[Music] Hey, good evening everyone and welcome to Thursday, November 13th meeting of the Lakeville Conservation Commission. Um, we are being recorded by Lake Cam. Is anybody else recording? Seeing none,
we'll start by introducing ourselves. >> I'm Mark Minton. I'm the agent. John Leank, >> Nancy Yates, >> Joseph Chamberlain, Mark Knox, >> Nancy Ferrero. >> Okay, first on the agenda is a request
for determination. >> Hold on. For 14 Beach Tree Drive. And I will look for a motion to open the hearing. >> So move. >> Second. All in favor? I
>> I. >> All right. I will read the notice of the public hearing. Pursuant to National Law Chapter 131, the Wetland Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 13th at 6:30 p.m. at the
Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street. On a request for determination of applicability, the applicant, Darcy Bram Bramley, is promising is proposing to move a 10 by12 shed from a neighboring property.
The project is located at 14 Beach Tree Drive and is also identified as assessor's map 43, block 9, lot 6. Mark, I'll turn it over to you. >> Okie do. Um, so, so this one's pretty
straightforward. Uh, the Bramley's, uh, called, they have a shed. It's 10 by 12, I believe. Um, and it's adjacent property. It's right down Beachree towards the end. Uh, I
guess that's north. >> It's like right across the street. >> Yeah, right across the street. And they they're proposing to put it on their property. You can look at the uh filing the they have a a figure that's actually better than mine probably. It's cooking
color. It's about 30 ft off uh the pond, but there's no soil disturbance involved. Um is my understanding. Can be placed on cinder block. Cinder blocks laid down. >> No stone under it or anything. >> No stone, nothing.
Just drop it in. I have I have a company going to pick it up and drop it in place. So, we have a couple of neighbors. >> He's speaking. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Excuse me. Just one second. When you're speaking, like I said, you really have to come up to the microphone and introduce yourself.
>> Right at this table here. >> There are two microphones on because we can either side. >> Yeah, we can. >> It won't get picked up by the the meeting. >> Yes. I'm sorry. And just give your name when you get there. >> Mayor. >> Yep. >> Scott Lions. >> Thank you. >> Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. Thanks, Mark. So, yes, we have two neighbors that apparently the shed has been there for a long time. It's very structural, very nice, and we need some space, and they had a little like family war because it I guess the shed has been
on somebody else's property for a long time. So, it be it became like a a feud. And our neighbor said, "Do you want our shed?" I'm like, "What? the ultimate recycling.
>> So then I researched online and I found a company that just picks it up, puts it down, levels it on cinder blocks. So I'm like, it made sense and we we'll get rid of the battle with the neighbors and we got room for
storage because you know you don't you you've been down beach. I'm sure you've been down. >> I'm sure I have. So, I would like to just be able to have a place to put all the lawn equipment. Just a lawn mower is going to be stored in there. Garden equipment. As simple as that, you know.
>> And Mark's meant to look at it. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Mark was down. He he he looked at it. We walked around the property and, you know, I think, you know, >> it's the the lawn's vegetated, so it's >> you know, I'm I'm kind of a naturalist.
I feed all the birds. I get yelled at. I feed the ducks, squirrels, geese, everything else. >> Okay. So, anybody have any qu Yeah. Go ahead. >> What are they going to move it with? How heavy of a piece of equipment is going
to pick that up? And >> they have this machine where they just >> it straddles. >> Yeah, it goes picks it up. And I I guess I just would want to make sure that it's not so heavy that it's going to
>> collapse into the lawn or that it would I would imagine they're going to put pads down if that was the case. >> We don't even need pads because the the land's so solid nothing sinks nothing sinks into the aisle on >> you ever see them move the the rental
storage things? >> Yep. >> That that >> and we just had a pod delivered and taken Yeah. It just And it it's it's actually it's amazing. Great idea. >> Yeah. >> So there's there's no soft spots in the lawn. Nothing's going to sink.
>> Yep. I just just have to ask you. >> No, I know. >> You're going to move it somehow and don't want some guy to hook his tractor to it and drag. >> No, I don't want you stuck in the lawn >> 30 ft long >> or over your septic system. >> Exactly. >> Okay. So, you already have that idea.
You know where your septic is? Yes. >> Yes. >> It's not near it, right? It's it's it's on if you're looking at the house itself. >> Yeah. >> It's just to the right in front of the tree. >> So, make sure it's in the front of the
lawn. >> Yeah. Just make sure this guy doesn't back over there. >> Oh, yeah. No. So, we have a boat. There's actually a bow ramp. We have a second lawn. There's a boat ramp. So, that is my point of egress to get it over there without any interruption.
Gotcha. Okay. So, I would look for a motion to close the hearing >> with negative determination. >> Or are you looking to add on to that? >> You can do it all on You can do it all in one motion if you want. A motion to close the hearing and issue a negative
three determination. >> So moved. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Good to go. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Easy. >> Good luck. >> Enjoy your new shed. slightly slightly used.
>> Is it Mark? Is it appropriate for us to leave or do we stay for the whole >> get out while you can? >> Yeah. Really? >> You you um so so we'll sign the commission will sign the the the determination. You can come by call and
pick it up a copy. >> Yeah. >> And we got questions. All right. Sure. Yeah, nice to see you all. Have a great night. >> Okay, next up is lot one, Pinerest Village. Motion to
open the hearing. >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I will read. Notice of public hearing. Pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 131, the Wellen Protection Act, the Lake Conservation Commission will hold a
public hearing on November 13, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street for a filing of a notice of intent. The applicant Moroni Building and Contracting Incorporated is proposing to construct a
single family home with amenities that include a garage, paved driveway, deck, septic system, and private well on lot one Pine Crest Village in Lakeville, Mass. The house, garage, private well, a portion of the driveway, and associated
grading are located within the 100t buffer zone of bordering vegetative wetland located on site. The project is located off Pinerest Drive and is also identified as assessors map 43 block 7
plot 1-20. >> Jason, >> how you doing? Jason Youngquist, Outback Engineering. I'm here with the applicant, Greg Moroni. And this is lot one uh as you mentioned Pinerest Village which is the two lot subdivision um that we had got approved through planning
board and conservation um recently. Um this is just the septic design for that for that lot. Um so uh we've kept everything out of the 25T buffer to the wetlands. Um the septic is outside the 100 foot buffer and so it's just the
house and some grading, a little bit of the driveway and the well that are within the 100 foot buffer to the wetlands. And as you recall from the subdivision process, this was a wetland line that was approved by an ORAD through the commission. Um, and then there was also an order of conditions
issued for the subdivision construction. It's all kind of tied together. It's because it's a smaller area just for two lots. Jason, did you guys put the road in already? >> The lot's been trees been cut. It's stumps are still there, but the road has not been built yet. Um, just kind of
want to get all the approvals in line cuz it's a smaller area. here. That way you can just kind of build things together. Um the erosion control are all up cuz you got the trees. Um that's all in >> I think I'd like Mark to address this first before the rest of us jump in.
>> Hi, nice nice to meet you. So um nice to meet you, Rick. >> Nice to meet you. >> So I' I've been out there uh I wasn't the agent for the first round of the review and approvals, but I I've been out there a couple times. So, um
I I guess there there was I I I had a little bit of confusion on this one. Um so the the the filing is there's one NOI for a single family house, right? >> And then there's the uh lot two is the
RDA and it's it and based on the ANRAD or the ORAD, >> it's it's outside. So, and I was trying to find I I thought that the filing for lot one says um it it it uh storm water doesn't apply
and because single family, but I it my my confusion a little bit is so the the subdivision itself which um the storm water report discusses. >> So, there was a storm water design and
everything. You want to let him finish first, please? >> Sure, that's okay. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah. >> Yeah, that's all right. Um, anyhow, so um um so the storm water report the way it
the I I read it, it it's it's for for um the whole subdivision and and it discusses the two, you know, the the plan to put in two houses. So it it one of my concerns is is is or or my
question is so you've got the storm water um uh pond infiltration pond. There's still some stuff lacking from the original filing related to storm water. So, and again, it's it's a little uh and I'm sorry I'm not
formulating my question uh probably as succinctly as as I I I wish I could, but it's it's partly my my confusion that um and I it it it goes back to um I if if the filing and I was just
looking I'm sorry. I think that the filing for lot one that's before the commission um checks the box that storm water doesn't apply which would make sense if it's a single family but the the whole project's part of this a
subdivision that storm water does apply. So I I don't know if you Yeah. >> Does that have to do with under four lots? >> Yes. So the storm water there was an entire drainage report designed that was part of the subdivision process. So when
we did um we filed the conservation and planning board. There's a storm water report. There's a drainage analysis pre versus post. Everything that goes into a full uh storm water design. Um that was reviewed by the boards and the commission's uh consultant. Revisions were made and that drainage report takes
into consideration the two houses being built, the tree line where it's proposed. So all the drainage analysis was taken care of when we did the subdivision design. This is just for the for the for the house and and the the gradient and the septic. So all the
drainage pre versus post was an analyzed um in that original drainage report that was done with the subdivision. >> All right. I think Mark's confusion might be in your original filing which is 19297.
It calls out that you're proposing a um subdivision and about all the grading and everything and it checks off residential subdivision. And then yes, it is um subject to the provisions of storm
water. And now when you're doing the single family house lot, you come back and check that the house that's part of this initial one is exempt from storm water. It's because we already did the storm water analysis. So technically the box could be checked. Yes. Um because
the storm water analysis is already done. >> And then you would say and here's all the paperwork we've already given. >> Yeah. It's already in >> and you approved planning board and conservation because you did that for the road as a >> typically don't you put the road in get
signed off before you start building the plots? >> Not necessarily. Um especially on something smaller like this. um he's you know he's not going to get you know the building permit relies on getting all your all your approvals and everything. So, and this is smaller, so he needs to
kind of move dirt and build things all at the same time. As he's as he's digging this foundation, he's going to be digging um the drainage basin. So, he's getting equipment out there all at once. We want to get all our permits all at once and so we can just uh build. I think you still have a ways to go with
the planning board which is included in this packet that we have as a covenant with the planning board that really calls out that planning board approval. the covenant that says um
let's see shall not sell or otherwise convey any lots in the subdivision or erect or place any permanent building until such time as construction of the ways and installation of the municipal services. >> Yep. That's a typical covenant. That's always the way it is. Um so he cannot
sell any house until his road day is constructed. >> Says not erect. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So he can't build his house until the roads in. So, I don't know why we would be looking at approval. I I just I guess we think about steps. I don't know how the rest of the board feels like that, but there's certain steps to go
through. There's absolutely nothing there that is on a hill. Um, nothing's been started and the drainage is important in that area. We've already said that. So, I don't understand why
you would want us to approve something until a lot of times we don't approve it until you know you've been through some of the other boards because I think it's been a problem before. If we like, okay, well, we're going to pro approve it
contingent on you putting in the road and you're putting in the drainage and then they're doing the border health, then that's just a lot of things to do. We'd maybe rather see that first or I would I don't know. Mark, >> I was just going to suggest sort of what you just said is because it's a notice
of intent just to condition based on maybe the retention pond being built road to a certain point. So the subgrade is down, it's compacted and sort of >> erosion controls in place. You said that
was >> they're in. Yes. Well, I I think I I think I understand Jason's point of this is a a very small project in this the realm of what >> the town has seen for projects over the years, >> but in a very bad place.
>> Not >> and I don't mean bad bad I mean in a very difficult Sorry. Thank you, Joe. Yeah. How much trouble we've had in that whole area. So I think his point is only it's
small in parameters wise that he feels he can get all the permits. I understand your concern, the board's concern maybe to not put the cop before the horse that usually a developer comes in, lots get released if you had a 10 or 20 lot subdivision
and some of those houses then would be coming in as filings after they're released by the planning board to go through that. We're looking at two lots and just a small stem of road. So would
it be an option for conservation to condition the a portion of or the construction of the single family home based on some of the steps within the covenant already
provided by the planning board >> or >> so he leaves here with a permit but he can't do X until Y is done. >> No because he's got an outstanding order. I'm talking about steps. He's got an outstanding order of conditions that covers all the drainage, which by the
way, it doesn't say storm water report. It says drainage report, which Mark brought up, too. It just says drainage, but everything seems to be in there. It's semantic, but it would be nice if it had storm water. >> And it appears like the swift is already in there, too. >> Mhm. >> Um,
>> OM is in there. >> But I'm just not comfortable when he's got an outstanding order of conditions. I mean an outstanding already open and now he wants another already outstanding. I don't see we've already
opened it. If we continue it, it doesn't seem like it would be a problem to bring it back after instead of having to write that all up on an order of conditions. I think I'll be if he sticks to this order of conditions and gets this much done and then comes back and we can then move
on to the next one because we've already opened it. There's no problem with continuing. We've continued things for years around here. >> But so you're saying he's got to finish the road and get it 100% done before he comes back. >> I don't think the even the planner board said that, but some kind of semblance of
because of the drainage and because we had Bills and Thomas do the peer review on this because the people down below have worked really hard in getting that drainage together. This is on a hill. It's an area that's really been in the past. So, can I may I interject something
through you to Jason for him to respond to you? >> Yeah. >> Through you, Nancy, could you provide a condition for us to put on that to have you get the drainage in the road to a certain point before? So you could
leave with a the all you need to get the notice of intent order of conditions for lot one but not be able to proceed until a certain portion of the road drainage andor roadway was built and constructed so that
the commission felt comfortable with no issues from the drainage the runoff of the road construction until that point that you then started the house. Yeah, cuz we can't even get a building permit on the house until the road and the drainage is in. So, that's already
conditioned. That house is not getting built until the road and the drainage is in. We just want to have the permit in hand. Um, so we can move move dirt when we're building. We got machines out there. We're moving dirt and everything's getting organized um all at the same time. Um, but he can't build
the house until the road till he gets a lot released by planning board. So, the road is in, the drainage is in. Um there's a whole construction series to make sure everything's protected. That's all part of the subdivision design that was approved. Um construction sequence,
all those things that was part of that. Um so again, this house is not going to get constructed. It's not going to start framing or any of that stuff until it gets released by planning board, which means the road and the drainage is in. So you don't have to be concerned about
um approving this and all of a sudden it's getting built and the road's not there because he can't build the house without the road. >> Yeah. Joe go. >> Water departments of Taton and New Beth is all squared away. >> Mhm. Yep. Everybody was
>> well they have to sign off on this right >> on the planning the planning board stuff. >> Through the planning board, right? >> Y You want some? >> These are on Wells and >> these are on Wells. >> Wells anyway. Y >> but just because the their proximity to >> Y
Long Pond is considered what tributary to >> Y. So So I just to clarify I mean part partly trying to review what already been approved and what what you're seeking you know
you know the u the order of conditions. It it was in my mind well there was a couple things but one of one of them primarily was the sequencing of when you start pulling stumps when you start you know moving earth and I and I and I believe and I'm sure I I know there is
there's additional sedimentation or siltation control in the in the NLI I believe but at the same time uh you know get water moving down that slope and it and it it it slopes to be
that southeast I believe but down to that corner you know and again back to the idea that you know you know we it it would not be good to send a plume of dirt down into the to the pond and I
know and I know you agree but I I it's more of a se for me it's sequencing and then I there was for me I had some confusion that based on the NOI saying storm water doesn't apply. I'm like, well, I'm just trying and and it's helpful.
You know, it's these are questions for you and you're answering the questions, but it's uh so in the part of the subdivision plan set, there's a uh construction period erosion control plan. So during the construction when things are getting disturbed, there is measures to collect if it rains during
the construction period. So that water is not sent to the wetlands. So it's not sent down Pinerest Road. So it's not affecting any of us. There's temporary sediment for uh sediment basins. There's um temporary um swailes, diversion
swailes to contain all that runoff in case it rains during construction. Um until that time when the roadway is built and the basin's built and then at that point the runoff's getting caught in the roadway and the catch basins and and diverted into the infiltration basin. So in the subdivision plan set
there is a construction period erosion control plan um all built into the subdivision plan set >> and that's with planning that would be I've seen that >> so that was part of the order conditions for the plans the subdivision plans are approved by uh conservation and planning
board and reviewed by uh I do believe it was BNT did the review but that's a construction period sedimentation erosion control >> and and again you know the for in my mind you know the sequencing All that stuff being in place would be good then
to proceed with the you know right >> another question >> storm water control >> notifications do we I have those there >> aren't that many but
>> I I know this came up previously but the um there was an uh uh the construction pad entering the site. I'm assuming all that would be part of >> Yep. That's all part of the uh >> uh preconstruction or construction >> I don't see that in our order of
conditions. The sequencing plan. Well, unless >> references on the plan. >> Yeah, it's on the plan. It references the subdivision plan set and that stuff is all on the subdivision plans, you know. So it could be conditioned this order of conditions for the lot
could be conditioned that subject to the planning board covenants for house construction that would ensure that everything's built per the subdivision plan set I think it's in the um the um the order of conditions
Uh all work including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion sedimentation control plan and if applicable the swip.
So it's in the order conditions at least here. I I don't know if I've seen it or I don't know the plan but >> yep >> in the order conditions from the planning board or from us >> bills and Thomas did the order of conditions
>> this >> add that added page is what bills and Thomas did we piggybacked on there Um, >> anybody else? >> John, >> I think we have to deal with the road
separate from the lot and I think actually the sort of conditions for the road is very extensive. I don't I don't really see a problem with issuing an order of conditions on the lot.
Um obviously the only thing we're worried about is contamination of w of the wetlands. So >> and the drainage >> and the drainage >> which is captured by the storm water for the road. >> Yeah. They've made provisions for the
construction period and afterwards. So, I mean, if we we can refer to the original order of conditions and just make sure >> and have to like redo it like I I I'm just not liking writing the order of
conditions for this when we still have outstanding order of conditions over here. >> Well, but I think we do that for just open, isn't it? >> It's open. Yeah. >> And it will be open. Even if we did it after the road was constructed, it would still be open when we filed this because
that order conditions for the road does not get finished till house both houses are up. Everything's a long procs away. >> How many times have we had open order conditions all of a sudden somebody finds it in a deed in a deed search and
>> and usually those are on a lot not on the road, >> right? >> Or it's an open one on the road. The developer will come back to seek his bond though usually and >> there are reasons for them to >> seek their closure where a a lot for an
individual single family home doesn't always get sought like that. >> But every subdivision if it has a lot that borders wetland is going to have two different order conditions. The lot's going to have its own and the road's going to have I don't I don't see a problem.
>> Question question on the letters. >> Great. There's going to be three of them. It's going to be two laws in the room, >> right? >> The other law was an RDA. So, >> so that's not within the 100 foot buffer. >> There's just a little bit of grading.
>> Yes, Joe. the feral who owns bits and pieces of land down there never get a response or was it delivered or >> uh those don't always come back. I don't have the canceled out ones. I'd have to check
>> and Steven Reed have that one. >> Yeah. So, we have the uh the receipts at the office. I don't They didn't come back yet. I I didn't bring obviously. >> Okay. These are just done, right? Yeah. >> The only give that
in my opinion that I will give is I don't want to make the motion tonight at what the order and conditions was going to be. I need to really sit down with Mark and if we're going to approve this. >> Yeah, understandable. I'm not I don't even want to think about it until because that is a problem that we have
to deal with is that order of conditions and I want time to think about it. So I don't want to close the hearing and issue an order of conditions that I haven't we haven't even thought about yet. I want to work on that. >> Can we discuss some of that tonight? Like I I think that as a full board we
could give good good suggestions as to maybe you know what what conditions and I I think you know I think John and Mark alluded to that referencing of the site plan approval for the the the roadway the subdivision
>> and the covenant >> and the the order of conditions on the subdivision. >> Yeah. And within >> not getting ahead of myself, but >> order of condition this approval for this NOI within a
condition for that you referencing our original and maybe put a timetable or a trigger just like the covenants for the planning board did within your approval. You know, make a condition of the notice
of intent for the order of conditions. >> Wait a minute. Now you're losing me. All right. I don't want to um >> Well, you seemed concerned about you seemed concerned that you wanted the a certain portion of the roadway completed and then drainage, >> right? >> At least that basin built so that the
temporary stuff everything is within the temporary construction process Jason is going to flow into that pond once it's built or is it going to be diverted elsewhere? >> It's diverted to adjacent to it. there's uh um
sediment uh basins cuz you don't want it muddling up your your your >> supposed to be protecting them while you're actually right >> this the special sand that's in the bottom you don't want it clogged with that silt but >> yep so you're trying to keep everything out of that until your roads paved and things are stabilized and you're getting
clean runoff in there is an iron plate you have to put somewhere on beach tree where is that exactly >> it's not >> it's over they call it the frog you know frog pond the frog. So, you have to cover That's what I thought. It said on beach that you got to protect the frog pond.
>> There's a pipe that goes underneath the road from that frog pond. >> Um there was concerns. So, we uh we had come up with putting a steel plate that's part of the uh >> Yep. >> order. It's part of the plan too. >> Um the sequence.
>> Yep. It's part of So, when the big Yeah, that's all in the planning board's approvals. >> Um and your original order conditions. So, so that's already already taken care of. Um, that the steel plate would be put down for the big trucks to >> and some kind of a pad, too.
>> That's already built. >> Okay. This >> Yep. >> We were just there. >> Yeah. >> Something >> tracking pad. The tracking pad. The gravel's in there. >> Oh, I saw the gravel. >> That's the tracking pad. >> That's true. >> When the trucks come and go, the tires
will clean off. >> Doesn't look like it was spread out. Yeah. It just looked like there was a >> Got a nice hammerhead to turn around in. Yep. Okay. >> So, tell me again. I just think you put a a reference within the conditions on lot one that
goes back and references the steps for the road construction and put in that this house cannot be built until at least all of the temporary drainage
um >> well like >> and grading rough grading for the road construction ise complete. So that he's roughly built so that they have proper access to the front of the lot and all of the temporary drainage at least flows
to where it's supposed to flow. >> All right. >> You're just writing in safeguards. >> Yeah. >> And we usually speak out all the conditions. I guess that's what I'm saying is I'm only going to go along with this if we close the hearing and
you want to say we're going to order the uh issue an order of conditions, but I'm not spelling out what they are because I don't know even though you're saying all that. >> I'm not saying I'm not saying tonight. Okay. >> I just wanted to have the discussion publicly. >> Okay. not have to have you and Mark have
it alone over the next four weeks trying to give input so they can say, "Oh, this Mark said and we should include that. We took some notes on it and then >> kind of watch that." Does anybody else have any suggestions as to a condition
if you feel uncomfortable with which again I I haven't gone through the covenants for the planning board but it sounds like everything is pretty well protected in the order of things that they're here just to try to get
paperwork done prior to construction. But >> I guess the the question to ask is what's the harm in in issuing them an order of conditions at this point?
>> At our next meeting at our next meeting. >> Well, yeah. But but I mean, >> yeah, that's what I would like to do. I would like input from everybody and then we would come back and >> but prior to the road being in, what's the harm in issuing a notice? Just make sure the the drainage doesn't
>> but there are a number of different places where it says that has to be done. >> So, >> and here's the other thing is on Mark to watch this in the sequence. So, it's a good job upon him. A big job upon him also. >> Yeah. Is there a way
>> because of the area? It's the area that >> Yeah, there's always some contention that comes out of there and I fully understand. >> Okay. >> And and there's always runoff issues. Uh, is there a way to succinctly reference the previous orders of
conditions that are already opened? >> I mean, isn't that >> Yeah, that's what he already said. He already said that. That's what we're going to do. We're going to >> I mean, isn't that there's almost bo I'm sorry. Excuse me. >> Go ahead, Mark. >> Yeah, go ahead. No, I think there's
boilerplate language that like, you know, it's not exactly it, but in orders of conditions, you know, if there's a contradiction between uh site plan and the NOI, you know, it's the NOI that takes, you know, language. So, we could
cross reference back to >> I I think we might be getting a little too deep into the weeds here. >> Okay, >> we already have an order of condition that covers the road, >> right? And that's complete and it's been approved. >> Yes. >> We have a covenant put on by the
>> planning board. >> Planning board that covers the construction of the road >> and and that's complete >> and the timets with releases. >> Right. So the only thing we're worried about in this particular case is this lot and issuing a notice an order of conditions for it approving a notice.
So, we should just concentrate on the lot, not because the other stuff is covered. >> Yeah. But basically, if you write an order conditions for that lot, it has to reference back to the other stuff that's covered. I guess basically is what your what Mark is saying.
>> I I'm only saying that because it seems like you were uncomfortable with even listening to them tonight. I think to John's point, >> I just don't we do need to focus on a lot. But if you're uncomfortable to put a condition referencing backwards to the first order of conditions wouldn't hurt.
I think you'd probably feel more comfortable. >> I would that this all has to get >> so >> so far along and also >> which is already in writing from >> right but checkpoints to even I don't think this spills out clearly enough. When you get to this step,
>> call Mark to go look. He needs to have the be >> so put a condition in to and again I don't know that you can do that but there's a a town planner or somebody else that's going to go out and do inspections from a roadway standpoint so
maybe have >> we have a town planner >> well occasionally we do >> okay >> and if we don't then they use uh a private entity to come out and do that for them >> correct >> so just maybe in within these conditions you which we're kind of beyond that I
mean we already did the road stuff. So the best thing you have is Mark's eyes and ears to just periodically either make inspections or to try to find out through the planning board who's doing their inspections and see if he could be present. >> Just >> well he only he doesn't have to worry
about the plan but he has to worry about our conditions I think and stick with that. And I mean, we've been working we've been working with the planner board. >> So I think a >> lot because we piggybacked on them for the um peer review. So >> Okay.
>> Well, then why do we have to why do we have to even worry about it then? Cuz if we're not going to piggyback off them, only worry about our conditions, then why do we have to worry about the construction of the road? >> Because it's an open it's an open >> order condition. >> Order conditions.
>> And it'll be taken care of. >> Let Matt have a turn over here. >> I have a question. So, we have a little bit concern with the drag. So, what's the squid footage on the roof on this on this? >> I don't know, but it was all calculated during the original drainage report. >> Um, do you have any calculations like
how many gallons per that's going into the >> uh not on me, but it was the approved drainage report has and it took into account the roof. >> Mark has it right there. >> That property. You want to see? >> Yeah. Got it. >> Just, you know, we have concern about the drainage. It's obviously
>> it's not that it won't work. It's this the process of getting it in place and that's part of the approval process. >> Part of the order of conditions. >> Correct me if I'm wrong though. Okay. You can't pull a permit for a house until the road is in.
>> Am I right? >> Well, to a point like usually it's binder down or something and >> your drainage has to be working and functioning binder down, >> right? There'll be a point that they can release a lot to be built on prior to the final >> sign for the final pavement,
>> but the the road has to be constructed and the drainage has to be constructed. >> Correct. >> Mhm. >> Again, I'd have to read. So, what I'm saying >> evidence, but yeah, basically >> I think we're double in effort here that we don't need to. >> Okay. Um
>> because the original order conditions covers everything that has to do with drainage and roadway. Everything is already covered. >> This order conditions will only cover >> the house back half of the house and some grading in the 100th buffer. That
is the only thing this order conditions will cover. >> So it just be a standard order. If you wanted to reference the original order, that's fine. But that order is already open, so it really doesn't need to be referenced, but you could. So, how is the motion going to sound?
>> Somebody wants to make a motion. How is it going to sound? >> I would say I would motion to close the hearing and issue a order of conditions >> with all of our standard. >> All of our standard.
Um, and if you feel like you need to, we can reference the open order of conditions on the road. And I already said I don't think our standard order of conditions enough. We had to we have to add on >> like he said referencing
>> other certain conditions from the previous filing. >> I think you referenced certain conditions. You just referenced reference the whole thing. >> Incorporated by reference here in >> because those all have to be taken care of anyways.
SC1 19297. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, you want to do it again nice and clear so that we can do it. >> I make a motion to close the hearing for lot one.
>> Lot one, Pinerest Village. um SE1 192950 >> and issue a standard order of conditions >> all our standard >> all our and issue an order of conditions including all our standard um
plus referencing the open order of conditions on the roadway second >> as long as you include >> reference conditions from SC 19297. >> That's what I said. >> Okay,
>> that's the roadway. He said that. >> That is, but he didn't. >> So, with that point of clarity, I do second John's motion. >> Any discussion? Oh god. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I
>> You talked me into it. I guess >> we wanted you to wait for the next meeting. >> Huh? >> Yeah, that'll be our Christmas meeting. >> Yeah. >> All right. Don't expect you to be getting it anytime soon. I got 21 days.
perfectly fine. >> We are just fine with that. >> Okay. >> So, the next one shouldn't be as hard, should it? >> No. >> All right. All right. Next lot two. This is a request for determination
Pinerest Drive. I need a motion to open the hearing. >> So moved. >> I'll read the notice of public hearing pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 131, the Wetland Protection Act. The Lake Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on November 13th, 2025 at
6:30 p.m. at the police station, 3:23 Bedford Street for filing of a request for determination of applicability. The applicant, Building and Contracting Incorporated, is proposing to construct a single family home with
amenities that include a garage, paved driveway, septic system, and private well. The private well and some minor grading associated with the construction of the house are within the 100 foot buffer of the bordering vegetative wetlands and are located on the abuing property. The project is located off
Pinerest Drive and is also identified as a CES map 43 block 7 lot one. >> You're up. >> Hello Jason Yungquist Outback Engineering. um everything that we just said at the last meeting ditto
>> except to a smaller scale. >> Yes. So on this one the 100 buffer just cuts through the edge of the lot. There's a little bit of grading and the weller in that area. Um again all the drainage and sequencing and everything for the subdivision is all taken care of
with the previous order order of conditions that is still open. That will all be addressed during roadway construction. Is this going uphill? >> That is uphill. >> Okay. >> So again, we could condition referencing back to the
uh roadway of condition. >> So Nancy, I guess the real question is where it's an RDA, would you feel comfortable? I mean, it's certainly less impact. It is, but it would be um I would say a negative three
with a condition that we reference the conditions from SC 19297. >> So moved >> to close the hearing and >> yes, >> sorry. >> Worst motion ever.
>> All right. to close the hearing and issue a negative3 determination referencing the conditions from SC192 917 as that number three condition. >> Again, John, >> so moved. >> I will second his motion. >> All in favor?
>> I I >> Good luck, gentlemen. >> Thank you very much. Sorry for the confusion. And hopefully the next time I come back, it'll be nice and simple and you guys will be happy to see me. But you do realize how much trouble that whole
neighborhood has had it. >> And I'm sure Greg does too over the years and we just don't want to add to >> both sides. Okay. >> And those people, >> thanks for the explanation. That's I'm just trying to >> Yeah, you have houses here and a wetland
above behind it. Elevated wetland there. And they worked hard on that frog pond and getting that whole drainage all that was years of that frog pond and then the whatever going down to the pond. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My mind
digging down there. >> Well, you guys have a good evening. >> You too. You also. Happy holidays. Thanksgiving. >> You too. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you everyone. See you. >> Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Yeah. Happy Thanksgiving. >> Okay, I'm going to do these and these. [Music] Okay, so that's not going to get easier. Um, maybe a little 52 Clear Palm Road.
Uh, we're going to continue 52 Clear Pond Road to December 16th. a motion to continue it to December 16th at 6:30 p.m. at the Council on Aging. >> I will make a motion to continue the
hearing for 52 Clare Pond Road enforcement order/restoration plan until December 16th, 6:30 p.m. at the Council on Aging Building. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. So, I would like to just speak to it just a little bit.
>> That was easy. >> Um, >> I did see a plan Lirculated. Well, here's the deal. We have no new information this time, but when I went back and looked again because it's still just keeps resurfacing its head. The
enforcement order is the enforcement order went to Arthur Linton and we now have a new property owner. And my one question is this enforcement order when Arthur owned the house, she would have been recorded at the Plymouth Registry of Deeds and Lori was already gone today
before I could ask her if that was done. So, my concern is if that wasn't done, then we probably need to >> issue another enforcement order to the new owner and make sure it gets recorded. >> Except the order goes
it always goes to the owner, but I'm not sure when that owner is declared when it's registered at register of deeds, right? Is that that's the official transfer? Well, I think the next step is to find out if that was done. I mean, I'm kind of going backwards on this one.
>> Who would have filed? Who would have been responsible >> for filing that at the You don't think that happened? >> Yeah. Right. >> So, we issue an enforcement order. >> That doesn't work. >> Well, it's the same thing with a lot of these things just don't get followed up.
That's why I get so concerned when you like it's always just paperwork and all that because things just happen and get out of >> Yeah. If somebody ought put an enforcement order against me, I wouldn't record it. >> I would take the time to go to the registry of deeds. >> It's just not really logical. >> No, that I would think that would be
somebody else's responsibility. >> Well, the town >> the enforce. >> Yeah, >> right. It would be our responsibility to attach that to the deed of the property. >> I I I think under the regs if they don't file it, commission has can file it for them. I'd have to
pull that up. I >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that's worth looking at. >> I'd like to know if anyone was ever filed >> by the >> any enforcement order was ever filed by the >> person >> recipient. Jesse James filed all the enforcement. >> It was S. Here it is. It's written and
signed. I acknowledge that the above date I received an enforcement order and I understand this enforcement order must re be recorded blah blah blah and signed by Arthur Lyn. That's why I'm saying I think we need to do another one because this probably never happened. But like I
say, Lori was gone today before I thought about it >> and it's just been kind of cooling along. So, >> got a little bit of research to do before we do anything more. So, we've continued it and hopefully >> is that a statutory thing? Is that
something Massachusetts requires? >> Yeah, D requires if you give an enforcement order, it has to be recorded. So >> there are some wet there are some conservation commissions that routinely charge the applicant to record it.
>> See I wouldn't I would be more in favor of that and then us doing it than leaving it up to that guy to do it. >> You know who usually for in in does this is the engineers usually do it because >> there's no incentive on the part of the
owner to go and do it. >> But these guys will make money. We we did we it cost you $125 for us to go and do this. >> Well, plus they're if they if they're the official engineer on the job, it's their license. >> It's their license. Yeah. >> I could see that. I I can't see.
>> But there was no engineer in this case. >> No. >> No. No. No. >> So, I think it needs to be done. I don't think we should be waiting till December 16th because they were going they're
coming back on December 16th with a restoration plan and I already asked Mark to write a letter to say we're not waiting till the meeting till the day before till anything to see the plans or bring it with you. Mark was going to write a letter. The deadline
for plans for the December 16th meeting is December 9th. >> So can I just go full circle with this? I just want to it's not like a surprise that the current owner knows that there was one once.
He's here trying to restore it, >> right? >> So, if we found that it was never recorded by the previous owner, us reinstating the enforcement, the violation still exists. The current
owner knows about it. It's not even like we're doing a mean thing. >> It's just we're closing the paperwork loop on what never got done. We have the evidence and the signed documents from the previous owner and it appears he didn't follow through. So here to the
new owner. That's all we're doing. >> Yes. >> So I I would you like approval from the board to file a new enforcement order? >> Well, I think if there isn't one on file, >> right? But how we could ratify it at
that next meeting or do you I I because they're not here. I would think that >> I don't even think it would be a problem to call the new owner and just say, "Hey, we noticed this." >> Yeah. No, I will definitely call them. I called them today. See, cuz I didn't even know that they weren't going to be
here. >> It's not like you're slapping something on them. That's You're just trying to close the paper loop on something. >> It's like it's the steps. It's always following the procedure and the steps. and something got lost in the
>> It's not like the violation goes away, >> right? >> If that didn't get filed, it's still there and he purchased it knowing about it. >> I would imagine if he purchased it knowing about it, it's probably on file. >> He did. He was right there. He was >> the other day. I brought this to Arthur, I think. So,
>> yeah. So, I don't think it's a problem. I'm just trying to keep us >> Do you need anything from us? >> No. Okay. >> I don't think so. I think it's something that Mark can >> follow up with Derek. I would say to find out exactly.
>> Well, you can go online and find out if it's been recorded. >> Yeah. >> So, we can ask the Lord tomorrow. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If we ever got anything back and if it was, it's partly and I would be the first one to own up to say it's partly our fault, too, cuz it's it's really hard to keep track of this stuff.
>> It's not our fault. It's not I don't think that's anybody's fault. Well, that we didn't. >> It said right on there. I was supposed to record it. Nobody >> did search by, >> but somebody acknowledged it in writing and signed it. >> They did. They did >> and then they didn't do it. So, but we
>> Well, we don't know that they don't know that they didn't do it, >> right? We don't know they didn't do it, but we've talked about it before like keep a running list because this is every single thing. all the orders and conditions we do all the time have to be recorded in Plymouth and we need some kind of like a you know
>> but I but I understand that because that's somebody trying to get a project moving it's in their best interest to go >> right >> but a but a enforcement order that's required to be >> so maybe we should be doing it >> right that's what I'm saying there might
be a failure in the system Doesn't sound like it would be in anybody's best interest to record. >> There's a lot of things to keep track of. Even when we tell people all the time, call the heavy siltation barrier check. That doesn't happen all the time. >> Yeah. >> And we, you know, he's part time.
>> Well, I'm around. You can always call me. I'll go check. >> But they have to if they don't call, we don't know. And then we go and look and they're all done. It's like, >> yeah. >> So, okay. Yeah. Take care of it. >> We'll fix it. >> Yep.
>> Okay. There we go. Um >> next, >> uh so um one one other thing. >> Y >> um for the property. So I talked to Steve Schmeal, who I guess is still
>> recuperating. >> Recuperating and is still the wetlands ecologist working on the restoration plan. I don't know. Uh that was a little bit up in the air. That's all. But >> it'll be at the next meeting. It'll be at the next meeting, but next Tuesday.
So that's the 18th, I think, at 10:00. >> Oh, is that I'm going to meet? Yeah, I'm going to meet >> for an on-site visit. >> On-site visit if you're available if >> anybody's interested in going. We'll send out an email 10 >> 10. >> Yeah. Just shoot me a text on the
moment. I'll meet you. >> Yeah. >> I won't >> next Tuesday. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Oh, you know what? Let me try putting it in. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, next >> legal advertising. >> I'll I'll send a reminder to everybody.
>> Yeah, that'll be great. >> All right. This has happened a couple of times already because when this happened and they changed the law, I knew it. And we've had a couple of cases that came through. Um John, you were on one of them with me where we went and looked um
at some dumping some rocks out front. Um, but they've changed it the law that you don't have to do a legal ad for an RDA and I've known that for a long time. Everybody kept arguing with me, but it's
so you do not have to. So, we need to decide. Some of them we've done, some of them we haven't done. Um, I think the judgment's kind of been whether or not it's something that's >> When you say something we've done,
something we haven't, the legal ad, >> the legal ad, there was a couple that when I first found out, there was a couple that got through and we didn't do them. And then Lori said that didn't really change and she had looked at MACC and I'm like, I'm pretty sure it did. And so a couple got by. Then Lori said
that never changed. So then we started >> so it has to >> do it again but it has changed. So there is no requirement for illegal, >> but my >> let's follow the law. >> Some of the and I don't know what kind of a judgment that would be, but some things are like if it's in a
neighborhood and you know it's wicked controversial like you just saw that things have been going on there is are we protecting the neighbors or whatever by not having a legal ad or if somebody's just chopping down a tree and they don't
even live near anybody, who cares? How do how do we want to handle that is my question >> Joe? >> Yes. >> The green card gentlemen are >> yes >> for an RDA are any mailings required for butters? >> No. >> No.
>> So I don't So put it this way. >> Yeah. >> If you feel that notifications are necessary, make it an NOI. Say no. We're not doing RDA for that.
Good, good, good idea. >> So, if you feel uncomfortable because of the neighborhood, no, you're under the spotlight. You're in a goldfish bowl in the middle of everything and all the neighbors are going to say, "Why is he and I had to just make them all analyze
in that case?" Now, I'm not saying eliminate RDAs. What I'm saying is if you don't feel comfortable with it being an RDA that it's not a notific like the folks with the shed tonight RDA fine but
>> they had to put in the paper >> but >> because well because we haven't had the discussion >> but we can't require them to do something that is not legal right we don't have the authority >> we could give them a choice >> but we don't have the authority to require them to do a legal ad for an ID
8 if it's not a law >> unless they felt >> if they want to do it on their own. Do it on their own protection. >> How about giving them a choice? If you want to notice in the paper so your neighbors know. Okay. If not, we're going to have an NOI so it gets in the paper. >> We can ask that question, but we can't
require it. >> Can we give them a choice? >> Cuz you need an engineered plan mostly for an NOI. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I understand. I understand what you're saying. Well, yeah. If you if you So said applicant comes in
>> y >> says I want to do x and y >> normally you could say yeah we do an RDA on that but >> the runoff in that area we've had so many complaints and whatever
>> if you want an RDA you have to do a post it legally in the newspaper and bring us in the legal ad so that we can read it if you Don't >> we usually do the posting so we'd have to legal ad >> Lori does I think
>> and if you don't want to do that then we're going to require you to do an NI >> no yeah that's our that is our choice >> but that's essentially saying you have to do a legal ad for an RDA >> no it's giving them a choice
>> but I don't think that we should be forcing legal ads on every RDA No, I don't either. >> If that's not the requirement, >> right? >> And it is a simple >> cut down a tree. >> Cut down a tree and grind down and you're really not even digging the stump
out. That's a that's RDA and it doesn't require it. >> Simple. >> And and what happens often times is in that case neighbors will call and you say, "Yeah, no, they they filed." And it's
>> yeah, we're aware they filed with us. if you want to come and check out the paperwork, we could provide it to you a copy at the office. >> Yeah. >> And so I think John would agree with me to to make the RDA process as
streamlined and uncumbersome would help for people to come in and file for things that >> they would normally >> may may normally they may normally have that attitude of we just do it on the weekend, >> right? and try to get away with it. >> People have been pretty good lately, I
think, >> especially about the trees and stuff. >> It's pretty simple. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Good. So, meeting minutes. Joe, >> make a motion. We accept the minutes
of the August 12th, 2025 meeting of the Lakeville Conservation Commission as corrected. >> Oh, boy. Because >> what just happened? >> Nothing happened. >> Oh, >> because AI thought it was smarter than Lori. Lori won.
>> So I made a minor correction, but otherwise it's fine. >> So as amended is supposed to say >> as as amended. >> All right. So motion to >> accept the minutes as >> the minutes. Okay. >> As as corrected. >> That's the motion. >> That's the motion.
>> Second. >> All in favor? given somebody else abain. >> Okay. >> It's still prior to my time. So, >> all right. Whitland bylaw. I'm still working on a training which has been recommended by human resources that we invite everybody and have it at the
library. Um >> training. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. About importance of wetlands and why we should be doing this and all the boards the planning board everybody or just just for the boards. Everybody >> open to the public.
>> And is there an expense to that? >> Yeah, it comes out of training money. Now you have to go. Yeah. All the training money from everybody goes to HR. So I put the request and I put it in the last packet. >> Oh, okay. >> Was the request for the training. >> Okay. >> So I still got to iron out who's coming
and get a estimate and uh whatever. And it's MACC so an expert program. So, >> what's the capacity on a meeting like that at the COA? >> No, she said have it at the library. >> Library. Have it at the library.
>> So, it's probably by January by the time we figure it out and get it all lined up. >> Okay. >> You ready? So, that's it. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? Bye. >> Bye.