instead of down the road so that way when this next filing comes
up his neighbor there if they come up then what then we do it then or would we do it now i mean that's I guess we didn't do it when it was our filing for a town project is my Well we can eat these words in a couple years and be like "Oh we should have done it then." Or so I did write down there the 2021
NOI filing and Nick's right there and he was part of this project for 17 Old Orchard Lane was withdrawn before decision so it doesn't really matter from a from that standpoint but the wetland delineation by South
River Environmental dated February 24th 2020 flags this as an inland bank to a type 4 intermittent stream does it say why it was called an intermittent stream no I've never seen it uh there may be files on that buried
in the 17 Old Orchard Lane didn't I didn't go back to look and find his original sheet he usually does include something but not necessarily uh to that level of detail um but but didn't Brad comment at one in
one of the memos that it was on the USGS as a perennial stream yep yeah the July 28th 2024 ECR delineates on-site wetlands and flagged the inland bank of a supposed intermittent stream but then a review of USGS maps detailed this as a
perennial stream though it is shown in a straight line um he reviewed the site conditions and said the banks are steep and it appears to be the result of ditching activities in an attempt to drain the BBW that sits um up gradient closer to
uh the train tracks and ECR states that man-made streams do not carry riverfront area protections under WPA regs but I'm not sure that any of that is necessarily relevant in this situation you really can't prove that that's man-made and
like we've stated there it's already designed to meet the redevelopment standards for riverfront area um let me say then ECR hold on one second
excuse me Commissioner let me let me let me finish please under KWPR barring any observations of lack of flow it's considered a perennial stream so and that is pointed out by ECR and then in the next memo memo
number two ECR calls it a type four intermittent stream claiming that the performance standards of KWPR regarding perennial streams do not apply i think no matter what redevelopment standards apply in this situation
and my advice would be that we don't get to the point of whether this is perennial intermittent man-made or not for this particular filing because I think no matter what the end result is going to be the same and I would feel the exact same way when 17 old Orchard
Lane comes up as well i agree me personally my personal feeling is 100% man you know hand dug so back in the day feelings
it's pretty obvious when I' I've walked that whole thing it's pretty obvious to me that it was Doug but it's also how it functions right i'm not disputing that i'm just saying there was something there and it got you know straightened and made to work properly my my bottom
line on stuff like this is there is a stream there it is carrying things out into the bay any filing that comes across the commission's desk you want to make sure you're minimizing what gets
into that feature so recognize Mr thank you and um we're we're willing to make all the accommodations we possibly can you know without the definition being defined at this point um I will add that it did not come up um but Plymouth Countyy's Mosquito control does
maintain that drainage ditch or whatever we calling it as a part of their ongoing maintenance process they actually visited the site the day after Matt uh did on the 21st of March uh identifying that it would either be cleaned out again this year or next year so it is a
man modified structure on a regular basis uh going forward and then the only other uh part Matt back when Brad originally cited in his definitions he did not feel there was enough wetland area providing the source for this uh
stream or whatever to uh actually qualify as perennial I believe but I can't find his memo his original u and Cameron is on maybe he's got a copy of it and can cite the the argument but um we're willing to do our absolute best to
respect regardless of how um it's defined yeah personally my professional recommendation here right or wrong is that I don't
think the commission needs to know that in this situation you you already have a situation where on both sides on private property and on town property this particular feature is heavily encroached
on so rather than focus on categorizing it when we definitely were not concerned with that on the other project now I will state that was a project that was
completely within its existing boundaries that was improving storm water flow so that's I think part of why it was felt to be unimportant at the time but I I see it as being equally unimportant now not the feature itself but the classification of it either way
you can permit a project on this property while improving conditions for that stream anything else from the commission on this um let me just see if I have anything else down here
um I forget if there was any update on this but um from all the updates to the narrative and support memos and everything we still had no formal variance requests um you know the existing structure is already within the 50oot KWPR no structure area but there's
no grandfathering um so there would still need to be a formal variance requested and issued um I had earlier mentioned a likely need for a variance request on the 40 foot storm water setback but that was on an earlier version of the plan that showed
subsurface infiltration galleries those were removed in favor of additional crushed stone swale um and I don't believe that a crushed stone swale would need that same variance personally um could that be a special condition or
would that have to be done first for variance we we need it one way or the other he already mentioned that they're planning on moving the shed by hand um proposed mitigation plantings are outside the limit of work as well um that's likely acceptable as long as
planting is done with hand tools and no machinery um we talked about yard waste when we did the site visit there was a big pile of yard waste including decomposing grass clippings it was roughly 5 to 10 feet from the stream um I talked with Mark about the need to remove that source of pollution to
Kingston Bay he agreed um so that's going to get done and we've talked a lot about stream classification um conservation posts obviously uh you can see now the mitigation uh overlay by
ECR is up there um one thing that I sort of mentioned on that was that the way the property slopes it would be beneficial to have that mitigation area cross that 100 foot buffer line and go really as far down in that direction as
was feasible um there is a sort of a gate with a pathway that goes across to Graze Beach and I believe Mark said that is under under his control um so that was my only real comment on the mitigation was that it would make more
sense shifting further uh down gradient then I would ask my question again about disallowing fertilizer and chemicals yeah I think I wrote that down
um special conditions should a permit be issued conservation posts in perpetuity detailed allowance for maintenance and mitigation area the do we have a stockpile of silt sock on this plan or did I just copy that in from something else i believe
it's the orange one it's the orange one no do we have a stockpile though i think on the it's on another plan it's showing it is okay yeah so proposed additional stockpile of silt socks should be reviewed as part of the pre-work ESC check um any dumpster used as part of this project must be covered could talk
specifics on that but we've included that you know in a few others recently um the usual outdoor chemicals and fertilizers blurb could add the same thing that Marilyn just talked about on the last filing with you know either specifically not using it in the
mitigation plantings but also you know disallowing fertilizer within a certain distance marcus told me they don't use any on the property but you can still formalize things um through conditions and my recommendation language regarding
not confirming the stream type if that's what and so my only thing that I don't see is uh we're not doesn't appear to be we're not controlling the runoff from the roof that um is not on this plan I can pull
up the other plan there were stone swailes on three sides of the structure Are there conservation posts on a different plan shown no there are no conservation posts shown in the plan so that would be a special condition um
detail on a plan showing the swiles at the drip edges of the house let me share this and I can um show you so you not you're not going to have gutters
i'd pref I'd prefer not to have gutters and have it drop into the crush stone and permeate um it it's just an easier treatment um for future maintenance going forward and where were the cars parked for this house now um there was a
you see where it says existing gravel parking or up there we may may increase that but it's outside the 100 foot buffer to to a double thing it's actually on the road layout if you notice actually doesn't go on the lot the the roadway is 12 ft wide here and
it's it's displaced oceanside of the 40 foot layout so we have plenty to to park in that area that's that's likely where it would end up but um our pre-construction
our stockpile is actually right in that vicinity on the plan sorry on the other plan Buzz this is this gray hashed area is the um stone swale for proposed stone swale for uh storm water runoff okay
thank you and I think there is a detail as well if you want to see that so it sounds like you need the mitigation to loop up to the top more what you were saying on the previous plan i mean that's my
recommendation um this area right here y is I would say the where the highest impact would be because there is a sort of a slope from this direction here so if you're talking about you know runoff off of the roof or from other parts of
the property I think a lot of it is likely to go that way and not directly over here um you know obviously as much buffer as you can get on that stream the better um but and where would the conservation post go
along the mitigation Yeah yeah at the edge of the mitigation area there's the uh detail on drainage swells okay thank you is there anything else from the commission while we still waiting for the varian
requests well we need a variance request we need the mitigation change we the post what else do we need post the mitigation extended need the language about the shed being hand carried
maryland's language about the pesticides and fertilizer what was the variance request for the uh 50 foot no structure got it and I believe that should be 50 foot
no structure to DVW and bank i'm sorry Matt to the BV I couldn't hear the rest of 50 foot no structure to BVW and Inland Bank we have that Are there any members of the public who
um have any comments on this public present online i don't see anything great we ready for a motion i guess I would ask um what time was
what do you need how long you need certainly by the next meeting okay well we need it the week before the meeting should be able to do that can you get it by Yeah next Wednesday next Wednesday we'll do that okay okay let me ask
Cameron you're still on there we're going to need the the plan with the posts identified and an expansion uh towards the ocean area there I guess to the east um yeah no problem we can do that um as I understood it's a shifting of the mitigation area right not an
expansion extension extension i think they want to extend it the entire length of the resource area all the way to the uh lot line of the neighbor correct yeah that would be great okay we'll do we'll extend that and we'll add the uh conservation markers
by Wednesday we're good thank you awesome thank you you need a motion april 9th i I move that we continue this in what what is the date april 9th april to April 9th there's a motion to continue this to April 9th do we have a second
second we've got a motion and a second um Dot yes megan yes yes buzz yes marilyn yes and Brian yes motion carries see you then thank you thank you very much thank you everybody see you on the 9th have a good
night so we moving on to section D section D is uh for two Brainree Avenue this is also a notice of intent for construction of additions to a single
family house within the land subject to coastal storm flowage and the buffer zones to coastal resource areas um do you want to um make your comments first Matt or do you want to hear from the representative um I guess we should
hear from Nick we just got updates today um so I think I chided Nick about that i should continue we should continue this because we need things one week early but since we've already gone through I would say 99% of this project through two different hearings i said "You
should probably show up tonight and just see if you can present to the commission and if they'll hear what you have to say and hopefully get this thing without having read it beforehand." And you didn't bring i gave a very quick review did you bring any cookies or anything and I gave feedback and my understanding is he has already emailed
me um things that I have not looked at that dealt with some of those concerns nick would you identify yourself for the record yes first of all pardon my voice i lost my voice and it hasn't fully come back yet so if I'm difficult to hear just let them know um before I begin I
do actually have paper copies for the entire commission would you like me to distribute those to you individually just give us your full name for the record before you do charles Lang with Grady Consulting on behalf of um the owner hand me those i'll uh I'll take care of them
thanks thanks a lot pretty big um just for there is a a letter that went along with that that says uh planer visions are as follows a 4-in tree has been proposed in the front yard
as requested a dry well has been proposed attached to the front edition as requested conservation posts and markers have been proposed in 25 ft intervals as requested i'll give you one moment just take a quick glance at that real quick
you ready ready y all righty um so we'll work from front to back uh as the letter stated that Matt was read um you'll see there's a pink tree proposed in the front yard the 4-in caliber as specified our landscape architect has proposed a
dogwood tree um but we are open to uh the commission's suggestions as to a specific type of tree um the owner would like to request that there be some lenency with the exact placement um relative to what's shown on the plan there is an understanding it does it
should be in the front yard that is not up for discussion on that end but that specific location we would like some ley on exactly where she plants that at the time of planting we have added the drywall which actually feeds down into a trench drain along the
southernly boundary there where is that i don't see it right here see the cursor no where is it on the right side of the plan it runs right along adjacent to the property line oh
yeah it's linear oh it's a trench drain it is a There's a trench drain it is fed from the roof drains it is 2 ft wide i see it two feet wide one ft deep yeah I see it thank you uh we have actually oversized it so it can um handle some of the additional runoff from the existing
roof line not only the proposed roof to be added to the plan um and we have also added the conservation markers uh total of four I believe yes a total of four and the 25 foot increment spacing as requested you'll notice the two at the
most northerly end are closer than 25 feet but due to the curvature of the planting area um we did it advisable to put those in the the northern end closer together rather than on the southern end that was the extent of the revisions i would be happy to answer any questions
you have any comments Matt posts look good uh drywall I defer to Buzz and the tree I discussed with Nick earlier um I would say the species is wrong for the location and probably
wouldn't do well there anyways and doesn't it's not quite going to do what I would think the homeowner will want it to do down the line as far as storm water uptake uh my recommendation was to just have that language be and I think may have already been updated on the
plan update that was sent a couple hours ago um that's not in front of you but just to say species to be coordinated with conservation agent and the last thing was that I asked them to change the language on the plan where it says proposed 4-in caliper tree required by
the conservation commission as additional enforcement for 592024 enforcement order issued to prior owner because that was not correct it's additional mitigation for this NOI filing yeah this one just says prop proposed 4-in caliber dogwood tree or
approved equal okay so these are version that we spoke about yes you're quick man it's good i try to be does that say in perpetuity because isn't that supposed to be if it's supposed to be replaced that's specified as well if it's not specified I mean it can be put in as a
special condition what i'm sorry the tree for the tree is to be kept in perpetuity so if it falls or something happens it's to be replaced yeah that was what we discussed at last meeting so I just wanted to make sure that was also noted to help with the you know water issues
on site it was my um understanding that that is typically a condition so I apologize if you were expecting to see that i'm just asking yep just making sure yeah so I'm fine i like the trench it's a good location i like the way it looks so I'm
fine with that part and I wrote a note down um for the location of the tree to be variable yeah again I'm fine with that right as long as it's somewhere in the front yard yep and yes I I'm aware that I called it
the front yard the wrong way last time well that is the front yard i know last time I was on the ocean side the other front well you could say that's part of this filing she doesn't have a front door on the street side right now right there you go so um I don't know necessarily if
we discussed special conditions at any of the past hearings i think we might have um my expectation of them they would be nearly identical to what I put together for 20 Shore Drive the two properties are very similar right um
any again questions or concerns on that the not you know just verifying the notation about you know no pesticides and no nitrogen i'm fine with the language that says that you know they should interface with
UMAT to approve the you know species of the tree uh you know I have no knowledge of that so I'm going to stay out of that so but I think I think they've covered all the bases i know it's a last
minute entry if you will um but it was pretty m it was pretty minor stuff we were asking for right do you want me to run through what the special conditions were on 20 sure sure and and to refresh my memory on this we did have variance requests on this because of the land subject to coastal storm flowage correct
we did okay i got that to you um then I think it is identical it will say that you know pre-construction conditions will say that the commission will provide the requested variances um and I forget if there I don't think
there's additional stockpile of silt sock on this plan is there for this project uh we have erosion control yes uh stockpiling stockpile no there was no stockpiling needed no stockpile um any dumpster must be covered materials stored at the site should be stored in a neat orderly manner in
appropriate containers and covered whenever possible any construction debris reaching the salt marsh or river from this site shall be caused for immediate fines after construction conditions restoration area must be well established before a COC can be issued perpetual conditions conservation posts as detailed in the plan of record must
remain in perpetuity in a visible condition posts or placards should be replaced as needed the mitigation planting area as seen in the plan of record must be maintained in a natural state in perpetuity consisting of plant species native to southeastern mass at no point may the mitigation planting area be
reduced in size lawn encroachment and establishment of invasive plants must be prevented in the mitigation planting area if at least 75% coverage is not maintained the commission may require additional planting or seating mulch or any other material must not be added to the areas the intent is to achieve dense natural
vegetation maintenance of the mitigation planting area is allowed as follows vegetation is allowed to be trimmed to a height of 18 in during winter months which is November 15th to March 31st excepting the planted shrub and tree species no mowing of the mitigation planting area is allowed and then the
typical outdoor chemical blurb plus what we already mentioned specific to the property okay sounds good i'll make a motion close the hearing let me just ask if there's any uh comments uh from members of the public uh online
none okay do I have Can I hear that motion again make a motion to close the hearing second i have a motion and a second to close the hearing dot yes jim no sorry Jim's not here megan yes colleen is yes buzz yes marilyn yes ryan
yes motion carries okay i'm making a motion to approve the notice for intent as previously discussed with all the special conditions with the latest plan revised March 26 2025 as the final plan of record okay with this special provision
that the tree has to be the tree species needs to be approved by the agent prior to placement and also that the owner has discretion as long as the tree is planted in the front yard it doesn't
have to be specifically as shown on the plan do I have a second second it's a motion and a second um Dot yes megan yes lindy yes buzz yes
marilyn yes brian yes motion carries thank you all right good luck thanks Nick thank you all right so we're just going to do one more thing right let's just go back
to find it update i'm going to talk about Oh wait we um um Ring Road ring Road yeah i'm going to open a public uh meeting to discuss the request for amendment or
deviation for 126 and 131 to 137 Ring Road this has been submitted by Beals and Thomas on behalf of Ring Road Solar LLC this is file their file number is SE037-0889 and 0890 what did you get to
say Matt uh no update so continue um I reached out asked if there had been any word back from the state electrical inspector they said they had not heard back yet and I recommend continuing to April 9th do I
have a motion second okay we have a motion to continue to April 9th it's been seconded dodd yes megan yes clean is a yes buzz yes marilyn yes and Brian yes okay that motion carries we'll see
them on 8 and what was that date april 9th april 9th thank you there is an enforcement matter at 44 Rayboth Road we have rescheduled this discussion to
April 23rd 2025 could we move it to May 14th is that the We could I I said I wrote in there based on our conversation at the last meeting um to move it back by 30 days i won't be here April 23rd i'll be
on vacation i will not be there um so I would say I think we're still planning on having a conservation meeting in Juliana is who will be back very very very soon just so you know I won't be here either you won't be there either all right well maybe we won't be able
Maybe we need to be canceling the April 23rd meeting i'm actually away as well but you are I could I could zoom in so if you need me I could zoom in i will um double check right i think we might already have something
on there as like an RCOC request or something if that's the case I'll let them know that the meeting's being cancelled okay the uh April 23rd 23rd yeah so um March put this on May 14th may 14th yeah okay great
we have no minutes to approve let's see got an administrative review one of 36 Reed Street the hazard tree yeah i had a homeowner at 36 Reed Street which is right off of Pemroke Street reach out about a tree that
tipped over during a storm he had a tree company come out to look at it and the tree company said "Hey you should call conservation." Which I was very appreciative of um Colonial Tree really yeah local company
and yeah I um I went down took a look at it the tree is growing right out of the stream so I mean it couldn't get any closer and the tree was not leaning towards their house
so I asked Sean Turner the superintendent for highway and the tree warden to take a look at it and tell me if he thought it was dangerous to Pemroke Street or the sidewalk and he said "Yeah it could be hazardous in that situation if it if it uh knocked the
other tree down and came down all the way to the ground." So I talked with the tree company um specified or sort of asked him what his vision of how he would do it was and he said he would bring um bring a crane and do it from Reed Street and just top the whole thing
i said we would want to leave as much of the tree in place as possible and to swap out the bar oil with a vegetable-based oil for the cut and he said he would do all of that so I issued that administrative review permit i can show you pictures if you want but it
would just be boring for you nothing like a good tree video it's just a picture it's not even a video do you need to update us on the go viral standard condition update review for the
next meeting yeah um I put a document um in your prep materials um for potential additions or you know swaps for KWPR standard conditions um I'll put that on
the next agenda so if you want to review those it's not intended to be an complete overhaul it's just things that I found from other towns or certain things that I rewarded of our own that I
thought made a lot of sense um so take a look at those and um let me know if you have any issues with any of that for the next meeting okay we ready the next meeting will be held uh April 9th 2025 starting at 6:30 p.m the time is
now 8:27 do I have a motion to adjurnn so moved have a second second get a motion and a second dot yes megan yes kina yes buzz yes marilyn yes brian yes okay the
motion carries thank you very much it's been lovely