Good evening everyone and welcome to the January 13th meeting of the Lakeville Conservation Commission. Tonight we're being recorded by Lake Cam. Like to ask if anybody else is recording. Seeing only two people out there and nobody's recording, I guess we're good to go. Um,
so we'll go around and introduce ourselves. >> I'm Mark Minton. I'm the agent. >> John Leang, >> Michelle Bashard, >> Nancy Yates, >> Joseph Chamberlain, old guy. >> Mark Knox, >> William Mafaros, >> Matthew Ferraro.
>> All right, here we go. Uh, first on the agenda is 9 Southworth Street. I'll read the notice. According to the provisions of Mass General Laws chapter 131, section 40 of the wetland protection act, there will be a hearing on the request to amend the
order of conditions associated with mass D file number 192 943 submitted by Southworth Street Nominee Trust for the construction of a single family dwelling with associated well, utilities, grading, tree removal,
and landscaping within the 100 foot buffer to bordering vegetated wetland. The location of the project is 9 South Worth Street, Map 25, block one, lot 9. The public hearing will be held Tuesday, January 13th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. at the
Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street, Lakeville. >> Move to open the hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Good evening. >> Jamie Beset, Zenith, Consulting Engineers for the Record. Um, I was in
front of you, I think, in 2025 for this. July >> July of 25. Okay, that makes sense. >> Um house was similar. Uh the project the lot is under agreement. Um the person who's buying the lot wants to build a slightly different house. Um little bit
of a different footprint uh than what we had before. So um with the septic design change and site design change, I recommended and um coming in and doing a um amended order of conditions or requesting one. Um the work itself,
we're still staying outside of the 25 ft buffer. Uh we're staying under the 1 acre of disturbance on site. Uh still the same erosion controls. Uh overall, there's not a lot of change, but there is some grading changes and there's some slight changes to the actual building
footprint from the previous plan itself. Um happy to try to address any questions you might have with this. Did you have to go back before board of health? >> We did. Yep. And that should be approved. >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> Does this require notification to abut? >> It did. And I provided the proof of such. >> Good question. >> You got them. You checked them. >> Yes. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> So, it's a bigger house. >> Um, yes. I believe it. Well, I believe
it's a little front to back. um bigger. I believe that the last house >> the back corner is in the 100 foot. >> Yeah. I So I believe the last home was a pretty standard uh box, you know, like 30 by 40 with the 26 26 and I think that this is more of a customized style
house. >> It's quite the pitch, huh? >> Yeah, it it you know how some of the lots go when when you have >> Well, I know that lot. >> Two foot water table and it's pitching down. It's it's tough to catch up. So the um order of condition should
probably be pretty close to the same of everything that we put on there. What would change would be the um I would put a board of health appro contingent on board of health approval. >> Sure. >> And the new plan date would be
what? Uh >> 12325 >> 1210 >> 1210 >> 25 is the date that >> 123 >> Yeah 123 12325 >> yeah 123 oh sorry it was stamp received by the office
>> yeah 12 325 All right so uh look for a motion to close the hearing and issue one Order of conditions with additional condition of board of health contingent on board of health approval and the new
plan date is 12325. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. All right. >> That's it for tonight. Do you want signature? >> Um, next we have 137 Hemlock Shore Road
and we would like to uh have a motion for a continuence to 12726. >> So moved. Second. Any questions? >> All in favor? >> At the police station at 6:30. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Okay. All in favor? >> I Okay. 19 Shore Avenue. Okay. I'll read the notice. Pursuant to master law chapter 131, the well and protection act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a
public hearing on January 13, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Beaven Street on a notice of intent. The applicant Paul and Cheryl Flynn are proposing the reconstruction of an existing failing retaining wall.
project is located at 19 Shore Avenue Assessor's Lot 9-4. So, lot nine, map four. No, >> Map 41. >> Block four. I don't know. That's >> map 41. Block nine, lot four.
>> All right. It's kind of backwards in the paper. Or maybe it's just typed this way, but thank you. Okay. Motion to open the hearing. >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Good evening, sir.
>> Good evening. My name is Paul Lucy uh with Dean Point Survey Consultants and I'm representing the Tonight. >> Got a lot of pictures. >> Um on this lot there's been an existing retaining wall for years. Um
it's it's basically sinking into the into the sand. Uh big big concrete blocks originally and the road uh out of place and and sunk and when there's a south wind that lot gets
overwashed and basically drags all the the grass and loom into the into the lake. >> Joe, did you get the card? That's what I'm looking for right now. Come on. Come right there. >> So the
the proposed wall is a versal ar type wall. Um, it's it's not very tall. I mean, it's the uh the lawn is low to the beach anyway. It's a foot or so foot or two
tall in the same spot. >> Same spot. >> And there's existing walls on both sides which tied into. Okay. Is there any evidence of the
supposedly pre-existing wall? And we have some photos here and this GIS doesn't appear to be anything like that. I I was on a site mark and um I mean there's there's blocks that have been
taken out that part of the an existing it was it's pretty broken up but Nancy can I ask Mark Another question. >> Yes, please. >> Uh Mark, from what you uh
looked at out on site, would you say that the the location where they started to build the new wall is in the same location as the old wall? >> I would say approximately. Yeah. Um, uh, I tried to get I tried to get a
couple pictures, uh, showing the remnants of of what was still sitting on the lawn there. Um, yeah, I think it was roughly the same place. You know, they weren't They're kind of I mean, you're at the lake right
there. I mean, it's kind of on the edge. >> Well, it does tie in on both on both sides to the navs. Potato one, >> right? >> I I would say yes. approximately same location, >> but this is a situation where we'd
issued the cease and desist because a lot of the work was done before. >> Yep. I remember the cease and desist. I just >> This is after the fact. Do we have any idea how much material was removed before we could notify initially from the old wall? >> I really don't.
>> Thank you. Well, you can see the grade's not >> not that far. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else? >> Just just had one other question. I know uh >> it had been said that the the new wall is not going to be that tall. We see one
row of block on top of the the drainage stone at the base. >> How much taller than that block is it going to go? And that is that a typical like a 8 inch tall block. >> Yeah, that they're um >> approximately. >> Yeah, they're approximately
I think there probably 6 in actually the blocks themselves, those versal locks. >> Yeah. Um yeah, I mean they want it to come up obviously to the you know at least the height of the lawn which is you know shown as 56. Um preferably a little bit
higher. I mean they don't want it taller but it would be nice to have it maybe this much higher you know a block higher than the lawn itself so that it doesn't just overwash. >> Yeah. I I just think that we should be clear
what that elevation is. I don't think that lots of fill should come in. >> Yeah. >> To bring up, you know, two or three feet. >> I'm sure that wouldn't assist in their house drainage anyway, but >> Right. They they don't want it up higher than the lawn, you know, existence.
Joe's update on the Natural Heritage Green card. >> By the way, I received a letter from >> Natural Heritage >> and we Yeah. Okay. They want us to file. >> Okay. >> For review from Misa. >> Okay.
>> So, I just received it on the 7th. So, >> Okay. Lori saw it online, so I had an idea. >> Uh, well, Lori had seen it on the um portal. It didn't come with the natural heritage, so they've already replied.
>> Okay. So they that would be a condition that you need to file and any um additional >> conditions that they want to put on. Right. So prior to start of work copy of um
>> we'd like a copy of your uh filing. >> Mhm. And uh we would include any additional conditions that came in. And I do have to say we finally got the D number. It took a while. Maybe that's why uh 192951.
Anybody else? And Mark, you think there should be a condition about um >> Yeah. And I I would be >> I would be satisfied with if Mr. Lucy came up with the elevation, but I just think we should, you know, stated elevation that the wall not exceed or I
can see in your grading lines 56 seems to be close to that, >> right? >> And and you're probably trying to just level a little bit off, >> right? Under uh where it says it's kind of small, I guess. Uh where it says proposed reconstruction, it says top of wall elevation 56 plus or minus.
>> Oh, okay. Can you just put a plus or minus 4 in? >> Sure. >> To not exceed just Yeah. >> Just want to You said a block six inches. >> I get it. If you hit within a certain point. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Not to exceed 56. >> What would that be? 3 if you're doing tenths. >> Yeah. 33. >> 56.3 >> feet. Yep. 4 in would be 3/10 of a
>> foot 33.33. Yeah. Sorry. >> Yep. >> So, you're going to be following the typical reinforcement retainer wall like the detail you're showing here. >> Um, so with the drainage, the drain pipe
and uh where is um where's that drain pipe going to? Do >> you have a call out? This is a 4 inch drain pipe outlet and the wall. >> Yeah, that's a weep so that the the hydrostatic pressure doesn't build up behind the wall and blow it out. So you
put the crushed stone and then you put that that pipe to >> to drain. Usually they put weeps out the face of the wall. Generally it's not for a little tiny >> it's going to weep between the blocks. If you're only going to go two blocks high, two two and a capstone, >> right? is is the pressure that's going
to build up behind that wall is nil really. You know, for a taller wall, you get a lot of water building up behind it, it'll it'll blow the wall out or lean the wall forward. >> So that >> and I mean, you're giving us the standard detail that gives you multiple
layers with a geog grid >> where with a two or three block tall wall kind of >> Yeah. And I know what you're saying, Matt. It's usually there'd be one >> cut through if you had a tall wall or one in either end, but
>> anybody else? >> Okay, you all set, Matt? All right. So motion to close the hearing and issue an order of conditions with our standard order of conditions plus a condition of
we would like a copy of your MISA filing and any additional conditions from natural heritage will be added on and your elevation will not exceed 56.3 ft and >> 56.33.
>> Oh, say it again. 56.33. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> All right. Two threes and work won't begin until the order for natural variations. >> Commission. >> Well, and we won't we won't write our order of conditions until we get back
from MISA. So, >> do we need something to to uh pull the cease and desist order or is this automatically do it? >> Um, this will auto Yeah, this will >> Okay. >> cover. Okay.
>> You know that's what the cease and desist said is come back and file. So that's there following our >> orders. Okay. >> So moved. Oh. >> So moved and second. >> Did you second Michelle? >> Yeah. >> One of us.
>> So you have a motion and a second. >> Okay. Lori. Hi. All in favor? I >> thank you. Thanks for coming in. Good luck. Um just one thing the um I asked if
there would be any additional information required by for the Misa filing and they said no the the NOI would be adequate. So >> okay >> I'll just >> Okay. >> But I send a check. >> All right. So up next is 52 Clear Pawn
Road um which is continued from 1216 will be continued again because we don't have that final plan yet. So 127 26. >> So move >> at the police station.
>> Yeah. 6:30 at the police station. Second. >> So move. Second. All in favor? I >> Okay. So are we doing this already? Yeah, this way we track them as we go. >> All right.
All right. So, I need a motion to continue 15 Clear Pond Road to 12726 at the police station. Motion. Second. All in favor? >> I >> I did. We already do that. >> We did that. >> Okay. Did Did we move We did it twice.
>> Did we motion to continue 137 hemlock? >> We did. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yep. Also to January 27th. >> So we did it twice. >> Just for good measure. >> Just for good measure.
>> I'm the reason we have to print too. Oh yeah, I can see why. >> Pretty sure dad was pretty guilty of that, too. >> Next, we have a review of the storm water management bylaw. So, I'm just
going to ask that we take turns on this and not everybody talk at once. I think that um I think the last meeting that we had in December got a little crazy. We had a lot of people in the audience and now that we have seven board members and everybody's talking about at the same time, let's try to get everybody's opinion in nice
and clear. So, who's first? >> Me. >> Yeah, you. Okay. >> Yeah, you. >> Uh, so I I guess couple of ways or things we want to look
at within this. uh as it stands the way that the draft that we've reviewed most recently was uh naming the conservation commission to be part of the governing body of this storm water bylaw
uh where I would say a lot of our filings already require storm water um and I think John you were kind of in agreement when we talked about this >> we we don't nec necessarily want to take
that on in that capacity. Uh >> and we don't want any part of the enforcement. >> Yeah. I don't think that that's something we might you're not saying we all you're saying >> so me and me and John >> Okay. >> talked about that.
>> Okay. >> Matt got involved in the discussion. >> Okay. Uh he brought up a great point that a lot of towns actually use their department of public works because the whole storm water bylaw is geared towards protecting the town's drainage infrastructure.
It's >> storm water d public storm water drain >> on public ways. >> There's very little >> discharge onto public ways. >> Very little of that here. It's common in cities. >> Correct. Correct. >> We talking about what rubber roofs and >> rubber roofs um asphalt roofs. anything
like even if you put a new driveway in um you're disturbing. So it's it's more counts like for sewers right so my prior experience anything I pull when I pull for uh on cities I have to give the calculations for all the sewer drainage for water um how much water flow it's
going to determine into a street so >> now a homeowner is prohibited from running the hose over to the drain right >> well a there there are pretty much no storm public storm water in Lakeville
Everybody's off of wells and >> and can I just preface all of this for one minute is that what we didn't start with which I probably should have is part of our state MS4 permit mandates that we do something some kind of a storm water bylaw
>> when you >> and we had five years to do it and we're now on year seven. So that's why >> yeah we understand that. >> Okay. But we we do. But >> so I I just you're using the term we but you are using that as collectively the town of Lakeville. Yes. >> Not the conservation commission. It's
not our responsibility. We've used to be tasked with comments right now or >> we've been asked to review this from the planning board and come up with comments. Um so that's why I started with that
>> portion of what's been drafted and presented to us. >> Uh tasks conservation commission with anything within the buffer zone would be our responsibility >> which we already do the portion of that. So I don't know that we want to be adding a layer of bureaucracy to what we
already do. I think that John was in agreeance with that. That's something that I I don't think that he and I's discussion outside of this meeting should govern that. But that's something that everybody here should then decide have have some more discussion for so everybody's comfortable with making an
educated decision on >> what we talked about and anything else going forward that >> maybe members don't agree with that. But that's where we were with our discussion. >> Right. And I had asked for your opinion because you guys deal with that more
than like I certainly would or any of the rest of us would except I know Matt really brought that to my attention after the last meeting of how much he actually deals with permitting and like that and um I guess one of my concerns
of how it affects the actual homeowner >> well >> individual homeowner and not just like bigger projects or whatever. The other thing um that seemed to be it it seems like this bylaw would make would make
the storm water um regulations apply to any property in Lakeville, whereas it should apply to only those who partake in the public storm water system. That's the only thing this is designed to protect is the public contaminants from
going into the public storm water system. Well, >> which sorry I just want to add add to what you're saying, John. Not sorry for cutting you off, but that's that you guys started saying, but the term is illicit discharge. Joe, you you were I think were alluding to with the hose
down the storm drain. Somebody pumps there, something pump out. That's already a violation. That's in our bylaws that illicit discharge is not allowed. So, it sort of would be a great redundancy
to blanket the whole town with this to cover something that's already covered because the only thing would be like if you lived in a a for a lot on a main road and you caused illicit discharge, that's correctable currently within our existing bylaws,
>> right? And that would be the only way that that storm water would be disturbed by somebody pumping intentionally out of their lot into a public way. >> But this >> let's let's reverse the order of this. Let's say you live on a main road. Let's
say Highland Road. >> Yep. >> Let's say you have a large piece of property at Highland Road 7. >> Yep. When they rebuilt, >> hypothetically, >> hypothetically, when they rebuilt and put in drainage
on Highland Road, they put three drains on drained onto my property. How do we handle this? >> It's not doesn't apply to the storm water management. It does there's nothing in it about it.
>> Okay. >> You bring up a good point. >> Yeah, you do bring up a great point. It's the reverse of what we're worrying about. >> Yeah. But yeah, that becomes a citizen issue that hasn't been addressed by this. >> But the only thing that the state is mandating is that we have a bylaw that
pertains to anything dumping into a public storm water system. >> That's managed by our DPW >> and and most of the I mean a lot of the roads in town are private, don't have storm water. >> Are there still that many private roads?
I think everything on the pond. >> All the pond roads are private. Haven't a lot of those been accepted by town. No. >> No. I think they're mostly homeowner associations >> because they're mostly dirt roads. >> Okay. Okay. >> There are paved ones. Like one down to
Nelson Shore is paved, but it's still a private road. >> Priscilla Priscilla Drive is paved, but it's not >> still a private road. >> Still a private road. >> Just throwing out some hypothetical stuff. So, I would want something in here to differentiate between
like a public storm water system and a it shouldn't apply to all the houses on on private roads and that are not on storm water drains. >> The hypothetical road I was talking about >> or the hypothetical road. >> So, you were saying like a lot of these
private roads, they're associations. >> So, wouldn't the association be responsible for the water drainage for that? >> Yeah. where they're >> but that's not a public water it's not a >> public way. No, but if the their water goes into a public way >> then that association
>> or if it goes into the pond that's on us too >> but public everything on the pond drains to the pond >> the pond right but then what you know I think just to agree with that point the conservation commission already has our purview if it's within wetlands the
buffer zone and that's that's our place to add enforcement of something you know elicit discharge in a into a public waterway or a public, you know, wastewater supply or something that
really shouldn't fall to us. I don't think >> it doesn't in in most I know. >> Well, I think they were trying to divide that out, but it was also right. They were >> not putting the the stuff that's outside the buffer zone on conservation. They
were just leaving anything within the buffer zone still to enforce or implement, maybe a better term, the application of the new proposed storm water bylaw,
>> which I just have to say to give us a pat on the back. We already do that. We've been doing a really, really good job on that. I can point to Pine Crest Village 310 >> Pawn Lane and we made that guy
infiltrate everything back into it. It so there was originally a uh storm water bylaw with the minimum required issues that was developed by a an engineer for the town.
>> Is he an engineer or a wetland scientist? That was >> either one. I'm not That was environmental parties. >> You know who it is? Yeah. >> Yes, I do. >> Um Scott, >> so what is the point of making changes to that? Wait, like whose idea was this though? >> Well, I never saw that till after the
fact, actually. So, what we were presented with was this red line coffee, which I I have a real hard time sometimes with, >> you know, what's deleted and what's not with all that stuff on the side. Sometimes >> it's a little difficult to tell. But is
this like it's >> well the original bylaw put the put the board of selection as the governing authority >> right >> I so I don't >> well it's not an original bylaw was just presented to us because they recognized way back seven years ago
>> the original draft right the original >> the original draft because that Scott Turner when he was doing Lakeville hospital recognized this is something we had to do so >> right >> so why are we changing it >> what what a I mean I read through the changes and it just seems to be trying
to make it. >> So, is that a question we need to ask the plan board? Okay. So, why are we changing it from the original version? >> Yeah. Um, has that other original draft been circulated?
>> I uh I have >> I believe it has believe Lori sent it out. >> It's actually it's actually the the mocked up copy. You have >> the clean >> the original text is the original >> unfettered >> and they and they may whoever they are
made changes to that >> or are are suggesting changes. One of them being taking it from the support of select and giving it to the planning board. >> So I just don't know why the original one was
>> Mark Nancy if I may. Mark, do you have any thoughts on this or any experience? >> Um, I know so the conservation commission had authority to for we were the storm
water authority. Um, it had come it had originally been um with planning >> for for any subdivision regardless of whether it was in wetlands or not >> or near wetlands. >> Yeah. Really? And there there was a there was there was a history there.
There was a story why that happened. But I think ultimately what seemed to always happen was we were always immersed with trying to coordinate with planning like like always engaged in trying to coordinate
peer reviews. I I it seemed a better fit to me that planning or DPW. I did some poking around um >> uh in response to this looking at how
other towns here south of Boston and a lot of the towns it is DPW is the storm water authority is planning some have the conservation commission but and I'm sorry but that's go that's great input I I guess
I can see from a couple of different angles why maybe planning would be there for the design of subdivisions and that's new drainage. >> Yeah. >> But DPW is boots on the ground. They're maintaining they're having the trucks
come around, pull the the catch basins, and dredge stuff and maintain those systems for within the town. So, I I can see the involvement from both, but I don't think planning would be enforcement. DPW, and enforcement's really not the right word as much as maintenance and operation,
>> right? I think it would be very helpful to have the people who are responsible for the maintenance oversee the design of the system. >> I I put together a spreadsheet and unfortunately I meant to bring it tonight, but I'll send it to everyone.
Uh I think it's about 50 something towns that I went to. >> Who does what? >> Yeah. And I tried to identify. There were a couple towns I couldn't figure it out and I wasn't going to spend a ton of time, but DPW is in there quite often. How how long ago did you assist a
Kushnet? >> Uh I I was there until July of last this last July. >> Okay. >> Um so recently, I would say recently. Um
um I I I actually thought it was it was too much for for the staff we had, you know, Kushna. was me and you know um not that planning or DPW not to say someone else has more resources but it just
seemed >> um you know for conservation we didn't have the expertise to review some of you know it was constant come to us u storm water we're going to send it to to peer review right away so >> it just seems a natural collaboration
with DPW and planning and it comes before conservation for something new when it fits the conservation criteria. Otherwise, >> is DPW a sign off on a subdivision? >> They have uh the ability to comment on
it. >> So does every every board in town has that, right? >> Yeah. >> But but are they a sign off? >> Well, it's not a board, but like fire >> Yeah. >> into the emergency services dude and the Department of Public Works. Yeah. >> They get to see it and comment. So if they had issue with maybe the the
sidewalks or curb curb cuts, things like that, >> but they wouldn't have the ability probably to request a peer review like we do or like the planning board does. >> Correct. >> Is the thing. And and I know that we've done really well on that lately. Again,
>> working with the planning board that we piggyback so we're not putting people or developers or whatever through the double process. >> All right. So, hear me out. >> Yep. >> In that, and I I haven't versed myself in the marked up copy as much as does
that unfettered first draft. Does that first draft kind of just take care of itself and it's checking a box and it doesn't require a lot of regulated? Well, it's it it has the
board of selectment as the as the uh authority >> and that's not in the >> and there it's in the original one, >> right? But you said that the this was built off the original one. You don't see that the original, right? >> But I I think I have a copy of the
original one and um and I I'll send it to you guys. >> Well, I think everybody should get it. I have a copy of the original. >> Oh, all right. Then you can send it. >> Okay. Well, Gloria would send it to everyone so everyone can compare the two. >> But it it they would designate somebody and and I think it named actually uh
Nate as the enforcement officer. So >> So does this one. >> Okay. Well, >> well and us and it just seems >> So Nate is the zoning officer and then you got the planning board and then you got conservation. It's way too much to
me in my opinion. >> It's too many layers. >> Yeah. There has to be one authority. >> I think the original is like six, seven, eight pages in this one is 1920. So much more. >> We've increased the complexity.
>> I I I guess my point of that is in that first sevenpage document. >> Is it just a check the boxes thing that we've done it to satisfy the state and it didn't create a layer of bureaucracy within the town? >> Yes.
>> That's what we need. >> Yeah. In my opinion, yes. >> I mean, it stops this. So, if we do have a board and a commission working on the implementation on the construction side and then
another department in town doing the maintenance and a third department head doing the enforcement. It just seems kind of convoluted and easy for something to get lost, >> right, >> with so many hands in it that just would need
to be streamlined. I think back to the original, even if the planning board was named rather than the select board, um, keep it to one board, >> right? I agree. >> I mean, boiling it down, it seems like they've over complicated it. We don't want it and shouldn't have it. We're
already doing our part where it's relevant to >> protected land. >> I don't think we should have >> and those comments. >> We still do our within 100 foot buffer zones, >> right? >> I don't really think we I don't honestly I don't think we have the resources for it.
>> We ran into the problem of version control of what what plans or we'd have planning was looking and this happened at least. Oh, yeah. Because this board says, can you amend uh change this? That board already got this documents and it
doesn't get changed on theirs. >> That one. >> So, they're reviewing something that's already been amended by >> board of health or >> um >> we already have that problem and we try to keep a handle on it. I don't would
hope this wouldn't make it harder to keep a handle on it even with just the date of the plan which is why I called out the date on the new amended order that we just did and call out that date on that plan because that gets really confusing because when you have five seven five
different sets of plans from one project just us and >> Mark another issue that we kind of had with uh if the planning board reviews something and they sign off on a subdivision. But
conservation has a separate filing and they make an amendment to that. The plan of record in the planning department is different than the plan of record in conservation and then if zoning board of appeals steps, you know,
>> order of process order of process was important to make sure that everybody got the last plan, >> right? >> But yeah, we totally agree and we've seen that same thing. Yeah, we try to keep up with that and it's still >> Yeah, I just from again the other experience. How does the um and I'm
sorry this is being a little new to this but the we already have storm water under the wetland's protection act. Right. So when they're if it's a subdivision, you know, if it's a single family, doesn't apply. If it's a
>> it only applies to something the >> going into the pond like 310 pond lane, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Which most little culde-sacs do. >> Yeah, >> they do have a wetland right there. >> Yeah. >> But if if it was all up, we wouldn't
have anything to do with it, right? And I think and I'd say we keep it that way. >> So I have one question. So what are we go what we're charged with going back >> with our comments to the planning board. So so far I only have one question. Why changing from the original draft bylaw?
>> Well, we've made a lot of points here though like >> Yeah, we have. >> We don't believe that there should be more than one governing authority. >> Okay. All right. Then let's I >> It's currently the select board. Well, we don't have a bylaw. So, but the
original proposed one original >> I don't think that we're uh we're not I don't think we're saying, "Oh, we don't want it to be the select board or we don't want it to be the planning board." We don't we just don't want >> We just don't want multiple agencies. >> Sharon Matt,
>> not more than one governing cooks. >> Authority storm water overlay. Matt, >> I have no You didn't print out a copy of that storm water overlay that I >> did not. So maybe we should send that out and the original one to everybody so it's all
together. Three pieces, the map, >> the original one and the other one. And do we want to put it back? Do we have to answer them right away or would we want to put it back on our plan for the 27th or do we want to give them >> Why don't we draft >> a response? >> Okay.
>> With these attachments, okay, >> and approve it at the next meeting. >> All right. So, what else do we have? What other bullet points do we have? All right. So, we have why we're changing from the original, not more than one governing authority. >> So, >> we don't want it to be us. >> Did you see that?
>> No, I didn't. >> I think this was attached with the environmental partners >> draft the whole It wasn't townwide. It was where it needed to be within town. >> Okay. They mapped out where the actual public
>> So this would not be an overlay over the entire town. It is a map along with it. >> Yeah. But that's the other point. We would like it to pertain only to >> Okay. >> public storm water
properties. Do we run into a problem if the storm water is being controlled by the state as opposed to the town >> because we have state roads >> Yeah. >> going through the town. >> I don't know that we can >> Yeah. We can't tell the state what to
do. That doesn't work well. >> Okay. Yeah. >> I mean, as far as I know, look what poor Donna Katano up there on the corner of whatever that >> we have no much to say. I mean we can have an opinion but >> that's probably a clarification that it would be municipality only
>> state would would still defer to the to the state. >> Yeah. So if you if you take out the state roads we don't have any >> except hypothetical road. >> Not more than one governing authority pertain only to public storm water
properties. >> Yeah. What else? >> Or properties affect properties that >> controlled by >> well that lake >> that tie into public storm water systems.
>> Public is a big word. >> Systems, not properties. >> Well, it can it >> break it down some more. >> I mean, it can go to the state properties, too, because it's the state that's making us do this bylaw. So it can pertain to those too.
>> You'd say state or or town >> maintained. >> Town maintained would be good. >> Storm water systems, >> Mark, >> that would I forwarded you that map. >> Okay. >> Which it may be floating around your
office. You may have already seen it, but if you could just maybe share that with Lori so she can share it back with the board members >> and we lead in our, you know, before our bullet points that conservation already addresses storm water as it pertains to what falls within the buffer zone,
>> Nance. >> Yeah. >> Is there a shelf life on our comments? Like do you >> Well, they've been asking for a while and since we only had one meeting in November and December, I kind of put it off. So that's why I put it on this meeting and that's why I called and said
let's have some comments so that we have something to talk about. >> When's our next town meeting? >> April. >> April. >> No, that's an election. April. I don't think our next our town meeting doesn't happen till almost June. Supposed to happen in May. Never happens till June. >> So we have time.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Or would this be voted on? >> It wouldn't be voted on at the when's warrant. >> Yeah. It's going for the spring town meeting. So it would have that would be April for May or June. >> Okay. So we got a little bit of time. >> Yeah. >> So the next meeting will be good. >> All right. So
>> So we need to have it they need to have it buttoned up by the end of March to make April warrant review for >> roughly. So two more weeks to get get it right. >> Yeah. >> Right. Of what we want to say.
So pertain only to state or town maintained storm water systems >> in the high. >> I think John you and I sort of really got into the weeds a little bit too like we talked about definitions. >> Yeah.
>> With like the definition of disturbance. >> Disturbance. Yeah. >> They changed that too. >> We kind of felt like >> is not a disturbance. raking and seeding lom without changing the grade. >> Yeah. >> Is really not the same as stripping all
the lom back, changing grades, and then you're re, >> you know, like the the plan that uh Jamie had here tonight with all the pitching around. That's that's >> disturbance. >> Disturbance. >> Okay. >> But I'm just saying, you know, you cleared out bittersweet and you got rid
of some invasives and you just rad it out and you seated it. To me, that's not the same disturbance to to to trigger storm water. It might be a conservation trigger to say you're in the buffer zone and you're doing that, but it's not a storm water trigger, I don't think. So, I just felt like some of the definitions
might have been in in need of addressing. >> Okay. Were there any other uh definitions we >> I just feel like there's um it's more clarity because like from my experience it's your we're talking about storm water that's going into a sewer in the
sizing and then anything that comes through like uh like what me and Mark went to go view they're going to do a dry well they're going to do a swell around that's going to divert all the water into that area instead going to >> a recharge system >> a recharge Right. So there it's two
different ways of looking at it that >> So what you're saying is if you apply to in an actual city where they're catching all the water, it's part of their sewer system. It's gallons. They're looking at gallons in volume within their system. >> And is it going to overfill? So what's going to happen? Like if you got like we
know it's always like cities, right? You always get the floods that the cars can't drive by. It's because there's so much new buildings going up and it can't keep up with the sewer. Um, but when you're building development, like especially in Lakeville, you're building development, you're going to design the
layout to determine the SWAT, right? It was a good example that what me and Mark went to last week. They hit water going so far down on the inspection that they would have to raise the grade and determine the slope, how much deep that swell is going to be to take all the water. That's getting done
already as it's getting developed in the in in the areas out here. Um, you get it. Like I said, every time I apply for permits, I very get towns. I get a lot of cities like the Buffett, Roxberry, Dorchester, they will they will going to they're going to call it out cuz they
want to want to know what's the volume going into the stream. And is is that sewer capable to take that volume and that's when they're going to determine for me to put a basin in or uh a drywall to slow the water flow >> before it goes into the system.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, um another look at the definitions >> before the next >> intent. >> Well, isn't that that part of every bylaw is you have the paragraph at the beginning and the intent of this bylaw is too
>> and that should clearly be called out. So the amount of disturbance >> or the definition >> the definition of disturbance >> definition disturbance and the amount >> reasonleness of reasonable
so is it reasonable for small town basically that's the original thing I had asked Mark to do after talking to Matt originally after the other meeting and when you said it applies more to municipal big systems. I had asked him to look and see how many
small towns had >> these kind of >> and and it's not absurd for Lakeville to comply with this and recognize maybe those streets that flood. >> Yep. >> And if a subdivision gets put off of them that that's when they address because it's already the what's existing
conditions overwhelm the existing system. But it's you're talking street drainage and flooding, not t, you know, cities taking in all of the water within a 20 block area because it's all pavement or rooftops. >> Well, kind of sounds exactly what we
just already did on our own without any kind of bylaw for Pinerest Village, >> right? >> Because we're really worried about the amount of water that we know was coming down that hill >> in in an area that doesn't have very
>> historic problems. Y >> I already right. >> Yeah. The state's basically saying everybody's going to do this though because most towns aren't necessarily taking those precautions. Thus, we're seeing the flooding and
>> I think we got a good start. >> Okay. And if anybody thinks of anything else, just reply individually. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And I think >> we'll we'll make a draft and send it out. And I think next meeting there's one of our customers that's going to be
coming on that's that we'll probably talk a little bit about it. So >> all right Mark and I will work on it and get a draft out to everybody. I'll share my spreadsheet as pretty much done before they told me
it's uh for the towns have to do it and it's for any hounds like I >> authorities Mark already sent it to >> to Lori. >> I sent it to Mark and asked him to share it with >> Lori Lori. All right. So we'll circulate to everybody. Okay. All right. Sounds
good. >> I'll be and you have a copy of the original. >> Yeah, I do. And that will go out to everybody too. Everything. We'll do it all again so you have it all in one place. >> Okay. Um, >> minutes is that we're on >> Yeah, I lost my agenda, but I think all
that's left is minutes, right? >> I make a motion that we accept the the meet meeting minutes of September 23rd. >> September 23rd. >> September 23rd of 2025 commission has presented to us. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> John. Motion to adjourn. >> See that chill? I got the vote. >> All in favor? >> September, right?