I had to actually start my recording so I'll start over in accordance with the requirements of the open meetings law please be advised that this meeting is being audio and video recorded the agenda list all of the topics which may be discussed at the meeting and those that are reasonably anticipated by the chair votes may be taken as a result of
these discussions not all items listed May in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent per by the open meetings law please address all comments to the chair this meeting of the Conservation Commission is being held by Zoom at the link provided uh in this
notice which is the agenda that's posted on the town website um yeah the meeting ID is 875 2621 4314 I'm now calling this meeting to order and we'll start out with a roll
call Jenny present Rich present Jeff present Mike present Chris present Pete
present thank you do we have any announcements from members of the commission and I'm seeing and uh no hands raised uh so for public comments comments are limited to 3 minutes and are uh must be on a subject matter that
is 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 um and uh please address all comments to the chair and uh the
protocol here is that uh you use your uh react icons uh there is a hand you can raise but if you use any any icon there I will uh I will see it and I will call on you and if for some reason uh it seems like you're missing your
opportunity go ahead and speak up um and uh I will acknowledge you and uh you know even if it's not the right time I will uh get back uh around to you and for members of the public uh the each time you speak please uh state your name
and your address do we have any public comments and I'm seeing none uh new hands raised very good uh Sophia do we have any meet meeting minutes I haven't seen
any distributed no meeting minutes thank you and then uh continuation requests um just the ones that are noted for tracking um on the very bottom of the next
page the 32 Hemlock Drive and 2011 Lemer Shirley Road and then um 390 Howard Street until next scheduled meeting oh okay to uh March 19 okay very good um and our 7 PM
appointment did uh get back to me and uh have asked for delay to the 19th of March so if you could uh make that note on the agenda and carry it uh forward to the 19th and I see that our uh new public hearing
uh for 215 Sunset Drive has been delayed and I think Sophia you said it's because the uh uh notifications didn't get out in time that's correct I think that was a butter notifications that did not get out in
time you okay we will uh move along then uh so then uh 390 is next next that one is delayed until March 19th uh so that gets us to 944 994 Northfield Road pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 131 section
40 is amended in the town of lunberg wetland protection and Municipal bylaws a public hearing on a notice of intent by the lunenberg Conservation Commission for the construction of a parking area to provide trail head parking and a proposed gravel driveway which involves a crossing of a bordering vegetated
Wetland and the construction of a wetland replication area located at the table Rock conservation land at 994 Northfield Road uh Greg you are our representative uh on this
project yes so so I will let you uh speak I think we got some comments back from DDP D and then uh we had also asked you to uh look at uh other options for that uh Wetland replication area
yes thank you madam chair Greg Roy with Dillon Roy representing uh the applicant which is you folks this evening um we did get some DP comments uh and I'm uh prepared to go over those U as well as and and so we did do a um
issued a letter dated February 25th uh but I don't think you got it until just yesterday or the day before so I apologize for that um but we um we revised the plans in accordance
with the DP com to respond to the DP comments as well as comments that we received from your commission from from this group uh two weeks ago so um I'll just go over those um in order if if that's uh acceptable and I'd like to
share my screen if I could I think I've enabled that for you Greg okay um do you folks have the letter in front of you I'm I can't share both documents so I'm going to share the plan um and I'm just going to reference
the letter but I'm going to read from it I don't know if I have the letter or not well I'll read from it okay so again uh we issued a our office issued a letter on that's dated February 25th and and we summarized the DP comments and
then our responses so I'm just going to go through these Point by point um the first comment uh so the first group of comments is uh what DP gave us and then there was two comments by the commission that I'll respond to at the at the tail
end uh Mass DP says the Wetland flagging does not appear to coincide with the topography uh it appears to drop off at Wetland flag a19 um B6 and A4 the shading uh
connecting a series Flags to the B series Flags also does not appear to coincide with topography additional information should be provided um so just for the record here U Matt Morrow delineated um on on behalf of the
commission um the Aeries Wetland flag which on the plan is the one that's furthest into the site so it's it's over here like this
and it kind of comes out and around like that um when our office was ready to do the surveying we noted that the front side of the Wetland area was not delineated uh had not been delineated um on the
side that's closest to the street so our office delate delineated that Wetland Wetland line that's the B series line which is right in here um so um I'm not really sure what the
department is is uh is getting at here the Wetland flags are in the field they were based on soils topography and vegetation just like every other Wetland delineation that that that's done both Matt and my and and our office uh delineated based on those standards and
we survey located them so you know sometimes um blin areas don't correspond with topography uh and you know it's a it's kind of one of those areas that you have some undulating
topography and it's just but I can assure the commission the delineations of those of the Wetland area was done in the field based on um you know um normal and proper Wetland delineation procedures and we survey located the
flag so um we can attest to the accuracy uh that's as they're shown in our plan it looks consistent with u my uh I'm pretty familiar with that area because I walk there uh periodically it's pretty consistent with uh what I've observed out there yeah I mean I think
you know that's it's to De to um defend D they they don't go and do a sidewalk on every on every project so um you know this one's pretty cut and dry yeah I take any Thunder from Chris if he has a question yeah Chris did have a
question yeah just I'm just it's just for Education Greg so what where did they get their inform like how do they where's the discrepancy come from are they looking at maps and comparing it to the flags how does that happen I have no idea I really don't I'm sorry I I I no
no that's fine I learn more I've gone on record in the past uh I I have a there is a disconnect between my myself and and current d uh Personnel on a lot of issues um I think they're just looking at the topography and saying that
there's I really don't know yeah fair enough fair enough I'm just just just something new that sometimes when you core you know sometimes the the uh groundwater table you know is is sloped and you you
have soils and hydrology and um uh you Wetland indicators that don't necessarily jve with the Contours and that's what we have here so um you know we we feel very comfortable with the Wetland vation as um as it's
shown thank you Greg um let's see next question uh please provide a pre and post-develop uh Peak rate chart demonstrated in compliance with
standards two so just to um put some layment terms on what that means there are 10 standards of the Massachusetts storm water management policy standard two relates to Peak rate
of storm water runoff from the site and and the standard is met when the calculations show that the post-develop runoff rate is less than are equal
to the pre-developed runoff rate of storm water so we have to analyze the site before it's developed and we use tr55 uh United States conservation Service uh methods for that um and we
have to compare it to the post developed site on when we build the driveway in the parking area in the in all the uh all of the associated infrastructure and we have to show that at the design point which in this case is the Wetland area that the rate of runoff offsite is at or
lower than um than what it is in the pre in the pre-developed case um we did include that in the in the in the initial submitt excuse me it's been a long day um and we but we highlighted it in our letter um just to make sure there
was no ambiguity we analyzed the 2-year 10year 25-year 50-year and 100-year return storm uh frequencies and in all cases we have reduced the peak runoff rate off site um when you compare the post-develop to the
pre-developed so we've we've met the standard um next question uh adequate pre-treatment is required for infiltration bmps to achieve the listed credit percentage of TSS removal I'm going to explain this in a minute um please
revise the TSS worksheet as credit appears to have been taken for the the pre-treatment itself uh in addition to the 80% for infiltration basins that can only be credited for with pre- treatment uh this relates to standard
four of the storm waterer management policy TSS is an abbreviation for total suspended solids and there are um standard practices we call them better management practices or abbreviated
bmps uh that the state of Massachusetts uh assign certain removal efficiency a TSS removal efficiency so um each of the bmps are assigned a certain percentage of removal uh how
much they'll remove TSS and so it's it's sort of a standard published um value and uh there's a standard calculation sheet that we use for this and sometimes we uh uh we uh
sometimes things get screwed up when we do we do the math on that so we had a typo in our uh in our calculation sheet so essentially what we have here the runoff from the parking lot is Flowing Overland to a Swale we get credit for a
Swale and then it flows to a uh sediment for Bay which is a sort of pre-treatment device in the storm water management Basin um this here excuse me
this here is the storm water management Basin um this we have a sediment 4 B here and we have a actually a sediment 4 Bay here so we have two of them in this case that collects and it sort of allows for settlement further settlement of the
um of the storm water so we we settle out some of those um some of those particles uh before it gets into the major main part of the storage um uh component of the Basin where it's infiltrated so we've tweaked our we've
revised our TSS calculations uh to document that we've complied with the 80% removal of total suspended solid so um really just a uh a minor uh issue there but we have uh we have achieved
that uh TSS as required um and that was addressed in the letter you sent uh yes I'm just DP I'm just expounding the uh the responses that we gave the DP um
where is the pre-treatment for infiltration Bas for the infiltration Basin as described um as the described sediment 4B locations are unclear please provide a detail and profile so we have revised the plan to to make that more clear we've we've
we've labeled here where exactly where the sediment forbs are um they asked us for a cross-section we've actually given a added this whole detail here storm water basin cross-section which sort of clarifies this issue I think
um next comment additional pre-treatment for the gravel road should be considered as the fines from the gravel road could compromise the function of the infiltration Basin um so one of the one of the standards I can't remember which one
eight or nine requires the preparation of an operation and maintenance plan uh that has been prepared uh it is included in the storm water uh management report that we submitted initially and it includes um operation maintenance of
these bmps and it's pretty standard um you know I I think that um the sediment for the swes and the sediment for bays are going to do a good job in capturing any fine particles before they get to the infiltration uh portion of
the storm water management system um over time you're going to get a further compaction of the gravel surface um so this is really only a concern at the beginning of you know the first year or two uh when this parking
lot is put in service um after after probably one winter season and and compaction on that you're really not going to have the the the fine the fine part particle movement sort of declines over time um so we really don't
see an issue I certainly don't think that the commission has an appetite for Paving the parking lot which is sort of the way to resolve this issue um but there's not really there's not really another um BMP that we would
suggest uh to mitigate like this concern um I we think that the Swale that we have proposed on the on the you know to capture the storm water running to a sediment 4 Bay both of those are prior to any exfiltration or infiltration of the storm water is
adequate and it is captured in the operation and maintenance plan that's memorialized in the in the report um DP recommends that the commission include conditions that require at least a two-year monitoring period and steps
to ensure the proposed replication area will will meet or exceed the performance standards I'm just going to suiz there we don't have any objection to that and in fact um we have those notes in the plans um relative to to those metrics um
they're on sheet two um note C on sheet two provides monitoring requirements and um and sort of performance standards for um how things need to take over time so we don't have we would not have any objection to that we would recommend
that you um recommend that that you um uh if you're going to approve the project that you would uh issue that condition because it's pretty it's a pretty standard condition um there were two comments from the commission from last time so so
that was the the those were the those were the comments from the um from the Department of protection Environmental Protection they were related to drainage um I presented this by the way at the planning board um last week when we opened the public hearing for the uh
site plan and I I told the planning board at that point that because we had just gotten I think comments from the uh from the the department of D at that time um so um I think it's important for everybody on the call to know that D
does look at our storm water calculations they did review them we did respond to them they they um they really fall into the minor category there was a few of them that they just missed our results in our report there was a few things that we needed to tweak they were
pretty minor um there were no uh substantive changes that we needed to make um to document compliance so but I did want to to make sure I presented that um the other two comments that I'll I'll summarize
quickly um you asked us to show the the uh the locations of the driveways across the street so we did do that um they're shown here we have the approximate driveway for uh 939 Northfield and then
here we have the approximate uh location for the um 919 uh we used Ortho photography to show those so they're they're probably plus or minus 5 feet they're pretty they're pretty close we didn't survey locate them but we uh we did show them off of
an ortho photo um or drew them on there off of an ortho photo and then the SEC the uh the second thing and I guess more substantial um thing that you asked us to look at was to relocate the Wetland replication area uh we had previously
shown it in a spot that was pretty close to the proposed driveway um we did rotate that around the Wetland uh to provide some separation uh between it and the driveway so that we wouldn't have an influence of uh of plowing and
um that kind of thing um during the winter months especially uh so we think that is respons to what the commission had in mind and we think that's a a reasonable area to put it um same same plan as
before um we'll save overstory trees we'll put them on hummocks we'll excavate down uh in between them and we'll we'll provide the plantings uh Wetland species plants and overseeding uh and all of that is done pursuant to
the Massachusetts Wetland replication guidelines that uh that are available U and we have notes and specifications to that effect as I referenced earlier on the second sheet of the of the plan so uh that's it um I did I mentioned
that we did open the meeting with the um with the uh planning board um there were some of Butters I think they're here um at the meeting I did uh I did make sure I mentioned at the end of the meeting that we um we did have this uh continued
hearing so that they could come and present any concerns with this commission um so I think a few of them might be here but I'm happy to take any questions or concerns from the board or uh or anybody else thank you Greg um yeah you you've
addressed uh my questions and um the concerns that I attract from the previous meeting uh do we have uh other questions or comments from members of the commission Madam chair yes Rich yeah just a couple quick
questions uh number one I thought our regulations stated uh replication areas were supposed to be done on a 2 to one basis for disturbance to replication square footage uh good question Rich um Greg if
I had that question I'd ask you rich yeah I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to replication areas are supposed to be two to one to the disturbance yep okay uh question two is I see you list 1126 square feet permanent disturbance
and 1382 square feet temporary yeah where is the temporary disturbance is that the land under the hay bales and Sil fence or that that's exactly right Rich so we just try to be conser try to be conservative you know knowing that we can't put the hay bales right at the
base of where we need to excavate for the retaining walls um we put those out a few feet and but those will be removed and that'll all be reclaimed as Wetland so we we're just trying to be transparent that there'll be more temporary
disturbance of the Wetland than what than what will be permanent in the area of the driveway okay now just was clarifying that because I didn't see that in any of the details what the temporary was so oh those are my two comments Madam chair thank you very much uh so rich so that
I'm clear are you uh are you saying that the replication area is deficient because it's 1,700 Square ft and the permanent disturbance area is uh what 11 1100 square feet uh correct yeah it
should be following regulations 2252 square foot of replication area yeah correct requesting a waiver so no I don't think you should Grant the waiver to your own filing there's there's no
hardship there in just expanding it to we wouldn't dare ask for that waiver I I I think that's an oversight on our part so we'll we'll correct that okay perfect thank you madam chair thank you Greg I'm just GNA uh make a note here Chris so what is the correction is the
correction expanding or increasing replication uh it's increasing the replication area uh so there's a permanent disturbance I think on the drawing you had 1126 square feet uh Greg and so the um current replication is
planned at 1700 square feet and should be 2200 and some change we got to increase it by about 25% corre okay thank you okay uh do we have uh questions uh or comments from members of the
public H Sophie you have a um I'll call on you yeah I I haven't had the opportunity to actually physically see the site um a lot of the conservation lands and areas I haven't been able to see but this one
in particular I would really like to see in person um I I know Greg probably won't have the answer to this question because it's it's kind of biology related but I'm I'm questioning how skunk cabbage was
found on the the Wetland delineation site visit in December based on what what document was it agent from Matt marrow yeah it was one on one of the data sheets for the
vegetation I I I don't know I don't doubt the skunk cabbage there it was but it Matt delineated it uh like something like 18 months ago or something I don't know when he delineated it
but I know it was on December yeah and unless it's covered with snow Madam chair you would still see remnants of the foliage of the skunk cabbage at that time of year yeah well I'm the Wetland flags have been out there I know for um
a year uh they were they were out there when I wrote the grant actually so actually that's probably more than a year he may have updated it in December um but the flags have been out there for
a long time December 12th 2022 2022 okay yeah that's quite a few years ago yeah I have to check with with Matt on that I I don't know um and so Sophie um the concern there
is um well it usually emerges in March so I'm just curious to either you know learn learn something new from the Commissioners or anybody that has input on that
um just want to make sure that there's species there that are on the sheet and reflected in person as well I again I haven't been out there physically to confirm any of this
and I don't uh know that uh it makes much sense to go out there while there's snow cover on the ground either right may lose all of it in the rain may not I think there's enough uh ice crust that we may not lose all of it okay um other questions or comments
from members of the public did I hear somebody say something hi Laura Karen gustus ah very good uh and what is your address 19 Burke Street I'm one of the property owners of s lless Crossing Golf Course
okay very good I just had a few questions and concerns um one of them you know I was listening to all the wetlands and I know Greg is very familiar with our course and one of our concerns is the impact
that this is going to have on a number of our uh our um holes on the course per se our Fairways um like our third our second Fairway your your parking area is pretty
much AB buding our second te box and one of you know and there's a substantial size Pond right next to it and then that flows down into a larger Pond which is
bordering our fourth Green in our fif T box which at at certain times of the year particularly the spring is nearly underwater as it is now so my concern is the impact that this is going to have on
my golf course um and then the other concerns we have were basically um public accessing the course you know if somebody is going from the parking lot parking area I should say and they they go to the wrong
direction they're going to end up right in the middle of the golf course and that can be a very dangerous situation so one of our concerns is the access that they have from that parking area on towards our golf course because you're
right adjacent to it and I mean is it possible that could have some plantings put in there to kind of deter that and you know those are a couple of our main concerns my my manager is probably on
the line as well Tanya ebelyn and she can probably speak better to the situation down there but I just you know I I voice these concerns at the planning board as well and T Tanya you had said something yeah Tanya can you introduce yourself
and uh your address as well um I'm Tanya Erin I am live in aspam 95 Den Road um but I I manage and the ground Superintendent at Super at sess Crossing um so the the comments that Laura had made
regarding our our water concerns and the golfers um coming through that parking area onto the course um the other concern that we had was um who who's going to monitor that parking area um our parking lot itself is on Northfield
Road in the wide open um I have signs posted no loitering and I have issues down there um I call the police frequently to come down um I have people doing all kinds of stuff down there in
the parking lot and we're wide open so once people find out about this parking spot off into the woods out of sight how is that going to be monitored to prevent these people from moving over to there and I mean I've had to call the
police on a domestic on um drug passing buys um inappropriate actions in the vehicles because they don't think anybody's there um but so uh yeah that's that's that's definitely a concern that we have um and I have people who have
tried to get onto the golf course who have parked in our parking lot gone across the street to seven with their clubs or even gone up to the first tea box with their clubs thinking they're just going to walk out and had to stop them so that's in plain view of our clubhouse
um our other concern is these people who find out about it easily take their golf clubs and tea off of the second tea box and that tea box is not in sight of our clubhouse so that's going to be another issue if people start figuring that little thing out
have this is Laura again I'm sorry have you re received an opinion from both the de uh DPW and the police department with regards to this proposed parking area I don't think that we have Greg
have we so uh we wouldn't receive them um as part of this process but it is um a mandatory part of the planning board process is that the planning office circulates uh to all of the Departments for
comments I haven't seen any um neg you I haven't seen any comments from those departments as of yet okay no all right appreciate that yeah yep um I could comment on the drainage related issues or impacts I think to
pawns and and things um as I mentioned and I did I did have a opportunity to meet with I think both Tanya and uh I I Laura thank you forgive me um after the planning board hearing
and they did they did attend in person to the planning board meeting we do appreciate uh that um that um the storm water management standards the 10 standards I referenced earlier are really intended um to uh
Safeguard a buting properties from developments so um the standards that we have to meet uh which again uh you don't have to take my word for it they're they're also being reviewed pretty intentionally in
um deliberately by the Department of Environmental Protection um we have to meet the standards and they're intended to protect off-site property so we have to design our storm water system to accommodate the storm water I do not see
any negative impacts to off-site uh uh property as as part of this project we just we've planned in uh the appropriate uh practices um for development of the size it's a very modest size development I'm
not sure you'd see any ill effects even if we didn't put in the storm water management that we're proposing um just because of the way things are U but be that as it may we're still proposing them um there's an operation of maintenance plan that's associated with it on and on and on so I just wanted to
to say that for the record I can't really speak to um uh issues relative to access to the parking um and access to the golf course I will say that uh we are adjacent to
the golf course but we're not right on the we're not proposing the parking lot right on the property line um I I do understand the comments um you know I suppose there could be some signage that we could we can we could uh we could put up um on the park parking area um we do
have a trail head that would come into the north end of that uh parking area that that will be signed yeah the the intention is certainly to funnel people yeah away from the course not near the course right um but I I guess I don't
want to speak out of turn on that you know the commission who also happens to be my client uh may be in a better spot uh to address some of those concerns but um but I wanted to speak on the storm water at least and the in the offs how how far away from the property line will
the uh will the uh parking actual parking section be yeah the parking is uh approximately 100 feet away from the property line okay um the T box the the green and the t- Box are close to the property line I will give them that um
they're not running the property line but we're uh you would be a walk through the woods for sure to get there and I think the intention is not to make that accessible for sure the the intention would be to make an accessible parking area with the trail head going sort of
plan North if you will um so that you know you're encouraging people to park and use a trail system but and uh I mean that I haven't walked through there I walked there a lot but right now the access is St Old Stage Coach Road uh
which is the way I you know generally go in and access the back end of the property but I recall it's um there's a lot of vegetation there uh is the concern that that vegetation itself would not discourage people from trespassing onto Settler's
Crossings yes it is and that was one of my questions was is it possible that we could have more vegetation planted along that area yeah that I mean that's definitely possible what would you be looking for though just something to deter people
from trying to cross over because there is a stone wall there between behind there yeah there is yeah there's a stone wall but it's not that High I mean we have people going over there all the time trying to find their retrieve their balls I mean that's the other issue is
the balls definitely get hit beyond that stone wall I mean the ab one of the abing nebus on stage C Road told me La at the planning board meeting that she's got a number of golf balls in her yard which is you know farther down it's
beyond your parking area so there's that issue there that's why I'm questioning you know how can we deter not just people but golf balls because we've had you know Vehicles damaged in our parking
lot from golf balls I mean it happens you know go we don't have the best golfers and not PGA so I mean that is one of our concerns you know and it's just the access and the potential for
damage um Greg could you uh maybe think about like uh you know I know we got a lot of uh tall canopy trees in that area think about I think it would need to be like some kind of denser understory tree that maybe we could plant
along y that that area um yep yeah some brush that's thick that that comes in thick yeah yeah yeah that's a forest edge kind of uh something that might uh capture a few more uh golf balls and
then make it uh a little bit uh discouraging more discouraging for people that uh have a trespass uh on their mind especially if they're trying to trespass and haul golf clubs with them to do it we don't uh we don't want to encourage any
misbehavior yeah no we we can look at that for sure y okay all right thank you thank you for those comments thank want to be good neighbors thank you I appreciate it I don't know if T had any other concerns I mean she's the one that's out
there I'm I'm there almost every day but she is out there daily so I I would like to defer to her if there are any other concerns that she needs to voice uh no I think you know between the um my main
thing was the trouble that is going to ensue in that parking lot on you know once it's dark and people find out about it um yeah signage yeah that could help but I mean like I said we have signs in our parking lot and people will park right underneath it I will go out and tell them they have to leave and they're
like I'm just having a drink and I'm like well there's a no loing sign right above your car you can't be here it's time for you to go it's not a hangout it's a residential neighborhood um I have people trying to tailgate no we don't tailgate here either it's Golf and go you want to drink Go Happy have you
inside the bar but it it's not our thing to have people hanging out in their vehicles drinking and all this stuff so and and I know that there's other parking areas for other trails in lunenberg I was told by another person who knows these parking lots and you
know told me that there's no issues with the other parking areas but the problem is the parking area here is in a totally different situation than maybe in the outskirts of LUN we have people coming through here from New Hampshire from Fitchburg from lemonster like it's a
Northfield Road is a very popular road to cut through um and and so yeah that was my main concern is is is that parking area because I know I have issues with our parking area and we're there to monitor it um so as far as um
you know that the stopping people or deterring them from coming through the woods I think that's an excellent idea to put some thick brush in there to to deter the balls as the people um I know I hike a lot if it's a rough area I'm not going to go through there never mind
trying to carry clubs so I think that's good um I think still my main concern would be the you know people that I kick out of our parking lot are just going to go right up behind the that area um and us we've had enough damage from
people just I mean we have people who stop on the side of North Rail Road and damage the golf course I've had people steal the flag off of nine um blow up my seventh green at the Fourth of July um they threw a big firecracker in there and blew up the green um so the damage
is an open view of people so I'm just concerned what's going to go on out of sight but thank you Tanya you know thank you I don't uh I don't see any other hand raised
um so I thank everybody for their comments uh and and Greg it looks like we have a few more uh action items for you yeah I have some I have the replication area I have some plant to review the planting um I also did want
to note that the planning board process is still open uh so right we will capture these and um in in time for that as well I think that's that's next week okay um so
um no I I appreciate the comments and um we'll we'll do what we can here to uh introduce some um Fringe Shrubbery if you will uh there's lots of species I think would be appropriate there uh Native
species that that will deter people um from wanting to walk across that buffer okay I apprec appreciate that thank you okay so uh Craig uh what do you think for our next meeting is the 19th is that enough time
yeah that's fine that that that's fine um okay what I did want to ask one clarifying question um we do have I I did I didn't maybe touch on it tonight or the night before but because we're taking down some trees we are proposing to um per your regulations uh plant some
overstory trees does the commission and I guess I'm asking you to put your client hat on here uh or regulatory hat whatever you want to do um does the commission want me to replace a few of those canopy trees with
the shrubs if you will um or do you want me to add shrubs and keep the canopy trees as we're proposing so all of the um all of these solid green
circles are proposed plantings to mitigate the loss of some of the trees we're taking out there's another one in here so um did you want me to you know remove a couple of these and then put in you know a nice
tight you know planting row up in there or do you want me to just add the planting row and keep the overs sore trees my opinion is just one one vote on the commission is to um you could take away some of those
um overstory trees and and uh use that in the count for the uh the tight under story yeah and I say that because you know being familiar with that area there is a lot of canopy cover um and so I
don't I I almost feel like by shoving more canopy trees in there we we might just be overcrowding um that that's probably true yeah mhm and I actually think that we may want to put uh the uh plantings
more closer to the wall if we could get access to the wall I mean get something in there to plant closer to the wall yeah I will caveat that we didn't locate trees essentially I told the survey crew to locate the trees in the
Wetland area out to 50 feet okay out to the 50 Foot um buffer zone offset so so there are probably a lot of trees between the there are definitely a lot of trees between the parking area and the and the stone wall it's just I was
just looking at a winter satellite image uh there's one on uh Mass mapper uh conveniently um in that area yeah and yeah it it seems like there is are quite a few quite a few um anyway okay but I
I'll I'll come up with something there I'll come up with something uh rich and we are also adding in 14 hardwood Maples and Oaks into the replication area to help with the
replacement of the trees coming out so that I would argue from a client standpoint that that would uh definitely count towards replacement of the the hardwoods coming out okay all right that's enough for me I I'll I'll come up with something that
that I think is appropriate uh that achieves the the purpose of providing the buffer understory buffer but I think also meets the uh at least the intent of your regulations very good uh thank you Greg and I
heard you recommend uh that we uh continue this on March 19th so I think I'm looking forward the commission to make a motion uh for continuation to March 19th so moved thank you rich thank you
Jenny uh so we'll go for a roll call vote um Pete uh I or yes Chris I Mike I Jeff I
rich hi Jenny hi and I for my self uh so we've got that continued to March 19th thank you so much uh Greg thank you I think I got the next one too so I'll stay I'll stay on here okay very
good pursu 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 notice of intent by James and Allison lataz for construction of a wetland replication area to provide mitigation for an existing Farm Road Riverfront
Crossing and the replacement of an existing covert within a Farm Road at 780 Northfield Road and so Greg you're uh the representative and I also see Jim on the line as well yes thank you madam chair
members of the commission Greg Roy with dson Roy I'm representing the applicants this evening uh Jim is is with us um uh Jim and and Alison latanzi of the applicants um we did receive so I I went through a a history of this I'm not
going to rehash that I think uh most of you folks um are understanding what we're doing here um I'm just going to go over we did receive some D comments I think there was two of them in this case or three of them excuse me
um four of them sorry uh and I'm just going to go through the DP comments um one by one here um I'm having trouble with my screen so I'll show you the plan afterwards so I think are you all seeing the letter yes okay sorry about that I I
can't for some reason split the screen here and see the letter so um first comment stream Crossing replacement may qualify as a limited project per 310 CMR 10538 uh noi proposal should be fil
filed according to 310 CMR I'll spare the verbage uh the form 3 should be updated to reflect this the applicant should provide an evaluation to show that the replacement Culvert meets stream Crossing standards to the maximum extent practical um our response is that the
project involves a replacement of the existing Culver within the existing Farm Road so as I specified last time um Jim improved what was what was an existing Road um improve the
CT um um as compared to what it was when he purchased the property uhu upgraded that to a 24in cover I think it was or an 18 or 24 in we are now this proposal is not making any proposed changes to the driveway
which again was was allowed by this commission um but we are intending to improve the or upgrade if you will the Culvert from a 24 in existing to a 30 in um and to sink that down in the grid so
we have a natural substrate and it's our assertion that that is a maximum practical extent uh here we don't have a lot of vertical separation where we can put in a huge bridge if you will for for a sort
of s you know dot your eye cross your te stream Crossing standard but we we can uh look to put in an oversized Culvert where we get a natural substrate in here um you know any more um more than that would require
significant upgrades to the road itself which again would require you know um more work in the area so we um you know we feel that that is a maximum practical um proposal so that that's and that that's what we're proposing we haven't
made any changes to that but we just wanted to narrate that um Greg that that pre-existing cul was an 18inch Culvert thank you so we went from 18 24 we already upgraded once on site the D requested I upsize one more time so when
we had our walk they're the ones that suggested a 30 inch on site yeah yeah obvious they're looking now for a calculation on it but I assure you that during the flooding of 2023 uh when we had the real heavy crazy rains that still did not overflow with a
24inch pipe so yeah I I disagree with having to do any more than 30 just adds cost well and and and we this is one of those I think I mentioned the last time where we actually had D on site here before we filed the notice of intent and we're
sort of receiving our instruction from them now whether or not the person that's reviewing this and provided these comments was that person that was on site I I probably not um so I think that that might be where we're having some of the um some of the comments but I I just
I feel that we have a a maximum practical um solution here and it achieves the intention of getting a natural substrate oversized Culvert hydraulically speaking we do not need this size Culvert from an engineering
standpoint we do not need this size Culvert um it's really just for you oversize the culbert so you can set the bottom of it in the substrate material so you can have that natural bottom bury bottom if you will so you don't have a
you know a um you know an artificial surface for the the um Critters to to to walk through so that's what we're achieving here uh just as I'm reading uh the feedback it it says the applicant should provide an evaluation is there
some type of evaluation you could do to um maybe defend that it's the maximum extent practical I I mean I I I don't know but you know they they've asked they said provide an evaluation so that's that's
I know I I just there's a road that's there yeah there's a culvert under it we're upsizing the cul I I I I mean it's at some point you just have to kind of look at it practically and say
yeah we're we're we're meeting the you know we're we're meeting the we're doing the best we can here well fair enough I I also acknowledge the history here too right and appreciate um you and Jim trying to uh work through this
right okay uh second here uh let's see um bordering vegetated Wetland bank and land underwater associated with the Culver replacement and completed work should be Quantified on form three um Additionally the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed
Crossing meets performance standards for Bank found it 310 um so again this is one of those it's just difficult right so we're we have a situation where we have an existing road that was
improved um and the filing that's before you is really just replacing a culvert so we're not really proposing any work in land underwater or bordering vegetated Wetland or bank because the
the roads there there's a covert we're going to take that out going to put a new one in so there's no bank or those metrics aren't there however um we have acknowledged that there may have been and this I I think I can safely say
prior to my client's purchase of the property there may have been alteration to the Wetland area so we are proposing a wetland replication area as a belt and suspenders as part of this application to mitigate the loss of potential loss
of I'll say historical loss of uh bordering vegetated Wetland where the road was was put in um uh but in terms of this actual filing we're proposing a essentially a Culver replacement in a wetland replication area so we're not proposing any work in
land underwater or Bank um we have Quantified uh based on on the best and I can I'll I'll show you the plan again for those that that don't remember the presentation I did last time that we we have done an estimate of of of sort of
what the light you know prior to this being farmed and when this was virgin land what the Wetland area probably was we we've done an estimate on that and we've we've proposing a replication area um and again this was all done at the direction of DP um and the
specifications that we provided for that uh that we're providing on the plan were done at the instruction of DP so um Greg if I can jump in when I upside that 18inch to 24 in Culver pipe we we did the we there was no Road expansion
at that point in time I put length pipe it was about 30 feet long we put took took it out and put a new one in a bigger one right but we we not widen the road there was an existing road that you know had been there I'm very familiar with the property for almost 15 years
now and that pipe had been there as well before my existence on on site there when I first work with Mr Pierce on the property the Culvert itself the pipe is probably 40 year old pipe it was an old uh galvanized pipe that came out you know so it's it's nothing that was put
in in the last 25 or 30 years everything else is is is hdp at this point so um you know we we just we when we did our work before that was that was just a replacement to upgrade and again that's
when we upsized so um I understand they're asking you you know but what we're disturbing but that there was no disturbance there um we we did exactly what we're talking about now which is just a remove and replace so thanks Jim appreciate that um the
third comment by DP was um was just that they recommend a condition um that the work occurred during a low flow or um a no a dry period of the year um special conditions that could include uh two-year monitoring
uh 75% survival rate etc etc again all those notes are on the plan uh we don't object to those uh conditions um in this case DP specifically told us what they were looking for for the replication so we uh
we specified that seed mix ver verbatim um which is a New England Wetland uh mix a native Wetland uh seed mix uh that would be overseed in the area um but we don't object to those
conditions um they're standard for for wetland replication type um projects so and then uh finally um the commission should ensure that the submitted fee is correct um so again we're we're just we're
upgrading a culvert so to us this is a pretty um yes we're including Wetland replication but we're not asserting that Wetland replication Wetland area was filled by the applicant uh we're sort of we're trying to
um put a belt and suspenders approach on this thing so there's no uh scrutiny moving forward um you know we we feel that the category one is sufficient um it's a pretty it's really a pretty minor project um so that's our opinion on that
those were the four comments I don't think there was any comments from your commission that was it I wasn't tracking any comments from our commission um yeah and I don't have any further
comments at this point do we have uh questions or comments from members of the commission and I'm not seeing any uh any question or comments from members of the public and I'm not seeing any
uh yeah DP issued a uh filing number yeah file number and then just those four those were the four comments so yeah so I think at this point uh the commission could make a motion to approve move uh with uh you know
addition of the special condition stipulated by D for 2-year monitoring and 75% uh survival so moved Thank you Rich second second oh I think Mike larouche got in
there uh first Chris um or second uh so we'll do a roll call vote uh Jenny hi Rich hi Jeff hi Mike hi Chris hi Pete I and I
for myself thank you very much we appreciate it thank you everybody you okay moving along uh pursue it 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 request for determination of applicability by Melissa can Canino for the renovation of a patio stairs and walkway within the 50- foot buffer zone of Hickory Hills Lake located at 67 Island
Road and do we have uh Melissa here with us tonight yes or her representative yes okay and do you have the ability of sharing uh or are you um need us or uh
Sophia to share uh no we can share okay okay uh one of the things that we had asked for uh and maybe you want to share is update the drawing that had been provided to show the um definitely
to show the uh you know it was a deck structure before but um the stairs were not sh on it yep um can you see this uh it's not it doesn't it looks like it's in a uh a folder structure and
not uh not opened all the way it looks like it's just in a preview pane it says that I'm do that maybe make it your whole screen says that I'm screen sharing yeah well we can see your screen but it's not the uh the drawing itself is
minimi minimized like it's um only in a preview could you like actually open the app and make it your whole whole screen sorry I'm actually staring at it full screen right now let me figure out what I got to press and who's actually uh been talking uh
sorry this is Jared Crowley um Melissa's fiance Jared uh rally yes ma'am and you live at the 67 Island Road as well corre okay oh there we go we can see
it rotating it is better yes thank you all right so uh we added the stairs the 41 in projection off of the deck and we also measured um after Sophia had come out we measured to the water
line um and we also took those numbers based on some photos that I can also share um but if you'll see at the bottom of that diagram uh we have 26 inches and 20 or 28 feet and 26 feet uh
respectively maybe scroll down a little bit so we can see the whole thing I'm sorry I'm staring at the whole thing uh does that help yeah okay okay the 26 feet and the 28 feet
reflect the um kind of the angle of the water line more yeah so that was the Contour of the shoreline um okay and that's off of the farthest projection of the patio walkway
okay uh and okay so the patio walkway so not the wall itself no that's no the wall the wall like the furthest projection of the entire assembly okay and again the stairs
the stairs and the walkway that are there still fall within that footprint of the pre-existing walkway that we weren't using okay uh and you have photos to show us too well before we go on um do any Commissioners have questions about
the uh drawing or updates okay um yeah why don't you show us photos I'm assuming you can see this I see um thumbnails okay so we did a lot of digging and we found some older
Polaroids when they were assembling the greenhouse that the deck is now on the footprint of um and a I'm not looking at a whole screen view of a of a photo though I'm looking at like a preview of
a so it's on my screen it's 2 inches by two inches and I'm looking at your site plan folder um you know File Explorer all right I'm sorry I'm doing share screen and then it says
uh Have you shared those photos with the uh with the office yes I mean it might be easier for Sophia to go into open go and share [Music] them is that better no I think you just have to
double click on what you want to share and it'll be the size of the screen so what I'm looking at I'm looking at a full screen that's why I thought that you were seeing a full screen of it do you have two monitor no oh oh I wonder if it's um hold on sh
screen what basic Advance it's whiteboard oh there we go you have to do one at a time okay so this was the uh this is when it was being first being assembled and sometime between 76 and 78
um nobody's really sure about when they built it um there's this is the basement entrance here uh and there ends up being a walkway that comes out here and then goes around there's a doorway entering the greenhouse here and in a couple of photos I'll show you where there's a
doorway on the other side so you could actually come out of the basement into the greenhouse into where this guy's standing here and you could walk back around um so it had perimeter access um please tell me you can see that full
size no oh Christ um all right maybe if I maybe if I actually oh it's the one yeah I did
this I did this Okay click on that cck and you don't see that full screen no if you stop sharing just a minute I'll show you what we
see uh yeah that's what we're looking at so this is a small icon over to the side and then a little thumbnail so we're not seeing the full screen of the photo like we just saw of the other side now we can see it full screen all
right I'm not sure why that's working but now that we're into this so that was the first photo I showed you here's the second photo and again this is the other side you can see the door right here and the break and the foundation and this is where they started to lay out the walkway that we've been telling you goes
in the front this is where our patio walkway is now and this was like the sand that they brought in for substrate um this is a more recent photo and this is where this is after the greenhouse
collapsed this is the doorway this is the other doorway and the walkway is big enough that our 28 in snowblower which was stored over here which is why we don't have a ton of pictures of this area because it's just unsightly where this walkway comes out if you can see my cursor com comes out and then
around this is the patio in the front where the the the stairs come down this way the basement is here and the walkway comes out here and then would go around like this as like a can you see my cursor when I do this yes yeah do you have anything that shows
the width of the um walkway in the front I think so let me so this is the landing um this is you know coming up to the house this way it goes down and then the beach is down here so here's the patio and then the step that went up into this the pavers where we had said
like the pavers were flagstone and brick that were kind of just embedded in grass and over time we just didn't walk over there and the grass overtook but that's the way this came out and walked across and and essentially my the now deck and
the greenhouse was here and the walkway went this way um this was the deck Construction again this is that walkway that went around the side came down here and then went along here to connect to this other walkway
going into the basement and this is where our patio is now is here and the stairs project out to this point um in in this photo you show the deck is actually bigger than the uh pre-existing
Greenhouse so this is overhanging by 3 in for support I'm talking to the building department about that too but yes functionally in the front uh where it goes towards the Wetland it looks like it's uh hanging over more than
three inches nope this projects uh the 24 inches that we have in the design plan and the building Department's aware of too um okay but again still within so the building department talking about this and they and I think the last time we talked it might have
been Richard burst that said that's not as big of a concern because the foundation you know the big concern seems to be whether we dredged or or dug anything up but we actually built on a foundation that was already pre-existing so I didn't have to dig anything or pour
any footings or or disturb any of the soil um but yeah the plans explain that this comes out and has a can of lever also within code but the conservation concern I understand um but this is the walkway
where we're trying to explain last time that there was a walkway that came around and we're trying to explain why this even existed is because this was a path to go around the greenhouse um this was a photo I was able to find to show the
waterline um this is an 8 foot ramp going to the deck this is the typical waterline for us um here's the grass Edge when Sophia come out we were measuring from the grass
essentially to the existing patio and I was trying to explain that there's a lot of beach in front of that grass like this isn't the actual Shoreline the shoreline is 7 to eight feet beyond that grass line so that photo was asked for to show that and this is a second photo
taken the same time um where you can see that the waterline one of the measurements Sophia took was from actually this light um which made it really close to the patio but obviously the obviously the the uh water line is
much further back um so those are photos to try to explain the depth of our beach on a typical day okay and I think I might have a couple more photos
uh oh sorry that's my neighbors run an excavator in the lake which I guess isn't as big a deal um that's all the photos I have of the patio and trying to explain the walkway uh as best we
can and again the measurements that we took I I think they're very reasonable and reliable for the 26 feet and the 28 fet um to the water from the edge of the the construction okay thank
you uh Sophia uh you want to show us your measurements sure um while I can show you the drawing with the sketch and then I'll just tell you the measurements
um second definitely not as good of a photo but this is an aerial essentially this is the measurement you can see where um the actual water
lies at least part of the season um but the actual ordinary high water mark is this pink line that I drew here and measured from that line to the
wall okay and that was 17 feet I think based on the photo I just showed you you can tell that that's 17 feet is unreasonable uh so uh let's let Sophie
talk Sophie is Sophie is our uh is our uh Wetlands uh expert and and I would like to hear from Sophie so Sophie in determining the high water uh line so it's not the average water line uh it's
the high water line um what um LED you to determine that line to be where it was um essentially it's the break in vegetation um signs of erosion things of that nature um any
type of water staining all those combined okay uh it's also consistent with my own understanding of where the uh high water mark should be and consistent with the way we
generally uh assign that designation uh to other properties on lakes so that making the assumption that the water comes up to my grass yard because that's what that pink line is is the grass that's our grass line chairman and that's absolutely false
I've lived here my entire life the water never comes up there we have at least 10 feet of beach there's the water never comes up to that line I understand what you're saying uh but uh there's wave action there right uh that also counts no it's an
absolutely not the waves do not come up to that line if you look at our dock we showed you pictures of our Dock and our boats and our kayaks if the water came up there our kayaks would be out in the lake if the waves came up if the waves came up they would literally float out we don't have wave action because
we're a low wake we don't have boats we have we have kayaks and pontoon boats so why doesn't vegetation grow uh lower than the grass line because it's traversed it's a beach it's what the kids use to play in and because we rake it probably two or two times a week to
maintain the beach it's literally sand it's not it's not a top soil that would support vegetation I understand what you're saying um and uh I also understand what Sophia is saying and what we have uh the
way we generally um rule uh on these cases uh there is an alternative uh you can hire a wetland scientist right uh if they're certified wedland scientists then we would uh take their advice under consideration as well all right so again
because we've been doing this now for four months and I'm sorry if I sound frustrated but we've missed basketball games for our daughter events at the school appointments even tonight I skipped an appointment to be here what is the resolution for something that we've already constructed because I come back with the
photos I've come back with the explanations I've come back with drawings I've literally answered every question that you've asked and at this point I don't even think I could afford a Wetlands expert to prove that the beach that my kids use doesn't grow
grass so what is what is going to be the resolution for a project that we've already completed is it to tear it up oh well the first thing is that the uh Conservation Commission will rule on whether it's uh whether it's
a whether it actually is an impact to the Wetland or not uh and and if it uh is an impact uh to the Wetland or potential impact to the Wetland then the next process is to file an noi and actually have permission to have
impacted the uh the Wetland so I mean there is a process here and I'm sorry that you're frustrated uh but uh there is a process uh and of course you know uh the the right process is to ask for permission before the work's done no and I agree
and I've I've apologized for that I wish I understood it better um and again like we talked before you know I didn't know if I needed permission to seed my lawn fertilize my lawn work on the painting of the house which is within 100 feet of the water have roof workk done that's within 100 feet of the water and you
know part of the reason that um I'm even confused is I watch during the winter I watch excavation equipment driven into the lake but nobody seems to be concerned about hydraulic equipment operating inside the lake but my patio in an existing footprint that actually
helped with the runoff is under much more scrutiny than those actions well so we can only we can only rule on what we know about and uh hydraulic equipment being in the lake this is the first I've heard of that so that would be a separate hearing and and I know it's
apples and oranges I'm you know it's somebody else got away with something I'm not asking to get away with mine I just after watching that kind of routine behavior in the lake I'm shocked that I come back here almost every two weeks to try to justify fixing a
patio I just would like to to make some kind of movement on this because there's been no traction for since November well we're still trying to ascertain the facts um so uh Jeff you have your hand rais Jeff you're on mute y sorry about
that I was on another screen but I I sent Sophie a couple of pictures but I can't find them in my email did do you have those pictures Sophie it was from near map when we still had access to
it did you send them via email I did and what was the title um I think it you know I got it was when we last had a meeting with them so it was a while ago but oh I think I found it could you share those two
photos I think it might help I think I see one maybe it's just one I don't see another one okay but yes I can it might be helpful so I think in that photo you can kind of see what they're saying is that
the water doesn't really come up to that grass that's actually a great example of what we're talking about right there the beach jogs in to the left probably the left third of the photo where it's cut in I don't know why but it's been cut in for as long as I've
been here you can see the rack line which clearly shows where deposits have been made and that's because this photo was probably taken in the fall when the water level has dropped it was April
22nd 2018 all right so maybe the dam hasn't filled yet I don't know but regardless look at all the beach it doesn't go to the grass the water doesn't go to the
grass and if it did go to the grass the way that Sophia thought that it might have a whole portion of that yard would be underwater in order to conform to where it jogs in where the measurement was taken for the 17 foot mark thank you Jeff did you have any other
comments no just that I mean I think okay his reasoning with that picture yes uh I I have to disagree with Sophia's determination of the ordinary high water Mark um it's not where the vegetation
ends it's where the uh vegetation ordinarily end if uh the citizen didn't have a beach which he's altered the uh position of that high water mark so I don't I don't agree with that
determination you know you're pulling it back to where the beach uh runs up I can look at it on uh his pictures on Google Earth or on the interactive property map you can look at other areas
uh other places around the area uh adjacent beaches there's a beach over at uh 19 Island Road and I would guess it's about 60 feet from the where the water is
present Inland that there's sand you know there just's no grass so I uh I don't really think that's the right way to determine just where the grass ends and where the sand begins I don't know I'm not I'm not
present though to actually see what's going on there I'm just looking at you know a picture uh I don't I don't think that I think that's a little bit stiff um yeah so just to uh recall what uh Sophie said it wasn't just the break
in vegetation it was also water staining and it was also erosion we measured that in the winter with snow on the ground what stain were we looking at Sophia I think that's a question for you so according
to the standards um of bank is basically when you look at the high water mark standing is Incorporated in those um I guess parameters but we couldn't see an actual staining
present with the snow so essentially it's lying on the vegetation and erosion so we're making the assumption that there was staining on the bank because of the elevation of the grass um no I don't want to make any assumptions well I don't think that we
can talk about staining then what I didn't know is that the sand area was being maintained but I'm still according to the the standards that are by the
book that's what I'm going by but whether I maintain the sand or not it doesn't change the elevation of the sand or the elevation of the land I'm raking dry sand raking it doesn't keep the water from encroaching on the
shore no but it would keep vegetation from uh from uh establishing there is there a um is there something that we can move towards at this point what's the point
um like next steps or we do we have any other questions or concerns about the distance between the the wall and the high water mark well I mean it's uh kind of important
right if we're making a ruling about uh work that's been done in a buffer zone where is it is it in the no touch zone is it in the no structure zone or outside of those and I think that's why the distance to the high water mark is
important it's a a critical decision criteria Mr chairman we came back today because you guys wanted us to show evidence that the walkway existed and that we replaced an existing walkway I'm not arguing that we're within 30 feet of
the beach or the shoreline I apologize for that I wish we were further back the last time we met you guys wanted photos to tried to show that we had an existing walkway that we built onto and I did the best I could I found
Polaroids I mean from from literally the construction of this and as I said before we don't have a lot of photos because it was a pretty unsightly area and I'm sure there's places around you guys' properties that you don't photograph because they're not exactly photogenic but I think that I've showed enough compelling evidence in the
pictures to show that there was or at least could be good reason to have a walkway in the front of that assembly so my argument to this has been we're sorry we did this without permission we didn't realize that we were doing something wrong when we did
it but that we replaced an existing product with not only new product but better product because we promoted better drainage with permeable stones and we didn't have a big impact on our area so my next question is today are we
trying to decide are you guys ready to decide whether or not you believe we had a walkway there or not and that we repaired and renovated something and then can we discuss whether or not 26 feet is too close or 17 feet is too close you know i' just like I'd like
us to grab traction and find a resolution to part of this because I feel like we're just spinning our Wheels uh Jared I didn't need to talk to the commission about this um and so uh
you know getting to data points is important um but uh we also need to allow the Commissioners to talk um okay Chris you have your hand rais yes um it it seems to me that this commission can't agree on the high water
line so I don't know um what we can do in terms of making a decision because even as a commission we're at an impass of where that high water line is um and I do
um I was under the impression that the discussion today was about the deck um I didn't wasn't expecting uh this other issue so I'm not sure I'm trying to understand also uh where
we where we're supposed to be going at this point uh yeah so again you know from my perspective being clear on the data being clear on what is where right uh relative to the buffer zones and the um actual resource area is very important
and then also being very clear about what pre-existed uh you know and was just improved versus verus what is an expansion is also a critical data point um so uh that's that's was my intent
with this hearing and my goal was to uh try to get uh get from a hearsay position to something that was uh real data do you feel like the photos that we provided offered any Clarity I feel like a well before I
uh Jenny has had her hand raised and has been patient I we'll let Jenny go next um so I pulled up some old Google Earth photos I'm going to share um so
um this is Google Earth this is hold on let me move my thing is in the way so I can see which year this so this is 66 2022 um so I did a measurement of the line
from what looks like the high water mark to where about I think the deck starts and I came up with about 23 feet but if I go back in the Google Earth imagery I can't find and I can go back pretty far
and get some good photos every so often um I can't find any this is 2016 any evidence of a walkway ever going in front of the greenhouse I see the one on
the side I think I got back to 2005 here this is 2015 I'm just I I'm trying to figure out when was this
walkway there this is 2008 1978 is when they constructed it yeah so there were my dad built this greenhouse in 1978 and there were actually walkways on both sides of the greenhouse because there was a working Greenhouse coming out so there were walkways on both sides of the
greenhouse I know you can't see them because you don't have photos dating back right so this is when my brother lived here my grandfather built this house and my father had it and then my brother and then I moved in in 2008 so there was a
walkway in front of the greenhouse wrapping around to the other side but nobody really we didn't go to that other side see there's a big tree there it was a Chinese maple and we didn't really use that other side there was no reason so it just it was grown over there were there were bricks it was sort of like that brick
patio you see up on the left so there were bricks and it was just sort of grown over with grass and it went all the way over to the right hand side underneath that Chinese maple but nobody used it so my brother relay and that's why it's you know brighter he and my brother-in-law
relayed that um concrete there because that was the main walkway out of the basement so that's where we stored all our water toys and floats and things like that and that's where we went out to the beach but again the sorry go ahead the walkway though that you're saying was in the
front yes that hasn't existed for a long time no it was there we pulled up the stones and stuff out of the grass it just wasn't used so it was grown in like you know like you'd see any neglected area of grass but the part that you can see so clearly is because that was a
poured concrete so nothing could grow up through it nothing could disturb it it was a solid monolithic piece of slab concrete but you can see all right in this photo you see the discoloration that Lun runs along the front of
it yeah that's because it was brick and flagstone and other like I don't know stuff that they put together to make it a walkway like any beachfront cottage you know it was assembled in Di y Manner and with
different materials but they didn't pour concrete there so I guess I'm not fully clear on I feel like if something had this the
discoloration I guess could mean that something was there but but is this structure that you have it's not going out any further than it went out 12 in further because we put the knee wall down so we're not contesting that we
added 12 inches because we put the wall so that nobody would step off of the new newly laid pavers onto a declining yard it was uneven we didn't want somebody to step off into uneven ground so we projected 12 Ines more than what was there
before and we're not arguing that within the 30 ft I agree not realizing that that was going to be a penalizing event we're we're inside a 30 I don't know if it matters that we're inside 23 feet versus 27 versus 20 regardless we're
inside a 30 and yes if we hadn't put the 12inch wall it would be as it was in 1978 that those are all I had to
add okay thank you Jenny I am sorry for sounding frustrated I I don't mean to well thank you for saying that out loud I appreciate it I mean it sincerely it's just been a long day long day and I
and I trust you do uh me and it um been a long day for me too I'm sorry for that yeah I if there are no other questions or comments from members of the commission uh right now I will move on
to public comments do we have uh any members of the public that have questions or wish to comment and I do have a letter that was submitted to me from a member of the public um that I was asked to read tonight
because uh that uh member could not be here oh hang on just a second um and the letters already been distributed to uh members of the uh
Conservation Commission is from John Fortune who also lives on uh Hickory Hills Lake and John lives at 50 Hemlock um
and yeah so John said that I I'm writing on to you on my own behalf not as a Hickory Hills Lake um owner uh bod member and he said the uh the El the lunberg Conservation Commission
discussion about 67 Island Road recently came to his attention and that he is Florida this week so he uh he wanted to share some photos that he found and basically the photos that he found are off the GIS maps and consistent with the photos that
we've already seen tonight um and he believes uh from the um trying to figure out if I could share his photos which I probably need to
do uh they just aren't um they just aren't showing up there we go yeah here's one of them share yeah so here's one of his photos and I'll go get the other one apologize for the clumsy handle in here
it's just slow let me close that [Music] one open yeah everything on my system is going really slow tonight so I apologize and it closed uh Edge all
together but maybe one of the other Commissioners has the photos and they could share those photos they were forwarded to all members of the commission I have them up I can share them that would be great Jenny and then I can read uh John's
uh email okay so this actually is what I got 17 feet from what I thought would be where the edge of the new structure would be
to the high water mark you can see my screen right yeah I can see your screen yeah so um let me go back to John's narration uh here so uh yeah he used the town GIS maps and found the original foundation in the
2023 map and a Google map picture taken in 2024 of 67 Island Road and uh as you can see from the 2024 picture of the deck patio below the deck and wall are out all now significantly closer to the lake than the original Foundation was
and he said he found a couple more aerial photos taken in 2023 and 2024 that showed the progress of expansion one shows the deck frame on the old Foundation um and the other shows the finished deck and stairs uh in his opinion um as John says
in my uh personal opinion and there's been significant encroachment to the lake during the development I did not know what materials were used or if there is acceptable water penetration allowed in the area and his main concern is that this addition may not be fully permeable and could cause excessive
runoff into the lake that may not be absorbed by the 30 foot buffer zone and he's asking the Conservation Commission to confirm the distance from lak's high water mark to the deck and patio and take uh any action required to ensure excess runoff does not end up in the
lake okay that's uh John's letter so Sophia you should be able to take John's letter and just um reference it and append it directly into the meeting minutes uh whenever you get around to doing those Pete yeah I'm sorry I looked at some
other uh stuff and also listen to what you had to say in the same conclusion that uh the citizen had now I see the issue isn't so much the determination of where the high or average high water mark is it's more the determination that
uh the new structure actually appears to be double the size of the old structure double coming off the house and uh obviously encroaches upon the the where ever the high water mark
is so I'm sorry about that I I think that was a distraction arguing about this measurement distance when in fact there's been a change without anyone asking first so I apologize I think no that's okay Pete so I think part of the problem is that um you know it is
important to kind of know where in the buffer zone and what buffer zone it's in uh because that that does make a difference in what's permitted and then and then the other prevailing issue here at least as I see it is what what was
historically there and maybe grandfathered versus what uh is an expansion um and would not really be eligible for grandfathering consideration is this is this alleging that my deck is 26 feet off the
house uh I don't see that well we're using the same watermark on both photos right but then we're saying that the existing Foundation that I used is 31 ft from that line but somehow when I'm done building and I'm 17 feet from it uh it looks like the one
that 17 goes to the wall I mean just my interpretation of the photo oh okay so we're saying that's the patio not the deck it looks like it's inclusive of the patio and the deck oh I'm sorry I thought the way that Peter was just talking that he thought that the deck was double the size of the foundation
which is not the case so what Peter just said was it appears in the other photo that the my construction is double the foundation which you saw the photo it's not but it's all of the work that you did I understand that I just don't want
to muddy the water again and say that we're you know the deck is one thing and then the patio is an extension off of the additional 14 feet fair enough again we're not arguing that within 30 17 is unreason I would invite all you guys to come down in May June and July and see
where the water is uh Chris you have your hand rais yeah I think if you take the um the uh the 17 the difference between 17 and 31 is basically the 12 inches he's talking about that he went over so if
you the original the original footprint he said he went 12 over 17 + 12 is 29 17 feet and 12 inches would be 12 inches 12 inches okay sorry my bad yeah but I I think the 17 ft is to the edge of the the knee wall there's a knee wall
there's a patio there's um stairs and there's a deck and then the deck um is uh Canever over the pre-existing Foundation yeah I still want more I want more I I need I'm I'm still I'm still I'm I'm confused then it it the
footprint of the original the original Foundation I don't know how it's changed that drastically because he didn't go over that far so I'm I'm struggling I'm I'm struggling with this well and uh you know the burden of the burden of um complying with the regulation and given
us confidence uh that we're making rulings uh consistent with the regulation that burden lies on the applicant um so uh just to put that in perspective uh Jeff uh yes M I was just wondering if
you had just to refresh our memory some existing conditions of that patio wall deck area I sopie has some uh Sophia has some photos okay you want me to share what's on open
go yeah why don't you go find those I have one as well that I have up that I can share so uh yeah so here's the knee wall uh here's the uh here's the beach um uh here's the uh you know the
under under the snow you can kind of see peeking out there's a patio here I think somebody else's screen is I I had my oh were you already sharing okay up um actually Madam chair could you show
us that picture of the completed project that picture I could not find in open go Sophie why don't you stop sharing and I'll go back to sharing okay yeah so this a slightly different perspective but here's a KN
wall uh the last one I had had the um Beach which is over here uh this is the patio area that wraps around on the other side of the knee wall uh the stairs and you can see there's you know uh and lever area um so that uh inset is
where the previous block wall had been see let me share the other one share and this one gives you kind of that perspective with the beach line um as well
Jenny you had your hand raised so I just wanted to add so where that kind of like slatted wall not wall area underpinning area yeah the the
previous foundation for the greenhouse is even a foot behind that I would say around a foot behind that so this is actually that is actually glued to the foundation that is construction adhesive those trim
boards are glued to the foundation itself so it's a inch and a quarter off the existing Foundation I have a photo of that here we go yeah do you see how it's glued I painted it black so you couldn't see it
and I construction adhesive the pieces to it uh yeah it looks like there may be uh actually oh sorry there's a yeah there's a strapping yeah but still we're talking about inches right and then and then you get a sense of how far the
can 24 inch can lever to the farthest point0 yep and then the stairs are a 41 inch projection from that yeah okay Sophie you had U photos to share
um I'm not not sure if they're much different than what's already been shared they're basically the same okay um so Jeff that gave you the
perspective you were looking for yeah yeah I think that kind of shows that it's probably almost twice the size of what that original Greenhouse was existing now which kind of explains those pictures and oh it's you know much bigger than what it actually yeah so and
when you say double you kind of are including the the P area and the knee wall area as well exactly I think that knee wall is probably almost twice the distance out from where the original greenhous that's where my confusion was
too right but what we're saying is that part of the deck the knall the knee wall and the patio the patio and the deck were two different projects that were done over the course of two years the P the walkway with the knee wall what we're telling you is that the walkway was a pre-existing walkway that
we got tired of looking at so we put new pavers permeable pavers in that spot the only extension of anything new if you want to look at the existing landscape of the house the only thing that was new was the 12-inch wall because we didn't want
Melissa's 82y old mother to step off into the grass off of a flat surface so the wall was to Det DET anybody from just walking into the declination so I think where I'm where where I'm getting confused is I agree
that we're inside the 30 foot so that that's a problem but the last time we talked the the board had essentially said that you know if you guys were repairing something you'd be more likely to understand what
happened and probably still not completely forgiving with the 12-in wall because obviously we took more space and so I thought that the point of today's hearing was to determine whether or not I've satisfied the Curiosity of whether the
the walkway was there which I've tried to explain with the doors on the greenhouse and the two walkways on either side that would have connected with the patio that we're talking about and so I guess today I was hoping that what we were going to get at the very least was an explanation that okay you guys repaired something you didn't
create something new and then to decide whether or not that repair would qualify under the RDA okay so I think what I'm going to do at this point is I'm gonna kind of just go around the uh commission and see where we are with this so that we can
work on next steps towards uh coming to some type of uh conclusion and I think I'm going to start out with you rich because you've been pretty silent yeah I'm just trying to take it all in unfortunately I am not convinced
that the level of the new wall walkway and stairs out from the initial foundation of the greenhouse is not an increase in any Disturbed area that may have been there prior unfortunately the
photos are just um horribly vague there's no showing of a walkway there's no real showing of uh constant use that would um allow for a grandfathering for any um
encroachment outside of the footprint of the greenhouse um I know there's been talk about the the deck itself I don't think that caner Levering the deck off of the foundation and overhanging would um be part of a in
further encroachment but I do have a problem with the wall and the walkway on top of the wall and the stairs uh even if there was something there I don't think it would have risen to the level of what is now there at this
point um and I've been trying to wreck my brain as far as you know going through and taking it all out is that going to make the situation better uh could we perhaps trade off
some space eliminate some Beach area and revegetate so that we're getting some uh permeable areas with vegetation back in the 30 foot no disturb Zone uh try to do something like that
and perhaps eliminate the walkway on top of the wall and the stairs and just have access to the deck off of the left side and the right side not off the front which then you wouldn't need the walkway because you wouldn't have the the traffic going across the front of the deck so those are things that I'm
running through my head right now but unfortunately what's been presented uh I don't feel um comes to the level of showing uh level of intrusion that we have there now Madam chair I hope I was able to explain that yeah uh I think a
lot of us have the same kind of things running around in their minds I mean I I know I do uh rich and is this uh eligible uh as an RDA I mean where is your headset about this or
is it um something that might uh end up need to be an noi as it's before us now for an RDA I guess I would just leave it at that and try to figure out what level of um encroachment we are going to allow
and what level would the been grandfathered I don't think that we should muddy it by all of a sudden trying to restart an noi process at this point I think we've got enough time invested in this that we should be able to make some decisions and uh try to get
it cleaned up and uh permited appropriately under the Ida process thank you Rich Sophia you had your hand up yeah I I just I sent an email earli uh to the applicant inquiring about um D
submission and I wanted to iron that out and make sure that they had submitted the RDA to D regional office so we thought that we had submitted that December 3D and navigating this has been pretty
unique for us we did one again today there's three submissions awaiting them I suppose but we did it again today to make sure it got submitted it says work in prog and it says work work in progress or something the website's not entirely um quick it
wasn't very responsive so to be clear you submitted the RDA to D today on today's date we submitted an additional one today I'm pretty sure we did it December 3D which I thought was in the portal I thought we answered that question in the portal for
December 3rd but regardless we submitted another one today around 3:30 4:00 um it was after I got your email I I went onto the site and I was trying to find stuff I couldn't so we just did
another one I'm just double checking in the portal uh okay while you look um I'm gonna keep going around um Jenny uh what are your what are your thoughts on this just trying to get feedback uh so we can
uh figure out where to go with this one so I definitely don't see a way that what they have now could be considered grandfathered um based on everything that we've seen but I also do like
Richard's idea about trying to you maybe reclaim some of that beach add some vegetation so I'd be open to something like that okay um and what about the like the wall and the patio uh and the and the deck like or so
when yeah so I mean I guess when I'm considering the structure I'm considering that the entire structure okay um so every part of it and that's when I say I don't think that there's any way that that could possibly be considered even remotely the same size
as the original structure even with the at the sidewalk that I I can't find any evidence of um so I definitely think those are outside of any sort of grandfathering based on you know what is there now
versus what was there in the past okay okay thank you Jenny Jeff yeah again these are always difficult when projects are completed uh the necessary like steps haven't been
taken but yeah I just don't see much evidence of a walkway um I think what Richard said you know if you just get rid of that upper area you know the encroachment of the deck is fine to me but I mean in my opinion if this was proposed as a plan I really don't see it
being approved and I think you know we we just can't you know just suddenly approve it just because it was built um so I mean even if you did have a three walkway that would extend maybe 4 feet past the foundation and that that
retaining wall which seems to be about 2 feet high you know is is much further out than that point so um it's difficult and unfortunately if the process was followed I don't think anything near this would have been
approved my opinion so but I think we can probably continue this under an RDA Like Richard said as well okay thank you Jeff um Chris yeah I don't have anything else to add that hasn't already been
said okay so you're kind of aligned and thinking if I understand your feedback yes okay Mike yes I concur with the other Commissioners um you know I'm okay with the Canever deck uh but everything else
I have a hard time thinking it would be approved as Jeff mentioned if it were presented uh without any more uh definitive uh proof that something existed um you know I just can't see it
either so but you know mitigating uh what has happened uh um and all the other items that were mentioned by Rich and um and Jeff and
Chris and Jen so I concur with all of my fellow Commissioners as well okay thank you Mike um Pete uh you were appointed on the fourth is that right yeah now but now I I kind of see
the uh bigger picture of all the pictures yeah and now I well what I was uh what I was kind of getting at is U yeah I I'm interested in your input put but I don't think I can let you vote on this one when it comes to voting because you weren't appointed when it was
originally introduced oh that's okay but I wouldn't be voting for it so I'd like to give you my input and that is yes I agree with uh I think you'd have to look at it in two directions one is that wall is a problem the wall
walkway is a huge problem and uh even if you were to remove it as a solution that' have to be done with approval and then I think there was a suggestion in there that if you left it but then it would have to be you know
look that can you leave it and then you'd have to maybe reclaim some of that area as was stated with some vegetation in in the beach area but that's a decision decision to be made later um so I would
say if I was Voting I'd be voting you know obviously against leaving anything there and and and moving forward with some sort of plan so okay thank you for that now that I see the picture anyway I'm not uh I think somebody's already made a
comment about the deck being you know if you done the deck with a 24inch extension that' be kind of questionable but still probably okay but that wall is really that's really a big sore point
so okay thank you Pete uh um so I uh I do see the the work that's been done as an an encroachment and and you know not speaking as chair but just as one commissioner right um I see all totality of the project as being an
encroachment uh the wall the patio uh I I didn't see in the in the photo historical photos uh clear uh evidence of a walkway in in the uh uh on the lake side of the uh and and I
understand all the you know discoloration and all that there's you know if we were just neighbors talking would be no you know no consternation about it but this is a regulatory body right and there is no clear evidence that I saw in the
photos that uh there was uh you know a uh walkway that had been in uh constant use or uh any use really um so I clearly there was a greenhouse there clearly there was a block wall
there right and that being grandfathered uh the structure built on that right within that block wall absolutely have no issue with um I have a little bit of an issue with the uh with the can lever expanding the uh
footprint um the stairs on the on the Wetland side uh I feel like are Ely an encroachment um and the patio and the wall over there I do feel like are an encroachment um yeah and you know from my read of our
uh Wetland regulations we're not allowed to permit further encroachment what's there you know and grandfather and you know not an expansion of footprint uh we can allow maintenance and ongoing work
enhancements there but not uh further further approachment um so that's that's where I sit with this uh again as one commissioner uh so then in terms of next
steps right if we were to vote on this tonight it sounds like we would be disallowing this as a as a uh or you know in the technical terminology is a positive determination for this RDA is
that it would be an impact uh so and I'm happy to take that vote um or do we want to and and this is a place where I think you know in terms of applicants do you want to talk more
about uh with the commission about what they might be willing to permit and come back with an alternate uh or a modified plan it's a lot to take in so I I understand they're probably on mute to uh kind of
uh figure out is that a that a question for for us I'm sorry yeah yeah yeah yeah so you've heard from all the Commissioners right and you know issue with the expanded footprint nope I understand and I can appreciate everybody's
position um I can't I can't imagine that take taking up this project is only going to create in my opinion a worse problem if we're really concerned about the impact we're going to have the yard the lake I am absolute the front edge to the
lake I'm not opposed to bring it in vegetation you know I know regardless this is going to cost us money we don't have in the interest of the safety of the Elder that we have done here the kids we have using it I would love to be able to keep this and find a way to
improve the frontage to make up for the mistake we made so you know selfishly I would be very much interested in hearing how I can make what exists right now more
acceptable to the Conservation Commission without having to tear everything up and Rich I'm gonna pick on you because you know because I had you go first and everybody kind of followed your lead but I I I have a sense they were already in that mindset
um what were your thoughts about reclaiming um reclaiming a portion of the beach r V itating within the 30 foot um area so I guess the the first problem we have is if allowed this is now
encroachment in the 30-foot no touch Zone yes what do we tell the next person that comes along so yeah we're we are kind of in a tough spot we have to enforce the regulations I do feel for the Mr um
Crowley and Miss Canino it is a tough position to be in I know people have chastised them for not doing the permitting process properly um but we we do have to be able
to look at the next applicant and when they come with a project and enforce the regulations and the 30 foot no touchdown so so we do need to ensure that we are finding a solution that is in the spirit of the 30-foot no touch Zone um in
looking at it I think that taking out the wall and regrading everything is just going to be more um disturbance in that area so my personal recommendation as just one member would be to allow
them to leave the wall as they've put it uh remove the walkway and the stairs on top of the wall and whatever the square footage of the wall is um I would recommend that we perhaps
vegetate double that square footage of Beach area and I'm not sure it looks like the beach basically goes from one end of the property to the other um there's a big wide area then
there's a less of an area and then over where the dock is there's less and then we've got a whole Square after that uh perhaps we can revegetate that area near the property line closest to the beach the the big beach for the
lake so that would be my beginning recommendation to consider leaving the wall removing the stairs removing the walkway and reclaiming the beach area and vegetating the double a square footage of the wall along the property line and
I guess that maybe would be the Eastern property line Madam chair that would be that would be a starting point for me again as one member that's a good uh yeah that's a good starting point but when you say remove the stairs you you mean just remove them from the front and put
them on the side where we did have evidence of uh you know pre-existing walkway deck not usable if if there's no yeah the walkway is still on the western side of the deck if if memory
serves from the yes the final picture yeah but I so you'd be okay amable to them putting stairs there on that side of the yes yeah putting them out down to the to the walkway that is currently in existence the concrete pebbley walkway okay and then that would eliminate you
know people coming off of the front of the deck and you know the safety issues with the wall and things like that and if the walkway is not there they'll be less likely to be up there walking around on it so but something to that effect I mean the applicant is more than welcome to prop
other ideas uh to try to mitigate the problem but that that would be something I'd be looking for so okay thank you Rich um Jeff is usually um pretty good at brainstorming these kinds of things too Jeff uh what are your what are your
thoughts do you see other opportunities there um yeah it's it's I I personally would just like to see the Wall go but um again it's when things are done and the permitting hasn't been done properly
and you know it's it's difficult but well the challenge I see I mean just to put it out there is that if you permit something you would after the fact that you would not normally permit with somebody going through the right process you're encouraging people to you know do
the wrong thing and ask for permission later I mean and that's you know I I also feel very um a lot of compassion for the uh uh applicants here because that's a hell of a place to be in and
not out of ill intent um but uh for as a regulatory body we also have to think about the the next people and what is the what what are what are we coaching um our residents to do by our
actions anyway Jeff back to you yeah so I would you know it wouldn't take much to put a silt fence up and you know some kind of erosion control and just regrade that area to pre-existing grade and then just use that walkway that they had
originally I mean that that would be my opinion on the whole project but I am only one vote okay thank you um and Jenny what's your mindset in
those two kind of uh uh proposals there uh that uh rich and Jeff were kind of kicking around are you so um this is a tough one but I think I'm more inclined to go with what
rich is proposing just because I think that I know it's really tough to let somebody you know do something after the fact and something that we would definitely not have permitted in the past but I'll
so we could veget I I'm really having a tough time with this one I thinking if we can reclaim some of that beach and have some more vegetation near the water that's also a really good um you know thing for the lake so
I'm really I'm I'm I'm struggling with this one I think I'm more inclined to skew toward what Richard is proposing though okay um and I don't I don't have anything uh
to add myself uh I feel like um the wall gives me some consternation uh but I I do feel like revegetating is uh probably an acceptable uh compromise uh and you know twice a square foot footage
uh type of uh footprint I'm you know oh Jenny go ahead I didn't mean to over talk you no that's I was done and then I I had another thought so that's why I raised my hand um when we say twice the square footage of the wall are
we saying literally just the wall so that would be I know was that wall like 30 feet by 2 feet or something yeah 60 feet so 100 20 sare feet so we're not thinking like the area behind it too just the wall
itself not the maybe the square footage of that's what I understood more of the area that was Disturbed maybe yeah that was well my thought was I mean the actual disturbance in impervious surfac is the footprint of the wall the top of
the wall removing the walkway above the wall now that's just to leave a lawn or a green patch of permeable um surface again that's going to allow for water infiltration and green
space because I believe there is a walkway from the wall to the stairs maybe it's you know 24 to 30 inches by the length of the wall it it's a little hard because I just saw that one picture
of the completion and on the plan they submitted there's no walkway at all shown there just the stairs would you mind showing your picture again Mary okay I think Sophie's um photos that she
has in uh What uh in open go show more of the walkway here I don't actually have ones that show the walkway on this side so much okay Sophie do you want to call one of
those up I think I mean I'm assuming that's what you were getting at um Jenny or Rich was this what I was thinking for the area directly behind the wall in between the wall on the stairs which was I can't I can't remember exactly what
was there um but I was thinking maybe including that in the square footage of the replacement oh so from here to here that patio area yeah it's it's kind of like
this right yeah so I guess in looking at this picture is there what happens when you get to the last stair coming off of the deck are you on the wall are you on some see
there's a patio right here the p line right there yep um that's a walkway that goes across the front okay and how wide is that I'd have to pull it up but I think
it's 28 Ines possibly 30 I don't have it in I don't have it in so it's just kind of an optical illusion that the you go from the last step to the top of the wall so yeah that was that walkway was what I was looking to take out if you look at the wall yeah the was just to
make it level because otherwise you stepped off of the deck onto immediately going down a hill and we we had somebody step off the deck and lose their footing and we realized they needed a flat surface and something to discourage you
from walking off onto the the grade so yeah in this photo it looks like we have like a I don't know what that would be a 28 inch tall wall but when you're on the patio it's about six inches high does that make sense yeah how wide is
the the P area between the wall and the bottom step I think that's about 30 inches maybe 28 inches it's hard to tell from the angle of this photo but yeah a fairly standard walkway yep yeah so
unfortunately where that's in the 30 foot I mean it's clearly in the 50 Foot no um build in the probably in the 30 foot no disturb Zone so my recommendation would be for removing that and the stairway coming down just reorient your access to the P
area on the left side that you have Yeah we actually can't do that because the proximity of that deck to the staircase there's not enough elevation for the stairs to run without hitting the existing stairs that are coming down does that make sense well I don't see
them in the picture so I guess it doesn't so if we came off the side one the stairs would be in front of the entrance to the basement so you wouldn't be able to enter the basement and two the height of the deck the way you know stair code the way it
comes out it would it would land the footing of the stairs would land where the stairs come down from the patio from the upper portion of our property which is why we put the stairs in the front because we actually wanted them off the
side so that when you came down the stairs you went directly onto the deck yeah but we couldn't do it because there's just not enough room and it would block access to the basement okay yeah you unfortunately that's something you may have to uh try to
re-engineer or the stairs on the side to remove the stairs on the front I understand I don't think we can our oil tank is right there and do you have do you have better photos of this of what rich is they're talking about this area over here do you
have I thought you had some photos of that do I have one I thought Sophia did but I might be misremembering I am screen sharing right now ah there we go yeah okay this is the area I think they were
talking about yep yep yeah I I guess I would allow them the opportunity to take a look at it and see if it's something they can re-engineer yeah right Richard I don't think we can because our oil tank is literally so when you walk down if that at you're at
the top right here you walk down those are three stairs you take a left our oil tank is literally right here okay again you have to remember this house was built I think in like 1953 this is my grandparents house like it's we really did the best can I remember snowmobiling over
there years and years and years ago so that's what I wanted to I wanted to like just walk down and go right to the deck right that would be way easier than have to walk around my mom and that's why we did this right it just wasn't so we just literally built right on top this is what my dad had it was a step down and
then into the greenhouse right here so we just literally built on top of it and came around and put the stairs over here we can't yeah I just don't think you can do that like it I don't know we really tried our best I'm sorry yep yeah well I mean I don't want to
have any it's not fair to try to just make a decision on the Fly I mean unfortunately we do have to come up with some remediation of the what we have here in front of us so let should take a quick look and see if it's something perhaps you can build back into the deck
a couple stairs or take a look at it on site and see rainstorm Jenny so rich actually just said it but I was thinking where that benches with the green pillows on it they could
recess the stairs back in a little bit and then they'd lose some of the patio but they'd be able to have stairs there and they wouldn't be blocking anything or they could do it further back
too yeah that's also an opportunity okay um so I think uh do any other Commissioners uh have ideas that they you know want to throw out out there or the other Commissioners and talking to uh the Commissioners that have oh that's
a good perspective as well um that photo uh have anything that they want to add yeah again so that was all existing I just want to make that clear if you can go back to that photo that was literally all existing that walkway out here that's what was there and we just
built on top of it and the wall literally just came up so the dredging and everything that we just built on top of what was there the knee wall is new but again my mom is 81 so I didn't want her to fall off into
because it's so uneven out to the water but this was all here this was all existing my dad built all this with bricks so we just again put permeable pavers and repaired it because the Chipmunks and the squirrels and everything just destroyed it and it hadn't been taken care of over the last
20 years uh mikee yes Madam chair um I I see the visual issues here involved in you know either indenting a stairway into the deck on this particular side but is there any
access where the two panels are in the back to put the stairway there on the side yes right where you have your cursor not without not if we take up all of the walkway to get around
to it because the whole reason was so that nobody was walking on uneven terrain or getting hurt so I could put the stairs off that and there's enough Sage to do that but the ACC go ahead I'm sorry you have no
access from the house to the deck the access is only from the outside correct okay I understand now okay well that might not be an option no it really I understand what you're saying but I don't think it's okay especially if we're being asked to take
up that walkway in the wall right there would be no point in having stairs on the other side okay Jenny so I guess when when you're saying can we go back to the other perspective where we were looking kind of from behind it was
no that one so now you're saying that this is I Melissa these stair this walkway right here that is right behind the wall so you're saying that walkway was the previous walkway that was there before but
wouldn't it if you had to fill that in wouldn't it have been very very slow if it was there because no that was uh we put pavers on top of the existing concrete that you kind of saw in some of the previous photos you guys had shown us from the
overhead so we overlaid on the concrete and no that was uneven and sloped over time being used that was the that was the whole point of it like it wasn't usable because it had degraded when they put it up they didn't put any kind of retaining wall to hold the soil so the
bricks that they laid into the dirt they just laid into like a of sand that eventually it all just kind of folded on itself and fell towards the lake so that's why we leveled it out and put those pavers in place so if this is
where that existing walkway was though it's about five feet further out than the greenhouse than the greenhous there was a there were Birches and a Chinese maple that were right against the greenhouse so the walkway went on the outside of those
trees and when those cuz I I went back to I don't know 2001 and I didn't see any trees in that area well you saw the Chinese maple that tree was gigantic in fact we went through you
guys to have that removed I think in 200 17 maybe or 16 Mark flag took that down for us but we worked with Matt marrow we did everything because again we understood taking down trees required this required
going through the Conservation Commission and the Hickory Hills we didn't think that fixing the patio because it already existed we didn't think that required the pro permanent process again ignorance isn't an excuse but no that patio was on the
outside of The Birches and the Chinese maple and it wrapped around to go to the other entrance to the greenhouse because again it would make no sense to have a walkway and an exit on a greenhous house that went into nothing the two the two walkways on
either side of it were connected in the front haphazardly and poorly done DIY from the 80s but that's what was there uh is that uh conclude your question comment um Jenny it does okay
Pete I was just thinking this little angle like where the deck comes in uh I don't know how to describe it but just either do like a little set of stairs on this side so you don't even
have to use any uh that walk around thing I know you wanted to have this thing I don't know if it was a patio there you're saying you're telling us that there was a patio but because you didn't go through the regular process no one got to look at what you had before
to determine that it actually existed so if you're going to remove that walkway what if you just put the stairs down on this end you might have to alter the deck design a little bit but kind of like on that corner I I hear what you're saying that's still going to project
towards the beach though so even if I if I take the stairs off the front with the 41 inch projection if I put it off to the side that's still going to project off the top of my head you know 30 inches well yeah I'm just trying to
no and I appreciate the suggestion I'm just I'm spitballing with you like whatever whatever I do unless I come off the lateral of the deck which isn't feasible because it blocks the basement and and that's the way we wanted to go we didn't actually want to walk around the front of the deck we wanted to be
able to come down and enter the deck easily right off of these stairs that we're looking at in this photo now well what if you came off laterally but you cut into the deck that would be the only solution I'd have to uh break away the foundation a little bit probably double up a beam
inside yeah I mean footing and I guess that's that would be the only true solution would be to steal some of the deck space for stairs but I still and I know this sounds selfish but again rip I don't
understand how tearing up all this work is not going to have a greater impact to what instead of us trying to add more vegetation or compensate for the for the area we took uh during construction projects uh it's
a routine and and for ones in uh near Wetland areas to put in a silt fence um and straw Waddles that uh keep uh the sil the silt and run off from getting into the no we actually we actually did put a fence up to do this
believe it or not we did this with every intention and consideration of the lake that Melissa's lived on for her entire life despite not following the rules we tried fair enough so I would like to uh move towards uh concluding this this evening
um so it sounds like it sounds like uh the Commissioners are all of the mind that that what is there right now is in their minds not not permittable uh but you have an RDA it's open didn't seem like anybody had an
issue with um you coming back with some counter propos proposals under this existing RDA uh so we could continue and uh allow you to do that um you could uh you know you also are within your rights to ask
us and force a vote um so do you want to continue and come back with some counter proposals um what uh it's what I would recommend that you do but uh yes appreciate that can we not do this we have a little more time than
the next meeting though oh you guys can have as much time as you yeah I mean you know you're here on a violation so we can't have it be infinite infinite time like if you were just coming and not having done the work it could be but um yeah you're you're trying to work with us and you're trying to make it right uh
so yeah you you can have more time uh could we could we tentatively plan for the first week of April uh yeah that's that's not the next uh hearing it's the one after that is that enough time I mean i' I'd be okay
with you doing March is not March uh may as well all right I Pro I didn't want to ask for more than I deserve um but that would honestly give us enough time to probably talk to somebody who's more away of this that can give us some good ideas yeah and and we um you know we
appreciate you working with us uh too on this um and you know we also appreciate that you didn't get here uh through ill intent right um and you're trying to make the best of a bad situation so I appreciate that thank you for saying
that uh so uh that is a request for continuation to may let me get my calendar up was it may or April well they said uh April but I offered May and I heard that that they would appreciate uh May
I think May is much more reasonable for what we're going to try to do I think they've got to figure out uh figure out um you know I think they've got some figurein to do right so uh I think it's not straightforward so they could use
extra time our first meeting in May is the 7th um I make a motion we continue this to May 7th yes second Mike did you say second I did
okay May 7th uh Rich made the original motion and second by Mike uh roll call vote Jenny hi Jeff hi Chris hi Rich hi Mike hi
and I for myself um and uh just leaving Pete off because he wasn't commissioned when this was originally um brought before us so uh thank you uh we will uh move on with
that thank you Melissa and uh Jared thank you thank you for your time okay moving along pursuit to Mass General Law chapter 131 section 4 is amended of the town of w lunberg Wetlands protection Municipal bylaws a public hearing on a
notice of intent by Daniel Shen of Redbird construction for removal of an existing deck within a 50- foot no build Zone and a 30 foot no touch zone of boring vegetated Wetland as well as construction of a two family dwelling within a 100 foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated Wetland at 213
electric ab and do we have uh Daniel Andor his representative here tonight yep uh Daniel here just a correction uh through chair um I'm actually not with redber construction I'm with Haley ward in corporate um we are the engineering firm
with them okay Haley Ward uh Sophia can you uh note that uh and get that correction uh if we uh end up continuing this ay Ward yep that's noted okay
Daniel um you wanna get us reoriented on this one sure first I just wanted to uh at least say Well done commission that was definitely a hard one to handle and I think you guys did a very good job um but before we even get into that I just wanted to now go into um electric gab I'm just going to share my
screen um Mary what I'm GNA do here is I'm just GNA go through what I shared the commission last time I was here this is a little presentation plan we've made some edits since then but I know you weren't there at that meeting so I'll just kind of give you the the nice pretty picture it's a little bit easier to kind of see everything um so here we
have 213 electric G and what you see highlighted in green is what's going to be proposed as grass uh after the construction and what's in Gray here is the driveway itself and kind of in that brownish color here or olive color whatever you like to call it uh it would be the house and then the deck in the
back um so this is what I shared with them last time um I actually submitted some plans today so I wouldn't expect you guys to take a look at it yet um B some revisions um we went through these revisions some comments based off of what the planning board had mentioned uh full transparency we also went before
the planning board we have next meeting on March 10th because as this project as a whole um disturbs more than that acre of disturbance it triggers the storm water protection permit so we're going through that and it was also peer reviewed by outside um our town peer reviewer so I'm going to go here I'm
just going to stop sharing my screen make sure we get the right one here this is going to be the revised plan it's a little bit more busy so I do apologize for that all right um so here's the revised plan I'm showing the Sate erosion control um for a particular reason I believe it was Richard who had mentioned
last time this deck in the back kind of going through it pretty quick there we go this deck in the back it's within the 30 foot uh no build zone no touch Zone sorry in the 50 Foot no build Zone and I believe Rich had mentioned when we were last talking
about this this may have been burned down or there's some other alterations to it regardless the intent here is whatever is there um to kind of clean it up and then revegetate the area um and we also talked about doing some temporary erosion controls for that work
as well let's see if I can get the right plan here utilities s Ro control perfect so what we show here is just kind of extending that silt fence out out and around just to kind of protect the area to make sure nothing really happens or damages the
Wetland as this work is being done um I do show a leader here showing you as provide temporary erosion controls um if you guys would prefer to stay in for the entire process of construction I'm all for that um but just kind of trying to find that nice Middle Ground one to just kind of flag the contractor Yep this is going to need to be done and two to also
protect that Wetland um the other section here was also about revegetating this area um I know we talked about trying to do some natural vegetation that was local to the environment I know we haven't had the luxury of going out together um to actually see the site um so I kind of just put in here as a
little leader as well uh once existing wood deck is removed revegetate the area with local species notes and I kind of just provided a little bit of just general things that are local here um but more importantly local species and quantity to be coordinated with the Conservation Commission um for reference some local plantings there as follows
the high Bush blueberry um Silky Dogwood common Winterberry Northern Arrowwood again honestly whatever you guys are really interested in I'd be more than happy I just wanted to at least give some guidance uh not only for you guys as well you guys know more than I do um but also the contractor so he starts trying to find the right things he at least has some idea of what he's looking
at um that's really it um I will I'd be more than glad and we also had some D comments kind of like Greg Roy did with his project I can go over some of that we had some discussion at that last our last meeting on that um but just full disclosure like I said before this was
reviewed by out uh outside peer review and they didn't have the same comments um I can kind of blow through them I'm trying to do this for the sake of everybody's time here today but de did say they wanted to um demonstrate the 90% TSS removal credit um we do have
that removal credit um as part of that same chapter they do say that you need to have at least eight inches of gravel as well as three to five feet of saw before you get into the rain Garden to actually get that 90% TSS removal and what we're actually proposing here on
2113 is a stone diaphragm and there's about I think it's five feet on this property this one will be before you I think hopefully in the next meeting I think it was supposed to be on this one but wasn't on the agenda this is 221 this one here same deal you got two F feet but you have three feet between um
the top of the rain Garden so as far as we see it we do meet that criteria uh the last thing here was really about recharge volumes and water quality volumes uh this was more of a show your work kind of situation um pretty much what they is that we just kind of showed some calculations didn't really show all
the extra inner workings um just to again just full transparency this is what I submitted to you guys um as part of the package I'm going to share this screen here if I'm going too fast please guys tell me to slow down I just know it's it's been a long night so I'm just trying to
make sure we get through everything and full disclosure I don't expect this to be closed today I would expect the continu until we actually have the slight visit I think that's kind of very critical for this uh project um but you can kind of see here we're going through the calculations volume the spillway um
going through all the rigar roll I'll go through one is just kind of a quick you know showing of the work so we show here lot one volume below the spillway the volume actually is given from hydrocad we get these stage storage tables and the spillway elevation here in the red
box is at 59.6 when the storage here is at 422 again which coordinates with what we showed here as the total um volume where we get this square footage from just refer to my notes here real quick to
kind of get right to it go to page 44 again this is just more hydrocad engineering nonsense by all means if you guys are understanding this I'll kind of blow through it if you have more questions afterwards be more than happy to answer them we have the sub catchment
here for S which goes that lot one rain Garden that we were just looking at and page 50 as part of new impervious for this would be the roof runoff itself as well as the pave parking and the deck
when you add all that up you end up with 4,974 I'll just go back to last page which does coordinate with the impervious area here shown for this specific lot 4,972 square feet so honestly I think this was
just a a slight oversight on whoever had looked at um the storm water calculations from dep um but by all means I just want at least be full disclosure let you guys see all you know the evidence as it stands um and that's how we feel about it and I'll turn it back over to you guys if you guys have
any questions or concerns I'll bring back up the map here just so if you have more questions on that we can kind of show that a bit better uh yeah show me where the uh limit of Works going to be again yep problem was kind of toggling between what I was looking at on my screen and what you were showing on your
screen yeah no not a problem so limit work for this project here is actually going to be following this silt fence kind of coming all along the side here I'm not seeing it oh sorry sh so the silt fence coming right along the side here is going to be the limit of
work okay okay the true disturbance if you will will be kind of just removing this deck here um I think it's about two or three feet off of that for the silt fence but try to keep it nice and tight does the Note actually say limit of work anywhere uh great
question no we just called out a silt fence with straw Waddles could you just add an annotation to that that call out would be fine you know that that's the limit of work as well yeah absolutely you know just don't like to have any ambiguity that causes
uh consternation later uh and where is the septic field um going to be septic field we're not actually GNA do any septic for this actually have sewer um so oh sewer okay yep uh it's going to go straight into electric after this and Sewer in the street and we're just going to tie
in okay okay all right I get it it the plan was uploaded to a second site septic plan call out in uh open go so that's what was confusing me y understandable yep all right any other
questions uh I would like to see uh you know with am anticipating that uh you know we won't close it out tonight but I would actually like to see a schedule of the plantings uh that are going to uh go
in where that uh wood deck was uh and I you know I think the selections that you have are fine but I would like to see a schedule and I would like to see kind of like where you know absolutely doesn't have to I don't think
we're going to have Sophia out there measuring uh and saying oh that's a foot off or anything like that but you know just like the density the number of the species I would like to see that uh kind of granularity absolutely would you like to see like a variety of
species uh yeah that would be good and thanks for all of that detail to catch me up uh I did review the meeting but uh it was some time ago so that was helpful do do we have questions or comments from other members of the commission
questions or comments from members of the public I think everybody the faint of heart has abandoned us um okay and uh so you were recommending that or uh
thinking that we would continue to the next meeting is uh which is the 19th is that right Daniel yes that would be ideal uh I know we are kind of fighting the snow cover out there more so than anything because I think what's really kind of holding this up at this point is just a site visit um yeah but I think we could at least
continue to the 19th and then if Again by the time we get there if they we still don't have a site visit I'd be fine with just kind of I guess continuing it um just full disclosure I know the client's more interested in the first three lots they have sold this um so these are outside your jurisdiction
but nevertheless still going through the planning board process so that one is more of the hot TI if you will yeah and uh was any other commissioner looking for anything else I know I added kind of the just the schedule of uh plantings and uh you know approximate
locations and then the call out note on the on the limit of work with the silk fence and I everybody's not nobody else had anything um to add which is good I always try to uh you know do as complete
and ask as we can you know given the facts as we understand them so that if you come back right and there no new facts that come up you're you're done um yeah uh so Sophia with regard to 221 electric AV was there is it missing
something um or just an oops on the agenda no it's not missing something but at one point it was so that's why it's kind of lagged behind we treated them as two separate filings yep okay yeah and and that's fair um I
just uh he had mentioned that uh he thought it was going to be on this uh this meeting and it wasn't so I wanted to make certain that we were clear on uh eligibility and if he was missing something now is the time to you know
bring that up um Rich yeah thank you m chair not that it's before us tonight but it might help to move along on 221 uh I do see your limit of work running perilously close to the
zone and generally we do request uh vegetative ER Boulders and things like that some sort of demarcation that would uh give the homeowner pause uh before they think about encroaching into that 30 foot no disturb zone so it may be
something on the plan before you submit it uh to add either you know some 2 by two Boulders every 20 feet and some blueberry bushes or well probably not blueberry there but maybe some Mountain Laurel I know there is a
mountain laurel Bank up through there or something that would give the homeowner pause so they don't intrude into that 30 foot no touch Zone I have no issue with that that makes a lot of sense yeah and then you've got it on the plan before you come before us instead of having to wait
yep absolutely thank you very much Madam chair Thank you Rich okay so I think I'm looking for a motion to continue uh to 319 so moved Thank you Rich gosh Mike I think you got that one
too all right uh roll call vote Jenny hi Rich hi Chris hi Jeff hi uh Mike I and Pete were you appointed uh for
that uh first meeting or no I don't know okay well then we won't we won't have you vote on this it's a continued uh hearing and I think it was uh February 5th I don't I don't know if you were in attendance then or not I don't
know well I I'll I won't ask you to vote this time um yeah but these opportunities will be going away and you'll be right uh into the full uh full thick of it soon um and I for myself uh to continue to the
19th thank you for your patience Daniel not a problem thank you guys very much you handled it very well have a great night all right take care byebye okay we're right up against um the 10:00 uh line uh and Sophia is going to have to
drop very soon Sophia are there any priority things that we need to discuss uh in the remaining agenda yes okay um I'm gonna can I just can we skip over the hearings uh for violations and
notice the project change certificate of compliance and all that yep okay uh new business so I spoke to D and um Rec recy and they had offered
to do a a training for the commission um on various topics that that might be helpful and I was talking to them and trying to determine timing I know everybody in the commission is very busy
but I think discussing now uh would be beneficial instead of going through emails and and whatnot so she approximated a training to
be possibly an hour and a half to two hours um so I guess one option that I wanted to bring to the commission was having a training start earlier
before a regularly scheduled meeting um so I don't know possibly around 4: or or something in the afternoon um and then I guess we could go from
there if you have any other uh suggestions I wouldn't be able to guarantee availability at four uh during the middle of the work week um and Wednesdays are particularly difficult for me to uh a lot of times I meet dinner and then while I'm trying to log
in um but uh more more reli though uh available at at 6 on Wednesdays uh Rich we I'm not sure when um Sophie was looking to do the training but we do
have a fifth Monday in April uh fifth Monday or fifth fifth Wednesday I'm sorry fifth Wednesday yeah I was just looking at that the 30th right that might that might be an option doing it on uh a fifth
uh the like April 30th where we would not you have a meeting but and we would do the training instead of the meeting by the way I think train is an awesome thing right and D being willing to do it I think is an awesome thing so it's just about availability um sorry
Rich didn't mean to overt talk you oh I was just gonna say that I would be available on the 30th to attend that see Mike's getting out the handy dandy calendar I'm available also okay okay and I know Jeff has a difficult
time giving us more Wednesdays than he already does because of his work schedule yeah I've been lucky these last couple of months but um I'll do my best yeah yeah fair fair enough I mean I understand that um and Pete what about
you what was the date the 30th April 30th April when we don't ordinarily have a meeting yeah yeah that's fine that's way out Okay Sophia I I'm just trying to recall
um DP needs time to to actually schedule and um with their own staff and what kind of lead time do they need yeah I was get into that um we're looking at now I need to look at the calendar
March April it's like uh eight or nine weeks May um I think a I think they said April the beginning of April oh okay so the end of April gives
them more time yeah April 30th is another almost another month so yeah okay Madam chair yes I'm available on the 30th okay
excellent oh uh Mike when are you coming back into uh proximity uh first week of April oh okay very good well I look forward to that it's always nice being able to go on S sidewalks with you absolutely I miss
that I don't think you miss it while you're in Florida but it's it's it's a good you're keep you're keeping up face I appreciate that Sophia is there a time that would be well I mean seven works great for me
but I'll let everybody chime in seven's fine for me me too for me y yeah normal me meeting time yeah and what about topics are were they like recommending topics or they want us
to tell us or tell them like what the I mean I would I would kind of think that if they're offering this that maybe they have some leverageable you know stuff that they already have or is it really up to
us um well we were discussing and going back forth and I think between um D and myself we've come up with some ideas uh time frames um open meeting law River Front
resource areas um Bank um and yeah and then on top of that those specific um Parts I think we were discussing just
General um sections of I guess you could say um the law it's kind of both of specifics and overview combination do we have tools to uh do a
poll in uh in our uh Microsoft uh instance for what purpose well I mean you just rattled out a whole bunch of topics right I mean it'd be easiest to do a poll and have everybody vote for like you know
the everybody gets three votes right and see which which topic uh or two topics get the most votes I just don't know if we have that functionality to throw it out there um Jenny may know more than
anybody only poll I'm aware of is a scheduling poll I'm not sure Jenny you know have any handy dandy tools sorry it wasn't letting me on mute um my mouse went a little crazy so yeah I mean we could there's actually a
regular polling option I believe in Microsoft Outlook now I heard we could Al we could also do a a Google form or Microsoft form or there's all kinds of options that we would have depending on you know how many options
we're going to have what would be easier but we could definitely do something I think the easiest one that Jenny mentioned was the uh since we're all on Microsoft Outlook for our lunenberg um emails we could actually just send out an email and we can respond to the poll
that way okay uh Jenny can you help uh Sophie set one of those up yep great unless somebody has a different idea of how to do it but I don't see any counter proposals
out there so yeah I think that'd be great if you could uh help Sophia set that up that way that way we just you know send out the poll yep remote uh public meeting option I know Jenny had one this on the
agenda so that should probably be dis ghost Jenny you want to take that one you want me to take it yeah I um I just wanted to be on the agenda because I wanted everyone to make sure that everyone was aware that as of right now meetings are going to be in person
starting in April unless something miraculous happens between now and then and I guess we need to I I assume that you know people would still be able to come in remotely because it's going to
be hybrid my understanding is that that they will allow hybrid um but that we can't be fully remote yeah so where's this decision being coming down from the state level yeah yes the governor it's the the
guidance on being allowed to do this is expiring at the end of this month and there is Sophie did send out an email with some things that you could do like writing to people and it has some action items that may if we could try to
convince them to let us keep it fully remote but as of right now we're looking at in person in April yeah as far as I'm aware the uh I mean you know just to give people some ideas on what to provide
feedback on the uh you know I think I think allowing fully remote is great obviously but particularly also hybrid is that it allows uh it allows us to have the benefit of commit committed citizens who want to help uh who maybe
travel some portion of the year that might otherwise make it a little prohibitive like you know rich and Mike um it's really helpful to have them in our number uh and then uh it also uh really increases uh Community Access as well
when we uh allow hybrid and I do I do understand there are a couple of times where um you know folks really do need to have in person uh and and certainly we want to accommodate that but I think it really does uh
increase uh Community participation Okay Sophia that's all I have okay um yeah I don't uh I don't have any other uh priorities in the topics below uh any other commissioner want to
advocate for a priority topic Rich actually no I was just going to bring up the remote meeting as one that pioneered that it is in the board of Selectmen handbook uh how the town handles remote
participation I believe the biggest hurdle is that those that remotely participate are not in included in the Quorum count so moving forward we will always have to to have a meeting we will
have to have a minimum of four bodies in the meeting room wow ouch wow and I believe it's only with a commission of seven only two can
remotely participate I'd have to review that but the big sticking point is we will to have four bodies to have a meeting and what is the date Jenny that uh the order expires um the end of this
month so it'll be our first meeting in April then yeah April 2nd okay all righty but yeah that I'm that I'm I'm 100% sure of that we will that remotely participating members do not
count to quum that's uh good uh good info Rich thanks thank you uh no not oh Jeff yeah that would be that would be really difficult for me at least I mean I would say at
least much more than 50% of the time I'm in a hotel room um yeah yeah that the remote meetings have been great for me and I mean we we also bought a place in Florida I I mean I was
in Florida most of the winter so yeah that would be very difficult yeah it's um it's uh it's challenging uh because uh you know I'm here I can go up the road and I I will go up the road when I need need to do it
uh but uh I really benefit a lot from hearing Rich's voice Jeff's voice and Mike's voice um you guys bring a lot to the conversation so I don't want them to make it harder on you guys I wanted them to make it easier for you guys to
participate I'm gonna have to buy a new sweatshirt why because it's so cold up in the Ritter building no because I wear these two Champion sweatshirts with pockets that have a lot of holes oh a dress sweatshirt I get that
yeah well you know I take my pajamas off every now and again dress up like an adult hey I he is that new line of uh sweatshirts the Federman line oh right
yeah from the Big and Tall store yes yep okay I don't see anybody I did just confirm that it is in the handbook members of town boards who participate remotely all persons present at the meeting shall be clear a quorum of town boards including
the chair or the person authorized to chair the meeting shall be physically present at the meeting location well there you go yep thank you for looking that up for us rich no I just wanted to make sure they hadn't changed it with covid but they have not
and I don't see anybody advocating for anything else and I know it's getting um it's well past um Sophie's uh evening uh deadline so uh with that I'm looking for Set uh 1012 looking for a uh motion to
adjourn so moved thank you rich thank you Jenny roll call vote Mike I Pete I rich hi Chris hi Jeff hi Jenny hi
and I for myself thank you everyone thank you good night everybody night good night good night