WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=kQmUDB7U7YQ

Part: 1

1
00:00:30.560 --> 00:00:45.440
June 9th meeting of the conservation commission. Um we are on lake cam tonight. I'd like to ask if anybody else is recording this evening. Seeing no one, we will start by introducing ourselves.

2
00:00:45.440 --> 00:00:59.440
>> I'm Mark Minton. I'm the agent. >> Michelle Bashard. Nancy Yates, >> Joseph Chamberlain, Mark Knox, William, >> Matthew Farrell. >> Okay, first on our agenda tonight is

3
00:00:59.440 --> 00:01:17.680
nine Hilltop Acres Drive. Mark, I'll turn it over to you. >> Okay, this was a uh tree uh removal request. Um uh I gave you all a short site visit.

4
00:01:17.680 --> 00:01:33.439
It's been a while actually, but um I went out the owner was there and the arborist um u Gary from Beaver Tree Removal um the the tree is actually the roots

5
00:01:33.439 --> 00:01:49.840
are you can see it's it's right on the edge of the water, but it's it's uh they want to remove it, I think, because of the impact to the the the cement and it's coming up. Um um so they're going to I ask how you're

6
00:01:49.840 --> 00:02:06.200
going to take it out. They're going to extend a crane. You can see the the the drive there. So it would be hard to get down there, but they're going to have a tr a crane extend it and take it down in sections. Um,

7
00:02:06.880 --> 00:02:21.680
uh, I get I guess it this gets into a little bit of I there was some discussion about whether they needed to file an RDA or whether they could bring the tree down. And I know that

8
00:02:21.680 --> 00:02:38.319
there's been some discussion about terms of um discretion to the agent to make a call. And I I I won't speak to that, but that I know there's been a little bit of discussion of that. Um

9
00:02:38.319 --> 00:02:54.959
the other thing that I said uh mentioned was regardless of how you're going to do it uh through an RDA or um take it down, not you not you couldn't stump the tree and um any any debris that was to wind

10
00:02:54.959 --> 00:03:10.959
up in the pond, they'd need to take out. So, um, my I guess my recommendation, and this is for the commission to discuss, but in some of these circumstances, um,

11
00:03:10.959 --> 00:03:28.720
uh, I I I think it's pretty simple and straightforward. Um, and it's almost it seems like a little bit of a policy. So, we can be consistent. I can be consistent. Um, >> right. you know, and if the commission is comfortable, you know, and and I'm so

12
00:03:28.720 --> 00:03:44.959
anyhow, I'll just leave it there. But I my my recommendation is with the crane talking to the arborist and everything else, I would I would say it's fine as long as it's not stumped and they're not going to. Their concern is it's damaging their their bulkhead

13
00:03:44.959 --> 00:03:59.680
there. So, >> this um kind of comes back to me. I haven't been around much this last couple of weeks and um Mark's kind of been on his own and when the question came in and I saw it on the agenda to bring to the meeting, the question was

14
00:03:59.680 --> 00:04:14.720
whether they need an RDA or not. Um in the past, it's been several different ways. When I was the agent, it was left up to the agent to decide whether where the tree was, if it was in danger of the water, if they're going to pull out the stump

15
00:04:14.720 --> 00:04:31.280
or whatever to decide. it was a policy, you know, if they were a certain way back, but it was left up to the discretion of the agent of whether they needed to do an RDA or not. So, um, I did not take it off of here or make any

16
00:04:31.280 --> 00:04:47.040
decision. I thought it would be up to the board to decide how we want to handle this going forward. This tree is kind of close to the water, like hanging right over it, but a lot of times people come with a tree that's 30 feet back. It's not bothering anybody. I used to say, "Oh, I want to take down three

17
00:04:47.040 --> 00:05:04.320
trees." I'd say like, you know, put a yellow ribbon around it and I'll come look. And if if their falling distance wasn't going to impact the water, if it's 30 ft or 25 ft or it was like this big around, you know, just do it. And uh

18
00:05:04.320 --> 00:05:20.400
you know, anything goes in the water, pull it out. So, I thought it's time that we think about if we want to RDA every time somebody wants to take a tree down. So, I thought it should come to the commission for discussion and to make some kind of a decision and to give

19
00:05:20.400 --> 00:05:40.759
Mark some kind of guidance. >> Yep. >> I would agree with that. Uh, generally I just guess the devil's advocate side of that is what happens when the next person doesn't ask.

20
00:05:44.479 --> 00:05:58.080
line, >> you know. Well, >> I'm sure it happens plenty that some people don't ask. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I don't have a I I trust Mark's judgment. It's just in a lot of the smaller what

21
00:05:58.080 --> 00:06:17.280
were cottage communities. I think eyes on everything and just in conversation, hey, did you ask? Yeah, I think I had no problem. And then you got a guy that's going one one closer to the water and doing a little bit more

22
00:06:17.280 --> 00:06:33.840
concerning work or you know just >> the impact might be there on the guy that assumes it's not a problem. >> Then maybe we should make it clear that everybody asks and maybe he needs to send a memo maybe that he's done a site

23
00:06:33.840 --> 00:06:50.960
visit and they're free to go. instead of going through the whole RDA process >> and we also have to remember the classic our decisions do not set precedent so just because we did six people in a row >> agreed but we are trying to give him

24
00:06:50.960 --> 00:07:07.759
guidance to make the decision without us do we say there's a determining distance >> of of a minimum where you say hey you know what you're 10 feet from the water we'd like you to just do an IDA and here's the guidelines when you do it we're not going to give you a hard time but pillow the paperwork cuz you're

25
00:07:07.759 --> 00:07:24.319
within 10 ft of the resource where if you're 25 ft away, there's no issue. Go ahead. Thanks for asking. >> All right. I like that. And I think the problem with this one that is hanging off the water, >> so they might need to >> with the cranes and stuff, they nothing's fallen.

26
00:07:24.319 --> 00:07:40.000
>> Nothing's fallen. >> They they strap everything that guy goes up and cuts and they take pieces off. Joe knows >> it >> when it's a tree company instead of some guy with his chainsaw on a Saturday. It's different. I think that to further that because it's a slippery slope and

27
00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:56.479
we need to make sure that we we give, >> you know, Mark the the some left and right guard rails. If you're ever not sure, come to us. Doesn't mean there'll need to be an RDA, but the slippery slope we have to be careful of is well, if it's one tree, it's fine. if it's two

28
00:07:56.479 --> 00:08:12.800
or three the distance. But anytime we start to talk about having to have equipment near the water or the potential for in the water, say they can't get a crane and they're actually moving earth to create access, then it's got to be an RDA, right? So there's got

29
00:08:12.800 --> 00:08:29.520
to be some sort of bounds. Um, understanding there's always going to be some kind of exception, but we do want to keep it as simple for the applicants as as possible and for us as well. um especially with something like this that's, you know, clearly causing damage

30
00:08:29.520 --> 00:08:45.440
and we don't want the destruction to get worse because then the repair would be even more complicated. >> And I think that's that's useful. Um, I mean, because it's kind of like a little obvious, but yeah, if if in this case they're using a crane, they're not

31
00:08:45.440 --> 00:09:03.440
they're not bringing anything that's going to result disturbance, but >> uh 10 ft stuff like it's helpful, you know, I, as Michelle just said, trying to keep it as simple as possible and

32
00:09:03.440 --> 00:09:20.240
stay within, you know, the you know, the act the spirit of the >> So for the purposes of business tonight, do we want to >> grant this as a go and then put on the agenda for actual discussion of what those guidelines would be for the future

33
00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:36.640
for either under new business later in this meeting or >> it's right on here discussion and possible vote on tree removal. >> It says kind of but it does say the address. You're right specifically for the address. So, >> why don't we circle back to it in new business and maybe put together an

34
00:09:36.640 --> 00:09:53.360
outline that we can, >> you know, just a couple bullet points. I don't think we have to >> overdo it. >> Yeah. >> So, would you like >> I have questions? >> So, how about that? Um, if we're going to vote that they can do it, then I

35
00:09:53.360 --> 00:10:10.320
still think that some kind of a letter or memo from Mark saying he's done a site visit and this was the decision of the commission that the people have something when the neighbor comes over and says >> andor determination based on

36
00:10:10.320 --> 00:10:27.839
>> commission requirements if in future cases. Okay. >> But yes, agreed. >> Okay. Mark, what's the distance? >> Are they going from the edge of the driveway? >> Um, it's probably

37
00:10:27.839 --> 00:10:44.959
>> Sorry. If If anybody's going to talk, you have to come up to a microphone. I'm sorry. >> Should I come up? >> Yes, please. >> You can identify yourself and just come to the microphone or I get in trouble. >> All right. My name is Dan Desarie. I'm actually Steve McKenzie's nephew. Okay.

38
00:10:44.959 --> 00:11:00.480
And I'm coming for him. Okay. >> And the driveway is probably 80 ft from the tree and then it's like way down the hill. So, it has to be craned out. There's no other way to get it out of there. >> Okay. >> It fall in pieces into the water otherwise. So, >> are you getting one of those 125 ft

39
00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:16.079
ones? >> Probably to get over that far. Like, I don't really know how they're going to do it. But >> Joe's gonna want the date so he can go watch it. >> Watch. >> Yeah. It's something to watch. the guy that's up there dangling, it's just controlling the whole works. It's

40
00:11:16.079 --> 00:11:31.920
fantastic. And and it is it's actually faster. They have equipment. They vacuum up all the chips. >> You didn't have the chips flying all over the place. >> I'm all for it. Yeah. >> So >> So that's kind of another thing of point of discussion. If you come to us and you

41
00:11:31.920 --> 00:11:48.720
ask and we discuss it and and see how safe it is, it's great. If somebody does it that doesn't ask for us, then they're going to have to do an RDA in after the fact. >> And because there's so much of activity in there, you have you have a lot of the

42
00:11:48.720 --> 00:12:04.000
tree guys, they have these portable sheets they carry that they can put around where they're cutting to keep all the chips from flying all over the place to make pickup easier. Bottom line is we want to make sure it's done responsibly and it's not

43
00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:20.480
falling in the pond or, you know, pulling out the stumps so that we have erosion into the pond, the things that we're supposed to be protecting against. >> Well, that can be one of the considerations for Mark in the future when deciding, you know, where things fall and how much input and guidance is

44
00:12:20.480 --> 00:12:36.320
needed. Are are the owners planning on doing it themselves or are they having somebody like Beaver Tree come in and do it for them? because the risks are very different in those two different scenarios. Okay. So, I I would move that we vote on approving this tree removal

45
00:12:36.320 --> 00:12:52.480
for Nine Hilltop AR Drive and just make a note in the file in the conservation commission office that this was reviewed after a site visit from the agent so that if there are any further citizen inquiries, we would have the documentation that it was discussed,

46
00:12:52.480 --> 00:13:07.440
voted upon, and approved. Exc. >> Excellent. Second. >> All in favor? >> Any more discussion? Okay. >> I >> um if you if you could just let me know. Um or would you add? >> Yeah.

47
00:13:07.440 --> 00:13:22.720
>> If you know when it's going to come down until the Oops. Okay. >> Well, like the fall like at this time of the year. >> Okay. Well, if you remember >> get the approval before he did anything. So, okay. >> He at least knows now. It's okay to do. >> Thank him for that.

48
00:13:22.720 --> 00:13:40.320
>> Awesome. Thank you guys. Have a good night. >> You too. You as well. >> All right. So, I'm going to put it on the next agenda >> that will sketch an outline for guidance for simple tree removal versus a full

49
00:13:40.320 --> 00:14:06.399
RDA. Okay. Next, 15, 16, and 17 Shore Avenue. I This was noticed in the paper, so I am going to read the notice with my glasses

50
00:14:06.399 --> 00:14:21.600
on. Pursuant to to Mass General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Wetlands Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on June 9th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lakeville Police Station,

51
00:14:21.600 --> 00:14:38.560
323 Bedford Street, on a request for determination of applicability. The applicant, Clark Shores Association Incorporated, is requesting a review of certain trenching, excavation, and underground drainage pipe installed. work performed at and across Shore

52
00:14:38.560 --> 00:14:54.560
Avenue and the 15, 16, and 17 Shore Avenue properties assessors map 41, lots one, two, and three. >> Motion to open the hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor?

53
00:14:54.560 --> 00:15:10.720
>> I I >> Hello. >> Hello. Good evening. My name is Jamar. For the record, I represent Clark Shores Association, the owner of Shore Avenue and the other common ways within the Clark Shores community. Um, we filed

54
00:15:10.720 --> 00:15:29.040
this RDA because of the drainage work including trenching and installation of an underground uh drainage pipe. Uh, it was performed where I brought the assessor's map which was attached to the the application. um started on lot 16,

55
00:15:29.040 --> 00:15:46.720
crossed over onto or across the uh Shore Avenue, ran between 17 and 15, and the terminus ended on 15 um right before Long Pond. Um I could show you some of the photos.

56
00:15:46.720 --> 00:16:00.880
>> I think we all have that. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Here's some of the photographs from the work that was done. This is uh retrenching work that was done under Shore Avenue. This is 16 on this side.

57
00:16:00.880 --> 00:16:17.680
This is the uh this is after the fact where you can see where the water drains into on 16. Travels across the roadway. Here's the roadway now filled in. >> Can we maybe pass those around? Yeah. That's a I think it's a little difficult

58
00:16:17.680 --> 00:16:37.040
for everybody to see what you're uh >> Sure. This is >> be careful. >> This is the fence wave between 17 and 15 and the line right down the property line.

59
00:16:37.040 --> 00:16:59.440
And here's where it ends at the at the pond. You can see that there's some stonework and then there's a final grain end point which is also shown here. >> Okay. So

60
00:16:59.440 --> 00:17:15.199
the issue before the commission we think is straightforward. The work was performed within the fence along pond. No filing um was ever made with the commission before the court commence. Um, we respectfully that Clark Shores Association respectfully request that

61
00:17:15.199 --> 00:17:31.440
the commission issue a positive determination confirming uh that the wetlands act protection act in the commission's local jurisdiction apply to the court and require a filing of the fact not so that the work may be properly

62
00:17:31.440 --> 00:17:46.559
reviewed condition whether it's mitigation or corrective measures need to be taken but this commission needs the time review it and evaluate. That's why we're here asking for positive.

63
00:17:46.559 --> 00:18:03.280
>> Okay. Just a few technical issues. Um in your letter, um you said public water supply source serving the city of New Bedford. Um Long Pond is under Fall River. Fall

64
00:18:03.280 --> 00:18:18.880
River owns the rights. Long Pond. I'm just just for the record. Um, and the things you asked for on your RDA, um, were A, whether the area depicted on the plan referenced above is subject to

65
00:18:18.880 --> 00:18:36.160
jurisdiction of the Wellness Protection Act. C, whether the activities depicted on the plan referenced above is subject to the Wellland Protection Act, and D, whether the area depicted is subject to any municipal ordinance or bylaw. So I

66
00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:52.559
would say A and C are pertinent at this point. And so on a determination, what I do with it, we have specific answers. Usually we always do -3. This time we're going to have to do

67
00:18:52.559 --> 00:19:09.520
a positive. And the positives would be under a positive determination. It would be three and four would be checked which are the work described on the reference plan and documents within an area subject to

68
00:19:09.520 --> 00:19:25.919
jurisdiction under the act and will remove, fill, dredge or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a notice of intent. and four, the work described on the reference plans, documents is within the buffer zone and will alter an area subject to

69
00:19:25.919 --> 00:19:41.520
jurisdiction under the act. Therefore, said work requires a filing of a notice of intent. So, there are two different areas that would require the same notice of intent. It's not like you have to do two, but um because it's in the buffer zone going down to the pond and if

70
00:19:41.520 --> 00:19:57.120
you're actually discharging into the pond, that's a resource area. So it would be on your determination. It would be a positive determination three and four. Anybody >> agree with that?

71
00:19:57.120 --> 00:20:13.760
>> So moved as far as that would be a motion to find positive termination on three and four. >> Second. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> I would just ask one thing. If if um you know where you're you're voting on the positive and it's going to require a

72
00:20:13.760 --> 00:20:28.720
notice of intent to be filed um that if a notice of intent is filed within a certain amount of time enforcement can brought against the um those owners of the property within the 100 ft where this

73
00:20:28.720 --> 00:20:46.840
um activity was gone >> because you don't want this to remain if this >> person come in front of you and and have you uh assess and evaluate the the activity that's already been performed.

74
00:20:48.960 --> 00:21:06.720
So this is the Clark Shores Association that's filing for the determination. So the determination would go to the Clark Shores Association. is a determination that the the activities correct were >> but it's noting a violation

75
00:21:06.720 --> 00:21:22.400
>> right >> in which then the the conductes of the violation would be notified of a violation of the wetlands protection act. >> So he's essentially asking us to notify and give them a certain amount of 45day

76
00:21:22.400 --> 00:21:35.039
to filing date or whatever. >> Is that correct? Correct. >> And if they don't file then we can take >> enforcement >> enforcement actions against them. So maybe we would ask Mark to write a letter >> Y

77
00:21:35.039 --> 00:21:54.960
>> to 15 16 and 17 Shore Avenue saying that the work that they've done and and is not allowed without a permit and that we would what kind of a date are we looking for

78
00:21:54.960 --> 00:22:14.960
for them to file Hey, >> well, if you want action on it, you want it being done whether it's acceptable to do it. So, you can't get too far away. You don't want to try and do something November. >> Given the notice, we say that they have

79
00:22:14.960 --> 00:22:32.559
to come to us before two meetings. Not the next meeting is not enough. >> Okay. >> Time. So I would say they need to file uh a response with us um no later than

80
00:22:32.559 --> 00:22:49.039
Tuesday, July. >> A response or a notice of intent. >> Their response with their their reply to our acknowledge to our notification with uh a notice of intent to be submitted to the conservation office no later than

81
00:22:49.039 --> 00:23:05.679
Thursday, July 2nd to be heard on the hearing that's on Tuesday. Sorry to make that Thursday, July 9th for the hearing that's going to be on Tuesday, July 14th. >> Okay, wait a minute. Now, with a notice of intent response with a notice of intent by July 2nd,

82
00:23:05.679 --> 00:23:28.559
>> sorry, July 9th, not the >> July 9th to be heard at the hearing on Tuesday the 14th, 9 and five. Is that enough time to get it in the paper? >> Yeah, that's five weeks out. >> Okay.

83
00:23:28.559 --> 00:23:46.960
>> Do we want to amend your motion to put it all in one or handle it as two separate? >> I think two separate. There's a motion and a second on the floor. >> Yes. >> And I think those should be >> determination. So, all in favor? >> I

84
00:23:46.960 --> 00:24:05.480
>> I All right. Now, um, >> make a motion. >> Mark will write a letter that we would like a response with a notice of intent filed by July 9th to be heard by Tuesday, July 14th.

85
00:24:10.159 --> 00:24:26.000
>> Need a second on that? >> Yep. >> Well, >> well, maybe somebody moved. >> Well, I I just little discussion about I totally agree. Mark should send a letter. We should start this process. >> Uh I think that

86
00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:44.480
>> we should request that they come in and speak to us by that date. I don't know that. >> What's our first meeting in July? >> The 14th. >> That's it. >> Yeah, cuz the first is on a Wednesday. >> The first is on a Wednesday.

87
00:24:44.480 --> 00:25:00.159
>> So it's late. So what if it's just a notification that they come in speak to us in and give us a a reply and then at that hearing we can discuss the proper >> I just feel like if we're demanding a notice of intent somebody's going to get

88
00:25:00.159 --> 00:25:15.840
crayons and just fill out a sheet that they printed off D's website. It's not going to be a professional engineer that's not going to have the proper review that needs to figure if this pipe is sufficient, if it should be there, if there's an alternative. That's

89
00:25:15.840 --> 00:25:32.720
>> But an NOI calls for an engineered plan >> and then if we don't like the engineered plan, then we ask for a peer review. >> Do you think that they'll have an engineered plan by July 9th? I don't. That's why I think just >> July 14th. >> I don't think they'll have one by then.

90
00:25:32.720 --> 00:25:49.200
We can request it, but I think that we'd need to request it with some leniency. That's why I think it would be better if we demanded that they come in by set date. >> And we discussed the requirements, what they need to do in order to file a properly formatted and worded notice of

91
00:25:49.200 --> 00:26:10.159
intent and appear for a hearing at a later date. >> Let's have another motion. >> Does that even need one? I mean, Mark's going to write a letter and ask that they commit. At that point, we we were just going to wait for them to commit. >> No, it's just a discussion item, I

92
00:26:10.159 --> 00:26:25.840
think, because we're not going to make them file. >> I think for the record, we need to take a vote that we all agree that we want them to come in on July 14th and just do >> so moved. >> Second. Is everybody in favor of

93
00:26:25.840 --> 00:26:43.600
requesting that the uh forced applicants from said uh addresses 15, 16, and 17 shore would be required to come in through a letter written by Mark Minton and >> to attend the meeting on the 14th.

94
00:26:43.600 --> 00:27:00.000
>> That's a motion. >> Okay. >> And second, >> we can work on the wording of the letter. Mark's really good at that. C >> can I ask one thing? So, >> we got a motion to second. Discussion. Go ahead. No discussion. Go.

95
00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:16.240
>> Okay. So, if are we going to send the then it's basically a notice of u potential wetland violation? Like so send that letter. Are we sending it to all the property owners? I mean, I I I read your letter. >> I think it would be good if we sent to

96
00:27:16.240 --> 00:27:32.240
all three that are in question. >> Okay. >> That answers. Somebody's going to likely respond >> and we should likely CC Clark Shores Association so they know that we've satisfied their request to do a notification of the grievance which is only fair. >> And they'll get the positive

97
00:27:32.240 --> 00:27:46.960
determination. >> Correct. >> You'll get the positive determination. >> The other one the three addresses will get a copy. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is that does that make sense? Does that seem sufficient as a starting place?

98
00:27:46.960 --> 00:28:02.640
>> Yeah, that's fine. I think, you know, we want to keep their feet to the fire and have, you know, this is a positive that the that there's no intent required. It's fine if they come in and and have a discussion with the commission and you can you can talk with them how how to

99
00:28:02.640 --> 00:28:19.200
resolve this, what what would the filing include um and then move forward with that and give them a a further deadline for where that notice needs to be submitted. That's fine. I think in the meantime once they get a letter from Mark and they might call

100
00:28:19.200 --> 00:28:34.640
Mark and Mark will advise them that they need an engineered plan. >> Mhm. >> All right. >> He can guide them. That's his job to guide them through the process. >> Right. And they're whimsically draining some wet area toward the pond or a low

101
00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:51.279
area. Don't know if that's best practices. We want somebody, a professional design engineer, to show that >> and or >> resize a pipe or give an alternative analysis, >> what kind of treatment it's getting

102
00:28:51.279 --> 00:29:04.880
before it hits the water where it's coming from. >> Yep. So, those are all things I think we need to discuss when somebody comes in. >> Yep. All right. So we have a motion in a second that Mark will send the letter

103
00:29:04.880 --> 00:29:22.159
send the determination copies to 156 and 17. >> Yep. >> And hopefully guide them through the process. They'll come to the meeting with some knowledge already and maybe having contacted an engineer already would be good.

104
00:29:22.159 --> 00:29:48.240
>> Although it's a busy season, so some of that stuff takes >> True. It takes time, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> I >> All right. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Have a great rest of your night. >> Thanks. You too. >> Take care. >> I know it's a mess. I have to do them

105
00:29:48.240 --> 00:30:17.919
over again. Okay. Next up, two Beach Tree Drive. You're up, Mark. >> Okay. Um I I think this was originally put on the

106
00:30:17.919 --> 00:30:36.000
agenda. We we we we got an an email. Um it should be in your packet. Uh it was sent to Lori from uh uh Keith Ricefelder

107
00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:53.279
uh who resides at four Beach Tree Drive. And I think there's also um another email attached that is from kind of a reply. It's from uh Eric Stanley. So hopefully everybody's got that. kind

108
00:30:53.279 --> 00:31:10.880
of summarizes >> um the the situation. Um I know that this has been an ongoing issue that many of you have have have dealt with. Um so I I think um some of

109
00:31:10.880 --> 00:31:26.799
these folks are here tonight. Um I related to that uh and I also passed out a little section from the wetlands protection act. Um subsequent to this being added to the agenda to Beachree

110
00:31:26.799 --> 00:31:43.600
Drive. Uh Amy Stanley came in, spoke to me about wanting to um Amy came in um indicated that their deed they have an access right on their deed

111
00:31:43.600 --> 00:32:00.720
through to uh Beach Tree Drive to the water. Um so that becomes kind of a civil matter but trying to look at what the act actually says and I think one of the approaches that I've been taking was trying to look

112
00:32:00.720 --> 00:32:17.840
at uh vista pruning as a way to you know um uh which is exempt but it's not totally exempt but if you look at the the highlighted portion of the regs that I passed out there is a uh unpaved pedestrian walkway

113
00:32:17.840 --> 00:32:31.760
way um uh is exempt. It's completely exempt as long as it's less than 3 ft wide uh for public access on well that's on conservation property.

114
00:32:31.760 --> 00:32:51.200
But um that seems like um the the way I read that >> right. >> Yeah. To to and I know historically if you look at um some of the historical imagery of that property. You can see

115
00:32:51.200 --> 00:33:07.760
there's a path that's been in there. I think it's been closed off in recent years because of stuff that's going on. But my feeling personally is and and again I might be getting ahead of myself here because this is on the agenda for

116
00:33:07.760 --> 00:33:22.720
this the the communication between the residents and and the commission in those emails. since um the resident Amy Amy came in

117
00:33:22.720 --> 00:33:40.240
um asking about it. I I my feeling is if you look at the act you can interpret that as that's that activity is exempt as long as you know 3 ft wide 30 um you know to make an unpaved path just to

118
00:33:40.240 --> 00:33:56.880
clear that out so someone can access uh well whatever they want to do. I'm just trying to read the act here what the regs actually say and stay the other stuff aside. Um, so that's kind of a little

119
00:33:56.880 --> 00:34:12.879
bit of background. I don't know if that's a clear explanation of of the issue here, but maybe some of the folks that are here, if there's not questions, >> it appears that there's a now a property line dispute within that email chain

120
00:34:12.879 --> 00:34:28.879
that needs to be worked out outside of here. >> Yeah. Um, and so that may come into play in this. I I don't know. I know it's And and again, you all I'm sure uh have have uh maybe

121
00:34:28.879 --> 00:34:45.520
are more familiar than I am with the situation, but um um yeah, some of it just seems to me to be a civil issue that's not, you know, civil issues that aren't really germanine to to what the commission is

122
00:34:45.520 --> 00:35:03.200
is empowered to to review. But um >> I think we did bring up the the property dispute issue did come up last time and we just made it clear that it needs to be resolved but that we are not we can't address it and then we can't speak to

123
00:35:03.200 --> 00:35:19.440
what can and can't be done until the ownership or the you know by right allowance to prune is determined based on if there's an ownership contention over the property. >> We don't know who owns it. don't know who can or who has legal right of way to

124
00:35:19.440 --> 00:35:34.480
it. We don't know who we can give. >> Well, it appears that's been determined though, >> right? >> Our only um job would be to tell them what's allowable. >> It's not up to us to decide who owns it.

125
00:35:34.480 --> 00:35:49.920
That's a civil matter. We decide if it's that it can be done. We just need to make sure that we know that the owner is the one that's >> Yeah. >> or their legal representative is the one that's requesting the work, which was a question in the in the past years that this has come up. So,

126
00:35:49.920 --> 00:36:07.200
>> I I I think there was a survey of the property, and again, I think we have some of the folks um that live down um on that road here. Maybe they can speak to that. But um

127
00:36:07.200 --> 00:36:26.079
I I just I'm I I again I'm responding to uh discussion I had with Amy Stanley about possible avenues to gain access to the water and assuming that in fact

128
00:36:26.079 --> 00:36:42.800
their deed grants them that right. To me, that's at least my thinking outside of what you know what what can you do? And I had never really looked at at the this section of the act as closely, but there is a difference between the vista

129
00:36:42.800 --> 00:36:59.839
pruning because that's not a total exemption. It becomes it it it's if you're within 50 ft of the resource area, it gets triggered. um you need to come in and and speak with the commission. But the way I read the regs

130
00:36:59.839 --> 00:37:14.960
there is that if it's maintaining a pathway that's small unpaved pathway, it's exempt. It's just straight up exempt. So, it's almost outside of commission's jurisdiction or

131
00:37:14.960 --> 00:37:31.040
but that's my interpretation, but that's so it's there's a couple things that seem to have changed since the last time this came up to the commission. >> Those are my thoughts. Would it be worth the board voting on whether or not they

132
00:37:31.040 --> 00:37:48.480
agree that that determination of vista pruning or the acts act of maintaining a path is exempt from our purview? >> Do we want to hear from anyone? >> Would anybody like to speak to this? I mean, it does seem like you guys do have

133
00:37:48.480 --> 00:38:04.000
some matters that are outside of our purview, but >> yeah. So, I hope you can work one Hickory Lane. Um, so we started this on like 2 years ago maybe. We just wanted to clear a path for the lake. So apparently

134
00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:18.720
when the whole development was built, there's like six or seven houses that are part of Huckberry null which pays to Huckberry you guys Huckberry Shores. >> Yeah. So we pay into theirs

135
00:38:18.720 --> 00:38:34.480
to the the spot we're talking about is part of Huckleberry Nol. It's our access to the link. Um, we just wanted to clear a path in there. As you guys know, one of the guys on our road is a he went a little over the top with it to say the

136
00:38:34.480 --> 00:38:50.560
least. Um, it was surveyed because we need to know what was what. It came back that Keith's fence is six or I know five, six feet onto this property. As me and my wife Amy said, we we don't care. Like, we're

137
00:38:50.560 --> 00:39:06.000
not going to make him move his fence. We don't want to make him move his fence. We just want to make a path to get to the lake. That's that's it. >> So Mark, in the regulation, right, was it a three-foot path? Do you want to read that? The >> 30 in 30 in because it's private

138
00:39:06.000 --> 00:39:22.560
>> 30. Is there a private property sign at the entrance to that path or anywhere that >> I mean, >> it's technically not public land. >> No, it's it's part of the Huckberry No Association, >> right? But there's no sign there that says private private beach access or

139
00:39:22.560 --> 00:39:38.560
anything. No. >> Okay. >> So, if they do a 30inch pack, it's like out of our purview and basically be kind of on your own as a civil matter of how it goes from there. But we have no problem. I mean, if some if we find out

140
00:39:38.560 --> 00:39:55.359
that you clearcut it or something, then that might be a different story. But if you stick to the exemption and Mark could make you a copy of that. Um, or did somebody give you that copy? >> No, I I I read it. I think they they have it, but I have an extra copy I can

141
00:39:55.359 --> 00:40:14.000
>> If they stick to that, then it's out of they're exempt. It's out of our hands. And >> there you go. And Bob's your uncle. >> Don't Don't bring in a Don't bring in a brush hog and then dump gravel down

142
00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:30.880
there and make it six feet wide for a lot of attention to >> that. That would be sort of then it would come into us. But if it stays less than that 30 in and it's just, you know, clearing, >> you know, then >> you have the the right to do that.

143
00:40:30.880 --> 00:40:50.880
>> Okay. >> No more comment from anyone else. >> Yeah. I'd like to just say something. >> Okay. >> I'm Keith Ricefelder. I'm at four beach tree on one side of the uh the access area. And in the past, it was never

144
00:40:50.880 --> 00:41:07.839
about, you know, what he's talking about right here. We had a guy at the top of the street who used to come down with a machete just start hacking everything up and it was, you know, it was not 30 in. He he would have cleared the whole land if he had the choice. I don't know if

145
00:41:07.839 --> 00:41:23.680
you guys remember this situation the last time when I was here. So, you know, the the determin the determination at that time was just, you know, come up with a plan. Like his plan

146
00:41:23.680 --> 00:41:39.119
was to clear it. I know that that's not their plan. We've been very civil with them. Um, and so it's more so, you know, that path I think that you were talking about was probably way up into their

147
00:41:39.119 --> 00:41:56.000
property in the past. You can probably see it for over from overshots of satellite throughout the years. So it's, you know, where where where do they come in, you know, because the property's probably

148
00:41:56.000 --> 00:42:12.960
18 ft maybe where it starts off of the road and there's two roads involved, right? You got Beach Tree, which you know, you got about 18 feet before it hits the property. And then you come down, which is basically their backyard.

149
00:42:12.960 --> 00:42:29.040
Uh they're what? >> It's Hickory Lane. >> It's 28. >> Yeah. So Hickory Lane >> board is one side and four beach trees on the other, but it it's a roadway as well. So basically what we were asking was and that was what the other guy was

150
00:42:29.040 --> 00:42:46.400
supposed to do was come up with a plan of you know where where they were going to access what it was going to be 30 in if that's what it is but you know our fear always with this guy was you give him 30 in he'll take six feet. Um so

151
00:42:46.400 --> 00:43:04.000
that's still my concern you know nothing to do with them. I have no concern with clearing a 30inch path to get access to the water, but where does it end? And how do we make sure that the guy Tom doesn't come down and if he clears it,

152
00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:21.440
you know, like where what's the accountability for that? What, you know, who checks up on that? Clearly, we would. Um, >> so what if we not to make Mark write another letter, but what if we provide

153
00:43:21.440 --> 00:43:36.640
the guidance and say how can >> a letter of this determination? >> Yes. A letter of of the discuss that out with the >> boot regulation attached. >> Yeah, >> you can do a 30 in anything past that going to put us on alert. >> Maximum

154
00:43:36.640 --> 00:43:52.319
>> maximum maximum and there's no uprooting or anything because that is a waterway. Yes. I mean, I got videos of it. >> Once the shovel hits the ground, that's different. And that's not allowed. >> Yeah. >> The other guy was coming out with shovels and a, you know, uh, knowing

155
00:43:52.319 --> 00:44:07.280
that he wasn't supposed and it was year after year after year. So, basically, why I wrote that email was I knew that they wanted to do this. I wanted to remind everybody that of the of the other situation

156
00:44:07.280 --> 00:44:23.680
>> that's been going on and making sure that that doesn't happen. So then we can you know draft up that letter that gives you the the left and right guard rails and says here's the plan and then if any work is done outside of these notification is made to X Y and Z with

157
00:44:23.680 --> 00:44:38.720
all the next steps of what would happen um depending on you know what that what that work looked like if it was a you know something that came under >> possibly be in violation >> or if it yeah it was our purview or if it was a trespassing issue it would you know then we could handle it there but

158
00:44:38.720 --> 00:44:54.319
then you'd have something to say here's what you're >> allowed to do. Go forth with our blessing. If you need help or you at some point request to do more work, please come back to us. >> Does that would that >> Yeah, I guess the thing I would ask is

159
00:44:54.319 --> 00:45:11.359
where where is the entrance >> to this path in you guys' eyes or your eyes? >> Yeah, we can't tell you. >> So, I would like you guys to work that out. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, we can't. No, I I'm guessing >> you'd like to maintain your privacy a little bit if possible in your yard and

160
00:45:11.359 --> 00:45:26.560
you guys want access. Can you guys work that out and >> Right. >> make it happen. >> Yeah. We can't tell you. We can just tell you. >> Y >> what you're allowed to do. >> Try to keep your feet dry. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. And that that's going to be a

161
00:45:26.560 --> 00:45:42.079
challenge the whole way anyway. So I think that's why you know I guess protecting you know their land as well as far as how far you can go up you know is there back >> if it's outside of the shores right away

162
00:45:42.079 --> 00:45:57.280
it is there like driveway into their place but their property doesn't start the way down right >> like the stakes are still there you can see where where it starts I mean it's probably >> from the road to the stakes is probably 50 60 ft >> you guys got a survey done correct >> the survey yeah >> so you guys can mark it on the survey

163
00:45:57.280 --> 00:46:13.280
and submit it to to us to show you where where the 30 you know where your path is going to be in the distance of the 30 so we can know where it's going to be. >> Right. So did do you have to come in before that property line? >> I don't think it's not up to

164
00:46:13.280 --> 00:46:29.200
>> Yeah. It's not we don't need to know where it is. That becomes that becomes a matter. >> We need to stay in our lane, >> right? And I I just didn't want us doing something and now Tom comes down and >> Yeah. So >> it's a free freefor-all. I think that the letter that gets sent clearly states

165
00:46:29.200 --> 00:46:46.800
the maximum path the the uh page right out of the D regulations and it gets circulated back to the Stan Stanley's as well as Keith so you both have a copy to be able to say hey if that gentleman was back down hey you can't do that >> okay

166
00:46:46.800 --> 00:47:02.319
>> right here you're violating >> excuse me through the chair that's all >> you're violating the wetlands protection act And I would say that letter should be probably titled to Huckleberry Null Association or you know so it gets sent

167
00:47:02.319 --> 00:47:17.359
back to you so you have a copy and Keith you get a copy as well. So there's a parameter >> for both parties to understand what's happening. And as far as >> left or right, 5T, >> we got to work that out. Keep it

168
00:47:17.359 --> 00:47:33.440
>> that's you guys. It sounds like there's some give and take with the survey and people are just trying to get >> Yeah, it's a totally different situation >> and and and so my response again was just trying to figure out what the act

169
00:47:33.440 --> 00:47:49.440
says, what the reg say, and what you can do and what you can't do. So that's but it's good to hear that working together. >> Okay. Can the notice also be sent to uh >> Yeah, I'll send >> Yeah, we'll include you >> on the letter.

170
00:47:49.440 --> 00:48:15.839
>> Get the We'll give you the address before we leave. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Good luck. >> Thanks, guys. >> We're fine. I can get you 24 hickory.

171
00:48:15.839 --> 00:48:30.640
>> Yes, please. >> You ready? >> Uh, let's see. >> Thanks, Keith. >> 430 Howland. 30 Howland. I make a motion to move the hearing for 30 Howland Road to the meeting to be held Tuesday, June

172
00:48:30.640 --> 00:48:47.200
23rd here at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Mark, did you have something? I was going to say I did I did reach out to the project manager like late this afternoon. They they sent I believe I had I didn't

173
00:48:47.200 --> 00:49:03.760
see it but they sent an email requesting the continuence to worry. Not that that >> Yeah. It's what 150 acres that our peer reviewer is working on. So it doesn't happen overnight. >> Yeah. >> And it took him a while to get the

174
00:49:03.760 --> 00:49:20.400
points of where it is out of 600 acres. So, it's been a process. >> Okay. So, >> what's the date that again? >> Say again. >> We have to vote >> the date. >> Oh, June uh 23rd. >> 23rd. Tuesday the 23rd. >> We did a motion in the second, but we have a vote yet again, right? >> Voted yet, right? >> Okay.

175
00:49:20.400 --> 00:49:35.599
>> All in favor? >> I Okay, now we have >> So, next we have 150 Bedford Street. I make a motion to um continue the hearing on 150 Bedford Street to Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 here

176
00:49:35.599 --> 00:49:55.599
at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> N. >> Yep. Zero Mrick Street. I make a motion to continue the hearing on Zero Mrick Street to Tuesday, June 23rd here at the

177
00:49:55.599 --> 00:50:12.880
police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. And last, but certainly not least, number seven, off Montgomery Street in Green Cot Circle. I make a motion to continue the hearing for off Montgomery and Green Lot Circle to Tuesday, June

178
00:50:12.880 --> 00:50:30.720
23rd, 2026 at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. What was that date again? >> Discussion. Tuesday, June 23rd. >> Discuss weeks from today. >> Discussion on this one. Um, when they first came to us and gave us that whole

179
00:50:30.720 --> 00:50:46.400
>> Yes. >> long, whatever you want to call it, >> we let him talk even though we didn't have a D number at this one. Yeah, I let him talk for way too long. Anyway, um they said that they had contacted the Army Corps of Engineer, but it must have

180
00:50:46.400 --> 00:51:02.000
only been a phone call because the thing is they never figured out what they needed to do to get a review from the Army Corps. So, that's what's taken all this time is they finally filled out the paperwork that you have to fill out to get on the list to get a review from the

181
00:51:02.000 --> 00:51:16.800
Army Corps. So, they're in the process of that finally. But I think that all this isn't on us because I think we said from the very first day >> we needed that response. >> We needed that. So I don't just want to relieve us of the responsibility that

182
00:51:16.800 --> 00:51:34.400
this is taking again. Continue continue. Yep. >> So >> and given the time >> I spoke to the >> I would just anticipate it takes another yeah a couple weeks out. >> So I spoke to the engineer who was here with Azu but um engineer on this end I I

183
00:51:34.400 --> 00:51:48.720
couldn't believe I'm drawing a blank. I spoke with him a couple days ago um and just for an update uh with core of engineers. So it is it is with the core of engineers. My understanding is they have their own determination

184
00:51:48.720 --> 00:52:05.760
has to meet three factors hydraology, soil and something else. They my understanding is that they retained uh a wetland scientist uh Brad Holmes I believe is doing the work.

185
00:52:05.760 --> 00:52:19.200
So >> the court did. >> Yeah. So um it's moving forward and and following whatever their process is but >> whatever we asked them to do in the first place.

186
00:52:19.200 --> 00:52:35.680
>> Okay. Um, all in favor? >> I I >> I >> Okay. Um, open space and residential development. Um, we have this big long sorted thing. Not even sure where mine

187
00:52:35.680 --> 00:52:53.200
is. Gives me a headache looking at it. Um, what I'm passing around right now, and I think I said it last time when I was talking to somebody, I think it might have been Tracy, um, about what Middle has, and she said, "We have an OSRPD."

188
00:52:53.200 --> 00:53:10.640
And I think I've said this before, but I didn't have it in front of me. And I'm like, "That's too many initials. How come yours is different than ours?" And the same person from Surat is writing yours that's writing ours. And she said because theirs is open space and resource preservation development bylaw,

189
00:53:10.640 --> 00:53:25.760
which I just like the thinking the saying of that better than the just the plain old RSRD. That seems more about development coming first before the resource protection. And there's I don't know if it does the same

190
00:53:25.760 --> 00:53:41.920
thing or not. I can't tell you. But it just looks a lot easier and it looks a lot more leaning towards resource protection. >> So >> I I obviously we just got handed this um I haven't >> right and

191
00:53:41.920 --> 00:53:59.680
>> read it. But I just I guess I just want a clarification based on your opinion. >> Um resource what's the definition of resource within this? Is it a wetland or is it any open space?

192
00:53:59.680 --> 00:54:16.880
>> No, I don't think it's any open space. I'm talk when I talk resource preservation means preserving the resource areas as in a wetland or a vernal pool or a river or a stream or you know the encompass the umbrella of

193
00:54:16.880 --> 00:54:33.520
what we call resource areas. >> Yeah. But that's an excellent point because that could >> you see what I'm saying? Yeah. >> What's wrong with a a big field? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Under number two of this actually. So, this really seems to speak to the update of their pre-existing bylaw. And

194
00:54:33.520 --> 00:54:49.440
if you look under number two, it says add specific protections, wetland buffers, preservation of mature forests, priority habitats, scenic views, etc. Okay. >> So, it seems that they are calling out in the new version, >> not just wetlands, >> that this is >> that it's protecting >> wild open

195
00:54:49.440 --> 00:55:05.119
>> undeveloped space. >> Yeah. Is that the middle bor one? That's the middle one. >> It seems that the article 21 what that is before us, this is what they proposed to change to their existing bylaw. So I think their

196
00:55:05.119 --> 00:55:21.440
existing bylaw might have some more details in there that that maybe would be helpful >> instead of just I mean this is a great this is a summary of >> the proposed version whether or not it passed, >> right? >> But what's what is the pre-existing, right? >> And I I wasn't saying that to be argumentative. I just Yeah. No, I'm just

197
00:55:21.440 --> 00:55:36.720
saying I'm not either. I have I just got this. >> I think if that's the purpose is to protect more than the water. >> Okay. >> That's good, too. >> Okay. >> If it's, you know, so if you >> have a stand of Atlantic white cedars, although that would probably be in a well kind of an area

198
00:55:36.720 --> 00:55:52.240
>> probably. Yeah. Nope. Um, >> but they're call they call out changes to lot size related to whether it's private or public utilities. Um, contiguous open blocks of space, passive and active recreation. So, I think they're they're putting some good

199
00:55:52.240 --> 00:56:08.240
parameters in place, >> right? And I think my just >> so >> knee-jerk reaction to this is the it looks like it's more towards resource protection where is that in what we're

200
00:56:08.240 --> 00:56:25.359
it just seems Mark has it and he's got it all marked up over there but it just seems quite I don't know over the top. >> It looked like I if I was a developer it would be painful to do it. >> Okay. Um,

201
00:56:25.359 --> 00:56:40.079
and I just think so I guess I'm my I'm going to ask a question. Okay. >> What do you want to do? >> Okay, here's my thing. >> Is this our recommendation back to >> Yes. The planning board wants us to

202
00:56:40.079 --> 00:56:55.599
respond to this somehow. So, my I just made to myself a note that says from us, do we want to talk about comments tonight? Do we want everybody to really have a good chance to really take another look at it because I haven't

203
00:56:55.599 --> 00:57:12.960
really myself that well. Um, and I want to look at this one and now that you're saying that maybe there's more to this, I'd like to look at the rest of Middlear's. Um, and so do we want to put on the agenda for the next meeting or do we does everybody individually want to

204
00:57:12.960 --> 00:57:28.960
look at everything and make comments individually and send them to me and I'll put them together >> and then we'll bring it back to the meeting and see what we want to send to the planning board as comments. >> Do we have a copy of the Middleboro entire draft or just this? >> I'll get it.

205
00:57:28.960 --> 00:57:45.920
>> So I I think that would be helpful. I I I'm on board with making the recommendation to kind of make it not more encompassing but a side step to be more like this. So, but I guess it would be helpful. I

206
00:57:45.920 --> 00:58:00.720
don't want to make that determination while reading the middle bar and if you could >> maybe when Lori gets back in have her email that to everybody just so we have it to review. >> Okay. >> And then definitely on the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because this is just the the warrant. This is their their warrant

207
00:58:00.720 --> 00:58:16.160
article right from their town meeting, >> right? which that's what Tracy sent me this afternoon. So, like I say, I haven't seen the whole thing, but I've known from the very beginning I just it seemed to be more towards more clearly organized and outlaid out name.

208
00:58:16.160 --> 00:58:32.319
>> Yeah. >> And more towards resource protection, which I'm always good for that. >> Again, it it also depends on what the town presented as a please do this for us. >> True. >> What guidelines were they given in the drafting of that initial document, right? >> And maybe that's our feedback to It's

209
00:58:32.319 --> 00:58:47.920
not going on till the fall. So, I guess it would be better to get our comments in sooner or later. >> Yeah, >> cuz I know that the longest day of the year is coming and fall we blink your eye and summer will be gone. >> I happen to notice that there's no minutes on the end of this agenda, but

210
00:58:47.920 --> 00:59:03.760
there were on the other one, did they? >> And there were minutes in the packet. >> I didn't have minutes in my packet. >> I did was not given a set to proof. >> So, I don't know. Lory's not on vacation. We'll have we'll just move it up to It's not on this agenda, so

211
00:59:03.760 --> 00:59:19.599
>> we'll put it on the next one. >> Do you have any new business or does that conclude our meeting? >> Um, we have some >> any updates from the agent >> old business maybe. You want to talk about 52 Cleop Road?

212
00:59:19.599 --> 00:59:35.599
>> Um, >> yeah, >> he did a site he did a site visit on He was >> We were out there. I met with Steve um the other day >> and he's he's good with the site. Um he's going to add he's asked he's

213
00:59:35.599 --> 00:59:51.200
already done spoken with uh Derek Maxkey about it, but he wanted to see one more pass and and to rake actually the the soil um because it's pretty compacted. He

214
00:59:51.200 --> 01:00:08.720
said, you know, that that would he felt like that would satisfy, you know, getting the site prepared to plant. There was uh one thing on the uh in Steve's report that wasn't didn't show up on the site plan itself. It was

215
01:00:08.720 --> 01:00:24.960
a some way to demark the wetland from the front of the property, whether it was stones, boulders, or a split rail fence. So, uh, Derek's aware of that. >> That was Steve's suggestion. >> Yeah. Well, and it it was on the report, too.

216
01:00:24.960 --> 01:00:42.480
>> It was in the It was in the report and it didn't make it onto the plan. Is that what he's saying? >> That right. >> Okay. Right. >> Um, there's an issue with the um the uh pipe for the septic for the leeching field. Um, it's at the surface and so I

217
01:00:42.480 --> 01:00:58.640
guess um it's going to freeze. So the issue is and and Derek and has spoken already with the board of health agent who's aware of the problem. uh either you know some kind of um insulation to

218
01:00:58.640 --> 01:01:13.839
insulate um the pipe um and and I guess the other option that that was floated was to bury the pipe deeper but uh I think that it would

219
01:01:13.839 --> 01:01:29.839
create a burm which would kind of defeat the purpose of well it would impact water flow it would impact hydraology. Has the pipe been running the entire distance now? >> Yeah. Yeah. And I don't It's It's just right at the surface,

220
01:01:29.839 --> 01:01:47.200
right at the spot, you know? Um >> Why didn't they trench deeper? >> Yeah, that's my question. >> I don't know. But >> because you don't need pitch on that cuz it's pressurized from a pump, right? >> Yeah. >> Because it's going uphill out to that field. >> Yeah. >> I was disappointed myself after that

221
01:01:47.200 --> 01:02:03.599
last meeting. I I thought afterwards that it would have been wise for us to suggest that maybe 40 ft of that be sleeved through the wetlands anyway. >> I think it >> in case it ever needed to be replaced, they wouldn't have to dig up the wetlands. They could just put a 4 in

222
01:02:03.599 --> 01:02:21.680
sleeve for that 2in pipe to go through, >> pull it out, replace it. >> So if they ever needed to dig from one side to the other and just get to the sleeve, they could pull everything out and replace it by just pushing something back through. I would suggest that they dig it deeper and just leave it. If

223
01:02:21.680 --> 01:02:37.760
they're going to do something like that, get it down from the surface a foot and a half so that it's not going to freeze and have them asked nicely that if they could put a schedule 40 PVC sleeve that was big enough for it to float in.

224
01:02:37.760 --> 01:02:52.960
>> But they already wait a minute now. They've already gone through the board of health and it's okay to >> It's not changing the system. All you're doing is making that pipe >> protected >> a foot deeper. >> Yeah. And I and and I don't know what

225
01:02:52.960 --> 01:03:08.559
the elevations were on the site plan, but I don't think it was to have the pipe at the surface. So I know I know the board of health a >> So something went sideways. >> Yeah. So I know the board of health agent is involved and he he does Yeah.

226
01:03:08.559 --> 01:03:23.280
You don't want the pipe to freeze. So, you're going to have to dig if to wrap it. So, you might as well dig and drop it and make it a better. >> But isn't that up to Ed, >> not us? I mean, we've already made our determination. So, >> yeah. That's why I say it could be a

227
01:03:23.280 --> 01:03:39.680
suggestion though to Ed that that if it wouldn't hurt it, if they're going to dig it up anyway to to set it deeper, they're probably going to have to cut it. If they could sleeve it, it would be better long term for the wetlands. Yeah, I'll make that I'll make that I

228
01:03:39.680 --> 01:03:55.280
can make that suggestion to edit one. >> If it can't happen, that's fine. If Ed says no, >> okay, >> we're against it then. All all can candle lever is on board of health approval. So, the system functions first, but like I say, it doesn't make sense for the pipe to freeze and burst

229
01:03:55.280 --> 01:04:13.200
in the wetlands. >> Um, >> right. >> Yeah. And I I know Ed at one point wanted a sleeve there. It's just going to be the bamboo grove. It'll be replaced by the fountain. >> All right. So, talk to Ed. >> All right.

230
01:04:13.200 --> 01:04:28.000
>> Okay. >> Derek has been trying to schedule a site visit to get me and Steve Schmeal back out there. It may happen on Friday. I don't know. I think Steve is involved and has been hard to to pin down, but

231
01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:43.440
that he wants to talk about this. >> Everybody's busy right now. wants to talk about this. >> Okay. >> And I know Steve is adamant that >> he doesn't want it buried. He doesn't want to burn, >> you know, >> he doesn't want it topped. >> He'd rather have it, >> right? >> Put underground,

232
01:04:43.440 --> 01:04:59.720
>> right? So, >> all right. So, >> yeah, we don't want them extra. >> All good stuff. >> Okay. John's not here. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? Bye.