Good evening everybody. Uh this is the opening of Norton Conservation Commission meeting uh being held on Tuesday, April 29th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. Um members
participating thus far are myself, uh Julian Kadish, Mark Fernandez, Paxton Hashel, and uh Joseph Carllo. Um, and we also have um our director,
John Thomas, and our assistant, Megan. Our first item on the agenda is meeting minutes. I don't know if we can do either one. [Music] 224. 224. Fernandez
Hel. Uh, nope. You can't do that one. Uh, April 14th myself. Carlo Hashel can't do that one
either. Okay. Don't watch for minute uh meeting minutes. Uh, next item is labeled in-person meeting discussion. Do you want to start with that or should I? Uh I'll let you start and then I'll fill you in on some more
details. All right. Well, uh the evening that um it was to be discussed at the select board, uh we should note that uh Lisa has been able
to join the meeting. Um that uh it came up for a vote. It was introduced uh as a motion. Um it was seconded. I went to the podium to
discuss it. I the the gist of my discussion was that uh things come and go and are replaced by better technologies and that remote meetings appear to satisfy the intent of
the open meeting law and has many positive features. Um there was no significant discussion about that and a a vote was taken and they voted to reinstate the the
policy which uh was in existence prior to COVID. And what that policy says is that you meet in person in town hall. Uh there needs to be a quorum in person. uh permission can be granted for some
members to call in remotely if they request that permission ahead of time. So they are requesting that we go back in time and go back in technology. Um, I have concerns that because of the
um physical inconvenience of having to physically go to a certain location that we may have difficulty obtaining a quorum. Uh, the public can still participate remotely as can the applicants and their representatives.
So, that's where it stands. John, you can take it away. Oh, Julian. Oh, Dan. Yeah. Uh, I've been here since 6:30, but I I didn't know how to unmute myself. Unfortunately, I'm I'm on by phone just
proving that we're doing the right thing by meeting in person because I couldn't get in. So, anyway, otherwise I I couldn't uh join by Zoom. So, right. But but um we'll have to see
if everyone else because of busy lives are going to be able to accommodate getting to town hall in a timely manner. Yeah. All the time. Yeah. Um but John, uh why don't you add some things? So, in light of uh the select board meeting and
some discussions that I had prior to the select board meeting, um I reached out and kind of explained kind of our situation to the town manager, had a discussion with him um about the actual, you know, if this was something that we
were going to do. You know, we would need to have the fully functional capabilities that other boards that have uh address permits and make uh decisions like the planning board. we would need the crane room which is the select board room as well as the big conference room not the big conference the big room um
the meeting room that's in the town hall uh because the Winnit and Barrowsville uh pond uh conference rooms are not set up to have um screen sharing purposes yet um that's not fully capable and fully um able to do that. So in light of
that you know I guess the question was well we can't conflict with other people that are already scheduling meetings. So, I looked and had Megan pull together a whole spreadsheet of everyone who was kind of meeting using the crane room and we found out there was limited space. I
brought that attention to the town manager. He reached out to town council uh and town council responded and said that the select board doesn't have the authority to um basically trump um trump
the state. So, we are still able to meet virtually. So, that is kind of where we currently stand with this whole thing. Um, if the commission would like to continue doing Zoom meetings, I just need a basically a vote of confidence
from the board tonight stating that that is what they would continue doing because it's in line with the state's policy. If you would choose to meet in person, we most certainly can accommodate that. It's just it we're going to have probably change our date um until we kind of can solidify a more
uh feasible um time slot for the for the crane room in the time being. So I I guess from what I'm getting at is if if the vast majority of you are uh looking to continue doing Zoom, that'll make my life a lot easier um for coordination. But if um you know we want to meet in
person, we most certainly can accommodate that as well. Can can I just add a couple of points? Sure. Um, I think the first concerning thing is that it didn't seem as if the select board made any effort to solicit feedback from boards and essentially kind of mandated
that this was going to be the way going forward. I think had they done that we would have had an opportunity and I'm sure you it sounds like you did express some of the concerns I you know aside from even just the convenience of being remote on top of all the other things we have to do. You know, I f I have always
found remote to be at a better option for us given that I got I got two 27 inch screens here. I can pull up the documents on the screen, zoom into a fine level of detail, which is a lot more challenging on a in person where I'm relying on someone else to do that.
It's it's for our sake, I think it's better uh to to have the option at the very least to to do remotely. I am a fan of hybrid meetings in general, but you know, I I think the technology has allowed us to do something good the level of review that's not always
possible with uh with in-person meetings. So, I I would be in favor of at least having an option of choosing to be in person or or remote rather than it being sort of an exception to our rule. Yeah. And and uh you know, my view is
that the public actually has better access there. there are members of the public that have simultaneous obligations uh whether it be child care, elder care, uh transportation issues, uh or
um uh you know, mobility issues. It it it makes it easier for some members of the public rather than having to physically pick up and and go somewhere uh to to participate in the discussion. So um but of course they they can just
say oh well they can they can come in by Zoom but go ahead Pax. Well sorry just quick and maybe I'm I'm slow to understand here. So uh basically we have the decision right to remain virtual from what it sounds like despite the
vote that had occurred. So, we're not in any immediate danger if we were to move forward and all agree to meet virtual that we would have to Is it is it because we have to figure this out in the interim with the goal of moving back in person or is how is that um my
misunderstanding? As as I understand it, we can choose to remain the zones. Um the there was as Mark points out there was no discussion as to whether uh the
the the Zoom method uh functions as well if not better. Uh it was simply the decision was well the one comment that was made is we built this town hall and we now have to use it period which
sounded kind of kind of not an adequate response. Let's put it that way. Uh because we found that the town hall is being used. It's and it would be it would be a a difficult problem for us to to wiggle into the
current build schedule. So, um that's item one and I think we can do the job better remote. But, uh you know, open for discussion and potentially for a motion and a vote. I just had one other question, too. So, because it was I
wasn't able to attend the live meeting, but I watched the video of it afterwards and it it you know, I didn't see the the policy posted anywhere. I'm not clear if this is essentially the the 2019 version that was just brought back, if there were changes to it. You know, there was very little discussion about what the
content was. Is there a way that we can get a copy of this policy? We can understand what it even says. The same thing I asked when I went in before the meeting was to ask for a copy of the policy. It's the same policy from 2019. It was just not enforced the way
that it should have been. Um because in that policy, it says that we have to meet in person. But the state came in with those those that criteria and they kept basically they were trying to supersede I think the state's policy, but it's only a policy. They can't
supersede the state um decision. So, this is kind of where I'm getting at is they can make certain requirements and certain restrictions. Um, but they can't say that we can't do it. So, that's kind of the differential there. Uh, I would like to comment that, uh, I believe
there is one minor change to the policy. Um, but it is still being drafted up by the town manager's office. Uh, and it will be posted as soon as it's ready. Yeah, there was no discussion of enforcement either and um I assume their
ultimate enforcement is that they would just not reappoint us and they would replace us by people who would agree to meet version. I think I think we all know this sorry to interrupt Julian, but I think we all know how our policy is handled here. We have a 25 foot no
disturbance policy. Um we know how policies are. It's a courtesy. It's not something that we can enforce, but we do appreciate when people try to stay away from the 25 foot. So, I think we have a very good understanding of how policies are handled. I just want to make that
for the record. Okay. All right. Well, I I think with that discussion, we can uh consider a motion whether we will for the moment continue our remote
uh method of holding our meetings or whether we will uh decide to go in person with the possibility of applicants and uh the public connecting by remote. I'd like to make a motion
that at 6:42 that we resume our meetings as a Zoom until further notice or legal change.
Second motion by Joe, seconded by Mark. Uh Paxton and Joe, how do you vote? Hi. Hi, Lisa. Mark. Somehow your sound didn't come through, Lisa, but I assume that was an
I. I. Hi. Hi. There we go. And uh Dan, are you still there? Yes, still here. Uh why not? I Okay. And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Um, and now we move on to
another comfortable discussion. MBTA. So, um, Paul is not here this evening, but I just wanted to fill the commission in and that, uh, they did reseelect some parcels, uh, for the MBTA overlay. Um, so if anyone is curious, uh, to look
into that, um, please let me know or let Paul know. I can direct you to some information on that. Um, but that will be going to vote at town hall. Uh, the meeting for that is May 19th if I recall correctly. It's a Monday night. Um, and
the we all know, you know, Paul was here in for his discussion about things and basically informed us of some of the um, drawbacks if we're not MBTA compliant. Um, but there are some things that potentially would affect us as the conservation commission if this doesn't
go through. Um, but I just wanted to bring that up to everybody's attention again. Uh, that it's definitely something. Um, I don't anticipate or expect anyone to get up at the meeting and be pro and BTA, but if you could
just please uh go there and provide your support um, you know, to to vote towards that, that would be appreciated by I think all of us. So yeah, I I think the issue is housing not only in Norton but housing in the Commonwealth in general.
And for the town to say no, we're not going to cooperate with this is basically uh equivalent to saying all of their kids, all of our kids, we can't expect to live here in Norton because it's too expensive. So they can go to Mississippi
or wherever wherever the the housing costs are feasible. But that's you know going to be a discussion for town meeting. Um so uh that's the end of that item. That is for now. Yes.
Um so we have a a public hearing that is has requested a continuation. And that's file number 250-1173 0 South Washington Street. Uh you may recall that's the parcel that has had multiple proposed projects. So
they're requesting a continuation until which date? And and that's the next meeting which would I think would be May 12th. May 12th. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. The the the uh future meetings didn't get put on this agenda. So we have 512 and the meeting
after that is uh in it's a 20 No, that that's we only have one meeting in May I believe because the 19th is town meeting. Yeah. Um I didn't put them on there because I wasn't sure
if we were going to agree to go via Zoom or hybrid and if we did the meeting schedule would change. Oh, okay. Uh well 519 is out because that's time town meeting and then uh I forget which is it
the 28th is uh Memorial Day. Yep. So the next meeting in May will be May 12th. Yeah, Memorial Day is the 26th, Julian. So that's out too. So right, unless we meet two weeks in a row on the 5th and
the 12th, but yeah. Well, I I So, we have to pop into June for So, for the moment then, um we're looking for a motion for continuation of
250-1173 to May 12th. So, move second. Uh so, we motion by Lisa, seconded by Joe Paxton, and Joe, how do you vote? I
I and Alisa and Mark I I and Dan I and I'll throw in an eye. The motion carries. Um any participants in the meeting have questions,
comments, public inquiries? Uh if so, ask them now. If not, are there any departmental updates? Uh, we we have a new building inspector, commissioner. Um, he started uh on
Monday. Um, he uh was the old building inspector from Halifax. He also has worked over in Dennis. So, he has a very good understanding of floodplane um building requirements. So, I'm very excited about that. So, he's going to be able to help
us out immensely with any sort of work within uh sensitive resource areas, which is very good. Um but besides that, um couple small projects came in through the door um this last uh cycle. Uh so those will be on the next agenda. Um
also 361R Old Colony Road, that project requested a continuence, so that wasn't on the agenda, but that just came in. So, all right. Um, just for the moment, do you remember the building inspector's
name? The new one? Uh, Ed Bailey. Okay. So, um, file number 250-1174, 361 RO Colony Road requests a continuation. We're going to say until May 12th. It was till May 12th. Yep.
So moved. Second. We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Joe Baxton and Joe. How do you vote? I I Dan and Lisa
I I and Mark I. And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Um so we are now at um file number 250-1175 225 uh South Worcester Street uh which is a
uh large project with 15 duplex structures. We had, I believe, completed information gathering and storm water review. Uh, and this was held because of the time between
meetings and we can now consider closure. Was there anything else we needed to add, John? I think the applicant was also waiting for the planning board to make a decision. I think they rendered their decision. So, I think uh as long as the applicant's comfortable, uh we should be
able to close the meeting like we discussed last meeting. All right. I'm sorry. I just I missed the last meeting and I did read the meeting minutes and there was just one issue um John that I was looking for him to address. He talked about the replication
area, but what about that overflow pipe to the replication area? So, they they completely changed that design. Okay. So that has been that has been changed. Uh they are no longer doing it the way that they had it intended for the previous
design. It's been retrofitted and um I I don't have the plan on me right now, but I mean I could definitely pull it up as long as they eliminated that. They eliminated that point source. Yeah, that was one of the discussion items and and topics that they changed. Okay. And Pat
Pat was good with that, too. All right. any any further questions or discussions from anyone in the meeting? And if not, it sounds like we can consider a motion to close uh the
hearing for file number 250-1175. I'll make that motion. Second. We have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Paxton. Uh Paxton and Joe, how do you vote? I I Lisa and Dan, how do you vote? I I and
Mark I. And I'll throw in an I motion carries. Um we are up to our new public hearings. Um we didn't have a file number. I don't know if we do now for 90 Mansfield
Avenue. Uh concerning a small dock. Do we have a representative of the applicant? Yes, that's me. Okay. So, uh, Jacob, I I don't know if you um have file sharing or whether this is
something John can put up as far as the plan goes. Um, sorry. Do you have something to say, John? Um, no. I I was going to say if you want to share your screen, you can show the plan of what you're proposing, the sketch that you you uh submitted
with the application. Oh, just for orientation purposes, where's 90? Um, we are I'm right next to the old Norton Liquors that reopened. It's on Okay. the other side from the big I actually can't share my screen because
this is my work laptop and they've blocked that feature. All right, give me one second and I'll share my screen so that way we can see everything. Thank you, John. Now, if you worked for Homeland
Security, you could share it with everybody. No, I'm a public school art teacher. John, is this the property that had the fence put up on it and some tree work? This is the one that's uh right across the way. So, yeah, I'm across the street from that one. He's across the street
from Yes. Okay. Yeah, Jacob's been my eyes and ears of activity on that property across the street. So, he gives me a call every time they're going to do something out there. So, uh, give me one second. Sorry. I can send it again, John, if you need me to resend it. No, I I have it.
Let me just share it. All right. Can everyone see that? John, is this is this is this for commercial use or is this purely No, this is this is for residential. Okay, thank you.
Uh, so if you I don't know if you can click the plus button to bring bring it up just a bit little bit bigger. Um, but this is not on the main body of the reservoir. This is on um the
lagoon which is behind the whole area let's say from produce barn down to um the other liquor store which then moved and I guess the other liquor store has been reopened. So yeah on that site
as well. So uh Jacob, why don't you go ahead? Sure. Um yeah, we're just hoping to install a small seasonal floating dock um off of our property for kayaking, canoeing, fishing, um enjoying
the water. And this um the design is to have a a wood surface. Yep. And it's it's on um I don't know barrel floats or um I intend on using like the actual wooden
dock the plastic dock floats. Oh. Um so it'll be two sections that go out and then a T section at the end. And how is it going to be secured to the land so it doesn't blow away? Um so I'm
using like dock pipes. May we ask and what's what uh doc pipe we had a we had a similar uh concern over something on a different body of water in Norton I think and um I
I I don't know I forget what they were using but anyway the concern was that it would it would blow away. Um, this is just like a fence post, right? A galvanized like a fence post essentially. Yeah. Holo fence post.
And they have like a like a plate that sits on the bottom. So, you'll remove those posts seasonally as well as the float. Yes. Okay. Um, I know in the past, John, we've asked people to put
um their um their address on the actual float in case something happens in a storm event or something like that. Yeah, that's going to be part of the order that would be issued. It's going to be in there. It's one of the boat boat bylaw boat and
waterways bylaw requirements anyway to have um any sort of piece of the dock the sectional pieces to all be labeled in case they would be uh I guess you know dislodged. So um is there any um vegetation that
you have to cut down in order to install it? So there's the the spot and John came out to it. the spot where it's at has like a cuz I have I do have vegetation like my lawn doesn't go all the way to the water. I have vegetation between me and and the um water and
there's a little pathway there. So there'd be some trimming um just you know in that little path to get to the dock. I would also as part of this there's a lot of trash right there. There's an old chainlink fence rolled
up. There's a rug. There's a plastic like beverage truck pallet um and then just a lot of nips and bottles. So part of this was including um being able to remove those things from the area. I I think the area
historically had a dock in the same location and mainly what Jacob would be doing is he'd just be utilizing the the previous I think it was probably there probably in the 50s or 60s. It looks like there's some remnants in that location. So, um, at least that's what I
I assessed. I mean, it's hard to tell, but it definitely looks like there was some disturbance prior to the act right at that location. So, Julian, I guess for the record, is there there's no BBW out there?
Where where the water line is is pretty pretty close to where the edge of the BBW would be. Um, you know, there is some vegetation you could say kind of where he has the I guess the the 4ft section that's coming from the water line. I'd say there's probably about 4
ft of um shrubbery or um high bush blueberry. I think there was some dogwood in that area. So, but it's pretty sparse in that location where he's selecting it. It looks like it's been kind of disturbed for a while, I would say.
Okay. I mean, the only reason I'm asking is this the same we would ask of anybody else is, you know, to document what's out there. So, we make sure, you know, say for instance, you send a tree clearer out there or something and they get a little overzealous. We've seen that a million times. So, I did take pictures of that for the file. So, just
so that way we have pre prior kind of conditions. So, I do have pictures of the area. Okay. And this is in a flood zone. I forget what the flood zone elevation is here. Flood elevation here is 102.86.
And what's the Oh, there's no elevation on the house on the on yard. But is the is the site in a flood zone or the lot in it? You don't pay flood insurance, Jacob? No. Okay. Yeah, I I I looked at that
area. Um I guess it was on I don't know an aerial shot. It looks like there's a bit of a slope down to the the the water. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah, definitely. Okay. I mean, it's not huge,
but it's like eight or 10 feet, I think. From where the house sits, maybe. Yeah. No. All right. Uh Okay. Okay. Well, I think you may have a chance with regard
to it not blown away because the the lagoon is smaller and you have trees not too distant. I on the open reservoir you get some pretty substantial white caps when the wind is really howling. So, I I I don't know. Do you experience that in
on that little lagoon? No, not the way I see it when I drive by the larger sections. Yeah. All right. Uh, any further questions? So, John, I know there are some muscles in some locations. Was that I'm getting I may be getting that confused with
Winnip, but I thought it was on the reservoir as well. Uh, so I think you're getting that um mixed up with Winnac. Okay. Um, there is no mapped uh natural heritage area for this side of the the actually Norton reservoir. Um, so it
will not will not affect any endangered species or uh priority or estimated habitat. Okay. Thank you. And I I informed Jacob that probably, you know, just for um preventing any sort of potential damages to the pond, a floating dock would probably be the
preferable method. So So it's my understanding we do not have a um phone number as of yet. Uh so we will need to continue it but it sounds like we've gathered all the information needed to close it when the
file number comes through uh and issue a u a set of conditions. So unless there are further questions or discussion we can consider um continuing this hearing until May
12th. So moved. Thank you. Second. We have a motion uh by Dan, seconded by Lisa uh for continuation of this hearing. Paxton and Joe, how do you vote? I
I Dan and Lisa I I and Mark I. And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. So, uh thank you, Jacob. The next uh item is file
250-11780 Leonard Street and it concerns a construction of a single family house. Uh do we have a representative of the applicant? Yes, this is Mitch Maslanka representing the applicant this evening.
And you probably are being given screen sharing to bring up your plans. Yes, let's check that out. It says host disabled participant screen sharing. Yeah, you should be good now, Mitch. Great. Okay, so again, my
name is Mitch Masslanker with Goddard Consulting. I'm a wetland scientist representing Arinder Johar. We call him Indie. So, he is the applicant for a proposed single family house at Zero Leonard Street. And before I go any
further, let me get this uh screen share going. Great. Can you guys see that photo of an aerial? We can. Great. Okay. So, just to orient the commission, this
site is on Leonard Street, map 11, parcel 28. It is in the middle of the the roadway. We've got our commercial buildings off to the north and to the south is when it kind of pond up. Maybe
actually I'll I'll pull up a Google maps for you. Give me one [Music] second. Okay. So, here's mass mapper for you. So, we've got Winnip on down here. We've got those commercial buildings
over on Leonard Street. And if we go down the road, it's this parcel right here. You guys can see my mouse, right? Yep. Yep. Awesome. Okay. So, we've got this large parcel here. We'll zoom in and I'll just go over the aerial to
start things off. So, we've got a cleared area here maintained as field and the remainder of the property is forested upland and a a marshy wetland area with a
perennial system of streams. So, I'll show you the USGS map in a few seconds, but just to fill you in. This is the Canoe River here, and there's another perennial stream off on this portion of
the property line coming this way. And interestingly, on the USGS, this feature here is called out as a perennial river right here, and some pond areas are associated with it. So there is a riverfront area that's going to be cast
off of this area onto the portion of the site. We do have BVW along this general stretch. You can see that vegetation change from marsh land to BVW and then forested upland with all those pine trees in there.
And I think that gives you guys a good overview of of where we're located. So I'll move on to the USGS map just to give you that view. Okay. So, here's our USGS map. This is what was mapped for the site. We have we
put some overlays on it as well, but uh for the commission to know, this is our canoe river with that interesting feature. You can see the pond there as that little circle there. Another pond here. And then this line is actually a perennial
stream. So that will be shown on our site plans in a few seconds when I show you that we also have this yellow area at the very far back of the site by the river. The property line seems to follow um the canoe river, but a about a 100
foot buffer zone is cast off of that for estimated and priority species rare habitat. So that's what that yellow and slight green hatching is. So work is not proposed within that area. Work is not
proposed within the area of these ponds or those rivers. Uh work is going to be proposed outside the 200 foot riverfront area outside rare species. And you'll see once I pull up the other plans will be even outside the 100 foot coffer zone. And as far as vernal pools go,
vernal pools are located uh hundreds of feet away from the site off to the across the street and far away further upstream of the river. Um we also have the site maps entirely within an area of
environmental critical concern. So that that covers USGS and and mapped resource areas. So, we had this plan. Uh, RIM engineering prepared these set of plans that I'm showing you.
So, you can see our property lines going down to the canoe river, following the canoe river, and then shooting back up to Leonard Street. We have our main canoe river, main annual high water line. But then we also have this additional line here that if you
remember from the USGS map and the aerial, we have that additional mapped perennial stream of those ponds. So that's what this line is here is that line which was inaccessible. It's a flooded swamp uh flooded marsh. So we
did not flag this. It was just pulled off of the aerials and um to to marcate where our mean annual high water line is and then casting a 200 foot riverfront area off of that. We did flag further up here. You can see we have our mean
annual high water flags for that portion of the stream that was mapped um on this right side of the the property here. So we did cast 200 foot riparian zone off of that and this is our work area over
here. So we are far from our 200 foot riparian zone. Also we have our bordering vegetative wetlands associated with the canoe river. So that BBW line was
delineated with the GC series here going all the way from this property line all the way up to Leonard Street follows Leonard Street and then even cuts over here again. We have a 100 foot wetland buffer zone cast off of that bordering
vegetated wetland boundary which is jurisdictional area under the wetland protection act and Norton um policy. Norton also has a policy for the 25 ft no work zone which is also shown cast off of that buffer zone boundary
here. The proposed work is shown up in this corner. As you can see, the proposed limit of work is outside of our 100 foot wetland buffer zone there. So, no impacts to riverfronts area, no impacts to BVW or the 100 foot buffer
zone. The final resource area for me to mention and is the reason why notice of intent was filed is for work within bordering land subject to flooding. So the um the engineers at RIM, Rim
Engineering, and our colleagues here at Well at uh Gddard Consulting, have consulted with the applicant to propose a project that complies with the bordering land subject to flooding performance standards, section 10.57 of the Wetland Protection Act. So,
I'll zoom in here and then we I have a improved closeup version um to dive deeper into thing. But just to give the overarching view of the proposal, we have a proposed dwelling, single family house, and a prop pro proposed pool in
the backyard with an associated patio and fence. In the front, which is not shown here, are uh a proposed septic system. These were our test bit locations shown, four of them. Here we've got our driveway and we have
associated grading for compensatory flood storage. So I'll move on to the next plan which will give more details. Oh, hold on. Can you go Sorry. Can you go back to plan view and tell us what the 100red-year flood zone is? Elevation
is please. Yes, my bad. Show us where that Yeah. Okay. I know. So it is uh 73.5 elevation 73.5 which is right here. That's our contour number. And then our line follows up to Leonard Street there.
And then it follows through the proposed dwelling here and follows down like this up to here. So I'll show you from from FEMA because they usually only publish even
foot elevations. So that is a good question. Um or perhaps that is on a note on this plan. Yeah, they they don't publish it to the half foot. It's usually to the foot. I'm
just curious. And I can confirm that as well um with REM Engineering to see if it was based on their topography. Um the first thing we're going to have to do is add a note to this plan that even recognizes the flood zone. Right. Do you
have a copy of the flood map, the firm map in the package? Um, that will I will have to confirm as well. If you would like that, um, we can provide that. No problem. Yeah, that's a that's a basic thing. I
mean, you're you're impacting the flood zone and you didn't provide a firm map. That's just kind of oneonone, you know. Okay. Anyway, no, that's that's our bad if we we did not uh provide that. I mean, unless there's a note on this
plan right here. Yep. Yeah. I'll get into sheet two and that might have some notes for us. The notes on there, by the way, the bottom section, the notes on there. If you zoom in, if you zoom in next to the design of the house, it just zoom in
there. Yep. So 100year flood plane at elevation 73.5 as shown on the firm maps. Okay. So that all right. If you could provide that flood map that would be great. I've just I've just never seen it at a half foot increment. So it's
interesting but Yep. Anyway. Okay. Sorry. Continue. Yep. Okay. All right. So, yeah, just to give you a broad over scale of what is shown on this site plan. Uh, we've got our plan overview here. We've got a a zoomed
in plan overview showing the septic system design in a bit more detail. We have some more details on the septic design up here. Test bit information for the four test bits shown on the plan. We have uh some more septic info and some
general notes. We've got our sediment control detail, temporary stockpile detail, and construction entrance detail. We've also got our flood volume compensatory calculations here. Both our existing flood volume calculations within our limit of work and our
proposed volume calculations within our uh limit of work. So now moving on to the plan view. Uh so we do have our 100year flood plane elevation 73.5 shown here.
And I even have a colored plan which helps show it a bit more if we're comfortable adjusting from this plan to the colored plan. It would just a colored plan overview. So what we're proposing here is our proposed driveway coming off
Leonard Street to a garage and our single family house. We've got a front walkway. We have our septic tank going to our um leeching area here. Stockp Island piling is denoted closest to Leonard Street here and in the back is
going to be a walk out. We have our spot elevation shown for our walkouts and patio and we'll have a yeah the patio here walkway to our proposed ingground pool which will be surrounded by a proposed fence. Then we have our limit.
Is that walk out below elevation? It's tough to see the number on the map. Yep. So that is the walkout's at 72.5 elevation which is um slightly uh it's actually difficult to
say that exact walkout location cuz oh no my bad it is higher than the existing elevation actually sorry let me go to this map this will help me
see so if our walkout's at 72.5 or 73 three foot contours here. So it will be um it's not clear it's not clear if uh that exact location if it will be higher
or lower uh because it's it's in between that location right now is in between 73 and 72 but it's closer to the 73 side. So, it's probably closer to
um 73 than 72. I think we're going to need some clarity on those elevations. Okay. So, in the area of the um the walk out, you'd like clarity, please. The um the I mean, so you're proposing an
entrance to that to the lower part of the house, I assume, that's below flood l. Is that correct? Yes. And is I mean I'm not I mean the building inspector allows that. The building inspector from
my knowledge has not um reviewed the project because I I believe there wasn't one in in place. So any building um any building commissioner questions for right now? I'd say we could if we could table those and then work with the
uh building commissioner offline for those ones that'd be ideal. Uh because I know he just came in on on Monday, I think John said. So, right, the only reason I bring it up is because if these elevations have to be revised
uh and and brought higher, then your comp your compensatory store storage will have to be enlarged, increased. Yeah. Right. Yep. Yep. And and we're aware of that and the applicant is aware of that as well. So I mean typically that I know that
first floor elevation has to be a foot above the flood zone. I don't know about walkouts. So that's interesting. So but the homeowner is aware that so they have a river in the backyard that could potentially flood half a foot into their
walk out. Yes. Okay. Fascinating. Okay. And I guess a question kind of relating to that. Obviously that means over the pool as well. If that's the case, I assume the pool is now full of sediment and what have you. What would be the
plan in that case to clean that out once everything um ress back a bit? They'd be to get a truck to come in and pump it out. Yeah, I would um that's a good question. So, I would almost recommend for the
applicant to have a tarp cover um to keep those um you know the sediments out, but um that is a great question and I don't have an answer for you right now. So, if I can take note of that and we'd be
happy to come up with a solution for you. Well, it it doesn't impact our jurisdiction directly, but it does seem like if the applicant is willing to take that risk in the context of uh climate
change, the likelihood that there will be more floods in the future as opposed to the past uh is increased. So, it it just seems like they're guaranteed to set themselves up for disappointment if they accept this
design as it's presented. Now, um would you mind I've seen ducks swimming there. Would you mind going up to the uh the septic design to uh the test pits? I just I'm curious as to what the groundwater elevation was. the
cross-section up top for the section view weeping. I'm just um wonder about the ingground pool where that's going to be floating in the groundwater. That's all. Mhm. It looks like it will be just based on the high groundwater
elevations. I mean, unless your your pool is 3 ft deep and and if it if it is floating, it's fine if it's full of water, but if it ever gets bumped out to be cleaned, it better be in a mega drought because
otherwise the pool is just going to pop up out of the ground. Yeah. I would ask the um who's the engineer on this one who stamped the the professional engineer? This is room engineering. Craig, that was that was for the septic,
right? Is this a septic plan? So, this one is a combined plan for both septic and for conservation purposes. Just um overall civil design. Um the other I had another question
about the sediment control line. You're really not giving them I mean you're going to convert that sediment control line to a um a no touch um with our conservation signs which I appreciate but you're really not giving them any space there between
um the sign and the edge of the pool fence. So it's almost like this this entire thing should have been shifted to avoid that tight area with the 100 foot buffer zone. I mean look if you look at the north arrow from north to south, right? We always think everything has to be 90 degrees to the
street. If you shifted it do north and you'd have a lot more room and I don't know if that's possible. Yeah, I don't know if that's possible either just based on the um the flood zone um elevations and whatnot.
Um but I mean is is there a a lot of concern that you know the pool's close to the conservation signage? No, but what happens is this and we've seen it over
and over and over. You're probably giving them like less than I don't know what the scale is. Five ten feet between the edge of that fence and the no touch zone. They want to mow it. They want to walk back there. They want That's the only way around it.
The only way around that fence and you're getting really close to that no touch. So, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors. I don't think you're doing the homeowner any favors by squeezing them in there at that pinch point. You mean the 100 foot buffer zone, right? Yes. Yes. Where we're going to put fence posts. You can just put the fence post in the 100 foot buffer zone
and have enough turning radius to mow the grass behind the fence. Yeah, enough room. Yeah, you can just move the move the post to actually be in the 100 foot buffer and just creep into the buffer zone. So, take this side. We want to show that. Yeah. And they can modify it
so that way you have enough maintenance corridor along that the back of the fence for anyone that has a ride-on mower. Yeah, unless push more. Yeah, I'm just looking. I'm just We've seen this a million times where you squeeze it in
and then, you know, pretty soon they're intruding where we didn't give them permission to. So, this is your chance if I really think they need more space there to get around. So, yep. So, yeah, I'll take this guy and I'll have the engineer just
shift that land or that Yeah, the sign over here. Maybe. Yeah, maybe you want to give them 20 feet. I mean, they're going to have to get around there at some point. It's just Yeah, you want to give them some space. That's all. So, can you just go over the um the calculations for your flood storage,
what your fill, what you're accommodating for? Definitely. Okay. Okay. So, we'll start with our existing. So we have to do incremental
um accounting for our fill. So in elevation 71 to 72, which I'll just go quickly back to give you an idea of where that is. So from this elevation here, 71 to 72. So we're talking this
area here. And we're only going to be doing calculations for our limit of work area. So this area that currently provides
2020 or my bad 2,236 cubic feet of flood volume storage and the proposed grading that will occur will provide 30
3,265 cubic feet of flood volume at this elevation. So we when the construction is over, there will be more flood storage volume provided with this project um at this
elevation. And you'll see as we go through each one of those elevation increments that will incrementally be increasing flood storage volume and will also be cumulatively increasing flood storage volume. Okay, that's that's it. I got
it. Um, so the flood storage compensation area, what are you proposing to is that going to be the lawn? What is it going to be? I assume because you shouldn't be planting in it. Yep. So that right now, as long as the homeowner
is Yeah. Everything in the limit of work is proposed to be lawn as of right now. Right. So it's basically going to become a no touch. They can't fill it in to say, "Hey, we want a flat spot over here for our lawn." So as long as they realize that that has to stay basically
as a whole right in perpetuity to accommodate that flood potential flood. Yeah. Exactly. It'll remain a nice low flat area just like bordering land subject to flooding is is meant to function. Correct. So John, I'm
wondering if the should the cons this is interesting. Should the conservation signs be along that the face of that as well? I mean, it's it's definitely something that you could put. I mean, I don't know if you want to do a full-fledged um you
know, 4 foot post with the the marker, but some sort of boundary, some sort of demarcation of showing that that being the area um would definitely hold a lot more weight in in the event that this house was built and sold to another um
person. So that way they're aware of the situation, whether that be a stone marker or something of of more substance. So maybe what you want to do is you're retaining wall there. You got uh elevation 74. So maybe along the 74
contour, you put something up. Yeah. I wonder I wonder is Norton is is the concom flexible with demarcation? um strategies like I know in other towns I've gotten demarcation uh listed as a condition in the order
conditions with a list of things that the commission would find acceptable um to put there and then it's up to the homeowner to be able to communicate to the agent to say hey you know I want to switch these boulders to signage or I want to do vice versa you know down the
line that way it's not just locked in perpetually as um you know a sign or a boulder or something. I mean, I'm pretty flexible. I just I don't I don't really mind what it is. It just needs to be universal throughout
except the metal post which people have moved. Seen that before just, you know, that doesn't cut it anyway. Yeah, I think we can condition it. Yeah, condition it. And I'll talk with the applicant and see
what he's flexible with. And uh Yeah, right. I mean, it's going to be his sideyard, so you want something appealing. Yep. Yeah. I'm going to say something that um you probably are going to take with a grain
of salt anyway, but because it's not directly related to the wetland protection act, but it's the practicality of trying to build a pool, an ingground pool into the water table. Um I I I don't know if that's been
discussed with a pool contractor or whether an above ground pool uh might be a more practical option for them. And uh but I I'm assuming, you know, you can you can put enough
concrete on that pool structure to be sure it does not pop up out of the ground if it's empty and have a high water table. But uh constructing it if you have water in the pit, I don't I don't
know how difficult that makes actually constructing it. But that's that's obviously outside of what we're directly talking about. Maybe the the applicant needs to talk to a pool contractor to find out the practicality of of trying
to put a pool in the in the water table. But that's that's a separate issue. That would be one of the conditions that would get written into the order um because of the potential of needing dewatering practices implemented during construction of the pool. Um there are
some devices which have no are known to be effective. I just don't know if the applicant is willing to take those uh you know because of the cost. So obviously that's a discussion that they're going to have to have with a pool contractor and see what the feasibility of having this implemented
in is going to be. Uh so it it sounds like there are issues particularly with regard to this elevation of the walkout um that have we we need more information out. So our next meeting is the the 5th
of May and uh we are going to open up the discussion to to anyone in the meeting who wants to comment or ask a question but uh you're okay with this being continued I'm assuming. Yes. Okay.
I would also ask that if you could coordinate with the building inspector about the um the workout elevation if that's acceptable and meets building code. Okay. My other suggestion is to just make sure that the design as it
currently is being proposed would meet the proposed and final elevation certificate requirements um for the construction to be contingent with I mean compliant with the NFIP um regulations along with FEMA codes and
the building codes. Um you really need to have all that information on the plans for the building inspector to sign off on this. Currently, there's not a lot of information on here that would allow the building inspector to give approval. Um, so therefore, I would suggest coordinating with them and that
way you can get that information that's required and then you can come to us with that information. So that way you don't have to come back uh for to request an amendment and uh you know it's going to cost the applicant more money. So I' I'd rather see it all kind of in front of us so that we don't can
get this all done in one fell swoop. Yeah. Thanks, John. Uh, you're welcome. So, it's safe to say if I just talk with the the building commissioner with the applicant that they'll they'll have that list you just rattled off. They he should I mean, you know, he
should have a understanding what he needs. I mean, you can go on to FEMA and see with the flood elevation certificate about what's required and go through the checklist and see what you need um for building in the flood plane uh to meet that criteria. Uh and then obviously you
know then that's then that's a result to us because for instance whatever is whatever's modified or changed you know that might have to come back to us for you know if there's additional fill required we need to know that so that way we can figure out how much more compensatory mitigation's required. Um
but then also you know you're going to have to have all the flood vent information on the plans. You know you're going to have to have all the walkouts finished floor elevations on the plans. um you're going to have to go into detail with all the like if you're going to have an air conditioner out there, you know, or any sort of other thing, you need to have those pads with
elevations on them. So, there's there's a lot of detail that you're going to need. Uh and those minor modifications that I'm basically listing right now that are not on these plans, those require an amendment through us. So, that's why I'm saying you need to go into a little bit more high detail on kind of getting everything from a
building, you know, kind of final product kind of situation to kind of give us a better sense. so that way we can approve it. Um, you know, and that way you guys don't have to come back. Yes, I I I totally appreciate that, John. And I've spoken with the applicant, too, about um the need to
come back to the commission if anything were to change with this knowing the sensitivity of the BLSF calculations. Yeah. And he he's totally aware and very willing to come back for an amendment if he needs to change anything, which you know, not a lot of people want to come
back to do amendments, but him knowing the the restrictions on the site, he knows that it's going to be a challenge, you know, that he'll have to deal with moving forward. So, he's comfortable doing that if if need be. So, but yes, I appreciate that, John. We'll talk with
building uh the building inspector, get all the um requirements he needs. We'll double check everything with you too to make sure you're, you know, you're going to give the thumbs up and then um we'll work on these couple other uh revisions that the commission requested. So, okay.
Um so, the other thing I'm just looking at now because I'm looking at MassGis is that this uh more than half the lot is in a regulatory floodway. So, I would ask that that be added. I would ask that the uh elevation of that
regulatory floodway and the extent of the regulatory floodway be mapped on the slot as well. Yep, no problem. Thank you. So if there are no immediate further questions from the commission, uh we can open the meeting up to any anyone in the
meeting having a question about this project. your thumb. If you do, you can go to the reaction button and uh open that and there's a mechanism for raising your hand or you can just take your your mic off mute and ask a question,
identify yourself. If there are no questions, further questions, we can consider a motion for continuing this hearing until May 12th. So moved. Second.
All right. We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Lisa for continuation of this hearing. Um Paxton and Joe, how do you vote? I I
Lisa Mark, I. And Dan, I. and I'll throw in a knife. So, uh, Mitch, we will see you next time. Great. Thank you very much, commission. See you next time. You bet. Thank you.
Uh, we do not have requests for COC's or extensions, but we do have two sets of orders. I guess we can do Mansfield Airport first. Um that was fairly
straightforward. Minor uh runway modifications with removal of some impervious surface. Um couple of new things other than the findings
in in um section 8 1 C. It's just got uh something different in item nine in Oh, item nine. Yeah, I think everything else is uh standard. Oh,
okay. Um I I think I have to recuse on that one. Not recuse, but abstain because I wasn't here for that meeting. So, okay, that was good. Any further questions or comments, modifications? If not, we can consider a
motion to accept the draft as submitted. I can make that motion. Second draft uh for 250-1177. Uh so u motion by Paxton, seconded by Joe to accept the draft as submitted for file number 250
uh 1777, order of conditions. Um Paxton and Joe, how do you vote? I I Dan and Mark, how do you vote? I I
and Lisa is an abstension and I'll throw it. So, uh, the motion carries. Next order of conditions is 225 South Worester Street, file number
250-1175. Um fair number of specific things applying to this mainly findings and then uh item one not unusual
thing and everything else except for number 37 installing a marker. So, John, timing wise, are we asking them to create the replication area early on? I I guess that's a question I had
for you is is, you know, of the commission is how do you guys want to go about this? Obviously, you know, my recommendations are typically spring. Um, you know, for for doing all the work. Um, but we're kind of I don't know
if obviously I don't think that might be a a reasonable ask as of right now. So, I would probably anticipate next spring would be probably the time that they would do the replication given the time time frame right now. But, I mean, if that's something I mean because if I'm
thinking of it, they have to clear the lot, do the crossing, temporary crossing and everything like that to get to the other side. the likelihood of them being able to do that in the time frame. We're probably looking till next year if they're going to get going this year on the project. I just don't know. So, I
think the intent in the past has always been to have them do the replication. So, say for instance, they started the work, they did the crossing, for some reason construction stopped. So, here we have an impact that could stay like that without mitigation. And I think that's why we
always said, hey, you know what? After you do that crossing, the very next thing you're going to do is the replication area. At least establish it. Yes. So what I will do is I will put in an addendum to that condition for the mitigation area and I will say state
something of the of the sorts that says um following the construction of the roadway or the the impact roadway um the applicant will be will immediately start and commence um the mitigation efforts
that are in section um I can't remember a recall off the top of my head but that are in the section which adhere to condition number let's say nine or whatever it is. Okay. Does that seem seem sufficient? Okay. All right.
Any further discussion? Otherwise, we can consider a motion to accept the draft as modified. I'll make a motion to um issue the order of conditions for file
250-1175 as discussed. Second. Motion by Lisa, seconded by Joe Paxton and Joe. How do you vote? I I Dan and Lisa
I I Mark I. And I'll throw in an I. Motion carries and uh I think that's wraps it up. Awesome.
Yeah, go ahead. I just want to ask you a quick question. Did did when the board of select board took that vote, did they ask other um they asked every other board to do the same? No. Oh, it was just us. Well, that's even
more interesting. No, no, no. I mean, oh, did they ask? No, they didn't acknowledge who was meeting remotely. They didn't bring it up who was read meeting remotely. Nothing was discussed. Um, I think I think nothing was discussed with us. I found out about it the day before the select board meeting.
Um, it was Okay. I just wondering if they were asking every board to meet back in person or if it was just hours. Well, that's all majority of the boards, they have a running tally list of who's meeting solely remotely and who's meeting in person. Um why they had this
list, I don't know. I don't know what the issue is, but um I guess um it wasn't there was no communications made to discuss this with us. There was no email sent out. there was no okay collaboration, no initiative
set to let us know um that this was going to be occurring. Um I find found out because I saw the select board uh agenda because I always look at the select board agenda and I saw it on the agenda and I went into the town manager's office and asked some questions and I got more information
than I would have received otherwise. So um you know my my my insight is that you know obviously this was a decision that was made and and um you know no one was asked to for their opinion on the
matter. So I basically am and and also we were the I take my chances of getting fired for my high paying job here. So yeah have to take a reduction in pay. we were the only board that was
represented there. So I I think this was not uh something that was publicized and there was certainly no mood for significant discussion of their decision just to pop back to the policy of
2019 as if nothing happened between then and now. I'm just curious. I it sounds like we have to wait for the policy to uh be publicized and everything, but say someone would be, you know, from the town or whatever of the public
requesting to be in person or to go to the meeting in person, would that mean we would then have to at least offer that as a alternative or you know method? Uh well I I don't know the answer to that but be aware that there has been
discussion at the state level and the state is perfectly happy with remote in being in compliance with the the open meeting law. So it I I think if you're going to mandate a particular method of
satisfying the requirements of the open meeting law, there has to be at least some justification for that that mandate and there were no such discussions or documentation. So
I'm I'm a little bit flummixed. Do we owe the select board a letter telling them what our intention is? I mean, they didn't ask our opinion. Why Why should I? Okay. I mean, I I'm I'm going to be blunt. I mean I mean
it's I mean, if they want to slap us on the wrist or tell us that we have to meet in person, they got to make a real bylaw, a real rule. Um I mean, not to be rude, but that's that's the truth. Um okay, you know, a policy is a policy. like I was telling the select board office is that if we wanted to change
our policy and require instead of a 25- foot no disturbance to a 50-foot, I would need to put that in writing and propose it to the select board. Yep. Y Lisa, I'm kind of curious about your professional opinion because I know you've noted that, you know, there are
times where you have to be in multiple meetings on the same day and obviously virtual allows you to to not have to physically travel from place to place. From the experience of the applicant standpoint, is it is remote easier than going in person? Oh my god. It I cannot
first of all I can't I can't tell you how less stressful it is, right? If I have to be somewhere, if I have to be on the Northshore one or anywhere else sometime with Western Mass and number two, the biggest thing, and I think Julian referred to this, is uh um the
plans. I mean, we used to put the plans right up on an easel. half the people couldn't see the damn things. So, we'd have to, you know, lug them up there, color code them, blah blah blah. So, all So, where I'm getting at is it saves the client hundreds if not thousands of
dollars in time, in energy, because all you're doing is putting up the notice of intent and presenting it as you wrote it, right? You're not making exhibits. You're not running around with an easel. You're not spending three hours in traffic trying to get somewhere. We're saving the environment. We're making
everything, you know, no no paper copies, no wasting fossil fuels. I mean, what better to be a conservation commission and promoting virtual meetings than us? I mean, should be it. We should be the one we should be having, we'd be promoting this to other
boards. Um, it saves applicants hundreds of dollars every time. Yeah, hundreds. I think hundreds is is not even the question. Thousands. If you go out at 500 an hour and you have multiple people at 500 an hour, you
send two people at 500 an hour. I mean, you're gonna get six hours of billables for one meeting. Y just plus the mileage, all the expenses that we have to pass on to the client. Yeah. It goes on. And not only that, but the town as well. I mean, it saves it saves the
town. Say we have some cases or some legal fees for for um attorneys and whatnot that we're paying for for them to be on a Zoom meeting to have those meetings rather than being in person. You know, travel time. I mean, they're they're charging $250 to $500 an hour.
Um you know, and it just saves the town more money just being able to have a five minute meeting on Zoom than it would be to have uh you know, that coming out of Boston there's traffic. I mean, five hours, okay, you're spending, you know, $1,500 to $2,000 just for that
one meeting for five minutes. It just seems that for everybody who would typically participate in a meeting like this, Zoom makes more sense than anything. I I I don't know. Yeah, I I don't think that the the uniqueness of the way that we do our meetings was
taken into consideration in this decision. And I'm I'm guessing this might be the same for other boards, but we can only speak for ourselves, I guess. Yeah, there are other other individuals in positions like me that are are kind of jealous of the situation that I have because you are all adamant
about um you know having virtual meetings um and their board members want to meet in person. So well we do have some boards that meet our open space meets in person. Yeah, we do. Yeah. And and that's a perfect
meeting for that. I mean we don't need stacks and multiple screens. I'm sitting in front of three screens as most of us are. Yeah. And it just this is what makes sense in today's technology. Yeah. If I walk into town hall,
it takes stone age. I'm sorry. It's a brand new building, but it's a step backwards than my home. Yeah. I mean that was one of my my my drawbacks with the you know us moving in person was that the conference rooms are
not even set up for holding virtual or hybrid or even presentation purposes. So there's only one room and it's not the AV equipment is not fully completely in the crane room either. So it's um you know obviously it's just something for
us to you know let alone. So you'd have to resort to the the old easel and the mountain plans. That could have been May 12th meeting. It could have been if if if you all voted in person. Oh my god.
What's that Megan? or we would have had to change all our meeting days and reschedule everything and times changing and all that stuff. Yeah, I Yeah, that would have been difficult for me. When I saw that, I was like, "Oh, boy."
Yeah, I think I think we're comfortable that technologically the job will get done by continuing Zoom. If we have to meet in person, it's going to take much longer to close out everything that has
to be dealt with. So I, you know, a question, when's the last time we have not met our quorum? The last time we've never met our quorum, we've always had a quorum ever
since I've been here. I don't think that's ever happened. That's a good point, Joe, because if it was if it were in person, like almost every other Monday I'm in Boston. I don't sometimes fly in the door until six o'clock. I just barely have time to chow and I would never have time to make it to town
hall afterwards. So, that's a good point. Yeah. And I think that's the reality is if you're going to have a full board or not even a full board, if you're going to have four members that can carry on a meeting, doing it remotely is is the way it's got to be.
Yeah. All right. I have to sign off by 8 o'clock. So, all right. Well, thank you everyone. We will see you May 12th over Zoom on Monday. Yes. See you then. All right.
Take care everyone.