Mics on. >> Yes. >> Time is now 6:32. The date is Wednesday, May 13th, 2026. Commissioner Vendetti is absent. Uh we will take a roll call to open the meeting. Jim Franklin's here. Megan >> here. >> Kina. Sorry,
>> Dot. >> Yes. >> Marilyn, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. All right. Please note that we are doing a hybrid meeting with in person and virtual attendance. If a member of the virtual public would like to make a comment during the public hearing, please use the raise the hand function on Zoom and you will be assigned a
speaking time. If you are listening in via telephone dial in, press star 9 to raise your hand and then press star six to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded by the local scene and a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene website as soon as they are able. Anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting
should notify the chair at this time. Hearing none. Announcement. The Kingston Conservation Commission is seeking a new member. Commissioners are responsible for protecting the town's natural resources, including through the enforcement of state and local wetland protection laws. Those interested should
reach out to the cons conservation department by calling 781-58537 or emailing Matt Paneller at mpna at kingston matta.gov. Signing documents. Will the agent brief us on what we have signed?
>> Uh invoices. Strong tree engineering for Bates Pond Trail Planning. Marklair invoice for purchase of Black Locust Posts. reimbursement to myself for purchase of field supplies. Um, Apex for year 8 MS4 support and express
newspapers for public notice posting. Thank you. Action items. We'll now continue a public meeting to discuss a request for determination of determination of applicability at RDA for 28 Rabbit Road submitted by
Steinbeck and Taylor on behalf of property owner Frank Dico for proposed removal of hazard trees and treatment of invasive invasive plants. Does the agent have any comments? >> Um I can get into a quick summary or um
we have had new materials since the last time this was discussed. I know we have a representative online if you'd like to hear from them first. >> Sure. Um the representative uh please step forward and um provide your name and address and uh speak provide us the
updates. >> Good evening. My name is Julie Barry. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Uh good evening. I represent Frank and Jennifer Dico. I'm an attorney at Prince Lo Bell and Thai with an address at one international place in Boston. Uh, and
I'll just have a few remarks and then I'm going to turn it right over to Mr. John Rockwood who will be much uh more capable of responding to any questions you have. Then I am you've previously been uh you've been uh heard or you've heard from my partner Annalooki in this
matter uh and I'm filling in for her tonight. So uh as you know this has to do with the continued hearing on the request for determination of applicability. It was continued in order to provide the report that I believe that you all should have now. It's dated
the letter report dated March 27th, 2026 concerning the areas uh proposed formerly landscaped areas proposed for mowing and seeking approval for that as well as the invasives plan for removal
of those invasives. Um there was going to be a tree removal component here, but uh that has been taken off the table for the time being and right now we're just focusing on these two issues. So uh without any further delay, I'll turn it
over to Mr. Rockwood who's here with us tonight from Ecotech, Inc. an environmental scientist with great experience and I'm sure to be able to present and answer any questions you have. All right. Just just um just because you cut out there for a second,
you said um approving the uh proposed treatment for invasive plants and then I believe you said um that you were they were removing the tree removal. Um was anything else? >> Yes, that's correct. That's not part of this tonight. >> So, we're just talking about invasives.
>> No, they had >> invasives and mowing. They had added in mowing of what was called the hydro seated area on the uh restoration plan from the enforcement. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time.
>> Good evening. My name is Dr. John Rockwood. I'm a principal environmental scientist with Ecotech. I was retained um through the Duros to go out and look at the property and provide some uh observations relative to what was there
and what we can do to make these areas um better serve and protect the interests associated with the border and vegetated wetland and the river and the adjacent pond. Um I base someone out there. There's a lot. Um
can do you want me to share my screen or >> does the commission or agent want to share the plan? >> You should be able to share. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Can you see the plan? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, basically the property is on Smelt Pond. Smelt Brook um flows um down the um adjacent property line between 30 and 40 um Rabbit Road.
There's an existing uh gravel driveway or existing traveled way that leads down towards um the existing dwelling number 30. There's a concrete driveway that's associated with 28
um rabbit road as part of a uh prior restoration plan. A portion of the site near the wetland on the um opposite side of the traveled away from 28 and 30 um
was enhanced with shrub sap and sapling plantings and it was also seated and um Brad Holmes went out and looked at that and provided a positive uh review on that area fairly recently.
Um, so what I did is I went out and looked at it and we're no, you know, number six in my letter we're no longer proposing to do. That's addressing the U additional tree removal that's no longer proposed. So there's really just seven steps that are proposed, seven
activities. Um the first is the area within the blue bubble line is existing lawn at this point with um three three um flowering dogwood saplings planted within it and there's a couple other native
um trees in and around there as well. That area is proposed to be maintained as lawn. Basically it's the area on the 30 and 28 side of the traveled way. So that's the the first task and basically
this area is stable. It doesn't pose a risk of erosion to the adjacent and resource areas and there's a concern about ticks proximate to the house and ticks are found in meadow areas as well as forest field edges and those kinds of
areas. So that's one of the primary concerns related to having an unmaintained metal closer to the house. The second task, the second area is there's a uh brown bubble wine area in
this location. That's meadow um with a lot of um common mugwart and a couple of uh native trees. It's on a slope. It's currently not mowed. And what we're proposing to do there is demarcate it with um three eastern red
cedar along this edge. It's currently demarcated along um the other edge with some uh pitch pine shrubs. We're proposing to go in there and pull out the um common mug mug wart by hand and
then overseed the area with a seed mix that's shown in the lower right corner of the plan that's on the screen. It's a it's a mixture of some of the mixes from New England uh wetland plants. So, we
have a very good variety of um species and the intent is to provide sort of a pollinator type of garden in here. And that's important habitat that's missing in a lot of areas at this point. And u
that area would be mowed or cut once per year to keep woody invasives from establishing a presence within the area. The third is um down along the existing
compost sock down in this general area near the wetland boundary. There's um three or four piles of decomposing um lawn clippings and there's a significant amount of fallen branches and other
woody materials in this area. What we want to do is remove the lawn clippings and some portion of the um fallen woody debris. No, no cutting of anything, just removal of stuff that's on the ground and then redistribution of some of those
materials. So, they have um contact with the ground surface to provide better habitat features within that area. Um such things are used by various small mammals um some reptiles and also some amphibians for cover and for sort of uh
they burrow under them to provide a cover. And um we're proposing to seed the bare areas with that same mix that's over on the uh bottom right of the plan.
And then we are going to seed the area between the saplings and shrubs with that same seed mix. Again, this area would be cut once per year. Um, it wouldn't be mowed. It would just be you go in there and cut it maybe 6 in tall just to keep the woody material uh the
woody invasives out. Would care would be taken not to damage any of the existing saplings or shrubs. And um the next area is area four, which is the brown box. And um
that's basically some of what I just talked about. This area has been planted with about 100 shrubs and about 20 or so saplings of various species. Those materials were looking to be in good condition when I was out there. It was a
little early for for leaves, but there were certainly buds on most of them and uh they look good. And um there's also 4x4 posts shown on this plan that demarcate the development side of this
restoration area. And again, we're proposing to seed this area between the plantings and then cut that once per year. that again that's to provide some pollinator habitat and also habitat for small animals and bird species as well as the insects.
The fifth area is um we're proposing given given the droughty nature of uh the state at this point we're still the entire state's technically still in a drought at this point. It got a little bit better but then the entire state's currently within
a drought. We're proposing to put an irrigation line in at the edge of the traveled way outside of the bounds. Sprinkler heads outside of the bounds providing water towards the um the plantings that are there to facilitate
growth of the herbaceous materials we're planting and also to uh facilitate keeping the existing plantings alive and in good condition. Again, the line would be installed outside of
the bounds and between the essentially between the traveled way and the bounds. And the last thing that we're proposing as part of this plan is this orange area down by Smelt Pond.
There's a significant amount of Tree of Heaven shrubs and saplings. They're all very small, so they can be effectively treated with um cutting off at about four inches and blotting the stems with a concentrated
herbicide. We can use an herbicide that's um formulated for aquatic conditions so it won't move. and blotting the stems rather than folure application allows a much smaller amount of um herb herbicide to be used and it also keeps
it very controlled. I've had very good luck um addressing actually even large tree of heaven use a slightly different method but it it's a very effective method for eliminating ant species
and again the idea is all of these activities will enhance the existing areas. Um it's the area is basically stable. there's not much likelihood of runoff leading to the wetland or to
toward the river and we want to try to increase the diversity of the upland areas that we are enhancing through different species. We have a good variety of woody materials in the restoration area. We're proposing to uh get some
diversity of herbaceous plants in there and open those areas up to insects and birds as pollinator habitat. We're looking to clean up um the lawn clippings and debris within within the buffer zone to the wetland.
And uh we're looking to get rid of the knotweed that grows basically within this area here and also within portions of the restoration area. And the last last thing is we want to
get rid of the tree of heaven all pretty much concentrated in one part of the site. I did not see sort of the mother tree. I sort of I all I saw were smaller saplings and shrubs and those are all readily treated. You know, the seeds
could have come from any place, but I did not see any adult or larger mature tree of heaven trees because uh they they basically do produce a lot of seeds, but a lot of the
growth is related to um root suckers and sprouts. So, if we get these treated, we can see if things come back or see what happens and uh follow up with that. And after after the activities are completed that need to be completed, the
commission will get a completion letter indicating the work that was done and the current status of the various six six activities that are detailed in the letter and detailed on this plan. >> Okay. >> Are there any questions?
>> No, not at this time. We'll u we'll have Matt walk us through the um staff report and then if we have any questions, we'll we'll uh we'll address you directly. Do you want me to leave the plan up or take it down? >> And you can leave it up until uh Matt wants to bring something else up for
this. >> Okay. >> Thanks, John. Uh just a question for you before I go through my findings. Do you know offhand if the kudzu there was ever treated? There was a concern last year about letting that go to seed, and I believe the commission gave verbal
approval for that to be treated. >> I I did not see it there. I don't know if it was treated or not, but we can certainly look at the site and if we see anything on the site that's invasive, address it. >> I can respond to that as well in that invasives had not been addressed and I
believe Miss Attorney Sublooski discussed this the last time because we did not have written approval from the commission to do that. >> Okay. Um, and before I get started, also just to pass on to the applicant that if there are any trees on the property that
are a direct hazard to a structure there, we do have an administrative administrative review process. Um, that's pretty easy. So, if there's anything there that is an imminent hazard, they can definitely take that route um while waiting on getting rest.
>> Thanks. Appreciate that. >> Yep. Um, and on this, I think I've said before, um, you know, this was an issue of an area of, you know, trees within the riverfront area that were cleared, that was part of the basis for the enforcement issue a couple years ago.
Um, and when we started this RDA process, realized that was still being mowed. And the point was that at, you know, you would likely be able to have lawn over there, but that it should be permanent. Um and we went through um a
few meetings on this. Um there was a lot of discussion about you know pre-existing conditions. Basically the process has to be followed for the commission to be able to approve this. And based on everything that I've looked
at here, this application does not do that. Um I appreciate all of John's work. He was very thoughtful about everything that he put together on this. Um but it uses pre-existing lawn as the baseline for um for a lot of um his
findings on this. And that from the commission standpoint is not what we're dealing with. We're looking at the fact that there was relatively intact riverfront area there and there is no longer intact riverfront. Um there was, you know, evidence brought up, some
photos, um discussion of how some of this area had been landscaped for a long time, for decades. Um the photos did show there were some areas there and that some of that is corroborated by aerial photographs showing that there
was a garden area and that some portion of that area was mowed beneath those pine trees. Um beneath not just the pine trees, the trees that were on site. What this application in whole fails to do is show that that whole area was not in a natural condition and that it was all
maintained. Further even if you had an area of you know maintaining grasses and you know other types of low vegetation underneath the trees that doesn't mean that that area is not jurisdictional that that's not jurisdictional habitat still when you have canopy cover over
it. Um, so I think this application, while it does show some form of mitigation, does not deal with the mitigation from the standpoint of modifications to the riverfront area. So I don't think that the commission could approve
continued mowing of that area based on what we have in this filing. Again, I think that's something that the applicant could get, just not with what the commission has in front of them right now. Um, as far as >> we discussed it in pieces. Uh, Agent Panela,
we'll hold off. >> No, we won't speak unless we address you. That's what that's what I asked. I said we're going to let Matt speak and then if we have questions, we'll we'll address you directly. Okay. So, we're going to hold off until you recognize once Matt's done.
>> Matt, can you please continue? >> Yep. So the only portion of this, you know, particularly now that the trees have been taken away from this application, the trees, the commission wanted to talk to an arborist or have a site visit with an arborist. Um, really the commission
wanted to see the property and that's not something that was facilitated. So I think that's also a problem for the commission not being able to get on site. I'm the only one who's been on site. Um, and that was some time ago. So, that's I think another thing from the commission standpoint that they wanted to do a site visit to be able to
assess the site and have not been able to. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, we're going to open it up to uh commission for questions. Do we have any? >> No, I was just watching the attorney with her hand up. >> Yeah, we we'll we'll come back as soon
as as soon as we make the first pass before we go back for second passes. comments from the commission. >> I don't have many. I am concerned about the cats that still hasn't been removed because in my notes we gave clear approval to remove that and mugwart back
last September. Um we brought it up again and it's been stalled and here we are again. >> All right. Any other items we want to discuss before we go back to the applicants for u
further information? Okay. All right. So, attorney um please uh please bring us to what you wanted us to consider in in response to Matt's comments. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. So, just
to address the last comment, there has never been anything in writing from this commission approving removal of any invasives. There's never been any order, directive, anything. You're saying that you did it verbally. Right now, what happened tonight with Mr. Panella is
that the request for a site visit, which was for tree removal, which didn't happen. It was not for a site visit, an overall general site visit. It was for tree removal. And when that component was removed, there was no need for it. It couldn't work out on the
days it were uh uh requested as I understand it. But once the tree removal component was there, there was no issue. And I've seen the correspondence or the emails back and forth. And I know that there was never any subsequent request that the there be a site visit by this
commission for any reason other than approval. So there's never been any intent or desire to stop this commission from going on the property. Neither has been a relevant request. >> All right, let's let's hold off there. >> Excuse me. >> Nope. We're going to hold off there.
We're going to hear if we we got two different things coming at us. Matt says, >> "I understand that, but I would like to address the issues about the >> We'll mute you if we have to. Okay, you'll be respectful and when I say that we're going to hear if there's a disagreement, we're going to come to a
uh an agreement." Matt, did we did you request um a site visit so that you could review the RDA? For starters, just I'll say that I didn't say that they're avoiding having you on the property or that there's anything there. Just the point is that
the commission wanted a site visit. That site visit was requested. That hasn't happened. Um it may be that the original purpose for the site visit was specified as for the trees. It's it's hard to recall when we have an entire filing in front of us
that's for multiple different things. I can't >> speak right now to whether that was the only reason why the commission wanted to be on the property was strictly the trees, but that was >> a big part of it was that there were a lot of trees on there and we had a vague arborist report that said, you know, the
trees were, you know, in disrepair and need to be removed. Um, but there was a site visit request. You know, there was it was typically tied in because there were multiple things that were outstanding. It was an arburous report and a site visit. were reaching out saying, "Hey, we need the
operas report and we need to have the site visit before the next meeting." But I there was no correspondence back saying there's no need for a site visit without the tree removal. So, I put that in my staff report that the commission wanted to do a site visit. There was no site visit.
>> Okay. All right. Uh, next point, ma'am. >> So, may I respond to that? I believe we have >> We're not We're just going to stick with the next facts. So, we've heard your your position. We've heard the department's position will reflect on that internally, but we're going to ask
you to stick to the facts and move to the next point. >> Okay. So, the next point is that we've provided an uh a a report from John Rockwood, Dr. John Rockwood about environmental conditions. I've never had someone comment that they didn't request
something like that in connection with uh a request for determination of applicability, but we went above and beyond and provided that and it's quite detailed and to address the point about this not being pre-existing. This was a
vested use. This portion of the lawn area was there before and after the construction of the house. All this has been made known to the commission back in December 29th with a letter from my partner anky. The house construction and
the presence of landscaping around the house were approved by the commission and as a result this needs to be considered landscape not natural area. And to that point we're talking about a significant public health risk.
I would like to point out to any of you who have >> Let's let's press pause. >> Nope. We'll press pause here because >> I have questions and I'm going to address um the questions that are popping up when Dr. Sugar. So, Mr. Rockwood, you you had laid out very uh
concisely uh a number of areas. I think six totaling. Where you um where I didn't see is I didn't see where the enforcement action or the um the field was uh in relation to that. Could you walk me through on your plan
exactly where those areas are that was subject to previous enforcement action? >> I did not review the prior enforcement actions. I reviewed >> Thank you. All right. So, Matt, could you uh explain to us where those enforcement actions got better because I
don't have a good memory of of exactly what that plan looked like? >> Yeah, it's roughly was on both sides of the of the of the of the uh driveway. Correct. >> Well, originally the when you're talking about the enforcement action, you know, the the action that prompted the commission to take enforcement was
clearing of trees that seems to be about a quarter of an acre um sort of between the two properties of 28 and 30. Um and that did go on both sides of of the two-track driveway. Um so trees were
cleared. Um likely some sort of fill was brought in even if it was just lom um grass and or grass or hydro seed. Um and that's that was what was originally done there. As far as the enforcement action, there was a restoration plan done and
that included uh seeding and planting on both sides of the driveway. Unfortunately, the commission only required conservation posts on the river side of the driveway because of the two track that was pre-existing. Um, and that was likely a mistake. Um, so then
when we did a follow-up site visit, the area that had been on the uplink side here that we're discussing now had been mowed after it had sprouted. And at that time the representative who was from Stembeck and Taylor um had said like, "Oh yeah, they mowed that. I should talk to them about that and we'll we'll rece
it. We'll receat it." you know, there was there was an understanding with this enforcement process that that area was being restored and that there was you saw it on the plan that there was a grass path that was shown and I believe that grass path was something that had
been pre-existing and so my understanding at the time that was an area that would be continued to be mowed between the two properties as a pathway but not the entire area. Um that's not something that's ever been permitted. Um speaking about she mentions the permitting of of you know a house and
landscaping that's strictly for 28 Rabbit Road that's not for 30 um most of you know what we're what we're discussing here most of the the act activity on this I believe was related to 30 Rabbit Road closer to Smel Brook um 28 Rabbit Road was permitted in terms
of construction um and I believe landscaping I don't have a lot of you know detail on the landscaping there but um essentially to To get to the point of what she had just said, the commission does not have evidence in front of them that the entire roughly quarter acre
area that had been cleared, mostly on 30, but also a slightly on 28 Rabbath Road, you know, was in a grass or maintained condition. Like I said, there was a a portion of that that's clear from what they provided. um we don't have enough evidence in front of the
commission to say okay you know what that area was in you know pre-existing landscaped condition with you know and like I said even if the understory had been maintained like that that doesn't excuse clearing of right >> canopy trees it's there's still
essentially what you have in front of you does not properly deal with the regulations for riverfront area and buffer zone >> that's commission we were all here. I believe we were all here for this one. Um
Matt's sum summary uh sits very squarely with what I recall of it. Does anybody recall it any different that we we had clear conversations about both sides getting the mix and that you know we we agreed that we could put the because of the
location of the driveway that we could put the the posts on one side of it. We didn't require them on the other side, but the I think the intent was to reestablish the riverfront area in that area. Is is everybody in agreement with that?
>> Okay. >> So, I guess at this point we have a filing in front of us where the invasives I think is something that we can approve and I don't think we can prove anything else at this point. So, I think it makes sense to separate the two. vote vote on um a negative three I
think for the invasives because it's it's it's beneficial. They'll get the written documentation that they have saying that they couldn't act on the uh previous action and then uh if they want to come back um they're going to have to do some more work for the other part. But I think that gets us through and and
they can get started on their um stated um um intent of trying to uh make it a healthier little area. Are you is the board open to that? >> Um we're I'm talking to the to the board right now, but I will come right back to
you. >> I don't object to them dealing with the invasive pieces. >> No, basis is fine. I think that's important. >> Thank you. Great. >> Okay. All right. Yep. Please um if you have something. >> Yes, I would like to add something. This hearing has gone on for quite some time.
It is not correct that you do not have information or did not have information but for this board concerning the history of that landscape area. I'm well aware that Miss Sublooki presented information. You've had Mr. and Mrs. Derico also testify before this
commission previously. So, it's not correct. You didn't hear anything about the ticks and that is a public health interest that really >> All right. So, so let me let me finish if I may. >> No, we're you're not going to just pile on. We're going to we're going to respond. >> I'm not piling on you finish.
>> Your first was that there wasn't information. I think you misunderstood what Matt was trying to explain. So, I'm going to ask Matt to explain it a little bit better to you about what he meant by that because I understand what he means by it. So, Matt, could you clear that up, please? >> Right. I think I think I just said that there was evidence provided. There were
there was photographic evidence provided. There was verbal evidence provided. It's not sufficient evidence for the to for the commission to look at that and say, "Okay, that whole area was not in a natural condition. It's insufficient. You do not have evidence
of that." So, the commission would look at this or treat it as though that were a natural area or primarily natural area. It may not be the whole thing. Like I said, you don't have all of those facts. One of the things that I suggested in one of the first meetings we did on this was some sort of an
overlay plan that shows different years of aerial imagery or you know something where you can kind of tell how things over in the past you know certain parts depending on the way the shading is that you can actually see certain portions of the yard that were maintained as grass.
You know any of those areas you'd be considering that to be pre-existing turf condition. You can't say that about a quarter acre of trees that were cleared. You don't have the evidence of that in front of you. And as far as ticks, we did discuss this. We've talked about
ticks in every meeting that we've had on this. I sort of wrote in my staff report for the commission. I mean, I've had several tickborne diseases. I understand there is this serious thing, but that doesn't make the wetlands regulations not apply. So if everybody in town
wanted to clear a lot of their property so that they could add turf so they could have less ticks, it'd be pretty bad for wetlands protection. >> That would be >> there are other ways of you know and like I said before, you may be able to legally have turf here. It's not that's
it's simply that what the commission has in front of them right now. They can't say yes to that based on what's in front of them. But in the meantime, there are other ways to help with tick. And by the way, in the meantime, the property's been mowed. >> I don't think there's a you may correct
me, but I I don't think the property is currently in an unmodeed condition. From all the the photos that we had on the on the wetlands report, it appears to have been mowed, and it it truthfully even looked like the area on the other side of the post had been mowed, and there's grass clippings over there. So, I I
think it's something that they can work on and come back with an application that meets all of the standards and get what they want. And same thing with the trees. You can work through either the admin review process on the really dangerous ones in the meantime or work on, you know, another filing with the
certified arborist and all of that. >> All right, I'm going to go here. Megan, did you have you have something you want to add? >> I would like to respond to you, please. >> Um, well, thank you. I I don't really um but Matt just reminded me that I am a little concerned now that if there's
conservation posts and that they're being ignored and that there's grass clippings being dumped behind our conservation post, that's also another issue that should also be addressed that shouldn't be ignored. >> It's just >> sure >> I can't even think of the word I'm
looking for, but >> All right. So, so just what I heard from Matt's response is that there we have language in the in the bylaw that basically points to cumulative impacts, right? If we allow every if we allow this filing and then somebody else comes
because we let them just tear down, you know, the um the canopies up along the brook for the next house and the next house and the next house. That's where the cumulative impact comes from. It's not that this is the cumulative impact. it's that it could contribute to a cumulative impact if it it becomes
widespread. So, from that perspective, um I know where I'm leaning on this one. I'm wondering if if we for the purposes of of our meeting tonight and our what we have in front of us if we're comfortable closing this uh public hearing on the
RDA and moving forward with what I think we're comfortable with which is a negative three and then we uh kick the rest of it down to another meeting so that at least they can get started and we can move on to uh a public hearings which we're 20 minutes behind on. Are we
comfortable with that? All right. >> I'm not sure procedurally that that you can continue a portion of this. >> I'm not they could refile. >> Close that. We'll have to refile and it will come in. >> Sorry, I thought you were talking about continuing continuing on that. And we don't even have RDAs as hearings. So
technically, procedurally, we're going to have to close it. You would just >> Can I respond to a statement that was really hard? >> Yep. >> I'm sorry. I don't have the paperwork that goes back several meetings, but I
do remember distinctly a long complicated conversation about invasives and the harm they do and that it was important to get those things removed or treated or something before they went
to flower and seed. it was discussed. If I if I could go run home and go get the other papers, I I could show you where it was discussed in the meeting. >> Doc, can I can I just respond to that? Is that >> just just for clarification purposes for all the commissioners? Can I cuz um the
attorney mentioned um there was nothing in writing and I I understand from an applicant standpoint particularly an applicant that had had enforcement issues with the commission that even though the commission tells you at a meeting like you know what please go take care of that kudzu please follow
you know the recommendations for bagging it and not letting this letting it go to seed they don't actually have a permit in hand so I understand not taking action on that um if there was a concern about that I mean we could have tried to work on something but just for that point I think
>> let me bring it back to you because I think we do have something I believe it's in the bylaw that uh management of invasives that you don't you're it's not something that's precluded from the bylaw. No, it's it's not cuz otherwise, you know, you have a situation where somebody will go clear, you know, or cut
down stuff in a wetland and like, oh, it's just just doing the invasives. You know, there's definitely I understand the the lack of action on that. I am concerned about it as well because that's a species that's not established here yet. Um, it is a species that is is heavily monitored when it does pop up in
Kingston. Um, but we'll we'll do our best to to work with them in in monitoring this going forward. >> Okay. >> Once they have a actual permit in hand. >> All right. That that being considered, um, I don't think we're going to get any >> point, please.
>> Yeah. Just make one point here. >> Can we please stop speaking over each other? >> Thank you. >> I'm going to ask if they're comfortable, we're going to close the meeting and we'll we'll kick the other stuff down. The Kirby Bears can come back and be heard. But for purposes of tonight, are
we comfortable with closing the meeting and and voting on on the two separate parts, the invasives and then all the rest of it? >> I would like to comment before you close the meeting. >> I'm not closing the meeting. I'm asking
the chair, the board if they're comfortable, and I'll ask you to hold your hold your uh comments. >> Yeah. >> Are we comfortable? >> Okay. All right. We're going to take a vote. You're allowed one last comment. >> Okay.
So, if you read Mr. Rockwood's Dr. Rockwood's report, which was goes above and beyond what you needed, you see that not only did he say there would be no harm to Smelt Pond or Smelt Brook, but also these activities would further serve to enhance and preserve the statutory requirements. This is evidence
from an from an environmental scientist. It's not actually correct that you don't have evidence in front of you. you actually do and they've done they've gone above and beyond trying to meet these requirements and they are eager to get started on the invasives materials
but we do require the procedure but we do request a vote on and a writing on that but to we would further implore the commission to reconsider not addressing this landscape issue right now or not voting on it at this time and and
positively approving it. There's there's no basis for denying if it's based on the fact you don't have evidence before you cumulatively you do have evidence. And as far as cumulative impact goes, we all know from having to deal with these
situations in litigation that these areas are all considered individually. It is not the case that there's some sort of accumulated impact that someone might come to you and say, "Well, my neighbor did it." That doesn't say that you have to do it. says they
have to show you that the conditions on their property are the same as their neighbors. I would also like to comment and I will leave it at this that I find the chair's uh treatment of Dr. Brockwood tonight to be rude >> and it was unnecessary
and I wanted it on record that we object to Dr. >> We will come to order ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. Matt, please uh anything that you want and then I'm going to look for a vote from Boy. >> Yeah, very briefly because I already um
stated this, but as far as um Dr. Rockwood's report, which again I found to be very detailed and and thoughtful, the baseline for the entire analysis on that was a turf condition and that is not relevant to the commission's position on this based on the fact that that was a jurisdictional area that was
not in a turf condition um and has not been permitted as such. this filing does not meet the standards of WPA and KWPR. It doesn't meet the buffer zone standards, the riverfront area standards. Um, they could easily come back with a filing that would meet the standards. Um, it may or may not have
the same configuration of turf. It might it might it's this one does not. Um, you mentioned cumulative impacts really didn't even have to. It's not particularly relevant in this situation because as it is, this filing does not meet standards. So, that's it.
um very clear that uh cumulative impact is in our bylaw. So that's one of the things that we're supposed to address when when we're adjudicating upon this. >> Uh so I'm going to ask do I hear a motion to close this uh meeting? >> I'll make a motion to close this hearing. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second.
>> All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> Hearing none that we close the meeting. Uh, do I hear a motion perhaps uh to issue a negative -3 DOA um with special conditions as typical um
um and a neg sorry a positive five? >> No, I put a 345 >> positive 345 on the uh the balance of the work. >> I'll make that motion. >> All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by doc. Is that correct? Okay.
All right. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed >> hearing none. Uh motion passes uh for negative 3da and a positive 345 uh on the balance of the work. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> We're going to have to go to section A. Correct. >> Yes. Um and that is to continue. My wife All right, we will move to public
hearing. Section A, uh, Forge Pond Fish, uh, fish passage on Old Lake Street. Notice of intent. Uh, I will now continue a hearing for a notice of intent submitted by Gomez and Sullivan Engineers for the proposed construction of a permanent fishway at the Forge Pond
Dam under Old Lake Street with associated dredging to restore the channel and improve fish passage. Um, the applicant would like to continue to May 27th. Do I hear a motion? >> Make a motion. >> All right, that motion is by Megan. Do I
hear a second by U Marilyn? Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Hearing none. That passes to uh passes to continue to May 27th. All right. Section B 20 Maran Drive uh
aka uh one Royce Drive, map 75, lot 31-1, request for amendment to orders of conditions. That's an RA OC. I will now continue a hearing for a request for amendment to orders of condition submitted by Grady Consultant on behalf of Le Larry Demar for the proposed
installation of sediment for bay and rain garden within a 200 ft riverfront area of Smelt Brook at one Roy, formerly 20 Marian Drive. Matt, do you have any comments? >> Um, before I get to that, did you want to call out a hard stop for the night?
>> No. just before maybe if you call it out in advance, you don't get accused of any malfeasants later. >> Okay. Um guys, I have to stop at 10. >> I can't go past 10 tonight. So, >> is everybody on board with putting that as a hard stop given we're probably half
an hour behind. >> Yeah. >> Do we need to vote on that, Matt? >> I don't think so. >> All right. M uh sorry, I asked Matt for his comments and then we'll come straight to you if you want. All right. Are you okay with me just going through what I got here? And if
you have any disagreement, you >> No, I do. >> Perfect. Um, so since the last time we talked about this, uh, the applicant submitted updated materials, uh, the updated materials, dealt with a lot of the issues that I had on my last staff report. Uh, some of
the things that still didn't match on the plan, as pointed out by the peer reviewer, have been fixed. Um and the mitigation area has been increased up to the 3600 square ft of mitigation in order to
satisfy 310 CMR 10.585F. So the in my opinion the applicant has now detailed compliance with the RFA performance standards. Um you know I think it's debatable. We talked a lot about whether there could be other
alternatives that weren't properly assessed and that the peer review likely didn't really dig into whether some of those were properly answered. Um so that I think is still relevant. Um, as attorney Broski has pointed out, there's no specific
requirement in this situation uh of KWPR or WPA that specifically calls for an alternatives analysis, but the commission understands that getting around to the point of making sure the
project fits into the remaining portions of the roof run standards, they certainly can request that. Um however I am saying that I feel at this point the applicant has detailed compliance with the performance standards of riverfront area.
Um applicants engineering consultant maintains that the proposed design is the best option for the site. Um, I have a few conditions that I felt that I should talk about given that there was some discussion about whether it was,
you know, the commission had all the information that it truly was the best one for the site. Um, we discussed Horses Whitten Group's comment that the rain garden was likely the most practical alternative once all of their comments have been addressed. Um my only comment on that was the
observation that not all feasible alternatives were considered and most practical was not the task at hand there. Um like I said everything with the storm water cal and the site plan that had disagreement is fixed. Uh there was
question on whether or which subsurface infiltration systems had already been installed. Uh the applicant has now confirmed that systems four, five and six have been fully installed. System 3 is partially installed and systems one and two have not yet started.
Horsey Whitten group also provided special conditions prior um and I did add those when I get to that. Of course provided an idea for a special condition regarding a sketch for the on andm plan simplifying the process of properly maintaining the features over
time uh that was completed and sufficient. It is unstamped but I don't think that really matters here and I'm sure they can easily enough stamp it for our records. Um but the idea is that will go with the finished on and M plan for the project. It does detail storm
water infiltration systems one through six as stated before um and shows the two rain gardens. And so all of the information about how to maintain that will be tied to essentially a map which is nice. We still see the plans kind of showing
the extent of Smelt Brook um as a pond, but I think it's always been that way all through the filings on this. So that's nothing. Um that's just something I think that makes Marilyn's head explode. But they properly show the 200 foot riverfront area. So that's just a little side side note there.
>> And you you >> commission could put a special condition in there if they wanted to discussing that, but that's up to them. But you also caught something about a mislabeled 100 foot wetland set back versus the riverfront area. >> Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, on sheet two of the site plan, um the inner 100t
RFA is shown in purple as the 100 foot wetland set back. So I that I skipped that sentence. Thank you. >> So that should be updated. >> Again, you could also throw a condition there just pointing that out, but easy enough to fix.
As far as we've discussed sort of around the same time the enforcement issues on the property. Um the applicant did sign a contract with Green Seal to provide that environmental monitoring that has been going well. Property overall is in compliance. Uh the last report made just
minor suggestions about um a peak of the property but I think that has that has worked really well. Um, as far as the special condition number one about not having any additional work or alteration surfaces, um,
>> you know, the commission may view improving a problematic storm water system as good cause. Um, others may not. um given that all the when I say problematic storm water system a fix for a problematic storm water system you know some commissioners may some
commissioners may not given that all the alternatives were not considered or at least fully explained as to why they were not feasible um but it's up to the commission what good cause is I would say in this situation fixing a known storm water issue would
be good cause um and again when I get to special conditions I think we can add some conditions into this to Sure. So that I think there were some questions from myself and the commission about well if you haven't properly assessed all of the alternatives how do you know this is the best and will this actually
work when this is all done the way that the engineer saying that it will. I think it's easy enough to have conditions in there that say if that's the case and it doesn't work at the end you have to fix it. So I think it's easy enough at this point to look at that as good cause.
Um, again, the applicant has now shown one to one mitigation abiding the passive naturalization area from the original OC's. Um, sorry, I'm trying to skip past my old notes and only go to the new stuff. The data uh does show a reduction in
peak flow after the system installation, which was confirmed by Horsesley Whitten Group. This reduction could be considered evidence of a beneficial project but should be viewed along with all project impacts including encroachment on the resource areas and project mitigation. Um so I had said
before this is amendment request. So procedurally the commission should either approve or deny based on number one alignment with the OC special conditions. As I just said that's debatable and up to commission interpretation. Um in my opinion I I think it's probably good enough. Um
number two alignment with KWPR and WPA performance standards. in my opinion met more or less. Um and number three, the standard for amendments at the work should not be more impactful. Um and that also I believe is met given that it
is fixing a known issue here. Um, commission may still deny the request if they feel the placement of the rain garden is not in alignment with the OC special conditions or that all feasible alternatives were not explored with the understanding that our peer reviewers seem to accept all of the applicant's
responses, however insufficient they may be. The applicant may appeal the decision if the commission denied this project. Um, I'll go through special conditions. um changes to the original orders of
condition, special conditions, because when we reissue this, we're reissuing the same document and we have the opportunity to to change some things that were just on the original stuff. Um number 25, update the staff email address to mine. Uh number 41, change the square footage to be accurate. Um
number 43, add requirement for a PE certification that all storm water systems are clean and fully operational. to explain that one. Uh st special condition 43 says that at the close of the project before a COC is issued the storm water systems shall be clean and fully operational. I want to take that
one step further and say that a PE has inspected and certified that to the commission because for a lot of this project the infiltration systems that were up in the paved areas were not protected in any way and likely we're filling in with a lot of sediment. Um so I think it's to the commission's
benefit to have that certified. um special conditions that we would add on top of the existing. Number one, applicant shall provide a planting plan for the expanded passive naturalization area for commission or agent review and approval prior planting. Details the quantity, size, and species proposed for the area. It also includes signage
alerting users that the area is not to be disturbed and fencing or another adequate barrier to discourage trampling of the plantings. The approved signage and barrier shall remain in perpetuity. Two, applicants shall preserve the existing native trees as indicated on the plan of record as well as other native species along Smelt Brook.
Existing invasive autonom shrubs will be removed with any exposed soil stabilized. Number three, invasive plant management in the passive naturalization area should be provided as necessary to ensure that the site provides a quality native repairarian buffer. This is perpetual condition. Four, this amendment has expanded the passive
naturalization area to 23,68 ft as shown in the point of record dated April 2nd, 2026. This area is to remain in natural condition in perpetuity. Five, before a certificate of compliance may be issued, the applicant shall provide a detailed on& and M plan for the storm water systems for commission or agent approval, including detailed
instructions on vegetative maintenance of the rain gardens and the passive naturalization area um invasive removal only in that area. The plan must correlate to the survey plan dated April 3rd, 2026 that provides identification numbers to each infiltration system. This may be an update to the O andM plan
in the mass D stormwater report or they may be superseded by a new approved plan. Number six, to avoid fines and/or enforcement. The applicant must follow the approved O andM plan. Any storm water related issues found to be affecting wetland resource areas shall be caused for fines and/or enforcement.
The commission may issue enforcement orders to compel repair or replacement of clogged or failed storm water systems outside of jurisdictional areas provided that storm water is bypassing the system and reaching jurisdictional areas. This is a perpetual condition. Should seven. Should storm water continue to pull on
Royce and Drive after project completion, exposing the adjacent well and resource areas to sediment, potential contaminants, the commission or its staff may issue enforcement orders compelling an engineered solution. This is a perpetual condition. Eight, throughout construction, the applicant shall contract the services of a professional engineer. I'm not going
to rehash all of that. It's what was already agreed upon. Uh, nine, failure to take corrective action in a timely manner as recommended by the engineer shall be sufficient cause for the conservation commission to review the conditions allowing work on this property. That's what I got. >> All right. Before we open it up, um,
sounds like we've made some good progress on this. So we uh if we have I think just in the interest of time if there's anything that you feel that feel strongly that we we can't um issue issue in favor of the applicant.
Um I think it's it would be good just to lay that out to attorney Brodsky so that he can address it in his comments and if we're all in a agreement that we can approve this request then I think we just save some time and let them know that that's what we're thinking. So, I'm feeling that that I think we've we've
done the work on this one and we can approve it straw poll. Um, is this something we're approving tonight or do we need to keep going? >> I'm ready to approve it with the special conditions >> with the I'd like to hear the comments on whether or not those are accepted. >> Yep.
>> Um, agree generally. >> Speaking I think you understand. >> I'm sorry. Were you not pulling everybody? >> I thought you shook your head. I'm sorry. No, no, no, no. >> Affirm. I'm sorry. I I thought you I saw it. That's all I saw. But it clearly
wasn't that. >> No, it wasn't. >> Okay. >> Um, as much as I can appreciate the improvements that have been made, I'm still going back to opinions.
We asked the peer reviewer to show us the best possible. I'm struggling with the use of the words likely and practicable. I'm also struggling with the lack of any examination of the alternatives as presented whether there
were models made, calculations done. It was an opinion and an opinion and and that was it. So, I'm still struggling with that. >> Okay. >> Dot, did I read you right? >> I agree with you. >> Sorry. It's good. Okay,
>> thank you. Good evening. My name is Adam Brodsky. I'm a local environmental and land use lawyer representing Roy and Properties LLC. Scott Finer from Grady is here. I don't want to do anything to snatch victory away. We're happy with a
special condition. If you'd like us to update the plans, um the special conditions proposed by the agent are acceptable to us. U I'm I'm happy to to to speak to Mr. Kazido's concerns
regarding defined terms. There are actually some relevant defined terms in the regulations but again you have a long agenda and I don't want to delay things. So um the project I think has been confirmed to meet your performance standards which is the critical point and and we ask that you please close the
public hearing and vote to approve the amended order. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um is there any comment from the public? Sorry, Mr. >> Oh, thank thank you. Um,
I I would just ask uh the attorney and the applicants to um to formally agree with the town of Kingston that and the conservation commission obviously that they will work
with us to um improve the aquatic habitat conditions in Snowbrook. I can um very briefly say that I think if he did that he could reduce jurisdictional area on his property significantly. So he may be interested
in in talking in the long term. >> Chair Franklin, we're happy to have a conversation um with Ms. Dubar. I obviously can't make any commitments but happy to have that conversation. >> Okay. Thank you. Um any additional comments?
All right. Do I hear a motion to close the meeting? >> I'll make a motion. >> Close the hearing. Sorry. >> Sorry. Close the hearing. >> To close the hearing. >> The hearing. All right. I hear motion. Do I hear a second? Second by Brian. All those in favor of >> approving the request for amendment of
orders commission to vote on closing the hearing. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Long day. Um, all those in favor of closing the hearing say I. I. Opposed. >> All right. The meeting is closed. Do I hear a motion uh to approve the request
for amendment to orders and condition as uh with special conditions as discussed? >> So move. >> All right. I have a motion from Brian. Do I have a second? >> Oh, I'll second it. >> Second. Second from Brian. Um all those in favor say I. >> I oppose.
>> I abstain. >> I have one abstension. Okay. So that passes 401 with one extension from you. Good night. >> Thank you. >> All right. Section C1 18 Smith's Lane, Map 67, lot 82-1, notice for notice of
intent. I will now open a hearing for a notice of intent submitted by Southshore Survey on behalf of Ronald Vern Vernazaro for the proposed construction of single family house with associated utility within the 100 foot buffer zone to inland wetland
resource areas in the 200 foot riverfront area. Uh as this is the first hearing of the proposal, we'll now hear an introduction from the applicant. Do we have I wasn't sure who the Okay, there we go. >> Hello. >> Hi.
>> Hi. >> Hi. Um I'm Courtney Beckwith with Southshore Survey. Um here to talk about 18 Smith. Um is it okay if I share my screen? >> Please. Okay,
so this is 18 Smith's Lane in Kingston. Um, this is the driveway view from Google images just for context to talk about the existing conditions. Um, you can see that it's mostly grass. Um, there's been gravel laid down um over
the years and the grass has grown through it. Um, so we estimate about 80% has that gravel base. Um there's an existing shed here and some pavement behind it. And I will go back to the plans. So you can see this shed here and the pavement here. Um and the little
concrete stops in the sign. Um so this property has um 100 ft and 200 ft uh riverfront area buffers to an intermittent stream that is a little bit off the plan, but this is the corner of
it. Um and it also has uh bordering vegetated wetlands um in the back of the property with the associated 50 and 100 foot buffer zones. Um we are proposing a 1,400 square ft uh single family
dwelling um that is partially within the 200t riverfront buffer and the 100 ft uh BVW buffer um and a driveway that is completely outside the buffer zones. Um we're also proposing to remove this
existing shed and pavement area um and restore it to to lawn area. Um we have these tables showing the specific areas of um the total riverfront area on the lot.
Um what the existing uh impervious surface is in that area and what our proposed is. So, we are proposing an increase from 5% to 6% of the total riverfront
area on the site. Um, increasing a little bit, but it's still under that 10% um W uh wetlands protection act um 10% threshold. Um, and so we are requesting that uh this
notice of intent be approved so that we can build a single family house. Um, that was a very quick overview. Um, is there any questions? >> Um, why don't we let Matt um do do his
summary and then we'll come back to the questions as they come up. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Um, could you walk us through the uh the staff before it and any other comments you might have? >> Yes.
Uh, give me just one second. Sorry. just um very briefly um I had down that this filing just sorry trying to save as much time as possible tonight that this filing wasn't quite there um in terms of
meeting all the standards of KWPR. Um I did not send them my staff report to review in advance of this meeting. Um, I think it's very likely that a project could go
through on this site. Um, I just don't think that the commission has everything at this point. Um, more than likely, there would need to be some sort of um, mitigation along the back of the property. Really, this entire site is cleared right up to the BBW edge from
the best best that I can tell. Um, so I can go through everything specifically or to save time can just work with their consultant before the next meeting to make sure that um they can come back with something that can definitely meet
the commission standards. >> Okay. For the interest of time, Miss Beckworth, would you rather Matt review the um staff report in this meeting or would you like to work with him directly? >> Um, working with him directly works well for me. Um, and I I like the mitigation
idea, so I think that'll go over well. >> All right. So, you'd be open to a continuence. Uh, how how much time would we need? >> It just I would say probably May 27th is fine. That's the next next meeting. I can >> with the May May 27th work. It's next two weeks. >> It would. >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> All right. Um, >> I'll be in the office tomorrow. Even you give me a call tomorrow, we can start to work through that. >> Okay. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Is there anything? Yeah. If unless anybody wants to be heard on this right now, I think we should. >> He's had a couple comments like conservation post maybe we looking for.
I'm sure Matt will go over that. Mitigation was one collecting roof run off pulling a buzz. >> Okay. Are we comfortable with Matt just taking the first pass? >> Absolutely. >> All right. Is there any other public that wants to be heard before we continue this?
>> Uh it looks like stand up. Uh just just quickly maybe Matt can find out how much still has been put in over the over the years um whether that's that's uh an accurate representation of the wetland and riverfront area. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Is
there any anyone else from the public wants to be heard? Present virtual. >> Uh perhaps I hear a motion to continue to May 27th. >> May 27th. Yep. All right. So we have the motion from Maryland. Do we have a second? >> Second. Second from Megan. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. >> Hearing none. Um that motion passes to continue to May 27th. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh section D, updates to the King Kingston wetland protection
regulations. We'll now continue discussion on updates to the Kingston wetland protection regulations. Matt, does uh is there any comments for the commission? Um, >> we left it >> was more looking for comments from the commission. I see the look on Brian's face and I can tell that he didn't do
his homework. >> That in reverse. >> A lot of homework on my to-do list is right on time. >> Um, it's going to be really hard on these on these really packed meetings to um to get to this. Um, I've continued I
a I still don't have a quote yet. uh the consulting firm that that that I would work with on this has been really busy as we have been. Um you know just very briefly one of the things that that I recently um kind of thought about on
this is KWPR does not provide the same exemptions as WPA. In a lot of ways that's good. It allows the commission to review projects that would normally just pass right through without really any oversight at all. Um, but there may be certain situations where the commission
can add things in that could be exempt from KWPR provided that certain steps are followed. So that's that's sort of one thing that I thought that our consultant could could work on is um there's really no exemption for like the typical roadway type you know work like
things that are being like fixed not expanded or anything like that that I think if you could have situations where um proper erosion control is used or those sort of things or coordination with the department to make sure that if there's anything there that needs to be protected is protected.
I think there's a way to get some of those things um exempted from KWPR and review as they are under WPA. But in general, I like the fact that it is more protective. That's the whole point of having a a local. Um so that's the only
homework that I bring to you. Otherwise, if the commission doesn't have anything else, I'd say we kick it two more weeks and see if anybody has any other suggestions. Um and if not, we at some point we can just send decide. At some point, you guys just tell me, >> send >> I don't want to do any more homework.
Take what we have and send it to a consultant to come up with a draft. When we get the draft, we'll review that and if we have anything to add to it, we'll add. And that's that's that can happen, too. Um, I'll just just in response to your comments, I think that when you talk about mosquito work, um, you know,
and what some of the other jurisdictions out there, um, some of the approaches that they take there, and I think that what you just said, it fits well with that. Um, obviously that's it's got to be a line where can't be for everything, but it, you know, we're not certainly not breaking, you know, open-ended back
doors, right? Um, I did have a brief conversation with mosquito control about that and they sort of went like, well, we have to file for all that stuff, too. And I went, I thought you had exemptions to do that type of work. >> Who miss what? >> I'll get I'll get you the one that I read about cuz it wasn't Plymouth
County. Okay. >> It was somebody else cuz >> maybe maybe it was a state. Was it a different state? >> No, I thought it was I'm not really good with counties. You know, >> it was a different state then I could say maybe their their regs are are different. Um, but there was I mean it's not just our local bylaw that some of
that stuff falls under. Some of that would fall under like the state's 401 water quality program. Um, even chapter 91 if it's if it's fl Well, if it was flowing, you wouldn't be doing anything with it anyways. The problem is the stagnant ditches that are left behind.
>> Um, we'll definitely continue to work. I I told him I want to continue to discuss it with him, but it wasn't as simple as I thought. He sort of was like, "Yeah, we're not exempted either. We have to file for all that stuff. >> Yeah, I'll I'll look up I'll try to find what I had found. >> Okay. Good at finding stuff once I find
it. Um and then the uh the only other uh thing is just about part of what I'm hoping that the the new consultant can do for us is is kind of expose us to another option so they can see what we
have. Obviously, we can see what we want to, you know, play back and forth, but I'd like to see what their recommendations are. Yeah, >> kind of coming out of like a canned spec, you know, that's not 30 years old. Um, just from that perspective. So that's why, you know, you only get very
limited response from me on that one. So is there anybody else who has feedback from Matt on this? >> Nope. >> All right. Are we comfortable with continue? Oh, sorry. Is there any comments from the public on this? Not hearing none. Uh, are we comfortable with continuing this, Matt? When do you want to continue to
>> uh do June? Uh, May 27th. >> All right. I'd say May 27th. If you have nothing for me, then then just tell me to run with it and then we don't have to keep doing this. >> So you want a motion to continue. >> Motion to continue to May 27th. >> Correct. >> Second.
>> All right. So we have a motion from Maryland, second um by Megan. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> And none that passes uh continue to May 27th. >> Is that it on the uh >> that's it for hearings. back to uh 18
road rc. >> I will now open a public meeting to discuss two requests for certificates of compliance. RC is for 18 Old Mill Road submitted by Steinbeck and Taylor in regards to the orders of conditions is
issued to Craig Shu for construction of two additions and an attached garage on a single family home within the 100T buffer zone, two bordering vegetated wetlands in the 200 foot riverfront area. Uh as this is the first meeting on
this request, we will now hear um the introduction from the applicant. >> Please um identify yourself. >> All right. Just uh name and address please for the record. >> Uh my name is Richard Sant. I'm a professional land surveyor with Sunbeck
and Taylor. Um >> just uh did you sign in? >> Yes, I did. >> Thank you. As you stated, uh we're here tonight to um attempt to close a couple of opens and conditions for this property at 180
Mill Road. Uh there was two older orders issued uh 653 and 772. These were both for additions to the home. Um the first addition was for an addition uh the
first uh orders was for a garage and an addition on the left side of the home and the second was also for a smaller addition in the rear. Uh the first was never closed and the second one was issued for work on the back of the house. Um the original order required
that drywalls be put in for to collect the roof area for these additions in the remainder of the house. Um, we found in an attempt to close these that uh house has recently been sold. Uh, that new homeowners are in there and we're just trying to clean this up. We've
discovered that the drywalls weren't installed. One out of the three was. So, they've since done that work. All the drywalls are in the ground. Roof leaders are connected to them. Um, it would also require that conservation markers be set, which are also in place. Uh I've
walked the site recently with Matt and Georgiana who may have some comments on it, but essentially uh we've completed a majority of the items that were that were in the orders uh that needed to be
done. Um also during the same process, we'll we'll wait on the shed Matt next. I think the next hearing is about an RDA for this, but there is a shed on this site that uh was uncovered during the asel process that wasn't permitted and
um we that's the next action item is an RDA hopefully to permit that shed. So close the two open orders is what we're hoping to do tonight. So that's essentially it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, Matt, could you uh brief the commission? >> Yeah. Um, again, we're going to discuss the shed next, so it's kind of hard not to kind of discuss both of them together. Um, >> well, I think just for the if we're
going to do the shed next, let's keep this one clean. >> It's It's No. >> Okay. >> No. Um, three drywall wells have been installed. They're depicted on the asill plan. Both additions, the back deck, the driveway appear to have been constructed
according to plans that were submitted with the NOI. Uh, turf in the front yard is established. Area appears stable. Uh, we did a site visit on May 4th with Rick. Um, on site, Rick confirmed that all three drywalls have been installed, stated that all roof drainage systems are connected to the drywalls except for
one down spout on the corner of the garage. there's an open connection to the drywall in the other corner of the garage where the applicant may be intending to tie the down spout into the drywall. Before I continue, is there an update on that? >> Um, not officially, but we're still under that premise.
>> Okay. So, that that's something that's outstanding on that that all the drywalls are installed, but currently one of the downspouts is not and it's on the wetland side is not connected. So probably right now it flows over land and we believe the intention is to
either connect that one or to just change the the angle of the gutters so that it goes into the drywall on the other side. Uh but we would need an update on that. Uh we confirmed that all six conservation posts are in place and visible. Um most of the property has little evidence of encroachment past
those posts. Um the understory did appear pretty open um which sort of suggested previous cutting. These um current owners have only been there for about I think a year and a half. Um so it didn't seem like they did any recent cutting. The prior owner might have been cleaning the woods and you know cutting
the inventory. Um so the current owner should keep in mind. Um no alterations are allowed in there. Um this is something I don't know if it's something the commission would really want to deal with in a situation like this but should keep in mind going forward. couple of areas on on the property where Japanese
pakisandra the ground cover it's used all the time horiculturally was planted right near those posts and has just spread into the the vegetated buffer zone uh pretty densely doesn't let anything else grow through it. So not ideal for conservation area. Um
hopefully that is minimal. I don't know if you want to make a new property owner go in and rip all that stuff out. Um but it's it's something that should be noted anyways. Um, we also observed a large area of fill
behind the unpermanented shed consisting of soil, mulch, grass clippings, ash, leaves, and other general yard waste. Uh, we don't really know the origin of the fill or the timing of when it was done. It may have been from a combination of clearing and grading associated with shed construction or
just from long-term yard waste deposition. Uh, that pile is past the conservation posts by by quite a bit. Um, and it is within the 100 foot inter repairarian area and it's large enough it might cross into that 50- foot BDW buffer as well. Um, I cite all of the
standards on riverfront area and buffer zone and dumping of yard waste and all that, but obviously for the commission's point that it's not allowed and there's conservation post there anyways. Um so commission should not issue a COC on
this until the remaining downspout is connected and the fill beyond the conservation posts is addressed. Um the shed part has at least been addressed by the filing of of the RDA which we'll which we'll deal with next. But I think at this point you'd continue this. Um, I
said as part of addressing the fill issue, the commission should consider requiring the owner to add two more conservation posts, one at each of the two corners of the shed nearest the resource area and a no dumping sign in multiple languages in case it's, you know, we have a lot of issues with it
wasn't me, it was the landscaper. Um, commission can decide what, if any, other action should be taken to address the fill. They could require mitigation plantings to stabilize the filled area, though the composition of the field in shady conditions may make it challenging to grow anything. They could require removal of the fill, though it will be
challenging to access the area with the heavy machinery required for the extent of removal without further damage to the resource area and tough to get in there with the shed in the way. Okay. >> All right. I'm hoping that just get
discussion up for the uh for the board. Any comments from the commission? >> All right. Open up to the public. >> Um chair, may I? >> Yes, please. Um just briefly um I think it's important to convey to the new
owner that this is um this is a tributary to the main stem of the Jones River and is incredibly important aquatic habitat area. I um tripped over this uh area quite a while ago. There's
a there's a spring that is near the railroad track um up upstream to the uh I'll call it the north uh west um uh that emerges that that is groundwater fed from Silver Lake and and it starts a
stream that runs through that wetland and joins the Jones River below the railroad track. I think that it's important for the property owner to know that it's incredibly valuable habitat. It's not just another wetland that people get, you know, sick of hearing
about. Um, and that it it's important to find out whether that pile behind the shed is dangerous to those aquatic systems or not. That's that's all I will say. And thank you very much for Yeah. >> Thank you.
All right. Um, >> well, we've discussed this, uh, yard way. It appears to be, you know, historical grass clippings, mulch things. I don't think there's any fill as far as, you know, soil under there.
We didn't excavate the entire thing. Um, it seems pretty stable there and it is a difficult area to to reach. Um, there wasn't any signs of erosion there. I'm not suggesting that we don't do anything. I'm just um it's it's
something there's at least a foot of, you know, composted material in there. Does appear to be some recent leaves, you know, within the last year there. Um it seems to look just like accumulation from from yard grass clippings and so forth. So, uh we did talk about possibly
removing it. It is a difficult area to get any type of equipment in there. Um, it's not that much material that you'd need a large machine or something, but it is difficult to access access. It would probably have to be hand work. >> There's a slope.
>> It's very steep slope to it. It was like something you dump it off the edge and then it just keeps filling up and up and so it's it's ideally all of it would be removed. I don't know if it's possible to remove that without doing
more damage to the buffer zone. Um, my suggestion might be to give them some time to figure it out. Um, come back to the commission in a month maybe and have a plan for how they're going to deal with that and then have the commission
take whatever. you know, if if you don't need to issue any documents on this and they can just take care of it in a way that's satisfactory to the commission verbally and then come back and get their COC, then great. Um, I wouldn't want them to go in and do anything without having the commission approve
it. So, I would say if you kick it by, let's say, whether he might be able to say whether two weeks or a month, but just kick this down the road to let them come up with a solution, that could be something the commission could support. Then they come to the next meeting and say, "Here's our plan. and you say yes
or no and obviously they get that to our office first so we can review it for you. But at that point you might be able to say okay go do that come back in a month and we'll you know likely issue the CS can do something like that. >> You don't have to think about every aspect of it tonight. You can put it on
now. >> No, that's a valable >> figure that out. >> Yeah. >> Is that something the applicants open to? >> Um I'm not sure if these folks are the are involved at all. I haven't had the pleasure to meet them, but I would certainly work with them and I think so. We have two parties involved. The new homeowner there and the the old
homeowner is is still in the area but out of the property. >> But I think I agree with Matt. I mean, I think the best way would kind of do a balance of the two. Maybe stabilize it, maybe put some sort of native seed or something there to keep the slope,
remove some of it. Um, but we'll certainly look at alternatives with that versus just digging it out on that slope. You know, I think you're going to have some erosion problems and create more problems than exist there now. Um, but they should certainly should
encapsulate it and stabilize it and remove some of it and prevent any future dumping or with signage and additional posts and markers to make sure it doesn't continue at all and just let it uh let mother nature take its course in
there. >> I have a question. >> Oh, of course. >> You said there was ash in it. >> Yeah, it looks like probably like uh my guess is wood stove or something. it was buried in, you know, when you >> was it would you consider it a lot? The reason I'm asking
>> I didn't see a lot of what what it looked like to me and and I'm not positive was, you know, when you have like a can that or bucket, you know, whatever you use to scrape out your um >> your wood stove, probably dumped it back there and then dumped other stuff on top of it to the point now it's more like
clay. >> Okay. Then the reason I'm asking is that ash wood ash is usually alkaline and rain going through it will take the alkali into the wetlands >> which is not good. >> Pretty much everything that that's in there a lot of it anyway is the stuff
that you wouldn't want why we don't allow it. Um, it's roughly 50 ft from It's at least 50 ft, I should say, roughly from from the BVW and it's probably
90 ft from from the riverbank. Um, so it's not it's not ideal, but it's not right on top of it. I'm sure there is some dissipation of what's coming down through there. So, I mean, if it if the stuff in there had to stay in place, you'd at least want it to be stabilized better, and you'd want it to look like
it wasn't a dumping pile, cuz signs aren't enough, right? >> When you have a pile of stuff that's clearly yard waste dumped there, then any landscaper you hire is going to dump there. The homeowner may just continue dumping there, uh, figuring how often are we even going to be around check
stuff like that. So, you want at least something to, like I said, it wouldn't be easy to just throw some seed on it and have it be a restoration mix or something like that because it it's pretty um pretty established canopy over it. So I mean it could be a situation of
planting some um native shade loving stuff as actual plants instead of seed and um you know a little like mulching type layer over it or something along those lines. I I don't
know. Um >> yeah soil m or something. Yeah. But I would say probably I don't know that they're going to come up with that in a week and we would need it in a week to have it for the 27th. So more than likely you want to push this off for a month. Gives them 3 weeks to come to me
with some sort of a plan like that or to kick ideas >> um off of our office in the meantime before coming up with something that we can review for for you. >> Matt, let me just ask this because I can't open up the plan. See that it's very steep. How how close is the
resource area to the bottom of the slope or does is it continuous to that? >> I mean if it runs it I I think >> it's a pretty steep slope straight pretty straight other than where the stuff is dumped it kind of has flattened out a little more there.
>> The dumping is outside the 50ft buffer to the BVW. >> Yeah. Uh but it is about what you estimated you know 70 80 feet to the to the river. >> Yeah I guess I just threw like 90. >> Yeah I think we were >> but it might be 20 ft. When I was there
in person when I was looking at the plan I said what's that 75 80 ft? It's >> how far is the stream from the bottom of the of the slope? >> Cuz if the water is just running down how close when it hits that kind of >> about 90 ft. I'd say it's about >> to the bottom of the slope >> to the
>> probably about 80 to 90 ft is my guess. >> No, it's not 10 feet. >> It's not 10. No, like I said is it is a there is intact natural vegetated buffer between the bottom of that slope and the wetland and the river and you have roughly 50 ft to the wetland and roughly
80 to 90 ft from the bottom of the slope to >> to the river. Chair, >> other question you >> like to see just >> No, that's the summary is good enough. I I looked at the plan when I could see it. I just can't pull it out. >> So, what's the date if if we push it out? >> One month um meeting. Do you know the
date on the first 10th? >> June 10th. >> June 10th. >> Any other comments? >> June 10th. >> All right. >> So, I will move to continue this to June 10th to give you the time you need. >> Okay. Perfect. Motion by Marilyn. Do I have a second?
>> Second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed hearing none. >> Uh June 10th. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> You can just stay there. >> I have the next next item. All right, I I have to read. I will now open a public meeting to
discuss the request for determination about the facility for 18 Old Mill Road submitted by Steinbeck and Taylor on behalf of Craig Shul for construction of a shed within the 100t buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland and 200 ft
riverfront area. As is the first meeting on the request, we will now hear an introduction from the applicant. >> Good evening again. My name is Richard Savant with Standback and Taylor. Um, this is all related, very related to the conversation we just had. Do you want to skip this and just all
>> Yep. Okay. Okay. >> I'm permanent shed. Um, and just so Pine knows, I did have my staff report that it is within the 200 foot riverfront area to a perennial stream tributary to the Jones River. I should have pointed that out verbally in the last one. It is
important. Um, you don't care how big the shed is. It's a relatively standard size shed. It's on a bed of 3/4 in stone with patio block supports. Uh, sits right outside the line of conservation posts. So, the shed itself does not encroach on the area with conservation posts. Uh, we already
talked about fill landscape debris which is right behind the shed. We don't have to discuss that again. Um, barring the encroachment issue involving the dumping of landscape materials, the shed itself appears to meet the standards of WPA and KWPR being beyond the 50ft BBW buffer as well as the inner
100 foot repairarium buffer and being more or less located in the previously permitted landscaped area. The only issue there is whether the fill encroaching on the inner 100t repairarian area was initially placed to provide support for the shed. Um if none of that's being removed, then that may
not be um concerning to this particular thing. Anyways, uh my thought is the commission should not approve any retrospective permitting of this shed until the encroachment issue has been dealt with. Uh continuence or denial would be recommended for continuing the other thing. Might as well just continue
this. Um just to sort of discuss that, I know we already have a COC request on this, but why why issue any of it? you kind of have two angles to make sure that something is done here uh so that everything gets back into um compliance.
So I wrote down the same thing that I wrote before about the conservation posts and the signs. Um and said the applicant may work to remove the unpermitted fill through a permit issued by the commission if it can show that the material can be removed without causing further detrimental impacts to
resource areas or their interests. Alternatively, they may stabilize the site to the commission's satisfaction, add signage and post preventing any further encroachment, and mitigate the encroachment somehow. >> All right, we'll open up comments uh to the commission.
>> Any questions? We'll open uh to the public if there's any questions or comments from the public. >> Let's see. >> I'm clear now. I I I think we we need to rectify that issue before we get everything cleared up >> to continue into this.
>> Yeah. >> I don't even know. I mean >> I mean I was thinking >> so if we're talking about June 10th is going to be the RCOC meeting where they're going to have brought something to the commission as far as a plan to take care of the dumping. You're still
not going to want to issue the permit for the shed until you've confirmed that it's been dealt with. So >> they're tied together. >> I don't know that you're going to want to put this to June 10th. You may put it a month beyond that. >> Right. That makes sense. >> Would July first meeting in July? >> Would it need a month or two weeks? You
think? >> Yeah. What about another two weeks >> instead of I would say that they have time to get the work done. >> Yeah. It's it's the mitigation, the dumping done. >> We can see evidence that that's been completed and then we can issue the
>> permit and retro for the shed. I know the commission doesn't like to see things on the agenda over and over and over and over and over again. It gets a little tedious. So, I tend to in situations like this where I expect that the work is going to take a little bit of time. >> So, it gives them a month to do the plan and a month to do the work. >> Yeah.
>> This is I'm sure a legal issue there's some sort of escrow thing or something along those lines. >> Yeah. Don't worry. >> There's some sort of harsh deadline on that. Um, >> if you want the 10th, it's it doesn't you can always tell us the day before that we're that we're continuing the
morning of the whatever that that you're not ready for. >> I think that would be fair and we'll just keep a close eye on it. >> Okay. >> And you know, maybe there's a chance that we can get it done before July. I'm sure >> the home the the pe the owners would
like to get it cleared up by then and we'll do our best to do that. I'll work with Matt. And then if we have to continue, we'll continue. But I know we don't like to keep going, but I think that's fair. >> It's fair. >> Keep it on with the >> So on the 10th 10th. Yeah. 10th. >> So I I'll make a motion to continue this
to June 10th. >> Why? We have a motion. >> June 10th or July. >> June. Yeah. June 10th. Just because they're trying to get escrow closed out. >> So if they can get it done quicker, we could hear it quicker. >> Second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I.
>> Oppos. Hearing none. We'll continue to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I will now open a public meeting to discuss a request for determination of the applicability for Drew and Sver avenues submitted by Mattel Panella on behalf of the town of Kingston for
digging test pits in the roadway to assess storm water recharge suitability within the 100t buffer zone to coastal wetland resource areas. Mal hair briefing from the conseration agent >> who was also the applicant
>> tech. >> Well, in that case, >> this shouldn't be legal. >> No, there's definitely I think you need to go over there. >> I'm not going to. >> And then you need to come back. >> Um, when you go there, >> test pits are not subject to regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act, provided the project complies with
standards by performing work and using post construction measures so as to reduce the potential for adverse impacts. Um, as described below, the project meets those provisions. However, as noted in article 4 of Kingston Wetland Protection bylaw, unless
otherwise stated in the bylaw, the exceptions provided in the wetland protection act and regulations shall not apply under this bylaw. So, the bylaw makes no reference to test pits nor any exception that be relevant to the project. So, we were sort of planning on filing it no matter what, but you really don't have
any exemptions under that. Um, regarding KWPR, the project is jurisdictional. Um, this is, uh, if you're unfamiliar, Drew and Siver a on Rocky Nook. Uh, so they start out of jurisdiction up at a higher level and both streets slope down pretty
aggressively down to uh, Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach and land under the ocean of Kingston Bay. Um the work is jurisdictional but temporary in nature and will result in no detrimental impacts to well and
resource areas. Further, the entire work area is developed or altered. For the most part, these test beds are going to be in paved areas or on the road shoulders. Uh there's one that's going to be in a lawn. Um but for the most part, you're not talking about any or entirely you're
not talking about any um natural area. Also, there are no no disturbance zones relevant to this project. Um and the project appears to meet all the standards of KWPR. Proposed work will be performed by the Kingston Highway Department in conjunction with the project design engineer Justin Lamro of Stronree Engineering. I will be present
during much of the work in order to ensure compliance with KWPR. Uh erosion control are not likely to be needed for this project, but silt stock will be available. Uh potentially straw water will be available on site just in case. Uh the smallest possible holes are being cut so that the town's vector truck can be used for the excavation. So we're
talking about a twoft square. um road cut for each one of these. Um once the holes are complete and examined, they will be back filled and either hut or cold patch asphalt will be applied and the site swept so that no sediment will be available for storm
water transport where test pits may occur within turf areas. Turf will be cut and removed holes so that it can be replaced when the pits are done. Um any roadside areas that are neither turf or pavement would be dressed exactly as they were found when we got
there that day. So proposed work is temporary in nature expected to be started and finished in the same day. Um obviously not done in the rain uh which we were planning on doing the work tomorrow. So that's not going to happen. Uh we're pushing on to next week hopefully. um accepting that the
pavement cuts may be performed the day before, leaving all the asphalt in place, but just having the cuts done for speed purposes. Um this work is part of the planning phase of a storm water management project aimed at installing effective storm water control measures to protect Kingston Bay from
contaminants. Project is funded by an office of coastal zone management grant from their coastal habitat and water quality program. The grant period ends June 30th, so prompt completion of this work is necessary for grant performance. Uh the commission is likely to see an NOI filing for the stormwater control measures by the end of June. Barring any
specific concerns or questions, commission may wish to issue a negative 3 DOA with any special conditions as they see fit. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll open up uh comments uh first to the commission. So for special conditions, given your
notes, would you think it appropriate to include having a silk sock available and straw waddles on site and sweeping up of any sediment? >> I would say um I typically think straw water is pretty
useless for anything, but >> but you had mentioned it. In this case, I think silt sock would be overkill and be mostly in people's way. Um, I don't I really don't think there's really I don't think there's going to be any need for
anything at all because the work is going to be done quickly and back the way it was, >> but I think a condition for um >> appropriate erosion control measures to be stockpiled on site and for the site to be sweeped up. Basically everything
kind of that I wrote out in in this I think could be applied to special conditions. >> Did did you say these holes will be closed the same day? Isn't that >> not typical for a test pit like that? >> Um I don't think so. Um in this case all
the only real reason for doing this is to assess is there a giant stretch of ledge down there because we're trying to design subsurface storm water infiltration measures. So if you don't do the test pits then um you can design whatever you
want soil >> and then you get ledge. So it's not looking at ground water as much as um looking for >> big swaths of ledge that might be present based on what the sewer >> department had on some of their um elevations when the sewer line >> clay.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it could be. >> What's uh the test pits? How how deep are you going? I know the 2 by two. What are you guys looking to do? >> I think it's pretty relatively deep. >> Okay. Yeah, >> I don't have a specific answer for you on that. Um, but it it was it was pretty deep. I was surprised to hear that they
wanted to use the vector for that. I didn't think of really doing that. Typically, they'd be bigger. I think they were looking at whether it was like a 4x6 or something. Um, you know, cuz I think it's easier for an evaluator to get down in the hole to look at this stuff, but he he could said he could
work with a 2 by two. Um, as long as you can get down, if you can see down there, you know, they have tools or whatever you can use to kind of stick down there and assess it. So, I liked hearing that they were smaller. That just makes it easier to protect the resource areas. >> And again, this is inside roadways,
grassways, and if anything else, it's it's just >> Yeah. >> somewhere in between the two, not inside a resource area. >> Yeah. There's nothing there's really nothing natural at all in the areas that the these are proposed. The area is
pretty well developed. Um and again, it is part of a beneficial project. It's the planning phase of a of a beneficial project. This grant phase is going to get this project um designed and get the permits filed. And the only permit that's going to be needed is from the commission. We're going to have an NOI
file um submitted and that's going to be all we need to get the to get that work done. So, we'll need to get a grant to do the actual work. Um, but that's just kind of the way these work. You do one round for planning and then submit it again the next year for for implementation. Okay.
>> Public space on public space. There's no private property. >> Yeah. In fact, um, a good portion of of people's yards or properties, properties, what they've been, you know, kind of using,
maintaining involves the the roadway. The roadway is is wider than it appears. Um, so we do have more space to work with than it looks like when you're driving down the street. Um obviously we want to be you know cognizant of of that
and not be um you know horrifying people by what we do there but there will be no matter what with this project there will be changes more on the bottom of of the road. I think anything that's we're trying to get stuff to slow down in the uphill areas with subsurface
infiltration and then down the bottom is where you have some of your open uh fire retention type features or rain garden stuff. So there there may be more changes down the bottom right above the coastal bank than than further up, but we sent a mailer around. There were some
properties that that either had double lots or just had certain areas that looked like they'd be good for getting some infiltration done. And we sent a mail around asking if anybody was interested in talking about easements or anything like that. And nobody. So I got
to keep it all within all within the roadway. >> Did uh Matt, did did we notify the people of adjacent to these test bits or that >> only when I was there with um I was there a few days ago with >> the highway department, sewer
department, water department. They were painting out some of their lines and and just kind of okay planning planning for this and ran into a few people. It was a nice day. People are outside and I sort of told them when we were roughly thinking of doing this and told them to tell tell their neighbors, but I didn't
send a mail around on this. Now, I think people will still be able to get out of their driveways and all that stuff, so it shouldn't be anything too bad. But when we do the NOI, they'll get a butter notifications. So, >> okay, perfect. >> Any other comments? Any comment from the
public? Seeing none, are we ready to uh make a motion? So, I like the motion. It's okay. Motion to issue a negative 3DA. Second >> with the conditions.
>> With the conditions as discussed. >> Okay, >> that's your motion. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we have a motion for Brian. Second. >> Second. >> Second by Marilyn. >> Uh, all those in favor say I. I. >> Oppose. >> Hearing none. >> You look good. >> We're good. All right. Um, that motion
carries uh to issue 3D um for this five. I will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for one north street submitted by an anteneelis for
installation of a fence with gate within the 100t buffer zone to various coastal wetland resource areas. Um, as this is the first meeting on this proposal, we'll now hear an introduction from the applicant.
>> I'm not sure the applicant's here tonight. I did get an email from the applicant um a couple of hours ago that I didn't open, but it was related to the enforcement. Um, there's also a an ongoing enforcement issue on the property, >> but I can give a a pretty good breakdown
on this if you like or >> Well, let's just continue it until they're here. Okay. Everybody good with continuing it hearing? >> Since they're not here. >> Yeah, they're not here. Sure. >> All right. May I have a motion? >> The 27th. What's your pleasure? >> I move that we continue it to May 27th.
>> Okay. Do I hear a second? Sorry. >> Second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. >> Hearing none. Uh we'll continue to the 27th. I will now open a discussion on conservation commission signature for the purchase and sales agreement for 83
walking road. Um Matt, would you um bring us up to speed? >> Yes. uh commission previously voted in support of the chair signing an offer sheet or you know original
agreement on this and that was done. Uh we had a purchase and sales agreement drafted and council reviewed and modified and went back and forth a bunch of times uh and is now ready for the chair's signature again or this one is ready for the
chair's signature. So, um, if you have any specific questions about process on the property, I can answer those for you. It's the same property we already discussed. Um, and was just looking for a vote in support of the chair signing the PNS tonight so that I can return it
to their uh, team to fully execute it. And if this happens, there are contingencies in there for us to be able to find um, all of the funding that we need. Um I am working on that. We have a
significant portion of it covered by CPC funds. Um and there's a portion that I need to cover through private donation because um the agreed upon price is higher than what CPC uh would fund. It
is higher than our appraised value was at um for some pretty valid reasons. Um so again, I'm working on that part of it. um town meeting is in early June. The CPC articles will be voted then that
money would be made available July 1st. I believe the closing we have in the PNS as mid July. >> Questions open comment comment from the public. >> Um so Matt's looking for a motion.
>> Do you need a motion to purchase or just sign? No, he will sign approve >> just to >> think the motion is just to have the chair sign purchase and sales. But I mean you could make >> you could modify the motion if you want to say to sign the purchase of sales and
to take any other steps necessary towards the purchase of property something along those lines or to take whatever >> I think a motion authorize the chair to sign the purchase agreement >> is sufficient. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Second.
>> All right. We have a motion from Brian, second from Megan. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Hearing none. That passes 5 to zero. >> Enforcement 51 Main Street continued from an earlier
date. Matt, could you bring us up to speed? >> Yes. Um, can we go out of order? 53R first. >> All right. Um, um, we will now go to 53R Main Street
continuing from an early date. Matt, please. >> So, last time we did 53R, uh, they had attorney Broaddsky present and he contended that the statute of repose in this case had expired and therefore the commission
couldn't take enforcement action on this. and I said, "Let me go confirm with town council." Um, since then, town council did agree with attorney Brodzky that the statute of propose would apply in this case and has expired. Um, so the commission would not have the ability to
take enforcement action on the unpermitted paving until the current owner sold the property. Um, so I left it on the agenda just to explain that for, you know, appearances sake. Um I did mention that um if the commission
wanted separately to take enforcement action for the cutting of channels uh through that burn to drain the water towards the wetlands they could do that. Um but that I didn't think that was something um entirely necessary at least at this time. um the applicant or
applicant the property owner has filed since then um an RDA that I have not reviewed yet but is intended to um solve some of these issues there. Um there's some sort of a drainage component to it. So um the uh property owner called me
today just to ask, hey, why am I still on the agenda? I'm not in town. Um can't be there tonight. I said I don't think you need to be there. I left it on the agenda strictly to tell the commission we can't really take enforcement action on this issue, but they are working on it anyways. Uh, which is good. So,
that's figured it was easier just to get that one out of the way and then then go to 51. If you have any questions here, >> any questions for Matt? >> Questions? All right. Um, so Matt, you don't need anything on
that. It's just it drops off. >> Nope, just drops off. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, going forward, if the commission feels they want to take enforcement action on anything like the cutting of water or something like that, we can do that. I don't think that's anything you need to think about right now. >> All right. Back to 51 Main Street, then.
>> Yeah. Um, again, we already did a full thing on this, so I'm going to skip to just new information. Um, when we talked about this last, it was winter and everything was covered in a bunch of snow. So, we said for starters, we need to go do a site visit. So, we did a site visit uh March 23rd. Uh the property
owner, we observed the BM BMS or soil hills between 51 and 53r. Um the owner reported they were formed when the lot was paved next door, which I said seemed entirely possible based on what I
observed on site. It seemed that that was probably from top soil and turf being scraped off in advance of paving. um bringing that up because they the a neighborhood attended that 51 was building that burn by dumping things
there and I saw no evidence of that. Um we discussed modifications that he made to the property. Um he reported that he had cleared some shrubs and trash just behind the house to add a fenced in turf area. Behind this fenced in turf area is what appears to be a legally paved
driveway. Um property owner reported he had added some gravel past this paved area. That was what we had discussed um where you could see the area that goes down and around um from a few years back. Um past the gravel, he also removed some trees and shrubs and added turf. That
area was very wet and squishy with some puddles during the site visit. Again, this was, you know, I would say late winter, early late winter where we had a lot of snow melt. It could entirely just be snow melt in that area. Um but I he said he only added seed to this area
with no fill. Um but that couldn't be really confirmed from sight conditions. Um he reported also that past that area he had been hand cutting like a trail back through the property um towards the towards the tracks. Um on site it was
challenging to determine which of these activities were jurisdictional um especially with the vegetation having been removed in in a lot of these areas. Um on site I recommended that they have a delineation done to confirm the wetland boundaries. Um especially in that wet cleared turf area where I suspected that that might have been a
wetland. Um so just a couple of days ago we gave them a list of local wetland scientists. Um and since then they have contacted ECR. um they actually went sort of up and beyond and contacted um a surveyor as well and
I told them at this point you don't need that right now. I think all we need is a wetland delineation. Let us see where the wetlands are, relate that to what is done um strictly for cost savings purposes. I would say at this point you don't need a plan. Um my hope is that we
don't need to issue an enforcement order either. Um, I did talk with uh Brad Holmes of ECR specifically about what is needed there. Um, my thought on this was to continue it for a month and hopefully within a month they'll have something whether it's the delineation is done or
a set date for when it's supposed to be done. Um, if nothing gets done, the commission could always issue an endorsement order on it. Um, but I would say put it off for a month. Let them bring assuming that Brad can get to it quicker and go out and flag stuff. They can call me. I can come review the site,
correlate that to what we already have for aerials, and then discuss that on June 10th. >> Okay. Thank you, Matt. We'll open up the discussion to the board. Any questions for Matt?
Open up uh discussion to the public. >> All right. So, it sounds like Matt's looking for continuence. Do we hear a motion? >> So, I'll move that we continue it to June 10th. >> Okay. Do we hear a second? >> Second by Brian. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Opposed.
>> Hearing none with the motion carries 5. Continue your dream. >> Thanks for hanging in tonight. >> Two weeks. He said >> two weeks. Perfect. Give me a show. >> Have a good night. >> Thanks. >> Oh my god. I had to wait all that time. >> Sorry. Uh
I don't know. It's always the people who are sitting there being nice the whole time getting the longest. Sorry. >> Can we take uh 2 minutes? >> Yeah. 2 minutes. >> Sure. Thanks. >> Uh we will take a twominut recess.
He got that. We're good. Thank you. >> We just need our mics back on. >> All right. Mic's on everyone. >> Mic on. Mic on. >> Uh, all right. We are going to move on to Six Prospect Street continued from an earlier date. Matt, will you bring us uh
bring us up to speed on this? >> Yes. Um, following the April 22nd meeting, um, at the commission's request, I issued enforcement orders under WPAKWPR on April 23rd, um, mandating the
following, um, cease and assist, which is complete. Um, install site perimeter fence, landward of the excavated area encircled by 6 plus in silt sock by May 12th. Uh, that
was done. Um, I did Brian reached out to me and said, you know, strictly for cost-saving purposes, can I use pallets to build the fence? And I said, I don't see a problem with that as long as it, you know, serves its purpose. Um, so I did get evidence that
that was done. The silt sock was the right kind, which is which is good to see. Sometimes we have we have difficulties with that. Um, I did get notification that that may have that the fence may have fallen over today. So, I know Brian's here tonight. Um, when it
gets to be his turn, he can maybe just speak to whether that's still up and stable or if it needs um some work. But that was uh done and done by May 12th. Um coordinating a site visit with D and DCR's office of dam safety. That is also
complete. That was done on May 5th. Um and the last point was engage the services of a professional engineer towards assessing the culvert and preparing a solution to the hazards posed by the condition of the culvert post excavation. Um provide signed agreement by May 12th. Um we don't have
that. Um Brian did reach out and say that he had called he listed off a handful of engineering firms. Um I provided a short list of the typical suspects that we see around here and he said he called some of those today. Um again, when it's his turn to speak, he may have an update on that. Um but as
far as right now, that part's not in compliance. Um the site visit was before May 5th. Uh Brian was there. Uh I was there. Uh commissioners Kazido and uh Vendetti were there and representatives from D Wetlands, D Way site cleanup, and
DCR Office of Dam Safety and their uh inspection dam inspection consulting firm, GEI. Uh much of the site was viewed. Each agency discussed relevant standards, issues, and enforcement actions. Uh there was candid conversation about the ownership and occupancy history of the property and
the lack of options for the current occupant to sell or develop the property. Uh DP's waste site cleanup staff said that while contamination is clearly an issue on this property, there is no evidence of any contaminants reaching wetland resource areas as part of the unpermitted work from April 13th or since. So for clarification, the
commission really wanted to know from Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, is this a big problem? They did not say there is nothing there, but they said there's no evidence. They didn't see any um sheen or smells or anything and there's nothing in any of the files that they
already had that indicated that there would likely be contamination from a release from that work. Um, dam safety's consulting engineers, um, we're going to share their dam assessment report when it's ready. Um, I actually need to reach out and ask them if it's done. They
expected it was going to take a couple of weeks. Um, I was hoping to have it before this meeting, but they did say, um, that they suspected they were going to be downgrading the dam's condition to poor, which requires dam inspection reports submitted to ODS every 6 months. Um, they did not suspect imminent
collapse. So it's not anything again um >> hugely imminent there with the condition of the dam which is good. DP's wetland staff said to keep them informed through the enforcement process um regarding just see I already let me skip part past
parts that I already said. Um the excavation hole has filled with water. Um, you know, when we first first were on site, um, in April, Brian had said that the culvert downstream of the
excavation was clogged. Um, and it does appear to be clogged. It's the water was not flowing over land, but it was filling up to sort of just below the pavement. Um, so there does appear to be a clog there. It's unclear what the
source of the clog is. Um, so that's what I have for now. If you have any questions, I can answer questions. We can hear Brian. Um, yeah. >> So, restricted flow, not clogged, because we got a river running through, >> correct? Yeah. It's a it's a perennial
stream running out of a dam that holds back and creates Foundry Pond. Um it is not complete impediment or complete plug or clog. Um because I think otherwise you would have it coming up in sheet
flow over land which is good. I was concerned about that. >> Um >> you know before when he had said it was clogged but so it is it is holding back a significant amount of water but it is not um it it is staying within the excavated area. So it is trickling through there.
Um we didn't when we were on site that day didn't see any sign of sediment flow on the downstream section. The water that was in the excavated hole looked pretty clear. You could see down uh to the bottom of it. >> How deep would that be in the excavation? You know,
>> roughly five or six feet off the top of my head. And >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um so I mean Matt I mean what was the outcome of of all the discussions thus far? Um was there any other stakeholders that
chimed in that they have a you know a solution or that there's guidance on what the solution is or or what what was what was the benefit of those those meetings? >> Not for the wetlands issue. um you know DP Wetlands sort of just said just keep
us surprised throughout the enforcement process and they'll help in any way they can. But I mean nobody's going to come up with a solution to this other than a hired engineer. Um part of you know part of having the site visit was having the way site cleanup
folks weigh in on whether contamination was going to be a big factor in whatever the solution would be for for the digging of the collapsed culvert. Um, so you know that on top of knowing now the dam has been inspected. That dam hadn't been inspected I think since the 90s.
Um, and it was a known, you know, kind of >> dam that wasn't in in great condition. So, um, so that was good. Um it from a regulatory standpoint was interesting having the different you know all of the different agencies there at the same
time all having their own sort of um enforcement or or regulatory actions on the property was um I think kind of important to have all that there at the same time to see the the scale of that. Um but yeah, strictly from a wetlands,
you know, wetlands protection standpoint, it's obviously the property is in the same condition roughly that it was um when work stopped. Um there's a need for a solution there. He has done, I would say, like 3/4 of
what was asked of him, you know, stopping work, putting up the barrier in Silt Sock, and coordinating that site visit. um or at least facilitating it. Um the only part that is not done at this point is having an engineer signed on to come up with a solution for this.
But again, he may be able to like an answer on on if he's made progress on that and also um condition of of >> that fence. That sounds like it might need some more work. comments from that.
>> Comments from the public. >> Did you say the applic? >> Yeah, he's on Zoom. He he couldn't be here. >> Brian, could you um did you hear everything that Matt had to say? And and is there anything that you'd like to add to the discussion?
>> Yes, I could hear everything. Um, you know, the only thing I guess I could add is, uh, I've reached, like you said, reached out to numerous engineers and, uh, the brief feedback I've gotten from them is a lot of them don't handle the
actual engineering, uh, the actual work. They're more consultants. So, um I should be able to at least get somebody or at least have an update by Friday on
getting somebody out there, but uh yeah, cuz I I did I did I guess uh I know we had like a two week time period to get all this all this checklist done. So, we did as much as we could and that site
visit um was a big uh moment to kind of assess everything and see what direction things were going in because with the dam safety uh people there and the engineers were were able to get uh
progress on that as well. They're they're going to be out for a phase one inspection and we're going to try to work with them um as well to see if if anything can be done, you know, downstream possibly. But we're still going the
route with getting an engineer to get in there and assess the situation to give us a diagnostic and obviously a price on what this is going to cost to uh to fix. So, we should be able to get somebody out there. I'm hoping, you know, fairly
soon, but uh the initial responses have been slow and uh I'm just going to have to stay on them and and get an update to Matt hopefully uh within the next couple days. >> Questions for Brian?
>> All right, Brian. So, so the intent of of the uh enforcement action that um that I had I had asked for was to make sure that we made forward progress. I think you've made progress. I don't think that you made 100% progress because you didn't. But I think that you
did make significant progress. There's a couple of things um that I' I'd like to discuss is um that fence if if you're using a pallet, pallets, you know, are attractive nuisances as well, right? It's almost like daring somebody to climb up and over it. And now it sounds
like you've got a a hazard where, you know, it's it's a it's a pond. So, take that very seriously. I'm going to ask you to to consider, you know, taking some um positive steps to make sure that no one can access that hole. Um because only bad things happen uh from that
perspective. So, I'm going to leave that up um leave that up to you to to uh take upon yourself because the liability is yours. Um but just understand the intent was to provide positive means of of preventing any attractants attractive
nuisances from uh gaining access to that area where you know detrimental effects could take place uh and it's a public safety um hazard there. So, um, as far as the PE is concerned, when do you anticipate that you'll be able to put
somebody under um under contract to to assist you with the corrective actions at this point? Um, because ultimately nothing's going to get done until you get an engineer to, you know, basically walk you through all the approvals that need to be done. And time is of the
essence here. So, what what do you think? Well, I'm I'm getting somebody out there, if not, you know, anytime I do anything, I'd like to get two or three people out there to be honest. And so, I mean, I don't have experience in this
field as far as how fast they turn this around, but I'm hoping um you know, if if I can get two or three people out there that we would be able to assess the situation and get a quote. I mean, based on working with other engineers on
other projects at the facility, they usually can turn around something within a couple weeks. So, um I should have a better like a better idea, I would think, within a week or two. >> Now, Matt, we're just to >> We're trying to we're trying to get
somebody out there ASAP, you know, as soon as possible. >> All right. But I just want you to be very clear on what the uh enforcement order said and I'm going to ask Matt to to correct me if I'm wrong, but the the language was to engage and put under contract, not to have a deliverable to us. Correct.
>> Correct. There was nothing for the only deliverable was the signing of a contract. >> Right. >> Yeah. It was this idea was the commission didn't want to mandate filing of an NOI or anything like that without
ha having more assessment done partially the assessment that was done with D um at that site in terms of whether there was a waste site cleanup issue or or something along those lines. Um but that is the next logical step in this is you
know you could tell somebody to sign a contract with an engineer but then if there's no set date for whatever the next steps are supposed to be. Um, so I mean I think if you wanted to you could continue this, you know, allowing him to come forward
with that without, you know, it's always tricky, right? The commission issues an EO. It says you have to do X, Y, and Z or we're going to find you. And you don't always do that, right? Sometimes if somebody, like you said, shows >> he showed forward three quarters of what you asked for is done and then even that last quarter there's been some effort
made. um you know, if you push this off for for two weeks or something along those lines, um I would just say that you would just sort of vote on modifying that language to suit just so that the EO is still relevant and just has the
date date changed on it. So whether you want that to be two weeks or a month is up to you. Um I don't know. I said I don't think anybody was there and thought like this site is at imminent risk of complete collapse
now. Um, but I don't know rainfall levels versus what the site conditions we saw. Like what is correlated there? Like if we get a 2in rainstorm in one day, are we going to have overland flow and scour
and sedimentation? Um, so that is I don't think you want this to drag on for for too long. >> I'll let me just kind of add a little bit something on that. Right. So if you have a hole that's underwater and you have, you know, this, I guess, vaulted
cover, right? And that water is now pooling up, it's going to find its way out somewhere. It's going to find the path of least resistance. Water moves to gravity and it's going to go sideways until it finds a spot. And then the longer it flows there, the more it takes
with it, right? >> So it can create problems as it's going through the the ground. And if it goes into another section and and we start underwashing that ground in that area, we open up another sinkhole. So time is
of the essence to to not rush to get this close, but to move forward in an expeditious manner with all the approval steps and taking all the right considerations. That's that's why the impetus was put on getting the engineer out there to start that process. We
didn't say get it done in two weeks. She said, "I'm get meet with these guys. Pick the one that you like. We need somebody on board so that we know that there's somebody steering that ship." So, from that perspective, I'm okay. Personally, I'm okay to giving him another two weeks to get that engineer
the last piece that he didn't fix before we talked about fines. But I do want to make it >> Yeah, we have an >> knowing that that's that's the intent. I'm we're giving you another two weeks to to rectify what you weren't able to achieve in the first two. good job on the first first uh two week effort.
Let's get there within the next two weeks and then after that we'll we'll adjust accordingly. I think if if everybody else is is fair uh accepts that then I think that that that would be a good good uh good outcome on the discussion. Um
>> perhaps do we hear a motion for it? So in that case, I think you'd be you'd be making a motion to continue this to the May 27th meeting and modifying the enforcement order requirement for the signed contract with an engineer,
changing that date to the day before. So be changing the date to May 26th. >> Okay. >> Is everybody comfortable with that? >> Mhm. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion for it? >> So um continue. >> Oh, go ahead. You do it. No, you do it. >> This is a motion to continue.
>> Motion to continue as he described with, you know, extending the the two week. >> I think you can wrap it all into one motion. >> Yeah. >> If you're not comfortable with that, you can do them as separate. I'll be here all night. >> At least until >> I'm not there. So, do we have a motion to continue this
to uh May 27th with the understanding that they will have engaged uh a PE u by May 26th >> and will they will provide us with documentation that they did bring an engineer on to assist with the repairs
here >> specifically a signed contract. Is that what I heard? >> We want to see a signed contract. Yeah, that's so we're just extending the previous EO to2526 and then we'll review it >> and discuss on the 7 27th. >> So is we accept that as a friendly amendment?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So we have a a motion by Brian. Do we have a second? Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Hearing none. So we'll uh we'll continue. >> Thanks Brian. Thank you Brian.
>> Thank you. Okay. 19 Bla Drive continued from an earlier date. Um Matt, will you uh bring us up to speed? >> Um yes. And since I don't recall how many times we've discussed this, I will
just kind of read from this here. Um, April 9th, EO was issued under KWPR and WPA, and four separate $300 fines were issued um to the property owner.
Fines were for clearing of trees and vegetation, destabilization of soil through stump and root removal, importation of fill, improper sight stabilization. the EOS mandate fulls sight stabilization by April 22nd engaging PE review uh to install ESC and
submitting a habitat that was also by April 22nd submitting a habitat restoration plan by May 28th 2026 to be discussed June 10th um which they may also file an application for any desired work um we got the first two dealt with
uh we have full sight stabilization now last time I talked with you uh there was a plan where we had the the engineer had reviewed the site, made recommendations, and there was an expectation that he the property owner was going to be home to do the work. Um, we have since received
a signed stamped letter from Paul Bragna, of Cos Engineering, that all of the erosion control was installed per his recommendations. Um the silt fence was fixed being dug in the ground and the extra silt sock was run across and it feels now the site is more or less
stable um from a wetlands protection standpoint. Um so we have that now. So we're good with those. Um the habitat restoration plan requirement is until May 28th. Um so the expectation is that would be discussed June 10th. So, we'll
continue this to June 10th and hopefully we get the plan in time for that. >> Okay. We'll open up comments uh first to the commission. Any comments from Matt? Questions to the general public. Is there any uh anyone who wants to be
heard on this? All right. Hearing none. Um so, it sounds like Matt would like a continuence to um June 10th. Do I hear a motion? >> So, I'll make that motion. >> Motion by Maryland. Do I hear a second? Second >> second by Dot. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed.
>> Hearing none. Passes five to zero to continue to um June 10th. >> All right. Update. 17 Old Orchard Lane admin approval, please. Matt. >> Uh yet another administrative approval of a tree removal at 17 Old Orchard
Lane. Um, again, it's an invasive species. It had damage. Um, it is within striking distance of structure. Had no issue with it. So, same thing as before. No stump grinding.
We're expecting an NOI to be filed on the property uh for raise rebuild and any of the stumps or any other those types of issues as well as planting of uh native tree species in lie of will be
included in that. >> Okay. Any questions from Matt? >> All right. Uh what about agent updates on ongoing projects? Uh I think I emailed this flyer to the commission um from uh town planner Belmard. Uh there's
a resilience project for the Adena or the Harbor Masters area. Uh public meeting May 21st right here in this room from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Uh it's a formal presentation and Q&A starting at 6:00 with posters
available for comments and informal discussion with the project team. Um this is a uh grant-f funed project uh that Val has been taking charge on uh through office of coastal zone management's coastal resilience grant program. Uh we
have Woods whole group and Collins engineers uh doing a lot of work assessing the vulnerability of the site. Um they want to do some work to the site. They wanted to raise the warf up uh to be out of the you know flood area
that it really floods uh I would say frequently at this point. Um and potentially in the future make modifications to the harbor master building as well. Um, so this does a lot of the early design work in figuring out uh what the vulnerabilities of the site
are and what the best solutions would be for being able to keep the site useful going forward into the future with sea level rise. Um, so just this is something intended for the public to show up and see all this stuff and uh provide comments. Um, and the commissioners might be might be
interested in that as well. Um, beyond that, I'll be pretty brief. um falling behind a little bit on on upkeep of conservation properties. I have zero tax work off people this year working on
trails. Um my intern from Carver High School is done on Friday. Um and our volunteer stewardship program is still stagnating. Um and we're pretty well buried by uh permitting stuff as this
agenda uh shows. So, like I went to Blackwater today just briefly just to kind of walk the perimeter and check on the restoration and had to do kind of a lot of u you know brush you know a lot of down branches and it's just trash and
other things that I think um I don't know we need help but um open space committee's been getting more active and starting to do a lot more like site cleanups and planning of of things which is great um but just in general I don't have the same level of support that I've had in past years of just people that
are willing to go around and just like just check for trash and obvious issues and let us know when there's some issues with the trails. Um when I was at Blackwater, somebody had taken rip wrap, which I I hate that we have
rip wrap there, but that's a side note. They had taken rip wrap and uh sort of legoed it in on the the stop stop log wear, the notched wear. Um and then muck and sticks had packed up against that and the water level of the the
retaining, you know, whatever you want to call it, the reservoir there, uh was back about to what it was before we started this project, which is pretty aggravating. Um it didn't look like kids to me like it could have been. Um, but it just sort of seemed like the armchair biology that we sometimes deal with when
we do a dam removal or some of these sites and people complain about what it was like before and say we don't know what we're doing. Um, it I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it kind of stunk with that. So, I took the time to undo it. Um, and hope that I don't have to do
that again. Um, the site is stabilizing pretty well. Um, it's tough when you're trying to get any areas that are hydro seated established. I mean that was hydro seated in like August >> and they're hydro seated again in the in the late fall. But when we can't put water on anything, we're just left to
whatever nature wants to provide and and often it doesn't. Um but I I still think in general I didn't see any issues of erosion. It's just there are some areas a little sparer than I would like. Um and I might need to put out some sort of ropes at the entrance because I think people are cutting across and the seed's
never going to come in if we just step all over the whole area. So things like that. Um, I just find that every time I go to a property, there's something like that. Um, I got a a call from somebody who is adjacent to Marshall Joyce Wildlife Sanctuary that was pretty
aggravated with me cuz they had called to say that there were a bunch of trees that have been knocked around by the winter. Um, and there was a family connection, you know, to to the property having been, you know, sold or donated to the town. >> Um, and I hadn't gone out to look at it
and I still haven't. It's been weeks since I got >> They wanted you to look it down, but they wanted me to get it taken care of. They wanted me to get the trees dealt with. Um, Marshall Joyce, we call it a wildlife sanctuary. There's no parking area. You can park at Mllikans and walk
over, but there's no, you know, there's no sidewalk or anything, so it's just up up to you to do that. But there's one small trail. >> It's I I think it's a half acre. It's it's a it's essentially a house lot that leads up to the salt marsh. It's a cool property for what it is. It's a wildlife
sanctuary. Its intent from my sort of understanding of it is it's its main intent is to provide habitat for wildlife. Um, and it's not really managed as something that like >> gets a lot of foot traffic in use. Um, I don't know if that was the original intent, but as it being called a
wildlife sanctuary and and >> there was no intent to make trails or anything. >> Yeah. So, there's sort of like an unofficial trail just from the road out to Salt Marsh. Um, but really I I don't just I could by the street there's a lot of plantation spruce right under the
power lines and my hope was at some point the tree the power line company was just going to take care of that for us. Um, I can make a call on it but it's just I don't know there's things like that with with a lot of our properties now. Um, and I'm just getting a little stressed that on the public side of
things that maybe people will start to complain about that type of stuff. For me, we have a $5,000 a year land management budget for probably roughly 2,000 acres. So, do the math. Um, we don't have the money to contract anything. Our staff is mostly bottled up
with with permitting issues and not able to just get out there, hey, let's get the saws and go do stuff today. Um, so it is it's getting difficult, but I guess my point on that is even at its
worst, they're still doing their job. They may be less delightful as recreational facilities to people if they don't have a certain appearance or level of maintenance. Um, but no matter what, they're still providing a place that she can get out
to. Um, and that wildlife can use and they can provide air for us to breathe. So, that's I guess having difficulty having all this stuff reach the level that I would like them to be at. I don't want them all to be super maintained, you know, parks,
>> manicured. No, >> but as far as, you know, trails, like all of our trails being maintained. >> I wanted to do a big project this winter at Bay Farm because our ability to to knock the shrubs back off the trails is non-existent now. The stuff has grown too far out. Every week it grows back
in. I had somebody lined up to go in there with a bobcat with one of those big masticating heads and the weather just >> like I said, nature doesn't want to play nice with us on this stuff. So, I >> couldn't do the job physically. So that's one more year that we we aren't
able to keep that property really open to the public the way that we should. Um so we have issues with that kind of stuff and if anybody has um thoughts on that sometime let me know. Or if you have people who are interested in just even just having people a lot of
our stewardship program is people that just let us know where they've been and what they've seen like, hey, I went to Silver Lake Sanctuary this weekend and the trail over here is blocked by a tree or that sort of stuff. Like I have no idea. I don't get to go out to our properties very often. Like I wish I
did. I'm stuck at my computer all the time now and like I'm not out there. We don't see these places. So, just to have people walk them and there's a whole QR code system to just like scan it with your phone and type in anything relevant that you saw. Even if it was, hey, it was great. This area looks good. Then at
least that's like, okay, we know that if we have somebody who wants to do some work, we're not sending them there. Um, so if you know anybody who's interested in that stuff, let me know. It is something that we're going to work on promoting more over time and working on. We just haven't been able to get there. That's all I got.
And we didn't hit 10 o'clock. >> Wait, a lot of other grant funed stuff stuff going on. I'm just not going to get into it because it's been a long day. >> Good job. Thanks. Closing remarks. Next meeting will be
held on May 27th, 2026 starting at 6:30 p.m. The time is now 9:05. Uh, do I hear a motion to adjourn? So move >> by Megan, second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed? hearing none. You are ajourned.
Thank you.