Recording in progress. >> All right. This is the opening of uh North Conservation Commission meeting for Monday, November 10th. It is 6:30.
Um, our members participating tonight uh are myself, Julie Madish, chair, uh, Bis Rosa, vice chair, uh, Dan Pearson and Mark Fernandez.
Um, we have John Thomas and Megan Har or Har I guess it is. Is that har >> okay? Uh John is our director, Megan is our assistant, and uh we'll go to the
first item on the agenda, which is meeting meeting minutes of October 6th. There is one minor error on page six.
We did a u a motion, >> but instead of approving minutes, I think it's a motion to continue the hearing. So, um I assume that was just a cut and paste >> um that got accidentally put there.
I didn't find anything else I would correct. Anybody find anything they would correct on the the minutes of October 6th? I had a few edits on page four. [Music] Uh let's see.
Second paragraph and fifth paragraph instead of regarding should be regrading. >> Okay. >> Which is a probably a spell check thing. >> Mhm. >> And then Okay. Um page five.
So this is under zero Leonard Street. And I just want to just confirm this. It doesn't have butter. at 76 Elm Street. Is that right? So, in a butter for Elm Street asked a question about Leonard Street. >> Yes. Um I think his name was Sunny. He
had some quick questions on uh two of the projects. One of them was the Leonard Street. >> Okay. So, he wasn't in butter to >> Leonard Street just butter. Okay, I got it. >> Okay. >> I would correct that and just say a Norton resident 76 Street.
>> Yeah. I I thought it was like a cut and paste error or something, but yeah, that's fine. Okay, that's all I had. >> Okay. >> So, he was probably in a butter to the regular lane. Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Anybody else have any
questions about or corrections about the minutes of October 6? If not, I think we can consider a motion to correct to accept the uh minutes of October 6th as amended.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. Uh roll call vote beginning with uh Dan and uh Lisa. >> Hi. >> Hi.
>> And Mark. >> Hi. panel throw in an I. The motion carries. All right. Next on our agenda is update of violations. First one is 93 uh King
Phillip Road. Um, from what I read, there is there is already a stabilization plan in place and that project is
uh stabilized for the winter. Is that uh Did I get that right? >> That's correct. Yeah, they I asked them to provide us an update as to kind of what the status current status is. They provided us a plan of what they plan on uh doing in the spring and they also gave us a a brief memorandum synopsis of
what their plans are. And I went out there, took a drive by, and everything seems to be in accordance with what we need for the winter. So therefore, I'm okay with it just sitting as is currently until spring. And then they come back, and they kind of formalize an action plan at that time.
Uh, and then we have 181. Uh, well, I guess I should ask any any questions about that from from anybody. Um if not, we can go on to 181 West Main Street. Um
do uh did we expect a uh some discussion? I think we did. Um do we have a representative of that? >> I believe we may have a couple. My name is John Kelky. >> All right. And I think where we listed
this last time was we we wanted to see the work of an engineer to assess exactly what the uh issue is and the potential around it. And so somebody can talk about those details.
>> I think that Tyler uh Leafrenier is president at your meeting. Is that the case? No. >> Uh yes. >> Yes, he is. So um be able to So Tyler uh had presented a plan which
we forwarded to you and in the meantime we have also uh hired Scott Goddard as our wetland scientist with whom are we going to work and I don't know if uh Scott is here but if you would like uh
some information about what uh um the plan that Tyler had created which is an existing conditions plan we're hopeful that it demonstrates that there's no damage being done and we can uh move forward with a um notice of intent uh uh
with uh Scott Gard working with us. >> All right. So, we it will be best if we can put an electronic form of that plan up on the screen. So, I don't know if you have it in your computer or John. Is that something you can >> I have Oh, you have it. So, you can load
it up >> and then I guess you can talk about the plan. Is there a microphone or No, it's to the ceiling. So, you just come up here and sit down. They should be on a >> Yeah, it's we have a little microphone.
Big brother is flipping over your shoulder. Hi. >> Good evening. My name is Dy Leren. I'm with RER Engineering Company, uh 93 George Leven Drive in North Dro. Um this is a plan that we prepared for 181 West Main Street, showing the existing
additions. Um, as of I believe a few weeks ago, uh, we did locate an approximate edge of wetlands as well as a stream running along the side of the property. I know we had talked to Scott of Goddard Consulting about having the wetlands flagged and going back and
locating those flags. This was just a preliminary um, map that we had created. Um, we tried to get as much detail as we could as far as the patio, any cleared areas, edge of woods, all that. Uh there are any questions as far as that goes? I'd be happy to explain.
>> So you have a um uh well exactly where is the edge of wetlands? I see some black triangles. Is that uh is that your edge of wetlands or >> the edge of wetlands is the green dash
line along the outside. Um that is all approximate just survey shots that we got. >> All right. And then I can't that's a 25 uh foot no touch zone that you have illustrated. So the 100 foot I assume
goes pretty much I mean it goes into the building on both sides. >> Yes. The 100 foot pretty much came to a a point inside the building so it wasn't worth showing. >> Okay.
Um, so the entire patio area is within the >> Yes. >> Uh, and what is the surface there? I mean I I you don't have that determined
on the plan. Is it all dirt up to the the concrete glad patio or why don't you explain that? >> Um, I would say it's it there is some vegetation. Um, it's kind of sparse, but there is some dirt, grass, kind of all
mixed in. >> All right. And there was a discussion of a concrete patio that got put in. Where is that? >> Yes. Um, so the top left of the building on the screen right there. Yes.
>> Okay. And the other area, what is what is Yeah. What is I can't read the uh >> stone barbecue area. Okay. So that's a um porous stone surface
>> I believe. So yes, >> but the barber the barbecue area is existing. >> Okay. >> Our v our issue is that uh newly constructed concrete pad
patio. >> Okay. All right. So, um, so John, this this this, as I understand it, was flagged by another, um,
uh, inspector in town and and brought to your attention. Is that how this came up or >> Yes. Yes, it was my my attention by the health and building inspector. Um, and I sent over the landowners app
uh consultants some information showing aerial photoggramometry that I basically transposed onto their site plan. >> I have that too. >> And if you want to just pull up that plan for the commission structure for example.
So, are we working towards a um complete existing conditions plan with too ground cover? Is that the goal? >> Well, I think I think part of the challenge here, Lisa, is that it's it's evident to me based on photographic
imagery dating back a couple of years that there was clearing of trees and vegetation. So I think their team Scott Goddard and uh you know their uh consultant ris engineering is going to have to come up with some sort of plan
which shows basically everything north of that purple line was existing vegetation at some point. So I calculated based on their information that about 10,000 square ft of vegetative disturbance has occurred
without a permit within riverfront area. And that's me being, you know, very conservative. They can, you know, itemize it better um and use whatever they want to kind of look at that stuff. But if you look at the aerial photoggramometry, um it shows that
there's a clear tree line. You know, this is dating back a couple years and we don't have any permits on record of them allowing them to do any of that kind of vegetative disturbance within riverfront area. So, my suggestion to
them was to bring on board a wetland scientist to assist them in the process with restoring the riverfront area and buffer zone. So, that's what I'm looking for from them. Um, and that's what we're going to have to make sure they follow through. Otherwise, we have to take additional action. and I'm hoping that
they can tell us that this is something they're going to be working on, you know, 110%. And that's kind of what I want to hear from them. I don't want this to linger. >> Um I want to see results kind of what um Chair Kades has has stated at the last
meeting. So that's kind of where I stand with this. So, I would ask that um you update this existing conditions plan to show topography to show what the ground cover looks like. To Julian's point um in the next uh week or so before the
snow flies. Okay. So, you need to bring this plan up to speed. We need to get Goddard's um uh wetland flagging for riverfront and the BBW flags as well. So, and then we'll I guess we'll deem this uh complete, right? Throwing the two
existing conditions. At the same time, somebody should be working on the restoration plan >> and and that's exactly why we've hired both Tyler and Scott, >> right? But the existing conditions plan as shown is missing information.
>> Well, there's more that needs to be identified. I I appreciate that. >> Okay. Well, that wasn't explained. So, >> and I'm sorry. Uh I would add that assuming the uh the concrete PL pad is new construction
that probably should be added to your filing so that that can be properly documented. >> Yep. So the other challenges that we have with this is that given the size of the lot, we can't permit any of the past disturbance.
So I don't know how you want to do that as a commission. It's 10,000 square feet. It's 20% of the the whole entire lot. We only can allow for 10%. >> So, John, are you talking about the uh the introduction of the patio?
>> No, I'm talking about the vegetative disturbance. >> Oh, yeah. That whole thing has to be vegetated as far as I'm concerned. Everything removed. So my question then becomes is, you know, how how are we going to or how are we going to organize that for for a permit because it's going
to be a restoration permit first or how are we going to do this? Cuz that's what I'm asking about cuz when you file it have the disturbance needs to be less than 20%. So they're going to have to show an extensive amount of uh restoration with this project. I think that's something
they're going to have to come in with. So just be prepared that you know you might be limited with future development on this property because of the um I guess u you know unpermitted activities. I just wanted the uh applicant to know that. So
what you're saying is that if 10% of it is restored then >> regardless regardless they probably won't be able to do anything with this lot in the future within the riverfront area if they come in with a permit
>> to the chair. >> Uh yeah you have a uh we have a question. So >> so John this is Mark Arnold Gddard Consulting. Um, so, um, although I don't know everything about this property, I I think just just walking through enforcement, I think the goal is to get a plan that accurately depicts the
current conditions of the property and also provide the commission documentation of what we believe was there originally so we can accurately evaluate the the violation um, and address the violation. I think that's the first thing we have to do before we even consider development. So
the the goal here of our team is to get that plan updated to show that information and then after that there can be a discussion about what's allowed for redevelopment in the roof for an area. Again it's it's restrictive but until we know what was originally there
and how the restoration kind of understood the question or speculation of what can be done I think is a conversation for another another day. Um, again the wetland delineation is is is is of very importance because we need to know where the river is and the
wetlands itself because that dictates a lot of things. But I think from aerial imagery and other information we can probably document pretty carefully what was uh back there in terms of disturbance degraded buildings etc. And then from there we can give the
commission a better picture of what actually changed back here. Um, and that way we can have a better conversation. I think we'll be more profitable when we have the information in front of us. >> I I know I'm I'm not going to be very uh open to be talking about degraded areas
when I know that there was 10,000 square ft of vegetative disturbance that occurred out there without a permit. I'm going to tell you that right now. So, I honestly I'm I'm looking at something that I really want to see restoration done to because a permit was not filed,
nor was it approved from the conservation commission. So, I I for one am going to advise the commission not to issue any permits until that restoration area is gone. >> Uh, >> but John, just correct me here if I'm
wrong, but they're not asking to construct anything right now, right? They're just before us for restoration, >> right? But the the the challenge is is that there are some other things that they're going to have to potentially do in the future on this property. And I think they should be like for instance,
if a new septic field needs to be created, a new septic leeching field, new septic tanks, those kind of things come into play in factor as part of a future project. So because of the um you
know elicit activities that occurred on the property that could put a restriction on this property for future development. I'm just letting you guys know that and I want you guys to think about this as you move forward with this project because if you went the friendly enforcement route, we probably could
just restore all this area, get it all done and potentially allow you the ability to, you know, have some relief in the future. But that's up to you on how you want to pursue this project. I'm not going to tell you which drop to go. I'm just letting you know there are options. You need to basically tell us
which option you guys want to which door you want to open. >> And go ahead. >> Well, I I and I would just throw in is an upgrade of the septic system part of the plan that that we know of? No, not
as of right now, but I am obviously I work for the town and I know that there's been discussions of the need for an upgraded septic system in the future for this property. So, that's kind of down the wing that they're going to have to think about for this project site.
>> It is going to play a factor into riverfront calculations. Are >> are you suggesting that the restoration plan take into consideration the design of a future Um, >> that's up for the applicant on how they want to do things. I mean, that's why
they're going to hire the engineer and they're going to hire the wetland consultant. They need to basically >> figure out what the game plan and goal is for this property and figure out how they can achieve that with all the illicit activities they've have occurred on the property. So, that's that's for them to decide. I'm not going to tell
them which route to go, but they have to basically open their eyes and see kind of like what options they have. >> Dan, you had a question. >> Yeah. Uh just a technical question. Uh this obviously um uh this violation
doesn't have a number to it. So um I know we have we have good good memories as to what's where but saying that they do uh that there is a project or uh they come back to us with a
uh desire to start a project there. Is is there something that will be will automatically trigger uh uh on that go go and see the uh the violation in the past or so Dan that's that's the reason
why I always suggest abstraction notice of intents because they're always reported and they always have a order of conditions and you can add conditions to certain things of that nature. Um, and that's why I always say when there is a list of activities that are large in nature and they're not minor, um, you go
that route. And if it was an enforcement order, it would be on file with whatever permit they would have for the property. Now, this property does not currently have any permits on record with the conservation commission. So, it is also a good idea that they file an afteraction notice of intent just to get a record going for this property. So
that way the next person whether it's me or whoever is going to be in the future you know looks at this 10 years from now they have a better understanding of how this is going to work. >> Can we uh condition that? Can we demand that?
>> We can't do any of that right now because this is kind of just a proposal and it hasn't even been submitted >> as a notice. But in terms of process, John, >> yeah, it's not actually even a proposal.
Uh we were able to hire uh Tyler and uh so we had this plan. We thought we would get it before you to show uh some although albeit limited but there is some project and we are putting the right team together uh to make a future
filing. >> Okay. So, John, procedurally, what would you like to see? I I assume as a notice of intent submitted as a restoration plan or >> I mean that that is the goal here. I mean, we don't have a permit on record
for this. It would be nice to get a permit on record for this property. Um, but like I said, their team needs to evaluate the future of this property and figure out what is, you know, feasible for permitting the work on this because, you know, the commission has the right
if they find out that there was way too much of riverfront disturbance to put a limit on the future development of this property, they have the ability to do that. Um, if they've exceeded the 10 10% threshold as part of this elicit activity. So, you know, there is that
opportunity that the commission has, but the applicant also can provide more mitigation if they feel that it's necessary or some other sort of form of mitigation. They can provide that. They just need to be able to uh calculate it, quantify it, and provide us the information.
>> All right. Well, unless there's a another burning question I just going to ask the representatives, from what you've heard that you have in your head a good plan. I mean you kind of made a suggestion that um you know establish
first put some more details in the plan with regard to the nature of the uh materials and the elevations and then uh historically establishing uh how recently this additional work may
have been done. you have a plan a uh a good idea as to then what needs to come before us? >> I think we understand that one the commission will not allow a permit to be issued on this property until the restoration has been addressed with appropriately and um and I think John
made that clear. So our first goal is to get the enforcement order matter resolved in terms of understanding what actually what the violation is and its totality and what's required for restoration and then any potential work could be discussed after that's understood by the commission and that
way the commission can guide us and whether or not um how that restoration will be implemented whether it's under enforcement order or after effect and why but until we know what actually is on there um I think it's hard to speculate further. Um, but I think we we do have an advocate working in good
faith to hire consultants to make progress to to update you on what's actually happening that we actually are making progress towards something um that can give you actual information that gives us better hard numbers and again um we understand there was a violation here and our intent is to to
restore what was violated um to comply with the regulations. So I I think we just request that um we be allowed to to um continue to provide a better information to this board uh in terms of the violation so the the uh the steps
the board wants in terms of restoration can be um appropriately implemented in a manner that's satisfactory to the board. >> I I'll take you one I'll take you one step further on that Mark and I appreciate you being um very informative with your response. Uh, it would be good
for GDDARD to recommend steps rather than the board to tell us. >> I I I Yeah, I I I think I know what the commission wants. I John, I know what you want. Um, so I think we can definitely advise the applicant as to what steps are needed to get a plan that would give the commission comfortability
that this is what was there prior to the violation. Um, and then also guide the applicant to what would be required for restoration and compliance with the regulation. So, um, I I think we do understand what you're looking for, Mr. chair. Um, and we hope to get you information in the future that would be
able to close a this matter in terms of understanding what we need to do to resolve it. >> All right. Anybody have further questions about that step? >> No, but I think we need to give the deadline for updating the existing conditions plan and coming up with a
restoration plan. >> All right. >> Um, I I would like to see the existing conditions plan updated before the next hearing before the snow flies. everything I want delineation flags located and uh existing surface types.
>> Yeah. So next >> and that's 1124. Correct. >> Correct. Uh so >> Mark >> um I I it's I guess it's a question for it's more a question for the surveyors than I think God in terms of getting out there. I mean we can definitely get out
there pretty quick and get the flags up. Um, as long as the survey team can get out there pretty quickly. >> Yes. Uh, we we should be able to get that done by that deadline. >> So, we we'll we'll do we'll do our best, although we may be submitting very close to the meeting itself, but at least you'll have it and we can discuss it at
the meeting. >> Yeah. Well, that sounds like a good uh plan moving forward. Uh I often look at the long range forecast and within the next 10 days or so, no snow
um is expected. So I expect you won't have a problem and it may be quite some time before things get obscured, but you have a a good plan to go forward with it. Uh so um if unless there are further questions,
anyone in in the room have further questions? Does anybody on the on the call have questions? And if not, we can consider Well, I don't think we need to have a motion, but we will move on. And um
thank you for your information that you provided today. >> My pleasure. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um next item is uh continuing what public hearings have requested for
continuation. So there wasn't anything in on Google Drive, but there is a um I think you mentioned 61. >> Yes. >> West Main Street had requested a continuum until the 24th. That's
>> no um the 9th. December 9th. >> December 9th. So our next uh item uh well under continued public hearings file number 250-1180 which is 61 West Main Street the uh
current Honey Donuts site >> I call December 8th >> December 8th okay they are requesting continuation until December 8th >> uh so we have Lisa with the motion and
Dan with the second. Uh so Mark and Dan, how do you vote? >> I >> and Lisa. >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Um and there are no more um requests for continuation. Is that
correct? >> Yeah, that's all I've got. >> All right. So, next item is public inquiries and department updates. Um, uh, John, you have some comments on
commission members. I know we had like some comments. >> Yeah. I didn't know if you wanted to talk about commission members um, and stuff like that. You said you said you wanted to put it on there. I put it on the agenda. Yeah, it I just wanted to emphasize that
um none of us should feel comfortable going on another person's property without explicit um permission. And uh if any of us come across uh things that we consider
may may or may not be a violation that we should uh bring it to John's attention and then allow him to to investigate. That will uh reduce any possibility of
misunderstandings and possibly conflict. Um so Norton Lakes Ponds. >> So the um the consultant that the town hires to do a lot of the treatments is waters and wetlands and we also contract
with TRC as the oversight for the management portion of it. And they provided a report. I'm not going to go into great detail, but um what I will say is that the the treatments have been successful. Um, and I will say that we're going to hold off uh for treatment
uh because we did it twice in a row uh for two years. We're going to hold off for one year and see how it works and then do another assessment late um late during the season in 2026. Uh TRC is going to go out there and do some screening to see um if we need to treat
in 2027, which I assume we will. Um but we're just going to hold off on the 2026 um chemical treatments. All right. Um I have to ask if we have any new member prospects.
>> We we did. Um we have um they seem to not want to email me. So I'm still waiting on receiving those emails, but I've been putting out a lot of feelers to a lot of people that are interested in the conservation side of things, open space uh preservation side
of things. Um, I've been doing what I can uh in person. I haven't uh jumped on the social media platform because I'm afraid to uh put it out there. So, um but I might I may need to do that. So, we'll see. >> Yeah. And then just uh among commission
members uh and you're talking to friends. Uh don't forget we have an opening. All right. So, uh, moving on to continue public hearings. Um, the first one, uh, had
requested a continuence. We dealt with that. Then file number 251188, which is 65 Hill Street, um, has a notice of intent for uh, construction of a single family dwelling. Do we have a
representative of that applicant? >> Uh, yes. It's Nick Helling from Level Design. >> And you able to share your screen with the plan? >> I am. Second. I sent a request to share
your Perfect. Thank you. All right. So, uh 65 Hill Street, John, is that that's lot um two, correct?
For um >> Yes, >> we Thank you. So, 65 uh 65 Hill Street. Um, we're construct [Music] >> uh, somebody didn't have their mic. Um,
>> I needed >> Okay. But, um, just for clarity, from what I could tell, as far as Locust goes, this is pretty much in the middle of Hill Street. Is that a fair statement Nick? >> Yes, I I agree with that.
>> All right, you can go on. >> Okay. We're looking to uh construct a single family house um with a title 5 compliant uh system. Uh this is would just be a typical trenches and trenches system. Um as you can see
on the plan, there's wetlands to the west uh also known plan north. Um Matt Marorrow was the consultant that went out and delineated that and he als we just submitted a delineation report from him confirming his delineation with transact forums.
It's all been surveyed and uh located on this plan. Um all work will be outside of the 25 ft no build, but we do have some extensive grading and the majority of the house will be within the 100 foot buffer. Um
the system itself is outside of that and the main thing is that we're we'll be installing uh straw waddle fence back with straw waddle uh along the edge of our limited disturbance which comes up
against that 25 ft no buffer zone. Um happy to answer any questions but this one that's that's basically the gist of it. Um, so your grading is 2:1. Is that right?
>> Uh, the majority of the contours are 3:1. It gets a little tighter around the system up front. Um, just for for breakout elevation, it's uh 2 1/2 to one. >> Uh, but right around the house and then
proceeding further back. >> That is all 3 to one. >> 3 to one. Great. >> Uh, any questions from Commissioner? >> Can you just zoom in on the grading there? So, the existing grade is 79.
What's the foundation? >> So, uh, the top of foundation, the top of concrete will be at 89. The garage is at 875 and it's going to be a walk out. Uh, so the walk out will be at 82. >> So, you're bringing in 10, well, not 10
ft of fill. bringing in 88. Uh yeah, almost. Is that just because of the septic groundwater? >> Correct. Correct. It's uh due to the septic system. >> Okay. So, >> yeah, we we were seeing redox models at
37 in from surface. [Music] >> So, it's extensive fill in here. There is um there's there's three lots proposed right next to each other. The
first one um not within the uh commission's jurisdiction. Uh but the other two obviously within your jurisdiction. It'll all be graded out together. It won't it won't be like mounding of each home. It's going to look nice. Um it just will be graded up
from Hill Street. Was this a prior gravel excavation site? Do you think it require No, >> I don't believe so. Um there's some walking trails uh to the north or the west of the site plan north. Um and
there's the that kind of leads the bike path and it seems like it was just there's wilding complexes which has never been developed. [Music] >> Uh John, do you have any comments on this site? Yeah. Nick, did we ever take a look across the street at the throttle
pool and stuff like that? >> Yes, we did. Um on the next lot, you'll see all of that uh just none of that kind of made its way onto this lot, I think. Um and if it did, it was it was slightly catching uh the edge
of the lot line. >> Okay. I'll I'll I'll hold my hold my concerns until we see the next uh project there. But no, Matt did Matt Marorrow did provide a um wetland report and provided
D transct forms. Um so I can't really say anything negative about kind of what he provided. He gave us a very thorough uh report and he provided the wetland transct forms. I had some concerns uh regarding the wetland delineation uh and
that's why I asked him for the information but I went out there took a look took some soil cores and uh can see what he was talking about with his delineation. All right. Uh, so is this something that we would close
tonight for an order next round or um I mean if the commission is comfortable with the design as it's currently shown uh for this slot? Um, you know, we definitely could and I can draft up a draft order for the next uh
meeting if the commission feels comfortable with that. Yeah, I just trying to figure the overlay of the um Oh, I see where it is. The the driveway
into the garage. So, is that flat there from >> I see I guess you have a contour that accommodates the the driveway into the garage. >> So, so currently it's kind of a bowl,
but I think they're going to build this one up a couple feet. So, it's going to be on somewhat of a I would call it a mound mounted uh residence. Right. But the driveway passes over a part of the leeching field.
So I assume at that point that the lot would be level. Correct. Yeah. Um so we we come out uh out of the garage at I think it's um 1 and a half% over the leeching field. We don't go over any of the max um slopes
in that area. And then as as we get past the overdig area, we start um and the breakout elevation area, we start to gray back down. >> Okay. All right. So, any further questions either in the room or
on the call um about this uh project and uh how does the commission feel about closing this versus keeping it open? The only the only issue
with uh closing versus keeping it open is I don't know if anything's going to happen at our next meeting or you know with regard to getting a quorum and and all that stuff. So it it might be practical
um to um keep the the hearing open. Does the applicant have any any um I think the applicant is looking to close the hearing tonight, but if the
commission isn't comfortable with that, I I don't see um >> well, operationally it wouldn't matter assuming there's no big problem. We we would just, you know, close it at our next hearing and issue the order of that. >> Yeah, if that's what the commission is
comfortable with, then we were more than happy to go along with that. >> Okay. I I would prefer that myself. Uh and other commissioner commission members, are you okay with that plan? Uh
if so, we can go ahead with a motion to continue the hearing until um the 24th. Yes that >> yes, >> 24th. So moved. >> All right, we have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Dan. Um so Lisa and Dan, how
do you vote? I >> and Mark I >> and I'll throw in an I. So the motion carries. So we may not need to see you next time, Nick, on this. You can check with with John because it may be simple
procedural that will close and and issue the uh >> Okay. >> Uh so our next item on the agenda is 63 Hill Street, which is file number 250-1190. It's also a single family dwelling and
um Nick, I assume you're going to be the representative on that as well. >> I am Nick Kelly from level design representing the applicant. Um this is basically, you know, the same proposal as the other site. Um less disturbance
of the 100 ft buffer zone kind of just kisses the side of this lot. Um big concerns for this lot. There is a certified vernal pool across the street of Hill Street. Um we have the 100T
buffer to the vernal pool there. Uh none of the uh septic components are within that 100 foot or also is a BBW across the way. Um and same there, none of the septic components are in that. It's more of grading the site as well. There's a
culvert that runs under Hill Street. Um, just with the grade change of us picking it up due to redox, we're going to be picking that culvert up and bringing it 146 ft to a flare down section with a rip wrap apron to extend it out. That's
for um any high groundwater scenarios um coming from the other side of Hill Street. And that's its natural uh outfall anyways. So, just picking it up through the pipe, bringing it to its natural place. Um, besides that, it's
it's basically the same grading within those setbacks. But I'm happy to answer any questions about this one. >> Uh, so you have your septic. Is that a gravity feed to the field or? >> Yes, it's gravity.
Uh any questions uh from commission members or John? Anything? Any any comments? >> So I guess my question, Nick, for you is did you talk to the highway department about touching that cover cuz they own
Hill Street? >> Understood. Um I would have to check in. Um I personally haven't checked in with them, but Dan Campbell might have. Uh >> I would have Dan reach reach out to Jared and see if he has an issue with that. >> Perfect. um you know because he's in
charge of maintaining the drainage under Hill Street and through Hill Street. So you're just going to have to get his sign off for that if you're going to modify it. >> Okay, perfect. >> And I'm glad that you guys modified the plan to show the septic system outside
the the required 100 foot from the certified burner pool. Um, in addition to the previous plan, what I would do is for lot two, just show the buffer on that plan. Uh, just in case there's a modification
in any sort of concern or anything, uh, in the future >> and the septic system needs to be, you know, upgraded or whatnot, they know that they can't put it over there. Um, just show the buffer. >> We'll do. >> All right. Um, but this one looks like
you have stayed outside the required areas for the for this uh port of health setbacks. Um, do you want to scroll up a little bit on the plan, please? >> Yes. >> And obviously, you know, the setbacks for the wetlands out back as well. Where
is that? Is it buffer the plan? Yeah. Okay, >> it is. Yeah, it's unfortunately kind of gets lost in that area, but it's it's this uh phantom line right here. And that and that swale that swale shows up on the the other plan too, right? >> Yes. >> The one from lot two. Okay, >> it does.
>> So those that that system is at least 50 ft away from the wetland, right? >> Correct. >> So is that is that roof rack apron physically going to be located on the lot that we were just looking at to the left? there will be a bit of an overlap
and I'm happy to add that to the other plan as well. It just it didn't um it didn't look graphically appealing to have just that random rip rip wrap apron sitting there when we were doing the design, but more than happy to add it. >> Well, if it's in the buffer, we have to
improve it right on that lot. It's going to be tied to that lot. So, >> okay. >> Um has the rip wrap been sized for that location? uh I haven't done any uh calculations but uh but I can submit that as well if
that's you're looking for there >> and um this is kind of a question outside of conservation but is there a required slope of that pipe? >> Yeah, normally drain pipes we would do
our minimum slope of half a percent. Um this slope this pipe is 1.03%. 03%. And that's kind of where why we have the outfall back here. It was to get that proper pitch from the existing culvert invert to back here to have proper pitch
for any um strong water. >> Okay. >> Who who will be responsible for maintaining that pipe? >> Yeah, that's that's a good question, Lisa. >> If there's any debris clogging it, it needs to be cleaned out. Is that going to be um the homeowner,
both homeowners? >> Uh under my understanding it would be the homeowner um for that pipe. >> So >> So how are they going to know that that's their obligation? How do how do we make sure that gets into the hands of
the homeowner that they're going to be are they going to own this pipe? Is it going to be in an easement? Is the town going to own it? I guess that would have to be a question for DPW, too, to see what kind of error. >> I'm going to tell you right now, I'm
going to tell you right now, I don't think DPW is going to want that. So, um, you know, I would say that if you're going to do this, you're going to have to make a drainage easement that both land owners share and they're both going to be responsible for it. Um, that way
it's their responsibility. And the DPW will determine the access uh covers. Like I assume you would have to have an access at that elbow
in order to get equipment and to to clean it out. >> They'll probably make recommendations. Yeah. >> As to what they would be looking for. Um but the land owners both joint land owners um for 65 and 63 will h have the
only rights to basically maintaining that. I think that is probably the approach that you should take. >> All right. >> Perfect. >> Yeah. My concern is how we inform the potential future homeowner of that. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I think that one one of the conditions
would be we have it recorded in the order of conditions and have it be within the deeds before they're sold. >> Okay. >> And give them give them suggested language. So, this is an item that uh
will need to be added, I think, before we can consider closing this this lot. Although it may if it becomes a shared easement, it really kind of affects both lots,
but you'll have to work that out with um with DPW. Uh so nothing else on this really merits uh our attention. And it looks like everything most the activities outside
of either buffer. >> Yeah, I think they definitely have covered their bases from meeting all the setback requirements which is good uh for it's just the construction aspect of it and making sure that you know anything they do within the frontal pool
buffer gets restored back to whatever it's supposed to be for this one. No, I my guess is is all the whole lot going to be cleared or because I don't see a edge of tree line. >> Yeah, there's going to be just for how
the walk out um for the house is there'll be it's it's kind of tough to see. Um but this dash line is kind of our limit of disturbance. >> Okay. >> Um and it will be cleared up into here. Uh it's >> the whole lot. >> Yeah, the whole lot's going to be
cleared up. Yeah. >> So, I guess the question is just add what the vegetative ground cover is supposed to be to the plans. Um cuz I don't see it on here like manic lawn or grass grass lawn.
>> All right. I think uh we can consider a motion to continue because you do need to come back with that info about the fight. >> Definitely. >> Mr. Chair, I don't know if you're going to ask for comments from the from the public or the participants.
>> Uh yeah, we can we can actually move on unless there are further comments from the commission, we can we can move on. Uh so uh why don't you identify yourself and where you're located relative to this
and ask your question. Certainly. My name is Amy Conley and I happen to live to the right uh which is Amy Griffin and Richard Connley with otherwise known as used to be lot four. So we're to the
right of this proposed uh development. Um, my question or concern would be, you know, again, I'm not an expert reading these plan designs, but I see that it's a walk out basement. I'm just concerned about the corn the
contours or the grading and how that might impact our lot. I certainly wouldn't want, you know, water or the drainage to be heading toward our directions. So my guess is looking at it being a walk out basement that there's going to be a lot of fill required to
bring that house up to a certain point. >> Uh you want to comment on the grading uh with relation to that lotic? >> Yeah, definitely. Um so as the contours are of course we can get more data to
the property line, but it seems that there's a high point within the lot. You can see this A3 contour right here. Um, and then it starts to slope down towards the wetlands that way. And then it starts to kind of slope around and then back towards the wetlands this way. Um,
so we're keeping that high point as is as we're tying in to that area. So all the water that kind of lands up here will flow back around towards the back. This is going down towards the wetlands.
And then for here, um, it's more of kind of continuing what it does. The 82 contour used to run in here. Um, the 83 would run back here. We're just bringing the 83 around. We're just directing more
flow towards the um towards Hill Street. But more than happy to kind of grade in soil in here just just to kind of really drive home that that water won't be running on that excess water won't be running onto your site to your property.
>> Appreciate that. Yeah. >> Sorry, just for context, we had a similar project to this concern happen and that's what level design did uh to remedy the situation. Um, I would just suggest during construction to put some
silk fence along the barrier of the Connley's and the project site just to make sure that any sort of sedimentation and stuff doesn't go onto their property. So, just a recommendation. >> We'll definitely uh add that up in um to
that. Nick, is there any reason not to pull that 83 and then the eight and then leave that, you know, even if it's I don't know what the scale is playing. It's 10 15 ft between that lot and the and the Conley's and leave that natural instead of clearing up to the property line.
>> Um I I think the the limited disturbance I think we do have the ability to kind of tuck it in. Um the only thing with the 83 contour are you saying to bring it closer to the house? Is that is that where you're >> Yes. and try to leave the 80 to you know
where it is? >> Uh we can definitely look into that since we're going to have to do some plan updates. Um it was just more I think the design choice here was to have a more gradual yard than kind of from the house grading down and then gradual. Um,
>> are are there trees there now on that side? >> Over here there's there's some there's a few trees. I feel like it it to my memory that the site is kind of open towards the front and then as we come back to this back left corner and even into this back right corner, it starts to get a little thicker.
>> Yeah, that side doesn't have a lot of vegetation right there. >> Okay. I mean, I would see if you could could tighten those grains up to leave that more natural as possible between the next property line. Um, and that also
might reduce some of the runoff that's going there. >> Yeah, this that we'll definitely look into that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions from people in the meeting or in the meeting room?
And if not, >> I'm sorry. I guess that I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. Say your name. >> My name is Matthew Griffin and I too live on adjacent at 61 Hill Street.
[Music] My comments relating back to this drainage extension uh and concerns that I had. I was you maintain maintain maintenance because uh right now
that comes in, it flows all the way down to the hillside and forms a very large uh pull area. which gets quite high and it goes all
the way back to the trail, the railroad line, the trail and runs north along a drainage ditch also which is all part of the I think when they built the railroad down there. That's how they
drain that whole area and goes to north above uh the property area of uh 61. Behind 61, there's a large pond
and the pond will also drain till that same section to the uh trail and the water from that point builds up and flows under the trail out to the other wetlands.
uh mainten that area where the uh flows under the trail that compon it's always consistently filled with leaves is hardly anybody taking maintenance on that
concern about that long extension but in the pipe uh keeping that clean and falling up a lot of leaves and stuff will fall through there a lot of the water comes down too. It comes down from the streets and flows
down to a congregate into the easterly side of Hill Street into that area and this one eventually also flows all the way back into that other area with that
pipe that you're planning on. So maintaining it I think is a a big issue. Yeah, I can't imagine homeowners want to have the expense of cleaning that clean.
So, that's my >> Thank you. >> Uh well, I think you know that's really a key point uh that we're concerned about as well. it it's not within our jurisdiction, but DPW needs to weigh in
and uh Nick is going to bring us that information back as to what DPW's preference is. Uh with that, uh any further questions?
If not, we can consider a motion to continue this hearing for file number 250-1190. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Lisa. So, uh, Mark and Dan, how do you
vote? >> I. >> And Lisa, >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. So, uh, thank you, Nick. And >> thank you for your time. We probably will be seeing you uh at the next meeting for this one. Um
now we are at um file number 250-1191 lane. Um and I cannot recall the information that we were missing. So maybe you could bring us up to date on that. Uh, Courtney, are you the
representative or who is the representative? >> Courtney with PMP Consulting. I'm here with Mark Dib. >> All right. Good evening. Uh, Mark Tib with PMP Consulting on behalf of the applicant
for the Abrau Lane subdivision. So, uh, we were before this commission, um, a few weeks ago and we received some questions from commissioners as well as there was a referral for a peer review, um, that happened at that meeting. Uh,
we did receive peerreview comments on October 15th and submitted a response to that as well as we just received a follow-up review today uh, that I can discuss as well. I'm going to with your permission I'd like to share my screen.
>> Sure. [Music] So, I'll just go through the changes we made. Um, touch base on the peerreview uh results and final letter we received today. then I'll hand it back to
questions from the commissioners. Um, first thing we changed was the style uh of the building on what we call lot number one. I think if you recall the the garages were were kind of out on the edges. So, it was a longer building. It
was pushed uh more to the to the east and north towards the wetlands by changing the style of the building. Uh, we were able to get most of the building uh more than 50 ft away from the wetlands. This corner is at about 48 ft
as opposed to 33 ft in the previous version. So we we pushed the building we also pushed it uh forward towards the road and to the west uh on the property. The uh question from the peer reviewer
was related to the drainage um design in the easterly portion of the site. We originally had uh one drain point uh that kind of connected both the driveway and this this drainage ditch to this area of Elm Street. Um at the request
the suggestion of the peer review, we split that up into two drainage points. Uh the existing conditions associated with the wetland as well as the existing conditions associated with the existing
driveway. And by doing that um we also added uh an additional bio retention area in this in this location of the property. So it's the east of uh the building on lot one. What that does is
manages the majority or about 70% of uh the roadway runoff uh gets into that bio retention area first and that's at kind of a higher elevation. and we're able to sheet flow it in at elevation 101 as well as then the remaining smaller
section of runoff goes into um actually sorry this is bio retention 2A and then the one by the road is 1A um and that addressed a couple of the concerns from the peer reviewer um one was that we we
were taking the overall runoff um and reducing runoff on the overall property instead instead. Now we're reducing runoff for each of the different design points. Um so as you'll see if you read the peer reviewers uh letter from today
um the runoff in the area of the existing driveway which is now the proposed driveway has been reduced. It's also treated where it wasn't in the past. Um so there is still um some discharge out
to the street but in a reduced fashion and the peer reviewer stated that that mel met the storm water uh requirements for the project. The we also
um two items in the peer reviewers um letter from today. Uh one was related to the stone diaphragm. he felt we still hadn't addressed 100% a comment. Um, basically what the comment is is that we need to show either a specific detail of
that stone diaphragm or just a dimension here on the stone area of um 6 in that that stone diaphragm is 6 in deep on that. So, we do need to just add that um
detail. And then I had one more item to review my There we go. Excuse me. Um the additional another comment associated with the peer review uh was that we this
basin is designed you see in the the note to be at elevation 103.07 where we have a 103 contour. This contour just needs to be adjust adjusted to be labeled as 103.07
instead. Um and um again back to the drainage design. Um these basin areas can also be used during construction as um
temporary holding areas for sediment. Um there we still have provided silt sacks out in the roadway. That's important for a project like this, but we can divert any construction related um settlement into these areas and then they can be
prior to being finalized. Any rehabilitation can be done prior to uh the bio retention soils and vegetation that's needed. I believe those are the main changes for
the project and be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Um, John, do you have any comments on this or are you all set? >> I haven't been in the office, so I
didn't know that we received the um the report, but I can trust that we did. we did >> and that the applicant is stating those facts from the report. >> U but so it sounds like
we want to continue this to be sure you have time to um study it adequately but it sounds like we may have gotten all the information we need to close it on the next meeting and issue an order. Is that
kind of your first reaction? I mean, I will definitely be drafting up an order for this project for the next meeting. It seems like they're at the finish line. Um, I just haven't been able to read Pat's report, so Okay. Um,
uh, any questions from commission members? >> Um, I I have a couple. >> Sure. >> So, Mark, you mentioned the conversion of the temporary basins to the post-development of bio retention areas. Is are there notes on the plan to that
effect? So the contractor can follow those accordingly. >> Um I can make sure that that the erosion and sedimentation control plan uh shows that it it sounds like we're going to have to um you know just wait for this
final just read through through the letter and stuff like that. So um I will make sure that the appropriate notes related to that are on that plan. >> Okay. Um, yeah, it's so that the contractor knows they have to remove any of the sediment
that builds up during construction. Um, the other question I had, is this going to be a homeowners association that's going to be maintaining this or is this going to become a public way or >> um maybe if I know there's a couple
other people from PMP consulting on I don't have that answer so maybe somebody else can let them jump in. I am also not sure if there'll be a homeowners association for that. Um,
we can certainly get that answer. >> Um, I guess my concern is I assume you have an O and M plant with in the storm water report. >> Yes. >> Um, correct. Again, it's it's making sure that the homeowners understand what their obligation is. I mean, if it were,
you know, become a public way, that's easy. The DPW takes care of it. But, uh, it's just making that connection to the the homeowners, um, that is my concern. So, if you could find that out before the next hearing, that would be great. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions? >> So, we can open it up to uh anyone in the meeting who may have a question um about this project. And if there are none, we can consider a motion to continue this hearing until
uh November 24th. [Music] >> Sorry, December the 24th, right? >> Uh yes, it's uh yes, that's correct. >> Okay. So move second. >> We have a motion by Lisa, seconded by
Dan. So Lisa and Dan, how do you vote? I >> and Mark I >> and I'll throw a n motion carries. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. >> Um so the next item on the agenda is
file number 250-1178 [Music] uh 0 Leonard Street for single family house. And um so you have some added information.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chair. Mark Brown here with Guard Consulting here on behalf of the applicant. Um can I share my screen? >> Uh yeah, but uh everyone out there was able to hear him adequately. Is that correct? >> He is. Okay, there you go.
>> Um so I'm just going to share uh So, um I think to recap, um so we um submitted a revised plan to show um the spot grades that would typically be shown as part of the elevation certificate for the FEMA program um on
the plan. So, I've highlighted those those spot grades in these blue clouds here. So, you can see we've kind of put them around the area and also around the house itself. I even I forgot to I missed one right here. Sorry. Um but basically elevations around the whole house are are now shown just to show
clearly um that location. Something that John had asked about in terms of of the FEMA process. Um I just wanted to to clarify another thing that seemed to be a little bit confusing at the last hearing and I just wanted to read. Um this is from um Katie Pageant from the
uh the um the mass FEMA program. um basically walking through um what this kind of project how it results basically and things and and basically I'm just going to read this email. I just forward this to John but it says if the property owner wants to remove themselves in the flood plane based on elevation they can
place the fill and then apply and receive a lomar lomar f. Once that lomar f was received they could build a structure that structure would have to meet the technical bulletin requirements. Also when they apply for the loan MFR that they they will be it will require the community to sign or
sign agreement that acknowledge and form that the removed area is reasonably safe from flooding. Um so just as clarification as to FEMA's process in terms of of work in the flood plane um FEMA wants um information on a changed flood plane
before they change a flood plane map. So um as this project has proposed um we have an existing elevation of 73.5 for FEMA that has been added to that is shown as the existing conditions elevation and then we have a proposed elevation of 73.5 moving it around where
the proposed building would be built and um providing compensatory storage as as the regulations um allow for. So, um I don't know if John wants to give the commission the update on his research or what I provided to him. Um and I think
he dug up some more stuff even in town versus um what I have done in the state as a whole in terms of the LSF. But I think there was some questions too about um is this even allowed or done elsewhere? Um so John, do you want me to summarize what we sent you or um how
would you like that clarification? >> I think I think it's probably best to stay local. um just to kind of keep the commission apprised. This was done uh in town for another project uh for Cond and it went through the whole entire appeals
process and DP basically stated that this was a feasible way about doing things provided that the compensatory flood storage was um the proceedings with that were in accordance and that
for instance the project was able to receive that LMA LMER F that Marquez has alluded to. Um so that was done as part of D's um I guess under their their um provisions cuz it was an appeal. So
there was a superseding order for that one. Uh and they followed out the suit for that work for um I think it was lot 15 to be built for conduct. So um it seems the same process is being done but on a much smaller scale for a single
family house. Um, I don't know what the time frame and the complexities are with the applicant receiving a Walmart F, but you know, that's going to be at their expense and obviously they can pursue that process with FEMA um at their
discretion. Um but you know as part of this project I think as I see it what we're doing is uh permitting them to put in fill and uh provide compensatory flood storage for that impact. Uh so that way they can basically create this
buildable pad for them to construct a house which is technically not going to be in our jurisdiction because it would be outside the the actual flood plane elevation. So they have some actually leg work to do before they can actually do this work. But that's you know that's
their prerogative and that's the what they're trying to propose for this project. So it is a permittable project under D's guidance. But you know at the same point I just I haven't seen it I never haven't seen it done this way. So you know it's a learning experience for me.
>> So can I ask for clarification? So you're actually not bringing in fill to get this out of the flood zone right? They're actually cutting it lower. They're actually putting the lot in the flood zone. Is that is that correct? >> So the the property is in the flood zone.
>> Yes. >> And and that flood zone it goes up to this red line. I think we can all agree that that's where the flood line is. Yeah. So >> we're proposing to bring we're proposing basically to take material if you want to say out of this area here
and out of this area here. And some of that soil is being taken off site and some of that material is being used in here to raise this area out of the flood plane. As a result, you end up with a larger area flood plane volume on
the property. um which is a net improvement to the flood plane because you're actually reducing flood risk net in the wershed because we're actually removing material from the flood plane which gives the flood plane the a greater ability to function as
provisioned under 105 uh 310 CMR 1057. >> Okay. Can can you go back to FEMA's or FEMA, whoever wrote that letter, the very first sentence about importing or placing fail, right? Not cutting, but
placing fill to remove property from a flood zone, right? Is that >> Yeah, I'm going to >> Yes, it is. And let me just I'm just going to pull it up so you can actually see it on the screen here. So, here's the email right here. Um, and it says if the property owner wants to remove themselves from the flight plane on the
elevation, they could place the fill and then apply >> right there. Stop. Stop right there. That's all I've seen in 35 years is people placing fill to elevate yourself out of the flood zone, not cutting
and creating flooding around the site. So that's the big issue I have with this project is that you are creating more flood zone around the house. So if you go back to the h the pl the plan,
excuse me, you're actually lowering the grade so that if it floods, three sides of that house can be underwater. >> Great. Compensatory storage requires that we create at least an equal amount of flood plane volume. I'm not talking
about compensatory storage. I'm just talking about the proposed grades. Forget about compensatory storage for a second. There's a 100-year flood, right? >> Yes. >> And two sides of that house is going to be surrounded by flooding. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Again, 99.9% of the time people bring in Phil. So, he would have brought in Phil to elevate the entire site, put up some walls, and called it a day and said it's out of the flood zone. Why that didn't happen here,
I don't know. Um, that's all I'll say. And I will also allude to MEMA's um FEMA's uh letter that says fit. So, that's all I have to say. >> But in order to comply with no net
filling of the flood plane, that's why the cuts were necessary. Uh, so I I'm not really sure I understand what your question is. Uh, Lisa, >> I I don't have a question. What I'm saying is as a conservation commission
member, I do not feel comfortable approving a project that results in flooding on three sides of the house. >> Well, that's all I'm going to say. I'm done. I'm done looking at this. I'm done commenting on it. That's all I have to say.
>> Okay. You agree or disagree? Just as an observation, I think if we do get a 100red-year flood, there are many other houses in this town that will be surrounded by water on three sides, >> right? And that's why we usually bring in fail. You don't lower the grade. It's
bad engineering practice. It's not good engineering practice. And one thing I want to clarify for the record, I asked if this was signed by a PE and you said it didn't have to be. uh according to 310 and I don't know it off the top of my head there is a provision that allows the conservation commission to uh ask
you to have a PE stamp this if it's complicated project. So I just want to clarify that for the record and I would love to see this stamp by a PE and not pls. That's just my wish list. I'm done. >> All right. Um,
any further questions from commission members and uh any questions from anyone in the meeting? [Music] Um, so John, it's your assessment that
we have everything we need to be able to close this um this u hearing. I mean, based on the Wells Protection Act, I mean, if someone's trying to fill in a resource area, you have to mitigate
and compensate for it. Um, you know, based on just that alone, I mean, they're not even proposing a house with this project. I mean, they're showing it on the plan, but what we're permitting for this project is basically just the fill because if they get this loma
uh RF, then for instance, that house is no longer in the flood plane and therefore that construction of the house is not subject to the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. That's how I look at it because that's the only thing that's applicable for it being in
our jurisdiction currently. And you know that fill that's being proposed needs to be mitigated and that's what the applicant's proposing. So if it was any other project, you know, where they were filling in wetlands, they'd have to mitigate for them. If they were filling
in um any, you know, other sort of resource area, they'd have to mitigate for it. And you know what I've looked at and what I've researched um you know it is permittable provided that you provide the necessary mitigation to offset the
impacts at a ratio that is acceptable to the conservation commission. So you know obviously that is kind of what we have and for us we don't have a bylaw. So our ratio is 1:1 and I believe Mark correct me if I'm wrong but you are providing more mitigation with this project.
Correct. >> Correct. Correct. We we're providing additional mitigation in the flood plan. >> And what is the uh what is the ratio of mitigation that you're providing for BLS engine? >> Um I think it's close to 2:1
here. Um let me just look at the numbers again. Hold on. It's It's cuz we're we're we're filling 2,267 cubic feet of volume and we're creating 3,617 cubic feet. So, it's it's well over 1
one. Um, it's really the wrong way. Sorry. It's like 1.59 one. >> Okay. So, you're you're between one and two ratio. >> Yep.
>> But we're over 1.5, >> but you're over one. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that's and that's and that's at every and that's at every interval. So this this this mitigation is not only a volume, it's also an interval of
elevation which um our elevations actually have a mitigation value at a lower elevation rather than the upper elevation. So there's that the mitigation factor is also doubled by the fact that we've mitigated further below than we did needed to and therefore it's actually a double benefit to a flood
plane because we're mitigating at the lower elevation um to help. So, so, so let me ask you this question and maybe you can provide a little bit more guidance for me because I don't obviously I'm very new to this kind of, you know, scenario. Um, now would you
would FEMA want you to fill the flood plane? Let's say for instance, hypothetically this project was approved and you received an order of conditions for this. Um, would they want you to basically have a certificate of compliance from the Conservation
Commission before you applied for this LOM RF or would you apply with this plan to FEMA to basically get approval from them? >> So, you don't you don't file to FEMA necessarily for um filling. It's it's a
question of the the the balance of it and also the fact that there's a change that that that still balances it. So that's again that's why FEMA doesn't say uh give us a plan we'll approve it then you can fill it and then we'll make the map change after that fill is done. it
it says you fill you show us that it changed and works and there we go. So, in terms of this project, the way I see this happening, if we do receive an order of conditions, is I'd expect the commission to have a condition that says that the building, which is currently within your jurisdiction, um is is
cannot be constructed until a a map change has been received from FEMA to confirm that the elevations have been appropriately approved by FEMA, that the flood plan has been properly mitigated, and that um and that and that matter has been addressed, and that would that would ensure a few things. One that
before this the value of this property is received by building a house, the commission has already received their mitigation because there's a plan that shows that that mitigation has been completed. Um second, it also gets confirmation through FEMA that everything is in in order in terms of FEMA. So the commission has has
confirmation through basically an intern as bill which the commission can ask for an intermill. Basically after the competitor storage is constructed and the fill is placed as proposed the applicant needs to submit an intern as built and an approval from FEMA that the map is that the footprint is changed
prior to the construction of the house and that would allow this commission to control one the mitigation occurs first and two ensure that FEMA is is in order and then after that then the commission can authorize basically phase two and this is like a a big project commission
often approve projects where they're allowed to start work in phases and each phase has to be kind of let opened up by the agent or the commission where the applicant has to demonstrate that phase one is complete and satisfied and stabilized before you go to phase two. Similar here basically we we do the we
do the filling we do the compensorary storage we get everything stabilized we do a map change with FEMA we demonstrate to this commission that we have a a a top too that complies with the compensatory storage and then we're allowed to proceed. That's kind of where I see this and and that's kind of what
we've done before in terms of projects where we're actually trying to move things around in the flood plane. So that's I think that would make the most sense again to provide protection to this commission and particularly ensuring that the compensator source is completed per the plan um in an appropriate manner and and prior to
other value being provided to the project. >> All right. If I could simplify that, you're going to reshape the lot, presumably stabilize the ground, proceed with your process for approval of the reshaping by FEMA,
and then build the house. >> Exactly. Cuz then we can actually comply with the building requirements and everything else as well. And that's that that's kind of what they that FEMA talks about in their letter. >> All right. So the only thing that that we're doing is also tagging along and
being sure that we agree with the reshaping of the law and then you're out of our jurisdiction. As as John has said, >> the commission has jurisdiction over the the the the resource areas on this plan
until a certificate of compliance has been issued. >> So in terms of that this that's the beauty of this project is the commission has jurisdiction to commission everything about the house as well. CO. All right. But um so we're all uh in
agreement as to how this will proceed. Uh so with that said, we potentially are in a situation where um we can either close or continue. But I
think we have everything we need to close. Unless I'm wrong, John. Is that right? >> No, I mean, I think the commission is open to, you know, make a decision on this project. I think Mark has um done
what he can from his side to provide us the necessary information for the commission to make a a decision on this. >> Don't we want to see a stamp from a PE? >> Well, that's true. I think one of the conditions was that Lisa did state that
she wanted to see the plan stamped as a PE. So, um, you know, if that's what's going to hold this up and Lisa is adamant about the PE stamp, I would say that we need to get that PE stamp for the plan. Well, Lisa's not adamant about it. Lisa
is just reminding the commission that we can require it because it's a complex project. [Music] So >> my not my uh call. >> If we were to close this
and then um deliberate and one member chooses not to support the project, the three remaining members really can't issue an order. Is that correct, John?
>> That's correct. We have four members issuing order conditions. >> It's a seven member board, John. >> Yes. >> You need four for action. >> Well, we only have six right now. >> Well, so I guess um
although in the next meeting we have may have more than four. Well, I guess >> did we did we lose members? >> Uh, no. We we have two absences tonight because of work conflicts. >> Okay.
>> Um, >> so this as a reminder too, the the commission could ask that the interim as belt be staffed by a PE if they wanted to. So that way they feel comfortable that what is shown on this plan has been adequately done and reviewed by a PE.
That might I don't know if Lisa that might help your question of of concern again the PE stamping the fact that the grading and all the flood stage or was properly done. Um would that be sufficient Lisa for for your concern in
terms of of the PE stamp? Um I I at this point the commission has two issues. One is potential for lack of action which I don't want to put them in. So, but we'd also like to close um because this this has been going on for a while and um as
been discussed tonight, this project is a legitimate project since we've stated. Um but I if if anything, is the chair willing to have it John direct the uh to the chair able to have John draft an order of conditions so we can maybe
close and issue at the next meeting? >> Mark, I have drafted an order of conditions for this project already. >> Okay. Um I guess my only concern to the sheriff is is is delaying the meeting going to still result in a lack of quorum by this commission inability to actually move
forward. Um so in terms of action that that's my only concern here. >> Um if we try to act on it tonight, I think likely um we will not be able to issue.
>> Okay. and and I'm just so that that puts the >> we still may be in a situation of not being able to issue next time, but there may be more members and we have a discussion.
I mean, if we got close to or even had a full board of six, then everyone can weigh in uh as to whether they feel comfortable with this project or not. I'm I'm pretty sure we can get approval with a 3-1 vote here tonight. If there
were three if there's four members here, you have you have a majority of the quorum projects. >> Yeah, but I never I haven't been in this circumstance where the vote may be less than a quorum
of the commission. >> Okay. uh >> as to whether or not that's a if that's a valid issue of >> John, are the other members who are not here actually qualified to vote >> at the next meeting? >> Well, one of them is not. The other one
is. >> Okay. >> Well, I'd have to check. >> Megan, you want to double check me on that? >> Yeah, I'd have to check um if Joe's available to vote uh cuz he might have missed two meetings for this. I'd have to go upstairs and check.
I think Courtney's out on this one now. >> She is. Yes. >> All right. Do you want us to close or continue? I guess besides Lisa, do the other commission members who are virtual, do they have any other questions or concerns about the project? I just want
to make sure I I know what I mean Lisa's been very good at being upfront with us on on her position and where she's standing. Um, just want to make sure that the other members on the the screen um are are are have clearly kind of looked at this project and just I'm just
trying to understand cuz I don't want to put this commission in an awkward position. That's my concern. Chairman is is is weird. So, >> we all have our own uh assessments of of given projects. So, we're all feel quite comfortable being
>> independent. No, again that's I'm just >> and you know with regard to my view toward this >> uh if the flood plane wasn't there no one would be uncomfortable reshaping the lot. Uh and to me the
flood plane presence is also not a barrier with regard to reshaping the lot because you're not changing the amount of flood water displacement. Uh which of course is a requirement that you not
change that. Um, so reshaping the lot is not really a reason for disqualifying the project. Um, you know, but we all can vote according
to how we feel. >> I think I think then I would I would I would request that the commission vote to close here tonight. uh because we we do feel we have a project that DP would approve and and we'd rather have this commission condition the project in a way that is appropriate and I think that
this board and John is able to do that in a manner that protects the interest of the act. >> All right. Um so unless there are further questions we can uh close the the hearing. That's that's not going to be.
So can we do we have a motion for that? So move >> second. >> Uh so motion made by Mark, seconded by Lisa. So Lisa and Mark got a vote. >> I >> I >> Dan
>> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. So we have uh one more hearing and before we can Oh no. We have several more hearings. All right. Well,
thank you. And we will move on to uh our next hearing which is Sir John Scott Boulevard 15-1174. This is a project where
we have uh a house in a small upront portion of a larger lot. Um, and uh, I think we got all the information we need. I don't know if there's even a representative present.
And um, I think we just >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, who was that that spoke with that? Mike. >> Mike Showcat. >> Okay. Was there additional information
required or are we at the point where It was just some the engineer should be on. I'm not sure if he's on. Bill, >> Bill sent me over some revised plans today um that he wanted me to show during the meeting.
>> Okay. >> I had Hello. >> Uh yes. >> Yeah. Hi, this is Bill Gwald. Uh at the last meeting, uh John had kind enough to share me with this note. So what the plan that I have submitted to you there just shows
um some of the questions were asked the last meeting such as um how we're going to access the well how we're going to uh protect the uh 25 ft uh buffer zone. We were going to put some boulders along there along with some post and
plackards. So I took everything off the the plan that was uh just to make it a little bit clearer what we proposed to do. So, as you can see, we're going to put the uh access road kind of probably about starting at the street, maybe 50 ft or more the buffer zone, and then
through where the proposed house is going to go. This is the access for the wall, by the way. Drive to the back, drill the well. Of course, before all that's done, we'll put the siltation control up, have uh John look at it and make sure
everything's okay, and uh put the well in. And then cuz a well, if you remember, is a couple feet into the 25 ft buffer zone. Actually, it's 22 ft off the uh uh the wetland flagging. So, drill the well and once everything the
well is uh tested and everything is okay, reestablish that 25 ft zone again with with the uh siltation control. And um once that's done, um Mike here, the owner, is is also be doing the site work. There's a number of boulders on
the property. So, last meeting was suggested we would kind of place those boulders along the uh 25 ft zone along with some uh post and plackets. I'm not sure what Norton does. I know in some towns they provide us a a sign uh uh to
mourn that this is a 25 uh foot buffer zone. So, that's what what I was proposing. And then any stockpile material will be the what's going to happen is the wall is going to go in first later on the the foundation and
then it will finish up with the septic. So any uh stockpile material will end up over in the uh septic area until that's done. And once it gets time for the septic that will be dug and the excess material will be hauled off site.
And um that's uh pretty much it. >> Yeah, you have a small structure up front near the road. Looks like it has a DW in it. >> Oh, yeah. Again, I took at at one of the
meetings that that that's called that was I took off a lot of the uh Well, if you look down below, that's that's going to be a drywall for the roof leaders. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. I put two of them. I put one there and uh I guess I have one in the the backside, but it's it's on the other
plan. But on this plan, I just tried to focus on what um how things were going to proceed as far as uh uh cleaning out the site. >> Okay. All right. Any questions about that um uh staging information?
>> Uh the one question I had was is somebody going to stake out that >> Yes. Yes. I I if you um up in the top part of the plan, I put kind of a sequence. So So I'm the engineer. So I will uh go out there and u mark the 25
ft zone for him. Flag it. And uh once it's flagged, uh Mike will put up the combination a silk fence and uh >> Oh, I'm sorry. I meant the the access road to the well for the drums. >> Um yeah, I that's not a problem. I can
stake that out also. >> Okay. Thank you. Not a problem. Now, >> uh >> I will add this plan is going to be in addendum to the to the other plan. It's not going to replace the other plan. >> No, not at all. >> Two plans.
>> It's just that everything was so tightly small that I felt was easy to take it off so everybody can see. >> No, it's just a more of an administrative thing. For instance, we're going to have two plans with with any sort of order conditions for this. >> I understand. >> Okay.
All right. Any further questions from commission members? Uh or now anybody in the meeting? If not, um I think we have everything at the close. Yes, John.
Yeah, I guess the only other recommendation I would have is just adding something in the order if we were going to issue an order this evening that stated that um the applicant shall follow this plan construction sequencing
dated whatever date it is. So Megan, if you if that happens, if you could just add that to the conditions. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. Uh, we can entertain an order to close the hearing for
250- 1187. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Dan, seconded by Lisa. Lisa and Mark, how do you vote? Hi. >> Hi. >> And Dan.
>> Hi. >> And I'll throw in an I. Motion carries. U. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> You bet. >> You, too. >> Next hearing is file number 250-118649 Highland Road. And there has, I guess,
been a request to withdraw the permit without prejudice. We have a motion by Lisa, seconded by by Mark. Lisa and Mark have your vote. >> I >> I >> and Dan >> I.
>> And I'll throw it on. Motion carries. Uh we now are at file number. The new public hearings file number 250- uh 1192 for 10 Robinson Lane, which um proposes
construction of a duplex, etc. Do we have a representative of the Yes, I do have a [Music] good evening. Kyle, Risser Engineering
Company, 93 George Welvin Drive in North Aro. Uh the plan we have tonight is for the construction of a new construction duplex at 10 Robinson Lane. Um there is an existing garage and office building on the site today. This that would now
be the accessory dwelling to the new proposed duplex. Um included with this construction would be all the proposed utilities grading. Uh we did show a silt vent sorry a silt sock around the perimeter of the limit
of disturbance. Um we have a silt sack and catch basin as well. Uh any clearing would be limited to within the outline of the silt sock. >> Sorry. Can we Can we zoom in? I can't
see anything. >> Sorry, that's my bad. >> Can't see a thing. Is that better? Okay, thank you. So, for this project, we are staying well outside of the 25 ft no disturb
zone. Uh we are surrounded by wetlands both to uh kind of on three sides of the project. Um across Robinson Lane and then along the uh northeast border. Um the septic system is outside the 50ft setback. Um
everything I believe within the site is located within the 100t setback. Um believe that is all I have for now. If there were any questions. So, >> I have a question. Uh, there's a sort of
a thick charcoal line uh that uh has about four sides to it, but it's not it's not closed on one side. I'm just wondering what what is that? >> That is the cell sock, the road control. >> Oh, okay.
>> So, you have it uh at the road because the road is slightly lower elevation or >> Yes. as well as there is a wetland across Robinson Lane. >> Ah okay. >> So this this project is surrounded
basically on all sides except the side of the existing garage by Wellers. >> Yeah. So the existing garage is is used currently as a garage and an office or is it a residence or >> uh it is for a business currently.
>> All right. So it's not actually a residence. Correct. >> Um and it it doesn't so its uses are not going to change. It's just that there's additional building on the same lot. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. >> So, can you label that garage as existing? Right now, it looks like it's proposed, but um >> yes, I can. >> That's one thing. So, and you're showing a water line to that. Is that proposed? >> Uh no, that is existing as well. Okay. You really need to make the
distinction between existing and proposed here because your line work looks exactly the same. >> Yes. >> So, let's clean up the plan a little bit and then can you go over the grading, please? >> Uh, so the grading the proposed duplex
will be a drive under garage. So, we are building up around the outside a little bit as well. Also, in order to keep the septic system as gravity fed to Bleachfield, um the grading all had to come up a bit so we could match the grades which are a bit higher up toward the existing garage.
>> So, what's existing grade on site? >> Um 106 looks like. >> Uh yes, there's a 106. There's a 108 running through the leech field. >> Okay. So, you're not bringing in that much fill?
>> No. No. The only area that would be coming up a decent amount is kind of to the the right and the back of the proposed duplex to match everything around it. >> Okay. Um for your uh silts detail, if you could um update that to not show the
stake through the middle of the uh netting, please. Um you can put it at a 45°ree angle. >> Yes. All right. Any further questions from commission or for that matter anyone on the meeting in the meeting?
So, uh, John, it looks like we have pretty much all the information needed to close on this one. >> Yeah, I can draft up a draft order for the next meeting if that's what the commission is looking towards. Yeah, the plan needs to be cleaned up. It's just not clear what's existing versus
>> proposed. I think that's definitely something they could do within the next 14 days. >> Yeah. So, so we'll we'll go ahead and continue it. Um I I assume you don't have any problems. We we close next time and issue the order.
>> All right. So, if there are no further questions or comments, we can consider a motion for continuation of this hearing until uh November 24th. >> So, moved. >> Second.
>> We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Lisa, uh Mark, and Dan. Any vote? I >> and uh I'm not well Lisa. >> Yeah.
>> So Dan, I guess you're whatever. You vote. Yes. Yes. And so I'll >> uh the motion carries. >> Um then we have determination number 114
11:45. uh Eddie Street for proposal to uh basically replace an existing deck with a SR [Music] about the 50 foot mark in the
uh do we have a representative the applicant or yes >> Hi good evening I'm Martin um owner of great construction and looking uh for an RDA uh just to propose to build a
proposed sun room approximately 16 by 16 with the same footprint that is currently uh a rear deck 16. >> Second we have a plan coming up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's get the plan up and then we can proceed.
[Music] All right, blow it up a bit. That's up to you. Okay, so this plan was done by uh Trobridge Engineering. Um this was originally approved for a much
larger project back in uh 2021. And um due to uh family circumstances, they've downscaled a lot. Um and they've changed the scope of the project. um all they're looking to do is basically replace their existing deck with uh the same size sun
room um same footprint. We're not looking to change the grade or anything. We're not bringing in he any heavy equipment to dig a foundation. This will be built on uh three helical piles. So it' be a relatively small machine we're bringing in. Uh we've shown the proposed
uh silt sock detail with the stakes behind the compost filter sock uh placed at a 45 degree um the uh it was done by Michael Trobridge and the original um wetland delineation
uh was done by um Godard consult. >> So that machine just basically screws those piles in. >> Yes. It's basically it's about the size of like a dingo, a Toro dingo if you're familiar with that type of machine. >> No, but it's small. >> It's small. It's about the size of a
tech mower or so. >> Uh, all right. Questions from commission members? >> No, I think I just ask that note put on the plan that you know, sure, you going to have equipment back there just to
restore and reed and uh stabilize the area that's disturbed? >> Yes. Yep. It will be about the size of like a mower path and it's really it's very little disturbance. It's basically it would be like bring a deck mower into the backyard. So it doesn't you know it
doesn't really um create a lot of disturbance to be honest with you. [Music] >> All right. But if you just put the note that will make it clear. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Um any other question?
>> They have a line of these. No, I was just going to say they have a line of these machines. Uh if you go to the Home Depot in Mansfield, uh they're lined up along the side of the uh the parking lot there. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh dingos.
>> All right. Uh any other questions or comments? [Music] So, I think we can >> Yeah, I I I have a question. My name is Joanna McDonald. I live next door
>> to um 28 Eddie Street >> and I'm just kind of wondering I didn't see any mitigation for water now coming off of this new construction. Right now it's a open deck. Um there's uh it's not shown on any plans that I've seen that
there is um an existing stone patio around most of this um area. So, I'm just concerned what the mitigation is of the water. >> Well, I mean, my impression is there's not
going to be any change. It's still, you know, this the same amount of water will be shed off of this structure as is shed off the existing deck. So, >> is it going to have gutters? >> Yes. Yeah, it's going to be a 16x6 sun
room with gutters attached. >> Okay. So, it's going to have gutters, and those gutters are going to discharge to a drywall. >> Um, typically they would just discharge how the house gutters discharge. Uh, I I'm not sure if they have if they
currently have a drywall. I'm not aware of one. >> So, John, does the town require dry wells? At least the planning board did. I don't know. Maybe not conditions, but >> yeah, we we recommend them. we don't
require them. Um it's an easy quick or easy long-term fix uh for alleviating especially if there's the patio out there. Um you know, it'll definitely, >> you know, allow for the water to infiltrate in the ground at a faster rate than to sheet flow across the patio
and and cause uh structural damage to that patio potentially. So, I would advise looking at it. um you know, we're not going to require it, but it's definitely it's going to help the longevity of that patio um function and values for the landowner.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's easy enough. >> So, I guess to answer the gutters question, it's it's going to have um gutters. >> Excellent. Cuz like I said, I didn't see that on any of the plans and I'm just concerned cuz their property slopes to
my property. So, I just want to make sure I don't have any issues. >> Thank you very much. >> No problem. Uh, any other questions? >> Uh, if not, I think we can
um consider a motion to close. >> So, move second. >> Uh, we have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. Um, Dan and Mark, how do you vote? I I and I'm sorry. We're issuing a uh
we're closing this. Is that right? >> We're not we're closing the the hearing and then we get on to the uh positive or negative. >> Uh so Lisa, you are >> hi. >> And I'll be hi. So, we've we've closed
and we are now uh where we Oh, uh I guess we're at a COC part file number 250-1125 237 Ansfield Avenue, which was a kayak
launch. Um >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, we'll be will be action on that soon. Uh it almost certainly will be a negative determination which means you don't have to file a notice of intent assuming it's built according to
plan. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um so John, it's my understanding that this uh project is completely completed
and stabilized. Yes, they provided us the necessary closeout documentation and so we should be good and I did go out there to take a look at it. >> Okay. I've been there. I frequent that area very often.
Nice spot if anyone hasn't been there. >> Okay. >> Um >> so I'll make a motion to issue a full looking for a full trailer. >> Yes. Now full COC for file 250-1125.
>> Second. >> We have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. So Dan and Lisa and Mark, how do you >> I >> I >> and I'll throw in an I. The motion
carries. Um, so we can flip back to our uh determination at 28 Eddie Street. Um, check three street I guess three. >> Oh, a motion. So moved.
>> Second. Uh we have a motion by Lisa, second by Mark for a negative determination. Um and Dan and Lisa vote >> I >> I >> and Mark >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. Uh and now we
have [Music] So we have two orders of conditions. I think we'll take zero John Boulevard
first. I don't expect that will be a discussion. Um we have only I I think one spot where we have additions namely the findings
um that the no disturbance >> so this one uh B you're going to add um condition to the findings that the contractor shall follow the construction sequencing as outlined on the plan. Yes.
Dated 119. >> Okay. So, the only comment I had was on number two. Um, so the work proposal from the 25T no disturbance would be mitigated immediately following the installation of the outside of the well. Um, I thought they were going to try to avoid
they going to try to avoid disturbance to the 25. Right. With the exception of the well itself. >> Yeah. And that that's where they had the discussion that they were going to uh reveate that area because they're they're going to need an area where they
work within. It's going to be small the area that they're working within. And they gave us that separate diagram on the plan that showed the disturbance, >> but they're going to Yeah. >> So, can we just clarify that just a little bit to show that the um
I get to say this that the it's only just where the where the well is going to be drilled. It's not the access to it right? >> It's not the access. It's just physical well, >> right? >> Well, location. >> I think we may want to just make that distinction. >> Okay, we can add that.
>> Okay, so maybe all work proposed in the 25 ft no disturb um for the well installation. >> Yeah, for the well disturbance. Yeah, that's >> Oh, yeah. And you can just add that to the beginning where it says all work proposed.
>> Or you could say the um the 25 ft no disturbance zoning disturb zone and then maybe parenthesis limited to the installation of well the well. >> Yeah, I like that. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. Um any other comments? >> Uh Ray, do you want me to add the um the uh applicant shall follow the construction sequence? >> So that's going to be uh during prior to the commencement of construction.
>> Okay. >> Activities prior that one. >> Yep. So under now that's so soil disturbance activities, but we probably should have it under soil because they're going to be doing that when they do that. So um I would
cuz they did provide us that plan. So I would have it be that um a condition. So make sure it's condition prior to construction and then u right after because they did provide us that site plan showing the visual barrier. So we can eliminate that.
Now under 1 a we can say that um site activities uh >> shall be performed in accordance with the sequencing. >> Yes. Exactly. [Music]
The construction sequence sequence plan can't say that today. I have to fix these numbers, but I can do that another >> just highlight it and you can fix it later. >> Yeah. Uh unless there are further questions or
comments, we can consider a motion to approve the orders and conditions for file number 250-187 as revised. >> So moved. >> Second. Uh motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark,
Dan, and Lisa. How do you vote? >> I >> I >> and Mark >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I as well. Motion carries. Uh we are now at
uh the orders of conditions for Daryl Leonard Street, file number 250- 1178. Um, as I have previously stated, I have no objection to the idea of reshaping the lot. Uh, even if it
does involve flood plane, as long as the flood plane is, um, appropriately compensated, any filling in the flood plan compensated. Um, so
other comments and and that's that's delineated in the findings. >> So, um, LOMA is different. So, so there's an LOM and an LOMR.
>> Yeah. So, there's a letter of map amendment and a letter of map revision. And I I sometimes get them mixed up when I'm talking to people and they're like and so yes, I have to recorrect myself. >> Okay. Um,
>> so John, is there any The only way I would entertain approving this order of condition was if we got all of FEMA's feedback approvals blessings whatever, prior to starting construction.
>> Yeah, I I in a perfect world, that's what I was hoping for, right? Um, >> it's the only way I'm going to approve this personally, >> right? So my question, you know, obviously is is
even if they even if let's say for instance we did approve it, right? But FEMA said no. >> Mhm. >> They'd have to come back for an amendment anyway because they're going to have to amend the plan. Um, so that's kind of where there's no guarantee that
that FEMA is going to say yes to that longer F, >> but they have to come back to us anyway, right? which would probably be a holding file >> which would mean which would mean that the commission you know if they can't I guess my
question would be and this is a condition that we might want to think about is that let's say they didn't get the filing from FEMA. >> Do we want to put a condition in there that it needs to be restored back to its natural condition?
But I they're not going to do anything out there as far as I'm concerned until FEMA approves this. Like nothing. Nothing. They are not going to touch anything within our jurisdiction until FEMA approves this. It's the only way and I'd approve this work. >> But but as I understand it, that's not
how the process works. They do the revision and submit it and then FEMA says yay or nay. >> They can't build the house until FEMA approved it anyway. >> Yeah. I mean there's going to be no construction of the house.
Um and of course once once we >> it's mainly just the compensatory mitigation that they would have to do in compliance for us. I guess my question is is that let's say we did authorize this and they did all the fill and they
did all the compensatory mitigation. They met all the criteria of the wildlife protection act but then we find out that they didn't get the approval from FEMA. Do we have a condition in here saying that since they didn't get approval from FEMA that they have to restore the area back to natural
conditions of it was previously? Is that something >> I'm I'm unclear on why they can't get the map revision. >> I don't uh beforehand. So they have to lower the site to show I mean they're still okay.
They're gonna lower the site, right? But the house is still going to be in the flood zone, right? >> So, what what they what they're technically doing is they're lowering the lowering the areas around the site around the house, but then they're making like this peninsula area where
the house is going to sit on and they're going to shape it as Julian has said. Basically, they're reconiguring the upland area on site to build the house, but they're modifying the area around it to compensate for the flood storage area that was lost.
So, you know, they did it on a previous project in town and it went to appeals court. So, and DP basically said that it was an approvable project. Um, so my job is to basically tell the commission that
if they did decide to deny this project, it probably would go to appeals and we would lose like we did previously for another for another case in town. And then for instance, we would have no control over this project and they would just get some eightpage conditions from
D that don't even include most of the stuff we usually require for projects. >> Yeah, I had to recuse from that last project. That's why I was like, I don't remember that at all. >> No, I know. Yeah, I know. I know you did. >> So, um, but that's that's the case for this
one. So, >> I I agree with you, John. If if this wind l winds up that we cannot issue an order, uh, then we lose control of it. >> What about the interim uh asbuilt sign
by or stamp by a PE? Is that >> Well, if we lose control of it because we deny it, >> the the design should be stamped by the PE, not the asphalt. I don't care about the damn asphelt. It's that's got to be stamped anyway. But to me, it's the
design. Why? It's it's a complicated project. I just don't understand why they couldn't get a PE to schedule this. Right. >> Well, I know for a fact the design after
the work is done needs to be stamped by >> Yes. >> the PE is going to be responsible and have all liability with it making sure that everything is in compliance with all the weapon protection provisions and that same person is going to be in charge of when the house gets
constructed. So, um, you know, that person is going to be responsible for making sure they administer and have all the information correct, which is the recommendation I made to the applicant's consultant was to put on those spot shot elevations so that way we know exactly
what the elevations are going to be at those those um, house uh, foundations. So they strip the site, they prep it for construction, they do the grading, they do the cuts, they do the fills, then they apply apply to FEMA.
>> Yeah. >> So the concern is that if they do that and FEMA denies it, we're stuck with a site that's stripped and what obligation do they have to go and fix it if they can't get a house built? >> Well, that's kind of what I'm asking the commission is do we put some sort of
additional condition because I didn't do that. It was a discussion item I wanted to talk to you guys about was do we want to make it so that way if they do not get the LMER F that they have to come back in front of us to discuss mitigation
aspects to restore the area back to natural conditions. >> But John, what incentive do they have if they can't build a house to restore it? >> They're never going to get a certificate of compliance for the lot. So if they sell it to somebody else or you know
whatever it's going to be >> but at that point it's probably not a billable >> to the chair. This is Mark Arnold. Can I just make a a a I I just want to state the applicant is willing to accept a condition that the
site has to be stabilized um at at the interm and and at the interm of the project the project would comply with the flood plan. storage requirements um and would be stabilized as a field and so the conditions of the site would
be almost identical to today except that there would be some change in topography and that would at least I think assure the commission that there hasn't been impact to the resource areas the resource areas have been mitigated as appropriate and actually have been benefited by the grading even if nothing gets built um I think that would be a
reasonable condition that the commission could put to to stable to require stabilization during the interm that is definitely fair. >> All right. And and I'm going to say that um you really would want to do that because this is probably going to take a couple of years to get this.
>> They have to do it. >> Yeah. They're going to respond. >> I I understand. Um, but it but it would make complete sense because it's going to take perhaps a couple of years to get
FEMA to to deal with this and you don't want erosion to destroy or change your your reshaping. So obviously you would have to stabilize it um in that for that period of time. Um,
so, uh, any further questions or comments? Uh, I I agree with you. So, John, you didn't put specifically in here that it be restabilized >> during that interim. >> No, but that that was kind of the be a
given as part of that, but we definitely can put that in there >> as as an addendum to the conditions there. I mean, it's not a controversial thing because, you know, you spend a lot of time carefully reshaping the lot and then leave it to erosion to damage. That
would be foolish. Um, any other question? >> I'm confused with the language in here, John. Like number five. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Site work associated with the construction is contingent upon receipt. Wouldn't it be the house itself?
So once we get the lomar f once we receive that lmer f they can go in front of the building >> right. So that's that condition should not say site work can't begin right it should say house construction of the
house yes that should change site work should say construction of the of the of the house. >> So um Megan if you can call that up. Yep. [Music] Um, I I would reward that to say that the construction of the single family
house is contingent upon the conservation commission receiving the FEMA Lomar F determination. >> This one >> I thought I had associated with the construction of a single family residence.
>> Well, you had site work. Oh, I said site work. Okay. >> She's just putting in construction of the single family house. I don't know what >> Oh, no. Just strike site work. >> Oh, okay. >> So, site work associated with the construction of the the single family house.
>> Construction of the single family house is contingent on >> You can just strike. You can strike that just it's there already. >> Yeah, it's there. Okay. Uh I would say upon providing the commission with
I'm trying to work with you here. >> What did I do? Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, I'm talking I'm I'm all good. I I like it when you guys have ideas. Um,
>> so 37. >> Wait, are we are we finished with five? Is that >> No, we're not finished with five. We need >> construction of a single family residence is contingent upon >> the commission's receipt for providing
the commission with a copy of >> Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. >> 37 >> 37D. >> Um, I'm not going to ask for another prior to construction. >> Okay. >> I personally I have no idea how anybody
else feels, but I think this plan needs to be stamped by a PE. >> Okay, we can add that. I think the applicant uh consultant would be willing to get a PE to stamp that plan.
>> The proposed plan as is, right? Yeah. >> Yes. [Music] >> Megan, can you put it in one? >> Yeah. >> One F after one F. >> Yep. >> That way it's consistent. Thank you.
>> This is why you do this. You're better at it. All right. >> And provided to the commission. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Prior to the start. Yeah. Prior. Okay. And provided to the commission. [Music]
[Music] All right. >> Uh I think we're on the 37. The 37 series. >> Yeah. >> Okay. [Music] So
this is interesting because we have this tied to two milestones, right? One is prior to construction of the house at the beginning, but then we also have it post construction. >> But this isn't really post, this is post construction of cut and fill, not post
construction of the house. So, I just think 37D personally needs to go up uh and either be part of or take the place of what we just wrote under
you. See what I'm saying? >> Right. But the the challenge the challenge with this, right, is that this is kind of what I was dealing with as well. And I understand where you're coming from, Lisa, is that if I'm being told that FEMA is not going to be
looking at this until they do all the fill, >> then, you know, obviously all that work that's associated with this permit, the fill >> is solely for this permit. The house construction is what's going to follow after this permit >> because we're going to issue that certificate of compliance and then
they're going to construct the house, >> right? because at that point our jurisdiction is gone. >> Well, it's it's potentially going to be still in effect, but until we get the request for certificate compliance. So, we're going to be this is going to be at
the later stage of like once once they get that long F is probably when they're going to get their request for certificate compliance because they're going to be able to say, "Hey, here's our LER F. Now we want to get us through the compliance.
That's how I I see it happening. I don't see any other way that they could get it. I Yeah, I I agree. And otherwise, I mean, at that point, once that process is completed, it becomes equivalent to
an upland construction site. Yeah. I guess all I'm saying is we're already asking for this in the first. Are we not already asking for this? >> We are asking that they provide one
prior to the construction of the house, but this is more in detail as to kind of when we expect to get this Okay. Um, okay. >> I know this is the most confusing order I've ever written, by the way, just so everybody.
>> So, it's >> Well, maybe it's just the title of H. It's It's not post construction of the house. It's post construction of the BLSF. >> Well, that's what this work is for. Yeah. because the work entailed with
this is not for a house. It's for post construction of >> So maybe we just need to be clear then in the findings that you just come out saying it this does not authorize the construction of house. >> Yeah. If you go up all the way go up all the way to the top.
>> I don't know Lisa. If you keep this up I'm going to say you've been taking lessons from Dan. I'm the proposed work is for the filling of BLS resource area mitigation which includes compensatory flood storage area as shown as the final approved plans. No other work is approved with this order condition
within conservation jurisdiction cuz my my understanding is that once they get their l F they're going to be outside our jurisdiction for the construction of the house. That's how I look at this. And the chair, I'd like to direct the
commission to look at the plan again because I think you do see that some of the deck is actually overlapping the flood plan still. So I don't believe the applicant could get a certificate of lines until the whole project was done, including the house.
>> So the the deck itself, you're saying >> the steps of the deck do actually touch the flood plane itself. >> Are you going to be doing are you going to be doing any substantial work in the flood plane with those steps? I don't think so, John. But I would hate to have us get a certificate of
compliance and then have an issue with a contractor driving and disturbing soil in the flood plane and not be under your jurisdiction. That's my concern is I'd rather I I I think this commission should require that all work be
completed in the flood plane prior to the start of the house and that at least erosion controls be placed around the flood plane to protect the completed flood plane. Then something like that. It it I think the applicant's not going to do a COC until the whole project's
done. Honestly, I think that's going to be the case. But if you're concerned, John, then maybe >> if after the BLSF area is completed and the grading is completed, you could put a roach controls at the new flood plane elevation to protect the flood plane
from being disturbed as part of any future work. Um, unless the order is issued and that's that's the question that's here. So, just as a protection to you. >> Here's my question, though. If you're not going to do any subsurface work, significant subsurface work that's going to be associated with those that deck
and those I guess concrete steps, I I don't see it being an issue to me. I mean, you're basically going to be putting it on the top of the grade. Is that correct? >> Uh, basically, or or they may have to they may have to take out some soil to
put in the slab of the steps, the the base of the steps maybe. I I don't know. We're talking about a 5x5 area, right? >> We we are, but again, I'm I'm thinking about soil disturbance and and and in the in the flood plane, and I don't like the idea of that. So, I I I I personally
would rather, if I was the commissioner, I'd rather have jurisdiction over the project until everything is done. So, that way there's no potential for erosion entering the flood plane from outside the flood plane. That seems to be >> all right. Well, that's stabilization. That's not that's you know stro doesn't
prevent just capture sand. So we got to get that straight first. I mean and that's why it has to be stabilized. If you stabilize it, you don't even need sand. >> But but the slopes there are very shallow. So the likelihood that um >> needs to be stable.
>> Yes. But >> I mean the other option is that the applicant comes back for an amendment. I mean, cuz here's the problem is that we don't know that, for instance, you're going to get a loan or F for this project, right? At this point, we don't
know that. It's not a a sign seal delivered kind of situation. Um, I guess my question would be then when you do get that, come back for an amendment and include those steps as part of the amendment and then it's basically we
have it covered. I guess that's the way I would look at it. I'd rather just treat this as the impacts that you're basically doing for this project at this point in time. I don't know if that's something you would be agreeable to Mark. I >> John, I think that's fine. I mean, again, I I I think your yours is a
little more flexible than I would be. So, that's fine. If if if the way you're seeing the way you've said it, I'm fine with it. I just think that the commission would pref I would think I would prefer to have jurisdiction over the construction of the house as well
and withhold the COC until everything is done and that gives the commission the ability to protect the flood plane even more than just assuming that you assuming again under the assumption. So that's just I'm just again John you're fine as is. I don't have any objections
to what you say. Why don't we do this? we're going to need a partial at least certificate compliance. So they do all that earth work. They walk away and wait for FEMA. So let's add that they have to add ask for a partial COC lean is fully
has has to achieve full um stabilization and then they can ask for partial COC. >> All right, that sounds like a good solution. All right, let's do that. >> I like it. Are we going to quote that under administrative conditions or
>> um order? >> No, >> it's going to be following construction. >> Yeah, following construction. So, I would say >> 37 >> following the um work authorized in this order of conditions. Um, all disturbed areas must achieve
final stabilization. The applicant in the um applicant must file for request of partial COC uh disturbed areas >> must achieve. Sorry, it's probably my speaker.
Like all so all disturbed areas. All all disturbed areas. All disturbed areas. Nope. Okay. >> Just take out the a. >> Yep.
>> Okay. must achieve not received must achieve final stabilization and the applicant shall um file a request for a partial COC. >> Okay. >> Put that condition right under C. Got
it. Yeah. In the sequence of life, that's where it makes sense. Okay. >> Uh so it should follow the work authorized in this order. Okay. And then if we have to issue a final,
you know, a full COC at some point, if they come in and amend it or whatever, at least we'll have something. >> All right. [Music] >> So, uh, John, do we take it a step further and say that, um, once they
complete that earthwork, it it shall be immediately stabilized? Is there anything in there that talks to that? I mean, we definitely can request that it be immediately stabilized >> because there's no reason to wait. >> Yeah, it's in their best interest anyway. >> Yep.
>> Where do I put that? >> Um Oh, that's probably part. [Music] >> So, I would say that maybe um I'll maybe add another one after D. uh can call it E and then say um all
areas disturbed. >> Well, we already have G is a whole whole section on site stabilization. So, uh >> which one? >> G se big big section G. Uh on page four
it starts. Yeah, it's it's up front page. Um, well, >> but we're going to ask for it immediately. >> Yeah. So, 29 29 says >> uh so we can just change 29 to be all
disturbs. >> Uh soil shall immediately be stabilized. uh after completion of construction. >> I I honestly would put it under that section that we just had and just say
refer to as >> Yeah, cuz that's an interim condition. We were just looking at in they start it, they stop it. That's the 14-day clock for the CGP. >> Refer to condition number 29 >> for E. Oh, and I meant leave that all areas
must be stabilized. >> That's okay. [Music] >> Was it 29? Um, [Music]
I would say within section G or or something along those lines, or in accordance with That's what we've been. >> Tomorrow's a holiday though. >> For who? >> And for me,
>> not for consultants. [Music] >> Okay. >> I actually make that capital G. >> Okay. because it's uh it is capital G. Yeah.
All right. Um are we at a point consider a motion? [Music] >> Yep. >> Good. >> All right. So, this is file number
250-1178. Uh orders of conditions as amended. >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Lisa,
seconded by Mark to accept the orders of conditions as amended. So Dan and Lisa vote. I >> Mark I >> and I'll throw in an I.
>> Thank you guys. Uh so I think that brings us to the point on the agenda >> for what? >> Sorry. >> Yeah, we have to do a uh a formal uh motion to adjourn with a roll call
vote. Uh, >> so moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Mark, seconded by Dan for adjournment. Lisa and Mark, how do you vote? >> Hi.
>> Hi. >> And Dan. >> Hi. >> And say I. And that's a wrap. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Good night, everybody. >> Thank you. >> Have a good night.
Take care now.