Uh, good evening. My name is Bob Connors. It's 6:01 p.m. and I'd like to call the April 7th meeting of the Newbury Conservation Commission uh to order. Mason, could you please read the preamble to the remote open meeting law and take a roll call of members present?
>> As a preliminary matter, this is Mason Farret, conservation agent of the Newberry Conservation Commission. Please permit me to confirm that all members are present and can hear me. Members, when I recall your name, please respond in the affirmative. Mary Rimmer, >> yes. >> Dave Clifford,
>> Dave, Dave, you're on mute, >> yes. >> Uh, Mick Brown, >> yes. >> Harry Trout, >> yes. >> Woody Knight, >> yes. >> Bob Connors, >> yes. >> And Frank Wetenamp, who I believe is not
attending tonight. Good evening. In this open meeting, the Newbury Conservation Commission is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12th, 2020 due to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth. In order to mitigate the transmission of the CO 19 virus, we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public
gatherings and as such, the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation
is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment for this meeting. The new conservation commission is convening by Zoom call as posted on the agenda of the conservation department section of the town's website identifying how the public may join. Please be aware that other folks may be able to see you and take care not to
screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Applicants or their representatives may be called upon to speak and or share information to the screen if able on the fly. We're now turning to the first item on the agenda, but before we do so, permit me to cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business and to
ensure accurate meeting minutes. The chair will introduce each speaker on the agenda. After they conclude their remarks, the chair will go down the line of members, inviting each by name to provide any comments, questions, or motions. Please hold until your name is called. Further, please remember to mute your microphone. Please use earbuds and please remember to speak clearly and in
a way that helps generate accurate minutes. For any response, please wait until the chair yields the floor to you and state your name before speaking. Board and committee members should be called upon in a firstname alphabetical order to ease the process. After the board and committee members have spoken, the chair will afford public comment as follows. The chair will first seek questions to the chat function. When
participants are using this function, please list your name, address, and then your question. Uh the chair will then seek questions from the public who wish to speak. They'll be asked to identify their names and addresses and questions. And once the chair has a list of all public commentators, they'll call on each by name and afford three minutes for any
comments. Finally, each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. >> Great. >> Uh thank you, Mason. Okay. First uh first order of business is an extension request on D file number 0501339 75 Boston Road. The applicant is
requesting an extension of the permit set to expire in the summer of 2026. Mason, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter? >> Yep. Uh, so this was actually amended. I believe last year the board voted to um
approve an amendment. Um, but tonight there is no one able to represent for the project. So they're asking for a continuence um to the following meeting to um bring up their extension request again. >> Okay. So that's just continue. So they want to continue it to uh the May
meeting. >> Yeah. >> No, actually you know why don't we do this as much as people are here. >> Uh team the May meeting is scheduled for the same night as town meeting. What is it? May 5th. >> May 5th. Y
>> so that would be a conflict you for us where it's a town meeting that night. Do we want to consider moving our meeting to Monday night, May 4th, or Wednesday night, uh, May 6th, or push it back one week?
What What's the pleasure of the board? >> I'll put a motion out there to move it to the Monday prior to the town meeting. >> Okay. So, that'll be Monday, May 4th. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Uh, Mary, how does that work for
you? >> I'm I'm checking. I think I can make that. >> Okay, Woody, how about you? >> I can make it work, Bob. That sounds good. >> I would be I definitely would be late. I'd have to call in um first half hour probably.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, why don't we do this team then? Let's we will schedule the May meeting for the first Monday of May. then we'll get back on schedule and that way there. So, >> do we have >> Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> I was just asking, do we have ample time to advertise that? >> Yeah, it's 48 hours. >> Okay. Okay. >> But I want and fairness to applicants and and people that are on the call. Give them a little bit of a heads up. >> Okay. Uh so this matter wants to be
continued to May 4th meeting. Doesn't require an actual motion. Okay. The next order of business is an amendment request. Uh this is a public basically this back is a public hearing.
D file number 0501459 291 High Road. The applicant is submitting a request to amend the current approved permit with the intention to incorporate a float reconfiguration zone and amend the conditions of approval. Mason, can you
provide an overview on this one? >> Uh yep. So, this was approved at one of our previous meetings. Um, we had gone over everything um with storm water maintenance um and then the marina expansion as well. Um they're coming back to amend some of the um conditions
as a part of the existing permit. One of them being the notification to reach out to the agent prior to the start of work. I believe they want to shorten um some of those notification requirements um as well as um amend some of the DMF comments that were um provided in the
initial review. Um so from there I can hand it off to Tom Hughes who is uh representing the applicant on this project. >> Good evening Tom. Just identify yourself and your position on this project. >> Yeah, sure. Tom Hughes with Hughes Environmental Consulting. Um, I'm here
on behalf of Joel Lulette and uh, you know, who's the the owner of the property. Um, as you may recall, the the commission um, had the final hearing on this matter at a night where I was uh, otherwise engaged and by the time I was able to
log into your meeting, your meeting was over and and this had already gone through. Um, and uh, and since then though we we started the process with the Army Corps. We got some feedback from the core. So, uh, what we filed is an amendment that does two different
things. Um, one is it draws a line which is basically an area that's considered a float reconfiguration zone. So within that zone, um
the idea would be we'd be able to reconfigure the floats, not increase their size, not change the number of anchors, just move things from one spot to another. um which the core
uh recommended because we're doing a 10A with the harbor master and that way if on an annual license with the harbor master whether it comes from the applicant or the harbor master there's a decision to uh adjust floats to either improve
navigation or make something work better. Um it makes it easier with the core permitting and it can also make it easier with the order of conditions permitting. So what uh we did is we've we've given you an updated plan showing that reconfiguration zone and in my
letter uh to the commission I've proposed a uh a condition that would essentially ensure that the um that the you know the number of anchors doesn't change the number of floats and
size doesn't change um and that all floats will be placed in location such they do not ground it mean low or low. And what I put in the condition, this is certainly something we can discuss, but um would be that the submission would go into the conservation agent uh and the
agent would look at it and if it very clearly met those standards, they could sign off on it or if there was any question um or if for any reason they felt that it needed a commission review and approval, they could sort of bump it to
the commission. Um, so that's and and that's not out of the ordinary for a marina uh float area to be in a what you know what's determined to be a reconfiguration zone. Um
the other thing was um and then I and then I also um said you know upon review uh that they basically would could uh require approval from the conservation
commission prior to implementation and then any increase in float or anchor size or quantity shall require review and approval of the commission in the form the commission determines appropriate. So in the event they did want to change the number of floats, change the anchoring, they come back to
you and you basically say that's enough of an impact, it's a new notice. That's enough of an impact. It's a, you know, an amendment or however you see fit. Um if there's any change to the um to the actual numbers of impact.
The um the other thing is uh we did clarify in the plan just the core asked for a little more definition of repaving um for the boat ramp and that's because the original permit for the boat ramp was one of 35 ft wide
and the original paved boat ramp was 35 ft wide. Um over the years the owners let that narrow up a little bit and after they did work on the bridge, sediment accumulated over a portion of it and that now has salt marsh on it.
And they just wanted to be clear that we weren't intending on touching that salt marsh and we're not. And so we've clarified that the area of repaving is the current used boat ramp which is 20 ft wide and we're not uh encroaching it. we've clarified that on the plan.
Um so then the other thing is on the marine fisheries letter which is a series of recommendations and the uh applicant made changes to the plans uh in response to some of those recommendations. Um the commission voted
to incorporate the letter as a condition, but it's not really written as a condition. And that condition doesn't recognize some of the changes uh that we did make. And it also uh
puts us in a position where the use of the word float stops is something that a float stop is technically put on a pile and we can't install a pile on the Parker River because it's part of the ACE and that would require a
full chapter 91 license which we couldn't obtain. So we need some some changes to that. The plan changes we had made um is we took a row of floats that was over the shallowest area and we
pushed it out so that we could ensure that all of the floats remain floating at a mean lower low. And based on uh the owner's experience with the other floats, which are actually
go in the water every year, licensed and all that, um those are actually a few of them are in shallower water and they don't bottom out as is. So, we're we're confident they won't uh bottom out. We did agree to put on um the attachments
that would be necessary to put uh legs or skids on the floats in the future if sediment conditions changed. Um but what we would like would be to to change the marine fisheries letters
incorporation into the order to break out their comments into individual conditions. So because the way it's done now, if you read their letter and you try to apply it as a condition, their their letter is really a recommendation.
So it kind of um it kind of doesn't really hit the spot, so to speak. And what I've proposed is they had a concern about barge. So what I suggest is an actual condition that says no barge is to be used for installation without first submitting a
plan for operating the barge so that it does not ground for review and approval by the agent. The marine fisheries recommended that if a barge is used, a plan be submitted for that purpose. So I just wanted to make that an explicit condition rather than just a
recommendation in a letter that's cross referenced. Um >> Tom, let me let me just stop you for a second. What comments did you get from D or DMF on your proposed amendments? >> Um, so I haven't gotten any comments
from D, but typically when you do an amendment, you send a copy to D. Um, the amendment doesn't change the project that was proposed. So, the marine fisheries comments stay as they
are. Um marine marine fisheries it's important to distinguish them from natural heritage. Marine fisheries are are advisory to the commission whereas natural heritage are mandatory if they're part of a license. So if if
natural heritage says this needs to be conditioned then the commission has to incorporate that or the applicant doesn't get an endangered species permit. No, no, we understand that, Tom. But, but certainly the commission can take recommendations
and incorporate them as conditions if they choose. And I that's what we did on the original order. So, >> yeah. No, and I understand that. And I'm not I'm not disputing the the incorporation of their
recommendations into the permit. It's more that I would I would prefer that if it was done it's done with specific conditions. So take their recommendation and create the condition. And I've recommended conditions that
effectuate their permit. the one area where I feel that we need the commission to take their advice, but also take what was learned during the site visit and what was learned during our hearings and the changes we made
and not put it as written in the marine fisheries letter. is the part about the elevating of the floats because if we use uh float stops, we can't do the
float project at all because that's a that's a pile supported thing. If we use feet or um or skids, which are our two options here to elevate a float, then we can do it. Um,
however, and we talked about this a little bit during the site visit and a little bit during the prior hearings, the problem is if we go to get it at I think it's I forget the height they had in there. I think it's 30 in um above
the substrate, it means your feet or your skids are going to be banging on the mud at almost every tide. What we did is we found a way to get every float so that they don't ground. Okay, Tom, let me do this. Yeah, >> you know what? It you've gone beyond the
10 minutes. Let me open this up to questions and then we can focus on what what questions or concerns the members may have if if that's okay with you at this time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Mary, why don't we start with you and what questions or comments do you
have for Tom? It seems to me that that by moving the floats as you have done and agreeing not to use the barge, you know, to having a barge bottom out, then you've you've complied with the conditions from DM MF. So, we can codify that in an order in,
you know, a new order referencing a new plan date um with, you know, the revised plan. But I don't see anything that it seems like the plan that you're proposing um complies with the with the DMF letter. The DMF letter said if the
floats bottom out, then you need to do such and such. It doesn't say you need to do put float stops on. So now you've got a a design that doesn't require foot stops. So um >> so if so I guess I look at the marine
fisheries letter and I think some people could read that saying that even if they don't ground they need to be elevated above the bottom by that elevation. I didn't read it that way, but >> it's an easy fix. If you'd like to have
it fixed through the order, or not fixed, but clarified through the order, I don't have a problem doing that. I just think the plan that you're submitting already meets the the recommendations that DMF laid out in their letter. So I think my
recommendation would be just to um you know issue a an amended order with a referencing a new plan date referencing I think even though it's shown on the plan having it specified in the order that the 20ft width of the paved area of
the ramp u be maintained so as to not impact salt marsh that any changes to the float numbers or size of floats or anchor ers be subject to further review by the commission and that the um
to let's see the and that there would be no barge used for installation or if a barge is used that it not be allowed to bottom out at low tide. >> Was that satisfied, Tom?
Yeah, I mean I think that's essentially what I was getting at with the with the things I put in there. And there are some other concerns they had and we addressed them with So if you were to look at the second page of my letter number two, there are some conditions there that are almost identical to what
you just said. And maybe if you could put a finding that the adjustments to the >> exceed the recommendations of the DMF. So what if we just made a notation undo the amendment Tom as Mary states
reference the revised plan and then just add the finding that uh the revised plan meets or exceeds the recommendations of the DMF later dated XYZ date wouldn't that >> I mean yeah I mean I think I think yeah
I mean I think if if the commission essentially puts their opinion that it that we've addressed to your satisfaction action the marine fisheries recommendations. I do think that there's a utility if the commission so desires, but it's fine with the applicant if you
don't include them. But, uh, conditions 2 A B C um, do include some pro protections and provisions that they ask for about, you know, having a spill kit on site in case there's a spill. And
we're fine with those conditions if you want them. If not, you know, that that's fine. Again, I wrote those trying to be helpful in working the marine fisheries recommendations into the order in a more direct way >> for those things that we had not
addressed our plan change. >> Okay, Mary, anything else I'm going to just go through and I'll circle back if you come up with anything. >> No, but I assume there's a spill kit on site or has to be for other reasons as well. So, is that correct, Joel? Yeah. He's not answering, but I think
any any marina does have to have one. >> Yeah. >> Yes. We currently have a spill kit. Yep. >> Yeah. There are hazardous materials on site. There has to be. >> Has to be. Yeah. >> Yeah. And depending on your quantity of hazardous materials depends >> Yeah. >> dictates what your spill kit needs to be
and where it can be located and how it's labeled. Yeah. So, I don't have a strong opinion whether we, you know, do it the way Tom's describing and and and just use the language of his letter or we just reference the plan and saying >> Yeah, I think the referencing the plan
and then just do a finding. >> Yeah. >> That it meets or exceeds the recommendations I think is just going to be the simplest way to get us to the finish line. But I I agree that if there's a you know if there's any changes there would be an opportunity to say that in the order
that any changes if we don't already say that in the existing order that any changes are in terms of size and number of floats become come back to us. That's that's it. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you Mary. You know what
Mick, why don't I start with you? You have uh why don't I go to you next? Well you know while we're talking about spill kits and first aid kits. That's kind of my uh kind of falls under my umbrella. Um, no, I just said an and excuse me for
my ignorance, I guess. Uh, Tom was talking about about DMF requirements and DMF regulations, and we're going to capture that in a cons order of conditions. So, do we have jurisdiction
on those regulations? Can we enforce them like from a legal standpoint where are there another legal body? >> They were just recommendations. They were not they're not regulation. It's it's DMF recommendations that we can adopt or not adopt. >> Okay, that was Thanks, Mary. That that
was my one concern that we're going to put things in here that are based on DMF regulations and we're going to be >> basically charged with enforcing them if we put them in our OC. So, um, that was my my one concern. Just kind of a legal
thing there where it's not really a consom regulation, but more a DMF regulation, and we're going to be charged with enforcing that. >> Anything else, Mike? >> Uh, no. If we want to talk more about spill kits, we can do that. But,
>> well, I think I'm looking at 30 people that are waiting to hear from us. So, I think we can uh if you're all set, we'll move on. >> Yeah, Woody, >> thank you. And thanks, Mayor. >> Thank Thanks, Mick. Woody, any thoughts on this one? >> After following the conversation, it all
sounds good. So, I'm good on with questions. Thank you, Bob. >> All right. Thank you, Woody. Harry, how about yourself? What are you What are you thinking on this one? >> No, I agree with Woody. You guys u covered it, so I'm I'm all set. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh Harry, David, what are
your thoughts? >> I I have no questions. I I did the sitewalk with some of the teams, so I'm fine with the recommendation. >> Okay. So, Mary, I'm going to go back to you. So, Tom, we what is the simplest way I'm trying to make minimize the
amount of work that Mason has to do is he's got to plant bushes down at the dam. So, I want to bring up >> Mr. chairman to to to minimize that since I I've basically wrote written conditions that I think work and I' I've
heard what you've said is um how about if I take a stab at making the amendment, send it off to Mason, then you guys can review it. And what I'll do is I'll just cut and paste the conditions. Even the spill kit thing, it doesn't hurt. Spill kit's on
site. It just, you know, make sure that's there. put it in the thing, send it off to uh Mason, he can circulate it to you guys and you can make whatever edits. >> Let me ask you a question. Is everything that you want in your letter or what's the date of your letter?
>> Yeah, my everything is in the letter. Um what I did is I synthesized a couple earlier communications into one letter which made life hopefully easier for you guys on March 27th. >> Okay, so 327. So, Mary, couldn't we just reference the
revised plans in the the letter of March 27th and incorporate that into the amendment? >> Um, yes, I suppose so. I I don't see the letter in the drop box, so I'm not sure.
I I haven't I don't see it here. I see final OOC draft special conditions. Um, >> would you like me to share it? Well, you know, you know, you know what, Tom, that isn't in the Dropbox. Why don't we do
this? You were going to do take a stab at this and you want to just come back at our next meeting and wrap this up. Is that okay? Or what? >> Um, well, we'd like to >> time constraints and getting >> I think it may be in the Dropbox. If
this is the one that you're referring to, Tom, >> it's March 27th. Okay. >> Yes. So if you take a look, the second page is really the the one with the DMF stuff. So I've got the conditions already written. It's it's literally cut and
paste minor tweaks if to me make it do almost exactly what Mary had said earlier and and then it's done and I'm and I'm happy to you know work on the finding with me. >> Well, what I want to do is if we can wrap this up now, Tom. So I mean
basically you're looking for under paragraph 2 A B C D to be incorporated into the order the amendment. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. I would just say we incorporate the whole letter. I mean it it's
self-explanatory but that would be my thought. So I'm going to make a suggestion. I think if we want to uh reference the revised plan in the letter of this date as the the
basis for the amendment. I think that just adds clarity to what we're trying to do without muddying up what we've already done. >> So moved. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. >> Oh, no. No. Hey, hang on one second.
Hang on one second. >> Uh are there Okay, so we have Let's stop there. Are there any other questions from the members before we open for raised hands to the public? Jeff, how are you tonight? >> Good. Thank you, Jeffoff. I actually
also represent the applicant here. So, but I just was I I it looked like you were going to a motion without opening this hearing up to the public. So, I just wanted to suggest that you do that. So, >> I jumped in. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> we >> Okay, Jeff, do you have any other
guidance other than that? We uh we wanted to say hi. >> No, it sounds like you're moving in the right direction here. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay. Uh are there are there any raised hands from the public at this time that would like to comment on this matter?
>> Seeing Seeing none. >> Okay. All right. Do any members have requests for a site visit? any additional information uh regarding this amendment >> uh or additional content to this amended notice?
>> No. >> No. >> Hearing hearing none. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes.
>> Mick. I. >> Harry. >> Yes. Frank, Frank's not here. David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's votes here. >> Okay. Well, I think we've kind of we've discussed what what the what the the the
content of the amendment is going to be. So, I will entertain a motion to amend the order of conditions for 291 High Road with the following provisions. uh reference to the revised plan and the
letter dated to the commission of March 27th, 2026 to be incorporated in the amendment. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Uh any anything else we want
to add at this during discussion? >> Okay. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's low chest. Hey, thank
you, Tom. Jeff, good to see you, >> Joel. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next matter is a certificate of compliance, D file number 050 657. The applicant is looking to close out an expired order of conditions for
an undeveloped lot off of High Road. Mason, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter? >> Yep. Uh, so for those of you who are familiar, this lot is owned by Katherine O'Brien. It is across the street from the Tender Crop Farm. Um, there was an
old order of conditions that they are looking to close out as the uh, ownership of this lot is planning to change. They're selling the lot. um based on the recorded order of conditions. Um this was an order that
was put into place to um it sounds like it was to remediate um an old enforcement order at some point. Um if you look at the uh order of conditions, which I can pull up here, uh it references that D had um pretty much
signed off um on the work that was done. Um, so like I said, from the sounds of it, it was some remediation work that was being done um for an old enforcement order. I believe the previous owner had told me um that it was some trail work
that was done in the wetland area um for some horses that they had had. Um so I was able to walk the site with the homeowner. There's no existing disturbance now. Um and I I don't see any um issues with closing the project out tonight.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mason. questions. Uh, Mary, any questions on this one? >> No, it looks like it's a 20 year old order, so it needs to be closed out one way or another, so this is fine. >> Thank you. Woody, any questions on this matter? >> No questions, Bob. Thanks. >> Okay, Mick, how about you? Any
questions? >> No questions, Bob. Thank you. >> Harry, any questions? >> No questions. Thanks, Bob. Thank >> Thank you, Harry. David, how about yourself? Any questions? >> No, sir. No questions. >> And I have no questions. Are there any raised hands from the public at this time?
Seeing none. >> Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information at this time? >> No, I do not. >> I will I will entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance uh
for D file number 050657 as I do not have an address. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary, >> yes. >> Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry,
>> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor is voters. Okay, moving on. >> If I could just add something on that, Bob, real quick. >> Yeah. Yeah, you certainly could. This is uh this is an old piece of property and
we may run into the same scenario as we did um with the address offport turnpike where the registry may not take the digital signatures because of the type of recorded land that it is. Uh >> so it is recorded land. >> I I believe so. Um so we run into this
before. Um but we may just need some some wet signatures from people. I'm going to try and get off um the electronic signatures to see if they can record, but if not, I'll keep everyone in the loop to see if we do need wet signatures. >> Okay, great. Thank you for the headset. >> Let us know, Mason. >> Okay, next matter is a determinate
determination of applicability. 41 Northern Boulevard. Applicant is submitting an RDA for the enclosure. >> Skip one, Bob. >> There's one uh one COC on there as well, but that's actually going to be um on on
our next agenda. the 0501400. >> Yep. Yeah. I said they're not going to be ready until probably the May meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, okay. Actually, you know what? I did skip that one. >> Okay. None of these have addresses, Mason. It just has the file number.
>> Uh so the one um the one previous to this that was just because of I'm not sure if it has an address. It may just have a parcel number. Um this one was just kind of a last minute add-on. Um but the applicant is um they're going to need to get a asbuilt letter from their
engineer. So they're going to be working on that to to have that ready for the May meeting. But that's six Courtney Drive um for anyone uh looking at. >> Okay. Just put that on the May 4th uh agenda if you could. >> Okay. So back to the next. We all agree
41 Northern Boulevard is next. >> Yes. >> All right. applicant is submitting an RDA for the enclosure of an existing deck and installation of new footings. Mason, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this mountain?
>> Yep. Um, so this um had started based on um the deck failing. It was um hazardous and dangerous in some areas. This was provided to us, let me share my screen, uh as an updated
drawing. Um, so they're looking to um replace this back deck. Um, this section here is pretty much going to be um in in entirety. It's it's in pretty rough shape right now. So, that's going to need to be um completely removed and
then replaced. Um and then the covered porch um is what's being proposed um for renewal enclosure and then uh replacing footings as needed. So, they identify uh 24 12-in footings here. Um, and I will
note that this se this small section in red right here um is a proposed addition. Um, so I think the applicant wanted to get some feedback from the board tonight. Um, because we originally looked at this notation with the proposed 6ft extension thinking it was
going to be a 6ft extension this way, which it is not. Um, so I think the applicant um is looking to um just kind of extend to become flush with this side of the house. Um, and I believe that is it at this point.
>> So there's no expansion of the footprint except for that 6 foot expansion on the upper right hand corner. >> Correct. And I um I'll let the applicant speak for themselves, but I think that, you know, if the board's not open to that, then they're willing to keep
everything within the the Sammy uh footprint and and just kind of repair into a place. >> And what are they proposing for footings? Because obviously 12in sonar tube won't make a cut for D. >> Yeah, I think they're proposing helical. I think what's out there now is the the
24 uh 12-in uh concrete son tubes. >> Okay. Why don't we is the applicant if they could if they wanted to speak if they give us their name address. >> Hi John Fara 41 Northern Boulevard.
>> Welcome John. Why don't you give us what you what are you trying to do my friend? And >> so we are not enclosing the porch anymore. We This is just for the deck and the footings for the deck. >> Okay. So just on the I'm going to call it the rear of the property and what
you're working on. >> Yep. And what do you what do you what's your plan on you for for support? Are you looking at helical piles, diamond tiers? >> Yes. >> Okay.
And what Mason, what is the actual expansion square footage on the the deck? >> Um I the length is six feet and when I was on site today, I think it's probably probably about 3 feet wide. Uh this this
section right here. It's pretty 20 square feet or less. >> Yeah, it's like Yeah, between 20 and 25 square feet. >> Okay. All right. Well, why don't I do this? Let me open this up to questions from the members. Mary, questions for
John on this on his request. >> Can Mason, can you load up the the plan the actual plan view of this? I think it's called HP scanner or something. Okay. >> Yep. I don't know. Oh, here it is.
So, um, just replacing the back deck and then making it line up with the covered porch, end of the covered porch. Is that what they're trying to do? >> Yep. Which is right about here. So, this is this would be the area of expansion. >> Okay. So, it' be really great just to
have this plan marked up so that it's it's clear what is being done and what we're approving. That's what I was getting at with my comments ear um the other day was just >> combining the two plans. >> Yeah. Well, you can have have them reference both plans, but this is the
one that shows you where the activity actually is occurring on a uh a little more clearly. So, >> just you know add the reference to the helical piles the exact expansion of the deck. >> Yeah. Even if you just highlight it something that shows that's the limit of
the work. >> Yeah. notes on the plan would work for me as well. So, >> yeah. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you, Mary. Woody, questions for John on this. >> And this is a second story deck, correct? >> Sorry.
>> Uh second story deck? >> No. >> No. First story. All right. So, there's vegetation there now or No, >> no. >> Okay. Thank you. That's my only question. >> Thank you, Woody. Mick, any questions for John on the project? >> Hi, John. How you doing? Hi. Uh just
quick question. Um you have sauna tubes concrete in the ground now and you're going to believe >> I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. Is there a a plan for the demo of those son tubes and
>> I thought that we were going to I think leave them there and go a little to either side of them or reconfigure them differently. >> Okay. that that might require to restructure the deck itself or is that already the plan to
>> I don't know I don't know the answer to that. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So Mick I I John Mick's I think Mick's comment is where your existing footings are now is probably align with the layout of the framing. >> We're taking the old cement footings
out. Uh Quint Caldwell is my builder. He's unavailable. I'm just texting him right now for that answer. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> If obviously if they're in alignment structurally, then he'd have to remove the concrete. >> Okay.
>> We typically would ask that you remove the concrete. >> Okay. That's no problem. >> So, why don't we just make that notation on the plan that concret existing concrete footings, you know, will be removed upon completion of the renovation.
>> Okay, I'll do that's no problem. >> Good question. How do they get removed? Are they Is that What kind of equipment do you use? >> Yeah, they it's it's not that big of a deal, Mary, because they're in sand. So, >> yeah. >> And it,
you know, I'm saying that, but depending on what they are, it looks like they've been there a long time. They're probably just 36 or 40 inch deep sona tubes, not not mushroomed at the bottom. That would be typical for the island.
Uh, John, what's the elevation of the deck in the rear of the property? About how how many feet above grade is it? >> Four feet. >> Four feet. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, Mick, any other questions I move on?
>> No, no, that was just uh just detail on demoing the uh existing concrete. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Thank you, Mick. Harry, questions for John on this? >> Uh, I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you, Harry. Frank, my buddy Frank is probably in Cal
Colorado. David, questions? >> No, no questions. Bob, >> thank you. And I have no questions. Uh, Mary, I'm going to go back to you. Any any followup questions or? >> No, I had a couple of special conditions, but >> Okay.
You Well, you know what, Mary? Why don't you Why don't we go over them right now then? That way then we >> Oh. Oh, just that any disturbed area. I think it's standard for RDAs out there for this kind of project, but just that any any areas of um native vegetation that are disturbed as result of the
construction be restored and that um you know the applicant provide some pre preconstruction photos so that we can compare with you know afterwards if if unless Mason is there and he can take a
picture before the work is done. Yeah, I was actually out there today with John and I I got some pictures so I can already added to the file. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Mason, you know, you know the basically, you know, what kind of a boiler plate on these to >> Yep. Yeah. Any vegetation that's
disturbed be removed or replaced in kind and then I can I can add the photos to the file and we can have some for uh project completion as well. >> Okay. All right. Are there any raised hands in the public at this time that wanted to comment on this this request?
Not seeing any. >> Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information at this time? >> I do not. >> No. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to issue a negative finding on 41 Northern
Boulevard with the plan notations that we have discussed just identifying uh the the limit of work the num the number and type of footings and the removal of the existing concrete son.
>> So moved second. >> Okay. Anything else? You got the rest of it, Mason? Yep. >> Okay. Roll call vote. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick.
>> Hi. >> Harry. >> Yes. >> David. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connors. Okay. Good luck, John. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next matter is a request for determination of applicability. 88 Northern Boulevard. applicant is
submitting an RDA for expansion of an existing deck system with proposed mitigation planting. Mason, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter? >> Yep. Um, so this is the extension of a deck. Um, it's approximately 160 square
ft at the backside of 88 Northern Boulevard. Um, there's a set of stairs where they are planning to extend the deck. Um, and they're going to be using two new Diamond Pier footings. um deck structure will be out of pressuret treated wood. Um and
>> I had them come in for an RDA. Uh I believe I used uh I think it was 349th Street as kind of um an example for them. Um so they followed that RDA in that process. Um and were able to provide us with this plan which I can
share now. >> Very good. Should be able to rotate this. Okay. So, this is Prospect Lane. Oh, Property Lane. I'm looking at Prospect Lane thinking, "My god, what? I don't know that street.
property line. Where where is the orientation to Northern Boulevard on the >> uh I can pull up an aerial to give >> Oh, the applicant if the applicant's available, we could probably >> uh Yes, I believe they're here.
>> Okay, put that plan back up if you would race them. I think y >> Okay, if the applicant is present, if you could give us your name, your address, and make your presentation. MCO. >> Uh yeah, we're just trying to um so
there's a set of stairs there now um that lead to the to the sand and they're just trying to eliminate the stairs and just extend the deck to the end of where the stairs are now.
>> Okay. Now the looking at this plan is Northern Boulevard on the right hand side of the plan. >> Um, so this is the back of the house ocean. Uh, uh, >> okay. The stairs. Okay. So the stairs are on the ocean side.
>> Ocean side. Yeah. >> Okay. That's the extent of what you want to do is eliminate the existing stairs, cover the the existing footprint with the raised deck that matches the elevation of the existing deck. Correct.
>> Okay. And you're going to use two diamond pairs or two helical piles? >> Uh, diamond peers. >> Diamond pairs. Okay. Why don't I stop there and open this up to questions from the members? Mary, any any questions on this one? >> Um, yeah. Just do do we know, Mason,
where the 160 square feet of dune native dunrass vegetation is proposed? Did you look at that location or >> uh >> logical? Is that logical? How do we know where that is? We'll see. >> I have some. Excuse me. I have some
areas that I can show. Pull that up. So, looking at these areas here, it looks like they may be tight on space or it's already vegetated. Um, but we may have some room in these areas here along
what looks like an existing walkway. Um, or some spacing here as well. What's the elevation of the the the deck that they're going to match, Mason? >> Um, it's about four and a half feet. >> Okay. >> I can show some photos, too, if that uh if that helps at all.
>> I would just say that, you know, as a special condition that they identify where this where this 160 ft is going to be located and stake it out. Stake it out on the ground so that you have a chance to see it. >> Yep. >> Before they start construction. >> Well, that sounds good.
Okay, Mary, any anything else at this time? >> Nope. >> Okay. Thank you, Mary. Woody, any any comments on this uh request? >> Uh the removal of the stairs and the deck replacement spine. U there's still stairs going to the beach, correct?
>> Uh yes, the main deck what we we're extending from it's there's a set of stairs going down to the beach. This is just an extra set of stairs that was built when the house was built. That's just not used. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I was a little confused how they were going to get the
>> feature. No problem. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Woody. Mick, any any calm questions? >> Uh, no questions, Bob. Thank you. >> Thank you, Harry. How about yourself? >> No questions. Thanks, Bob. >> Thank you, David. Any questions?
>> No, no questions, Bob. >> Okay. And I have no questions. I mean, it the the area that you're building over is already, you know, it's already disturbed by the stairs. You're actually letting probably more light and ventilation in for
that area to recede itself for the vegetation. All right. Are there any Mary? Anything else before I open this up? See if there's anyone from the public. Okay. Hey, are there any raised hands from the public at this time, Mason?
>> Seeing none, I'll um I'll make sure to include Mary's comment about the staking out the planting area as a as a condition on the RDA. >> Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information at this time? >> Mary, are you are you all set on this
one? Any any further? Okay, >> all set. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mary. All right. Uh, hearing no request for additional information or a site visit, I will entertain a motion to issue a negative finding uh on 88 Northern Boulevard
with the notations discussed to be placed in the plan. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick. >> Hi.
>> Harry. >> Yes. David. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor is voters. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, next matter is another uh
request for determination of applicability uh 34 Central Street. So, we should take notice that there is an order of conditions pending before us. Uh, this is a an additional request for an RDA.
The applicant is submitting an RDA to raise the single family dwelling, chicken coops, animal pens, barns, removal of trailers, and overhead electrical lines within the 100 foot buffer zone. Heidi, good evening. Could you provide us with an overview on
this and a recommendation if you should have one? >> Uh, I believe, sorry, Heidi's here. She could speak. Good evening. Heidi Gaffne for the record with Northwoods Environmental um
consultant for the commission. Uh so the as you stated the there's a a notice of intent before the commission but this request for determination was submitted to remove the um I don't know
if you want me to screen share for everybody. They had pictures of what they removed. It might be informative to all of us. >> Let's see. >> You'd be all set to share now, Heidi. >> Okay. All righty. So, if everyone can see
this. >> Yes. Thanks. So the the site has a significant yeah single family home, a significant number of animal pens, enclosures, trailers, um
a lot of a lot of uh structures and outuildings and things like that. So they have submitted this RDA to remove all of these items. Um they're proposing to put uh basically
erosion control silt socks or something equivalent just around the area here. I can try to zoom in um around the area that they're proposing to remove these items. It is quite close to the wetland as as you can
see um for some of these structures like there's trailers over here that will will need to be pulled out. Um so they're basically asking for permission to go ahead and remove the majority of this is within the buffer
zone. Um the 100 foot buffer zone goes through right here. So my my recommendation if the commission is inclined to allow for the removal uh would be to um allow for
very specific removal of the structures only. no grading, no sight work, no, you know, minimize soil disturbance um and seed at least with something that's going to temporarily uh hold things in place once they're done cuz it will be
messy. There's there's a just due to the amount of um removal to be done, there would be some disturbance, but I would limit on no grading or or anything like that. >> Okay. Uh so Heidi, what about if they
have a full foundation uh and they're removing that and now you have a depression in the specific area? What what are your thoughts on how they would recommend to remediate that? >> Well, very true. Um
you know, yeah, because removing the structure without removing the foundation is is probably going to be an issue for um other other regulations. So, um that is a good question. Um
you know the I guess the only structure with a foundation is the house right here which is further from the the buffer zone. Um >> you know I don't know Harold will probably have the answer.
>> Yes. Um, you know, if the commission allows us to fill it in, we can fill it in. If that's something that you find is not appropriate during this permitting, we could put like an orange snow fence around it or something. But maybe we
could fill it in halfway just so somebody doesn't ball in and break a leg or something. >> Okay. So, Maren, what are you anything else? Heidi, do you you want to offer anything else? I think I don't want to
>> um No, I I hadn't given a lot of thought to the foundation removal piece. Um and I guess depending on how deep that hole is that that I don't know if snow fence would be acceptable um on a demo permit. So that may be something to consider.
>> Okay. Okay. Meen, good evening. Why don't you just identify yourself and your position on this project and why don't you present what you're looking to do. >> Sure. Moren Herald, North Environmental
Services. Um, as the commission knows, um, the planning board had requested that we seek a secondary egress from the project itself, which is which is great, which is why we're here tonight. Um, but to move the project along, we were just
hoping to file the RDA so we can remove these structures off the property. As Heidi mentioned, there's a number of chicken poops and bird pens. And for some of the commission members who have been out there, um just a number of structures we just like to get off the
property in the meantime during the permitting. >> It seems like it would be an improvement removing all of these >> program shackle structures from the buffer. >> All right, why don't I stop there and open this up to questions from the
members. Mary, as I recall, did would you do did you do a site visit over there? >> Yes, I did. Yep. >> What are your thoughts on this? I think the only question is what I what I don't want to have happen is they just remove certain parts of structures and not all the concrete and
>> right, >> what do we have left for, you know, a hazard to >> Yes. Um because some of this is proposed in areas where there's a roadway that's that's going to be uh proposed as part of their order of uh
notice of intent there. The my question for Heidi was does the silk fence or the erosion control boundary stay outside of the wetland line the whole way? It looked like it intersected the wetland line a little bit. It it
does appear to intersect the Yes. I >> So there is actually some uh potential for some or the direct impact because the way the building is actually going into the wetland itself >> in one particular area especially um but
it's a trailer. So I was um going to follow up to see if there's options >> to there's it really is only close in one >> Well, it's close in two areas. it appears to go in in one area that I know it's a a trailer um to be pulled out.
So, that's something that we should ask the applicant or the representative to see if that could be adjusted, right? And I mean, ideally, what would happen is you take that out and then move the silt fence,
you know, where it's so that it is on the stays above the wetland line. >> That's not a problem. We can accommodate that. Okay. Yeah. I mean there, you know, most of these structures, like you said, except for the house itself is are temporary. I don't know if there's some
benefit in terms of soil stability to maintaining the the foundation in place while you're um going through the rest of the permitting process because um that's that would involve a lot more site work that is not really in
the RDA category. So once you start earth moving and and digging and filling in holes and things, that's in my mind that that's part of the development project, not the not an RDA to just clean up the site. So I'm
assuming that work is going to it will have to happen eventually, but I just don't know whether or not we need to have that happen as part of the NOI. The rest of the building can come down, but >> and then just fence off the the foundation for safety. >> Yeah. Okay.
All right, Mary. Anything else? >> No. Thanks. >> Okay, Woody, any any questions on this one? >> Um, the trailer you speak of, I believe, is a camper on wheels, so I understand that can just be folded, address Mary's
concern. and the foundation. I hadn't thought about the foundation, but uh I don't know if you fell it in for safety or fence it off for safety, but whatever is best practice was probably what should be done. And other than that, I don't have any other questions. I think
it's an improvement to clean it up while the while the other process is going on for the secondary road, too. >> Okay. Anything else, Woody? >> No, I'm good. Thank you, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Woody. Vic, any any questions? >> Uh, no. I think um both Woody and Mary
covered it like just staying outside that 100 foot buffer uh with your silk fencing and and protection that way. And as far as the the excavation safety, um, whoever your contractor is for that excavation, that gets into OSHA
regulations for construction as far as protecting falls into that hole. that's really on your on your contractor to present you with a plan of how they're going to protect that because once they dig, they own that hole. So, >> right, >> reach out to your contractor on that and
be under OSHA construction rags. Uh, but you just have to protect from the general public, you know, falling into a hole. So, it if it's if you can back fill it such that it's not great, it's not greater than 4T, then you're you're covered. So, um, but yeah, just reach
out to your contractor on that as far as like getting you some assistance with putting that into into your plans. >> Okay. Anything else, man? >> Nope. >> Okay. Thank you, Harry. Any questions from Meen on this or? >> No. Uh, no question, but just a comment.
I agree with Mick and and Woody. Just the safety of that hole and if they just make sure that's addressed, um, I'm I'm fine with everything else. Thank you, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh David, any questions on this matter? >> Uh I'm not familiar with the property.
Is there any potential for buried uh oil tanks or anything like that on the property? >> No, it's a good question. >> Um we're not aware of anything um buried that's on the property. I know as part of the development of the property, a number of deep holes have been performed
throughout the entire site. Um we did not discover anything buried. There's also a septic system proposed on the property. Again, a number of deep holes and perk tests were performed and um there wasn't anything dis discovered. Um
I think this property has a history of some farming and obviously animals and birds and chickens and ducks and all that stuff. Um other than that, that's all that I'm aware of. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else, David?
>> No. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, just to do a recap, it it seems that moving the trailer that's on wheels and then just reestablishing your your erosion control uh is a good point on the foundation.
Um you're going to remove all the wood and all the content. I think to Mary's point for an RDA, if you leave the foundation and then just safe it off with a some some sort of an
orange fence barrier, snow fence or something, you your contractor will certainly be able to do that. It probably makes more sense taking that concrete out when you're fully permitted. >> Then we're not no grading or excavation. So at this point you want us to leave
the foundation >> if you I mean it what we can't tell you is that you can start grading or filling. >> Okay. >> What we can tell you is what you can remove and then you have the safety factor that's been kind of identified.
>> Okay. >> Okay. On the foundation is that fully in the 100 foot is that within the 100 foot buffer? >> Yes. Okay. Well, I mean, Mary, you know, just where it's
in it's not in the 25 or 50 and it's within the 100 foot buffer. >> Oh, it's it's right next to the wetland. It's right up pretty close. Can Can we see that plan one more time, Heidi? Um, and also while I'm while you're
doing that, Heidi, do you know if there were were was it 21E done or or Marine? Um I don't I think they did what's like the preliminary 21E Mary is that a phase one >> phase one
>> I think that a phase one was done and they didn't find anything so it didn't lead them to like a full 21E >> okay >> um but >> so it looks like the house is greater
than 50 ft away the back Uh, let's see. The back onestory barn where it bumps out a bit. Um, that just falls part of that falls within the 100 foot. >> The 50 foot you mean? Is that the 50
right there? >> This is the 50. >> Yeah, that's the 50. >> Yeah. And this must be the back barn. Yes. >> No. Further up, Heidi. >> This is the house. Oh, you mean >> that? >> So, the house and then this back barn.
>> Yeah. So that not the structure outside. >> Yeah. This is the 100 foot here. So the house is entirely within the 100 but outside the 50. >> Okay. So if the grade if the if the excavation needed to remove the
foundation is more than 50 ft away, then there's a higher chance you can stabilize it so that it won't directly impact the wetland. Um I'd be okay with that if >> um just as a suggestion if the
commission was going to allow for the foundation to be done um additional erosion control should be installed at the 50 to >> keep keep everything out of the 50 if if foundation work would be considered I would suggest.
>> Mhm. >> That's reasonable. That's not a problem. We can do that. >> Okay. It's a good suggestion. >> All right. So, what we're talking about now is any any foundation removal outside the 50- foot buffer with a barrier at the
50ft buffer can be removed and grade with just and fill brought in to match existing grade. >> That works. >> Okay. All right. Let me go back around. Any other questions, Mary? Anything else you want to add on this?
>> Um, just, you know, we we need visual stabilization. >> Yeah. Seed and stabilization immediately following completion of work and, >> you know, it's this is a site that's going to have to be monitored closely because the work is pretty in close proximity to the wetland there.
>> So again, pull the trailer, reestablish the wetland uh siltration erosion control. You're going to agree to put erosion control at the 50 50 foot barrier to protect that and anything
outside that you can remove concrete the structures and fill to grade. >> That's great. Thank you. We we can accommodate those. Um it's not a problem. >> Okay. Any anything else team that we
want to discuss or at this point? Okay. Are there any rate? Go ahead. only just that it would you know maybe not for the RDA but at least for the NOI that maybe a site visit it should be scheduled to see the layout of the proposed road but we can talk about that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Are there any raised hands from the public at this time that would like to discuss this matter? >> I see one hand that's up. Uh Kathleen. >> Yes. >> Hi Kathleen. if you give us your name
and address and and then what what questions or concerns do you want to pose to the the applicant or the commission? >> Sure. My name is Kathleen Sperling. I live at 10 Parker River Drive, which is the road off of Central Court. Um
Central Court is the pro this property is um on the corner of Central Street and Central Court. Um, so I am extremely concerned about the wetland uh perspective here. I live right around the corner and I drive by there. The um
topography, I think that's the right word. the way the land is is very very uneven. And I think in order to protect the um the wet land that's up front, they're going to have to really bring a
lot of um gravel or dirt in and really concerned about that buffer zone. As Mary Rimmer said, the house and everything is very close to this wetland. When this project was originally brought in, the neighborhood brought up that there was a wet land
here and the applicant said it wasn't really a wet land. It was um runoff from the house, which we have totally disagreed. So, I'm totally thrilled that it's gone before the conservation commission. I will suggest that the
conservation commission go walk the property because there's a lot of issues on the property, not only this. Um there >> Kathleen, can can I just offer one? There's two matters before us tonight. >> The first one is simply the removal of
these ramshackle buildings. >> Then then we have a continued public hearing on the actual project. I'm just wondering, do you have any concerns with the the removal of these chicken coops and out out buildings and uh because
they're not we're not going to allow any grading or disturbance and we're making sure that they actually have it's a double layer of erosion control. >> Okay. I'm not I'm not adverse to the removal of all of the chicken coops and
everything like that. I'm concerned about the demolition and how that will affect the wetlands on the front part of the property even with whatever kind of buffers that they're going to put up. That's my concern on this section and I will bring my concerns regarding the
road later. >> So, can you be specific on your concern about the demolition of is it the house, the back barn? What? >> It's the house and the front barn which is close. There's a creek that goes
there. And I I I h I haven't walked the back of the property cuz of course it's private property, but Woody is correct. There is a camper that is very close to the little creek there that has to be removed. Um the rest of the trailers that they just put on the property are
in the front of the property. I'm concerned about the demolition of the house like you're talking about the foundation and stuff and how that will affect the creek the wetland creek that's right there within the buffer zone. >> Okay. I the the intent in the direction
of the commission is to have actually a a double layer of erosion control that would have to be maintained during the entire demo project and then this area would have to be reveated or receded
immediately to stabilize the area. So, so I heard all of that and what they're going to do, but as Mary said, I think you guys are going to have to monitor this property. >> Oh, certainly, certainly. >> Because there's so many issues regarding
the topography that's going to be an issue for the wetlands and for the wildlife habitat. So, I will stop there and wait for my uh time for the road. >> Okay. Yeah, Kathleen, what we we we always ask is prior to static
construction, uh that the contractor set up a pre-construction meeting with the agent so that we can he can inspect the erosion controls that are being put in and and that they're in correctly and in the right location.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. And my other just quickly, the wetlands when it rains goes into the first house. I can't remember the number on central court. So I'm concerned about that. >> Okay. >> Neighbor's issue. So I will stop now.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Kathleen. Okay. So Maren, you you heard the you heard Marin's cons Kathleen's concern. I I think we've covered that with the double layer of erosion. And I think
that uh we would require that you have a pre-construction meeting with the agent, you know, to inspect the erosion controls prior to the start of construction or demolition. >> That's not a problem. We're happy to do that. And and just as a side note,
everything's going to be taken off site. Um so it's not something that we're going to tear down and stockpile throughout the site. We really want to clean it up. So >> Okay. No, understood. Hey, are there any other questions or Mick, did you have
your hand raised? >> Yes, just briefly. And I I think it would help everybody. Moren, we establish a limit of work. So, we have that line established within the plans, but also just have that general discussion when we're on site like where
heavy equipment can and cannot go and that you clearly define what your where your spoils are going to go and are they going to be removed at the end of the day? Are they going to sit there for a week? So just some general guidance about where the construction spoils, demo concrete, all those things are
going to go and >> absolutely >> we're happy to meet Mason and anybody else from the commission to have a pre-construction meeting. So not a problem. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Mary, Woody, uh Harry, anyone have any other further
comments? Heidi, do you have any any other comments you'd like to offer? Nope. I have no further comments. >> Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information at this time?
>> Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to issue a negative finding for 34 Central Street. Uh with the notations in that have been mentioned on the erosion control preconstruction. Uh, in all honesty, Maren, it'd be great
if the contractor had a a plan of demolition. You know, how's he going to do it? Where's he going to haul it? You know, kind of from cradle to grave. >> Okay, I can have Jerry do that. Um, >> yeah, it's pretty simple and it and you
know, and have it reviewed by the agent. >> Okay, not a problem. >> Okay, anything else, team, before I call for a vote? All right. All right. So, I I'll entertain the motion to issue a negative finding for 34 Central Street with with
the matters as discussed. >> No moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? I. >> Harry? >> Yes. >> David? >> Yes.
>> And Bob Connor? Yes. All right. >> Thank you. 78. Okay. So, we now we have a a continued public hearing. D file number 0501459. Newbury Town Beach project. The town of
Newbury is submitting a notice of intent for the removal of debris and the reestablishment of existing beach access ways. Mason, can you provide an overview and an update where we are on this and a recommendation? >> Yep. So, we just got uh an additional
information request from NHSP um to provide, excuse me, um what the town is doing for state listed species protection and then a shorebird protection plan um for the installation of the mats. So, they want to see um how
we're going to be protecting the species during the installation of these mats. Um so, Evan and I are working together to gather the necessary information for them and send that out for their uh review. So upon their determination letter, we can bring that back to the board um and and have that presented
again. But until then, um they had requested continuence into our next meeting. >> Okay. Uh I will entertain a a motion to continue the public hearing to our uh May 4th meeting at the applicant's request. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody. Woody Mick, >> he stepped out. >> Hi, >> Harry. >> Bio break. >> Yeah, >> David. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And Bob Connor. Well, we got a we have a majority vote on that anyway. >> Bob, but Bob, it's Monday, May 5th. I thought I think >> uh is it Monday, May 5th or 4th? >> Uh >> fourth. Tuesday is the Tuesday is the fifth.
>> Yeah, it's a normal meeting. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry, Bob. I had to step away. I vote yes as well. >> No, we Thank you, Woody. >> Okay. All right. Next matter. Continue public hearing. D file number 0501455.
Old Newbury golf club. Applicant is submitting an NOI for golf course maintenance work, including T- box relocation, tree removal within the buffer zone areas. Mason, can you provide an overview and an update and a recommendation on this matter?
>> Yep. Uh, so me, uh, the applicant, um, the head groundskeeper, and then some of the board members were able to do a sitewalk. I believe it was last week or maybe the week before. Um, reviewed on-site conditions. Um, looked at what they're proposing for tree removal and T- box location. Um we had requested
that they come back um with some updated wetland delineation lines as they were either incomplete or seemed uh a little bit off. So we wanted them to adjust those. Um so as of now the applicant has requested a continuence uh to update
their wetland line um and also figure out um kind of their final plan for the tea box relocation. Um I think everything is set in stone that it's going to be moving away from the wetlands, but I think um the configuration of of what they're proposing is still up in the air right now. Um so as they finish that, Sam
Colbo is planning on sending over updated plans um and that will that should be ready for review um at the board's May 4th meeting. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to continue the public hearing at the applicant's request to our May 4th, 2026
meeting. The move. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick. >> Hi. >> Harry. >> Yes. >> David, >> yes.
>> And Bob Connor is votes. Yes. All right. Okay. Continue public hearing. D file number 0501453 34 Central Street. applicant is submitting a notice of intent to the
construction of an MBTA residential housing development at 34 Central Street. Heidi, can you provide an overview and an update and a recommendation on this matter? >> So, I will start with just uh an overview. Um
so since the start of the initial filing uh I'm sure most most everyone is aware that the application was has been through planning board um initial review comments uh the initial application was incomplete
uh and also has changed. So renotification and new um notice to uh legal notice in the newspaper was required. So those items have been completed um
of confirmed but were renotified. The there was some signature um issues and the applicant has now purchased the property. So no additional signatures are needed anymore and the it has been brought before the select board and they have approved work in the proposed
roadway and right ofway um which was an an issue because work was proposed on town property so that required permission um and the septic plan I to my knowledge has also been approved. So the application is complete now um and
so now the review begins. uh D does have some comments and there's some general comments. A letter was also received from and a butter just today I believe um with some
review comments as well. So that's the the brief summary. If we want to let the uh applicants representative I guess give the the full overview of the project and then circle back that would be great. >> Okay. Mason, there was also early on in
this project a either an email or a memo or a letter from an abuter. Do you recall that you had forwarded that to me? >> Uh it may be in a previous Dropbox. I can I can pull that up. >> Okay. All right. Moren, why don't you
give us your presentation? Identify yourself and your positions. >> Sure. Moren Herald, Norse Environmental Services. Um, I am going to bring in the plan Mason if that works. >> Yep. Uh, you should be able to share. If you can't, let me know.
>> Got it. All right. Oh, that's the wrong plan. Here we go. Okay. Um, so as Heidi had mentioned, the abas have been renotified. Um, we placed a legal ad in the newspaper.
Um so we requested to amend the notice of intent filing to um include in this progress this project a one-way egress. Um this was suggested by the planning
board. We do have a intermittent stream that flows in this direction into this culvert as well as a bordering vegetated wetland. The commission may recall that we had filed an ANRAD sometime in 2025.
Um maybe summer, fall, not sure, but the commission had issued the ANRAD confirm in the wetland boundary. I did extend um the wetland flags in this location here um as well as flag the bank of the
intermittent stream. I provided the commission with a lot of paperwork regarding this amendment. So, this roadway crossing, it's proposed to be 24 ft wide with two foot shoulders on each
side of the roadway. Um, this is proposed between building one and building two. Uh, the oneway roadway egress proposes to alter 2,611 square ft of BVW
and we're proposing to replicate 2649 square ft of BVW and this is the location of the wetland replication area. um the project in itself and the cover it. So the roadway crossing proposes a
42 foot long, 12 foot wide, 1 ft high, three-sided open bottom box culvert. This allows us to meet the stream crossing standards that requires the spanning of the bank by 1.2 times. Um,
we are proposing uh rather a rather conservative estimate of 84 ft of temporary bank alteration and that really is just to install the footings for the culvert itself may not
be the total 84t. Um, that's the maximum. Um but I went on the conservative side in terms of the estimate of the proposed temporary bank alteration. Um I addressed in my paperwork um the
stream crossing itself the standards. I can um quickly go through them but essentially the only standard that we do not meet is the openness ratio. And more often than not, I feel like this is a problem with a lot of
crossings. So, stream crossing standards requires a 82 foot openness ratio. And this box culbert provides approximately half that at 42
um openness ratio. Um, in order to meet the 0.82 openness ratio, we would need to raise the road one and a half ft. Um, and we don't want to do that because that essentially will result in more
impact to the resource areas as well as the buffer zone itself. Um, for those of you who have been to the site, um, this stream channel is certainly considered a stream under the regulations. Um, but
it's essentially a man-made dug ditch. Um, it's not your classic babbling brook that you would see in the woods or any of that nature. Um, the substrate itself, we're going to keep it consistent. We're not proposing on
changing the substrate of the stream. Um we're providing slightly more than one to one for um alteration to replication. Um I updated the NOI forms.
Let's see. I addressed Heidi's review. I have a wetland replication plan that I can bring up to the commission. That's on the last page of the plan set. So let me just go to that quickly.
Okay. So this is on the last page of the plan set. It just highlights what we're proposing. I of course highlighted the um hold on a minute. I got to move you guys here.
Um I highlighted here are the plantings. Um, so the 2649 ft of wetland replication, we're proposing native trees 3 to 4 feet in height, space 25 ft on center. I provide
a variety of trees that I think are appropriate for the replication area as well as the shrubs 3 to four feet in height, 15 feet on center. um this area for the wetland replication.
Um you know, it should take fairly well in my opinion. You know, we do have a high water table in this location. Um so I I really don't see it being a um a problem in terms of the wetland replication
area. Um, and I think that's essentially the nuts and bolts of the amendment and I can open it up to the commission with any questions or concerns.
>> Yeah, Marin D comments on the amendment. What what what came in? >> I've never gotten more comments from DP. It's amazing. Um, I just saw them real briefly. Heidi, do you have
them in front of you by chance? The latest and greatest? >> Yep, I do. >> Um, so >> I can read them for the record if the commission would like. >> So I did address the I guess the second round of comments that DP had stated.
Let me do that first, Heidi, if you're okay with that. >> Sure. >> Um, let me see. >> Could we Could we post the comments? >> Oh, yeah. Let me stop sharing. >> Yeah, why don't we do that and then move >> that makes sense.
Um, so the first set of comments, let's see, had to do with um, okay, mass D. More information should be provided on the proposed central court intersection relocation, grading, seating, edge of
pavement, BVW buffer should be indicated in this location. So the plan has been updated to show the BVW buffer. Uh infiltration BMPs must be at least 50 feet away from the surface water and
provide a minimum of 2 feet separation between the bottom of the infiltration units and the top of the seasonal groundwater. Um, so essentially providing a 50-foot separation from the infiltration BMPs is
a recommendation and it's not a requirement. It's kind of an interesting requirement that storm water management has and I I don't quite understand it because the infiltration that we're providing is clean water.
um it's coming off the roofs of the project. I I don't understand the logic that it needs to be 50 feet away other than it being a dimensional setback that somebody came up with. Um but regardless, my understanding is these
are recommendations. Um I spoke to the engineer about it and we just can't meet the 50 foot setback from that. Um, and let's see, the basin does provide a 3.82
foot separation between the bottom of the infiltration units and estimated seasonal high water table. Um, regarding the storm water, my understanding was when this went through the planning process, not only did a design engineer
design the project, but Mr. Mr. Walker has reviewed it for the planning board and as you know we did receive a permit from the planning board. So all of the storm water has been reviewed. The septic system has been reviewed as well.
Now they just posted new comments which I just saw before we got on tonight's meeting. Um okay. commission should incorporate special conditions to ensure the BVW performance standards are met. Well, that's the commission's job and
the project will not receive a certificate of compliance until that wetland replication is at a minimum 75% reveated with native plants and exhibits hydric soils. So, that is not a problem. See the wetland replication plan
narrative, replication area planting plan and project site plans must be revised and provide details required by the mass inland replication guidelines including but not limited to explaining what proposed target hydro
hydro period was used based. Now this is in my report based on the assessment of the impacted reference wetland to design the replication area according to the noinski classification for wetland types water budget soil profile of the
impacted BVW cross-sections of the wetland replication to show surface and subsurface features. So this is a groundwater slope that's that's the classification. I do provide a soil profile in the
wetland replication area. Um I do not have a cross-section. Um I can certainly have the engineer design a cross-section. That's not a problem um to show the surface and subsurface features. But again, I I know Mary, we
were out there looking at the wetland line in that location. Um and I think you recall we have a fairly high water table. um in and around that wetland line. So, as long as we can get the wetland
replication area down to the water table, it'll work. Um it's one of the biggest reasons why replication areas fail is it's not in the water table. Um but I just saw these comments. They
were posted for one. Um I'll I'll need to address them and I can do that. >> Okay. Heidi, do you wanna do you want to respond to that or what what's your what's your viewpoint on the comments? And Marine, >> so as far as the comments go, I mean, I
I think the the comments on the wetland replication, um the the report was was pretty good, but yes, I think there's some more that could be addressed to better address the comments and and meet
the standards. Um, for the comment about the infiltration BMP being 50 ft away, I know that the project was peer-reviewed by uh an engineer on the planning board side and my understanding is they
handled the review of the storm water in general as it relates to um the wetlands protection act. though under the storm water rigs. Um the 50ft setback is something I am aware of and have always understood to be um more than a
suggestion but that is not my area of expertise. It's the engineer really. So if that has been vetted then I would not um want to second guess that. I know I read at least in one of the reports that a um test pit was asked for in that
basin area to I guess ensure that it's going to infiltrate properly. Um that's something that maybe we should I I can certainly check in on to see if that was uh responded to, but my presumption based on the permit is that it was um since the planning board is issued the
permit. Um, so as far as the the D comments, I think that's my only comments for that. Their wetland replication, they they really didn't comment on the crossing specific. So >> um, >> the the one other comment I had that
Maren mentioned about the box culp and that it was being reduced reduced in size. Am I understanding that correctly, Maren? And do we have a cross-section elevation of what the box culpet would was going to look like? >> We do.
>> And if there's and if there's any impact on the reduced size, I mean, I get it. The higher it is, the bigger it is. It may be unnecessary and and you've get more banged, you know, disturbance, but >> I guess the concern is is there any
impact? Is it going to create an impact of flooding or of any sort? >> Absolutely not. This is a massive box. >> Oh, it sounds big. It sounds big, but it >> And you know, you got to remember when Massachusetts came out with these stream
crossing standards, it was based on perennial streams that carry fish in western mass. That was the whole study. Okay? And and I agree. If you have a perennial stream with fish, you got to meet these standards to the maximum
extent practical. But given the fact that we have um >> you actually answered my question that it's going to have zero impact >> right >> on flooding which was really where I was my question. So,
>> it's this is really a a in my opinion a low quality. It's technically a stream a stream, but clearly it was, you know, dug out um by somebody at some point to try and manipulate the drainage of the
area. Um there's no fish in this stream, just so the commission is aware. I can bring in a cross-section, Mr. Chairman, if you want to see it. I'm happy to do that. >> Yeah, I I would like to see that. And then I'm going to Why don't I open while you're doing that, I'm going to open this up to questions and start with
Mary. Uh Heidi, did you have anything else you wanted to add before just jump in on >> um Yeah, just general comments are I really feel like this is a a bit of a preliminary discussion to see, you know, what what needs to be addressed. There are some some comments from in a butter,
like I said, that was recently submitted. It appears that they pulled the plans off of probably the planning board website. So the latest plan set there is November. Um so they should probably get a copy of the revised information submitted because their
comments were um >> primarily around the crossing and the wetland replication. So they should probably receive this uh updated information. >> Um we can make sure that happens. Um and so the I was yeah I was going to the
same thing. Um, and so the culvert does does not meet stream crossing standards for the openness ratio. Um, yeah, Marine can can talk about that. It's it's only 1 foot high. Like she said, if they go higher, there's additional impacts. Um, but it it does
not currently meet the um stream crossing standards. >> It meets all of them except for that openness. >> Except the openness. Yep. Yeah. >> So, it's 12t wide by 1 ft high. I mean, that that's ginormous for
intermittent strain. >> Okay. He Heidi, anything else before I open this up to the members? >> Uh, not not at this time. No, that's fine. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Mary, I know you've done a sitewalk in this. This is your area of expertise.
And uh why don't you fire away with any comments or questions you have for either Heidi or Lauren? >> Um yeah, so I think there's a you know a fair number of still uh pieces of missing information and um I know that you know the applicant still wants to
address some of D's comments as well. And we as I mentioned before I think it'd be worthwhile to do a site visit and have the roadway staked out and um any any other activities in the buffer zone staked out so we can take a look at that. Um, I think that would be worthwhile.
Um, I I have a number of comments and I'm not sure they all need to necessarily be um answered tonight, but one of them is this the crossing, the new crossing, does it minimize the wetland impact at the location where it crosses? Is it the
crossing at the narrowest point of the wetland in order to gain that access? If um applicant could address that in their in their uh written materials that they submit to us. um additional detail about the openish ratio, which is for those of you who don't know, it's just the
cross-sectional area of the culvert divided by the length of the culvert. So, it's um >> Oh, okay. Gotcha. >> Yeah. So, it we got a long culvert in this case and it makes it a little bit harder to m make that 082 openness ratio. Um there's been discussion about
storm water management, you know, compliance. I haven't seen maybe it's in our materials, but I haven't seen it. Uh the the stormwater report from Joe Swatka which was for the planning board and it's not clear to me whether or not that was ex um if he was doing a general
stormwater review or if he was actually doing the review of the D wetland protection act uh storm water standards which are two different things. Um, and so if we have we don't have that, I would recommend that we we get that or we get
the the peer review. We don't really have a full peer review of the storm water on this site. Um, the BMPs, the best management practices set 50 ft back from the wetland edge. That's I I believe that's being triggered because this project is subject to a water quality certificate and that is part of
the provisions. So that that's where that it comes up in the storm water that stormwater rags part of the water quality certificate. So that's why they're asking for that. It's that was an issue that came up with the Cricut Lane project in Bfield. Um
let's see. What is the bottom treatment of the culvert? Whether you're going to use existing, you know, stream bed material and reuse it in the culvert. And how does that affect your 1 foot height um above the above grade of a you know you going to bury it and then have
that um stream bed material be counted towards the 1t of head or are we going to get one foot ahead plus the stream bed material if we could clarify that. Um the replication plan we generally like to see one and a half to one wetland
replication. we will only have just a little bit more than one to one replication or the amount of that's the amount of replication of new wetland to compensate for the impact to wetland and usually there's some you know it's a larger number to account for some
potential that some of some portion of this won't be entirely successful um you know often the outer reaches of the replication area might not fully vegetate in wetland if it's not graded exactly properly there are number of
items um that DP mentioned in their comments about the material that should be submitted with the wetland replication plan and that material is not present. I'd like to have a standalone wetland replication
plan as part of the plan set that incorporates your construction sequence, your planting scheme, your um your c your uh profile, all that on one sheet. So that because the contractors don't read the orders of conditions and you know with special conditions and they
don't read the the written material your wetland report that you know is part of the file that they look at is the plan set. So that would be important I think to add that to the to the overall um plan set. The what's
shown on the plan gives a proposed list of plants but it doesn't give numbers sizes what's the overall density. That's probably in your replication, your written report, but that should be part of the plan set >> that is shown on the plan. >> I saw a table that that just lists the
plants, but it doesn't give sizes or numbers or anything else. >> So, it it does. I can bring it in if you want to see it. >> I missed that on that on the one that you just showed because there was a table on the grading plan that you just showed. >> It's actually it's in the language, but
it's there just so you know. >> Great. Thanks. Um you there's a there's a lot of activity happening in a a a very small area. This is a you know somewhat degraded wetland. It's right up to the edge you know by
all this activity. Um so there are some opportunities to do some enhancement of this wetland as well if there's that um can be maybe considered as part of your overall mitigation strategy. Moren. Well, rather than increasing the wetland
replication to a larger size, what if we keep the size and then do some enhancement? >> That's an opportunity too that would be willing to look at that if you're short on space for replication. >> It's just it's we need to be near the
lost wetland as you know and it's behind the building. So maybe at the sidewalk we can take a look at that alternative. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, those are my comments for now, Bob. I I'm sure we'll I'll have more as material comes in.
>> Okay. Okay, Mary, I'll circle back obviously. All right. Uh, Woody, your comments. >> Woody, question for you. Where are we at on the planning board status? Is have they cleared all the hurdles there at
this point? at this point. Um, this is the second phase, so to speak, of it as far as, um, getting through this process for the exit road. But, um, >> okay. >> But, as stated, the select boards
approved the the, um, public way um, modifications square and up central court, and now we're on to this part of it. So, um, I will comment that it's the first time I've heard this called an intermittent stream
and and if I'm wrong, I I didn't hear anything brought up about the culvert that enters the site there. Do we know where the other end of the cart is? Is that something that we need to figure out? >> Go ahead.
>> I that So, there's a 6 inch cover. You want me to bring it up, Woody? Does that make sense? So we >> you know I would appreciate it if you did just for >> Okay. So this is I'm going to bring up um the existing conditions plan. I think
we'll show it. All right. Here we go. So are you talking about this culver here? >> Yes. Okay. It's on Central Court. Yes. >> Yeah. So, this is Central Court and it flows into this 12 in corrugated metal
pipe and then it shows it um going down the road. So, where it actually ends up, I'm not sure. Heidi, I think you had research that during the INRAD, didn't you? >> I did. I spent quite a bit of time
trying to figure it out. Um uh I it old plans deed research. I I tried to really figure out where this where this because it's clearly been there a long time. Um it appeared to me that it possibly originally went across
the street somewhere. Now which way it flows is a bit of a question. My uh assumption based on the fact that it goes under the road and continues under Central Street is that it flows out of out of this and into um wherever it goes. It appears on the
plan to show that it ties into the catch basin up there, but um I don't know, you know, if you zoom zoom in on that catch basin and follow it, it appears to uh >> to tie into it. But I I don't know. Um,
it's definitely something to I believe I feel like it is something that should be checked into. Um, and that was one of my other comments too is any storm water review that was done. I and I agree with Mary, we should have a
copy, but um this culvert certainly has not been um this crossing has not been reviewed as far as any any additional impacts. And what this 12in pipe can handle and where it goes is an unknown right now.
>> Is this 6 in is this 6-in corrugated pipe functioning at this time? Do we even know if it's functioning? >> Doesn't look like it is. >> Yeah, >> it might take some water. I my memory is it's not collapsed. I think it might be
compromised a little bit, but then it gets into the tricky territory of, you know, if we replace the culvert or we make it larger, we're going to be affecting the wetland system, >> right? >> Um, and I don't know what the right answer to that is.
>> Yeah. If if you have a lot more runoff being generated uh and directed towards this wetland and you don't have adequate drainage for that under that central street that will be the problem because it will back up onto the site. >> Yeah. >> Possibly the road depending on grades of
course. >> Yeah. >> Yep. That's all understandable. I I looked at that as water entered the site not exited it. And if you stand at the culpit and look off site, everything's higher than where that culvert is. So
that's why I asked the question. >> So what are you you're thinking the culpit drains into this site rather than exits this site? >> Okay. >> I did, but I I'm also not an expert. It hasn't been scoped. >> Elevations are shown on the plants. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And I looked at the um twoft contours too back when I was trying to figure it out. Certainly in the immediate vicinity, it's it's it's deceiving. It's hard to know. I agree with I agree with Woody that standing there. It it it is difficult to know which which way it goes. It appears, you
know, like maybe it could, but um it's hard to know how deep underground it is, what it got tied to in the past, where it it definitely originally went somewhere across the road and was re redone at some point. Um, but what
happened and how deep it goes, you know, if it ties into one of the existing um, storm water systems, if it's low enough, it certainly flows that way. But also, it it may take over. It's it's I really don't know. I'd be very I was I tried really hard to figure it out because I
was trying to >> trying to see which way it flows and how much water might come or go. >> What do you >> Oh, go ahead. >> Oh, no. Go ahead, Mar. >> So, it flows out of the site. I can I can bring it in and show the commission if you want to see the elevations.
>> What do you do? Do do you want to see the elevations or you I I guess what what's your question and has it been answered? >> No, I I just don't know if it flows in or out. And um I note storm drains on
Fruit Street and up by the highway. So, >> okay. I assumed if it was an exit for water to flow onto the site, but that's those are my assumptions. >> Marian, can you have the answer to that? If you do bring that up, please.
>> Sure thing. Okay. Okay. So, we have, let me just zoom in here. So, we have an invert of 54.48. with this is the 12in corrugated m um
metal pipe. And then I'm going to follow it to the catch basin. And the catch basin, we got two inverts, a 53 and a 52.6. So that's lower.
So it flows out. >> Okay, that answers the question. >> Okay, anything else? Thank you. >> Thank you, Morin. No, I don't have any other questions right now. Um, if I do, I'll speak up. Thank you. >> Yeah, I'm going to circle back a couple
of times before I open it up to public comment. Thank you, Woody. Mick, >> thank you. >> Questions for Meen or Heidi? Uh just on the uh the box covered ratio who's are we providing approval for that
variance from 082 to 042 or is that on D or do we need to build that into our order of conditions Bob? That's kind of my question. >> Uh a very good question. Do we have to do a finding uh one way or the other on that Heidi or
Meen or Mary? It would the commission would should definitely make a a finding on it but um the compliance with the stream crossing standards uh relates to the um performance standards. So there are
certain one of the performance standards which I I'll locate. I got it highlighted. I just got to flip through and find it. Um there's some presumptions that are are given if a crossing meets stream crossing standards that the presumption is just not as easy
to you have to go through the the process to the presumption gives you X Y and Z but if you're if you're missing like in this case the openness ratio which really relates more to wildlife passage um to be honest. So um you know
it it it may be it it will be for the commission to handle but it it it may not be a you know insurmountable type issue in this case. >> It it takes into consideration that there could be issues like there validation of existing roadway >> and so we can make a finding that that
it is um not met for these reasons and not required for these reasons. Make a separate finding. It's not a strict regulation. is guidance. >> Okay, Mick, you >> uh No, I just if it's if it's a legal
requirement, then it is guidance and it's not a suggestion. It's not a should, it's a must or a shall. So, >> guidance and policy, >> guidance and regulation are Yeah. would be different. >> Yeah. It's not codified. So it's it's
>> I all I'm saying is that I think we need to clearly define that and for me not so much animal passage I would think it in and high flow times we see these b box coverage get backed up with branches and debris and everything else and it ends
up flooding over the flooding over the top of the box coverage. So that would be the consideration and and if somebody out there can mathematically show that 42 is adequate for the flow and if it's an intermittent stream that's great. I just I think
>> that's what the engineer should be doing >> right and exactly and that's what I just as long as somebody says yep this is the max flow this is 110% of max flow and we're still within 0.042 042 or 042 then then awesome you know I just I just want
to like because I think that's a big thing here where it's that's a big variance from what's suggested you know you're at 50% of the of the of what's recommended >> marin the the outlet flow size of the corrugator pipe is it 6 in or 12
>> inch >> okay >> it's a 12 inch and >> am draining the whole area right now it it's small at least partially. >> Yeah, the capacity the actual capacity is is unknown. Um
>> but one thing to keep in mind I'm sorry to interrupt Heidi. One thing to keep in mind is that this resource area and this wetland it has it's a very low gradient. It's very flat. Even even the ditch itself I I understand the concerns with
high flows. It is it has I don't know zero to 2% grade if that it's just very flat out there and if if the commission decides on a site visit I think you'll be able to see that. >> Okay.
>> Um sir I just want to comment um for for Mick's comment about the review of the covert. The plan approved by the planning board showed the uh I guess prior I won't say original prior design for the crossing which was a 2t wide 1
ft high culvert. So um it's assumed by me that the peer reviewer took a look at that prior to the planning board closing that. So I would definitely want to review that report as well because that was a smaller um proposal that the
>> you said two by one. So this is >> two by one. Yeah. >> Much more. Yeah. >> 12 ft. Yeah. This is so significantly more. >> Okay. >> So I would want to re It's a good question still though and I'd want to review the the peer reviews report. >> The calculation will give us the answer
on that. It's >> and I think you already you probably already have that marin that it's you know far more adequate than >> right >> required. Okay. Mick any any other comments before I move on? >> No I'm good. I'm good. I think uh Mary
and and Woody did a great job of covering this. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mick. Harry, questions for Maren, Heidi, or Mary at this point. We have >> no questions at this time, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Harry. Uh David,
questions? >> No questions for me, Bob. >> Okay. All right. So, just trying to inventory the open questions. additional information at this point. I mean, Heidi, what do
you see? I mean, just to give Marin a, you know, kind of a running score where we at, what what we're looking at so that at some point they can get to the finish line. >> So, I think um
certainly the planning board, I'm assuming, has the storm water report, but providing that to the commission would be important. um for for us to review the replication uh answering DP's comments is important as well. Um and for the commission I
just wanted to uh note the performance standards for um the wetland boarding registrated wetland. Um, one of them says, "So, notwithstanding provisions of a prior one, uh, issuing authority may
issue an order of conditions permitting work which results in the loss of up to 5,000 square ft of BBW when set is replicated in accordance with, and this is where you need to get the replication um, spot on. Um, you know, deems it
necessary. and and then there's there's there's several criteria in there which you know I I will outline and send to the commission and you know a lot of it's a 75% replication and things like that. So um just wanted to reference the performance standard that this crossing
is is trying to meet because it is not reviewable as a limited project crossing and that is a different category. So it was just a clear distinction I wanted to make. Um, as far as what else >> we really need to do, >> there was reference for there was
reference to replication enhancement versus replication. >> Yes. Um, for the well the replication uh I guess I'm here I heard I heard enhancement but
>> yeah. So Mary you were looking for one and a half to to one on the replication and Maren was suggesting or collaboratively we were talking about doing other enhancement in in lie of >> in order yes I mean it's something we could look at whether there's actual
um beneficial um enhancement that can be done and what that would look like. So, it's hard to say if that is acceptable over the one and a half to one replication at this time, but it'd be something that we'd want to look at.
>> Um, >> and certainly meeting the inland replication guidelines as as much as possible and and you know, stating why what can't be met. There is very limited room for the replication which is part
of Yeah, that's and I I'll I'll share but um so I mean you've got the >> only just that that's it. >> Yep. >> Yep. That's it. So um a lot of that um is existing lawn like the wetland there.
Yes. Inside that wetland line is lawn. So you can see the tree line is inside the wetland. >> Yeah. There's a tree line there and between the tree line and the replication area is basically just you know mowed grass.
>> So there is certainly a large area of enhancement that you could do in that >> in that area. >> I go ahead. >> No, we can do the enhancement. And Mary, I recall too there's like junk in there.
>> Yeah, >> like bars. I was just going to say too, >> bird coops and like I I don't know what the heck >> a lot of debris that can happen. Yeah. Yeah. In there too. >> Yep. >> We we can add to that. That's not a problem. >> Yeah, that would you know that would be
great because it could use it. >> Yeah, that was my suggestion. That was going to be my next suggestion too. Like um the from the sidewalk this was all disturbed uh those animal pens like you were saying. there's, you know, old piles of, you know, probably
>> animal waste. Um, there's a lot of junk. So, there there is a lot that should be cleaned up anyways, but certainly lends itself to enhancement. >> Okay. >> Right. And your first floor elevation for your buildings look like they're at
um 70. >> Yeah. Garage is at 67. 67. >> Garage at 67. And that your wetland elevation is um you know something like I guess it's 60 >> right?
>> I can't see it very I'm like >> so 60 is right here. This is the 60 contour >> goes right at the back of here. Um but the wetland is not much below that. the front of these buildings or back of the
buildings I guess it is are pretty low at nearly the the well elevation. >> Yeah, the garage well the garage will be >> and so this was something I had read in a lot of the comments from the engineer on the on the planning board side which
I uh during the initial um opening of the hearing I was I was very careful to read. There was a lot of questions about um the elevations and um a lot of it had to do with this because there you know this is 66 67 and this is a 60 proposed
60 contour. So this is going to be yes there was a lot of questions about that. Um and >> because it's been closed and issued my assumption is that those were addressed so I kind of had had stayed away from them. Um, but I I 100% agree with you,
Mary. The the grades back here are >> I think it's going to be a walk out in the back, Mary. But, um, let me double check with my client on that because I don't I got to look at the architectural plans and everything else. And I can get back to you on that.
>> You got a 62 tying into a 67 first floor garage elevation, >> right? >> So, I don't know how that works. >> Okay. I can um get back to you. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Are there any other questions from the members before I open this up to the
public comment? >> No. >> Okay. Uh Mason, are there any raised hands from the public? And if they they are, can we start a list so we can take them one at a time? Kathleen, I I see
you have your hand raised. You could just give us your your name and address again. and welcome welcome back to the meeting. >> Uh Kathleen Sperling, 10 Parker River Drive. Um so I have a lot of concerns as
as I previously said um about the demolition, but now we're here to the street. Now, I believe the planning board wanted this access on Central Court for possibly traffic reasons with um Central Street because there were
issues um with uh the traffic studies, but you can't quote me. You can go back and look at that. Um, the plans that are currently up do not show a brand new house that is put on the corner of Central Court and Central Street, which
is directly across, I believe, from this stream. And what I would also like is for someone to determine whether this is a stream or the runoff because we keep going back and forth over that. Um, how one of the questions I have is how do we
get to see the two DP comments? Cuz apparently there was one D recommendation and now there's two. I mean, I just picked that up here tonight. Um the other thing I wanted to bring up is um I think one of the um
individuals brought up that there was a Massachusetts study that really only applies to streams regarding fish and therefore it wouldn't apply here. But I believe legally if it's something u written in Massachusetts a legis a piece
of um legal paperwork that it would apply here whether there's not whether there's fish or not. Um, the next thing I wanted to bring up is the location of this road. Um, right now if it goes on to Central Court, there are
approximately 26 houses on Central Court. I mean, not Central Court, Parker River Drive and Central Court have 26 houses. So that's approximately 46 cars coming off of that. You are now going with this with this road. You are going
to allow another 88 cars to be coming off this project and sitting at the corner of Central Court and Central Street waiting to get in or out. That would mean that the oil and gas or
whatever is coming from these vehicles that are waiting to get onto the street will go into the pavement and mo most probably at some point go into this particular p piece of the wetlands. Um, and that's that's a concern for me, the
idling and and the um the uh whatever comes off of the cars. Uh, let's see what else. I think that's Oh, as far as the stream goes, I really think you again should look at three central
court, which current which is on the opposite side of the stream from the property, which continues to flood now with rainfall. And uh Mr. Scaderi, who owns that property, has had a problem all along. And I don't know if this
particular project is going to cause him um increase issues because of his location and the stream and whatever the property is going to be doing regarding putting a bridge over it or whatever. So those are my comments and I appreciate you listening. That's all I have to say.
>> Okay. Thank you, Kathleen. As I recall, Moren, there was a traffic study that had been I I remember seeing a a copy of a traffic study that had been required by the planning board. Woody, do you do you recall, Maren? Do you recall? Pretty
sure I saw a copy of that. >> Yes, there's uh there were two there were one by the applicant and one one uh private study as well. Okay. And they both they both agreed that um the squaring off central court and the this
exit road would vastly improve the line of sight make it an ideal situation as opposed to the two-way option which would make it the bare minimum. I think it was only acceptable by two feet of line of sight.
Also, >> yeah, I mean traffic traffic flow is a planning board determination, not so much its impacts on the wetlands. >> But that's the reason why we end up here, you know, so I figured I'd state that. >> Marin, you you heard Kathleen's
questions. I think the the traffic study. So the right so the traffic study determines where the roadways go and and where the cars enter and exit the specifically the roadway off of Central
Court. That will be a one-way egress. So you won't have cars coming in and out of that roadway. It'll just be one way. So maybe that might aliate some of your concerns. Um and
And I'm sorry I'm drawing a blank on the other >> the storm management the oil and the oil and grease on the road is direct thank you Mary >> into the storm water management system to renovate it before it discharges back into the wetland. So the road is graded
specifically to um so that the runoff from rainwater drains into catch basins and into the stormwater basins for renovation before they're discharged. That's how the oil and grease is handled. >> Okay. So, Kathleen, I can circle back
with you. You're on mute if you >> I don't think I am. I think I'm >> Okay, we can hear you now. I >> have one other quick question. Um, one of the neighbors, um, Jacob Murray, who's um, very experienced in all this, sent a letter to the Conservation
Commission dated April 7th. So, I would really appreciate it if you guys read it and maybe at the next meeting commented on it. If if this is not up to date and he needs to review other information, um could we find a way that we can get the
information to him? And there is also an email, I believe, um on April 2nd from the uh family that lives at 36 Central Street um that was sent to the conser conservation commission. If you guys could also read that, that would be
really appreciated from the neighborhood. >> Okay. And any of the neighbors that wants documentation or current uh plans can reach out to Mason Fareric, our conservation agent, and I think Mason would be more than happy to either
provide direction where to get the documentation or be able to print it off and give it to you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, Nino, you were next in line and then Christopher, that's how I have you lined up for public comment. So, Nino, if you give us
your your name, your address, and then your questions or comments. >> H yes, it's uh Nino Scaderi. I'm at Three Central Co-op. Um so, you guys are talking about a sitewalk. Um I really suggest you do it like soon because
right now it's the seasonal high water level. Um, you know, like I I like Kathleen said, uh, my yard floods seasonally. Um, I've been trying to figure out ways to mitigate it. Um, you know, it's very flat. That that culvert
or stream has no grade to it. Um, and it does drain, but um, I've called DPW numerous times. They come, they clean about a foot from the from the uh storm drain and it it basically drains right
there, but there's so much material there that it basically also just backs up 250 ft the whole length of it almost to my foundation. Uh my concerns with this project is um you know the leech
field is right near my right right near the property line. My leechfield is in the area. Um, I purchased the house probably about 11 years ago. It had a brand new leech field. It failed after four years. Okay. Um, why did it fail?
Is it because of the high water table? Even though the perk test showed that the water drained properly, I I I'm still unsure of that. Now, having a huge leech field basically, I don't know how much larger than mine it is. uh right
there that's only going to add more groundwater. Um and I'm I'm worried about being completely flooded out with this project. I you know I highly suggest you know the size of it possibly be reduced if this is approved at all.
Um you know it's it's very I'm I'm very scared of what what could happen with this whole project. Um, you know, I know it'll look a lot better than what's currently at that address, but
I I'm just very um scared and I I hope um you know, my concerns and and my neighbors all are heard. >> Thank you, Nino. We obviously you're we're all listening to you tonight.
And and the other thing I know um they they state that this the town is or the state says that um leech fields have to be 100 feet away from the wetland from uh from wells. I mean my private well is like 102 feet away. Um and that's a
concern. Um you know I'm going to start regularly testing my water because once stuff starts happening I I don't want to see my water quality drop. So, >> okay, Nino, any anything else? >> No, that was it.
>> Okay, thank you. Uh, Christopher, you I have you next. I don't know, Mason. Are there any other raised hands after Christopher? >> Uh, seeing none besides Christopher. >> Okay, Christopher, you just give us your name and address and then ask your
questions or state your concerns. >> Yeah, my name's Christopher Morris. I live at 9 Central Court, so I'm two houses down from Nino. Um, with the traffic study, I I nowhere in it did did it state that there is a bus stop at
that intersection, and I have a school-aged child. Um, so now we're adding 88 cars in the morning going to work coming out through Central Court. Um, it's already hard to get out of Central Court and now we're going to add another 88 cars coming out where there's
a bus stop and there's no sidewalk on the street on Central Court. So, this to wait for the bus, they stand in the road. So, now we're going to dump 88 cars out where there's a bus stop. And that was
not noted in the traffic study at all. >> Okay. Any any other comments, Christopher? Um, I would also comment that I kind of agree with a one for one increase for the wetland area doesn't
account for anything that doesn't take. So, I think going to a 1.5, which is recommended in the added wetland area that you're going to remove. Um, but I was all for this MBTA zoning and this project until they wanted to dump 88
cars out through Central Court >> and where there's a bus stop. That's kind of why we also didn't want the Dunkin Donuts across the street because now you're trying to tell people to go around cars where there's a bus stop. Um, but this project didn't take into account the bus stop when they wanted to
add a road. >> Okay. I I think on the replication, Maren, the the requirement is a 75% success rate on replication. >> Correct. 75% reveated with native plants. And I need to check this, but
I'm 99% positive that the roadway offered central court is a oneway into the project, not out. But I just I can't find that in my paperwork, but I I'm pretty sure that's the case. So, it would be people going into the project
and not exiting the project. >> What do you have recollection of that? cuz that would be I think >> the cars. This is an exit road onto Central Court. Um >> Yep. That's what I noted. >> The cars will enter the property on
Central Street about where the location of their current driveway is now that has a lot of stuff in it. Well, we have a downstairs. >> So, I had >> Yeah. No, that's fine. That's fine, Moren. Um, but they the the entrance
being on Central Street and the exit being on Central Court alleviates a lot of line of sight and problems with people trying to if they were to try and come out onto Central Street itself. They come out on central court. Central Court's been approved and there's a plan
to reconfigure the end of Central Court to square it up so the lines of sight are better and the it's easier to navigate and you enter you exit you exit onto Central Court and exit onto Central Street to go
your way. So >> yeah, the line of sight may get better, but we're going to have cars racked up trying to get out in the morning because it's we already have to wait because of the people coming over the hill and you got to make sure and now we're going to have 88 other cars trying to get out of this one street.
So Christopher as as you can imagine conservation commission our jurisdiction is impact to the resource in the wetlands where where traffic flow would be would be the domain of the planning board. >> But but all right we hear you loud and
clear. Anything else Christopher before we we move on? >> Nope. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do any other members have any further questions? I'm just looking at the clock. one just brief one >> certainly Mary >> um thanks Bob just whether or not in
Woody maybe you know or Moren or Heidi whether a bounding analysis was done for the leechfield um >> I wasn't involved in the board of health approval Mary I'm not sure I can find out >> it would be I do need to find out
because it you know that is very close 102 feet of for a private well to a a leech treating that many units. Um so that it would be helpful to understand how that will the amounting analysis and what
that will tell it will map the groundwater elevations and how that will affect um areas that are near it. I'll double check it as well. I do know in in my read through of of all the stuff that was before planning board
before mounting analysis was definitely in there. So, I'll >> I'll recheck for the context of it and see what the outcome was, too. >> Okay, great. >> So, Maren, let me stop there. Any other questions from any other members? Mick, do you
have any any follow-up questions or Harry? >> Not at this time. Thank you, Bob. >> Woody, any any other follow follow-up questions? >> No, not at this time, Bo. Thank you. >> Okay, David, any any follow-up questions?
You're on mute David, but I >> No, Bob. No, no followers. >> All right. Thank you. So, Maren, obviously, I think a site a site visit would be very helpful to all of us. Uh, and probably sooner rather than later where
that I mean, as long as it isn't snowing out like this morning, >> you can sign me up. Well, you know, when is spring actually coming? I came back from Florida way too early this year. >> Next week, they're saying 70s, right? >> August. August B.
>> So, do we want to do a Can we How about next Tuesday? What's the What works? Everybody, I'm throwing out a Tuesday at 8:00 as a >> um Mr. Chairman, just um do you does the commission want anything staked? I know
Mary had requested I think the roadway staked and some other features that I can certainly have that staked for the commission for the sitewalk. Um I'm not sure if I can get it by Tuesday but I I I'll make an effort. >> Mary, what what would you like to see uh
in the fields? Just that's a good point, Mar. >> I have to take a look at the plan. Um the nearest buildings building the little corners like the um you know the >> the buildings one and two. >> Yep. Closest to the wetland. Is there a
basin right next to the wetland? >> Yes. >> That as well. >> Okay. >> Is it Let me ask you a question. Do you think it's better that we wait till you tear everything down? >> Yeah. and get it out of there and then have you stake it and then put this on
for a few weeks to >> No. >> Okay. >> No, Mr. Chairman, if possible, we would really like to move this process along. I mean, it it'll be a year in August. >> No, I understand. I understand.
So Moren, what when can you get your engineers out there or wetland people to replate? >> When's the next meeting, Mr. Chairman? >> Uh May 4th. >> May 4th. >> Oh boy, that's a month.
Okay. Um can we shoot for next week for the sitewalk, but maybe have it on Thursday? That'll give them a week and two days or something. And if that doesn't work, um, if I can't
get it state, I think I can get it st. The survey is pretty good. >> Okay. Well, you want to do it the 16th? Why don't you do this? We'll we'll tentatively schedule it for the 16th. >> Okay. >> Okay. 8 a.m.
Uh, how does that work for Mary? How does that work for you? >> I can work with that. Okay, David, does that work for you? You're on mute, David, if you >> Yes, that works. Yep. >> Okay, Woody, does that work for you? >> Yes, that works for me. And I just want
to clarify that they Lori knows what to stake out. So, I didn't know if we've completed that. So, that we we know we all have everything that we need to see st. >> Okay. >> It was like corners of buildings and
roadway. It might not be possible to stake everything because their buildings in the way >> or rather the debris. >> Yeah. But what you know at least the roadway um and the flags if the flag numbers are you know still visible we can orient from those. Yeah.
>> So, you know, if they do the center line of the roadway, Mary, I think that'll give us some perspective of >> Y >> of what's going on. And that that's probably the simplest of all for >> And I think it would all be since there seems to be a lot of neighbors here, are the neighbors um
able to attend the site visit, will they are they allowed on the property? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mick, any any comments? How are you on uh the 16th? >> Wonderful. I would I would >> Okay. And that like actually works out
okay for me. >> Yeah. >> All right. So So Marin, we we do have need to move along. I'm assuming you're requesting a continuence to our May 4th meeting. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Uh I will I will entertain a
motion to continue this public hearing at the applicant's request to the May 4th meeting. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> Hi. >> Harry?
>> Yes. >> David? >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor votes? Yes. All right. Thank you, Marine. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you, Heidi. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Okay. Next matter is a continued public hearing. D file number 050146045
Boston Road. applicants submitting a notice of intent to expand existing boardwalk systems within or within proximity to bordering vegetative wetlands. Mason, can you give us an overview and a recommendation if you have one?
>> Uh, so Ned Darling had let us know that they were planning on getting their biologist out to do a delineation come springtime. Uh, I still haven't received confirmation of the delineation being done, so I haven't been able to go out and confirm. Um, I reached out today to see if he was going to be available for the meeting, but I did not hear
anything. Um, so I would assume that they're going to want to be continuing until our May 4th meeting. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to May 4th as there is no applicant present to uh
answer questions. >> A move. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? Yes. >> Mick. >> Hi, >> Harry. >> Yes, >> David. >> Yes.
>> And Bob Connor's vote. Cheers. >> Okay. We have a a new public hearing. D file number 05014614 Southern Boulevard. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent for
proposed landscaping work and hardscape improvements. Mason, can you give us an overview on this? And were there any specific D comments on the >> Okay, so >> Yep. So the uh the applicant had submitted um their notice of intent to D
got some feedback with some comments um which I can pull up now. Um and then I received some supplemental information today from the applicant um where he addresses some of these D comments.
Um so it's on on Palm Island. Um the basis of the project is some uh vegetation removal with some replanting uh removal of invasive species, replanting of native species. Um as well as uh the reconstruction of a retaining
wall um and some additional hardscapes in the backyard area um for I believe it's a patio and walkway area. Um so these are the original D comments here. Um, and when the board would like, I'm happy to either bring up one of the planting plans or the proposed work
plan. >> Okay. Uh, question. What is is this uh what flood zone is this? Is this in a zone X or is it in the flood zone? >> Sure. I'll pull up the landscaping plan to
start and I can introduce the applicant and then I can look up what floods on their end. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Yeah. So, from here we can kick it off to um the applicant. >> Okay. Hey, if you could give us your name and address and then make your
presentation. Welcome. >> Uh, good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Jeff Travers, 14 Southern Boulevard, and um, what we're looking at is um, well,
plans that evolved from the our initial intent to remove and repair the crumbling cinder block wall. uh that fronts Southern Boulevard and extends along our u asphalt driveway. Um at the
same time uh that entire area in that corner of the property is covered with Rosa Rosa. Um, and it seemed like an opportune time to clean out that invasive and replace with uh better
looking uh newer, nicer, uh, plantings, which um, we're looking at the landscape plan right now. Uh, the planting plan um would show more of that what uh, we're looking to add. Um but what you're also
seeing here is the uh hardscaping which was objected to uh by the D comments. Um and um what what uh I don't know Mason
if you could bring up uh my responses to the D comments. Um the info document um um so here again they the concerns that
were raised by D had to do with specifically removal of vegetation to fill That's referring again to the uh Rosa rigosa which is going to be uh reestablished with more native plants
not just remove of the vegetation. U the entire area will be replanted. Uh the objection was to installation of concrete paver stone steppers concrete paver steps and steel edging around the house. Those elements will be removed. um they
kind of came about as we maybe got a little bit ambitious in our plans. We started this, you know, started out again with the removal of the wall. Then we thought, well, well, we've got this, you know, whole new thing going on. Let's see what else we can do. uh we got
a proposal from the uh the company that said, "Okay, this here's what we think would fit in well." And it turns out that it's not fitting in well with all of the the pavers and the u steel edging. Uh so we're modifying the
project to remove those. Uh specifically, it was also mentioned by DP that removal of portions of the paved driveway uh to install concrete pavers prohibits movement of sediment and that portion
will also be removed. Um and that was uh shown on the the landscape plan that uh Mason had up moment ago. Um and the and the rest of what we plan
on doing. Again, the existing wall is doomed to fail at some point. I'd like to address it sooner rather than later. You Mason, you I think you were out there today for a site walk. Um
and we're utilizing the existing footing which will, you know, limit any disturbance of subgrade. Well, everything's subgrade there, but um we will be estab you know maintaining
these current grades and stabilizing um on the and these these are some of the these are again the modifications to the existing plan. there on the opposite side of the driveway where is just a
single cinder block wall. Uh we're going to remove that and reestablish uh original grades and stabilize that area which also will be uh uh more plantings will take place in
that side of the driveway as well. Um, we're looking to cover the south side of the yard with crush shells, uh, allowing for, uh, maintenance restrict. You know, I don't need to be chopping the weeds down
because that's all that's growing there now. Um, and have that covered with crush shells. And in the back of the house, there has been enough erosion to expose our sewer
pipe that comes out of the house. I would like to be able to use appropriate fill um to recover recover what has been exposed there.
Um the planting plan is pretty much as was established in the original original proposal. Uh we're adding, you know, we're having a one for one replacement of the Rosa Rigosa. We're adding on the south facing
side of the house along the foundation additional plantings about 96 square ft. On the west side of the property, uh again, additional plantings that are shown on the planting plan, approximately 105 square feet.
The northwest side of the house has a essentially sand dune area uh which is has some beach grass that uh can be enhanced and that's our plan to add additional beach grass roughly six foot on center
in that area as well as cleaning out uh much of what uh has been accumulated over the years there. Um, and right along the front of uh Southern Boulevard,
um, there is an grouping of existing beach plums that I've lovingly resurrected after having been they had been choked out for years by by the vines and I came in and cleaned them
all out. they're they're coming back and recovering and we are going to be doing further plantings in that area as well. And uh the areas uh summary of the areas impacted are kind of shown there kind of just a regurgitation of what I just
spoke to. Um and just some additional details. Uh and my summary essentially is that as I view the work to be done, it does not seem to
um it seems to satisfy the requirements uh that uh need to be satisfied. >> Okay, questions. Uh Mary, questions for for Jeff. Well, I really appreciate the detail of your your filing. Um, there's
a lot of different elements to it and it's a little bit hard to picture all of it right now. Um, and and it looks like the you know, there's been some plan changes. It's not clear to me if all of the changes that you just described in narrative form have made it onto this
plan. Is that >> they have not made it onto this plan? That is that is uh >> correct. So, anything you see here that shows where there would be some to sort of pavers on either side of the driveway, that's being eliminated. Uh
the pavers on the uh the left side of the the building and the back side of the building uh will be eliminated. Uh the back side of the building is where I'm looking to fill in uh to again the erosion exposing our our sewer pipes
which has frozen a couple times. Uh, so I'd like to be able to remediate that problem. Um, >> yeah. Um, okay. And so, um, yeah, we'll obviously we'll need to have the plan updated. Um, there's
>> I I for one would like to do a site visit here because I think that might be a good good one to, um, to fully understand and I think the applicant's going to need some time to update update their plans anyway. So, I would like to do that. Just a couple quick notes on the landscape plan. I mean, Rosarosa is
true. It's not native, although it's been naturalized and it's not really uh on on the uh you know, the list of plant species that we're necessarily concerned about in terms of its impact to native native species. Um but that said, you
know, it it it's it's possible that you can enhance with coastal species as well. It just depends a lot on the number and type and density that you're proposing and how that's going to whether it's going to replicate the you know the condition of the vegetation
that you're removing. So that would be one of the things that I'd like to look at. And also the landscape plan talks about bringing in lom and bringing in mulch for planting beds and things and those are not things that we typically allow in the dune. You're looking for more of a naturalized condition. So, um,
that would be another thing we'd need to talk about. We could do it on a, you know, an earlier a different day from this 34 Central Street site visit or piggyback on that
same day. I'm I'm fine either way. >> Okay. Uh, Woody, any questions? Um, no questions. I think a lot of Mary's comments would be great. The updated plan sitewalk would be helpful.
Um, and whether or not we piggy back on 34 Central Street, we can discuss. Uh, I know that we might spend some time at 34 Central Street. Um, and spend some time here. So, it's up to other people that have to get to work. So,
>> you know what I would So, what I would suggest simply is that Jeff, if you can update the plan, >> you we're going to need to continue the public hearing until our next meeting. Um, do we if we can get the when do you
think you can get your plan updated so that get off remove what obviously you're not going to do because it's not allowed and incorporate what you do want to do and replace and replacing that. >> I
could have that by the end of the week. >> Okay. Um, well, what's a pleasure if if we get the updated plan, do we want to >> maybe next Tuesday? >> We do something next Tuesday morning. >> Yep.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I just I'd like to give this property its, you know, in Mr. Travis's due time because I think uh we're probably going to get consumed at 34 Central.
Yeah, that and it's a 20 some minute ride from one end of town to the other. That's kind of what I was >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're talking the 14th. >> Yeah. >> Excuse me. 8 o'clock.
>> Okay. Okay. >> All right. >> Plan on 4:14. >> I love how we get the invitations immediately from Mason here. >> Isn't that awesome, Mary? Just it's on my calendar already. >> 8 o'clock. Okay. I have the longest
commute of all of you, so hopefully >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. Bob, >> I'll bring a coffee. >> Okay. All right. So, Jeff, uh you're going to request a continuence to our May 4th meeting. We'll we you'll get
Mason the plans. We'll have a site visit next Tuesday and but you're going to need to be continued to our May 4th meeting. >> Sure. Uh we do have we do have a uh planting plan already in place that is probably you know pretty much
going to remain the same but uh that that'll be updated as well with the removal of the hardcaping. >> Yeah. >> If you can the more detail you can put on the plan and the less questions that we have and notations we need you to put
on it, it will just expedite the our ability to give you a final determination. >> Right. Could I just could I just ask Mason to bring up that uh planting plan that does identify the uh proposed
>> planting with a table identifying the plants and and let and and ask if that is sufficient for what you're you're hoping for as far as detail. Looks like
>> what we would typically ask for. >> So, all of the all of the all the new plantings are identified on the bottom left table. Um, >> okay. >> Where did it go? There it is. >> We'll take a look at those.
>> I'm glad you saw that, too. I think it just disappeared on me for a second. >> That was that was funny. >> All right. Uh so we do have you know trees and tree you know adding juniper >> feeder >> that's that thing keeps disappearing.
>> I don't know why it's fighting with me but >> yeah Jeff anything you add that's green is is is a good thing. Um yeah, I mean it it really I think will significantly improve the appearance and that you know the um
there's I don't want to be spending the rest of my decades here at this house hopefully fighting back the rigosa that's just going to continue to just try and creep out out all over my property >> um
>> and out onto the street and it it would improve improve the visibility uh you know vehicles coming off of Colombia onto Southern. Um >> no I think I think you're addressing the concerns that the DP had Jeff and it
first blush everything else looks good and looks like a good good benefit to the resource. So I'm just looking at the time it's 8:47 p.m. and I don't know about you guys. I haven't even had dinner yet tonight. Mhm. >> What what I'm going to suggest, you're
requesting a continuence to our May 4th meeting? >> Yes. >> And we'll see you on Tuesday. Okay. I will entertain a motion to continue the public hearing as the applicant's request to our May 4th, 2026 meeting. >> So moved. Second.
>> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick. >> Hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. and Bob Connors. Thank you, Jeff. See you on Tuesday. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Mason, you have uh you have 30 seconds to give us an update. >> Uh we already rescheduled the May meeting and if anyone is interested in seeing the Larkin Dam restoration stuff that we've done on the riverbank after 34 central, I'm happy to show anyone. Um
it's right down the street. So yeah, that's >> 15 seconds. >> I'd love to see I would love to see that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Cool project. Great. Any any other comments from anyone before I entertain a motion to adjourn? >> Do you all on Tuesday? >> Okay. Uh I will entertain a motion to
adjurnn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? Mary. What do you say? I >> Diamond. Okay. Good night, guys. very much.