I don't expect to >> I got mic. The time is now 6:30. The date is Wednesday, June 10th, 2026. Commissioner Vendetti is absent. Um, we will take a roll call to start the
meeting. Jim Franklin is here. Megan Hickey >> here. >> Kina V. Do McFarland? >> Yes. >> Marilyn Kosidori >> here. >> Brian Payne >> here. We will now go to the meeting. Uh, 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 comments during the public hearing, please use the raise a 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 able. Anyone intending to make a audio or video recording of this meeting should notify the chair at this time. Hearing
none announcements. The Kingston Conservation Commission is still seeking a new member. Commissioners are responsible for protecting the town's natural resources, including through enforcement of state and local wetland protection laws. Those interested should reach out to
conservation department by calling 781-58537 or emailing Matt Paneller at mpn l at kingstonmma.gov. Signing documents. Matt, will you brief us on what needs to be signed?
>> Yep. We have uh the permits that were approved at the last meeting, including the DOA for West Street parking area for Henrich. Uh DOA for one North Street gate installation and the forge pond
fish passage restoration OC's. And we had two bills, forestry supplier for land management supplies and nutrient a solutions for herbicide. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, I will now continue a public meeting to discuss two requests for certificates of compliance
for 18 Old Mill Road submitted by Steinbeck and Taylor in regards to the orders of conditions issued to Craig Shul under D file numbers 037-0653 and 037-0772 for construction of two additions and an
attached garage on a single family home within 100 foot buffer zone to um the BVW and the 200 foot riverfront area. Um Matt, the applicant has agreed to a continuence to June 24th. Is that accurate?
>> Yeah, we had an update that um the downspout had been installed correctly. Um but that the the dumping behind the shed was still something they were working on. >> All right. Do I hear a motion to continue to June 24th? >> Some moved.
>> Second. We have a motion by Brian, second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed? >> Abstained. All right. Motion carries. Five to zero. I will now continue a public meeting to
discuss the request for determination of applicability for 18 Old Mill Road submitted by Steinbeck and Taylor on behalf of Craig Shu. Is this a duplicate? >> No, the second one's an RDA. The first one's an RC.
>> Oh, okay. All right. um submitted by Steinbeck and Taylor on behalf of Craig Shu for construction of a shed within the 100 foot buffer zone to BBW and 200 foot riverfront area. Um the applicant has agreed to a continuence of June 24th as well. Do I
hear a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right, we have motion by Brian, second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I opposed. >> Abstained. Right. That motion passes 5 to zero. I will now continue a public meeting to
discuss the request for certificate of compliance submitted by Beiel and Thomas on behalf of the permit recipient Adam Shoemaker for construction of a dual use agriculture and solar array system within existing cranberry bogs at 126
Ring Road D file number 037-0890 and 131 and 137 Ring Road D file number 03 37-0889. As these projects are very similar and closely connected, the commission will discuss both requests at the same time.
However, questions or concerns related specifically to only one of these requests may also be brought forward. Matt, will you uh give us a briefing, please? >> Yep. We're waiting on a few things from the applicant before issuance of the COC's. Um, we received a few of those
this week. uh they put out the erosion control straw waddle in the requested location and they provided a um you know property ownership guide sort of an update to that O andM plan we were talking about but it still doesn't have the information uh for emergency
response of battery storage system fires. Uh they're working on that. They said they were um contacting the the battery manufacturer to get some information on that to provide All right. Uh, we'll open it up to
commissioner discussion. Um, anybody have any questions from that? >> All right. Is there a representative? >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Um, anyone from the public like to be heard?
>> Nope. >> All right. All right. Matt, what's the uh recommendation here? I would just continue it to June 24th. Um I would hope they wouldn't take terribly long putting something like this together. They were pretty
responsive with the rest of it. Um but I'll send a follow-up email in between just to see if they can come up with something. Okay. >> All right. Do I hear a motion to continue to June 24th? >> Some move. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Brian, second by Marilyn. All those in favor
say I. I. >> Opposed. >> All right. That motion carries uh carries 5 to zero to continue to June 24. >> And is that for both of them >> since we're discussing them together? >> Yeah, we we were discussing them both.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right, Matt, let's jump into enforcement. Um, actually, hang on a sec. Do we have continuences for meetings? >> You mean for hearings? >> For hearings, sorry.
>> Um I would say probably best just to jump into the first enforcement item and come back to hearing. um enforcement. Um we will speak about
51 Main Street continued from an earlier date. Matt, can you give us a briefing? >> Yeah. Um and I'll pull up. So, we got an email from property owner with a ECR uh wetland
delineation memo. Um ECR went out on May was it May 28th? ECR went out and located BBW, IBW, and 100 foot buffer zone on
the property. They provided a sketch overlay which I will pull up on the screen in a second. So, here's a property right here. Can you see that
in the middle? Probably can't see the cursor all that well. So, you have wetlands sort of right behind the property right here and then you have another wetland further out back um more
on the adjacent property. One of the things that I was concerned with from our view of the site was the area of recently installed grass towards the rear of the property um was pretty squishy when we were out there in
the spring. And so one of the things that I wanted to make sure was looked at was, you know, poke a couple holes in there and and see if wetlands were filled in the process. Um and I have not spoken with Brad about this. I really have not fully uh dived into the
contents of this wetland delineation memo, but I did briefly look at this uh you know sort of GIS overlay and saw that the flags are closer to the edge of the um gravel area behind the behind the
driveway. Um and they seem to go right through that grass area. So it to me gives the appearance that wetlands were filled in the making of that lawn area. So, one of the things we were looking to get out of this was
what was done, what work was jurisdictional, what work was not. Um, based on based on having this now, we can we can start to put that information together. Um, you know, I had sort of two ways the commission could go with something like this. you could continue
it just to give my office more time to review this and come up with detailed step by step on it, but um it's pretty clear at this point where the wetlands are and where the 100 foot buffer zone
extends to. Um and the commission could easily issue an enforcement order mandating restoration of the wetlands and retroactive permitting or retrospective permitting of anything that was done here. uh within jurisdiction.
So that's what I got. >> All right. Is the applicant here? >> I don't see them today. They've been here um typically. I don't recall if I said anything by email about whether they could or couldn't be here tonight. >> All right, we'll open it up for
discussion. Anyone have any questions for Matt? Thoughts on um few different paths set for us? um either to continue to next meeting to give Matt uh time to um put
together a detailed enforcement plan or um we could uh issue an EEO mandating a submission of a restoration plan um and permitting for the unpermitted work that was completed. What's what's a
thought on those two paths? Well, it sounds like Matt was comfortable moving on that you you feel you have the information you need as far as the delineation jurisdictional areas. >> Yeah, I think um you know, give me two
more weeks and I'll put it all in writing for you and have in front of you what I think everything should say and the way it should go. But I mean point of enforcement is is to get compliance to get restoration to protect the wetlands from you know detrimental
effects. We know now from this that you know wetlands were filled therefore restoration is is required there. Um, >> is there any detriment to moving forward to the second path, issuing the EO to get this process started? And I mean,
after that, it's it's a back and forth mostly between you and um you and them documenting, you know, what what they submitted and um and Brad would walk them through with, you know,
a restoration plan based on back and forth review. I I suspect, correct? >> Yeah, I would say the only I'd say the only tricky thing I'm trying to zoom in on this now just there we go. I would say the only tricky thing with handling it the second way would be so obviously
in this yellow area here you would want that area at a minimum to be restored. Some of the area beyond that was area that was modified without a permit. So,
you're either going to get that permitted or probably you would be required to restore that area as well. Um, so there's there's simply issuing something now. You'd have to I think be a little tricky with the wording so that you're
not accused later of just piling on later with things that weren't discussed before. So, >> obviously the wetland itself should be restored. Everything else that's unpermitted should either be permitted retrospectively or included in restoration activities.
>> Sounds like the cleaner path is give you two weeks and you can come back with a >> finish. >> I think that's the cleanest way just to make sure that we can >> have everything clean. >> Is that enough for us >> tonight? All right. >> Also, the wetland's already filled, so it's not like
>> it's not a pile that needs to >> two weeks is going to make a big difference in in this. >> All right. Do I hear? So I would make the motion to continue it for what Matt? Two weeks in a minute of June >> June 24th. >> June 24th. >> I'll second. >> All right. We have a motion by Marilyn,
second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. >> Abstain. All right. That motion carries to continue to June 24th 5. >> All right, we'll move on. All right, you could hit hearings now if
you want. >> Section A, Baker Avenue, map 58, lot 20 um 92-6. Notice of intent. I will now continue a hearing for a notice of intent for the proposed construction of a single family home with a driveway, garage deck, roof,
water infiltration system, drinking water, well, utilities, grading, and landscaping all within the 100 ft buffer zone to a BVW and the 200t riverfront area to an intermittent stream on Baker Avenue.
Matt, could you give us a briefing? >> Yeah. Uh, we have really nothing on this. Um the last time we've had correspondence on this was early April I think. >> Um we had a letter to the commission um
requesting a continuence back in April saying that um they had tenatively identified a consultant to assist in preparing materials. Um but the consultant has proposed a schedule of approximately eight weeks to complete the necessary work. Um so they were
requesting a 60-day continuance to allow sufficient time Um, and I I haven't heard back since. Did I forget what we did back then, Matt? Did we
>> continue 60 days and this is the end of it? It doesn't seem like we're at 60. >> Yeah, cuz that was April. >> Okay. All of April and all of May, right? Have we heard anything about um Are they here tonight? >> I don't see anybody here for that. And I
um do they >> haven't heard anything. I didn't get any emails. I didn't reach out. >> I Yeah, I haven't reached out to them, but I didn't have any followup. >> Right. So, they knew that they had a meeting tonight. Correct. >> Well, they requested
>> That's That's what I'm trying to understand. >> Give me a second then. Let me Just trying to find confirmation if we reached back out to him and confirmed by email that it was
for tonight. Yeah, we have an email to them on April 9th morning after the meeting. Good morning. I'm writing to let you know that the Kingston Conservation Commission voted last night to continue the Baker Ravi public hearing to June 10th, 2026. >> Okay. All right. So they were notified.
>> There's no response to that email. >> Not that I have saved. Thanks. >> We'll open up for discussion. Um any comments from the public? Open it up to the commission for discussion. Essentially, we're at a point where they
requested 60 days. we um they haven't been in contact since. I think there was gaping holes in this. We gave them some more time to get things together. I think personally my my feeling is that we deny based on lack of information and
if they want to come back they can they can come back with cleaner process. That's my take. >> Deny without prejudice. >> Yep. Well, there's only one way to deny. >> Well, >> yeah. for for the record at least our guidance from council before has been like that doesn't really mean anything
with wetlands law but it's nice to say >> nice sure >> yeah I've heard it before as well um >> anyone disagree with that >> all right >> do I hear a motion to deny based on lack of
>> I'll make that motion motion to deny based on lack of information >> um Matt does that give you what you need >> you want to Did you close? >> Okay. Sorry. >> Do I hear a motion? >> Sorry. First closing. >> Motion by Brian to close. Second by Megan.
>> All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstain. >> All right. We close the meeting. >> Do I hear a motion? >> Um one way or another on the uh on the denial. >> I will make that motion to deny it for lack of information. Second.
>> All right. Ma Matt, is that enough for your purposes for the denial? Do you need anything? >> I think that's fine. I mean, it's it's failure to meet the burden of proof. >> Um, it's really the same same concept as far as I'm concerned. >> All right. So, we have a motion by
Marilyn, second by Megan. All those in favor, >> I'm sorry, a second by Dot. Um, all those in favor of issuing the denial, >> I uh oppose. Sorry, I'm an I. opposed. Abstain. All right. So, that that motion
passes to deny the application. Um, Matt, do you need anything else from us on that one? We did. Nope. Okay. We'll move on to section B 18 Smith Lane, Map 67, Lot 82-1, notice of intent. We'll now continue a hearing for the notice of intent submitted by
Southshore Survey on behalf of Ronald Vernazaro for the proposed construction of a single family house with associated utilities within the 100 foot buffer zone to inland wetland resource areas and the 200t riverfront area. The
applicant has agreed to a continuence of uh till June 24th. >> Do we is there any do you want anything to discuss? This was I mean it was essentially a a complete refile um but
we continued it before so we did get the updated materials um on June 4th um so we'll we'll be able to review those in time before the next meeting. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion? >> Motion to continue June 24th. >> All right. We have a motion by Brian, second by Marilyn. All those in favor
say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Abstain. All right. So motion to continue to June 24th carries 5. Thought we had one more. No, >> no, only two here. >> All right, we're going to go move back
to enforcement actions. We're on 19 Blade Drive, correct? >> Yes. >> All right, continue from an earlier date. Matt, could you bring us up to speed? 19 Blade Drive. Yes. Um so to
backtrack on this, uh there was an EO issued um mandating stabilization of the property. Um and a restoration plan being submitted. um property owner at at this point had been
in compliance with um all parts of the EO other than filing of a restoration plan. Um the restoration plan did not get in on time as far as the EO is concerned, but it was in my office um
several days ago. So I was able to do a you know take a quick flip through it before this meeting and at least tell the commission that it is here. um they are working simultaneously on an NOI filing um for the intended end use of the property and uh replacement of a
revetment wall. Um so we do now have um the restoration plan in hand. I did take a quick flip through it before this meeting in case again the commission wanted to take um quicker action. Um
similar thing to the last one. If you want to give my office more time to review and make sure we get every little condition right, that's fine. Uh, but we were able to look through enough um to provide some guidance for the commission on it. It I don't I sent it out, you
know, to the commissioners for review. I can pull it up here if people want to see it up here now. Uh it essentially um restores you know roughly the 30 foot buffer zone to um to the coastal bank.
It has sort of an inner zone of uh dune grass and seaside golden rod and then an outer zone of coastal salt tolerant shrubs and a coastal salt tolerant grass seed mix. Um, so if the commission wants to move
forward with modifying the EO to ensure that gets done and done quicker, um, we can do that. However, it's kind of a terrible time of year to be doing that type of work anyways for success's sake. Um,
>> we stabilized by >> site has been stabilized. So, there's really no rush on issuing anything here. Um, but again, I could guide the commission through what I think we would need for for conditions on that. Um, there's just really, I don't think, a
need for for a short timeline on getting that done anyways because we're in now the pretty much hottest time of year or we're about to enter it. So, >> yeah. >> So, better chance for success long term
is is a little bit more time. better chance for success with a longer timeline, making sure the work gets done by the fall with enough time for us to force action if action isn't taken
without having to run into the oh, it's winter now, uh, which we run into on some others. So, I think there's nothing wrong with taking an extra two weeks just to make sure that, um, my quick skim review didn't miss something. I hate when we issue enforcement orders
and realize that we missed something like it didn't include monitoring on the on the plan or things like that. So, um, again, the site is stabilized, so I don't think there's a huge need for rush now. >> All right, we'll open up for discussion.
Anyone from the public like be heard? >> We'll open for the commissioners discussion. Um, given what Matt said, anybody have any reservation about waiting two weeks? All right. Do I hear a motion? >> Um, make a motion to continue June 24th.
>> So, we have a motion to continue June 24th by Brian, seconded by Megan. All those in favor say I. >> Opposed. >> Abstained. All right. That motion carries. Five to zero. Um, just really quickly, I think Six
Prospect Street is the next thing on the agenda. I got an email from Brian this evening that um, he was coaching and should be wrapped up around 7:30. So, if you want to go out of order, there's at least a chance that he might be on. Um,
and if not, >> well, let's walk. Um we'll go to 41 East Avenue. Um Matt, you have an update for us? >> Yeah. So on May 26, um just for for
everybody's bearings, um this is a property with a knockdown rebuild. Um that had been permitted years ago by the commission. The permit expired. They had to refile. I believe it was last year the OC's were issued. Um
on May 26th we observed soil stockpiles. Um and I just thought that doesn't look right. Willing to bet you're not supposed to be stockpiling on this property. Went back and looked at the OC's and the plan of
record. Um and the soil was stockpiled in the velocity zone not far from the coastal bank. uh uncovered and the orders of conditions had specific uh special conditions regarding no stockpiling of soil in the
velocity zone. All stock piles must be covered and you know contained. Um and there was one other erosion controls, construction fencing, construction entrance, stockpiles and storage areas shall be maintained and properly secured at all times throughout
the duration of the project in order to pre prevent the release of pollution or debris to the resource areas. Extra consideration shall be given to securing the construction area prior to forecasted storm events and prior to forecasted exceptionally high tides and surf. Um the existing erosion controls
the silt sock at the site was pretty haggarded as well. Um it's been out there for a while. It's been you know looked like dinged a couple times by equipment. Um so really in general um sort of a lack of what you want out of
sight conditions. um and pretty clear that there was not extra consideration being taken. Uh so we we emailed over a quick notice of violation. Um I believe actually when we were there the first time the property owner was there and came out and talked to us and I asked him to provide any information he had
for us on whether or not that was okay and um and whatnot. And so we'd already spoken to him about it. So, we sent an NOV. Uh, the contractor sent an email over saying, "Hey, is it okay if we cover it with a tarp, you know, and I followed up with a series of
questions like, "Were you given a copy of the odor conditions?" And, "Were you on site today when it rained and can you speak to the site conditions?" And I got no response from the contractor. Um, but we did get a follow-up from the property owner after that. Um,
let's see. The next day, uh, on the 29th, we received, um, email photos of tarps over the stockpile with stones holding the tarps down, stones and pallets. Um, and
then we did get, we went to the site on June 3rd ourselves, just we sort of went in adjacent to the property just to give a quick look at the site. Um, again, I didn't see any obvious evidence of sediment release. It was very close to the coastal bank. Very
likely that if you had a storm that sediment would reach the bay, but I did not see any direct evidence that that has happened, which is good. Um, and then we did get an update, I believe yesterday, from the property owner that they had added uh hay bales as well to
the pile and said that the pile should be backfilled within a week or two. This was a thing where they were working on where the pilings are going to go to support building. Um, so piles are still
there where they're not supposed to be, but they covered them up at least. >> Where should the piles be? Is it clear on the plan? >> The velocity zone is detailed on the plan. Okay. >> To put it, I guess, >> shortly, there's not much room. It's a
tough site. It's a very small site with a pretty big house to lot ratio. >> Um so it will be one that is >> problematic. >> Was a stockpiling allowed or did we did did we specifically exclude it in that
condition? >> It was excluded in the velocity zone which takes up a good portion of the site. >> So realistically they have a small little footprint. probably not practicable to put it there and it's it's a if you can't if you can put it there fine but otherwise you can't put
it in any of the vis zones right >> they if I remember correctly they own the property next door correct >> correct >> is there was there discussion about stock filing on that property part of the >> it may even be partially on that
property already um but again in the you um very close to the coastal bank and in the Vzone. So whether they could have piled it elsewhere on the property without being in the Vzone probably um
you know between the two properties or something along those lines. I'm not sure. >> Matt, what I I don't recall and I didn't look at the um I didn't I didn't look at the what we had approved. What was in this underneath this pile here where we're so close to the postal bank? what
was supposed to be there ultimately? Do you remember what we approved? Was that mitigation area? I mean, are they doing work in that zone or did they just bury everything that wasn't supposed to be touched? Do we know? I mean, based on now that I'm
looking at our little plan subset, the M I I I think most or all of the stockpiling is likely on the property at 37, which they also own. Um, so as far as what is supposed
to be there, I think this portion is just their back lawn, but it does border up to uh mitigation plantings that were installed. Um, mitigation plantings were installed on top of Coastal Bank at 37
and 41 East Street uh when the revetment wall was was rebuilt. Um, so, >> uh, corrective actions. Do you have recommendations? >> Always up to the commission. Um,
it's just there's been sort of a slew of stuff like this lately where we're issuing permits and people aren't following them. So, it doesn't really matter how carefully we craft our conditions. When it comes down to actual compliance with permit conditions, it's what do you mean
I'm not in compliance? or where does it say that? Um, so >> you you >> last two pages >> you mentioned there was a failure to meet to discuss pre-work requirements.
>> We had a pre-work notice, right? In condition >> that might have helped to avoid some of this. >> I'm not 100% on this one because this one was a little this one was a little >> different on the other East Street property. tonight. We have that on this
one. That's entirely possible because this was a multi-step process, but because there was a new permit, we probably should have had a new one, and I don't know that we did. Um, but there had already been a pre-work site visit, there already was
erosion control out there. Um, and we may have done one since we since we issued this permit. I apologize. I didn't double check on this one because again this one the the work here has been going on almost since I started here. >> Oh wow. This lot's been cleared on. >> Yeah. And we we had a similar issue here
with the previous contractor that was doing the reventment work back. >> Well, this was the lot with the tree. >> Yes. >> All right. Is there anyone from the public wants to be heard on this? >> Um did you sign in? >> I did not. >> All right. There's a sign in form,
please. Uh and then identify yourself, name and address before you start. >> Hi, my name is Kevin Dan. I'm the contractor over at 41 staff. >> Kevin >> Dalan. >> Do >> uh Shawn Dalan a company. Just here to
follow up on the enforcement to to confirm we had our, as Matt was saying, we did have a site meeting, pre-work meeting. um well over a year ago. So can speak to why it's been a little foggy just because we started the project ran into soil conditions what we thought we were
supposed to have based upon the boring. So we had to rego back and redesign the structural uh foundation for it which led us to micro piles which is why where we are today with a stockpile of material on the side just to clear space for that micro pile installation. And
you are correct. It's on their other property, not necessarily on 41E East a cuz we're using that entrance just to get the vehicles down to the project. Um, we did cover the stock piles as you mentioned with tarps, put out additional bales of hay just to make sure we did
everything in our power. I do apologize we didn't follow through with the orders and conditions and pick up on the not have any stock piles in the velocity zone. And to Matt's point, the majority of 41 East is in that velocity zone. And
one of the places you could potentially stockpile it is where you could only access the property at that point. So we did our best to keep them small and keep them off to the side, not taking care of, you know, not ruining any of the plantings or anything we did for the
revetment of the seaw wall. >> Did you receive a copy of the orders and conditions? >> Yep. >> Did you review them? >> Yep. And it states in it in black and white that no no stockpiling in the velocity zone. >> Any questions?
>> All right. We might we might ask some questions, but >> I I don't know. He had said that they ran into soil issues and had to switch to micro pile. Is that what we have on dial >> as far as the the work >> for what they were approved for? >> Sounds like a change. >> The there were again there were multiple
changes on this property because there was first there was something about um couple of years ago about changing the the pile design, but that I believe that that's something we dealt with after. >> Did we amend conditions at all?
>> Did we see >> Didn't change any of the for the record, didn't change any of the footprint or locations. It was all substrate under the building. >> It's that's not the question. The question is, is it if we approved one thing and you guys changed your project and the setup is different that should
have come back as something that would have been reviewed and an amendment issued if it would if it was required and if it was a simple amendment or if it was a cardinal change then it might require any final >> understood. So that's the the nature of the question I believe.
>> Yes. If that was what we approved or not because I can't remember I remember this project. I just don't remember all the details. Just give me a second. I'm digging through. >> Yeah. Yeah, we had emails in September
on on the micro piles, but I'm trying to find the original discussion on it. If we had Buzz here, he'd remember I don't have anything post OC's on that but that may have been discussed during
>> how long have we been >> involved with this project? Uh not in the early days, just once uh orders and conditions got issued and at that point Ben and I started talking about getting going on the project and do you have any knowledge that might be
helpful during this discussion right as we have it right right now about um providing any um document updated documentation for the new design? I did not personally provide any updated structural drawings for the to the
conservation commission for the project. I worked with the building department once we ran into the soil conditions and worked with them and what do we need to do to take that next step and once we got that redesigned we went with the
building department talked through it and then they gave us the go ahead to continue on. >> Right. Why don't you walk us through what the changes are so that we'd understand the difference between what we approved and um what you guys started building so that we can understand. >> Absolutely.
>> So what we originally was approved was >> concrete pier foundation um and if my memory's right 16 concrete peers with a continuous grade beam connecting all those peers together. Um once >> excavation for that you would just be
digging too much. >> We'd be digging down at that point. The structural engineering and plans called for approximately 8 ft in some areas to get the necessary everything we needed for the grade beam and all the structural components to work out. And
>> so the hole would be 8 ft deep. Correct. What would the width and length of the trench be if you needed? Uh the grade beams themselves are 2 ft by 2 ft in dimension by in one case sorry I don't have the plans right in front of me but
the width of the house along the seaw wall might be 31 ft 34 ft somewhere. So one grade beam would be that width and then you would have five concrete peers coming out of that gray beam at a dimension of 2 ft by 2 ft as well to the desired elevation. So the
finished floor was approximately at 19. >> And you would just have those at the front and rear walls or >> that would be there would be four rows of those to hold up the home and then the framing would connect everything to those peers at that point. >> Right. So there was serious excavation. >> Correct. There'd be you could in theory
trench it as one big hole >> or you have to trench it in rows um to accomplish it. >> I I would say that based on the OC's you would wouldn't be digging one big hole but like >> correct. We did not dig one big hole. No. Because >> so so if did that
>> now we've understood the excavation what the original plan what's the >> so upon digging uh we or upon digging we realized that the soil conditions were not what we anticipated based upon the bore samples from the soil engineers
>> meaning specifically you didn't >> specifically as we were digging we were hitting boulders and big rip wrap and moving water if you will from just ground water running towards out to the ocean. Um so at that point we realized it was not viable and safe to continue
on with the current plan to do the foundation as it was designed and planned based upon those soil engineers. So we stopped and had to regroup. got back with that soil engineer, relayed what we discovered as upon digging and
then at that point they recommend us moving towards micro piles because of the situation in that condition. And microp piles at that point are 5in steel casings that get bored into the ground and then bedrock into the
bedrock and uh grouted so that they are in bedrock getting >> drilled. Drilled. Yep. they are drilled and then at that point the only change in what was already drawn was we're now adding we added micro piles into that grade beam of the foundation
because those micro piles are giving us that connection to earth so we don't move we have all of the strength that we need and other >> so you did pour the >> the micro piles are >> not yet we're forming the gray beam but the the micro piles are drilled into the ground as you mentioned
>> piles underneath the >> and then the gray beam encapsulates those micro piles so they're never to be seen again at that point because they're going into the ground varying from 9 to 14 ft if you will to once you hit that bedrock and you have that solid contact
and that just gives the soil the conditions it needs to hold the building up stably or stable >> it's holding the the pier the grade beam >> exactly everything's all now interconnected so in order to move it you'd have to remove a whole chunk of the earth all at once if you will for lack of a better word
>> so essentially Just just to state it again, the grade beam didn't change. Correct. Gears didn't change. Correct. All you did was you before you installed any of that. You guys basically gave it a foundation by driving piles. >> That is correct. >> So um back to the original question, the
original excavation was set for a certain scale and with the orders of the conditions as they were written, you were not allowed to stockpile in certain areas. >> Correct. The excavation doesn't sound like it changed unless I'm I'm misunderstanding something because they
needed to get a pile driver in someplace. What what what do I need to know about that? Why do why do we have piles stored where they shouldn't be? >> Uh we have piles stored where they shouldn't be because we made the mistake of storing the piles there.
>> All right. Sure. >> All right. Any questions? >> Are you saying um A grade B G >> grade. Yeah. >> Oh, grade. >> Yeah, >> thank you. >> G. >> I'm not an engineer. Sorry. >> Yeah.
>> So, just for clarification, I issued a minor change letter in 2022. Um because originally this was permitted requiring wood pilings and because of the
shallow uh ledge there they were requiring to do concrete piles and I didn't think that that was significant. You know >> roughly the same but I think I don't have anything else since then in terms
of changes doesn't mean it didn't happen. It might just be in my email and I didn't save it to file. >> Yeah. The intent back, the original intent was dig down to bedrock um because the soil engineers did bore samples back when um and they
anticipated hitting bedrock at a certain depth. So that the structural engineering was designed that you excavate 8-ish feet, which is a lot more dirt than what you could see out there now, to get to that bedrock so they could pin the foundation footing to said
bedrock. And once we realized the conditions just would be unsafe and not practical whatsoever, it's that's why we shift to those gears. >> Now, Matt, as far as the site, you know, all I saw was the pictures. Uh you've been on site. Um is this stable?
>> I don't know. I mean certainly having having it tarped healthy with the issue before really regardless of velocity is you get a big enough rainstorm and that pile or
portion of it ending up in the ocean. Um there was really nothing sufficient to stop that from happening until it was covered. Um now that it's covered, sure. I mean, if you got a good enough storm, maybe not, but you know, what are the chances? I don't
know. >> You did you did say that it's they're going to be refilled soon. >> Absolutely. Yes. We're in the process right now of forming the grade beam and the soil that is displaced on the side.
And you know, we purposely did this in a way not to not follow the orders of conditions, but just knowing that we don't want big mountains of dirt. We made a, you know, a few small piles and spread them out. So that way ultimately when we back fill the foundation or the back the grade beam once we're done,
probably in the next week or so, the dirt is in nice areas. So then they could be refilled back in. And at that point, there'll be no excess material on site. We're actually have to bring in material at that point to get all the grades back to what we want them to be.
>> Not stockpiled, brought in, spread as we as we do it. Okay. Do you have any plans for replacing the silt sock? That's >> uh we added a handful of straw straw waddles but straw bales
bales of straw you know at the areas where that where they were potentially damaged and worn down. Um if the commission I'm happy to put another hand another whole row right on out there right on top of right in front of the other one just to give it an extra buffer as well.
At this point, I think it's probably a good idea just knowing now that we're getting that foundation in >> and people are going to be on site more common and whatnot. It it could be a great way just to help prevent any sort of wash off of any sort.
>> I think we need to issue an enforcement order to have the stock pile removed by a certain date. >> Um like try to get us some more information before we go on that. You said um about a week for the grade beam. Is that all the grade beam work?
>> Yes. So they are forming the entire grade beam in one monolithic effort if you will. >> And once we have that grade beam formed and rebarred, which I anticipate they should be done with that literally in the next day or two, uh we're then just waiting on an
inspection from the engineering firm because this project is a controlled controlled construction project with them. just going given with the building department. Paul requested that to be the case. So, Rivermore Engineering will come out once we know we're ready for them. And that just might take a couple
days upon that, you know, we're ready cuz they don't want a phone call before we're ready. They want it. You're done. All right, great. We're going to show up and presumably within a couple days they show up, they give us the green light. We can pour that footing within a day of that thumbs up from the engineer. And
once they strip those forms the following day, we're able to move the dirt right back into place. So it could be by the end of next week if the weather holds and everything goes well. Um, and the engineer, you know, comes on site first of next week for us. >> That gives us a little bit more
information. Basically tells us that they think it's going to take about a week and they should be able to put everything back in place. If we were to say two weeks, we could say two weeks. either the piles are gone or they're back where they were supposed to be originally >> and and I think that's just as clean
either. So, >> that helps. I would cut it a little short at two weeks just in case Matt wants to get out there before the 24th meeting to confirm that whether he thinks that's necessary or whether just an email with photos is enough. But I was thinking like June 20th 22nd
sometime would give Matt >> what >> just in case the engineering firm is delayed and it's out of their can do about it. They're just waiting for them to come and inspect. So >> yeah, 20 seconds seems okay. >> From your side of it, letting them know
that you're going to be done on next Thursday tentatively now would probably get you the visit. It's going to be it's not a long visit, right? >> It's very easy for the >> Yeah. No, I'm more than happy as soon as I >> just coordinate it so that you don't come back and >> Exactly. I'd love
>> because Yeah. We say based on what he said that on the 24th either the piles have been cleaned up or they've been put back in the hole and cleaned up one way or another. We're expecting those piles not to be there. So if if this goes through so just so you understand
>> I I don't think uh fines are necessary at this point. >> Right. >> We'll say the 20th or the 22nd we'll make a motion that >> you could just for sorry just for purposes of of discussion the next meeting is Wednesday the 24th. If you were to tell them that everything needed
to be out of there by end of day on the 23rd, there shouldn't be an issue with me checking compliance or them providing complian. They should be sending photos of that, you know, by sometime on the day before the meeting.
>> If you think that's enough time, then that's fine with me. But >> it gives them another day and it's not >> it makes things difficult. If something happens on the 23rd and you can't get there, then you're >> it's on them. I mean really what they have to provide evidence. >> So even if I can't get there to assess it, if they haven't provided evidence
and we're here talking on the 24th >> and you're asking me and I'm saying I got nothing, >> then then there's nobody here to speak to it and show you guys pictures of it then. >> All right. So I'll make a motion that we issue an enforcement order that the stockpile is either filled back in or relocated
uh by the end of day, June 23rd. >> May I make a friendly motion? uh amendment to add um the fine portion subject to fine if if not subject to fine $300 a day afterwards. >> Yeah.
>> What was the sub I just I couldn't hear you. Sorry. >> One second. >> Can I to make sure they either replace the salt or add the >> Do we want to do that at a separate motion? >> I think we do that title in >> title in is fine. Yeah, you can make that amendment if you want. >> So the motion is to >> add another row of pay st
>> right. So, the motion is to remove the stockpile material, either fill it back in or put it in its proper place by the end of day of June 23rd or in um fines of $300 a day will be issued moving by
the uh the 24th. And the second part of the motion is to we want to hold new silk stock or hay bales. We won't be specific. >> Add hay bales to prevent further erosion as you were saying adding another row of hay bales. Okay.
>> All right. So, we have a motion. >> Sorry. Can I Did you get all that? >> Is it Silock or >> Hel was fine. >> Okay. >> I couldn't remember. I was like, I couldn't remember which one was. >> Motion by Brian, second by Marilyn. Uh,
all those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed? >> Abstain. All right. Motion carries to issue the enforcement order as described. Um, well, I guess we'll we'll see you back on the 24th. you had a question, I'm happy to answer it.
>> I just couldn't hear, but you guys reset it a couple times and now I could hear you. Sorry. >> We we tend to do that. She's typing. If you hear >> there's a lot of like >> try to help depending what turn face direction your face turns you can hear or not. No, I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you for that. >> All right. 35. What time is it? Yeah, let's go with 35. >> 35R. >> Uh 35R East Avenue. Mad bring us up to speed. >> Yes. Actually, when we were at 41 East
Avenue, um the property owner pointed out that somebody was building something nearby and um we sort of checked it out on the way out and looked like somebody was building a house. And when we got back to the office, I realized, oh, that's 35R. We have a permit on that. Um
permit had been recorded, but we hadn't had a pre-work uh site visit. Um so similar I you know emailed the property owner and and um
representative asking about site conditions. Um we scheduled a site visit for June 3rd. Um so I didn't send out any NOV or anything until we could get a full assessment of what was going on there. Um, from that talk it was apparent that
there were things probably that hadn't been done. Um, so I gave them some guidance on sort of what they could do between, you know, then and and the site visit. So by the time of the site visit, we had a sign out front. We had erosion control in place. Um,
the there was a special condition that a pile of grass out back would be removed before construction started. That had been removed. um ESC was not in line with the plan of record. Uh they use straw waddle instead
of 12-in silt sock. The contractor had run uh a fresh row of silt fence around there before the site visit. Um but that it wasn't sufficient for what was requested. So we said you have to install um silt sock as shown on the
plan and silt fence all the way around as shown on the plan. This was the property where we added a contingency for if the foundation was going to be removed. So the this the plan of record called for silt sock as if you know if you're going to remove
the foundation this is what you do and I believe the foundation was ultimately um removed as part of the construction. So the contractor was there property owner was there at the site visit. We discussed all of the things that needed to be done. They said they'd have it all done before this meeting and then they
provided photo evidence earlier this week saying that everything was done. Um I have not been back out to the site, but the photos showed that they did what what we asked for. Open it up for discussion. Is anybody
like uh heard on this? Opening up um commissioners Any questions from Matt? >> I don't think so. >> What do you think? >> Up two. We have the property owner and we have the
representative uh design on this and then we have the contractor. >> All right. >> Good evening. >> Um have you signed? >> Yes, I have. Uh my name is Rick Savant. Um professional land surveyor with Stanbeck and Taylor. Uh follow what Matt had stated. Um
the um there was some things on the site that needed to be brought up um you know increase the erosion control which was done prior to the site meeting. Um I did see the same photos that Matt's talking about. Um they did have erosion control up but it wasn't exactly up to what the
record plan showed. Um they made did make an effort and there wasn't any erosion that was had taken place but didn't match the the plan exactly. So they have since done that. It's full in um just as shown on the record plan and
um you know did a little site clean up. We all looked at the site the day we were there and um they believed that they were had done everything that they were supposed to do uh prior to prior to the work. You know, I think uh
maybe some things weren't followed exactly to the order of conditions as far as the erosion control, but they did their best to to be proactive and I believe that they've they've got it to a point now where it it meets what the record had shown. >> So, Matt,
reactive efforts brought them into compliance. Yes. At this point, is there anything outstanding that we need to >> No, I don't think so. Just >> did you do they they have an order copy of the order conditions and are clear what should be done from here on out so we can't do this again?
>> Could ask them. >> Do does everyone have a copy of the car and order conditions? >> I certainly don't. >> Understandable. >> Okay. >> Any objections to um dismissing this? >> Sounds good.
>> You need to vote on that. All right. I'll make a motion to dis to dismiss the issue um currently before us. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second by Brian. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> Abstain. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Have a good night. >> Thank you guys. >> Thanks. >> Is um >> No, let's let's go to 44. >> Yeah, let's finish Rabbit. Let's move to Ravi 44 Rabbath Road. Follow up on
enforcement orders. Matt, could you bring us up to speed um with the progress? >> Sure. So, we issued an enforcement order on this January 15th, 2026. Um
>> three parts to it. One was that the outdoor areas would be clean. No trash or outdoor uh hazardous material storage that's not in secondary containment by February 1st. Uh then there were
issues with that date. Um mainly massive amounts of snow cover for a long time and so that date was pushed. Uh last time we discussed this, I told the commission that I did have photo evidence that that was in compliance,
but that it was only one picture um you know, of one area. The commission said they wanted me to set up a site visit on that. Uh we've been unable to do that to this point. Um, and the other portions of the EO were that by June 1st,
the wall, the unpermitted retaining wall and um associated parking area should be removed um with any necessary permitting. Um and the second portion was that the
all other unpermitted structures on the property be removed or receive retroactive permitting by June 1st. Um at this point we don't have any documentation that any of that has been done. Um we did get uh
believe it was a phone call earlier later in the day today um from uh property owner's lawyer who is on tonight who had um you know wanted to talk about an issue with um ongoing litigation with the abuter and how that
might affect um this work. No, you said that there's a lawyer here for the applicant. >> Yeah, it's uh Timothy Angley. >> Uh Mr. Angley. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh Mr. Angley, uh would you
like to uh address the board? >> Yes. Good evening, members. Um my name is Tim Angley. I represent the uh owners at 44 Rabbit Road. Uh we are currently in the middle of litigation in the land court with the
next door neighbors at 46 Rabbi Road which has also brought in the owners of 40 Rabbath Road uh due to and it's dealing with rightaway issues and um width of the rightway and whatnot. So
we've been very um hesitant to disturb the any conditions there for fear of being uh further uh at had amended complaints lodging against uh some of those issues. Um we would
absolutely love to be able to do a a site visit or um and see what we can be what can be done. Um, but that's the the main reason why nothing has gotten done so far is is that litigation. And I understand that uh the owners of 40
Rabbit Road are withholding permission to enter the property um by the conservation commission and insist that the board go through them before any any visits be done. Um, so that's kind of the
situation on the ground at at hand. >> Exactly. Let me let me stop you there. I just need a little bit of clarification and I'm probably not the only one. Matt, what what what is he what is he talking about that because I thought I thought that 46 is beyond 44 or am I
>> correct? Yeah, I think what he's saying is the owner of 40 Rabbit Road, which I believe is Yeah, it's right here. So, um I'm sorry I'm not sharing my screen, but I'll I'll share it now. What I heard is that somebody's preventing conservation from getting there and it's not as quiet. It's
>> so in in yellow is uh 44 Rabbath Road. Then 46 Rabbath Road is out on the sort of peninsula here and this is the property of 40 Rabbath Road which I see is the same owner of 28 and 30 Rabbath Road.
>> Okay. But is anyone I guess upstream of 44 blocking our access for a site visit? >> It was news to me, but that appears to be what he's saying. >> Mr. Angley, is did I did I mishar you perhaps? Are are you alleging that our
conservation department was blocked by um the neighbors from accessing uh a house in a legal manner? Yes, that is that is what I was informed of this evening is that the owners of 40
Rabbit Road are choosing not to cooperate at the moment. Um, >> let me let me ask you this. Does does your client uh do your clients have legal access to to to uh go to and from their own house?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So they're anyone if they have legal access for a legal purpose is allowed to to visit that house. They can't pick and choose who goes through a legal right of way. Correct.
>> That would be true. >> Okay. All right. So why don't you go on? Let's let's stay away from anything that doesn't seem true, which would be to blame the neighbors for not allowing not inviting Matt or the assistant agent out
to do the site visit that was required by the enforcement action. Why don't you continue from there, please? >> Yes. My my point regarding that is that the 40 Rabbit Road is, I believe, also under um situation with the conservation
commission at the moment. And I believe that's >> Let's hold let's hold on that for a second. Matt, let's first I don't know anything about that. >> There's nothing related to 40 Rabbit Road, but it is the same property owner as 28 and 30 Rabbi Road where there's not an ongoing enforcement action, but
there was a long running RDA filing that had originated, you know, from some that had a older enforcement issue. >> All right. You should disregard >> it's not related to 40 Rabbi Road. Um, >> I understand
>> in in any way. >> Okay. All right. Let's let's let's move to new business. If you have something else worth mentioning here about why your uh clients did not come into compliance with the enforcement order, we're happy to hear it, but let's let's be purely factual in our representations
moving forward, please. >> Sure. It's it's the the reasons that I stated before that the litigation with 46 uh and their allegations and how trying to repair the wall or remove uh the
paving on the road may affect them um or how they may react to it. Um as I said, we >> Let me ask you this. Can I ask? >> Yep. Go ahead. >> No, go ahead. I'll follow you. So, what what you're stating is that because
there's some kind of um ongoing fight between neighbors about the location of a right of way or the street that's tied to a rightway. You're saying that no permitting work for there was three components to this.
There was existing structures that either needed to be retreritted or removed. There was the cleanup portion and then there was the permitting and construction for this permit. I mean this uh unpermitted
uh wall and parking area that was supposed to be done by June 1st. It's now June 10th. We've missed that deadline. You're say stating I believe and and and correct me if I'm wrong that you're stating that because
there was a dispute a boundary dispute between neighbors that none of the permitting work um which was the bulk of this um enforcement order was able to be completed or you're telling me that that work was completed. You have it and
you're going to provide it to me today. It was not completed and I can tell you >> that's enough that we're gonna we're going to move to Brian. Brian, >> thank you. Um I hear your argument uh you're making an argument, a thesis that litigation between neighbors is
preventing one person from proceeding with work that's been ordered. What I'm not hearing is any evidence to support that thesis. So, could you be much more specific in explaining why the property owners are unable to comply because of
pending litigation? >> Yes. Because one of the components of the uh of the litigation is if you're if you're looking at the the image that Matt has on on the screen at the moment
where you see the appears to be the wall there's the yellow outline and it says you can see a couple of cars or trucks there. The neighbors contention is there is a rightway that goes basically right
through there and down to the waterway. And their contention is that they 46 have access to that right away and want 44 to remove any obstructions and
and open that up. So that's been part of the argument. So we felt that it was until this situation was resolved that it was better to kind of leave everything where it is until the court can figure out or decide who has
rightaways, where are the borders, where the boundaries and and all those other things. >> Is there a dispute over the rightful ownership of any specific items that we have asked for? Not a right away, but an obligation of ownership.
an obligation of ownership >> of the property. >> Right. So the so the in terms of of the their lot itself or >> Yes. of the lot. Is there any dispute over property ownership?
>> No. No. There. >> So these individuals who are are have all legal rights related to property ownership. >> That's not being disputed. what's being disputed is access to the property. >> Right. And
>> so as legal property owners, they're thereby responsible for adhering to local regulations related to that property. >> Correct. >> Thank you. All right, Matt. Um, do you recall I don't know if you have the the
map. Um, I don't know if you have this, but 46 we that was a that was a filing we had probably about four years ago at this point. I don't even know. But but we approved a driveway in that area. We approved a a septic um um and and it's
very clearly >> uh installed and it's in an certain area and it loops up and I believe that there's a rightway and this I'm going back on what I've already reviewed and it's been a while. So if I'm wrong, I apologize. I'm going to try to get it right. The rightway is closer to the
house. At some point they just cut a new road which became the functional access. At some point there was a fight and now it seems that one neighbor and the other are fighting over the fact that hey I'm moving my driveway back here because it
shows on paper and the other one's saying no. But in this case the one saying no is now saying well I couldn't do any permitting work. I I just couldn't do anything because I I'm in a fight with my neighbor. And and to me none of that matters. What matters is that we we went through a whole process
with these people. I think we gave them copious amount of time. >> Two years, >> two, it's a long time and it only got worse during that time. And now the day of the the come to the the board meeting. That's not what I was going to
say, but to that point, we get a a a call in to the department, not a letter, a call, a verbal conversation, and then some verbal discussion here that says I couldn't uh we didn't want to do anything because, you know, there's we
got some, you know, pending litigation. Um, so we should get out of jail free on this one. >> I don't buy any of it. I think we're beyond that and I think it's I think I think it's time to to move forward with five. Yeah, please. Um, may I ask if any of these issues or these pending issues
for 44 rabbit were brought up in any of that litigation as a concern for these property owners that this they should have been aware of this deadline. They've had it since January. During these litigations, they should be concerned that this deadline's coming up. We're clearly an active board. We
keep our word. We've been on top of this property. To say that they can't do any of this because of that doesn't make sense to me and it seems to just not >> there was zero work done. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm not even talking.
>> No, my question is shooty. I can't see his name. >> If there was any concern or any attention brought to these matters during their litigation or if it was just we can't do that. >> I I hear what Bang's asking and I'd like to know the answer too. In any of the
litigations that you've been involved with, have these conservation orders been the subject of conversation? >> Like, >> what was the question? >> In your work as their legal representatives, in any discussions with
any court or other legal representatives, were these issues related to conservation ever discussed? >> No, not as yet. Okay. So, >> follow up. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Why was nobody contacted in our in this
department before June 1st? We have been working with the neighbors for the last two plus months to try and resolve the litigation so that my clients can do what needs to be done and not have to
worry about um being sued over everything or have the police call them on anytime they do anything. Um but the settlement has not materialized as of yet. It is >> almost there. It would have. >> Yeah, but that doesn't answer why we
haven't been contacted, even made aware that this deadline can't be met or that there may be an issue, but as you just stated, this hasn't been a concern on their part. If it hasn't been brought up in any type of litigation, >> it's not it's not necessarily a concern
on the part of the owners of 46. >> Well, I'm not talking about 46. I'm talking about 44. >> Yes, I I know that's what I'm saying. Is it? Yes, that it has been a concern because part of the contention of of the lawsuit would be that the rightway, what they call rightaway too, would go right
through the property and and result in even more um damage disruption um and other other issues, other possible environmental issues as well. >> As I as I recall, 46 is also very
environmentally concerned. So I feel as if these concerns were brought to them, they they would have tried to work with you guys to make at least try to make a concerted effort >> in any I would I would absolutely agree with you. However, that has not been the
case so far. I I think it seem it seems to me that we've heard plenty of evidence tonight that the conservation issues that we brought up are are in no relation to the litigation and the litigation is in no
relation to the conservation haven't been discussed in any proceedings of the litigation um the door has any proceedings to litigations been discussed with the conservation commission in any way? Um there you have rights as a property
owner. You have responsibilities as a property owner and there's there's no inclination here that the owners have foregone any of those rights or responsibilities. So I I would move that we start issuing fines again on a daily basis of whatever the standard fine is.
>> Okay. Um I agree. Let can we take a little bit of time to discuss what those look like before >> Yeah. I'm not making the motion. I'm making I'm I'm making a suggestion that we move in that direction. Okay. >> I agree. Straw poll. Are we agreeing
that we want to discuss violations at this point? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, Matt, why don't um Attorney Angley, thank you for your time. We'll um if we need anything, we will address you directly. Uh if you want to be heard on anything, you may
raise your hand. I will um I will respond when it's appropriate to do so. Um Matt, as far as fines, um this one just seems like there's pieces that we don't even know if if you know the one the easiest one. Clean up,
get the gas out of there, store it properly, all those things, right? We could have checked that one off if we they had a site visit with us, but realistically we're relying on one picture of, you know, something that
maybe the gaff would right at that there. And then there's the retro work that we were willing to hear as retrop permitting if it was appropriate or to remove the extra docks. We talked about removing extra docks. Talked about
repering a shed but not two sheds. there was a lot going on here and we don't have anything on that. So I don't know if we're the guidance from from previous um um projects where we had to get into this
was that we would issue standalone fines or a single fine um if one's cleaner um I think we need a little bit of guidance on this for um making sure that we're we're doing this as clean as possible.
Um, yeah. I I I think situationally, so your fines are $300 per violation per day. So sometimes you have a situation where somebody violates and you give them a $300 fine and it's one and done. Often
times fines are used as a tool to compel compliance, right? So that you limit um situations that result in detrimental effects to wetland resource areas. Um, and that that's more typical. Um, there are have been situations where
somebody cuts down eight trees and you consider that eight violations and so you issue eight $300 fines. There are other situations where maybe the trees were smaller or more localized and you just call it a single violation that they went in that day and and cut that
stuff. Um, we've had other ones recently where you find separately for cutting trees and importation of fill and failure to properly um, you know, protect a site from erosion. Um, I I don't have a a great answer here on
this. I mean, you're certainly not going to go retro back to the earliest deadline for the outdoor cleanup. And and in general, I believe that, you know, the property owner did say that they had cleaned the site up,
and I'm inclined to believe that. Just we haven't confirmed that. Um the biggest issue here is the wall >> with the parking area supporting vehicles above it. Uh you had the letter from the engineer that said that it was
not >> sound >> built soundly and that it was leaning towards the pond. So um I I think that is that is the most obviously uh crucial element in compelling compliance. The rest of it is
small unpermitted structures or retaining walls or things that should be easy enough to get either permitting of or remove. The wall is the most complex um portion of that. Um so I don't have
great guidance on this. um they have not from what it sounds like started the permitting process. Um they do have a plan of record so that is a great start I think in that they've already paid somebody to put an existing conditions site plan together. That's that's a huge step.
>> You have that was a that was that was an earlier requirement that was completed was a existing conditions site plan that was submitted before this EO was issued. >> Does everybody recall that? I thought we went back because it wasn't stamped and it wasn't located on a map. I thought
there was >> there was an issue >> design documents that was like this is how the walls built. Um >> that was a separate issue of the original um the original document from the engineer
>> just right sort of sketched out what the wall looked like from a bird's eye view but didn't locate it on the plan. We do have and I can just because now I'm second guessing myself I can pull it up here in the files that I'm I'm 99% positive we have a stamped engineer you
know survey plan I believe it was me >> the first one wasn't sufficient >> so again that's that's the biggest step in any of this is is all those things are already located on the plan um it's just for the for the wall it is a more complex process of an engineer then has
to describe how you can remove that wall and for them what they're likely going to want to do is to figure out how to redesign it to meet the standards rather than, you know, completely remove it and have nothing and just have to stabilize the whole site. They're likely would figure out how to replace that with
something that was permittable um under the standards. But all of that takes a lot of time and I don't think any of that has been >> done. So you're talking about a process here. I mean that's why we write enforcement orders the way we write it is we say you have to file an NOI by
this date for completion of the work by this date you know like and and because it takes time I mean you're talking about an NOI filing it's 3 weeks between when you file it and when we hear it and that's
if it's complete um so it's it's a it's a long process so can issue daily fines on this and that that could compel a speeding up of the process. Um, but >> what would be their next step? The NOI
or >> I think they first step >> they can't remove that wall without some form of permitting >> and I'm not sure that they could remove that wall with an RDA given
>> the proximity to resource areas. So I believe an NOI will be required. >> I think the EO says an NOI. I believe it did. >> Yeah, I think the EO did specify that too. Yeah. >> Do we have the EO could you could you recall the language on on that specifically so that we can
>> make sure that we reflect that? >> Yeah. My my concern is that if we required NOI by June 1st and we didn't say and and the wall removed by June 1st, then we're in a slightly different spot than if we said NOI permitted and
the work complete by June 1st. a much different um much different thing because if we were compelling action to get to a final point that that's that's not we missed a step. If we were acting saying no no no wrap it up here's your
deadline 61 then that's that's totally there. All right. Remedial actions to be undertaken. Number under undertaken number one is remove the unpermitted retaining wall and concrete driveway or parking area by
June 1st, 2026 after obtaining all necessary permits, including orders of conditions from this commission or daily fines of $300 will be issued. This filing must include stabilization of the area with vegetation and mitigation of storm water runoff towards the wetlands.
Any rebuilding of a wall and parking area would also require filing of a notice intent. You may choose to combine them into one filing. Number two, the property contains many unpermitted structures, including those discussed above, as well as numerous sheds, a chicken coupe, wood boiler, and
other retaining walls. By June 1st, 2026, the property owner shall either remove these structures or get retrospective permitting for them. Number three, the property owner shall take all necessary steps towards maintaining the buffer zone in order to avoid contamination of the wetlands or smell pond. No trash or waste may be
present outside of proper refuge containers with lids, particularly along the slope between the dumpster and the pond. The dumpster must be closed unless someone is actively putting trash or waste in it. No hazardous materials or chemicals, gas, petroleum, pesticides, etc. may be stored within the buffer
zone without secondary containment. The property owner has until February 1st, which was then modified to a later date, to improve these conditions. Any evidence of violations will be met with $300 fines daily until the violation is remedied. And then there was a fourth section talking about the remaining dock
um and referencing the commission's um released dock guidance um and that they would have until um July 29th, 2027 to see specific enforcement action related to the dock. But it may be in their best interest to include that in the notice of intent being required for the other
purposes. >> All right. Thank you, Matt. Was that clear for everybody? >> Pretty clear. >> I I think we put them on notice that it needs to be done $300. >> When was that issued? >> That was issued on January 14th. >> So, we had six months.
>> Had six months. Um, my thought was this. If I think I think we the first condition I think we we hold true with what we stated. Uh, and then we we issue additional fines for each of the other um items that weren't cured at this
point. Um, and I would say that we we issue those as one-time fines, the walls daily, like we we estrmitting and the cleanup with the site visit would be one time 300 to be completed by
624 and then weekly thereafter if it's not completed um until it is completed or something along those lines. A little bit u more targeted, but that's that's my thought on that. That's why I'm open to everybody else's. >> I wonder if you can clarify. I'm not sure if I totally understood. You're
issuing several one-time fines and one daily fine. >> Right. >> So on the original EO, we had three items that we needed cured. One was a hey61 $300 a day afterwards. I think stay there. That's the wall. >> Okay. I wanted to make sure I heard that
part correctly. And then the other two in my in my in my observation outside of what they the full-time people actually do for us is that we don't we got a picture. We we didn't get a site visit. I don't think we checked off the third condition or the second condition,
whatever it was about getting everything out, cleaning it up, making sure that it's it's maintained. So I think that we want to keep that on the table, which is why I'm saying let's give them a one time fine. If everything's cured, fine. have Matt come out, document it, and then we know that all right, we solved
that part of it. And then the third um point was on the retro permitting. They didn't hit it. We asked them to hit it. I think we we hit them with a one-time fine and we also give them some date certain to complete that or we issue date um daily fines like like what we
laid out there. that I think that's that's a defensible move um from my my side of it, but completely open if you guys feel different. >> I agree with that. >> Can I um ask so basically what you're saying is
$300 daily So basically what we're doing, we're updating the enforcement order with a new with new language. Um, we're saying $300 daily fines for the wall portion of that EO until that's
complete. Um, and you're issuing a one-time fine for the outdoor trash situation with setting a date certain for a site visit to confirm. So basically what you would do is you put this on another agenda >> and you would say we're issuing you a
$300 fine and we're giving you until this date to coordinate a site visit for the conservation agent to confirm. >> My propulolis date for that would be 624. That should be the easiest >> minimum bar that we could get there. Get him on site, have him visually see it. He comes back he tells us don't worry
about that. We don't worry about that moving forward. Bust it off. >> Okay. >> And and if he he's unable to do so then daily fines begin on the 25th. Yes. >> Okay. >> And the next step would be a one-time fine on the unpermitted structures.
Is that again with a >> with a date >> with a date certain for the rest of that? >> That one's permitting. How long do you think that because I don't think if if we're living by our own guidelines, it's going to take 3 weeks. >> Okay. >> What what we're saying is they should have everything they need at this point.
Pay the guy to put it together, have it come here, and maybe we give them a month. >> Yeah. So you have a month is >> it's just a matter of whether so certain portions of it could certainly be done through an RDA. Um and then there are certain portions of it that probably can't and that may be an
indication of that thing maybe like if you need a variance for it then maybe that's something that you can't get permitted in that location. Um so I mean maybe you if if you could do an RDA that that might be good enough. that that's
their responsibility. >> No, but I'm thinking about timelines like because if they need an NOI for something, that's a longer timeline. And even with an RDA, >> we we give them a one month deadline to to figure that out. And they can come back to us in one month and say, "Hey, we looked into this and we need more
time." We do that all the time. True. We we say we're going to get a fine if you don't do this by a certain date. They come on that certain date and say, "These are reasons why we weren't able to do it in time." We say, "Okay, we'll give you continuance. You get another two weeks and then the fine." We just had two hearings right now where we didn't find people for violations
because they had good faith efforts to to rectify the problem. There's been zero good faith effort. >> And the point of this whole process is to bring people into compliance. >> The point is compliance >> and everybody goes forward. >> Right. So I they I would give them a month for the permit anything that
requires the permit and if we see some good faith effort of them trying to move in that direction then we can reevaluate at that time. And the same is true if they can't get the wall out in two weeks for whatever reasons. They can show up on the 24th and explain
that and we can amend it again. We may not. We may say, "No, you're going to continue to get $300 daily fine." But we're we're we're not tyrants here. Like, it's been 2 years we've been working with them to try to get this into compliance. And if they can
demonstrate good faith effort and not come here with a bunch of excuses that have absolutely nothing to do with the problem, then we're we're perfectly fine issuing continuences on things. But when they they show no effort and and they they
basically come to a commission, a town commission, and proceed to essentially lie to us. I I I have no more patience, you know, with this. Just for clarification on that one, you're saying to file
for the for the retrospective permitting of of structures, it's you're looking for them to file something within 30 days. >> Within 30 days. >> Okay. Y >> and then it's $300 a day after that. >> And if they come 30 days and say, "We're really trying to get it done, we'll
we'll deal with it then." I I I got to just say for the record I a lastm minute response the day of saying that oh I couldn't find an engineer is not going to sway me to compassion. So report that please back to your clients
that this needs to be a deliberate effort to come into compliance and that's the only thing that's going to get us back into the >> I think every every lawyer out there knows the definition of good faith >> and I would expect our present company to understand that
>> so July July 8th would be the date for that >> one the 30-day >> so basically you have June 23rd deadline for the site visit and the permitting of
um or for the filing for unpermitted structures uh to be no wait sorry about that. >> You wanted June 23rd for the cleanup to be discussed on the 24th. You gave 30 days on the unpermitted structures um which would be July
>> 8th >> July >> 10th. No, not >> unless you want to tie it to >> No, July. They have to have two commission meetings be here by the meeting of July 8th. >> Okay. So you would give them to July 7th for so that on the 8th. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> By end of business day July 7th. Is that enough time for you ma'am? >> Should be. >> Yeah. If all they have to do is is file something um then that's fine. You know it's and you're going to see it the next night. So if for whatever reason it's a
bad faith effort at a permit filing, you're you'll know it. and I I'll probably know it by that by that meeting. Um, and then you're talking $300 daily fines for the wall issue until it's dealt with. Are you bringing
that back in front of the commission on any particular date for discussion or just it's ongoing until they >> comply? I think ongoing compliance at that point. I I think ultimately they they should be facilitating the response now and begging to get on to the next.
>> Yeah. If they can show evidence that real progress is made by the 24th on the wall issue, I would I would be open to suspending the daily fees. >> Again, >> good faith is well defined in >> American law. So Okay.
>> All right. So the the the the start date for these fines I would say today because I don't like retro fines. I think it's more defendable to say all right moving forward we warned you that this was going to happen on 61 with no
no action. We we we reviewed you've got not achieved any action. We're moving forward as of today with this fine structure um until all things are resolved. Um everybody on board with that. Okay. So, your fines for the wall are starting tomorrow? >> Tomorrow.
>> Okay. >> Do you need anything else from us? >> Um, >> aside from the quote, >> more staff. >> Sorry. I think I have everything um on this that I need. Um the only so and just for
for them right now to to hear sort of the process for how we do this stuff is we typically will write a week's worth of if it's a daily citation and we have no reason to suspend them. We're not literally writing them and delivering them every day. We'll typically work
weekly or monthly for delivery of this. Um this is a tricky property to deliver certified notice to. um certified mail doesn't work. Um I can I can use town constable delivery. Um alternatively,
they've picked up documents in my office before and just signed a delivery receipt. Um so >> if they want to work with my office on that sort of stuff, then that's fine. >> Preference uh through their attorney. Mr. Angelie, um, do you have a
preference on whether or not we we use utilize the constable or if they want to come in and pick up their enforcement um, notices and and then violations? >> Alternatively, can we deliver to to his office? Is that, you know, because we probably could deliver to his office through certified mail
>> if he has the authority to receive. Yeah, absolutely. He's he's represented himself as a jail lawyer. So, I expect that that that's a possibility. But let's let's hear Stanley. >> Yes. Yep. You can we can either pick it up or you can send it to my office.
That's fine. >> You have his contact information? >> I believe I do. Yeah. Um I may I may email you to ask if I don't have it, but I believe I do. >> Okay. Did he email you or I thought he called today as >> um I have emailed.
>> Okay. >> We have emailed >> a few times. I'm I'm just not sure. I don't recall if if it was in your email signature, but if it's not, I can I can reach out. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, do you need anything else or just about to vote? >> Um, no. I think my other thing is that
if there's a legitimate issue with the owner of 40 Rabbi Road, and I know that from a legal standpoint, that's not something that can really be applied. But if it puts this property owner at odds with the owner of 40 Rabbath Road
who they do there is it's been discussed before that a portion of what was done here is actually on the property of 40 Rabbit that they have sort of an agreement that they don't mind that they use that if it will put them in a bad situation with the owners of 40 Rabbit
Road. We can do a site visit that doesn't include me that can include any one or number of you. Um >> well I I have issue with that and I'm going to say >> no >> there's a legal right away >> and this is official town business
>> if we need to put >> um a constable with you because for whatever reason they they're not comfortable with you being there alone then we'll we'll talk with Jay and we'll make sure that we go through whatever steps they can communicate any kind of
requirements that they have for your your access and we we'll do what we need to do. But >> what I don't want to say is that we've not gotten anything from 40, 28, 30, whatever it is saying that the town of Kingston is not allowed to visit for official business.
>> Yeah. >> And even if you did, it would still be illegal right away. So >> no matter what, I'm going to be there at 46 Rabbit Road because we have permit followup on that property anyways. So it's not that as much as >> my point was if it puts this property
owner at odds with somebody that they have some sort of agreement with. >> They should have taken care of it. That's not even a concern for us at this point. >> Okay. >> All right. So if you have all the information um perhaps at this point we we make it official with with the motion
as described. >> Uh I'll make that motion. >> Okay. >> We have a motion by Brian, second by Megan. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstained? Hearing? None. That motion carries. All right. Thank you for your time. Matt
will be in touch. >> All right, Matt. That closes out enforcement action. >> Going back to Six Prospect Street. >> Oh, sorry. >> And he is on to where? All right, Matt. Six Prospect Street. Would you bring us up to speed on the
enforcement efforts there? Uh, continued from an earlier date. >> Yep. Uh following the May 27th meeting, um the enforcement orders were updated on May 28th. Maintaining the cease and desist, requiring ongoing maintenance of the site perimeter fence and erosion control, pushing the deadline for
signing an engineering contract to June 4th to be discussed tonight, and requiring an engineered deliverable in the form of a 30% design by June 18th to be discussed June 24th. Um I again, this is a difficult property to deliver on. wanted to deliver this
update by email as Brian has been responsive through email and and you know we've been able to do that. Um actually issue on my behalf on this one when I first issued this document to him I scanned it in I printed it as a
double-sided document and scanned it single-sided. So when I first emailed him um item number four from the EO was not included in the document that I sent to him. I did I did specify in the email
what the commission mandated, but it that part was not um there. That was the part that required the deliverable by June 18th. >> But again, I did include that in the body text of an email update earlier that day um the day after the meeting.
So, I did um more recently make sure he had a copy of the full document and apologized. Um >> how recently would that have been? >> That was last week. And this is just two weeks old at this point because we the discussion
>> it was May May 28th was when we issued the uh the document. >> So again, I would contend that the information was was there, but there was a >> it's just not >> kic up in the process. Yeah. Um Brian had Steven's engineers on site on June
3rd. They were there to review the dam. Um and he was going to have them look at the culvert issue and advise them as to whether they would take on the project. Um, as of that, as of the next day, June 4th, Brian said he expected they would have something written up before tonight. Um, but we don't have anything
yet on that. Um, he has been responsive on that. He emailed, I believe, even earlier today, um, on that with an update. Um, and a quick driveby look at the site on June 3rd showed that the pallet fence is still in place, but the second level of pallets has fallen down
on most of the site, leaving that protected area only a single pallet high. So, we had discussed that at a previous meeting, but never really got down to whether or not that part was in compliance or not. Um, but that's that's where we're at. And Brian is on here
tonight. All right, we'll open it up uh discussion. Um, Mr. E, would you um would you like to comment? Yeah, I unfortunately I've been trying to push on Stevens, you know, from my
perspective. I'm trying to get a, you know, a structured uh quotation on the situation, which they say they're getting back to me and, you know, I just can't I I emailed them again today trying to push them along saying we got
deadlines, but um, you know, I feel a little bit at the mercy of their speed. they know I'm pushing on them. But I've also, prior to them, I reached out to maybe eight or 10 other engineers with limited uh response back. And the
response I got back, they weren't geared up to take on this type of project. So, you know, I don't know if it's unique, but I made efforts to have a like another engineer. I always like to get two or three people to come out and
assess things and get prices. So, um, unfortunately, Stevens has been the only one responsive. They did come out. They just need to get back to me reporting on the plan and uh, I'm pushing on them. I'm also
um, working with the town, talking to the town's attorney next week just to have fallback plans. You know, I'm trying to not just come to the board with only this one option of delay, you
know, in in anticipation of getting a high cost assessed and trying to find trying to get ahead of the second step, which would be funding the project once we get the engineering,
you know, documents. So, um, like I said, I'm meeting with that attorney next week to discuss that as an option to work with the town of Kingston, uh, if need be to if this project ends up being, you know, as expensive and
lack of options, uh, so to speak, once we do get the report back. But, um, yeah, I just I've been pushing on them. They did get out there which which I guess is a plus but um still haven't got
back their findings and they did say they would get it they would try to get it to me this week is what they said last week but like I said I just I I feel kind of uh handcuffed. I've made some progress obviously but I feel
handcuffed controlling that speed of uh recovery. the the perimeter fencing. We do have a um a fence that surrounds the property
with barb wire where it's gated and locked at night. The second story of the pallets um just it could be restored, but it didn't feel uh the juice wasn't worth the squeeze as far as it was. It fell
over. It's still protected with that one level. I mean, it's keeping people out of it, but um it's still we we knocked the rest of the second layer down, so it wouldn't be um you know, a problem, but
right now it's just at a one level, but it's it's totally still uh the perimeter is still covered. >> But that's kind of where everything is at. And um you know I hope to I hope to get a update on
uh what it's going to entail to fix the the culvert you know as soon as possible but I've only had luck with one engineering company to respond and come out you know so far. >> All right. Um let me ask you a couple of follow up questions and we'll open this
up to the board at this point. Um you stated that you had an engineer um that responded and came out. Can you um can you answer the following question? Did you engage this engineer or did this engineer come out through the state?
>> Uh well, this this engineer, I'm not sure how um >> well, let let me let me restate it then. Did you engage this engineer directly to come out to look at the culvert? and his report is going to is because he looked
at the culvert and he's going he he's going to give you a deliverable that would satisfy our enforcement orders or not and it followup is did you engage this this uh engineer and pay for his
services at this point? >> Well, I've I've obviously I reached out to a bunch of people you know as much as >> No, sorry. Let's keep it very direct. It's a very pointed question. Okay. >> Yes. >> Did you engage this engineer directly or
was this the engineer from the state who also said, "Oh, well, I'll look I'll see if we're interested. I need to know what kind of action we achieve." >> Yeah, they didn't say that. No, they were. And you know, I I understand your question and and >> please yes and no, sir.
>> Yes. So, uh, I didn't I Well, I just need a minute to answer that question. Um, >> did you pay the engineer? They No, they came out to address the Colulbert because I asked them to
because they were affiliated with coming out for the dam inspection and they said they they could do the covert and look at the covert and get me a price on that as well. So >> So did you receive a price from the
engineer to do the work that was required by the enforcement action? I I don't have a price from them. They have to They had to come out and evaluate the covert and give me a price and that's what we're waiting on. >> Did they evaluate the culvert or did
they look at the dam? >> Yes, >> they did both. >> So, they they surveyed the the the failed culvert, >> which is a subject of your you being here tonight. They've done the due diligence work on that. Is that correct? >> That that's correct.
>> Okay. So they did that work without enga with without a contract with you is what I'm hearing. >> Correct. >> Okay. So >> and I've sent that uh correspondence to Matt the email thread. >> All right. Let's ask Matt to respond to
that. Matt, >> I just question maybe the your definition of due diligence. >> Right. This this was I I don't think an assessment at the level that they can prepare a 30% design plan based off of. If I had to guess, I would say this was
somebody who came down to physically look at the site and figure out if this is something they wanted to get involved in. They felt confident that they could get involved in. And now they're probably working on a quote >> for him. That's that's what he's waiting on. step zero minus because they haven't
even engaged out an engagement offer to the to the or the buyer. >> Right. >> Okay. So, we've not made any progress. Uh the fence thing is just something that's
just sticking up. I thought we were very clear in in setting up a barrier. We could have gone much deeper and said we want things that nobody can actually drive a car into. We didn't. We just said we want a sight fence erected that will keep everybody out. And now that
the fence that the one progress that we made at the beginning is now fallen down. I'm also hearing that that part of his plan is that he has, you know, I don't I guess future discussion with our
town council about how I guess we're going to pay for that, but that doesn't seem like any kind of progress on what we've put forth in our enforcement action. So, from what I've heard, we've made zero progress. >> We're no further than that. >> Correct. Okay. All right. M uh Mr.
stack. We'll have if we have any questions, we'll uh we'll ask you for uh clarification. We we will open it up um to public comments as well. Mr. Guabon, do you have um something you'd like to be heard on? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. I thought that was a hand.
>> That wasn't a hand. No, I thought it was >> I'm all set. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> It was a hand. >> No, it was >> No, it was a mouse. >> A little mouse. It was a mouse. >> That's funny. Yeah, >> a little levity. >> All right. Uh,
>> let's further discussion. I I heard none. >> Um, I can give you a a quick update on the pallets. So, on April 29th, I got an email from Brian um just saying that he's going on his
own with costs on this um to get fencing and socks installed. He researched the most cost-effective methods of building the fencing and out of pallets was listed as the best way. Wanted to make sure I didn't see any issues with that method as long as it's 6 feet or higher and blocking off the hole with
structural integrity. Um, and I replied, I don't see an issue with pallets as long as they're stable and protecting the hole. And then we worked on just making sure he had the guidance on getting the right silt sock because when you're just a member of the public who doesn't do this stuff every day, you're going to go by straw waddle and that's
going to be insufficient in most cases. Um, so he did install the good silt sock there. That part is great. Um, but it's obvious that the the pallet fence, the only way to get your six feet tall is to have the two stacked on top of each other, which based on it not lasting
very long like that is not sufficient and probably not terribly safe um either. >> All right. So, >> but there is still that one layer of pallets standing up connected to each other ringed in silt sock. So, there is some stability to the site. I don't
think you mandated in well I don't think we mandated in the EO a specific height but you were pretty clear in your guidance during that enforcement you know session that you wanted something that could keep people from accessing that site. So that's up to the
commission's to determine now whether that's good or not. Just to start the discussion, I think we need a an actual chain link site fence secured because there is zero progress on this and I think that we
need to start thinking that this needs to be a little bit more stabilized. I am also concerned that we have a gaping hole inside of a a a river and we have zero erosion control on the actual dirt that's going to be releasing
continuously. So the first steps was were just first steps. We we're literally still at first step and the half step that we saw uh positive movement on is needs to be rebuilt. So I think I think we need to dig in a little
bit here and and and decide what the next step is. >> And you're suggesting chain links instead of the ballot. >> Well, absolutely. Yeah, because it can be constructed and it won't go anywhere when when a professional it's like fencing company is what we're requiring.
So I would say that that's probably part A. And then part B is if my opinion we've made zero progress, it's fines because there's zero progress to actual compliance. He hasn't even gotten the price for what
we what we had stipulated as the performative action to be achieved by certain date. So, um I I I I just think that there's only one way to do this and it's it's through
the fine process. And Matt, we used language in that enforcement as far as do this by date certain and or there would be fines. Could you could you recall that? >> Yes, but I'll pull it up just so just so I can read from it.
All right. So, these are the updated EOS that were issued May 28th. So, um, remedial actions to be undertaken. There was the immediate cease and assist. I just left that on there. Then
number two was the occupant shall maintain the site perimeter fencing and closing the area 10 ft lambert up the excavated hole with at least 6 in diameter silt sock encircling the fence until the conservation commission deems the site fully stable. blah blah blah
not related to this conversation. If the fencing or silt sock is found to be in disrepair, daily fines of $300 will be issued until evidence is received that it has been repaired or replaced. Number three, the occupant shall engage the services of a professional engineer towards assessing
the culvert and preparing a solution that addresses ongoing risks to adjacent and downstream wetland resource areas posed by the current condition of the culvert. After the unpermitted work, the occupant shall provide evidence of a signed agreement with a qualified PE to the conservation department. If evidence of the satisfactory completion of this
action is not received by end of business on June 4th, 2026, daily fines of $300 will be issued until said evidence is received. Commission will discuss compliance with this action at the June 10th meeting. And then the portion that he didn't receive until well in its official for format until
June 4th was number four which says at the direction of the occupant the chosen professional engineers shall provide their written findings accompanied by a 30% design plan for the solution discussed above to the conservation department by June 18th 2026 for the conservation commission to review at
their June 24th 2026 meeting. And then just for the commission's awareness, there's always a please note beneath the last action item that says failure to comply with this enforcement order will result in further enforcement action by the commission under the KWPR.
Further non-compliance can be subject to administrative penalties imposed by the Kingston Conservation Commission with each day of each continuing violation constituting separate offenses and fines of not more than $300 each. >> All right. So, I kind of I kind of feel for what the applicant is saying about
how difficult it's been to get engineers out there. Um, it's clear that he's violated the enforcement order, but I think there is some evidence that he's trying to make some effort. So, I would recommend a one-time $300
fine rather than daily and give him until the next uh conservation meeting to make further progress. >> Yeah. just we just immediately jump to daily fines. We we tend to amend >> our fines and give people a little bit
more time. Um >> he he is at the you know >> waiting for the mercy of an engineer firm to to come in. I know they weren't there. He didn't whether or not he actually engaged with them is a very good question that you asked and no he
didn't. they were there for something else and he was able to rope them in, but he's saying he's tried eight other places. It would be nice to have some evidence of his efforts, like emails that he has sent that have gone un unanswered. A log of phone calls he's made or something like that would would
ease my concerns a little bit, but I'd be in favor of a one-time $300 fine for each of the two violations for a total of $600. um and then give them until 24th to to fulfill the requirements of the enforcement order.
>> All right, let me let me push just a little bit on that one just just to test it. >> I can call any engineer PE for anything, right? In Massachusetts, we have pees, we have structural engineers, we have civil engineers that all of those
designations fall under PE. If I call you as a structural engineer who doesn't do damn work, doesn't do covert work, the answer that I'm going to get is I don't do that. I'm not interested. If I call a civil engineer who does damn work and does which is harder to get to,
granted, but calling an engineer who says no or perhaps the boys at Grady or or any of the locals would be probably within one connection to the type of
engineer who would absolutely be the right engineer for for this. I see nothing along those lines in the all this communication. All I've heard is that well, you know, the engineer is coming down from the state is is is going to maybe take a look at this while
they're down there. They said that they take a look at it um and then they'll they'll give me a you know, if they're interested, they'll give me a price. That's not a concerted effort that we expect more in the design community. We didn't achieve anything. We It sounds
like face. I did reach out to Matt for for >> I'm sorry to raise your hand. What? We'll we'll we'll uh we'll come back to you in a minute. >> That's that's the complete situation. Okay. We don't have any evidence in
front of us. I I I don't think we we drift off of what our original guidance was, which was we needed to see certain things. We've get at this point. >> Is it six weeks? Is it six weeks old now? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean the first the first EO was issued on April 23rd requiring
the signed PE agreement by May 12th. >> So then they got essentially another another month >> um to the June 4th deadline. >> We're we're we're not making progress. And that's my litmus test to you, right?
If you think that that given what I just said you still feel the same way, I'm open to it. But if you if you don't feel the same way once you hear those facts, then then consider it. Um that that might not be the best
action given what we've seen today. Okay. All right. Uh Mr. E, you had something you'd like uh like us to hear? >> Yeah. No, I I uh I reached out to Matt when I originally he gave me a list of names. So those names that you're
rattling off, I would greatly appreciate. I mean I I can call those companies. Um Matt, I don't know if any of those companies he just mentioned >> you were part of the list. >> I said you sent to me >> wasn't great. He would know. >> Okay.
>> A civil, you know, damn >> engineer >> cuz I didn't I didn't what you're saying doesn't line up with >> the response I got. That's that's number one. And number two, I don't agree with with making no progress. We did have an
engineer come out and assess the hole and you know we didn't have that done prior and the fence I'm happy let me let me ask you directly on that as far as we know the engineer came out to look at the dam and he looked at your hole and
said he'd give you a price to get involved with the project if if I'm wrong prove me wrong at this point and if I'm not then let's not let's not Let's not sit on that fence. Let's let's define it perfectly, please.
>> Uh, say it again. I I'm I'm just confused because I I had the engineer come out. >> So, I think the the issue >> evaluate the situation and design exactly what you're asking. >> Yeah. I think what Commissioner Franklin, if you don't mind trying to rephrase it in a slightly different way
for you, >> um, Brian, everything that you keep saying, I had the engineer come out. I think what Commissioner Franklin is saying, "No, you didn't. The engineer came out for the dam >> and happened to be there, so you asked him to look at it." And what we're
looking for is good faith. Excuse me. Excuse me. What we're looking for is good faith effort on your part that that shows action, an action verb that you you reached out to the appropriate
engineers to to get some some inspection and that what what Commissioner Franklin is suggesting and is looking for clarification on is that you did not reach out to an engineer to look at the hole. An engineer was there to look at the DM and you said, "Can you look at
the hole? That that's a that's a different form of action. >> Yeah. No, but that's not correct. I have documents clarify email. >> Yeah. So So >> Mr. E, ju just to restate because I believe you answered it earlier, but
maybe we misheard it. So I'm going to give you another opportunity. When an engineer is out looking at something, engaged with a client, you would have signed some type of form of agreement with that engineer to complete the work and to provide the 30% design
that we had we had stipulated in the enforcement order that we previously uh sent to you. Are you telling me that you paid the engineer or you put him on retainer or you have some kind of contract that you could provide tomorrow morning to Matt's office?
No, that that would be the next step. I specifically have in writing that I requested them to look at the covert because I needed a quote on fixing the covert and that is different than the dam. We kept it separate. you, Mr. Beck,
the the requirement for at this point was not to reach out. It was to have under agreement engaged the engineer for the definitive act action. Is >> if I'm saying something that you don't you don't think is correct and you need
clarification that now's the time to ask for clarification on it. But those are those are the facts. >> I understand. >> I understand. But how do we how do I give a deposit if I don't even know the scope of the work? you you don't give a deposit. You put you have to there's a
series of steps that need to go before you signing a contract. There's that's diligence. The diligence was supposed to be completed quickly. You put the the the the appropriate engineer under contract and a deliverable delivered by
the date that we specified in the enforcement actions. None of that. Step step zri Brian >> you need to wait till I'm done. Okay. >> All those steps were to be complete by the date that we specified or there was
the the pending um ramifications which in this case was fines. So are you very clear on what we expected at this point? >> Well I I I'm I'm confused because
I don't understand how I can engage in giving people money without knowing what I'm paying for. And I needed a quote. I I mean, don't you get a quote before you can take that step?
>> Absolutely. That That is why waiting was not the appropriate action. You had >> I did not wait. I was waiting on them to come out >> and I couldn't get them to come out any faster than they did and they did come out. >> We're only going to take uh new facts at this point, Matt.
>> So, you were asking a lot of questions and I think I can maybe help with this. So, on May 22nd, uh Brian sent an email to me that said, "Hi, Matt. See progress below." And he pasted in um you know, the contents of
what would have been an email from uh Jim Turn Yeah. Jim Turner at Stevens Associates. Um, so it says, "Good to talk with you." Summarizing our discussion. The first bullet point gives their understanding about the sinkhole. Uh, second bullet point says, "The conservation commission is requiring you
engage an engineer to design a fix apparently over concerns of silt entering the waterway and are threatening fines." Number three, as discussed, our services are for visual inspection of the dam, which includes commenting on observations of the downstream area consistent with the dam inspection checklist required by the
state. Regarding the downstream culvert that carries the damn discharge, our observation would likely be that there is a deficiency with the culvert that should be fixed. However, our services exclude further evaluation and design of repairs. Number four, when we are there for the dam inspection, we can discuss
if culvert evaluation and repair design is something that we could help with under separate contract or suggest other engineers. Number five, we anticipate we could be there for dam inspection likely during the first two weeks of June and we'll coordinate a specific date with you in advance.
So, I think that gives some background on kind of what >> it's kind of a promisary thing. >> Yeah. The I think what you what you were trying to get at was this was somebody that was engaged to come down for follow-up dam work and Brian took the
opportunity to see if hey, while you're there, can you look at this and become, you know, the engineer that I need on this on this project? >> Correct. So I I think can I I could understand from what he said
that and what he just read that he believes he's done due diligence. He's waiting for this one to come >> and they said they were coming. They just haven't yet. >> Just due diligence is is is specific to the engineer. The engineer would do his due diligence through through the not
the observation of the whole saying all right well let me >> I'll get you a quote. That is not due diligence. The due diligence comes after I give you the quote. You signed the proposal and >> it's not his fault they haven't come yet. >> Do he the engineer that was there
>> was was there for the state. >> There was no there was no action. >> Kind of a slippery thing. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> So >> I have confirmation that they did the >> You have to raise your hand. Okay. It's not open mic. You have to have to raise
your hand. Okay. And then you need to be addressed and then you can speak. Okay. >> Oh, sorry. I'm on the Zoom here. Let me let me raise my hand. >> All right. >> You going to acknowledge him? >> Absolutely. It's >> he's
Did we finish the conversation, doc? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Ryan, please. >> Am I able to talk? >> It's okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. No, I and I got confirmation that
they did inspect the covert separately. So I do I could send that that proof to Matt as well just just so you feel comfortable that they I mean unless these engineers aren't the right type of engineers but um there was other than
Jim there was a guy his name was Bob and he was the guy that was on site that yes he inspected the dam but he also inspected the culvert separately as requested and they confirmed that a few days prior. So, I could also send that
correspondence just to >> ease your mind. >> I can offer um to the commission because I can see there's sort of a an understandable, you know, feeling on
this. You want things to happen quickly. You feel maybe that not enough effort was made to find an engineer who would come out quickly and get you a number on this. Um so you feel for that but also want quick action to make because you picturing every time it rains that
there's there's going to be issues there um affecting the resource areas that are important resource areas >> and potentially undermining the rest of the culver making it worse. >> There's considerable concern here. >> Yes. So I will offer that
the commission can and has in the past rescended fines. So if you want to issue fines on any enforcement issue that's in front of us thinking that somebody might come into compliance in a couple of days, you they can come back before you after
they're in compliance and say now I'm in compliance. Would you please consider waving those fines? And you have that option. You don't have to. You can say no. They can appeal whatever. They can do whatever they want. Um but that is an option that you always have in that in certain situations that might compel a
little more proactive you know attention to to the needs um than further continuence would give and then you have the option to wipe the fines if somebody requests it
after they gain compliance. It's happened before. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the fines. It's the action that we're compelling with the fines. So, if if we rescend every fine that we ever put out there, it means nothing to me.
>> But there's one tool for us to use to compel action. And at this point, we've had zero action. And whether or not we can argue if there was half a step taken, we can also point to the fact that there was no steps taken beforehand that there was
unprofessional excavation into a culprit that probably made whatever sinkhole condition worse. And then the the most easiest part to check off was getting the fence built. It was sight built out
of pallets and it fell apart within a couple of weeks. We need to look at this through realistic discover the body as it lies. The body's there. The damage was done and it's only gotten worse since the last six weeks. So, I don't think
anyone's in a dis disagreement over the facts. We issued an enforcement order. Yeah. And did not adhere to that enforcement order. The enforcement order clearly stated that fines of $300 a day would be issued following today's meeting. The debate I think that is
emerging is to what extent are we going to execute on our our enforcement? Um, are we going to I think we the commission has in the past been fairly forgiving
and whether we continue that in this one or not. I think that's what we're we're all at least what I'm debating in my mind and I get a sense that everyone's debating. Do we issue a one time $300 fine? Do we issue daily? I think we're all in favor of some sort of fine. Um, it's just a question of how severe are
we going to go. And I appreciate uh the commissioner's recommendation about rescending fines. I think that could be a good option. >> Can I can I add to that just a little bit of because I touched on it a little bit but didn't really elaborate that
like we said before issuance of fine is to compel action to get back into compliance. And then there comes to the level of you know where things are at and what resource areas are involved and what the potential is. So, somebody does something in their
backyard and there's not really a huge amount of issue with adjacent BBW or IBW. Not that big of a deal. If it's a vernal pool and they've done work that's going to cause silt to run into the vernal pool, you want them to fix that. You want them to fix it yesterday and you're going to be firm with fines to
make sure that they take quick action. Same thing with something like Smelt Brook, Salt Marsh, which is just downstream of this, where you have a site where we discussed before that this is concerning, right? You now have an open hole
essentially in where a stream was put into a culvert that now exposes it to dirt, expos it to further undermining, and you may be one big storm away from pretty good disaster there. Um, so I
think that comes into play here where yes, you know, Brian, like I said, has been responsive. He's clearly been been trying. Um, it just at this point may not be enough. Um, and
>> and is he in a position to hire someone to do work like this that is quite extensive and quite costly? I know that question has come up in the past. He also >> think we really so far beyond our >> No, I know that. But again, it's a piece
of the >> No, but I get what you're saying when you're talking about you had a somebody who already said, you know, I need to keep cost down on this project. I'd like to build the fence out of pallets, >> right? I mean, we're talking about >> when you come to permitting on on a on a
covert. Um, yeah, there is. He also mentioned, and again, I don't mean to muddy the waters or extend this discussion because heaven knows it's gone on a long time, but he talked about something about how to fund and talking with town council about options. So, are we on a two-track thing
here? >> Um, I don't really want to get into much detail of >> No, but >> conversations with council, but I think >> but we're trying to come up with expectations that are realistic,
>> right? I I'm not aware of any portion so far of a conversation with town council that's relevant to the situation in front of you. Basically, >> one way or the other thing is I don't want that to be reintroduced at a later date as an excuse for no movement. >> I can't see it as a excuse for movement
because town council doesn't speak for the town, something like that. Okay, the hole is going to stay there for 4 And I'm saying this in a way too for clarification for Brian so that >> well the applicant has a right to look for however means that they might be able to complete the project. If they're going to look for grant money or
something I don't care about that neither should delay it shouldn't delay the execution of >> and and my point is that he's not considering it a reason for his delay that it's an acceptable reason. I would even go a little bit further that our
action here is about making sure that bad dirt things don't happen while we're waiting for >> oh well maybe maybe maybe the state will pick up the bill if we wait long enough. >> That's not an excuse. >> We can't
he's he's holding himself up as somebody in direct control of this parcel. he has a direct responsibility to he's he's the controlling exposing and uh and it was willful. Okay. So all
of the actions to date were his. This wasn't an accident. It was well let's figure out what the sinkhole is and let's just fix it. There was a process. He skipped it. He has the ramifications and the ramifications are that he's
exposed it to worse things in the future. leniency at this point. I haven't seen any good faith. There's been some discussions. There's been some phone calls. We were very clear in what we were supposed to have received, >> right?
>> When we were supposed to receive it, and there there's another one pending because the 30% thought that he hasn't even signed up an engineer is going to be at the 18th that we're going to be discussing at the next meeting. So, leniency at this point doesn't get us to where we need. >> Nor am I suggesting leniency. I just
want to make sure Brian hears the rest of this discussion so he doesn't come back in a couple of weeks saying, "Well, golly, you know, I tried this and I tried that and whatever." I want this to be crystal clear what our expectations are, >> right? And just to go back on the good
faith, right? Good faith is is a legal legally defensible threshold. If you're under it, you're not in good faith. You can make some efforts moving towards good faith effort, but it's incomplete until it's actually to that level. bringing a good faith effort in
front of us, I think would mean something. What we've seen here today, I don't think achieves that. And and that's not where we >> take our foot off, >> right, >> the the car that we're trying to drive, which is to bring it all back into compliance. And every day that it's not
is is an exposure that shouldn't be there. And I think that's the only way that we we get on there. So, I don't think a one-time violation is is sufficient at this point because it's 300 and it it doesn't get us to any and at that point, what are we doing? Are we
kicking it two weeks? Give them another two weeks for one $300 bill or And is that enough to compel action to achieve what was supposed to be achieved and gave them a full month to actually get there in in two weeks?
cuz then we're going to be talking about the other deadline that we missed. And I don't think that anything along that line is is something that we should be waiting right now. I think we should stick to the original. Um and and that would be my motion. If if you strongly disagree, I'm I'm open.
>> I think that we also need a motion to better define the fence. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> Separate motions. I I prefer as two separate motions. >> All right. So I would make a motion to >> let's do the fence first >> Matt to is issue a enforcement order
for a minimum 8 foot site fence >> chain link >> secure um sorry chain link site fence set a minimum 10 ft back from the existing um >> excavation limit.
>> I'll second that motion. >> All right we have we have a motion. We have second installed by date. >> Oh, sorry. Um, installed by uh the day before the next meeting, which would be uh the 23rd. June 23rd. >> Thank you.
>> Would you like an e receipt? >> Did Brian second that? >> Um, >> thank you for shopping at the home. >> Do you accept that as as amended? >> I'll second your I think yours you made the motion, right? Yes, >> I did. Yeah, but I amended it after you.
Yeah. Okay. >> All right. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. >> Abstain. >> All right. So that's the first first. >> Second part would be to start issuing because of uh the lack of of progress on
the stipulated conditions of the previous enforcement order to start issuing the fines as identified in that previous enforcement order. is starting today. >> Starting tomorrow.
>> Sorry. Tomorrow. Tomorrow. >> That would be that would be my motion. >> Second. >> We have a second by Megan. We'll take a vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> I. >> Abstain. All right. So, that motion carries 4 to one. All right. Brian, Matt
will be in touch. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions for us before we uh we wrap it up? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on. >> That was that was it for enforcement right now. >> Corrective minutes. >> Updates.
>> Minutes. >> Minutes. Sorry, I didn't see >> I didn't read the minutes. >> I didn't see >> for Shane. >> I didn't read. >> Were there any minutes? >> I didn't I didn't >> kick the minutes. We're we're so updated on minutes that who who cares
if nobody read them and didn't or didn't get them. We'll skip them. >> Marilyn read them. She does her homework. >> I read them. >> There are and it's available for the March. >> Dad is asking when the meetings were >> minutes or when did you did you include those in your first email?
>> Um I don't know. They're in the one drive. >> They didn't show up on mine. >> I don't know. >> That's your one drive though. That that never works. almost >> we'll push it to the next meeting. If anybody wants a hard copy of them or them directly emailed to you, just shoot me an email so we remember.
>> All right, Matt, can we move to updates then? >> Yeah. >> All right. Please uh update us on any ongoing projects. >> Um I would say the biggest thing is we had town meeting on Saturday. um after some some vigorous debate over the CPC
articles, ultimately everything that we um had sponsored um or supported past. Um so we get the funding for the Maple Street Conservation and Dam purchase, which is very tentative because we don't really know where that one is is going or whether we can be a part of it or
not. But at least now we have the money um from CPC that was that was put aside for that. Um the 83 Whopping Road money from CPC went through um and I got the final actual confirmation today that we
have our private donation lined up of the 25,000 that we needed uh to go through with that purchase. So, um I've talked to Wildlands Trust because part of the I mean apparently like buying through CPC
a CR is required anyways. Uh which was something I wasn't really familiar with before because I think we just had been doing it anyways. Um but um that was also part of the you know agreement for the donation was they wanted to see a CR
put on it. So, Wildland's trust is stepping up to to hold the CR. And thankfully, we do not need to come up with the uh CR endowment money until the CR is official. So, that will give me time to maybe go back to CPC and see if they can pull money out of their uh
administrative fund. Brian always says we can't do that, but we might be able to or we'll find some way of of funding the money for that. Um, so we don't have to come up with it now, but we are on track to hopefully close on that
property on July 15th, which is cool. Um, so that's a good project that's coming together. We got our storm water money, which is good, uh, for the MS4 compliance for the next year. And the last thing that really wasn't supported by concom or
really brought to you was um the moving confirmation or appointment of open space committee members from the town moderator to the board of selectman um is something that I've wanted to do for a few years just for sort of expediencies sake. Um and that that passed as well. Um
backtracking to storm water. I did finally get that quote I was looking for for the regs update and it was a lot higher than I expected and definitely higher than we can afford. I have a call scheduled to discuss that with um our
consultant just to try to figure out why and see if that amount can come down significantly and if it can't then maybe we'll just we'll just do it live. >> Do it live. >> Doing it live. >> So, um I think that's that's about all the updates I have for now. It's really hot in here tonight. It is hot and then
it got cold and then it got hot again. I thought it was me. >> No, >> that's all my talking. >> It kept freezing, doesn't it? >> Matt Georgiana, good job. Good work. It was uh some serious work to get those items together for the meeting and I'm
sure the people of the town appreciate it because um despite spirited debate um I think it's been very clear and in certainly my interactions with the people in town that conservation is one of the things that they all seem to
agree on. And while I think there's a lot of important things in the town, I think that you know ultimately you got to like where you live and >> you know so I think what we do here is is important. >> There was a really I wrote down his name. There was somebody who got up uh during the discussion whopping road article and gave a really great speech
on >> how you know he can't believe what he's hearing in the room. Yeah. >> That's just his husband. Jess was >> Oh, was it was it was I didn't know his name. >> Jess Kramer. just Kramer who was very pivotal as on the select board with Blackwater stuff.
>> Yeah, >> it was interesting cuz I was going to reach out and ask if he wanted to join Kong, but I heard him say he had four kids and I was like, "Nope, he's not joining me." >> Um, but he gave a great talk about how, you know, when you talk to a lot of people in town, people want to support conservation. People seem to want to do something about, you know, fast
development that that's occurred over the years. And that being at town meeting, a lot of what you hear is meeting >> taking a partial off the tax roles and those sorts of things. So, I liked I liked what he got up there and said to get that >> we didn't take that parcel off tax. We there was part of it that we purchased, right?
>> It's it's basically that you know the parcel's been in chapter for years and years. It's it's brought up very little in in tax revenue over the years, but it's been out of chapter and it would be sold for private development. So, the con the concept was it was either going to be one or two single family house
lots. And the case that I made at town meeting was that, you know, your best case scenario, if it was two lots and you might get, you know, 8 to $10,000 from each in tax revenue and they don't have any kids, then you've got 16 to
$20,000 positive in tax revenue. But if you know, you have we we pulled the 2024 numbers out of the um the state website tracking um you know, what the cost per student is in Kingston. and it it's a
split between state and local funds. So, it's not perfectly clean. Um, but a lot of those funds are routed through the through the municipality. And it was 15,000 per student. >> So, I just try to make that case that you talk about taking land off the tax roles, but if you're talking residential
development and particularly in this kind of style, then it's it's really um up in the air as to whether it would be a positive or negative, and it's entirely possible that it could be a serious negative. So, um yeah. Well, good job, Matt. >> Thanks. >> Good job. Um,
>> it was a good meeting. >> All right. Any other any other discussion or move to closing remarks? >> Nothing from me. >> Anybody want to be heard from the public? Last time. >> No.
>> Hearing none. We will move um the next meeting will be held June 24th, 2026 starting at 6:30 p.m. The time is now 9:05. >> Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved.
>> Motion by Marilyn, second by Megan. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed? Abstained. All right. Motion carries five to zero.