[music] >> All right, good evening everyone and welcome to the April 28th meeting of the Lakeville Conservation Commission. We are being recorded by Lake Cam this evening. I'd like to ask if anyone else is recording. Seeing no one, we'll begin like we
always do by introducing ourselves. I'm Mark Minton, I'm the agent. John LeBlanc. Michelle Bouchard. Nancy Yates. Joseph Chamberlain. Mark Docks. William Orfanos. Matthew Ferrara. All right, first on our agenda tonight
is 8 Beach Tree Drive. I will look for a motion to open the hearing. So moved. Second. All right. According to the provisions of Mass General Laws Chapter 131 Section 40 of the Wetlands Protection Act, there will be a hearing on a notice of intent
submitted by Laura and Michael Nashawaty for the repair of a septic system within 100-ft buffer to Long Pond, 100-ft buffer to bordering vegetated wetland and in flood zone AE-57. The location of the project is 8 Beach
Tree Drive, Lakeville, map 43, block nine, lot nine. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street, Lakeville.
Nance? Yeah? Just out of a formality, would you want to take a vote on motion and second to open? >> didn't take the vote. Okay, I'm sorry. All in favor? Aye. All right. And Sorry we didn't put it back to you. Hi
Niles. >> How are you? Uh I was fine until I already messed it up. Uh for the record, Niles Zagwyn from Zenith Consulting Engineers. Um here on behalf of the applicant and owner at 8 Beach Tree. Um typical [clears throat] of this area, we have
very tiny little lots uh right on Long Pond. So we have Long Pond um at the easterly side of the property here, Beach Tree Drive here, and then we also have a BBW um across the street off the property, which does have a buffer that
impacts the property. Um as you can see here is the 50-ft buffer um and then 100-ft buffer runs through the front of the home. The 50-ft buffer from Long Pond runs through the middle of the home, and then 100-ft from Long Pond runs through almost the front of
the property there. Um like all of these septic repairs, uh we have to do what we the best we can with the little room that we have. Uh we proposed what's called a bottomless sand filter, um which is really the besides a tight
tank is the um smallest impact that we can have. Um at like the ones that we've done in the past in front of the commission in front of the board board of health. Um it's a it's raised up out of the ground by a couple of feet uh with blocks all around
it, but it's only about an 8 by I think this one uh 6 by 25 actually. Um so the footprint's very small compared to your conventional system because of the advanced treatment aspect to it uh with the Orenco system. Um this system um
is is is is good as it's going to get uh before you go to a tight tank. Um this has been approved by the Board of Health. Um all the variances that you see before you um were approved. Um there were comments made by DEP about
uh flood elevation. Right. There we are the entire site is mapped as within the flood zone, but this in this situation, so the base flood elevation here for the 100-year storm is uh 57.2. Yep. Um and we actually have a 57
existing contour wrapping around actually a 58 here as well. So there's no change um where the BSF is going to flood zone. There was no impact for compensatory storage at all. Um and then the tanks are below grade. So there's no
change at all uh for compensatory storage. So you can um you know, that comment, I think it was just the fact that it was mapped within it. Okay. >> But we're fortunate enough here that we have that little island here where the the BSF was going. As you can tell, the BSF is being pinned
as far forward as it can be because we have the well here, and we obviously have this area here and the property lines we're keeping as tight as tight as we can. Um so it's as far away from all the resources as possible. Um the wetlands were delineated by
Stephen Schmiel across the way as well as I mean Long Pond is obviously banked, so um it's pretty self-explanatory there. Um but it was uh delineated by Stephen Schmiel and located by our office. Um we do have erosion control um on the
plan for silt sock, and then we also uh provided a dewatering basin most likely going to be needed in this situation when they're installing the tanks. Um so those are all >> show me where the silt sock is? I got a really small copy here. >> Uh it is going from the corner of the home here across to the property line
and up the property line here, as well as the front here and along that uh southern side here into the building. It's kind of like hugging the There's one up here. Okay. And then we provided a detail as well.
Where Where do they get their water? Uh from from well. There's a There's a well or well water. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's right next to that uh kind of behind the house there. Niles >> of hidden next to the benchmark. Does on
the other side of the street um does he own both those lots or just the one it says other land of Nashawaty? It says five and seven. So does it mean that one that's kind of a triangle also? Yes, over here. I think he's talking to the right of that house. >> Yeah, to the right of that. The one
that's yeah, the sideways triangle. This one right here? >> Yes. Um I actually don't know if that I don't know. Um I don't believe so. But again, it's all wetland anyway. Well, that's that's my concern. About that wetland on the other side of the street, seeing as the whole lot's
being taken up with everything else, it that tendency seems to happen on the other side of Beach Tree Drive that that other side gets impacted because there's no other place for cars or boats or
the lake to go. So I'm just thinking I'd like to see that wetland identified somehow, especially if he owns that other lot that's the sideways triangle. So you So I mean the wetland is shown on
there. It is, but yeah, it's shown on the map, but that's not going to stop when people >> Oh yeah, yeah. Oh, so when you mean identified, you mean like something Like I'm saying in the order of conditions in the order of conditions, something that some kind of markers that delineates where that wetland is, so it
doesn't end up with boats or jet skis or cars over there. Are we talking during construction or permanent? I would say >> I don't think we could condition this >> [clears throat] >> to identify somebody else's property as a wetland. No, I don't think we can either. That's why I'm asking. He's not
I don't I'm not knowing if that's the property or not, but I know >> for the for the duration of the work. Say again? >> You want to flag the BBW for the duration of the work? No, I think you're talking about Yeah. permanent. Yeah. So people don't park on it. Yeah.
This historically, this whole I I remember we looked, but I just don't know if that's the lot or not. But there was like an area where everybody kind of parked stuff. [snorts] Uh that I'm not aware of. I I know uh this definitely, this portion here I do not I honestly I don't have the answer
to that. The fact that it was flagged over there, I believe it probably is. I just don't know for sure. I can't I I don't have the answer right here in front of me, so I you know. Nance, could I ask a couple questions, Nance? >> Yeah. Niles, is the dwelling seasonal or year
round? Uh year round, I believe. Okay. Uh everything looks good. The siltation barrier, you just have to leave that opening at the driveway and Yes. >> There's really not going to be much disturbance between the bottomless sand filter and
the driveway, cuz it's going to be just construction upward at that point, right? >> That's correct. Yeah, there's no This is mapped, as you know, naturally within natural heritage as well, uh but this is an exempt exempt act because it's within a lawfully landscaped area and it's for a septic
repair, so it's an exempt act. We sent the letter with the filing to natural heritage. Um so I believe that that's all set. But that they haven't responded to say it's exempt. Um I mean, it's literally right >> They have till May 9th. I believe that's
what Lori said. That was a question she had. Um How about the machinery during construction? I mean, you know, if it I it just needs to be written into the order of conditions that there's going to be large machinery in here and it has
no place to park or go without going to the other side. it's protecting the wetland area on the other side of the road. That is my concern cuz that's still right there. Which way does this land pitch? To the
lake? Yes. Yeah. With the high point, it sets sets the pitch back at the road maybe about 10 ft into the lot from the bottom of the sand filter toward the street. It is the high point where the BSF is right here. This kind of goes a little bit this way and then most of it is generally coming toward the so there is absolutely right there's
a you know Okay. It's generally coming toward the So there is Absolutely [snorts] right. There's a you know the little knoll here. This pitches this way. Most of it pitches toward the Long Pond. The worst part is forward and upland is humanly possible to put That's correct. That is absolutely right. I
mean it's generally very flat. I mean you know if you've been out there it's very flat. We're talking about >> we're not sledding down that hill. No. No. No. It's there's not much more But with all the I guess my concern is all the flooding problems that we've had that my concern is that this wetland doesn't get
filled in which is easily going to happen because there's been problems there in the past. >> [snorts] >> So I think we could address that in the order of conditions. You're still talking about the land across the street. The wetland across the >> I am. It's all the fill is all the
buffer zone and it's the wetland area and that's that's the problem with flooding when these wetland areas get filled in there's no place for the water to go and that's people lost their houses on Long Pond. I just think we need to be cognizant of that issue.
>> during construction will obviously generally be out there. So if there's any major you know concerns and obviously Mike can be out there as well or anybody from the commission can go out there to take a look to make sure there's no impact but I understand if there's a concern about you know in the
future I can't answer for that obviously. >> you think you're taking up the whole lot with Now you're going to have that raised system there right? >> that's only use it I mean it's only this the only part part that's going to be used is this small section here.
This area here really an 8 by cuz with the blocks it's about 8 by 27 with the blocks. >> all right but nothing can park there. That's correct. Okay. And this So you have that we're not impacting the gravel driveway that's there. That's staying exactly as is.
That's not being touched at all. Okay. So yeah so that so that where the system is is far over as we can get it. All right. So there are there is room you know in the front here for that. And the dewatering basin is important too cuz you don't know when you're going to hit Oh well it's going to you're going
to hit water. Yeah. There's no question Right. Especially for the tanks. What is the water table there? My eyes are not good. Uh 2 ft modeling at 2 ft. Which is generally the Yeah. Long Pond
elevation. So I guess I would be happy with if a condition that if anything was to be done on the other side of the road that would have to be they'd have to refile. How's that? Is that a compromise besides having a marker or
some kind of on the other side of the road right? >> Yeah I mean if you could I mean you as a commission could issue an enforcement order if there was anything that happened with that. I mean that's just the reality of it. We are not filing >> Right. As you know we are not showing any proposal of any changes to that that other side so But it needs to be
identified if something was to just so there's an awareness not don't start filling over there so you can park vehicles. >> Yeah. Um so anything that wants to happen over there would require another filing because
or enforce You you look ahead. Yeah enforcement I don't like enforcement. If you can look ahead and prevent it from happening I don't want we don't like going in there with enforcement correct? We're doing that right now too much. If they own the lot that's a different
story but I we don't know if they do right? >> They definitely own the this >> the one to the left. They definitely own that Yeah so we could probably say that for that one you know and put it in the order of conditions. Well how about we'd like to know. It's on the plan.
We could just say as an order of conditions that there is no parking of vehicles or offloading of materials or construction equipment on the bordering vegetated wetland which is across the street. Excellent. Okay. Thank you.
How's that? Yes. So moved. Second. [laughter] We can put that in as part of our conditions. That's that's an additional condition. Okay. But I think that wording should fairly well Along with all our other standard conditions.
>> Of course. Okay. We have no objection to that at all. Okay. And subject to natural heritage No put a wire slide in over there. And subject subject to natural heritage comments. They have till the 9th to comment. They you know you're saying it's exempt.
Let's It's within an existing natural you know existing landscape there. There's no vegetation being taken down and you And if they don't respond by the 9th then you're good to go. Then we could just sign at the next meeting. Yes. Can I ask one question? It's just more curiosity. Like in the notice of intent
where you part B where you go through the different resources um it's flagged that there was gets impacts that I don't know temporary or permanent to bordering land subject to flooding and it's a wash. It says
size of proposed alteration is like 35 uh 3,525 ft square ft plus or minus and then it says proposed replacement. I don't know. It's zero zero because there's no there's no impact to it.
Yeah it it it zeros out so you might have explained this already but that was just one thing I I flagged. Yeah no yeah so there's no impact to that at all. It's work within it. The total work within it but it's not there's no impact. There would be there would be a net if
we were raising the elevation which is what DEP had brought up but we are not. Um everything's you know either the anything that's being raised up is outside the flood zone elevation at 57.2 so we're we're good there. So to make it clear the motion is what
Michelle suggested which we'll go back and look at the big old cam to get it correct with all our other conditions um and no order of conditions until after the 9th of May for any natural heritage response that will be added on.
And all our regular standard conditions. So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay I'll Thank you very much. You're welcome. Have a great night. Thanks. Good luck.
Adam Shea can you pause for 1 minute? Sure. Um all right. Motion to pause for 1 minute. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right. All right. All right.
Mark we're back in session. 150 Bedford Street is next. This was previously opened I believe so we're Yes it's been continued from 324. Again for the record now Ziga from Zenith Consulting Engineers here on behalf of Russo's RV.
What the client is still working with council on an agreement between between the owner and the town. So there's some there's still some information that needs to be accepted and what have you and agreed upon before we
before we move forward. Um I believe we're moving in the right direction but I really wouldn't feel comfortable. I didn't realize that this wasn't my client was supposed to have had this squared away ahead of time with council but that ended up taking some time to happen so otherwise I wouldn't have filed this as soon as I
did. I was informed to file it then found out that it wasn't really at that point yet so we're not we're ready to go. It's just in the plan I don't believe is going to change but I just feel more comfortable if we have the agreement in place before we go in front of the So do you want to continue to the
12th or later than that? >> like to continue it further out. To the 12th or the 26th? >> Let's go with the 26th please. All right so >> you have to deal with the state on this also or are they involved in They're not the the state is involved also. Cuz they're the ones that want to take
the property right? That is portion of it for the state Washington Italian. As part of the Route 79 expansion correct? It's a pretty significant taking. Motion to continue the notice of intent hearing for 150 Bedford Street until May 26th
at 6:30 p.m. here at the Lakeville Police Station meeting room. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Have a great night. You as well. All right. Next is 107 Hemlock Shore Road. Um this was continued from 41426
and they have also requested a continuance to the 12th. I'll make a motion to continue 107 Hemlock Shore Road till May 12th 2026
here at the police station at 6:30. Second. All in favor? I. I. The same for 234 Kenneth Welds Drive? So moved. Second. Also the second, I mean the 12th. Vote.
All right. So, 234 Kenneth Welds Drive also continued Take the vote. to the 12th. >> We have a motion in the second. Yes. I cannot >> [laughter] >> multitask and pay attention at the same
time. Leads to trouble. All right. So, Motion and a second. Correct. All in favor? I. I. All right. So, next on the agenda is off Montgomery Street and Green Lots Circle,
which is also continued from 414 2026. Excuse me. Did you actually say 26? I'm sorry. Did you actually say 26? >> No, I said 414 2026. It's continued from This was continued from hearing now, but
it was ready from a prior meeting. Right. So, it's still next meeting? That one is next meeting. The only one that went to the 26th was the 150 bag. Good evening. How are you doing? Good. How are you? Good. Nice to meet you, Mark, this time. >> [laughter]
>> Uh my name's Kevin Davis. I'm a PE with ET Engineering. With me is Azuetanero. He's a PE and PLS with ET Engineering. Okay. Uh we're here representing Mr. Pergowski for uh Zero Montgomery Street, also identified on the assessor tax map as map map 16, block five, lot one.
Um >> [clears throat] >> when I was here last, the commission had some questions for us, and our goal tonight is to simply respond to those questions and provide more information um to create a good dialogue. So, the first um question the commission
had for us was the verification of the upland bog. Now, I've been reaching out to the Army Corps of Engineers. It's been 30 days. I've sent two emails, multiple voicemails trying to get a hold of them. Um we have not um
had much luck uh in that regard, so we're going to continue working on that. Um we're going to hope 45 days we can get something out of them. Unfortunately, you know, this is going to be the one that delays the project. We
very confident the other additional items will be able to address with the commission fairly quickly. Um And if I might uh just uh add to that, historically, we've done several projects, and uh this is the first time in my uh
35 years that I'm seeing um a project that does not border an identified uh um waterways of the United States. A project that is primarily a farming
operation uh that is typically allowed uh as a farm project where you can actually build your home if you are the owner and the farmer for that project. And uh and uh the records uh
I'm I'm befuddled by the fact that the records The idea of a upland bog is simply an area that was a a high ground that was excavated and lowered for the purposes of a building a bog. It is not synonymous or identical with
the bogs that we we have uh when I was working for the Morse family, uh a lot of those bogs were created where you have a natural wetlands area, and then you divert the water and the ground the area is already
naturally lower. Uh we did a we did a project also where actually two whole acres of a bog, and I can provide that to you. Uh DEP determined agreed with us uh with the
geological maps that we provided that historically it was a high ground. [clears throat] >> Excuse me one minute. >> Yes, ma'am. Are you talking about another case? Well, what I'm saying uh Are you talking about another case at another time? >> Yes. Okay. >> Giving reference.
>> Well, I'm He needs to answer, Mark, not you. Yeah. Okay. I mean a minute uh just Pardon, were they Lakeville? Were they in Lakeville? Well, it it uh it doesn't really have to be in Lakeville, right? If they if they come
in the wealth, it's over. The DEP is some organization that uh reviews stuff that uh that is in the region. Uh that's just for reference, right? Just for reference. Um but uh so, we have gone to
the Army Corps, but I also think that typically, when you have information requests that in writing, just like I'll give you another reference, right? If you uh like what you did with the the previous project that Mark presented, and then you refer to the
fact that, "Hey, they have filled the knife to provide you information. If they don't respond, then you're going to move forward." That's That's why I'm referencing that with the I just Go ahead. I'm sorry. Through the chair. >> Yes, They are responding on the 9th.
Natural Heritage is responding on the 9th. It's not a matter of we're we're moving forward without them. However, if I could >> about Natural Heritage or >> using the comments in our our last hearing about us conditioning for the response by the 9th, which will come.
>> Okay. But I Anyway, I guess I would like to ask a question to his point for the board that might be valid if there isn't a response from the Army Corps of Engineers, would the commission
be satisfied with a a suitable response data and information from DEP regarding the the bog? Yeah? If they if they do that. Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. It's I'm just
>> That's not the process. We've been here before. That is not the process. It's the Army Corps of Engineers um Cedar Pond Preserve is a great Right, Joe? Mhm. Um the Army Corps came in and made the determination because
they're looking to fill 7,000 square feet of that wetland area, and it should be It might take time. They are a another agency, and it's the springtime. Things don't happen in a timely manner. But that's the process, and I did talked
about to Ed Board of Health today, too, and he agreed that that's the process, that the Army Corps are the ones who determine if it was upland bog or lowland bog. Yeah. So, I don't think that's negotiable, no
matter how many other cases you might want to I think it's different for building bogs as to filling them. And the the other project to your point. Yeah, the other project that you're Madam Chair that you're referring to uh was not a wetland project. But uh the
reason I gave the example with the uh the 9th was to demonstrate that even Natural Heritage, where you even might have uh wildlife habitat and endangered species, they have to still act within a timeframe. That's all That's why I was
given that as a reference. That But even I mean the court >> standard. >> Right. The the Army Corps has 45 days as well. That's what I'm saying. That uh we cannot have a project that uh continued at infinitum, right? Without a without a any response. So,
what we can do also, because at the end of the day, uh the DEP >> One more second. >> Yes, ma'am. What's your documentation for contact? Contact at um Army Corps of Engineers? >> forward uh our emails to >> Cuz we have seen nothing.
>> we'll forward the emails to Well, so, part of this meeting, Madam Chair, is to reset and to make sure that we're on the same direction, all right? So, we got to finally get a contact. I didn't know that you had an agent. So, Mark was
gracious to reach out to us and say, "Okay, we want to come and talk to the commission." So, we can now forward the information and and copy him, you know, the emails to >> you make your filing if you don't have proper confirmation for the Conservation Commission? You had to file with us. You
had to know we have a secretary at the office without the email goes to. How How did you file? Uh we filed a notice of intent, just like we did with the previous one. >> I don't have any information about Mark before. I didn't.
But you have a contact information for the office. And we already had a initial review of the plans. >> really. >> And came up with a list of things that you guys were supposed to provide at the next meeting. Yep. And you haven't. And well, so,
that's why I'm here. Uh one of the things, uh if you will, was questioning the lot area. Uh that was one of the one of the items. And I surveyed the property. I certified the property boundaries, and I showed
and then the plan shows you area. So, and my point is, why would you why would we quit irrigating of the property being questioned? And that's That's legitimate. It's It's It's It's a work that I
So, I don't understand why we have to I think the question was if it was a buildable lot and it was done by the planning board. Yeah, was it with planning and that was it approved as buildable? Was it approved as a buildable lot with the planning There are zoning standards
of 52,000 square feet of contiguous upland in order to And we asked the question. So, if you're proving that, great. You did that. We'll check that off. Okay. That is That is not a question. Mr. Chair, we need to have that documentation provided from the town officials that have said that that is
>> Yeah, typically that would be the the building inspector would sign off on that. Right. So, But you guys decided to come to conservation before you went to anybody else. Well, well, because >> So, we don't even know Have you been to the Board of Health? Has Has this
>> we did a perk test, but at the at the end of the day, we have to be good stewards of all our clients' resources. What right here legitimately, this commission is the actual body that will verify whether the wetlands is correct. So, if you if we
don't have the verify the wetlands Yeah, but that's not what you requested. The build the By virtue of filing a notice of intent By virtue of filing a notice of intent, that is within the purview of this commission to review the application.
The building inspector will not review and approve wetland delineation. That is within the purview of this commission. >> No, but there are step there's a step process. I mean, you don't even know if you have a buildable lot. You just made Mr. Knox just made a statement
about the contiguous upland. Well, that's one aspect of it, yeah. What? So, if that if I'm showing that I have less than 80,000 square feet of contiguous upland and the commission says, "Hey, we don't agree with your wetlands delineation." Then it doesn't it doesn't matter. But we weren't asked to
delineate the wetlands, were we? No, the the wetlands have been delineated. And so, if you had any questions, that's why that's why actually this is the first step, right? >> is the second meeting. Yeah. Well, well, my point is I cannot go to the building inspector for anything
until this commission reviews the application. Right? Because you Which Which we did. We reviewed the application at the last meeting. Right. That's what I'm saying. The things we were looking for And we were And you haven't returned anything to us. Go ahead, Adam Shay. You can go to
building inspector and ask for their and file and ask for their approval separate from us. All of the boards act independently based on our purview, but we act in concert with each other, too. We want to know if there are issues that
one board has with another. In this case, there was question about whether or not there is sufficient approved buildable lot space. It's great that you say that you have it, but we need to have documentation from the appropriate town officials that
say that that you have it as part of the process to make sure that we are protecting the resources like you had said yourself. >> Right. Okay. So, through you, Madam Chair. So, are you saying then if I go to building inspector and he says, "Hey, well, I'm not sure about the wetlands that you're showing has conservation
approved the what what you're showing as wetlands, right?" Cuz they're buttons went out there and flag the wetlands to determine that it is contiguous upland area. The building inspector it's not under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts empowered to determine whether the wetlands is correct or not. So, I have to come before you and I think that's the proper thing to do. Now, if you if you have somebody review your wetlands, whether it's your agent
or somebody else that you have as a peer review person, that determination of where the wetlands is are that confines my contiguous upland area. That comes from here. Yeah, you might work in concert with your building inspector,
but the building inspector, even as the zoning enforcement officer, cannot determine or verify whether the wetlands is delineated properly. Okay. He makes an excellent point. He makes an excellent point. So, we should get a peer review done of the wetland line.
Brad Holmes did And was that This uh bordering vegetation inland bank, but that's not the thing. That's not the question here. Brad Holmes Nothing in his report says anything about the upland bog.
And if that's wetlands, that's not and that hasn't been identified as part of the wetlands. That's why it all goes back to the original question of verifying the upland bog. And then we can go from there. And as far as the couple of perk tests that you did,
I there's a great thing that has to It's going to go a long way. There's a pipe has to go all the way up to there. And the fact also that you're looking to fill 9,075 square feet of that bog, we need to know
that it's upland and you're not filling wetlands. We don't even We don't have the authority to let him fill 9,000 square feet. We need to know in writing from somewhere. Nothing in Brad Holmes's report? No, he wasn't
asked that about the upland bog part. Because it doesn't fall to him. Right. Right. Because how is it delineated originally delineated and it's currently delineated. And so, we really need step one addressed.
So, my Do we have We could say we don't have step one. To your point, you want to you want to, you know, make the best use of resources and time and not delay. There are other steps here that could be done in in parallel,
um like confirmation of the actual lot size. What is the plan for the driveway? We did have abutters here that were very concerned about number four on our list. Tail lot of pond and the whole portion of the contract. We haven't the verification of the
conservation easement and contract that's in place. You have a contract in place with you the Department of Agriculture, as far as I can tell, and we haven't seen any of that. So, while we wait for Army Corps of Engineers on number one, we can make
progress on two, three, four, and five. Do we have any answers for any of those for tonight? I have my one area. Now, if you if through Mr. through you, Madam >> We understand it's on the on the map and the plan that was provided, but that's the same as we saw at the last meeting
and and it didn't answer these specific It has the It has the land areas on it. The question now is if you determine that you want somebody else other than um Brad Holmes, I can have Brad Holmes follow up on your questions. But at the
end of the day, at the end of the day, the total lot area is bounded by lines that I have surveyed and certified. And unless you can have somebody else that is licensed land surveyor
show otherwise, I would suggest that the lot area [clears throat] is what it is. The only thing that we will then request of you is to either have a botanist If you don't trust the work that
Mr. Brad Holmes has done, you can have an independent person take a look at that delineation so that once we agree on the delineation of the wetlands resources, then we can move forward. No, we cannot move forward until we have
a determination on the upland bog. This is different than that. I don't have a problem with Brad Holmes's delineation. We've used Brad Holmes in the past. I mean, we could do I I
I don't think it's necessary to do a peer review, but if the board would like to have that done, I don't have a problem with the delineation. I have a problem with Brad Holmes is not the one to make the determination on the upland bog. That's the Army Corps. And you need to
get the information to the office. Doesn't have to be just Mark. You know, it goes through Lori to Mark. He sees it. We all see it. Um of your contact at the Army Corps. And if there's something that we can help you do to get the Army Corps
moving, we'll we will do it. But we need verification who you've contacted and when. We'll provide that information. Not a problem. >> Okay. How many days do they have left? So, once >> know cuz I don't know when they sent it in.
So, that's why I said we'll put submit the email correspondence to you. Yes. Uh but I But I if I have if some Commonwealth and if the DEP has actually historically reviewed
and has ascertained and verified that the upland bogs are upland bogs, that is a good authority to make that determination as well. The Army Corps we This project and I and I respect you what your feelings, Madam Chair, and Are
you going to Are you saying you want to get a determination from DEP in writing that that's an upland bog? I can do that. I can do that. That's why That's why I gave you example, but you know, that we've had projects
that are similar. That's all I'm That's That's all I'm doing. I'm not I'm not I'm not I don't think that I'm I'm across properly, but at the end of the day I'm not what I'm saying when I signed on that cases all I'm saying is we've
had a plethora of projects that we had upland bugs and that's all I that's all I was saying. You don't necessarily have to be in Lakeville because the Southeast region of DEP is
overall region office that oversees all the communities within the Southeast region. We've done work in Freetown and Fall River New Bedford and Bridgewater whatever. That has that's all I'm that's all I'm saying. So if if we can have them chime in
instead of Army Corps because Army Corps they're taking forever. That's all. >> right That's all I'm saying. Well, you're saying that but the proper way is to go through the Army Corps. I think if that doesn't work if you give us the documentation who you've been contacting
and how long you've been contacting them and we can't expedite the process. Could somebody from conservation be included in that correspondence? Pardon me? Yeah. Yes. I would say yes. >> Who is this? Suggest that Mark or Lori be included in
that communication that they're sending to Army Corps. Okay. Cuz Well, he's going to send us what they've sent already. And then we'll go and then >> asking to be included in continuing communication. >> Okay. And we don't have a problem with that. That would be great. >> Yeah, we don't have a problem with that.
>> And and and And if that doesn't work then we'll Yeah. Then we can re >> back and punt. DEP? Yeah. But let's try to do it the correct way first. >> want to make sure that that communication has been made. Why not
include Mark or Lori in that communication? That's all I'm Okay. We don't have any problem with that Madam Chair. That's super. We don't have any problem. We we the so here here's here's our goal is to move for I think
make sure that we all in the same path. Okay? Not to be combative or argumentative but it's just that at the end of the day as an engineer land surveyor I deal with numbers, right? And so whatever the facts are I want the facts out. And all I'm trying to do is
make sure that I'm not only utilizing my client's resources properly and do one step at a time. Do get a conservation because at the end of the day actually you have the most important and I know
we'll make references to a building department board of health planning board. At the end of the day all these other departments build on what conservation does. They don't they can't Take for example
the contiguous upland area. If you do not agree with the wetlands delineation the upland area doesn't make any doesn't carry because that upland area to be contiguous it has to be an area that has been defined with the boundaries of the
wetlands and I'm saying that this indeed is upland. And you verify that line. Once you verify that line then I go to the planning department says I've got a legal frontage I've got more than the frontage you need. I can put my square in that area and meet your requirements.
So that's really what we trying to accomplish. So if if you're satisfied at least with the Mr. Holmes's delineation of the wetlands resource that's a that's a good way
>> are still other the verification of the extent of the conservation easement and the contract that's in place in case there's anything in that contract that you've signed that they need to be notified if something's happening that could affect that tailwater pond or that
piece of land that the contract has been signed. And you can get that from the Plymouth County registry of deeds. I would put that on the agenda. >> Number two through five while we wait
for number one can still be worked on. We every meeting have somebody who comes to us who has already been to Board of Health and gotten review and approval on their project contingent upon then our review and vice versa. So while we work on Army Corps there a few other
questions here that you could get us written responses to that were provided last meeting and that would help us move forward which is what we're doing. We don't want to say just answer number one and then we'll go to number two. Work through the rest while we wait on number one so that we can all move forward
together and have some more information. I I think the concern is if we don't treat it as a wetland but it is a wetland we're allowing you to fill in a wetland. If it's an upland bog you're just altering your farm property. >> Mhm.
And we just we don't want to incorrectly make that assessment. We're not experts at it. So we just like that verification and I I don't think it would be unreasonable if through that communication if we're seeing no response that if you end up
having to go to DEP for that Yep. I I think that that would be a reasonable avenue. Okay. Very good. Well, that is productive to me. The year yeah. Joe. Yes. Conservation easement is that chapter 61 you're talking about? No.
It's with the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has this. Yes and probably Wareham but it's you can look it up through the registry of deeds. Okay. So So can I add one thing? So Sure. the verification of whether
that's an upland bog or a bog feeds into the commission can only authorize 5,000 square feet of alteration. >> If it's above that the Army Corps of Engineers and DEP are
involved both involved. So I mean that question I'm sorry I'm stating the obvious I think but that question and getting that question resolved to the satisfaction of the commission you know and I think they're reasonable but that's that's
central to you know a couple major pieces of of the project. So I think you summarized it really well because you highlighted the fact that the size automatically triggers state review regardless of what Army Corps
says that that it would review. >> If it's a wetland bog. If it's a wetland or if it's upland. So that's resolving that. That's why I went that avenue talking about it. What we've done with DEP. That's that's all. I but I but I I hear So it's So we'll get you
going. Time to move on to we have somebody This is Mills. Just state your name please. >> My name is Dorothy Hefner and I live on 6 Greenlot Circle and we um in front of the
the farm you know. And I was wondering since there was an intent for Montgomery and Greenlot Circle to build the single family home but that's not really correct because the property the house
is going to go on is 98 Kingman Street because the whole property going to a Montgomery and going towards Greenlot is all 98 Kingman Street and Kingman Street is mapped in Lakeville
as a farm and an agricultural entity rather than a standard single family property. So if you since it's 61A so if the person builds the house will
the 61A be divided into regular property tax or still stays as 61A? And another question I had since we determined that he only has 31,000 square feet to build a house
and on Greenlot everybody has 70,000 square feet if that still be permitted and I was just wondering. So those are zoning board questions? Yeah and also the address though since it's really not Montgomery or Greenlot it is really 98
Kingman Street. >> Yep. So that's Even that would be a zoning board question. But then it's really should That would really be worth the applicants having you reach out to the building department because he is
zoning enforcement and you could ask for a zoning determination on that. But then they came really here saying it's a Montgomery and Greenlot but it's not correct. But And they should have came here with 98 Kingman Street.
>> And you're saying it's under a 61 A. 61A? Yes. The whole the whole property is 61A. Yes. This is agricultural. Yes. That has to be updated every year. Yep. Correct Joe? 61B every 10 years 61 and 61A every single
year. Yes. >> Right. So that's another question if that was done if that was upgraded. We just had a big We've had a big problem with that that the list didn't get out of the 61A. I don't know if it was upgraded because when we owned it we always had it under
61A because we also didn't have a personal house there or property. It was strictly farm. >> would give the town a right of first refusal. Yeah no I'm just saying you know. Right. I I believe that an owner can request that it come out of
61A. They have to pay some back taxes. Can you what is the another question? Yeah. Yeah, but that's not in our purview. No. No. No, I understand that, but then And if the transfer has already happened, it would have been triggered, no? A lot of review should have been with
with the property owner. >> has fallen through the cracks lately. That's all I can say. So, Yeah, I'm going to share with you that I'm just asking. what I'm sharing Right. Madam Chair, through you, uh 61A only does has to do with the tax issues. However, for an agricultural
land in agricultural use, the owner that operates that farm has the right to build a house on that property as part of the farm operation. Right, but they pull they pull that piece out and tax it as a residence.
>> Yes. Oh, no, the town can do that, but but the but the but it is not subdividing the land. You're building a house on that land. It's not subdividing the land. >> Okay? And the issue when you have a property that has multiple frontages, you can pick one
frontage. It has frontages on all the Montgomery on the Green Lot. So, that is that was an issue cuz it has several frontages. And um and uh
I'm not going to cast doubt on the debate whether somebody who owned it before built a house there or not. Uh but you can build a house and to Mr. Well the Blass point, yes, you'll be taxed more for having a house there, but you can do
it. You can do >> me the map, block, and lot again, please? Map 16, block five, lot one. Thank you. Does the member of our board on the assessors have any feel for this
Are you you guys at all involved in this? 61A? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, I don't I From my understanding, an owner who owns 61A property can request that it come out.
And if they do build a house on it, it would be taxed as a residential lot. And they'd have to pay some back taxes, I think, too. >> That I'm not sure about, but I'm pretty sure. Yeah. If it's been over 10 years since it's been in, I don't think that applies. Yeah, I think I don't know.
There's a However, how does the Army Corps and everything his my question? In the interest of Conservation Commission, this is all outside of our scope. No, in the the hope of continuing to have some positive progress. A lot of that's really that zoning Go to speak to
the building inspector in zoning. But if we were to issue an order of conditions and it has to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, it would be nice to know what the address is. What the address is. Well, we would go by lot one. That's why I asked the And and Madam Chair, you'll also be looking at
the deed book and page number. That that the property's not put in because that's how the registry records based on the book and page number. We don't really care about the name. Right. That's just for our easy reference. Yeah. So, I think we've
Yes, done everything we can tonight. All right, so we need a Thank you. We need a motion to continue to Which meeting would you like to be the first or the second meeting in May? Um It's the 14th or the I mean the 12th or the 26th.
Um why don't we do the 12th and then we will get the correspondence with the Army Corps of uh to Mark and then at least uh if we get a feedback from them before then,
then that will move things along. Um sorry to Can I ask one thing? So, if you go to the 12th, that's your request, but when's the 45 days? I mean, if Corps of Engineers still has time on the clock. Yeah, that was we
will verify that. We will verify that for you based on the Yeah. >> until they tell you when they reply, so we won't know. We don't have a hard deadline with them like the other day. >> I'm not trying to postpone it, but yeah. If you send us that, we'll know. And you haven't if you haven't heard by the
12th, Yeah. and you wanted to call the office and just request a continuance. >> Yeah, yeah. And you can just by phone request a continuance to the following meeting if you didn't get a response. Yeah. Email needs to be Okay. Get it in writing. Yeah, no no problem. But I I
will I will say Madam Chair, I appreciate the conversations. Um and I will get you I just wanted to narrow down the the discussion about what was what. Um I think it does
Believe me, it's like a building a house. You can't you can't build a foundation until you clear land. And you can't build a foundation until you have footing. So, I think in in in because I have
worked in that the conservation is a foundation. All these other departments are important. They really are. But at the end of the day, they all work deals from your stuff. All right. I have to say it's not helping that you're
telling us our job. There are a couple of us have been doing this for a long time, so we have a We're going to make a motion. That's it. We're going to make a motion. I'm looking for a motion to We'll have discussion. So, we're looking for a motion.
All right, everybody just stop. We'll have discussion. Public comment. Yes. Come. Sorry, Susan. Uh my name is Chris Chris Fabroski. 10 Elmwood Way in Bridgewater. I am Cody's father. I uh I also own a
cranberry farm. Okay. I'm an Ocean Spray cranberry farm. Uh Cody's looking to put a house on the farm, as you know. And that that property there, you know, for the research I've done on it, Montgomery and Kingman is all upland. That was dug out previous years, made into a cranberry
farm. He's not here to Quite frankly, anyone, I'm also a home builder. You know, you would take that property and you would fill Montgomery and Kingman in houses, which he would end up having the right to do. It's upland on that whole road side, which I guess we will be determined.
He's trying to work a cranberry farm that quite frankly is going to be something that's going to be generational that is not going to continue cuz it is something that is very little money in it anymore. And to be able to do the work that he is required, it is almost crazy at this
point. So, you know, just take in mind that he you know, he's trying to operate and keep a wetland, a cranberry bog, a farm, you know, through the years. He wants to farm it. It is not an easy task. He's asking for
a small portion. The portion of cranberry bog that he's looking to fill is is minimal. I understand the back bogs were wetland bogs, but the upland is I you know, I would ask you any of you to look at Montgomery and Kingman. You know, quite frankly, there could be
houses all the way up and down. And he's trying to maintain it at a cranberry farm and put a little house. So, it I just like you to look at take a look at the property. We're not authorized to make that determination. That's why we're hoping that the Army Corps will respond. And I understand
that. We have we have nothing against this project. >> Yeah. We just don't want to authorize filling of the wetlands if we were wrong Understood. >> That's all we're looking at. I'm just saying that we we are we are covered with cranberry farms, small farms in
this area. Yeah. And it is it's going to be difficult to maintain that in the next generations cuz it's hard to do. And a lot of guys, young people, are not going to sign up for that. Understood. So, he's trying to maintain that farm and live on it.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> [snorts] [clears throat] >> My name is Cody Fabroski and I am the one who is quite honestly dreaming about putting a home on this property. This was the
first property that I bought. Um recently I've been, you know, married and looking to start a family. And this has been a very very tough process trying to get a home in here. But with that said, I would just like to
ask [snorts] the board if there is any way that you can answer if there's transparency. And I know that there was a a project done across the street on 69 Kingman Street uh over the past couple years. Uh there was also 10,000 square
feet of bog filled in over there. Um I'm 100% aware of this. I'm very close to, you know, the the the farm across the way. They just completed their house, I believe, last summer. Steve Steve Foisy's property. >> Steve Foisy, yeah, correct.
Um so, I was just curious if the Army Corps of Engineers was required to uh sign off on anything to mark that property as upland before they filled in that. I don't remember that. 69, Joe? I don't remember. I Coming before us?
>> We should also remember that by Massachusetts law, uh Conservation Commission decisions do not set precedent. So, what was done someplace else, some other time, has no bearing on
something that's coming before us. Right, but I I think it's fair to say that they're quite identical in what we're asking to do in the projects. They're both if you looked at them from a top view, they look like they're one farm. They
connected they carry the same waterway. My my pond feeds their feeds their farm and they had a large bog in the middle that they had to fill in 10,000 square feet of in order to have the necessary room to build their home. They filled
[snorts] in that 10,000 square feet and to my knowledge they utilize and I'm not you know, privy to exactly what code it was but there was some code that they were able to utilize which allowed them to square off a bog is what it kind of
fell under squaring off a bog up to 10,000 square feet and it was you know kind of looked at as for farming operations but it was essentially what allowed them to also build their home. >> the address? 69 Kingman Street. And I do
remember some that could have been a DEP thing. It had to have been by us if they're talking about filling in 10,000 square feet. That was way by us. Because I was part of the project. >> us, what do you mean? It it triggered we can't even do anything over 5,000 square
feet. It triggered state. It was mentioned at the last meeting. I believe Mark himself also identified that a project similar to this had been uh brought before you recently. So I I again I just figured it was
definitely worth noting and questioning as to whether or not the processes have been you know, the same throughout because I'm just experiencing a very difficult time you know, getting just a small home there. Again, it's
just me and my wife were desperately trying to start a family and just carry on and uh it's it's it's difficult and I understand that there's processes and these [snorts] processes are important to preserve you know, the beauty of you know, where we live
and uh so I respect it but at the same time I just it's very hard for me to swallow certain things when I'm I'm looking at another young family across the way who did exactly what I'm trying to do and I'm wondering how or why.
I'm sure. When did you apply for this? Um apply for what exactly? When did you send the notice to conservation? When did you apply for your I would have to review it. I don't know off the top of my head but it's been it's been a little bit now.
3 months? Within If that was Say February 3rd, 2026. I mean it's not unusual for requesting a fill. Right but I I was there from the time that this gentleman bought that farm to
the point where he filled it into the point >> that cuz I I do recall the property but I don't recall Cuz I was in the process of buying my home. Yeah, also his bog might have been delineated separately differently by the state. And that's the questions I'm looking at.
That's why we say everything is as uh Joe mentioned it's it's not precedent for a reason cuz every single property is different so their bog might have been identified differently by the state and it's a case by case but the process hasn't changed when it comes to conservation commission and the steps
that we need to take and that's why at the last meeting we carefully crafted the list of information that we needed um and we're hoping to have back by this meeting. There are five things. Can I ask to just give you guys a little put
that address? Yes and I'm not quite sure where she came up with that idea. There is a there is a it is a two parcel uh property but the 98 [snorts] Kingman Street is up at the corner. It was >> That's right at It was right at the corner, right. We're not doing anything
up there. That's I'm Oh, I'm sorry. Um The 69 the 98 Kingman >> Kingman, correct. Request just even through email. Uh get Mark's email. Yep. Request through him and our secretary Lori
to pull up the file on that. Right, okay. It's it's public information. We're not trying to log jam you. Uh I think that there's a lot more moving parts to yours than what that project was but use that as a tool. Give it to your
engineer and if there are similarities and if there's a a link that can prove that it's an upland bog. I I still think we want the data from No and I and I agree with that. >> I think the engineer on that project did do some of that in advance
or it was provable through a terracing that was done that it was an elevated bog. Right. I I don't remember all but I know exactly who you're talking about. >> Yeah, but pull the file and help us help you. And I did want to mention one other thing as well. I know
one of the abutters made a uh who you know, unfortunately was the one who I I did buy the property from um >> [snorts] >> did make a fuss about a shared driveway. Um I just I I I would encourage that to be reviewed quite honestly because the
driveway is 100% on our property. We simply gave the seller um a temporary easement to just access their shed on our driveway and that expires when when they pass away or sell the home. So that was one of the questions we had was the verification of
easement. So if you can send that over to the secretary, that would answer number two. Okay, absolutely. Number two? Number four. Number four, sorry. But that was for if they do have an easement what the for number four was
what the plan is during construction for them to be able to they have an easement And now can I can I ask a again this isn't my um So the the easement is simply just to give them access [snorts] to to their
garden shed and quite honestly they have a massive backyard where they they don't even use it. It was really I hate to say it but I think it was it it was put in as a tool to kind of stop us from doing something that they didn't want even though they sold us the
property knowing our intent. Um >> [snorts] >> So essentially I don't really understand why we would have to do anything special for this driveway that is ours. We just we're just allowing them to use it to get to their shed and if they >> That's a question for your lawyer. Yeah.
If it's a legal easement you can't and you know, I You can't impact it during construction if it's planned. Or [snorts] or to what extent? All right, to what extent? We we could just have steel plates available on site
so if they access that roadway we just put the steel plate down. They could cross the steel plate and then continue construction. >> That would be something we could add to our order conditions. It's a very simple fix. >> Yeah, for the for the record I thought you might have said that before. Yeah, I I thought I had mentioned that before but yeah, we just get steel plates.
Okay, that's and that be a simple fix. And having you know, the proof of that easement and then the plan cuz the quest the question and the abutters question was what's the plan um for the record the certificate of compliance for 69 Kingman was voted on and approved on 8
of October 2024 and I believe that was already several years past the work. Um our former chairman was still in place and he was familiar with the property and had done some reviews there when he was still the agent. Okay. Um so
we're looking at going back 5 years on where their project had started cuz we gave >> The approval process cuz we gave their compliance cert in October of 2024. So um again while the process hasn't changed the properties are very are very different and you've got some
complications and we're trying to help you. We understand it's incredibly frustrating and very glad that you're saving that land and not putting up 10 houses to be honest. Um but we just want to work through these questions. And I I understand that and I also do just want to mention that I know that the the
conservation um the you know, the the the contract that's in place for the you know, out back there. I mean we have no intention on and and I'm sure you'll see it through the plan but we're nothing that we're doing involves anything back there. I mean that's all
that's really no use to us anyways is other than just you know, using the water for our operations and the pretty view. So um there's definitely no construction to to be done in that area as far as
you know, I could say. To to Mark's point please reach out. Lori is always in the office. I'm in there it varies but we're happy I'm happy to if you want to look into
this project and and see what was done. I'm curious now too so probably going to take a look myself but um yeah, reach out and we find we can find a time where I'm going to be there but Lori is almost always there so you can
come in and as Mark said it's they're public records so you can >> Right, yes. No, I'll definitely utilize that. I appreciate it. That's it for me. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so let's try again for a motion to continue
off Montgomery Street {slash} green lot >> SE 192 Thank you. To May 12th at 6:30 p.m. at the police station. >> So moved. Second. No more discussion. >> [laughter] >> All in favor I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I Thank you for coming. And if you have questions you got Mark's contact information um Lori's it's all on the website as well. Please call the office, email us. And again, any any of the things on the list that you can do in the interim and
get us the information, that's going to expedite getting to a point where the commission feels comfortable. We we just answered number four, it sounds like. So But But nice to meet you. Nice to meet you
guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. >> Good luck. Have a good night. All right. Next up, 30 Howland Road. Um Motion to continue. Seems like Second. >> been requested to
May 12th at 6:30 p.m. at the police station. >> So moved. Second. All in favor? >> I. I. All right. Next up, >> [laughter] >> You don't come to that meeting. Four Furlong Four Furlong Circle
is a request for a certificate of compliance. Mark, This is a oldie moldy. >> This is an oldie, isn't it? So They're Yeah. Um They Okay, so one of them Is it both? Uh it was a pool that was never built.
That's the SE192461. All right, I approved that one. All right. And then >> If if it was never done, do we just want to We don't want to approve it. We want to Well, it's got It's got a There's a check mark on the thing that says never completed, right?
>> Never Okay. Thank you. >> what order of conditions is standing in the old day? Okay. Yeah, there're and there and these these folks are I guess trying to close their their selling now. >> They're triggering, yeah. And then >> That's the only Let's do one at a time.
All right, so Let's do one at a time. Sale of a house is the ultimate trigger for compliance. So motion to issue a certificate of compliance for SE192461. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. All right. What's the second one, Mark?
The second one was for a septic and the certificate of compliance was approved by the commission. It just was never filed with the registry of It says It says construction of a single family home with the associated appurtenances.
Construction of single family Yeah. Doesn't say a Yeah, this is an old The COC was issued but was never filed with the town So we need a >> a COC So we need a We need a copy. We need a motion to pull a copy of the
signed certificate of compliance from 2005 and file appropriately with the county. County. Yeah, we might not be able to find that. I think we need to issue a new >> Yeah. All right. So motion to issue a new certificate of compliance >> Is the house [snorts] built?
Mark? Yes, it was a septic. >> Yeah, I I think I need to recuse. I worked on that >> [laughter] >> So uh I don't think you need to recuse yourself. All right. So we'll look for a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for SE192408.
>> So moved. >> Second. All in favor? I. Okay. We waive you from needing to abstain abstain due to age. Not your age. Of the work. [laughter] Well, both at this point.
So we have two to sign, Mark? Uh we got Yeah, well, two for Yeah, two COCs and then Beech Tree, No, no, no, no. If we have Oh, did we >> Yeah, Beech Tree, we approved that. >> We did approve it, okay. I think we have not But we weren't going to sign it.
We're not signing it because they have Yes. >> Okay. We've We've approved >> meeting to sign that just to make sure that we didn't give them approval without Right. the approval. Yep. My bad. All right. And the other thing that was in your file, you know, with these
two items that I had Lori copy, both showed up in the Boston Globe having to do with water. So that's our ultimate protection thing. So I just threw those in there just for information. Motion to adjourn. We getting updates?
Um 52 Clear Pond Road? >> Very quick, if you want a quick update. Sure. Go for it. Well, we got pictures We got pictures in Steve Schmiel's summary of the meeting. >> And we found wood chips somewhere else in town. No.
Uh Shocking. Did you DNA them? Did you DNA match them? >> Correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but the applicant is going to file a notice of intent now to do the septic system. To do the line, just that pipe. >> The whole system. The whole system. >> It all ties in. So there was some
confusion by that engineer, not the wetland scientist, that his engineer for the septic system thought that it could be an amended notice of intent, not realizing that we're operating everything under the enforcement order. >> Just out of curiosity,
I'm not going to say it right now. Uh So that said, uh We We walked the site. Everything looked good. There's still a little bit of wood chip left. Steve Schmiel Schmiel had said that uh Derek needed to grub away some that was
still left at the trees. They didn't get too close with the excavator to not damage the trees. They were going to do that by hand. There was still a little more removal, but he was going to make an assessment cuz some of it was maybe like an inch or two left, but he didn't want the hydric soils underneath there
removed in order to over remove. So he made the concession or made the suggestion that they would concede to leave a little bit of wood chip, but you can see on the trees where they've removed >> And you guys were cool with that? Yeah. Uh no, that that was something that the board needs to decide on. We
weren't making that decision as much as I wanted to come back and let the board decide, but on Steve's recommendation, I don't think that Yeah, we'd want to overrule him being the wetland scientist. Uh and I wanted to say uh I think Mark's an excellent representative of Lakeville
and the commission out in the field. He does a good job of Oh. Jokes. neutral presentation of Do we values. >> [applause] >> Ronald Ronald you can. You are welcome to. I'm the only one though, sorry.
>> [laughter] >> Um yeah, and so it's moving forward. Uh I think Steve is going to do the planting, so And they got their their uh silt fence up and silt socks up, right? >> Yep. Well, it's to the right of the rest
of the wetland because they're still Yeah, doing the work in that section of the wetland. Uh >> [snorts] >> They felt like and they had all the pipe there. It wasn't already buried. that if they filed the notice of intent, they thought they could make the meeting
for [snorts] May 12th. >> Yeah. So that's So that they could start immediately. They may do the work before they receive the order of conditions. Well, they already put the tank in, right? Did they build the field? >> But Steve agreed that the pipe should go
in before the plantings. Yeah. And it wouldn't be That's not harmful. So they they were going to put in that paperwork to get the notice of intent for the septic system filed so that we don't have to do an RDA on top of and they didn't want to piggyback. He suggested actually just
ask for forgiveness and I said I don't think the board would like that. >> we already talked about that before. We wanted them to do the work and file a notice of intent. Uh so they'll be back, but I think it looked good. What do you think, Hal, as far as the appearance of what they've done? I think it looks great. I think it looks a
whole lot better and you can see from the pictures I'm you know, it's not 5 ft of wood chips. And where did they go? Well, that gets us to the next complaint. >> [laughter] >> I could use some at my house. So if they have extra Ronald took them all for making compost.
And we know what happened the last time they had a compost pile out back. The fire? Yes. Was it Was it on on their property? I'm not sure. >> Yeah. Okay, Mark. Enforcement order? Um So we got a complaint late Friday
afternoon or um down on Central Ave and Clark Shores and there's some pictures there. Big beach. And it's the boat ramp association boat ramp. So I'm going to reach out. I haven't had
time, but tomorrow to to put up some siltation cuz you walk on those wood chips and you're floating. You can see in the pictures. >> So is this something the association or is it an individual? No, it's the association property, so it could be an
individual, but uh >> It's It's a representative of the HOA. Yeah, the the name >> to get some kind of siltation up there immediately or all those wood chips with the rain on Thursday going to be in the pond. Yep. So we got a complaint from a resident
that somebody had come in and cleared trees on their property. I think it might have been on the other side by there's a beach there. I don't Uh but I did Yeah. It's not totally clear where the property line is, but I think it wasn't the
property owner and I guess there's a long history. Well, if they It sounds like they removed the survey markers, so they were trying to not say where the property line was Yeah. >> to give them a little wiggle room. So we're going to get some clarity on that. So the first step is to
so you know, make sure it doesn't all land in the Stop and block. Landscaper giving us a >> Stop and block. Stop and block. That an order of technology? Who do we issue the the enforcement order to? Who do we issue the >> name. That's what it came up on the
Yeah, it's their property. Lori pulled it up on the you know the Yeah. They own the the boat ramp strip. And that you know when you pull up the town website those lines aren't perfect but it's close enough but So, that's all I It's a way to generate business.
>> [laughter] >> Mark starts handing out cards. I got a story after a while. All All right. So, Motion >> Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank god. All right. Thank you.