Hey, buddy. >> I'm not hearing you. >> All right. >> Are you hearing me? Can you hear me now, Keith? Uh, you're muted. >> Yeah, I know. I >> Okay. >> It wasn't letting me unmute for some reason, >> but you can hear me.
>> I sure can, Dave. >> All right. Yeah, it was the setting on the uh the audio. You just talk for me. >> This meeting of the conservation commission will be held in person at the location provided on this notice. Members of the public are welcome to attend this in-person meeting or
remotely. All town board and commission meetings are required to provide remote participation [clears throat] if there is a technical problem. And remote participation cannot be provided >> as smooth as Barry White's voice. >> That's what I go for. >> Thanks. White berry white is what they call me. All right, have a good one.
Bye. >> [music] [bell] >> Okay, the time is now 6:35. The date is Wednesday, June 24th, 2026. Commissioner Payne is absent. >> [clears throat] >> Take a roll call to open the meeting.
Jim Franklin's here. Megan >> here. >> Kina >> here. >> Dot >> here. >> Marilyn >> here. >> Please note that we are doing a hybrid meeting with inerson and virtual attendance. If a member of the virtual public would like to make comment 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 as soon as they are able. [clears throat and cough] Anyone intending to make a audio or video
recording of of this meeting should be notified the chair at this time. Hearing none. [clears throat] Announcement. Kingston Conservation Commission is 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 the conservation department by calling 781-58537 or emailing Matt Paneller at mpn kingston ma.gov. [clears throat] Matt, you got signing documents you want to brief us on?
>> Yes. Uh we have bills or Apex for year 8 MS4 support WB Mason for office supplies and we have the uh denial order of conditions for Baker a voted at the last meeting. >> Okay. Two other bills
strongree engineering for Lake Street Culver bid prep and a reimbursement to me for shipping costs. Okay. >> Any questions? action items. Um move on to a public meeting to discuss the request
for determination of applicability for 53R Main Street submitted by Green Seal Environmental LLC on behalf of the applicant 53R Main Street Realy LLC for storm water improvements, vegetation restoration and plantings,
[clears throat] removal of old fence posts and debris and installation of wood fence within the 100 foot buffer zone to an inland wetland resource area. Matt, is the applicant here? >> Yes. >> All right. [clears throat] Um >> representative online. >> All right. Where this is the first
meeting, u we'll hear from we'll hear an introduction from the applicant. >> Sorry, I was looking at a >> ma'am. Before we start, did you sign in? >> I did. >> All right. For the for the record. Um, so as you described here,
um, >> microphone, >> is there a button on the microphone with a green light? >> There is now. [clears throat] >> It does. I'm the first up, so I need to turn it on. Right. >> Apparently, >> um, so as you described, we're here for
the RDA, uh, for 53R. Um, your your agent, Mr. Panella um put in a a good description of kind of the history of the property. Um they were issued a notice of violation um earlier
this year which was then dismissed um because of the statute of repose. there was um I think some some neighbor disputes happening um and went out to the site and noticed that there was some uh additional pavement uh on the
property that was previously unpermitted. Um we think looking at aerials that probably happened um probably 2020 2009 maybe 2011 so kind of a long time ago. Um, so since that
notice of violation was dismissed, um, the applicant still, you know, they acknowledge where they are in in terms in in regards to the resource area, uh, that's that's off their property and would like to do something to uh improve
existing conditions out there, improve some storm water conditions from that pavement. um and do some buffer zone restoration with some plantings um and also putting in a fence um along
the property line uh which was kind of discovered where it was through this process and and so as we all know um good fences make great neighbors. Um so basically what we're looking to do is
put in some infiltration um trenches along the downgradient end of the pavement which is where most of the water funnels to. Um that would reduce sediment loading. It would infiltrate it
attenuate some of the storm water. Uh we're proposing some plantings along the the property line um which are shown on the plans. Um they were chosen, you know, appropriate for like rain garden
applications. So I think it would be appropriate for um where they're proposed on the plan. uh there's some area of uh grass that has been maintained as grass for um you know I
think the the history of the property um that has been you know there's some some gravel in there that's it's not in good condition it's not stabilized that's in the buffer zone so we'd like to clean that up replant some grass that will
restabilize that area um and then there is an also So, an uh a small area about 280 square ft um that was grass prior that is located at the very edge of the 100 foot buffer zone um that the
applicant has uh removed the grass and has put in crushed stone. So, we've included that in this application um to cover that activity that is in the buffer zone. So that is the the gist of the project. Um the one
other thing um when Matt was out on site um he noticed there are three large metal posts that are along the property line that's in close proximity to the wetland line. Um they're they're pretty old. They've been there a long time. We're also proposing to remove those um
as recommended by your agent. >> Okay. Um, we'll hear from Matt now. We might have some questions. Um, you can remain at the podium, but >> sure. >> If you have have something you'd like to say, just ask be recognized. >> Okay, Matt. >> And if anybody wants this up on the
screen, I can I can pull up the plan. >> I think that would be helpful. Okay. Here it is. So, you have Main Street over here to the left. Um you have the paved area along here
and these are the all in um sort of in bold print is the proposed conditions. So here you have the top soil and grass restoration after removing the plowing debris. Over here this is the outer extent where the grass would be removed replaced with crushed stone. Um you have
the wetland border right here and you have the u plantings essentially right up against that with the fence along the property line also um pretty close to the to the wetlands. Um I believe this fence was proposed with the spacing for
wildlife passage and this is the sort of storm water component of it um which is the trench with the perforated pipe. Um, so I guess I'm not going to read through every bit
of the staff report for time purposes, but I think one of the bigger things on this, we talked about the statute of propose and the dismissed enforcement issue. Um, I think it's important to point out that what was filed was not
attempting to permit that um, pavement in retro. Um, so there's potentially still an enforcement issue here that if the commission wanted to enforce it on the next owner of the property, they could. Um, so I wanted part of why I shared this staff report was wanted to
make sure that um they the applicant was aware of that that you know unless the commission feels going forward like it's not something that they think is concerning then I think that if somebody is because we have had several people come in with interest in the property and I feel like I'm
supposed to tell them about this so that they're aware of it. Um, so if that's something that the applicant was looking to do is get this pavement permitted in retro, we would need to see a modified filing for that. Having said that, I don't know that
it would be likely based on the impervious surface percentage. I think it was around 40% in jurisdiction with the pavement as is. Um, so it's likely that you would either need substantial mitigation or removal of some of that
pavement with additional, you know, storm water management in order to get that legally permitted as as a paved area. Um, but it may be that with modifications with storm water improvements that the commission feels like things are dealt with and there's
no need to take enforcement action. Again, it's really wacky the way the statute of propose works that every time a property is sold. Um, you can take enforcement action against that person for something they didn't do. Um, but it is the way the law works and it is a tool the commission can use to fix
issues that cause detrimental impacts on wetlands. Um, here I I think it's it's probably clear that the addition of pavement here um is is causing some issues with that wetland. um what's
proposed generally here in this filing without the pavement. I think mostly meets the standards. There are some small things like in KWPR requires an O andM plan for storm water BMPs. Um so I think best practices here would say that
you have a a plan for how this is going to be maintained over time to ensure that it continues to function. Um and everything else I I think generally, you know, would meet the standards because the area has clearly been developed for a long time. Um you know, this you're
putting a fence and plantings right up against the wetland edge, but that area already had some version of a giant metal fence with giant posts in it and has been um maintained for longer than I could see through aerial imagery.
So, >> I sort of wrote down that the commission should um, you know, officially confirm that this area was in that, you know, landscaped condition historically and that everything here, you know, would
meet the standards of KWPR. Um, I wrote that if you were going to approve this, um, they're going to be removing these fence posts. You could consider adding special conditions to any permit to protect the wetlands. Basically, if machinery is going to be coming in to remove those posts and install a new
fence with the proximity of the work to the resource areas, how are they going to protect that area during that work? Um, and I think it's important to discuss whether the type and location of erosion control here is sufficient to protect
the resource areas given again the proximity to uh to the wetlands where the work is going to happen. um you would likely have a large amount of soil disturbance when you're installing plantings in a storm water BMP. But I think the biggest thing was
the pavement and discussing whether or not that was something that the applicant was looking to wrap up and be done with or if it's something that they're looking to just see if they can make the situation better and go forward. >> Well, let's hear from the applicant. >> May I? Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um
the applicant would like to close out the issues on site so there is nothing remaining for any future um owner. So um you know we'd like to discuss what that solution would look
like in order to get the commission comfortable and approve that and close this out. Okay. We'll open it up to discussion on the board. Um, so it seems like there's some things that we should be bringing into this and it seems that
they're amendable to to bringing in. I think ultimately from where I stand, I think they need some more time to work it through. Um, do we want to discuss anything else? Is there anything glaring that that you all as commissioners have on this discussion?
No, I think that was pretty well defined going forward the activity that should take place and I think continuing it makes sense. So they had the time to do that. >> I can add please just if you like um I think if you so if you just modified the
application to say we also want to permit the you know the pavement in retro um it probably wouldn't get through as is. Mhm. >> I think that um typically when you run into needing a variance,
the commission rightfully doesn't like to issue those things under um DOAs typically require NLIS for that. When it's retrospective, that may be something the commission might be willing to deal with given that the
payment's already there. Um, but I think you need to either remove the amount of imperous surface on the property to get much closer to the maximum 15% allowed by KWPR or provide enough mitigation to make it obvious that it's okay that that amount of
pavement is there because this area over here mitigates that. >> Okay. Um, >> and adequate mitigation, I would assume, would be installing storm water controls to meet that 100redyear storm event per your regulation.
>> I would say it's typically that it's either getting storm water into the ground so it's not running off into wetlands, particularly when it involves pavement, um, or, uh, restor, you know, buffer zone restoration, that sort of
stuff. Um, yeah, I think I think some combination of lessening pavement and increasing the capacity of of the storm water BMP
>> could do the trick. >> Okay. >> Um, and then wrap it all up and be done with it. >> Um, and I think the commission would probably be willing to hear that as an RDA. I mean, you can file anything as an RDA, but I mean, they may be willing to issue a DOA on that given that
>> we're not talking about getting a variance to install pavement there above the 15%. It's already done and it's somebody just trying to fix the situation. >> Okay. >> And so, would potentially, you talked about a combination of removing some pavement and providing adequate storm
water controls. Um, what if we removed all of that so-called new pavement, unpermitted pavement, um, and replaced with something pvious? >> Yeah, I think as long as it's pvious. Um, >> because we talk a lot about
like gravel being pvious, but when you have gravel that involves a lot of fines or has been compacted heavily, then it doesn't really um, percolate. So, I think that if it was like just go in, I don't know what's underneath the pavement, but I imagine if you went in there and just ripped up the pavement, what's underneath it probably isn't
pvious right now. So, it might be a combination of removing that and the underllayment and getting down to where there is percolation and then building it back up either with pvious pavement or something else that's pvious like crushed stone or something,
>> right? >> There's options [clears throat] anyways. There's a few different ways you can go with that. um you can kick ideas off of my office in the meantime. Um so we can can definitely help you with that. We're not going to come up with all the ideas or anything, but if you have an idea or a few options or something and you want
to ask us if we think that something like that might um you know pass muster with the commission, then we can definitely give advice on that stuff. >> Okay. >> Let me ask you, do you have any specific questions for Matt? Not the technical details about the process. Would you
like to bring those up now or would you just like continue? Um, well, I guess my question would be if we were to amend the application based upon tonight's meeting, um, to permit that pavement or
do something to mitigate for it. Um, do we need to refile or can we just continue this as a modification? >> We can continue this as a modification. It's just a matter of how long. >> Okay. Um, our review deadline right now
for our review timeline for continuance is one week, >> which becomes problematic because we're a 4-day work week now. So, that only gives me really one day to review that information and get it to the commission with substantial time before the meeting. >> Um, so given that there are more
substantial changes to this than you would typically see in a continuence, I would just want a little more time for review. So, I wouldn't want to be chasing two week continuences until it's until it's done. So, I think >> if you thought you could have all this stuff done in like two days, then maybe we continue it for for two weeks.
Otherwise, I would say start with a month and just get us the information as soon as you can. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Y motion to continue. Um what do you think? Two weeks. >> Does the commission have any other questions or comments? >> I don't think so. I think I think the
general instruction is is to discuss it amongst yourselves. Yeah. Um I was just saying if if we agreed to remove the pavement um you know would the commission agree to that this evening with a plan to follow
up to actually show that for >> you want to see the plan. >> Yeah. Yeah. See it first. >> Not not tonight based on a verbal. >> Sure. Okay. >> Right. >> All right. >> Um would you like two weeks or a month? Um, let's do two weeks. >> Yep.
>> Up the deadines. >> Get that planned to you ASAP because I'm going to London. So, >> it's a July. >> Um, Matt, that the two week is that date. What date is that? >> July 8th. Go ahead. Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue to July?
>> So, I'll move that we continue to July. >> All right. We have a motion by Marilyn. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Dot. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed? Abstain. All right. That motion passes. >> See you in a couple. >> Thank you for your time. >> Um hearing. We're going to move on to
hearings. [clears throat] >> Oh, just a jump jump to the hearing. >> Yeah. Looks like it's going to be back at the end soon. It's towards the end. >> So much for
[clears throat] >> All right, we're going to move on to public hearing section A 18 Smith's Lane, map 67, lot 82-1, notice of intent. I'll now continue a hearing for the notice of intent
submitted by Southshore Survey on behalf of Ronald Burnso for the proposed construction of a single family house with associated utilities within the 100 foot buffer zone to inland wetland resource areas in the 200 foot riverfront area. Um Matt, could you
brief us? >> Yeah, I think um this one's essentially new, so we should do a presentation. We have um Courtney Beck with online. >> All right, Courtney. Um uh please walk us through the project. Um introduce yourself um for the record. Sure.
>> Hi, I'm Courtney Beckwith with Southshore Survey here to talk about 18 Smith Lane. >> Do you have a mic setting perhaps? >> Can we get more volume in the room or is it maxed? >> Um if I get closer.
>> Hello. Is this any better? [laughter] >> Um and is it okay to share my screen? Please. >> Sure. All right. So, this is 18 Smith's Lane in Kingston.
Um, and the applicant, well, the existing site is, um, it has a it's mostly uh grass with some gravel showing through. Um this area right here, this
dotted line is where we delineated um the existing gravel area. Uh we tried to underestimate how much of the lot has gravel underneath the the vegetation that's growing through as a lawn um for
the purposes of our our riverfront analysis calculations. Um, but currently there is this this gravel entryway. Um, there's a paved rectangle here with a shed on top of it. Um, there are some concrete tire stops along this entrance
here. Um, there is a new sewer stub that was installed uh for a future residential house um or home. Doesn't necessarily pertain to conservation. Um, but that does mean that we will not need
to uh install a septic system. Um, and in this back section of the yard, there is a vinyl fence going pretty much right on the property line. Um, there there are two concrete blocks
right here. These are actually the weights um put in the back of empty dump trucks uh or empty snow plows that had sand in it just as to to act as a counterwe um because this lot was used as a uh
contractor's yard for several years by the applicant's family. Um they stored trucks um and the gravel that's here is uh leftover gravel from septic installations. um once they
finished the job, they would put the leftover gravel on their lot and use that as a a surface for their trucks. Um there are also a couple statues back here. And we just discovered a septic tank manhole back here. Um which we
believe goes to a 500galon uh tank, but we did not pop the cover. Um so we're not entirely sure what's under there. Um, we only knew that it existed because a neighbor asked if it was still there because he watched it
get installed. Um, so after a couple minutes with a metal detector, we did find it. Um, so what we are proposing so and here are uh there is a
intermittent stream up here. Um, this line is sort of the the the river >> stream. Sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Perennial stream. I keep doing that. I'm sorry. Um, this is the 100 foot riverfront buffer and um,
there's only a little piece of the property that's actually in that 100t riverfront. Um, but then there is a bordering vegetated wetlands that do cross over onto the property here. So, we have the buffer zone to the uh
wetland as well as the 200 foot rear front buffer and then the 100 ft BVW buffer. Um, and inside of all of this, we are proposing a 1,400 square ft single
family dwelling and a driveway. Um, we tried to keep this as far as we could out of the buffer zones. Um but we had to also uh keep it far enough for for
zoning setbacks. Um and we provided this table here. Um it doesn't look like it's etched purple anymore. Okay, there it is. um to show the areas that are on the lot
that are in the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. Um and the total riverfront area on the lot would be from this 200 foot riverfront onward. Um and the existing degraded area is
where we calculated from this uh gravel and then the existing pavement and then this existing uh gravel section that um is associated with the neighbor's driveway but it is on our land.
Um, and we are proposing to remove all of this existing imperous area um, and put the house on top of where the the gravel area is um, to try to minimize
any impact. And I I have uh these percentages down here. I know um, we have another uh, group of percentages from from Brad Holmes. We ended up in another great
place. So then that night we went Claire wanted to go on the jet the ripper tour. >> Oh wow. >> Sorry. Hang on one second. >> Was like who is muted.
>> I'm sorry. Please continue. >> All right. Um so this is our our our main uh proposed conditions and then this is our proposed planting plan. Um this was prepared by
uh ECR um environmental consulting and restoration Brad Holmes. Um and he has also provided a riverfront analysis memo um to the the commission explaining um his opinion that uh most of this
riverfront area is previously degraded. Um, and that doing this this mitigation here with some of these Bayberry, witch hazel, and eastern red cedar plantings um will overall reduce the total impervious
area within that jurisdictional buffer area. Um, and that's the summary of the plan. Um, are there any questions on that? I might have missed something or skipped.
>> Well, let me let me ask you this. If you're done with your, uh, original pass on this, um, we're going to open it up to Matt and if you need more time, we're going to stick with you, but we're not going to do questions yet. Okay. >> Okay. >> Would you like more time or or or is it
>> Um, I'm okay going to Matt. >> All right. We might have some questions. Um, we'll we'll ask you specifically to address um when it's time. Um, if you need to speak, please raise your hand. Okay. >> All right. Matt, could you um could you walk us through um your staff report?
>> Yeah. And I think unless the commission um disagrees that I'm going to skim through a lot of this stuff because I have provided you with the staff report and I've also provided the applicant with the staff report. >> Um so I don't want to go through every detail of this. I think some of the bigger ticket things here. Um, just to
cover any questions about enforcement for unpermitted work. Um, the only thing that would really be considered here as as unpermitted work would be uh the shed and the paved area um underneath where the shed is. Um,
everything else the gravel as well, but that's a little bit more complex. Um, >> septic too. I Yeah, I was going to ask what year the the neighbor had seen that septic go in, but that might have predated. So, basically, the way it works essentially is anything that was
already existing when the Rivers Act passed in 1996 is considered to be exempt from riverfront standards. So, if there's already landscaping there, then you can't take enforcement action on there being landscaping there. It doesn't mean that you need to allow further development, but it means you can't take enforcement action on the
fact that this law was cleared prior to the Rivers Act passing. from our local bylaw because the rivers act that's just river that doesn't cover buffer zone and there is BBW and BBW buffer zone here. So KWPR states that any work that was
already done before KWPR was passed is considered to be of a legal nature. So again there's no grandfathering. It doesn't mean that something you have to allow something to go in there but it means you can't take enforcement action for something that was done prior to that. So, the only things here that were not considered, you know, legally
permitted would be the pavement and uh the shed. But it's it's interesting because the the filing in between the regular NOI and Brad's portion of it talks a lot about degraded area um and calculates degraded area. But degraded area is only relevant if it was degraded
before August 7th, 1996. Um, and I discussed this with them when they first filed the NOI or when after we had the first hearing where I said they had to kind of work on some things was in order to go forward as though the area is degraded, you have to really show that
the area was degraded before 1996. Um, and I didn't see any solid evidence in the filing or anything they had sent that really proves that all of that gravel was in place before 1996. Um, so I think that's an important
consideration to this. Um, I think that they should update the filing to provide further evidence of compliance with the riverfront standards of wetlands protection act and the local bylaw. Um, I mean, if you determine that the property meets the criteria that
everything is previously degraded, then you don't have to do that. that you could issue orders and conditions on the property, but I think that it's something that they should um go back to and redo. And I think that mitigation obviously is going to be a component of this and they have shown mitigation on
this plan. I think that the mitigation that was shown um could be done better in a way to be more I don't want to say protective, but really protective of the wetlands and the riverfront. Um what you see is mitigation of the outer
riverfront area where it's in between, you know, this property and the neighboring property where there has been some gravel installed, removing the gravel and planting that um native vegetation. But we essentially have a property where there's zero buffer zone to the BBW. There's, you know, mode
grass and yard area and fence right up to the edge of the BBW. So, if you were going to mitigate on this property, I think you would mitigate where it protects the BVW and the closer parts of the riverfront area than than the further extent because I think that would have a better impact and it makes
it easier for the commission to see the value of it and um you know allow development that that does um modify the riverfront area. just flip through and make sure that I covered everything I wanted to cover on
this. Um, I did say for ESC they proposed a 36-in tall silt fence with two layers of 12-in diameter straw waddle behind around the limit of work and material storage area. Um, the proposed installation does match the
standards of the manufacturer recommending sinking the base of the sil fence into the soil. Due to the presence of the silt fence, provided that it is properly dug in, straw waddle may be sufficient. Otherwise, I typically recommend 12-in silt sock for best protection against siltation. So, again,
if it's installed correctly, I don't really have an issue with the ESC as described, but typically you would see 12-in silt sock, not straw bottle on something like this. Um, the riverfront analysis memo is correct in saying the site has been
maintained in an altered condition since at least the early 1990s. And in fact, it does appear to have been altered back to at least 1971, possibly earlier. But altered is a wetlands permitting term simply implying change. And it's different from that developed or degraded that I talked about that's part
of the riverfront uh language. So, in order to be considered previously developed or degraded, the site must contain structure, pavement, lack of top soil, junkyards, or abandoned dumping grounds and must have been like that before August 7th, 1996. Um, so if you
don't have clear evidence that all of that gravel, shed, and pavement was in place when the Rivers Act passed, how can you determine that they were not added in violation of it? And if they were unpermitted modifications following August 7th, 1996, then their removal would not count as improvements, but
would be expected from an enforcement standpoint. Um, just a quick reference from KWPR. Um, in the riverfront area section, the commission may require that the applicant maintain a strip of continuous undisturbed vegetative cover within the 200t riverfront area unless the
applicant overcomes the presumption of significance by a propoundonderance of the credible evidence that the area or a portion of it may be disturbed without harm to the wetland values. Again, the property appears to have been generally altered, but I don't know that it meets the standards of being degraded prior to
that. It's not clear whether the proposal meets the standard of 310 CMR 10.585A which states that at a minimum proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the capacity of the riverfront area. The house is
proposed further from the river from the stream than the existing structures on the property and the project proposes removal of the closer structures the shed and the paved area which is better and does meet that standard. However, the shed and pavement do not appear to predate the Rivers Act and constitute
unpermanented modifications to jurisdictional areas. As the required coverage table is not listed on the plan or in the NOI packet, it's unclear whether the proposal increases or decreases impervious coverage within commission jurisdiction. >> Yeah. And just getting into that a
little bit more. Um, this application does not appropriately calculate impervious coverage. Um, it splits it between buffer zone and RFA rather than the entire jurisdictional area. Um, which is not terribly different based on the way that's laid out. Um, but we still, you know, don't
have that. Proposed impervious coverage in jurisdictional buffers is 10.13% beneath the maximum 15% allowed. But still the plan should be updated to show that
18 square foot would be added to the total if the concrete pads and the 15t buffer are allowed to remain. I think at this point they've said they're going to remove those. So that was a change. That's [clears throat] all I have. Essentially, this is a property that's been developed for a long time in some capacity, but not necessarily developed
or degraded prior to August 7th, 1996 the way that you would need it to be in order to sort of breeze through the riverfront standard. So, I think that um unless the commission feels otherwise that the applicant would either want to come with more evidence that at least
all of the gravel on the property predates that and could be considered part of the mitigation or part of the previously disturbed area or take another stab at meeting the riverfront standards of the state and the local. >> All right, we'll open it up to the
commission for discussion. Um questions from Matt? >> I have a question. Um that tank, the 500galon tank in the back of it on the property. Uh do you have plans to explore that and find out what's in it
because um it could be toxic to river and other wetland areas. Um could be leaking. I think that should be one of the first things that you examine. And I'm I'm curious why somebody would
have put a septic system on an empty lot. And does it attach to anything? >> Am I allowed to respond? >> Okay. Um the tank what we're assuming uh we don't know in for sure that this is
why it was put in. Um, but we do know that this was a septic uh installation like contractor yard and that they had uh pump trucks. Um, and we're us we're thinking that this might
have been where they emptied out um extra extra moisture and liquid that they had in the trucks um especially in the winter time if there were concerns with uh freezing in the lines. Um, so we're we're guessing that it was used
as sort of like a a industrial wastewater holding tank where they they would just drain what they had in their their trucks into that. Um, we don't know for sure. Um, we definitely are our concern with it. We are pretty
sure that it's it's dry. Um, it's been there for a while. Um it would take a little bit of effort to actually get that open. Um but we're assuming it's dry and empty um and that we were
talking about either abandoning it and crushing and filling it in place um to so as to not disturb more ground than we need to. But we we don't want to leave an empty structure like that um just for
for safety hazard as well. >> Right. >> What year did the neighbor think that they saw it installed? >> Um I know it was when Ron was a kid and he's 68 around then. So it would have been I
mean at least 50 years ago. You're talking about the septic system? >> Yeah, >> it wasn't a septic system. It's just um uh just the tank portion >> Okay. >> Well, what about the septic system? >> There is there is no septic system.
>> I think it's just the septic tank that they were pumping whatever they had in their truck into, but it didn't. >> So, there's no anything like that. >> I don't think we I don't >> You mean a leak field? Is that what you're asking? Yeah. No, >> it may have just had holes in it. >> Okay, >> that's my guess.
>> All right. >> Um I I think we would all feel more comfortable with a lot more clarification on that one, right? Um other questions? >> No, I mean Matt listed all the different calculations and things that need to be
>> taken care of and and then the issue of the tank. I mean, I think there are several things to address. It would probably be necessary to continue. >> I I 100% continue. Um, [clears throat] so Matt, I think I think your report was
great as they always are. I think um I think ultimately we should be asking if um if they're open to a continuence um so that they can work on [clears throat] checking off some of those um items that you brought up.
Courtney, are you open to a continuence to um to address address um the items that that we've discussed here tonight and and uh that you've seen on the the staff report? >> Yes. Um that that will work. Um
I I did want I do have a question. Um but I'm okay with the continuence. Um, >> do you need a is do you have a question for the for us as a board or just something you can work through with Matt? Um, >> um, I think for the for the board. Um, I
don't know how to confirm what that septic structure is. Um, and I'm not sure if we'll be able to explore it, per se, until we have like an actual uh truck or excavator in the yard to open
up the lid. Um, >> I'm not I'm not sure the best way. >> Let me just ask on that. How deep is this? How deep is the is the tank? And I mean, you found it with a >> Yep. So, the cover is only like a Now
it's uncovered. Um, I don't think it's been uh reburied. It was only like half an inch below the surface. Um, you could sort of see an outline of it uh with it's it's right up next to that one big tree here. Um,
>> so you can get the cover open without an excavator probably. >> Probably. Yes. So, I think that would be a start is get the cover open and do some sort of I would say for starters a visual inspection. Um, we we definitely want to know if there was any pipes
associated with it. Um, [clears throat] >> because a sealed tank or a tank that just drains out the side is different than something that indicates there's more structure, >> okay, >> that we don't know about. So, I think the first step is to get your eyes on it
or a competent set of eyes on it. and and be able to report on that because right now it's just there's something there. You can tell it's there. And I think we need a lot more information on that to be able to provide qualified guidance. >> And they have some pretty cool cameras
now with lights on them, right? That can get >> Yeah, there's lots of technology out there. But if there's no pipes, then this what you see is what you get. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. That sounds good. Thank you. >> All right. How long uh how long for a continuence?
Um, I think the the four weeks would be best. Um, I don't think we'll be able to get this to you in the next couple of days. >> Okay. All right. Just to um give everybody open time. Um, is there any public comment questions?
>> I see no question. No hands and no one step forward. Um, >> so is that July 22nd? >> Matt, is that >> that's July? Oh, wait. Sorry. That is um July 22nd. Sorry. Doing four week. So I move that we continue to July 22nd. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Marilyn,
second by Megan. All those in favor say I. I. >> Oppose. >> Abstain. All right. That motion carries five to zero. Courtney. Thank you. Um Matt will be in touch. >> Perfect. just kicked in. All
>> right, we're going to take a slight break while Matt's taking care of business. Yeah. All right. We're going to uh move back to action items. uh will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for
one north street submitted by the applicant in Antineellis for replacement of four non-native bushes with six native bushes within land subject to coastal storm flowage coastal bank and their associated buffer zones um where
this is the first meeting um for this proposal we'll now hear an introduction from the applicant and are you on. >> I'm on. Can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I'm having horrible Wi-Fi.
>> So, um I put a RDA in for um these poor bushes d bushes that are not native and um this is the ones that had come in and we talked about you guys said, "Well, you got to put an RDA in if you want to talk about them." So there are very evasive
bushes with no real help to the um area. Matt and Georgian have been there and looked at them. So my proposal is to take them down and then replace them with uh bushes that have been um approved or at least native bushes that
Matt and I talked about and he said that those would probably be acceptable and I had already bought them. So, because they get sold really more in the early part of the season and then you can't find them. So, um I'm hoping to be able to take those down the other ones and
then put these in and also while taking them down um to treat the roots so that you know they won't come back. >> Okay. All right. Um please um put your mute back on. If you have something, please uh raise your hand. But um
there's some background noise that we want to minimize and then we'll have we'll hear from Matt. Uh Matt, could you give us uh give us your take on this? >> Sure. Yeah, we discussed uh this the last time we um talking about the
property. Um it's it's relatively easy in this situation. You have four um invasive shrubs uh growing just above the top of Coastal Bank. um and cutting those, treating uh the cut
stumps and replacing with native species um is beneficial. Um this is an area that's already behind conservation posts that are to be installed um through an enforcement issue that's already been dealt with um and the posts are actually scheduled to be installed tomorrow um
because there's a fence company installing them and that was all scheduled out. Um so that part's good. I think this is something that's pretty easy to um easy to to permit. I think special conditions the commission could consider here would be requiring the root systems
of the shrubs to remain in place to maintain bank stability. Um so you basically want to cut it and then just dab the cut stem with a little bit of um herbicide in order to make sure it doesn't grow back and continue to need to be maintained. um but making sure
that the root system is not disturbed um and stating that the replacement bushes must be allowed to grow and spread and not be pruned. Um again, this is an area that's behind conservation posts. The intent is not to create garden beds here. Um and you would also probably add a condition that appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls be used as necessary during planting. Um if you have a situation there where people are digging holes to plant shrubs and they don't do anything and leave a bunch of dirt exposed and then it rains then you have um some bad issues with there. And I think already at this site there is
some silt uh some straw waddle from previous planting um and it may be sufficient or she may need to add a little bit more to get behind where these are. But that's all a pretty easy lift. >> All right, we'll open up uh the discussion to the commissioners. Were
you going to add the um the use of chemicals? >> Yeah. So, she um just mentioned that. So, I mean, you can add that as a special condition. I can probably should specify that it's done exactly the way I
said. >> Add it to the list. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Other questions? >> We'll open up to the public if there's any questions. All right. Um, commissioners, are we feeling that this is something that we
could issue a negative3 DOA with special conditions as discussed? >> All right. Perhaps I have a motion for that. >> All right. We have a motion by Megan for a negative 3 DOA with special conditions as discussed. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed.
>> Abstain. >> All right. Hearing none. That passes five to zero. Zero. >> Thank you. Matt will be in touch. Okay. Okay. >> No, ma'am. You your >> she's >> your Wi-Fi is off. >> Andy for the
>> She's on the next one, too, I believe. >> Yeah, she's on for the RC. >> I know. Can you hear me? >> Yeah, we can. >> Probably every 3 seconds, we're hearing a bit of of >> Do I need >> Why don't you turn your video Try turning your video off. That should
help. If you turn your video off, it uses less um whatever bandwidth. Is that >> okay? Oh, video off. Okay. >> Yeah, try that. >> Have to figure out how to do it. >> That's okay. >> Oh, wait a sec. >> Y perfect. >> Stop video. Okay. Okay. So, that is
better. >> Yep. Just give us a second. >> Stay for the next thing. >> Yeah, we're going to need you to stay. >> Yeah, please second. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Give me one second. Sorry. even left.
>> So, next you got an open mic. Let's just let's just I [clears throat] will now open a public meeting to discuss the request for certificate of compliance for one North Street submitted by Grady Consultant uh LLC in regards to orders of conditions issued to an anteneelis
under D file number 037-0917 for the raise and rebuild of a single family dwelling within the 100 foot buffer zone to coastal wetland resource area. Right. >> I wasn't listening. >> Yes. >> Okay. [laughter] All right. Sorry.
>> What part were you questioning? >> No, it's fine. Uh, as this is first meeting on this grass, we'll now hear an introduction from the applicant. >> I can take over. It's just an RC. Um, so this was a project that was permitted through orders and conditions in August of 2021. It was a raised rebuild. There
were no special conditions on it. Uh, just the general conditions that were typically issued. Um we have the required asbuilt and engineer certification. Uh we went out and did a site visit. There's uh imper sorry
pvious deck and um sort of a a walk in to the basement and there's supposed to be certain uh depth of crush stone to maintain pvious status. U I went there and used my hand to excavate a little bit. I didn't measure it, but it appears
to be generally the depth that they're supposed to be. Um, and if there was not a pvious condition there, the water would actually run into the house, not into the resource area directly, which is um, something that, you know, they're going to keep up on it. Um,
project appears to have been mostly built in compliance with the OC's. There are small discrepancies between what was built in the submitted site plan um of record and that consists of approximately 58 square ft of stone walkway connecting front stairs to the
road that was not on the permit plan. Um outdoor propane storage and outdoor shower, both of which were not depicted on the permit plan uh within the 100 foot buffer to top of coastal bank but in the outer extents. Um, stairs off the deck on the east side of the house cross
2 feet into the 50ft buffer zone to the top of Coastal Bank. Stairs to the basement under the pvious deck no longer extend past the pvious deck located underneath it, which is not, you know, anything really problematic. Um, so it's up to the commission really as far as what they consider to be
substantial or not. Um, I didn't see anything with this that that I thought really um was substantial in terms of not issuing a COC, but if the commission has questions about anything, we can we can discuss. >> All right, we'll open it up to just get
uh commissioner discussion questions for Matt the applicant. any anybody have concerns with the uh outdoor shower area or the the only question that I have Matt is about the propane tank location um just as
[clears throat] you know the general location of of because I don't remember that I mean 2021 was a long time ago I don't know if I was here for that filing or not but potentially um was it are we in any kind of velocity zone or anything that we need to be concerned with you
know something tearing it apart >> [clears throat] >> Nope. >> Okay. I have I have >> you have velocity zone um in the area, but it is beneath the top of Coastal Bank at this site. So, where the I can pull it up on the
>> screen if you all want to see it, but the >> propane storage is above ground, which is an important consideration because that's generally um not something that's allowed within certain distances and it's It's within it's probably starts 90 feet
away from the top of coastal bank. So the only thing that I think um from a permitting standpoint is something a little bit more not concerning but something that
would need a variance if it were permitted is the two foot of overlap into the 50 foot setback off of the deck technically makes that mean the structure is within 50 feet of the resource area. Um, so but again it's
it's stairs off of a deck leading to lawn or front lawn area. It's it's all right. Um, >> it's not really something that's super concerning situationally. >> Okay. >> Are we ready for
>> for motion? Um, [clears throat] what are we thinking? And I my my feeling is request and issue the certificate of compliance. Does anybody else disagree? >> No. >> All right. Do we have a motion to >> So I move that we issue the certificate of compliance. >> Okay. All right. >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion by Marilyn, second
by Megan. All those in [cough] favor say I. I. Opposed. >> Abstained. All right. That motion carries 5 to zero to issue the certificate of of compliance. Thanks. Have a good night. Yep. Thank Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Good night. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> July 23rd. >> All right. Thank you. All right. I'll 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 Shu under D file number 037-0653 and 037-0772 for construction of two additions and
entard an attached garage on a single family home within the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands in the 200 foot riverfront area. Uh Matt, could you give us a briefing? >> Sure. Uh we've already gone through uh this this one before. This was uh the
issue with the dumping behind the unpermitted shed. Uh they filed an RDA for the shed, which we'll talk about next. Um we received a there was an issue with the downspout um not being connected to the drywalls that
need to be installed. Uh we got on June 1st information that the remaining downspout had been connected to the dry wells. Um and on June 16th we received a restoration proposal from ECR addressing the fill behind the shed. Um, and it
talks about removing the steep slope of the compost pile by hand raing and shovels and moving the material off to the side of the shed into a sort of already disturbed area and uh seed with a shade tolerant native seed mix and
hand planting uh native shrubs. And I met uh Brad Holmes on site on Monday and just gave I just want to sort of understand a few things about what the plan was and he explained everything. I gave a few recommendations and he
updated the plan on the 22nd to uh use those recommendations including um you know use of erosion control where necessary and addition of the conservation posts that were previously discussed one on either side
of the shed two feet high two feet below ground uh just to try to get at you know a little more protection for that area. Um, so I said the commission should decide if the proposed plan sufficiently addresses the unauthorized fill and decide if separate permitting is needed to
implement the plan. Um, I believe the plan is sufficient and I think the best pathway to permit that would be issuance of an enforcement order. Um, I think what you would do is write an enforcement order mandating that that work get done and that the conservation
posts are installed. Um, the restoration plan calls for a post completion report, but no post completion monitoring. It's up to the commission whether in this case they'll require the two years of post completion monitoring typically required in these restoration projects. Um, and that also could be put in as a
uh condition of an enforcement order. So, I would think that if the commission wanted to issue an enforcement order permitting and mandating that restoration work, then I would have no issue with the commission issuing a COC on this because you've already at that
point mandated that the restoration has to happen and everything else appears to now be in compliance with the OC's. >> Okay. Open it up for discussion on the board. Any um any comments on what Matt had discussed?
Do we feel um that issue in the COC is is the right path and and uh addressing the um future work with the enforcement order? Everybody in agreement? Okay. All right. Uh public comment. Do we have any
comment from the public? All right. Hearing none. All right. Perhaps we have a motion to issue um to approve the request and issue a certificate of compliance. Um separate motions with the understanding that
we're going to put an enforcement action behind it with for the second part of it. >> Do you want two separate motions or just one? >> I think two separate motions is cleaner. >> Yeah. Just maybe reference that we're putting, you know, we're we're addressing two two actions here so we know that we're voting with the
understanding that we're going to do the enforcement action. So you could have one motion for the enforcement order permitting and mandating the work in the posts. Y >> is that sufficient, Matt? >> Yeah. Well, how do you feel about um >> post completion monitoring?
>> Typically, you see two years of post completion monitoring to make sure it works. This is a pretty small area, but it is >> but it's a big >> kind of a concerning one. So I would think you'd want that. >> Okay. >> Agreed. >> So I'll make that motion >> for the enforcement order. >> Okay. as discussed with the right
conditions. All right. So, we have a motion by Maryland. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Dot. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstained. >> All right. So, the enforcement order um passes 5 to 0 to zero. >> Clarification on that. >> Sorry.
>> What's your date on the enforcement order? >> You have to pick a date that the work gets done by. >> Oh, you mean a deadline? >> Yeah, deadline. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Let's open it up. >> What kind of time do they need? Two weeks. >> How much? Two weeks is probably tight. >> I would say at least a month.
>> Two months. A month. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Rick and Taylor. Yeah. Um I know these homeowners have been through a lot with this whole process. >> He's ready to do the work right away. Uh I know you mentioned possible monitoring for the plant. So we could still have
this thing open for another two years at this point. Is it is it work? >> No, I mean the COC would be issued. >> Yeah, that'll be close >> now, right? >> But after the work is done, you'd have the following two years, you'd have somebody, whether it was ECR or somebody else, come out, take a look at it, write
a report, send it to um send it to the commission by usually December 15th. So, if this is a, you know, an escrow situation, I would think that somebody that's a wetland scientist could um quote that in advance, I would imagine, because it's a pretty easy thing to
quote. They're coming out looking at it, writing a thing, and they have pretty standard forms for that. >> So, I would think it should put everything to bed. It's just that there is that requirement that that happens. And the question that I would have for you on this is who is the enforcement order being written out to, right?
because we have new property owners, but we have an agreement there with escrow where the former property owner is taking care of this stuff. So, what you wouldn't want to happen is, >> you know, essentially, I think the cleanest way to deal with it would be the money goes to the the new homeowner
to contract a company like ECR to come back and do that and they would be responsible if they don't do it. >> So, if they don't do it, then you get hit with enforcement to do it, right? >> The I have a question. The enforcement itself is not something gets recorded. It's another lean on the property or is that just something to the commission?
>> No. Enforcement doesn't get recorded. It just has to get done or fines get issued. >> Okay. We'll keep keep an eye on it. Yeah. I know this this homeowner is ready to go out and get I know he'll need professionals to assist with it, but he wants just to get it done as quick as possible. So,
>> so timewise, um how much time do you think he would need? >> I mean, typically with things like this, you're going to a company like ECR to get the work done. um and they're probably pretty busy. So, um again, you plant something this time of year, the
chances of success are super low. Um so, you probably don't even want to do this until >> September, October. So, I mean, you could put a six month on it and just make sure they get it done in the fall. I mean, six months is a little silly because it's right before Christmas when you're checking in on them to see if they did it. So, maybe you want to set
something saying it has to be done by >> um >> November 1st. That was Yeah, I was going to say Halloween, but whatever. Either way works. >> All right. So, cleanest way, Matt, just a new new motion, new vote. Um, or do we need to kill the other one?
>> Um, >> just add a date. >> Just Yeah. If you want to clarify it a little bit and then revote it, that's fine. >> All right. >> Good luck. >> All right. So, a motion to issue the
enforcement order with a deadline for the work to be done by November 1st and the work being done the installation of the posts and the two years monitoring.
>> What else, Matt? Is that everything? >> You got it. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion by Marilyn. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Kina. No, >> by I I was looking. Sorry. [laughter] Okay. Um, we'll give it to Dot. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. >> Abstained. All right. Hearing none. >> And then you need >> So that motion carries 500 to zero. Now we need a second motion to issue the COC. >> Anybody?
>> A motion by Megan, second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed and abstained. Hearing none that the COC is issued five to zero. >> I would say um make sure we talk about
>> who >> yeah we need to we need to make sure that the process works well issuing this directly to the current property owner >> and making sure that financially everything can still happen that way. Otherwise, we can issue it to the former property owner.
Moving on, 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 for construction of a shed within the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated
wetland and the 200t riverfront area. Um, >> I can I can go. >> Do you would >> Well, he's up. So, let's let's let's hear from the applicant. Unless you wanted >> Well, I don't want to go >> what Matt has to say. Let's do this. >> I think now that you've issued an EO
mandating that the enforcement related work gets taken care of and a COC has been voted, then I have no issue with issuing a negative3 determination for retrospective permitting of the shed. No problem. Anyone have any questions, Matt?
>> All right. Do we have a motion to issue a negative 3D DOA? Um, >> I'll make that motion. >> All right. We have a motion by Marilyn. Um, seconded by Megan. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Abstained.
Hearing none. Uh, that motion passes five to zero. >> Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. >> It's a lot of paper. Um, I will now continue a public meeting to discuss the request for certificates of compliance
submitted by Beiel and Thomas on behalf of the permit recipient Adam Schumaka for construction of a dual use agriculture and solar array system within existing cranberry box at 126 Ring Road D file number 037-0890
and 131 and 137 Ring Road D file number 037 7-0889. 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. Uh Matt, do you have a briefing? >> Yeah. Um and just for the record, the applicant requested continuence, but was asking if the commission wanted to give a little feedback um if anybody has been able to review this. So, we were only waiting for one more thing on this um
and it was that emergency um materials um getting at best practices for firefighter safety and keeping contamination from wetlands in the case of a battery storage fire. Um we
received a letter today referenced as an emergency environmental emergency response plan. Um, I, you know, sent it out to the commission for review. Uh, did a quick review. It's just a one-page document. And I emailed the applicant back and told them I
wasn't sure if it met, you know, the requirements of that special condition. Um, technically this was a special condition that was supposed to be done before work started and we just didn't catch that and hold them to it. Um, so now this the batteries have been there for a while and we still kind of don't
have that there. Um, this essentially goes through the timeline and what the property owner will do in the case of a battery or PV array fire. Um, and it says they'll immediately call the
Kingston and Plimpmpton fire departments and then they'll call the Mass DP emergency response division hotline uh within within two hours of a release or spill of oil or hazardous materials. Um, it
says it's their expectation that once the fire departments arrive on the site, they'll take appropriate action to monitor, reduce the spread, and extinguish the fire as they deem necessary and in accordance with local, state, and federal codes, protocols, and standards. It says, "Once the site has been rendered safe by the fire departments, Ringroad Solar LLC shall
hire an appropriate hazardous materials response contractor to perform a proper assessment, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials off-site as applicable. They shall also hire and retain a licensed site professional and associated contractor to perform
necessary sampling and cleanup of nearby soils, surface waters, and groundwater for residual contamination in accordance with the Massachusetts contingency plan. Um so in my discussion with um you know bills and Thomas on this I think what
came out of it was that you know I was told they were waiting on information from the solar company and the battery manufacturer in order to be able to provide this stuff to the to the commission. And then on getting this, I sort of just questioned whether it met the actual language of the condition and
suspected and sort of thought that what I was hearing was that people being the manufacturer and the solar company are hesitant to put anything in writing that can be perceived as telling fire departments what to do. Um, which I understand. Um, and that's where you end
up with this as they deem necessary and in accordance with local standards, yada yada. Um, and so I said, if that's the case, I think your best bet is to bring those people with you to the meeting to explain to the commission why nobody can come up with this when they could caveat
anything they write by saying this is best practices. You know, the fire department is going to do as they feel they need to do to provide for firefighter and public safety. I think what the commission was asking for when that condition was added to the amended
order of conditions was again it was 5 years ago battery storage systems were a little bit newer than they are now. There was less information out there about them. So the commission wanted to make sure that the fire departments were getting information from the vendor and from the solar company about what best practices were. And I think at this
point the fire department has had trainings on them that that part may not be as necessary. But on the other side of it was the commission wanted guidance for our fire departments to understand >> if there is a fire there, if there are best practices that they can train their
staff on in order to keep that fire and the battery components from contaminating the wetlands because essentially from what I understand the plan would be to mostly let it burn out, >> but there may be a component of at some point using water to fully extinguish.
Um, and is there what I was trying to explain today is is there a is there an amount of water? Is there some sort of is there something that can be used to judge where you know complete extinguishment can be reached without risking
using a lot of water that might take all of those chemicals and put them into the adjacent bog and wetlands. Um, so that you don't have to use a site professional um to go in afterwards and remove contamination. So >> I I don't think you use water on a lithium battery. I'm assuming it's
lithium. >> That's that's basically what I think from what I understand the plan is is that you mostly let it burn out, but at some point you might decide it's time to put it out now and they apply water to >> I think there are special chemicals or things. >> Has nobody talked to the fire department?
>> I have. Well, I think I think it's just a little bit of a clarification. I think the B lithium batteries need to just burn out and then at some point there's plastics and all that other stuff and I think they put the plastics out. But that this is the whole point of the the special condition is that that stuff's supposed to kind of be laid out
>> so that >> we can say okay people in our town who have to be in dangerous situations. We got you this. I don't know if it's helpful or not, but we requested it or we required it >> and I think that we need to >> but the fire department should have told
them whether or not they have these standards in place >> or the materials to do it with. >> Well, usually, so let me just speak from construction side of it. Usually when we ask for certain things like this, it's to get more information that the
firefighters aren't sitting there trying to get updates on whatever is specific to this site. So you don't want to saddle the the guys who are busy >> and that we have to pay for stuff that these guys were supposed to provide to
us and MSDS sheets, safety data, like there's lots of things that should be >> a component. What I'm thinking is >> u because this is not the only solar thing around that. I would assume the fire department already has information like that,
>> but it may not be a situation where it's right next to a wetland. That's the that was the interesting thing about this one is it's very close between where those storage systems are and where the bog is. And the bog is directly connected to >> but should be able to tell you what they use.
>> I was told water. >> So, >> well, I think that it burns completely. You don't put water on lithium. And then >> I was Yeah, exactly. I was told generally speaking they're going to let it burn out, but there's a a point in time where they may decide that it's time for complete extinguishment and
they apply water. But again, this is the point of putting it on >> the property owner on the applicant rather than all of us >> trying to figure it out with the fire department. The point was to make them come up with the information so that they add it to their O andM plan. And that was another point was this was not
added to the O andM plan. So whatever ultimately the commission decides to accept for this should then be added to their official onm plan so that it's yeah >> there for everybody who's reviewing the site. So if this property gets sold 10 times >> that on and m plan keeps getting passed
along and all that information is there. So all they really asked when they requested continuence was just to get some feedback from the commission on whether they had a lot more work to do or whether the commission generally thought this would okay >> suffice for you know meeting that condition or
>> well the letter goes in >> well what who's got the responsibility for the best management practice I mean is it the battery company or >> I mean it's the applicant. Yeah. So, it's it's up to them to come with the information. How they get the information, that's up to
>> Okay. >> them. I mean, I would expect that the battery company would have information on >> I would hope so. >> What to do in case of fire with their equipment, but they're not necessarily going to have information about the logistics of this site and at what point
if you're using water, that water is going to get in in large quantity into the wetlands. And that's I think what we're supposed to get out of this. Really what we want is we want the plan to be very specific and we want it to be complete and so we I don't think we want to give them any kind of communication
that says oh well this is really good. >> Yeah. >> I don't that's not what I'm >> in our best opinion. >> Yeah. I I want what we asked for and >> definitive >> definitive y definit definitive and specific. >> Right. So Matt is that enough guidance
for you? So, [clears throat] >> okay. So, >> to to answer it directly, there's a lot of work in my opinion, >> right? But the whole project is essentially done and it should have been there because the batteries have been there. So, technically they've been out of compliance for a long time and it's not >> Do you need a motion to continue that or
>> I think we just continue, right? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Um, how long? What do you think? Two weeks. >> It's up to a month. >> We got to think about a month. >> Yeah. A month. So, that's back to July 22nd. >> 22nd, right? Yeah.
>> Do I hear a motion to continue to July 22nd? >> Sure you do. >> All right. >> Sorry. >> We have a motion by Marilyn, second by Vagen. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Abstain. All right. So that motion to continue carried.
Uh Matt, looks like we're moving to enforcement. 41 Clearing Farm Road. Do you have a briefing for us? >> Sure. Uh we did a lot of vernal pool work this spring. uh part of that community biodiversity initiative um reviewing GIS on one of the potential
vernal pools. I noticed recent development a short distance from the pool I didn't recall seeing a permit for. Uh when I reviewed our departmental filing record for 41 clearing farm road I saw only the initial development of the property which was single family house deck driveway septic system um had
an asbuilt dated June 8th 2016 showing a vernal pool within a larger IVW. Um it showed the 100 foot buffer zones for each. Um this is before the commission was applying the 200 feet from mean high water. Um and it showed conservation
posts generally uh right behind the IVW buffer at the 100 foot extent of the vernal pool edge. Um when I checked the property card, it listed building department permitting for a pool in 2021 and a pool house or shed in 2022. I requested the building department files
relative to the property and both permits were issued without conservation department signoff. Uh one of them predates my tenure here. The other one I had just started. Um the building inspector commissioner at the time had signed off on both. Um the
2021 building permit application contained a document supposedly detailing compliance with wetland and zoning setbacks. Um yet when you look at the detail of it, you can see that the 100 foot buffer to the IBW goes right through the proposed pool itself. Um and
there wasn't any, you know, clearing work, patio limit of work, that sort of stuff shown. Um so it basically used the 100 foot vernal buffer, vernal pool buffer to show that the property, the project was out of commission jurisdiction, but that wasn't really the
case when you looked closely at it. Um, it appears the work was completed and the building permit was closed out by March of 2025. Um, statute of limitations on the clearing or scraping work would likely be expired at two years, but the placement of materials involved in the pool and pool
house would renew as daily violations. Um, as well as any addition of turf, landscape plants, things along those lines. Um, I said at a minimum permitting retro is required and that gives the commission an opportunity to ensure that the IVW and vernal pool are being properly protected. Um,
and since then I've reached out to the property owners who are here tonight. Um, and we went on site to review the site and to check to see if the pool, there's actually two vernal pools there. Um,
would meet the certification requirements, um, which they do. So, see, property was purchased June 30th, 2016. Um, sorry, I'll back up on this.
Being on site for the first time, it was clear that work was jurisdictional based on our measurements. What I asked for the property owners was to reach out to a surveyor that could use the plan of record to mark with stakes where the 100
ft uh vernal pool buffer was, essentially where the conservation posts were supposed to be. Um, I didn't see any conservation posts on the property when I was there, but I wasn't sure where exactly they were supposed to be laid out. Um, so they were able to get Merryill Engineering involved. They put the stakes out. I went back to review
the stakes a few weeks ago. Um, and it was sort of the worst case scenario. Um, for them, unfortunately, I had hoped it was simply just a, you know, permitting and retro at the extent of IVW. Um but the the one of the stakes fell right in
the the pool patio. Um and closer to the house um it was apparent that at some point conservation posts had been removed and you know understory had been cleared to make uh turf and landscape
plantings. Um, I have evidence on file that the person who constructed the property and sold the property to the current residents had already removed the conservation posts once and been told to put them back by the
conservation department before the sale to these homeowners. And I would suspect that they probably pulled them again before the property changed hands. Um either that or they were there and people sometimes just don't know what they are. Um so
it's not great um in terms of encroachment on the vernal pool buffer. It's not a simple retroactive permitting issue. Um other than that I was happy with the vernal pool habitat that remains out back. I actually ended
up accidentally on the neighbor's property as well certifying a vernal pool. Um, and in general behind this development, you know, outside of people's yards, there is intact habitat connecting and around these pools, which is a good thing. Um, I recommended to them that they get in
touch with a wetland scientist and start to work on a restoration mitigation concept. Um, and I had Brad Holmes reach out to me today from ECR. He said that he's been in contact with property owners and that they've engaged him to put a plan together. He said he couldn't
be here tonight because of other engagements, but he would request a continuence in order to be able to put a plan together to bring to the commission. Um, and that would be my um recommendation on this is rather than to issue an EO now, uh, the property owners have been more than
>> willing to do the work and we're currently doing the work now. >> Did he request continuence to July 8th or beyond? >> Um, he did not specify. So, um, the damage is done. I don't know. I It's
been like that for, I think, a couple years more or less. Um, and it's there's there's no rush essentially. Um, so >> so you could do a month, you could do two months. It doesn't really make much
of a difference to me. Um, either way, he'll put a plan together, bring it to the commission or bring it to my office. We'll review it. will give feedback and then ultimately they'll be coming to the commission >> with some form of please don't make me
remove our pool patio and can we keep any of our landscaped area that that we weren't supposed to have in the first place. >> What if we continue to the first meeting in August? >> Have no issue with that. I think, like I said, it's it's a busy
time of year for companies like ECR >> in a situation where there is no absolute rush on this that approving this a month or two months from now really makes no difference to vernal pool critters. Um, if wherever they are right now, they're hunkered down
avoiding the heat and drought. Um, and you know, at some point there will be some form of mitigation that will make better habitat for them to use in the future. So, I don't think the I think the first week of August is is perfectly fine. Um, I will say just while we're talking about this, there's another
enforcement issue coming to the commission soon that involves development close to a vernal pool that involves building permit uh not issuance, but staff from the building department in the past telling people that, oh, that's that's fine. Um, so
we're working now. where I had Georgiana yesterday making a a nice sign that we can laminate and put up in sort of on the door and on the glass in the building department. Um, currently we have a building commissioner that's working one day a week um that had recently retired from a different town and he's been excellent at bringing
everything >> to to me for review. >> Um, so we're trying to get past these situations where >> somebody at town hall is telling somebody that they can do something when they really have no jurisdiction over wetlands issues. Um because it's it's unfortunate when that happens. We shall
be working better together. >> All right. So I hear continuence. So do you have a date in for the first meeting? >> August 12th. >> August 12th. >> No, I I didn't know if the people wanted to say anything. >> I'm sorry. >> Probably only if you want them to.
>> We're going to open it up for for public discussion if you if you want to be heard. We're just right now we're just talking about >> giving you more time. >> Yeah. Yeah, you just have to go up to the mic if you want. >> Um, for the record, did you sign in? >> We did. Yeah.
>> Okay. Um, your name and address for both of you if you're going to both speak. >> Okay. So, I'm Jack Sherman. Uh, this is my wife, Daveanne, and we are the owners of 41 Clearing Farm Road. >> Okay. Um, so I guess first off, you know, we just want to apologize that
we're here in this situation. Um, we feel terrible and I can promise you that there was no ill intent for what we've done. Um, you know, there's I guess what's a little unique about our situation is
that we we built everything ourselves. Um, and maybe that's where we fell short a little bit. um in terms of making sure that we were in compliance. Um you know, we did when we submitted the pool plan to the town, we um
we CCed I think it was Mary from the conservation commission because we had we had first called the building department and we said this is what we'd like to do. Um you know what what do we need to know? So they gave us some setbacks um from property edge, from I
think the back of our leeching field, from the vertal pool um buffer zone. And so we that basically dictated where our pool needed to go. We kind of like the way our property's situated, the uh buffer line kind of does like a
triangular cut right through the middle of our property. And so it kind of dictated essentially this one spot where the pool needed to be. Um, and you know, I think where where I think we we probably screwed up a bit was there was never stakes out there. There was never
property line stakes. There was never conservation posts. Um, so we actually didn't really know in space where we were. Um and so you know in to build on that a little bit further um when we were digging for the pool after we got
the permit we hit a massive piece of ledge kind of on the front side of it that was from what we could uncover maybe 30 40t long. So we knew there was no getting that piece out of the ground. So, um, what you'll find in Matt's
report and and as we've been working with Mel and Brad Holmes, we're trying to do some overlays to see exactly where the pool ended up relative to the plan and relative to the original [snorts] Flity and Stefani
plan that mapped out where the buffer zone was. Um, that the pools set back a little bit further than we had originally anticipated. Um, you know, the other component of this too, because we were kind of doing it ourselves, um,
we at the time we pulled the permit, we we didn't actually have like a master plan, and I think we we dropped the ball a bit on that, um, in terms of really like coming up with the design and and where the patts of the patio were going
to be around the pool. Um, that's something that just kind of evolved as we did it. Um, and so we we neglected to probably bring that back to the building departments and and your attention. Um, you know, again, we we apologize for
that. I hate that we're have to be here and uh and deal with this with you guys, but you know, I think it's we're [clears throat] we're anxious and we're eager to work with you guys to try to
come up with a a hopefully a plan that that works, makes us both comfortable. Um this has honestly been causing a tremendous amount of heartache for our family. Um, like I said, we built the pool ourselves with our kids. So, the thought of having to re and the same
thing with the yard. You know, Matt mentioned in the report, we have this area of our yard where we have our gardens and plantings and um realizing we're we're over the line there. And so, it's, you know, truthfully, we're losing a lot of sleep over it. So, we're
anxious to kind of just push this thing forward and get to a resolution and get this thing behind us. So, I appreciate you listening and uh look forward and and to to answer your question earlier, it wasn't a question, but in terms of the time frame, Brad mentioned he needed
about a month probably to pull >> pull the plan together. Um well, we gave six weeks um understanding the constraints um this time of year presents for everybody. Um so, that's it's a pretty straightforward process. Brad Brad will come up with something,
I'm sure, and and you guys will be back and we'll discuss it. But right now, it's we're not sitting in judgment. He's basically just advising us that this is what's transpired so that we understand what's moving forward. >> All right. Anybody you have any questions?
>> So, we do this all the time. It's just >> So, don't be sad. [snorts] [laughter] >> I'm sorry. >> It's you like >> I've been having a horrible time with this. So, >> yeah. Well, >> well, take a breath. >> These things do happen. Now, just for clarification, this was during CO.
>> Yes, this was our family co project. So, >> these things happen a lot and sometimes I think that generally speaking, we've gotten better as a town about talking to one another in these departments to hopefully avoid this because it doesn't do anybody any favors. Um, and and I
totally understand and I'm sure everybody else here does too. won't speak for um but that that's basically where we're at. Correct. >> Okay. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> So, continuence to August 12th. >> Yeah. Um
>> did we did we didn't vote that? >> No, we did not. >> Make a motion to continue to August 12th. >> Second. >> Motion by me, second by Megan. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Um abstain. All right. That motion continues. I'm sorry. That motion
carries to continue 5. >> All right. At 164 Pemrook Street, can you brief us on what's going on at 164 now? >> Sure. >> Um >> Oh, do I I need to recuse myself, please. Okay. All right. So, let the
record reflect that Marilyn has recused herself. >> We still have four, right? >> We still have four. >> Yeah, we're board seven. We have four. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Right. Nobody else is being recused, right? >> No. >> Well, technically it's 04.
>> Yeah. When you drop to six, it doesn't really matter because it's still >> got >> Yeah. So, um there was a memorandum in 2021 between the property owner and the commission to allow two annual site visits to the property to assess compliance. Um,
we really hadn't done one of those in a little while and there was none prior in 2026. So, um, I reached out to the property owner in June. Um, had some concerns based on landscape activity. Um, I had a butter who is sitting in the crowd
reach out um, in the spring about landscape activity potentially affecting vernal pool life down there. and um had seen a lot of landscape activity there through the fall and the spring and just thought it was a good idea to have a site visit to make sure that we could keep that property in compliance. So, we
did a site visit on June 10th, myself and Georgiana, with the property owner, Joe Kasna, and uncovered several violations of KWPR and WPA, including evidence that landscape cleanup activities have continued infringing on the vernal pool.
Uh, dumping of lawn edgings, grubbings, soil, leaf litter, and shrub or forb clippings directly into wetlands and within about 15 ft of the mean water line of the vernal pool. Um and also cutting of fallen or dead trees from wetlands andor the buffer zone to
wetlands. Uh there was also dumping of concrete remnants in a wetland and the filling of a short section of intermittent stream with dirt and rocks apparently to make easier passage. Um in talking with the property owner, much
of that um had happened due to him hiring a newer company. Uh he has his usual guy who does the landscaping on the property for maintenance. He did a lot of work there, redoing beds, removing shrubs, and a little bit of
work to the pool area and hired Brandon Landscaping to do that work. And I suspect and he also suspects that they were responsible for the bulk of what I found. Um other than the tree work, uh the property owner told me he had done that himself. Um, one of the trees had
fallen on the pool area fence. It was clear that the tree had tipped over and crushed the fence. Um, and he had cut it. And the other one was a dead, supposedly dead tree that was on the other side of the stream um, way out behind conservation posts. Both of these are behind conservation post. Then I
talked to the property owner about the fact that he sort of knows that unpermitted tree work got him in trouble on this property in the first place and that we have a really easy process for dealing with, you know, hazardous trees and and whatnot. Um so getting back to
the spring, um Commissioner Kazido is in a butter to the property on the vernal pool side observed a worker using a gas powered backpack blower on Friday, March 27th, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. working down the hill towards the vernal pool, which was something we'd already discussed with the property owner and his usual
landscaper. Um, unfortunately the conservation department was closed when this happened and I could not get out there to do anything about it or to assess anything. Um, she had heard extensive woodfrog coursing beginning March 21st continuing up until that blower activity then ceasing and not
recurring. Um, so she had reached out to me at a concern that the activity would be not only detrimental to vernal poolool obligate species but was likely causing direct mortality to obligate vernal poolool amphibians in addition to water quality concerns. Um, of note of the interests of KWPR are wildlife and
its habitat and wetland, plant, animal communities and also protection of wildlife habitat is listed as an interest of the Mass Wetlands Protection Act. In correspondence with the usual landscaper of the property, they claimed that no blowers were used near the vernal pool and that noro encroachment
occurred, only hand raking the leaves underneath the landscaped shrub bed. Um, they claimed that they've been in compliance on the vernal pool for years. Um the landscaper at Okaane stated that spring cleanup took place on two half days during the last week of April. Um
interestingly on site June 10th with the property owner I asked about spring cleanup activities and he said there had been none and that he had done it all himself. Um, so we really don't have information that matches what I saw on the ground, which was when you go down
the hill from the lawn through the landscaped bed with large shrubs, all of the dirt is exposed underneath the large shrubs. And down the bottom at the edge of the little bit of remaining vegetated buffer, naturally vegetated buffer to the rural pool, you see a little burm of
need pine needles and and leaf litter through there that gives the appearance that somebody blew that all in place in a line. I've been a landscaper for a long time um and understand when I see it. On top of that, there was dumped grass edgings and dirt and a clear path
that you could see that somebody had taken through either with a wheelbarrow or carrying barrels. Um, so we don't really have consensus between what Commissioner Coso saw in late March and what the property owner and the
usual landscaper are stating took place as far as cleanup activities. But I believe what I'm seeing there is that people are still working in that area and working in a way that has detrimental effects on the vernal pool. After the site visit, the usual
landscaper [clears throat] uh sent evidence to my department that some of the piles have been removed from the wetlands. Um I got two photos showing areas that had been cleaned up and I can probably align them with photos that we took to show which ones they were. Um I don't have evidence that
every bit of it was dealt with. Um, the idea from what I spoke with Joe on site about was you would get the stuff removed and call me and come back and do a site visit before the meeting to be able to tell you all that everything was mostly dealt with in terms of what had been dumped there. Um, and that has not
happened yet. Um, recommendations. Um, I already said I suspect and the property owner supports that many of these issues are due to a new landscape company he hired to do work in the beds along the house and in the pool area, including concrete work. Um he admits to the tree removal and I
explained the process there. Um trying not to repeat myself here. Property owner explained that he tries to keep that stream clear so that it flows so that there isn't flooding and I explained that that's that's not really up to him to do that sort of work and that sort of work
may result in enforcement action. Um, I think you have the right to protect your property in the sense that if you see a blockage that's c currently causing major flooding on your property that's going to affect your structure or your, you know, health and safety that you
have the right to go remove that by hand and let things flow. And that's probably about where that ends without permitting. Um, everything's a threshold matter. It's clear that additional safeguards are needed in order to protect the wetlands on the property and particularly the
certified vernal pool. While the usual landscaper claims they've been in compliance for years, we have information from the Abutter that backpack blowers were working on that hill towards the vernal pool on March 27th and that the Woodfrog chorus ceased
after that. Um, a site visit nearly two months later showed clear evidence of dumping landscape debris back there and appears to show the results of backpack blowers clearing debris from under the landscape shrubs towards the pool. Um, and all of this is within roughly 10 to
15 ft of the pool's edge. Um, so and again the information that we've received doesn't match. So, of note, enforcement orders issued September 29th of last year to the property owner forbid the outdoor application of fertilizers and contaminants on the entire property, which is entirely jurisdictional without further
permitting by the commission. The site visit did not show any violation of those orders, which is good. In my opinion, the best way to protect the vernal pool, which already has a minimal natural buffer, is to issue enforcement orders under WPA and KWPR for the violations described above, requiring
the installation of cedar conservation posts 2T above and below grade at the extent of the turf lawn where it lies above the vernal pool. Posts would run every 30 feet from the edge of the road layout to the rear fence where the gate to the pool area is. It would be a total of 10 posts. Once the property owner
files for a COC for his open orders of conditions for the pool construction, the post's perpetual status could be added as a special condition. These posts would make obvious to landscapers or anyone working on the property that this is a protected area. The accumulation of leaf litter and lack of
disturbance would benefit water quality in the vernal pool and reduce detrimental impacts to obligate vernal pool breeding wildlife which likely attempt to use this area for shelter 11 months out of the year when not breeding. Further, as the horicultural shrubs are mature, large specimens requiring little to no maintenance, and
the property owner will be allowed to prune any encroachment beyond the posts into his lawn area, installation of the posts in compliance with the requirement to avoid performing any work beyond them will pose no hardship to the property owner. Those actions will simply help the property owner be able to enjoy use
of his property while avoiding issues with the conservation commission, assuming that he can control any contractors working on site. If the commission is concerned about continued dumping in the wetlands behind the pool area, which technically is behind conservation posts, they may consider whether the property owner
could replace the gate that leads out of the pool area into the wetlands with fencing or render the gate non-functional. Um, the area is already protected by conservation posts and the property owner has other ways of accessing the rear of the property around the edge of the pool area fence.
Any such modifications could be part of any issued EOS. Further, they could state in any EO that any further dumping of landscape debris, construction materials, or any refues will be met with immediate fines of $300 per pile or location. >> That's all I have.
>> All right, we'll open it up for discussion. Um, Matt, as the applicant here, does he wish to be heard or does he have a >> I don't see him. Um, and I don't think I recognize anybody online that would be representing him or me.
>> All right. Um, we'll open it up public discussion if there's any anyone who wants to be heard. >> All right. We'll take >> I will note for the commission that I did not follow our usual enforcement guide here. I did not issue a formal notice of violation to the property
owner, but I was on site with the property owner explaining that this was a violation and that we were going to put this on this conservation meeting and I did CC him on my response to his landscaper stating that he was to have another site visit before the commission
discussed it tonight. >> Okay. All right. So, as far as Matt's um I guess guidance recommendation, do we have any discussion? Yeah, I think this uh property owner is fairly well-versed in um the requirements um from
conservation commission um and has been scoffing at this law for these laws for quite some time and has been claiming uh new um gardeners for um violations for
some time. And so I would suggest that uh the commission remain poised to enforce this and poised to issue monetary penalties
um and keep this under really close um surveillance going forward. I've been on the commission for some years now and this has been a problem for from the day I started here. So, I don't think that
we're um having a lot of um impact on Mr. Castnut by simply um reminding him of his obligations under under the um conservation laws.
>> Yeah, I I agree. Um doc, >> I I definitely agree. >> It's most unfortunate. >> All right. And I >> if if a landscaper does make a mistake, it should be up to him to fix it. >> It should be up to him to stop it
beforehand >> or make sure they know, >> right? >> Um I I Yeah, it's I like her words. >> I agree. As from from where I sit, you know, Mr. Kasm is is is
a contractor um who deals with outside um construction. Um, he has a subcontractor coming in and doing some work from him. Essentially, any contract understands that their obligation to the contract is to control. Um, I don't see that any different light than what we're
looking at right here. He's failing to control his subcontractors and we we have to deal with this. >> The staff has to deal with it. And I I think that [clears throat] we do need have to maintain our poise in an in a stern way, right? Um, it can't be
ambiguous. Matt's recommendation was um identify the directive and tie it to a fine for moving forward. I I'm open to anybody's um comments on that. I'm fine with that. I don't I
generally stay away from fines as the first salvo, but I I certainly think you identify it so that moving [clears throat] forward um you know it's very clear that we we we identified the problem. We we identified the corrective
action and we identified the fine structure that's going to go along with non-compliance um and any detriment effect to the weapons. So from that perspective, I I I think, you know, I I feel that we're on the right track. The only other thing that I think I would just bring up for
discussion is, you know, looking through the pitches is there's a fence going into the protected area and people are going behind the fence because there's a gate. And why do we have a gate into an area that needs protection and when
we're seeing active nonp protection? So from that perspective, Matt, I mean, I've never been on Mr. Kasmus land. I I maybe I I don't understand the layout, but the fence with a gate. What? >> It's a gated in pool area. You can
access the gate from the vernal pool side of the property where there's a thin lawn area that goes around the house. >> Okay. >> And then you can access from behind the driveway. >> Okay. So he has >> and then there's a third gate that's strictly out behind
>> and it's behind the conservation posts that were installed and there's a pathway and I think it's a pathway that they've used to access the rear of the property and maybe the cranberry box behind it. Um and it is being used right now as >> somewhere where the landscapers will
look and go someplace to go dump stuff, right? Um, and I believe there is still access to the rear of the property from the left side closest to the vernal pool by simply walking around the fence and going out that way instead of there. So, I think I think it is something that
could be done relatively easy that could be another tool towards compliance because at least what I'm told by by Mr. Kasna, he doesn't want to continue doing this either. he's just maybe having a hard time getting there and anything that we
can do that gives them easy guidelines to follow is helpful. >> So >> So can we I guess um what I would like to see is in in the enforcement action where or that we're we're discussing I
would like would like the fence gate that goes into the the vernal pool area addressed in that as well. And I'm open to discussion, but I would think that there's two ways to go. Either you
require him to get rid of the gate 100% and it's just taken care of moving forward with mechanical means that is easy enough to to to complete. Or you require it to be locked in a way with a
a chain. And he's the one with the key. And if he doesn't hand it to his um landscaper, nobody's getting back there. And if we go there on our um visits, I hate leaving anything to a visit. Then
we can see that the the gate was left unlatched. >> Is [clears throat] there a way to do it without a lock where it's like a metal band locks that >> way prefer a met a permanent solution versus something >> locking thing? Yeah. If I get when the
fence was put up, they were they were doing stuff and if he wants to come into compliance, he still needs to kind of cut off his staff from circumventing what they don't necessarily have direct communication
on. So I think that you know anything that becomes a mechanical barrier um to that fence gate opening uh moving forward you know that it can be drilled with um threaded rod and nuts um [clears throat] you know to make it
fixed. I think I think that is is the path that I would I would like Mr. Casner to move forward because if we take them on face value and this was just somebody doing something they weren't supposed to do, Mr. Kasnik can make it easier or harder for them to do it. Um and and I would expect that that
would be a very grievable path if if we take everything at face value. So um and then the only other thing and and I'm not a landscaper so so I'm not going to pretend that I I know this one is the
timing of the spring cleanups. If we have the bulk of the activity at a certain time of year, do we want to discuss limiting any? We've already limited that you can't use
the backpack blowers, I think, you know, in that area, right? And they said, "Oh, well, we ra it." Okay. Well, maybe a certain time of year when they could do the most harm. We make that a gray area and we say no action while those vernal
pools are actually in their functional role of um spawning the next generations of all those species. >> In my version of it, there are conservation posts at the edge and they can't do anything behind them. So they can go in to their little lawn area and
they can rake it, they can blow it, they can do whatever they want as long as they're not doing anything behind those conservation posts. And what will happen is, like I said before, >> you're going to have your turf >> conservation posts along the edge. They're going to be two foot high so that they can be seen. And he can prune
anything that comes out past that over the lawn to keep it back. So he's not losing his lawn area. But you can't do anything in there. And all of the leaves that fall every year out of the roodendrins and the burning bush or whatever else is in there is going to fall in the ground and create leaf
litter and create habitat. And then when you go there for an occasional compliance check, you're just looking and seeing is the leaf litter there. If it's there, great. If not, you don't have to try to determine whether somebody raaked it, blew it down, blew it up, and then go down to the edge of the pool and see that there is a burm
there, that somebody has done what they weren't supposed to do there. So, I think that's an easy way to get compliance that really doesn't affect the property owner in a major way. They get to keep that essentially the way it is. And that's that.
>> Okay, perfect. Yeah, I'm perfectly I'm satisfied with that that answer from my question. Anyone else have anything from that? Just one last thought on this is that being conservation commissioners, right?
There's so I've had, you know, people say to me things about having a conservation commissioner report and that it maybe, you know, I live live next to a conservation commissioner, so I'm at some sort of an unfair advantage. I think it's clear that conservation
commissioners care about wetlands and wetlands wildlife and all of these things. And just because you're on the conservation commission doesn't mean that you have to turn a blind eye to your neighbor or somebody else in town that you see doing something that's a violation. I think if you have a conservation commissioner living next
door to you, there shouldn't be an issue provided that you're not having obvious violations of >> It's kind of weird to even think that. It's just something I think that's worth being brought up because I think it's really hard. I mean, for this particular
commissioner to, you know, deal with the fact that like she sees things and understands this is a certified ponal pool. Like there's active chorusing there this year and she had to experience not hearing that chorusing again and understanding that what likely
happened there was a lot of them were using that area and then they're not there anymore after that activity. So a little worse. >> That's like the equivalent of silent spring in a way. >> Yeah. >> You know, when it when it comes down to
certain things, I think that, you know, our function here as volunteers is that we're exposed to things that the general public are not. And I think that when we see something, we know something is is on the opposite side of that line that
we're that the town people have put in place. We did not come up with any of these rules. These rules were put in place by town meeting. The people who represent us who go and vote on these things decided that this is the minimum standard that we want applied and
through our function as volunteers we took an oath to make sure that we try to achieve that or at least get as close to it as we can possibly defend. And I think we do a really good job on that. So when somebody says, "Hey, you're you're
you're hard on me." It's we're not we're we're we're trying to make sure that we're doing what we said we would do when we raised our hand to volunteer. So I don't have any I don't have anything more on you know kind of that allegation that somebody
it's it's a disadvantage but you know realistically speaking we know a little bit more a little bit less than some people but in generally speaking when it comes to wetland stuff I think we all know way more than than than a lay person and you know that that does
that's that comes with the territory. So certainly I know a lot more now than I did when I came on. So and I don't know [clears throat] if that's a good thing, but um >> I I don't I don't have the least problem. >> Yeah. >> Telling the rest of the commission about
something I've seen that I think should be addressed. >> Yeah. >> I mean, like you say, that's what we have for >> If you see something, say something. Right. Right. >> Um All right, Matt. So, you need uh a vote on the uh enforcement. Sure. All right.
Do I hear a motion to issue the enforcement order um mandating the submission of >> Basically, we're not even looking for a plan. It's pretty detailed how the posts would be installed um every 30 feet between the edge of the turf and the
landscape beds along the um up slope of the vernal pool. >> Are there no posts there now? >> No. >> Didn't we mandate those? >> No. It's been discussed before several times, but it was never supposed to be on the plan like the asbuilt plan.
>> No, >> I I almost >> That's out back, not not on the ground pool side. >> Okay. Are we going to address the trees? The removal of the trees. >> That's your That's your >> I would suggest defying for the removal of trees because I have a clear
conversation with Mr. Kasn on his property that we clearly need that and Mr. has said he cannot remove trees back there. He pointed out this one, that one, that one, that one. We said he cannot remove those without coming to Matt. That was very clear. There was no there should be no confusion on that
>> as well as well as everything else. But >> you're you is dealing for >> give it give me a little bit more detail on that. >> I would s I I can be nice and do a $300 fine for both trees. >> So one times 300 for tree. This has been
years and years. $300 fine for we can include both trees. >> Okay. >> I think if we give him an enforcement order, he's going to scoff and go, okay, like he's done I think probably four or five years now. >> Would we have any objections? There's
four of us here. Would is is that something we're all comfortable with the one time in addition to the enforcement actions with the um discussion that we already have on that? Are we all comfortable with a onetime $300 fine for the tree removals? >> He certainly knows we shouldn't have
done that. >> I agree. I agree. All right. All right. So, I think just to simplify things, I'll make a motion to issue [clears throat] the enforcement orders as we discussed and to include um with with the uh language that we we um
discussed about future fines for non-compliance with the enforcement order and to issue a one-time $300 fine for the tree removals um that was observed. >> Did you include the gate in that too? >> Um well, that was in the discussion that I read. >> Okay. Sorry. Yeah. No, you don't want to
do a fine for the breaking in the pool near the pool. >> My take is is identify it, discuss it, give them the corrective action, and then tell them what happens. We move forward. I think
the trees are dead. They're gone now. So, I feel a little bit different, but I think it's a little bit more defensible. If you guys disagree, I'm totally open. I'm not >> I It's kind of >> Yeah. Okay. So, um, so that would be my my motion. Do I hear a second?
>> I'll second that. >> Second by dot. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Um, abstained. One one. Well, she recused. So, no extension. So, that motion carries four to zero to zero.
>> We We didn't have timeline, did we? To when those posts should be installed. >> That is correct. >> Oh, >> need a timeline. >> I say 30 days. Say again. >> 30 days. >> 30 days. >> It's amendment to >> amending my motion to include the
amendment to your 30 days. >> Can we do um just to make it simple? Can we do July 31st? >> July 31st. >> Okay. >> All right. So I accept that motion. The second was by Dot. Do you accept it? >> Yeah. >> We'll revote. All those in favor say I.
I. Opposed. Abstain. All right. So, July 31st proposed and then you you'll have an enforcement order for us to sign next meeting. >> Um, won't even have to. Okay. >> I just sign it and send it out and
you've already ratified it now. >> All right. We're going to move on to 51 Main Street. Matt, could you This is continued from an earlier date. Yes, we've already gone through this, I think, ad nauseium, so I'm not going to go back and read any old information.
Uh, June 2024 update. On June, uh, June 8th, we received a wetland delineation memo written by Brad Holmes of ECR. At our last meeting, I had said I hadn't really had time to review it very well, but it appeared that some of the wetland had been filled there. Um, I've since
had time to go through um, and review all of that. Um Brad had done a site visit on May 28th. He identified two wetland areas on site and IVW just passed the developed portion of the property which in that sense it's not clear whether it would be jurisdictional
[music] to the state or simply for the local. So that's important. I have not confirmed that. Um and a BVW to the rear of the property that's not near any development on the property. Uh that's a very linear long property that goes up the back. Brad identified a section of altered IVW in the same approximate
location as the turf expansion highlighted by myself from aerial imagery. Um, and that appears to be a section of wetland that was converted to turf sometime in 2017 or 2018 per Google Earth imagery. Um, the parking area was
partly expanded around the same time and fully expanded to its current size in 2020 or 2021. Based on the delineation, there are a number of unpermitted jurisdictional alterations on the property, including replacing IBW with turf, likely including Phil, replacing
existing turf with gravel parking area. Um, this area appears to have been maintained as lawn since at least the mid1 1980s, possibly as early as 1971, according to blurry older aerial imagery. However, the addition of impervious surface, and this parking area is likely impervious within the buffer zone would have required a
permit. removal of vegetation and construction of a fence between 51 and 53 Main Street in 2021. Per Google Earth imagery um is part of the reason for delineation. Only approximately 17 ft of that fence and vegetation removal is jurisdictional.
The rest of it is outside of the buffer zone. Um the shed is partly within jurisdiction. Does not appear to have been permitted by the commission. Um but it is or something similar size to it in approximately the same place is visible
in aerial imagery since at least the mid1 1980s or even before. Um it is within a legally developed section of the yard. So to me that wasn't really um a concern. Um similarly the area of turf directly behind the house is partly within jurisdiction but has been maintained as an open yard for many
decades. The fence construction and associated vegetation that was removed occurred uh later in 2021. paved area between the turf and the gravel appears to have been constructed in the late 90s or early 2000s per aerial imagery around the time when the current owner Steven Buckus purchased
the property in 2001. Thus, it is unclear whether the commission could take action against the current owner for this parking area based on the statute of repose. For discussion, it's clear that there are violations of KWPR on this property due to unpermitted
alterations of IBW and its associated 100 foot buffer zone. The commission should decide which, if any, unpermitted activities warrant enforcement action against the property owner. Replacement of wetland with turf likely cannot be permitted and will need to be restored, but the gravel parking area, fence, and vegetation removal are all within the
buffer zone, so may be able to receive after the fact permitting. The commission may wish to issue an enforcement order mandating retrospective filing and wetland restoration. um property owner um and I can pull anything up on the screen if you guys
want to see any of the analysis or wetland delineation or any of that. Um property owner has been in um saying that you know there was always lawn there. Um which I think as I just got at
appears to be generally true depending on your definition of there. Um it does appear that there was lawn and then it sort of got pushed back as the pavement expanded and the unpermitted work occurred. Um they have worked with Brad
Holmes of ECR on this, but I don't know if they're already working on a restoration plan or anything like that. Um so that's something that should be discussed. >> Open up discussion to the commissioners. Any questions from that?
[clears throat] Is there anyone from the public that would be like like to be heard? >> Excuse me. >> We just have the the property owners here. >> Okay. >> Ma'am, did you sign in? >> Okay. I did. Just for the record, your name and address, please.
>> I'm Marene McName 51 Main Street. I met with Brad and what he recommended, he flagged an area and recommended planting shrubs and allowing the vegetation to
regrow back out over the lawn. He didn't mention what kind of shrubs or when we should plant them. Okay. So what would typically happen with that is he would put together a a restoration
plan. And I think when you say plan, you know, I'm not talking about a survey survey grade plan, but something similar to to what he provided for the delineation could be as simple as providing a blown up version of that imagery where he details the area and
specifies in the notes how you're dealing with it, how you're removing what's there, what you're planting in its place, how you're dealing with the surface, and going from there. Um, is that what you're proposing to do? Is that is that what you're bringing there?
>> And then I think typically what you would see with that also is some attempt at retrospective permitting for for the rest of it. Um, I think there's certain portions that the commission may or may not decide they don't particularly care about. I
don't know. I mean, something where I talked about 17 ft of some vegetation removal and installation of turf and fence was within the buffer zone and the rest of it wasn't. Is is that particularly concerning in an area that more or less has been
developed for a long time? Um, including on the other side of the fence from that. So, I think in terms of retrospective permitting, you're talking about the gravel, you know, the expansion of that parking area and you're doing um some restoration of that portion of BW that was filled.
>> All right. Um comments on on the I guess the anticipated path. I I I have no issues with a little retrospective permitting on things like this if if if it was already predisturbed. It's seems
like a very straightforward path and having a med mitigation plan is satisfy my concerns if everybody else agrees. >> Agree. >> Sure. >> And it's just a matter of how you want to deal with it in the sense that >> earlier tonight we had somebody who was already working already had a signed
contract with ECR and is already working on a restoration plan and we just gave them the time to do it. You can do the same thing right now with them or you can issue an EO setting deadlines. it doesn't really particularly matter to me. This is again this is an area that
has been filled. Um so it it will come back as as functional wetland at some point soon. Um but we're not going to get it tomorrow. >> So if it takes and again you're not having great success planting stuff in July and August. It's something more than likely that's going to be planted
in the fall. So, if we want to continue this again for a month and a half to allow them to work with somebody like Brad on putting that together, then that saves our administrative burden of drafting enforcement orders and having to update them. And it puts, I would
say, less pressure on, you know, needing to meet specific deadlines when you're working with a contractor who's busy, >> right? And they're acting in good faith. So, >> yes, exactly. Would 8:12 be a good time to come back? Give you enough time or >> No, we'll be out of the area. >> Okay. Um,
>> so after the 17th of August, >> August 26th, >> you'll be back 17th. >> Yeah. >> All right. Would you like the 26th of August? >> Okay. >> All right. I'll make a motion to continue to give them time to to work um on the steps we've discussed um to the August 26th meeting. >> I'll second that.
>> All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Abstain. All right, that motion carries. >> That was the 26th. Did you say? >> Yeah, August 26th. >> Did you ever like I was wasn't paying attention. Did you announce that she came back out of the crowd? >> We didn't announce.
>> Didn't announce. >> It's video. >> It just usually goes in the minutes that I returned. >> Sorry. >> She's got it. She's on top of everything. >> Oh my god. >> Always. >> It's probably already done. I mean, it's very good. >> Very, very good. >> All right. Um, looks like uh 19 Ba
Drive. Matt, we uh we continue to >> run to my card. >> Okay, we're going to take a um five minute brief recess. >> Perfect. All right, mic's back on, please. >> Hi, Matt. 19 Blair Drive continued from
an earlier day. Could you brief us? >> I could. >> Please do so. I show bedtime. >> I'm excited to hear it. >> Uh just trying to skip towards sort of
where we last discussed this. >> Get me away. >> So there was a deadline for filing a restoration plan. Um deadline was not technically met, but was met shortly thereafter and we've had um sufficient time since the last meeting to review it.
uh restoration plan prepared by Brad Holmes from ECR. Popular guy tonight. Uh Mr. Brognner explained that he's currently preparing an NOI submission for the property for the property owner, Mr. Owen, to rebuild the failing seaw wall on the property and to regrade the site for future planned gardening with
no impervious surface or structures. Um I advise that they wait to file the NLI until the commission reviews and approves the submitted restoration plan. Restoration plan uses appropriate species and methods, though it does not specify a monitoring and reporting regime. Excuse me. It specifies three
years of hand pulling of non-native invasive species post completion, which is good. Uh the plan restores the area 30 ft landward of the existing top of coastal bank. Um while the cleared area extends much further landward than that, the 30-foot
buffer is a no landscaping area per KWPR and further filing is expected on the property. Um it is notable that the plan does not factor in land subject to coastal storm flowage or flood zone which has the same setbacks as KWPR is currently written including the 30-foot
no landscaping buffer. Um in this case the landward limit of land subject to coastal storm flowing appears to coincide with the 30-oot buffer to the top of coastal bank. Um the restoration plan uses the proposed conditions from an expected NOI filing
rather than existing conditions. This makes the buffer zones used on the plan confusing as the proposed conditions bring the top of coastal bank landward and also elevated to 15.5 ft. The elevation may deal with the LSCSF issue as the flood zone here which is velocity
zone is listed as elevation 13 um which is currently above the top of coastal path. However, this puts the commission in a situation where the restoration is contingent on the issuance of OC's for proposed work, which is not ideal, which sort of contradicts what I said earlier
about not filing an NOI until we issue EO for the restoration. So, recommendations commission may choose to update the enforcement orders mandating the completion of the restoration planting work as shown on the proposed restoration plan to accompany site
improvement plan. The commission should include monitoring and reporting by a wetland scientist for a minimum of two growing seasons following completion. It should be clarified that the EOS in no way permit the revetment work shown in the plan. That work requires orders of conditions. Alternately, the commission could require further information on how
the restoration work may be performed without being contingent on site conditions changing through an NOI filing. While increasing the elevation and landward extent of the coastal bank through modifications or replacement of the existing revetment might be beneficial to the resource areas, it's not clear whether such work would meet
the standards of 310 CMR10 or KWPR. So having enforcement work be reliant on further permitting in this situation is not ideal. Um further beyond that and I think I shared this with um Mr. Broen before the meeting but I didn't discuss that. I I just have questions about
whether a revetment project would be permittable here with KWPR and WPA um based on it not protecting a structure existing prior to a set date. Um so I just expect that whenever we have that
NOI we'll have questions on that too. Um and that's what I got. >> All right, we'll open up for discussion. Rodney, would you like to Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Paul Brogner with the Sea Coast Engineering Duckspray. I'm engineer
representing Mr. Owen at uh 14 and 19 Blair Drive. Mr. Owen would like to apologize for his lack of permitting and lack of anticipation with the work that he hired local contractor to do back in the March time frame. Uh unfortunately,
it happened. I got the call on I think it was April 15th. that the enforcement order had already been voted by the commission on April 8th and written on the 9th and uh we did the best we could to support the three items that were
required to be done. Uh upon inspecting the site, I say the old engineering looked at the the stone wall at the low end of the lot. We looked at the upper the whole portion of the lot. We've been working with Mr. Owen for the last 10 or 15 years. and put the pier on
his property under uh the the regulations at the time back in in the 2012 2015 time frame. We had never been involved with the vacant lot. It was a private lot at the time. Obviously, Webby Engineering was involved with it
the last few years with the proposed uh construction of the the house on the lot. Mr. Owen, as indicated in in m Mr. Panella's report, bought the property last year. Mr. Owen spends most of the winter time down south. The work was done in March and Doug comes back and
obviously faces the enforcement order and the work that has to get done here. As I said a minute ago when we looked at the property to do the mitigation work and the restoration work makes a lot of sense. We know what we would like to do, but from an engineering viewpoint, when
you look at the 044 acres of land that is there, does it make sense to, let's just say, do more than just the mitigation work, more than just the restoration work? Because obviously if you don't take care of the lowest portion of the lot and
want to mitigate the upper portion, could something happen in the future that some of the work that you're doing could further erode or may not take hold uh and basically come back again. When you look at the land, I'm not sure if you've been out there, but when you look
at the the land itself, the topographic work that we have done, it's interesting that we have plenty of land to put the armored stone wall up. Uh looking at the flood zone, the FEMA flood zone that we have, velocity VE13,
that VE zone goes right into an X zone. There's no AO zone. There's no A zone. It's not like the typical, let's just say normal resource area with the 100 foot buffer zone. In a way, it's nice because you're high and dry with the
lot. What's unique about this property, and I can show you up close if you want, but if you look at the FEMA maps, you'll notice that that back line of the VE13 kind of hugs a good portion of the line because there
is no structure there. Okay. When you look at Mr. Owens's other properties at 12 and 19, you'll see where the homes are basically. >> You got to keep the mic or we have to get you a walking mic. Do you want me to pull it up on the screen? Sure. That'd be great. Thank
you. >> But what you see is that when you look at the FEMA line, the FEMA line is right near the the top of the old seaw wall on the properties. In other words, the homes that are there are old enough that they preceded the wetlands protection act. So, in a way, the top of the
coastal bank, the top of the wall is really at the far east end of the property. And obviously they have the patio and and the decks and everything else that's traditional with these sort of properties because we have a vacant lot in between that FEMA flood zone line
comes landward another 10 to 30 feet based on where you are on the lot into the lot. So when you look at the velocity that's velocity zone itself, a lot of that area has settled because the storm surge has come up and over the
wall because it was never built properly and kind of eroded the low end of the lot, especially on the southeast corner, let's just say on the side of the property. So you're talking and with the cursor up here, you can see the red point is the
property and coming across the flood zone goes up into the property this way because the property is right right here. It's not cleared on this imagery yet >> and it continues that way. It looks through the prop, you know, the next seven or eight properties.
>> Yeah, it looks like it goes back down around where this structure is at 15 and then comes back up again. >> [clears throat] >> Shadows. Okay. So, if you see where the red dot is on the map, that is basically the land in question tonight. To the north
of it, to Mr. Owens's property at 14 Blair Drive. You can see where the line is more easterly with the velocity zone than it is with the vacant lot. And the same thing with his other house at 12
Blair Drive. Again, the western edge of the VE zone is towards the the edge of the coastal bank. And the backyards on these two homes are obviously much more usable and palatable, if you will, because they were built prior to the existing Weathers Protection Act in the
Kingston bylaw itself. So when you look at why we designed or Mr. Holmes designed his mitigation plan coming back towards the western edge of the velocity zone. That's where we have proposed the 30 ft of uh
plantings, 15 ft of pull that up too. So we have the 15 ft of the native plantings uh native American plantings and 15 ft of the coastal salt tile material shrubs and seed mix itself. So what we've done is basically we have to
fill in that area but that's the area that's the lowest portion of the lot that should be and hopefully will be above the the armored wall for the future. Uh but in order to have a 30-foot no touch zone
above this line, we're still filling this land to mitigate the work that had been done back a few months ago. So the dilemma that we're in is we have to basically rebuild that portion of the lot and fill
it in to a reasonable elevation so we can sustain the plantings for the mitigation plan. But master planning the entire lot at least we would like to at least consider rebuilding the the Armonstone wall to
today's standards. the homework that we did back in the May and early June time frame, we see nothing in the in the regulations that would preclude us from building or reconstructing the armored wall that is basically grandfathered because it pre-existing the blizzard of
78 and when the regulations were adopted at that point in time. Granted, there is no lot here. I mean, there is no structure here on this property. I think the good thing we want to do is basically there's no impervious surface that we're
proposing here outside of the the stones themselves. Okay. Looking at the the big picture, we have a lot of flexibility to rebuild the wall. Uh obviously the VE zone VE13 today's day and age with the lessons
we've learned over the last 8 to 10 years with the the storms we had back in 2018 a couple storms earlier this year the robustness if you will of the stone seaw walls are a lot bigger and more involved than they were 10 or 15 years
ago. Uh so in essence you know we usually go a couple feet higher than the flood zone. That's why we've designed it to elevation 15 15.0. 0 as you see it on our plan. So by coming up an extra couple feet, we've flattened out the wall a little bit. Usually we build them
3 to two slope one and a half to one. We're proposing this one as 2 to one. So it brings it back a little bit and bring it up to 15. It will hopefully lessen the amount of filling to comply with the restoration plan that we're proposing.
But again, I I agree with Mr. Panella's assessment here that you know doing one separate from the other is the ideal way to go. The wall should be separate from the mitigation plan, but obviously the engineer in me says you got to take care of the lowest elevation first to make it
work. Build that foundation and then work your way up from there. So that's why we kind of include into the plan for the initial discussion whether it makes sense to conduct a site visit of the area. We'll be more than happy to uh take care of that with you if you want
or if there's anything else. We're just here to at least introduce ourselves, apologize for what was done back in March and hopefully listen to the concern direction of the commission so we can at least get closer to an agreed upon plan so we can take care of the work. Now that we're into the middle of
the summertime, so to speak, or the early part of the summertime, is this the best time of the year to plant uh shrubs and bushes and everything else? Well, in some cases, yes, but you got to be careful as you get into the July and August time frame. So, with that, I'd be more than happy to address any questions or any other concerns that you may have
at this point in time. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we'll open it up to for discussion for the um for the commission. Um, are there any questions that we want to bring up for discussion? >> We'll open up for any public that wants to be heard on the matter.
It looked like there was maybe a >> something coming out. Oh, it's open for everybody at this point. >> No, to really get a handle on it. Should we go and look at it to to to really understand when you're seeing the low end and the east end and the this and the vet and and just see the topography of it?
>> I I agree. I I I think ultimately there's, you know, I can hear what what the >> Yeah, but and you're but you're looking at a piece of paper. I think the also, you know, getting information. We have no NOI filing yet. I told them they should hold off on the NOI filing, but
getting some information about whether a revetment install or rebuild here would would be permittable would be good information to have as well because it is it's now it's a it's a chicken and the egg thing,
right? You can't do this restoration plan without building that revetment wall. Um, and if you did that restoration plan at the lower elevation, then it's at risk of being wiped out in the next storm. Um,
so it's not a viable restoration option, but you are held to needing work that needs orders of conditions to be done before enforcement related restoration work can happen, which isn't ideal, particularly if it turns out that
there is a permitting issue with rebuilding the reetment there or installing a new reetment there, however it would be called. Um, I sent a quick email out to CZM last week on this just to try to get out ahead of like, hey, I know there's something about they did
sort of a prohibition on new revetments to protect, you know, unless the structure has been there predating um, >> and for the record, these lots haven't been combined. Correct. >> I don't know. >> I'm sorry. >> These lots have not been combined.
Common ownership, they have not combined. I >> think one of the older owners on Blair Drive held the property. Maybe the lady across the culde-sac on the high side. That's what I was told. And then obviously Mary O'Donnell bought it a few years ago when
Webby Engineering took care of their plan back in 1920. >> But for your client, he has not brought these under common deed. >> Negative. Nope. >> I think a site visit would be a good idea with as many commissioners as could make it. Um, you know, we could schedule
it for a later on a Tuesday, which seems to be a good time for a lot of people, like a 5:00 on a Tuesday kind of thing. Um, and I think it makes sense um, for Mr. Brogna to start to get the information together maybe as part of
the enforcement issue to get information to us about why or how what's being proposed for the revetment wall could be permitted. >> Yeah. So just on that, I mean my concern is that if if we can't permit a wall
because it's unpermittable, then we and we tie tie the two actions together too early, then we basically write an enforcement action for a mitigation plan that never gets built.
And it's right, >> you know, kind of that loophole where it just doesn't get done. So, I would be concerned with that. So, I I do think that that that's that's the appropriate path. >> And I like the idea of tagging up the CCM. >> We rely pretty heavily on them for this
type of stuff because I'm not a >> coastal expert by any means. And um >> I know CCM is not a big fan of Revetman's period. And that's part of why that that language made it in there was that um I think at this at this point they're
not considered to be best practices, but they are something that can help protect an existing structure. So they still allow that in those situations, but I'm not sure that in this case it may be that it's somehow grandfathered in there and it's fine to rebuild it. I just want
confirmation of that before we go forward with anything else. And they're looking at >> and I know that they're always encouraging use of other materials other than stone >> like a dune.
>> It's like a dune. We'll plant pocket plantings and different >> usually with oceanfront locations in a velocity zone that is there. Let's just say the the armored stone, not poured concrete, nonvertical
is the preferred way to go. Obviously, you've seen portions of Plymouth and and Duck Spray the last 5 to 10 years where they're replacing the seaw walls that I grew up with in Marshfield back many years ago. And it's all vertical concrete, but that is the best that you
can do in these locations. Here we have a lot more flexibility because there's no structure. I don't mind saying that. Usually we're restricted with people's backyards and you cannot go any closer to the water with the toe of the wall, but you can bring it back here. We can bring it back really whatever we want to bring it back, be honest. So,
>> yep. >> Yeah. And I mean ultimately this this is more of a neighborhood conversation as well. I mean, this is a nook. It was there's a 100 houses there if there's one, right? So if you don't protect
that um or continue to protect what was already protected then you know it might not be a house on that site structure on that site but there's one immediately adjacent to it and bad things happen if >> right >> so from that perspective I I I
understand um and as far as a Tuesday is there do you want to just get back to us with with dates or >> um next Tuesday or a week from Tuesday. >> Let me quickly look at um see if we can just schedule it now and that'll just be
>> easier. >> Also, I dropped off four pictures I took this afternoon out there. One shows the lower third of the lot between silt sock in the middle of the lot and the hay bales at the lowest end of the lot. That's all grown in. It's all kind of
kind of erosion proof at this point in time. It doesn't look pretty, but it's it's fairly grown in compared to the the upper twothirds of the lot. But again, with the rain we've had the last couple days, but really at this time of the year, some of that stuff will grow in. Again, it's not pretty, but at least it
kind of provides a little bit of resistance, you know, to the runoff and everything else. At the same time, I took a picture of another wall over on East A that has been there for a number of years I was familiar with five 10 years ago. And that's a representative what we would like to do for this wall.
It's a traditional armored stone. The tow stones go four to five feet below grade at this time of the year. And this is what some of the lessons we learned over the last 10 or 20 years. Instead of going one or two feet below, we go four to five feet now. Okay. We'd have a capstone at the top and maybe some crush
stone on top. So, we kind of blend in, but be let's just say a a 2026 vintage of the armored wall that would be around should be around for many, many years to come. So, >> thank you. >> Tuesday the 30th, 5:00 pm. Does that work for you? Next Tuesday at 5, I believe it should.
Yeah. >> What's the date? Next Tuesday. >> 30th. >> That's New Year's Eve. >> Next Tuesday the 30th. >> That's New Year's Eve. The end of the fiscal year. >> Oh, right. >> Have to go out. Okay. >> So, Tuesday the 30th at 5 o'clock. >> Five o'clock. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> All right. So, >> you spend all the money in your budget, don't give it back. >> Okay. Um, so looking for a continuation. >> Yeah. I think um continue this to I mean you could do July 8th. How quickly do you think you can get information
together on the rebet >> legality? >> I'll try to get it for next Tuesday, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. Got a couple contacts at CZM or D, but let's just see what come up with. Brad's been working independently and let me just see what he knows at this point and uh I'll do some more
homework, but I'll get back to you before Tuesday at 5 with a quick update if I could. Thank you. >> All right. So Matt, continue to 78. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, do I hear a motion to continue to July 8th? >> I'll make the motion to >> motion by do second.
>> Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Abstain. All right. The motion carries. Five to zero. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Have a wonderful night, sir. >> Through all this. Three more. Are you doing a hard cut off
at any point or you just [snorts] going to try to crank through? >> Crank through. >> All right, let's do it. >> I'm so tired. >> Well, let's see what we do and then let's take it case by case. Um, six Prospect Street continued from an
earlier date. Matt, please uh [clears throat] bring us up to date in the most uh concise way possible. Yes. Um we had several items uh from
the last meeting. Um we have rec requirement from an EO to install an 8 foot chain link fence >> which was supposed to be completed by yesterday. Um I have no evidence of
compliance on that one. Um he is currently being fined daily for failure to comply with action three of the EO which was hiring a professional engineer. Um I am batching those in like bi-weekly things like I said I would. Um the
deadline for the fourth action of the EO which was the 30% design plan was June 18th and I have no evidence on that either. Was there something on that that I missed?
>> No, that was June. >> Yeah, I think we have the EO here. Let me just quickly confirm that. Yeah, it was um commission will discuss compliance with this action at their June 24th, 2026 meeting. Uh yeah, to provide that to the
conservation department by June 18th for to review tonight. That was unchanged from the May 28th unfortunate order. >> Okay. All right. So, it sounds like [clears throat] last time, if I recall correctly, last meeting, um we provided
for $300 fine per day for non-compliance with the original, um steps in the enforcement order. Um we put in a new stipulation for the fencing to be installed in a proper way, um which was
not done as far as we know. Uh and they also missed the 30% design deadline. Uh meaning that have we heard from him? Are they here? Is there anything to be >> I don't see him online. Um I have heard from him but not in terms of any
compliance related thing. Um and I think he has continued uh conversations with town council. Um, one more thing that I I don't think I brought up, I didn't bring it up at the last meeting because I didn't get it until June 11th. Um, DCR's Office of Dam
Safety had contracted a dam inspection report and it was shared with me on June 11th. Um, within the report, the engineers detailed potential issues that were not present or mentioned in the last dam inspection report from 1998. Uh, the report found evidence of a
septic system near the right abupment of the dam. Um, I can bring a photo up if you'd like. >> Um, the only BO or Board of Health file related to septic at this site is a septic installation permit application with no evidence of approval from 1974
when the property was still owned by Coben Drew and I believe was still an active factory site. Um, the system looks much newer, is quite close to Foundry Pond and Smelt Brook. An unpermitted septic system this close to a pond stream in BBW would be very concerning from a wetlands protection
standpoint. Um, I reached out to Brian about that and asked if he had any information on that and he didn't have anything in specifics and he mentioned that at some point there was talk about connecting their property to sewer but that potentially it couldn't happen because they weren't the owners
of the property and he didn't have any more on that but I'll pull a picture up just so that >> those are plastic green covers. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So it appears to be relatively new which >> plastic green covers. Yeah. [clears throat]
Sorry. I hate the way that it shows all of the files in here. It makes it very difficult to find these things. Matt, just for the discussion that um the potential for there to be a septic that close to the dam seemed like it was
pretty problem problematic uh from my review of of the the report. Um, am I misunderstanding that or because you know when you when you're talking about dams and safety and you know whether or not they can come apart um and you're
excavating next to it, you know, you're taking bank conditions out and and you're putting back in with you know sand essentially. Um >> yeah, and you know whatever quantities liquid and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, I think that it was brought up in that
report as concerning um for the >> aside for the non-p permitting. It it could impact the structural integrity of that area. Correct. >> Yeah, I think they didn't it didn't go into any detail about how much of a concern it was, but it was brought up as
a concerning thing that was not mentioned in the prior >> inspection report. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um I I'm opening it up to discussion. Um we're going to open it up to the public. We're going to open it up
here. Um I think that ultimately they've missed every deadline we've given. I think that the only thing we do, we don't even discuss it at this point. I'm open to discussing as much as you want, but as far as I'm concerned, doesn't need to be a discussion anymore. It's literally, okay, he missed this. Here's another $300 fine per day. Come into
compliance. We'll figure the rest of it out. But essentially, it looks like if I was to put forth a motion, which I'm not at this point, my my recommendation would be a $300 a day um fine for the
fencing not being done until it comes into compliance. a $300 per day um for the for the missing design work that hasn't as far as we know hasn't even been started or or an engineer even come
>> into cont uh contract with with the owner or the occupant. Uh and then the septic I think is is the one that I' I'd have the question on as far as I'm concerned. We have a septic system that appears to be installed in some in a way
that one wasn't permitted. Two is in well within a resource area. We have a history of them doing things on site themselves. That is a reason why we're talking about this in the first place. Um at face value, I think I'm more than
prepared to accept that they put in their own septic system adjacent to a dam that might have caused an issue. And so my my take would be to give them another $300 fine per day on the septic, but I'm just not sure how I tie that into what the
proper step is for the the septic. So I don't know if it's, you know, give them another two weeks >> for that, >> right? I just don't know what the the right direction is. But generally speaking, do do you feel aligned with that or or do well we want
to have more discussion before we kind of just say okay we we're good on the first few things and we need to figure out the last one. >> Is it the health department that issues septic permits >> septic permits but not their septic permit is only about health meaning that
like okay well you're not that close to a well source or public drinking water. So the wetland side of it is ours. Yeah. >> And just because they're like >> if you're outside a 100 the title five and the and the laws say that
>> we're going to accept that as good enough, right? We're going to we're going to say that that's in compliance and it's not a detriment to the resource areas. if you're not in compliance and it becomes something. The damn safety part is is is something that I don't even know if it's ours like as far as
I'm concerned, but we do know that it was a wetland issue and that's what we're judging. And I think that it's very easy to say you have >> based on what we've already received >> that you they have a septic that shouldn't have been installed that we
may or may not have permitted but not >> not according to >> not according to the regulations. we wouldn't have. Um, so I think that right there I think we just we we slap another fine on it and then compel some action that way. And I think that that's our only tools. And so I don't
>> um but let's let's open that up for discussion and see if if everybody >> this is so big now that I don't believe he's capable of taking care of it, >> right? >> What do you do when he can't? >> Yeah. But do we do we not
put more fines on it because we don't think he can do anything or do we just >> keep putting it on? >> I doubt if he can even pay him. >> I don't. >> But that's not anything that should stop us from doing our responsible action. >> Right. I think this is the work of the
job, right? It's not that we didn't ask for any of this to fall on our lap. Certainly, we probably don't would prefer that it didn't. But are we all in agreement that it's just time to just more fines and every time something else comes up, we'll discuss it a little bit. But there's only one path and you know,
we're not we're not even seeing action at this point. So, you know, do we want to debate >> outside of it or do we want >> I don't have any struggle with the fines, but I but Matt, where are you and and I'm I'm sure you can't get into
specifics, but I'm feeling we need some legal advice here as to where do we have to go on this? I think there's violations there that need to be dealt with and you have a person who has essentially dominion over
the property >> and they're responsible for these violations. >> Um, and I think that fines are used as a tool to get properties into compliance. Um, and we also know that
agreements can be made, fines can be waved when things come into compliance. That's up to the commission, right? You can find somebody for not being compliance, they can come into compliance and you can still not take the fines away if you feel strongly that they are warranted in that situation. But
>> generally speaking, if somebody comes to you, you know, before a magistrate hearing and has complied and says, "Well, are you willing to wave these?" I think in a lot of situations you're likely to >> Yeah, they finally make good on it. But >> I think the tricky thing here is with
the septic, you have to set what? We don't know anything, >> right? All I know is that the board of health doesn't have any information on permitting on that property and we don't have any information peritting on that property. So, there shouldn't be a septic system there. >> Correct. We know that there was an
addition built there in 2009 with no permitance from any department and more than likely the septic system was built to service that. >> Um, and the commission likely would not have allowed a septic system to go in there and I'm not sure the board of health would have either based on title
5. Um, so I think >> it's it's definitely something the commission would want to deal with and it's just a matter of how do you word it? Are you saying you know that Well, that's why I was curious about some legal advice, too. >> I think issuing a $300 fine for
>> unpermitted septic system and setting a deadline for like updating the EOS again to include that in it and to state that by a date certain, you need to either show how that was permitted or have it removed with proper permitting.
>> Yeah. >> And then if that date isn't met, then you're issuing daily fines. You can just go the other route and issue daily fines right now for an unpermitted septic system until they deal with it. But it just doesn't seem as defensible as giving somebody a a notice period. Sure.
You're finding them anyways for the unpermitted work and saying you have until set date to deal with this. >> Well, let me let me ask and and I'm open. This is more for discussion purposes. [clears throat] 2009 unpermitted work. We don't even know
anything about the wetland side of it. Portal has no understanding of it as well. We're literally looking at something that at this point is 16 years old, 17 years old. Um and it's likely been there since they decided that they
weren't pulling permits for for the building um alterations. I think that [clears throat] this isn't something that happened last Tuesday and we have to, you know, give them some notice because it's the right thing to do. At some point, we have to,
I think, accept that there is zero compliance here and any kind of leeway. Um, probably shipped out after, you know, the first or second violation um and non-action. So, from that
perspective, I think you just go in with $300 a day fine um for non-permanent and they can come back and if we're wrong, I I'll make the motion to to resend, but at this point um we've seen zero
compliance and zero effort towards compliance. And so I'm I'm not in the mood to pretend that we [clears throat] need to um go above and beyond on this one to, you know, give them time to, you know, they they forgot that they needed to
have a permit for a building and uh the associated septic system. So that that would that would be my feeling on it. Does anybody disagree with that? And you're welcome to >> Right. I don't care how we do this, but >> No, no, no. I understand. I guess what I
was wondering is what vehicle is there to have an end point to where there's other legal action. I don't know. >> I mean there is >> shut down debtor's prisons. That's I think at some point. I don't
know. And and maybe Matt can answer >> you know you talk about hazardous waste. There are interventions regarding hazardous waste. So here we have a septic system, water >> dam. I'm I'm trying to look at it, you know, from a different angle and see if
there's another which might be out of our purview, but at least it's a way to approach the issue. >> I think the tool, and maybe Colleen is way better at this than I am, but I think the tool is fine. >> Oh, yeah. And then at some point it
comes to a well as a board we're voting to write a letter to the board of health I mean the board of selectmen to engage legally to collect the the outstanding fines and to compel action. And I think that ultimately that's the next okay >> step. But
I I don't I don't know. So if if if you think I'm wrong, I'm >> I'm just I think of the likelihood of of actually getting any fines paid from him is is is is no. >> Yeah. >> Um and he may end up losing this
property the same way he got it by failure to pay taxes or whatever, you know, real estate taxes. Um that's how his family got it. So he'll just rack up fines and eventually townate back. >> Yeah. to to get at what you were talking
about earlier. It's it's you know citations >> are dealt with in the court. So you either appeal them or you >> don't you either pay them >> or you don't pay them or you appeal them, >> right? >> If you appeal them, you get your
magistrate hearing. >> If you don't pay them, then they end up sending eventually a criminal um summons on it. So there is an end goal for the things. They don't feel like if you don't >> act, you know, there is a process that
plays out. >> Um and they the courts do check with us on these things where if there's an agreement or whatever, they're fine with with you know dismissing things. It's happened before on other ongoing conservation enforcement issues. you
just on that I I think it's disingenuous to discuss giving fines and talk about well you know >> we'll wave them later I I think >> well not we'll wave them but there is the potential like we always say fines are a purpose for getting compliance
right it doesn't mean the commission's going to wave them but often if somebody gets in compliance and they come in and they've accumulated significant fines they have every right to come in and ask and say, "Listen, I'm in compliance now. Will you please wave this?" And often, I
think the commission will make a decision in that situation. Not always. So, it's it's always up to the commission. >> I just I don't want to I don't want to put out I want my preference would be to put out a face that says, "Hey,
>> the line was way back there. You already crossed it and the fines are here and they're real. We're we're assessing them daily at this point." And it's it's multiple fines per day because you're doing nothing >> different. >> Come in. >> It's not well you maybe we can work a deal out. It's no no that's the full
full effort that we can do at this point and >> let the town take care of >> this stage of the game or or >> or you don't need to ever actually but sometimes when you get to the last day and you're in court >> to end it you can say well we
>> right egregious versus >> right >> you know a tool to make sure people stay on the right side of the line that's That's totally we're in two totally compensations. >> As Matt said, it becomes a criminal matter eventually,
>> right? >> And maybe that's when he >> All right. So Matt, do you have guidance on on the the septic side? I think it sounds like that's the only thing I'm not really sure of and and my thought is daily fines for non-permitted um septic
installation. And then I don't know if you want more guidance on that. you know what he needs to do to get out of the $300 fines. Um I I think just because you need to put your the impetus
um behind the the the the rock that's just not moving. I think you need to just say this is open. It's going to go on forever until you come back to us with a permitted proh project and at that point maybe we'll discuss removing that fine. But right now we're not going
to waste time giving them a path that I don't really feel that we're going to see any path on anyways. So, I think we just say moving forward $300 a day until we're very good. We might wave this. I wouldn't even go there. Just no. Just
straight up >> straight up $300 fine until he comes into compliance with with the wetland regulations. >> Boy, you just >> it's not personal. I don't know him and I >> It's a lovely boy. I'm I'm fine that everybody I I think everybody's great.
>> Equal opportunity finding. >> I don't want to find anybody. Like that's not what I'm here for. This is the This case is something that was easily avoidable through non-action or non um offense
commission by somebody else. Right. We and we're stuck here being the guy or the board that has to >> say here's your fine. There's there's your There's your prize. >> So, um, you're talking
daily fines, daily $300 citations for the fence. >> Fence. Yep. >> Daily $300 citations for a failure to meet action item four um deliverables and 30% design. >> Yep. >> And daily $300 fines for the septic system, unpermanented septic system. Um
>> in addition to >> until compliance with the state and local wetlands regulations is reached. >> Yep. >> Because that can be reached either through some retrospective permitting or permitting the removal and filling of the system. >> Yeah. I I don't >> I don't think we have to specify that. I
think it's get it >> blanket statement get any compliance. Right. What I would probably do would be reissue the enforcement order specifying all of this and issue the citations with it. >> But we're not changing the original one
that we have in place. That I want I want that to that's already standalone. You can do it however you want. >> Anything we update wouldn't change any other deadlines. What I did the most recent time I did this was >> on the one that specified getting an engineer under contract. I didn't change
anything on that and I wrote >> daily $300 fines are being issued for failure to comply with this action item. So I would change >> the other two to say the same exact thing that still have the same dates and I would add another one, you know,
saying that on this date this was >> found to be the case and um and daily $300 fines are being issued until um the property is brought into compliance regarding this. >> That's all we're looking for is compliance.
All right. Um, so that would be my um my motion to issue the um three new $300 a day fines for as discussed. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Second by Maryland. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Opposed? >> Hearing uh none. We will that passes five to zero. All right, Matt. 41 East Avenue, please. Um, we had enforcement orders issued
after the last meeting, stating [clears throat] removal of stock piles by yesterday, and placing rows of a row of hay bales landed of the silt sock by yesterday. Uh, we received photos yesterday in compliance with um
both of those. Now, the only thing that's not in compliance, and we didn't really get at this at the last meeting because I didn't realize it, and either something has changed or I just visually didn't see it, but the plan of record calls for silt sock, the typical 12-in silt, and what was on site was straw
water. >> Um, so what they did initially was they went out and just added another straw waddle and had some other silhales. And they said, "That's not the way that that EO read." And so they ran back out and got hay bales and ran it across the way it should have been, but there's still
not silt sock behind it. There's two uh straw bottles. So they are in compliance with what was required on the EO. I'm just bringing up that technically this was supposed to have a 12-in silt sock. It doesn't have a 12-in silt sock. Um I haven't been on site to really inspect
how tight the hay bales are and whether that's sufficient to protect the site throughout construction. Um, I suspect that silt sock would probably be um advisable also considering that's what's supposed to be there in the first place. >> All right. Um,
so we're going to open it up for discussion. Um, Matt, would you would you is this something that we could dismiss and and you could continue compensation? And because I mean, if we already required the 12 in um >> Yeah, the 12 in is already something
that's in the plan of record. It's not even something that the commission needs to require. So, I think you could close this. I I don't know if this if um who's on >> Is there anyone from the public that would like to be heard on this uh issue? Please um
identify. No. Okay. Um, so we had an email earlier. I think it was from is it Kevin? >> Yeah, Kevin Dan was working on this. What I can do is I can email him tomorrow and just tell him the
commission voted to put this enforcement issue to bed, but you have to get, you know, the property in line with the point of record by installing 12-in silt sock. And I can tell them that they have until whenever time you tell me to get it done without being brought before the
commission again for enforcement. >> So what's today? >> Month length. So >> two weeks. Okay. >> Two weeks. >> Oh, I thought it would be faster than that, but >> I don't know. I mean, it's it's they can probably >> It's not unprotected. That's why I said >> Yeah, it's not unprotected. So, it's just not fully
>> Oh, okay. All right. That's good enough. >> Okay. >> All right. Do you need a vote or anything? >> Sure. Why don't you vote to uh to dismiss the enforcement issue? >> All right. I'll make a motion to dismiss the 41 East Avenue um and provide Matt with the guidance on one month for the
um corrective action on the 12 in um Sil. What was it? >> Sila. >> Second. >> Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed. Abstain. >> All right. So that motion carries. >> All right. All
right, Matt. 44 Rabbit Road. Um, follow up on enforcement orders. Could you uh brief us? >> Currently being fined daily for failure to comply with remediate action number one, which was remove the wall and driveway after getting necessary permitting. Um, deadline for action item
two, which is remove or permit structures, is July 7th, 2026. Uh, they are in compliance with action item number three, which was site cleanup and site visit. We did the site visit last week. Uh, Marilyn attended with me. Um and action four just summarizes the dock
guidance. There's no action required at this time. Um I have talked with Jenna property owner about um all of this. She has taken action since um she forwarded uh a proposal by Mel um to there was
clear that they had been to the site and it saw everything, discussed everything. they had recommendations for how to go about the process of removing the wall and trying to permit the replacement of a tiered wall in its place. Um, Jen is in the process. She said she reached out to three different structural engineers
for quotes to work, you know, on the NOI for that. um and since has had a lot of questions about the different structures in the process and um she actually filed an NOI with D um which they didn't accept um yet but I reached out to her
and said you know they have to be filed with our office as well and also that they're really in-depth uh most people do choose to have those contracted out it's not a requirement you can certainly do your own NOI filing but we are really strict on what we accept as complete and we've been kicking a lot of them back to
engineers. Um, so what she had filed was the accessory structures and the paved area. So I mentioned that the paved area was tied to the wall. Um, there's nothing preventing her from including that in an NOI filing, but it
technically is tied with the wall because the wall is supporting the pavement. So um, she has been working substantially on this and she is here. >> All right. Um, Jenna, would you like to be heard?
>> Um, I think Matt gave a a great summary there. I I don't have too much to add. I know I'm back on in about a week uh to give you all another update on the 7th or the 8th, whenever that meeting is. Um, so I'm I'm hoping that this forward progress is potentially enough for you
all to consider pausing the daily fines as I kind of continue to move things forward. Okay. >> All right. We'll open up to discussion. Uh, anyone in the public like to be heard? All right. Uh, commission, what's the thoughts?
>> Thoughts on >> on the enforcement orders and Matt's recommendations? >> Yeah, I think you'd want to discuss whether you're willing to pause fines. And I think if you pause fines, you would do it for a set period of time. I don't think you pause indefinitely. But
um as of now, we issued fines. You told me to start issuing fines on June 11th. I issued a batch of fines out on uh it would be for June 11th, 12th, 13, 14th. I issued four days of fines already. And like I said, I'm batching them sort of
bi-weekly. So, um, if you decided to pause the fines, you would decide whether it was stopping as of what I issued on, you know, the 16th or whether we were pausing as of today or whatever. Um, but you would set a deadline on on
that as well that um, you know, >> Matt, I don't have it in front of me. Could you could you remind me what the fine structure was that we that we we believe we did a couple one-time fines and then a daily >> Yes, there were it was a $300 daily fine
for the failure to remove the wall and the parking area and then there was a single $300 fine for failure to comply with removal of the associated structures on the property and a $300 single I said single fine on that, right?
>> Second one. Yes. and another single $300 fine for failure to comply with the general site conditions order and having a site visit to confirm that. >> All right. And we you I believe you told us that um the the cleaning was
documented. >> Yeah, the cleaning related to the site visit the property appeared in compliance. So that part is now dealt with um the associated structures. She has worked on that and is, you know, in the process of of trying to file a
permit for that stuff and has been working with me on sort of how that stuff works. >> All right. And then generally speaking on the wall, I mean, some some forward movement is exactly, you know, the goal,
right? But it wasn't just some forward movement. It was, you know, to hit a an end date. So it seems like pausing while there's forward progress, but I think we need to keep on tight leash to >> So pause it for a certain period of
time. >> Yeah. So m another milestone maybe um and and give them some time to get there, but I mean I think we need to keep very controlled in this one. >> I do not agree. We've gave them since
January to get into compliance and now we slapped them with fines. They did a bunch of stuff, asked us to stop the fines, and if they're ahead of us, excuse [clears throat] me, I forget the date, they're in front of us again in July, then we can revisit this in July and want more progress.
I don't agree with pausing fines because they've had since January to do all of this and none of it was done, >> right? Other thoughts? Well, my feeling about enforce is to encourage action. If the action's been encouraged and engaged
in, then the purpose of clients is um it's it's >> you can't meet a purpose. It's done. >> So, I guess it depends on what stage of compliance you you've determined at this point. >> Well, let me let me just play devil's ad
on both sides, right? >> There's been some action, but I don't see anything that's definitive. It's it's more of there was some if if I'm mis relaying this or misremembering this,
please let me know. I believe that there was some phone calls and there was some potential for engagement, but there hasn't been I haven't heard that there's a an engineer under contract and he has a deliverable date and all that stuff. So, how much forward progress we've had
is basically I made some phone calls. Now, that's good. I'm I'm positive in my book. I'm glad to hear it. Ultimately, that's all I want is is moving forward, but I don't know that they achieved anything that I
consider substantial enough to pause fines, but I could go either way just depending on what everybody else wants to do. So, um I don't have a strong feeling one way or another, but I don't want to overstate or understate what it is. I think, you know, we see that there
was some movement. That's great. I don't know how definitive that movement is at this point. Maybe that she comes back uh on the 8th and she has a signed contract and and you know a a date and then I say, "Okay, great." You know, that that's exactly what we were looking for.
So, um I could see that as the you know, the the trigger point for me um of of feeling that they're in on the compliance pathway. >> Some evidence. >> Yep. >> Add something. >> Yes. So, I think um
what you could do, you already have them in front of you on July 8th for compliance with something else. If you felt there's been enough movement on this so far, you could pause the daily issuance of fines until July 8th to be
discussed that night. Right? >> If at that point there's been more movement and you feel happy about that, you don't reinstate the fines. Um, if there has been little movement and you feel like >> you need more push for compliance, then you reinstate the fines. It's two weeks.
>> I think that's a logical middle ground. Yeah. >> And at that point, you're also assessing whether they're in substantial compliance or at least whether significant effort has been shown towards compliance with what's due on July 7th. >> All right. So, Matt's recommendation is
to pause the fines until um 78. um at which point we'll decide to either reinstate or to dismiss the fines um moving forward based on the the results that we see is >> generally speaking we uh is the majority
of in compliance that you know what I meant. Um all right >> so Matt is there anything else we need to discuss on this one? >> Um I don't believe so. everything else um is either like action three now is is
set. The site conditions we've confirmed are in compliance. Um I think it's worth mentioning that it was the commission's intention back then that the property would get into compliance and stay in compliance. So I think as of tonight you're crossing off action item number
three, site cleanup and site visit off of of the list and considered to be in compliance now. But if you receive evidence that that's no longer in compliance, you are likely to issue fines for that, right? >> Yes. I Okay. I think that we would want that built into the Yeah. the
>> um update. >> I think beyond that, um there's nothing that is really needed. Um I don't even think we really need to issue anything legally to them about pausing fines. She's here tonight. She understands. You're saying fines are paused. When are
they When are they paused? >> July. starting. >> Oh, >> when does the pause start? Does it start 16th when I >> haven't issued those or are we pausing it starting today? Because >> you said I was batching them. >> I thought today. >> I I think today would would be my
recommendation >> or or start what was the date of that um email she sent? >> Oh, that was >> what email it was? uh within I think 23rd last couple days probably you can
>> I have Tuesday the 23rd >> I I [clears throat] think as a board we should have maybe just a little bit of discussion just so we we apply this equally all the time right I don't really like retro you know fines you
know like and I said that last time uh also I don't really want to retro pause things when hey look we we handed this, we asked you to take care of it. There was a lot of steps that got us to the point where we started issuing the fines, you come back
to us. Um, and now we're talking about it for the first time. Um, pausing the fine. So, my general thought would be today's the day you're talking about. Today's the day that if we decide to pause them, we would pause them today
>> and we would just kind of apply that because everybody's great people. I just don't want to treat somebody different than somebody else. And and I >> don't always remember everything, but you guys do. >> That makes the [clears throat] most
sense procedurally, >> right? >> Okay. >> So, you'd be saying that you're you're pausing the fines starting today to be revisited at the July 8th. >> July 8th. All right. >> Yep. Do I hear a motion to um pause the
um the the fines as discussed on >> starting today? >> I'm Yes. I will make the motion that we pause the fine starting today to be reassessed on July 8th. >> Is that all right?
>> Um is that enough for you? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion by Marilyn. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I oppose. No. >> And abstain. All right. So, that motion passes four to one to zero um to to
suspend until the 8th and then we'll discuss further. >> Jenna, just for your understanding, that means you're going to get one more batch of fines for me going from, I believe, June 16th through yesterday. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. Good luck. See you in a few weeks. I know. >> Yeah, for sure. For sure. >> Do you want to do you want to do minutes or >> meeting minutes? Um, did everybody have time to review the meeting?
Um, >> do you want a motion to accept the March March 25th me meeting minutes? >> Yes. >> Okay. I move that we accept the meeting. >> All those in favor say I. I. Opposed.
>> All right. So that M motion carries four to zero to one. Abstension. Megan >> Matt updates. You got five minutes. pal. >> 48 Pond View Drive. Agent approved removal of a white pine that poses a strike risk to the house in the outer
100 foot buffer zone to wetland resource areas. >> All right. Any questions for Matt? >> No. >> Okay, perfect. >> That is an administrative approval. Number two, administrative approval. 17 Old Orchard Lane. The agent approved removal of a Norway maple tree that poses a strike risk to the neighboring house within the 100 foot buffer zone to coastal wetland resource areas.
>> No way of maples are horrible. >> They are horrible. They're invasive. But also on this one, I denied a request for removal of a red maple because that was in a wetland resource area, not adjacent to it, even though it does pose a strike risk to the structure.
>> The applicant is trying to file an NOI for renovation, raise, rebuild. Figured deal with it during the NOI. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Any questions for Matt on 170? >> Is that a a red maple or a red colored maple? Swamp maple. >> Uh rub.
That's a swamp maple, >> also called red maples. >> Okay. Well, a lot of people mistake those big red maples. Noah maples. >> Oh, the the red le the crimson crimson ones. They call them crimson king. The >> purplish looking leaves. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> No, it's one of the native uh the native red maple. It's >> all right, Matt. Uh three minutes for update on ongoing projects. uh signed contract on the mass dot culvert grant
for Lake Street. Oh yeah. So that's good. Um >> wrapping up three different projects that are grant funded. One of them is the Bates Pond Trail, which isn't directly tied to a state grant. Uh the other is the storm water project on Drew
and Siver. There's an NOI filing coming in on that a day. And the third one is the um bid prep for Lake Street Culver under the deer grant. On top of that um
the mass ready act environmental bond bill u was just passed through the house. Um the roadicide bill did not make it into the final cut. Um, so we still have a group of people locally that are working on that sort of stuff
and we probably should push more towards municipal action since, you know, there's been a lot of action and progress on the state level, but it is time to push a little more locally. um what did make it into the environmental
bond bill. Um and it was partially partially I think thanks to JWA um pushing and also partially just um Representative Latra and her staff um being excellent and advocating for us
always. Um, it's not fully funded yet, but they were able to get earmarks in to the environmental bond bill for a million dollars towards Maple Street Dam and Culver. Um, so that's really excellent if the funding can come
through on that and h 100,000 towards the purchase of the DOT parcel that we've been trying to buy for four years. Oh my goodness. From um DOT along camp Econ. Wow. Um the C Replaceer's office has been really helpful with trying to
help us navigate working with DOT on trying to get something done here. Um but we've been stuck on our appraisal being significantly lower than theirs or than their asking price. Um and I think this money would help us deal with that. Again, assuming that the funding comes
through, I need to talk to their office about how that works. The whole state system, I don't quite get it, but it's excellent news regardless. Um and really good work. um from their office in advocating for um wetlands and ecology in Kingston.
>> That's the last thing I got for you. >> All right, you got 30 seconds to spare. Um very serious stuff. Does anyone actually have questions for Matt? I'm not rushing this. >> No, I would like to pull on the record um applauding uh Representative Lenatra.
never fails to support the important things, the things that are important to the town of Kingston. >> Yes. >> Here, here. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, so if there's no other uh discussion, uh, the next meeting will be
held on July 8th, 2026 starting at 6:30 p.m. The time is now 10 o'clock. >> Do I hear a motion? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Yes. >> A motion from Maryland, second by Megan. All those in favor say I. I >> oppose.
>> Uh abstained. All right, that motion carries. We are journ. >> Did you want to do a hard cut off at 10:00? >> Yeah.