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.
on the >> Michelle Nancy. >> Okay. First on our agenda tonight is nine Hilltop Acres Drive. Mark, I'll turn it over to you. >> Okay. This was a uh tree uh removal
request. Um uh gave you all a short site visit. It's been a while actually, but um I went out, the owner was there and the arborist um
Gary from Beaver Tree Removal. Um the the tree is actually the roots are you can see it's it's right on the edge of the water, but it's it's a they want to remove it, I think, because of the impact to the the cement and coming up.
Um, so they're going to I ask how you're going to take it out. They're going to extend a crane. You can see 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, 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
there's been some discussion about terms of um discretion to the agent to make a call and I I won't speak to that, but that I know there's been a little bit of discussion of that. Um
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
up in the pond, they 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,
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
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
there. >> 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
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 were going to pull out the stump
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
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 I
want to take down three 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 feet or 25 ft or it was like this big around, you
know, just do it. And uh 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 Mark some kind of guidance. >> Yep. >> I would agree with that. U generally. I just guess the devil's advocate side of that is what happens when the next person
doesn't ask. 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
were cottage communities. I think eyes on everything and just in conversation, hey, did you ask? Yeah, the guy had no problem. And then you got a guy that's going one one closer to the water and doing a little bit more
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
visit and they're free to go. instead of going through the whole RDA process >> and we also have to remember classic our decision not just because we did six people in a row >> agreed but we are trying to give him
guidance to make the decision without us do we say there's a determining distance >> 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
paperwork because you're 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. >> 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 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 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 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 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 they're not bringing anything that's going to result, but 10 ft stuff like it's helpful. You know, I as Michelle just said, trying to keep it
as simple as possible and stay within, you know, the the spirit of the >> So for the purposes of business tonight, do we want to >> grant this as it go and then put on the agenda for actual discussion of what
those guidelines would be for the future for either under new business later in this meeting or >> it's right on here discussion of 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 an outline that we can, you know, just a couple bullet points. I don't think we have to overdo it. >> Okay. So, >> would you like have questions? >> So, how about that? Um, if we're going
to vote that they can do it, then I 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, and or
determination based on >> commission requirements if if in the future cases. >> Okay. >> But yes, I agree. >> Okay. >> Are they going from the edge of the driveway? >> 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. >> My name is Dan Desari. I'm actually Steve McKenzie's nephew and I'm coming
for him. >> Okay. >> And the driveway is probably 80 ft from the tree and then it's like way down a 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. getting one of those 125 ft
ones >> pro probably to get over that far. Like I don't really know how they're going to do it, but >> Joe's going to want the date so he can go watch. >> Yeah, it's something to watch. The guy that's up there dangling just controlling the whole works. It's
fantastic and and it's actually faster. They have a they vacuum up all the chips have chips flying all over the place. >> I'm all for it. So that's kind of another thing of point of discussion. If you come to us and you
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
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 pick up easier. Bottom line is we want to make sure it's done responsibly and it's not
falling in the pond or, you know, pulling out the stump 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
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
for Nine Hilltop Acar 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 and
approved. >> Excellent. >> All in favor? >> Any more discussion? Okay. I >> um if you if you could just let me know um or >> Yeah. >> If you know when it's going to come down
>> until the fall at this time of the year. >> Okay. Well, if you remember the approval before he did anything >> 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. >> We'll sketch an outline for guidance for simple tree removal versus a full RDA. Okay. Next, 15, 16, and 17 Shore Avenue.
I This was noticed in the paper, so I'm going to read the notice with my glasses on. Pursuant to to Mass General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 of the Wellland 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, 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 Avenue and the 15, 16, and 17 Shore Avenue properties. Assessor's map 41, lots,
two, and three. Motion to open the hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> 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 file this RDA because of the drainage work including trenching and installation of an underground uh drainage pipe. U it was performed where I brought the
assessor which was attached to the the application um started on lot 16, crossed over onto or crossed the uh SH Avenue, ran between 17 and 15 and the terminus
ended on 15 um right before long pawn. Um I can show you some of the >> 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 U trenching work that was done under Shore Avenue. This is 16 on this side. This is the U. 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 for everybody to see what you're uh >> Sure. This is
>> Careful. >> This is the fence between right down the property. And here's where the stone work and then there's a
point which is also shown here. So the issue before the commission we think is straightforward. The work was performed within the zones long no filing um was ever made with the commission before the court.
We respectfully that Clark Shores Association respectfully requested the commission issue a positive determination confirming uh Weapons protection actly to the court
and require filing so that the work is properly reviewed conditions and eval. >> 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 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 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 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 dog -3. This time we're going to have to do 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 jurisdiction under the act and will remove build 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 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 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 with that? >> 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 um you
know where you're voting on the positive and it's going to require a notice of intent to be filed um that if they notice intended a certain amount of time force brought against those owners of the property within the
100 ft where this activity was >> you don't want to person doesn't come in front of you and have you assess and evaluate the
activity that's already been performed. 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 activities
correct were >> but it's noting a violation >> 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 time to filing date or whatever. >> Is that correct? >> And if they don't file then we can take >> enforcement actions against them. So maybe we would ask Mark to write a letter
>> 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
for them to file a If you want action on it, you want it done whether >> given the notice we say that they have to come to us before two meetings.
Not the next meeting is not enough >> okay >> time. So I would say they need file a response with us um no later than Tuesday, July. >> A response or a notice of intent?
>> Their response with their they reply to our acknowledge to our notification with uh a notice of intent to be submitted to the conservation office no later than 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, I'm sorry, July 9th. 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. 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 >> So, all in favor? >> I >> 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. Second. >> Yep. >> Well, >> well, well, I I just little discussion about
>> I totally agree. Mark should send a letter. We should start this process. >> Uh I think that >> 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, because the first is on a Wednesday. >> The first is on a Wednesday. So, >> so what if it's just a notification that they come and speak to us in and give us
a a reply and then at that hearing we can discuss the >> Yeah. I I just feel like if we're demanding a notice of intent, somebody's going to get 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. an alternative that's >> 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. 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 intent and appear for hearing at a later date.
>> Let's have another motion. >> Does that even need one? I mean, Mark's going to write a letter, 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 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 requesting that the uh forced applicants from said uh
addresses 15, 16, and 17 shore app would be required to come in through a letter written by Mark Minton and >> to attend the meeting on the 14th. >> That's a motion. >> Okay. >> And second,
>> we can work on the word of the letter. >> Mark's really good at that. >> Can I ask one thing? So, >> we got a motion, a second. Discussion. Go ahead. No discussion. Go. >> Okay. So if are we going to send their it's basically a notice of potential
wetland violations 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 all three that are in question. >> Okay. 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 determination. >> Correct. >> You'll get the positive determination >> and they'll 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? >> 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 have a discussion with commission and you can you can talk with them how how to 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 Mark and Mark will advise them that they need an engineered plan. >> 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 area. Don't know if that's best practices. We want somebody a professional design
engineer to show that and resize a pipe or give an alternative analysis, >> what kind of treatment it's getting before it hits the water, where it's coming from. >> 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 send the determination copies to 156 and 17 >> and hopefully guide them through the
process. They'll come to the meeting with some knowledge already. Maybe having contacted an engineer already would be good. >> Although it's a busy season, so some of that stuff takes >> it takes time. >> Right. >> Okay. All in favor?
I >> All right. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Have a great rest of your night. >> Thanks. You too. >> I know it's a mess. Okay, next up to Beach Tree Drive. You're up, Mark.
>> Okay. Um I I think this was originally put on the 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 Weissfelder 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 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 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 Beach Tree 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 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 at uh vista pruning as a way to you know u which is exempt but it's not totally exempt but if you look at the highlighted
portion of the regs that I passed out there is a uh unpaved pedestrian walkway 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. But um that seems like um 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 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 this the the communication between the residents and and the commission in those emails. But since um the resident
Amy Amy came in um asking about it my feeling is if you look at the You can interpret that as that's that activity is exempt as long as you know
three feet wide during um you know to make an unpaved path just to clear that out. So someone can access well whatever they want to do. I'm just trying to leave the act here what the rigs actually say and stay the other stuff
aside. Um so that's kind of a little bit 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 that needs to be worked out outside of >> Yeah. Um and so that may come into play in this. I I don't know. I know it's and again you
all I'm sure uh have uh maybe 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 gerine
to to what the commission is 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 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. We don't know
who can or who has legal right of way to it. We don't know who we can give. >> Well, it appears that's been determined, >> right? >> Our only um job would be to tell them what's allowable. It's not up to us to
decide who owns it. 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 >> or their legal representative is the one that's requesting the work, which was a question in the the years that this has come up. So,
>> 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
I just I'm I I again I'm responding to a discussion I had with Amy Stanley about possible avenues to gain access to the water and assuming that in fact
their deed grants them that right. To me, that's is 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
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 speak with the commission.
But the way I read the regs 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
but that's my interpretation that that's so it's there's a couple things that seem to have changed since the time this came up to the commission. >> Those are my thoughts. >> Would it be worth the board voting on whether or not they 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
some matters that are outside of our purview, but >> yeah. So, I hope >> one Hickory Lane. Um, so we started this on like two years ago, maybe. We just wanted to clear a path for like so apparently
when the whole development was built there's like six or seven houses that part of Huckberry which pays to Huckberry shorts. Yeah. So we pay into theirs
to the the spot we're talking about is part of Huckberry no it's our access to the lake. Um we just wanted to clear a path in there as you guys know. One of the guys on our road was he went a little over the top with it to say the
least. Uh there was survey because we need to know what was what he came back that Keith fence is six or I know five six feet onto this property. As me and my wife Amy said we we don't care. We're 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 it. >> So Mark, and the regulation, right, was it a three-foot path? Do you want to read that? The >> 30.
Is there a private property sign at the entrance to that path or anywhere that >> it's technically not public land? >> No, it's it's part of the No Association, >> right? But there's no sign there that says private private beach access or
anything. So if they do a 30 inch path, 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
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
>> If they stick to that, then it's out of they're exempt. It's out of our hands. And >> there you go. Bob's your uncle. >> Don't Don't bring in a Don't bring in a brush hog and then dump gravel down
there and make it six feet wide for >> Yeah. Don't call a lot of attention to >> that. That would be sort of then it would come into us. But stays less than that 30 in and it's just you know clearing >> then >> you have the right to do that.
>> Okay. >> No more comment from anyone else. >> Yeah. I'd like to just say something. >> Okay. >> I'm Keith Ricefeld. I'm at four beach tree on one side of the uh the access area. And in the past it was never 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
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
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
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 is probably
18 feet 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.
Uh they're what? >> It's Hickory Lane. >> It's so Hickory Lane 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 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 that's still
my concern you know nothing to do with them. I have no concern with clearing a 30 inch 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, 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
guidance and say how short >> a letter of this determination? >> Yes. A letter of of the discuss that out with the >> boot regulation attached. >> You can do a 30 in. Anything past that, it's going to put us on alert. >> Maximum >> maximum maximum
>> 30 and there's no uprooting of 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, you know, uh, knowing 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 >> 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 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 >> 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 then you'd have something to say here's what you're
>> allowed 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 where where is the entrance >> to this path in you guys' eyes or your
eyes? >> Yeah, we can't tell you. >> We'd like So, we'd like you guys to work that up. >> Yeah. >> 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 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 >> what you're allowed to do. >> Try to keep your feet dry, >> right? >> Yeah. And that that's going to be a 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 it is there like driveway into their place but their property doesn't start the way down the stakes are still there
you can see where where it starts I mean it's probably >> from the road to the stakes probably 50 60 ft >> you guys got a survey done correct >> the survey yeah >> so you guys can mark it on the survey and submit it to to for us to show you where where the 30, you know, where 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? >> It's not up to 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 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 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, that gentleman was back down. Hey, you can't do that >> right here. You're violating >> excuse me through the chair." 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 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 five feet >> you got to work that out keep it >> that's you guys It 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 says, what the reg say, what you can do and what you can't do. So that's good to hear that working together.
>> Okay. Can the notice also be sent to >> Yeah, I'll send >> Yeah, we'll include you on the letter. We'll give you the address before we leave. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Good luck.
>> Thanks, guys. >> I have 24. >> 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 23rd here at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Mark, did you have something? >> I was just 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 see it but they sent an email requesting the continuence to don't worry. Not that that >> Yeah. It's aha what 150 acres that our
peer reviewer is working on. So it doesn't happen overnight. >> Yeah. >> And it took them a while to get the points of where it is out of 600 acres. >> So it's been a process. >> Okay. >> That again. >> Say again. >> We have to vote >> the date. Oh, June uh 23rd. Tuesday the
23rd. >> We did a motion in a second, but we have a vote again, right? >> Vote again, right? >> Okay. >> 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 at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> ready. >> Yep. Zero Mrick Street. I make a motion
to continue the hearing on Zero Mrick Street to Tuesday, June 23rd here at the 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 23rd, 2026 at the police station at 6:30 p.m. >> Second. What was that date again? >> Discussion Tuesday, June 23rd.
>> Discuss from today. >> Discussion on this one. Um, when they first came to us and gave us that whole >> Yes. >> long, whatever you want to call it, >> we let him talk even though we didn't have a D number. 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 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 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 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 can'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 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. 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. >> Okay. Um, all in favor? >> I I >> I >> Okay. Um, open space and residential development. Um, we have this big long
sorted thing. I'm not even sure where mine 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." 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 Surad is writing yours that's writing ours. and she said
because theirs is open space and resource preservation development bylaw 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 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 >> read it but I just I guess I just want to 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? >> No, I don't think it's any open space. I'm talking when I talk resource preservation means preserving the resource areas as in a wetland or a
vernal pool or a river or stream or you know the encompass the umbrella of what we call resource areas. >> Yeah. But that's an excellent point because that >> you see what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> What's wrong with a a big field?
>> Y >> yeah. Under number two of this actually. So this really seems to speak to the update of their pre-existing bylaw. And 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 >> undeveloped space. >> Yeah. >> Is that the middle one? Middle one. It seems that the article 21
what that is before us this is what they propose to change to their existing bylaw. So I think their existing bylaw might have some more details in there that that maybe would be helpful >> instead of just the 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 No 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 >> if you have a stand of Atlantic white theaters, although that would probably be in a well kind of an area >> probably. Yeah. >> 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 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 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, 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 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 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 middle
borrows. Um, and so do we want to put on the agenda for the next meeting or do we does everybody individually want to 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. >> 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 a side step to be more like this. So, but I guess it would be helpful. I 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 a bullet point. >> This is their their warrant 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 maybe. >> 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, too. >> And it's not going on till the fall. So, I guess it would be better to get our comments in sooner or later. >> Yeah. >> So, 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 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. Lor's on vacation. We'll have we'll just move it up to that. It's not on this agenda, so >> 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 Cleopon Road? >> Um, >> yeah, >> he did a site he did a site visit on He was >> We were up 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 already done spoken with 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 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 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. >> 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 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 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 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, right at the spot, you know? Um >> Why didn't they trench deeper? >> Yeah. Question. >> I don't know. But >> you don't need pitch on that because it's pressurized from a pump, right? >> Yeah. >> Because it's going uphill out to that field.
>> Yeah. >> I was disappointed myself after that 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 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 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. >> 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 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. You don't want the pipe to freeze. They'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,
>> Right. That's why I say it could be a 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 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 levers 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 in the wetlands. >> Um, >> right. >> Yeah. And I I know Ed at one point wanted a sleeve there. It's just going to be a bamboo grove. It'll be replaced by fountain. >> All right. So, talk to Ed.
>> All right. >> 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
that he wants to talk about this. >> Everybody's busy right now. >> He 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,
>> right? >> So, >> all right. So, >> yeah, we don't want them. >> Oh, good stuff. >> Okay. John's not here. >> Motion to adjourn. Second. >> All in favor? Bye.