e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e for this meeting uh commissioner Franklin and commissioner McFarland will
be attending virtually it's possible that um commissioner artiano uh will be absent unless we see him pop up on the screen um I'm going to open the meeting
and take a roll call I'm Kina vendetti I'm here Jim Franklin here here D McFarland here here Megan hickey here and Marilyn Kido here and Brian Payne here thank you very much please note
we're doing a hybrid meeting with both in person and virtual attendance so if a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during public hearing please use the raise hand function on zoom and you'll be assigned to speaking time and if you're listening in Via
telephone dialup press star n um to raise your hand and then press star six to unmute yourself this meeting is being recorded by the local scene we're very grateful and a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene
website as soon as they're able anyone intending to make an audio or video recording of this meeting should notify me at this time okay great this is just an additional announcement Kingston's open space
committee is Seeking a new member the committee assists this committee this conservation Committee in overseeing the management and use of conservation properties to help all of us better access and utilize these uh resources in a positive way this is an opportunity
for a resident to assist in implementing the town's open space plan help improve parking and trails and identifying future conservation and passive Recreation priorities in the town among other things you may inquire by calling
the conservation department at 781 585 0537 or by emailing Juliana denim at J denim
Kingston ma.gov all right that's j d n u m at k n g s n m.gov first order businesses assigning
of documents will you let us know it needs to be signed Matt we have the C uh two coc's local and state for 120 Country clubway that was approved at the
last meeting time for all set I'll now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for two Wildwood Circle filed retroactively for construction of
a large play structure within jurisdiction um Matt do you have any comments um could let the representative give a presentation certainly you want to ID identify yourself for the record good good evening members of the commission Brad homes from ECR uh
representing Dan kle at first property at two Wildwood Circle we filed an RDA application to bring this property into compliance with the state and local regulations and enforcement order was issued to Mr kleet for a construction of
a playet there's a playet in the the back of his property um which is partially within the 100 foot buffer zone to a boarding vegetated wetland in within the 200 foot Kingston uh 200 foot Zone to an intermittent stream under the Kingston
Wetland regulations there used to be a pool and an above ground pool and uh deck surrounding the pool at the property that was in placed prior to my my the applicant's um ownership and he replaced
that pool and Deck with a playset it is a very nice elabor at playet um it's got different levels and sandboxes and decking um but it's generally within the footprint of the pool that was there he didn't uh know at the time that permits
were needed an enforcement order was issued we're U hopefully going to bring the project the property into compliance so that's the purpose of the RDA application we did get a chance to um review staff comments we responded uh
with some approx calculations based off aerial imagery that we can discuss further if needed and with that I'll bring it back to to you all right do you have any um thing to say Matt sure yeah and I think everybody remembers this one from the Enforcement issue um part of
the issue was that pool itself was never permitted uh but that was built by the previous homeowner um so from my being there I've confirmed or it at least appears from all the evidence that the structure was built within the existing
fenced yard area um it's in the outer extent of the 100 foot buffer of BBW outside of the 50ft no structure boundary um it's in the outer 100 foot you know between 100 and 200 to the intermittent stream and in an area
that's already cleared um whether it was legally cleared is debatable but it has been cleared for 10 to 15 years so it was nothing that this homeowner did um we have a few different performance standards that apply for Riverfront area buffer zone
impervious coverage and structures um most relevant being the impervious surface uh standard the 10.05 B maximum 15% um my staff report noted that from
my very crude calculations it appeared that they may be over 15% um again one of the previous homeowners built a two like a garage or a barn or something at the end of the driveway within jurisdiction without a
permit so there just over the years has been more and more impervious surface on the property um performance standards for Riverfront areas apply but in this case as I said this portion of the riverfront area
has not been in a natural state for at least 10 to 15 years fenced in you know considered part of the yard has 100 plus feet of naturally vegetated buffer to the intermittent stream and 5050 plus feet of naturally vegetated buffer to the BBW so I don't see this project as altering any resource areas other than
potentially through the addition of impervious surface um and the existing lawn itself in that area may be more detrimental due to chemical and fertilizer runoff um so I had recommended that we would require documentation of youit percent impervious coverage and um any permit
that's issued commission may want to impose special conditions such as limiting outdoor chemical use um ECR did reply to the as he said with the calculations what they put forward is that
the existing before the structure was built uh was at 13.9% in prvious surface and now that that's built 17.3 so that and I did sort of bring this up with the homeowner when we did a
site visit um months ago during the Enforcement issue was just that that may be the only real issue with this project would be impervious surface not knowing what the percentage was and the commission essentially being Limited at
15% unless they're going to issue a variance um two issues with that on this project would be I don't think the commission can issue a variance through a DOA so the only way the commission would be really issuing a variance would be through an
noi filing which would be pretty expensive for play structure um I don't think the commission's issued a variance in my time here to allow somebody to go over 15% without some sort of mitigating circumstances
being I don't know a buried concrete slab or other sort of you know pre-existing conditions that were already over 15 is more typical um in this case sort of what I had said to the homeowner during the site visit was that had he known he needed permitting then
you know a simple solution would have been spacing the boards out to 38 of an inch and it's all pervious and then it's easy um you know at this point my recommendation would be that he
work with Brad to figure out you know I believe the homeowner built you know the majority of the structure himself or um you know with assistance but you know I think figure out how much of it you would need to make pervious you know is
everything screwed in can it just be is it TXS is it a matter of unscrew a handful of boards and spacing them out and then you're under 15% commission at that point be able to issue a DOA there would be no other you know real concerning things about the
project it's more of like a procedural issue I think where we're over that 15% that's pretty well documented anything up in that range is considered to be detrimental to the resource areas even though in this case you do have vegetated buffer between the project and the resource areas the commission really
can't and shouldn't allow you know anybody to go over 15% and particularly through a DOA and part of that is due to previous development on the property without a permit you know increasing that percent coverage up
close to the 15% but um those are my thoughts anyways that was the way I could see there's really I don't think any other issue with this project other than impervious surface um it is part of it in small areas like some
of it it's you know walkways going around an area where it's sand where you would get infiltration in between I mean it's not a huge pad of concrete but you know if that's what the numbers are that's what the numbers are so I don't know how accurate the numbers were there
may be a chance to go back and revisit and see if maybe there are certain parts that don't count as impervious or see if there's one little deck area that by spacing the boards out to 38 would just take care of the whole thing and and get it under 15 do you want to address
commission sure a couple thoughts um the pool and deck that was placed would have required a permit because it was in the buffer zone I think that the 200 foot Riverfront
is somewhat newi is to the commission within I don't think it was in place in 2015 16 yeah for Rivers for for streams it was yeah the new the newer interpretation um was the vernal pools okay I was thinking it was a it's not a
Riverfront but I I don't it's not a Riverfront under the state correct but but I don't I didn't know what the date was when uh protection for intermittent streams I didn't think it went back that far but I I I'm just throwing that out there the other part of is if this was a
Riverfront project and we're working under the state regulations for Riverfront this would be a a scenario where we would um use mitigation to offset like you know at a 2 to1 ratio kind of thing M there is open space
beyond the fence leading down to the you know vegetated buffer that there's an opportunity to plant there so my first thought would be if we could um you know vegetate that area to compensate for this amount that would be
probably easier than taking the decking and spacing it but if that's not an option because we're we're talking about the variance request then I would pursue with him the option to you know space the boards where necessary some of that
decking is elevated you know as part of the structure so you know underneath is you know open MH but there are there are larger steps that are probably you know five or six boards you know together that could be space so we could
certainly look at that the easier option would be to and and probably ecological benefit would be to add plantings between the fence and the Wetland but if it's more of a coverage in compliance with that
standard and we we would look at spacing the the planks I I I guess it's up to you the commission what what they think would be uh acceptable any um thoughts any thoughts from the
commission well I think we're trying to be reasonable and I understand your point about the construction versus the planting but Matt you're more familiar with the the site than I am and there was an area behind the fence that I pointed out during the enforcement hearing that I thought looked like it
may have been Disturbed um and I believe the homeowner said that that was like that when he bought the property um I don't know I don't I I don't necessarily want to speak on whether that would be
beneficial or not I think it should vegetate on its own if it's left alone and it should be left alone it's outside of the fence it shouldn't be dumped on right I made that I think pretty clear that you know it's not you're not dumping stuff back there you're not clearing all the leaves off of it every
year blowing them closer to the wetlands or into the wetlands um I just wonder I don't recall a situation and I may be wrong that the commission I don't want to say utilized mitigation but allowed mitigation for something that would need a variance
during an RDA it's numbers excuse me it's numbers correct like I said I could be wrong we may have done one but I don't recall no doing anything variance mitigation based during an RDA process it seems like it
shouldn't be done but it also seems ridiculous to have somebody file an noi for Place structure because you're talking engineered plans and all sorts of you know cost to that that's not necessary so I guess my recommendation
would be that we continue and the applicant and the representative figure out how they can get under 15% um I don't know what this I didn't really run the numbers to see what the difference in square footage would be to get it under 15 if you look at that and you
know you can't hit it by pulling a few boards and spacing some stuff out then um I don't know get in touch with me and maybe we can see what the options are on that property for kind of like I said you may also be able to look closer I
think you said this based off of Aerials right maybe by actually going out in the yard and measuring off and seeing there may be like I know there were portions of it that I would not that that nobody would count as impervious surface because you know the area underneath the swing set is just I think sand or wood
chips or something like that um so any of those types of areas making sure that those weren't counted um maybe you're maybe you are already under 15 and can take a another look and um I would think that like the decking that's you know between structure that's elevated you
know I don't know you can walk under it even though those boards would be together I I wouldn't necessarily say they're impervious because you know everything underneath is is open but there are certainly decks on the ground that are together that we could we could
look at those numbers and then spacing the decking three 38 of an Ines would you recommend yeah U and I think that would be something that we could do good so C two um is this Jim yep yes sure so
I I think I think you guys are going down the right lane the um it's clear that you know from the images that you have here that you know the what might be a board is going to run off and it only looks like it's 40 inches wide on some of these um these these structures
these these Pathways that that connect right so when you get into that the intent here is not to you know just stick to paper definitions um just to do that right it's it's is there a detriment and the detriment is based off
there being close boards and the water not being able to run and then it just kind of creating cascading effect when it does start to run right so in this case I don't think we have that so I think that you know with a little bit of effort they should be able to document that and we can say hey we looked into
this this isn't that type of situation where where over 15% and then it becomes you know an easily dismissed thing so that would be my my U my my recommendation that is there
um any uh comment from members of the public present viral public no anything else from the commission no but I hear a motion is to continue do you need longer than weeks a
couple weeks or um yes in the sense that we'll do the work and get it over to you I'll have some coordination so that will be in place for the the following meeting if that's possible yeah I certainly don't think there's any Rush it's a retroactive project anyways so um a
month that would be great I I don't I'd rather have some coordination in time for the next meeting March 26th make a motion to continue to March 26 do I have a second second great take a vote on that um
dot yes and Jim yes and Megan yes and Kina a yes and Marilyn yes and Brian yes and Buzz still is in here okay no buzz all right we're going to continue and we will see you then thank you very much
thank you very much all right 650 we got hearings um do we have uh time to do the Spruce Street we can't um you know what no let's do spru street
after all right spru Street I don't think is here so might as well so we're going to move to uh public hearings yeah all right it is 653 I think and we're going to open a public
hearing and this is for uh two brancher Avenue it's a notice of intent uh it's proposing construction of an add of additions to a single family house to brre Avenue um within the
buffer zones to several Coastal resource areas and land subject to Coastal storm Flowage um do you have any comments Matt I think this is the first hearing I think uh Nick from Brady
is online to present the project I am here good evening and would you just say your name again for the record yes Nicholas Ling from gr Consulting you're coming through very soft put the mic closer to your
mouth is that any better it is yes perfect sorry about that uh Nicholas link from great consultant all right what have you got to present to us Mr leing may I uh share my screen please do so we had a s sidewalk um just
yesterday I have here for plan from what you have in front of you um we've made a couple of revisions based on the S sidewalk yesterday and some what the comments we had received uh previously from that one of which uh was the
revision date has been revision date box has been added to the plan um as it was just mentioned there are a number of resource areas um on and adjacent to the property here and we've added additional setback lines to represent all of the setbacks for all the separate resource
areas and we have also added there were U there was an enforcement order from the previous ownership there were four cedar trees I'm zooming in on them slowly for you here in the backyard that we added to the plan represent their location and we also need to formally request a variance for
um construction within PL subject Coastal flame so just a little over uh overview of the resource areas we have here the cyan line down the center would be the flood zone line and then the offsets leftwards of that actually extend off
the property the 100 for bumper Zone excuse me encompasses the entire property and then if you look to the east side the right side of the and there is a stone vment the top of that or the landward side of that is the top of the Coastal Bank and the souly side
I'm sorry the uh easterly side of that would be where the salt marsh takes over and leads into Kingston Bay the proposed additions have been labeled in color here so we have in the rear we have a an existing overhang that
they're looking to just enclose and make an enclosed living space rather than just the roof one um the deck is does not have the spacings as we're just discussed in the previous hearing so the deck is an impervious service in this situation and then the other additional is going to come off the front of the
structure on the front right hand side going allow entry from the front of the building because there actually is not a front door currently and to offset the additional impervious area incre um created by that front addition we are proposing to remove a portion of the driveway and the
brick walkway in the front area to make sure that those offset appr um we do have also nine smart vents proposed around the foundation of the existing structure these vents are designed to allow the free passage of water in and out so basically it will
help stabilize the structure in any kind of a flooding situation prevent it from possibly uh coming apart and blowing away so we believe that is a significant Improvement on the current existing conditions as well as the offset of the impervious surface area and I would be happy to answer any questions that the
commission has Matt you want to um make your comment sure yeah I noted in the staff report um just a little bit about the resource areas and that it was clear all of the
work is proposed either within land subject to Coastal storm Flowage or it's no touch setbacks um all of those now are shown and I believe Nick said that they did update to provide a formal variance for that um um they'll be sending that in
with the updated plan uh likely tomorrow and put the eastern red seeders on the EO so that's taken care of I figured the commission would want that there because those are supposed to be maintained in perpetuity based on the enforcement order there was a comment from D that
said um as noted on the plan project is located with within land subp Coastal storm Flowage Zone ve and limit of moderate wave action concom may wish to consult with the building inspector regarding the requirement to elevate the structure on a pile supported foundation
and check accuracy of Coastal Bank pursuant to De Coastal Bank policy 92- one um I did send this filing to the building department I didn't hear anything back on it um I believe from the filing that um they are proposing um
helical on this is that correct Nick that is yeah okay um and as far as the accuracy of the Coastal Bank I personally didn't perceive that to be uh really concerning on this particular project unless a commissioner thinks so
um just based on the position of the revetment wall um that the top of the revetment wall reaches a flat surface and that would typically be the um top of Coastal Bank um I did note like I've noted on some
other filings recently um this property is just landward of mass mass shellfish growing area CCB 43.3 which is currently active and used by the public um with commercial oyster beds at the outer reaches or just beyond um that every
effort should be made to limit runoff in this area and that Eel Grass beds in the area have been declining because of runoff from lawn areas so when we did the site visit Rick Grady was talking I had asked for a little bit
of information about the smart vents because I had no idea what they were for um and I guess the idea behind them is they're supposed to let water in Rick had said he perceived them to be a benefit I had talked a little bit about variances and that you know while
this doesn't seem to be a really egregious project usually when we see a variance request usually it's accompanied by you know mitigation of some sort so talked about usually that consists of um some plantings at the top of Coastal Bank protected by
conservation posts help stabilize the bank over time that sort of thing Rick had thought that these vents alone were an improvement for the purpose that and Nick can correct me if I'm wrong or maybe he can elaborate on this a little bit but that they would prevent you know
essentially the structure from entering the resource area in pieces you know I think the idea behind it is rather than have the structure resist the pressure of flood waters it lets it in then lets it back out or lets it infiltrate into the ground um my only question other
than just wondering how the commission feels about that I'm wondering if Nick has more information about that is this is a crawl space area I took a very brief look in there and it looked like it was just kind of plastic covered dirt I don't know if there's anything
concerning down there in terms of if you do get flooding in there and kind of Let It Go washing in and out is there any concern about anything being brought back out there um I there may be nothing under there at all just be dirt so might not be an issue that's the only thing I really think of on that um other than
that you do have formal variance requests um we don't have all of them yet uh in front of us but to me um you know
really in terms of the development going closer to the resource areas it's on an area that already covered by impervious decking um I did walk back there and look at it there is minimal if any spacing between the boards and the area that they're talking about Walling in
already is covered by a roof anyways um so that part not particularly concerning the portion on the front you know it's getting further away from the resource area counteracting that by removing impervious surface so that your numbers don't go up um really don't have too
much to say about the project it's not something that seems really um out of Out Of Reach more just um procedural as far as you know if the commission's issuing a permit they're going to have to specify the variance requests um special conditions if the commission is
issuing permits I thought any dumpster used as part of this project must be covered uh we should talk about any specifics you want to see in a special condition for that so that we don't end up with things blowing into the bay and then the usual blurb about outdoor chemicals and fertilizers as I talked
about earlier with the uh Eel Grass and the shellfish growing area and all that usually buzzes here to bring up roof drains and things like that yeah in fact I said there's you I said you should have more information about these vents because there's probably one maybe two Commissioners who are going to know
about these and everybody else is is not going to know so yeah Jim might know I can give you a little bit more detail on these events these are these are something that are um they're an engineered structure that we use all the time especially new construction um
and they're actually recommended uh for a lot of new construction because it helps you get through with the Bea uh flood insurance issues that you can run into with new construction um so if there any kind of even a latest enclosure these can be used to basically
prevent any anything from being ripped off of the structure more or less is how how it's simply described um as the water rises and comes inwards it's it's smashing hard against the foundation walls and it's pushing and it's basically trying to crumple it from from
the outside in and what the smart vs do is they allow the water to come in so that the pressures attacking the foundation walls are the same on both sides so basically it's a an engineered attempt to remove that kind of pressure on the structure so that the structure can remain intact in uh a more durable
way in the same quality of storms compared to those that don't have those on on the structors uh did any of the other commiss do you have any um questions Jim about this any comments um yeah I have a couple of things um I understand how the vents
work I understand you know wave action I understand how toppling of walls can you know lead to you know a sidewall you know in above roof structure collapsing right so so essentially um you got to look at these
as a limitation of of of the damage or a potential limitation of the damage of you know the existing structure in that type of situation now you know that's also something that is good for their insurance um problem right so it's not
the only reason why it was done um for us right so when we look at this parcel and and Matt correct me if I'm wrong this is that parcel that we had water problems right there's a there's a house that was developed across the street there's water that runs down it runs across the
street there's you know been a lot of enforcement discussions there were some trees that came down um there was we we were understanding that there was going to be noi and that you know we I think we we you know had some discussion at some point that we were going to you
know get a little bit deeper into some of these discussions when we got there so I think this is our one opportunity to kind of you know close out that whole discussion when you know previously it was just a couple of trees got you know pulled down um you know but let's let's remember that there is a a water problem
here in this area okay so when when I look at this here um obviously we know what this is uh we know that the neighborhood is is is probably something that we couldn't build today uh and we have to accept that you know some of this stuff is there and it exists and
we're not going to you know be able to do anything that's going to be you know 100% right so let's just try to get as right as we can all right so when I look at this you know the problem is the runoff right we're concerned with runoff into the bay how do we adjust that um
well we don't have to let anything change on this house um so they're coming to us they're asking for variances we have the right to you know to offset one one infraction or um uh in um into something that there not
technically allowed to do uh with with something you know to offset that that you know effect right so my my thought is that this is when we would want to talk about um you know dry Wells right how do we improve the infiltration um we
can decrease the runoff of this site by you know uh getting some drywells built in uh it's not something that's hard to do especially you know if they're going to be you know building things in here it's it's a right time to ask for it um also so if if they're if their project
is already you know discussing that they're going to be taking backing down and I I didn't I don't quite follow exactly what's going to be here looks like it's construction it looks like it's existing but I don't know if uh and maybe Nick can can let us know are you planning on removing these um the
covering for the deck that the deck gos or is this just a simple modification and you guys are going to be cutting some out and leaving the rest of them plays could you answer that um I believe it's the they're going to be cutting out the section that they're going to be replacing with uh the walled in area
because they need to inspect the files to make sure they're in good condition before they um and decide whether or not how many they need to supplement with the hilal piles when I hear that Nick I I expect that there's going to be you know work access area that's going to need to be established so I would expect
that some of these boards are coming off adjacent and at that point tough to you know reuse these boards when they come off and I'm thinking that you know I'm I'm hearing that probably going to see you know some kind of new that can go back in place and if that's the case I certainly think that we could you know
we have every right to ask for them to to meet the standards that we've discussed um just even in this meeting about um you know the spacing in between these boards so that we can um you know de limit the impervious on this arel
specifically because of the past history and the problems that it's had um the dry Wells and imp perious surface the decks uh and then I'd like to see offsetting um some offsetting uh plantings up up top uh uh closer to the
resource area to help prevent uh runoff in that area so that we can you know Circle the three things and and kind of you know feel that we did as much as we could on this one when it came back without breaking the bank for the the
app those are my uh my comments do we any other Commissioners want to comment did you have anything else to say Nick um that the deck we are only removing the decking boards where the overhang exists we are not removing the decking over the the the boards over the
entire deck um so to space out the decking would be quite an undertaking when they're not intending to be removing those that section of boards okay all the more reason um to to try to uh attack the um the runoff type of um
conditions through another path so is there anyone um in the virtual public or in the public pres who has a comment on this well if you want to could you just hop up to the um Podium and and um
announce your your name for the record name's Veronica McCarthy Y and um it's my residence that I'm trying to do and it really is uh just enclose the existing um overhang in that porch just to enlarge the kitchen big enough so I
can get a table in there basically um and in the front part um of the house where I want to put that addition the main water line and the hot water heater the only access ex access to it is outside so you have to walk around the
front of the house um if you know for pipe breaks or whatever in the dead of winter and uh I'm 70 years old I don't want to be you know shoveling out to the front so I want to enclose that so I can internally have access to the main water line and the hot water heater okay so I
mean that's what my little projects were about but they seem to be a little more difficult than I thought so yeah does anyone have any other questions for me thank you very
much um so we still don't have technically you know a formal variance request in front of us so I think no matter what you're looking at continuance um if Commissioners feel that they need some
form of mitigation for a variance request beyond the structural stability smart vent installation you know they would have time to come back with
something you know I again I don't think we're this isn't this isn't egregious this is is and I mentioned um during the site walk that you know the previous issues that were here from people cutting trees down and everything like that I said you may want to plant some
things over time to start to soak up some of that water that that large tree out front is no longer doing um you know there may be a way to kind of do two birds of one stone thing here
but that's that's up to the applicant and you know the representative you know I don't think we need to mandate anything specific here it's it's I think it's pretty light mitigation but like I mentioned this is
the typical Rocky Nook backyard it's Turf right up to the Coastal Bank with you know maybe some landscape plantings non-native hedge kind of thing nothing that really stabilizes that area and nothing that
really prevents runoff carrying you know any contaminants or anything into the bay so I think it's easy enough to to do some mitigation on something like this to introduce some plantings something yeah I mean Jim mentioned dry dry Wells
I don't know you know given this area and how different a lot of the substrate is throughout the Nook I mean you may just have a lot of ledge under there you may not be able to do right drywalls if you can if you figure drywalls are the cheapest and easiest for you to mitigate then you offer drywalls if you don't
then you offer a strip at the top of the Coastal Bank with some native plantings covered protected by conservation posts and and that you know it's nothing that grows up to block The View it's just basically grasses and Forbes shrubs some stability
stabilize aside from the drainage but some stability for that area because you're impacting it more by what you're adding yeah yeah I think anything you can do on the top of Coastal Bank is not just beneficial for the resource area is and for everything else that needs you
know flowers and leaves and everything else it it helps provide stability to the site so so if this is going to um hypothetically how much time time I
guess I would ask Nick um you know with you know our typical information receipt policy is 3 weeks but for continuance for additional information it's one week so if we continued this to March 12th by March 5th I would need to have
um the variance request and any revisions that you're making to show some form of mitigation is that is that feasible or would you need more time yeah no we can we can put together a planing plan by then before you we can do
that so you're talking about March 12th do I hear um a motion to continue this matter to March 12th I move to continue this to March 12th is there a second second a second thank you all sorts of seconds all right I'm going to take a
vote on the um on the motion to continue this to March 12th and uh dot yes Jim yes and Megan yes I'm kinaa yes Marilyn yes and Brian
yes well thank you all very much we'll see you back same place different day thank you you can zoom in if you want the link will be online or you can email me for the link or whatever okay good good
luck thank you we'll see you soon too um Sisters by the way was it short Shore Drive Drive short drive coincidence we the thank you night have a good night all
right you want to go back back to 23 Spruce Street so I'll now open a public meeting to discuss a request for certificate of compliance for 23 Spruce Street do you have any comments Matt I
don't um the last time we continued this I said that the um the Builder was on vacation for two weeks understood that they needed to update the asilt plan to show the correct location of the
conservation posts and they were waiting on their engineer to or land surveyor to provide the updated plan and I have not heard from anybody I think because the Builder was still on vacation until very recently so if the commission wants to continue it we continue it if you want
to continue it further out you can continue it further out if you want to deny it for lack of information you can deny it I don't you do whatever you want well um is there anyone um either uh um virtually present uh who
might represent the applicant no they're still on vacation all right are there any comments from members of the commission yeah I would uh Jim CLE Jim I would say let's let's kick us out two months give him give him some time to to
come back and get everything ready and how long um did you suggest um I would say uh two months really would that be that would be April 23rd 23 you want to make that motion Jim to
make that motion let's um I make motion to continue this until the April 23rd meeting all right do I have a second second great I'm going to take a vote on that I have a motion to continue this matter to April 23 can we hold that for
one second certainly let me check my phone I want to see if that aligns with April vacation yeah c yeah yeah it do you be in or something I will be away I'll I'll be
away so I I believe Juliana at that point will be back in the office but I don't know that for sure yeah so um we could either do April 9th or May 14th can we shoot for the nth I
would make a I would amend my motion for May 14th to May 14th yes ma'am did you want to comment on that well I I was going to suggest the ninth and hopefully put this to
bed I I think they could probably have it by the 9th I mean I I kind of brought it up the way I did because I don't want to just keep continuing things two weeks two weeks two weeks when we're waiting for information that we're not not getting but you know with the builder
having been on vacation for two weeks I understand I just um I know but conservation post I don't want to kick it off for two weeks but maybe maybe two and a half months is is all right tough
let me let me jump in here right so so we asked them to be ready they weren't ready two weeks is not not something that works we get we give them two month months that gives them plenty of time to respond because from what I'm hearing they did not respond so give them a
month to respond give them a month to get ready if if we have to go further than that so be it um because we we don't have a meeting um but I we shouldn't be talking about these things every two weeks just for the convenience of the contractor if it was important
they would be here uh and they would be ready to close this out so you know give them more time than they need and hopefully the next time they come in they'll see that there's a there's a reason why you have to close your stuff out because we're not at your leisure we're here to to do things in an
expeditious way and you have to do your pocket so would you be Jim would you be opposed to April 9th that's six weeks right I I like pushing for two and and you said that that's not there so but
yeah I just didn't want to I didn't want to continue them to a meeting that I might be looking to and a because I we should be we should only have to discuss this one more time and it should be just present the information and we should be able to vote on it just to close it out it this
should not be something that we talk about five times because they they just didn't respond to us in that time so let's let's push to the 14th of May we can keep we can keep April 23rd and and if we end up canceling the meeting they just get pushed a little bit further but
Juliana might be able to be around to provide support for that meeting so it's not worth arguing about the all right let's just do the 23d like the motion was suggested so do um I have a
second on that motion made by um commissioner Franklin to continue this matter until uh April 23rd second a second from Megan um going to vote on that
dot this I'll I'll clarify this is a motion to continue this uh until April 23rd made and seconded now we're voting dot
yes Jim yes Megan yes Cen is a yes Marilyn yes and Brian yes okay so that carries thanks a lot uh we're moving on to enforcement on 44 rabi Road yes or rabo Road I'd like to see say
rabbith I don't know say RAB too I don't know how it's actually pronounced I um I don't see anybody on I can give you what I understand to be the reality okay good
um there was some Communication Breakdown between the property owners and the building department the building department asked for specific information um the property owners provided some information but not
all of the information then we got the new Building Commissioner and so then he asked for information but didn't have the original information but at this point still they don't have the information that they need to determine whether they
could issue a building permit for that this is in regards to the wall this is specifically in in regards to the wall because that was how we sort of left everything was that there were multiple issues on the property but the most egregious was the construction of the wall with the like concrete parking area
on top without a permit from any Department um so the commission had said go talk go basically go file a building permit and see if it can pass them if it can pass them then you can try to file in retro with us um The Building
Commissioner this past week um might have been late last week early this week provided specifics on exactly what they need to provide basically the company that made the blocks that the wall was
built out of sent some specs which they forwarded to the building department but the specs outlin the process whereby you're supposed to take their specs and the info about the site location and send information to the
Block Company apparently and the Block Company will then stamp and sign plans or you know essentially sign something stating that it can be built in that way in that location and without that information the building Department's
not able or willing to make a determination on whether that can be built so that essentially is where that is at um and I did sort of let them know that somebody should probably be here tonight
to talk to the commission because there was nobody here the last time we discussed it and you all wanted me to reach out and say hey come to the next meeting thank you for doing that so that's where we're at here they aren't is there anyone on what on Virtual no
just Jim and Dot okay and the docks are still in the water that was a uh you know they let us know that um you know the husband did went down South for storm response you know late
fall early winter and so they let us know that they weren't going to be able to take that out until the spring yeah we were told in August that they were going to take them out yeah by the homeowner told it was fairly simple
will'll remove doc immediately I mean there are more issues to the property you know oh yeah even the the bigger doc but I mean that was something that could either be dealt with during this process or it can be dealt with
when we get to updating the dock or creating sort of the dock retroactive dock standards um I don't have a preference one way or the other I think with this property we're sort of stepping through from most important down and um um haven't really gotten
anywhere it's been a long time but um yeah if I could cleaner yes please CH so we had you know as Matt said you know we kind of looked at this and we said all
right let's let's not talk about theoreticals because if the building department says this this retaining wall that wasn't permanent needs to be born down because X Y or Z then we're going to have to discuss an noi to remove it
okay um that's a pretty simple process for them to complete with most of the block manufacturers that design the right products for these us so you know it it is something that if you're not somebody who does this all the time it's
a little bit more of a process than you might think um but at the end of that process you know they should be able to get the answers that the building department is going to rely on um in their assessment of whether or not it's stable enough to stay in place right so
I think that you know the docks I think it was very clear that they were going to remove them um you know I wish that they had just because it would make it easier just to you know say all right well let's just give them a little bit more time but you know along the line of needing a little bit more time it just seems like they need some more time to
get this um you know this paperwork Tria um that's going to dictate what the next steps are for Conservation Commission so I I think that based on that you know I think the best action is to give them some more time you know to to get what they need to and close out the
discussion with uh with the uh the building department and you also have the Board of Health Department involved too don't you did you so I mean there's a lot going on right on that property the Board of Health had to go out to inspect
46 rabi road for the um the alternative technology septic system and uh the health agent commented that there was a privy on 44 Ravi Road um which I think we had all seen you
know kind of a little shed looking thing while we were out there well she said she saw plumbing coming out of the bottom of it and had concerns that maybe it was still in use um I sort of doubted but reached out to the homeowners and just said hey the health agent passed on
this information can you speak to that and they said that it is not in use and that I believe she said the health agent told them that they can keep the structure there if they want but why filling in the the what do you call it
the something yeah yeah um so yeah that's where that is so you just want to talk about this again later that's it's up to the commission I mean I I typically I don't like just kind of indefinitely floating
things I mean they are working towards getting this stuff wrapped up but also I think have a lot of other stuff going on so if the commission really wants to see movement on this I mean you don't have to issue an enforcement order now you
can I don't want to say threaten but inform that if you don't see significant Movement by a certain date that you will issue an enforcement order mandating that with dat findes
if compliance isn't achieved but also be definitive as to the different moving parts and they might not all have the same end date depending upon the complexity of that particular issue but I think it all
needs to be clearly laid out for them yeah yeah personally I've been focusing on the wall because to me the wall is call it the most egregious violation the one with the most capacity to damage
the resource area if it is not built you know properly we already know it doesn't meet the standards of K wpr as it's built due to its proximity to the pond and the height um so that is the thing most likely in
need of an noi filing in retro or complete just rip it out and file for whatever you want to do instead um I think a lot of the other things can be accessory to
that so to me that is I think the the biggest thing that should be dealt with that you want to see dealt with like I said they are dealing with it but I think there was a long period of time of you know the building department saying well we need this and then not
getting a response whereas the homeowner thought that they had provided all the information that the the building department needed and maybe having a time period without a building inspector in between maybe didn't didn't help um but
yeah I'll do whatever you all tell me to do I think my suggestion right now is that an enforcement order would not be necessary I think maybe just a hint
that the commission's not going to keep continuing this down the road without seeing real answers on this so you could send them um a letter of notice that an enforcement order would be for
forthcoming by a date certain if a b or c are not completed by another date certain sort of what I'm thinking yeah yeah just that makes sense and also is there any need for input any further input from the
building department with you or is it just a matter of getting it I mean we've been communicating on it um so I understand what they they need um they also have concerns obviously about issuing a building permit when there are wetlands concerns but we should be able
to figure that out because all the commission really wants to know is is it something that could be permitted by the building department right we know that it doesn't meet the standards of kwp what we don't know is is it
something that mitigation could you know if it's built and I think we already talked about this but if it is built soundly as far as engineering is concerned and it is not a danger to blow out into the resource area then is it
something that could be mitigated during noi filing instead of needing to be modified needing to be removed needing it to be teared you know that sort of thing so and what kind of timing are you
thinking about um because you I would think you'd want to put them on notice that is imminent and not at some you know to make it U more urgent for them to start doing something so my thought
process and I'll ask Jim for his opinion is that now that they know specifically what they're supposed to be doing as far as with that block company that to me a month should be sufficient for you know
we put this on the March 26th meeting and if we don't have information at that point from the building department that at least they've received what they needed to receive and they haven't had the time to respond to the request that's one thing but if the building
department at that point says we still don't have all the information standing right you know then I think I would say maybe March 27th I issue an enforcement order and the enforcement order would give them a hard deadline and say if you
do not have X and Y done by this hard deadline you're going to be fine $300 a day until you do okay and I would expect and this where I'll ask Jim because he said he's sort of dealt with this sort of stuff with companies before is is a month a reasonable timeline to get one of these companies to turn that
information around it's it's very reasonable I mean ultimately if somebody got involved with this a week's turnaround time would be would be enough to do it it's that this is not a complex you know process so you know given them a month you give
them plenty of time and like Matt said if if it's on us as a town because you know we got some turnover um and wear the slow um slow Walker then then we we deal with that separately than you know somebody not engaging in the conversation of correcting and closing
this out so I think A month's a good good time sounds like an approach that works for me works for you you all right we're going to move on to meeting minutes of which we have none so
we'll move on to updates yeah um ongoing projects I will pull up some quick pictures just to show you what we're doing at
Blackwater I will share my screen somehow all right this is the entrance to the bog complex so you've just walked out of the parking lot this is the first water control structure where Samson's Brook would be
breaking out behind you um Crossing wiri Street and going into Blackwater Pond what you're looking at is the uh Central ditch that has been widened and roughly you can see my cursor right Jim yes
right about here there's a log Jam in there um to try to move flow a little bit basically this water control structure is going to get pulled out and everything that you see from here through to where Samson's Brook is is going to be like
um like a rounded Cobble kind of stream bottom um with a notched log wear to control the water level going over here you see one of the ditches that was filled all of the perimeter ditches in this old bog complex are
being filled forcing the water back towards the middle reducing standing water for mosquito breeding this is uh on the West Side looking South again that whole ditch has been filled in first thing it was filled
in with were wood chips and you can see some remnant wood chips up here the rest of it is the material from the from the trail on the bank being pushed in uh they're also filling in the the interior lateral ditches as needed so that you don't leave pockets of standing water again
for minimizing mosquito breeding habitat this is standing on pretty much right where the uh old pump house was looking across the Dyke road so the natural wetlands are off to your right the bog cell is off to your
left now you can see to the left there I'm standing on the Dyke right near the old water control structure you can see on the left a new channel that was created to meander the stream off into the center of the bog complex instead of having it go down the um the Eastern perimeter
ditch this is looking exactly at where the water control structure and the pump out house were on the Eastern side of the Dyke um that bridge there is temporary that's just bog boards for the Machinery to make it across um you can see right here this is the notched log
where this is going to be controlling the flow in place of the water control structure that used to be over here uh water level is very low right now so the water level is going to be higher than that it's going to spill over this go through the spillway across to where the channel was created and that's looking
from where the water control structure was up at the natural w good look from here this is the one that I posted on our social media Pages earlier um standing right where the um Eastern side perimeter ditch was that's filled right here this is where the majority of the
flow used to go through would skirt the whole bog complex and go around to the South um the Dyke is over here and so now you have this you know kind of Meandering nice looking stream there that's going towards the middle once you get to the middle more
uh Log Jam features basically the idea with this was to get the flow back to the central channel that goes north south but to break up the flow so that it doesn't just channelize and run straight so we have these log features that are installed that will help the water Meander around and they're also
going to put a couple more logs or root balls on top of these just so that they don't look like an engineered structure it'll just look like a natural pile of logs or Beaver Dam that sort of thing this is um right sort of in the middle of the bog complex this is the bigger um
there's about 11 logs in there creating that Meander and they are going to pile a few more natural looking ones on top this lovely looking area is called microtopography this is really the good stuff it looks terrible now uh but this really helps take you know an
established agricultural cranberry bog mat and turn turn it back into a natural Wetland by breaking up the flat topography breaking up the cranberry vines in most of the areas where we did the micro topography these were the areas that were really dense with white pine with nothing growing underneath
them so you really didn't even have a lot of uh cranberry vines in these areas but you did have a lot of Upland soils um you can see some of the Sandy looking stuff here that would be the you know the sand that was piled on top over the years and then you see the big black chunk there that's the good uh Wetland
soil so when they did this work everything was frozen solid so as things thaw out they will settle down as things rain things will settle down it will get more homogeneous but won't be flat the way it was before and then there's no
plan to do any seating or anything in here because the natural seed bank will pop out over the next couple years and you'll have some nice Wetland plants out there there's a little um example of using the slash on site just to make a pile for Habitat quality um we had way
too much of that here from the amount of Pines that were growing on there so we did ship some of them and um get rid of them but we as we as necessary and as needed just kind of take some of these and pile them up and leave them for Habitat value so yeah can't show this to you and
say hey look it looks great but I promise it will look great in a couple years and again this was we highlighted three four if you include one really small area area but um several areas that were in need of microtopography but where we had the you know thick sagum
mat with really good native Wetland shrubs and Forbes we left those those areas alone not heavy-handed by by Design just as needed so this is on the Eastern side looking across the bog here you see the bog boards that they lay
down so they can have the Machinery out there without compacting the soil too much another look at uh the filled perimeter ditches here it's the Machinery filling the ditch on the east side again most of
this area was just regenerating White Pine really dense nothing growing beneath it and this is the Eastern side looking North so they're just about finished up with filling the ditches in so the next step will be down this area here like I said this is where we
started this uh by next Wednesday's meeting this should be um you know a pretty good visual they should have the water water control structure pulled out and then we'll just need some rain to fill everything in and then we need to build Bridges across
where the two water control structures were and then the property will be back open again there you go so the inwater work needs to be done by March 15th they are on track to have that all done and then they'll be coming back likely in April to finish sort of fixing where the
trail was and what that looks like depends on what the conditions are if we need to put a solid subbase in there to support it we will but if we don't we won't uh so we're going to assess that when the rest of this work is done and then like I said a couple bridges for foot traffic and then everything will be
back open likely in late spring early summer in the meantime the trails on the North side in the natural Wetland area that go around the woods are still open you just can't access them from the parking area so if you access from the
what's it called the the um 55 plus Town country country town and if you live in count and Country and you access the trails that way you can still do that if you access from the Big Y or Stop and Shop you know power lines you can still access that way or um if
anybody accesses from the boys Boy Scouts prop Boy and Girl Scouts property I don't know the trails up north are still open it's very clear where the blockage is before you get to this area the company that's doing the work suco put you know very firm blockage in the
way so you can't accidentally walk in the wrong area so um the area around the bogs will be closed until late spring early summer but the northern portions of the property are still open if anybody has any questions I can answer
them otherwise that's what's going on else are we ready for closing remarks I think that's it I think the next meeting will be held on February 26 2025 starting at 6:30 p.m. the time is
now I'm sorry March 12th you wrote today's date for next meeting but I and so we're going to correct that to March 12th thank you Megan
they the oriented members sitting next to me thank you so much so the next meeting will be held March 12th 2025 starting at 6:30 p.m. the time's now 7:45 do I hear a motion to adjourn so
moved is there a second second take a vote on that dot favor motion you're with okay Dot's not speaking Jim yes I'm here yes do dot Jim
j yes Megan yes Kina is a yes uh Marilyn yes and Brian yes thank you all very much much