Okay. Uh, good evening. My name's Bob Connors. It is now 6:02 p.m. I'd like to call the May 19th meeting of the Newbury Conservation Commission to order. Mason, can you please read the preamble to the remote open meeting law and take a roll call of the members present?
>> As a preliminary matter, this is Mason Farer, conservation agent of the Newbury Conservation Commission. Please permit me to confirm that all members are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Mary Rimmer, >> yes. >> Dave Clifford, Mick Brown, >> yes.
>> Harry Tro, Woody Knight. >> Frank Wetenamp, >> yes. >> And Bob Connors, >> yes. >> Good evening. This open meeting of 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 Commission 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 comment, 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 first-name alphabetical order to ease the process. After board and committee members have spoken, the
chair will afford public comment as follows. The chair will first seek questions through the chat function. When participants are using this function, please list your names, address, and then your question. The chair will then seek questions from the public who wish to speak. They'll be asked to identify their names, addresses, 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. >> All right. Thank you. Me Mason upcoming meeting dates. Uh we have upcoming meeting is June 2nd. We do not have any
minutes for review tonight. So moving on to our first order of business is a certificate of compliance. D file number 050 056516 Harvard Way. The applicant is requesting a certificate compliance for an expired
order of conditions. Mason, can you give us an overview and a recommendation on this one? >> Yep. Um, so this is one of those projects that is kind of a ghost file. So, I didn't have any hard copy filing here at the office. Um, the applicant was able to provide me with the order of
conditions in a COC request, and I was able to go out to the site today to review the on-site conditions. Um, as I said, this order, I believe, is more than 20 years old. Um, and while I was on site today, there was uh nothing that was sticking out to me that made it seem
like there was any ongoing activity or any disturbance. Um, so that is kind of the extent of this one and I'm happy to uh share some photos with the commission if you guys would like. >> Okay. Is the is there anyone anyone speaking for the applicant tonight? If
we have any questions, why don't you put up the photos? I think that might be helpful to me. >> Yeah, I don't see anyone here, but I'll start with the photos. Okay. Um, so this is kind of tucked behind. It's either 18 or 20 Harvard Way. Um, it may be easier to show you from the
beginning, but this is the driveway here. And then in the back, we have a single family residence um with a deck on this portion of the house here. >> Was it something to do with a shed that was on the property line that had to be removed? was there.
>> I from the order conditions I I couldn't really tell what the what the extent of the project was. >> Okay. >> This is this right here I believe is uh 18 or 20 uh Harvard one. Okay. Uh questions from the members.
Mary, any questions from Mason on this one? You're on mute, Mary, if you're Yeah, sorry. Um, does it is it is there new construction there or it it looks like new siding maybe or new windows or am I just is that just a image?
>> Uh, it it may they may have had like you know onhouse work done but I there was no signs of any like ground disturbance or anything like that. >> Okay. And we don't know whether or not there was any requirement for maintaining dune vegetation or anything like that. >> I I didn't see anything in the order um
but I can double check that. Harvard. Yeah, that there was no written special conditions on the uh the order that's attached in um in the folder. >> Okay. I don't think we have too much
choice here. So, >> another one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> we're getting some feedback uh on >> You know what? What did you just do, Mason? Did you >> I didn't
>> Oh, that was me, Bob. I've got a noisy air conditioner. I'm going to go dial it down. >> Oh. Oh. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mick. Thank you, Mary. Anything else? >> No, I No, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mary. Uh, well, I'll skip over Mick. Frank, any questions on
this one? Uh, no, Bob. I I don't have any questions. Thank you. >> Okay. I don't have any questions. I'll wait for Mick to pop back just to see if he has any. >> Mason, any raised hands from the public at this time.
>> Seeing none. And I Yeah, I just rechecked the order of conditions, even the plan reference on there. It it just says the um the engineering firm or the the person who made the plans. It doesn't give any detail on, you know, project details on on what was
built or removed or reconstructed. >> Okay. >> Hey, Mick. Any any questions on the certificate? >> No. No, I have none. Thank you. Okay. No raised hands from the public at this time, Mason.
>> Seeing none. >> Okay. Any members have a request for a site visit or any additional information? >> Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 16 Harvard Way.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Aaron. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. Mick, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's vote. Yes. I don't see
Woody or anyone else. Tell me, Mason, let me know if anyone else pops in. >> Yep, we'll do >> on the on the commission. All right. Next matter is another certificate of compliance. This is D file number 050725 80 Green Street. The applicant is submitting a request for a certificate
of compliance to close out an old order of conditions that was issued to construct a new single family home on a lot within a with a wetland crossing. Mason, can you give us an overview and a recommendation on on this application?
>> Yep. Um, so this is another one where I had nothing on file. Um, luckily the applicant was able to provide the order of conditions um, and actually had a recollection of the work that was done um, as they bought the house. So, I think this work was finished up just
prior um, to the sale when they bought it um, which I think was around 2004. Um, but from the conversation with the applicant um, it was uh, construction of a single family house in a buffer zone. Um, and at the entrance of their driveway there was a required wetland
crossing. We don't have any approved plans to show the size of the crossing. Um, but the applicant was able to walk me down to that area. Uh, we checked it out. He was able to point out at least a half a dozen trees that had been planted for mitigation purposes. Um, and I was
able to get some eyes on the culvert as well. Um, and that's that's been maintained. Um, I was able to see daylight right through it. So, I didn't I didn't see any issues with that not functioning. Um, and I have some pictures as well that I can share for this one if the board would like.
>> Yeah, that'd be great. The photos are not populating in here. Let me see if I can get them back up. Uh, yeah, here they are. So, they're not in the album, but I can share these. So, this is part of the restoration area
here. Uh, this is standing from the entrance of the driveway. Um, and it goes back to where the lot was developed. This is the covert that was in here that seemed like nothing was blocking it. And you can see some of the
trees that I believe were planted here as well. This is the driveway. And that was their replication area just right of the driveway where the applicant had explained that they put in uh about a half a dozen trees and I think some uh blueberries as well.
>> Okay. Uh questions from the members. Mary, any questions on this? Kind of in the same boat as the last one with lack of >> Yeah. Well, there were more specific conditions. I still getting feedback. I don't know if it's in land or not. Um
>> Mick. Yeah. You know what, Mick? For some reason, it's coming from you. >> I don't know if you've uh >> sometimes if you log in twice. >> Yeah. >> Um but the
uh the order of conditions says that the certificate of compliance should be accompanied by a written statement from a registered professional engineer. And so we don't have that. This is the problem when they these conditions or these orders are just allowed to elapse with no
followup. So this 2004 I don't know how practical it is for you know this amount of time to reconstruct or even if the the plans are available to know at all what what was proposed at this point.
Is that correct? We don't have 2004 plans available. I I don't know. I didn't even have this file. I got the order of conditions from the applicant with their with their COC request. >> Okay. I I guess I just because there was
wetland filling and supplication, I would kind of like to take a look at this one if there's not an urgency to act tonight. But that's just my thought. Mason, is there is there a closing or a financial issue that you know of in this that
>> No, they they're not on a time constraint. Um, and I didn't know I can share the page where they reference the engineer. I don't know if anyone has an idea if these people are still around and we can try and redo to them. Um, but that's
going to be, >> you know, you know what's happening is the title examiners on previous transactions were pretty lax. they they didn't put a lot of weight on open orders of conditions and now every time you go to a bank now I guess
there was some case law or there was title insurance get stuck with it that uh they're cleaning up on other stuff every time now after the fact which you would have think when you would have thought when these people bought the house that their closing attorney would
have you know cleaned up any open matters like this but yeah But Ryan Bua, Chris Kajeski, they they they were with um Apple Associates who used to be in Pearson Plaza. They're no longer there. >> Yeah. And then I think the third name is
the original property owner. >> Right. >> Mary, why don't I do this? Let me see if there's any other questions. I'll circle back and then if you want if you feel you want to take a site visit it, >> you know, it's certainly your prerogative. Mick, any any questions on
this one? Uh, no questions from me, Bob. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you, Mick. Frank, any questions uh for you from on this project? >> No, thank you. >> So, Mason, were there any bare spots in the wetland
replication area? I mean, >> many times, mother nature takes care of Oh, you know what? Woody is uh >> Yeah, I just admitted him. uh when I was on site I it you know if he didn't let me know that the replication area was where it was I I wouldn't have been able
to tell it it's just been so long at this point. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> There was a condition that that um you know the replication be done first somewhere in this uh order. So presumably Doug Packer who's the agent at the time would have been on top of
that. So yeah >> I presume that would have been done correctly. I guess we have to trust that was the case. >> Yeah. But I mean I I guess at this point is mother nature taking care of any replication itself just by
>> it was graded properly to begin with? Yep. >> Yeah. Lack of disturbance after the fact. >> Uh is Woody, are you on the call? I know you were just let in, but >> Okay. Uh are there any raised hands from
the public at this time? Mason >> seeing none. >> Okay. Do any members have requests for a site visitor additional ghost information? >> We need a Ouija board sometimes to get some of the information.
Okay. Is is Woody on the call? I don't want to just I can't really see. Oh, there he is. Hi Bob. Sorry, I am having technical difficulties here. >> Yeah. Know, so Woody, we're on uh we're on the second set of a certificate of
compliance for AD Green Street. We just went through it. uh the like the first one this is approximately 20 years old and we do not have any records uh other than what was we don't have any plans or records and there was
a discussion whether or not a site visit may be may be warranted. >> Mason um why don't you just give give Woody his a quick recap on that and then we can >> Yep. Yeah. So Woody, we didn't have a file here at the town hall. Uh I was
able to find this order conditions from the applicant who provided that with their COC request. Um from conversations with him, it sounds like it was a order from the previous owner um that he had taken on uh through the transfer of the
lot and the house. Um it was a residential single family home within the buffer zone and they had a wetland crossing where they proposed wetland impacts uh and were required to do some replication planting. The we don't have a plan set here. Um and Mary had pointed
out that the engineers identified on this are with a firm that no longer exists. Um, in addition to that, the applicant, while I was on site with him, was able to point out some of the plants that they had put in, including blueberries, and I I think it was about a half a dozen trees that he was able to
point out, um, just from his memory. Um, outside of that, I didn't see any disturbance, and it didn't look like the um the pipe that ran underneath the road uh was clogged or or causing any backups or disturbance. >> Okay. Thank you, Mason. and I'm familiar with
the property. So, thank you. >> Okay. Any any other questions? Mary, do you have any any other thoughts? Are you all set? >> I don't have any. >> Okay. All right. Mason, there's no raised hands from the public at this time. >> Seeing none. >> Okay. Uh,
let me go over this again. Do any members have requests for a site visit or additional information? >> Nope. >> I will entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 80 Green Street. So moved.
>> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Me? >> I. >> Frank, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor is votes yes. All right.
Okay. Uh, next matter is a continued public hearing. D file number 0501459. Newbury Town Beach project. The town of Newubri is submitting a notice of intent for the removal of debris in the reestablishment of existing beach access
ways. Mason, can you give us an overview on this and a recommendation? >> Yeah, so I think the last time this was discussed with the board, um, we had discussed including the MOI mats that were already installed south of the island. So those were included. Um and we are waiting on our determination
letter from Natural Heritage. Um so the additional mats have been included in the narrative and project plan and we have our determination letter now. Um so I think that's it for updates, but I will uh pass it to Evan and see if she
has anything to add. >> Vener of D Rose Environmental. Um, just to add on to what Mason had explained, we also included um the transplanting of some beach grass vegetation should the MOI maps cross
over um some of the the natural beach grass vegetation within those locations of the accessways. I think at the last meeting the commission had asked if we if the town was willing to do some um restoration plantings. Um so I will
share my screen. I can show you the updated plan. >> Got to give you permission. One second. >> Should be good to go. >> Thanks N. All right. So, um we highlighted areas where there was some vegetation shown on
the aerial maps that may um be impacted by the placement of the mobility mat. So, we added these construction notes and means and methods um to the site plan. Um, so the vegetation protection and transplanting now says prior to MOI
mat installation, the town will identify any areas of vegetation that may be temporarily disturbed. If vegetation is identified within the installation footprint, it will be carefully translated to suitable adjacent bare areas on town own land. Um, and that was a condition also
referenced in the natural heritage um letter. And then we also added this um beach preparation and MOI mat installation note to the plan at um at the last meeting. If the commission remembers there was some talk about um
beach nourishment and raking um in the event that sand is pushed around and that it creates uneven paths. Um so we added this plan or this note to the plan um which allows for um raking of
existing sand, no excavation um but just just enough to provide safe and stable access for for pedestrians. Um and that will just be done by the the machinery that's going to help install the the mobility maps.
Um at the last meeting also which was quite a while ago. So um just to refresh the commission's um memory, one of the abutters had joined and requested some signage um to be installed at the entrance of
the mats specifically to try to um promote uh leashed dogs, I guess. Um, so we have we have included signage at the entrance of all these
access ways um to remind pedestrians to have dogs on leash to not trample the dunes vegetation and to like remain on the path. So those are the main updates. Um I can also show you the
letter of no take with conditions from natural heritage. Um and they had requested four conditions to be included in the order um which is the time of year restriction. Um April 1 to August 34
31st um is breeding h um breeding time of year for shorebirds. Um we have the beach grass transplanting note which I discussed earlier. Authorization dur uh duration saying that this letter is issued for five
years. Um and then wetlands protection act notice. And we did include a shorebird protection plan um in this order too if the commission wishes to reference this in in the
order. and that will be followed um if activities are to take place during the bing season. But that's pretty much it um for updates. Happy to answer any questions
the commission might have. >> I'm just curious, is the leash law now part of our wetland protection bylaw or is it uh >> is what? Well, it it just seems strange that we're putting notations about a leashed
leashed dogs in an order of conditions. That's all. >> Not that it's not a good idea, but it's >> I think it's just um that signage was requested. It's not an enforcable condition in the order. Um it's just a
friendly reminder to to pedestrians. >> So, it's a suggestion. >> Okay. Unless you choose to add it to your bylaws. Yes. >> Okay. Uh questions. Mary, questions for Evan or
for Mason on this? >> Um yeah, I have a good question. So Evan, is the shorebird protection plan approved now from by natural heritage or is that just proposed? >> This is just proposed at this time. Um I think in the next coming week or the
week after we're meeting with um members of the senior biology team at Natural Heritage to finalize and and approve the plan. >> Okay. And do and we've identified Mass Audabon but not a specific person at Mass Audabon to be the Shoreberg
monitor. Is that correct? >> At this time we've identified Mass Audabon. may have been retained by the town for the shorebird monitoring. Not specifically for this project, I don't believe yet. Mason, is that correct? I think we're working with the town, I
mean with Natural Heritage to somehow um have Mason be the the shorebird monitor. >> Yeah, Mary, the town made a request uh that for the install of the match during nesting season that the agent
act as the monitor. Okay. >> Where it's so limited that there's been a a discussion on that. I know they were Mason had received an email today regarding an update on that and >> again I don't think it's been approved but I think it's heading heading in a
positive direction but >> okay >> we're not going to be able to take final action on this tonight anyway until they resolve that and um you know approve your proposed you know bird monitoring plan. >> Okay. Um,
so and to just um flip back to some of the other comments from Natural Heritage just because it was pretty lengthy letter. They did have had some words about our beach management plan in this and that we were out of compliance with the beach management plan and that
they're looking for us to address that as well. Um, is that anything that's being dealt with now, Evan or Mason? Yeah, it's something that we're going to get started on on trying to get to get the ball rolling on. Uh, one of the big
things right now is trying to figure out our funding sources and whatnot. Uh, bringing a bringing in a consultant for that level of project is fairly expensive. Um, so trying to figure out how we can source that and bring someone on whether that's through a grant or
existing funds with the town. Um, but it is something >> my understanding is that we have a beach management plan that has been approved and they it's just not being complied with what they're >> so it was approved in 2000 2009 and it was never updated, renewed or extended
and that's with both um NHSP and D. >> Okay. Um All right. So that's a guess an issue for a different time. Not they're not linking it to this project. Is that
right? >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And they and in all honesty they they can't link it to this project. I I've been in conversation with Jesse Leic on a number of issues of these MISA letters and where they kind
of exceed their statuto regulatory authority. uh what is a recommendation and what can be a condition. So right >> they're revamping these letters as >> I think it's more D is the bigger issue right I think probably for
>> who mentioned the uh the beach management plan but it's a separate I mean it's a separate issue other than it's a squeeze on the town but >> yeah um >> in this letter in this letter that we're looking at but scrolled up they mentioned um >> okay
>> it's kind of scolding terms um >> well what they there It's an ask, not a must because they can't make it a must. >> Not not having to do with MISA but the the beach management plan. I think they can if we're doing activities on the
beach during those those time of year restrictions. So >> yeah, I mean they >> I have I'll just get back to the movie Matt questions. If you can just um >> remind me Evan, what is the width of the mats? four feet or five.
>> The width varies um per the location. So I have the dimensions for all of them on the site plan. So it's varied from 3 feet wide to 5t wide. >> Okay. Are these intended to provide
access for emergency vehicles in any way? >> These are really accessibility, isn't it? the grant regard is for pedestrians. But >> is there any scenario in which a
vehicles would be using these mats? >> I know. >> I mean, from a practical standpoint, Mary, they'd come through center island because with all the sand in the beach, there's no groins interrupting access. >> Yeah. >> From the center island parking lot to go north or to go south.
>> Okay. So we can we could condition it in that way that it not be used for vehicle >> vehicles. >> Yeah. I mean they're not they're not wide enough to for just to clarify. And also um there was a note on your plan about grading and
raking. Um and I just wanted to review the language on that a little bit more because there is we we can't change the beach form or dune form as part of this project. you know, we need to work with what's there to certain extent except for for evening it out enough to
be able to actually put the roll the mats out. So, I just wanted to see where you said equipment may be may also be used to rake and regrade existing stand as needed to provide a stable and safe access surface. No excavation below existing grade is proposed.
So, you would not be grading anything technically on on the beach itself. It's It probably doesn't even lay the mats right on the beach itself. It's just where the dune is kind of um blown out a little bit. >> Correct. >> Yeah, it's the incline. It's just the
incline of the >> There was some discussion about, you know, pushing in the in the supplemental material that the that the skid sier would push material up from the beach onto the onto the dune. And I don't think we want to be doing that at all. Um >> what did it where did it say that, Mary? I didn't see that
>> in the in um >> the narrative part. >> Yes, your narrative, your supplemental narrative. >> It would come from an upland would be an upland source, not not coming out. >> They're not introducing any um material.
>> No, we're not introducing material >> accumulation of sand. >> It says they want to include raking of existing beach sand including needed to provide safe access to blah blah blah blah. It's not proposed to bring in any sand or or remove any sand from the
beach. So, I just wanted to be clear that it's not we're not going to be pu pushing sand up from the beach onto these areas where the mats are going to go. Okay. >> No. And and you guys can condition that if you want to explicitly say that in the in the order, too.
>> Okay. Just wanted to make that clear. Okay. >> That's all I have for now. Thanks, bud. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mary. Woody, any any questions? Mason, >> I'll just make the comment uh on the signage. Uh we don't have a leash law in
town, but um suggested leashes of dogs and people because they both can wander off. But >> yeah, so some some I don't know how you word it, but some sort of wording for the people as well because >> stick to the path. That's all.
>> Yeah. And other otherwise I don't have any any other comments. >> Thank you Eddie. Mick any any any questions or comments? Uh just I just noticed the term uh that there were seasonal mats and is there a schedule to
rem you know what is the schedule to remove the mats and uh is machinery going to be used for the mat removal if that's going to be done at the end of the season and I think we need to condition that in the same way we condition the installation
um like on your plan it's well marked um or it's well shown on a plan uh where these work areas are. So are those delineations on your plan are they limit of work area as well? >> Yes.
>> Limit of work. >> Okay. So what's the method in which you'll mark that? Um so that you know a skid steer operator knows where he can and cannot go. M >> I mean Mick from a practical standpoint
because I've just seen these be installed probably the last decade or two picture it's it's a carpet runner that gets >> started top rolls out and then it gets rolled up and carried off. It it doesn't weigh hundreds of pounds. It's
it picture like I say a 4ft carpet runner but it it's more of a of a scotch gad type of material. So sand and moisture will pass through it. Blowing away is more likely than
than needing a machine to to take it in and out. I think the machine would be the only time would be restoring some of the rightways to a to a decent you know well whatever. >> Okay. Well, that's helpful. Thank you.
>> Okay, Frank, any any questions on this one? >> No, thank you. And I don't have any questions. Uh Mason, do you have any other questions? Do you have anything you want to add? >> Uh no. I I would just say I think you're
right. I think that you know in from DPW's eyes, we're not going to be bringing machines on the beach unless we absolutely need to. So rolling them out um you know from the roadside is is definitely going to be easiest. And then I would think, you know, the only time we do need to bring uh machinery would
would be to, you know, establish the paths before they they actually get rolled and and laid out. Okay. >> Um, and then the only other thing I would add is I I talked to Amy with Natural Heritage earlier. Um, it's up to the board, but I believe since the determination
uh, yeah, determination letter was issued um, that if if the board is comfortable with approving tonight, I I think we're allowed to and then it would be um, confirming our shorebird protection plan after the fact. So, >> condition that as a one of the
conditions post approval. Mhm. And that would be prior prior to the start of any work. >> Okay. Are there any raised any other questions from the members? Mary, I don't want to I want to circle back just to make sure you're all set. >> No, I mean I communicated with Mason
late this afternoon about some special conditions on this one. Um >> Okay. I'm just I'm just amazed because we the Blue Hotel had stairs and beach management stuff and and it it just
didn't other than having a monitor during shorebird season seemed to be the only thing and that seemed to work fine with D and with uh with natural heritage. >> Y >> it you know I I guess the point is the
town is trying to be proactive here. They've been doing this for the last hundred years, maintaining rightaways and putting in the mats or private parties have been putting in the mats. It just I would rather make this more accommodating than punitive. Uh
>> yeah, I don't think the blue used a skid steer though. They didn't have equipment that they brought. >> Yeah, but they talked about putting sand over their rocks and stuff like that on their beach management plan. So, but but not mining it off the beach, but working in the upland, which would be the same
situation for trying to maintain a rideway that may have some wind driven sand that's been blown one way or the other. Okay. Mason, are there any raised hands in the public? >> Seeing none. >> Okay. Uh, do any members have a request
for a site visit or additional information or plan amendment at this time? I might go to the beach tomorrow to beat the heat, but otherwise no. >> Okay. Well, don't bring your dog. All right.
>> Okay. Uh, anything else? Does anyone have anything before I entertain a motion to close the public hearing? So I I guess the question is are are we comfortable conditioning the proposed
what was it the the bird management plan Evan? What what's the correct title of that? >> Shorebird protection plan. >> Okay. Shoreb bird protection plan. Are we comfortable conditioning that uh with the approval?
>> Yeah. I I think if we could close the public hearing and talk about the the special conditions separately then >> yeah no lie I mean only if we're just want to make sure we're comfortable just doing that post >> post post >> approval condition it it's just a
question of conditions we yeah >> all right I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing >> so moved >> second >> Woody okay roll call in favor Mary Yes.
>> Woody. >> Yes. >> Mick. >> I >> Frank. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's vote. Yes. All right. So, this is when we would talk about uh special conditions. So Evan, you've
covered that if any of this work is done during nesting season that we have to have a qualified monitor uh approved by by Fish and Wildlife. Is that correct?
>> Correct. And >> and then outside of that period of time, we're not required to have a monitor. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the nesting season is April 1 through >> August 31st. >> Okay.
Okay. All right. So I think we're the shorebird protection uh plan. Uh we can condition that that this we want to entertain approving that would be uh conditioned subject to the approval by
by natural heritage. Hey Mary, what other what other thoughts did you wanna did you want to have? Um I mean it's not on not I mean the plan seems to be heavily not with notations down to >> Yep. >> Yep. Um
>> I mean how repetitive do you want to be? That's the only thing. >> I Yep. I think that it's worth having a couple of conditions that that okay provide >> you know the damage is is in the installation and removal of this mat you know on an annual basis and depending on
how if it's dragged or removed you you have the potential for impacting some vegetation in the process. So, um, and you know, repairing and and replanting of vegetation that's disturbed as part of this, um, replanting vegetation,
transplanting vegetation that's in the path that's already in your notice of intent, but transplanting vegetation that's in the in the footprint of the molly bats to an area that's adjacent to the molly bats, so it's near the work area. Um, and then I don't know if it's
worth, you know, one of the things I I considered as, you know, making a special condition. So, it's very clear that they're intended to provide access for pedestrian use only. Um, and that grading not extend beyond the ends of
the bats. Uh, that no beach scraping or other activities that change beach doom or beach form or volume are permitted. Um, and then the last one was Just because the town needs a reminder that at least 60 days prior to the
expiration of the order of conditions, the applicant applies for an extension or a certificate of compliance and that you can't install the mats without a valid order of conditions. So I think that >> the question to be reminded
>> is it is it now 60 days notice prior to the expiration or is that just giving us a buffer? 30 days, but I'm just trying to give >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, >> we're going to put that on Mason's uh responsibility. >> I mean, Mason,
>> give him a little bit of lead time so that he can get the ball in in motion to get it filed by 30 days prior to the hearing. So, so Mason, what I would suggest is once we approve this and the appeal period has expired, file for an
extension because it'll be more than 60 days beyond and you'd be good for another three. I I'm I'm being humorous tonight for some reason. It's been a long day. Okay. Any anything else that we want to
add? I mean, I think the big thing is is that it's a town project overseen by the conservation agent. If there was anything that exceeded uh this order of conditions, Mason would have to bring it back as a
you know an emergency or whatever. I mean if there was some serious issue or wash out or something like that. >> Yeah. I think I think that it would be worthwhile to have some pre installation photos taken at the beginning of the
year before they're installed at the end of the year after they're pulled out and to so that we can monitor at least for the first few years to make sure that we understand what the impacts are that are associated with these and if they're minor then we don't have we can discontinue that prop. >> Yeah, that's not a bad idea. I think the
big thing is here we're we're going to impact 3 to 5 ft of the rightway cuz people will walk on these where now it can be 12 to 15 ft because people are going wherever they want. So >> yeah, they'll definitely use it in the grass and hopefully will grow in. So
>> So the net benefit I think is heading in the right direction. >> Okay. Anything else Mary? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, Woody, any any comments to you? Any conditions you're thinking of? >> No, I think the pictures are picture
suggestion would help be helpful for the future. >> Okay, Mick, any any questions? >> No, no more questions from you. Thanks, Mom. >> Thank you, Mick. Frank, how about you? Any questions? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, I do not have any uh questions.
Mason, anything else you want to add? >> No, I'm not at this time. I will most likely be out there with DPW when this project starts. So, I'm happy to take some photos and add those to the folder and can give everyone an update um you know as this process goes along as we
get our shortbird protection plan and then as we start to to roll these out uh you know upon final approval. >> I mean of all the order conditions we issue in the town of Newbury, this is the only one where the conservation agent is responsible for its implementation and oversight.
uh which I think uh adds great confidence to this project. All right. I will entertain a motion uh to issue an order conditions for the Newbury Town Beach project with the conditions for mentioned.
>> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Mary. >> Yes. >> Woody. >> Yes. >> Mick. >> Yes. >> Frank. >> Yes. and Bob Connors. Okay, thank you
Evan. Okay, next matter is D found number 0501464 54 Cottage Road. The applicant has submitted a notice of intent to propose the replacement of existing single family home within the riverfront area
and construction of an elevated dock. Mason, can you give us an overview? This is Tom's project as I recall. >> Yep, this is Tom's project. This was brought to us at a previous meeting. Uh we did not have a file number yet. Now we have a file number and I believe we have technical comments. Um at our
previous meeting Tom had addressed uh some comments from some of Butters and was planning on uh meeting with the abutters on site to discuss some of those matters. Um in addition I had received additional comments, questions and concerns from the abutters that I added to the folder this afternoon when
I received them. Um, so if the board would like to review those or have the applicant address those either tonight or at a future meeting, uh, that would be good. Uh, >> you mentioned they were I when I looked this up today, are the technical comments now on on the portal?
>> Let me Okay, I didn't see any when I looked it up. >> Yeah, none right now. U, but we do have a file number. It's file number 0501464. Um, >> yep. >> Yeah. And I think outside of addressing
those questions and stuff, it's pretty standard for uh the board to schedule a sitewalk for new notice of intent. So, I would suggest a uh sitewalk. And that would be it for my recommendation for now. Um, and I would pass it to Tom to answer any questions that the commission
may have. >> All right, Tom, welcome. Just give us your name and your your position. And Tom, we're going to ask you to limit your presentation to 10 minutes because you were able to give us a good overview if possible. >> Yeah, sure. >> And then we go into questions which
probably we'll we'll spend some time on. >> Yeah. So, Tom Hughes with Hughes Environmental Consulting. Um, a couple points I do want to um clarify. I didn't get into great detail because of the amount of time uh last time, but the uh
the area that we define as degraded uh for the context of the riverfront regulations is based on structures and uh alterations that meet certain criteria that existed prior to I think it's a date in August of 1996. So the
way we typically do that is we look at the site when things look like they've got that kind of age. We then look to verify them on prior aerial photographs as a black and white series which is typically the one we turn to which was taken I think in 95. Um but on sites
with a canopy it's sometimes tough to see things but we definitely can see the the sort of garage out building. We can see this building and then all of the other things that we counted like there's a sort of an attached shed or or right up adjacent to the building a
shed. There's some uh landscape features that definitely look like original equipment. So, you know, some of the little tiny bits we have to use a little bit of informed judgment because we don't have ground photos, but we're able to verify those things um that they're
not new since uh that date 96. Um the in my narrative, I did actually mistakenly refer to the pool and the patio as meeting an exemption. the um and I have to update that part of the
the narrative. The uh the numbers still work on running uh a new pass, but I'm going to update those for you guys. um with the hybrid approach which is the degraded area plus 10% and I gave a
reference in my narrative to a administrative case and that's an approach that D has allowed uh and actually uh used itself on a number of projects. Um we do meet the numbers by
about 40 square ft, but I'm just going to verify that uh before the next hearing. The worst case is if if we're off when I update that narrative, we may have to expand our planting area at a 2 to one basis for any overage we are over those numbers. Um
so, uh with that said, we um we did meet with the neighbors on site. Uh we met uh first with a neighbor who is kind of across the street. Uh and his primary concern was the view. We took a look at
his view and it's actually a view that relies on seeing under the canopy of the trees. And uh and I'm gonna if it's okay with you share screen uh and I'll walk you through kind of the changes that
we're looking to make. So you should be able to see my screen now. I'm just going to flip past all these things. So So the neighbor that we met with is first uh it's John Proto uh Papus I believe is
is the name. He's he's across uh this sort of shared drive that accesses the property and his view is through the understory over the septic system kind of in a a little bit of a wedge
and he sees under the canopy of these trees and it's mostly lawn under there and there's a break in the shrubs along the share drive that he sees through. Uh, our plan in the flood plane alone
has a couple saplings right out here. We looked at them in relation to the septic and they just weren't a good idea anyway. They're out of the riverfront. So, we're not going to do those. But, we are looking to increase the size of the saplings we'd be planting closer to the
river so that the planted canopy is high enough off the ground. We estimate about 6 ft is what he's looking at under right now. also will make sure the bottom of the canopy on the saplings that go in is 6 feet or taller so that we preserve
that ability to look under uh and see the river. Um and uh and then we're also going to look at the shrub placement that was in that area and some of the species. We have some 7ish foot tall shrubs. We're going to try to just adjust the heights
keeping with good native plants for that area and address location slightly in order to to try to have the least negative impact on uh on that neighbor's view. We can still meet all the requirements of having a good native
restoration area by just adjusting our plantings a little bit. The other thing we did is we confirmed the the species of the tree that's kind of right in this area that had been identified preliminarily by the landscape uh
designer uh during the winter. And uh it turns out it is a Norway maple. So we're actually going to add that as a removal and add in another tree as a replacement again with a a higher canopy to start with. So rather than doing like a 1 in DBH tree, we're probably more in a 2-in
uh looking for something where it comes out of the nursery uh more mature than than you might normally see. So we can get the canopy to start a little bit higher up. And then with the neighbors um on this side, their concern was about the
proximity of the pro proposed project to their property line. And I described to the commission at the last meeting how you know our ability to uh maneuver is somewhat limited because of the ACC and
the septic location. We are actually looking at something to try to make their uh their situation a little bit uh better. the ultimately their concerns are not environmental in nature. They're
more sort of zoning related in nature. Um but their concern is about the wall next to the pool in this area. And we are 15 ft off the septic but 10 ft off the septic tank in this area. And
we didn't slide this any further over because we didn't want to cross the ACC line here. Keeping in mind that we're removing a significant existing building within the ACE in almost in its entirety.
If we are able to slide this over about 4 ft, we think we can do that and still maintain the offset to the septic. Um, but we may cross the ACC line just a
little bit where it runs up into the site more. So, we think we're at about maybe 12 square feet if we do that. I still think I can make the regulatory case that we're vastly improving the function of the ACC and I just wanted to
get some feedback from the commission before we go through um you know, even though it sounds like a small change, it's a significant effort to try to relocate the building, re touch up the grades, update the landscape plan. And I
mean a lot of things have to happen to to shift the design. Uh you know obviously we're trying to not have any impact that's that's adverse at all in ACC but we are starting with an existing condition which is a home that
is you know dead center in it. Um so that's that's the other thing. Now, we also met with the neighbor on the other side, and he was just um pretty pleased with the fact that this this property was going to be uh
redeveloped. Uh so, with that, I mean, I think we we're doing our best to try to be accommodating to neighbor concerns. neither view nor uh offset to property lines are are part of the commission
review, but uh the the owner does want to try to be a good neighbor to the extent he can. Um but obviously we've got to race to make some plan changes before your next meeting uh if if we are going to uh to
do that. And then with that said, I guess what I'd like to do is get feedback, answer any questions the commission may have and uh set up the site visit and then uh ultimately we would look to continue that to your next meeting. The other
thing I think Mason mentioned, but we do have our natural heritage letter and it's a no take, no adverse uh effect letter. So it's a clean letter with no I don't think they even suggest any conditions. >> Okay. So Tom, why don't we do this? Why don't I hold you there and open it up to
the members and then obviously their butters can come back in when we open it up to the public if they have questions but >> sure >> you'll get feedback on the resource from from the members. So >> okay >> Mr. Chairman if I can one other thing I forgot to mention
>> they also the neighbors on the on the far side there uh at 52 also expressed concern because the new garage is proposed to be two stories. So we that did get the design team looking at possibly trying to make that one story out of the riverfront still within the
flood plane. It means a bigger footprint, but we think we may be able to do that at single story. So we're we're taking a hard look at that as well. >> Okay. Thank you, Tom. All right, questions from the members. Mary, why don't we start with you?
>> Thanks, Bob. Um, just I I would like to do a site visit. So I think >> certainly >> a good idea and that there's a lot going on in the site. Um can where's the um float storage or the you know the seasonal
dock stoages on this site. >> So not not in the uh salt marsh as is sort of common practice in this >> photos that you submitted that there there were some in the salt marsh. Yeah, they were not actually from this site
with the currents in the river. They were from >> uh a neighbor who was facing a a challenging current. Um >> Okay. >> So, um but typically, uh you know, these for a new dock, and this even though it's a
replacement of an old dock, it's a new dock. Uh the floats would be stored either offsite or in the upland, you know, and and we really don't have a good place to store them without taking up significant parking area. >> You're going to be on site or it then
maybe identify a location on the property and if not then we'll just assume it's going to be offsite. >> Yeah, I mean I could say it would be outside of the uh certainly outside of the inner riparian and we can >> you Yeah, think about that if there's a
location on site. Also, do you have your um your marine fisheries letter? >> Um I have not seen something from marine fisheries, but we did get the natural heritage um on a similar >> you know on similar things. We
>> we do meet all the sort of elevation above substrate and all that kind of thing they typically comment on. So I think we'll be >> y >> good with that. As far as your um little minor little work in the ACC, I don't think that there's anything the regulations that would prohibit it or
anything. So, you're it I agree trying to keep it out of the ACC boundaries as much as possible is a good idea, but it's not a prohibition. So, it's not going to trigger your need by review because it's a single family house. So, I think, you know, that might
be something that would be acceptable in in my opinion anyway. Um, and then I do want to see the updated numbers because this is a riverfront area project and it's a little bit of the members that you don't see a lot of these projects. You know, there's there are thresholds
you have to keep your redevelopment in within. And he needs to hit certain numbers of total area of impact um versus mitigation. And how you quantify areas that are red are you that you're redeveloping that are previously
degraded versus new um impacts on areas that are not degraded. And there's a whole formula for that. So, we don't have to go into tonight, but um sounds like Tom needs to update his his numbers for us anyway. So, we'll be looking forward to getting that. And those are all my comments.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mary Woody. Questions for Tom on this project. >> Um, thanks for the presentation. And I don't have any questions for Tom. I think a sitewalker will be very helpful in getting eyes on the site and where things will be would be helpful for me.
Thank you, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Woody. Mick, questions uh for Tom Hughes on this project. >> Yeah, Tom, I apologize if I missed it, but what was the uh objective for shifting the construction in that 4T
westerly direction? >> So, it's um it's at the neighbor and in the on the plan, you can just see the very corner of their house, >> okay? the the the property line and the it's the offset to the property line
of the building and the uh about at the tallest I think it's about 3 and 1/2 ft tall wall that runs around the pool and the patio up in there. We do have on our landscape plan uh we do have red cedar going in that
area to to create a buffer. But uh in their comments I think sent in today I I barely had time to read them but I think they were stressing their desire for this to to shift. Um and you know they are they're you know when you look
at at the constraints we're under and and while the ACE like there's not a section of the regs on ACEC but ACEC does say if you're doing anything in wetland protection act in the ACE you can't adversely affect
the functions and values for which it's been listed as an ACE and uh generally D always tries to get you as far out of it as as possible. So, we're, you know, I do think I can still make a case that we're certainly not adversely affecting
if we're only going in 12 or 14 square ft versus what we are now. Um, but we have a septic system here. There's a mandatory offset to a septic system. And my experience has been that if we were replacing the septic, they might let us
get closer to a garage if that was our only place to do it. Um but certainly not much closer. But where we're putting a structure, they're going to hold us to 10 ft at the board of health off that. We're at 15 because of the location and
grades associated with the septic, but the engineer the tank, but the the engineer looked at it and said he could slide the tank over a little bit and he thinks he could make 5 ft work. But then the reason he hadn't pushed the engineering on that was because the the
goal that we had talked about as a team was getting entirely out of the ACC and sliding this ends up bumping over that line. So, you know, we're up against the AC pushes us out as does the riverfront regs
generally try to push you further out. And if I use the hybrid approach, degraded lets me stay closer to the riverfront, but the hybrid approach makes me also respect the 10584 requiring to be as far from the riverfront as possible. So we kind of
have to slide back from the river out of the ACC and over from the um septic. So it forces us to be in this general pocket, but we might be able to wiggle it and create a little bit more room. And if we move it 5 ft or
4 feet even, that almost doubles that separation to the property line, I think would be a meaningful improvement for that neighbor. >> So we do want to give it a good shot at trying to do that. >> So I mean Tom, the the the effort is to accommodate the neighbor more more so
than anything. Okay. >> Yeah. But I don't want to go to all that and then come back in and have you guys kill it for crossing the ACC line. So >> Nick, any anything else? >> No, thank you. I appreciate it.
>> Okay. Uh Frank, any questions? >> It sounds to me like uh it's all due respect to the neighbor. Our responsibility is protect the wetland and the ACC.
>> So unless it can be done in a way that doesn't violate that, I don't understand why we would do it. >> So in in order to um I guess to make the
case the the regulations as Mary touched on it doesn't say that you can't put something in the ACC and the commission has in fact in some cases permitted structures in the ACEC um but you have to
not adversely affect the functions for which the ACC was listed and since the comparison is to existing condition and we have an existing house within the ACE the commission does have the flexib ibility to allow
some house to go back in or some structure to go back into the ACE to replace what's already there. If I didn't have anything there, it would be a much harder argument to say that I could put this within the ACE. Um, but I
do think this is something where the commission does have the discretion to do it and doesn't necessarily have the obligation to maximize the benefit to the ACC. Um, but it's a good goal. Um, so I do think we can meet the regulatory
standard while accommodating a little bit of that neighbor's concern. >> Okay, it's my only question. >> Okay, good question, Frank. Anything else? All right, so I'm gonna circle back. Mary, any
follow-up questions to you before I open this up to the >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> Okay, Mason, do we have any raised hands? I I did see um John Kilman. >> Yep. >> Yep. I think we have just them. All I
see right now. >> Okay. Hey, John, welcome. Just give us your name and address and, you know, ask away your questions to Tom. You're you're on mute if you're There you go.
>> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can, John. >> Yeah, thanks very much. Um, uh, Tom, thanks very much also, um, in in trying to see what you can do about making some effort there. And I understand everybody's concern about, uh, protecting the ACC line and all that it
encompasses and and such. And, uh, but I think it's it comes down to this is probably, and I can only make an assumption right now, a house that has been designed and we're trying to fit it within the confines of the property. relative to the ACC line. Um I mean if
you can't move it, I guess the other option would be potentially is to um I don't know if it could be resized or something of that nature, you know, redesigned. I know I know Tom, you mentioned that that would be something that would cost a lot of money and things like that. Um, but when things are only four feet from my property and
my house is only 10 feet beyond my property line, things like that, and you have a house that's going to be 28 feet, it's going to be pretty encompassing, pretty encroaching, you know, in my area. My property is only half the size of this one, the width, only half the
width. And the current property, the current dwelling that's on it right now, um, is significantly further away from our property line. and this new house is going to be closer to it only because of its size. It's really what it comes down to. So, uh I I I like if this if if we
can move it over that four feet, um it pretty much doubles things, that's great. Um I think that's super if we can do that. And if it's uh and if it's if we can do that based on the existing condition that's there today and do that easily enough, I think that would be
fabulous. >> All right. Thank you, John. So, so John, you're you're supportive if they can if if they can relocate, push this four feet, uh that that's that's your your your greatest concern. You you you
touched upon we're really the resource area is is our jurisdiction and and not on anything else. But it sounds like >> his own, right? >> Yeah. But but it it sounds like talking to Mary who's really our commission expert and Tom uh that this seems
there'll be a viable pathway forward depending on the total impact. But I think at at the site visit that may be enlightening for a lot of us and and alleviate some some concerns too. >> Yeah. If you folks can take a closer look at that during the site visit that
would be great. Now are could we be invited to the site visit as well? Well, it'll be public. You'll we'll announce when it's going to be. Uh it's up to the current property on the whether it can go on their property. Kind of sounds like if you stand on the edge of your property, you're
you could be sipping coffee from your own deck and probably see the same stuff stuff we're going to see in the yard. >> Well, someone jumps in the pool, we certainly could get wet. So, >> yeah, that will happen. >> Anything else, guys? We will do a site visit and you'll you'll know when it's
going to be there. So you can uh listen. >> We appreciate that. >> Thank you, >> Mason. Are there any other any other hands? Uh >> uh I'm not seeing any at this point. >> Okay. Any do any of the members have any further questions for Tom? Obviously,
we're going to do a site visit. Um any additional information, Mary, that you're looking for? You mentioned you wanted the uh the table on threshold versus mitigation and degraded numbers, you know, just to update that >> uh the letter the comment letter from
marine fisheries. >> Yeah. And identify the dock storage area that's going to be on site. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Tom, do you anything else you want to discuss? No, I mean I
>> I think so the site visit and one thing you know Mary I'm I'm sure you've seen it but the uh the last page does have a bunch of tables including degraded and and how much of the re degraded areas being redeveloped and how much is not and so so the basis for all
the numbers is there but I'll be trying to package that all together um you know and and go through my narrative and fix it was my backup regulatory argument I think that needs the most clean up. The other numbers do seem to
work by about 40 square ft. But I'm going to run the math again and make sure that's clear because on a project like this, it's one of the more uh complicated regulatory analysis under the Wetland Protection Act. Um the other thing is if Marine Fishery sends a
letter, they have a habit of sometimes only sending it to the conservation agent. So, if uh Mason gets it, if you can just make sure to forward it to me. >> Yep. >> Um that would be great. >> All right. So, we're going to So, a site
visit. Just getting out my calendar. Uh Memorial Day weekend's coming up. I mean, the earliest would seem to be Tuesday the 26th, which would be the Tuesday of a week from today. I just throw that out there as a
starting point. or what's your pleasure? >> It would be helpful to have some of the building corners staked out. Um, and so I don't know, Tom, you might need some time to do that. >> I think we can get that done pretty quickly. Um,
>> depending on the day you guys are looking at. >> I'm available on Tuesday morning the 26th if that's what you would like to do. >> Yeah, I mean certainly by Tuesday we can do it. >> Okay. So, you'll have time. Okay. How does that work, Frank? Or
>> that works for me, Bob. >> Mick, does that work for you? >> So, Tuesday the 26th? >> Yes, it' be Tuesday, May 26th. >> And I'm assuming a morning. >> Yeah, it' be 8:00, I think, is the is is
usually the performal we like. >> Yeah, I would have to probably leave by 8:30. Uh, but that would be I can be there for that at 8:00 for an 8:30 for I just have to leave by 8. >> Uh, excuse me, 8:30. So,
>> okay. >> All right. So, Tom, why don't we do this? Uh, if your request will continue this public hearing to June 2nd and we'll schedule a site meeting for May 26th at 8:00. >> Yeah, that would be great. Um, and and
we're going to really race to get these plan updates in and ready to submit. And I'll probably hold off the final stamping of the plans till after the site visit just in case we need to make any last minute tweaks >> uh and try to get everything into you
final for that June meeting. >> Okay. All right. Uh, do any members have a request for a site visit? The answer is yes. Additional information, Tom, we've given you that. There may be a few more items after the site visit. Uh Tom,
uh are you going to request a continuence to June 2nd? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. I'll let detain a motion to continue the public hearing to June 2nd at the applicant's request. >> So moved. Second. >> Thank you, Woody. Hey, roll call. All in
favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick, >> I. >> Frank, >> yes. and Bob Connors. Okay. Thank you, David. David, Tom, >> thank you. Take care. >> Okay. Okay. Next matter is a continued
public hearing. Let me just make sure here. D found number 0501460 45 Boston Road. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent to expand existing boardwalk systems within or within
proximity to bordering vegetated wetlands. Based on what's going on here, is this being continued? >> It it is. We're still waiting on the infield delineation. Uh so I can go out and confirm that. Um so then they can also uh quantify their impacts within
the resource areas. Um so just waiting on that and then uh they'll be ready to come back to It's been done because I I walk back there all the time and the flags are up. >> Oh, good to know. Well, I will follow up and reach out with Ned then and I can uh confirm that.
>> Okay. Well, I'll entertain a motion to continue the public hearing at the applicant's request to our June 2nd uh meeting. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Thank you. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes.
>> Woody? Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Connors. >> All right. Next matter. Continue public hearing. D found 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, what's the status of this? Is this another continuation? Th this is uh Sam Colomo had reached out who's the representative
for Millennium. Um he's anticipating to have supplemental info uh and be ready for the June 2nd meeting. >> Okay. All right. I will entertain a motion to continue the public hearing at the applicant's request to our June 2nd uh
meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Woody. Thank you. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Frank, >> yes.
>> And Bob Connor's vote. Yes. Okay. Next matter. Uh, D file number 05014621 177 Middle Row. The applicant submitting a notice of intent to construct a new single family home and associated work within a buffer zone. Mason, can you
give us an update where we are on this one? >> Yep. Uh so the board did a sitewalk uh last week with Bill Holt and the new property owner. Uh we had some comments for Bill and some minor plan adjustments and notations. Um so he's going to be requesting a continuence tonight to get
the plan ready uh to be shown to us again for the June 2nd meeting. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to continue this public hearing at the applicant's request to our June 2nd meeting. >> So moved. Second. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Woody. Roll call. All in
favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> huh? >> Frank, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's votes, yes. Okay, so six. All right. Uh, next matter is D
file number 0501465, 23 Downfall Road. The Albocin is submitting NRAD to confirm the delineated wetlands on the property. Mesa, what's the story on this one? >> Uh, so they have received a file number. At the last meeting, they didn't have
one. Um, and following our site visit at 177 Middle Road, uh, Frank, Mary, and I were able to go over to review the wetland delineation line. Uh, following this, I had sent some comments over to Ben Osgood, who's the applicant for this project, uh, requesting a few minor
changes. Um, and he had submitted an updated plan with the requested changes. Uh so as of now I have no further recommendations. >> Okay, Ben, welcome. Just give us your your name and your affiliation with this project and just see if we have any questions. Pa
>> Ben Ozgood Ranger Engineering Group or the engineer representing I think it's Applewood Builders. Um as Mason said, we made the changes that he requested. um they they weren't tremendous. So, we
just uh put them on the plan and and resubmitted it. So, >> okay. Well, Ben, why don't you hold there and let me open this up to questions from the members and the public if if anyone has their hands raised. Mary, questions for Ben on this and
>> uh yeah, the delineation looked good to us. We had a couple of minor changes. The only question I had is there's a stream that passes through the property and I wondered if that was looked at to determine whether it could be considered a perennial stream and subject to the
riverfront rigs. See, >> I didn't look at that. Um, we we can look at we can look at it. I it doesn't show up on the uh tobo map, but I didn't run stream stats on it or anything. So, >> yeah, that would be the only thing that
I would suggest. We can either specify that we're not making a determination on any stream uh as part of the ENRAD or if you want to make you want to include that in the ANRAD um you know we can you can hold off to
the next meeting and make our determination then it's up to you. >> I think um June 2nd is the next meeting Ben just to give you a >> Right. I I have two other meetings that
night, so I don't need a third. >> If it's not, you may not need to attend. If it's if it's if it's clearly not shown on not digitized in stream stats at all or it has a butterhed area less than half square mile, then
>> it's it'sly not going to be, but it it's a pretty decent stream. >> Um it doesn't Yeah, it doesn't show up on the >> right. >> You got to pull it. >> Right. You can see there there's a stream across Route 95. There there's no stream at all shown
>> right >> in this area. So >> yeah, >> I think I would be comfortable with if it's specifically stated in the ANRAD that it's just a bordering vegetative wetland line and no determinations made on the screen on the stream. And
obviously we're going to come in when we get once we get the line set, we're going to design, you know, what we the uh home on the property and and we can deal with it. Then we can submit the stream stats. But I looking at this, I don't think there's going to be a stream stats on there.
>> Yep. >> You know, the ability to >> Yep. >> even ask it. So >> Yep. So that would be my recommendation, Bob, is that we we make no determination on whether or not there's a perennial stream on the property and that that
could be addressed as part of any future notice of intent. >> Okay. All right. Mary, any anything else before I move on? >> Nope. >> Okay, Woody, any any questions for Ben on this uh application submitting? >> No, I don't have any questions. Thank
you, Bob. >> Rick, how about you? Any any questions for Ben on this? No, no questions, Bob. Thank you. >> Okay, Frank, how about you? >> No, no questions. Thanks. >> Okay, so Ben, I I guess to follow Mary's
Mary's point, you're not asking for anything other than what I mean, we could consider what you've submitted in its entirety and then you'd have to update it or amend it at some point down the road. Is am I understanding that correctly? Is that kind of the thought?
if it becomes >> he's just asking for a confirmation of bordering vegetated wetland boundary. >> Okay. Y >> okay. All right. I don't have any questions then. Anyone else in the commission have a question before I open this up to the public?
>> Mason, do we have any raised hands from the public at this time? Well, this submitted >> seeing none. >> Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or any additional information or plan amendment at this
time? Okay. Hearing none. Um I will entertain to close the public hearing. >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Okay. Mick Woody. Roll call. All in
favor? Mary. You're on. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mary. Woody. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Woody. Mick. >> Hi. >> Thank you, Frank. >> Yes. >> Okay. And I vote yes.
Okay. Uh what notations, Mary? Do you want to just do you want to make sure that we exclude any reference to that uh the stream or just we're accepting it as is and it doesn't require anything? you know, I think you you do need to specify in the um order of resource area
delineation what what resources you're confirming. So there's a place where you know you can confirm it and then um Mason can add a note that just says um no determination was made about whether or not there may be riverfront
area on the property. >> Okay. Anything else, Mary? >> Nope. >> Okay. Any any other comments or conditions we want to discuss, gents? Okay. I will entertain a motion to uh I guess to issue the to approve
the NRA. Is that the proper >> to issue an order of resource area delineation? No. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> That's Mary and Woody. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? Yes.
>> Mick. >> Hi, >> Frank. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's votes. Yes. Hey, thank you, Ben. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Marin Herald, the most patient woman on the planet. >> Well, that's very kind. Not usually, Mr.
Chairman. >> Yeah. All right. So, next matter is D file number 0501453, 34 Central Street. applicant is submitting a notice of intent for the construction of an MBTA residential
housing development, 34 Central Street. Uh Heidi, can you provide an overview uh where we're at and a recommendation? >> Good evening, everyone. Heidi Gaffne, Northwoods Environmental. Um so this uh
I submitted comments. I know everyone's seen them. the engineer responded as well as um the consultant Moren. Uh there's been some revisions to the plan. The erosion control has been added between the central court um and the
wetland. Central court improvements in the wetland. Uh they have revised the location of the proposed wetland um replication to eliminate an issue with the setback for the pump chamber for the
septic. the uh they are now proposing restoration of 4,118 square feet of uh the boarding vegetative wetland that is lawn and and had been disturbed with the bird coops
and and debris. So they're now proposing restoration. Um the wetland replication is still uh proposed. the a revised replication plan was submitted um today. I'm still
reviewing it and part of that is because my comments were were out late as well um while I was doing some some back work. Um I think the engineer responded to comments
um which was very helpful. Some of the key things I think are important is the so the peerreview engineer I should start with that peerreview engineer did look at the crossing um that had not been part of the review done uh during
the planning board process and the crossing a portion of it does does not meet the storm water standards um and the let's see um the peerreview engineer did
agree with the um design engineers um statement basically that the only option in that situation would be to curb both sides of the access secondary access to prevent the runoff from discharging directly to the
wetlands which is how it um is would happen now as proposed now um would send it into central court but uh it likely is country drainage cuz there doesn't appear to be any catch basins or anything and ultimately end up in the
same system. Anyways, the peerreview engineer Joe Surwaka did appear to agree with that. Um the >> Heidi so Heidi just clarified he agreed that
putting the curbing in was a good thing or that not putting it in was going to wind up the same way whether you put it in or not. on this. Okay. >> Um he agreed that uh it was reasonable to
leave it as designed basically. Um I will find >> that's what I thought you were getting to it. Okay. >> Yeah, I I can find his uh specific comment but um I will see right here. Um uh his his state his exact statement was
the engineer statement appears valid in his professional opinion. Um and he says the report goes on to state that the slope velocities will be below what is permissible as recommended by DP. Uh that so that was that's Joe's
statement about um regarding the valid that the statement from the design engineer is valid. Um so the o one of the key things that is
still outstanding uh is a statement from the peerreview engineer just confirming that the remainder of the project is it complies with the storm water standards. I haven't seen anywhere in the prior it was extensively reviewed during the planning board process. Um but all of
the review engineer comments specific to storm water I I did not see any statement regarding that it was um confirmed. The only statement for that was um the required storm water forms should be submitted demonstrating compliance with the standards. That was
a a statement from Joe Saka and then he acknowledged that the forms have been submitted but no other statements regarding compliance have been provided yet. Um, I wanted to note that I did speak with the DPW director and he has uh stated
he's been with the town 30 or so years and has not experienced any issues or water backups with the 12-in pipe. So, that was good to to know about. Um, some things I think the commission may want to discuss just for for final plan
changes with the applicant would be snow storage. The snow storage areas are pretty small and the snow management basically requires trucking snow off site. Um, and snow storage within
detention basins, bio retention basins is pretty common issue. Snow storage, no snow storage signage and possibly snow storage signage for where they should put it versus where they shouldn't uh may may be beneficial. Uh there's a a
dog area. Um so dog waste stations may be something the commission wants to require. Um they it can be can be helpful. And as far as uh recommendations, I I would
recommend the commission require a statement from the peerreview engineer that the remainder of the um proposal is it does comply with because you know I'm not an engineer, the commission's not an engineers. We we
need that statement um as far as uh just doing the commission's due diligence. Um, and other than that, it's just discussing the snow storage and and dog waste management and those types of items.
Um, a a final plan and when it comes to the crossing, I will touch on that. So, the the commission's >> Heidi, could I just could I just ask one question >> on the going back to Joe's comment on
the storm water? uh he was looking for an updated form and it was submitted. Did what did the form say? I mean did the form say it with >> and is by Christian? >> Yeah. So the forms Yep. The forms are
submitted and stamped by Exactly. by the engineer. >> Okay. >> Uh so they they are and they're extensive. Um so the the forms were submitted and and Joe Saraka acknowledged that they were submitted and they are stamped by the engineer. Um
okay >> typically the peerreview engineer will confirm that everything uh looks good on those forms. uh review the forms basically uh but I didn't see any comments regarding the review of the forms just the acknowledgement that they
were submitted and that's of course the commission's decision that the forms submitted are stamped by an engineer so if that's acceptable that is >> yeah no just it was no just a question that you know what was the status of the forms that's all
>> oh yeah yeah it's just you know I mean they're they're extensive and um >> they are they are stamped there's multiple pages but the review portion of them. You know, there's a there's a checklist to it. Um >> Okay. >> to confirm compliance.
>> So, you you you're recommending that Joe issue a peer review sign off >> on the storm water and just kind of a general sign off on all of the NOI docs that have been submitted. just a just a sign off statement that
the that the the forms that were submitted confirm that the project complies with the storm water standards with the exception of of what has been noted for the crossing. >> Okay. And you're recommending let me
just wanted to make some notes here. Um so snow storage area and signage or a notation to haul snow off site. is bad. >> Their current management plan has very their plan shows very small snow storage areas and their current management plan
in their long-term pollution prevention plan is um or long-term management plan has trucking snow off when it exceeds the storage capacity that's identified on the plans. But the storage capacity on the plans is quite small. Um, and we
all know during snowstorms when you know everyone's plowing and there's no place to put things, they tend to get put in spots they're not supposed to. So it it would be either, you know, typically what I see is signage in front of the
bio retention detention pond, infiltration, whatever you want to call it, seems to be the most beneficial. Um, just to remind anyone, you know, new truck drivers, new plow drivers, things like that. um just to keep it out of there because they really aren't supposed to be putting snow in there.
>> So, you're just recommending signage, no snow dumping in a particular area. >> Yep. And that, you know, that can be conditioned. Um but I wanted to bring it up for discussion with the the applicant and the representative. Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. I just wanted to get some
clarification before I forgot about >> the the storm water forms and and how detailed they were. So continue Heidi if you want or you want to hold there and get questions from the members and then continue. What what's your preference? >> I can I'll just continue with the last
the last bit which is really just regarding the the crossing and the fill. Um so with the the so the regulations under 10.554B the issuing authority commission may
issue an order of conditions permitting work which results in the loss of up to 5,000 ft of boarding vegetative wetland when said area is replaced in the exercise of of this discretion because it is discretionary fill. So it is up to the commission's discretion. The issuing authority shall consider the magnitude
of the alteration, the significance of the project site to the interests identified in the act, the extent to which adverse impacts can be avoided, the extent to which adverse impacts are minimized, and the extent to which mitigation measures including
replication or restoration are provided to contribute to the protection of the interests. So um for that what I want to note is um you know it came up in the last meeting that the planning board decision does uh
appear to state that should the crossing be denied uh planning board would uh approve it at face value it appears to indicate the planning board would approve uh the original single crossing. However, I have confirmed with town
council that um you know that's it's not necessarily a um you know a done deal that way. So the the interpretation of the way it was written uh really is that the planning board conditioned their approval on this second access based on
uh safety concerns under their purview. >> So under the commission's purview, you know, it goes back to what I just read with the loss of up to 5,000 square ft. Um to that end they are proposing it's I believe it's 2400 square f feet. I'd
have to look but it's it's less than half of 5,000. Um and they are proposing to uh replicate and now they are also they have added in to this revised plan um restoration of existing degraded
wetland of uh over 4,000 square ft. So, I just wanted to make those clarifications for the commission so they can see the changes that have been made towards that um that goal if the commission chooses to exercise their discretion. >> Yeah. I mean, just going over
everything, looking at the planning board and then looking all at the communications from the police chief, the fire chief, the traffic consultant. Uh and it was all really probably the catalyst for the second for the crossing. Correct.
>> I guess my question is what weight can we put on the p public safety act uh you know avenue of this within our discretion? I mean we we have a fair amount of discretion.
Um it just >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. No, I I'm I'm just are we if we consider this as presented, are we operating within our discretion because we're putting weight on the life safety
of the area as determined by planning board, fire chief, police chief, and the traffic consultant. So because the life safety uh safety aspects are are not something within the commission's purview um you know the
commission cannot rule based on those uh those items. Um it's it's it's the protection of the interest of the act but the discretion does allow the commission to um consider you know the the magnitude
of the alteration. have they sought to avoid and minimize um when it comes to seeking to avoid understanding that the planning board decision really was written um as a condition they they that could be taken into account as far as
the extent to which they sought to get approval without the crossing. Um so that could go towards the uh avoid um minimized um with the large 12- foot wide crossing that they've proposed. You
know that that has drastically minimized from the original proposal which was a small culvert. Um so they have made uh efforts to minimize um the effort to avoid was seeking planning board approval without the crossing. Um they have made efforts to minimize and then
mitigation has been offered. So a replication is required. They have to replicate. That was originally proposed anyways, but mitigation has now been offered uh as as well. So um they are trying to the applicant is attempting to meet those
uh criteria for the commission to exercise its discretion. But those are the only things the commission can consider. Um, the life safety cannot be a consideration unfortunately under conservation regulations.
>> Why don't I do this? Marin, I'm going to let Maren respond to the the questions that you raised and then I'll open it up to the members of I think that'll be fair for me to be able to respond. >> Marin, you're you're on mute and just give us your name and association with
the project. >> Hey. >> Hi. Uh Morin Harold, North Environmental Services. Hey Mason, do you think um I could bring in the plan? I don't know if you >> uh you should have availability to
screen share. >> Okay, hold on a moment. Let me Okay, this is the sheet I would like. Okay. So, the regulations do or does allow the commission to approve a
discretionary fill. Um, this of course been documented in the paperwork. This is the planning board's preference to put this crossing in. Um, with this crossing going in, we are, I think,
substantially improving the project. As Heidi mentioned, we're providing over 4,000 18 square feet. That's this area here. That's existing lawn area, chicken coops, debris, overgrown. I think there
might even be a motor home in this area. Um, we're providing greater than one to one wetland replication. The commission likes to see uh 1.5 to the one impact. So we are providing
that as well. We are providing a post and rail fence along the limit so that this area is clearly marked so whoever ends up living in these homes um can see that it's clearly marked and to not encroach within that area. So we thought
that that was a good idea. Um the commission can improve this project the way that it's that it's designed. Um, obviously D has the authority to appeal it if they don't agree with the commission's decision. Um, we've
provided all of the documentation um that's required. You know, I think the position of my client is we would just love to get a permit in the near future. Um, regardless of what the commission's
decision is, um, are you going to allow this discretionary fill crossing project or are you not? And and we' just like to to move on with the project and hopefully start constructing it in the near future.
>> Thank you, Mary. Uh, thank you, Marian. All right, let me open this up to questions uh from the members. Mary, why don't we start with you and then just address your question to either it's Heidi or Moren or a combination of both.
>> Um I think this is a kind of a combination thing. I one is a small item and the other one's a little larger. So, there was some discussion about the DPW or some response from DPW saying that the 12-in culvert that goes under Central Street, there's never been a
problem with it. And if and I'm not surprised because if it backs up, it's going to back up on onto this property and neighbors property, not onto Central Street. So, I'm not sure that resolves my concerns about the the condition of
that culvert and whether it can accept the runoff is being directed towards it. And then to the larger question of this discretionary fill. Um yeah, I agree with what's being said
that uh in theory you can allow up to 5,000 square feet even if it's there's a there's two ways you can allow filling for a roadway. One is a limited project in which that's the only way to access the property um and you have to cross the wetland and you can and you can theoretically even alter more than 5,000
square feet in that case. In this case, we know that there's another potential access whether that's available or not for logistical and technical reasons which we can consider. We can't consider safety but we can consider logistical and technical reasons. Then um then the
discretionary fill could be allowed provided that we're avoiding adverse impacts and minimizing uh minimizing any minimizing and mitigating impacts. The fact that this
crossing doesn't meet storm water standards means we're not avoiding impacts. Um, and that you're I I'd like to hear about what what we're expecting the storm water runoff from this crossing where expected to go. If the
oil and grease that's on this road from the vehicles that are going to be traveling on it is is just intended to just um shed directly into the wetland, then we're not minimizing impacts. If it's pushing water into adjacent property and it's causing potential
flooding concerns there, then we're not minimizing impacts. So, I'd like to hear more about the the storm water design for the crossing and understand better why our peer reviewer is just saying h
doesn't comply, but okay, you know, it doesn't seem like we have a very robust peer review on this issue. So, those are my concerns. So Maren, do you want to answer that question or is that for Christian or >> Yes, I'd like Christian to answer that
question, please. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Christian Smith with Beiel's Associates engineer for the project. And I think the point that uh that Joe Surwaka is making uh when he reviews that is that yes, out of the roughly 250 linear feet
of roadway that the exit lane uh which results in the crossing um entails. Uh about 150 ft of that is actually being directed into the uh the bio retention
pond. Um and you know the the the initial 100 ft because we stationed it from central court back uh to the proposed roadway uh within the project. Um is that you know we are collecting
the majority of it. Um, and the fact that his point is if we curb this thing and take it down to central court, it's going to discharge into what Joe uh called country drainage, which means
roadside swailes, grass swailes uh that ultimately deliver water to this wetland anyway, and that entire length of the road does in the current condition. I think that's what Joe's talking about. Um, Mary, were were there other points that I missed on that?
>> Yeah, just to clarify. So, you're saying that of the 250 ft, 150 of it is being directed properly to the bio retention basin and it's the only the 100 ft that's not. >> That's correct. >> And then that 100 feet, what happens to it? Where does it go?
>> It runs off either side and goes into the wetland itself. It does not go into Central Street. It does not go into well wetland or the surrounding area, but it does not go into the neighbor's property. Um, and again, as I as I mentioned at the last hearing at the beginning of the month, um, you know, we
have a a relatively substantial decrease in surface water flow uh to the culvert because that culvert underneath uh central court is indeed our analysis point for that uh portion of the property that drains to it. Um,
was there anything else that I'm forgetting? I'm sorry I didn't take notes. >> I just have that's my that's my point is that the last 100 feet of this paved roadway is is discharging to directly to the wetland without any pre-treatment. So, so we're not minimizing impacts and
we're not we're not complying with storm water. I understand your reasons why you're not able to capture it, but it puts us in a difficult position of having to use this this tool of discretionary fill and in a case where
we're not only are we filling the wetland itself, but we're not then we're not even protecting it after it's being filled from the from the storm water runoff. So, I I have some concerns about that.
So Mary, so again, I'm I'm just trying to stay on top of this myself. So Christian, are one of the options was to put curbs in both sides of the crossing, but it was going to divert the water to the edge of
the adjoining roadway swell. If half of the road, if half of that uh crossing is draining correctly, wouldn't we only have to put a curb on one side curbing? I mean, not that I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me, but
>> Yeah. No, it would have to be curbed on both sides um due to the road crown. >> Okay. And I guess I would point out, Mr. chairman to the end of uh the the commentary specific to pollutants. Um
you know, I I don't know how long the former owners held this property, but you know, for years there was freerange chickens, geese, uh all manner of farm animals out there >> using that as their rest facilities,
which is no longer going to be the case. I mean, that is a that is a >> that's not the design standard. You have >> I understand that but that is that is a heap of pollutants >> in the form of nutrients and and other you know fecal waste. >> Are you are you suggesting they didn't
have a manure management plant on the site? >> Not that was evident. Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Mary any other questions? I'm going to we're going to circle around this couple. >> And and I one more thing having to do with town council's response. It sounds
to me like they were trying to say that the planning board's uh parameters for decision- making was not a um they didn't have an option for denying. They had an option only for conditioning this because this is a this
wasn't a special permit. This was a site plan review. Is that correct? >> Correct. That that's my that's my understanding. But I'm I'm happy to get you know reach out and get additional information. But yes, exactly. That is my understanding. >> So that so that we could never have
really expected a clean denial because of the way that the planning board was um denial of the um >> right >> the original >> correct >> roadway configuration. Okay. >> Correct. >> So I wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you. That's all I have for now.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mary. Mick, I'm going to jump up to you. U I can skip you, Mick, if you want. >> No, no, no, no. I'm fine. No, I I kind of agree. I do agree with, you know, Mary's uh line there just where we have
just uncontrolled flow into a wetland and that appears just to be acceptable because there's the alternative is not yeah in the best interest of the of the developer. Uh another question I have is regarding the the 12-in culvert. Uh we
conducted a site visit. Uh it was during a rain event. uh that had rained the day before and even with standing water in that swale uh it's very difficult to determine even with standing water the direction
of flow whether it's in or out of that cover uh that comes from from central street. So what's been done to one confirm the direction of flow and two I I do question a little bit that it's a
viable means of drainage or or water transport because it's obvious that that culvert has been hand dug and previously uh to allow flow and obviously it's if
left in its state right now it doesn't appear that that is a a viable means of of water flow. >> So I mean as I recall it it we determined the direction >> right >> and and one of the things was what was
the condition of the pipe was kind of the only open issue as I recall that it was flowing from that 12 in to another 12 in. We couldn't in we couldn't entertain increasing the size because it would cause downstream flooding
potentially. Um, and I thought the only open issue mesh mick was were we going to camera that and was that why we had the DPW people go down there? I'm not sure. But Maren, do you want to respond to Mick's questions?
>> Right. So, that is correct. The water flows off the property into that 12in pipe. And in a perfect world, you know, it would be great to dredge that area out and create a slope to the
pipe and have the water flow the way it was intended. That's why I think they created that swale in and of itself, but I can't get a permit from D to dredge that area. It it they would never allow it.
So, um it is what it is. that from reading the drainage, my understanding is that we're not increasing um any flow any drainage into that wetland area. And Christian, please correct me if I'm um
making a wrong statement. >> No, that is correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mick, any any other questions? Um, >> no, Bob. No. >> Okay. Again, Mick, we're going to circle around a couple of times on this thing. Woody,
questions. >> Well, after listening to the discussion as thus far, what uh this is a question for Christian. There's no way to capture that last 100 feet of runoff and for treatment.
>> Uh, none. none that we could come up with uh Woody that would not increase the wetland impacts because if if we if we capture it in a catch basin situation then we're going to have to trench for
the culvert to daylight to the pond. Um have not gone too far in evaluating what the actual uh elevation differences would be in that because obviously you know the the catch basin will have some depth below the road. um you know, you
want the if there's going to be two catch basins, one on either side, uh we would have to collect that uh from one basin to another to a manhole and then deliver it to the uh to the storm water treatment pond. Um you know, and and all
of that's going to be done. The obviously the low spot of the the proposed exit road uh is within the wetland. It's all going to create additional wetland fill. So that was really part of our drive to uh to minimize what what is going to be
disturbed out there. >> I understand. and and uh I guess in in uh just to elaborate on that a little bit, Woody, the that is really the only way to collect that final, you know, stretch of roadway would be to curb it and collect it, you know, if if we're
trying not to to just uh let it run off overland into the wetland itself would be to curb it and collect it within uh catch basins and uh you know the uh the connector manhole. And that would be increasing the area of
impact. >> Of impact. That's correct. >> Does it does the proposed roadway through the project have curbing and sidewalks? I mean, I'm assuming that that it does. >> It definitely does on one side, Mr.
Chairman, because we've got a sidewalk there. But let me give me two sec. Oops. I'm sorry. I think I lost my mic there for a second. Um, >> we we we can hear you first. >> Yeah, give me one second to take a peek at that and I will I will get you the
answer to that question. >> Okay, I don't have any other questions at this time, Bob. >> Okay, Woody, I'll let Christian answer that question and then we'll move. Frank, what what do
you have for questions for either Maren, Heidi, or Christian or Mary? We'll quicken. Well, it sounds to me like we're in a catch 22 situation here where if we
require them to catch the flow coming from that last 100 ft, it has an impact greater than letting it flow into the wetland which has been happening as I understand it all along. Anyway,
um so my comment is and my feeling is based on everything that I've heard, I would approve the plan as is. >> Okay. Thank you, Frank. >> And Mr. chairman, the the remainder of
the interior roadway is curbed uh because we do have a closed uh storm water collection system um within that subdivision. And again, the interior of the circle, if you will, uh is also uh prepared with a or finished with a
sidewalk. >> Okay. So, Christian, you were the author of the storm water report. It just you stamped it. >> Yes, sir. Yep. Okay. And could you just recap what your findings were?
>> Uh, yes. Now, are we talking specific to um the overall project or just our >> the document that Heidi was referencing that Jose Rock, our peer review engineer, had referenced
as needed, any references had submitted. >> Yeah. Uh we had done in fact you know throughout the uh the reviews and responses we had done additional test pits um on some of the storm water areas
we uh manipulated uh bottom of the pond elevations so that they match or exceed the DP and the town storm water standards uh to separation the water table and ultimately the remainder of the project aside from this little stub
of single lane road or single way road um does does meet the standards. That was the ultimate gist of it. >> Okay. All right, Mary, I'm going to circle back to you maybe before we go through the commission one more time.
>> My thoughts on it. I think, you know, we we we can approve a fill, but any amount of roadway on any project needs to comply with um D stormwater standards,
you know, it's it's a requirement. So, I think that if we there's a chance that if we approved it as this um as currently proposed that, you know, we're going to have issues with DP on it. So, I'm
trying to avoid that. I had no objections to the project overall in terms of especially the the original um design without the wetland crossing was strictly buffer zone um and storm water being managed in the buffer zone. Um
this is a different animal once you ask once you request permission to alter a wetland you have a responsibility for its care for the future as well. So, you know, having uncontrolled storm water runoff, a roadway, which is what
we're um which we're here to >> eliminate, you know, we're we're supposed to be looking out for that. So, >> that's where I'm coming down right now on it. >> Bob, if I may. >> Yeah.
>> Go ahead, sir. >> This is Woody. If I may, >> can I ask Mary a question? Um, say we were to approve this wetland crossing and D kicks it back. Can't we address their comments at that time?
>> Well, they would address it. >> They take it out of our hands. So, >> superseding order, we lose control of it and and then it's between the applicant and >> um >> and D so to to work it out.
>> Yeah. And that I just wanted to say I I share I share Mary's concern. That's been one of my concerns as well. Um is you know a D appeal like you said takes it takes it out of the commission's hands but also creates a much you know lengthy process as well. So it it would
definitely be in the applicant's interest as as well to get this um as resolved as possible. And if it's if it's helpful and the commission wishes, I'm I'm happy to reach out to town council for guidance as well. Okay. So, I'm going to go around to all
the members. So, Woody, you have anything else to add before I go back to to Mick? >> No, I'm good. Thank you, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Woody. Mick, just any any additional thoughts that you have? >> No. Uh, thank you, Bob. I've raised my
primary concern about the flow of that covert. >> Yeah. Well, understood. and and Frank, any any other comments you'd like to add? >> No, I appreciate what Mary said and um >> I think that um
>> well, we a decision has to be made one way or the other here. This has been going on >> for Yeah. >> quite a while. >> Heidi, anything you want to add? >> I would I would probably defer to D if that's what it comes down to. >> Yeah.
Heidi, anything you want to add before we open this up to the public for comment? >> Um, I I guess not not anything additional, just you know, if the commission wishes, I'm happy to reach out to town council and um, you know, uh, the final plan
set. It would be it would be great to have just a final plan set with everything on it so that when the commission is ready to make their decision, we have everything all in in front of us, whichever decision they make. And um, Now the what is missing from the plan set other than
>> uh not really missing just a a final. So we got revised plan sheets. >> Okay. >> Um and there it's it's um there's a significant number of plan sheets. So I would just request a complete um compilation of the final dates for each
of the plan sheets because they all need to be we need to make sure we have all of the correct plan sheets. So, I know Meen would be able to to get me that, but that would be important to have for um Yeah. >> You know, even if the commission chose to close the hearing tonight, that would
be important to have uh before an order is issued. >> Okay. I mean, that's more of a housekeeping issue, Marina. And that that's just really putting a table of your plans together. >> Yep. That's no problem. >> Okay.
Uh okay. I'm going to open this up to the public. I see one raised hand now. I I just want to remind everybody we we we know the abutters have concerns, but our jurisdiction is simply limited to the
wetland protection act. And so go ahead and I I if you have something new to add or a question you'd like to ask, that would be great. But we're trying to avoid just having a repetitive comments about the sub, you know, the
original per planning board approval of this because that's beyond our control at this point. So, uh, Kathleen, I see your hand is up. Why don't you go first and just give us your name and address. >> Sure. Kathleen Sperling, 10 Parker River
Drive. >> Okay, Kathleen, welcome. Uh, what is your question and who would you like to have it directed to? >> Um, I'm going to direct this to Mary Rimmer. >> Mary, at the last meeting, you knew I was going to be made. I know. Hi, Mary.
How are you? Um, at the last meeting you you made a comment after knowing what the project was before the planning board whether or not there was a demonstrated need or if there was an alternative way to prevent this road
from going in um in and out of the development. And I believe um from some of the other um meetings I've been to, there is another way in and out of this project, which was the original
um entrance and exit on Central Street versus Central Court. So the if the exit does not come out onto Central Court, we avoid all of these wetland issues that have come up. And I believe Woody, and I
don't want to quote him, but I believe Woody had previously said that the traffic study for the Central Street entrance and exit was okay. So, if that's true, then I would suggest because you have the discretionary
decision and discretionary is up to you guys. And it appears that some of this covert from what I heard tonight does not fall within the square footage that I would suggest that use your discretion
and deny this access road over the wetlands and use the original plan. Thoughts, Mary? >> Well, but that's sort of what we're wrestling with exactly and uh or at least with what I am. Um, and
I if perhaps you know Woody can uh provide us with a little bit more background on the planning board decision-making process whether or not the traffic study was
uh did determine that there wasn't an issue with site distances, but the planning board felt they were still concerned about it and that this would be a a safer preferred location
uh to have the second access. It's >> I mean I think the thing we have to remember we're we're acting upon the plan that is before us. Right. >> Right. They changed >> not the hype not the hypotheticals that
>> but they changed their plan because of town a town recommendations. Right. They changed it be in part because they came to us and they said if we do this would this would this be something that you would um you would consider. So we said
sure yeah if we can consider it if the planning board turns it down or there's not another viable option we can consider this. >> The decision was a little bit not as clear as we thought it would be. So the issue of whether there's another viable
option is a little bit um outside of our purview because it's not >> Yeah. I mean I look at this we have a plan before us. We can either approve it or we can turn it down. We can't really continue to argue the hypotheticals. It's
>> Yeah. Or we can, you know, take a temperature of the board and determine whether everybody is kind of on the same page or not and let the applicant decide whether they want to continue the hearing and go back to the previous plan or pursue this current plan.
>> Okay. >> But I don't think that turning it down it's all it's just going to keep coming back to us until we >> Yeah. No, no. I I but but again I'm just trying to be pragmatic here and it this has been here probably I mean Maren >> you're going to have to stop bringing
coffee and donuts and site visit meetings if we can >> this is Kathleen I appreciate the fact that they're trying to push this project through because the last two meetings Moren has been you know this has been going on since November >> Kathleen Kathleen please don't speak
until you're you're recognized >> we're deliberating kind between us now that there are two options that the commission can entertain. It's either approving what's before us or turning down what's before us. Uh we we just
continue to seek bits and pieces of information. I thought we had quantified everything we were looking at uh the last time, but it's either we vote I mean I think it's really 10 we either vote yes or no on this. I don't think
that the the trickle of information we we have a stamped storm water report. U I mean I'll be honest that's good enough for me. Our pair review engineer saw it. He he would have raised questions or he
should have raised questions. I think to Mary's point that pair review on for the conservation commission, we probably should re revisit that at some point, but it's I mean, we're at a point where we should we should entertain approving this or we
should entertain denying it. Uh I I don't think the little bit of information that we're looking for or that's been raised uh is valid for any more delay on this. Kathleen, do do you have anything else
to add? You you've asked us to deny it. I've just reiterated that there's two option the commission can take. Um do you have anything else to add that that is enlightening or >> um I do think it's discretionary on your part and I
>> No, no, we Kathleen, we've heard that. We can either approve it or deny it and I agree. >> So So that basically I'm confirming what you're saying. We can either approve it or deny it. Uh but it it's time we have to look at this through a lens of what
direction are we going to go in this thing. If you have anything else new to add other than your your recommendation to deny it, uh please share it, but or I'm going to move on to another. I think you need all the information that was requested tonight by Mary and Heidi, but
that's your decision and it's your discretion and I appreciate that and hopefully the D will not appeal this. >> Okay. Thank you, Kathleen. Uh Christopher, if you could give us your name and your address and then what's
your question, who you want to direct it to. >> Uh Christopher Morris, 9 Central Court. Um my question um I don't know who to direct this to but should this go through and then we end up with pollution issues in both the wetlands or
wellwater who is responsible then >> I'm going to let that question go to uh the the Heralds. Well, I think that's a lot of assumptions. Um, and regarding the wellwater, you know, you could always do
a baseline of your well right now prior to any type of con. Okay. Uh, so that you have a baseline and you know, during or after construction, if you have any concerns, you can do a followup. Um, I
don't know how deep your wells, if your well is your drinking water, most wells are very deep in the ground. They're usually artisian wells two to 300 feet deep in the ground. So that would have to be really substantial contamination.
Um the design engineer spoke about 100 ft of roadway. The majority of the project itself will be treated. The storm water will be treated on site and it will be clean water. So it's a it's a
fraction of the roadway. Um and again, you know, the existing site conditions isn't isn't the best between all of um the bird coops and the feces on the ground.
So, in terms of the other pollution, I'm not sure what what other pollution you would be concerned about. >> Well, my question was who's responsible if there is change in ground in wellwater? Christopher, hang on because Heidi, who's doing peer review for us,
has her hand up. Heidi, do you want to add a comment to that? >> Um, not not my comment was not for the the wellwater. So, yeah, if he wants to finish, that's fine. I just left my hand up so that I wouldn't forget to put it back up. >> Okay. So, Christopher, that's probably a
legal question and you'd probably have to talk to your attorney on that. So nobody in this process is would take responsibility. >> We we we go by what documents are submitted and then peerreview
engineering what they present and what they stamp as registered professionals. >> Okay. I'll take that as we don't know. >> Yeah. You've asked a legal question. I would just say it's a question for a lawyer. Okay. Anyone else have their hands up?
Uh >> Okay, Heidi, you you wanted to add some comments? >> Um, yes. I just wanted to make sure the commission was aware of all of all of their options in the process part. Um,
if the commission feels that they have all the information they need to make a decision, they can choose to close the hearing. They do not need to make a decision tonight. Decision can be made within 21 days. Um, so the public hearing can be closed if the commission is uh complete with uh no more
information needing to come in and the decision can be made at the at the following meeting. um it would close all um no no additional comments, no additional paperwork, nothing else would be able to come in after that. Um and then you know at that point we can
discuss more. Um but the options available to the commission are um actually approval of the what's proposed denial of course but there's also um approval of the original um plan. So there's three options available for the
commission that they'll be able to choose once they decide to make a decision. >> So now refresh my memory. The original roadway was buffer only. Did that come in on its own order of
conditions? So is this you did an amended order? >> This is an amended. Yep. Correct. This is an amended notice of intent. So because it was not if you're absolutely correct. If this was a new notice, uh the only two options would be approval or denial of this plan, but it is an
amended plan to the original NOI. So, there's three options available to the commission. >> Okay. All right. Are there any other raised hands now? I see Jim. Is it Jim Brown?
Jim, give us just give us your name and address. And I apologize if I miss anybody, but just speak up if I if I do. Jim, you're on mute. if you could uh give us your name and address. You're you're still on. >> Hey, you got me now? >> Yeah, there you go.
>> Yeah, there you go. There's your name and address if you would. >> Uh it's Kim Brown from 11 Parker River Drive. I'm one of the abutters. Uh I got on late, so this may have already been brought up. If it was, I apologize. the last meeting
uh we're talking about this new road and that possibly would not be needed because you if there's another way you don't have to cross the wetlands you don't want to and the builder said yeah it's no problem at all the plan's already done no problem simply going
back to the original plans so I just want to make sure you're aware of that it's not a problem if this gets denied it's not a huge issue for the builder or anybody else >> yeah I mean we we We we know what's before us, Jim. >> Okay. >> It everyone we follow a process. The
planning board has approved this this project with the condition of the crossing and and that's what's before us right now. >> And then >> Oh, the only thing I'm saying if >> Yep. No, I >> if it came down to brass tax and there was one little thing you need to know,
the builder said it's no problem reverting to the original plans. >> You know that it I I hear you. It doesn't really have an impact. We're looking at what the re What's the benefit? >> I mean, >> the site was a mess.
>> The the the the manure management was non-existent. I can only imagine what you've all gone through with this, you know, this ramshackle of property, you know, over the years and and God knows what infestations you've probably had
with it. But we're we're looking at what's before us, Jim. And and again, as I said earlier, we're we're really gonna, as I see this, and you know, just my opinion, we're either going to consider it or we're going to deny it. And it's
going to be based on uh what's been submitted and then what discretion we we do have. >> Okay. I see. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Are there Heidi? Are there any other Are there any other raised hands? I
don't see any. >> I didn't see any. >> Okay. Well, my feeling is this. I don't think there's much more to gain here uh on can
the the documentation that has been submitted I'm comfortable with. um going to town council and asking this. I think we have discretion to determine is this viable or or we have the ability
to say no, it's not. Um I'm I'm leaning towards closing the public hearing, but I'm just going to throw that out there. What's everyone's thought on that? Mary, what's your thought on this? >> I just think we're >> okay. You're fine with that?
>> Okay. Okay. Mick, your thoughts? >> Yeah, I'm fine with closing the public hearing at this point. I >> You know what I'm what I'm thinking? We close the public hearing and then we we decide
uh we're not going to address the order of conditions, whether we're going to approve it, deny it, uh or condition it tonight. We we our next meeting is coming up June 2nd, so it's within the 20 days. You can certainly do that.
What do you What's your thought? You do you have an issue closing the public hearing at this point? >> No, I do not. >> Okay. Frank, do you have any issues closing the public hearing? >> No. >> Okay. All right, then. I will entertain
a motion uh to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> So move. >> Okay. So that's good. So, Mary and Frank. Okay. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes.
>> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> I. >> Frank, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's votes yes. Okay. We're not going to we're not going to issue a decision. We'll put this on the agenda for our next meeting and we'll address
it at that point. No. >> Do we want to in the meantime, Bob, have Heidi begin drafting two separate orders or or >> how would you what would you >> Yes. Thank Thank you, Mary.
>> I got it. Yeah. No, that's Yeah, it's fine. I um I will I can >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think the findings and info >> Why don't you draft both uh approval and and denial? I mean it's going to go one of two ways
but it it this is going to get wrapped up in in the next month that June 2nd meeting. So >> yeah it it would be drafting all the you know all the findings all the information documenting all that and then um you know after because the next meeting is uh thankfully in two weeks.
Um so then that will give that that final week to make sure you know everything's corrected, spellch checked and according to yeah I mean it would be for the commission to re review of course at the next meeting. Any suggestions and changes the commission has will get incorporated and then it would be issued within the 21 you know
within the next seven days to meet the 21 days. >> Mhm. >> So that would be fine. >> Okay. So we we have 21 days to make a decision and then we have 21 days to issue the opinion. No. >> Uh, no. 21 days to issue the decision. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Close the hearing. You have
21 days. >> Yeah. So, uh, Heidi, have at it. And you know what? We'll we'll make a determination at the June 2nd meeting. Okay. Meen Christian. >> Thank Thank you. Thank you. Thank you
everybody. >> You know, everybody, it we feel like we're personal friends. we've been talking with you for so long, but you know, this is going to move forward in one way or the other. So, >> great. Thank you for your time. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much, folks. >> Okay. >> Have a good evening.
>> Okay. I think uh what else is left? >> Is that it? I think that's it, isn't it, Mason? >> Yep. I just have a couple quick updates um that I can share with people. One of them I just added um to our folder. And
what this is is this is a meeting flyer. Uh Mary, I know you had mentioned beach management earlier and this is one of the things that we're kind of doing to collect data for a future beach management plan. Um so it's a a CZM uh grant that we've been working on with Newport in Salsbury um for a regional
sediment study to kind of start understanding how our sediment is moving through our coastline and whatnot. Um, so we're going to be holding a community forum to get some um kind of word of mouth from people on on shared experience for uh what's happening on the beach, how people are using the
beach and whatnot. Um, and then ultimately uh this would be a document that would be used in the future um for future nourishment projects or future uh you know beach management uh projects as well. Um so I just wanted to uh let everyone know of this and invite anyone
that was uh interested or available. Um and again this flyer is um in our in our Dropbox if anyone wants some more information on that. Um I also am happy to explain in detail more of the stuff that we've been looking at as a part of this study uh if people want to reach
out separately. Um besides that the only other thing that we have coming up uh is the Larkin Dam removal ribbon cutting ceremony. So, that's going to be Thursday, June 11th at 10:00 a.m. Um, if anyone is able to make that,
again, that's Thursday, June 11th, 10:00 a.m. to noon. Um, we're going to plan on meeting >> meeting invite for that, Mason. >> Yep. I can send out a meeting invite for that. Um, so we're all going to be meeting here at the town hall around 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. Um, where we'll be shuttling over to the dam site. Um we'll
have some um remarks from our select board chair, Bill Deo, the commissioner um of the department of fish and game, Tom O'Shea, uh Christian Castner, and Senator Bruce Tar hopefully. And then John Cina, who is the Northeast and Great Lakes regional supervisor for
Noah. Um so, uh yeah, a lot of good stuff. Um some interesting people going to be there and I look forward to seeing anyone who can make it. I'm going to make a suggestion because we could probably have more than a quorum. Uh, do
we just want to post this as a meeting at that location? I'm I'm just >> a site visit. >> Yeah, I mean it >> Yeah, I think let's post it as a site visit just for the crazies out there that just want
to find fault with everything that everyone does that it it's probably not a bad idea. Do we want to like formalize that at the next meeting or is that something that I can just kind of write up? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. No, you can just you can just post it as a site visit right within
>> 48 hours. It doesn't have to be advertised. >> Talked about it at a meeting. So >> yeah. Yeah. >> Does that include the cookout at Mason's house afterwards? >> Woody, that was in that was invite only and I told you not to uh to spread the word.
>> I don't know what I can call Woody. That's black tie only, I heard. So, >> I couldn't resist. I apologize. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, we're going to Everyone's in favor of a site visit on June 11th at 10 to 12 a.m. at the lock
and dam. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Any anything else? And Mick, anything you want to you want to add before we we go off? >> I got nothing, Bob. >> Okay. Frank, are we keeping you up?
Yes. Thank you, >> Woody. Woody, how about you? >> No, no further comments. Uh, I hope everyone enjoys the weather we're having. So, >> yeah, Mason, >> don't accept any new notices of intent so we can have a short meeting next time. Is that okay?
>> There you go. >> There you go. >> Now, well, listen, it's time to to resolve 34 Central Street. >> Yeah. >> You know, one way or the other. So, all right. Well, thank you everyone. >> Baba, it I'm sorry to
>> delay it here. I just quick question. >> Uh legally as a commission, as a body, >> can we discuss 34 central internally? I mean, and not now that the public hearing is closed about our opinions, yay or nay, or what is what's allowed?
>> You know, that's a good question. We would get to deliberate at the meeting. Uh but I mean we no new information can be introduced. >> So the record is closed. But discussing the documentation
that is part of the record. We can't request any information. We can't accept any new information but we get to process the information. Do you agree with that, Mary? >> Yeah, I think that's true. You just can't you and you can talk uh with
another member but not with a quorum of members. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Know what it is? You can't talk to each one of us individually, Meg, because that >> can't take a poll and say, "What do you think?" >> No, no, those are my >> Yeah. Know, you know, but you know what? It's
the beauty of having seven members. Mary and I can can communicate before a meeting just to kind of you know get some direction on stuff but four of us couldn't do that or I you know or I shouldn't be soliciting from all of you
before a meeting you know and it just would be a violation of >> you can ask for clarifications >> of of the material that's submitted. Yeah. >> Okay. No, no group emails. >> No. >> Yeah. No. No respon no response to all. Don't respond to all. So,
>> yeah. No, I just wonder what legally we can and can't talk about whether it's informal or, you know. >> Yeah. >> Understanding that the hearing is closed. No, I appreciate that. >> Yeah. That just that's that just shuts the gate for new information >> uh or request for additional
information. >> So, all right. I will >> one thing that we do have to pay attention to is that the quorum that we've had for review of this project may have changed and Mason you might want to just track that
because only only the five of us can vote next time at the next meeting unless other members listen to the whole tape. And >> I thought that was if if as long as they were at the initial public hearing
>> they have to be at everyone. Oh, really? >> Okay. >> So, if you missed a meeting, anyone has missed a meeting where this project has been discussed, not if it was continued, that's not an issue, but if it was discussed, >> right? Right. Right. >> You have to um listen to the tape or you can >> Okay. Yep. Okay.
>> So, even because when we talked about that before, no, it was new members coming on board couldn't go back and listen to it. That's Yeah. >> Yeah. That Okay. >> All right. Well, you know what? Hopefully we'll get everyone get it seven people looking at this and you
know we'll >> Yeah, because I don't know Frank if you were here at the first meetings of this or all of the meetings for this project or not. Maybe not. >> I'm not sure. >> Yeah, >> we have I have all the meeting minutes posted up until 54. Uh so when I get back on Tuesday, I'm happy to look
through and give you guys a head count of >> a number of the meetings have been were continuences where there was no no discussion because it was continuous. No, it's a good point. >> Yeah. If I missed a meeting where this was discussed,
I can go back and review meeting. That's legal. >> Then you have to sign something saying that you watched it. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. Well, you know what, Mason? Why don't you do this? Why don't you review that and then let
us know? >> Yeah. Yep. Yeah. I'll give you guys a tally. >> I know. I I had missed a meeting in April. I I suppose if it was continued then there's no no problem to re review it. I actually do watch all the meetings after the fact anyway.
>> Yeah, I can I can send everyone an individual email letting them know if they've missed any meetings and and what date and I can >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> I'll have the link to the video too for any of the ones that you >> and I honestly I think Heidi did an excellent job. I mean I very impressed >> and for clarification that would go back
to the original um permit or would that go back to just the road way? >> I would go back to the amend the the amendment. >> No, all the way back to the beginning >> but it's a whole different project now though.
>> No, it's the same file number. >> Okay. >> The same hearing. It's a continued hearing of the same project. >> Okay. the same file number. So, yeah. >> All right. Well, >> okay. Well, what I'm going to suggest is
I entertain a motion to adjourn. It's uh 8:36. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. We have a motion, a second. >> All in favor? Mary, Woody, Frank, >> good night. Good night, everyone. Thanks again. >> Good night. Have a great night.