Okay. Good evening everyone and welcome to the March 24th meeting of the Lakeville Conservation Commission at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street. Um Lake Cam is recording our meeting tonight. I'd like to ask if anybody else is recording. Seeing nobody
raising their hands, we will move forward and begin by introducing ourselves tonight. >> John Leblanc, >> Nancy Yates, >> Mark Knox, >> William Minos, >> Matthew Pereo. >> All righty. First on our agenda tonight, Mo South Avenue.
I can >> put your board on the mics, please. >> Sorry. >> Uh Greg from Alpac Engineering representing N 911. Um you would continue because we needed to get board of health approval. We did get that just
this past Wednesday on the plan. Um the system they put in is uh to put a microfast treatment system in the tank and a presby in the field. So it uh is much more efficient and uh breaks down the waste much faster than a normal
septic system. Um, one thing >> and we did receive the new plan >> today. >> What's that? >> Today looks like received March 24th, but she hasn't been in. So maybe it just got stamped in today. >> Um,
I know we brought it early yesterday. >> Okay. Um it's very similar to the original plan. There were some minor changes. The one request that the board of health had was the the well in front um the existing well be abandoned. Um and did
they hook up to the existing uh there's a local water system? Um that goes for the whole property I think for the whole association. They want you to hook up to that as opposed to do the well. Um the other minor change from the last u
um plan when we were here a couple weeks ago is the um um the applicant would like to remove the deck and add a front porch. It's about the same amount of uh the deck is right up here in the corner. He wants to add a front porch and keep remove the deck and it's about the same
amount of square footage. So it would be the same amount of impervious surface and it doesn't say it on the plan but the two sheds that are on the edge of the wetland would be removed and any other debris that's on that site would be removed as part of the project. So
any questions in we have to vote to accept the new revised plan. >> That would be a good idea if we don't have it 10 days in advance. We usually >> I'll make a motion to accept the revised plan for for South Avenue. A second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> So these the two sheds that are near the wetland area are going to be removed. >> Yeah, >> that will probably be in your order conditions. >> Actually, a trailer will be towed out of
there. Somebody left an old refrigerated trailer on wheels. So, >> two sheds in a trailer. >> Nope. >> No, one one we're calling it a shed, but one's a trailer, one >> 70% of the shed trailer. >> Okay.
We never did get out there to review the well online, but it's been approved by the board of health. Anybody have any uh comments, questions? I did ask Ed when I was in there today um about if we should say about this
lot, about anything else. Anything else that you're going to put on here would have to come back to us anyway cuz they said there was a possibility you could fit a garage on the Walnut Street side. >> Really? >> I didn't think there'd be enough room.
>> I didn't either. >> We have to get approval of not regardless. >> Zoning board. >> Yeah. We can't hear. >> Yeah, please. might be all I have to say. >> Well, you can repeat what you said about
the trailer. >> The shed is mostly a trailer. >> Okay. Thank you. Say your name, please. >> Chris Chap. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thank you, >> Nancy. If I could. >> Yes, please. >> Um, I guess I would suggest that within the order of conditions. Uh it clearly
state the steps of removal of the sheds and trailer shed and trailer just because it shows them downgradient of the silt fence. So if there's any disturbance just a note or something just to as how to remedy that situation.
Obviously the trailer on wheels. >> Mhm. Yeah. And so the other one may disturb a little soil or the >> the grass and just how that's rectified or if the silt fence needed to be >> adjusted to do that.
>> Okay. >> So how do we want to say that? And you don't want to leave it up in the air. >> No, I so I use as an example. >> Okay. >> Uh I actually came in front of conservation for one of my projects at one point for
my my business. >> Okay. and I needed to have the an area treed. And so I came before the commission to ask permission to tree it prior to the
silt fence going up, but no stumps would be removed until >> the silt fence was up. was up the silt fence was up so that they wouldn't be dropping trees on the silt fence and compromising it but no disturbance to
the soil would be done. So I don't know if it's just an order of things that could be explained with the is it possible for you to remove the shed and trailer? >> It's it's all of 35 square ft >> prior to the erection of the silt fence.
Oh yeah, >> it's not very small. You know, like we just say that the silk fence should be erected and no work should be done until >> and trailer and shed should be removed >> and just include that in the silk fence erection note that we put on the order
of conditions. >> So the trailer and shed removed before installation of the silt fence. >> Yeah, it just looks like they're half in the wetland anyway according to where the line is. So it might make sense to just get him out, set up the fence, and not worry about it. Is is is that
feasible for you? >> Absolutely. Okay. Anybody anything else? >> Good. So motion to close the hearing and issue an order of conditions with all our standard conditions
and a an additional one that says the trailer and shed will be removed before installation of the silt fence. >> So moved >> and the agent will be notified once fence erect. >> Well, that's on there. That's >> Yeah. >> Uh John made the motion. Yep. And I
second that motion. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Yeah, that's on that's on that's our standard order conditions. That's right up front on all of them. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
All right. What's next? Next is 30 Holland Avenue. And um they have requested a continuence to April 14th, 2026. So I need a motion. >> So moved. Second
>> to continue to 6:30 p.m. at April 14th here at the Blake Police Station meeting room. >> Okay. Second. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I >> Okay. Off Montgomery Street and Green
Lot Circle. We had previously continued that to April 14th. >> Mhm. So, so >> inadvertently on the agenda. >> Inadvertently on the agenda. All right. Um 150 Bedford Street has requested a continuence for two meetings. So, they
are asking for April 28th. >> I move that we continue the 15th Street hearing until April 28, 6:30 here at the Lakeville Police Station meeting room at second. >> Second with the discussion is we are
Nope. No discussion. All in favor? I >> I >> 234 Kenneth Welch Drive. Uh good evening. Uh Garrett Horsefall with Kelly Engineering Group. Uh civil site engineer for the project. Um with
me tonight is Jeff Wyman from Campanelli Companies who is the design build um contractor for the project representing the owner as well campus LLC. Um they own a conglomerate of buildings on Ken Kenneth Walls Drive. Um there's a couple
other freezer buildings that are under the same entity as well. Cold Storage is a cold storage solution solutions. Yeah. Is is the tenant year. Um the existing building is about a 39,000 uh square foot cold storage facility. Um there's
an access curb cut off of Penn Drive and the BVW line in the back is this purple magenta line that was flagged in November of last year by John Rockwood of Ecotech. Um we have some applicable buffer zones here at 25, a 50 and 100
just for reference um on the property. Um drainage today on the site um slopes about 20 feet from elevation 81 to elevation 62 at the wetlands. So the grade actually sort of falls steeper off as we get closer to the wetlands. Um
however it does all drain um there today. There's a series of catch basins and drain manholes that go to uh storm water management pond that's located roughly here. There's also another storm water management pond that takes a portion of the roof. And then in 2008
when this building um was first constructed um there was a outfall um from the Kenneth Waltz Drive drainage system into the site that was rerouted um with a head wall over here on this side of the building. Um if you do go in the field um the wetland scientist did
just flag that um just for protection during construction just so we you know they adhere to it and stay out of it. It's really a constructed swale um post96 as described in the letter um that we did submit for this um notice of intent here. And the proposed plan here
is to construct about a 29,000 ft addition um to the freezer building. Um it's primarily just increased storage space for primarily seafood products or cranberries. um they're mostly going
they're probably going to be seafood products, but um they're eyeing cranberries at the same time. They they store both products in a lot of their facilities in here. Um so what we be proposing here uh is a small expansion of four new loading docks. Um three new
parking spaces. Really, there's no new employees coming here. It's just they're just looking for extra storage space or product. Primarily the employees are primarily going to stay the same. So that's why we really haven't added much parking here. We did add three new spaces just because there will be a office component here um that's added
here just the existing main entry will stay here today. Um in terms of storm water management systems what we're proposing is to um essentially reconstruct and move the existing storm water basin which is roughly um this portion here um portions of the addition
would be in it. So we be constructing a new infiltration basin um at that corner of the site. We do have a water quality device u for all the paved surfaces um that would provide TSS and water quality prior to discharging into the infiltration basin in the back. Um that
would be all of this paved surface as well as some of the roof gets there. Um there's a split in the roof. So the back portion >> Could you point out where the old >> Yeah. Is that it? That little teeny square right there? That's the old storm water. >> It's there's a level spreader here. It's
kind of there's a throat here and it kind of we're basically in it. It's kind of over it. Um but there's a four bay component. You just kind of there's a 4 bay component here and then there's a larger infiltration section here. Basically,
>> so there's no place that says existing conditions in your plans. >> Uh we have a sheet two or sheet three of the plan existing infiltration basin. They're not over >> on the grading plan. It would be
overlaid. >> Are you looking at the plan? >> If you turn to six, it's overlaid with no infiltrator within the proper basin. Just gray in the background. Existing
infiltration basin. Simply it is want mine. You got it. There you go. Okay. Sorry. >> Sorry. I just feel um there there is another infiltration basin here that
takes portions of the roof. And what we found out during some of our research and files provided by the town is that these two existing basins um were designed to accept the whole entire roof as mitigation here. when they built this in 2008. From what we can discover in
the field, it looks like a portion of this roof just has downspouts and possibly, you know, just discharging out this way. So, we're correcting that here with a new subsurface infiltration practice here to design it how it was supposed to be built back in 2008. Um,
so that's it does not appear that some of this roof actually gets to the basins as was proved previously. So that's why we have the additional um blue box here which is a subsurface um infiltration structure um on the side of the site. Um
closest work of the addition is about 25 ft um from the wetlands. We held 25 ft as our buffer for this addition. Um really wanted to go as large as they could get. Obviously want to respect what buffers um there are for the addition here. Uh we did essentially
this was the closest point but as you fan this way it does increase in buffer. Um there's no grading in the 25 um past um this point. There will be some slight um work within it. Um just for the construction of the building and foundation but we restore it to however
the commission you know sees fit at the at the end of construction over here. Um but the rest of the building um portions of it within the 100 foot buffer zone the infiltration basin you know complies with D's setback for infiltration practices of 50 ft um and is designed
for obviously u peak mitigation and um water quality um D standards essentially for the entire storm water system here. Um, we would have a whole O andM plan for the entire site and you know, erosion control practices. Um, so fence
adhere. Yep. >> Are you taking down a lot of trees for that little blue line on the side there? Looks like it goes into the tree line. >> It's there's a a slope here, but we would we could adjust it as needed to be outside the tree line if needed. again
um but we want it to be 10t off the building but um the hope would be not to disturb any trees just because we want don't want to disturb that soil at the same time. >> Okay. >> But it's right along the edge of the slope here. So which basically run right
along the tree line. Well, you understand what I'm talking about though. >> Yeah. I guess with that, I just open up to any other questions the commission may have. >> If you don't mind. >> Yeah. >> Just curious. It's really not a wetland question as much as construction on. As
I look at that plan, I guess it would be the north corner of the new addition, the closest portion to the wetland. uh grade drops off obviously a ton back there. Is that going to be a giant concrete exposed foundation where you have it looks like the grading comes in
uh substantially a distance from the corner. Is that just going to be >> we would have an extended foundation wall there. We are in front of the ZBA on Thursday for height relief here. This actually is an existing non-conforming structure relative to height. Um so but due to the topography change we are in
front of the on Thursday for the ZBA as well as planning for site plan review on Thursday as well for this project. Um so we are making a stop there for relief relative to what you correctly pointed out is the elevation uh change as it goes back to the building. We did contemplate putting retaining walls
there but that would just you know be closer to the wetlands etc. Um didn't really make sense from constructibility standpoint just because you're load bearing on a retaining wall at the same time. So, the decision was made just to have an extended foundation wall back here is sort of the least intrusive
practice um to the wetlands as well. >> And you'll notice too uh the grade works its way back up as you go left to right on the plan of the addition. So, there's only a small portion with an exposed foundation wall. >> I I can see that. >> Yeah. >> Um
>> I I don't believe wetlands counts towards lot area. Is your lot coverage still within the >> Yep. right under 50%. We've deducted the storm water basin as well as per the bylaw outlines. Um and the wetlands have been been deducted as well. We're right
at about 49.8 or right there. >> Looks like you'd be close. >> We we did look at additions on other lots here as well. Those were already over um you know coverage components on those lots. So they were, you know, this was sort of the lot that was chosen just
because we had the ability, you know, within zoning to propose something. Um, it's really a note to the owner more than anything. Just the GIS image you showed us initially of the site. Uh, doesn't look like you do a lot of
maintenance to the storm water and you should probably reinstill in them that that operations and maintenance is really designed for them to keep that in good working order and that they >> maybe have a plan. You know, >> don't disagree with you because I was looking for it on the aerial and it's all overgrown. So
>> yeah, >> point noted they'll be adhered to if the commission wants to see reports for the next fine as a condition just to document compliance or >> completely agreeable to that. >> Nancy was a peer review suggested on this.
>> Yes. >> Yes. It's >> and that's pending still. >> It's pending with Deb Keller Merrill Engineering and they've already dropped off a check and she's working on it. She'll be reviewing for planning as well. So, we just put one joint peer
review. No, that's great. >> For ease of >> Is it town water here? >> It's on top water. Yeah. >> T water. >> Mhm. >> Is there sewer? >> There is a septic system in the back. Just due to the no zero flow here, they're actually going to convert the
existing tank tanks. Yeah, I saw that >> and I think the board of health agent Ed sent a note on the planning file um earlier this week about just in regard to that and didn't seem to have any issues with it and obviously we'll just prepare the plan to but there's really how many there three people in here it is
>> it's basically product >> real three people >> it's >> yeah there's yeah it's really no more than five at a time one in the office and a couple guys moving product from the freezer to the loading docka
I actually have a business in there and I'm outside of the uh required a butters list so I can speak to this but I do see and I think it's from some of those freezer buildings too. It looks like some employees maybe drive from one
building to the next like part of there's there's a flow from >> so Cold Storage Solutions uh operates out of 234 Kenneth Welch Drive which is the building we're talking about 230 and 220. So right now 220 and 230 store cranberries and this building stores
seafood. But yeah, there's definitely some flow of employees as uh needs arise in other buildings depending on when um the product is. >> So you could be at a low of three and five in another and then those same guys are just going to shift from building.
>> Exactly. Because cranberries are harvested and moved at a different time than the seafood is. So Yep. >> There's no kind of overlap. So I guess Nancy for you in your notes >> working on a couple of orders of conditions. One would be cuz by for next
time I'm going to go back to this but so you know in advance that um I'm going to say the applicant will attempt to leave the tree line and we'll not um notify our agent if trees need to be taken down on the surface recharge area. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah, we would have a lot we would
state the limit of work here prior to construction. >> Try not to. But if you're actually going to be taking down trees just let them know. >> Yeah, we could even put coordinate that with the silk sock and silk fence over here as well just so that we can have that in the field and have a discussion and say >> um you know we can
>> Okay. And the second thing will be that we will want we'll see whatever Deb recommends for um reports on operation and maintenance and we'll put that into if she says she wants it what by yearly or how however she wants it that we'd like copies of those reports.
>> Perfectly fine with us. >> Okay. All right. Sorry. What else? >> Um I'm going to piggy back off your language on the back of the building where you're picking up the roof drainage. That blue line. >> Yep. the the existing roof drainage. >> Yes. Yep.
>> Swale. >> The swale is inbound in here. It's actually >> And what is that new system? What did you call it again? >> That's just a subsurface recharge system. It'll be the arch sort of subsurface chambers. Um Colt would be the one of the vendors. But
>> okay. I think that should be part of the review, Nancy, just to make sure that it's suitable when a peer review looks at the entirety of >> at all. She's going to look at all the engineering, I would assume. So that at the whole site. >> Yum. >> Isn't this She's doing it for the planter board too, right?
>> Correct. Y >> we take Sometime the planning board takes the lead, sometime we take the lead because of the um extensive wetlanding in the back. We took the lead on this one, >> but we wanted to do double duty. So, we work try to work in tandem.
>> Oh, we appreciate we trying to get it all under one one roof to review it just for ease of town's purposes too. Just, you know, have >> separate reports coming in. So, but >> my point with the four bay system that you're going to propose to put along that back of the building to pick up the roof runoff
>> that does not have an overflow, >> correct? It's not storm be designed big enough to catch everything. So, we don't have to any overflow running >> beyond it to go down the >> size of a 100ear storm. Yes. Okay.
>> We've had enough of those lately. We shouldn't be having any more, >> right? >> Anybody else? >> No, we're good. >> Matt, >> John? >> No. >> So, you were going to look for You're
asking for a continuence to >> Is your next meeting April 14th? >> Yes. >> Let's see. We'll we'll continue to the 14th and then if it's the stuff's not back yet, we'll you can just ask for a continuence to the 28th. I think >> you don't need to come in if it's >> Yeah.
>> Nobody's prepared. You can Oh, yeah. We're going to call the office. >> We probably won't, you know, hopefully next time we're here, it's to discuss, >> you know, approvals and >> but in case she gets it back to give you from Deb and be back in front of you. >> So, we'll look for a continuence for now
till the 14th of April. I move to continue the 234 Camp Drive that >> U hearing till April 14th at 6:30 p.m. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I
>> thank you. Have a good day. >> Thank you. >> You as well. >> Not like we're getting really too much tonight. No. >> South Avenue. I guess that's it. >> Um,
so we're going to wait for the meeting minutes because we I don't think Joe has had a chance to look them over yet. >> There's none on there anyway. >> It says review and Oh, I got the wrong got the wrong uh Sorry. >> Says Pineer Crest Village update. I see
a lot of pictures. All right. Well, I I got three agendas here. I can't even find a >> the right one. >> Are they all for concom? >> Yes, they are off for Hong Kong. >> It's dated March 24th,
>> right? Gone. Oh, right here. Pinerest Village update. John's on. John and Mark went to look at Pinerest Village together. >> John did not go to Pinerest. >> Oh, you didn't? Okay. Oh, Mark wrote a nice report. >> Yeah. And what's underneath, you also got the site visit that planning board
did too. And they're going to have um it's going to be looked at at different intervals, but there was really nobody could find anything that was wrong. I mean, we've had a lot of rain. It's muddy. And the the pond didn't overflow.
The overflow didn't have any water in it. Um >> are we shocked that there was a complaint? >> No. >> Okay. >> No. >> Just second. and the road. Mark was more upset that the snow plow had plowed gravel into the wetland was more upset about that than the big machinery that
had nothing to do with what's going on in Pine Crest Village. So, um >> even though I did call Greg but he never called me back. I was going to tell him you can call me back cuz it's nothing bad, but then you know, >> so it'll be monitored. Somebody's going
to keep an eye on it and to this point, no violations, no issues. >> N good. >> Not that we can find. and we've had a bunch of eyes on it and we responded, both of us, the planning board and Gong responded. I mean, >> we'd like more of those kinds of updates, Nancy. >> Well, all right. Here's another one
because I'm going to bring this up under old business because it didn't make it on here, but that's why I was thinking John and Mark went to 52 Clear Pond Road because Derek had called and he's going to start moving the wood chips out. So, we had to go back and look at the order of conditions that um before he puts the
sil fence up. um he can remove the wood chips and that was right on his order. >> There's no way to get the soap fence up prior to removing >> moving the wood chips. >> So we've seen this now like I said with my condition for tree in it he's obviously he's going into the wetlands
to do that. So >> it's all wet. >> It would all be >> Yeah. >> He's doing basically a restoration. >> So he started, >> you know. >> Oh, did he did he >> Well, that's why you were there. I called him and said he was good to go. >> All right. I don't know if he started digging yet or not. Oh, well, I don't know either, but I did okay.
>> Tell him he was good to go. So, wow. >> Um, do we What What's going on with the storm water um >> fil where does that stand? Do we know?
>> I don't know. I don't think it's ready to go to town meeting. I don't know. I haven't really >> I was just curious cuz I they kept all the >> well >> stuff about it. We made our comments. >> We opted to invite the plan board to come meet with us and they opted not to,
I guess. But they did. >> Oh, they they did respond to our comments, >> right? >> And then the planner left, right? >> So, >> what? >> Yeah, the plan >> Oh, yeah. The plan is gone. >> The new plan is gone. >> Yeah,
>> I see a pattern. >> Anyway, so anybody have anything else? I think we're done. Look at that. Record time. >> Motion. >> I did I did see something long ago got me an email about um captain's way >> that the EPA said it was okay for them
to build that >> DP. Yeah. >> It's giving them a superseding order of conditions. So they can do it, but it's under >> Did we see what's on the order of the should go out to everybody? No, it's a little probably better than we could
have done. Well, I'm not saying better than we could have done, but it's >> you're happy with it. >> More restrictive. >> Yeah, I think so. They >> So, they're agreeing to all the things that we wanted them to do. >> They were going to agree with it anyways. >> Say again. >> Niles was going to agree with whatever we gave them.
>> A bunch of stuff, right, that we asked them to do, >> right? >> And that's all in the >> You didn't get a copy? I don't think she sent out because Lori hasn't been here. So, we'll send out a copy at the supersing order with the condition. >> I think we already got it, right? >> An email. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> With the conditions on it. And then a question came up about the ownership, but our cards at the assessor's office >> that come up, they don't catch up right away. So Niles had put the wrong owner on there. They put the Moers on there as
the owners. And when we did the site visit, Russos was the one who was on the site visit because they're they're the owner. So there was some questions. So they just had to fix it with D who the owner really is. But that's not our that's not our >> they might have had a contingent on
approval of doing the work the sale of it. >> Well, I said that that's exactly what I said, but I think that that it's already that already transferred over. >> So, >> I did drivebys the other day expecting to see more water was in there. >> It did. Yeah.
>> After this rain we just had. You mean? >> Yeah. Lake's pretty high. >> Yeah. Well, that's what I mean about with Pinerest Village. It's just, you know, water and mud, which is starting to dry up a little bit. Couple of days without rain would be nice. Um,
>> finished with that either. You still had to put the bottom pit um pin crest. It's pretty impressive. They held the water. So, we still had a little couple more steps to go. Yeah. Finish. >> You went out there too with Mark the first time, right?
>> Yeah. But did you see anything that was outrageously wrong? No. >> Okay. >> Well, like I said, it's it what they doing is it's impressive because also the property behind all the water's graded to the wetlands
that diverts through the the little bridge. So, >> frog pond. >> Mhm. >> And also they didn't know, you know what I mean? what they doing compared to the new development that >> it's almost like a punchline >> first one
>> cartoon >> okay John >> motion to adjurnn second >> all in favor >> I >> I >> thank you >> thank You