The time is now 6:35. The date is Wednesday, May 27th, 2026. >> Um, we will take a roll call to start the meeting. Jim Franklin's here. Megan >> here. >> Kina >> here. >> Dot >> here. >> Marilyn >> here. >> Brian >> here.
>> All right. Please note that we doing a hybrid meeting with in person and virtual attendance. If a member of the virtual public would like to make comments during a public hearing, please use the raise the hand function on Zoom and you'll be assigned a speaking time. If you're listening in via telephone dial in, press star9 to raise your hand
and press star six to unmute yourself. This meeting is being recorded for the local scene and a record of this meeting will be posted on the local scene website as soon as they are able. Anyone intending to make a audio or video recording of this meeting should notify the chair at this time. We have an announcement. The 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
mpnston.gov. Signing documents. Will the agent brief us on what we signed today? Kingston Landscaping LLC for mowing of the trail at Kalista Farm and Express Newspapers for public notice posting. >> Move to action items. I'll now open a
public meeting to discuss. >> Sorry, um apologies. You also signed um permits that were approved at the last meeting. And that would be the DOA for 28 Rabbit Road as voted May 13th and the amended orders of conditions for One Royce and Drive as voted May 13th.
>> Perfect. Uh we will move to a public meeting. I will now open a public meeting to discuss a request for determination of applicability submitted by agent Paneller on behalf of the Kingston Conservation Department for proposed herbicide treatment of invasive
plant species within inland and coastal wetland resource areas and their associated buffer zones at various Kingston conservation and recreation properties. Um we're going to continue this to June 10th, I guess. >> Yeah, apologies for that. I actually didn't file it, so we just put out the
public notice. I never filed it because I'm waiting to hear back from D. I questioned whether I could really guide the commission towards approving this type of a project in this way. So, I just wanted to get feedback from them
and then I haven't heard back. So, we'll push it down the road. >> All right. Do I have a motion to continue the June 10th? >> Uh, we have a motion by Megan, second by >> Marilyn. Um, all those in favor say I. I opposed. Hearing none, that passes uh 5
to zero to continue to June 10th. I'll now open a public meeting to discuss the request for determination of applicability for West Street map 41, lot six, submitted by agent paneller on behalf of Kingston open space committee
for vegetative clearing and site grading to construct a trail into Henrich property within the 100 foot buffer zone to an isolated vegetated wetland. Um, as this is the first meeting on this proposal proposal, we will now hear an introduction from the applicant. Matt,
>> so yeah, this is part of the longunning um project trying to get a meaningful parking area for access to the Henrich Preserve. Um, what the open space committee figured out through a few
different site visits is that we do not need to go into the interior of this parcel. um in order to to put parking in um we designed sort of I believe it's called uh oh I'm going have to look at
look at my notes to see what it's called I'm going to bring that back up in a minute but it's essentially just a pulloff um rather than being an official parking area it's just going to be sort of a stone dust along the side of the road for three vehicles to sort of parallel park off the side of the road
that way it minimizes our tree clearing ing u it makes it so that parking area actually isn't jurisdictional. So that's why this filing became trail creation as opposed to parking lot creation because what's being proposed here in this filing is just to clear whatever
vegetation is absolutely necessary and grade whatever soils are absolutely necessary to get a trail from the parking area into the main parcel of Henri Preserve. Um, and obviously we're just talking about a a standard
pedestrian trail for passive recreation. So, we're not talking about anything particularly wide. We're not talking about having to drop a bunch of trees or really grade a bunch of uh earth. We're going to pick the path of least resistance and um but we will be working within the buffer of an IBW. Um, for
this filing, we did file this under WPA and KWPR. Um, but it is likely that the resource area is only jurisdictional under the local. Um, I didn't ask for determination on that on the filing. Um, only whether the work proposed would require the filing of an NOI. Um, I
reached out to any of the area residents that had previously reached out to me by email with concerns about things we're doing back there. Um, but I do plan on sending out a mailer to um anyone abudding or really on that section of
West Street before the work starts just to avoid any um uproar. So yeah, land approach was the word I was looking for. Not a parking lot, it's a land approach. Um I'm picturing that we can likely do this
with hand tools only. um in as far as the jurisdictional portions of the work. So I don't think we would need to do any machine assisted leveling of soil. Um you know or any any major tree removal. Um maybe cutting through some uh downed
logs probably with a chainsaw is about the about the extent of that. Um if anything appears to need erosion control after this work, wood chips would be brought in and raked out, but I don't expect that to be necessary with the level of work that we're doing. Um project consists only of minor alterations of the buffer zone intended
to support a public benefit. Work proposed will in no way degrade the ability of the on-site wetlands to provide for the wetland interests. Um beyond that also this IVW has no characteristics of a vernal pool. We did a site visit there and um there's no
real basin there. It's an IVW that's spread out and and relatively shallow. Um so we don't have any concerns there in terms of um doing work within the buffer of a vernal pool. So barring any unforeseen questions or issues I recommend issuance of a negative three determination.
>> All right. We'll open up to discussion with the commission first. Any questions from that and we'll open up the public. Public have any comments? >> All right. Perhaps do we have a negative? You said negative3.
>> Yeah. that would be looking for a negative3 DOA on this. >> So I move that we issue a negative three. >> Okay. We have a motion by Marilyn. Do we have a second? >> Second by Brian. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed. Hearing none. That motion
passes. Five to zero for negative 3 DOA on the uh West Street. All right. All right, I will now open a public meeting to discuss requests for cert certificates of compliance submitted by Beals and Thomas on behalf
of the per p permit recipient Adam Shoemaker for construction of a dual use agricultural and solar array system within existing cranberry bogs at 126 Ring Road D file number 0370890
and 131 and 137 Ring code D file number 0370889. 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. As this is the first meeting on those requests, we will now hear an introduction from the applicant. >> Uh, good evening member of the commission. Uh my name is Nick
Santangelo. I'm a civil engineer with Beiel and Thomas. Uh representing the project tonight. Um as you had indicated um the project's located at 126 137 Green Road uh in Kingston,
Massachusetts. Um the projects were issued um D file or were issued certificate of compliances in February of 2020, subsequently started construction back in 2021. Since then, construction is now
complete. We're before you tonight with requests for certificate of compliances for both projects. Um, as outlined in our letters, there's a few minor deviations uh that we wanted to note for the administrative record. Uh however we note in general that the deviations are
minor and not significant in nature largely having to do with the balancing of the uses between the agricultural facility and uh the energy production. Um, additionally, since the project has
issued its order conditions in 2020, uh, there's been significant um, development and increases in technology that's allowed us to use smaller technology. So, uh, less equipment pads, less pad mounted equipment in general, um, and
less array or solar panels within the bog areas. With that, um, Matt and one of the commission members met me last week for an on-site meeting uh to review the completed project as well as talk about any remaining closeout items. Um, Matt
and I have generated a short list that I believe we can work through um of outstanding items before the commission um finalizes a certificate of compliance should they feel that um that's appropriate.
Um, so with that said, I'll open it up to the commission for any questions or comments. >> All right, we'll now hear a briefing from the conservation agent. If any clarification is needed from the applicant during or after briefing, we will ask you to respond.
>> So, um, yeah, dealing with two filings at once, which is fine. I'll run through 126 first and then go to 131 to 137. Uh, they're both much the same. Um, and I think any of the standout items on these are um are essentially the same. But um,
as Nick said, they provided a list of um, you know, we they provided the necessary asbuilts uh, with red line and engineer certification. Um, and they also provided information on what they would call non-material deviations, which I would generally agree with. uh
things like perimeter fence locations being slightly shifted generally further from wetland edges. Um same thing with gates, the access gates were moved further away from Ring Road uh in a way that I wouldn't think makes any difference to the commission. Um points
of interconnection with poles and wires uh installed 10 ft different than on the plans. Um, same thing with landscape screening burm installed just slightly to the south actually further away from a stream closer to the bog road. Um, and
the fence install which was already dealt with under a DOA and less solar panels. Um, as you mentioned due to the technology they didn't need to put as many panels on on each of these sites. Um, on 126 the only physical condition that I thought needed some work was on
that planted berm. Um the erosion controls had already been removed and it did seem like there was a little bit of exposed soil on a pretty steep planting burm. Uh they planted these spruces pretty high up in order to create an extra visual barrier. Um the trees have
grown a significant amount in the I think two years that they've been in the ground. Um so they just need a little bit of work to stabilize there. A little bit of straw waddle and to remove the guy wires and supports before they girdle the trees. Um and then on 131 to
137 there was an additional change that I approved as a a minor modification a couple years ago on um
changing the location of some underground conduit. And this was relative to an exempt agricultural activity they were doing there. squaring off the bog that's closest to the uh electrical battery setup. There's about
a I think it was a quarter acre of bog that they just created by cornering off um what was formerly part of the staging area. Um so I signed off on the the change in conduit on that was a minor
very minor change. Um the only other thing on that particular property that was that was different was on this property the the battery storage actually in Kingston on 126 it's in Plimpmpton. Um the commission I think had the same concerns regardless about
battery storage um in terms of emergency response because regardless of of where it is um you know the response would be the same and the systems are connected. So, um, this one had an electrical hand hole installed, which I had no idea what
a hand hole was until this site visit, but like a manhole, but man can't fit in there. You a hand can. So, it was essentially just a little, you know, cover on the ground that was in the previously disturbed area um, in the vicinity of where I the the conduit to
move. So, that was another minor change that I didn't think was any big deal. Um and the storm water bio retention area um I thought needed a little bit of attention there. A lot of invasives in
there. Um mug ward which if you don't deal with it will take over the entire site. Um and now to sort of the clerical side of this. So I thought physically both projects were built more or less, you know, to the
plan and from the commission standpoint, nothing stood out as being, you know, so far off that the commission wouldn't issue a COC. Uh but from the clerical record, you there was a special condition saying that they had to submit an
updated O andM plan outlining fire response and keeping contamination out of the wetlands in the process of fire response. Um, and I reached out to KFD just to see if there was any update on maybe they would think that wasn't necessary at this point because it's
been 5 years even since the AOCC's were issued and the you know information around battery storage has come a long way since then. Um but in in my conversations with KFD, U Chief Douglas did send a letter over saying that while they have received some information and
they have an idea of what their response to these systems will be, there is still essentially they're going to let it burn, but there may still be the potential to put water on them as they're finishing up in order to do a complete extinguishment. Um and he said
he thought that would be a good idea for them to provide this information in order for them to understand best practices there to keep the wetlands from contamination in that instance. Um beyond that with my review of the on& and M plan which was submitted with the
original filing it doesn't mention storm water systems at all. Um it actually just says not applicable. Um, so I thought that they should update that and that the specifically the WPA orders and conditions in their storm water section
really mandate that. Um, and so Nick said he'll be working on updating the O andM plan to include maintenance of the storm water systems there as well as provide the information the commission wanted for fire response. So I wrote it's up to the commission how they want to handle this. uh you can either
continue it to June 10th and give him time to come back with that or you can vote on the RCOC with the stipulation that the information remaining has to be provided to my office to my satisfaction before the permit is actually issued in
hand. Makes no difference to me. It's up to you. >> All right, we'll open up to discussion on the commission. Any questions from Matt? any discussion on what he laid out for us? >> If it's not a hardship, I'd be more
comfortable with getting it all put together and then continuing it and and commenting on it at the next meeting. >> All right. I I don't disagree with you. Um I think I think something like this doesn't hurt anybody to make sure that all the right
>> literature is in place um so that we're not tracking it down. And if we keep it on our agenda, then certainly to get there. Um, does anyone disagree? All right. Perhaps do we have a motion to continue both um filings to allow
them the time needed to uh complete the paperwork um maybe to June 10th. >> A motion um from Kina. Do we have a second? >> Second >> by Marilyn. All those in favor say I.
>> Opposed? >> I am I. Um that motion carries to continue to June 10th um 5 to zero. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> We'll now open a public meeting to
discuss a request for certificates of compliance submitted by Wait, >> hold on a second. >> We should uh we should jump to hearings. >> What? >> Do we have any meetings? to hearings. >> Yeah, >> we have I think we have three even even
with that we should jump to. Sorry, the clock's still still messing with me. >> Okay, >> is 6. Yeah, we are late. >> All right, we'll do uh we'll jump to section A, Forge Pond Fish uh fish passage, Old Lake Street notice of
intent. I'll now continue a hearing for a notice of intent submitted by Gomez and Sullivan Engineers for the proposed construction of a permanent fishway at the Forge Pond Dam under Old Lake Street with associated dredging to restore the
channel and improve fish fish passage. The applicant has requested continuence to June 10th. >> Can I um hold on that? That was my language because we never discussed this. um I've been tied in with this project and everything is still
>> in motion that was in motion before. >> Um >> requesting a continuation. >> We do have representatives here from it. If they want to get up and not request a continuence, they're welcome to do that. Um we're still waiting on information from Natural Heritage and 401. So I was under the assumption that we were
continuing this to June 10th, waiting for that. But if they'd like to >> Well, let's let's clarify. Jimmy, please. >> Uh Jimmy Powell, 51 Landing Road, also the ecology program director of Jones River Wershed Association uh project partner. Uh I have not been able to
verify with Brad Chase. um whether or not he would uh personally like to the only thought I had is that I mean we're we've got very positive movement on this finally and that if you could uh give us a go ahead with conditions that we get a
positive response back just so we can move this forward but at the same time I was checking with DMF to see if they uh had any thoughts to that matter. I don't believe they would be doing in river work until June 15th regardless. That does put us kind of up against the wall
coming up to the June uh 10th meeting. Um but um I that's uh I've been trying to contact DMF about this. Um we we have submitted the letter in Heritage Hub. Um Natural Heritage has responded to it.
401 is just waiting on that process to occur. um we just don't have the formal um uh letter acceptance or I mean they they're going to give us a new letter on what we need to do. We have we haven't received that yet. So So
>> Okay, fine. Would you like to >> Hi, Duba Jones wershed. Um this is the first time I'm hearing of this. I thought we were going forward and closing tonight. I think um uh pushing it till June 10th and waiting for uh an order of conditions is really uh jamming
the project. I I um >> Well, let's just stop there because I only read that because it was on the paperwork. So, we didn't motion for it. We didn't do anything. >> So, let's just reset and let's go forward and you guys present um anything that you want us to consider. You don't
have to ask for us not to push because we didn't it wasn't pushed. It was that at some point it became a note that you guys wanted to continue. So, let's just >> at at some point it came a note. What >> I wrote down that we would likely
continue to June 10th based on my knowledge of the situation. So, while it may put a squeeze on the project, it's because the >> information wasn't filed and that's not the commission's fault. So, >> I would have no I would have no issue
like I said on the last filing. I'm not done yet. Like I said on the last filing for the commission to issue a permit with conditions like that, but it's not also necessary for them to do that. Um,
I in some cases can get a permit prepped in time for a meeting where it's possible I could have the commission sign the permit on June 10th so that if he wants to get that, you know, dam cutting work done, you know, he doesn't have to wait until >> the end of June to get the permit. But
at this point, the commission continued to get the information from Natural Heritage, and it's likely that we'll get that information before June 10th. So, I don't see an absolute need for them to go forward with a decision tonight.
>> Excuse me, but I don't understand what you're waiting for from Natural Heritage since the Tim uh letter was pretty obvious that he had everything he needed and we should go forward. >> Do you want me to read the letter that he sent where he said he received the information and he would provide the
update as soon as he could? I mean, we've not received >> Right. he just got back from vacation and all that sort of stuff. >> So, I I don't I don't think that, you know, his vacation and timing is >> is the key. The key is being able for
for DMF to be able to ramp everything up and get going on it and to be able to do it before the end of June. If if we're waiting on a 401 from D, you know, I'll go stand on somebody's desk to get it. I've done it before. That's sometimes
what it takes. You know, you're you're in some kind of line. They don't understand the the consequences of their delay or whatever. And and that's what it takes. >> But you understand that the delay was because Jill didn't file. Your consultant didn't file the Natural Heritage.
>> Not my consultant. >> Well, the consultant on this project, the representative on this on this project did not file with Natural Heritage when they we did. That's why this got delayed process now. >> We should have information back from
Natural Heritage shortly. >> My recommendation is push this to June 10th and try to have everything wrapped up that night, assuming obviously everything comes out positive from Natural Heritage, which I would expect. But that's just my thought. Again, if the commission wants to go forward with issuing something like this, they'd be
welcome to do that and I'd be comfortable facilitating that. I just don't think in this situation that is necessary. You don't think given this situation of waiting for Natural Heritage that it's necessary because you're not clear about what Natural Heritage is going to say?
It seemed like they were pretty clear to me. >> From my understanding, we shouldn't have opened this hearing at all without having Natural Heritage and 401 responding. So, as it was, we kind of made a concession on this to open it to try to get the process going. And then
it got messed up because the consultant hadn't filed it. That was that was the former meeting. >> Before what meeting? >> The meeting that we had before that was continued to today. >> But what I'm saying is the commission never should have not technically the
way the letter of the law is written. We shouldn't have opened this hearing without already having the information from natural heritage in 401. And we opened it because it was the information was all filed and the expectation is that we would have it in time. And then it turned out that she actually hadn't
filed it. And that's why we're here. So, this isn't a delay because of the commission or because of me. It's just a delay because we don't have the information. >> I'm just asking the commission to um to understand that it appears from Natural
Heritage that we have everything we need in place in order to go forward with a phase one of the project, which is the cutting, the notching of the Brockton Dam, um which DMF was hoping to do before the end of June.
um in order to because of financial reasons in order to expend money they have saved for this project um and and then to be able to go forward with the install of the ladder in July forward
not very much is going to happen besides that but without an order of conditions I don't think that we can go forward and I'm afraid that timing being what it is that it'll be difficult to get all of that paperwork out and filed as we need
to in order because we're dealing with the city of Brockton and we're dealing with the state division of marine fisheries and we're dealing of course with an engineer that is difficult has difficulty in putting this at the top of her list.
For some reason it lands in the closet behind and underneath everything else. >> The letter is submitted. Um, but I I I just don't understand what the commission needs in order to be able to issue an order. And I'm just asking
you that if you don't need anything else and you can write the condition pending the 401 and the natural heritage, which I think you can um that's all I'm saying. I I I think it's we're in difficult position. We have been for
several years. So, >> thank you. We'll open up to the commission um based on what um we just heard. Is there any strong feelings one way or another on what we can and can't do? I believe the last time we discussed this, we were just
waiting for paperwork. >> Um >> well, we're waiting for paperwork. We're waiting for paperwork, >> right? >> My comment was going to be same as our last hearing. We're waiting for things to be finished up. We're waiting for things to be whole and finished. >> Okay. Before moving forward,
>> all right. Is that the general consensus? >> Yeah. Okay. >> I don't know. Um because I was reading Matt's um opinion that he thinks that um we could issue order conditions for the project with special conditions. Um
>> your mic's not on. Can you start over? >> Yeah. I I'm I'm looking at Matt's language that says that he thinks that the commission could issue the OC's approving the project with special conditions stating that the applicant must comply with all NHSP requirements
as well as provide all NHSP correspondents to the department. I don't see why we can't do that. >> I don't disagree with with uh with what you're saying, Matt. As far as as far as I read, we were just waiting just as a
paperwork stop. Um, which is I think in almost all cases the right path. Um, but when you have a public benefit project, it's it's a little bit different than I see it as being a little bit different.
And that's just my opinion >> as say a commercial solar farm. just to be clear in what we've done tonight. So from that perspective, I mean, what's your thoughts on that? Like I
said, I have no issue one way or the other. What we're waiting on from Natural Heritage is their determination. um they provided a determination early on that required uh work that caused the development I'll call it the development
team the application team to push back a little bit with natural heritage and suggest that maybe certain portions of that either weren't necessary or could be phased and what the determination was was to phase the project and so to separate the fishway work from the
channel restoration perk in Forge Pond. Um, so that's what was just submitted to Natural Heritage, I believe last week or late the week before. Um, and I just got a response from the review biologist at Natural Heritage
yesterday that said he was had on vacation and then had an unexpected absence and he was going to review that shortly. He said, "I will work on revising the phase determination as discussed." So, two parts to this. one is they're going to get us the information on,
you know, the part of the work that will happen in June and shortly thereafter. And then there's the rest of it, which would be the river channel restoration where, from what I can tell, they're going to require inwater freshwater muscle surveys and exclusion work as
part of the process. So, it's fine for the commission just to say we'll issue the orders and conditions with special condition that all you know requirements of natural heritage and the 401 program are followed and it's fine to wait two weeks on it to see what it
says. >> Let me ask you a very direct question. would expecting that we get the 401 document back and and it says exactly what we're we're expecting it to say. What's the difference between the conditions that
we write tonight if we vote today versus what we would write um in two weeks? And would it just be a past versus future tense article that we would be changing? Because at that point, if if we're if
we're recommend if we're recommending for approval, then what's the really what's the difference? If if we just condition it slightly different as far as just waiting for that affirmative consent from
>> somebody who was for a little bit longer than they were supposed to and that stuff happens. >> I don't know. So, it might be as it might be as simple as either way you'd be writing must comply with these requirements or you might get more specific with it. Um, I have an
expectation of what's coming out of natural heritage. I don't have an expectation of what's coming out of 401. From what I heard, 401 said they were waiting for the natural heritage determination before they issued theirs, but I don't recall that there was any information about, hey, everything's ready to go. Everything looks great. We
don't have any comments, but we're waiting to hear from Natural Heritage or they just weren't issuing theirs until they got the Natural Heritage information. I don't know. Um I don't foresee any major problems either way here. I don't
>> Could it be conditioned? Sorry. >> No, my question would be is if we do approve it with special conditions and the 401 to come back with something that we don't like, what do we do? >> I mean, >> what's the backtrack? as long as you're saying that they I mean basically the commission's already reviewed this and
hasn't had really any problem with the project, right? So it's not going to be a situation of um you know the project going forward is going to be a problem from a wetlands protection standpoint. So if you're saying that in a special condition that they have to
comply with natural heritage and 401, then I mean it's almost irrelevant what each one of them says. um unless it was something so ownorous that they can't go forward with the project, which in that case they would have to go back to
either one of those agencies and ask them to to revisit. Sort of like has already happened with natural heritage where they were asking for muscle surveys under the existing fish ladder where there's often no water and I you
know Yeah. So would you say it would be your opinion that we could properly condition this approval based on subsequent approvals that were that are outstanding at this point? >> Yeah, I don't see any I don't see any major issue with this either way. I
think I said that before. I don't think it matters how the commission handles this. it's already handled a little bit out of the ordinary and I think that is partially because it is a beneficial restoration project and there's a public benefit and it's a project that my
department is also tied in on. Um so I don't see a problem with it. >> Would this put the responsibility on you to determine whether or not they're in compliance? Would you have to interpret the 401 natural heritage? >> Yeah, but it sort of in anyways a yes no
kind of thing. Yeah, I think I sort of am anyways with all permits like that. So the the thing I think >> is that something the commission should be doing interpretation of >> the difference would be and again this may be something that you're you're utilizing more for projects that are for
a different cause than ecological restoration and a clear benefit. But there will be situations where and there have been situations before where natural heritage does not take action in regards to rare species and the commission will. Um in this case I don't
think that I don't think you're going to regulate um any of this stuff more heavily than natural heritage would um or than 401 would. So >> can I ask Pine a question? >> You can ask anybody any questions you want. Um what what were the dates that
you said you wanted to start work again and and is this the work you're talking about is just on noting the dam right now >> the so what what has been recommended is that we because of the um because of the need for the muscle survey for the
dredging work. So the dredging is a much more complicated project that is going to happen in the winter time or late fall. >> Okay, >> late fall and winter. So what we had discussed was having two phases of the project. Phase one is the fish ladder
phase. Phase one includes and and first would be notching of the dam which is a twoft by 1 ft where the fish ladder is now which is the southernmost slle I'll call it. um taking that the the sill
down 1 ft um by 2 ft wide. Um so that that's essentially the cut. It's it's got to be done by a contractor. Uh DMF wants to pay for it. They'd like to pay for it before June
30th. >> Um >> fiscal year. That's a big >> fiscal year issue. um that that's the biggest concern I think that we have. Okay. Um the rest of phase one is then installing the 50 foot long
uh BK fishway which will be the first time in the country I think besides Indiana and the ill river. Um it's a new fishway. You're going to love it. Almost every fish in the river will be able to pass through
water if there's water coming down. Notching the dam is part of that. Yeah. >> Allowing there to be water flowing down the ladder even if it ain't flowing over the spillway because those slleways are a little lower than the spillway. >> Yeah,
>> I think question was what's the date that you want to have? >> So, as I said, the the the notching should take place before June 30th if possible. So if we issue it on June 10th, >> it gives you a significant amount of time to do that work.
>> Maybe, but you got to get you got to get a lot of stuff. >> I mean, you got to get you got to get the order conditions. You got to get filed with the register. You got to get it to the city of Rockton. You got to get there's a lot of paperwork involved when we're working with, you know, the
the city 20 miles away. And >> so the idea of issuing it tonight would give you a head start. >> I'm sorry, I can't. The idea of issuing it tonight would give you a head start on some of the paperwork that needs to get done, not the work that needs to get done. >> Plus, if you need the 401, it gives me the opportunity to call him up, which is
the same thing that happened with Triphammer. Triphammer project was going to go down the tubes until I got on the phone with the guy in charge and said, "We only had it two years. Where the hell is the 401?" And it came the next day. So, that's how the system works,
>> unfortunately. >> So, I mean, as it is right now, you vote tonight, that would at least give them the idea that they can move forward with a contractor. I don't know if DMF has a contractor already ready and scheduled
on this, but it would give them the idea they could do that, but we don't have the permit ready. So, the permit, the way this typically works, if you issued it tonight, we would prep the permit. You would sign it on June 10th. So, I said earlier I could
try to have that permit prepped for June 10th. So, if you wanted to issue it tonight, we're still not putting the permit in their hand likely until June 10th, unless I can prep it awfully fast and get each one of you or four of you to come in and
and sign it between now and then. Um, so that's >> either way, the permit is going to be issued. There's a chance of issuing it before that, but it depends on whether or not we have the time to put it together. We've been pretty behind on a lot of
this stuff. >> This is such a highly beneficial project that any effort put in to getting it ready ASAP would be well worth it. And I'm sure >> I I agree with that statement. And again, just to clarify, you're talking
about this outstanding 401, but I don't hear that there's a risk factor in signing this tonight. >> No, >> I don't think so. I think as long as you have conditions in there, as long as you have conditions in there that state that they need to comply with
whatever recommendations or decisions come down from both of those agencies, I think you're clear. My only concern with this would be if you have somebody who wants to appeal the issuance of this permit, which I don't expect. It's
happened before on dam removals, but if you had somebody who for whatever reason wanted to didn't want this project to happen and they want to appeal it on some sort of procedural basis where, you know, based on the letter of of the
regulations, shouldn't even have opened it without having that information. And you could probably make a case, well, we expected to not close the hearing until the information came in. But then you do maybe that gives somebody but again I don't expect that. I don't think that's
a likely scenario. So other than that I don't see why it makes a difference one way or the other. >> I think we should visual. >> All right. Just a straw poll because we we're going to have to close the hearing uh before we actually take a vote, I
think. Right. So it's either continue or we have to close it and take a vote. So just straw poll before we do that. I would be in favor of issuing with um the proper language to um condition um waiting for the two outstanding documents and making sure that they were
properly um satisfying to um the agent and if if it needs to come back, we can always vote it again. What's everybody else feeling? >> It's okay, >> Ryan. in my opinion is to wait two weeks >> just so we can have it all.
>> Kia, I'm leaning for >> We can take a vote. >> All right. I I think I think we have what we need to to pass it. Um if we want to do it tonight, do I have a motion? >> Well, let's close the hearing. >> We would have to close. >> Motion to close the hearing.
>> Vote it one way or another. So, >> second the motion to close. >> Motion to close the hearing by Marilyn, second by Dot. All those in favor, I say I. I >> I opposed. >> All right. The hearing is closed. Do I hear a motion?
>> Um in in relation to um approving >> Matt, do you want to help with the one? walk us through the >> Yeah, you'd be you'd be issuing you'd be voting in favor of issuing orders and conditions with special conditions as
discussed, including um ensuring that the applicant follows the guidance from 401 program and natural heritage >> as well as other conditions discussed previously. Um so that would be my
motion. Is there a second? >> Second. Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. >> Both. >> Yeah. No. Sorry. >> So we have two nays. Brian and Megan. So
that motion carries. Three to two. >> Thank you. One to two. >> Sorry. Sorry. Four to two. All right, we'll move to section B 18 Smith's Lane, map 67, lot 82-1, notice
of intent. We'll now hear uh now continue a hearing for the notice of intent submitted by Southshore Survey on behalf of Ronald uh Bernazaro 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 200t riverfront area. Matt, the applicant has requested a continuence to June 10th. Is that correct? >> That one is correct. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion? So I move we continue it to June 10th.
>> All right. We have a motion by Melon. Second. >> Second by Brian. Uh all those in favor say I. I >> opposed. >> All right. So that motion carries. 6. Section C. Updates to the Kingston Wetland Protection Regulations. I will
now continue a discussion on updates to the Kingston wetland protection regulations. Matt, do you have any comments? >> Anybody? I got some information uh from Marilyn. >> Um and again, I said at the last here,
no, she's not going to You can't copy her homework. Um >> the second Marilyn >> I said at the last >> read it. I said at the last hearing that um you know if the commission didn't have anything the only idea was just to get some um sort of marching orders or
just concepts if there were things that you thought the regulations needed um in terms of additions or subtractions or changes uh sort of conceptually that that would probably help a lot of back and forth later with the consultant. But
if there's not a lot of that now it's fine. Um, I'll give them everything that we already discussed or that I already have um on file and just probably continue this for three months. Um, hopefully that would be I don't have an idea yet of exactly how much time. I
actually still don't have the quote yet. Um, so our consultant is is clearly pretty pretty busy right now. Um, but I expect probably about 3 months is what we'd continue this for and then start the process of the commission reviewing what they wrote and um making comments
and going back and forth on that. >> Thank you. Uh, we'll open up discussion um to the commission. Um, Matt, I just sent you an email um about the mosquito uh conversation. Maybe it's something that you want to discuss at some point, but
>> Yeah. Yeah. And that was um a discussion filings that we've had that that come to mind. The Taran Road uh filings where there are these old cranberry ditches that are stagnant. Um it makes a
really poor quality wetland and one that skews heavy towards mosquitoes and lack of natural predators which then you know leads to a human health concerns but also wetland health concerns with um you know chemicals used legally legally or
illegally at that point. Um, and is there a way that the permitting pathways could allow for a property owner to deal with um, that sort of thing? Um, I don't know that there is preliminary conversations with mosquito control
about that. They sort of said, well, they also have to go through all the same permits to do that type of work. Um but it's it's something that you know I think if we look into I think is something that can um really increase well in protection because I don't think
it' be a situation where um it would be written in a way where somebody would be able to say that you know just anything is something that should be dealt with like that. There's obviously a difference between um streams and you know actual healthy
wetlands versus these remnant agricultural uh things. So uh that was one thing that hasn't been you know discussed prior that I can I can see if there's anything else that any other towns do um on stuff like that. So I
just I did in that email I put a lot of information and I did spend some time on this um trying to get it in by a deadline. So um central mass mosquito control um describes ditch restoration as part of it integrated pest management
um it's different statutory but there are paths there. Obviously, we know that once you know in an operational bog, the maintenance that achieves the same thing is essentially a protected or an
excluded um activity. Um so there was some some it seemed like there was there was a pathway um if if we were to take the right steps. So, um it's it's it's kind of a long read, but um it was it didn't
seem like it was a no. It just seemed like there was probably some things that we would have to do um if we're going to try to cut down ultimately cut down on the use of pesticides in those wetlands. So, uh any other things from that? Well, I
had sent mine into you and I know I didn't know if we needed to discuss them or if you can just fold it in >> the ones from today. >> Yeah. >> Um I didn't review the ones from today. So if there's anything particular, we don't review materials after uh Okay.
>> You know, 48 hours before the meeting. >> No, if there's any >> if there's any one of them in particular that that you want to just discuss conceptual information, that's fine. But >> I sent the third one. I had sent in several meetings ago. So that one you
had and that was the one about within 100 feet of a potential vernal pool andor a certified vernal pool. Landscaping activities such as raking, leaf blowing, mowing shall not be allowed from March 15th to April 15th to protect migrating and breeding species in their habitat.
>> I sorry I thought we had already discussed that one at a meeting. It's my my >> I know you kind of tossed. I don't know if we ever discussed it. I don't remember getting much feedback, but I just >> Yeah, I'll um >> want to be an equal opportunity player. >> So, my my take on all this stuff is is
pretty much anything the commission wants to do will'll give the consultant those concepts, um if they come back and they say, "Hey, I think this is a horrible idea or I don't in the sense that I don't think this is defensible at all." Um we'll probably hear that stuff
anyways from from town council when we go to review. Um, I don't think there's anything wrong with that as a concept. I think where we'll run a foul of that is in if it's a legally landscaped area or not. If it's a legally landscaped area,
we may not have the ability to to condition that sort of stuff. But if it's not a legally landscaped area, then I would imagine we can and and probably should um and probably should make them, you know, restore it anyways. Um, but I
think I think the concept is good. So, I think yeah, we would include that and see. >> And then the other two we won't discuss because I didn't get them to you soon enough. >> No, it's I just didn't have it ready to discuss. Like I'm not saying we can discuss whatever any of you want. You
didn't have to submit anything to me to discuss it tonight. I just if it's not >> I guess my guidance on that was that if it's not something you think is like a big >> big thing, then you know, we don't have to get in the weeds and discuss a ton of stuff. But if it's something that you think is worth bringing up as a concept.
>> Okay, then I'm gonna keep going. >> Cool. >> Upon the issuance of the order, this is on this was on the heels of the document you created about the un the letter of understanding for the applicant and also for the con the engineer cons
construction person. So upon issuance of the order and within the first two months of project work, a sitewalk shall be scheduled to confirm the applicants and contractor's understanding and compliance with the order. And then the second one was for properties with an open order and/or perpetual conditions,
a sitewalk shall be scheduled annually to confirm compliance. And I guess I was thinking about that as like staying ahead of things instead of always playing catchup and and getting into enforcement. this way you're you're being informative, helpful, and
hopefully we're avoiding a lot of conflict over enforcement. So, that was my mindset in in putting that forth. >> Yeah, I think that's all I had to say. >> I like the first two month one a lot. Um
and and even putting it on the applicant to schedule that. >> Yeah. Um, similarly with the annual site visit, I mean it's it's tough one way or the other. I mean, if you leave it up to
them to schedule it, maybe they don't and maybe we can just have a general >> um annual enforcement process where on June 1st of every year, this is it. or let's say, you know, let's say by like the end of September every year, if you
haven't scheduled your annual site visit, then we just send out the the fine and and >> something like that. Um, >> it's I always like to put that stuff on the applicant so that I don't have to deal with that on my own. Um, the other
thought for the annual is I mean we could we do now track all of our filings, but it's not always updated. It's not something like it's it's a lot to get back and check on that list. >> No, but as you said, even if you picked a date. >> Yeah. But even with even with that,
given the amount of filings that we uh that we have or that we generate because obviously this would be something I think that would go forward, it would be with new permits, not retro, but >> they they still add up quickly. Um so that one I think
>> that one could be a little tough. I think about it in comparison to this the time you've spent on some of our major projects that you've spent hours and hours and hours >> with enforcement when if we had stayed ahead of it. >> Yeah. >> And and you know managed the information
and the cooperation would have saved you hours. >> It's still going to take a ton of time and it's still going to unfortunately result in more enforcement and more time. It could. >> The good thing is that it will lead to more compliance. So, that's good
overall. It's a benefit. It's just one that I don't know if um a twoerson office can actually feasibly maintain. But, I like the concept. And we we can even >> do that. And sometimes, I mean, look at the landscape
>> uh herbicide and pesticides and and um fertilizers article that we issue. >> Um we don't follow up on that. No, >> it's it's more of a you know, if we actually, you know, caught somebody
doing that that has that condition, then we can take action on that and that will hopefully get towards compliance. But it's more meant as a preventative. So, this could even be something like that where if somebody knows they're supposed to do that every year, then, >> you know, you would think you would be
more in tune with um your conditions. People still aren't. Um, I just we went out to do a site visit uh to North Street this past week and in the process um we got one project in progress where
it looked like they were out of compliance with the conditions based on ESC or stockpiling and then another project that had started work without the pre-work site visit. So, and then when you talk to them, it's where what where does it say that on on my conditions? And by the way, can you send
them to me? Like people still don't still don't get it. And that's where I I do getting back to that memorandum of understanding. I think that's really important um in making people sign something that really blatantly shows how responsible they are that they just
can't get the permit and forget about it. But that was kind of a tangent on my part. >> It's okay. >> Yeah. >> Anything else from Matt? No, that's all I had. >> All right. Um,
so Matt has requested a continuence till August 26th. Do I have a motion? >> So motion to continue. >> We have a motion from Megan. Do we have a second? Second. Sure. >> Marilyn. Um, all those in favor say I. I.
>> Opposed. And none. That passes. 26. Yes. All right. So, we're going to step back. Yeah. One North Street RDA action items. Okay. Okay, I will now continue a public meeting to discuss the request for
determination of applicability for one north street submitted by an anteneelis for installation of a fence with gate within the 100 ft buffer zone to various coastal wetland resource areas. As this is the first discussion on the proposal,
we will now hear an introduction from the applicant. >> Have you signed in? Yep. When you get done, just right behind you. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Please >> state your name and address for the >> Antelis one North. Um, we had I think
this was continued from last month because I was in the hospital so two weeks ago or something, but um I have a walkway. I don't know if there's pictures, Matthew. Um, >> do you want me to pull the please? Yeah. >> Um, there's a walkway. Um when I built
the house, we granted an easement so people could connect from shore to um uh Rocky Nook that road. So I granted on my property this that easement. Um so but AC through the easement there's a
walkway down to a staircase that's a private staircase. Um I have a private sign there and stuff. A lot of people go down there. The problem with it is it's an old staircase and it's shored up so that it's okay, but I'm afraid of liability and somebody getting hurt because when you get to the bottom of
the staircase, it's just the rocks and stuff and depending on how the tide comes in, you could the sand could be there or the sand isn't there. And uh my daughter actually fell, but she's not going to sue me, I don't think. But um so I want to put a gate there which is
really close to the walkway so that um people realize what it is. Um >> I can um quickly run through this um and also you know there's a ongoing enforcement thing at the same address that we're going to talk about next. Um so this right here in the green was the
stuff related to the enforcement but the property the house um is right here and then Rocky Nook Avenue ends here. This is the easement that she was talking about that runs through here. It's a little u sort of crushed stone footpath. And then right here is the portion
that's relative to this filing. So it's >> which is is grass basically grass area. >> This was a I believe 19T across uh fence. There's a 1 to three foot gate and two uh 8ft sections on
either side of that. Um just for a vinyl picket uh fence and gate. You have the coastal bank is is essentially right along that. The blue line is the FEMA flood zone, the border of um land separate to coastal
storm flowage, but it's also generally in the vicinity of top of coastal bank. um somewhat different than the area where the enforcement action took place. There's sort of a transition right around the end of that that everything
between here down to where the stairs are is in a landscaped condition. Um so the area where this fence is is not going in in the natural portion of the coastal bank. This is an area that has
been continually landscaped, mowed, um, and a lot of what's around it are, uh, landscape shrubs. There was proposed also small plantings with it that were native. Um, she actually planted sweet fern there and then the rabbits ate it already. So, um, there's that.
>> I had a lot of rabbits. >> I'm sorry. Were you done with your presentation part? >> Yeah, I didn't know if there's any questions, but so um, yeah. So that's basically the reason why we need that is just, you know, I'm I'm trying trying to uh stop people from getting hurt, too.
So, >> are there any pictures? I didn't see that. >> Uh yeah, there were pictures. Um do you want me to run through my >> um Yeah, why don't you first >> run through your report, please? >> Okay. Not uh repeating any of that. Um, all the activities proposed in this
filing, building a fence and plantings are categorized as landscaping under KWPR. While the regulations state that landscaping activity should be a minimum of 30 ft from any well and resource areas, there are a few regulations that may still make this project permissible despite its proximity to the resource areas. um one being all the plantings
are native species and the other given that landscaping can be located within 30 ft of a resource area if there is already existing landscaping in that area. So you couldn't increase landscaped area in that situation but in this I don't see
any increase. Um the area as I said is already in a landscaped condition. Um I did note that the applicant should detail how the installation of the fence will be performed in a way that protects the resource areas from sedimentation. Um there doesn't appear to be any
wildlife passage issue which is discussed often in the wetlands regs. Um and this does not you know pose a complete impediment to passage. It's just a physical deterrent to trespassing. Um, so that was the only thing I don't know and I don't know if I shared this to you before, but I don't
know if you said you were going to use a particular >> East Coast >> company East Coast. >> I already getting the quote. They've given the quotes. And then the other thing you were I don't know if you were going to add that or the other thing we're doing later is the the Cedar Post. >> Yeah, that's on the next section. So I think not having that information, it's
what, four posts total. Um, I think this could be conditioned to where given that it's East Coast fence and it's not like your neighbor putting um this in that they can I I would like no matter what for them to reach out to my office
before installation so that they could, you know, describe how they plan on doing that because what I don't want to see is >> the just kind of pile of dirt left behind for the next time it rains to have stuff run off into the bay. So I would assume
they can they can handle that pretty easily and that it would be a quick quick process. Um so if there aren't >> I think there's four posts on the fence. >> Yeah, that's yeah should be just four. Um
so I noted that the commission should determine whether the vegetated area would be considered naturalized or existing landscaping. I contend it's not it's a landscaped area. We can pull photos up in a second. Um we did a site visit here on May 5th. Um appeared to
consist mainly of landscape plants. Um so I said as long as installation procedures are protective of the resource areas and you know erosion control considerations. Um I also noted no cutting of vinyl within jurisdiction. I don't you know you have something down there cut them with um whatever saw
that's going to leave just tons of plastic to to get into the ocean. Um, you know, I said beyond that, I think this this meets the standards of WPA and and KWPR. If it was more substantial fencing, you know, a lot more, there may
be more concerns uh with it, but this is a pretty pretty easy ask. >> Open up for discussion. Do >> you want me to pull up photos? Let me find them. this I'm standing modeling the location
of the the gate. Um so here you're at the corner of that easement. You can see the um it's probably crushed shells um where it takes a dog leg to the left and people are going straight. The stairs are in the back right here that lead
down to the beach. Um and so the gate would go across from this area over here to here. You have here an area that's been maintained in grass and then you have here on both sides uh landscape shrubs. And really everything that's
visible here in this portion is is in a landscape condition. Everything off to the right of this picture um is more or less in a natural condition. And that's the portion with the enforcement action. >> Just a note, just so you know, >> you'd have to jump back up there if you
want to. >> Okay. Sorry. When you grab go around this corner, you know, going this way, there's one of those green boxes for the sewer and there's big bushes and the town maintains those. They chop it because
they want it to be, you know, it's on my property, but they they do that, which is further away from this area. So, just so you know, that's done by the town. And you did remind me um that I forget if I even wrote it on here, but I have in my records that the sewer department
does want the fence company to contact them to come paint the line before the fence install because they don't show up under uh dig safe. So >> sewer doesn't show up under dig safe. >> No, they have to you have to call them
and they come out and paint them. >> Who has to come out safe? Uh, no, the sewer. >> Okay. >> Sewer commission. So, I would put that on the permit requirements. Anyways, it's not likely that um that it would be impacted there, but they want to
obviously make sure for good reason. >> Yeah. >> So, Jess, if you if you could just add one question. So, this is a this is a trespassing situation that you're putting the fence up to keep them off here. Yes. >> Steps.
>> Well, I granted we granted an easement when we built the house. >> Sorry. You got to go to the microphone. >> Sorry. >> We granted an ement on the property. >> Let me just just because you asked. The easement is for the sewer, correct? >> There's a few easements on the property. >> There's an easement for the sewer. Yeah.
>> So, um that's one easement. So, that if they had to dig up my lawn for whatever, they would do it. >> Maintenance. Yep. >> Right. That's fine. And then there's another easement for this walkway, which is stone. um that was granted because when I was buying the property, Shore
Drive and Rocky Nook, they had no place to go. They couldn't get through because I was blocking them. And so they came to us and we said when I was buying the property, will you grant an easement so we can do a walkway through there? So I put it on the deed. We did it and got
all what we we had to do here so that people would not just cut through my property and then I can control the path. >> Sure. >> Um >> and but the the starting point and the end point is two streets. >> Yes. >> Or it's >> Okay. So it's not going down to the
ocean. >> No. Okay. >> No. And so if you see this treeification, >> this tree says private property on it. People just think they can just go down. >> I completely understand that. >> Yeah. And it it freaks me out. >> No. No. I It's It's your property. You do what you want. >> Yeah. I don't want them to get hurt, too, you know.
>> So, >> I just wasn't sure if you were cutting off an easement and we were going to >> No, no, no, no, no, no. And actually, there's a fence that was put up when the easement went on, like going up further away that we when we had to put the fence in, we had to put a big open gate. So, we
couldn't put permanent at the time so that if they do need to come through, we can open the gate and they can go through. Go. >> Anyone? Are there any other questions? >> All right. Um, >> you'd be looking at a negative three
with special conditions as discussed. >> I'll make that motion. >> So, we have a motion for a negative 3D dway with amendments as discussed. Uh, by Marilyn, a second by D. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Hearing none. That motion carries. 60.
>> Just um you'll get your permit. You'll get your permit in roughly two weeks. If you want, in the meantime, have, you know, call your contractor, tell them that your permit is almost ready and that they need to contact my office. Okay. >> Um, they can call, they can email.
Either one's fine. >> All right. Thank you. >> Oh, and then we have the same property for enforcement. You're not going anywhere. Sorry. I thought you were leaving. >> All right. Sorry. Uh, one North Street uh enforcement continued from an earlier
date. Um, Matt, could you brief us? Yes. Um, planting. I don't think I need to go back to scratch on this. We already have discussed this. Um, there was an enforcement order issued under WPA and KWPR on April 29th requiring restoration
plantings as detailed in the landscape plan that I had already pulled up that was submitted with the RDA filing. Also require was stabilization of open soils and permanent protection of the area with conservation posts. Uh maintenance allowances for the restoration area were detailed as well. Um we went to review
the plantings on May 6th, found the plantings were sufficient, but there was no stabilization of the exposed soil. We discussed options for the property owner. Um a conservation seed mix had already been applied to those areas. So um straw became the the best option there. Um so straw was spread out across
to stabilize the soil but still allow uh seed growth. Um, the property owner emailed May 13th stating the work was complete except for the con. I also required a run of straw waddle at the back of that area because it's a small area and that would be sufficient for the site. Property owner emailed May
13th stating the work was complete except for the conservation posts. Um, there were no locations detailed on the plan. Um, so she asked uh if we could meet on site and show where those were supposed to go. Um, we didn't connect for a little while. Um, I reached out again on the 21st. um and she called. We
set up a site visit for um May 26th and we were able to show at that point where the post should go and how that process should work. Um so the posts are not yet in place but there were some um mitigating factors there in that the
plan didn't specifically detail where they were to go at the time. Um so commission's obviously welcome to do whatever they want to do in these situations. um site was not stabilized on time but is currently stable. Um plantings were installed early before
they needed to be done. Um and the posts are still not installed but she is working on that. Um so property owner has taken the issue seriously and has worked towards compliance. All right, we'll open up discussion comments um from the commissioners or
general public. All right. So, I think um to get down to motions, if the commission doesn't have any feelings about this one way or another, um you would take a vote to modify the EO to change the date of the requirement
on the conservation posts and this would be continued until the next meeting after that. Um >> would that be June 10th? I think that would depend on what the commission wanted to do and what the property owner thinks um that they would
need for time to get this done just so we don't have to keep doing this. You want to continue this once and then if it's not done then you just start issuing the daily fines until it's done. >> So I don't want to suggest a date that may not work for >> what date would you like to see? >> Well, we just have so I have to talk to the fence people who have to talk to
them because I can't dig holes, >> right? So this when they install the fence, I wanted to have them install that so it's not costing me a lot more money because I've already spent like three or $4,000 on those. >> This is true. She did mention that at the site visit that the idea was to have the fence company do the post >> because it is Rocky Mountain.
>> I also did mention like we have um allowed in other >> yikes. >> Can't think straight here. >> I'm not just >> me me either. Um, I did also offer like we have offered in other especially
coastal situations that if the property owner would prefer to do a cedar uh fence like a rope fence kind of thing um that you just put the conservation posts on the fence posts and the fence has to stay in perpetuity or be replaced by
conservation posts. So, um if that's what they want to do there, that's fine, too. There's already a a post and rope fence on the other side of the ground or the crushed stone or crushed sea shell walk. So if they want to match it on the other side, as long as the conservation posts are there, no difference from a
protection standpoint. Might even >> and I was also thinking better cuz the animals that walk, the dogs, they would be walking on the conservation if I didn't have, you know, a rope or something. So it would protect that area even more. >> Yeah. >> Right. But just for the purposes of
tonight, it seems like you're in compliance and you're moving forward to right close this up. How much time do you think you need for the to to have the fencing installed? >> I'm going to um Well, today's the 27th, right? >> She's not going to have the permit in
hand for the fence installation until June 11th. >> Um so, >> call it September 1st. I mean, at this point, it's just >> Oh, I hope June 30th because the summer people come, you know, >> Yeah. I mean, that's kind of the thing
is honestly at this point, >> the site is stable. The plantings are there. um is it doesn't really matter what you pick as long as a it allows enough time for it to get done, you know, without having to keep kicking
this down the agenda and you have a mechanism in place that it's going to be on an agenda anyways that if it's not done then you can take further enforcement action. Um whether the conservation posts are there tomorrow or three months from now, the property
owners understands that there's not supposed to be any work happening in there and the posts will be installed. I don't think you want it to happen a year from now, but I don't think it matters whether it's in two weeks or two months as long as the commission is tracking it getting done. Um, so I mean Len, like I
said, it is you don't always make these sort of considerations, but I think where you have a situation where there's already going to be a permit there installing a fence that it's feasible to allow the installation of the posts to coincide with them being there doing that work. Anyways,
>> the first meeting of July. >> I I'm sorry. First meeting of July. >> Yes, I agree. >> Anytime. >> Yeah, I don't have that date. >> What's the date on that? I don't mind. July. >> Excuse me. July 8th. >> What? Eth July 8th. >> Yeah, because I already paid for this
fence. Like they I've been pushing them off. >> So, >> okay, great. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I can change the date on the EO to be the day before that. July, she say it's July 8th, the first meeting. >> July 8th.
>> Then it would be July 7th for >> the deadline. By the end of day, July 7th, you'd provide evidence that they had installed that. And then it'll be on the enforcement section on July 8th. If you've already provided the information to me and and I can clearly see that it's there, then you don't even have to
show up on the ETH if you don't want to, unless you enjoy um sitting there and and >> that's interesting. >> Yeah. >> Can I just one other thing, Matt? We talked about those those three trees, those three bushes. >> Um there's
>> I had took a picture, too. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think we do have I don't know if I don't know did those make it into the >> they would drive. Okay. >> Um the remember in I don't know if it was two years ago or something there was the Facebook post Megan you I think caught
that back then that the landscaper did some work there and um the bushes or you know shrubs that were cut down >> um are still there. They are still pruned into shape. Um, she was asking, you know, am I able to
to keep cutting those? Am I able to keep those from becoming something really tall and blocking my view and having bittersweet growing up them and all this stuff? Um, and I said, I don't know. That's a question for the commission. Um, technically everything behind the conservation posts is supposed to be
left alone. Um, all three of them are invasives. Oh. >> Um, you have shrub honey suckle and grey willow or rusty willow. Um, I told her that I don't know if the commission can really approve you cutting anything behind the conservation posts, but if
there was a filing to do a cut and paint on those and replace them with native shrubs, um, I don't think the commission would say no to that as long as the roots weren't being disturbed so that the bank was stable. Um, so I she just wanted to bring that up with the commission to kind of know what she
could or couldn't do there. And my initial reaction, like it is with so many things, is just to put it back on the property owner to have to deal with that through some sort of a filing. >> Those three things, if you cut them and leave the roots, they would just keep growing like crazy. No, my suggestion
was to get a permit for cut and paint, like to do a cut with a paint, the herbicide paint that >> carefully done, like we'll talk about in my herbicide filing hopefully June 10th. >> Um, >> okay. >> You know, when carefully applied like
that stays within the plant and is not >> transllocated out and should not affect uh the downs slope resource areas. Yeah. >> And in that situation, I mean, unfortunately, most of the coastal bank on Rocky Nook, like so many areas that have been developed for a long time, >> is very dominant with invasives. So,
it's likely over time they will take over. Anyways, we did specify >> in the enforcement order how that area could be maintained going forward. And you know, control of invasives, you know, is something that you don't need to allow invasives to take over a
restoration area, nor really should you, >> because then, you know, a you spent money on all this, you know, stuff that >> when it establishes will provide really good habitat, but also look better um than invasives will. But um in terms of protection of resources, it's better to
not allow that stuff to be out competed. So um >> so that would mean another filing. That's that's my take on it is that you know if you want to if you if you want to do something there to you know treat those you know that I think that would be something that would be easily
permitted particularly if it's in tandem with planting a couple native shrubs for each you know you have a pretty decent size shrub that you're cutting out you probably want to replace that with two you know because they're smaller um native shrubs but I would want to see that as a separate RDA. I don't think
the commission really could or should approve like continued maintenance of shrubs behind a conservation post but also they are invasives. >> Yeah. So >> yeah.
>> Um so one of the things that with this because the invasive the bittersweet was killing the plants killing the so this this is holding the bank. You know what I mean? The problem too is from what I believe when I talked to Paul, I had Gradies, they their person that does the
landscaping. Um, if those get too tall because some of them are right close to the edge, then it could lean over and start pulling out. >> So, by keeping them without the bittersweet and stuff, they're shaped. They're night. I can show you a picture. I just sent that to Matthew. The picture
of the plants, they've been shaped. The bittersweet is out of there. So, I got rid of all the bittersweet. I'm 64 years old. I can't be going up this high and grabbing stuff. So, they're about my height right now, which is a fine height. Um, and I can get to it now, but
I I mean, you know, I know. So, I'm just um I want I do want a view, but it's more also I want to keep the bank low and if it starts going that it's going to cost more money if I left them alone, that's what could happen. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't want to take them apart. I
don't want to do anything. I just want to maintain the bittersweet out and keeping them at a level so they look like a nice shrub. And the neighbors love not the I don't know if you care but the neighbors love how it looks because it looks nice and clean and organized. So I'm a Virgo so I like to
organize them. So, um, >> okay. Just for the record, you you would like to leave them and just maintain them as you have >> for now to be able to trim them because I if I wanted I actually agree with Matt about I would love that area to be all natural with, you know, native plants
and stuff, but I don't have the money right now to do that. Um, because I've spent a lot of money on this project already this year. So, um, I am a single person. I, you know, I'm alone. So, um, you know, I have to do everything myself. So, um, you know, I just want
to, um, make it nice, you know, and that's what I've been trying to do. But I also don't want bittersweet to take over either again because that was horrible. I mean, they were just dying and choking them. So, um, yeah. So, these >> here you have, um, this is the straw waddle along the back of the restoration area which comes about to here. It
coincides with these just small stakes along the front. >> Um, and these are I think it was one to that might have been one as well. Yeah, that is those are kind of like sister trees. They kind of >> they kind of grew together >> the ones in the middle.
>> So you have um shrub honeysuckle on either end and then you have I think there's two great willows sort of connected together in the in the middle. >> And you said those are in phase. >> Yes. >> Do I So Matt, what I mean there is no
filing in front of us. Is this just a straw poll on whether or not we see it as a enforceable action if she just trims them? >> I suppose. Yeah. >> Now, um let me >> You have any problems with the trim? >> Let me take a look at the uh >> We don't.
>> No, you're I was going to say I can take a look at the language on the EO that we included for the um vegetative. >> Here's here's here's the thing. >> Take care of them. Keep the bit of sweet off of them. >> Yeah. Do >> I'm going to play devil's advocate because we're going to get a phone call when she goes out there cutting it. Matt, I guarantee you Matt's going to
get a phone call from one of her neighbors >> tall on Rocky Hook. >> Somebody, right? Somebody's going to call and say, "Where's her permit? Where's this?" And then it's >> they're clearly landscaped. >> Can't walk like that.
>> You know, like that's that's that's how it all started because somebody made a Facebook post and somebody was cutting on the bank and how did we allow this to happen and blah blah blah blah. >> Actually, the first thing was the Facebook post from the landscaper who did the work. >> Right. Right. So >> that was a long time ago. >> Yeah. Yeah. That was >> I'm just saying we're gonna we're going
to come full circle. It's going to happen again. >> Do we care? >> I I don't care. >> I mean, I do because I want what I do to be consistent. If I tell somebody they can't maintain behind a conservation post, they can't maintain behind a conservation post. And I understand that the the bank and that issue, but
>> but the bit like the bit is is an invasive. >> Let me let me read something. >> I understand. That's where I'm just stuck. Let me let me read something because that's the reason why the regulations exist is is basically what Megan's getting at. But so number four on the enforcement order
that was issued on this property. The property owner shall have the right to maintain vegetation in the restoration area only as follows or as approved by the Kingston Conservation Agent. All planted vegetation must be allowed to grow naturally. No pruning, no mulching, no chemicals or fertilizers. The intent is for these plants to expand and form a
dense vegetated buffer. invasive plants, non-native weeds, and tree seedlings may be pruned from the area or handpulled if small as long as no soil is left disturbed in the process. So if that was not the intent of of what we're talking about here, but in a way it almost does
fit in the language. And if you don't prune those invasives or remove them, they will take over that area. And already this the the seedling um >> you know >> and you want to >> impact is going to be high
>> to remove any kind of flowers >> or just seeds >> those are the bittersweet stuff because what happens is like if you look at there are a lot of basement >> you have to stay behind sorry >> I know I don't talk loud um the bittersweet just comes up and then
there's some other stuff around the stuff which you know when it gets into the plant then it just starts choking the the >> Oh it's crazy horrible So, I just want to make sure that we can take the bittersweet out and then just trim the top because it starts growing up and if it's too high, I >> I can't get to it, >> right?
>> So, that's why we try to keep it around my height. >> Yeah. >> D, were you saying something differently? Because I know your background. Were you were you trying to communicate to her that you want to get it before the flowers come in because it goes to seed and >> if you're going to be clipping it, you
might as well clip it before it flowers so it can't make seeds or if you miss the flowers then clip it before the seeds mature. >> Right. Right. Yeah. No, I Yeah. No, I get that. I'm just That's kind of what we try to do in like in the early spring is like you want to do it before
everything gets crazy. I I have two acres of invasives at my house and like you, I can no longer do it. >> Yeah. >> And I have no money to pay for it. >> So I I understand >> it's very difficult. >> Yeah. So >> why only go so far? >> Procedurally here, you know, we do have
language there that says that invasive plants, non-native weeds, tree seedlings may be pruned from the area, meaning the restoration area. So that area like we showed there, which >> you know roughly includes where those >> three to four shrubs are,
>> but that doesn't include going to the whole coastal bank and everything around there and pruning um invasive plants down because if we said that then the entire coastal bank on the nook will likely, you know, get a lot shorter >> um and have a lot less >> stabilization in my driveway on it
Thursday and say for anybody who wants to call only call methods. So I I do think given the language that's here, she likely could continue keeping those shrubs pruned down >> and I don't think that's a detrimental
impact to you know >> no because order people to take them out. So >> she's only going halfway. >> I do think >> nothing wrong with that. >> I do think in time the best scenario there is to get a filing to remove them.
Um, like I said, cut them, treat them, replace them with natives. >> Let's just be very clear that that would require a file. >> Exactly. I already know these things. >> Okay. >> Here's what I don't want in a situation like this is to come back and have that whole area be landscaped and maintained.
like we have a lot of of sort of fight over the regulations in coastal areas about um maintenance for viewshed and and controlling things and that sort of stuff. Um part of the property is maintained, part of it's not. This is
part of the part that's not. I mean, right now it looks like it's maintained because it's been pruned down over the last couple years. That doesn't make it a a legally landscaped area, but I think what we included for specific language on that restoration area can probably
apply to keeping those specific three to four shrubs from taking over the site. >> Yeah, I think it's a slippery slope. >> It is a slippery slope, but you're talking about three >> are those three side. That's what I'm
>> It started not not to be mean. It started because she was out of town and her roommate did what they wanted to do. So she understands. >> Oh, he understands. >> I'm I She understands. >> But those three four shrubs are not in those special in conditions.
It's just it's too slippery for me. >> I get it. I get it. >> But then her neighbor's going to call and say, "Well, our invasives are going crazy and this invas >> Well, tell them. >> All right. Well, let let's let's do it this way. We don't have a comment. There's no filing in front of us as far
as this. There's no RDA for us to to to comment on. And you're getting split comments from us. Uh if you want to bring it a a permanent application for an RDA, then you could come back with it and >> contribute to that language. I can still
trim it. >> That's not according to not according to me. Prun from the area mean that it doesn't mean pruned from the area. The wording is pruned from the area. >> There's no there's no there's no we
shouldn't even be talking about this. Let's not >> we should not be talking about this. >> Let's move on to the next one. Okay. Sorry. We got to limit it. We got >> What does that mean? >> What is it? If you want to if you want to trim you want to do something that's not covered by your permit the way that it's written, then you need to come back
with an RDA and we'll discuss it then and you tell tells us exactly what you want to do and we'll issue a negative or a positive finding on RDA. And that >> the RDA means what? >> Request for determination of applicability. >> It's what you filed for the fence. >> Yeah. >> For the fence. Okay.
>> Okay. That's it's just you there's not a consensus here and you're asking for a straw poll and and we don't have >> okay >> we don't have the time for that tonight. So okay we just got a whole bunch of different answers. So July 7th is the answer from this and then did we did we
vote on I think you did you >> I'm not sure if you voted on the uh the >> update of the EOR >> we made a date but we have not voted >> yeah you were talking about updating the enforcement order to specify the conservation posts installed by July 7th
>> or fines would be issued and we would put this on the July 8th agenda for discussion. >> All right perhaps do I have a motion for that? I'll make that motion. >> We have a motion by Marilyn, a second by >> Dot. >> Dot. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Hearing nothing.
That's >> um >> approved. Uh that passes six to zero to um to modify. >> One last question. So if I do an RDA for this, could that go on the 7th, too? Then if I get it into you?
>> Um 21day information receipt deadline. So if you got us the information and it was sufficient like incomplete by 21 days before July 8th then you can get off for the 8th. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Matt 6 Prospect Street continues from an earlier date. Uh will you bring us up to speed? >> Yes. So um backtracking enforcement orders were issued on April
23rd mandating the following immediate cease and assist which was complete installation of site perimeter fence landward of the excavated area encircled by 6 plus in silt sock. By May 12th, that
was complete. But I did note that it may need attention because I did have um word that that may have fallen over. Um and I have not followed up on that in the field. Uh and I did not receive any update on that from Brian after the last
time we discussed this at a meeting. Engage the services of a professional engineer towards assessing the culvert and preparing a solution to the hazards posed by the condition of the culvert post excavation. Provide signed agreement by May 12th 26. that's incomplete still, though Brian has made
efforts towards hiring an engineer. Um, Brian says he's reached out to around 10 different engineering companies and most would not touch this type of work. He says he has Stevens Associates Consulting Engineers coming out to look at the culvert, but I'm not aware that they have any signed agreement. Um,
supposedly they said they can come sometime within 30 days. Uh, Brian said he was going to continue reaching out to engineers. Um, I did update this that Stevens does appear to be um, highly qualified for this type of work,
but it does appear that they're probably coming to the site to look at the dam probably due to a requirement from Office of Dam Safety. Um, so Brian did share an email with me from Stevens talking about coming down sometime in June and saying like maybe while we're
there we could take a look at the covert and discuss possible options or give you contact information for somebody who might, you know, be able to work on that. So there's still nothing really um locked up on that. It does seem that
Brian's just trying to have Stevens also do the culvert while on site. sort of two birds with one stone, which which I I get. Um, but everything's still a little up in the air on this. Um, while the water in the excavated hole was clear on the day of the commission's site visit, it's likely that condition
of the culvert still poses a risk to adjacent downstream resource areas, particularly during larger precipitation events. Ideally, the culvert would be repaired quickly in order to reduce the stream's exposure to sedimentation. So, I updated my um recommendation on this that that I'd recommend the commission
update the enforcement orders to include a requirement that an NOI be filed for a solution addressing ongoing risks to adjacent and downstream wetland resource areas posed by the current condition of the culvert after the unpermitted work. Uh that would be by a date certain. Um, and you'd also specify a date certain
for the work itself to be completed so that you don't run into the just filing of an NOI with no real results. Um, failure to file or to complete the work on time would be caused for issuance of daily $300 fines until compliance is reached. Um, unless the commission sees
fit in at that time to issue any extensions. That's pretty much what I have on that and I don't see Brian um here. >> All right. I think we'll open it up for discussion by the commission and the
public. >> What happens if that dam comes down? >> Isn't Isn't the water from the dam going through that cover under the building and under the parking lot? What? Yeah, the the damn um spillway goes in between the buildings, loses a a solid amount of
elevation there and then goes underneath the building and comes around and um goes underneath the parking lot. That's where the break is and then it comes out past the parking lot on the downstream end and daylights out of the culver.
>> So, how much water will come out if the dam is removed? >> How much water would come out? Yeah. >> How do you mean like >> Well, if you if you take the dam away, how much water is it holding back? >> It's it's holding back Foundry Pond. >> Foundry pond.
>> It's a lot. >> So, it's it's going to wipe out the building. >> You mean you mean if the dam >> had a cat? All right. Sorry. You were saying remove like >> Well, it looks like >> if there was a catastrophic event with the dam. Yeah. I think there would be a severe issue there. Office of Dam Safety
was on site at the site visit with um with us and and and um D. So they they had their engineers there to review it. And I did ask they still have not provided their report. Um but I did ask them before they left the site that day
if there was any concern of of imminent >> imminent >> uh risk there and they said no. They didn't think that it was in a condition where it was imminent to just, you know, >> okay, >> fall apart, but they were likely to downgrade the condition to poor, which
would require um uh phase one reports every six months. >> So, >> all right. >> I mean, at this point, this this enforcement discussion is is over a month old, correct?
>> I think we have given two weeks to to make forward progress. he had made some forward progress and then the last it seems like this update is exactly the same one we got last time. >> Yeah, I mean the only update from this was that he did just send the email from Stevens and essentially say that he
thinks he has somebody who might be interested in it. Um >> but there's >> but they won't be there for still weeks. >> Yeah, I mean potentially maybe a week or two to three weeks. I have no idea. There's and again there's nothing um set in stone I think even for a date for
that. So what I wouldn't want to happen and wouldn't recommend to the commission is we just keep kind of like >> kicking this down the road hoping that some action takes hold there. I think it's important during enforcement to set deadlines. And >> so this is this is my concern, right?
The last time we were out there or last time somebody was out there or there was a report, the hole had filled up with water, right? Meaning that there is some kind impediment to the flow, meaning that it's it's causing water to back up out of the chamber and at some point
it's going up and it's coming down and it's going up and it's coming down. every time you saturate the ground and it finds any kind of breach in maybe the the next section, you're going to start losing water through a channelized flow
through those imperfections. And this could get worse, which is why at the first time we were involved here, I made it very clear that I thought this was a big deal, that there's there was other things and they kind of fell by the
wayside. But I think this is this is a serious concern that we could be just by allowing this to continue on without a engineer involved who's going to have to do their due diligence and say, "Nope. Okay, we stuck a camera down there. We
know that there's that this is a problem that's causing the flow. We can see, okay, that the granite's broken over here, too." yada yada yada, whatever it is. But there would be some kind of forward movement. We would know that. instead of a well it's just a hold there's going to
be some water there's going to be some flow it might back up it's there there's concern here that this could get worse and I think that we need to take that seriously and I think that we've been gracious in in in allowing the last um
twoe extension but I don't know that we see anything in front of us that tells us that there is a consolidated effort to get that engineer out there to survey it and tell us that there's is don't worry, there's nothing bad that's going to happen. It's just this. We'll we'll
draw up something. We'll take some forward steps. So, right now, we're at the point where we we've heard that somebody might be coming out in the next few weeks. They might be interested, they might not. And if they are not interested, then perhaps they'll give us
the another referral. That doesn't meet the intent of what I had. So, at this point, I I got to say that I think we need to stop seriously discussing daily fines until we get the movement that we need to to satisfy our concerns that this could be escalating
right in front of us. Um, just adding on a little bit to that, I think if you had a qualified engineer do what you just said and send a camera down there under the right conditions and potentially identify what is blocking the covert and
have a plan to fix that. Um, if we could get a state agency, whether it's would likely be D to issue a mandate that that be cleared, the commission could have that work happen through an emergency
orders of conditions. um they would still need to file the full order conditions to fix the culvert, but at least getting flow to start again. >> They could rectify the blockage >> would at least reduce some of the risk
that you see now because and my expectation and again the the engineer would have to confirm this but my understanding would be that there is a likely a stone you know bottom and sides to this that may still be intact. So your exposure to sediment is coming from
the backup and any of the excavation that was done. So if you can get that flow to go back within sort of the boundaries of where it it should have been, um there's likely less risk to the resource areas than there would be if we have a large rain event and you get a
lot of backup there and then you get a lot of scour from the whole and potentially continued undermining of the parking area. So I think it is something that if you get somebody on site quickly, there are pathways to try to get some of this stuff resolved quickly.
>> I think just I think I think what you said is is is accurate. The other thing that I think we need to keep in mind is that we're only here for one reason and that's because there was a sinkhole. You don't get a sinkhole unless you wash out what was in the ground. So my concern is
very valid. It's I'm not thinking abstract here. we see that there was a actual failure because of the same condition that I'm concerned with and they're not doing anything and it's wide open and now there's more more in the hole there's more backup there's going
to be more rising there's going to be more water coming out of it right so we don't want that rise the longer it goes the more cycles it goes through the worse it's going to get that whole run and now we're talking about >> 100 feet that needs to be addressed versus
potentially whatever it is, six feet or whatever they originally said. So I think that what I would feel comfortable with as one commissioner is that we give them another week with fines acrewing starting at the end of seven days
because we need that engineer on site. We need certain things returned. We don't need a full NOI filing at this point. we're going to need one or we're going to need an emergency declaration or whatever it is. Um, but we need
actual movement and we need that engineer to get out there and if there's not a fine saying every day you wait it's another fine >> then >> do you think that there's um are you saying engineers aren't aren't interested in
>> I think it's a very you think that that's it's a bonafide argument and that um a signing fine st is going to make this any better to the site to the site doesn't look like it's producing any income for anybody. Um he doesn't look
like you can add fines onto him. I don't know what would how motivating that's going to be if he can't get an engineer out there. >> Do you want me to read a little bit of what um he forwarded from Stevens? I think it might frame it a little bit. So
um this is an engineer from Stevens Associates Consulting Engineers um saying you know it's their understanding that a sinkhole formed downstream of the mill buildings. Um talks about you know the culvert um understands the commission is requiring him to engage an
engineer to design a fix. Um it says as discussed our services are for visual inspection of the dam which includes commenting on observations of the downstream area consistent with the dam inspection checklist required by the state. So this is in response to office of dam safety regarding the downstream
culvert that carries the dam discharge. Our observation would likely be that there is a deficiency with the culvert that should be fixed. However, our services exclude further evaluation and design of repairs. When we are there for the dam inspection, we can discuss if culvert evaluation and repair design is
something that we could help with under separate contract or suggest other engineers. We anticipate we could be there for dam inspection likely during the first two weeks of June and we'll coordinate specific date with you in advance. Um so it does appear that
office of dam safety required this inspection and he did contract Stevens Engineering to go down there and do the dam inspection. So >> he did or the state did? >> My I don't know the answer to that. My >> expectation was was that this was a
contract between him and Stevens, but it entirely could be with office of dam safety because they did bring their own consulting >> uh engineers to inspect the dam the day we were there. But this is a different firm. Um, so
>> nothing in that as somebody who works in the industry, nothing in that tells me that that he's a client of that engineering firm. >> Yeah. >> The way that it's written, it's a we we're coming out, we're looking at this, we're under contract for this
>> potentially, we might be interested in providing you a quote for the services that you need. So from that, >> it could be one way or the other. I I don't I don't think it it one way or the other shows that other than there is a requirement that they be there and there is a contract with them whether it's
with him or with the state. I don't >> he doesn't own the right then. >> No. >> Right. So why would he be under contract? Why would he have contracted to have? >> Well, similar to similar to conservation commission taking enforcement action for this wetlands violation, office of dam
safety has been trying to force him as the you know person in more or less control of the property for the last several decades to take action related to the dam. Same way that D's Bureau of Waste site cleanup is holding him accountable for what needs to happen
there for wastite cleanup. So, so maybe I just don't understand, Matt. I thought that dams were infrastructure and I thought that they were owned by stating. I just I don't know how this >> No, dams are often private privately owned. Um, and it's just the fact that
on this property there really is no, um, I don't want to say no owner of record, but no owner of record that is responsive or expected to still be in existence as a organization. >> Nothing in in this conversation has changed the fact that we're at a point
where we need action. Um, we only have one tool coming into your to your >> Yes, I agree. Mhm. >> question I guess was was we only have one tool and the hot tool is that we get to issue fines because he's not doing what we said needs to be done because he
opened up a sinkhole that happens to be in very much inside a resource area. Not next to it, not adjacent to it. He opened up the resource area and I would contend that his opening now has hazarded other areas of that same
resource area. So, I think that giving him another 7 days and then assigning fines at that point moving forward puts him in a position where maybe it doesn't work. Maybe he just says, "I'm just walking away from the problem." I don't know. But I know that we only have one tool and that's that's where it starts
and ends. So, >> I agree with that. >> Other other comments. >> Does anybody disagree with that? >> No, I think that's an accurate assessment. >> Okay. Are we comfortable um providing that that guidance to Matt? We want to take a a
>> Sure. >> vote. All right. So, >> the seven days and then >> seven days and then $300 a day afterwards >> each day. >> This is for getting a contract signed. >> Yeah. All the stuff that we've already discussed, we're just put we're we're extending one more time to seven days.
We want to see see um that and I think that we should have maybe signed within seven days and then another for a deliverable back from the engineer with his evaluation of the the existing culvert whatever whatever the the proper
language is for that and we'd want to see that within >> with a plan of do you want to see it with at least a a concept >> well a proposal >> as opposed to I went and I looked at the site Right. I want to I want to hear >> say like I I'm going to recommend
>> hang on let me let me go I want to hear that he engaged signed a contract and the deliverable that we wanted first step was a survey done we want existing conditions we want to know how bad this is and so that we can make more
timebased decisions as we move forward so I think 14 days for an engineer if he engages >> so seven days to get the signed and then 14 days out from that >> another deliverable. A >> deliverable. >> Yep. So, another another set date and if he misses that, then we'll talk about
>> just to clarify that would be that 14day section would be a new request. We never asked for a a plan. >> All we asked for was a signed contract so far, >> right? >> When I say we, I mean you. >> But not a plan at this point. We want a survey, right? We want to know that he surveyed it and he knows what's wrong
and he has a good idea of what the correct action is because once he looks at it and he knows then he has a general understanding of what the scope is. >> So what you want for the follow-up deliverable is you want the PE to write a letter to the commission a detailing what
>> his assessment of the situation >> what he saw he or she saw on site and what >> and going forward what's the solution. >> Right? All right. So, you're not necessarily going to ask for like a fully engineered solution, but you want to have
>> 30% design. At that point, he he will have to have done his his due diligence. >> He would have to generally understand what the scope of work is and then give us a general understanding of what the repairs should look like. Doesn't ask for anything specific. It just says,
"Okay, I went out, I did my job, I surveyed, I stuck the camera down. We've identified the the blockages. We can see where it's coming in. we have deficiencies at foot five, foot 10, every every slab joint that there is and
then let him explain what the what the course of corrective actions are. Um and that would be enough to show that there was positive movement um within the that 14-day period from
you know the the 7-day grace period. So that should give them enough time to do it. So, basically what we're doing is we're saying June 4th for the signed um contract with an engineer and then we're
going 14 days after that is June 18th for the deliverable. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Everybody okay with that? >> Okay. >> Um so, >> so do you need that in the form of a
motion or what? that my motion would be to update the EOS as discussed. Um, do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Second by Marilyn. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. >> Hearing none. That passes. Six. >> I stay. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> I didn't say it. >> I got to say it. I got to stop saying >> but I abstain. >> Okay. >> I don't think you'll be able to do it. >> I >> sadly that's not the point. It's again back to Jim's point. This is all we've got to work with. So I know >> we can't be inactive,
>> but I I would assume that he will walk away rather than >> although I totally agree with you, but that doesn't mean both. >> I I I can't just be a future president. >> No, >> you can abstain all you want. >> Yep. >> That is your right. >> You're right. That's right.
>> And I will support you in that always. >> All right, Matt. Agent updates on ongoing projects. Um, the biggest update is our incredible assistant conservation agent getting word from MASDOT on
the finally the funding of the Lake Street Culver Replacement Project. So, >> good job. >> Um, >> that was a big number. >> It was a big number. Georgie wrote that grant. It's this is her first grant win and her first grant win is 1.6 6 almost
$1.7 million >> as the conservation department prefers in all of our grants. Um they are funding the entire project. There's no cost to the town. There's no match funding. Um so this is an excellent excellent project that's going to
improve fish passage for um several diadous species. It is going to improve storm water inputs into the river. It is going to improve resiliency because right now the Jones River is forced into a 4 foot wide pipe. Um and it will be a
roughly 19 foot bridge with a natural stream bottom when we're all done with it. So um excellent, excellent news. The work um we actually already have a contract going right now uh funded by deer culvert program for our design
engineer to put together all the bid documents. Uh so the bid documents are essentially done and ready to go uh with all the construction drawings and specifications. Um so this really will be built summer of 2027.
The inroad portion of the project which is the majority of it has to happen while Silver Lake Regional School Middle and High School is on summer break. >> Um so the inroad work will happen between let's say last week of June and the end of August. Um there will be a
little bit of time on either end for out of road work uh storm water BMP installation and um prep work and things like that. Um but the whole project itself will probably wrap up I would think by um end of October of 2027. Um,
so we've worked a lot with other town departments, public safety departments, um, just to make sure that we've thought of every angle for, uh, logistics through the process. And it's just really, really good to have this one funded. >> So, >> big win.
>> Big job. >> That's why that's why we hire. >> Yes. >> Good people. >> Yes. Now, will you be sharing this information with any of the other boards in town? Have you put out any notice or anything? I um emailed around um you know when I emailed the commission on
BCC the other day was just me emailing the town administrator um and uh town planner who works in tandem with us on a lot of grants like this. Um but I I did um contact a lot of different departments on this and a town
administrator I'm not sure if he'll just forward this to them. He said if we want we should, you know, would come up at the next BOS meeting and give a presentation on it or something, which I don't know, maybe I'll have Georgie do that since it was her grant. >> Yay. >> Well, I I think too I think it also
gives credibility to our efforts in the past of upgrading this position to an assistant conservation agent. I mean, this is a sterling example of the value. Yeah, it's been in my on my mind a lot because I recall the time period where
she was working on this grant. Like I'm not sure that I would have gotten the grant done if we did not have someone in that position and especially somebody in that position who's capable of doing that work. >> Again, we're talking about a skill set and and it deserves that change in position.
>> Yeah. I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but she's worth every penny that we pay her and then some. And I might cry every day if it wasn't for for her being there. So, it's good. That's good. Um, other than that, I don't have any major project updates. I
think I sent the commission the the last Bates Pond Trail um update and um so that is progressing. We should see an NOI filing on that soon. Um, I also I don't know if I can can announce anything on this yet, so I
won't until I clear this, but I did um have somebody reach out to me um from a town department that may have some significant money to put towards the actual implementation of that base plan project, which is really cool. Um, that's going to be, I think, also a bear
to get funded because >> the design has only made the project more significant. Um there's one major grant program that deals with that, the Mass Trails Grant. And in my feedback meeting, the last time they
denied us on this, um when it was a lot more tentative and not really designed yet, their feedback was if it's just an out and back, we don't care. Essentially, I'm paraphrasing, but they said, "If you can get out to those old fire roads and make the whole loop, we really really like this project and we
probably would fund it." Um, it remains to be seen if they'll fund it more than they typically do. Typically, they have a $100,000 cut off unless it's a regional or rail trail. So, but I think what I mean from them is that if we have the full loop, they would probably fund
it and may consider funding it above the $100,000 limit because it's just chewing numbers in my head. It's it's definitely going to be way more than than that. Um, so we'll be whenever we're ready uh to do so, which I don't think that grant is coming back around again until probably
the fall. Um, the last round of it, we really didn't have our design anywhere close yet. So, I didn't feel comfortable even applying. I just figured we'd take a year off with it. So, um, that and we haven't done the test pits yet for uh, Drew and Siver, but that should happen hopefully tomorrow. Um, so
>> test pit for what? >> The Drew and Siver a storm water EMP project. Yeah, the Rocky Nook storm water uh RDA that that you guys saw last time. >> Um we got pushed back on the test pits because of rain. >> It never rains until we go to do
something good. >> Um so I think that's I think that's all. It's been um it's been a busy couple of months. It's been a very busy couple of weeks. Um she was on vacation last week which is not allowed >> ever again. >> Sorry. >> That's all I got for you unless you have
questions. >> Okay. Any questions for Matt? >> Any further discussion? >> Sir. Sir, did were you here for something specific that we didn't get to or
>> closing time? So, >> all right. Um, that said, the next meeting will be held June 10th, 2026 starting at 6:30 p.m. The time is now 8 35 p.m. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved.
>> All right. Motion by Marilyn. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Megan. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Um, abstain. Okay. Motion carries. 6.