Good evening everyone. My name is Bob Connors. It's uh 6:04 p.m. I'd like to call the June 2nd meeting in the Newberry Conservation Commission meeting to order. Uh Mason, can you please read the preamble to the remote open meeting law and take a roll call of the members
present? As a preliminary matter, this is Mason Farret, conservation agent of the New Conservation Commission. Please permit permit me to confirm that all members are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Mary Rimmer, >> yes. >> Dave Clifford.
>> Mick Brown, >> yes. David Clifford's here. >> Mick Brown, >> yes. >> Harry Trout, >> yes. >> Woody Knight, Woody on here. I don't see uh I don't
see Woody right now. Uh Frank Wetenamp >> here. >> And Bob Connor. >> 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 the Commonwealth,
in order to mitigate the transmission of the CO 19 virus, we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings and as such, the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Ensuring public access does not ensure public
participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment. For this meeting, the 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 in the broadcast may be captured by the recording. Applicants or their representatives may be called upon to speak and or share information to the screen if able on the fly. We're now turning to the first item on the agenda, but before we do so, per uh allow me to
uh cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business. The chair will first see introduce each speaker on the agenda. After they conclude their remarks, the chair will go down the line of members, inviting each by name to provide any comments, questions, or motions. Please hold until your name is called. Further, please remember to mute your microphone. Please
use earbuds, and please remember to speak in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. For any response, please wait until the chair yields the floor to you. 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 forward public
comment as follows. Oh, Woody's just joining now. Uh the chair will first seek questions through 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, and questions. 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. Uh thank you, Mason. All right. Upcoming meeting dates. Our next schedule meeting is July 7th. meeting
minutes review the May 4th, 2026 minutes uh in the Dropbox. Why don't we take a moment to review? See if there's any questions, concerns, or corrections. >> The May 4th ones are in there and then the May 19th ones I'm just finishing up
and those will be ready for our next meeting. >> Okay, great. Thank you for that, Mason. >> Yep. >> Okay, any any questions, team on the minutes on the May 4th minutes? Hey, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the May 4th uh meeting minutes as written.
>> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> I'm sorry, Rob. I haven't had a chance to review them, so >> Okay. >> All right. Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Frank,
>> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connors. All right. at the May 19th meeting minutes will be on the uh July agenda. Let's see. So, it's July 7th.
Okay. All right. First order of business, continue public hearing, D file number 0501453, 34 Central Street. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent, excuse me, for the construction of an MBTA residential housing development at
34 Central Street. Just to remind everyone uh we have c we have closed the public hearing. Uh there'll be no public comment. There'll be no introduction of uh new information at this meeting. Uh and the the board will then decide uh
and deliberate. Heidi, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter? >> Yes. Um so this as Heidi for the record Heidi Gaffne Northwest Environmental um consultant for the commission. Um as the
chair stated uh the hearing was closed on uh the 19th and um so tonight is the commission's um sorry I just heard some strange
noises. Uh tonight is the commission's um you to issue a decision um so for the decision um and I have I have a draft decision to read as well. Uh but
my recommendation based on all of the information submitted throughout the entire public hearing process um would be for the commission to issue basically issue an approval for a
portion of the work. Um so the portion of the work within the buffer zone and um to prohibit the portions of the work that uh have direct wetland impacts uh which is the
crossing the um fill the wetland replication uh the proposed fence I think at the wetland replication um and that is in accordance with uh 10 point CMR 10 310 CMR 10.05
uh 6B and um I will read my full recommendation if that's okay for the with the chair. >> Certainly. So the full recommendation would be for the commission to um
entertain a motion to uh issue an order of conditions for Mass C0501453 Central Street uh Newbury Mass approving the project as shown on um the plans which are the BYfield Heights MBTA zoning residential development that's
the title sheet um and that was last revised February 23rd 2026. 6. There's sheets 1 through 27 with various um revision dates, but the the complete final plan is on record um to date. Uh
with the exception of the wetland impacts um associated with the proposed secondary egress and to uh condition the approval on compliance with all conditions within the order of conditions as will be issued tonight. Um
and I have a draft order to read into the record when the commission is ready. Uh and for the commission to discuss any changes. Um and uh that a final plan final development plan uh is to be
submitted to the conservation commission for review and approval. Um and that plan is to show only the work that is going to be approved by the order as issued by the commission. Uh and uh it's understood that the new
planning board decision required um the applicant to return as well. So it's understood this plan may not uh be submitted until the commission uh till the Newberry planning board has a chance to review the uh proposed changes as
well. Um and the uh denial of the wetland crossing and impacts is due to the um proposal not meeting storm water standards or stream crossing standards. So it doesn't meet the performance standards um and therefore should not be
that portion should not be approved. >> Okay. Uh thank you Heidi. So team tonight I'm going to take I'm going to handle this particular matter a little bit differently. I'm going to entertain a motion and in a second and then we're
going to hold for discussion and at that point um Heidi we will be discussing what special conditions uh would be appropriate and recommended and then open it up for discussion within the members and then I'll take a roll call
vote uh those eligible to vote on this matter and then the the outcome will be the result of uh the order of conditions with the special conditions uh being attached. So just I wanted to give everybody it's a little out of the
ordinary for us uh but it seemed to be appropriate way the complexity of this project and I want to thank everybody involved from the the design team certainly Heidi and all the members for your patience and and all of the neighbors that have participated
over a better part of a year uh on this uh on this particular matter. So I will entertain a motion that the Newbury Conservation Commission issue an order of conditions but Mass D file number 0501453
Central Street in Newbury, Massachusetts approving the project as shown on the plans entitled Bfield Heights MBTA zoning residential development title sheet last revised on February 23rd,
2026 with the exception of the wetland impacts associated with the proposed secondary egress onto central street, including all wetland fill and wetland replication. Approval upon compliance with all conditions contained within the
order conditions and further conditioned upon the project proceeding in substantial conformance with a final development plan approved by the Newbury planning board that does not require a wetland crossing and shows only the
portions of the work approved by the order which is to be submitted to the conservation commission for review and approval. The commission finds that the denial of the wetland crossing is due to the project not meeting storm water management standards and stream crossing
standards to ensure no adverse impacts to the wetland resources. >> So move. >> Okay. Uh discussion. Uh Heidi, do you want to discuss your your proposed
special conditions and then I'll open it up to discussion and debate amongst the members? >> Uh yes, please. Yeah, I think that's probably the I agree that's the best way. Um so what I'd like to do is uh
read the findings uh first and then um the special conditions. >> Excuse me, Heidi. Can can we um do you have those available to share so that we can follow along? >> Oh, certainly. >> Uh thank you, Mary. Excellent.
>> Me just get it pulled up and zoomed in and screen share. Yep. Looks like it will let me. All right. Is that visible?
>> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. It's showing. Yep. So for the um you know order order conditions um the the form itself which is uh the WPA form 5 um that is
essentially you know checkboxes the um information the plans the dates um so I'm not I'm not reviewing that at this time the check boxes uh on that four will reflect what the commission's vote is for tonight um but for the special
conditions So the findings the property contains bank and boarding vegetative wetland uh portion of the approximately 10.09 acre parcel currently developed that just has the basics uh findings for the existing property. The ORAD was issued 418
verifying certain portions of the BVW. Um the entirety of the BVW as shown and the bank on the current plans is not um was was not all delineated for the ORAD, but that was looked at during a site visit. So the ORAD just specifies uh
only certain portions. The notice of intent was submitted August 18th. Public hearing was open September 2nd. Um the original NOI as filed was administratively incomplete. Additional information was requested. Original NOI filing proposed a single
access roadway from Central Street with all work uh was a buffer zone only project as originally proposed. Um the hearing was continued uh at the January 6th hearing. The amended NOI with a revised plan was submitted as a result of the planning board review and
approval process which conditioned the planning board approval on the applicant seeking approval from conservation commission for a second access way which proposed a wetland crossing with associated BVW filling and a stream crossing. Due to significant changes in the proposed plan, the commission
required the applicant to renotice of Butters and place a new legal ad in the paper that was completed. Um the NOI was deemed administratively complete. The hearing resumed um for uh full discussion April 7th and was discussed
uh April 7th, May 4th, and May 19th. It was closed May 19th. A butter comments were received in writing and verbally during the hearing process. Uh site visit was conducted April 16th. Stormwater review was conducted by the uh planning board peerreview Joseka um
through the planning board process as well as additional review for the amended filing for the proposed crossing. Determination of applicability was issued in April 2026 allowing for certain portions of the demolition of the existing structures. Um the
appliance engineer and environmental consultant provided responses to mass D comments listed on the EA data portal and the approved plan set uh includes work proposed work that is not approved and is explicitly prohibited by this
order um as allowed for by 10.056b. The work associated with the proposed wetland crossing including the wetland fill, stream crossing, wetland replication, post and rail fence are explicitly prohibited because the work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards under 310 CMR
10.544, 10.554 and 10.056 K through Q. Uh revised plan showing only the approved work is required to be submitted prior to the start of any work which is condition 34. Um, is there any questions on the findings or anything
the commission wants added to the findings? >> So, Heidi, if we refer to the special conditions as identified with an attachment A, that that would cover all of the special conditions, that's that document.
>> Yeah. When you say refer to it uh in the order form, >> well, it just we're talking about what special conditions we're considering. And so I I guess what's before the commission is to consider accepting all the special conditions as identified in
attachment A uh or to modify or amend with additional conditions. >> Exactly. Yes. So I've um Yep. >> Okay. >> Correct. And I just wanted to make sure that findings wise the commission members didn't have anything they wanted to add there or change. I have one minor
comment, Heidi, but when we get to >> comments, I'll make make it then. >> Okay. Um, so then this is really just um, you know, citing all of the the documents. So,
condition 22. Um, and some of this is, you know, very boilerplate for standard order, but, um, I'm going to call out the the ones that are not. Uh this order of conditions issued in accordance with 1056B posing conditions necessary for the portions of the work proved to meet
the performance standards prohibiting portions it cannot be conditioned to meet. Um and the portions of work that are approved and prohibited are detailed under A&B. So work approved includes construction of four multi-unit
residential buildings, portions of a single access roadway connecting to central street, associated driveways, storm water management, decks, patios, septic system, utilities, grading, landscaping and other minor work in within the 100 foot buffer zone. Um,
subject to the conditions, the work prohibited uh includes the proposed wetland filling, stream crossing, and wetland replication associated with the proposed secondary access to central court. Proposed wetland fill and stream crossing does not meet. Um, so that that
uh repeats and clarifies that. Um, the post and rail fence can be added into the prohibited if that seems appropriate since that was associated with the wetland replication. Um, make that note if the commission the
commission doesn't want that there but probably should be. >> That was my going to be my comment. >> Oh, sorry. >> No, no, it but but I don't see any I don't have an objection to them keeping the postal offense. It it might serve as a barrier. So, we might want to just take any reference to that out, but we
can talk about that when you're finished. >> Okay. Um the this some a lot of this is I'm happy to stop if anyone wants me to but a lot of this is um just standard the members the applicant um how it applies
this is very standard uh equipment shall not cross or enter the wetlands any changes um unforeseen problems completion of the project for certificate of compliance this is all
fairly normal the asbuilt plan um with grades and topography and uh inverts and stuff um submitt of required operation and maintenance compliance statement that's uh as required by condition 19C which is in the form
itself um from from D standard condition D letter from environmental monitor which there's a a monitoring condition we'll go over um and submittal of a final report describing excess success of BVW restoration plantings. Um, and
that was something I put in restoration of part of the degraded wetland was proposed at the the very um last meeting and the commission can choose whether that um stays or you know whether that
portion is approved or whether that is prohibited as part of the wetland crossing. um that is standard prior to the start of construction. Um per the certificate of approval
issued by the planning board which includes portions of work prohibited by this order. The applicant will need to seek a modification of the decision from the planning board. A final revised plan set approved by the planning board showing only the portions of work approved by this order including the
single access shall be submitted to the conservation commission for review and approval. Final re revised plan set once approved by the commission shall be attached to and recorded with the order and uh will act would act as the official approved plan at that point.
Um this is standard submitting names, addresses. Um so this one I call out for the commission and I highly recommend a environmental monitor be required. So the applicant shall designate a
wetland scientist or other approved environmental professional as an environmental monitor to oversee all work within the 100t buffer zone and conduct bi-weekly once every two weeks. Um seemed like an appropriate schedule. Bi-weekly inspections of the erosion and sedimentation controls. Placement of
emergency controls. General monitor on the status of ongoing compliance with the order. Name, phone number, and email address of the monitor must be provided prior to the start of construction. The monitor shall report in writing. uh email or regular mail to the NCC prior
to the commencement of construction every 30 days during construction and for as long thereafter as the ground remains unstable as well as upon completion of the project until such time as a COC is issued for the project. Report shall include an update on the status of the erosion controls and uh
what work within 100 ft of the wetlands has been completed and what work is proposed for the next twoe period. Um this is all pretty normal for this one. Construction sequence. Um this project
is subject to the NIFTY's construction general permit. So prior to the commencement of work uh evidence the applicant needs to submit evidence of compliance with that with that and um a copy of their storm water pollution prevention plan their SWIP.
Uh this is routine maintain flagging pre-application meeting. Um construction vehicles to be cleaned prior to entering the site. Um it's super make sure the work is supervised. These are these are all
standard conditions. This is a standard 43 is a standard condition for Newberry um regarding the invasive plants and making sure that those are not transmitted. Uh no additional clearing or grading within the 100 foot buffer zone to
wetlands other than shown on the approved plans um and detailed by the order. Natural areas designated in the designated work area not part of the scope or not to be used for parking. So no no additional clearing within the buffer zone for extra parking things
like that. Um hazardous material spill kit for the equipment. Um, no clearing before the pre-activity meeting. Um, tree cutting, that's standard, too.
Uh, sediment erosion controls, temporary gravel, crush stone, construction entrance. Um, that's something that's required by the construction general permit and swip as well. So, uh, it's it's detailed on sheet 23 of the plan set the, uh, that's before the
commission as well. Um but it you know just the standard condition that that has to get put in and it'll either meet the the spec sheet or the SWIP or or probably it's both. Um so that shall serve as the lane uh limit of work minimum required erosion control
barriers staked Filtrex silt sock or comparable bark mulch or compost fil filter sock. uh filtrex silt socks are proposed on the plan, but um that always leaves the option for something similar. Uh 12-in minimum diameter um inspected
approved by the roing uh the environmental monitor has to be installed before work commences. Straw waddles are not adequate and that's why the um comparable bark or or compost filtered straw waddles would would not be
sufficient for this type of project. Um any netting shall be biodegradable. Minimum reserve uh 200 linear feet. You know if the commission feels that is uh too much or too little we can adjust that. Um but they should have some extra
emergency erosion control on site. Um control barriers inspected weekly immediately following any storm event greater than 1 in rainfall in a 24-hour period. That is fairly standard. accumulated silt to remove by hand.
Um wet and flags barriers remain in place. Um no no debris buried. Stock piles need to be maintained properly. Uh fill has to be um taken care appropriately. Storm
water management. No direct discharge of storm water runoff into streams or other wetland areas. Um they have to report anything right away. Maintenance and repair of the management stormwater management system including all structures and the bio retention
basins shall be the responsibility of the applicant property owner home or homeowners association or designate uh design capacity storm water management treatment. Uh it is a fairly standard one but um the HOA eventually would be the responsible party but up until then
it kind of follows the responsibility. Um, and this condition survives the expiration of the OC included as a continuing condition in the COC at the time a COC is issued. Um, and then there's annual inspection
rights. Uh, this OC applies only to the proposed and approved portions of construction activities in the buffer zone. Anything that changes has to have a separate permit. Fill has to be clean.
Um, limit of work, disturbed areas need to be stabilized by November 15th. That's all fairly standard. Um, runoff from washing work. Uh, let's see. Anything else different? Um, refueling pumps, generators,
vegetative debris, upgraded stumps, and I can go slower on the standard ones if anyone wants. Um, non-organic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides shall not be used within 100 ft. Uh, no sodium chloride shall be used within 100 ft of the wetland resource area if the area will drain to a
resource area or in regulated buffer zone without significant dilution treatment. Um, any con contract or agreement for snow or ice removal shelf. So stipulate no oil, calcium chloride or road salt to be used uh during construction for
control of dust. Underground storage of fuels prohibited. So snow this one's um spe you know specific to this snow shall be managed in accordance with the storm water management BMP inspection and maintenance plan a certified green snow
pro contractor which is um part of is is in the applicant's um submitt a green snow pro contractor trained in the best management practices for road salt deicing shall be used for all winter maintenance no dump shall be allowed on site no snow is to be stockpiled within
in the bio retention ponds or adjacent to the wetland resource areas. No snow stockpiling or similar signage shall be installed in the area of sediment for bay number one to prevent inadvertent snow stock piling in the event that snow storage areas are inundated at any given
winter. Snow shall be trucked off site and disposed of in accordance with allical applicable laws and regulations. Um, pet waste stations, and this is something we had the commission talk about too, with waste receptacles shall be installed in the area of the proposed
dog park as well as appropriate areas around the development and the disposal of the waste and maintenance of the petway station shall be incorporated into the final maintenance plan for the HOA development. Um, proposed off-site improvements within the town's rightway shall be reviewed
and approved by the town prior to commencement of those improvements. I understand that it was already brought to the select board, but important to have that condition in there since it is off off property work. Um, and then this is for the wetland restoration if the
commission chooses to um incorporate it. So the 4,8 square ft of existing degraded BVW shall be planted in accordance with the proposed wetland restoration shown in sheet 27. Um as described in the report, all
planting of the BVW restoration shall be done by hand. A final report describing the success um and that's something that for the commission to decide whether to uh condition or not. Uh this is standard no invasive plants. um certificate of
compliance. I'll be everything is to be stabilized and uh the maintenance plan should be submitted to the commission for review prior to the issuance and then the uh condition continuing conditions which are just all of those conditions which
will survive the order of conditions. >> So I have just a couple of questions and then I'll I'll reach out to all the members for their questions. So on the uh we've referenced you you had suggested putting in a adding a sign in
the bio retention area that it cannot be used for snow dumping or snow storage. >> Um so have you covered that? I I I thought that was a good recommendation uh during you know during the hearing process and and I would suggest that
that be added. The other question I had are the I have two other questions. Plan acceptance process by whom? So there's going to be a revised set of plans sent to the planning board uh identifying the
actual work that's going to be performed outside of the wetland resource area and no crossing. Once that is done, Heidi, uh within the condition, what's the process? Is that something that you because you you'll be
likely be the person dealing with this. Is that something that'll be handled administratively or does that have to come back before the commission or a board vote and how does that impact the issuance of the order of conditions?
So um so for the first question for the snow stock piling no snow stockpiling sign that is incorporated uh sediment for bay number one uh seemed like the most appropriate spot because it is the closest to the road. So yes um that that did get incorporated
>> for the plan acceptance because it's uh a condition uh pre pre-construction condition. So what will happen is the applicant will go back to the planning board because the planning board
decision states that they have to um uh the outcome of that you know obviously if they're if the work approved by the order ultimately becomes not work approved or not not an approved plan by the planning board then you know
the applicant will have decisions to make from there but um presuming that the applicant goes back to planning board and the planning board's able to accept a plan that incorporates the work approved by the order which is basically
everything except the crossing. Then that final plan set will just get submitted to conservation and copied to me like uh in a normal process. It will be put on an agenda for the commission just to review and approve. Um it it
will be a vote to approve it as >> administrative >> as acceptable, but it's administratively approved. It's not um it's not part of Yeah, it's not it's a slightly different process, >> but it will be for the whole commission to look at to make sure that it it it is what was required. And that is basically
an administrative approval for saying yes, you meet the this prior to construction condition, the plan looks good and then they go record it and then they start their work. You know, assuming all the other preconstruction conditions are met. >> Okay. My last question is per the Mullen
rule, who is eligible to vote tonight or who is not? Might be easier to. >> Yep. So, uh it is actually uh just I have that right here. Just Harry and David will need to abstain. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh questions from the
members. Mary questions for Heidi on this uh order on this matter. >> Um I I want to thank Heidi for her hard work on this. It's um it's been a lot of work and it's a it's a big project for the town. Um I do agree with her
conclusions about how to um um go about handling this project. Um it was unfortunate that it came about this way where we did agree that a secondary access could um could be allowed in theory provided it met the performance
standards and in which case in the end uh it it did not fully meet the performance standards. So, um I think that you know we have this is for the rest of the members really just you know we have the discretion to allow this filling to occur but only to occur if it
meets all the other standards laid out in the regulations. So um you know we're we're bound by this wetland protection act and the and the regulations that it it um spells out for us. So I think this is the correct decision in my opinion.
Um I had some minor thoughts about the order of conditions. I thought it was very comprehensive and um and and covers all the important bases. Um one one small point was about the posting rail fence that was originally proposed
between the wetland restoration area. There was an area that was replication that was mitigation for the wetland filling. And then in addition to that, there was some additional portions of the wetland boundary that occurred underneath the chicken coops and whatnot
that was actually just lawn and and that was proposed to be restored. Um that's part of that wetland. Um and then we were going to have a a require a post and rail fence that would establish the boundary to that. Um I think that it still is worthwhile to include that
because it would create a barrier to the restoration area as well theoretically. So um I I don't necessarily think we need to keep that in the prohibited uses category my opinion. Um
and just double check your your allowable uses in your findings include the restoration area. Tidy I scrolled through quickly and I couldn't catch that. Yeah, I was just uh I was trying to pull the plan back up, but let me pull the uh
uh so let's double check that. So work approved. Um, so no, that is not in the approved because it was uh I wanted to see if the commission wanted
to >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> My recommendation would be to include that in that 22A categories. So the >> I agree with Mary on that too. I think it's >> just so >> Mary, can you repeat that what you want
to have? No, there's some this this um sort of restoration of existing wetland that they had proposed and and we'd like to keep that work in as part of the allowed work. >> Got it. Okay. >> Um >> yeah, I'll pull the up too while we're
talking. >> Just to clarify, you're this is covered under the term degraded wetlands, correct? Is that what you're speaking of? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Um yes they were yeah not in the context of riverfront
area degraded but yes they were generally degraded. Um, with respect to the environmental monitor and doing inspections, um, there's I was just confused about how that relates to the storm water inspections
in number condition 51 has a weekly inspections of the erosion control barrier and inspections after any rainfall of greater than a quarter of an inch, which is the standard that's required for the SWIP anyway. They have to do that. They're subject to national
pollution discharge elimination system, you know, permitting because they're a construction site of greater than one acre in size. So, they have to comply with these EPA rules as well for storm water management. >> And so, condition 51 covers that.
>> Well, at least they have to report those inspections to us, those regular inspections. But then there's an additional environmental monitor that does bi-weekly inspections and they're it sounds like they're covering some of the same ground. So I just was wondering
how if if there's we're duplicating any efforts there. >> So the um the weekly inspection and under under the nippies um under the SWIP that's required of the
>> the contractor >> the contractor. Well, it's required of the person who is named on >> Yes. >> the person named as the responsible party for the uh construction general permit under in the SWIP. So, that is their responsibility. Um
>> so, could we just add that to special condition 51? That's what Mick was going to say. Yeah. So, just add that language to special condition 51 that that's on the contractor. That's separate. Okay. Monitor. Yeah. >> Yeah. We don't want that to fall on the responsibility of the environmental monitor. We want to define that as the
contractor's responsibility to >> inspect and upkeep the road control >> and and um you know I I'm fine with having an environmental monitor that the environmental monitor should be subject to approval. the qualifications should be subject to approval by the commission
or its designated agent >> and that I mean often it's a one a once a week event for large projects like this. So I'm I I can go either way on the bi-weekly or weekly but um I think
certain times of year and certain portion certain um periods of construction require a weekly inspection. Lots lots can happen uh in two weeks a week some of these Yeah. >> sites. So >> that would be my recommendation maybe
just change that to once a week. Um you had a condition about parking and I I think it was around number 45. >> Um yes, that's that's actually a a standard condition I've seen. Okay.
>> For for Newberry. Um >> uh where was it? Okay. 45. Yep. >> Was it 45? Yeah, that's a standard condition that New Brie has included in >> in other development projects. So, I
wanted to leave it. >> All right. I just wanted to clarify that. I hadn't seen that one before. And then my last comment is number 57 has to do with um no discharge of storm water directly to um the wetland,
>> you know. I do we need to add something and maybe Mick you can help on and the language on this but about dewatering if there's dewatering that it needs to be directed to a sediment basin or other BMP
>> because you don't we don't have any specific condition for dewatering and sometimes that is separate from storm water management you know it's because you're you're intercepting groundwater but somewhere we need that it should be there should be a provision about
dewatering. Yeah, generally I would think dewatering if we're going to, you know, if there's going to be dewatering activities, what's commonly done is it's it's discharged to a frack tank
and frack tank allows settling of the sediments and other solids within that and it can be approved by the environmental monitor for for discharge following, you know, fractionation in those tanks. So maybe we just say that
it that um any dewatering occurs, you know, with a you know a dewatering plan approved by the environmental monitor or something because that you could have a you could have something more modest. If it's just a small effort, a small excavation, you might just use a hay bale pen or something like that to
discharge the water into >> so it doesn't >> Yeah. I I think we just want to we just want to condition that some effort is that you know a good faith effort is made to remove sediments and other solids from dewatering activities before
they're discharged any retention pond or any any any resource area. >> Right. So maybe it doesn't go under the storm water management section. Maybe it's a construction condition. Um Katie >> Yep. I was just thinking the same thing. Yeah. I mean I yeah I typically see that under the the general construction
conditions and um to be to be approved by the environmental monitor sounds very reasonable because if like you said if it's a small area um they might do a a you know a ring of something or if it's larger they're going to need the frack
tank but um but yeah I agree a separate condition under the normal standard conditions and there's pretty standard language for dewatering so that's no problem to add. Okay, >> Mary, anything else? >> No, thank you, Bob. That's all my questions. >> Yeah, I I'll circle back and just to
reiterate what Mary was saying on the storm water, it's it's a pass fail standard. There is no discretion uh within the the authority of the commission and ultimately that's what resulted in the uh crossing being
denied. Okay. Uh Woody, questions for Heidi or comments you just want to make in general? Um, I have a few comments and a clarification question which you kind of briefly just touched on. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> Um, I'd like to thank Heidi for all your
hard work. I know coming in on this with Mason 3 and everything and with this not running concurrent with our planning board uh process makes it a little tough. So, thank you for all your hard work. >> Thank you. Um,
now tonight this condition we just went through will be voted on with the exclusion of the wetland crossing and the wetland crossing won't be a separate vote based on it not meeting storm water standards. Correct. Is that a correct assumption?
>> It's within the the wording of the the motion. >> Yep. >> That that address that. So, >> yep. We won't be having a separate vote for the storm. >> Yeah. So the the last paragraph of the motion is the commission finds that the
denial of the wetland crossing is due to the project not meeting storm water management standards and ste and storm crossing standards to ensure no adverse impacts to the wetland resource. >> Okay, thank you for that clarification.
Yeah. And Woody, just just to uh just to clarify further for everyone, um because the crossing doesn't meet stream crossing standards or storm water. Um and it's and like Mary said, it's a pass past pass fail. Um because that portion
doesn't meet it, the the commission really can't exercise their um discretion as far as approving it. And in the regulations in 310 CMR um that that 10.056B that is where it clarifies that the
commission shall issue an order conditioning you know blah blah blah and it says and uh prohibiting those portions that that do not meet and cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards. So that's where that comes from. But it is all wrapped
into one. It has to be one um one vote, one motion because a vote to deny the crossing um can't be can't be done separate from approval of the rest of the work without either a total denial or a total approval. So this is the only
way to separate it out. >> All right. Thank you very much, Eddie. >> Anything else, Woody? >> No, I'm good. Thank you, Bob. Yeah. Thank you, Woody. Nick uh questions or comments? >> Uh no. Um I I think Mary and and Woody
have uh hit a lot of the the you know main points here. Uh great job and and thank you uh Heidi for all your efforts. This is a really well thoughtout um document. >> Yeah. Uh the only I I do agree with uh weekly inspections by the environmental
monitor as opposed to bi-weekly. Uh and the fencing uh my only concern with the fencing and I think it it it's right to have it there as a kind of a visual protective barrier. Uh it
do we need to have language in there? it maybe if it's subject to change based on the removal of the wetland crossing from the construction plants. Um, if there's no expected change in the fencing, I don't think we need to make mention of
it. But if it's if it does change, then we need to be able to, you know, just just note that in in the approval process that if there are changes to the to the fence that we need to be able to see that.
>> So, the fence, um, I'll try to outline it. And I I am never as good at drawing on these as I would like to be. So I will I will use my pointer because there's a way to it's a neat way to >> draw. But I'll end up messing it up if I
try. So um right here the the squares with the lines here that's the fence. >> Yep. So the fence in its entirety is currently proposed outside
of the wetland. So the wetland flags are here >> um and the fence follows down and then ends here. So that is that is a very good call because um the odor obviously does modify what's going to happen right through here. All all the work has to
stay outside the uh outside the wetland here. But for the fence itself, it does um stay just outside, but it it does stay outside and it does stop. So, I think we should be okay there. >> Um >> yeah, I think just to add language to say, you know, we approve of the fence
if it's consistent with the current plan. >> Can you scroll down once? Oh, I just >> this way or the other way. >> Okay, there it is. All right, now I see where it ends. Yes. >> Oh, limit of proposed. Yeah. Right. >> Okay. So, you're not going to extend it >> closer to the street, >> but the order does modify, you know,
like the erosion controls are shown coming down in here. The order does does modify that >> um by by prohibiting work within the >> Y >> wetland. So, the order the erosion control will have to go around there, but the post and real fence should be fine. And I wanted to show for the
commission. So, this was the wetland restoration area. This gray hashed mark. >> Mhm. Um, and that's where, you know, it's all currently lawn and was animal pens and things like that. Um, this this area out here was the wetland
replication, which is currently upland was going to be turned into was proposed to be turned into wetland, but the wetland restoration out here um is currently degraded wetland. and with all the planting um done by by hand should be
>> a benefit >> to restore that. >> That's yeah that was just to clearly define that we approve the installation of the fence as shown on this plan. if there's any changes in the revised plan that's coming up. Um,
>> exactly. >> That we need to at least be able to approve that or that it remains outside the the the uh web resource. >> Yep, that's perfect. >> Okay, Mick. Anything else? >> No, that's all I had. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mick. Harry, any any comments or questions on this application? >> Um, I I do have a few comments and and I'll echo everyone else. Heidi, thank you very much for all your hard work on this. Was uh a great document to read and and understand um our position here.
Um just uh to echo um Mix uh I agree with the um once a week uh you know visit with the um environmental monitor. I think it truly makes sense due to the the size of the this project. Um that's
all I have. Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Harry. Uh, Frank, any comments or questions for Heidi? >> No, I don't have any comments or questions. I think everything's been pretty well covered. >> No, I I agree. Thank you, Frank. David, how about yourself? Any questions or
comments for Heidi on this application? You're you're on mute, David, if you uh >> Sorry. No, I think they've already been covered by the other folks on the team. >> Yeah, I I agree. It's been very thorough. And I have no further questions. Heidi, is there anything else you'd like to add?
>> Um, I just wanted to double check with the commission about the amount of um reserve erosion control emergency reserve erosion control. Uh, which presumably will be an additional length
of whatever sock they end up using. Um, is 200 linear feet >> sound too much, too little? No, 20 foot lengths, I think. Or I can't remember the 20 or 25 foot lengths. >> Yeah, it depends on what you get. I know. Yeah, >> I think I mean, what's the total linear
foot of sock that's going to be installed now? >> You know, I I didn't add it up. I should have, but it's >> Why don't you just >> 10%. >> Yeah. Or 20 even. >> Okay. Use a percentage. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh so, yeah. Do you want 10% 20%? What do you think would be reasonable on that? >> Uh, I don't know. I think 10% is reasonable based on, you know, we've probably got I would say I'm going to
say probably 1,000 feet or so. >> That's what I would guess as well, >> right? Uh maybe 1,200 feet. I think 10% would, you know, or 20% would bring us to 200 feet. So I think going back to what Mary said if it's 1,000 ft 20% uh seems reasonable.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Uh other than that I think I've got all I've got all the changes all the and for the environmental monitor that will be um also as as the monitor is as approved
to be approved by the commissioner or agent just so that we know who the monitor is and it's it's an approved monitor. Uh so yeah, I think I've got the notes for all the changes and I will incorporate the changes for the commission. They can uh know it could be
issued. So no additional questions. Thank you everyone for your time and efforts. This one has not not been easy. >> It's been very complex and uh the commission did a great job. >> Okay. that Mary, anything else you you
any other comments you have that before we entertain a vote? >> Nope. >> Okay, Mick, any anything else? >> No further comments. Thank you, Bob. >> Woody, how about you? Any further comments? >> No, I'm good. Thank you, Bob. >> Thank you, Woody. David, how about
yourself? >> No, Bob. >> Thank you, David. Frank, how about you? Any any further comments? >> No, thank you. >> Harry, how about any yourself? Anything else? >> No, no comments, Bob. >> Okay, so we have a motion and a second
and the special conditions are identified within attachment A. That's what Heidi has presented with the noted uh additional changes. With that, I'll call call for a roll call. All in favor? Mary?
>> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. Mick. >> Hi. >> Harry, you need to abstain. Frank, >> yes. >> David, and you're in the same boat as as Harry. You need to abstain,
>> right? >> And Bob Connor's vote chess. Okay, >> Heidi, thank you. And just a shout out to Mary. Mary has spent a lot of time and energy on this. Yes. >> And want to thank all the members for your due diligence on this. This has
been This is one of those unicorn projects that we're usually looking at a house lot that's putting a deck on it or a replacement. 45 house lot subdivision in in this location is is very unique. But thank you. Okay. Next order of
business. Uh continue public hearing. D file number 0501464 54 Cartage Road. The applicant has submitted a notice intent to propose a rep replacement disting single family home within the riverfront area and the
construction of an elevated dock. Mason, can you provide an overview, an update on the site inspection and a recommendation? >> Yep. So, some of the board and I went out to uh review the proposal on site. Were you able to uh go over the planting plan with Tom? Uh look at some of the
trees he was planning on removing. Um, and then we were also able to look at the corners of the new house and garage that they had staked out. Um, I believe where we left off at the last meeting, um, was Tom was going to be talking and working with the neighbors, um, to work
on some of the comments that they had, uh, to see if they could change the site plan around to appease the comments and also um, still fit within their riverfront regulations and other setbacks. Um, so my recommendation if we have Tom kind of go through the changes
that he made. Um, and then from there we can open it up to the board for questions. >> Okay. Tom, if you could just identify yourself and your position within the project and I ask you to be concise as possible. >> Sure. Uh, this is Tom Hughes with Hughes Environmental Consulting. Um, and I'm
here on behalf of John Hopkins who is the uh the applicant looking to uh build a new home. Um and we did make some changes. Um and I also updated the narrative. Uh we had to do a lot of new
math as a result of the changes. So the updated narrative I provided in red line strikeout uh as well as clean version um and went through uh removed any claims of exemption. the math works. Uh, one
small thing I can show the commission, but we did remove the proposed stepping stones, which were 3x3 flag stones, and just went with a mode path, which um, uh, we demonstrated compliance with the riverfront standards under two different
approaches. One is a hybrid approach recognized by D on administrative appeals where you take 10584 and 10585 and you kind of combine by taking your degraded riverfront plus 10%. Um but we also went through the
entire math of 10585 which is a degraded riverfront standard and using a combination of onetoone direct uh full restoration of riverfront uh combined with um mitigation of riverfront uh at
2:1 uh the math works there as well. So, we've provided all that uh in in some detail. Uh I've gone through it in, you know, and I'm confident that we meet the river standards and the river standards are perhaps the most complex of all the
um performance standards in the wetland protection act. If it's okay with the with the chairman, I'm just going to share screen and quickly walk you through. >> Certainly, that'd be great. Thank you. >> Done. Yeah. So Tom, have you submitted the updated plan set and updated
narrative based on your discussion with the neighbors and with the commission during the site visit? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> So um we don't need to go back through this presentation file, but I can do that if
need be. So, a few things that I mentioned at the last hearing that we uh identified this with leaf out and this tree right here is actually a Norway. So, we've updated the existing condition plan. That's the only change on that
plan. So, what we were able to do is we did a combination of sliding the whole house and uh and pool and patio uh sliding it and also doing a slight rotation. And by doing that, we're
actually able to get 10 feet to the stairway uh for uh which was one of the concerns of the neighbors uh up on this side. And we actually get even more to
the pool. Um I think it's 12.7 in that area. Um the other change that came about uh with some discussions with the building inspector um basically what we're showing right now
we had shown a smaller footprint of a garage that was going to be twotory by right. There was some back and forth with the building inspector and given the limited amount of time we had. What we did is we put the largest footprint that we could come to agreement uh with
him is by right which we're seeking approval. Um we have presented an alternate footprint to uh the kilums to see if they would support that. uh which would if if they do then we'll be back
after we work things through the building office and perhaps needing you know whether or not we need to go to zoning uh to get something approved. Um but we needed to have some kind of fall back in this plan for approval. uh any
any change is either going to be upward or slightly outward and kind of over in this direction uh to because we can't go any closer to the roadway to get uh to get a single level garage. So, we're trying to we're trying to accommodate
their concern about the second story and have a um a garage size that meets the client's needs, but um we don't want to cross over the riverfront because I don't want to change the riverfront numbers and uh the uh the issue that was
being discussed with the building inspector um is the offset to this jog in the side property line. So that this whole thing is out of the flood out of the out in the flood plane only. It's not in any other resource area. So that
um so right now we're asking for approval for this footprint, but we we may very well be back with a minor revision on that um or an amendment depending on the uh the circumstances. So we've got all our impact numbers. One
of the things you'll note is on things like buffer zone to salt marsh. We're getting almost all the impacts with the exception of a tiny bit of the end of the pool. Um we're that's the only real
hardscape besides the dock that exists within 50 ft of the salt marsh in our proposed versus the existing condition which has most of the house um that exists there today and some of the uh some of the hardcapes. making real good
improvements there. We were able to make this change and stay um I'll go to the civil plan. Uh we're able to stay just outside the ACEC even with that movement because of the rotation of the house the
way we were able to make that work. So we still kept the building out of the ACC. So within the ACC itself other than the dock um it's all going to be vegetated and uh and the vast majority
you know this area here is all uh either full restoration which involves trees, shrubs and herbaceous or it is um mitigation which means it's just purely native but maybe shrub only or baceous
only. Um, and we've given you a a planting plan that kind of details that out. One of the things we did with the planting plan is we went and met with the neighbor that's on the other side of the rightway that you access and he's
got a fairly unique view, which is normally it's canopy that gets in the way, but with him his view is under the canopy. Uh, we have a bunch of mature trees. The canopies start at about six feet up. And what we've done is we've
gone to shorter uh versions of some of the native shrubs. And then we've on the three mature trees that we're proposing in here. Um there's uh two red maple and uh
I'm trying to remember what the uh what the other species is there. But anyhow, what we've done with those trees is we're basically going to have uh saplings that are larger. So the canopy starts at 6T or higher when they go in the ground. So what we'll be doing is we
are still meeting all our riverfront standards needs for mitigation and restoration but we will be trying to keep that sandwich between what's you know the lower growing vegetation and the canopy open enough so he preser gets his view.
Uh the other thing that will um while there may be some shrubs that kind of block a little bit of the view in some places, the um removal of that Norway maple uh should also at least for the next 5
to 10 years certainly open it up and they won't make it any worse. The uh the canopy will be at six feet or taller so the view will still exist. >> Tom, I'm going to make a suggestion. Why don't why don't I just hold you there? We'll open this up to questions from the members and then,
>> you know, certainly the the neighbors will will have some questions. You've I think you've done an excellent job of identifying the the changes that you're proposing. So, let me let me hold you there and open this up to the members. Mary, questions for Tom on the submitt.
>> Um, yes. Thanks, Tom. And I I was not able to make the site visit, so I'm not as familiar with the property, at least from the land side. Um I am familiar with from the water side. >> Yeah. >> Um so just so I understand your math of the
riverfront. Can you go to the sheet that um has the table on the riverfront area? >> Yeah. >> Um so you you have a you have Yeah. If you can just blow that up a little bit. So you've got a total of um in the inner
and outer riverfront area totals 23 almost 24,000 square feet um 114 38 and 12,000 >> it's right here 23,910. >> Okay. >> So you got so 10% of that so the so for
the members again you know you can alter up to 10% of the riverfront area on your lot for new development. um redevelopment is a little bit different standard as as Tom mentioned he's sort of doing a a combination of both. So
he's going over the 20 the 10% um which would be the 2391 ft that is allowable. Um he's going up to 3,833 ft which is the total amount of proposed
alteration. So that leaves a difference of of 1442 square ft. That's in addition to the 10% that needs to be mitigated 2 to1. So they allow you to go over the 10% if you can provide
legitimate mitigation enhancement of resource. Um but it has to be twice as big as the amount of impact. So, you need about almost 3,000 ft² of 2,800 or so square ft of um mitigation.
So, the mitigation areas that you're showing on the plan are combination and this is where I'm getting a little bit lost. So, >> restoration areas in the dark green, those areas are currently lawn. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So, so these areas um there is
some lilac in this area here. Um there are some invasives like the line between this invasive area and here you know there are some invasives that kind of get into the edge of the lawn but primarily this is lawn.
um basically everywhere where there's not a tree or some of these periphery shrubs that are there in um there's notw weed growing in lilacs kind of in this area and uh and there's really no native
shrub cover on site. It's it's for the most part uh you know old landscape plants or or invasives. Um >> Okay. And so you're doing so you're doing restoration of 2866 I >> yeah but we can't count as you know we
can't count all of that at one one we can only count up to the existing degraded at one one >> so what we've done is >> in the areas that generally qualify for restoration at 1 one you have to
have all three layers you have to have canopy you know you have to have trees you have to have shrubs and you have to have a basia So the areas that are shown on this plan in the darker green generally include >> within proximity of all the plants you
have shrubs orbaceous and and tree. >> Yeah. I'm just keeping it I'm keeping it simple here though. I'm just right right you need roughly 3,000 square feet of mitigation one way or another. >> And it all and that means that it needs to be meaningful mitigation. So it's not plant not necessarily planting a garden.
And this I just want to make sure the property owner understands that this is this is intended to be a natural naturalized area that it would be planted with native plants and allowed to provide habitat and it would it's not like a mulched garden with landscape plantings. It's a actual you know
enhanced buffer area. So just wanted to make sure that is clearly understood. And then if you scroll down to the >> uh bottom of the plan where the where you've got your areas of um your colored areas. I can't see the bottom of your plan. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Natives mitigation area
>> is around the house. And I noticed that there's on your planting list, there's a number of non-native species listed. So, are any of those in areas where you're counting mitigation? >> Yeah. So, let me go to the landscape plan. What I had the landscape architect
do is he shaded anything that was non-native. >> Okay. >> So, they're all in the flood plane area, but not within riverfront. So none of those towards your mitigation. Okay. >> Right. So the so there are there's restoration and then there's mitigation.
The 2:1 standard is for areas that don't otherwise conform to the criteria. So you get some flexibility, but you have to provide twice as much in the 2:1. And for that, these are
landscape beds around the building, but they're all entirely within riverfront. They're entirely native species, and they're replacing uh lawn. They're they're vastly improving even though they're up against the building, vastly improving the
function of the riverfront uh over current. And the other thing that we could also claim two to one for but just like you know is the is the ACE reclaim >> that we're getting moving a building and
and I did not I did not add that in. I just wanted to get so I could show that the math worked >> um because the hybrid approach is the cleanest way to do it. um it's the easiest math to do and that is you just
do your one one and you add uh that to the um to the uh so you add your degraded to 10% and that gives you your limit but then you do have to support it with the alternatives analysis. >> Yep. So just so I understand the amount
of two are you highlighting the amount of 2 to1 air mitigation on your plan is that >> so yeah so >> the color that's the darker color >> so the darker color well the darker color includes both
>> okay >> to to actually have to figure out how to get out of this 2866 um 1 whatever this is 400 and something square feet and figure out what polygon
that is. Um, we did not go to that level. I basically worked with the landscape architect to come up with a landscape design for areas that met restoration criteria and then we just gave those areas. Then my,400 whatever it is comes
out of that and everything left remains to be counted under the 2:1. >> Yeah. I I I came to it a different way, but essentially we're coming up with similar numbers. So that so I'm satisfied that you're meeting that requirement and for riverfront area. Now
I just wanted to go to you're showing some mitigation on the bank and it looks like that is um mostly poison ivy control or is there other stuff? >> Um no no there's there's honeysuckle. Um
there's uh there's some multifllora I believe there are it's it's primarily invasive. So on the on the area near the dock this area has sort of looks like it's been mowed on an ongoing basis and then
it it gets um shrubby on this end. And probably the best way to show that is to look at these photos. Give me a second. >> Yes. So my concern would just be that that's, you know, really close proximity
to the resource and getting rid of the that that those shrubs and pulling out that those roots um because they're going to sprout even if you treat them. Um >> right. >> Can you meet your numbers without touching the bank except for the you
know whatever? >> I I think if I threw the AC Yeah, I think if I threw the AC in. Yes. Right. So the ACC, if you take a look at the numbers, we'll go back to that in a second, but I just want to point out, so this area um is just getting straggling
stuff that is kind of coming into a bank that doesn't have a lot of uh you know, woody vegetation except kind of coming in. There is some poison ivy, but there's also little bits of bittersweet that are trying to make their way in. Um over in here, we've got a lot more
invasives in this section. And uh what I would envision and we'd be happy to accept a condition that this invasive work be you know done under the supervision of a or oversight of an
environmental monitor. Um, I normally recommend that we use companies that have uh some of their staff have been through the UMass training program and and we would use aquatic safe formulations of glyphosate
and for um the notweed we'd use I'm sorry of glyphosate would be for the knotweed we use tricopir for the um for the woody stuff and typically uh I wouldn't do any pulling if it's right up next to the marsh uh of
anything of any significant size. We try to kill it while it's standing and then once we confirm it's dead, then we would cut it at its base. Y >> and then plant. >> So my my opinion on that area would be
um using herbicides in an ACC that close to the salt marsh. you know, if it was a oneanddone kind of practice and it was really going to make a a big difference, then it, you know, I I might be convinced. But you need to do this over
and over again to really control um these species. They're really tough to control with with herbicides. And so I think enhancement plantings in that area to try to crowd out other stuff is, you know, would be fine. But I am not in favor of using herbicides in that area
as part of that um enhancement. So that's my thought on that. And then um the dock itself um are you reusing these piles um or are you in all new piles? >> We're going to be pulling the piles um
and replacing them. And in >> Can we cut them at grade rather than pull them? Um, well, we would prefer to pull them because some of the the spacing is uneven on these. Let me go back to the civil plan.
Um, the existing piles are are in kind of funky locations. We're not reusing these ones down here that are beyond mean high. >> Are you using helicals? >> Um, no. because of uh ice,
the the recommendation for this area is to stick with wood. And uh what we would do and and this has been done elsewhere, we would um during the dormant season, we would
essentially take the new pile location. We would do a a literal cut of the of the um salt marsh vegetation in the pile new pile location and we would pull the old pile
uh basically get that uh appropriately with the appropriate soil material filled up and then put the salt mar saw essentially into that hole. And essentially we're transplanting the pile
area and the restoration works really well. You just have to do it in the dormant season. And um >> do you have to bring in material to fill in the holes? >> Um I would normally depending on how deep it is, I would normally just try to get it out of the new hole before we
drove the pile. Um >> but do you need additional material to fill in the hole? >> I I don't know how deep those are. We might, in which case you you basically build a using a like a plywood and and
tarps. You essentially build a a temporary sleeve so you don't make any mess anywhere. And you would use a compatibly, you know, compatible material similar grain size. And uh and >> I don't recall with the um the dock we
recently peritted across the street on Marav. I thought that was helical there. Um >> yeah, that that area is a little bit more sheltered. It's closer to the to the bridge and it's further in the river. This is um
>> if you take a look um in either direction, the there are no docks without the wooden piles. And my understanding is you do get a lot of ice that gets in here and you and you want that wooden pile to uh >> Yeah, I think that there's a potential
for quite a lot of impact from removing the piles and from driving new piles and staging on this marsh with equipment that needs to drive the piles. Um so I don't I don't see any of that secondary
impact that's addressed here. So I I have a lot of concerns about the the construction of the dock and I'll just I guess I'll pass it over to you Bob after those are those are my >> on on that what I would suggest is we still need to go through army core
permitting on that and what I would suggest is perhaps a condition that prior to constructing the dock we provide you with the means and methods for review and approval for installation uh to show that there'll be no adverse
effects on the marsh. Um, but >> yeah, that not quite what I'm looking for, but >> Okay, Mary, I while I do this, I'll circle back and uh I'll move on if that's okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Mary. Woody,
questions for Tom on the submitt. >> Um, with the shifting of the house, that's still I was on the sidewalk. I saw um trees that were being removed. I believe we determined it was a red oak.
The one the old tree with the uh very level branches. Is that a red oak? Correct, Tom? >> Um I think so. I think there's one. You're talking about the one that's further out. Uh >> yeah. Does that still does that fall
within the footprint of the new house? >> Yeah. So there's a there's a red oak that looks like it has some white oak characteristics. I think we were looking at within the leave, but um that is probably best shown.
Oh, I know it's on the um sorry, there's a demo plan here that shows Yeah, that that's this 46 in oak that's out in the flood plane only beyond the riverfront. >> Okay. And that's still slated to be
removed. Yeah, that's basically the that's right in the heart of the um of the area where the garage and house and parking and all that kind of stuff end up and there's really no way to
avoid that one. >> Yeah. So, the shifting of a house, like you stated in the beginning, doesn't save that tree. All right. >> No, no. I mean, we would actually have to shift everything the other way over the neighbor's property line in a way
that, you know, is just not not a chance that we could do that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I don't have any more questions or comments right now, Bob. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Woody. Uh, Mick, any any questions or comments uh for Tom on
this? >> No, not at this time. Uh yeah, it was a good lesson in dendrology, I think, Tom, when we were out there. So, lot of unique tree species, >> but I do agree that, you know, some of them are, you know, a lot of them are
not necessarily natural plantings >> and the bank area. Um, as I don't know if you have the opportunity, you really do have to get your eyes on it. It's the the growth there. I would question
putting in plantings and hoping that they overtake the existing, you know, poison ivy and other other kind of ground vine. Those are those those are pretty aggressive plants. And um if they if your plantings did survive, I think they would eventually be overtaken by by
poison ivy and and some of the other kind of vine growth that's in there. So maybe just to get a better clarification, Tom, on exactly what you know is going to be removed. Um, and again, I'm not I'm not
sure you're going to knock that stuff back with with, you know, it's going to take more than one application of of an herbicide. So, um, >> I don't know, maybe cutting back and then applying, uh, you know, an uptake herbicide, you know, something
selective. um for broadleaf, but um maybe that's a way to go. Um you know, physically getting in there and removing, cutting back, especially the poison ivy and then applying a herbicide to open, you know, to open cuts in the plant might be more effective. Um than
applying, you know, a defoliant and, you know, that type of herbicide. So, I don't know if you just want to think through that process, that little piece there, but um yeah, that's a that's a unique area. It's a tough area to try to control plants and there's a lot of shade there right now, too, which is
would make it, you know, you're you're going to have to pick species that are going to be shade tolerant and still be able to withstand, you know, the aggressive plantings that are already or the the aggressive uh invasives that are already there. So >> yeah, a lot of the shade is coming from
the Norway that is in front of the existing building that's coming out. >> Oh, that's coming. That's right. That's coming out. >> Right. Um and then, you know, I've done an awful lot of of invasive protocol plans and the woody stuff if we can get
to it. And and the trick is you have to we it's best to keep anything sizable to keep it fully standing. >> Get in and do a low cut bark application so that you can actually observe its
mortality. Leave it in place, >> okay? >> And make sure it it dies. Otherwise, you get um root sprouts, stop sprouts that you can't control and it goes on forever. And typically we try to do two treatments. Um, one that occurs around
July and the other one occurs uh sometime in September with the tricopir. And we do come back about 2 weeks later to make sure that everything seems dead. Sometimes it's very targeted application two weeks after a treatment. Um, so at
most it's like four rounds, but more more than likely it's just two rounds for uh two years and then in the third year it's getting the new stuff that's growing in from seed stock or um any
roots that that didn't fully die off. And we really can achieve pretty good success in a limited amount of time with that aquatic safe um application. The knotweed which isn't present along the bank but is present kind of along that
um western property line that's >> lilac there. >> Yeah. By the lilacs and back by the uh garage area near that bend in the property line. That >> that is a far tougher thing >> to deal with. And um
the most recent approach that I've used in uh for Boston Parks and their urban wild um really worked really well is something it's a blue foaming cleanser and a blue foaming uh surfactant that >> okay
>> is not toxic like the other surfactants that you typically use. Uh I can provide the the data on it. I actually have an aquatic toxicologist who lives in Missouri who does work for me and she um did an analysis for that Boston Parks
project and you use that over you you basically cut the knotweed and as it regrows you use that with the foaming surfactant um and it's a special applicator and it's direct to the leaves. it doesn't hit non-target and
it's absorbed and it actually is fairly effective. Um, in less than two years we knocked back some really heavy stands at the uh Roslandale Urban Wild in Boston and uh and it was highly successful. So
I'm pretty confident that we can very carefully as long as it's monitored and done by the right people carefully use these aquatic safe herbicides in this area and increase the biodiversity of that bank. If we do it at the same time
we take out the Norway and then we can put in some fairly aggressive native plants that are appropriate to the area and um and at that point let them fight for themselves. I think it's a little too much of a rat's assess to entirely
go in and plant um aggressive natives and hope they're going to do anything. >> Um and I think we we don't really have to do a lot on the other area unless it's no longer mowed. And it looks like it's been mowed for, you
know, 80 years. But um >> but once it's stopped, this same stuff will try to come in. And we could very carefully pull this stuff as well using a weed wrench, we could get a lot of it out. I was airing on the side of herbicide use because it tends to mean
less soil disturbance and you can leave the roots in place to kind of hold the bank together. >> But I do think ecologically I think it makes sense to try to do something there. Um, we be willing to prioritize a
mechanical approach or prioritize the um the very targeted direct application herbicide um with with oversight and uh and proper credentiing. >> Yeah. I just if if you're going if you're you know leaning towards the
herbicide approach which it sounds like I just just I would just have a detailed plan for us for that you know with the schedule herbicide types maybe you know SDS's or whatever you can provide for information on those herbicides. Yeah.
And uh and to the extent I mean if there's any way any remaining concerns including this are are conditionable. We're under a pretty tight time frame with a closing deadline on the property that we had a lot of difficulty getting an extension on last time and so I'm
hoping that we can uh resolve any issues tonight. >> Okay. M anything else? >> No. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. >> Thank you, Mick. Harry, any questions for Tom on this submitt? >> Uh, I I don't, Bob. Thanks.
>> Okay, Frank, any questions uh for Tom on this submitt? >> No questions, just a comment. I agree with uh Mick on the use of the herbicides. I think if you cut them back, it might be more effective than
just spraying. Um, but I'm sure you guys uh know more about that than I do. Um, I'm also happy to see that you were able to move the location to appease the butter and it looks like a much better plan as it's
drawn now. It's my only comment. >> Okay. >> Thank you. It Mr. Chairman, if I can just clarify, in no way are we looking at a um a spray of herbicide. We're looking at direct application methods. Um, even the foaming cleanser is
actually an applicator that is sprayed right up against the leaf. >> It sort of foams out of the applicator rather than any kind of a a broad spray. We we try very hard not to have so we don't have any non-target
uh hits with the with the chemical. So Tom, you'd be able to provide the data sheet and a cut sheet on the method and the the selection of herbicides that you're proposing. >> Yeah, I can provide I mean I did provide
in the narrative a description of the methods what I could do and and I think you've conditioned this before on other projects. Um, I could provide an invasive species uh protocol that puts in writing everything
I've described for review and approval by the commission so that it's not just Mason looking at it and can come back and we can hash it out if you'd like. Um, but this is something I've I've done an awful lot of with a great deal of su
of success. Uh the only times they've not been successful have been when the uh clients have um not followed through on on bringing in the right contractor. And >> what what would be the specific wording of that, Tom, if we were to add it as a
special condition? >> Um provide a provide a um detailed invasive species uh >> control plan. >> Yeah. control plan. >> Yeah. >> That uh that provides uh detail on how
non-target species are are not going to be harmed and uh and provides the you know the specifics on the chemical and their uh their aquatic use safety or whatever the aquatic rating by EPA.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh David, any questions? Mary, I'll swing back to you before we'll do another loop around. David, any any questions uh for Tom on this application? >> No, no, no questions, Bob. No. >> Okay. Thank you, David. I do not have
any questions. I I think both Mick and and Mary's analysis and questions have been enlightening. Mary, I'm going to swing back to you. I you you've heard the different comments made and just wanted to see where you're at and what your comments and
>> I think that you know um Tom convinced me that the you know the invasives management plan on the bank there can be done sensitively with um it's going to require a lot of effort and oversight but I think that you know I I'm willing to give that a shot.
>> Okay. >> Still retain my concerns about the dock. >> Okay. And and that is on the wood pilings versus helical. >> And do we have a DMF comment on the dock yet?
>> No, they they received the um the NOI over a month ago and they don't always comment. And I checked with Mason today to see sometimes they send it to the agent only and not to the applicant and nothing's been sent in. >> And that was sent by email or by regular
mail? >> By email. That's the requirement is that that go by email. >> No, it is. Yep. Um I I would like to certainly understand what what if any they have comments on. Um is that in priority
habitat? >> Um no. So so the part there's a natural heritage component and that is the floats. The endangered species line is actually out in the water. Um >> and
so the you can actually see this line here. >> Yep. So these are in habitat and uh I think probably the reason that we don't have any comments from DMF is that we do show 18 in above substrate uh with the
near floats uh being up on uh up on uh what you call it on uh on legs basically. And then, you know, we've got full float here and we're using helical anchoring
uh for this. So, it it meets all the BMPs. They typically >> we have comments from Natural Heritage on their floats in the prior. >> Yeah. They've signed off. No take, no special conditions, nothing. >> Mary, anything else? >> No, thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Mason, do you have any comments? >> Uh, I think the only thing that I would recommend is we would dock projects since I've been here, we've normally, uh, had the applicant submit a float storage plan. Um, just identifying where the floats are going to be coming out,
whether that's going to be floated down the river for storage or kept in an upland area on the site. Um, but I think besides that, that would be my only recommendation. >> Okay, Tom, you want to respond to that? Yeah, I think we had mentioned this in
the first hearing uh after we got the D file number, but maybe not. Um Okay. The uh the floats would not be stored in the marsh, they'll be stored uh most likely offsite, but if they're stored on site, there's really one location where they
where they could probably go. Uh, and that would be up in the flood plane only portion because, you know, I suppose maybe we can get them up in here, but um there's this storage area here that we may be able to
fit them in or we may be able to fit them here. But more, you know, I would say that that the current plan is that they'll be stored offsite. you know, whoever does the installation would be doing that and I would imagine they're going to be put in and removed through
the town's boat ramp. >> Okay. >> Anything else, Mason? >> Um, no, I think that's it. Um, to to Mary's point about the helical piles and the wood piles, uh, I know we had permitted the one on Seven Marshall with the helical piles. Um, but I actually
got a call from Ed Bole who's doing the pile driving over there and he kind of explained a little bit the difficulties that helical piles can bring um with stability and and he argued the point that um you know as you put in helical piles if they're moving over time with
ice or whatnot um the the maintenance required to to kind of reset those in would be more impact than a singleuse wood pile. Um, and you know, I haven't really had the experience of viewing long-term projects with both of those. Um, but just to give the board some
perspective on um, you know, someone who does pile driving in town and and kind of their thoughts on the matter. So, >> okay. Thank you. Okay. Any any other members have any further questions before I open this up to the public? Uh, >> none for me, Bob. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, Mason, are there any raised hands from the public at this time? And if there were uh please just give us your name. >> Uh John, just give us your name and address and then I'm assuming you're directing your question to Tom.
>> Yeah. Yeah. In fact, Tom and I have been talking quite a bit lately. Uh John Kllum, uh 52 Cottage Road, uh here in Newberry, uh directly next door, uh and actually the property that's just behind the garage that that Tom was just
recently talking about. Um uh f first off um we certainly do appreciate moving the property uh and in and making a little bit more room. Um that's that's certainly very very helpful. Um giving us a little bit more space that's appreciated. Um the the plans that I've
got in front of me right now I think are the latest ones that we've got from Tom and those were uh based on updates um from 528 just a few days ago. Um, we see that the and I know it may be outside of the scope of your your environmental
concerns and I I'm almost positive it is, but the the garage size that we see there, which is bigger than the the the present dwelling there right now, what we see there with the 10-ft spacing there is something from our perspective.
We're okay with that. Um but we have not uh but we have I understand that there's going to be a yet another modification um uh to that uh this latest uh set of plans and uh we were we're going to be
uh getting a copy of that sometime soon by Tom >> John. What is the date of the plan that you you're looking at? Just so that we can make sure we're all looking at the same. >> The date on the bottom right corner is April 21st, 2026, but it was updated. Um
there's an update section there that says 52826. >> Okay. And Tom, is that the plan we've been looking at? >> Yeah, it is. He he's looking at the same plan. Um >> right. So, so it so it would seem John if we if we approve the plan that is
before us uh and there is a change to the plan it would have to come back as an amendment and that would be renotification uh you know public hearing it would be able to address it as would you if if there was a change.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any anything else John? I had one question. I'm Kathy Jones wife. Um, >> so this in regards to the landscape by that proposed garage or the garage,
there's a tree in the landscape. Uh, and I think that is what was that the same tree that's there now? >> Yeah, Tom, that's to the right of the garage. that tree that's there. It's kind of over it's overarching our our
garage as well, which we moss all over the garage. >> Yeah. And the reason you've got the moss is it's a Norway maple. So the canopy is so dense that it's >> inhibiting the growth of other plants. The knotweed loves it under there. Right. Um, so that is coming out that
shown is being removed and then it is being replaced with a PC which is a uh Swiss stone pine. >> Um, so that'll be just a an evergreen going in there.
>> Thanks. >> Um, and that shown is 8 to 10 foot in height. >> Any any other questions? John, are are you guys all set? Do you have any other questions? >> I think we're what was that? >> We're all set, right? >> Yeah, we're all set. Yeah. Thank you.
>> Great. >> Everything that was done. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mason, are there any other raised hands from the public at this time? If anyone would like to speak, just give us your name and address it. Not not seeing any.
>> Okay. All right. Uh, one further go around with the board. Mary, anything else that you want to add? I mean, I think Mason, uh, incorporating a flood, a flood, a float, Jesus, a flood, a
float storage plan, uh, the invasive species control plans certainly makes good sense to me. >> Yeah, I don't have anything further. Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information,
plan amendment or addition or additional content to this notice of intent? >> I would very much like to have the uh division of marine fisheries comments as part of the record for this. >> Okay. Do the is there a time frame area
that they have to respond? Is it a 30-day time frame or >> it may be 30 days? Yeah. >> Okay. And as I recall, those are not conditional, but they're recommendations, >> right? But we Yes. >> Yeah. Not but it's it's invaluable to have. It's
>> uh m Mr. Chairman, the um the difference between marine fisheries is we're required to notify them, but they're not required to comment. Um they often do, but they don't always. Uh natural heritage, we're required to get the
>> the No, comments. They have a 30-day when you pass 30 days, then you're free to issue a decision. But, um, marine fisheries, we just have to send it and we've sent it. And so, we can't really do any more on that. And >> what was the date? What was the date
that you sent it, Tom? >> Um, hold on. I'll get into my email. And I want to say it was like April 10th, but that's just off the top of my head. >> Middle of April is what year >> I I think. Let me let me just be sure.
Um, April 28th. So, >> okay. So, it's just just hitting 30 days at this point. >> Yeah. I mean, it's it's 35 days, but I'll I'll forward this right now to the agent so he's got
the record. Um, I think I did, but just in case. >> Okay. So, Mary, are are you asking? >> Yeah. Wait for that. I have concerns about the the dock and and removal of these piles and this installation of new
piles and how um that can be accomplished within the regs. There's not a lot of there's no wiggle room for alteration of salt marsh except for installation of piles. So I I don't I just am not fully convinced yet that the
dock is um is is going to get my vote. Put it that way. I'm fine with that. >> Okay. So the so the doc issue and and then the type of >> there's a way to do it. I think ultimately there's is probably a way to
do it. I just haven't I'm not convinced that it's as currently proposed is the least impact way to do it. So, would we consider a a submittal prior to construction
uh that could be reviewed by the agent or the commission as a condition to to make sure whether it's helical or it's wood and I'm just kind of throwing that out there as a as a cautisle to this
this particular >> No, I mean I think you know time is sensitive for these these people and and you know if there's a way to >> separate the two projects and just approve the house I'd be comfortable with that. >> Um
I but I'm just one member so you >> well your your your guidance and counsel carries great weight with the commission. >> It's sometimes a burden. So, >> you fully understand all of that. Uh,
>> yeah, >> I >> those are my those are my thoughts. I mean, it's easier to to build the the thing without, you know, with brand new construction and not having to take out the piles. You know, maybe if there's a that's probably my biggest concern is you take
out these piles, all the suction that that's that creates and we don't know how deep they are and how much material would be needed to back fill into these holes to and and then would there need to be replanting of these holes that are, you know, as a result. I just think
it's cleaner and easier to um leave them in place and build around them. If you >> That's I guess that's when it comes down to it. My my biggest concern is removal of the piles and >> so if he cut those at the surface and
put new wood piles and would >> that would be better. I mean I think that we're being very inconsistent in requiring helicals in one location and not in another. That doesn't seem very fair. Um I don't know. I've seen helical helicals be used lots of times in very
high um energy locations on on the Marramac upstream in the Marramck and and um they haven't had a problem with them and they've been in there for quite a number of years. >> Yeah, if I may, the um we're certainly
happy to just cut them and not remove them. Um, we were trying to keep the salt marsh impact neutral and uh there are cases where D has allowed salt marsh to essentially be relocated and not call it an impact. So that was what we were
hoping to do is is essentially relocate as we relocate the piles in slightly different spots and and transplant over. Uh >> yeah, it assumes a really clean, you know, removal of these >> piles, which may not be the case at all.
But >> yeah, I mean, we can we could do a couple different things. One is we could give a very gentle pull, and if they don't come, we just cut them blush and uh try to get them as like as low down as we can and so the salt marsh has a
chance of of growing over it. Um, >> Tom, I think I think what if if you're trying to get final action tonight, I I I would suggest that you you follow surface cut the piles you're not going to use and the ones you put in are going
to be helical piles and I think you have a pathway forward tonight. >> Okay. Um, Mary, would you would you agree with that? >> I'd be very happy with that. Okay. >> Okay. If if we are going to reuse a location so that we would if we could
pull a pile and put a new pile in the same hole, would you be okay with that? >> Um, yes. >> Okay. So, I I think we can we can agree to that. I just don't want to I don't want to have to like squeeze a pile in
right next to an old pile. If we can uh >> if we can same thing, you know, but spacing, you should be able to manage the Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. We can we can do that. So, we'd be fine with that. Um, and >> Hang on. Hang on one second. Tom Mick, do you have something you want to add to
this or or I just am I misreading your body language? >> I thought he waved. I thought he >> Okay. >> No, no, no, no. Um, I'm kind of on the fence. I I see the benefits of what Tom is proposing as using the original hole
the the new holes as plugs. um like almost like a sod plug basically to replace um but I also see the benefit of helical pile. So I'm really I'm 50/50 on it and I think just a general consensus of the
commission um to agree and if that's >> so I mean >> helicals and >> basically there'll be no new p no new no new wood piles unless it's like kind in the same hole.
Go ahead, Woody. >> I have a quick question about the wood versus helico in reference to what Mason spoke to earlier about Ed Bole saying that he'd like to use wood on the other side. And I just don't know how maybe
how that's addressed, Mason. And I respect Ed Bole's opinions. He lives on the river. He's three doors down from this place. But I think we're looking at the impact to the the resource, not the long-term maintenance of the actual
construction component. >> So it's it's better to put the helical. Mary, if you would too, please chime in. It's better to replace the helical or maintain the helical than it is to put the wood in. >> I haven't seen an example of the
helicals needing to be replaced. So I mean you know this is somebody who's you know the business is pile driving. So that's that's what he knows and that's how he >> uh he actually does both though. He does >> he do both? >> Yeah he he does. Yeah. >> So um I'm worried you know I want to be
consistent in our decision making here in this and I also think that there is a significant difference in impact. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You have your Frank has his hand up. Frank, what what's your question? >> Mary, I have a question for you.
>> I don't clearly understand when you say the impact on the marsh by pulling the existing piles out, what what is your concern? What exactly is the concern? So when you, you know, say that the piles
are four feet, you know, in the ground and they come out, now you got a a hole and you can't put it, you can't put Pete in there. Pete is decompos, you know, that's not the substrate. So you're going to have to fill it with a a non-native material to get it back up to
the grade that it's needed to grow salt marsh grasses. You have to have a planting plan to plant over it. Um, and you got to hope it grows. and they're very it's it's very difficult to get salt marsh to grow. Um it grows very slowly and so we know what elevation it
would need to be and everything and then you know it might settle it might still have a little hole there depending on the material. So it it's just a whole another step in the process and the result is that you have more uh vegetation loss and potentially loss of
the you know the native pete that's in there you know and being kept in place by these piles as they eventually decompose that becomes part of the organic layer. But I I just
>> you often see you see these >> these piles removed sometimes and there is just a big hole and then once a hole develops it tends to expand into this marsh you know it holds water and expands and it kills the you know vegetation around it because it's always
wet in the in between tides. Um so it keeps the root zone saturated in between tides. So there's, you know, there's lots of different ways where it could go go wrong. >> Yeah. >> So just just to do a recap, if they
removed a pile like kind and then didn't relocate it, replace the pile because of its structural integrity in the exact same location, we're okay with that. It's removing the pile and abandoned piles could be cut.
>> I guess in theory. Yeah, I guess in theory if I mean the likelihood that you're going to have a a hole that is going to be suitable for another pile of a different size that is going to be at the same depth is >> it's not like >> they're going to probably drive them
into >> and you're not going to do one one wooden pile and a bunch of helicals, right? You're going to you're going to do one or the other. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, we would still prefer to go forward with installing wooden piles, but it's really the ice. It's not
so much the velocity, it's the it's the ice that builds up in this area. And uh and the helicals would need significant bracing in a way that that I think is more adverse to to the salt
marsh long term. So, um, and then it's the ongoing maintenance of a of a helical install and possibly having to replace it, uh, if there's ice damage that has us wanting to do the wood. Um, but we're certainly okay. I understand
Mary's concern. I was thinking of it differently. I guess as a geologist, I think, okay, it's not that hard to replicate the substrate. It's a matter of getting it so it doesn't settle and choosing the right material. There might even be material we uncover on site as
we're uh excavating for the foundation that's suitable. And then filling the hole up and not planting it, but literally transplanting the the saw of the salt marsh with its pete and with whatever we could get out of the the new
pile hole over and doing salt marsh restoration that way. And to me, you either have a scar of the old wood pile or you have the scar um temporary scar of a plug. But we can do it either way, whatever the
commission's preferences. Um we would still like to install the wooden piles. Um, and if the commission wanted to punt the issue of cut or no cut, you could do a condition that required us to provide a more detailed plan of
how we would restore the holes or in the absent of that would be required to cut them flush. And that would give us time to talk about this issue a little bit more, but know that we've got approval for the dock. Um, if
>> Yeah. I mean, Tom, I I think that any of the piles you're not going to reuse, you're going to have to cut flush. >> Okay. >> Not remove. Uh, and Mary, are you okay with the installation of new piles if we're not removing any
of the old piles? Because I I I agree with you, Mary, that it's the impact to the resource that we're worried about, not not the ongoing maintenance, although it >> nice when you can address both. But >> yeah, I guess, you know, my vote is cut
the piles flush and use helical piles and if and issue an order and if they want to request an amendment down the road with more information, we could consider that. But um >> Okay. >> I think that's what I that's my opinion. So Tom, I think if you want one final
action tonight, Woody, do you have your hand up for >> Yeah. Yeah. I I only have one other thing to say is if they wanted to go with wood, why can't they pull the old ones and put the new wood ones in the same holes and call it a day? Because that's what saws are for. They can use
what they have there now and fill in from pile to pile. I saw them on site. They're laid out. They might not there might be some differences in footage, but they just put wood piles in the old holes because they want new wood piles
and worked around it that way. That way there's no plugs, there's no fill, there's no any of that. I mean, I think the point is is that if if if there's a pile and it's not going to be used, Woody, rather than pull it and
have it filled in and and deal with that and the planting, just cutting it flesh to the grade and leaving it in place, that seems to be >> Mr. Chairman, I we can we could accept the condition that we have to cut them
flush and that we uh use helicals unless we provide additional information to the commission as to why helicals cannot work in which case then we could use the wood with the commission's review and approval of
that. if there was some type of condition that basically said, >> well, I think we're going to we're going to we're going to approve something tonight and you can come back and amend it, but but it's not going to be a condition that's conditional upon something else. So, it's >> okay.
>> So, so what if you said what you know a combination of what he said use reuse the file locations, re reuse the same pile locations or use helicals and give them the option. >> Yeah. Sophia said all new all new installation locations shall be
healable. >> Yep, that's fine. >> Okay. All right. Uh Mason, I hope you've taken copious notes on this. Okay. Are there any other questions from
anyone? Okay. I I think we've resolved that. All right. Obviously, we don't want a site visit. We No one's requesting any additional information. Um thoughts on uh considering closing
the meeting. Does anyone have any objection to closing, excuse me, closing the public hearing, not the meeting? >> So moved. >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. And Mary, you you'll move it. And what are you seconding it?
Okay. Uh roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> Bob Connors. Okay. So, special conditions.
Uh, just looking at my notes and Mason and Mary chime in or anyone else. Uh, the applicant is going to submit a fl a float storage plan. He's going to provide an evasive specy control plan. Uh
with regard to the with regards to the pilings, they will either be reused as wood or all new piles will be uh helicals, >> reused in the same locations as >> Yes.
>> And any any piles not you any existing piles not used to be cut flush. >> Cut flush. Yeah. Okay. All right. I will entertain a motion issue an order of conditions for 54 cottage road uh subject to the special conditions that were just discussed.
>> Can I add another condition monitor of the embracing species um all of the mitigation that's proposed as this two years of monitoring of the success that's pretty standard standard two growing season monitoring of mitigation areas.
>> Okay. And Tom, if you could include that in the invasive species control plan monitoring, think that would Would that work, Mary? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> So, move. >> Okay. All right. Uh, roll call. All in favor? Mary?
>> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> I. >> Harry? >> Yes. Frank, Frank, you're on mute if you're >> I don't know if we lost him. >> No, I see him. Frank, you're on mute if you're
>> although his internet sometimes is frozen. Okay, David. >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's loss. Frank. >> Okay. Well, we have a quorum. All right. Thank you, Tom. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Next matter. D file number 0501460
45 Boston Road. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent to expand existing boardwalk systems within or within the proximity to bordering vegetated wetlands. Mason, where are we at on this one? You're on mute now, Mason.
>> There we go. Uh uh the Ned had completed the delineation over at 45 Boston which I've taken a look at. Everything looked good over there. Um he's still getting some additional information over to us. So he's going to be requesting a a continuence tonight until our next meeting.
>> Okay. I will entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to our July 7th uh meeting at the request of the applicant. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Mary, >> I have to abstain on this one. >> Okay. Woody,
>> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's vote. Yes. >> All right. Next matter is a continued public hearing. D file number 0501455.
Old Newbury Golf Club. Alpacan is submitting an NOI for golf course maintenance work including T- box relocation and T rem exc excuse me tree removal within the buffer zone. Mason, can you give us an update on this and a recommendation if you
>> Yep. Uh so the board and I or some of the members of the board and I did a sitewalk a couple of weeks ago. Um and we had talked with Sam, the um applicants representative for this project. Um and we had suggested updating the wetland line as we saw some
areas where we thought it needed to be fixed. Um so they fixed that and Sam will be able to show you those areas. Um, but there was an area that uh kind of bumped out a little bit more than expected on the third T box and then uh
I believe it was the fourth T box and fourth hole where we also wanted um the delineation reviewed again. So, they've updated flags in those areas. And I believe they have some slight changes um to what they're proposing um for the
work next to hole two, I believe. Um so, they've updated everything. I've been able to go out and review the updated delineation. Um I didn't see any issues with that. Um and at that, I would leave it to Sam um to go over some of the
changes that they had made on the plans. All right, Sam, if you just give us your name and position on this project. >> Yeah, sure. Thank you. Uh Sam Colombo speaking. I am the uh engineer representing the applicant tonight. Um so I'll just quickly go through um if I
can share my screen here. Um go through some of the areas Mason alluded to already. >> Should be good to share now. >> Perfect. All right. All right. Are we all able to see screen?
>> Yes. >> Beautiful. Uh so the first location um Mason alluded to is actually just behind uh the third green. If you can see where my cursor is now, the dashed line would
be the new delineation and there are new flags. Um, it's a bit tough to see, but with the bright green text, those would be the new flags, the area that sort of bumps out. Uh, the
light gray line was the previous delineation. Um, so you can see there's a little bit of a change there. The second area was just off of the uh fifth T box to the north of the
page here again. Uh the dash line is the uh new delineation. This area didn't change a whole lot. Um I think the flags move between five and 7 ft. Uh again uh depicted with those uh bright green
wetland flag labels. And the last area was just to the south of that um on the fifth bearway. Another three wet flag locations. Again, just minor adjustments to that.
Um, and then just another thing to remember, I know it's been a while since we've been uh back in front of the commission. Uh, there are some locations obviously where uh we're proposing to cut some trees close to the wetlands.
Um, we're not proposing to actually remove any of the stumps. Um what they would do is uh grind them down uh just below grade so they can get uh material over the top of them if they're close to
the playable area on the golf course. Uh or if they're really close to the wetland. Uh I'm recommending that they they just leave the stumps in place altogether to prevent any sort of um disturbance up close to the wetland.
Uh the final and last change that we made to the proposal Mason had mentioned on the second T box. Now the original proposal uh had us removing the um smaller rear
T- box, excavating it out and moving it up and combining it with the the smaller T- box up front. golf course would actually like to prevent uh any sort of excavation up next to the wetland and instead just fill the the small area in
between those two tea boxes to create a larger tea box. I it's covered up here, but I believe it's about 275 square ft of area and it would only be filled about a foot to a foot
and a half. It's It's not a a um an elevated T box really at all. Um yeah, those are really the only changes we have. Um you know, I'm happy to answer any questions the commission uh may have and hopefully get this over
the finish line. So, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Questions from the members. Thank you, Sam. Mary, questions for Sam on this application? Um yeah. Can you Sam, can you just flip back to the beginning? Um >> yeah,
>> of the plan sets. Thanks. >> Sure. >> Um so, um I guess one of the things we talked about in the field was and and thanks for making the delineation changes that looks about right what I what I pictured. And um I think the
original delineation is done by just GIS overlay. So this is much more accurate and will be useful for the course in the future of knowing where their wetlands are on their property. Um but the trees that are within 50 ft of the wetland um
we talked about um having some more criteria for when those would be allowed and um like for example if they were non-native species or if they were a potential hazard to players other than
it being a hazard like to improve your game. I mean a falling hazard. Um, and I don't know that all of those were. And so I think I thought that we would we had discussed kind of giving a little bit more information about the the trees that were within the 50ft buffer zone.
So there's like it looks like there's just three of them here on this um third T and one. Yeah, that one where your cursor is over there. um you know they seem to be pretty far away from clay areas and uh maybe it's just the shading
issue on that one near flag A4. Um but some of them are very close to the wetland boundary and you know they're they're some of them are native trees. They're mostly red maple if I recall. Um so I guess to sum to summarize I'd be in favor of this project and all the
changes to the tea boxes that were proposed. They all look reasonable to me. Um, but that limiting the tree clearing in the 50oot buffer zone without, you know, further explanation of why they're needed other than,
you know, playability issues. >> Sure. Understood. Mary, I I should have um I should have mentioned there was a uh a part of the project narrative um that I did my best to sort of explain um what you had just spoke about um
although we didn't exactly flag each tree um you know whether or not it was disease or is for playability reasons that it was being removed. Um however um I did go through the plans with Martin the core superintendent
and he had come up with about 75% of the trees proposed um he thinks need to come down due to uh disease or infestation um with some of them appearing close to falling on their own. Uh the remaining
25% uh would be removed to impose uh improve playability um as well as help manage the overall turf health for the golf course. >> Um so I get what you're saying. Um
>> he's not an he's not an aberist though, Sam, is he? >> Not that I know of. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So m so maybe it's just a matter of flagging those in the buffer zone and uh in the 50oot zone and getting more
information and leaving some discretion of mason or something to decide whether or not those had come down. Um >> so something like flag the trees prior to removal site visit with the agent and if there was some backup on the health
of the tree that might be justification. Yeah, keep the ones in the 50 foot unless there's documentation that it's an unhealthy tree or you know at at risk that >> as as a golf area what happens is as the trees grow and the canopy expands it blocks all the sunlight and
then you have a turf failure and >> yeah and plus 16 handicapped golfers hate trees to begin with. So, but >> I was going to say sometimes they help >> only only when they bounce >> ricochet off the
you get a member's bounce. >> You be a hockey player. You got to play the boards. >> Mary, do you have any other questions? Back if you do. Okay. >> Thank you, >> Woody. Your your comments for for Sam. >> Just a quick clarification on the trees. How many other are total
to be slated to be removed? Um, we're down to 55. Um, I believe the original proposal had about 70. >> Okay. Thank you. No more questions, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Mick. Our favorite
registered arborist of Bluey Conservation. >> Uh, yeah. I was going to ask how many trees. Um, this just you had mentioned stump grinding and Mary feel free to to chime in here.
Think if you're going to do stump grinding within the wetland resource area inside the buffer zone and you're going to go below grade then you're going to have to replace with you're going to have to do a replacement, right? Because collectively
all the stumps that you probably are going to grind out when you add up that square footage, you're probably going to be within, you know, you're going to probably over the limit where you have to do some type of wetland restoration. That's why you may want to consider just
cutting them flush as opposed to grinding and and having to replant in a wetland area. So, just a thought there and I'm welcome, you know, comments from from others on the commission regarding
that. And uh >> yeah, I think >> you know what you bring up a good point, Mick Sam. What is the vegetation around the trees being proposed to be stump ground? Is it is it is it grass now? Is it fairway or
>> uh so it's it's mixed. Um, you know, the further you get out to the 100 foot buffer, it it becomes, you know, rough and and fairway area. >> Obviously, as you you get closer to the wetland, it's it's a lot more um, you know, brush brush vegetation and
whatnot. >> Of the 55 trees, I apologize. I I wasn't available for the site visit. Of the 55 trees being proposed for cutting, how many within the 100t buffer and how many within the 50ft buffer? Is there a
breakout like that? >> Yeah. So, um between the 0 to 50 foot buffer, uh there's 18 trees and between the 50 to 100 foot buffer, there's 26 trees and
then um an additional 11 that are outside um the buffer zone altogether. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for that, Harry. Question question. I'm just >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I just want to clarify what Sam just
said. Are there any in the wetland itself? >> Uh, no. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Mary. I'm going to go through this again, Mary, so everyone's going to have a chance to talk. Harry, what are your thoughts on this?
>> Um, no comments, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Harry. Frank, what are your comments? >> I have no comments, Bob. Thank you. >> David, what are your comments? I don't have any comments, just an observation. I didn't I did the sitewalk with some of the uh the other conservation members
and um didn't seem like 75% were dying. Um there were definitely some that were uh on their way out, but it didn't seem like it was that high a percentage. >> Okay. So, so Sam, the way I see this, the 26 trees that are in the 50 to 100
foot buffer, um, hate to lose a tree, but it it it doesn't shouldn't say it doesn't bother me. It it's not as concerning. The 11 trees outside the buffer, outside the buffer
completely, you know, certainly we don't even have jurisdiction. the 18 trees that are in the zero to 50. I I think we'd have to be marked and then there would have to be some supporting documentation uh that u there there is some sort of
the survivability whe whether it's a life safety thing because they're dead or they're dying and it so I think you can get yourself I mean from my perspective and certainly I'm just one vote but um I think the 18
trees within the 0 to 50 buffer It it's not a go. It's it's going to be do a submitt mark them. Mason inspects them and you've got a registered abus that's saying yeah there's there's a reason for removing them.
>> Understood. Um is there any way that could be a condition? >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think we can condition it. It >> Okay. >> Okay. And it So, let me do let me circle back. Larry, you just heard what I said. Um, what are
your thoughts on that? >> That sounds great. And I would just add, you know, whether or not you you want to allow stump grinding in the 0 to 50 or or not. Um, I I think if if you're you if it's in an area where there's turf anyway or you're supposed to be turf,
it's pretty easy to just >> y >> reed it. But if it's in an area that's wooded, um, maybe just cut, you know, >> flash cut it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. But I think, you know, in the special condition, Mary, on on those 18 particular trees, we we could add some
verbiage there that the agent, you know, in conjunction to his, you know, a site visit, uh, would would be able to make a determination or bring it back to us if it was. >> Yeah, that definitely's fine. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions from the
members at this time? Nope. Are there any raised hands from the public Mason at this time? >> Seeing none. >> Okay. Do any members have a request for additional site visit, additional
information, plan amendment uh or any additional content? I'd just throw out there, Bob, I'd be happy to join uh Mason >> to review any mark trees just to lend my
limited expertise in in the tree world. >> Yeah, I I think that would be great. I think that would be great. Okay, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay, roll call. All in favor? Mary?
>> Yes. Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Barry, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's vote. Yes. So, team, the It seems like the only issue we have
would be the 18 trees within the 50-ft buffer. And Mary, what would you suggest for some verbiage for a special condition? Uh any trees within 50 ft of a identified wetland resource area
um not be removed until the agent has an opportunity to inspect and determine whether or not they meet criteria for removal based on disease or safety hazard.
>> Okay. with that. Didn't you say, Bob, that the justification for removal would have to be, you know, detailed by a certified arborist? >> Well, I mean, it >> provides some justifications. >> Yeah. I mean,
>> if there's no leaves on the tree and it's the middle of July, we probably can make that determination. But right >> if if it's a healthy green tree I think that it uh >> we we need some justification to to just you know enter into the 50ft buffer
>> right that's from the 0 to 50 >> y zone. Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And then and then further that um trees to be removed in the 50oot buffer if they're to be ground they need to area needs to be receded otherwise cut flush.
Mhm. >> Yeah. Flush got unless it's in a turf area, >> right? >> Okay. >> All right, Sam, you okay with that? Does that make sense to you? >> Yeah, that works for us. >> Okay. All right. Um, I will entertain a motion to issue order
conditions for Old Newbury Golf Club uh with that special condition on the 0 to 50 buffer regarding trees. They'll be flagged. Uh there'll be a pre- removal meeting with the agent
and trees that are dangerous, threat to safety or or diseased uh will be flagged and if they're cut, it'll be flesh cut unless it's
surrounded by by turf. >> So move. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes.
>> Bob Connors, thank you, Sam. >> Thank you, everybody. >> Okay, let's see. What do we got left here? D file number 0501462177 Middle Road. The applicant is submitting a notice of intent to construct a new single family home and associated work
within the buffer zone. Mason, can you give us an overview and a status on this one? >> Yep. So, some of the board members uh did a sitewalk here with Bill Holt. Um he had the house and garage staked out. I believe he also had the septic system staked out. Um there's an existing
gravel driveway there. So, we we were able to walk the whole property um and look at all the project elements. Um, and I think some of the only comments that were had on the sitewalk, um, were to reduce some of the grading within the 0 to 50 ft buffer, um, if it wasn't
absolutely necessary. Um, so I believe Bill had made some changes to the plan, identifying those areas where the grading was reduced. Um, so I will leave it at that and he can uh kind of go through those areas and and the small changes that he made on the plan. >> Okay, Bill, give us your name and your
association and make your presentation. William Hol representing the owner Chris Clifford. Um yeah, sorry. Um and I do have a revised plan. I'd like to be able to um share that if I can.
>> Yeah, certainly. You see that? >> We can. >> All right. I'm going to show you the areas. Um, I'm going to use the 20 scale because it's a little easier. see it. I'll zoom in on the areas that um when we walked the property, Mary had
asked us to pull the grading back up to the 50 foot uh buffer line. So, zoom in a little more see a little easier. So this here is the the red line is the 50 foot title five step back 50 foot
step back to the wetlands and we pulled the 36th elevation post 36 34 32 all back up to that line 30 foot elevation above it and then down here because of the septic we were
unable to bring it all the way back. Um, I have the septic pipe going down through here. And the grade, it's like a little valley in here, little little spot. And we have to hit a certain grade to keep the percentage of the pipe down
to the septic. And these grades are to uh keep that grade and slope it down at a 4 to one. So I have 4:1 going down. Then we have the 28 and the 26 inch right here. We pulled all the hay bales back to that line as that would be the
limit of work be the hail line. So that's where we did the modification. I also did modify up here slightly um holding the grading back um in this area and push the hails back. Um I don't
think Mary mentioned that area, but I I saw that it was way in and I pulled it back as far as we could. So, we brought it up close but not quite fully out of the um office out of the 50 court. And that's the three spots that we um modify
it. You have any questions or if Mary has any comments or any other members? I'll try to answer them. >> Okay, questions from the members. Mary, questions for Bill Holt on this application. Um,
Bill, do you have utilities coming in on the driveway? >> Um, yes, we have Oops, sorry. Let me go back to the other one. Doesn't quite show it. Other scale, the 40 scale will have
a telephone ping across the street. >> Yosing one telephone pole. Zoom in a little bit more so I can tell you show you. >> So we're going to go overhead >> overhead overhead line and then >> overhead line up
>> at this location which is slightly under 50 foot. >> Yep. >> And then underground from there to the house. >> Okay. >> That's about the maximum length we can go with a pole. We'd have to have a second poll if you wanted to go overhead and further up.
>> Okay. And what about uh gas or anything? >> Use propane gas tanks that will be up by the house or oil and then we have a obviously proposed well. So the well is located outside the buffer zone. >> Okay. So no excavation needed in the
driveway. the the the most sensitive area on the site is the entrance entrance where the driveway is um has wetland on both sides. >> Yes, correct. That's that's kind of resisting. So, we're not really doing a whole lot of grading there, >> right? It's very low. Um and so, you know, we'll have that width which I
think you've got shown as 12 or 13 feet maintained. Um there's a stone wall on one side that sort of the wetland goes actually on the other side of the stone wall up right up to the edge of the wetland at the edge of the driveway. So
there's a just a that's a little pinch point there. But the rest of the project is well out you know out of the 50 foot and is pretty standard construction. So we've got erosion controls that should serve as limit of work line so that there isn't any tree clearing beyond that limit of
work um which we should specify in in order of conditions and I can't think I can't think I'm done thinking um >> but a long nightmare a long night
>> feeling like I'm fading but um I I guess you know there's likely to be additional material brought in for the driveway surface between those two wetlands on either side. And they'll just have to,
you know, be sensitive about maintaining that width so it doesn't grow into that wetland because there's going to be a tendency to want to expand it out towards the um stone wall there. >> Yeah, I discussed that with the applicant when we were out there after you guys have left. I said we can't
expand the width of the gravel driveway >> beyond the 12 feet. >> Yeah. So that we do, we have to make sure we can grade it without going past. But >> yeah, you would have to come back to us for that for an amendment and some replication to in order to do that if it looks like it's going to be needed when
you you know you get to that point. But right now you're proposing to stay entirely outside of the wetland. So hopefully that can be maintained. >> Okay. Hey, Mary. Anything else? >> No. Thanks, Bob. >> Okay. Thank you, Mary. Woody, any questions for Bill on this one?
>> Um, just a clarification. So, they're just going to top coat and leave it 12 feet wide. Top coat of gravel only. >> Yep. Yep. Well, the the DPW may ask for the apron. I think it's like 10 or 12 feet off the pavement to be paved.
That's for um plowing transition. They don't want to have gravel plot out into the into the roadway. So the the first 12 ft may be 10 to 12 feet right in this area may be paved um at the request of the DPW. I I know they typically want an
apron paved so that you don't have a plowing up on the street having gravel going up and the street. So >> I show that but if you want me to show it I can add it to the plan before. >> Yeah, I would I I would add it if it's
going to go in bill if you show it. I think it it will answer questions down the road if someone raises it. >> Yeah, I can revise that and provide that copy to um to the agent. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh Woody, any anything else?
>> Nope. Thank you, Bob. Thank you, Bill. >> Okay. Thank you, Woody. Mick, any questions for Bill Holt? >> Uh, no, I have none. Thank you. >> Okay, Harry, any questions for Bill Holt? >> Uh, not at this time, Bob. >> Thank you, Harry. Frank, any questions for Bill Holt? >> No. No questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Frank and David. Any questions for Bill Holt? >> No, Bob. No questions. >> I do not have any questions. Uh Mason, are there any raised hands from the public at this time? >> I see Kathy. Kathy, if you could just give us your
name and address and you're on mute. Kathy, you're on mute. Okay, Kathy, if you if you can hear us, there you are. Just give us your name and address, Kathy, and then ask you direct your question to Bill or who whatever
member you want to. You're back off mute now. You're you're back on mute, Kathy. Okay. Which give us your name and what's your question? >> Yes. Um, what I'm Kathy Atinson. I'm going to butter her to 177. I just want
to understand >> Kathy, if you could just give us your actual address, too, Kathy, just for the record. >> Yes. 175 Middle Road. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yes. I just want to understand the clarification of a gravel road
at this point. >> Okay. From >> from middle road into the proposed site for construction. >> Okay. I mean I I think it's a gravel driveway, but Bill, do you >> Yeah. >> Do you want to answer that question?
>> It's a gravel driveway. Exactly. Um it is a it is a on the old uh plan >> on the old plan of record it's called a it's called a I mean a right of way
access way um >> I just kind of that same that same language but it is going to be only a driveway to this house. It does go all the way through me goes all the way through. out to the out to the
property here that when you're in the front, right? >> Yeah, it ab butts on the other side of the road. Just just for clarification, there is a culvert that goes underneath that road also, um, which is part of the town drainage
system that that does go underneath the the gravel road as stated. I'm just wondering, it it doesn't seem to me like the grading for that road would be um conducive to large construction vehicles
coming in and out of there. And I'm just a little bit concerned about, you know, how how that will be addressed. Um yeah, I think what um the applicant wants to do is actually take it down
about 6 in and add gravel a 12 inch gravel base. So 6 in down and then 6 in above. So it'll be uh be taken down 6 in and then 12 in will be brought back in. So we'll go up about 6 in and uh that will give you a 12in gravel base which
is what typical pro base have for a for that purpose structure. >> Okay. And then and then to have >> is your concern the width of a piece of equipment going in exceeding the 12 ft or is it
>> the weight and the and the piece of equipment? Yes. Yeah, >> most equipment is is less than 8 feet wide because it has to be transported over the road and and it just can't be
any wider than that. Now, that doesn't mean >> open. >> Okay. So, it you're not going to have some 15 foot wide piece of equipment uh that would be >> going for a residential structure like this, >> right? >> Okay. Well, definitely the weight would
be a concern just because >> well, whatever. It's just the weight of the the piece of equipment and just what it could do to the >> cover. Bill, where is the cover that Kathy is referencing? >> I'll be honest with you. Um, let me um
go to the other drawing. Sorry. >> Is this at like the swale at the start of the driveway by the edge of the road or >> Yes. close to probably about >> 30 feet in.
>> I mean, we don't have any objections to the projected project. I'm just concerned about the, you know, the what might happen with the weight of the vehicles or whatever else to as a concern for the drainage in our front
yard, which as you did a site visit does have a lot of, you know, wetland right there. So Kathy, I think the the the the one thing when this work is completed, they have to come back to the commission to seek a certificate of compliance
>> and and if there was any issue uh with that it it could be addressed at that point. >> Okay, that's fine. Okay. I mean, that would be >> that would be my thought on it, but Bill, do you want to respond to that as well or? >> Yeah, I think it Well, well, we we'll
take a look at it when we um when they do when he does the work of how the applicant is contracted, we'll take a look at the cover, probably clean that out and um see how much cover we have over it. Uh if it need to be replaced, I would um we can contact the uh agent to
discuss an option if we have to come back in to >> they can put a you know what, Bill, they they could just put a steel plate over it, too, if uh >> possible. There was a concern might be the easiest way to >> do that. But Kathy, any anything else?
>> No, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your answers. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Kathy. All right. Are there any other raised hands from the public at this point, Mason? >> Okay. Do any members have a request for
an additional site visit information, plan amendments? >> Yeah, I have one thing, Bob. >> Yeah, certainly, Mayor. >> So, it's a little bit confusing on the and Kathy raised a good point about the that existing road. It's hard to tell from the plan where where the improvements to that road end because
you're showing it all the way, you know, to the to the other property. >> I think it's I think the client wants to end it at his driveway. Uh it'll continue on and it's existing condition past the Sorry, let me call my call that plan back up again.
>> Can we get a plan note change or something to to say the you know the limits of the improvement to the road or >> Yeah. Yeah, we can certainly I can I can make that uh indication. but is outside of the buffer zone and not our concern, but some of it is. And so, >> yeah, I don't think he plans on doing
any improvement past his garage. He's got a complete garage. >> Yes, we could make that a special condition. So, >> okay. All right. Any any other questions from the board?
>> All right. I'll Okay. I'm going to entertain a motion to close the public hearing unless we have something further to discuss. So moved. >> Second. We >> have a second. Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick?
>> Hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David, >> yes. >> And Bob Connor's vote chairs. All right. So, special conditions. So, Mary, it seems like that you just want to add that one little footnote to the plan on
the limitations of work on the driveway. >> Yes. and and and maybe just have it a special condition as well, just so that that states that the improvements to the existing gravel road um go only to the proposed
turnaround at the garage and that the driveway remain paved with the exception of an apron at the street as needed for snow removal. and that the limit of work that the
erosion control barrier shall serve as a limit of work and that no tree clearing will occur beyond the limit of work. >> All right. I will entertain a motion to issue an order of conditions for 177 middle road uh with the special
condition that was just cited by Mary. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> David,
>> yes. >> And Bob Connor's vote is Thank you, Bill. >> Right. Thank you. >> Okay. Mason, do you have uh I know you have a sand symposium coming up this week. >> Yes, that's on uh Thursday and Friday
this week. So, that should be actually I don't know if I moved it to the June 2nd folder, but I will. Um, but the flyer for that is in the 519 folder um for the regional sediment study that Salsbury, Newport, and Newbury are doing. Um, so that's there if any of you guys would
like to attend. Uh, I will likely be at the Thursday night session which is for uh kind of catered towards the Salsbury folks. That one's going to be in Salsbury and then we have a Friday morning one at Peta Hall. Um, so if anyone's interested, um, or even if you can't make it and would like to provide
any feedback, feel free to email or text me or anything like that. Um, >> so you're you're going to go to both meetings. >> Uh, I don't think I'll be able to Friday. I think I'm out of town on Friday, but I I'm going to try and get to the Thursday night one. >> Okay. >> Besides that, just another brief
reminder of the uh, Lark and Dam removal ribbon cutting ceremony. That's going to be Thursday, June 11th at 10:30 a.m. Um, and we'll all be meeting here at 12 Kentway at the office. So, looking forward to uh seeing any of the members who are able to make it.
>> Propose that as a site meeting and then send out a meeting at the date uh to us. Okay. >> Yep, I can do that. That way they we won't have any any issues with uh having god forbid we talked about how nice the
the dam removal looked and that's considered deliberation. M >> Mason, it looks like that house on um Middle Road that is under construction now. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So they're outside of the window where I think we had required the
monitoring. I think we did it from November to March or something like that. Um, but James, the the owner and the applicant has been he's I get a couple calls from him during the week. Like he's very responsive and kind of keep me updated on the process. >> He looks good in there.
>> Yep. Yeah. So, they they did the clearing probably about three weeks ago now. Um, and just this past week, um, they laid down the first part of the road to get to their wetland crossing where they then installed the fourpiece um,
uh, box culvert that they had. Um, so I think they brought in a crane to lower that in. The plan is now that they have the gravel road um to the culvert, I think they're going to try and lay out the rest of the road to get to the back of the site where they'll then start opening up. >> Good.
>> Okay. Uh, last word, Mary. Any any final comments? >> You've heard enough from me tonight. >> No, you're Thank God we're not paying. I don't think we could afford the bill. Woody, any any final comments? just uh it's a ribbon cutting and cookout. That's all.
>> Oh. Oh, that's right. Mason's house. >> If I'm cooking, you guys might be going hungry. Just Just a fair warning. Uh >> Frank, any >> anything, Frank? >> No. Thank you, Bob. >> Okay, Mick, how about yourself? Anything?
>> I am good. I am good. Mason, just let me know uh when you're going to go out to the golf course and I'll be happy to join you. >> Yeah, definitely. >> You know, this sounds like you guys are planning a 18hole round here and not doing a site visit. >> Uh >> just saying a little suspicious.
>> I am not your guy on a golf course. I own clubs for some reason, but uh I am much better with a hockey stick. >> Harry, any any final thoughts? >> No, no thoughts, Bob. Thank you. Okay, David, how about yourself, son? >> Nope, I've got nothing.
>> I have nothing. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So move. Second. >> Okay. All in favor? Mary, Woody, Harry, David, >> Bob Connor said yes. Hey, thank you everyone. This is >> Have a great night. Thanks all.
>> 8:48 and we cleaned up a lot of continuences tonight. So, >> yep. >> Thank you for your your time and your patience.