Good. Good evening everyone and welcome to the June 23rd meeting of the conservation commission. Um, we are being on cable with Lake Cam. And if anybody else is recording, the one person in the
room, are you recording? No, you are not. Okay. So, we will begin by introducing ourselves like we always do. >> I'm Mark Minton. I'm the agent. >> John Lelanc, >> Michelle Bashar, Nancy Yates, >> Joseph Chamberlain, Mark Knox, William.
>> Okay. Um 30 Holland Road is first on the agenda and they have requested a continuence to July 14th is our first meeting in July. >> So moved. >> Second here at the police station at
6:30 p.m. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> So moved. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> So it did. I'm sorry. Okay. All in favor? >> I think she seconded with the addition of location. >> Yes. >> All right. Yeah. So, I'm already looking
at the next one. So, okay. 150 Bedford Street. Same thing. They still are working on um an agreement with their right away >> thing. >> Yeah. Yep. So, >> motion to continue till July 14th at
6:30 p.m. >> Second >> at the police station. >> At the police station. >> It's a group effort. >> All in favor? Hi >> Zero Mrick Street. Um, we did get something back from the peer reviewer.
Um, but they've yet had the have not had the opportunity to respond. So, they need to respond in writing to everything that the peer reviewer called out. >> Who we using? >> Um, Merryill. >> Okay. >> Deb Merrill. I mean, Merryill engineering. Deb Keller.
>> Yep. >> Before that's You're going to want that continued. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Before Can I just ask Mark of a question or yourself regarding the review? >> I had brought up at one of the meetings. >> You all have it, right? You should have all gotten it.
>> The review? >> Yeah, the peer review. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I just I wanted to make sure that it was very clear as to how they were running the gas line over there. They they're basically making a bridge. It's a Cber. >> Okay. >> They're supposed to come back with
updated plans to document. I just wanted to make sure that that's part of the review is the utilities going over that culvert. The gas line and the electric are the two that everything showed rip wrap is their construction for that. >> Can you do an email to Lori so that she
could forward it to Deb Keller >> or are jotting that down? >> Are you jotting that down? Okay. >> And John will verify this. >> Okay. >> Some of those utilities need to be buried in sand. >> Okay. >> So that gas line is very thin plastic or PVC line. >> Okay. and you can't bury it in rip wrap.
So, I just wanted and I envision all that sand filtering down over time like in a sifter. So, I just wanted the reviewer to agree that that's just proper. I don't want rip wrap to go around that gas line and puncture it. >> Well, Mark Mark can correct me if I'm
wrong, but it was very confusing. They brought in a new set of plans from after they had the Meepa review, correct? But it was they didn't get we had to call it out to Deb. It was like uh somewhere buried it in an email. And so we already
got a new set of plans for something that Meepa had called for, but Deb had already commented on the original set of plans and hadn't seen the new set of plans. So there was some confusion there, but now it's all been straightened out. So we're going to wait
for them to reply to her. Do you understand my request? >> Yeah. Yeah. So I So I'll I'll relay to um Mel Engineering to Deb Keller that commission is interested in in knowing
whether or not that's burying the utility lines and sand because they can't be >> how the sand stay in place in ripcraft. >> Right. >> So just it's a concern and I just want to make sure that they're reviewing it. It's I don't want to give input or a design, but I think if you review it,
she should >> Yeah. If she picked up on it or if she had even considered it. It was a question. >> Um the commission >> like we just talked if it was sleeved. Maybe sleing is the proper process and it's just >> Isn't that a plan board issue though? But it wouldn't be
>> at the wetlands. I think it's ours because >> the wetlands >> well they're crossing. Some are going under the culvert and some are going to have to I think you know because certain utilities only get buried certain depths >> y >> and ultimately they're making a bridge. So how those utilities get across that
bridge that's basically >> a pre-cast culvert and rip wrap. Yeah. So, >> all right. >> We also do we know if they heard from Taton because there had been the discussion about having her >> peer review Taton's submission as well
instead of having the project split. >> They were they the agent there said they were meeting either the 22nd or 24th that they had to they were going to present Deb Keller as a potential peer reviewer, but she's not on the list that they use. says there's
a process they have have to be on some approved list in Tom. So I'll reach out to her as well and get an update. >> So I I I'll make a motion to continue if you are >> satisfied. Yep.
>> Motion to continue zeroing street uh until July 14th at the Lakeville Police Station meeting room at 6:30. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. off Montgomery Street. Um,
same thing. >> We're still waiting for response from the Army Corps. >> Yes. >> Did they give a timeline? >> Um, they hired Who' they hire to review? >> Brad Holmes. >> They hired Brad Holmes. The the Army Corps is asking Brad Holmes to do the
review on the Wellins. So, >> nothing wrong with that. Local guy. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, was it you or Mark that had told me u they finally figured out how to get in touch with the right people? Yes. >> At Army Corps. >> That stuff about the phone call was not
that's not the procedure. Sorry. >> They delayed their own process through >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah, >> I understand. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I I can share the emails that we've gotten back from. It's it's not um it's the engineer. He was here, Kevin
Daw. I I don't have his last name, but yeah, it's in writing. We've got it. We >> Yeah, they did that proper in the process, but it didn't start. >> It's they've got a number. >> Think that they could convince us it wasn't the Army Corps and that D could make the determination and that just
didn't work. So, >> they did. You're right. Exactly. They delayed their >> We forced them to go the proper path and we said, "Show us the emails." >> Yep. Yep. >> And there wasn't. >> And then they did. Shame on them. >> Okay. Then I move that we continue off
Montgomery and Green Lot Circle to July 14th at 6:30 p.m. here at the Lakeville Police. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Uh, next
is 38 Lakeside Avenue. >> Motion to open the hearing. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Okay. Pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 131, the Wetlands Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on
June 23rd, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. at the police station, 3:23 Bedford Street for a filing of an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation. The applicant Corey and Angela Cabraw are seeking
information for 272 lineal feet of bordering vegetated wetland BBW on a portion of the 13.91 acre site at 38 Lakeside Avenue in Lakeville, Mass. The property is also
identified as assessor's map 54 block one plot six. Um, okay. So, what's today? Tuesday. Yesterday, um morning I went out with one of the
abutters. There's three skinny properties that go from Lakeside Avenue to the pond and they're long and skinny and um this one's kind of in the middle of the other two. And there's not a lot of boundary markers. It's all dense woods.
>> How skinny is skinny? 20 feet, 50 ft? >> Oh, I don't know. On the map, is there a plan somewhere? I'm trying to read it. >> I can't see it. >> Anyway, so there's no boundary markers or anything. So I went out with one of the neighbors to and we walked from the
pond back through. >> The storm really wre havoc with the property, the trees down, climbing over trees and everything. We can't find the flag. So then we drove around to Lakeside Avenue, came in from that side because we knew it was up from the um pink house. So we
knew it was the next property up. So we basically cross from Barney's we knew where to go in and we went in quite a ways through really thick dense everything um like three ticks worth for me but um and we can't find the flags.
So I called um Jason Youngquist and he said they the Outback didn't flag it but he knew where the flag was so he would walk in. So, I'm going to set Mark's going to call him and set up a time for him to walk in
with Mark to review the flags. I just did a quick because it was Monday, the meeting was tonight. I figured Mark might still be there wandering around. I unwisely thought I really knew the property pretty well. Obviously, it was just really hard to figure it out.
>> We couldn't find the flags. >> My one of my ancestors is Daniel Boone. I'm just saying. Okay. >> Anyway, so um Jason himself is going has offered to he said he knows how to get to it. So >> Mark's going to call. So we're going to
continue this to the 14th >> about Mark. >> There's not that many flags. >> I can't tell. >> Can't tell. >> No. >> Can't tell what >> how wide it is. >> Oh, okay. So motion to continue the hearing for 38 Lakeside AB until July 14th at 6:30 here at the Lakeville
Police Station meeting room. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> It's the training room. >> It's the Rita Gabbit room, right? >> No, that's the >> We're going to be busy on the 14th. >> This is Yes, it is.
>> It's officially the training room. >> Dual use. >> Okay. >> All purpose. All right. So, next is >> Morrison. >> Six Morrison. Y >> move to open the hearing for six Morrison Y. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Back with the glasses. This one's smaller. Pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 of the One Protection Act, the Lakeville Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on June 23rd, 2026 at
6:30 at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street on a notice of intent. The applica the application Peter Widispan proposes to replace an existing residential structure with a new
structure using the same footprint. The location of the project is 6 Morrison Way, map 40, lot 4 through six. >> It doesn't look like the same footprint. >> Looks like the the new house is
>> Well, this they've also asked for a continuence. >> Oh, okay. >> They're waiting to hear from Natural Heritage. >> Yes. >> One thing. >> Okay. Is that what the picture says? >> No. >> Make a motion to continue six Morrison
Way >> until Tuesday, July 14th at 6:30 p.m. here at the police station. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Boy, are we going to be busy on >> July 14th? Let's hope nobody else push
till September. >> Just keeps going. Okay. Next. Let's continue this other one too. >> The next is a a request for a certificate of compliance for SE192914.
The address is one Patty's way. >> Hello. >> Is it Peggy then? >> Oh, Patty. >> Tish name >> with only one T though. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. >> Yeah. So, my name is Eric Mass. 55
Longpoint Road. And yes, I'm looking to get my certificate of compliance for classes for one patty way. Uh and while I have the commission here, I I have a few other outstanding I don't know if you call them standing, but certificate
of compliances I need to do. So, I'm trying to figure out where those are and stuff like that. I know it's Isn't that kind of a weird thing? Once you do your project, you forget about coming back to get it completed >> until you sell it. >> Until a bank says something to you or something, right? So, it's just kind of a thought like how do you clean all
those up? You know, trying to remember >> same way you just did this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Is this the one by your your old B? >> Yes. Yeah. This the house. >> Email Lori and we'll go through one at a time. >> Well, the only way you find out is you go to the register deeds and try to look them up, I guess. Yeah.
>> Well, I would say easier would be regarding closing out. >> Yeah. >> You know where you did the project, >> right? So stop in and ask Mark or Lori, >> hey >> to check, whatever. There should be one on file.
>> I did that today with Mac. So we're trying to work we're trying to work it out. >> But she's probably not going to find it by an address. >> I didn't know how. >> You don't have a D number, >> right? No, just a thought because that way there's no outstanding ones. >> Have you seen the files files go by D
number? >> Go online and do it, >> right? >> You need to hire an intern online. Can't you go on D's website and look up a number? >> You got to have the number. That's what I just said. >> But you can go on you can go on the registry of deeds and look it up and see if there's a >> Right. And that's what you said, right?
>> Yeah. Well, so for example, >> you can number >> should be available. >> Yes. >> D asks us for numbers when they're looking for a project. They call and ask us >> to look it up.
>> Yeah. For example, the Lakeville Country Club. There's a couple of outstanding ones that I just happened to find, but it was from the previous owner and obviously they got missed. So, I'll be back with those when I can figure out where they are. >> But if you know the year is another thing because Lori and I or Mark, if you
go with Lori down seller, sometimes you can find a file cabinet and look and see what year it is. And >> well, this is with Gary Mosa back in the day. So, that's what I'm saying. So, this >> they could already be resolved >> or they're in the cellar of my house and I haven't Yeah. >> Come across them.
>> So that was just >> Joe's. They used to be in Joe's cellar. >> I cleaned out myself. I don't have any of them anymore. >> I don't know how far back it goes, but it's I think it's mass mapper. The wetland change. >> Oh, yes. >> They show >> outstanding ones. You're right.
Something like that. >> Change the color indicator because it's been closed out. >> That's that's a good way to look at it, too. >> But they may I don't know how far back. >> And I don't even know what they're far out. Gary did whatever he did back then. and they may be closed out, but I will get I will get on them and try to figure those out, too. >> All right, >> but back to one pettyway.
>> Okay, Mark. >> Um, so there's an asbuilt I know for the septic um um but speaking to the wetland that was
for a single family house. Uh it was completed three years ago. Is that right? And yes, I I was out there. >> Lawn's established. >> Lawns established. Everything's stabilized. >> It works. >> It works.
>> It was hard to find. I mean, >> was that barn then? No. >> But um >> Well, they don't give you an address when there's no in between number. So, you got to create another road. That's why it was one pway instead of 87 something old crooked lane.
Yeah, I'd say it seem it seems like it's it's complete at this point. >> Let's see. There's another house you have there. It was the one I was talking is the same, but it's >> Yeah. 31 Stson Street. Yes. >> Up on the hill. >> Yes.
>> All right. So, we need a motion to um issue a certificate of compliance for One Patty's Way SE 192 914. >> So moved. Second >> discussion. All in favor? >> I
>> All right. Go, Derek. >> One last thing. Thank you guys for taking time out of your day every time you come here to do this stuff. You know, it's a lot. You know, I've been there. I know. But I I appreciate everything you guys are doing when you come to these meetings. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you again. >> So So your attorney didn't do a title
search on the on the golf course when you bought it? >> They probably missed it. I'm just finding this out now. That's why I'm going to go through it all. I have to find a clear. >> Thanks again. >> See you later. >> Have a good night. >> All right. Meeting minutes.
>> Joe, Seth, >> we have a couple of other things before we get the minute meeting. Oh, no. They are. >> It's next. >> Okay. Make a move. A motion that we accept the minutes of the Lakeville Conservation Commission meeting of March 24th, 2026 as presented to us.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. All righty. Next up, tree removal. >> There we go. >> Mark, you're up again. >> So, I tried to put together uh as always, it's probably a little
wordy, but uh there's two pieces of paper I gave everybody. One is a tree removal of form that Lori actually put together that's um on the website. It's trying to simplify the process. And then
I went based on some of the comments from last meeting, but trying to uh envision what what type of factors um would differentiate between something that
would be we're not concerned about you going ahead and and taking down the tree versus something that should go at least through an RDA to the commission. So that's what this second document is a
lot of words but um just trying to capture you know distance from the resource area what type of equipment all these were all things that came up last meeting um tree conditions and and Michelle made
made the suggestion that some of this probably could be expanded on the form that Lori already put together. We could maybe put together some more. >> Just keep it simple. >> Yeah, this is this is not wasn't something I saw going to the
>> Yeah, my only requested ad was or noted ad was that we make sure we ask them who's doing work if it's themselves or if it's a license. >> Okay. So, who's doing the work? >> And I thought that was an easy thing to put on the form so that Mark didn't have
to go back and ask for it later. Well, how about um distance from the resource area? >> So, >> they might not know that. >> I was just thinking the same thing that like do we say 25 ft or closer may
require RDA 25 ft for the cousin. And a lot of this I think is also subjective to the spot. Can they fell the tree without hitting the house or dropping it in the resource area? Right. >> Uh
and if we put a distance just I just said 25 ft as an arbit we have a bylaw. So >> well we don't yet but we will. >> Right. >> Well we from my understanding is we can >> go as if it's in until they say if it's
not. >> Okay. >> But my >> but that's not the same thing. But dropping a tree in the we Mark, you can tell me we've never made a decision on this 150 foot tall tree that's sitting right next to the resource area and they want to drop the whole tree in the
resource area >> and leave it there. >> Yeah, that's what they want to >> but it would take other trees on the way down and it's so high it will hit the pond. >> Who wants to do it? These >> No, it's in uh it's uh Churchill shores
and we never came with a determination of I follow that poor guy. >> I sent a letter back, >> but it's still there, right? >> So, I mean, >> well, yeah, lot of good points, but I got >> Okay, >> other things kind of come up with
>> the the it's on a form. >> So, play let's play both sides of it. You just brought that up. Fell the tree into the wetlands. What's the difference if it blew down? >> I mean, I I guess intentionally you
don't want to do that, but it does create habitat as the tree rots >> or it could kill habitat on the way down >> and most of that will grow back. But and again, I'm not trying to say it's good to do that, >> right? >> But I guess it there are probably pros
and cons to it is my only point. But however, I'm just saying so if I I intentionally said 25 ft or less, 25 ft or greater for a reason >> because now we got an can come in and use in a form and
95% of people 99% of people are going to be honest with that. But who's checking to see, oh, I thought it was more than that and it's 10 ft and I told you it was 40. >> But he still has to go look at it. >> Here's a thing.
>> He's got to look at it. Yeah. I I'm I'm not crazy about the form period. I'd rather start over again on the form. Well, >> well, do we need to have a form then? Why can't we just have >> Well, the form at least should say >> I think it's the form maybe is for
internal use only. Maybe that down so there's a record when he goes out and looks it. >> Yeah. Can we just make >> We're giving him my form from the site visit >> and here's a photo. >> Perfect. But it's marked to use its
>> internal >> D and it cuts out the >> well conjecture of oh sorry I have no uh spatial awareness I don't know what distance is >> so somebody calls the office says I want to cut some trees close to the wetlands
Mark goes out >> tie a flag on them and I'll come out and look >> he has and that's what I always did I did it for years >> and then he fills out a an on-site >> just as regular Yeah, it's regular site visit would be fine. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, but my thought is
>> 90 >> I can't say 95. How about 85%. I don't know what the percentage is, but the most trees that we're looking at that people want to take down around Long Pond. I very few are near the wetland. People don't think about us when they're
chopping down a tree near the wetland. They think about us when they're chopping down a tree near the pond. So, that's mostly what we're looking at. drop it in the pond. >> Pardon? >> We don't want them to drop. >> No. And we always say that we do the little what he would do is maybe um like
on RDA, we check, you know, anything that goes in the palm will be removed immediately. So, he needs to document to send them, you know, something that says >> anything order of conditions. >> Yeah. Or mini
negative three with conditions like that kind of a thing. Well, at some point then they just have to apply for an IDA >> and that's what we're giving him the deterine. >> If it's 50 ft back from the pond and it's going to go to the side, you know, you can ask him who's doing it and it's
not going to go anywhere near the pond, then he >> not required, >> right? >> But then I think that should be with what we discuss his determination or if he's not sure, bring the picture and the form back and say, "Hey, this is far from the islands."
Um, It's sort of open in that direction. I think they could fell it, but maybe just have do the RDA just to have a record or whatever. But it would be >> if there's any question at all, we just have them do an RDA. It's not that expensive. It's easy enough to do, but
if it's so simple that he can determine, >> right, I think that the form should be from our use. >> Yeah. Not >> Yeah. Then not even this one. He's already got a site visit form. >> Doesn't Why we have to reinvent the wheel? Okay.
>> Well, I think it's just good to have a checklist of the tree criteria that we're looking at. >> That's maybe to give him good >> and and some of it's more mental. You know, you're going to go out and you're already looking anybody that goes out is going to be looking at, you know, what's
the slope? How are you going to take the tree down? You know what? Um, are you going to put up any siltation fencing if it's right by the, you know, >> how about this? If there's any kind, >> you don't have to write it on the form, >> Mark. If there's any kind of a question, you got John,
>> you got any of us that you can take along. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. You don't have to make that decision. >> But this gives us a direction, too. Like this tells us what we should be looking at. >> But I think from >> not the form they fill out, >> from from our standpoint, the checklist
is not a bad thing. And like retired already here and I saw it on one of these. What are you doing with the stumps? Is on Lor's form. Are you going to grind the stumps or you going to have somebody bring an excavator? >> Fill out a RV. Put yourself fence here. >> Yeah. >> But if you're just going to cut it down
close, leave the stump, let it rot, >> not needed. You got plenty of room. You got a big field over there. And that's up to Mark's >> determination or come back and ask us. >> But I think that this that again, just from a checklist standpoint, good idea. Just
>> maybe he should make up a checklist. >> Yeah. But what about the stump? Yeah. >> And if you forget to ask, but if it's on a list. >> Yeah. And for internal purposes. >> Yes. >> Just to document. >> And if somebody comes in and says,
"Well, you let that person, you know, it just it's it's >> why don't you just turn this form into a checklist that attaches to your site visit form that you have?" >> And I'll just keep it internally. I have questions. Well, I'm going to be taking pictures anyhow. Anything. >> Yep.
>> It's going to help keep you organized. And then when we ask you a question and you forget because we did 10 site visits that week, we'll have the form. It'll be easy. >> Should should we have on this request contact information and name of the
company that's doing this? Be able to shoot a quick question to them. How do you guys feel about this 125 foot tall tree? Now, >> we don't even do that on an RDA though. Really say who who you doing? I mean, usually >> I think in this in this be interesting
>> to save those donuts >> because I think the reason you've seen so such a big increase in tree removal companies is that we got a lot of trees that need renewal, >> right? True. >> You should have a search. They're all over the place now and they're
>> unbelievable. >> Again, just to be devil's advocate. >> Yeah. Um I if Mark's asking the questions I think that sometimes the questions can be leading you know are you going to use a tree
removal company? Yeah. It's on the form now. >> Yeah. >> And now the guy does it on his own on a Saturday. He fells it on the neighbor's house. Whoops. Whereas the tree removal company,
>> what's what's the line of action at that point? >> There is none for us. >> We said they could cut it down. They said they were going to use a contract. >> It's simple as who's taking it down and then you write it down. If they being truthful, >> let me let me put it back into our
court. >> Okay. >> They fell it into the pond. What's the what's the corrective measures of that? >> Just kind of >> if it's that's his determination. If it's that close that it looks like it's going to go into the pond, a substantial
amount of it except maybe a few leaves. >> No, it's not. At that point, they lied and said I was going to get a tree company. >> Say it's 80 feet away from the pond up a hill. They fell it. It rolls >> into the pond. What do we tell them? They got to get it out, right?
Otherwise, it becomes a hazard. >> What if what if the wind knocked the tree down to a pond? >> So, if it happens, >> we're just going to say get it out and they're going to back the Chevy downhill. >> Put on some chains. Yeah. >> Start spinning the grass into the pond.
>> I I saw that on TV the other night. There's a lot of >> Well, that's what enforcement orders That's what enforcement orders are for. >> Gonna happen, >> you know. >> I think we're beating this to death. >> I think I do, too. I think it's easy enough. My god, I did it for years. He's
can his judgment should be >> Yeah. Make the call. >> If it's even close to >> If it's even close, just tell him you need an idea. >> An RDA and bring it to the to us. >> And part of it is detecting something. >> Nothing's going to stop. >> I was going to say the whole to me
again, you go out, you ask the questions. Mark's doing all the right things with the checklist. Are you going to use a professional to remove this because it's kind of Oh, yeah. I'm just saying at some point >> not everybody's going to be truthful and >> something may go wrong. I understand
that it's not our fault at that point, >> but I think that >> well we have it >> into now there's a violation. >> Yeah, >> but who's the violation? Like who would enforce that violation >> that they lied to us? the tree falls in
the pond needs to be taken out. I think the corrective measures need to be then monitored >> or something. But again, I know we're >> But just remember that we don't >> that's what enforcement orders are for. When somebody does something bad, they get an enforcement order.
>> But we there's nothing there's no teeth behind our enforcement. >> Now there is the bylaw. >> What can we do? >> Fine them. >> Fine them. >> I think you need to amend your bylaw to say that. And I would say that you could probably only find them under an IDA or or an office of intent.
>> Well, no, under an enforcement order. >> But if we told them they didn't need an Usually an enforcement order is because they're doing work, but they didn't come before us. >> An enforcement order is a violation. You'd call out the violation. You have done this and you have done damage to a resource area, but it's a violation.
>> They didn't have to file anything with us to take this tree down. and then they bought. We don't have anything to enforce. We You know what I mean? There's We never gave them an We never gave them an IDA or an NOI. >> There's nothing to enforce.
>> That's Well, and that's where some of the internal like if I'm out there asking questions for whatever that's worth and you they drop it into the pond and they leave it there. And >> I think you'd be hardressed to to to
find them or or enforce something that we informally told them they could go ahead and do. I think >> from an enforcement perspective, you almost have to have an idea. >> I don't think we told him drop in the pond, though. That was the whole point.
>> Well, it's a little bit it's almost I don't know if this works, but the agent is saying, "Well, given the circumstances, as I understand them, you're good to go." But >> I didn't I didn't say drop it in the palm.
>> If you write a letter with a mini order of conditions, then >> that's really >> negate the whole she used the wrong terminology. Pre tree removal guidelines. >> Yes. >> That'll go along with the tree removal
process. >> Don't do this. Don't do that. >> And they have to be sure of that. And they have to sign. The word guidelines has a company feeling to it. It's not that >> I guess the point is trying to make when
it's obviously not going to harm anything to try to make it a little bit easier. If there's any question at all that it's 150 foot tall tree and had any possibility of going in the pond, they need a RDA, >> right? >> If they're taking down a little skinny
stick of a thing like this, that's not going to bother anything. >> I would agree with that. Yes. You know, so any, you know, just be conscious of if if you look at it and think anything possible in the lake after you say they can, it's on you.
>> I'm I'm working on my game face. >> This is now your new uh weekend job is pulling trees out of the pond. >> Drop it in the pond. >> You asked a question about the tree going down the 90 foot slip. That's the worst possible combination because then
now you need equipment. >> That's what I'm saying. >> You're trying to yank that thing. >> We'll just we'll just take my boat over there. We'll float it back to my house and pull it right up the boat ramp. >> How about How about one of the guidelines being the size of the tree, too? >> That's,
>> you know, because I've gone and had people tie I to take down five trees and I go and they tie the ribbon around all the trees and they're like this. That's a lot different. If somebody wants to take down a tree that's like this, there's a lot more potential to go wrong. So, that should be part of your
judgment thing of the size of the tree >> because how much can go wrong with a little teeny tree like that? >> You'd be surprised. >> I would somebody get >> It depends on who's cut. >> I had a branch that size bounce off my roof. Put >> some pressure on it
>> and then the person flings into the pond. >> Okay. So, what's our decision here? He's gonna come. How about he comes back? >> If there's any question at all, RDA. >> Okay. >> All right. Sounds good. >> Okay. >> All right. Hold on. Wow. We beat the
heck out of that. >> That was fun. >> Okay. I lost my agenda. Where is >> Tell them not to do it when it's >> the biodiversity. >> Yeah. Oh, that's number one. >> Do you have that? How come I don't have the biodiversity on mine? >> I don't know.
>> It's number 10. >> Yeah. letter in support of community biodiversity grant. >> You got there was an update at one at the very end of the >> Okay. So I thought everybody got a copy. Did everybody get a copy? Is that what this is? >> You did?
>> I did see one. It was the same. >> I got to go back and find it now. >> This is the letter of support for Long Pond people that I did that's due tomorrow. So actually Emily already has it because this is a joint venture between the town
and Long Pond Association. So, um, I told her it was on for us to vote on tonight. >> Why would anybody be have any problem with this? >> They wouldn't, >> right? >> But I it it kind of scares me sometime because I know it needs to go by the
commission, but this kind of was a no-brainer to me. And if it it's due tomorrow, we hadn't had a meeting. I didn't get the mo the memo to that we needed to write it. But I think everybody's been in favor of this. It's like the one >> Well, let's find out. I make a motion to
approve the letter >> the letter of support >> the letter of support for the bio biodiversity grant application. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Great. I don't think these people get enough credit after all these years and they finally they just bought their own weed harvester. They really
are >> doing this for 30 years. >> Yeah. Well, remember when we laid those benthic barrier things down 20 years ago? I mean, it's been going on for a long time and finally there's somebody that's there's a solution and hopefully they'll leave a healthy pond for the
their children. >> Okay. Open space and residential development. Last thing, did anybody besides me and I just did this like two at four o'clock this afternoon. Did anybody have anything to say about
it besides me? >> Okay. So, I we'll go page by page. >> Where is it? >> You don't have it? >> I don't think I have it. >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, was it in the last? >> All right. I got I got it.
>> Mark, this question is for you. Not this Mark. This Mark, >> page three. >> You don't have it? >> No, I got a new vehicle. >> All right. So, >> all the papers old vehicles. Sorry. >> I don't have it. >> What does it say? >> Um
The Lakeville OSRDS require developers to meet specific runoff volume reduction targets which can reduce required storm water storage volumes by approximately 37%.
Compared to conventional baseline. So are they saying because you're consolidating and have less roads and less houses and stuff, you're going to have less storm water? I didn't quite get why they're agreeing to 37%.
>> I don't know why storm water is in this. >> Yeah, we had talked about that before too. >> It sounds like it's the the purpose is the smaller development creates a smaller amount of runoff. >> Okay, that's what I was taking from it. It just struck me at first. It's like, oh my god, they're going to allow him to
do >> less storm water, >> less retention. >> Yes. >> Just a 30. No, I it's I don't think he >> Okay. Smaller retention pond with the same round. >> Who's proposing it? >> Uh, this sur
planner board. >> Well, town. It has to go to be voted on at the fall town meeting, I assume. Oh, >> okay. So, it's page four. >> I don't have it. >> Um, I'll just read the things to you. the developer must have all wetlands on the site delineated approved by
conservation commission blah blah blah. So that mentions us there and then um under their pre-application meeting they typically invite representatives from conservation and border health to provide comprehensive initial review of
environmental and infrastructure constraints on the site. >> So for us to go to a plan board here. >> So well that's what I'm saying too. You know, my complaint about all the volunteers on commissions all the time is once you get on a commission, you want to be on the commission. And the next thing it's like, now you're on the
commission and now you got to be a representative to this. So now you got >> why do you? Because they if there's wetlands near it, they're going to have to come to us anyway, >> right? >> So why can't >> So why do we have to be at a planner board meeting, >> right? Well, they're inviting us. It doesn't say we have to go.
>> I think that that's when you get back a note to say That's why I'm asking >> proper filings for the conservation commission to review within their own >> right. I'm getting there. >> Meeting process. >> Let's go back. Let's hold on to this and go forward and go then we'll go back.
Okay. All right. Sorry. Um structures are this is page three. Structures are limited to a height of 35 ft 2.5 stories with a maximum total lot coverage of 40%. >> 40%. >> Yeah.
>> So they get a So I think the intent is >> what's typ what's the requirement >> 25% coverage. So I think the intent with this is small >> they're allowing them to do smaller lots by preserving some open space over there. >> So now
>> and again I think the board of health might have push back on that but if you have just cut it in half so instead of an acre and two/3 you have roughly a 3/4 acre parcel >> right >> they're allowing you the same size house. Well, what's 30,000 square feet? Because some of these are 30,000 square
feet. So, really 34 of an acre. >> That's three. Okay. All right. >> So, still allowing you basically the same size house on a conventional lot that we have now, >> right? >> And that's the increase from 25 to 40% lot coverage of impervious.
Uh but the tradeoff is the developer preserved 50% open space over there or whatever >> and he saved a shitload of money on road road cost. >> Right. >> Okay. And then it goes to this whole thing about sending it to the New
Hampshire storm water center and the preliminary soil types. soil types really bothers me because back in the day I remember a few of the subdivisions where when they use the CAD machine or whatever they use or they put in this a certain soil type and it's not the right
remember that thank god for Ken Leonard to come and fix that and the basins were like overflooding it's was uh off of Kingman Street that subdivision >> I I think one of the things that is most of opened my eyes to drainage back
around this There was the state came out with something all the soil types in Massachusetts and their suitability for onsite septic systems. >> Mhm. There's a a mapping thing on the >> mapping thing and like it's like maybe
8% of all the soil can be used for onsite septic systems. >> So from what I'm told from engineers, it's fairly accurate now. >> Oh yeah. But you got to be real careful where you're where you're putting the system. That's what I'm saying.
>> Yeah. So, what it does is it it the mapping guides them to more easily find areas to perk rather than just random thing. Let's go. Right. Right. >> All right. That was just another thing I had about like a peer on soil types or something. I don't know. All right. So
now we're on page four, which was my biggest thing is they have this whole phase one requirement checklist and it and the third one down is coordinate with conservation to approve a resource area delineation. That all needs they've pulled out resource area delineation
about three times. And my thing is um it should be changed to um coordinate with conservation or not even coordinary conservation they need needs to approve an ORAD an order. >> Yeah.
>> To say it properly that's how Kong says it properly. That's what we do. But we don't approve an order. >> We don't come up with it. We don't they bring their design to us. >> But no but they have to have that from us >> where applicable before proceeding. They have to in their phase one requirements,
they have to have an OraD, but they're not calling it that. I'm just saying call it >> call it what it is. >> Well, use the correct term that we employ, >> right? >> Okay. >> And it's in two places. It's down here again. Um on phase 2 requirements, must
have wetlands identified on site and approved by the conservation commission through a resource area delineation. No, that's not good enough. That's a an ORAD again. So just wherever they say that change to ORAD. That's my what I'm gonna say. >> That's my biggest thing to say besides
>> we would peer review that anyway. Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> It's a third place here. Secure and approve resource area delineation. It's an Ora. So that's three places to change it. >> What? >> Jesus woman.
>> Really? >> Call it what it is. >> Well, what if they just say we have an No, I get nothing. I understand, too. >> Okay. All right. >> You're frustrated. >> So, now where's the other thing is calling out the agent to that land that
they're putting aside and it's going to be taken care of by the um I don't even know what page that's on. >> Camper repair man talking about your BMW repairs. >> All right. So, now this is on page seven. >> Do that on one of them.
>> All right. So codified monitoring and stewardship. So now this is when the um they've taken that open space it's under the HOA and now um they have to put up
money for inspections. So these inspections are performed by a qualified third party or the town's conservation agent. Now they have to put up money for that. So I'm just thinking in the future
>> peer review if our agent has to do that then >> we charge for it. >> Yeah. Then some of that money should go towards >> site inspection fee for preservation of blah blah blah. Whatever gets >> isn't that what they do on a conservation trust? Don't they do an
annual inspection? >> Yeah, but you got to get them to take it. They're not going to take >> But you pay them to to do it. >> Yeah. You give them an endowment. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, and then the final thing you'll be happy to hear.
Uh, >> oh, no, it's not final. Page eight. The board must verify that the dedicated open space consists of no more than 50% wetlands. >> In the first time the overad went around, you took the wetlands and everything out before before you divided it up.
>> This time, they're not. I'm just bringing up the points. >> Say it again. the first time this o this O-r thing came around all the resource areas were taken out and then you decided >> what else was >> the open space wasn't going to be 50%
wetland >> right >> and now it is >> now they're allowing up to 50% wetland which could be a lot less open space preserves >> well I mean you're kind of happy they're preserving the wildlands >> exactly
>> well the definition I I grabbed the wrong one I couldn't find the one I've got. >> But you'd be pro protecting more if you excluded the wetlands because they're not developable. >> Right. >> And then after that protect 50% of the
land. Right. >> Right. >> So then you have a a better end product because you have more buffer zone and upland protected along with the wetlands that can't be developed anyway. So don't count them for the developable land.
That's how it should be. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> It >> I have the wrong version. My pages are off. But they have definitions primary conservation a area and then secondary conservation area.
>> And the primary are wetlands and perennial streams and other 100year flood planes. They're already protected. So I mean that's almost default open space. And then they talk about the other the secondary
conservation is um uplands really which it to me that's really o the open space you want to protect because it if it doesn't have protection now or set it aside the wetlands >> are already >> I'm I'm agreeing with that point but >> so how do we want to question that? Can
you reread that language that you questioned, Nancy? Just >> the board must verify that the dedicated open space consists of no more than 50% wellins. So I don't know where the part is. I mean this is a big document where I
don't >> how much land do does a developer need? Do they have to >> 15 acres >> and do they are they limited to the number of units they would conventionally get the number of houses? >> Yes. Okay.
Yes, >> but I don't think when I read this I didn't get the part and maybe it's just not in here. Maybe it's in the definitions that weren't in this one I'm looking at. This is April 2026. What are you looking at? >> Well, so that means 50% of it is not
well, >> right? >> Right. >> We want it to be 100% not well. I guess we don't know. It sounds like there's a sliding scale there independent on the size of the property, >> right? >> Well, that it can't be more than open
space consists of no more than 50%. Which means they could have 50% that they're calling of wetlands that they're calling >> open space. >> Yeah. >> Which is really not right. It's open space protected anyway.
>> So that needs to be rewarded. >> No, the number Yeah, >> no more than 0%. >> But somewhere else in here, it should have said >> up front, maybe I missed it. >> So when you're doing a conventional
subdivision, do they take into account the wetlands, the amount of wetlands? >> No. So you can have wetlands on lots as long as you meet that >> 52,000 square feet of contiguous >> outland and and your lot coverage is 25%.
>> And you got to stay more than 25 ft away from the wetland. >> Yeah. >> So you got your normal side setbacks. I don't know if the setbacks are different in this >> because you're going to have a smaller lot. >> It must be right. >> Same size house. Small lot.
>> I think the front is probably different size. Well, they're they're allowing for allows for the reduction of individual lot sizes to a minimum of 30,000 square ft of contiguous upland area provided
that at least 50% of the total parcel is permanently protected as contiguous open space. >> No, 50% of a 30,000 square foot lot. >> No, no. Of the entire parcel. >> Yeah. the the mother parcel. Gotcha.
>> And then only 50% of that could be well. >> Well, the other thing is the special granting authority holds a discretionary authority to reduce this dedicated open space figure to a minimum of 40%. >> I think you I think you should kick back just
>> it solves everything I think to satisfy us that >> the wetlands percentage should be much lower. >> Okay. on the entire on the open space >> much lower than 50% of the
>> open space, right? >> Yeah. >> It all to me the way that that's worded, it just gives the developer the ability to exclude a bunch of wetlands, make small lots on a smaller piece and protect wetlands. >> Yeah.
>> Which he could have developed anyway. >> Okay. So if you >> protecting that it doesn't really >> the wetlands are going to be protected anyway. They're not going to develop them. >> Here it is again on the phase 4 requirement checklist. Ensure the final plan proves that open space meets the
50% upland and wetland limits. >> So let's reduce it. >> Well that's our >> 2575. >> Yeah. >> Put in 25 and see what happens. 25% >> it's a negotiation >> wetland and 75% upland in the open
space. I mean if it's supposed to be a benefit to the neighborhood and possibly to the town that that could be publicly accessed with walking trails and things like that. So >> although it's owned by the homeowners association. So what makes it publicly accessible? >> So so they have the access. It's so the
benefit in that development is that then they the homeowners association would have the access to walk on trails or whatever they may open space for. But if it's a big swamp, then it's no benefit, right? >> Okay. Last thing. This is the last thing
on page 10. Uh again, failure to protect these areas can result in a failure of the storm water system and a violation of the special permit. The s the special granting authority or the town's agent will perform periodic inspections to
ensure that erosion controls are in place and the development envelope does not encroach into the 50oot no cut butter buffers or the dedicated open space. So who's the town's agent? They mean they mean that
>> designated in >> then they well they had said conservation agent. Now then when they're saying it again it's not consistent. They just say or the town's agent. >> Should that be if you're talking about >> I don't think so because you're talking about is the planner going to be the one
that's going to do the erosion controls. You're talking about ensure the erosion controls are in place. >> I'm not suggesting that it's right. I'm just saying who else could it be other than >> inspectional services, right? A planner or Mark. >> Those to me unless you're gonna
>> so they can just say the town's agent and leave it hanging. or >> at some point it needs to be clarified. Yeah, I think they need to sign for >> it's a floating task. >> Yeah, whoever's available. >> The English teacher Gan just >> Well, no, they've been asking us to do, you know, this has been on the agenda
for a long time. So, they've been asking us to reply to this for a long time. This is it. This is the last harrah because it's already got a place saver on the fall town meeting. So, I'm just going to this these are the things that I'm going to bring up. >> Will you close that?
>> Yep. change. It now says the town's agent. >> Yes. >> There's a difference between the agent and agent. A a and agent. The proper writing should be an agent
because that makes it available for more than one person. The agent can be a limiting thing >> because if you're an agent, you're acting on behalf of the town. >> Yeah. But we'd want to designate who's going to be responsible for this anyway, right? >> Yeah. But that's not calling out anything. It's like who? There's nobody
that's the town's agent, >> right? So that's why we need to have them clarify that. >> That's why I just said clarify. >> Agent and agent is the important is the key. >> Okay. I'm just going to I'll put clarify. >> Okay. >> Well, because they're talking about they're talking about continuing
inspections even after this thing's built >> to make sure nobody's >> moving into the wetland, >> right? >> How about agent 86? 99. Okay. >> All right. So, clarify. So, okay. So, I
have something that I can >> respond, right? >> Yep. >> All right. So, make a motion that I can respond to those things I brought up. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> All right. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> There we go. Sorry, Matt. It's a little longer than we thought.