All right. This is the beginning of conservation commission meeting of June 22nd, Monday. It is now 6:30. First item on the agenda is minute meeting minutes of
it was already June 8th. Was that long ago? >> Yeah. >> All right. On June 8th it is. Um a lot of discussion in that meeting. I think it was 10 pages. Uh, any comments or corrections? I
didn't find anything I would change, but anything anybody else was concerned about? Uh, all four of us were present, so you can all vote on it. I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes from the June 8th, 2026 meeting. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Mark, seconded by Joe. A roll call vote. Dan, Joe, and Mark, how do you vote? I I
>> and we have a up thumbs from Dan and I'll throw in an I as well. The motion carries. Next item is discussion of violations. Uh, we have 181 West Main Street and I
guess there was some. Uh, so you did meet with the owner. Is that correct, John? >> I did. Yeah, I did. But last week met
with him on site. basically gave him I don't want to say an ultimatum but kind of gave him kind of how this is going to roll out. Um >> let's say clarity >> clarity. Yeah. And basically informed him that he has till July 1st to potentially get all this stuff in order.
Uh he and his contractor and his uh environmental team are working to get all this stuff uh I guess under wraps so that way they can meet the July 1st deadline. But for our own, I guess, shy, we also need to be able to protect
ourselves cuz we gave a firm deadline. Therefore, we need to make sure that we follow through with the necessary enforcement um I guess actions if needed. Therefore, I kind of drafted up a potential uh enforcement order for the commission to review on the Google
Drive. So I just basically gave the commission uh kind of an understanding how conditionally we can vote to uh you know issue this in case that for instance they failed to meet the expected deadline of July 1st. Uh but they showed intent. >> They did.
>> Okay. >> They did. Um and we'll see if they show action as well as intent. So, um, I went over both the letter, cover letter as well as the the forms. I had no
questions. Um, uh, but there is room for changes if anybody else has any changes they want to make, um, on the two submitted proposed forms. Um
otherwise we can consider the suggested motion which would set this the spring on the action uh for July 2nd.
So, John, just uh to clarify, in your discussion with them, do they seem to have uh any ability to meet that deadline at this point? >> They think they do, but they've been telling us that for the last 10, 11 months. >> Fair enough. >> So, just to kind of give us our own kind
of, you know, footing, I think it's best to kind of just take matters kind of in precautionary matters. That way we're kind of telling them that there's basically they've they've run out their course. You know, the the deadline window has passed. >> So I think it's time for them to, you
know, see this as being a priority because we've I think we've been all impatient enough, >> right? And as a practical matter, then we would assuming they don't meet the deadline, we'd be voting on this the next meeting. >> We'd be voting at at this meeting tonight because for instance, our next
meeting is July 13th. So, that's where we would have to vote um have a vote for the conditional issuance of the enforcement order as currently written as I've kind of laid out in my recommendations to the commission. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> One question, John. >> Yep. >> We have a representative here tonight uh from this group. >> I don't know if she's here for this project or the the next one, so I don't know which one. I'm curious if they have any comments on
anything. >> I I don't know. I haven't been in contact with them since we spoke to them back in April. So, I mean, I spoke to the owner and told them that they should get in contact with Gddard Consulting and to help them along with the project, but they haven't reached out to me at all. So, I'll just leave that to the the
powers to be >> excuse me. >> Yeah. So, and Nicole, you you already know the story, so >> Well, I I'm not sure which site you're talking about. I'm here tonight about um
292 West Main Street, >> right? But have you been involved with discussions at 181 or >> uh No, >> no, not that's not anything that I'm aware of right now. But the Gddard
representative or the Gddard engineer who was involved presumably has been in contact with with that owner. And so my view is it's it's not really the God engineer,
it's the the owner that's taking responsibility for it. >> Yeah. And I think that's kind of my point here is that the enforcement order that we would issue would go with the owner has no bearing on Goddard Consulting. and Goddard Consulting is assisting the applicant. Whether the landowner is listening to what Goddard's
recommending, I mean, that's a different story. So, you know, at this point, I'm I'm I talked to the owner about it. I gave him basically a laundry list of things. He via email so that way there's a paper trail of what he needs to do. If he follows that, great. If he doesn't, the enforcement owners come in and then
basically has a 2-year window of hiatus for his business. That's basically what we're looking at. >> Okay. Um, so that being the case, uh, anybody interested in
presenting a motion on this issue? >> Like to make a motion to put these order in play as of July 2nd. >> And that's a paraphrase of the recommended motion. Um,
and John from your recommendation. You know what uh what that summary of your recommended motion how to interpret it. Is that a fair statement >> or? >> Yeah, I think if you would just kind of
that's a paraphrase, but legally you probably need to read the whole kind of suggested motion because just to keep us covered. >> All right. Do do you have the text there, Joe? If not, I can provide it. >> If you wouldn't mind providing it for
speed here, I'm struggling in the document here. >> All right. So, the suggested motion is move to approve the enforcement order for 181 West Main Street as drafted with a conditional issues issuance date
of July 2nd, 2026. This order shall be issued and recorded if the conservation department and chair determine via site inspection on or after July 1, 2026 that the res
restoration plantings have not been completed in substantial compliance with the approval with the approved April 13, 2026 restoration site plan which I will
parenthetically note was what the owner agreed with their engineer to provide. >> So move. >> All right, we have a motion made through
Joe and seconded by >> uh second. >> Seconded by Dan. So Dan, Mark, and Joe, how do you vote? I >> I
>> and I'll throw an I in as well. Um >> we'll see. Yeah, I mean I'm I'm pretty pretty confident they'll be able to get it done, but just to protect ourselves and the commission's, you know, authority, I
think it's in the best interest to put that conditional uh statute in place. All right. Um 292 West Main Street, uh we do have a representative of
>> Goddard Engineering. Um So, >> but do we do we have a plan for that? Just to refer to everybody's uh maybe maybe we can share a plan on that. >> We do. Um Craig Siginowski sent me over
a site plan that he had. Uh Nicole, do you have that with a markup or do you have anything you want to share? All right. You have you have the floor, so it's all you. >> Okay. Um good evening. My name is Nicole Hayes, professional wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. here before you
tonight to discuss a violation notice about an expansion of a gravel yard located at 292 West Main Street. And I'm I'll share if you allow me to share I can bring that up. Can I share?
>> Uh you should be able to do you have who? >> She should be able to. >> Yeah, you you should be able to. >> I don't see the share button at the bottom. Oh, I saw it come up on the prompt. >> You have you have co-host abilities. You should be able to.
>> All right. Well, then h I don't know how cuz there's no button there. >> Go click more and it maybe it's there. tools. Oh, share. Okay, I found it. All right. All right.
All right. Can everybody see that now? >> Yes. In the process now. >> All right. Great. So, this is um just an aerial photograph. This is existing conditions. Um this is a river, a mapped
perennial stream. So we have the 100 and 200 foot riverfront area. We have an area of BBW right here. So then we also have the 100 ft buffer zone. And we have um a regulatory FEMA flood plane that's
located right along the the river itself. And if I bring up Okay, can you all see that now? >> Yeah. All right. So, we are in the process. We have already
delineated the site. So, we delineated the riverfront area. That's that dark pink line right through there. Um the 100 ft riverfront area is this pink hatch line right here. And then the 200 is through the parking lot here. Um
there's some BBW right here. This is the 25 ft buffer zone. And this is the 100 ft BBW buffer zone. So what we've been doing is we've been looking at past his um historical aerial photographs to see
if there was disturbance um and it's really within this area, the dark brown area um within past years on site. So right now this is the degraded area
within the 100 and then this like orange is the degraded area within the 200. All right. So we went all the way back to 1996. Um it's black and white. The aerials weren't as good back then. and they
didn't start getting really decent until the 2000s. Um, the current land owner se says that he has not impacted anything that was not already
degraded. Um, he says he's really only top dressed the existing gravel area. Now, we when we go back and we asked him if he knew um what this little square was, he said
that it was an old volleyball court. Um and you can see from this 1996 aerial, if if you will watch my cursor, it's almost like this area. This is a tree that's shown on almost all the aerial
photos, and that's a um a shadow. And it comes up kind of like that. So, as you can tell, we're not exactly sure what this area was. I mean, it could have been lawn. It could have been gravel. The the aerial photographs are
not very good again. Um, but in 1996, the Rivers Protection Act was established. So any degraded area um or disturbed area within the riverfront area prior to 1996 rivers
front act would be grandfathered. Um so we're looking at that and then we have that and that's this yellow outline is what I kind of drew with my cursor before. Um that's kind of what we're
calling the disturbed area from um the 1996. And we've also highlighted the existing degraded area shown um the first slide. So it's this area within the 100 and
this area within the 200 ft. Um that's where we are in our analysis right now. Um, so we haven't gone further than that yet. We wanted to see what the
commission thought about this and if they had any suggestions on what they wanted to see or do. But we're thinking that most of the degraded area, if not all of it, is located
within an area that appeared to be at least a little disturbed. Like it wasn't definitely wasn't forested or vegetated. It could have had some lawn in it, but those that area could have also been gravel. So, we're not really sure what
to do at the moment. Um, we still need to analysis more, do more analyses, but that's what we have. We wanted to give you an update and then we'll take questions from there. >> So, let me get this straight. So, you
guys have have done all the research and everything like this, but you haven't like uh I guess overlaid this information onto Craig's plan. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> So, how long is that going to take? Well, we kind of wanted a little
direction. Not long. I mean, >> why do you need direction from us? That's the question. Like, I just This is kind of silly. I don't understand why you need direction from us. >> I I asked the I asked the land owner >> to come up with a plan and hire a wetlands consultant to help him to with
this restoration of the area that he potentially may have infringed upon. So the the challenge here is what you need to do is you need to evaluate the limit of what was degraded and then quantify and calculate what is new or what isn't new and if he's not if there's anything
new that needs to be restored. It's pretty simple. I don't see why this is this has gone on this long. It makes no sense to me. >> Well, you know, um we are contracted when we're contracted and we do work
when we're contracted. So, >> um, we have been working on it. Um, but so, >> all right. Well, I think by next meeting, if we don't have an answer, the land owner is probably going to have an enforcement order on his doorstep. So, that's I'm getting tired of this stuff. This is ridiculous.
>> All right. Well, may maybe that's the feedback that you can give the client is that um we need to see the two things match. the plan of the existing work and matched
against what could be defended as disturbed area. But we need to see that to know in order to make some kind of a decision about okay this falls within a grandfather area or not. >> All right. So you really want to see
kind of this image overlaid on the survey plan. Is that what you're saying? >> As I understood it, >> there was question of new activity that went into area where it shouldn't have gone. >> But we don't we don't see the
illustration or the the the extent of the new activity on you. you you you present presented a a defense of any activity in what could be graded
area, but we don't have the where that activity is. So we see here >> I think we I think we do have that information. We have we know that this is the riverfront. This is the 100t riverfront area. This is the 200
riverfront area. This was mostly the area in question which was the the extension of of the gravel area in which the landowner says he he did not and he just topd dressed an area that was
already graveled. And again, because of the aerial photos being old and not really being able to see them very well, um it's hard to tell. But so we don't
have any new aerial photos to know what the new activity is, but we have >> I do I have I have near map and I can overlay it. I'll bring it to the next meeting and I will show the commission this because you know I I just think this is this is kind of silly to be honest with you. I'm going to be plain
English is that if I can get this information and superimpose it, I think a lot of other people can do that. So, you know, I'm not a consultant. I am the conservation director for the town. But I mean I I asked him to basically come in and basically prove that he wasn't in
violation of the Wellness Protection Act. >> That's what I asked him to do. >> So therefore, you know, I don't have any information like if I was going to make a decision, do I issue an enforcement order or not? I'm issuing an enforcement order right now because for instance, I don't have nothing to document basically
that you're you're in compliance. Like that that's the crazy part right here. So, if you're not ready, by the next meeting, I'm going to make a motion for the commission to issue an enforcement order. >> All right. This is this is getting a bit too much. I'm sorry, but this is just getting too much.
>> You're you're dressing down Nicole, but in all fairness, if I'm interpreting what you said before, Nicole, it's not clear your client hired you to do what was supposed to be done.
uh and or if they did, okay, but um right now I think between Craig and you, it makes it needs to be made clear to the client that the client is not allowing the
information to be presented properly to the commission. Um, and so we need to see that the message needs to go through loud and clear to the owner of the property. Otherwise, the owner of the property is
going to have other issues to deal with. So, um, >> no, and I I understand and I understand John's frustration and and I understand that sometimes get heated. So, so my my feelings are not hurt, John. And
especially since I'm covering this hearing for someone else because they had two hearings tonight. So, I knew I um was talking on points that I haven't, you know, I didn't do this work. I'm I'm
helping out an an associate scientist and presenting what he has done. Um, and I hear your your recommendations of putting this this figure onto the um the
plan. Um, but I mean, we do have we do have um square footage. I guess my point to you, John, and maybe I didn't make it very clear and I and I'm sorry about that, that we're finding evidence that back in 1996,
there was some disturbance out here, um, we know about a volleyball court and we know that this area does not appear to be vegetated. And if if this was prior, wait a minute. If this was prior to the Wetlands Protection Act, that area would
be grandfathered and any work in there wouldn't if it's disturbed prior to the the wetland the Rivers Protection Act, it'd be grandfathered. >> Okay. So, if if you're making a defense of activity in that area, fine. But
let's see the data showing that the activity is in that area. And then if you want to try to defend it, that's fine. But you know the other half of the coin is there is an attitude among many business owners of I'll just
do it. Nobody will notice. And then when people do notice with, you know, people who are responsible for enforcing what is the law, all of a sudden they they're not coming clean. And the funny thing is when those same
people have an issue next to their property, they want to be sure that the law is appropriately uh enforced for their personal interests at the time. >> Um so I think that's some of the
frustration that you are hearing is we're just trying to do our job >> and I responsible for all of the citizens of of this town. I and I understand that and and I'm sorry if if it appears that we didn't want to give
you certain information, but um that's not the case and we will get you that information by next hearing. >> Okay, that sounds you okay with that, John? >> I don't really have a choice, so it doesn't really matter.
But but I I think your client needs to know loud and clear that we want the information and if they want to make the case that this is grandfathered, fine. >> Um, >> but we need the data. >> All right, we'll do. Thank you very
much. >> I have a quick question for John here. John, is this an impervious surface that was added? Is it top dressed with gravel or is this ground asphalt millings? >> It's both. It's a combination. So, we should be expecting some point.
>> Yeah. And here's the other thing, Joe, is like, so when I was a consultant, we did all this stuff. We took pictures. We had a presentation. We showed the commission all this stuff to kind of show kind of the existing conditions and everything. Obviously, you know, that's something I did communicate to the landowner about what we would want to
see. I'm getting a little frustrated and I apologize to, you know, Nicole. I don't mean to take it out on you, but it's more situational for this because I have basically been very patient with this person and with by trying to communicate and give them time to get a plan together and this is what we're
getting. This is not acceptable. I I am not pleased with this with this current situation. So, I don't know who needs to basically do better, but it needs to be better by the next meeting. Otherwise, I'm going to prepare and enforce an order. So you can let your client know
that I need basically something a lot better than this the next meeting which is going to be July 13th. >> Okay. >> Can I just ask a question too for point of clarification because uh Nicole you're saying that the owner is stating he didn't just sort of uh do anything
other than repair areas that were already disturbed previously. It it made me believe that he's thinking this was a parking area before there we're just, you know, putting down some gravel just continue to be a parking area. I'm just
flipping through Google Earth right now just to get a sense for this spot. And it I mean for a good oh 10 years at least it looks pretty green to me. I'm not seeing any signs that there was any gravel or anything prior to that. Up until it's probably more
like 15, 2023, it's green and then come 2025, you can see there's a a gray area presumably that's somewhere between there. How how is this just can better explain his stance that this is sort of a a
maintenance of the area because it it doesn't seem to jive with what we see in the aerials. >> Yeah. No, and I and I understand and again um I I was told this by Chris who who is the project manager of this and created
these images, these figures. Um that's what the the the homeowner, the land owner has said to us that he does not believe he's impacted um any resource area of buffer zone. He
he states that he just put down gravel on already disturbed areas. That's all I know. >> Okay. And then I will add that, you know, as a environmental consultant, it would be your job and God's job to either
quantify his claim or basically refute his claim. And that would be what your job is to let him know whether there's the need for mitigation to to follow or that he is in compliance. And for instance, we can just tell the commission exactly, you know, that he
was in compliance with x amount of square feet that was historically altered previously prior to the um rivers protection act. And I think that getting something in that writing form of writing narrative letter would be very helpful for the next meeting. >> All right, we'll do I took uh good notes
and I will pass it on to Chris. >> All right, thank you Nicole. Any questions? Okay. So, uh, next item on the agenda is any requests for continuation of public hearings. And I don't think we had any
such requests, is it? No. >> Okay. So, we're going to move on to um 225 South Worcester Street. Um, now that was a, as I recall,
a request for an amendment of um, I think there was a slight increase in the impervious surface. >> Yeah, they they sent over a memorandum um, a more detailed memorandum. I don't know if any of the members took a look
at it, but it looked looked good to me. I don't know if anyone else had any questions. Yeah, I mean this was the um storm water system that was oversized initially and the changes were a only a small amount
>> and it was felt that that u the existing design would more than compensate for any slight increase. Um so that means we are up for a vote
uh to accept it as a non-significant change to the existing order. Is that that I guess the vote is >> that's correct. there would be whether or not the the um after change >> had to
uh apply for amended order as opposed to a minor plan change. >> Everybody have that clear questions about what's on the table? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minor plan change for project number 250
11175. Second. >> Uh, a motion made by Mark, seconded by Joe. Uh, so Mark and I think Dan is on the phone. Uh, and Joe, how do you vote? >> Hi.
>> Hi, >> Dan. If you're out there, just make it clear. know which one is it? >> Yeah, I think it's the phone number at the bottom. >> Um,
we don't have time, right? >> No. >> Oh, there you are. >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you now. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I thought I was unmuted uh already. Uh I >> All right. And I'll throw in an I. That
completes the motion. The motion carries. That's 200 That's 225 South Mr. street. Uh and then we have Zero Island Road. Now, uh
is this really a public inquiry? Well, I guess technically it's not a hearing. So, but but we need a plan because Well, >> so yes. So what they're what they're interested in understanding is if the the work as proposed would um be
acceptable or amendable by the commission to come in as a RDA filing. That's the question we have. >> If we can bring up a plan you do you have a plan you can share or >> um because what they're proposing
is it new construction on this this lot. >> Correct. But it has, as we can see on the plan, we can have we have a road in between the area of construction and the the nearby wetland. So it would be very
likely that the potential for any kind of segmentation across that road into the into the adjacent wetland is pretty low. I mean, is that your thought, John? That was my thought. I
mean, that was the kind of the initial thought process when they talk to me about it. But obviously, you know, the question is, you know, I I I like to make sure that the commission feels the same way with my kind of decisions when it comes to it or my thoughts. Um, so I
just want to get feedback from from the the board and see if that is kind of what you guys were thinking as well. >> Well, looking at the contours, uh, it's almost dead flat. I mean, there's just a little bit. I mean, there's there's a depression.
Uh, I mean, the the site itself, I think, is 104 and then it dips down to lower than that at the gutter of the road and then it's not till you get to the wetland that it goes down to 102, which is
I guess about 50 ft away. Um, so can we request that they put uh I I don't know. I I mean what's what's the thought that something could >> Yeah. I mean obviously they're coming in for a permit. It's going to be an RDA.
We can definitely have them put sediment controls across the street if you think that it's going to be >> Well, no. I don't think it be across the street, but but uh DPW wouldn't allow sedimentation to run into the road, would they? >> Oh, no. No, I hear what you're saying. Sorry. Yes, we can do that, too.
>> I mean, that would if it got anywhere near to crossing the road, DPW should be all over them >> long before that. I mean, any construction site is not allowed to uh fill in a public way in the pro
process of construction. I'm assuming >> that's typically standard. >> Yeah. All right. So, I I personally would be fine with an RDA. What's the flood elevation here? >> I asked them the same thing with that and made sure that that they were
outside the flood elevation for this site. They are. >> It's 103 uh I want to say 67 67. >> It's 65. I think you just took the opportunity to say that. It's fine.
>> Mark, you get you get the gist, right? >> Yeah. >> Unfortunately, I understand that one. Are are you at the same flood elevation, Mark? >> I I'm I'm not. No. >> Well, I I happen to be across the lake
and I am, so I know about that. >> I'll explain it to him later. >> All right. Um All right. So, this doesn't really doesn't need a motion. I mean, this is not a formal hearing, but um I think it's unless
I mean, Dan, are you okay with it? And and Joe, >> yes, >> do you see any reason to make this other than an R RTA? >> No, that's fine. And Joe,
>> not sure on this one. >> Okay. >> What would be your concerns though? Well, we're within the buffer and um >> but but the RDA does allow us regulatory overview. It's just a question of is
there anything we're going to add by requiring a full notice? And in my view of that is no, but we still >> I'm not sure with septic system design and there's it's just a lot missing
here. Uh actually is this is this part of the um catchment area of the sewers? I think yeah I think all this is sewer. >> This is all sewer. I don't know if we have that on the
plan. >> We don't, >> but we can clarify that in the RDA hearing and that can be the trigger for converting it if I mean they're they can't put a septic system there. That
was that was the reason >> these lot these lots are all like 5,000 square ft and that's the challenge. >> All right then that that if it's on septic it satisfies me there. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, worst case scenario,
they can present it as an RDA and if there are real significant objections, they'll have to convert it to a full notice. >> I will let them know to plan to um you guys don't need to vote on this. I will
let them know to um prepare a RDA for that project. >> All right. So we are at the 361R old colony and this was the project
where there is a um auxiliary building installed proposed to be installed on the site. Um, and we reviewed that in it required a um
well actually I I don't know if the the um the wall was part of the modification of the plan or but there was a question as to the type of wall and they they gave us some new information on that.
>> Yeah. So they're they're basically trying to reuse boulders that they have on site. They have a lot of boulders on that site and they're looking to potentially do a boulder mix of the boulders wall and then also the um pre-cast gravity wall that they had designed. They gave us a design detail
sheet, but they didn't give us a like a actual site plan drawing. So, I'm going to say hold off on this until we actually get that site plan drawn cuz I want to see where the the transition is going to go from the boulder wall to the gravity wall cuz I don't want the board basically making a decision on that
until we actually get limits for that and also get more information on the contours like the top and bottom of the wall which we typically require. So, they're not ready and it doesn't look like someone's here tonight. So, I would say we just push that one off. >> Okay.
All right. We're now in our continued public hearings 416 Old Colony um road and this was Oh, I'm going to need a plan to fully
refresh my memory. It was um But do we have a representative of the applicant? This is file number 250 1170. does look looks like we do not. >> Uh, no, never mind.
>> Well, it was originally it was Robert Garcia and they came in but in person so they're probably waiting to do the um revisions and then they'll come back to the the 13th meeting. So, I would say uh
the board make a motion to continue. >> Oh, yes. To continue. >> All right, we have a motion. I assume that was Joe and we need a second on that. >> Second. >> So, the motion is continue to continue file number two 250-1170
until July 13th. So, um, Mark, Joe, and Dan Eddie will >> I >> I >> I >> and I'll do an I. That motion carries. Um, determination 11:48,
Mass Coastal Railway Railroad Rightway. Um, looks like we do have a representative, Mr. Lewis or at least we have a phone identified
as Mr. Lewis. Is that our representative? >> It is. I don't know if you can hear us. >> There we have. >> Can you hear me now? >> We can hear you now. So, um >> Oh, great. >> Uh maybe you could give us a little
description of what um what's going on there. >> Okay. So um just a little background, railroads in Massachusetts, they manage the vegetation under the rights of way regulation which is administered by MDAR, the department of agricultural
resources. And as part of that, they have to have an approved vegetation management plan. Um and their most recent one expired at the end of last year and is currently in the process of renewal. And as part of that renewal, we
have to go to each municipality to obtain um determination of the boundaries of of the resource areas for wetland water supplies. Um so that's the purpose of my RVA application.
>> So you are not proposing a vegetation control activity currently? >> Well, we are. It's an ongoing maintenance um that we do every year. Um but we have to resubmit uh for this
determination every 5 years when the BMP is up for renewal. All right. Well, I've been through this process at least a couple times before and usually there is a defined plan set
uh even an electronic plan set that is part of the filing and is is do you have that >> when you say a plan set I mean our the mapping that's defined up under the
rights of way regulations Um, the MAPS are consistent with the USGS quad sheet, which is 1 to 25,000 scale. That's what was submitted as part of the application and that's what we've always submitted in the past. >> I can share that because I believe
>> well, but that that's um all right. So, John, I mean mean need a little feedback here. Um, I mean, when this was under review with um um well, I can't remember it was Kathy or
who who are the um >> so this is kind of the same kind of application we received when Jennifer Carino was in Norton and the board at that time basically um they were amendable to this kind of format. Um I have no issues with it. I was just
wondering if you know when we would get a digital kind of format out of it which we got finally. Um so with that said I mean I think we have everything we need uh which is consistent with what we got last time I guess 5 years or so ago um
for this similar kind of initiative that um you know Mass Coastal and uh MDR looking to do. So I I just think it's consistent with what they had previously. All right. But um yeah, I know I I agree. It just at the
time when they were um they were proposing herbicide and and other cutting. Um >> yeah, we get we get those notice plans that come in through the through the office reports and everything.
>> All right. Well, then uh then you'll have to tell me this is so this is as a determination, but it's a it's a little bit difficult to to just summary say, well, we'll prove it as as the plans
delineate when it's a map. I I mean, it's a little unclear what we're proving here. >> Just maybe Mr. Lois, maybe you could just quickly um educate us on as you said, this doesn't come up more than
every 5 years. So, uh for for future reference when I'm seeing on the long rail uh way uh some colored areas marked either as a a light blue limited spray zone, a darker blue, and then a yellow
no spray zone. Am I to read that as any areas not marked with that along the railway could be fully sprayed? Are they managed through cutting or or or what am I to take of the the lack um the lack of a a coloration along the line?
>> Sure. So, I'll give you a little bit more background just so you understand. Um so, they're allowed to spray herbicides in a buffer zone, but no closer than 10 ft to a resource area.
So, and and there's an exemption for the riverfront as well. So, that's how we develop the maps and we use mass GIS as the basis for all of this. We download the data layers for that. Um, as well as water supply data layers if they're in
the area. Um, so the color codes, as you mentioned, the the lighter blue is indicates a buffer zone area. Uh, a yellow indicates a no spray zone where we can never spray. Uh in the buffer zone, we're allowed to spray once per year using only sensitive area
materials, which is a list that the Commonwealth maintains where they they only allow uh products on that list if they show to have characteristics that are safe for use in sensitive areas. Um, the uncolored areas would indicate
uplands, but what I can tell you is we treat uplands essentially the same as buffer zone because trying to have two different products on a truck and transitioning from one to the other is just logistically too difficult. So all
the railroads that I work for, we just use sensitive area materials everywhere. >> So that's very helpful. Thank you. when when I'm looking at your this very large scale map, I'm I'm seeing other indications. For example, you have
Norton sheet 2 um and you also have other numbers. So I I think you have another data set for this activity. >> Um that that used to be what we would make our decision about. You have northern sheet
one, northern sheet 2. Um so I I don't know. I maybe you're not familiar with all the data that is as is normally used for this kind of decision but uh I mean
>> I'm not sure what data other data set you're talking about there's only the two sheets here >> what I what I previously uh have reviewed similar to road construction activities
you there were actually digital sheets that >> Julian written We have to be real careful. This is done under Mass Department of Agriculture. There are a whole set of guidelines that they're operating under here that are not local.
>> So these are within spec. >> Well, then I guess my question is why do we even review them? If if we're if you're telling me there what there's nothing to review here, where Julian, this is more so a courtesy. That's what I'm trying to get at with these. Okay.
Well, then then >> I can I can add to that if that's okay. So, there's a couple of reasons why they do this locally through the RDA process. The biggest one is so that they can have an opportunity for local input through a
public meeting process. That's the the biggest reason why they do it. Um, but the other reason is MDNAR is a state agency and they figure the towns know their areas and resource areas better
than than they do than MDAR. All right. I look I uh Okay. So, but John, I bet you won't be out there watching what they do. And there's no point that you need to be. I I I just am I never mind. So uh so
>> I can I can tell you that MDAR is out there and they do use observations. They make sure we have all the yearly operational plans and that we uh have our public comment periods and we respond to all the public comments that are out there.
uh they they take samples from the tank of the truck and send them back to a lab to analyze them to make sure that the products and concentrations are correct. So they they are on us the whole step of the way. It's just you don't normally see that.
>> Okay. Yeah. How I how I treat these types of projects, Julian, just so you know, is more so like a um a utility project that is basically exempt from all the Well Protection Act provisions. So, you know, that's just more so a courtesy that they're sending it over to us, you know, just so we know what
they're doing this activity and basically that they're trying to stay on the books and and the like like Tom said, you know, gain feedback from the community if needed through this process. >> All right. Um,
do we have members of the audience who want to give feedback uh questions? I don't know if there's anyone else on on the Zoom call. Because if we're ready for a vote, I guess we're ready for a vote. So, this is a um request for
determination. >> It's going to be a I think it's what is it? A positive 2A. Is that correct, Tom? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. like to make a motion for positive 2A on mass D file 1148.
>> Second. >> All right, we have a motion made by Joe, seconded by Mark. Um, Mark, Joe, and Dan, how do you vote? >> I I >> And I'll throw in an I.
Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tom. Have a good night. >> Very good. All right. So, uh we are now at uh a new public hearing uh zero Mansfield Avenue
by uh it's file number 250- 1206. Uh we have an applicant of Anthony Vido, I guess, and a representative
Eric Das. I saw an Eric Das. There we go. How are you, Eric? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. How are you? >> I'm good. And uh we can kind of define this parcel. It took me a little while to identify where it is and maybe you can help us with
that. >> Sure, absolutely. Um just for the record, Eric Das, registered professional engineer, Strongpoint Engineering. Um, I'm going to start sharing my screen because I think that will help this parcel. Uh, let me go this way
first. Move that one. So, this is the existing conditions plan, which may look somewhat familiar. We filed an ANRAD on this and received it in order of resource area delineation uh toward the end of 2023. Uh there are two isolated wetlands on
the site sort of outside of the 100t buffer zone from the BBW that's attached to the Norning Reservoir toward the back. Um and they are non-jurisdictional weapons. Just let me just add um the building
that is visible uh is um >> Alberta's >> Alberta Albert Albert uh and this this the strength indicated is a fenced area where plants
are sold during the spring. Um, so that that can help uh visually identify exactly where this parcel is, but it's otherwise other than a couple of sheds, there's nothing out there but vegetation. That is correct. In fact, I
just pulled up the Google Street View. So, this is Alberto's right here. Um, and as we're looking, this is southward. This is the vacant site that you see. And you can see there's this fence that uh the chairman was just talking about.
that's like an overgrown garden area. Um, and then moving this way more is where it gets, you know, more heavily vegetated and things like that. In fact, that first isolated vegetated wetland that we talked about is sort of right at the bottom of where this sign that you
see in this tree is here. Um, so that hopefully just helps by way of orientation. Let me go back to the plan. So, as I mentioned, the wetlands were delineated. They were approved through an ORAD. Uh there's two IBWs in the
front of the site that are non-jurisdictional. Um, and what we're proposing at this time is essentially a layown yard, but I want to just make clear for the record that this is intended to be a temporary use of the site. The owner is currently
evaluating um options for what I'll call a more sophisticated development uh that we intend to be bringing forward to you folks in the next couple of months as soon as we kind of zero in on exactly what it is that we're looking at for a program here. But we want to get the
site ready for uh some site prep work. Uh the owner's got a few other projects in town uh that it made some sense to kind of give him a st kind of a more central staging area, things like that. So what we're proposing to do is basically to come in to clear the
vegetated areas of the site. Um the two isolated vegetated wetlands will be filled. Um and they as I mentioned they are non-jurisdictional. The total filling is is well under the 5,000t threshold. It requires any kind of filing under the Clean Waters Act um or
any 401 water quality sir. um this area that we're the pavement that kind of you can see here that extends into the site will remain and we'll be accessing this site through the Alberto's parking lot rather than immediately making another
curb cut onto Mansfield A. We don't want to do that until we know more of what the final product that's being intended here is going to be. Um the site will be um we'll install probably either a compact gravel or asphilt millings on
the site uh for a stable base while they work. Um and then to talk about storm water management, we've done test pits on the site. Uh the whole site is intended to kind of follow the natural flow path where it goes now. um storm
water management will first hit an infiltration trench that will filter out serve as pre-treatment and infiltration. It'll filter out things like you know suspended solids, sediments, things like that. Um and then that will is essentially designed to overflow right
into an infiltration basin. So the solids will settle out. Um the clean water will overflow into an infiltration basin. And we're proposing a small ele structure with a flared end section here. Everything is designed with rip wrap stabilization at the discharge
points. Um and for containment purposes to keep everything on the site because we're not looking at curbs and things like that at this point at least. Uh we've designed a small um proposed containment burm along the southern property boundary. The idea
is that any storm water runoff would flow um in eventually worst case scenario as it catches the containment burn and goes into the infiltration where it's supposed to be on the south side of the grading that's required for the infiltration basin. We're actually
proposing a directional swale. Um that would any runoff to hit that swale would be from grass areas. As soon as the infiltration basin is cut in, it's going to be seated, hydro seated, stabilized, and that directional swale will just keep stuff off of the southern property and direct any runoff to where it's
going right now, which is the res the boarding vegetation attached to the northern reservoir. Uh the other thing to mention is that the southern property is actually owned by the town. I believe you folks did a canoe launch there um in the last couple of years. Um, aside from
that, we have proposed adequate erosion controls around the site. Um, it has been peer-reviewed by Pat Brennan. Uh, Pat had some pretty, you know, minor comments that we do still need to address. So, we don't anticipate necessarily wrapping this up tonight. Uh, we were hoping to come make a
presentation to you folks, get in comments that the commission has, wrap it up in one revision, and then, uh, fire it back over to Pat for a final review. Uh, so really, those are the finer points. I'm glad to turn it over to you and answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.
>> Uh, okay. So, John, do you have any comments? I mean, presumably this is going to be done in anticipation of a larger project next door. Um, I'm assuming because >> Yeah. Well, probably possibly on this
site and maybe next door as well. It could be a combination of other things, too. Um, that might come into light. I don't know, but we'll see in the future. >> Yeah. Um, anybody else in on the commission have
questions, comments? Um, >> I have a couple here. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Uh, you said it's going to be a laid potential laid down yard. Is is there going to be a diversional fencing between the Alberto's parking lot in this or some some break that
we're not going to have cars parking in here and overflow management of storm water coming from that direction? >> Sure. Uh that that's a very good question. So just by luck the way that the Alberto site lays out is that all the runoff from Alberto sort of misses
our site which is nice, right? We don't really have to worry about that too much. Um, we haven't proposed a fence at this time, but as we're talking about that, I think some sort of fencing and delineation between the two makes sense. We certainly don't want customers from
Alberta's parking on this site. Um, so we will have to do some sort of delineation between the two, and I'm I'm glad to add that in. >> And my other issue is the wrap. uh being this close to the reservoir, having wrap
here is probably not the best material. Uh seeing there, you know, we don't know what type of material is going to be stored here, what, you know, and whether or not we're getting any filtration going to happen. So, you know, I have some issues with with that because I
don't know. I mean, we could be storing electrical all I know. >> When you say wrap, are you referring to recycled asphalt? >> Correct. Okay. No, that that that's a good point. Um, two points on that. One, when we talk about, you know, infiltrative capacity, we've designed
this area as if it was 100% impervious for the sizing of our storm water to make sure that that is a very conservative approach. Um, but I understand the concern about the recite the reclaimed asphalt. Um, I don't think we're necessarily married to it. I think we'd probably be just as happy to put
down some compact gravel. Uh really what we're looking for is a stable base that's not going to rot if we pass a truck over it. That's all. >> All right. Well, I guess Go ahead, >> Sean. Sean, do you have any issues with storm water here or anything with these
materials? >> Um I mean, as it pertains to the to the final material that goes on top, I think the the plan is for this design probably to have asphalt impervious, right? At some point, Eric, is that the end result goal?
>> In the future, whatever comes as a more sophisticated design after this, yes, there will be at least some impervious um asphalt component to it. >> And and my understanding is that for instance, the basin that you're constructing for this is going to be constructed in a way that for instance,
it's anticipating the future development of whatever might go here. Is that correct? >> That is correct. I ideally we would be able to leave the infiltration basin for what we bring through. >> However, I've also kind of in the grading of this site considered that
we're not doing any cutting of existing material now so that we're not taking away existing soil so that we do have the ability in the future if we wanted to reconfigure this basin or even eliminate it and go subsurface we could do that under a separate application.
So, let's say let's say you are using reclaimed asphalt. What's easier for cleanup? Obviously, I don't know. I mean, I'm asking. Is it easier to put down the recycled asphalt and then have the final product later or is it easier to do gravel and then do the final product on top of that?
>> Or are you going to place a geoexile between the two >> or Yeah. or something along those lines? >> Uh, that's something that we could look at. I would imagine that you know we're anticipating right now is basically and I think I can draw on this. So let me do that.
Essentially if this is approved this entire section that's highlighted here would be whether it be grass um processed gravel reclaimed asphalt whatever it is would be considered to be impervious
um with this first stage. I would imagine as we move into something more sophisticated, there are going to be sections of what would be impervious now that would be cut out to be lawn area, landscape area, green space, things like that. Um, as far as what's easier to
move, I think they move the same way, right? Gravel and asphalt, they're going to come up the same way. I think it's more of a question is what can we re reuse on site, right? what can what is the best thing for us to maybe use as once we reconfigure
then we don't have to haul off the site we can leave on the site and now use that as the base for pavement or or future pavement or something like that so >> the more we're talking about it the more I'm starting to talk myself more in the gravel >> yeah well I was just thinking the same thing I'm thinking if I'm going through all this effort to do this I'm I'm
probably going to put gravel and then just top coat it later you know >> it seems like that's kind of the way this is shaping up as I'm talking to myself into it. Yeah. >> All right. Well, I I guess you kind of confused or I got confused because
you're saying there's going to be no independent access to this site except through Alberto's. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So, the basic path that would happen would trucks would come in here and then this is our tire scrubber um just to stop tracking from on to
Alberto's. So that's right now the basic um path that folks would take. Now a future project may very well have its own curb cut off of Mansfield A. Um, but until we have been able to determine the
exact parameters of what's to come next, I don't want to go through the process of, you know, permitting a curb cut, a temporary curb cut through Mass DOT and then having to possibly revise it later and take another stab at that. So, we thought staying with kind of this purple
pathway for this immediate purpose was the better way to go. >> All right. But then obviously I'm assuming the owner of the Alberto's parcel and this owner are the same. >> Uh that is correct. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So we have no idea
what's coming, but we're just looking at what you want to do now. >> That's right. >> All right. Any further? >> We have ideas. We're just trying to turn them into a good one first. >> All right. I I would like to see some division between the two. It would
definitely make be a little >> I I think that does make some sense. Yes. Um and I'm glad to like I said, I don't think we're going to wrap this tonight. So, I'm glad to um when we send a revised plan over to back to John and over to Pat Brennan. We can add something to that. >> Well, let me understand clearly. You're
saying division between the two parcels. Uh, Joe, >> at least within our jurisdictional area. >> Well, yeah. I I I don't know. I mean, that's that's more a planning board
area, isn't it? >> For a construction side thing, we can put it in the BMP for the for the storm water side things. >> Okay. >> And I think if I may through the chair to Mr. Garvalo, what you're basically
looking for is some way to delineate um kind of along this line to keep the Alberto's customers on this side and construction activity on this side. So they're not crossing each other and or the the you know Alberto's customers are not necessarily parking let's say right
here >> parking dragging out being gravel or whatever type of material you decide to use just all of the piecing. >> No, that's fair. We can certainly come up with some sort of barrier to get there.
>> All right. Uh so anyone in the meeting have any questions? Uh so you had mentioned that um we will need to continue this. So we have the 13th or the 27th of July as the choices. Have a preference.
>> Um I'm going to ask for the 13th. I don't think any of the revisions that we have to make to address past comments are going to take us very long at all. All right. Consider a motion. >> So move.
>> Second. >> We have a motion made by Dan, seconded by Mark to continue the public hearing for I guess this is a regular notice file number 250-1206.
um going to continue it until the 13th of July. So Mark um Joe and Dan, how do you vote? >> I >> I >> and I'll throw in an eye. The motion carries.
>> Great. Thank you very much for your time. >> You bet. >> Thank you, Eric. >> Thank you guys. We see you soon. So next item, >> next item is kind of a um marginal formality file number 25468.
I can't remember what that dates from, but it involves the uh I guess the sewer installation. >> 2005ish, I want to say it was 2005. Uh, and I reviewed in the in the Google
Drive the uh certificate of compliance that we signed. Um, so we there's one COC, but I guess there's a request for another. >> Yeah. So, just so the commission's
aware, when it came to these large scale projects where um I guess a lot of homeowners were affected, the each individual homeowner would get their own uh partial COC associated with that. Um I think as part of that that that was this administrative process. So, um you
know, the the request this evening is for a partial COC for that specific address >> for this project. >> Um no, it wasn't full. So, I mean that's that's I guess what I don't understand. And it was a full for the for the property address. So, we're going to be
issue a full for the property. I mean, it's not a partial because the whole project is now done, >> right? But the the the the challenge here is that is that we already issued the full COC for the project. this this
applicant is requesting that they get a sightspecific address for this property. So, it's not just for that one property. It's for I want to say a lot of the King Phillip properties associated with this project. So, we already issued it. Um,
so we could issue a partial COC, but I don't think we should issue another full COC because we already did that. >> All right. So, I I guess I misinterpreted what was in Google Drive. So that doesn't have the specific address number. >> Exactly. It just it listed the roadways.
>> All right. So we can now issue one with the address as 127 King Phillip >> as a partial. >> So it has to be a partial. >> See I I don't know how I I mean >> that's correct. When you when you have when you sub when you take basically
take uh the whole entire project and there's multiple properties associated with that project. It has to be a partial certificate when it comes to a specific site address because it doesn't the whole project spans more than one address. >> All right. Well, we're doing this because of a request of a lawyer
involved with the transfer of the property. >> Correct. >> I just hope that it doesn't come back because we're calling it a partial. Uh Unfortunately, I can't I can't give a full we can't give a full certificate of compliance for the whole entire project cuz we already did that.
>> We'll we'll leave that to you to to explain, but right now >> I can I can I can have it out with them if I need to. Okay. >> Right now, I'm looking for a motion to issue a partial certificate of compliance specifically with the address
of 127 King Phillip Road and file number 250-468. And if you just say so moved. Fine. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion made by Mark, seconded by Joe. Uh Joe, Mark, and Dan, how do you move?
>> I I >> And I'll throw in an I. We're done with that. Um next motion, unless there's further further discussion, >> just so we're all all aware. of next July 13th. Um we're going to basically
have it and we have this every year, but we're just basically to talk about uh amongst each other as board members. I hope everybody's going to be in attendance, but if we want to change up the dynamics of the commission, uh the chair, the vice chair, the clerk. So, um you know, that's just going to be a
topic of discussion that's going to be on the next agenda. >> And did we clarify who's getting reappointed? Uh, so just so we're aware, I have reached out to the select board office. I have uh reached out to the clerk. Um, your requests are pending, I guess. I
don't know. Um, but just so that you're all aware, anyone that's up for reappoint, you are still actively valid to vote, uh, if you do not get sworn in or reworn in or reappointed. Um, so you are still valid until they either decide
to replace you or bring you back in to get um, you know, reworn in. >> I think I have to uh, send uh, send in a letter or something or >> Yeah. So Mark has sent his Mark sent his letter in to the office. So if anyone else is needs to send in a letter, they
can. um they typically have sent notices in the past to all the residents. Um but to skip that step, I think it's probably in best best interest of everybody here to uh just send in your letters uh your letter of interest and I will forward them over to the select board and
hopefully you'll get on the next select board agenda. >> All right. So I guess we're ready for a motion to adjourn. Uh, so moved. >> Second. >> Motion made by Dan, seconded by Joe. Uh,
we're going to just say all in favor say I. Please. >> I. >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. I think we did. Night.