Okay, good evening. My name is Bob Connors. It's 6:00 p.m. 6:01 p.m. to be accurate. Like to call the January 6th meeting, the new conservation to order. Mason, can you uh please read the
preamble to the remote open meeting law and take a roll call of members present? >> As a preliminary matter, this is Mason Farret, conservation agent, the new conservation commission. Please permit me to confirm that all members are present can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the
affirmative. Mary Rimmer, Dave Clifford, Mick Brown, >> here. >> Harry Trout, Woody Knight. >> Yep. Yes. >> Frank Watenamp. >> Yes. and Bob Coners. >> Yes. >> Good evening. This open meeting of the new 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 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. Ensuring public's access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment. For this meeting, the Newbury
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 the 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. 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 prov to provide any comment, questions, or motions. Please hold until your name is called. Further, please remember to mute mute your microphone. Please use earbuds and please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate
minutes. For any response, please wait until the chair yields the floor to you and state your name before speaking. Board and committee members should be called upon in a firstname alphabetical order to ease the process. After board and committee members have spoken, the chair will afford public comment as follows. The chair will first seek questions to the chat function. When
participants are using this function, please list your name, address, and then your question. 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. >> Okay. Thank you. Makes sense. David, welcome. All we did was just go through the preliminary meeting opening. So, that's >> okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. I was just wrapping up something with work. So, >> yeah. No, no, not a problem. Glad you're here,
brother. Glad you're here. Okay. Uh what do we have first? Upcoming meeting dates January 20th and February 3rd. Meeting minutes review. We have the 122 meeting minutes in the Dropbox. Why
don't we take a moment to review those? See if there's any questions, corrections, or concerns. Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the January, excuse me, the
the December 2nd uh 25 meeting minutes as written. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. So that's Mick and was Woody. Did you second that?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Roll call vote. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes. Uh, Mick. >> Hi. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yeah,
>> David, you're you're on mute if you voted. Uh, >> sorry. Yes. Sorry. >> Thank you, David. And Bob Connor's vote yes. All right. Next order of business is uh a certificate in compliance. D file
number 0501312 254 Middle Road. Applicant is submitting a request for a certificate of compliance for the construction of a seasonal dock in the Paka River using a gang way and floats. Mason, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter?
>> Yep. Uh so this was a dock that had gone in a couple years ago. uh the work was completed within uh that same year or two and it was just never closed out. Um so the previous homeowners had just sold the house to new owners um and now
they're looking to close out the open permit. Um I was able to go out to the site today um and grab some photos and get some eyes on the site. Uh everything looked like it was completed and built um you know in substantial completion with the approved order. Um the only
outstanding item that I had noticed is the seasonal portion of the dock um was still being stored in wetland areas. So still within the salt marsh. Um I've actually spoken with the new homeowners who are on the meeting now. Um and you know they're going to have a plan um for
the springtime to to move those and have those stored in a better area somewhere upland. Um and besides that, I have no comments. Um, I know that Tom Hughes is here, um, and he's going to be able to show, um, an aerial photo of the
approved plan, um, versus the existing conditions that are out there now. >> Okay. Uh, Tom, welcome. Why don't you give us your presentation after you give us your name and address? >> Sure. Tom Hughes with Hughes Environmental Consulting at a new report. And, um, I'm here on behalf of
the, uh, the homeowners who have just sold the property. Um, I originally did the permitting on this dock for the prior property owner, the estate of Paul Kavanaaugh, uh, his daughter Sarah Kavanagh, who owned the property for years. Um, so, uh, if you don't mind,
I'll sh, uh, excuse me, share a screen. Okay. So, um, what you see here is I took the original plan that was approved by the commission and overlaid it over the aerial photograph. Um, and it lines
up pretty well. Uh, there's a couple things uh to note. One is the original plan called for an L and it was constructed as a T. Um, that's really not a very significant change at all. It appears to be a little bit further out
into the water, which is actually a good thing, which means at low tide, it is more likely to be floating. We don't like having these things stranded at a dead low. And um the ramp up to the platform appears to be a little bit
longer. The the slope was a little bit too steep. It's deceiving because what you're seeing here is the gang way is stored on the structure. So the gang way makes it look bigger than it than it actually is. The mode path, the commission may recall that this is an
area where the uh prior property owner, the the estate wanted to uh have a bunch of the the property they owned go to the state or to a conservation organization. And as part of that, they negotiated an
easement for this mode path and for the dock structure. And you can see that where we said it was going to be, which is this green line, is lining up beautifully with the uh with the mode path. Um this is actually the the permit
plan. Uh is there me just go to uh this is a zoomed out version of that same thing that you just saw. And uh the other thing that I'll just pull up. So, this
is what Mason was talking about. The prior homeowners um apparently were not aware that they were not supposed to be storing the the floats um you know out of the resource area and
had been floating them up in here. Uh and and we do understand that that for future years, you know, that that condition has got to be complied with. they need to be stored out of uh conservation jurisdiction and uh and I
believe the current owners Mason talked to them. They're aware of that. Um I do agree uh as Mason indicated that they'll have a plan for the spring. I do think that at this point everything is dormant and uh you do more harm trying to move
them right now rather than waiting to see if you can float them at a at a really high tide in the spring. Um if you tried to get in there now to try to move them, you're you're just going to make a mess of things. Um but overall the project is what we said
it would be and uh things were done in compliance. Um the throughflow decking was used. Uh the structure is where we said it would go. It it remained behind that wetland line. You can see that on the uh on this plan. You can see where the
wetland line is and the structure the photograph of the structure is lining up nicely with uh with everything there. So, um overall it it's a great dock. It's a beautiful location and uh and I I hope
the new owners uh really appreciate the beautiful spot that they've got there. >> Okay, so Alistad, I got a couple of questions. Tom, where are you at on chapter 9 on this? Uh, so this this is a 10A. It just needs an annual license
from the uh from the harbor master. >> Okay. >> Because um >> is that current? >> Um that will they expire. So as of right now it would be expired and would need to be reapplied for uh prior to the boating season. And that's a pretty
quick administrative uh task for the harbor master. >> Okay. And >> are annual. >> Okay. The the only other concern I have is the oversized on the uh the float dock. Um what what's the rationale by that? That
>> I think it's just a different configuration. I'm not sure it is um over >> I didn't actually tape these off. It may be a little bit more. It may have just been availability. Um I can take Let me take a look at what
we called for. Yeah, it may have been the uh these were called to be 6 by8s. It may have been that the um that that float size may not have been readily available, but you know, I I was not involved during
the construction phase. I got a call during the uh you know a few days before the closing on this to to come in. Um but I don't think that's a a major impact to the resource area. The um the
primary impact here is really from the anchoring and uh and from whether or not these things are uh are you know sitting at mud for extended periods and and in this case I think the
installation a little bit further out actually provides a benefit that you can see. Yeah, I'm certainly I'm not that concerned and I agree with you that it it being a few feet further into the water uh doesn't have any significant
impact and may have some benefit. Um but I'm going to hold there and open this up to questions from the members. Tom. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh Woody, questions for Tom on this request. >> Thanks for the presentation, Tom. Um, I
don't have any questions right now. Thank you, Bob. >> Okay. Uh, David, I see you, but we'll just go in order. And >> that's fine. >> Okay, Mick. >> Tom, just just out of cur Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead, David. I'm good.
>> Sorry. Y >> um is the is the blue the asbuilt and the white is was the original design or >> the blue is the the blue is the original CAD file and I had it and it and it was
put on state plane because we had done some GPS work out there. So it is lining up with a 2023 aerial image that uh is available through MassGis. So, so the alignment may not be 100%
perfect, but you can see uh you know with I put in LAR contours, these one foot contours, and they seem to line up nicely with the with the shoreline. >> So, I'm pretty confident this is a touch further out. >> Um everything else is lining up pretty
well. And when when you look at uh let me see if I've got this other um >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So Tom, the blue is proposed and the white is existing. It's just >> Yeah. The white the white is the actual
aerial photograph. >> Okay. >> Um so that's the aerial photograph. So the proposed actually by by your plan looks like it was to be further out than than what's showing as existing. >> Oh, actually, you know something, you're
right. I'm I'm misreading that. It is. It does appear to be in there. That and that may also be as a result of where the water is because these things do have a swing. They swing out a bit and then down. But you're right. I'm put this thing together in a hurry and and
I'm reversing what I'm telling you. Yeah. So that does appear to be down at the base of the bank. Um but it is still uh again within the tolerances of uh of what the uh what the plan would be.
>> Okay. Uh Mick questions for for Tom on this one. >> Yeah. How you doing Tom? Thanks for theation. Uh just curious I guess on where the you know the docks have been pulled now and they're sitting in in
marsh area. Uh it looks from the previous uh plan you put up looks like a pretty long hall like to get it out of the marsh area when we're when they're demobilizing for the wintertime. Uh so
what is the plan and and where are those you know where are the dock sections going to be stored and how are they going to move them? I mean these are pretty substantial structures right? >> Yeah I mean so so there are perpetual conditions on the order that they not be
stored where they are right now >> right >> and there are there are two different options that are really up to the homeowner as to how they want to do it. Um, one is you float them to the nearest
boat ramp, which is a ways, right? Um, >> the other is you pull them out at the bridge, you know, crane them out at the bridge. So, you float them down and, you know, temporarily close down a a bit, you know, the bridge to haul them out. I
mean, that that's kind of the best uh the best potential options for doing that. But really, um, for the most part, these should just be floated to the nearest boat ramp and, uh, and pulled out. And there are a lot of dock installers that'll take care of that for
you. You know, they just get everybody in queue. Um, for the a lot of the docks that have been around for a long time before there were orders of conditions on them, what these folks have done with the floats are what people have done. They've they've floated them out onto
the marsh. Um, you know, the impacts for doing that during the dormant season for the vegetation are are pretty minimal for the most part. The problem here is that the land where they're putting it is no longer owned by the by the larger
property uh because that was part of what was uh put over to the conservation side. So, they really shouldn't be putting anything anywhere outside that easement. Um so so it has to get floated down to a
boat ramp or uh or hauled out you know with with a boom or something like that at the uh at the bridge. >> Okay. So what is I guess my question is what is in the order of conditions existing
and what is the plan definitively like say that we have a couple of options but what's the plan going forward? >> Yeah. Um, hold on a second. I got the wrong order there. Let's see. I had the order pulled up here. Let me Um, I have
to hide my meeting controls. All right. Um, >> and I'm not trying to try to, you know, >> No, no. I I have a definitive plan going forward, >> right? It's been a it's been a while since I uh did the permitting on this
and we did provide that information in response to commission questions, but the plan, you know, the plan going forward would be to to bring it to a boat ramp and pull it out. Um but it is there is the other
possible, you know, booming it out at the bridge. Uh, >> so they restored upland like brought on the property from a roadway. >> Yeah. So, so the property itself is is pretty much outside of jurisdiction. So, they could bring it up to their own
property or they could pay an installer to install it on their yard, >> right? Okay. Do Mason, I'm not I'm again I I sorry I didn't have a chance to review the the COC but or the order conditions, but um is that clearly defined?
>> Yep. So special condition 13 says removal of the floats, ramp or any other section that is seasonally stored shall not be pulled out, floated over, lifted and carried or in any manner removed over the adjacent resource areas. The storage of the component shall be within an upland non-jur non-jurisdictional setting.
>> Okay. So as Tom's describing, options one or option two are feasible, >> right, >> within the O order of conditions. Okay, >> that's great. All right, thanks. Thanks, Tom. >> Yeah, thank thank you Mick. I'll circle back to uh when we get to all the
questions. Uh Frank Frank Went question for Tom on this one. >> No, I don't have any questions, Bob. I think they've all been answered. >> Okay. Uh so Tom, couple of concerns that
I have. Uh one, if you go go back to existing proposed and existing >> Yeah. Uh I I'm not concerned that the uh proposed layout and existing layout coming to the water's edges, they're not
perfectly aligned and think you know it's like you say it's within the reasonable variance of it. But the configuration and location of the dark float is a concern. it uh I mean I'll be honest
it's almost a disregard to the order of conditions storing it on the upland uh is you know certainly a violation of the order of conditions and I knew we have new homeowners on this uh but I I I
don't see how at this stage we could issue a certificate of compliance if if in fact the float section of it doesn't at least match what is proposed in the proposed location. Otherwise, it's you almost
have to do an amendment to your order to to accommodate what's there now. And and so there's a there's a couple elements of what I would need to to look at. Um one is with the title swing, is
this really as far off as it looks? Right. >> Well, ex proposed is far off. existing is on the bank, >> right? No, but I mean, so so if you can picture what happens when this is drawn in in two dimensions, but
it's three-dimensional setting, and you've got >> a a height of the bank that's maybe uh 7 ft here. So, as this thing swings down, it pulls closer to the uh to the
shoreline. And this is a low tide photo. So as the tide rises, this is going to push out further. So I don't think it's as in disregarding of of location. I think that it may just
be positional based on the that this is kind of showing the water level being up at a high water, the ramp coming out flat and and these things being floating. And here they've sunk down with the tide dropping
and kind of moved closer to shore. If you can picture them kind of swinging in and out as they >> swinging down. Zoom in on that, Tom, if you could because it actually looks like it's its current location is sitting uh on,
you know, the uh lower corner is on, you know, dry soil, >> right? So, so this is this is sitting here at pretty much a dead low, right? And and as the water rises, so you you take a look at your contours
here, you've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, you know, eight contours till you get to to the flat up here. So, this is this is dropping, you know, the the ramp is actually dropping down quite a bit. So as it
drops, the floats are going to pull in towards the bank. >> And then as how is that possible though? Because it's a fixed hinge connection. It's going to go up. It's going to go down, >> right? So if you picture it's it's it's
a circle or it's an arc as it goes down, right? So 30 ft down at an angle, the horizontal component of it shrinks and the vertical component uh goes up. And I So let me um let me go to
>> I think it's understood, you know, Tom, but like there's a swing there, but that arc at that distance is not >> right. >> You're not going to extend that that dock 30t on an arc. It's >> No, no, no. What I'm saying? So if you
look No. So if you look here right at the at assuming this is a perfect alignment. These were supposed to be 6 ft wide. >> So uh this looks to be about a 4ft difference between what's built and the
plan. And so I'm saying at a high tide, is this really off by 4T? because as it swings back up, it's going to push it out further. And I'd really just have to draw a triangle
with a 30ft ramp and an 8ft. You know, the the ramp is the the C on the triangle, right? >> So, we've got we got 30 and 8 or seven
plus the height of the structure. So, so this is possibly a, you know, 7, eight, maybe even a 9 ft difference between the top of the ramp and the bottom of the ramp. So, that's pulling the floats in at dead low.
As as it lifts up, this then has more of a the 30 ft is more horizontal and the floats show up further. >> But your arm on the arc is static. I mean, to Bob's point, I don't think it's going to swing it out as far as what's
shown in blue, which is >> right approved, right? >> Well, yeah, I'd have to. So, so actually, let's let's do the math. Um, >> so, but Tom, let me let me just say this. I I think that >> uh what was the date of the approval on
the order? Is it still current or expired? >> I'd have to look at the extension act. Uh it's a 2019 order. So >> outside the the app. >> Yeah. I mean I I don't think it would be
but so if we look you see how steep this is here on the profile. So the thing is how far is that swing? And the math is not that hard to do. Um, at a low it's at
there's a looks like a 9 ft difference between the top of the ramp. >> Yeah. >> And the bottom. So, it's um >> granted you're going to get a little little dev be deviated a little bit. The the reality, Tom, is what was approved
is not what we're looking at. >> Uh, and there are some >> Tom, let me finish my Sorry. I'll recognize you when when I want your answer. Um, what was approved uh is not what we're looking at. The alignment
coming down to the W's edge isn't a big concern of mine. uh the location of the float and you know we're doing a certificate of compliance which we we have to rely on data and and not may uh
the configuration of the the float uh does not match what's proposed uh and I'm not comfortable going forward with a certificate of compliance uh with one the outstanding violation
and then two It's not built as proposed. And now I think it's easily rectifiable, but the the new owner would have to when they reinstall this uh the float, uh it it would have to be configured to what
was approved. If your order is expired, uh you'd have to do a new order of conditions to adopt the variation. If it's not expired, we we could probably do an amendment to it. Uh but it ju just
following the law and our and our policies. You it you have not presented what was approved and in in my opinion it's not worthy of a certificate of compliance. I think we could issue some guidance on
what would be acceptable and and from my perspective it's what was permitted should be what's reflected and if that's reflected um certainly get the previous owners you know putting this rate on the bank it there's an
expense to floating these down and pulling them out but but again what was agreed upon or what's transpired does not match the permit So >> yeah, I so so I I hear uh the chair's
concern. I think um if we were in a situation where we had you know permitted the dock dock built with the floats exactly as shown. Um and and let's let's forget the horizontal.
>> It would have come in as an amendment because you would have done it was a variance from what was approved. you you would have brought that in and you would have called it a minor modification or the amendment. Now, >> right, but >> that did Tom, please don't interrupt me when I'm talking. >> Yeah.
>> Uh and that's what should have happened and but that didn't happen. So my my guidance is and again I'm I'm just one vote on this is that um the applicant should be instructed on
how to comply with the drawing what was approved and when they come and come back in when that's done and obviously it'll be down the road. It's not an insurmountable, you know, variance, but it it was
approved as you submitted the design. That's what was approved. It's been changed. Uh, and what's the So, you say this was approved in 2019.
>> I Yes. And and Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I could just put out I I understand what you're saying. If I can put out a scenario that I think would also work. Um Tom, when when you're a member of the
commission, you can run the meeting. uh until that time you're an applicant presenting a case and uh you're varied from the plan and you're asking for a certificate of compliance which is confirmation that you complied with the
plan. That is not the case. Now I'm going to stop there, Tom, and I'm going to ask other commission members for their thoughts. Uh Woody, what what are your thoughts on this? And then Tom, if there's a question, you you can certainly answer it if it's directed to
you. >> In my in my younger days, I did a lot of dock building and um with the proposed, you don't have it up right now, but what you had up with the blue and the white. Um it's not L-shaped like it's was
originally proposed. And I mean that could be as and it appears that it's a little bit longer, but it can be rectified fairly easily with some brackets mounted
on the end of the dock. And if I don't know what the actual links are there, but if it was proposed L-shaped, I I feel as though it should to get a certificate of compliance, it should be L-shaped.
And I do have uh an understanding that that's a low water picture. It will be farther out when at high tide because the the ramp will be straight and there's a I'm not sure without thinking about it for a few
minutes how to do the math. But there's a way to figure out that math so you can show that where it would be at high tide and where it would be at low tide. Well, I think it's easy enough just to measure the the lineal distance uh of the
adjoining dock and see if it matches what was proposed. Uh and I mean I'm looking at you've got qu and this is a question for you Tom. You've got a like a cross line with two two dots on each
side of it. Is that the hinge point of this particular dock or what what does that signify that you've added there? >> Um, so I haven't the these are points from the um those points are just points from the survey. I didn't clean up the
CAD file a lot. The hinge point is the edge of this platform. >> Okay. >> So, uh, and it's really it's it's more or less Pythagorean theorem um gives you a crude answer. Uh
so I'm just trying to trying to sort that out but it it would be you know two or three feet anyway uh in terms of the difference. Okay. Well, so my suggestion is that you know to rectify this and not make it um
insurmountable or add a lot of concern to the to the new buyers is that the plan be amended to show what the proposed lineal distance of the docks were with existing
and that would go for the float dock and and for the uh existing dock uh existing float dock and the proposed float dock. I I think that Woody gave some guidance that just because it's it's now faceted
in the center, it it could simply be I don't think it's a it's it's a big hurdle to get this to conform where we can give you a certificate of compliance, but it's it it's just not there yet. And
so I let me go on with the questioning. Mick, any questions you have uh for the time? >> Uh no further questions. I I mean it's pretty simple. Arc cosine, you know, arc measurement, Tom, you're probably familiar with that. >> Yeah.
>> Um so the extension on there with the extent of the dock is probably about a two foot, maybe three foot arc out. I mean, it's not really covering into the the, you know, the existing design shown in in in dark blue there. Uh, but, you
know, all that aside, I I can't support approving an order of conditions uh or or a certificate of compliance based on the design versus, you know, what's existing. So,
>> thank you, Mick. Frank, what what are your thoughts on this? >> I agree with that. It matches the original, but it could easily I I believe it could easily be reconfigured to do that.
Question about the top of the ramp. It appears that the top of the ramp starts further in than what's shown as the proposed. Is that correct? So what's deceiving is the gang way is
being stored on top of the structure here. So what you're seeing is actually the um and and and I'm sorry in this picture it's it's not deceiving. on other pictures that I've looked at it is um this ramp was built uh further back
and my understanding is because the height of the structure that the slope of the ramp was just not uh walkable. So that is larger uh in this direction uh
that is in upland but it is uh it is a larger structure uh in that direction. So um so that is also a deviation but it's not one that directly uh impacts a resource
area in any significant way. It is throughflow decking so there is healthy vegetation underneath the structure >> but but again it's another modification. >> It is. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. No, I think that that's a
good point. Uh, David, your your thoughts on this? Do we lose David? I don't see him. >> No, I'm here. I'm here. >> Okay. No, I I I agree with uh Mick Mick's comments, so I won't reiterate them. >> Okay.
Okay. So, so I I I the consensus is that it's premature to the the C coc right now with with the with the deviations from the proposed plan and existing. Uh and
I I think what we need is we we need what we need a better detailed plan, Tom. >> Right. One one that Tom, please just wait till I'm done. Um, one that shows what the pro lineal feed
of the proposed dock system was and what's existing and and the same on the floats and and then modifying the float shouldn't the the the actual T into an L shouldn't be
insurmountable or overly c costly. And it's uh now the extended dock in the white. What uh where is the wetland line? Do you have a >> the wetland line is here? The green.
>> Okay. So that's that's above that's really outside the resource but in the buffer, >> right? >> Okay. Okay. So that's my counsel on this, Tom. But um what what I would ask you to do
is to withdraw your request and then come back when you have some m >> Mr. Chairman, what I what I would ask um is whether the commission would accept an RDA with the uh float changes
because the actual impacts to resource area uh the anchoring hasn't changed. Uh, it's really a matter of the float size, which is a small amount, and the potentially the float configuration. I would want to try to reach out to the
original folks who built this to see if there was a reason that they needed to do a T have it better line up with the with the shoreline bimemetry. It's perhaps the L was was grounding at one end, whereas a T would not. So, if
there's a legitimate reason to want to have a T, um, if we could file an RDA with the float change and the deviation and the structure in that and then pursue the certificate of
compliance at that point, uh, would that be an acceptable remedy? because we're not we're not looking at really as you said it would be a minor deviation if it had been a live permit when this was being built and we it had come into the commission.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's just tough anything done that's not compliant. It it's it's hard to go and not you know a request for a amendment or modification is um it it
prevents a it it presents a challenge but I Mason what are your thoughts on this? the >> uh I I think if this were something that we had required an asbuilt plan for this could have been something that was quantified in the asbuilt plan. Um but I
think either way whether we stick with additional information for the COC or some new smaller filing like an RDA. Um I think either way as long as we can quantify these differences I I think that would be acceptable. >> Yeah. I mean, I I I would say this, Tom,
if if you can square away that the float is going to be in the location that was proposed and in the configuration, um if if your permit is expired, you're not going to be able to amend that. So, you're going to have to comply with it.
where it's extended above wetlands. Uh that might be an acceptable RDA where where you know to your point. It's it's not impacting the wetlands. It's in the buffer. Uh and
had it been proposed originally, we it it probably would have been incorporated. But just trying to find a way to to clean this up so that it's we're consistent on how we deal with certificates of compliance, but being cooperative with the with the new
owners. So, >> right. Understood. I think >> so. So, the only action you can is going to happen tonight, Tom. I'm either going to call for a vote to to deny this uh or you can request a continuence and
come back uh with the detail that we asked for and a solution on one end and uh and at that point we we could consider the COC with an RDA on the on the epilent extension or the
Lwood extension. So, it's pick pick what course of action if you want to put it to a vote. Um I I think you've get the feeling of the commission that uh it's it's not going to pass. Uh
>> yeah. No, with with all uh you know, we we'll look to continue the >> the COC to a date to be determined. Um since it's not a public hearing, we can just ask. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, exactly. Yeah.
>> Um what I what I would like to do is we will um get some actual uh survey of what was constructed, >> compare it closer to the plan rather than just an overlay over an aerial. And um I would like to ask that the
commission consider allowing us to do the RDA for the float deviation since assuming that the float deviation didn't change the uh the number of anchors or the overall impacts of the project and we will restore it to an L or I'll have
a good reason why it couldn't be restored to an L. If it if it is that an L would not line up well with the shoreline, then a T might make more sense. In which case, I would think um if you stick with the T, Tom, I think you're going to wind up coming back with
a an order of conditions that this is expired. >> You're in a waterway. So, it >> and again, I hear what you're saying. I I think the big thing is if the float is the same size that was proposed and and
what was built, uh it didn't look like it was much different. Now, plus or minus a handful of inches isn't going to be a a big hurdle for me. You know, it's within the variance. If it's a a couple
of feet, it, you know, that's just kind of a willful variation from what was approved. So >> yeah, I mean in in a normal course of things if this had been built per plan and we approached a commission after a
COC and everything was done and wanted to change out float sizes uh or change the float configuration or an RDA would be fairly common to be able to do that um as long as we weren't changing anchoring. So that's why I was thinking
an RDA might be an appropriate kind of after the-act RDA. And then once that after the fact RDA is issued, things are complied with then uh then the COC might at that point be appropriate. Uh >> yeah. Yeah. I I mean I look at it
differently, Tom, respectfully that if it's in the resource area, you you either comply or you got to amend. And if you can't amend, then you get a refile. And in the buffer, we I think we have a lot more flexibility to consider
the RDA and and solve that expansion, but we we don't have enough detail. And Tom, we're I'm going to move on to we have a we have a fairly busy >> No, fair enough. So So with that, I'll ask to continue this uh >> Okay. >> again to to a date to be determined.
>> Yeah. Keep uh keep Mason in the loop and we'll just go from there. Sounds good. >> All right. Thank you, Tom. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, next order of business is a certificate of compliance for D file number 050163, Verago Solar. Applicant is submitting a
request for a certificate of compliance for the construction of a solar energy facility. Mason, do you have uh do you have a want to give us an overview of where we're at on this? Uh I do, but before we do so, uh we have a raised hand from the public for the last agenda
item. >> Uh okay. Uh where it's not a public hearing, but yeah, you know what? Actually, they can ask the question. Go ahead. >> Hello. >> Yes. >> Hi. How are you? Um excuse me for the
confusion. It's my first time on one of these calls. Um I'm one of the project managers for a solar project. I was just unfamiliar. Does this get called by a certain order? Is there a certain time um for the call for the specific project?
>> Yeah, we just go by the agenda. >> Okay. >> Publish agenda and uh that's what we're following. >> So two Yale way will be in about four agenda items. >> Okay. Oh, so you guys would still cover
it today? >> Yep. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We we we we have a number of agenda items. We we just take him in the water and >> Okay. Okay. It makes sense. So if is it okay if I like hop off and hop on in the next 10 20 minutes? >> Yep. No worries.
>> Yeah. Okay. Good. Leave your number with Mason. We'll call you if we we need you earlier. >> Okay. I'll put it in the chat so I don't keep interrupting. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All right. So, back to Berago. Uh Mason, where are we at on that? And uh I know I
had I had asked the status of where we were with the planning board and other open matters >> uh so in terms of that uh the planning board still has a special permit that I believe is open. Um, and I was in touch with Rob last week and he had submitted
stuff to D to start the closing out process um for the superseding order that the state holds on the um the other portion of the project. um where we had left off on our last meeting. Um we had gone through the differences in the
proposed versus the asbuilt plans, highlighted some of the differences, um and Rob was going to come back to update the plans um and also um share what the differences were and why um we thought that those were um not substantial
enough to um you know require any additional fieldwork to happen. Um so with that I will offer the screen to Rob if he wants to go through um and highlight some of the changes that we identified um and what he was able to
change on the updated plans. >> So Rob, happy new year. Good to see you. If you could just for the record give us your name and your position on this project. >> Yes. Uh uh good evening. Uh my name is Robert Rosine with Waterstone Engineering representing uh the project
uh previously held by Barago Solar. uh now uh standard solar. Uh good evening uh Mr. Con uh Chairman Connors and the board. Um yes. So um we had in dece um in December we had a uh um a non-public meeting
where we discussed um a number of things and um so what I would like to do this evening uh briefly um is uh just cover uh I think there were kind of four major items that were discussed uh within that
um and and I've got u specific details um that uh hopefully answer any questions that were raised that evening and then if there's additional we can discuss that >> if that okay if that serves you well. >> No I that would be great one. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So let's Oh, you know what? We have this problem where I flip through. Did I share? Let's see if we can get this. Did I share my screen or the doc? I have your screen and uh I have a document.
>> Do you see documentation of substantial compliance? >> Yes. >> Oh, excellent. Okay. All right. All right. So, um let's see what were the items. So, there are basically five um items that we discussed and and I I'll I'll hit them
at a high level here. Um and then I I will actually six items here and then I will um I'll go into a little more detail on the on the four items that for which additional information was required. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's fairly short. Um and um and and uh
this was submitted uh to um to the to the commission um few weeks ago. So hopefully uh this has been available. Um so first of all I I would like to just apologize briefly uh that um uh I was I um it was only in the last in the
December meeting that I became aware that uh neither the commission or the planning board had even was even aware of the status of the project and um um apologize that that did not happen. Um we had um done the environmental
monitoring as a requirement of the approval from the conservation commission and there were uh 14 reports that were submitted um u uh to um the conservation agent and the planning board and and numerous others uh that were on the on the project and um and
all of those environmental monitoring reports have been have been made available. Um and again I'm just sorry that there wasn't um more complete feedback there. Um but we we had every intention of of um of complying with that requirement. >> Yeah, that seems to be an internal issue
that we had on our end, Rob, not a lack of effort on your on on your project or on your team. >> Okay. Okay. So, um basically the installation occurred over approximately a 4-month period beginning in in the in
May of 2023. Um and um and as per the last uh meeting we I have prepared an an updated asbuilt that shows um uh some of the minor deviations on the roadway. In particular, there were some questions about the 100 foot wetland buffer. So
you have a revised asbuilt and I'll I'll show you that. Um we we and and and as part of that actually let's just go right to the asbuilt. So, as part of that, um um there was a discussion about how the uh
the bumpout was larger uh than was approved. Um and and uh as a follow-up to that, we had met with uh the fire department as part of um some other um completion items for the planning board
um and and asked them to uh examine the the bumpout and uh and they were pleased with it as it was essentially just that it was slightly larger and and the difference being now that the what was a bumpout intended for Eversource so
vehicles could pass Right? If because the the the road width is only the width for a single vehicle. So the bumpouts were not intended as turnarounds so much as they were um pullovers uh if two vehicles were to um be coincident on the
road at the same time. This now is slightly larger and really allows for a vehicle to turn around. So you can pull in head in or tail in and turn around. Um and as per communications with Chief Evans, he he he he his preference was to
leave the bumpout as it was and we had it was it is about 630 square ft beyond uh what was approved uh of which about there's about 24 square ft that is within the the 100 foot wetland buffer.
So I I would argue that that is really kind of a dimminimous piece. Um hopefully you would agree um this area was not uh unimpacted prior to to our work here. So this was an old old um uh
road as as we're all aware and there was there was actually a road still is a road um that that goes out in this direction here and there was trash and you know um vehicle parts and things like that. So that there and this that area has all been cleaned up. So we have
we have that portion there. So that that really addresses and we can we can discuss that but that that provides some information that the board had had requested some additional information about with respect to the 100 foot wetland buffer. So maybe uh that's a
good good point to pause and and and discuss. >> Okay. Yeah. So Rob at at our at the last hearing >> at our last meeting where it's not a hearing actually. >> Yeah. public hearing. Uh the the bumpout
was designed at the request of the power company for their service trucks cuz the fire department is never going to use this road because there's no structures. Uh the they're not going to a high tension wire to put out a fire. Um but but I I get
your point on on the on the 24 ft. Um, and why don't what let me do this. I'm going to save you some time if if if you uh if you want. You also made a request for a
bond reduction from $1.9 million down to $100,000. I I would fully support that reduction of bond. I think it's, you know, it's more than adequate for any any minor changes. Uh and and again being the
construction business, I know the cost of bonds. Uh so it's a sign, you know, you go from60,000 to $3,000 if you go from two to to 100. >> That's right. Yes. Thank you. >> So what I'm going to suggest, you still
have some loose ends. Uh you you still got to close out D. There's a couple of things with the planning board, as I recall, too, that you still have to do. I'm going to make a suggestion. I'm comfortable recommending to the commission tonight that
let's reduce the bond. I'll uh I'll entertain a motion to reduce the bond from 1.9 down to 100,000. Give you kind of a chance to clean up some of the other stuff with the planning board uh and D. and and I know it's not
sight specific, but it's all part of the overall scope of the project. And u if if that would work for you, then we can we can eliminate further discussion and and just do that and and get that
done right now. And and I would think that uh as a driver that would be a big accomplishment, you know, for for Verago or whoever owns the site now. >> Yeah. Whoever owns it. Yeah. >> Well, what are your thoughts on that? It
there's still a couple of loose ends on on the certificate. Not to say that when everything else is signed off, the commission may just entertain that uh the remaining deviation is is minor in
nature and not impact impactful. It may not require any further work. At that point, we could issue a certificate and re eliminate the bond. Okay. >> The the town's position and from town council is they'd like to get everything
cleaned up on this uh you know have a global conclusion of this. Um and I I just think that that would might be the it it's what could happen tonight uh for
your for your client uh with the reduction in bond uh in my opinion. But >> right well so I I guess um my client's position is that um we're talking about two separate permits. So the the um uh
the any issue any questions um regarding the other permit and the planning board are with respect to a different permit. Um and and uh that that is part of the superseding order. Um but but our our position now is that everything is
closed out on that as well. Um that the fi final remaining item with the planning board uh was was that was the uh training with the fire department which occurred um on December 2nd. Um, so there there should be no remaining items and unfortunately the only reason
that's that's not closed out is because um, D takes a while and we contacted them at the same time that we contacted you and we've had we've scheduled two hearings with you already, >> right? >> Um, and I haven't even gotten managed a phone call um, despite numerous pieces.
So my my I know my client's preference is going to be let's not let D drive the show because it could be 6 months till we hear from them and we have two separate permits and and our goal would be to close this permit um for which we believe we have substantial compliance
um you know and and um so that would be my preference Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Know I and I I certainly understand that the we have the chairman of the planning board as a sitting member of our commission. >> Understood. >> And so Woody, why don't I ask you where
does the planning board stand on uh this whole development? >> After our last meeting in December, I I asked if we had heard anything from you folks, and we had. So as of as of
today, I don't know of anything to that's any contact from you guys to close us out this project either permit. So, um, this latter part here was an
amendment to the original permit, even though it's it's I guess it's evidently a separate permit, but the road came in, this access road for the national grid came in after >> that's correct.
>> permit was put in. So whether they're two they're two separate permits but we haven't had any we haven't had any correspondence or action that I'm aware of and I've asked right through. I did get an email today which I did not get
the chance to read. It was just as I was opening to attend this meeting. Um it had something to do with the bond reduction. Um but as I said I didn't get a chance to read it.
Um but as far as I know we don't have any any um you know >> there's no request to close out >> there's no request to close out >> uh the planning board part that would
have been named back >> Rob please I I'll recognize you when when when it's time. >> Thank you. Thank you chairman Connor. >> Thank thank you sir. Uh so you haven't received any actual request to close out
uh the planning board stuff. Now wasn't there a mention at 1.2 that there was some trees privacy screen that had been built for the planning board that >> uh didn't take or something like that. >> Through conversation the uh the Marthur
and Pete who was a chair at the time had gone on a sidewalk. This was a couple years ago. Um, and there was a either trees that weren't installed and then there were trees that were installed that died and they were dead when the
sitewalk was taking place. And that sitewalk I think was just a inspection as as the project was going through. I don't I don't know if it was a sidewalk for this access road and they observed this or if it was part of the original
permit, but I I didn't clarify that with them. But I was told that there were trees. And um I I did talk to the planner after our last meeting in December and she's going to have the
um original conditions for the board whenever you apply for to close out with us. So >> okay, >> we can address that there. >> So one one one thing uh >> I think they were screening. Sorry B. Sorry.
>> Yeah. So, so I I just I just want to had some clarification. So, the the original solar array was approved by the planning board and Rob, I I realized that National Grid Major put in this extensive expensive roadway for access
from the point of connection to the point of generation. Now, Woody, did the roadway then come under plan jurisdiction as a separate permit? I I believe it came back a modification. >> Okay. To the original. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So So Rob, here here's here's kind of the dilemma. The planning board could simply say that we're not going to close this out until you do X, Y, and Z, and you're still going to be within our
jurisdiction. Um I, you know, honestly, I think you guys have done an amazing job. You put a 6 165 ft clear span bridge in an impossible area and you did it all in four months and
and you comply with the reporting and no incidents, no spills. Um, >> thank you. >> So, you know, and it the only thing I wanted to watch that bridge go in. That's the only >> I know you and me both. You know, it was one of those things that you're never
going to see that kind of a bridge going in into such a tight tight area spanning spanning wetlands. But >> in all honesty, the feedback we got from you guys uh during the permitting process actually helped with some of that. So, it was there was some really
useful back and forth. >> Um, >> you did a great you did a great job on the permit. >> I I think I hear what what we need to do. Um, I I I will say I thought we were we were basically done with with this because I had been working with Martha and there was one item remaining. I had
been working with Martha and we were and so um we were down to one item. Um but I will make sure that we now um restart that process uh and make sure that everybody is on the same page. Um
but so so Mr. Chairman, I want to ask again, it's a chicken or the egg thing. So why why should I start with the more difficult part going back to the planning board? Why can't I close out my conservation commission permit which is separate and distinct and then let me go
work on my my planning board uh um approval. Um they're they're they're distinct and um I I I need I need to make progress. I >> Yeah. No, I I >> This was completed in 2023. >> I you're you got here in December. It's
January. You're right 100%. >> You you know how this could be six or eight months in in another jurisdiction, another plan, another >> and we're we're very accommodating. So >> you are very accommodating. >> I I I I think the the one remaining
issue is you you amended your con your planning board permit or approval to include the roadway. uh and if they require something to be done and it's within our jurisdiction
uh you know you're then you're going to be in a situation that's if you close out the permit you got to come back for an RDA or this and that. Honestly, Rob, I would just say let's consider the bond reduction. Do
that. Get this other stuff squared away. come back in and and I I think it'll be a pretty simple uh process from there. That that's my recommendation as a contractor and developer to to uh to you
and your client. >> Okay. >> And it let me let me go around and ask if there's any other questions. Um Woody, you you have any other questions or comments?
The only other thing I can recall was um whether or not it's been being plowed and I know we may not have had I don't recall if it was two or four inches. That's why I've asked for the for the um original order of conditions because it's either two or four inches that
needs to be plowed. So we haven't had any substantial storms yet this year. So >> So but that's a planning board issue that uh Rob questions. it. What's that >> on a conservation end? I have no other questions.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you, Woody. Mick, what are your thoughts on this? >> Uh, no other questions on my end, Bob. I think uh questions I had were answered at our December 2nd meeting, so >> Okay, >> I'm good right now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mick. Uh, Frank, uh, your
thoughts? Any questions or comments? I wasn't at the December 2nd meeting, but if I'm hearing you correctly, Bob, you're saying clean up the planning board issues so that there are no changes required that would impact our
ability to approve the CFC. Is that correct? Basically, let's just, you know, the thing is the the town in its entirety wants to close out, get this all wrapped up. If if the asbuilt was exact as
permitted, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. To to Rob's point, the deviation is minor in in nature, but but it it's still a deviation. leaves it somewhat in our jurisdiction to uh you know to
decide um >> well and I don't see how I don't see how we can approve it if there is a deviation and and be consistent with what we've said to others who have come
in for a COC. Yeah, I I I think on the grand scale of everything, the the deviations in this case are, you know, 25 square feet in one area and
a barrel or two of crushed stone in a in a waterway. Yeah, Rob, go ahead if you want to. >> Yeah, I I I don't think the standard is if there's a deviation. I think the standard that by which we measured is substantial compliance. So, um, >> we're the determination of where the
>> That's right. >> It's not zero deviation. It's substantial compliance. And so, substantial compliance implies that there's going to be some variation. >> Yeah. No, I I I totally agree. I totally agree. And it I I I think the emphasis,
Rob, is let's get everything wrapped up. We'll get your bond reduction tonight. Uh, and get the planning good squared away. And and to your point, the superseding order from DP, I I don't even think that's a concern
for us at this point. But so I think get your planning board stuff done. It doesn't sound like it's going to be that that much of a of a hurdle to to get that done. Um but >> famous last words.
>> Yeah. Well, but but you know what? It's better to have a $100,000 bond sitting there than a >> It is. Okay, Mr. Chair, if I have if you wouldn't mind if I ask just one quick question for uh the night. Yeah. >> So, uh Woody, is it um for the next
steps with the with the planning board? Um would that would this be something that I would be working with the director or uh planning director or or would you like or would the uh planning board want to see this again? >> Well, it would have to come before us
for uh to close out. So, it would I would contact um Kristen Grubs, the planning director. I know you've you did this with Martha. Martha's our special planning director now, but >> yeah, >> if you contact Kristen directly, she'll
get she'll tell you what you need to do. >> Okay. >> And she'll you guys can confer with Martha. She can confer with Martha for historic things from that took place before. >> Right. Do do you ever see these things done as administrative approvals,
meaning that um if if the planning board or or sorry, if the if the planning planning director if Kristen um um says everything signed off that that that that's sufficient. Um I I guess I'm just trying to um um determine if I if we need to schedule another a future
meeting with with the um with the planning board. >> I I believe you'd have to schedule a future meeting with the planning board. I don't think that it was in the conditions. I haven't read the conditions recently. I read them originally.
>> Was it a site plan approval? >> Was it a special permit? Yeah, special permit. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I think he'd have to come back to the bullet. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That's that's my understanding of it. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, Frank Wetenamp, any questions
uh or comment you'd like to make on this? >> No, Bob, I'm almost set. >> Okay, David, how about yourself? >> No, I have no comments, Bob. >> Okay. So, so Rob, I I'm about to entertain a motion uh to consider the
bond reduction from 1.9 down to $100,000. Uh, and then when you get the others all your ducks in a row on these other little minor things, come back for your COC and doesn't require a public hearing.
Doesn't require a public notice. It will be accommodating to >> okay >> at that at that point. So that's how I'm going to proceed unless you have a a final comment. And I and I get you you'd love to get everything in it.
But uh >> we're make progress is progress is progress. >> Yeah. No, listen. You're you're your your your thought on reducing this to 100 grand would >> That's right. That's right. Thank you. Thank you for your thank you for your help. >> And it's fair, too. So, all right. I
will entertain a motion uh to approve the bond reduction on this project from $1.9 million to $100,000. Do I need a I need a motion? >> Second.
>> Second. >> Okay. Who made the motion? Mick, was that you or >> Frank? Frank. >> Okay. You made the motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. Okay. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Uh,
Woody, >> yes. >> Uh, Mick, >> hi. >> Frank, >> hi. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor is chess. Thank Thank you, Rob. You're you're almost there,
buddy. You're almost there. >> All righty, folks. Happy New Year. You have a great night. I'll be seeing you soon. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Next time I'm bringing brownies. We got to get through this. You know, the brownies might have helped tonight, you know, if you >> I know it. I know it.
>> I know. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next matter is a request for determination 280 High Road applicant is submitting an RDA for replacement of a rubble foundation and a buffer zone. Mason, uh,
what's the status of this? Is this continued again? You're on mute, Mason. Sorry about that. Uh, yes it is, but we have new public hearings first. >> Oh, okay.
Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, I hear you. I'm following my usual format. And so, >> yeah, I threw a wrench in there for you this week. >> Okay. All right. So, new public hearing.
Uh, we do not have a D file number. It's 291 High Road. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent for the maintenance and refreshing of an existing parking area, boat ramp, license under chapter 91. The applicant is seeking to expand marina
operations by installing a series of seasonal bottom anchored floats accessible via a gang way from a parking area. Mason, can you give us your overview on this? And is Tom speaking on this one? >> Yep. Yeah, he is. Uh so my recommendation for this since we don't have a file number, we can't be taking
action tonight. Um but we can hear uh you know a preliminary presentation and then um you know schedule our normal sidewalks that we do for for new notices. Um so yeah, like you said um maintenance and refreshing of the existing parking area and then the
expansion of the um existing float system. Um >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, normally we don't schedule a sitewalk until we get D number and and and D comments so that if they flag something, we we we can look
at and determine if it's an issue or you we can check that box. Anything else, Mason? >> Uh, no, that's it. I we did get an email today saying that um the notice did make it to I believe it was Phil's desk at D.
Um, so within the next day or two, we should be getting comments in in a number. >> Okay, great. Tom, good evening. >> Good evening. Tom Hughes with Hughes Environmental Consulting. Uh, let me uh share my screen.
So, I'm sure uh many of you are familiar with the site uh the site of the old Fernol's Marine um right over there by the bridge at the Parker River. Uh the site has um a couple chapter 91
licenses. It has one for this series of floats over here, but the one that in particular that we're looking at now is issued in 1957 and it covers the parking area and the boat ramp. Um, so we're required uh Joel Olette, who's
uh 291 to 293 High Road LLC, has acquired the uh marina and uh is required under chapter 91 to maintain those structures. Uh and as such, he's looking to refresh
the surface material on the parking area. And given that that is an alteration under the wetland protection act, we're required to meet some storm water standards. So, we've included some storm water management as part of that.
And uh and I'll go through that shortly. And there's a boat ramp. It's a paved boat ramp. It's going to need a a new coat of pavement on it at some point. So, we're including maintenance of that as well in this uh application. And
there's a you can see the straight line along here that is a bulkhead wall that is part of the chapter 91 license. Uh the other part of this application and I'll go through it in a little more detail but is going to have a seasonal ramp out to a series of floats and uh
that will be permitted as well through the army corps and through the uh through the harbor master. Um so let me go down. I've got to move you guys out of the way. All right. So, the location, uh, I think you're all
familiar with it. It's where the Parker River goes under 1A, um, on the east side, the southeast side to be exact. So, we're looking at um, this area is the parking area. The boat ramp is kind of right in here. Uh, it
doesn't show up well on this aerial photograph. Uh but if anybody you know is familiar with the site, you may even have used that boat ramp before. Um interestingly for this area is the endangered species habitat. It's
actually way out in the river. It's not um it's not right up at the shore, which is often the case with Newbury uh you know, Nubber uh shoreland along uh along the river and out uh out in the salt
marsh. The thing that is interesting you can see in this photo is you can see where the shallower areas of the Parker are and where the deeper water area closer to the bridge is here just by the the changes in color. And if you pay attention to that and then you look at
uh how we've drawn the floats out, you'll see uh part of what we're looking at. Um I think everybody knows this area is um suitable for you know oyster and for uh for clam habitat that's mapped
that way. Uh it's also land subject to coastal storm flowage. One thing to note is it's outside the limit of moderate wave action. Uh so this area while it is a coastal area and it is a flood plane, it
is not considered a coastal azone under uh under those uh requirements that we'll be dealing with more in the future. Here's a view from the east. You can see the area of the existing bulkhead, the parking area, and here is
where the uh the boat ramp is and the existing flow system. And this is just the same view from the east zoomed in a little bit. Again, you can see the boat ramp. Uh the boat ramp does get some sediment accumulated on the pavement from time to time. Um I'll
talk to you a little bit about the uh best management practice that's typically followed when you're resurfacing a boat ramp. And uh we'll be doing that. Again, you can see this parking area. Currently there's uh there's no storm water controls present.
This is a chapter 91 license um just included in here because you know we do reference that and uh this shows where the bulkhead and parking area is and it also uh documents where the boat ramp is as well. It's not the easiest
thing to uh to read, but you can kind of see uh that detail if you want to take the time to try to read this old kind of beat up plan. But so here is our existing condition. You can see the the ramp, the
wall, um the reference to the to the um license plan, the coastal bank. So basically the top of the bulkhead wall is is one coastal bank and then further outside of any area that we're doing any work right now is a second coastal bank
which is uh uh further back on the on the site. We actually call this the first coastal bank and this the second coastal bank but that's just semantics. And then going down to um proposed what we're proposing,
let me zoom out a little bit, is to resurface the parking area and we will be um adjusting the grade slightly. Right now, the the grades drop off as you approach the bulkhead in a way that essentially has any storm water that's
generated kind of head right towards the bulkhead wall with no abatement, no treatment. So, we'll be bringing that up slightly uh adjusting the grade so that the water flows where these little flow are arrows go and then we'll have a uh a
stone diaphragm to accept water and infiltrate it uh providing some storm water treatment. Since this is a redevelopment, uh this is is sufficient to meet the storm water standards. It will improve water quality, uh it also
will allow us to maintain the parking area and comply with both the chapter 91 requirements as well as the wetland protection act. And then we will be uh resurfacing the boat ramp. Um when that is done,
there'll be two uh BMPs employed. One is a silk curtain for the preparation of the boat ramp. Typically, at a dead low, you're uh you're power washing without a detergent. You're powerwashing off any algae, any sediment uh trying to to
clean that up. Typically, you remove most of the sediment with a bobcat or whatever. And you know what? If it's if it's a measurable amount and the rest is done with a power wash, we would employ a silk curtain for that part to keep any siltation from getting out into the
Parker River. Then when the pavement occurs, again happening at a at a dead low tide, the um the best practice is you put a um a sororbent boom out to uh
trap any uh any pollutants that come off the fresh pavement during the first two tide cycles. So we put a a sorbent boom out. Typically the first flush gets everything but you leave it out for a second uh a second tide cycle just as a
precaution and then that's removed and that's the uh the BMP for that. Then the um the proposal for the uh seasonal floats is one where these are these are going to be bottom anchored with helix uh
anchors. the um the gang way would essentially leave the top of the bulkhead, come out and uh and we've got larger uh and it's not very large, but 24 ft slips that are
in this area. This is the area where I showed you on the aerial where it's darker colored. We have a little bit of deeper water in this area. uh these areas, these are going to be 20 foot slips that would accommodate, you know, a smaller boat. The this is not a marina
that's going to be taking massive boats. You know, a 24 slip is uh is a little over half the size of your typical slip in the Marramac. Um but the idea is to to provide some additional
boating. the uh there's a lot of demand for boat slips and the Parker and uh and the new owner is looking to meet some of that demand with this. Um we have a separation between the existing floats
and the proposed floats of 35 ft and that's to allow boats to be able to come in and out off that boat ramp and still be able to get in and navigate. Uh this will be subject to Army Corps permitting. It'll also be subject to a
10A harbor master uh permit as well. Um the uh the impacts to the bottom sediment are are really quite small. Um the helical anchors add up to less than a half a square foot of uh cross-section
once they're installed. Um so the the impacts to land underwater or or land under the ocean is which is a resource there is is really pretty minimal. Um there is a chance that in the areas where it's significantly
deeper um if we're unable to install uh helicals in that area, we may have to put in a habitat block it's called. And that's a a concrete anchor with um with holes that are bored into it to
establish habitat. And um and uh they're sort of the next best thing on the on the food chain for a um for an area like this for anchoring. Um so with that said, I mean, it's a relatively simple project.
certainly is one that is visible and uh it will improve uh the ability for folks to to use the parker for recreation. um the area is in the ACE but it does not take away from any of the ACE uh uh
functions or that are that are protected and in fact it enhances some of the things for which the Great Marsh ACC is listed which is uh for for uh sport fishing and for recreational boating. So, um, with that said, I'm happy to
answer any questions. Um, and, uh, I do think given that the the file number is clearly imminent, maybe we could talk about a site visit a week or or so out, far enough out that that we should have that file number and any comments. Uh,
>> we we have a meeting in two weeks, Tom, >> and and at that point, we should have a file number. we should have any technical comments that I think would be approp that would be our normal policy. A as you know uh the commission uh
reserves its comments until we have a file number or we don't have that. Um so I just just just a point of process what is the chapter 91 process on this? So it's a it's a 10A.
>> How how what are the steps on that? Is that first and then local or or reverse? >> No, we have to have um conservation approval then that conservation order of
conditions goes to the um goes to the Army Corps as part of that application. Uh, we'll probably be filing the Army Corps while we're in process with you, but it won't be a complete application until we provide the order of conditions. The harbor master gets it
last. They want to see it after all of that. And then the harbor master does a 10A permit on a float setup of this size. They're required to hold a hearing as part of that 10A process. Um, so we need all of the other approvals in
place. uh and that is that constitutes an annual chapter 91 license and they'll have to go through that process uh to renew every year. >> Okay. So, so Tom, at this time uh I I would suggest you request a continuence to our next meeting.
>> Uh first, Mr. Chairman, if you could check and see if there are any neighbors or abutters or folks who want to >> comment since folks did get noticed. >> Okay. Are there any raised hands? Uh Mason,
you're you're on mute, but I'm seeing a headshake. No. >> Yeah, I I'm not seeing any. >> Yep. So that there there's no raised hands from the public at this point. >> Okay. >> So our next meeting is January 20th.
>> All right. So I would request continuence to that uh meeting then. >> Okay. Uh, I will entertain a motion to continue uh this public hearing to our January 20th meeting at the applicant's request.
>> So moved. >> Okay. Do all right. That's Woody and Mick. >> Well, you are now. Okay. Roll call vote. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick. I.
>> Frank. >> Yes. >> David. >> Yes. and Bob Connor. Thank you, Tom. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The the next matter is another new public hearing. Uh it does not have a D
file. 45 Boston Road applicants submitting a notice of intent to expand existing boardwalk systems within or within the proximity to bordering vegetative wetlands. What's the status on this, Nason? >> Uh yep. So, it's on the agenda because
it's been advertised. Uh, but it's still administratively complete right now. So, the applicant's going to be working on finishing up the submission and bringing it in front of us for the January 20th meeting, I believe. >> Okay. So, they're requesting a continuence to the January 20th.
>> Okay. Uh, I'll entertain a motion to continue the public hearing at the applicant's request to a January 20th meeting. >> So moved. >> Second, >> Woody. Mick. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes.
>> Mick, >> hi. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connors. Okay. All right. Now, we're going back to the RDAs, correct, Mason?
>> Yep. >> All right. So, let me just go back here and All right. So, now we're back to uh an RDA for 280 high road applicants submitting an RDA to replace a rubble
foundation and buffer zone. And Mason, you've already said they're continuing this. >> Yep. The applicants requested a continuence. >> Okay. So, all right. The next one is a request for determination of applicability tool year away applicant is submitting
an RDA for the installation of a ground mounted solar panel. Mason, can you give us an overview and a recommendation on this? >> Yep. So, where this had left off um the commission wanted some more insight on the area that these were proposed to be installed um to see what the existing
vegetation was in this area. Um so, I have a couple photos I can share here. Um, we had talked at the previous meeting um about what was going to need to be removed in this area and these pictures kind of give a a clear sense of of what's going to be here and what's
going to need to be removed. Um, I believe that both of these trees here are going to be removed and the solar array will be behind this fenced area. Uh the other remaining items or questions that the commission had um was the height of the structure um the
height of the top of the solar panel to where um it mounts into the ground and then um the height from the bottom of the panel to the ground. Um so the height from the bottom of the panel to the ground is 36 in and then the height
of the top of the panel to the ground is 98 in. So it's 36 in on one end because it's at an angle. It's at 96 the other. Okay. >> Right. So that that bottom portion is 36 and the top is is 98. And I think the
original um kind of comments and concerns from the commission um were were they going to be elevated enough to where we would see sunlight underneath um and and avoid the you know the need for mitigation planting. >> Okay. Now the proposed area is that in a
buffer or is it in a resource area? Uh, this is on Plum Island. So, this is >> right on Yale Way here. >> Okay. But what is it? Upland or I mean, what do we >> uh So, this would be Coastal Dune and
Barrier Beach, I believe. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, is the applicant here that could answer questions if if there are any from the members? >> Uh, so the applicant's representative, is he here? And I believe that is Joran. >> Yes, I'm here.
>> Okay, Joran, welcome. Just give us your name and your title. And then uh what we'll do is we'll go around, we'll consult with the members first, see if they have any questions, and then I'll direct the question to you at that time if that's okay.
>> Okay. Um, my name is Anthony. Sorry, it says Jordan. That's my son's name and my phone is under his name. Um, but my name is Anthony. I'm actually the owner of the installation company. Um, and I I didn't really have any much questions on anything. Just I guess I'm here to see
if there's any requirements on you guys' end or anything of that nature or any compliance that we have to follow. >> Okay. Well, why don't we do this? Stand by. So, I'll ask you the first question. What is your anchoring system? The
poured concrete and sonar tubes aren't, you know, aren't allowed on a on Plum Island. >> So, you're >> I'm sorry. Can you ask that one? >> Yeah. So, your your solar panels are elevated and at the corners you're going
to have a number of support posts. Correct. >> Yes. And what what I'm just offering is the the method of supporting that cannot be on a
8 in or 12 in concrete sona tube. It it would either have to be a u on a helical pile or what's the other one we we use? I'm having a >> So they're proposing ground ground screws. >> Yeah, we usually do ground screws for
all of them. Yeah. >> Perfect. Yeah, perfect. Okay. So, let me go on. Woody, questions for uh for the applicant or for the representative. >> Um are you gonna bury are you going to be burying the power line from the panel to
the home? >> Yes. Um we'll trench and we'll have the dig safe also out there and we cover it right back up the conduit and everything. >> Okay. Um, what's a is there ve uh I
don't have the picture in front of me, but does is there vegetation and what's the distance from the panel to the home? >> From my knowledge, there's no um vegetation, I believe. So, correct me if I'm wrong. >> Uh, so there's a little bit of ground
cover here as you can see in this picture, Woody. So, they'll have to remove some of this. And I believe, like we said at the last meeting, they talked about the need to remove those trees. Um, >> trees and bushes. Yeah. >> Yep. And then uh I should have
and I uh the layout that'll show where the solar array is uh in comparison to the house. One second. >> Is there actually like a a proposed site plan on this? Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Okay. You have that, Mason?
>> Yep. It's right here. >> Okay. So, I can zoom in. Oh, too much. So, this is the house here. This is the proposed solar array in the blue here. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions right now. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you, Woody. Uh Mick, any questions on this one? >> Uh sorry, uh Mason make you like run back
to the aerial or to the photograph, but is the the two white pines there that are going to be removed? Is that is that the extent of brush removal or uh did you said the two white um pines you?
>> Yeah, it looks like there's white pines on the on the right hand side of the photograph here. Yeah, we're going to be removing those. >> And these alters or that that scrub in front, those taller ones, are those going to be removed? >> Um, based off of this picture, I can't
really tell how how back one is. Um, but if it's around where I mean, it looks like it's around where the solar system is going to go. So, I'm going to say yes. But if it's going to be like behind the solar system, matter of fact, that one doesn't look so tough. Yeah, we're just probably going to remove that one as well.
Okay. I I think I'd like to see a plan of like what vegetation is going to be removed and how much of that. >> Okay, Mike. >> Yep. Thank you. >> All right. Uh Frank, comment.
>> Uh I'm wondering how high will it be off the ground and will there be has that already been determined enough light? Yeah, it's uh on the low end it's going to be 36 in off the ground and on the high end because it's angled it'll be
906 in off the ground is what? >> So will there be any planting done? uh seat belts or any >> I I think what Mary had originally said was she was looking for about three to four feet underneath the panels and I
think that's what she was thinking would be sufficient enough to allow um you know sunlight underneath. Um but in terms of replanting trees, I don't think we've discussed anything yet in terms of you know replanting any any natives or something like that.
>> Yeah. I know that wasn't really in the thoughts. >> And no heavy equipment's required for this. >> Um, if anything, we could probably get a we'll most likely have a truck out there just for the the trenching if so, but if
not, then I know the guys will do it manually themselves, but other than that, nothing else will be machinery. No. >> Yeah. I mean, typically, uh, Frank, they when they're putting in these ground screws,
uh, once they locate them, it it's it's usually a motorized mechanism, either on a a Bobcat or it's off of a I mean, I've seen them done all all different ways. Good news is this is probably all sand here, too. So, it's >> right.
>> It's not going to be an overly uh hard install on the ground screw. But I think to to Mick's point is um if we're eliminating a couple of trees,
um does the commission want to entertain that they re plant those in a different area or relocate those into a different area so that the ground cover is going to be fine by the elevation. I think that was Mary's initial concern.
Mick, are the I mean the aler is that just a scrub? >> Yeah, I mean there's there's scrub. It's but they they provide root structure, right? So what's what's holding especially the white pines too pretty extensive root system. So if you're going to remove those trees, you're
going to essentially kill off that root system. So we need plant cover to to you know, regain, you know, stability to the soil there. That's my only concern. >> The trees, >> sorry, the trees we cut would have to be
replanted again. >> Yeah. No, >> saying that. >> Yeah. Yeah. You I I'll direct questions to you when when when it's time. Okay. So, just please hold your comments. So, Mick, go ahead. Why don't you uh >> No, I just say if you're going to remove
trees, you know, they in in this resource area, we should be considering you're also killing off the root system by cutting the tree down. So, that's that root system helps hold on to the soil and inhibit erosion and things of
that nature. So, are you going to replace it? Or are there alternatives? Like with the white pines, if they're going to be behind or out of the direction of sunlight, can you limb the pines up as opposed to removing them? And the same with the alders, can you
prune them or, you know, can we maintain the plantings there so you don't have to remove them or position your solar array such that you don't have to remove trees? That's that's my suggestion. the less the less vegetation you remove, the
better. >> And if you can prune trees and keep them out of the solar array, you're you're better off. So, in this picture, if that solar array was going to face me directly, you could probably prune the pine, you could probably remove some
minor brush and saves you work and saves you from having to replace plants, too. >> Yeah. So Mick, just a thought on past RDAs, what we've done is uh required that the
uh prior to construction that the the conservation agent be uh go do a site visit, you know, pre-construction visit. >> Yeah. >> And and then um we could determine that if they cut a tree, they have to replace a tree.
>> And that's great. >> Okay. And and just keep it simple like that. But your point is they could give a haircut to that where 50% of the vegetation is gone, but it'll still survive. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> And retain the root structure. So, >> yeah.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to think ahead a little bit with >> Yeah. No, no, no. It's uh it's consistent with what we usually do on >> you take something, you give something. So, all right. Anything else, M? All right, Frank. No, no, thank you,
>> Frank. Your your thoughts on this? Yeah, I agree with M. I think uh anything that can be done to maintain the soil would be good. >> Okay. Thank Thank you, Frank. David, what do you have thoughts on this?
>> I have no questions or comments. >> Okay. So, just to do a recap, what what I'm going to suggest is if we if we entertain a u a motion to issue a negative finding
that we we add to the file that prior to construction that there'll be a pre-construction site visit with the conservation agent uh to go over placement and then ultimate disturbance
to the trees. Uh Mason, you could guide you could give guidance on this, but if we remove a tree, then we're going to require a like kind tree. >> Yep. Yeah. Tree or shrub and then we can do it from the the CZM coastal plant list as well.
>> Yeah, exactly. >> Yep. >> Does that sound good to everybody? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. I will entertain a motion to issue a negative finding on this request. Uh but include in the file uh
call it conditions, call it what they need to do that they will set up a pre-construction meeting with the agent, review vegetation removal or trimming. uh and if it requires removal of a tree
that a a tree uh approved by the agent in location by the agent will will be installed. >> So moved. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All right, Mason, you have you get
the gist of what what we're looking for in this. >> Yep. >> Yep. Totally. >> Okay. Roll call. All those in favor? Woody. Yes, >> Nick. >> Hi, >> Frank. >> Frank, you're on you're on mute. Yeah, Frank, you're you're you're on
mute, too. There you go. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Frank. David. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's loss. All right. Thank you. So, like like I said, the The guidance is simply before you start
and you have your permit from from the uh building department or whoever else, whatever permit you have to get, talk to the agent, go over placement, mark out where you want to put your post, and we'll determine what impact you have and we'll adjust from there. >> Sounds good. Thank you very much. Okay,
>> you gentlemen, have a good night. >> You too. All right. Another ID RDA at 77. Is it what? What street is that? H. Oh, 77 Hay Street. The applicant is
submitting an RDA for >> maintenance and repair of an existing boardwalk system that crosses the Salt M. >> Mason, what's uh your overview and do you have a recommendation? >> Yep. Uh, so this is a project uh being submitted by the trustees of the
reservation. Um there, some of you may be familiar with the trail um that starts on Newman Road. It goes past that green gate um and out into the marsh and out there. Um there's an existing boardwalk system that already has wooden stakes driven in um and and planks
running across. Um what they're proposing here is is no further expansion of the boardwalks, but uh simply uh repair and maintenance. Um, from the sounds of talking with Ned and and reviewing on-site conditions, um, I don't think that they're going to have to be driving any um, you know, new
wooden stakes into the marsh or replacing any of those existing ones. It's uh, just a lot of the uh, the boards that are laying across that need to be replaced as well as some of the handrailings and things like that. >> Okay. So, basically, it's a refresh of existing conditions with no outward
expansion. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Uh, questions? Uh Woody, any questions on this matter? Ned, are you are you presenting for the trustes? >> Yes, I'm presenting for the trustees. >> Any questions, Woody?
>> No, I'm familiar with the area. Nope. Sounds good. >> Okay. Thank you, Woody. Nick, any any questions on this one? >> No. Sounds like uh Ned, it's it's like for like, right, you're >> Yeah, it's it's replacement in kind. >> Yeah. Yep. No, I'm good. I'm good. Thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you, Frank. Mick. Frank, what are your thoughts on that? >> No questions. Thank you, Bob. >> Okay, thank you, Frank. David, how about yourself? Any questions on this one? >> No, I I looked at the images that they shared. Uh, and I was just surprised
it's very narrow. It doesn't impact us, but it it's just a very narrow walkway. I was just kind of surprised to see how narrow it actually was. That's that's the only just an observation, not a question or a comment really. But >> well, you know, typically if the walkway is 30 inches or less, it doesn't even
require approval. >> I'm assuming, Nate, it's bigger than that. >> Yeah, >> 36. >> I don't know when it was built. I think it was built in the 90s or something, but I I it's it's less than it's >> It is probably more than that. I Is that
just counting the width of the actual walking surface or between the peers? Uh well, you know, it is we run into this on the island where people want to put a walkway and if it's over 30 in, they're required to file, you know, a notice of
intent and have it elevated. If it's less than 30 in, >> uh my understanding is it doesn't require any action, but that's not the case here. I was just more of a a question for, you know, answer for David. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Uh, are there any any raised hands at this point, Mason? >> Seeing none. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to issue a negative finding uh on this project for 77 Street.
>> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes. >> Rick? >> Yes. Frank. Uh, I read Frank's lips. >> David. >> Yes.
>> And Bob Connor. So, cheers. Okay. Thank you guys. >> In action. >> Yeah. You Well, you know what? It's at Comcast over there. Uh, you know, in Knob Hill there in Old Newbury, you know. >> I thought Frank was going to tell us
he's in Italy or Sri Lanka or some place. Usually usually he's in Colorado skiing and David's in Costa Rica. So we're we're blessed with people being in the same zip code. Okay. Next order of business. Is there request for a
determination of applicability 108 Northern Boulevard. Applicant is submitting an RDA for the installation of two 6x6 granted post to delineate and protect parking for 108 Northern Boulevard. Mason, can you give us an overview and a recommendation on this?
Uh, yep. So, this is a matter that was before the board a while ago, um, in regards to the access at 333rd Street. Um, and following, um, an appeal and such. Um, this is part
of the settlement. Um, so the installation of two 6x6 granite posts. Um, and I can pull up the plans to show where they are. Um the only recommendation that I would have is um
the host locations are based on a previously approved plan. Um so if we could just make sure that these get on a plan that you know have an accurate location of these that would be >> Did the original order require a a site
plan a uh asbuilt? I don't know. One second because if it did then that would we'd be able to catch that on. So these are really monumentation survey monumentation.
Here we are. >> Yeah. Are they are they surveyed bounds or they >> Yeah, they survey bounds, Mick, then they're exempt from our They're exe they're exempt from approval because it's a whether it's a granite monumentation or
a a pipe with a pen. Can you circle circle with your with your cursor the uh where the granite is? I Okay. So, I believe that those are the two
um that are going to be going in at 108 and then the six here, excuse me, at 106. Okay. 13 uh 333rd is the back lot that
we're looking at with the uh the driveway that we had originally approved. Okay. >> Right. So this is this is 333rd here. This is >> Okay. I I get it. Yeah. So these are really not survey instruments. They're boundary. >> They're actual at the ball than they are
anymore. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. >> All right. Uh so is the is there a requirement for an asbuilt in the original order? >> Uh not an asbuilt. I was just uh more so just you know a a approved uh you know
location plan. I was thinking >> well I I was just wondering do we condition the original order of conditions for 33rd Street with a NAS build? >> Uh that I'm unsure of. I'm not sure. Or is it a a moot point where it was
appealed to DP and then they issued a superseding? >> Yeah, I I think that's the case where it was issued a superseding order and this is you know the the final sum of >> you know tying everything up. >> Yeah. All right. If it's a settle a
court settlement um it's a it's a condition of the order of settlement. So it's not going to have any impact to the resource here as I see it. But
all right, let me open this up to questions. What Woody, what are your thoughts on this? >> So um just clarification. So what you're saying is we don't have to take any action or we do have to vote on this. Well, no, we're going to it's a determination
of the request of applicability. If if they were survey monumentation, uh it it's before us anyway, but you know, traditionally survey instruments, you know, stone stone bounds like this
wouldn't require they usually are exempt >> uh from, you know, permitting. for but the obvious thing you know it's it's a it's a it's a survey boundary >> the defining property or roadways but that's
not the case here Woody so >> okay I have no I don't have any other questions then Bob thank you >> okay uh Mick any any questions in your part >> no I'm good Bob thank you >> okay thank you Mick Frank any any
questions in your part >> no questions as well. >> Okay, David, how about you? >> No questions. >> Okay, I don't have any questions. Mason, I I see one raised hand. Uh Richard Nland. Richard, do you want to just give
us your name and your affiliation with the project and then fire away? >> Sure. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh thank you very much. It's uh Chip N. I represent the >> Chip >> owners of Well, I've been Chip for a long time. uh the owners of 333. Um we
were here when we received an order of conditions. And just to put this in perspective, these these RDAs are not on our property. They're on the uh appellants property. The uh the order conditions was issued by you for the driveway and then the neighbors appealed
it. They happen to own two pieces of property. You have two orders RDAs in front of you. I I thought that they were going to raise their hand and explain things, but but Gabe hasn't done that, so he'll probably speak after me. So, they appealed our order and as part of settlement, what they want to do is to
be able to protect their property so we aren't bumping into them. So, they've asked for granite post to be in uh placed on their properties. So, yeah, we're in favor of that. and we got together and what we we said to follow up what the uh agent said is what we
would like to make sure happens is first we wanted them to talk to the DPW to make sure it's okay for you know uh uh public vehicles being around the the corn because it's a fairly narrow area that doesn't relate to the commission that that'll be up to the DPW but the
two things for for the commission were to file an RDA and we could establish with a surveyed plan where those posts were going to be and number two that that would then be recorded and that's just to protect everybody for you know having certainty in the future where the
posts are for enforcement or for any other purposes. So that's all that we're looking for is the commission to approve these provided that there's a surveyed plan that shows where they are with certainty and that that's then recorded. That's all that we're asking from the uh
from the commission and and this will handle this uh RDA that's in front of you as well as the next one that follows. Those are the two properties owned and and I'm sure Gabe can can follow up, but we're we're we're hoping that this will put everything to uh to
bed and uh I think it's a it's a good compromise for everybody. >> Yeah. So So Chip, what is the wording of the settlement agreement that was approved by the court? has not excuse me I'm sorry I'm sorry I don't want to mislead the commission the
chairman this is Gabriel Dumont rep representing uh the prop property owners uh this is not this is not a settlement pursuant to a court uh this is the the settlement discussions that were we were
required to make and happy to make have uh immediately after filing the appeal Uh so so so this this is where we're at and and I and I and I don't want to mislead the uh leave a misimpression. Uh
it it's it was not surveyed and not intended to be although I it will have the effect of being boundaries uh property boundaries just because of the nature of where we propose to uh put
them. uh they were not then that we're we're not presenting it and saying that to the to the commission that these are in fact boundaries. We intend them to be inside the boundary. Uh so that we we
don't we're not going to abut the boundary. We're going to be we want to be inside it. Uh we understand that uh Mr. Nland uh has a concern regarding the placement in terms of it being in a on a
survey. I guess a survey. I don't want to misstate Chip's position, but I I I would basically my understanding is Chip, correct me if I'm wrong, that the that
the survey would not just provide the plot plan, but identify that the surveyor would identify where where the specific uh posts were would be installed. Is that correct? >> Yeah. through you, Mr. Chairman. Uh
>> yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Please, Chip, you can respond. >> Yeah. So, as as as Gabe indicated, we're in front of D, so there is no formal settlement that's been agreed to yet. What we have proposed is that this will be settled if we can have an agreed um
plan that shows what uh what Gabe and the owners would like to do to protect their property by putting in these posts and essentially a fence. So yes, so that's uh that's that's what we're looking for. And again, the reason we were asking for a plan is so there's no
uncertainty. I mean, there was some contentiousness here. I I think we've taken that away uh with this settlement, but we want to make sure everyone agrees where those posts are going to be and somebody will be able to find it by seeing it on a plan and that's recorded.
>> Well, yeah. And and I think probably one of the concerns that the town would have is that these are identified on a plan and placed by a surveyor so that they're not encroaching within the layout of 33rd Street. I think that would that
would be the biggest uh concern and uh I mean from the conservations standpoint. >> So now so Gabe >> yes Mr. Jim >> the question comes down to uh who is
providing the survey your client has determined the locations are are they going to plan a survey? >> Sure. Yes. Yeah. and then have a surveyor locate them and make sure they're not in the right away.
>> Right. I with Yes. The the answer to that is yes. And I uh would then we would in some manner report back to the commission that the survey has been
completed the the the the the post located and uh I guess at that point we would then get final uh approval or or not >> dis well I so what what I'm thinking uh
But again, we're we're a collaborative group is we we could entertain a negative finding and then add a condition that prior to installation, there'd be a pre-construction meeting with the conservation agent. And at that
time, the locations of the monuments would be placed by a surveyor uh with a proposed survey plan. and and if we have that in hand uh you you go forward you wouldn't require
anything else from us but until we can't really condition an RDA because it's a negative finding as certainly as you both know but we we've done this in the past where part of the record becomes that you get
a negative finding with the following steps that you have to take and it's usually tied into preonstruction with with the agent. If he has any issues with it, he'll bring it back to the board. >> Okay. So, the So, Mr. Chairman, the
pre-construction meeting would proceed would go before we would uh engaging the surveyor to actually do the to do the uh place. >> Oh, yeah. No, no, no. I I think what you would be able to do uh Gabe is have the
survey go out have a site plan prepared showing the location and then actually you know install uh the the boundaries so that they're not encroaching within 33rd Street. now
whether he just does an asbill plan at that point with the agent. Um I mean you know typically guys you present the solutions to us. We don't usually design the the solutions but I think you
know we we get a sense of what you're trying to do and and we're happy that this is getting resolved. It's been a a long process for everybody. >> Yeah. So, Chip, are you still on the call? >> Yeah, I I I raised my hand because we,
you know, I've been doing this for a long time and there's some commissions that will attach conditions and some that don't. And and we were hoping that you would attach the condition that uh that issue a negative determination, but issue the condition that it would have
to be placed on a surveyed plan. And then that would be recorded and and that would be it. So, you know, we agree that that in terms of the process, >> that's what we'd like it be it'd be a record a field certifying the location suitable
for recording. >> Right. Right. >> Now, on the recording, does that have to go to the planning board then to get, you know, whatever? >> No, because it's not a subdivision. So I I think that would just be just like any other document that the you know that
the registry would record. >> Okay. All right. Gabe, are you in agreement with that approach? >> Yes. Um we're we're we're in agreement with uh with that approach. >> Okay. I'm going to hold you both there and go back to my members and see what
their thoughts on this. So Woody, you you've heard the discussion on on this. It seems that both parties are in agreement on a on a process. What are your thoughts? What do you see? What are your concerns?
>> Um, no, it sounds good. Sounds like the having it located, surveyed and located on a plan as a condition would monument everything that they need and they everyone can move on. >> Okay. Anything else, Woody?
>> No. >> All right. Thank you, Woody. Great. What are your thoughts on this? >> Uh yeah, I agree. I'm glad we can uh finally get this towards a reasonable end for all of you. Um this one's been hanging on for a while. Uh just Chip,
one quick question. In your comments, you said the word fence now. Was that just a misword or um there's no fence associated with this, right? This is just granite posts, I believe. >> Right. I I know there'll be posts. I
don't know if there'll be a connection like a you know a split or anything like that, but certainly there the only thing that would be touching the ground would be the post. Gabe would have to answer the question in terms of whether or not there'd be anything else. But in terms of an all anything I look at for an
alteration would be something that's physically touching the ground, which would be the post. So I I'm not quite sure how to answer that. the rest. >> The only reason I bring it up and and for you, Gabe, as well, if if there's some type of fencing proposed, I'm sure
you're aware, and a and a barrier uh dune like we have here, there are requirements, you know, we can't have it a certain distance from the ground uh to allow air and sand to to continue to flow. So, if it's just granite posts,
that's great. If there is fence intended, you know, Gabe, just, you know, be upfront with that so we can, you know, we can, you know, discuss that. >> Yeah. So, so Gabe, the control on the fence is simply it's 2 ft above ground. If it's a solid
fence, if it's 50% open, then there's this that that's satisfies the dune migration condition. >> Okay. Thank Thank you very much. I understand. I understand. We will. >> Okay. But the only thing the only thing
we're addressing tonight is determining that the grand post will have no impact. >> You're kind of required to come back in for an RDA on the fence if if they if they elect to modify the post into a fence system.
>> Again, if it's 50% open, then that's been the required standard. Okay. Uh Frank Any any other questions on this one? >> No, no further questions. Thank you.
>> Okay, David, how about you? Any questions? >> No questions, Bob. >> Okay, so so do a recap. Uh, you're looking for a negative determination condition that a recordable site plan locating the proposed granite locations
be prepared and recorded. >> Yes. >> Is that Are we in agreement with that, Gabe? That works for you? That works for us. >> Okay. All right. I will entertain a motion to issue a negative finding on 108 Northern Boulevard uh with the one condition that a
recordable plan be prepared locating uh the monu the granite the posts not encroaching into the rightway of uh 333rd and and then ultimately recorded. So
moved. >> Okay. Woody. >> Mick. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Woody. >> Yes. >> Mick. >> Hi. >> Frank. >> Yes. >> David. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor. Yes. All right. Thank
you guys. Glad to see this thing get resolved. >> Well, we do have one more. The second one's the same. >> Oh, yeah. No, no, I know. It's 106 Northern Boulevard, >> right? >> Okay. So 106 notable boulevard applicant is submitting an RDA for the installation of 86x6 granite post
adjacent to existing wall to protect the wall from damage by vehicle traffic outside the approved parking area. So gentlemen the plan we saw incorporated both properties. Um so unless there is
any further do you have any further questions on >> on this 106? Nope. >> Okay, Woody, how about you? Do you have any further? >> No, no, we basically did both of them at once.
>> Yeah, we we we covered everything at the first one, but I just want to make sure that we don't have any any other questions. Nick, you all set? >> Okay, Frank, how about you? Any questions? >> No, no further questions. >> Okay, David,
>> no questions, Bob. Okay. And I have no questions. So, procedurally, we've we've attached the survey plan to the 108 RDA. So, on the 106, uh it just basically requires a negative
finding. Uh Chip, are you okay with that? >> Yeah, as long as you as long as you have the same findings or if it's one that covers them both, I'll I'll leave that to you. The intention is that the same conditions apply to both properties. >> Okay. You know what? It makes sense then
to make it because the monumentation's on both properties. So, >> yeah. And they're both recorded differently. That's all. >> Yeah. Well, it could be one plan showing both. Right. Okay. >> Right. Right. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion to issue a negative finding with the same
condition uh as uh identified at 108, which is a recordable uh survey plan locating uh the monumentation on this property uh and not encroaching on the right of
way of 333rd Street. >> So moved. Second. >> All right. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Roll call. Uh, all in favor? Woody? >> Yes.
>> Mick? >> I. >> Frank. Frank, nod your just nod your head. Frank. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Frank. >> David. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor as >> All right, guys. Chip, I think this has
been this project's been before us 18 times. Yeah. Yeah. >> And uh we we we hope to get on with the rest of our lives with this. So we we we we hope you guys will work this out and get it done. >> Well, we we do as well and we thank the commission uh for for helping us get
there. >> Okay. Great. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Gabe. >> Good luck. >> Thank you. >> All right. What's What's next, Mason?
All my papers are uh >> uh D file number 050 1455. Old Newbury Golf Club. Applicant is submitting notice of intent. >> All right. So, it's all the continuences now. >> Yep. So, Old Newbury, they had requested a continuence to the January 20th
meeting. Um I talked with their representative today. They're going to be trying to finish the infield work sometime this week, getting the flagging down. Um, and I think the only thing to add to that is if they do get uh infield flagging before our January 20th
meeting, um, would you like me to try and coordinate a sitewalk so we can get that in before the 20th? >> Uh, yes. Yes, I think that would be fine. >> Okay, I'll keep >> subject to weather and availability and >> Yep.
>> Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion to continue the public hearing at the applicant's request to a January 20th, 26 meeting. >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick.
>> Hi. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor as well. Chance. All right. So, the next one, >> did they provide uh golf carts for the sidewalk? Four-wheel drive, Woody. We get you there.
>> All right. Thank you. >> We'll get you one of those hovercrafts, Woody, so you can get around. >> Yeah. Low impact. >> I think Conscom really needs to invest in in a 4x4. Maybe a side by side. >> I agree. >> What is What is that six wheel vehicle,
the Argos that the fire department have? >> The Gators. >> Yeah. Well, no. They got Argos, which are uh static drive, so they do a full circle. >> Oh, nice. Nice. >> Yeah, >> it would look good behind the wheel of that. >> Yeah, that would be
>> track vehicles, do swamp mats. Yeah, >> that would be nice forwarded. >> All right, moving on. File number >> D file number 0501457 Low Street. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent to raise and rebuild the single family home in a buffer zone
with associated site workbook replacement and the construction of vegetative buffer strip along the wetland boundary. Mason, why don't you give us an update of where we are in this one? >> Yep. So, where we left off, a couple of the commission members and I did a sitewalk. Um, we had noticed some trees
on the far right side of the property. um some large pines that were going to need be needed to be removed um for the installation of the new driveway. Um so I believe the applicant's representative has put together a mitigation planting plan for the removal of those trees. Um
there was uh it was observed that there was a wellhead um within the proposed area of the new driveway. Um and I think those and I believe we also had asked for a 50ft buffer to be added to the plan. Uh outside of that, the only recommendation I would have is uh to
condition the removal of the wooden boardwalk uh section that is currently in the flag wetland area. >> Okay. Uh Mike D. Rozo, welcome. Hope you had a good new year and >> thank you everyone. Yes, happy new year.
Um >> just identify yourself for the record. >> Um yep, Mike D. Rosa, D. Roa Environmental. Um I am ready for spring though. I will say that I'm tired of this cold. Um I think Mason did a good uh update. I
will um we submitted a revised plan showing all those things and I'll actually um see if I can ask Mason to let me share my screen. There we go. Can people see that? Okay.
Yes, >> just about. >> Zoom. So, >> if you could zoom in one more, one more. >> I will actually I'll probably just go to my um planting plan here because >> Okay, >> that gives you a better sense of what's
happening. So these are the eight um uh Norway spruce uh which need to come down both for the driveway but also the construction of the house. Um and so what we did on site during the site visit, we
um added nine uh red maples down closer to the wetland uh which will help that buffer strip and also provide habitat but to compensate for the loss of those trees. And when we were out there, we also saw a dead um white ash that had
succumbed to the uh to the um sorry, emerald ashbor. Sorry, I'm I'm exhausted. Um so you guys must be as well, but uh emerald ashbor. So we're we're just going to ask to take that
down. One of the things the commission had asked for is for us to add a layown area. uh which we did here. Um and so that's on the plan now. Um and we did added, as
Mason said, we added the 50-foot buffer uh just to show that on the plan. I know that you guys don't have a bylaw really um that requires that, but for I think Mary Rimmer had asked for it forformational purposes. So, so we added
that to the plan. So, I think we're good. We're still going to convert this lawn area to uh be consistent with the vegetated buffer strip which will go all the way around. Um but other than that, I think uh we've got everything that the commission had
asked for. We are we this is the new proposed well location by the way. Um the one we found was was yeah in the garage footprint I think. >> Um but that's the new location. So that that has been taken care of as well.
Okay, Mike, why don't I hold you there and open this up to members? See if we have any questions. >> All right, Woody, any any questions for Mike on this submitt? >> My question was about the Well, uh, >> it's in the It was in the garage floor that I recalled. There's an ADU over the
garage >> proposed. >> There's an ADU proposed over the garage or is this a single family home? >> Uh, it's a it's a single family home. Yeah. Okay. And um so they're going to drill a new well out back and then do
something with the old one to decommission it. >> Yeah, that's the new well there. >> All right. And you are correct. That tree in the back has been dead for years. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's a big one. >> Those are the only questions I have. Thanks, Bob.
>> Okay. >> Thank you, Mike. >> Thank Thank you, Woody. Mick, any questions for Mike on this one? >> Uh no, I don't think so. It's pretty straightforward and uh it's a great plan. Very good. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mick. Uh
Frank, any questions on the submitt? >> No. No questions, Bob. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Frank. David, how about yourself? Any questions on the submitt? >> No. I did the sitewalk with Woody, Mike, and um and Mason. It It's just in it's
in the homeowner's best interest to get rid of these uh trees that that'd be right over the house. So, I have no questions. Just I think it's a good plan. >> Okay. I have no questions. Mason, are there any raised hands from the public at this time?
>> Seeing none. >> Okay. Any any further questions from the members? >> Okay. Um I will Does anyone have a request for additional information or another site visit?
Okay. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move and second. >> All right. Woody and Mick. Hey, roll call. Woody. >> Yes. >> Mick. >> Hi. >> Frank.
>> Frank. So delay. Yes. >> Yep. And Bob Connor is low. Cheers. All right. Yes. >> So, so Mason made the one comment about just adding one conditioning the removal of the is it a wooden
boardwalk that goes into the marsh? >> Yeah, I'm it that's what it looked like. I'm not really even sure how it got there or what the original purpose was, but >> it's actually on the plan, guys. Sorry about that. I'll show you
>> now. Are you referencing the removal, Mike? On the plan? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right there. >> No, where were we? >> Sorry. I I know the meeting's closed, but >> yeah. >> So, we have that noted, so it's on the plan there.
>> Okay. So, it doesn't require a a special condition on that if it's on the plan. >> Okay. Uh I will entertain a motion to issue an order of conditions for 16 Low Street. And Mason, I think that we've determined that that's on the plan. It
doesn't require a special condition. All right. So, do we have the motion in a second? >> So, moved. >> Woody. >> In the second. >> Mick. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick. >> I.
>> Frank. David. We'll wait for >> Yes. It's almost like watching, you know, a talk show where there's a 7-second delay. You know, it's >> it's a serious delay. >> I, you know, I think Lisa monitors
everything that he says and that she >> maybe that's it. >> We have the highest standard >> like I'm watching a dubbed foreign film or something. >> Okay. Uh, Mike, uh, thank you and, uh, >> thank you everyone.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Happy new year. Happy new year. >> Next matter. I I see Maren Harold. Maren, my god. I hope you had a cup of coffee waiting for this one. Next matter is a continue public hearing DP file number 0501453
Central Street. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent for the construction of an MBT residential housing development at 34 Central Street. Uh, Mason has has recused himself. And I see Heidi.
Heidi, good good evening. I hope you had a great holiday season. >> I did. Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. >> Yep. And I Heidi, the commission has received a copy of your earlier email today on >> Okay.
>> the the options of whether we're revised or a new filing. Yeah, I I think um you know, we can certainly let Meen speak, but I I think the biggest thing for the commission tonight is to determine
uh if the supplemental revised information or if a new NOI is warranted and then uh depending on which way that goes to discuss the completeness of the application. >> Okay. Well, why don't we do this? Why don't we have Maren make a presentation
and and then we'll uh after that we'll open up questions. Meen, good evening. >> Hi, good evening. Thank you. Um Heidi, I'm just going to bring in the plan um for the commission if that works. >> Yeah, sure. >> Moren, just just give us your name and
association for the record. >> Sure. Uh Moren Harold from North Environmental Services. Um, it says I'm disabled from screen sharing, so I might have to wing it if Mason uh is off. Um, okay. So, I can't bring
in the plan, but just to uh refresh the commission's memory. Um, this project is a multifamily residential development project uh pursuant to the MBTA community zoning law. Um the project
proposes 44 units, townhouse type units, uh 12 buildings, 44 town homes. Um 10% will be priced as affordable projects on town water private septic system
and provides or proposes open space. Um still can't bring in the plant. Okay. So the last time I was in front of the commission was a couple of months ago. Um the project was filed simultaneously
with conservation commission in the planning board. Um Woody please correct me if I make any um mistakes or misrepresentations because I wasn't involved in the planning board process except from afar.
So, the planning board had approved the project back in November of 2025 subject to a secondary one-way egress off Central Court as well as
reconfiguring the roadway improvement at the Central Court Central Street intersection. So, when the NOI was originally filed, we we filed for that intersection um improvement. So that was part of the original NOI. Uh the
secondary one-way egress off central court was not part of the original filing as a result of the planning board's decision. And I'm just going to quote um the decision basically says
that they prefer the second one-way egress um because this will provide safety for the residents of the project, enhance emergency access, and mitigate any adverse conditions associated
uh with the originally proposed singular access from Central Street itself. um the planning board felt that this secondary access um in the intersection improvement of
the project outweighs the impacts to the wetlands. So in my submitt I provided the commission the planning board's decision so you can read it but essentially that was the gist of the decision. So as a result of that I filed
supplemental information for the secondary egress from central court because it is a roadway crossing we are proposing uh wetland impact or alteration of >> excuse me sorry I believe you can share
now so that way might be helpful for >> Heidi you are the best. Thank you >> Mason gave Heidi all the power. Mason, you are the best. Okay, so this will make a little >> Mason.
>> So, here is the secondary um access way that the planning board approved. Um so, this will be a one-way access. So, I believe the entrance will be off of Central Street and the exit
will be onto Central Court. Um we have a BVW just highlighted here. If you can follow my screen, this BVW has an associated, it's an intermittent stream, but in all
reality, it's a man-made dug ditch that was probably dug 50, 60 years ago, but regardless, it meets the intermittent stream status and is protected. We are proposing an open bottom culvert.
Um 4,96 square ft of alteration. And we are proposing wetland replication in this area here. 4,13 square ft. Um approximately one one a
slightly higher than one one but we provide the minimum one one that the commission likes to see. Um there was some minor modifications in terms of um septic tanks and pumps um that were
repositioned between building one and two. That's really buff his own. I don't think that's a big deal. Um, in terms of a filing, um, essentially, I think what I'd like to
get from the commission tonight, um, is, you know, do you feel that this this access is appropriate? Um, you know, my client's position is um, you know, we
have a great project in front of the town. I I think the planning board agrees with that since they approved it. I think this is the one sticking point at least in terms of conservation. Um and my client is in the position
he he'll provide whatever access that the commission finds appropriate and will work for the town and the citizens. >> All right. So So Maren, thank you. So, so a question the the the secondary ride ofway the oneway
uh I I thought that the planning would not approve the original plan without the secondary access. It sounded like they made it more of a recommendation rather than uh Woody, how did that you
know we got Woody here. So Woody, how did that go down? Was it would they was the planning going to deny the original plan because it didn't have two accesses and this this proposal satisfied that for safety reasons.
>> Yes. It's what what we were calling the exit road calling it option B and what it does with support of both peer reviews on traffic uh police and fire and being one of the
second largest uh number of units subdivision that we've approved whether it's MBTA or not but what it does is it allows two forms of egress if in case of emergency but But it also improves the line of sight
especially also with the reconfiguration of Central Street so that it comes right now Central Street comes out at a angle and you really got to look hard to the left to see to the left. So Central Street will get reconfigured so that it's at you come out at a 90
degree your line of sight's better. But in the traffic reports, the line of sight was minimal coming if we just use the entrance as a two-way entrance exit. So, um it improves the line of sight to the
right as you're exiting central court uh substantially and that's we basically came to that conclusion and we voted on it for option B and um here we are on the conservation end of things to
um vet the wetland crossing which is under 5,000 square feet. just over 4,000 square ft. >> So I I I I guess the the big question is if the plan if the conservation commission deemed option B,
you know, uh didn't approve option B, would the subdivision still go forward? >> I can't answer that question. I'm not sure how that >> if it's an option. The the case being is that wetland
rights, we're going over this with Mary and and Heidi. It's it really requires Well, Heidi, I'm going to let you answer that question. >> I don't know if they have to come back to us or not. >> Okay, Heidi, uh we had talked
extensively about this wetland crossing where there was another alternative outside the wetlands. Yes. Um at the the first meeting, which is the only meeting we've had so far, right? >> Uh this was brought up. Um and it was
discussed. It was not before the commission. Um and I'm I'm happy to discuss it further, but um I am very processminded and uh I like to make sure that you know things are properly before the
commission before full discussion. Um, so that that would be where I would want to go is make sure that okay if if this is what the applicant is submitting. So process-wise >> because the planning board has already closed which is um you know their their
full right to do um and obviously everyone tries to work together as best as we can. I mean that's that's the way we all try to do things. However, the commission has you know their their role separate from the planning board role. So, if the applicant is seeking for the
commission to fully vet this and fully review this option, then I feel like the only option really is to make sure it's properly before the commission and we go into fully reviewing it and you know it it comes out where it comes out where the
planning board is already closed. um you know should this come out uh where this option is not acceptable to the commission they would have to go back to the planning board of course um >> okay >> if you know so I I think that's really the only way to to vet through this
process >> so basically it's what's before us tonight is does this require a new filing or can it be revised and update the NOI for some of the the the missing documentation right >> yeah I believe, you know, it's really
just um the commission's decision as to whether supplemental is acceptable or whether um a new NOI is warranted. If supplemental is acceptable, um I would just want to there there was a few pieces like the revised form does not
have the uh linear footage for bank. It has bank checked off, but not the linear footage. Um and I did not see where any renotification or new legal ad was done. And I would suggest to the commission that that >> be a minimum requirement on it.
>> Yeah. That these changes are significant enough to >> warrant that and um you know could could actually open to an appeal without it and neither side wants that. >> Yeah. No. And certainly we don't. So what I'm going to do is let me read the bullet items that you sent in your email
today and and start it that way. So uh Heidi had provided a documentation for discussion tonight. The first item was the original NOI application is administratively incomplete as detailed in my review letter dated September 22.
Uh the commission can decide if a revised updated notice of intent submitt is appropriate or if a new notice of intent should be uh submitted based on the significant change in the resource area.
And basically if we decided that a revised updated NOI uh was was a direction that it would warrant a renotification of a Butters and a revertizing the legal notice.
And so that's what's before us. Um, I really don't have a problem doing an amendment to the plan as long as we do the, you know, we renotify the above, you know, the those that are required notice
uh, and and we revertise it so when it comes back before us. But I'm going to stop there and and see what others thoughts are. Mick, what are your thoughts? What uh what what do you what advice do you want to add to this
>> advice? Uh no, I I do >> or valued advice. >> You're looking at the two options. I'm like is there a way we can do this without having them resubmit a complete no you know a new NOI and and if there's
an avenue which we can you know use to amend the current you know notice of intent we should I I that would be my preference to okay >> see if we can do that and not >> one we're going to make them go through the cons process again but also back
through the planning board uh process again. >> Okay. >> So, that's I kind of agree with you. >> Okay. Yeah. And and the duplicate fees and all that stuff and and the whole time process. >> Okay. Uh Woody, what are your thoughts
on this? Uh >> what are you >> revising? Yes, definitely. >> So, revised revised works for you? >> Yes, definitely. >> Okay. Frank, how about you? Yeah, I agree.
>> Okay, thank you. David, what are your thoughts on this? >> I also support a revised filing. >> Okay. And I do as well. Um, so so Maren, you you got you you got I mean
Heidi sent this communication to you as well with with her checklist and and options, I'm assuming. Um, if she did, I didn't get it. Um, so if Heidi could send it again, that would be great. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you.
>> And what what I would ask Moren is if we decide on the revision that just check all the boxes with with Heidi first before you actually submit it. >> Sure, that's not a problem. I I wanted to come this evening to see if um this
avenue is appropriate and it sounds like it is and thank you my my client and myself. Thank you for that. Um and I know you know there's some additional detail that needs to be shown. I'm more than happy to provide that. Um we can
renotify the about revertise. That's no big deal. >> Okay. Uh Mick, do you have your raised hand? What what do you want to add to the discussion? You're you're on mute. >> I would Yep. No, I just say that revision and I don't know if it's been presented previously and I may have
missed it, but uh would that revision include or should we include a detailed on the wetlands replication area that 4,100 ft? So detailed planting plan and elevation plan for the for that
replication area. >> Yeah, I I mean we're going to depend on Heidi. Heidi is detailed oriented, which is perfect on a project like this. So I I think that uh you know Heidi, we want we we don't want any any
open issues. Obviously when it comes back it has changed, you know, a fair amount. Not quite significant enough to kick it into an NOI, but I think you and Heidi Marin just got to work together and
>> absolutely get it back to us. Okay. Yeah. No, that's great. I'm more than happy to do that. I was just really looking for um a direction to get this back in front of the commission. I I can fill in, you know, cross the tees and dot the eyes. Not a problem. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And I think the revised sounds sounds appropriate for this um with the renotice and and the the legal ad just you know, we we don't need this to open up on either side like I said for um you know, grounds for appeal without renoticing. So, that's just a a simple
box to check and some of the other things. Um, you know, certainly I'm I'm happy to speak with Marine about if that's what the commission would like me to do is far as the administratively incomplete pieces and and things like um you know, I didn't see a detail for the crossing and things like that. >> Right. you you you know the level of
detail that we're looking for and as our consultant we're going to rely on you to to work with Marin and um it don't come back to us until Heidi signs up on it Maren I guess is what we're saying >> I'll try and make you happy Heidi
I'm happy to work with Moren >> so Heidi just a a procedural question does this require a motion to entertain the the revised uh submitt or amended submittal
and condition that we mentioned or is it >> uh no if the commission is because it's a revised um uh submittal it would just be a continuence uh and the when they come back with the completed then the
commission will acknowledge when it's complete. If it were to be need to be a new NOI, then it would need to be a vote for withdrawal or, you know, whichever, which but we don't we don't need a vote if uh if we're going to move forward with just a revised information. It's
just a case of um waiting till the application's complete before we continue discussion. That's all. >> Okay. Yeah. I would just uh when you make when you do the minutes for the meeting, highlight the the board's you know the board's consensus that the
revised approach was the appropriate one. >> Yes, absolutely. I'll make sure that's >> okay. All right. So, Maren, are you requesting a continuence to a date certain or >> um I have to renotify the abutters and a
legal ad and I think the deadline's today, right? Um can I can I request a continuance to a date uncertain? I just want to make sure I get everything. Well, all I say is once you kick it down
to either the 20th and then at that point if you're ready to go, otherwise just notify Heidi and we'll we'll do another continuence. It's not going to be a big deal. >> That would be my suggestion. That way, if you get everything out right away or you contact the newspaper tomorrow and they say, "Yeah, we can run it," then
you're all set for the 20th. >> Okay, great. Yes, please continue to the 20th. >> Okay. Uh, I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing to January 20th at the applicant's request. Roll call.
>> Okay. So, Woody, >> who second? Who did the second? Mick, do you have a second? Okay. >> Okay. Roll call. Uh, all in favor? Woody? >> Yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Mick, I.
>> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Conn is All right, guys. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. This the these sometimes these RDAs drag on longer than orders of conditions, you know, NOIs. It's >> Yeah, it happens. Thank you for your
time this evening. Have a good night. >> All right, guys. Thank you. >> Good night. >> All right. So, now um >> Mason has a lot of information that he's going to provide to us in about 30 seconds. >> Exactly. So, >> one of those commercials, you know, that
the speed reading at the end to get everything in. >> Mhm. I uh I have a quick update from the Orchard Street Culver project that was permitted uh before I came, but they will be coming for a COC at some point. Um so, you'll see the annual monitoring report in there. Uh all the construction
went really well. Everything looks good. Um, a lot of the ongoing stuff is going to be maintenance of invasive species. Um, and making sure that, you know, we have good survival rate of, uh, of, you know, our our contractors and and what they're planting. Um, so that's in the folder. Feel free, we can, uh, you know,
discuss that at the next meeting. Um, and then the only other thing I had, um, was an update on the Plum Island feasibility study. Um so Nubri and Newport uh conservation and planning have both been working on a project uh with Tai and Bond to figure out some
ideas on um how to make the Plum Island turnpike more resilient for the future. Um so as they finalize their report, there's going to be uh between three and four different um additions of what they're considering improvements to the Plum
Island Turnpike uh based on um benefits and based on impact. So obviously uh the more impact we have to those adjacent salt marshian resource areas, the more benefit we're going to be able to get because we're going to be able to raise the road higher, make it wider and things like that. Um so as that gets finalized, I'll be sharing those as well
and we can uh you know h happily um can discuss with anyone um or if we want to go over that at a future meeting too, that that also works. >> Okay. Any any questions for Mason on that either one of those items? >> Okay. So, one item I asked Mason to put
on the uh the agenda was 26 meeting schedule and deadline discussions. U the so this meeting we advertise we we upcoming meetings are identified as January 20th and February 3rd.
I'm this is probably one of the longer meetings that we've had in the last half a dozen meetings. Most of them been an hour. Uh I I'm going to suggest we consider meeting only once a month in February, March, April, and May. We can always add a special meeting, an
emergency meeting for something that pops in. What it does now is every two weeks there's a cut off of the Tuesday before the meeting for submitts and no one can no one's complying with it. and
we're getting stuff in on Fridays, Mondays, or even four o'clock on a Tuesday and and it doesn't give us sufficient time to be able to review it. And I just throw that out there and I
talked to Mason about it and it's I I think it's worth the try. And like I say, if we had a a certificate of compliance and someone was struggling with a closing, we we could simply call it, you know, an emergency meeting and
and, you know, meet meet the public notice on it and uh go from there. But so what are your thoughts on that? What do what are your thoughts on meeting? Uh so it would be February, March, April, and May. we would meet once a month, the
first Tuesday of the month. >> Uh it sounds good to me. The hard cut off we have with planning um because if it's not in by Wednesday at 12:00, it doesn't go on the agenda. So it works well. People are aware of it and granted
we meet still every two weeks, but at the same time it it a hard cut off works well for us. So >> we we've been we try to be accommodating to because it's you know, we're trying to expedite, you
know, in a in a proper way, you know, solutions for our residents. Uh, but it becomes chaotic where we don't have a chance to actually when Mason posts the job box or whatever you want to call it,
the one drive, and it comes in on a Thursday and there's five things in it. Not many of us have spent an all day Saturday and Sunday looking at this, >> right? >> So, and and you know what I think uh and
I was the exception on, you know, on the length of the meeting where we're going to be close to three hours, we we've been averaging about an hour, hour and 15 minutes, an hour and a half. So >> if we find that it it becoming a problem, we have too many
agenda items, we can always go back to the other schedule just by simple, you know, simple vote and discussion. >> Yeah. No, it sounds good for me and as with planning that it allows everyone to have the information, but you know, they don't they're not trying to cram it on
Monday and Tuesday. So >> Yep. So Woody, you're you're okay to try this once a month for the next four months? Sounds great, Bob. >> Okay, Frank, what what are your thoughts on that? Although Frank loves to take these meetings. I mean, he would like to
meet every week, but >> yeah, >> get life, Frank. >> Well, I only have one I only have one I only have one concern, Bob. Uh and that is if someone is trying there's a lot of
construction that's going to be planned for spring, right? >> Yep. >> And if if some of these things haven't already been approved, um we could be delaying things longer by
only having one month. That's my only concern. >> Yeah. I mean, remember, we always have the option to have a special meeting. All we need is 48 hours to post it, and we've done that >> between meeting every two weeks to to
accommodate someone that's got a closing and they find it in their title. Um, no, I think it's a valid point, but it we've met for the once a month for what, the last two months. Uh, and I think that, uh, I think it's worth a
try. So, uh, you yay and nay, Frank, the triad. >> Yeah, I'm okay with that. Yeah. >> Okay. That That's the right answer, by the way, because otherwise it'd be a
there'd be a riot with the rest of us. >> We know where you live. >> You know, I'm not opposed to fighting. >> I don't. >> It's not a fair Frank. It's not a fair fight. You got a bun shoulder now. You're falling apart for God's sake. David, what are your thoughts?
>> That's right. >> Yeah, I'm okay with it as well. Now, consider consider who's talking here. I've just am very very new to the to the board. Um, but and this I think a lot of this work like premeating work would
fall on Mason unfortunately. So, as an example, the guy with the uh the gentleman, I think it was Tom with the dock, um there's a lot of discussion around that. I think we're probably 35 minutes in on that one topic. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Uh you know, you know, would Mason go and say, "Hey, this is my opinion." You can go before the board, but you've got to come better prepared to say what what was the motivation behind the change of the design or whatever. it's not conforming
and things like that, but I think the the burden would really fall to Mason. So, we kind of do some of that upfront planning so that the meetings that we do have are shorter. That's more an observation than a than anything else. >> No, you know what? We we implemented that if we don't have a D file number,
we can't take a we can't take a vote on it. And and so our policy been we just withhold all all questions until our site visits and we actually urge the applicant to just continue it to the next meeting
>> because we're not going to you're not going to get any any feedback. You know what? Uh some consultants just want to go forward even though they know that it we're going to get the same presentation in two weeks with a file
number and conditions as we got tonight >> and it's like u you know well I mean that's an RDA but like on the on the NOI on the on the uh the boat docks we're
going to get the same exact presentation in two weeks. with comments from DP. >> Gotcha. >> So, it it's a complete duplication. Some of the consultants, they figured it out. Uh that they all want to kind of peek under the hood and see what what
we're thinking, but it >> yeah, >> it's not fair to the commission to waste our time >> and the other applicants that are behind. You know, you know, our goal has always been come here, be prepared, have your plan in order, and we can approve
it >> tonight, >> right? >> And and it's uh it happens once in a while, but you know, more times than not, it's uh it's not. But okay. Well, I'm going to entertain a
motion to change our meeting schedule for February, March, April, and May to meeting once a month, which will be the first Tuesday of the month. >> So, move. >> Okay. Woody. Mick.
>> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Woody? >> Yes. >> Frank? Yes, >> Mick. >> Hi, >> David. >> Yes, above comments. All right. Thank
you. And and Mason, if there as anything arises, we need a special meeting. Just, you know, we're not looking to to David's concern or Frank's concern that we're not looking to penalize anybody, but
>> they they need to be better prepared. >> Yeah. It'll definitely help with the deadlines. Uh just, you know, for an example for that doc project that David was talking about, I got those CAD files and aerial photos at >> quart 4 today. So,
>> yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. It >> Yeah. That, you know, the better deadline schedule we have, I think that people will respect it a little bit more and it can, you know, help us all be, you know, more prepared. >> Yeah. I think yeah as Woody you know was mentioned with the planning board they
have a they have a cut off date and I you know date and time and I think that's you know whether it's the Friday before our meeting on Tuesday something of that nature by close of business Friday whatever we you know you know want to choose but also I think
sometimes as you said Bob like some of the some of these consultants love to present and uh >> well you know it's an economic thing as well and Yeah. >> One of the complaints that we were getting from residents is
if they can't do anything, why are they going to you and spending my money knowing that it can't do anything till the next meet, >> right? >> And that's like, do we want to, you know, just food for thought, I guess,
like entertain a cap on these presentations? Like, you know, do we cap them at a half hour for a public hearing? I don't know. Basically, it's 10 minutes unless it's generated. The presentations are not supposed to exceed 10 minutes, >> right? >> Uh and and then it becomes part of the
the discussion. >> Yeah. >> We have an we already have a a policy in place that uh all submitts have to be in noon time, the Tuesday before the meeting. Am I correct on that, Mason? >> Yeah. So, like the deadline for the 20th
meeting is it was today at noon. >> Yes. >> Okay. and and then that gives us a chance to put that in the dropbox, >> right? >> And but to to get docs at four o'clock on the night of the meeting, not none of
us saw it doesn't give Mason any time to to review it, >> right? >> Offer us. So I think so Mason from from today on no documents will be accepted for the meeting that exceed the Tuesday before.
>> Yep. it they'll automatically just go to the next >> and I'll uh I'll have the updated meeting schedule with the deadline submittals up by end of the day Thursday. >> Okay. Awesome. Yeah. and and it's now if
we request a document. So say we get a set of plans and then we request additional information which could take some time to make uh on on a a submittal on a requested document or a
change. We've already seen document A and then >> where where we know it's coming. We know what the up going to be >> where you know like on low street we wanted the trees and then we wanted the 50ft buffer. >> Yep. >> If that came in a couple of days before
outside of I think that's the the discretion you have on that because we've already seen the original plan now. We're just looking to confirm the the amendment on it. So >> Yep. totally agree. >> Okay. All right. Well, I think thank you all for being here tonight and for your
service. Okay. I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. So >> movey >> Mickey. Okay. >> Yes. >> Uh roll call. All in favor? Woody, Frank, Mick.
>> I I Connor. Thank you. U the meeting is over at 9:01.