And actually, so Jenny's doing the uh recording as a co-host. Uh can I ask for someone to make a backup copy that? That cannot either be the co-host or the co-host. Can we do that through Zoom? Uh well, any of them would be through
Zoom. Uh so so yeah, but uh it would be a local I I would hope somebody I'm hoping somebody could do a uh a backup local. Uh Jenny's actually uh doing the one through Zoom. Yeah, I can do it if you'd
like. But now Yeah, that would be great. Uh did you get a request for that right now? I did. Thank you. Always always cautious about the uh primary and the secondary. Um anyway so uh because I just uh remembered to go
back into uh into the uh recording. So I had asked for u we have just entered back into uh uh open meeting uh and have exited uh executive session. Uh I asked commission
for announcements. Uh and the commission had no announcements. Uh now is the time for public comment. Uh comments are limited to three minutes and must be on a subject matter under the direct jurisdiction of the conservation commission. Comments about current agenda items are to be made during the
comment period of that specific agenda item. And uh when making any comments, please address uh them to the chair, which is me. And uh anytime you uh speak and are recognized by the chair, please state your name and your address. Do we
have do we have any public comments? And while people are thinking about that, uh just as a quick reminder, uh in Zoom, uh there are uh you know, along the periphery, depending on uh what platform you are, there is a react uh kind of pain. Sometimes you have to
icon, sometimes you have to hover over it to see it. Uh you can raise your hand there, uh by clicking the little heart. Uh and if you have trouble finding, you know, like the hand, any icon will do. And of course, if all else fails, uh, unmute yourself, you know, and, uh, and
make a noise and I'll I'll acknowledge you and we'll circle back around to call on you at the appropriate time. So, we have no we have no uh public meeting request or uh public comment. We have no meeting minutes from previous meetings.
Um, we did receive a request uh from the representative for the consultant for 221 electric a. Uh, we received that request for continuation yesterday. Uh, so we will not be hearing that one tonight. Um, and with that, we'll move
along to new new public hearings. uh 73 Round Road. Pursuant to Mass General Law, chapter 131, section 40 is amended in the town of Lunenberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws. A public hearing on a request for determination of applicability by Mark
Sprag for the installation of a new drinking water well within the limits of the 100 ft buffer zone of a wetland resource area on Lake Shirley. And so, do we have uh Mark Sprag andor his representative here with us tonight? Uh good evening, Madam Chair. This is Matt
Marorrow. I'm here representing Mark Sprag. Hi, Matt. How are you? Um, do you uh do you need to share the uh project uh information with us? If I may, please. Yes, please do.
So, this is a request for termination for the installation of a drinking water well at 73 Round Road. This has already been approved by the board of health. I believe it was approved at their February meeting. Um the well as measured from the edge of the existing
high water line is approximately 51 ft away. Um the well essentially would be installed by skillings. It would take a day to do. Um if the commission likes, we can have a an arc of waddles put
around it just in case, you know, any sediment um starts to run. It's a fairly flat area, so I don't see that happening, but you know, in my um discussions with the uh owner, my client, he's indicated a
willingness to do that, too. So, um fairly simple, straightforward. With that, I'll take any questions. Uh, thank you, Matt. I don't have any questions. Are there any questions uh from members of the commission? I actually was just going
into uh SharePoint to look for photos. You don't happen to have any photos, do you, Matt? I wasn't able to go on uh sitewalk this weekend. Uh, no I don't on this site. I'm sorry. The next The next one I have tonight. I
do. This one I don't. I know Sophie took some pictures because we were there together when she did her site visit. So yeah, I was just calling him up on my other device. Matt. Yes, sir. Uh, I didn't see any
arcs for any of the neighboring septic systems. Are there no septic systems in that area? Uh, there there are. They're just not within 100 ft of the well. Okay. Um, again, it was approved by the board of health, so that actually was, you know,
had to be considered as part of the approval process. And you may have said it and I didn't hear it. What was the distance from the well to the high water mark? 51 ft. 51 ft. Okay.
Thank you very much. You're welcome. Ah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Um, I don't have any further questions. Uh, and I think I'm looking for a motion to approve.
You know, and thank you, Rich. Second, Mike. Thank you, Mike. Roll call vote. Jenny, I. Rich. I. Jeff. I. Mike. Hi. Chris. Hi. And I for
myself. Uh, so yeah. So we uh finding of a negative determination. Thank you madam chair. Um members I'll see you in a few minutes for 31 round. Thank you. Uh 52 Birchway pursuant to Mass General
Law Chapter 131 section 40 is amended in the town of Lunberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws. A public hearing on a notice of intent by Dan Daniel Proctor for the replacement of an existing failed septic system within the 100 foot, 50 foot, and 30 foot buffer
zones of a wetland resource area uh on Hickory Hills Lake. This one already has an NOI issued as well. And do we have uh the representatives uh from
uh Birch Island uh here tonight? Yes. Good evening. Chris McKenzie from Dillis and Roy here to represent uh uh the project on at 52 Birch Island Way. Uh thank you uh Chris. Uh do you want to uh do you do you have some drawings or
something you could share with us tonight? I would. Uh can everyone see that? Okay. Yes. It started us off here at the uh USGS map of the site. I wanted to show uh where
the property is located. It's Hickory Hills Lake. Obviously, this is on the very end of uh Birch Island Road. It's on the peninsula. Uh so that's what we're we're dealing with. We're basically a piece of property that has water on three sides of it. Uh the
design plan shows it is fairly small. uh the edge of the water basically comes right around like this and around that side. So the house is in the center of it. There's a existing water service
going to the building. Uh there's a leech area somewhere out in this area. Uh there's a a cess poolool located right about here and another cess poolool located right about there. Uh this system has failed uh a title five inspection and needs to be replaced. So,
we're proposing a geomat system. It's going to require a few uh uh special approvals to the board of health, obviously. Uh but all of this work will be within uh the 100 foot buffer zone, within the 50ft buffer zone, and most of it's within the 30 foot no disturb zone.
The only work outside the 30 foot no disturb zone is the stuff closest to the house here for the septic tank and pump chamber. Uh, and then we're going to a geomat leech area located here, which is actually for all intents and purposes a little bit further away from the wet
from the water than the existing cesspools are, but uh, for all intents and purposes, they're about the same. It's about a foot maybe. I think the closest approach of the cesspools is 17 feet over here, and our closest is 18 feet. So, we try to keep it as far uh
from the wetland uh or the lake really uh as possible. Sophia noted that there'd be some trees that are coming down. They're located right all right in the system area. Uh and and yes, they will all have to come down. They can't remain in the
system area. and nor can we put any uh uh trees in that area uh because the root systems can infiltrate into the septic system and and and cause uh uh premature failure of the system. Uh so we've shown an erosion control uh
barrier wrapped around the entire site with a little bit of an opening here for allowing for access. Um there'll be only minor grading uh associated with this. So it's really going to be dig a hole, put everything in, cover it back over. um to stabilize the surface and it and
it's all done. That that's about covers it. Uh like I said, it's got a water here, so there are no other wells or anything in the area. Certainly willing to take any questions. Um have you you haven't been before the
board of health yet. Is that right? The plan has been submitted to them. Uh Cara has uh reviewed the plan. She came back with a couple of minor uh revisions that she asked for. She uh wanted clarifi clarification that we were showing
enough cover over the top of the leech area um which is 6 in is the minimum requirement for this system. So I threw a couple of spot grades on top over the system to show that. Uh and she also asked for uh for buoyancy calculations
on the septic tank and pump chamber based on our groundwater table that we found during our soil testing. Uh these se these buoyancy calculations are have a factor of safety of eight and six which is far and above uh what's required. I've seen them sometimes as
low as 1.1 or 1.2. That's when you start getting close. But uh these are these are fine. they don't need any uh additional weight on them. But that was it. That was all she asked for was those two
items. So I expect uh I expect uh the board of health to approve um this design. We used the Geomatap because it gave us the smallest possible footprint we could obtain. um if if this system isn't uh going to work for them, we're going to go to a
tight tank, which uh is not really the way anybody wants to go. I don't have any questions. Are there questions from other other members of the commission? And for the purposes of the recording, I'd like to acknowledge that Commissioner Pete Stella has joined us.
Um, Pete, uh, have you been here since the beginning of this, uh, this hearing? Uh, no. I think I caught it partway through for this particular site. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Well, then we we won't have you vote for this this hearing, but u
we'll join you in on the uh on the next one so you have the benefit of hearing from the beginning. I think I'm looking for a mission uh a motion uh to approve with the standard order conditions. Is there a D?
Uh there is actually uh and there were no comments. Okay. Okay, Jenny, did I Oh, sorry. Uh, Rich Rich, do you have your hand up? I'm sorry about that. Chris, did you say that there could be some changes that
the board of health may request? The board of health agent has reviewed the plan and came back with only minor comments. Um, we're asking for some local upgrades that are listed on the plan here somewhere. Um, but I don't
expect any change from from the from them. No, there they are. Okay. So, because you'll have to file for changes if you if we approve it tonight. You'll have to file for changes if there are any. And I just wanted to make sure you didn't want to just continue. No, I would like to keep moving forward.
Uh, any any changes to this would be uh would be a wholesale change to a tight tank. Uh there really is is nothing much else that can be done out here. So uh I I I would think uh that's probably not what's going to happen. I I I assume they're going to approve this plan uh
pretty much as designed. Okay. And Madame Chair, we did get the correspondence back that the neighbors were served. Ah uh yeah I believe that that's been uh
verified but we can just check that just my only concern is just where it is so close to the edge of the the lake. I I have uh I have that document here. I can bring it up on my screen if you want to see it. And I it should be in open gov
as well. Oh it probably is. Uh but yeah, if you've got it handy, that's that's really it. There's only there's really just the one and then the then the uh the land owners. The very nice thing about uh Logan has
been our backup uh for Sophie and putting our agenda together and he actually went and checked all of that. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. Yeah. Okay. So, I think I heard Jenny that you had uh made the original motion. Is that
correct? Yes, that was me. Okay. And then Jeff, you spoke up next. Um do you want to be second? I'll second that. Sure. Thank you. Uh and again, this is uh for approval uh with a standard order of conditions. Roll call uh vote here.
Uh Rich I. Jeff. Hi, Mike. Hi, Jenny. Jenny. Hi, Chris. Hi. And I for myself. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Moving along.
Have a nice evening. Uh 31 Round Road. Uh pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 131 section 40 is amended in the town of Lunberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws. a public hearing on a notice of intent by Shawn Pharaoh for the
construction of two landscape replacement walls, place uh uh placement of two removable docks, and replenishment of beach sand within the 100 uh foot, 50 foot, 30 foot buffer zone of a wetland resource area at Lake
Shirley. And so, do we have uh Sean uh or his representative here with us tonight? Yeah, good evening, Madam Chair. Matt Marl again. Hi, Matt. Hi. Um, if I could share my screen. Yes, please.
Okay. I have a plan um here that was drawn up by New England Engineering. Um, everything here was survey located, including the existing trees on the property. There's no trees proposed to be removed at all in any part of this plan.
Um the purple line you have here is the measurement of the 100year flood plane. Um there's no flood plane that is proposed to be filled at all. Um this is a simple incind replacement of an existing interior landscape wall that
you see here. um a wall here um that basically leads down with some granite steps that will remain in place to an existing beach area that had started to overgrow. There's grass there
now. There was sand there. It's a historical beach. So, he is asking to, you know, be able to take the grass, you know, break the grass back out um and just add some sand to the beach. There is an existing wood dock here. This dock
here is a um after the fact permit. Um when I went onto the site to scope out the job, noted the dock was there and I asked him if there had, you know, looked fairly new. So I asked him, I said, "Have you been to the commission to have that permitted?" He said, "No." So we
added this to the plant and he is requesting this dock. Historically, there have been docks here and here. So, I guess technically this one is that's already here as kind of an add-on. Um, it's one of those plastic removable docks that's put together in
sections. Um, I believe you guys should have some pictures of that because I know Sophie took a bunch of pictures of that uh on your server. I have some pictures. I don't know if it'll do justice for the dock itself. Um there's a 15t section basically right
on the property corner here that the wall isn't really um well shall I say established. He wants to basically rebuild that wall so it's considered a new section of wall because it's only 15 ft. Um it doesn't
trigger any potential wildlife habitat thresholds. The um notice of intent was issued in number by DP. The file number is 208-1348. It had no comments when the
number was issued. Um if I could I don't know if this is going to switch between tabs, but let me know if it does. Did that work? Yes. Okay. So there's there's like an existing section here of wall
that is going to need to be rebuilt in place. There's actually it's totally missing there. Um that picture I'm sorry doesn't Yeah, here it is. Was totally missing here. It just fell right apart. So he's going to rebuild it in place here.
Um this is the interior wall. This you can I mean if you zoom in close you can see there was sand here. This is the other section of wall that he intends to rebuild in kind and in place. This old you know boulder wall is getting um it's
getting tired and boulders are starting to get loose and fall out. Um this area this is his dock right here that comes in in pieces. And this is the existing wooden dock here. This was taken um
while the water was down. Um the water basically comes up to here, which is what the water line was based off of. This is the internal landscape wall here that is going to be replaced in kind. So there's no changes to dimension proposed. Um everything is being
replaced in kind and we're seeking permission to retroactively permit this dock. So, uh, retroactively permit that dock and add another dock for a total of three docks on the property. That is correct. Oh, and I forgot one more
detail. There's an erosion blanket here. Um, that was drawn in for um the construction part of this wall if the water level is up at all when it's done. Um, there is a detail on the type of barrier. It's a common water barrier
that is used. So Kent drew in the details here on how it's applied. It's weighted down at the bottom. Um and it it would be in place if the water was up when the work was done. Again, sorry about that. That was one last minute detail I wanted to make sure I got in.
Thank you, Matt. I was looking at uh Sophia's photos. which appear like they were done at higher water. Um yeah, the water was out. We just we just took those a couple a weeks. Those were
done a couple of weeks ago. Well, last week we were out on site. Okay. And I haven't seen her photos, but if they look really clear, that's good because we were both shivering out there. There was quite the breeze and it was cold that day.
Yeah. They are um they are kind of clear uh and just an open gov but I'm looking at on a different device so I can't um I can't share. I do uh Jenny uh you have question. Do you want me to share because I have them up? Yeah, that'd be
great. Let me stop my share here. There you go. Okay. Okay. Can you all I was I was trying to figure out what that was. Um there we go. See, I'll start. So, this is her
first picture. Um this looks like part of a the rolling dock out of the water. Um and then are these big structures up on the top right? Is that part of a dock system? That like a Yeah, they look like boat lifts to me.
I'd never seen them there before. Okay. They're boat lifts. They roll out next to the dock, so they're put in temporarily during the summer. Okay. Um and then so this is a picture of the
wall. And then this is picture of the plastic dock. It's very big. And then this is the wood dock. And here we have a picture of the water line. And
then another picture of the wall. And that's it. Jenny, could you go back a photo? This one or the one with the dock? That? No, that one. Um, so Matt, somewhere in here is the wall that's not there
anymore. Or is it in between the two pieces of wood or where where is it? Yeah, that's pretty accurate. I mean, without the benefit of being able to do the cursor, if you look between um going in the orientation of the photo, then Yeah. Okay.
So, basically between the two pieces of wood. Okay. Right here. Right there. Yep. So, the walls would connect. So, he would connect the existing walls there with each other. You can see the area there kind of, you know, because the way
the old wall was put together when it fell in um fell apart, you can see the land around it starting to collapse. So, that's going to need to be put back in before it becomes a bigger problem. Okay, thank you, Jenny. Any other
questions? Um, I don't have any. I so this this is the do we know how do we did we say how big the stock is it is we'll look at figures I believe it's 40t long by 20t
wide at at the where the plat where the platform is those are all plastic sections so it's put together by hand in sections Uh Rich, you had questions. Yeah. Are do these docks come out of the water in the winter time or are these
permanent posts holding them in place? They can come out. They're not permanent posts. They can come out. Um I don't know if he takes it out over the winter. I mean, it would be a lot of work taking those sections out. putting them back in. And there's a lot of sections to put that thing
together. Um, and he does take other stuff out. So, okay. But the when was this picture taken? This one was taken last week. The other ones that I showed you were taken
back well, I want to say last fall when the water was down. And you know it took a little time of course in between to get the survey done and get the plans drawn up and make sure everything was correct. So yeah, it was last fall. Okay. But so the plan is not to take
these docks out every year. So these are technically permanent docks. Yeah. They're not taken out now. Yeah. And so I mean this is technically work in the wetland because these are permanent
permanently driven into the ground posts. It's not like the rolling docks or a dock that gets walked out and is sitting on the feet and carried back out, which is something to consider that this is work in the wetland the way they've got it set up
now. Well, I mean, as you probably know, the posts that are in there now are to allow it to rise and fall with the water so that it's not carried away. Yep. Yeah. But I know we and I think Matt, you were on part of the commission or part of the the town when we had the
issue over on um Sunset Lane where the people put their deck out into the water and that was a consideration that I remember a distinction that they made that that was clearly work within the wetland resource
area. No, I do remember not. It was not a uh a temporary state. So, were these permanent docs listed as such when I went to D? Well, let me take a look at my um narrative here. Tell you exactly what I
wrote. Just bear with me for one moment. I had it up. Yeah, just let me pull it back up. I don't know where it disappeared to. I think I have too many browsers up here. Just give me bear with me for one second. Yeah, you do list them as
removable in the uh summary and scope of work. Yeah, that's not referring to that dot. That's referring to the third dot. But yeah, you're right. I do put a 40 foot long dock also removable currently in place that is proposed to remain.
And that's the wooden dock or the plastic dock. I'm going to assume that when I wrote that I was referring to the plastic dock because I was trying to, you know, show that it was there prior to the filing of the notice of intent. Mhm. So, in other
words, what I was saying was that that was the other dock was pre-existing. This one he put in and it was being retroactively requested. The other one I didn't even refer to because it had always been there. When I looked at historical aerials on it, it had always
been there. So, I went back all the way through like 2008 and there was a dock in that same location. And you didn't happen to notice if it had been applied for at any time? No. I asked him outright, was that ever
applied for, meaning the plastic one, and he said no. Okay. Or the the 40 foot wooden one as well. No, I have no idea. Okay. I know it's it looks like it's there's been a dock that's been in that spot like for more than 20 years. So,
all right. Thank you very much. Yep. Chris, yes. Um, Matt, how how the how is the wall going to be reconstructed? Um, it looks like it's just the the existing wall doesn't seem to have any any type of um way to keep the rocks from, you
know, staying together. So, are you just restacking them as they were? No. In this in this instance, they're pulling the the boulder walls out and they're using blocks. They're using lock in blocks. Um and they're keeping the wall basically at the same Okay. height.
Nothing's nothing's coming out. It's going to be everything's going to be identical to what it was now dimension wise. My other question is the area that you said you were going to rake out, that grass looks pretty established. Is that Yeah, I going back through the aerial photos, it looks like the grass is established, then it gets raked out,
then it establishes again. So, yeah, it's it's historically been like that. I think if you bear with me for one moment, um if I could be allowed to share my screen again. Yes, please do that.
Uh just uh I'm just going to pull this up and then I'll share it. Okay. Um, come on, Matt. You uh, sorry, guys. Never been rapid fire on this screen sharing stuff at times. Here we
go. This is an aerial from 2011. Here's 31 Round Road. You can see the beach right there. You can see there's docks on both ends. That's 2011. Um, and it kind of disappears from view two years later. Um, it's hard to tell from the
2015 photos. Those were really bad qual I mean, you see those are really bad quality photos. It almost looks like you can see something there, but I can't say that definitively. And then 2019, you can see a bare area here, but that looks
like it was taken very early spring. So, the interesting thing though, like if you go back, I'll go back to 2008. Here's 2008. You can see a beach area here. And again, this dock we were talking about on the other part of the shoreline, that's always been there
where he's asking for the new dock would be in the same spot where this historically was. The one he that one for some reason disappeared. And there was that plastic one that's out here now, which is right about here where my cursor was pointing.
Okay. Thank you. You're welcome, Jeff. Jeff, you had a question comment. Jeff, I thought you had a question or comment. I'm sorry about that. I was still muted. But so the the type of dock
that they have is a it's a jet ski dock. Um it is removable. So those posts, they're like big screw drives on the bottom and use a pipe wrench to kind of screw them into the ground. You can actually unscrew them at the end of the season and then there's little like
black cup pieces that hold each of those sections together and they come apart like eight foot sections. So, it is it's technically a removable dock even though it looks permanent. Um, there's many of them on the lake used for jet skis and stuff. And normally people just pull
those posts out of the ground or out of the water and then just kind of pull the dock up onto the beach. So, it it doesn't look like it's on wheels or anything, which it isn't. It's floats, but it it is technically a removable dock. Um, as far as the two docks, I've
been on the lake for many years as everybody knows, but those two docks were always there. The the jet ski dock was added, obviously. Um, it's a it's a shallow cove. I I think the average depth in that cove is probably only about 5 feet. And usually during draw
down, it's just kind of like a mud pit out there. It's not there's really no water in it at all. There wasn't any water in it this winter when it was under draw down. So, it really shouldn't be any problem getting, you know, those wells replaced during a draw
down. Um, that the one question that I did have is is this project going to be completed during draw down, Matt? Well, that would be the goal of the project and if you want to put it as condition, I mean, I don't see that as an unreasonable, you know, um,
requirement from the commission. Yeah. because I mean we've never really used these turbidity barriers in the past. So we'd kind of have to look at that to see if that would be something that we're going to start to use in the future. You know, this is something different than what we normally
um do approve. But um if that would be the case, then you know, we would need some erosion control um put on there. And then I'd also like to see some detail of what type of wall you're going to build and replace. So that I can get to those details.
Um, did you say something through the chair? Um, I do believe that Hickory Hills used those turbidity curtains at one point. Um, they're not used often. Speaking to Commissioner Viviano's point, um, they
do work really well. So, I mean, you might want to, you know, just take a look at those specs that Mr. role field provided on his plan. Maybe there's other ways you could use it in the future. They actually work pretty well. I mean, if you want to have it done during draw down to negate the
use of that curtain, that's fine. I'm just saying that's all. Thank you, Matt. Pete, I don't know uh if it's always the case, but I looked at some historical imagery, you know, satellite pictures, and it
appears like that's uh those docks have been left in in the winter, some of them, and that floating dock would probably be on dry land during the dry down uh draw down. Just saying whether
they remove it or not. Thank you, Pete. Any other questions or comments? Okay. I think I I think I heard uh Matt that um we were looking for uh more detail on uh to be included on what is the material that's going to be actually
used to build the wall. Yeah, Commissioner Viviano asked for more detail on the what the wall material is. Yeah, I think having that documented uh for me uh is also important. Yep. Not a problem. Uh so uh could
we you think if we continued this to the next uh meeting which is uh May 7th that would give you enough time to uh make those updates? Yeah. No, that'll be fine. I can get it done. Okay. And um to the rest of the uh
Okay, Mike, you have a question comment? Yes, madam chair. uh are that plastic dock that's out there. Uh I've heard different things about that it's
removable. Are removable docks required to be removed uh at a certain time of the season or are they allowed to stay in the water or in this case it falls down into
the water source area but there's no water. I I'm trying to get a read on what the regulation is on that. Are we okay as a commission to leave a removable de a
dog unre during the draw down? It's a great question, Mike. I don't actually know the answer to that. Um Jeff Rich, do you happen to know? Jeff? Yeah, for sure. I mean it I would say 70% of
the people probably take their docks out and the rest they just run the risk when the lake comes up if there's ice still floating around their dock's going to get destroyed. So I I think some people will do it to the point where their dock
gets destroyed then they spend another $8,000 on a dock. So that kind of gives you that motivation to actually remove it from the water. So it it it really depends and it it it would be tough to really kind of keep track of. There's there's so many docks. I mean there's
over 350 homes on lakes and Lunenburgg and to keep track of everybody's dock is tough. So, um, it that's in my opinion about 70% of them come out and those are the people that really just don't want them to get destroyed and everybody else is just kind of rolling the dice and and
yes, they are on normally dry ground once the lake is drawn down. But this year we had a good draw down, but the last two years we did not. Um, but the lake never really froze. So, nobody really ran the risk with the dock out there with the the ice coming in and destroying your dock. So, so yeah, if
you don't take it out, you're rolling the dice essentially. So, I think what I'm hearing you say, Jeff, is you're not aware of a regulatory reason why the dock would need to be removed. Well, again, it's does it need to be on dry land? If that's the case, then those
30% that aren't taken out, they are on dry land because of the draw down, but then you run that risk in the spring when the water comes up um that it might have some ice shifting and then it might just destroy your dock. So most of the people take them
out. As far as the regulation, I I I'm not sure with with the draw down where the regulation would kind of be misconstrued or you know, is it out of the water line or is it out of the water? That's the question. Yeah. I I'm not I'm not uh I'm not
aware. Uh Rich, yeah, I don't think the wetland buffer line changes with the draw down. It's wherever the high water mark is. Yeah, that's considered the beginning of the resource area. And Matt can correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I don't think affects that at all. And I
mean, generally the the docks as we permit them, the assumption is that they're always temporary. They go in, they sit on the ground, the posts do in a minimal fashion, and then they're removed. So they're typically there from
mid to the end of May through the end of September, early October. Now to to have them in there permanently in place means that it it becomes a structure in the wetland. So my opinion is that the dock should be
removed. I know the the burden of making sure that they all get removed is a tough one as Jeff brought up, but from the permitting process, a temporary dock that we're permitting needs to be a temporary dock. If it's something that
is there through the winter is no longer a temporary dock. They're not planning to take it out. So it, you know, it is semantics and it is a small uh disturbance, but it is in the wetlands, which there really isn't supposed to be
any disturbance in the wetland. So, and I myself after 30 years, I'm a firm believer in one property, one dock. you know, one property 12 or,300 square feet of dock
space out into the water, I don't think should be permitted at all. And again, that's myself and that, you know, that's something I've stuck to while I've been on the commission. So, I would not be in favor of anything other than the uh
historical docks that were in place, any additions to that. So, that's actually something I was going to ask the commission about, Rich, u because we have uh we have on occasion discussed that uh before um and and it has come up
as a u kind of a a topic of dialogue about whether whether the commission should allow more than one dock uh per uh lakefront property. And I'll I'll leave that to the uh commissioners to think about. I'm
I'm more inclined to go with one doc uh one one property as well. Yeah. Otherwise, I don't know, you know, where does it where does it stop uh with the encroachment uh into the actual resource
area? And I I know that uh it uniformly applied across the town. Uh, I can see that just from looking at the uh aerial photographs of Lake Shirley and uh Hickory Hills Lake. Uh Chris, yeah, actually glad you
brought that up because I was thinking while we were listening to this that three docks was kind of extreme. So yeah, even though I don't know what the official, you know, if we have an official um it's discretionary. It's not actually
written as a regulation. Okay. Uh Rich, yeah. One other thing I did want to comment on where um we're still adding detail to the plan is um some somewhere in the construction details that the outer face
of the blocks will not be any closer to the edge of the water than the existing wall is. I just want to make sure they don't take the eight or 10 inch wide blocks out and then drop the two foot blocks back in that spot. So now we have
a 12-in incursion into the flood plane. And you understand that, Matt? Yep, I got it. Yep. Just to make sure that the face of the we're not having any incursion into the flood plane. So the outer face of the I imagine they're
two foot five foot by 4 foot bin blocks. or something similar is what they're using for construction. Yeah, I'll u I'm probably going to have to get a um structural I'll probably have to do a separate sheet on that
commissioner. Um the engineer that drew this plan right now is um incapacitated due to injury. So I'll have to have a separate detail sheet drawn up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rich. And uh so folks, the the
other thing that I uh wonder if it'll be controversial is the um is the uh what looks like established grass in the beach area. And so I just want to do a straw poll on that to see if that's a concern because um you know, again, I've seen the commission go kind of either
way on that. Uh but if we are looking for uh counter proposals or whatnot, I would prefer we go ahead and let the applicant know now and not make them go through the rigor of coming back and only then finding out that that's a problem. Um Jeff,
yeah, I mean I can that that was a sandy beach at times and it has grown in. So I I wouldn't really have any problem with them sifting that material out and replacing the sand. And then as far as the docks go, I mean, one is kind of
restrictive. I think two would probably be more efficient. I mean, it's, you know, some people have boats and jet skis and they, you know, there's just a requirement to have two docks and there's, you know, many homes on the lake that have two docks. And if they're
removable type, like on wheels, then I I really don't see an issue with that. Um, and again, depending on how much shoreline you have, too. Some homes only have 50 ft of shoreline and some homes have you know 700 feet. So I think that kind of has to be taken into account
too. And then the other thing is I mean it's it's good structure for the fish as well and for the wildlife. uh you know that shaded area actually does you know there's there's many fish that you know they have
um you know reproduction in the shade under those docks and you know it's it's good for the environment I think as well as long as they're you know on wheels and removable uh as permanent. So thank thank you Jeff. Thank you for that. Um
so just in terms of a straw poll going to just go around and quickly poll on the uh if there's any concern about uh the sand area, the proposed beach area. Um Rich, what are your thoughts?
Uh am I on unmuted? Yes. Yes, you are. Yep. Yeah, it it did look in the pictures that Matt had over the years that there was sections that were and then grew in a bit and then were cleaned again. And it did look like from the most recent photos that there was an elevation
difference to in the areas that they're looking to reclaim that were closer to the waterline level. Was that correct? Well, I mean, it's kind of a, you know, in the area where the beach is, um, you know, in the overgrown sections, I think
it's more of like a kind of like a optical illusion because of the way the grass is, the weedy growth is coming in, it almost looks like it's making an elevation change. I think if you pull that material out and you put in the beach sand at the elevation below the grass, it keep that flood plane
elevation intact. Okay. Yeah. I I don't have an issue with it, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you, Rich. And Jeff, you you've already commented. Mike, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I concur that, you know, if the material is being uh the grass is being removed
and the sand is put where the grass used to be, it shouldn't be any higher than where the grass was. So, I concur that that sounds like a reasonable. Thank you, Mike. Uh, Jenny. Yeah, I agree. If the
um the height is staying the same then Okay, that would be very good, Chris. Yeah. Um, just want to thank Jeff for his insight into there. I appreciate the input. So, help me make a decision. Um, I'm okay with the docks being two and
I'm okay with the grass being raped out. So, thank you, Chris. Uh, Pete. Oh, sorry. One second. I just clicked my mute off. Yeah, I looked at some of the pictures and uh they've got quite a bit of grass going on there. They've got, I
think, 150 foot of frontage. Um, if it was me, I probably be happy with two docks, but I don't like to tell people what to do with their property too much. I don't think they're doing anything that's going to degrade the wetlands. So, I think we can allow them to do what
they want to do. Um, and how about the sand in the beach area? Oh, the sand. Yeah. Well, I that's that was my comment about the grass. They've got some grass going on there. So, I think they're trying to control erosion. I think there it appears as though, you know, there was probably sand there and it just the
grass kind of got in there and as long as they haven't, you know, it hasn't really turned into grass, I think we can let them reclaim that as beach. Okay. Thank you, Pete. Okay, Matt. Um, so what I uh what
I heard uh was uh and commissioners uh keep me honest on this is uh add uh add more detail on uh the types of blocks and material that are going to be uh used for building the wall and uh add a note to the drawing that the outer face
of the rocks will be no closer to the water line than the current um existing uh rock wall is. And then uh we have a request to continue to Oh, Jeff. Oh, Jeff, you went on mute right after
you your your hand came down. Sorry. Um the other question is if it's going to be done during draw down with those barriers or if it's going to be done with silk fencing and straw waddles. That's another question that I had.
And I thought Matt said that that he thought that the uh property owner would be amanable to either u but uh yeah Matt clarify. No, that's correct. Yeah. No, the property owner Well, I mean considering he is the
principal owner of SNM Farms, I think he's able to get erosion protection hay bales anytime he wants. Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah, that's all they do. And of course, you know, I did crack the joke to him if
he knew anybody where he could get bails from. So, yeah. Cool. That being said, I don't think getting ECBS out there would be a problem for him. And then it would just have to go on to the plan in that way. And just some
detail on the straw, bottle, and silk fence location. Yeah, I I just speaking as one voice in the room, I would be more inclined to ask to condition it to be completed during draw down. Uh it doesn't seems like something that
needs to be done on an emergency kind of basis. I don't know if anybody has a different thought about that. Rich and Rich, you're on mute. Sorry about that. Yes, I would concur that it should be done during draw down unless it's an emergency situation,
which it doesn't look like it is. No, I would agree it's definitely not. Yep. No, obviously there has to be excavation on top of getting rid of the the stones that are there to fit the blocks back in. So it would be much safer for the
environment to not have the work being done in the water and then trusting the turbidity barriers. Yeah, thank you Rich. Jenny, I was just going to agree with you that I think it would make sense to do it
during the draw down. Okay. Uh, and we're not voting to approve this right now because Matt uh, you know, had asked for continuation to 57 uh, to add those notes and extra information uh, to the project information, but um, it seems like some
of us are inclined to or add that condition. We can actually vote on it at the next meeting, I think. Um is anybody is anybody opposed and want to add you know the extra flexibility to uh allow this during uh
you know high water times or leak fill times and nobody's speaking up in that regard Matt. So I think you kind of know which way the commission's leaning. Okay. We do have a request for continuation to 57. I'm looking for a
motion on behalf of the commission. So move. Thank you, Mike. Second. Uh second from Jeff. Uh roll call vote. Rich I. Jeff.
Hi. Mike. I. Jenny. Hi. Chris. I Pete. I And I for myself. So, Madam Chair, uh, really quick, um, just noting that I do have another Zoom meeting scheduled May
7th at 7:05. I'm like first up on their agenda in Lincoln. Um, if I could be scheduled farther down on your agenda so we don't have a conflict on times. Yeah, I'll make that note, Matt. Thanks for bringing that up. Okay. No, thank
you. I appreciate the flexibility. Okay. Well, we'll see you then. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Have a good night, guys. Thanks. Okay, moving along. Uh, for Cove Road, pursuant to Mass General Law, chapter 131, section 40 is amended in the town
of Lunberg Wetlands Protection Municipal bylaws. a public hearing on a notice of intent by Brian and Katie Fox for the construction and addition uh to a single family home including a new firstf floor bedroom drive under garage removal of an
existing garage within the 100t buffer zone of a wetland resource area. Uh do we have uh Brian or Katie andor their representative here with us tonight? Madam Chair, Greg Roy with Dillson Roy. I'm representing the applicant. I do believe that uh at least Brian, if not
Brian and Katie are also on the call uh this evening. Very good. Would it be appropriate to share my screen? Yes, please. All right. Bear with me. Okay. How's that? Okay. Our videos on
Hi, this is Brian and Katie. How we doing? Hey, Brian and Katie. Hi. So, um, a couple of opening opening remarks here and I I should have probably done this during public comment, but I didn't think quick enough, but I was thinking about it
because my first comment here was that I'm I'm standing in for Ryan Proctor this evening, uh, who's been working on this project. Um, and I'd be remiss if I didn't say that uh express condolences to the Proctor family and actually the
Latanzi family at large. Um, John Latanzi passed away uh last week. John Latanzi was a a member that of this commission um for a number of years that I had the privilege of sitting on the commission with back maybe 15 20 years
ago whenever it was that I was on the commission. um longtime uh conservation uh minded person uh outdoor enthusiast. Uh really just a great guy. Um so just
condolences to the uh Latanzi family. Um tonight you today was the funeral. So Ryan has been off uh doing family uh duty on that. So, um, so, uh, we're here tonight to to look at
Four Cove Road, uh, which is right on the corner of Sandy Cove Road and Cove Road, which, um, is on Hickory Hills Lake. I believe it's known as Little Hickory Lake. It's the it's the portion of the lake that's,
uh, sort of separated, um, uh, off to the north, if you will. And uh we started working with the Fox with the Foxes about two two or or so years ago on this project. Um they're intending to construct an
addition on the site. Um if you can all see my screen, it the proposed addition is shown in the brown um hatch um area here. Um the green line that we have shown here on the on the bottom of the screen
is the location uh of the limit of the bordering vegetated wetland at the site. And the corresponding orange um dotted lines are the the limit of the 30 and then 50 foot offsets, no structure
offset. And then the uh the outer one here is the limit of the 100 foot uh buffer zone. So, just to put this in the context of the greater permitting that that's going on here, um the first stop was to go to the zoning board of appeals. Um because
the the proposed structure is located within the um the the setback, the zoning setback, we have done that. Uh the zoning board of appeals has granted um the required zoning relief uh for that to um uh for the project to move
forward. Um the um of note here is that the the brown uh structure that we're showing is actually going to be replacing the red dotted structure that's shown on the plan. Um so that's going to be removed obviously uh because it's within the footprint and
essentially from a conservation standpoint we're actually moving the structure further away from the lake. Um so we'll be moving it upgradient by you know say 10 10 or 15 feet. Um so from a conservation standpoint um
it'll actually be improving uh relative to the to the existing structure that's there today. Um and then part of this uh proposed structure is to create a garage. Uh so in order to access the garage, we of course need to construct a
driveway. So we're showing the driveway uh highlighted in gray on the plan. Um we are proposing to pave the driveway and um just where it lays on the on the property. Um there's an existing curb cut access on Cove Road
that the uh that that's been used historically to access this portion of the property. We're proposing to align the um the new drive that you know the paved driveway in that existing area. Uh which is why we're showing it uh where it is.
Um, there are a couple of trees that that would need to come down as a as a part of this this project. Um, and they're circled in red. Uh, there's an 18-in uh all of them are deciduous, probably oak trees, but I'm not sure. Um, 18-in uh tree here, a 28in tree
here, and a 34in tree here, which is sort of right on the edge of this existing uh structure. Um, working backwards, the 34in tree is approximately 75 ft from the edge of the wetland. So, it's within the it's between 50 and 100 ft. Um, the 28 in
tree is the only one that's within the 50ft zone. Uh, but it is outside of the 30 foot no touch zone. So, we're not proposing any work within the 30-oot uh no touch zone uh for this project. So, no waiverss are are being requested or required. And then the 18inch tree here
on the opposite side um is um outside of the 50. It's approximately 60 ft from the edge of the wetland. Um this this bubbled area that you can see if I can highlight here is the location of the existing septic system leeching field.
So these trees here really need to go um relative to their proximity to the wetland uh excuse me to the septic system um which you know in addition to sort of logistics with getting the driveway in there um that that's really why we're proposing them uh to be
removed and then also this one just it's so close to this existing structure that we just think it's going to uh need to be taken down. Um we are showing of course an erosion control barrier uh which is shown in this this heavy dash line right here. Um
again you can see no work proposed within the 30 foot no touch zone. No structures proposed within the 50 foot. Um there is a a small amount of work u to construct this driveway in the 50oot no structure zone but um we we we don't believe that that runs a foul of your
regulations. Um we um we did receive a DP number for this one. Uh there were two comments. Uh one was uh this this seems to be a general comment nowadays. Um one was questioning
the filing fees. Um so we used a category 1A which is work on a single family lot. I I mean, as long as I've been doing this, um, this project squarely falls within a category 1A fee. Um, you know, you can't build a house
without building, you know, doing some site work. So, we've always interpreted that as you've got the house that you, you know, the addition that you're putting um putting in in the in the associated site work. So, um we don't see that the filing fee was was
um was made in error. Uh and then the second um comment was to submit uh rationale for how the wetlands uh were delineated. Um we're we're this is becoming a uniform comment which we're adjusting
to. uh this particular uh project we started working on two or three years ago and back then DP wasn't really asking for these type of forms. So just just to be very clear the wetlands were delineated based on hydrarology, soils and vegetation just like they have been
for as long as I've been doing this. We have now submitted um a wetland delineation report. Um I think we we uploaded it to the portal. Uh so that is uh that's there just for backup. And those were the only two comments from D. So I think that's all. I'm happy
to take any questions. Uh Chris, yeah. Greg, is that big tree the 36 is the only reason it has come down is because you can't work around it to take down the structure? Is that the reason? So to be quite honest with you, um I'm
not exactly sure why they're proposing that. If uh either Katie or um if the applicants want to weigh in here um that would be welcome Katie or Brian if you have a
yeah Brian here if this is working uh I'm still new with this whole uh you know the technology thing is tough for me but I I think I got it figured out here uh that 36 inch tree is actually in the existing structure like the wall is
is is like cut around it. Um, and it's all damaged inside and the the trees kind of really big enough to hit the house no matter which way it falls. Um, and it's kind of been on our radar for a while. It drops branches on that on that
um on that garage there. It drops stuff everywhere. Um, and it was more, you know, a hazard than anything. But since we're going to be there anyways, it's why we figured we'd probably lose the tree at the same time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Thank you.
Other questions or comments from members of the commission? Rich, thank you, Madam Chair. Greg, no issues putting the driveway over the top of the uh septic system like that. We have vetted that, Rich. Excellent question. Um, we're specifying one of the reasons
we're putting it on the lower side, Rich, is so that we can add some fill. Um, and make sure we have at least an 18inch separation. Um, and so we have some specifications on the plan for that purpose. Um, so no, we don't see any issues with that. Okay. So you've gone
in and checked the the septic system so it is functioning properly and the the piping can take the extra weight without worriesing any of it. Correct. And that's our opinion. Uh I'm not certain if the board of health has war weighed in on that or not. Um or if they even
need to um but I think you know um it's our opinion that that's you know that's all satisfactory. That of course would be a separate approval process if they needed, you know, some some other documentation with the board of health. But um yeah,
thank you. Question I could just chime in real quick. I think the board of health had already uh had already addressed all that and that was why they deemed, you know, doing the fill was uh the way to go. I I think that's one of the reasons why there was a delay between coming to your board. We did the
ZBA permitting maybe almost six months ago and um one of the one that was one of the questions we wanted to get solved and I that was my thank you for opining on that Brian. Thanks again. Ryan Ryan Proctor has been taking
the torch on this one. So um thank you. Other questions or comments from members of the commission? Jeff. Yeah, Madam Chair. Thank you. Just for informationational purposes, can you
pull the stumps of those trees or do you have to grind them with the septic that close? Um, we would uh we would likely grind them. Okay. We would recommend grinding them. Yes. Okay. All right. Uh
definitely the definitely the 18 inch. Um the 28 in might be far enough away, but honestly probably not. We we'd probably just grind them in place. Okay. And then I assume you the driveway kind of has to go in that position to
slightly go into that 50 foot no structure because of the fill. Yeah, we want to get in a fill condition over the septic system. We also want to dodge around this. Can you see? Um right here there's a utility pole. So we have to kind of go on either side of the utility
pole. Gotcha. There's an existing access that kind of comes in here. Okay. Now, so we're just kind of formalizing it. So, it made it made the most sense. Excellent. Thank you. You know, we we might take out this 28 in and just do it really really easily, really gingerly.
Um just just because it'd be nice not to have the flu decaying underneath the pavement uh over time. That would just be terrible if that hole just started to fill with water. Yes. So, yeah, good luck. So, I I would assume they would probably
be ground, but um but there's a chance they might try to pull out at least some of the 28 in. Maybe it would be I don't know. We'll have to we'll have to kind of see how that goes in the field. But other questions or comments? Is the commission ready to
make a motion? I am I haven't heard. Uh okay, Chris, I I motion we approve um as as proposed. Okay. The standard order of conditions. Uh Jeff.
Okay. Uh roll call vote. Rich I. Jeff. I. Mike. I. Chris. Hi. Jenny. Hi. Pete. I and I for myself.
Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks again. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh moving along uh to continued public hearings. Um 215 Sunset
Lane. And I I think we have the same engineer uh that uh had asked for continuation to 221 electric a uh so I don't know if you meant to ask for continuation for both of them. We have Go ahead.
So are you doing this is 215 sunset next? Yeah. Yeah, that's me. Oh, I'm getting confused if there's another one that's like 215 electric app. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay. Well, then I'll read through the script. Um, awesome. Uh, pursuant to Mass General Law, chapter
131, section 40 is amended in the town of Lunberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws, a public hearing on a notice of intent by David and Brenda Pari for the construction of a driveway and single family home within the 100 foot buffer zone of Lake Shirley at 215
Sunset Lane. Thank you, Madam Chair. Greg Roy Dilson Roy representing the applicant this evening. Um I think that uh the Pajaris uh at least some of them are on the call. Um yes, may I share my screen?
Yes, please. Okay. So we um opened this meeting uh two weeks ago, two or three weeks ago, I can't remember. Um last last meeting. The last meeting. Yeah. And um at that time D had issued a file number. I think
that we had um I I honestly I don't remember I don't even know if there was file of comments on this one but if there were I think we had addressed them at that initial meeting. Um we left the opening meeting with four comments uh from the from the commission which we've
addressed uh with plan revisions here and I'll I'll just want to go over them one by one. Um the first was to add a tracking pad for erosion control. There's going to be quite a bit of earth work on this project. So, um it was requested that we
add a stone tracking pad uh at the at the entrance um so that um the uh you know any mud and sediment can be uh knocked off the truck wheels before they go onto the public way. So, that was a great uh a great catch. So, we did add
that. Um the second was to uh address storm water runoff uh from the driveway. So, we have uh tweaked the grades to super elevate them uh towards the center of the of the uh towards the as you're going down the driveway towards the
right of the driveway and we've included a stone uh infiltration trench right along the edge of this driveway. Um we have the advantage here of very permeable sand and gravel. Um so, we believe this is a a very effective uh solution here.
Um, third was to address storm water runoff off of the roof. So, we have proposed again taking advantage of the of the u the deep sand and gravel that we have here. We're proposing drip line uh infiltration right here along the two
sides the the two major sides of the roof um eaves. So, that this would be just a stone trench at the foundation level that would accept that that drip runoff uh and infiltrate that into the ground. so that wouldn't run off. Um on the front of the property, uh we believe
the trench here along the driveway will catch um any runoff that comes off um you know, not allowing it to run off site. Um so so uh that was the third uh thing. And then the fourth thing was to um beef up the erosion uh excuse me, the
construction sequence. So we uh we added some uh language here uh relative to restorations of the slopes and how we want that to be done um you know sooner rather than later. Uh we don't want uh exposed slopes to be
um left for a long time. So we want to restore those as soon as possible after they're con after they're rough graded. And I believe that was all the open comments that you folks had, but I'm I'm happy to take any questions.
That's all I had in my notes, uh, Greg. So, thank you for that. Uh, but of course, the commission is, uh, free to, uh, add comments. I might have overlooked something as well. Those were those were the four I was tracking. Are there any other questions or
comments from members of the commission? Uh, Mike. Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, Greg, did you mention whether or not DPN had any comments on this one? So, boy, they did, but I think they were
addressed. I think we addressed them last meeting. Yeah, but let me see what they were. I have it open. Hold. Okay. Are you seeing are you seeing my screen as I'm doing this? Um Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I remember. So, I'll just read the the uh the comments here. Um the project
is proposed on multiple properties. Form three should be updated to reflect this. It we've already done the land swap, so it it looks a little confusing, but we've already taken care of that. So, it is in fact just one applicant owner here. So, I think I think we're okay. Um the second was a zone AE FEMA flood
zone. um which corresponds to the bordering land subject to flooding is associated with Lake Shirley. Um on and on and on and on that is located on the opposite side of Lake Shirley. We had added that to the plan on this this
uh dash dot line right here. That's the limit of the FEMA flood plane. So it's nowhere near it's it's it's on the complete opposite side of the street. Yeah. So I think both of those comments have been resolved. Thank you, Greg. You're welcome. There are no further questions from uh
members of the commission. Uh do we have any uh comments, questions from members of the public? I'm seeing none. Madam Chair, yes, Greg, if you're inclined to to make a motion on this. Um, I think I the the other thing I
mentioned at the at the uh at the last meeting was if you could um put some language in your standard uh erosion control condition um that requires the SWIP uh EPA SWIP. This one is about
30,000 ft of land disturbance. uh would not does not require the preparation of a SWIP uh which sorry storm water storm water pollution prevention plan um uh as would be
required from the EPA for sites altering more than 40 uh than an acre of land. So we would not require that on this case. So, we would appreciate it if you could work that into a motion if you are so inclined.
What does SWIP stand for again? Storm water storm storm water pollution prevention plan. and it's it's a required document um to prepare if you need to have
coverage under the NIP permit for construction sites that alter more than an acre of land. So for these smaller house lot projects, many of them don't don't rise to that level of um of
permitting and this would be one of them. I'm immenable to that. Um, it just it just creates uh when you have it in a as a boilerplate condition, which I don't necessarily object to, but I just feel like you should put some language in there like if more than an
acre of land is disturbed or something like that that just acknowledges that not all sites uh require it. Yeah, fair enough. Um, yeah, and you did talk about that uh and help us understand it a lot better uh last time, Greg, which I also appreciate. I mean I
and I'm amunable to adding that um as a thank you comment. Um do I have uh with that comment uh do we have a motion to approve? So move
second. Okay, Jeff. Uh, sorry, uh, Jenny and then, uh, Mike, uh, Jenny for the original motion and Mike for the second. Uh, roll call vote. Rich I, Jeff, I,
Mike, I, Jenny. Hi, Chris. I, Pete. Hi, and I for myself. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you, Greg.
Moving along. Uh 390 Howard Street. Uh do we have uh 390 Howard Street here tonight? Uh any representatives? Yes. Um this uh Chuck Karen, Karen Environmental Consulting representing Mr. O'Brien.
Very good. Let me I can share my screen and get the plan up. Hopefully. There we go. So, this has been a long saga, painful one to get to this
point. Um, just to refresh everyone's memory, there was an ANRAD file on this back in about a year ago I believe. I wasn't involved at the very beginning of the
process. Um as part of that what was done was they took the um the my office had delineated this wetland close to 20 years ago. Uh and
um initially they started out by reestablishing all the the old wetlands by uh by survey. Um and then the commission hired um Art Allen from Ecotech to uh review the
delineation. um based on his review, it turned out that the wetlands uh over the the intervening 20 years is ex have expanded um dramatically on the site. Um I think
that's from a combination of kind of the the agricultural abandonment that took place here. So there's no longer that maintenance of a lot of old drainage ditches and things and the u the construction activity that Mr. O'Brien started on the site that has some
extensive areas that were cleared and u opened up. Um so over the course of last summer and early fall uh we uh went out delineated all the areas that Art Allen had identified and
um also there was one small area that I came across that I thought where the wetland had expanded that I hadn't picked up on. So I also included that area. So the wetlands are
primarily on the this western portion of the site and then on the eastern third or half of the site the center there's very little there. Uh so that over these intervening years
the wetlands have expanded uh it small amounts along portions of the old delineation but then there were I guess I would say three areas where there were huge increases in the extent of the wetlands. Um one of those is kind
of this entire the I should put out the the wetlands on the side of in the have this stapling on it. Um, and I'm just kind of showing you the overview plan because if you go by sheet by sheet with that had the details of
flag numbers, it's very hard to to follow along where we are in the site. Um, so there was a big expansion of the wetlands in this area, there was a a road cut in to come down to a possible well and I think because of that arc
across the slope and some trenching that went along it, it picks up a lot of water. So, the wetland's now expanded down into here. And then this this whole big swath right in here was not there before. Uh the second area where there's
a lot more wetland is back up in here in a piece that I believe is is part of the project is going to be going to the town. Um there's a new wetland in this area that actually connects by a little eroded channel down to the old wetland
and then a large isolated wetland in here. You can see from the old plan there used to be um big chicken coupe in here. This whole site was a a chicken farm at one point. Um, and this
is kind of a a strange area that this is wet already because this building only came down about five or six years ago, I believe. And Mr. O'Brien said he ended up spreading this whole area been disturbed in the intervening years and only about
two years ago had spread top soil across all the disturbed areas in there and these wetland areas have just popped up almost instantly. Um, I think the soil is just extremely compacted. I recall looking at this trying to see what the soil was like and
um you couldn't even get the augur in the ground more than an inch or two anywhere. Um so I think probably that past farming whatever was going on that area left things very compacted. The third large area of additional wetlands
is this mark of wetlands down in here. And this is actually a road that was cut through this area. It was great initially constructed. It was deep enough that it was picking up some groundwater plus the surface runoff being in an act across the slope like
that. So essentially that roughly graded road turned into a wetland in that whole area. Um now I said there was lots of other
uh smaller expansion of the wetlands. So basically as a result of this it turn it looks I didn't do an exact calculation but there's several acres of additional wetlands over what um had been here 20 years
ago. Um so I mean that's basically where we stand right now. the um I just got this plan with the the final [Music] um few last few little cleanup items we needed done on the plan um from Haley
Ward yesterday and I'm not quite sure their process. They have to send it to their office in Portsmith to get stamped. So we they aren't at the end of the process yet. we need that stamp plan back from them. And at that point, Art
has looked this over. Um he's just waiting to have the the final stamp plan so he can um write his final uh letter report for the commission. Uh since we've been in correspondence with him, I would be surprised if any new issues
came up because he seemed happy with uh things as it it stands at this point. uh in reading through your uh your commentary, you made a note about uh flagged uh flagged area E uh that it had
some inadvertent damage done to it, which had been historical, but I just couldn't find it on the drawing. And as you say, the drawings are pretty complex, but um what area is that? That is up in up in this area in here. Um, okay. It
was right at the edge of the area he had cleared and they had gone in a few hundred square feet inadvertently gone into that finger the very end of that finger of wetlands. Um, I'm not sure exactly. I know uh when
Matt Mara was involved is when that was discovered and um it's my understanding the commission was aware of it and they um corrected that disturbance and seated it and
um it looks like the rest of the wetlands now. And it looks like it it actually the restoration work expanded it by several hundred square feet in that area actually. Okay. Uh, do we have any questions from members of the
commission? Uh, okay. So, uh, Rich, yeah, I didn't get a chance to read the report. Do we have, uh, square footage that the wetlands increased on this site? I didn't calculate it out exactly. I
just kind of threw a scale down quick and it is a rough number. I had figured something in the range of like 8 to 10 acres. 8 to 10 acres that the original wetlands increased. Yes. Okay.
That's a lot. Yes. very Do you have any uh estimate of how much acreage the wetland encompassed before in round numbers? I I don't honestly I don't I just like I
said I had just Okay, scale curious very roughly scale those big areas of expansion just to get a rough idea. But yeah, fair enough. That's a lot of that's a lot of detailed work if you don't just have a uh you know computer CAD uh program to uh take it all off for
you. So I was curious. Um Chris, yeah. Are we is there are we are we making uh a determination or is this anformational tonight? I'm just I'm just trying to understand what what we're um what's is just an explanation that the
wetlands has grown tonight. Is there an action for us? I don't think there can be an action until we have the final stamped um drawings and then also have our consultants um confirmation that uh the final stamp drawings are aligned with uh
what he saw on the site. I was going to ask ask for ask for a continuence, but I wanted to get the discussion back before the commission because this has dragged on so long. I didn't want to. Are we going to
um are we going to uh entertain a wetlands expert when we get those plans back? This is a complicated property. Well, we already have retained um a uh wetlands specialist, uh R. Allen from Ecotech,
and he's going to look at and he's going to look at what what Charles um comes back with after it gets stamped. So, he's going to look at that stamped document. Yeah, that go he went out in the field after I had we had his initial report of what areas
need to be um delineated. We did the delineation. We blocked all those areas with art. So, he confirmed it. Um in the field everything was good. Um he's looked at this these preliminary plans as we've gone through
the process too so he knows what's coming along. Um so basically we're just waiting for that stamp plan for him to to finalize everything. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So, um, do we have any questions
or comments from members of the public, uh, so Chuck, thank you for coming and uh, and, uh, updating us on this because yes, it has been dragging out and thank you for your patience. Well uh so the thing to note is that we
are at the uh straw end hairy edge of losing uh quorum uh through attrition on the commission and so if we lose uh if we lose um that quorum then it'll have to be uh renotified and we'll have to
recommission it and uh and and start a new no we won't have to go through uh having to get new um peer review or anything like that. We can use all the documentation that already is part of the historical evidence and whatnot, but
just to um you know, make sure you're aware and please make certain your um your client is aware and Haley Ward is aware that there should be no moss growing at this stage of the game. Y uh because they risk uh adding a headache that they don't need to have. Yes. I
don't see any reason we won't have this ready for the next meeting. I will I will be very upset that's the case. Yeah. Um and uh and then there have been historical
uh violations there, but we'll have to address that as a separate matter. And we'll have to address that as a separate matter when uh when our administrator is back in the office. Uh she is currently out. Um so we're not able to um discuss any of that
tonight. And and so Chuck, you asked for a continuation to when uh for the next your next meeting that is May 7th. Okay. Uh so I'm looking for a motion to
continue uh by the commission. So moved. Second. Okay. Uh, thank you, Rich, and thank you. Oh, Jeff, you had a question. Yeah, I guess if if we could just get the plans at least a few days before the meeting so that we can review them as
well. Um, if it is ready for the next meeting, that would be super beneficial for us. Yeah. Um, Sophia has this plan and like I said, the only thing that should change is the survey is stamped going on at this
point. So, okay. And they're in they're in the uh because there's nobody to move them into tonight's folder, Jeff. They were actually in the April 2nd folder. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, there's that.
There's um uh and Chuck's letter is also in that folder as well. Um, but I'm glad you brought it up, Jeff, too, because, you know, I had to go hunting around and I didn't have the wherewithal to tell everybody where I found it. So, yeah, I was
I guess I quit before. Yeah, it's probably probably useful for everybody. Um, you know, uh, so I'm glad you asked it out loud. Okay. Um, so we have a motion uh by Rich Burch and a second by
Jenny to continue. Uh, roll call vote. Uh, Jenny, I Rich. Hi, Jeff. I, Mike. I, Chris. Hi, Pete.
I'm supposed to say no because I'm not on Yeah. Yeah. I don't I don't I don't think there's any issue with you uh voting on the continuence. It's uh voting on the approval that we have to be careful on. I should continue. Thank
you. Okay. Uh thanks. Thank you, Chuck. Okay. Thank you very much. Good night. Good night. Okay. And 221 electric is the one that was requested for uh continuation to May 7th. So don't have to read that one in.
So, I'm not seeing the button to unshare this. Why is that happening? Uh, that's okay. I can make um I can I can uh actually uh stop your video. Okay. I don't know where it's hiding. Sorry about that. Stop your share.
Thank you. There we go. Yeah. Executive executive control stop participant sharing. Okay. in the next two. Oh, I do
have 2011 uh Lemonster Shirley Road on this uh on this application. Um and this is uh we have do we have that applicant here tonight? They were here before the
meeting. Do we need to vote on continuing 221 electric? They notified us ahead of the uh meeting, Rich, and we have not been doing a vote on those when they have notified us ahead of the meeting. Uh you
probably are more uh expert in uh process than I am, but that's we haven't been doing that. If we didn't read amend, they requested it. We still have to vote and continue it. Well, I'm happy to do that. Pursuant to mass general law, chapter 131, section
40 is amended in the town of Lunberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws, a public hearing on a notice of intent by Daniel Sheen failure construction for construction of a two family dwelling and rain garden within the 100 foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland located at 221
Electric A. Um yeah and uh we were notified of a uh continuence uh request May 7th by Daniel Sheen. So move. Do we have Thank you. second. Second. Thank you. And did we have the date that
we're continuing it to? Uh May 7th. Okay. Uh so I heard uh Rich with the original motion and Chris with the second. Um, just making a quick note. Roll call vote. Rich I. Jeff. Hi,
Mike. I, Jenny. Hi, Chris. Hi, Pete. Hi. And I for myself. Okay. All right. So, we do have 2011 uh on. I was just looking to see who had been on the call uh earlier asking about
that one. They may have gotten uh confused about the executive session that we had to open open meeting for and then go into. It was uh Matt
Donovan, but I don't see Matt on the call. Okay. Uh so uh since Matt uh I think got confused by our uh proceedings tonight, I'm looking for a uh motion to continue uh 2011 uh
Lister Shirley Road to May 7th. Okay, I heard uh Rich and uh who's my second second. Thanks, Jenny. Uh roll call vote uh for continuation to May
7th. Uh Rich I Jeff I Mike I Chris I Jenny hi Pete I and I for myself. Okay and then uh 67 island road
we were already tracking to May 7th. Okay. administrative determinations. Uh 10 Sandy Cove Road was on earlier uh but had to uh drop. Um and I don't think we've had any
uh Sophie's not done any site visits there. Um do we have seven Park Street um folks on the call tonight? Yes, we're here. Um this is Adam Levine and um my husband Nate Stewart is also here as well. Okay.
Adam Bean, Nate Stewart, and uh you reside at Seven Park Terrace. Uh Seven Park Street Terrace. Yeah. Yeah. So, um tell us a little bit about what it is you are uh asking to do here.
Sure. Uh yeah. So, we are just requesting to replace our existing um roll-in dock with a new one. Um same size. The existing one is 24 ft and we are requesting to replace it with um a new 24T roll in dock. Um I can share my
screen if that would be Oh, that'd be great. Okay, one second. Okay. [Music] Um, so I'm not sure if it was just showing the one tab or can you see I'm
on um the open gov application. You can see that. Great. Um, so I believe uh uh Sophie came a while back to do a site visit and she took a couple of pictures of the current dock. So actually I think
I have it open here. Yeah. So this is this is the current the current dock. Um and then this was the other picture that she took just showing the rest of the beach area.
Um and then this is just an overall uh satellite view showing the the placement of the of the existing dock. And uh this this is the a picture of the new dock that we're hoping to replace it
with. Um just noting that we would also install poles on this end. For some reason the picture doesn't show um poles on this end, but we would support it on that end as well. Okay. And uh why uh why are you replacing it? Um, so we bought our house
about a year and a half ago and it was already quite old um at that point. Um, so it was something that we uh were hoping to do um you know within a short amount of time um replace it with a with a new one. It's um uh
it's been a little damaged over over the years and just like to have a new one. Okay. Yeah. I'm just, you know, curious uh about why uh why you want to replace it. Okay. And and you said it's the same size, it's the same location as the
existing. Yep. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Um any other questions by members of the commission? And I'm seeing none. Uh so, uh do we have a motion? So moved.
Thank you, Mike. Second. Second. Thank you, Chris. Roll call vote. Um, uh, Jenny. Hi, Rich. Maybe I lost Rich. No, Rich is there. He's on mute. We'll come back to Rich. Uh, so I had an
I from Jenny. Oh, yeah. I I have an I. I for Rich. Jeff. Hi, Mike. Hi, Chris. Hi, Pete. Hi. Okay, very good. Uh, you do have to wait for uh written permission
from our office. I'm hoping our administrator will be back at her desk uh soon. Uh, and if not, uh, follow up with the land use office. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. So, I see proposed uh project
change, but that may actually be a um a uh error uh from uh that we just didn't clean up from the last meeting. Do we have anyone from 71? Uh Jeff, yes. I just had a question on the last application. Oh, sorry. Was No, that's
okay. I raised it after the vote, but was that actually required? I mean, if they're just replacing the same dock, it seems like it's a lot of paperwork to do. I mean, maybe we should educate Sophie and say if it's a dock for a dock and it's already permitted, it's not
really required, right? Um I'm I've got no opposition from me on that. We don't need more decisions coming in here. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um I think she she would probably be amanable to that uh that type of
guidance. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um fair question. Uh 7-Eleven Massav, do we have anybody uh for that? And uh Mike, uh you have a question? Yeah. Did we skip over 67 Island Road?
67 Island Road? Oh, no. Uh 67 they they were uh had already uh several meetings ago uh asked for continuation to May 7th and we voted to continue. Okay. Sorry. That's like uh I don't know like
maybe in early March that we uh had that dialogue. I was having deja vu all over again. is that's okay. That's okay. I'm I'm actually glad you asked me a question I have the right answer for. So, thank you for that. I I can I I can
always use those little ego points uh after these meetings. Okay. 7-Eleven. There is nobody here for that. I think that's a typo left over from the last agenda that didn't get cleaned up. Okay. Uh violations and enforcements. I do see people on the call uh tonight about
that. Uh so so uh I think um let's uh call uh call on uh yeah um first off let's talk first to
uh Melissa uh McGain uh because uh she had been talking to me in chat uh right and I I can't actually handle well listening to the meeting and talking in chat. And so Melissa, you had identified there had been a certificate of compliance
request. Maybe she's left us now. I got you. I was muted. Sorry. Yeah, that's okay. So, there was you had a identified a certificate of compliance request for 691 Chase Road,
correct? Yeah. And that's not on the agenda for tonight, right? I I'd gotten a um you know, an invite for tonight, so I was just confused. Well, it it's probably Yeah. So, our um our
administrator that handles our office affairs had to unexpectedly go out um on a short-term leave of absence. Oh. And we don't right now know when she'll be able to return, but I'm I'm told from the town manager that we expect it to be
very brief. Uh so okay uh the land and unfortunately you know uh just perfect storm uh the the uh land use uh her manager is is also out uh there's no assistant in the office that's an open
wreck as well and so Logan whose u primary job is uh land use um administration has been trying to keep all of the balls in the air. Uh so Yeah. Um, all right. I would say follow up
follow up with um with uh LCC at lunberg uh lunbergmass.gov. Um and hopefully hopefully my hope is that our administrator will be back in. They can go out and do a sidewalk and we can get this done at the next meeting. Okay.
Terrific. Thank you. And I apologize for the inconvenience. No problem. Okay. Very good. Good night. That's a unfortunately a long time to hang out to just hear that we're not going to get to um her business. Um that's
sorry about that. Yeah. Um okay. So uh moving along uh the chapter lanes are here and the chapter lanes are here about uh which it is it 199 Massav? Yes it is. Okay. and uh that had been
reported uh into the office as some activity going on in the in the wetland area. Um I don't know if we have anything uh in our files about it. I was just going to go look uh to see uh do you want to
tell us about what's going on uh back there? Um uh actually we didn't think anything was going on until we Oh, really? a visitation, but uh it's been an ongoing project. Uh as you may or may not be
aware, our property has been for sale. I'm sorry, this is Mark Chaplain. Um and by default, I'm Mike. Okay. And uh what is your what is your actual uh residence address?
I'm at 208 Lemonster Road in Lunenburgg and I'm at and I'm at 102 Fair View Road in Lunberg. Okay. Very good. Okay. Thank you. Um the property the property in question is is at 199 Mass in Lunberg.
Very good. So anyway, um we started uh we listed our property for sale um in 2023. Uh
and we had discussion with our with our um real estate agent about doing little projects around the the property. And uh it was suggested not not to spend any money or to make any
changes to the property cuz you never know what who's going to buy it and what they're going to do with it. And we agreed to that. Um but after showing the properties to several um people that were interested and having
uh well there was a deal that there was a deal that that changed that that um we had before we even listed the property and that got um that got delayed because of a zoning
issue with our property where we assumed that we had almost 17 acres of commercial land only to find out that um a large portion of it was actually residential A which was due to a a mistake when the zoning was incorporated
and it took a year to get that straightened out and we lost that particular customer. But um the uh we lost a second customer uh just because they found another another property. But what we heard as we were
showing the property was that, oh, it's not as big out here as we thought it was. And we tried to explain to him that, you know, it was because over the years the we've let the the woods kind of grow in all around it and it kind of shrunk it. Um, and there
was also an area in the middle of it that had a pile of fill that had been there for quite a while and it grew its own little forest out of it. So, we did in fact invest some money in having um a
lot of the underbrush and the growth that came up cut down. Um and also the growth that came on this pile of fill cut down um and it really opened things up and I was in our intention to level
off that pile of fill. Um that led to us starting to do some cleanup out back. Uh as you again as you may or may not know at one point many years ago that was a salvage yard. Um so we thought it would be a good idea to
clean up as we took some of the trees down we found remnants of that junkyard. So, we started cleaning that up and uh that's that's when apparently not realizing it uh got too
close. I think I think it was um it was Sophie that had come stopped at the dealership. Yeah. She never saw us. We uh she saw the person that was doing some tree cutting. Yeah. It was just it was one last section of tree
cutting that we wanted to get done. just to kind of square the the openness off. So, the property now is uh we stopped doing what we're doing as her request. Um and the property now we're in the
middle of this cleanup and there's some stumps that we were airing out so that we could transport them and get rid of them. Um and some sheet metal that we pulled from around the property. uh
miscellaneous tires and wheels that we found. All of that is now in that back section of the of the property. Looks a little unsightly and we'd like to finish that, but we were um agreeing with her cease and desist
until we had this this get together. Aside from cleaning up that those materials, the project is pretty much done and the clearing is done. Uh what did she site as the issue uh when she was out there? Well, we really
don't know because we did not speak with her. Oh. Uh and the person that she talked to didn't relate uh any issue to you. He was a tree guy. He just said yes, ma'am. Um they they were most of what they were
doing was shipping some existing trees that were down again as part of the final phase of just finishing up this this project to make try to make the property a little more salailable and and to some people didn't have a lot of imagination as to visualizing the size
of the of the property. So the the cleanup was a two-phase thing. It was for for cleaning up the property and it was for making it a little bit more um showable if you will. Sure. That's um that's understandable.
There I I looked at the map on uh on Mass Mapper. Let's see if I can share that. probably still shows that back section as residential a mass mapper maybe has that level of detail but
um I don't uh have the skill set to get there um yeah so this is mass mapper and this is your property right so it shows the whole network of wetlands back here and of course uh you shouldn't be cutting down any trees within those uh
you know 30 501 100 uh foot buffer zones without permission. So is that essentially what was happening? Yeah, that's essentially. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So then uh the next step would be to actually ask for that
permission and uh give us a diagram of what it is that you are doing and where you're cutting. Yeah. Um and then you know uh what we would be looking for is for you to affirm that within the 30-foot buffer zones you have not touched any vegetation or you know you
would uh replace whatever may have been inadvertently touched. Yeah, makes sense. Is someone going to do a or does that happen after the fact of actually doing a a um site review
or Yeah, we would like to have somebody come come by and and do that and and we can show them the scope of the work that we that we've done. Uh well I mean Sophie can but usually
usually way the way it's supposed to happen right is that uh if you're doing any work within those buffer zones you actually apply right make an application and uh an RDA is usually what it is um you know a request for determination and
you say oh you know got a commercial all the stuff you just did got a commercial property yada yada yada here are the wetlands Um, and here are the areas where I'm cutting down the, you know, need to cut down the trees, right? Uh, and here are the places where I'm
ensuring the buffer zone, you know, maybe predisturbed areas, uh, and then, uh, you know, protecting the buffer zone in in the other areas or or whatnot, not having walked out there and got some hypothetical comment, right? And then when you file that application, Sophia
would go out there and and do that uh do that review. Um, and then would come back to us and say, "Hey, that makes sense." Or, you know, "Oh, no. I don't think that makes sense for whatever reason, x, y, or z." Right. And, uh, you know, we'd have another conversation about it. Yeah, that's the that's the
appropriate process. Yeah. I'm I apologize because I don't have it with me, but we did get a letter and and um there was language there was language exactly what you had had said. Um, okay. But it did say cease and
desist in the areas of of um that were in question. Does that mean that we can't move forward with the rest of our our cleanup that is not in that area?
Uh no, I have not seen that letter. Um, but I would take the letter as it we got it via email and we also got it via um US mail. Oh, actually we didn't. We got it handd
delivered to us. So, do you have a copy that you could share with us right now? Uh, that's why I said I apologize. I thought I had thrown it in my truck when I came over to Mike's house to to uh take part in this meeting. Right. It was dated April
1st and it was from the uh conservation commission office. Yeah. Yeah. Unfortunately, it didn't get moved into our meeting folder. Um we we here on the commission are all volunteers. Um and uh our office uh are the paid employees and and they need to
move things into our u semi-public access for us to be able to see it. I didn't find it anywhere. I don't know if anybody else other commissioners have you looked um and you know if I'm overlooking it but if if I read it correctly if if that
verbiage is in there and that's what I was just looking for clarification as to whether if if it directs you to stop in specific areas. My assumption is that you would not have to stop in the other areas. I don't know if anybody
else you know you go through this more than me. If we have a prospective buyer, we would like to get the rest of that stuff cleaned up. Like I said, it's it's it's not anywhere near this this area. Um, and if it was in the area of a
question, we would of course leave it there, but it's it's got nothing to do with uh it stuff on the surface. Okay. And so, uh, you're clear though that the next step also would be to file an RDA for the work that's been done
that was should have been permitted. Yeah. Okay. Uh, and then that's done office. Um, we I guess we typically use Dillis and Roy. Is that something that they could do? Oh, yeah. They would they would be all
over this. Sure. Okay. And as far as getting on the next available agenda, it might be tough uh timing wise because you're going to have to notify on that and I don't know what you know, of course, uh this is a busy
time for any consultant. So I don't know what um Disy's availability is either. Right. Okay. Again, just in the interest of getting that not having to drag out all all Oh, yeah. Sure. Right. You've got a
a financial interest here that you kind of want to move fast on. I'm certainly sympathetic to that. Okay. Any questions or comments from members of the commission? I'm not seeing any. Um Okay. Well, thanks for showing up tonight and
uh giving us a rundown on on what you were doing and hopefully we get that RDA quickly and can act on it quickly for you. Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much. Good night everybody. Good night. Okay.
Uh I see a member of the public on uh named Nancy. Um, Nancy, would you unmute yourself and let us know the business that you're here uh for so we can prioritize that for you? Yes, I'm Nancy Chaplain. I was here just
in in my husband and my brother-in-law. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Very good. Thank you for checking. Yeah, I I always don't, you know, it's you've had to wait long enough. I don't want anybody have to wait. No, I appreciate that. Thank you for your concern. Okay. All right.
And I don't uh I don't have any updates on anything else uh in the uh okay in the uh violations uh list. I actually I don't know why 950 Chase Road is on for
violations. I lost track of that. Uh isn't that can come off now, can it? Well, it the encroachment um piece of it I did take off of it, but I don't know why it was there for a violation or I've lost track of why it was Oh, I just chucked it. So, I know why it was there
for a violation. It was um some vegetation that had been cut down up uh where the old snowmobile trail had been. Um and uh that's actually on town property and within, you know, the buffer zones. That's why it was
there. Uh but that property did change hands. Hopefully that gets into a better state of custodialship now. Okay. Uh moving along. Um new business. Seems
like guys, it's been a really busy couple of days since uh since Sophie's been out. Um, and uh, you may not know it, but the uh, a lot of people are bumping things to me for support. I just don't have the cycles to support, right? I've got a really busy day job, but I
try to let people know and that's taken a lot of time. Um, I think somebody told me something to uh, look at in the past 48 hours, but I can't remember what it is for the life of me. Um, peer review process is still
on here. We're tracking that. I I do firmly believe that the office should uh uh consult uh as or raise a horizontal um engineering uh consulting uh RFQ. I I just have to circle back to um folks to
get some feedback on how many hours uh we think is reasonable to uh put on there. Then of course we would be as we see those projects come up that we want um consulting review on, we would uh manage that under individual uh quotes
and uh applicant um uh budget support. Uh and and one thing uh so any questions or comments there? I haven't progressed it since the last time we talked about it. Uh moving along to the next one. Default continuation practice. We have had a
practice uh here that if applicants do not show up uh we have uh given a presumption of uh request for continuation by them not being here. And I understand uh from town council that that is a bad practice to have. And so
the recommendation is that uh moving forward and you know I think uh maybe starting next month, right? we should start not doing that. And if you don't show up for a hearing and there's
not, you know, some kind of good reason, like I was in the hospital and it was an emergency, you got to start all over. Um because what uh Adam was telling me is that the WPA does not allow for us to
continue. So we don't get the authority to continue something uh without the applicant's written uh requests for continuation written or verbal. Uh so if we have it recorded that's that's recorded verbal uh request. If we have
it written in email that's written otherwise uh we uh risk uh losing appeal um due to the procedural error of not uh turning around the decision quickly enough. And I'm very interested in us
not losing um any of our jurisdictional um uh well any of our jurisdiction. So something to take something to take on board. Uh Chris. Yes. So in the event that uh an applicant doesn't
show, do we do we vote on like what's the what's the position? We we deliberate on the information that's been provided to us and if we don't have enough information or are there questions we feel like we need answered, we have the wherewithal to deny the
application. Okay. So, we we will continue to we will evaluate the Okay. I Okay. Yeah. The application will stand on the merits of itself, right? And if uh if it's incomplete, then we deny it.
um or you know we take a vote and that's the you know um obviously the uh up to each individual conservation commissioner about whether they want to deny it or not. Uh Rich, so that was Adam's recommendation or his advice was
that if we continue without applicants specific say so that we could lose on appeal due to lack of action. Yes. If if we if we if by uh doing so we
have um uh taken you know too long to make the decision. You know, recall in our in our wetland uh regulation in the um wetland protection act, excuse me, there's a certain number of
days uh like 21 days after uh the application is complete uh to have a hearing, uh 21 days to deliberate, 21 days to issue the uh written decision. um if if if that continuation might um
cause us to um fail to execute within a timely fashion as stipulated by the regulation. Yeah, Adam said that we are at risk of losing the appeal. Okay. But there is no time sensitive
issue once the hearing has been opened. There's no ticking clock. There's a there's the 21 day from the time we receive the application to open the hearing. Yes, there's 21 days from the time
we close the hearing to produce the decision and send out the order of condition, but there's no timeline once the applica once the first hearing has been opened to the point that it's closed. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So
if it was the first hearing, I could see that for sure. Or if we've already closed or we are deliberating. Mhm. But I didn't think that there was any timeline once we've opened a hearing.
Yeah, I think you're right, Rich. I think um I think the uh I think you're right. So we have 21 days to open it. uh we have 21 days to deliberate after we've closed it, but there isn't a statutory um limit on how
long it takes to close it. Right. So, I I guess I would be a little leerary on just deciding and if there's not enough information once we've opened the hearing, but again, that's just my opinion. But I just wanted to get clarification on what his direction was.
And I didn't talk to him about the uh once we open it. um deliberating uh but you know what though it came up in the context of 390 Howard Street. Mhm.
And uh and I had given uh him a history of the project, right, that had been uh opened uh you know, I think it was 23 October. I know it was October of 2023. I think actually
it was 23 of October 2023. Um and that uh you know we have been going through a lot of Q&A with the applicant, right? right? We had peer review, you pay for peer review. Now, it was a matter of a lot of a lot of things. And I said, so right now, um,
you know, we expect, uh, the applicant to come back with the stamped engineering drawings, but he's been no-show a lot of times, and we have been doing a default continuation, and that that was at where Adam stepped in with
the advice. Okay. Yeah. And I can see in a case like that, we shouldn't be dragging it out cuz then we get into the catch 22 that we lose members and at some point we'll lose quorum and not be able to make a decision and then there is lack of action issues if we can't
make a decision even to um deny. Well, Adam Adam actually said that that isn't a non-issue because then that is that is actually as long as we've been following procedural due diligence that uh we just notify the
applicant that we need to reconstitute the commission which is the technical term that he used and that means the applicant then has to renotify treat it as if it's new but you know new no new filing fees or anything like that and
then you We open the hearing again with the reconstituted uh members which are all the members that sit on the conservation commission at that time and uh the applicant has to kind of you know reintroduce it and and uh you know go through the details and
then we move it forward from that point and that restarts the 21day to hearing um clock and the uh uh all the rest of the statutory timelines. Um, but I do think that we want to be precise about what we're doing and how we're
executing. Uh, because I mean recently there have been some hearings that have brought this under a lot of scrutiny. So, uh, Rich, why don't why don't you and I maybe offline uh ask some very specific questions of of Adam uh with our own kind of
interpretation of what we think the act and the uh local regulations say or don't say. and make certain that um we're getting the best guidance back to our fellow commissioners. That's you know and to our office administrator that we can. Agreed. I also like to know
what we're open to what Adam when you talk to them find out what what what we get exposed to by doing those defaults. That's what I'd like to understand more because the way Rich explained I don't see that I I'm not struggling to see the risk. Well, so the risk is that the applicant
appeals uh to the uh to the uh either either to the DP or to the superior court and they give a default approval. That's the risk. And that happened at 205 Sunset Lane uh where we
actually had uh heard the application, deliberated on it, issued uh a decision uh with um you know some some list of conditions but because uh the office failed to and you know we had interim uh
administrators then uh because the office failed to issue a timely uh written decision we lost jurisdiction there. They appealed to to DP. Yeah. Go ahead. But that but that was was default
continuations part of that issue or you just bringing up something different. The default continuations are put us at risk of that kind of thing happening. That's that's the bad thing that happens. You were asking what's the bad thing that happens with the default.
So it someone has to actually go to escalate to D or to superior court, right? If they escalate to D and D um intervenes and issues their own determination, we lose all rights to our jurisdictional
um uh conditions. And that's what happened at Sunset Lane. We had applied a lot of um uh local jurisdictional uh conditions to that particular parcel and we we lost all of those. There there is
no buffer zone in the in the wetland protection act, right? You got to you got to get to riverfront before you start even talking about that kind of stuff, right? We lost all of our uh jurisdictional uh rights there because we failed to act.
Rich, I don't necessarily think that's correct that if D intervenes that No, it is correct. I actually challenged that in great excruciating detail with Adam and he brought up a long list of of uh
case law. Yeah, cuz we had that exact case happen on uh trying to think who it was or what the address was, but down on one of the fire roads. Mhm. We had a house and we
denied it and they went back to D. D overturned our decision but was not able to overturn our local jurisdiction because
they refile under the local bylaw. But did they um and we have nothing in the bylaw that states that you have to wait so long to refile or that there has to be any sub. I think the addition Yeah. I think the difference though the key
difference here is that you you issued a written denial and by doing that you you cemented your um decision for both the uh wetland act and the local uh bylaw.
But when we fail to issue a decision in a timely fashion, then we haven't we haven't issued anything on behalf of the local bylaw. That's where we are at risk of not having losing all our jurisdictional rights. Okay. So 205 was
lack of action. Yes. So was was we never we never made a decision or we lost our ability to we made the decision uh but we never issued the written decision. Uh, okay. I do remember that. Yeah.
Okay. Yeah. Uh, Jeff, so 205 Sunset, that decision that we made that they had to reduce the size of that dock and remove it from the wetland, that's they're free and clear now. Is that correct? Yep. Yeah. Wow. Okay. Yeah. Oh, a big heartache.
Um, yeah. Yeah. I wasn't aware of that, but Yeah. I just kind of figured they would do the right thing, but Okay. Well, and and you know, there's nothing that keeping them from doing it, but it it will be not
because they have to. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um anyway, so that's that's the recommendation there. Uh and and like I said, I think, you know, Rich, you brought up some good points. So, let's uh let's get back to Adam with the you
know fine fine print and splitting hairs so that everybody's really clear on on what the best practices moving forward. Agreed. And then we just talked about reconstituting a commission. So, I've already covered that. Um training updates. I made this recommendation uh
when Chris Riley uh was uh in the land use office. I understand that he's he isn't or may not be there now. Uh but uh just as a tickler to uh for everybody that's doing training to talk about the training they've done not in detail five
bullets that's it max right u but to socialize uh the shared training so that uh commissioners have some awareness of it and then know you know who to reach out to if they had further questions. Um yeah, and then officer elections. Um you
folks may recall that I am resigning effective at the end of this month. Um and uh and so I am looking for uh someone to put their name in uh for chair and I'm actually hoping Jenny might raise her hand.
Um, I would do that. Cool. Would anybody else like to put their name in the hat for chair? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Okay. If Jenny is um putting her name in the hat for chair, do we have anybody
that will be vice chair? should be her uh her backup. And as a chair, you do need a vice chair. So, I'm just going to just going to ask people. Uh,
so Jeff, I think uh your term ends in uh June and are you thinking about uh uh stepping down from the commission or are you going to raise your hand to move forward? No, I I I believe I'm going to
step down just with our situation. We've kind of become snowbirds, too. And with my job, it's it's difficult. Um Okay. Yeah. Just Yeah. So, uh when is the when is that official date? Do you know? June
31st or June 30th? June 30th. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um so, I'm I'm thinking you're probably not going to put your name in the hat for uh vice chair. No, unfortunately not. Yeah. Uh Mike, would
you consider being a vice chair? Madame Chair, uh as others, I have become a snowbird myself and don't feel I could really do justice to the position
uh when I'm away as long as I am. Um I certainly want to continue in my role uh when I am here to um even though when I am away I I participate in the meetings but I think
it takes more than that in order to make a commitment like that. So, um I'm not in a position um to take on that extra responsibility, but uh the only formal extra
responsibility for vice chair is to uh read the read through the agendas and whatnot when the chair is unavailable. It's the only formal obligation. Just so everyone's aware. I hear you. I can I can certainly read, but
um it just seems um that I that I want to be closer in order to make that sort of commitment. Um understood. Okay, Jenny, you had your hand up. I was just going to say that um I think
that a vice chair could absolutely be a snowbird and be remote. Yeah, I don't see any reason why not. Um but it's up to the individual members. I hope that we do get you a uh chair uh a
vice chair uh Jenny because uh having somebody to, you know, at least talk to about things is helpful. Um, yeah, Chris, any would you consider being vice chair? Get back to you on that. Um, I'm on the fence. You know, I'm in a new job. I'm
really putting a lot of time into that and um let me let me think. Um, I would like to see somebody else step up first, but um Okay, fair enough. Rich.
Well, as the last person in line, and nobody else has said they can, I um I can. I wanted to see somebody else do it first. It's um a little more local, more often, but if nobody else is able to do
it, I will uh put my name in as vice chair to assist Jenny. That is awesome. I love that she's not Very awesome. Yeah. And I um I didn't call on Pete. Um, Pete, nothing against you. You are still brandandy new and I didn't think
it would be fair to um put you on the spot of asking that question. But if you uh want to charge in there and raise your hand, I'm not going to stop you either. Maybe uh if you know some if there's a commission change, you know, in a year or so that
requires somebody to step up and no one else can do it, you know, that kind of thing. Yeah, fair enough. Fair enough. Okay. So, um I make a motion uh for uh Jenny
Puther uh to be the uh chair of the conservation commission. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Jeff. Roll call vote. Rich. I. Jeff. Hi, Mike. Hi,
Chris. Hi, Pete. I and I for myself, Jenny, I assume you vote for yourself. Um, yeah, I vote for myself. My life vote for myself. I I don't know. Um, but
you still carried the majority even if we discount your vote. Okay. So, uh, for vice chair, uh, Rich Bersh, um, I make a motion, uh, to nominate Rich Bersh, uh, as vice chair. Jenny, thank you. Uh,
roll call vote. Mike, I Chris, hi Pete. Pete, hi. There we go. Jenny, hi Jeff. Hi. I for myself. Rich. Hi. Thank you.
Thank you, Rich. Oh, no problem, Jenny. Uh, thank you all. Um, okay. So, moving along. Um, we're getting it's getting late. Uh, Earth Day events, there just a couple of
things going on. Uh, Pollinator Habitat is doing a uh an event, uh, garden cleanout, I think, uh, an open house on the 26th of April. Um, and there have been a lot of things socialized on, uh,
on social media, uh, various platforms and various, uh, groups. Um, Mike, anything you want to add about that? Uh, only that it's been rescheduled for the 26 from 10 until noon, which is a Saturday.
And hopefully we won't have seven inches of snow. Hopefully not. Yeah, that was a shock. It's hard to plant in snow. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, and then the National Honor Society uh is uh has uh
volunteered. We got a lot of volunteers um actually doing some little one-off jobs. I guess somebody coming over tomorrow look at doing some signage out the northwest town forest. And uh and then as a group event uh they have uh
graciously uh offered to uh meet uh me and uh Chris up at the um Table Rock uh I think also on the 26th um to move uh a lot of material in there for some
boardwalks uh that are are being built um to help protect the uh you know some sensitive uh you wetland adjacent areas uh for the trail. So, I'm I'm pretty excited about that, too. Did you want me to reach out to um Bob
about using the ATV or were you going to do that? I I already talked to him about it. Uh he thinks that we can get the ATV in there to um to help move some of the material. Then we're going to have a bunch of you know, strap in uh you know, teenagers uh to help as well. Uh so,
yeah. Okay. Very good. Um, I don't have any updates on anything else. Uh, do we have any other updates that anybody wants to put out there? Think everybody's just tired. Done. We started early. It's been a long night. Um, do I have a motion to adjourn
at uh 10 p.m.? So moved. Second. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Jeff. Roll call vote. Rich. Hi. Jeff. Hi. Mike. Hi.
Chris. Hi. Jenny. Hi. Pete. Hi. And I for myself. Thank you folks. See you on the 7th of May. Good night everybody. Thank you. Good night everybody.