Hey everybody. >> Good morning. >> Good [snorts] morning. >> I see Bob. I see Michael. I know Scott is trying to get in via phone and and Mayor uh texted she was going to be a little late.
Um so let's wait a few minutes to see if Scott can can call in. He was going to call. Well, there he is. >> Hey Beth, it's Scott. >> Hey. I'm glad you were able to call in.
>> Yeah, the meeting's actually sending the meeting ID and password. It used to be in the agenda, but I didn't see it this time. >> [snorts] >> Well, good. You figured it out. >> Thanks, Mateo sent it, so thanks Mateo. >> Thanks, Elena. Bye. >> Good luck.
>> Thanks, Mateo. Um all right. So, now there's there's four of us here. Mayor's going to um come when she's going to she's going to be a little bit late, but she will be here. But, it's 7:02 on June 25th. Um so, I'm calling this meeting of the
Conservation Commission to order. And this meeting's being recorded. Welcome, everybody. First on our agenda is comments from the chair, and I don't really have much. I think this is going to be a pretty short
meeting, I think. We don't There's not a lot on the agenda, and I there hasn't really been anything too exciting going on that I can comment on, >> [laughter] >> which is good. >> [gasps] >> Um, all right. So, moving on, uh
next on our agenda is to review and vote on the minutes from June 11th. Did anybody have any changes or questions or comments on those? Not seeing none, I take a motion to approve the minutes of June 11th, 2026.
>> I'd like to make a motion that we approve those uh minutes. >> Okay, second? >> Second it. >> Great. All right. Roll call, Douglas? >> Aye. >> McDuffy? >> Aye. >> Khan?
>> Aye. >> And Wilson? Aye. Great. Um, next is site visits. Mayor's um, not here, but I also don't think we had any since our last meeting. So, [snorts] just meeting was just 2
weeks ago, and I don't think we had any special site visits or anything. So, that was good. We're still trying to set up the one for the land that abuts the elementary school. I'm not quite sure. Matteo, have you heard anything else about that site visit?
>> I have not. I did not get a response to to the initial uh follow-up when we did not get the confirmation. So, I can I can follow up with them again, but we need the permission to do a site visit. >> Yeah, it's been strange. There seems to be two different people that
been communicating with and it's just been kind of strange. But yeah, if you wouldn't mind reaching out one more time. >> Yeah. >> That would be great. All right. Moving on, we have land management update. Scott, do you have some
information? >> I don't have much. I I guess maybe more of a question for uh Haley, just because the so latest they I know we opened the bids at the last meeting. They
contacted both the uh winning bidder and the folks who weren't successful. Is Is everything in order and we We have uh We heard anything in terms of a start date for
contractor at South Brook? >> So, Mateo, do >> [laughter] >> So, uh Termar uh sent back the the uh executed contract or executed on their end uh I think yesterday or the day before.
So, once we get it, Haley will sign it and then it will be finalized and they can start work at that point. >> Great. >> So, um Is the plan to see Would you uh that charity want me to reach out to
Termar or maybe Mateo to reach out to them once Haley signs the contract and lets them know they can begin or how do we want to proceed with that? >> Um I think um Scott, if you want to Yeah, once they're contracted and everything, if
you want to reach out to them about a starting date and maybe explain to them that we did the delineation, you know, just kind of get them up to speed as to where we were with the other contractor before they left. Um
and just get an idea from them what they'd like to where they'd like to start. >> Time for strawberries again. >> Perfect. Uh I'd be happy to do that. Uh just >> So >> maybe uh Jill once you hear back uh from
Haley or once it's signed and executed and we're ready to drop the puck, uh let me know and I'll reach out to them or you can let me know and >> Perfect. Sounds great. Um and did you have an update on the
conservation um land regulations? Did Did those go to the town attorney? >> I believe that Joe sent them to Donna Wright and to the Chief Belisle and I I don't know if we've heard back yet.
>> Yeah, so both both Chief Belisle and Donna have received them draft and um I've not received any comments back from them. I know that there's it's probably not going to be till early July um I get a response from them. But they did receive them and they confirmed receiving them.
>> Great. Great. Good that those all those things are moving forward. I love it. Um and I was just thinking I haven't heard much about the Footit property. You know, we we got the CPA money um and I and what we were really
waiting on that is really for Kestrel to to purchase both the large parcel and the um parcel that we are going to buy from Kestrel. So I guess that's kind of what's happening this summer. I And then what Kestrel had
sort of said was that then in the fall would be the time where we would go through the process of buying the land from Kestrel. So, yeah, I haven't heard much else about that. I think I actually got [clears throat] an email. There was a site visit. And there was some question about the
well. I need to look into that a little bit, but um all right. 7:09 So, we can't move ahead quite yet with our 7:15. Um
yeah, I don't really have any other anything else. Um Bob, are you all set doing all the paperwork to get on to the the new fancy version of LWAC? >> Uh I I'm I'm lagging behind.
I did show up to get get sworn at and I I was I was late. So, uh uh I I still have to go through that process. Um um the other group, the uh erosion group is meeting at the same
time as this one tonight, unfortunately. But I will get an update from them and I'll present that at the next meeting. >> Yeah, that's that I would that would be great. I think we'd all be interested in so GZA has put together is it a draft of their report or is it the
final report? >> Yeah, I think I I I think it's a draft uh conclusions and and and I'll I'll I'll I'll be able to have more insights for you next time I talk to you. >> Okay, that'll be great. Perfect. Yeah, I am this is my
time to renew my term on the Conservation Commission. It's a 3-year term and so I also have to go get sworn at and I haven't >> [laughter] >> found the time to go do that yet, but I need to do that, too. And Scott, you probably need to do it
for CPA, or maybe you've already >> I do. I No, I haven't. I just got the notification earlier this week, so I did just do that as well. >> Yeah. Yeah.
Um I don't have anything else I guess for a few minutes I can talk about I if you guys remember the culvert assessment project that the five-town culvert assessment project. Um I don't know if Michael might not know
about this one. It's um it was a grant that Pioneer Valley Planning Commission >> [clears throat] >> um sort of organized, but they pulled in people from five different towns. So, Amherst, Shutesbury, Pelham,
Belchertown, Hadley. I guess I know that's the five towns. Um I hope that's five. Um >> [laughter] >> and we submitted a grant to Pioneer Valley, they did most of the work, but to MVP to do culvert assessments under
the the NAC, which is the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Coalition or something. [clears throat] And it's a it's so it's It used to be half the country. I think it's actually going to go national now,
but it's sort of a method for assessing culverts, not only for like structural integrity of the culvert, but almost more for um wildlife and fish passage. So, when you're replacing a culvert, how should you design it that's best for um
for wildlife and fish passage, but also for um flood resiliency, having to do with climate change, and all that. So, there's this method, and so the grant was get some money, get a get a bunch of interns to go out and look at culverts
in all those towns, and then and follow that method of um evaluating the culverts, and then update it to the NAC database, so that then it what it does is it provides towns like a ranking of which culverts are the most important ones to
to work to get grants to replace because they've been ranked by NAC as being in the worst situation. Um So, I know the interns are out there right now. I think they've they've finished Amherst. They've moved on to Hadley.
Um Shrewsbury actually was partially done by FRCOG previously some under a different project, and I I believe under this project all that's happening is some finalizing of culverts that had gotten this, and making sure everything
gets into the NAC database. Um so, after they do Hadley, I believe is Pelham and Shrewsbury will be will be done with that. And there's public outreach involved with it, and I actually need to organize something for Shrewsbury some kind of anybody have any
any has any ideas of places where you can do a table and talk about stormwater. Kind of Bob, sort of like what you guys did for the erosion task force. Um but in Shrewsbury, it's difficult cuz you don't we don't have
a farmers market or some, you know, someplace where people would gather and would see that kind of thing. So, um I don't know. >> The new libraries like community spaces would be big. >> [gasps] >> Yeah, we could do
um we could do just like another kind of talk, you know, just to send flyers and have people come and do a talk about culverts. Um That's my guess. >> Like, if they're already gathering there, you wanted to catch them. I see.
>> Yeah, I wanted to have like a table, you know, at some kind of an event, but Annamult has lots of that kind of stuff going on, so it's a little easier, but Shutesbury is not um so, I don't know. We'll think We'll see. Matteo, you have your hand up? >> Uh there's likely to be a special town
meeting in September. I don't know if that's too late, but I don't know. We'll talk about that. It might be good to have a handout or information. >> Yeah, no, that's that's good to know. Um it's a 2-year grant. The first year's ending
June 30th, so in the next few days is the first year, and so then the second year um so there's still will be going on in September. Okay. Anyway, >> [snorts] >> just update you on that.
And it's 7:15, so we can move on. So, this is a continuance of a public hearing for notice of intent for reconstruction of a single-family home and septic system with associated site improvements, portions of which are
located within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 36 South Road Drive, parcels A41 and A50. And I see Rob. And I just want to make sure everybody
got We did get updated um information sent to us, which is very helpful. I just want to make sure everybody saw that. It was sent around, and it was put on the webpage and everything. And so, Rob, um I think maybe if you could just talk a
little bit about those changes and additions, that would be great. >> Sure. Um I'm going to send a request to share my screen, if that's okay. >> Yep. >> Great. >> Good deal. >> All right. So, just let me know if you can see
this. Good? >> Yep. >> Okay, great. So, again for the record, Rob LeVack from R. LeVack Associates, uh here with us this evening on Zoom is the Gripco family. So, I think they're in the background if we should have any questions for them.
Uh to bring everybody up to speed, um there were some good really good comments from the commissioners. Uh specifically, if I think it was Bob had mentioned uh a concern about um uh who would be need to be a party to the notice of intent um at the last public
hearing. There was also some comment good comments from the neighbor about uh how we had directed some of the uh drainage from behind the retaining wall, um and then a few other uh I think housekeeping items that we needed to address. Um so, what I've done is I've
provided a revised plan, which you see before you. I'll zoom in a little bit so you guys can see it better if I can figure out where is there a zoom. Let's go 150. Oh, too much. Let's go 125. Let's not do that. Let's go 100.
Eventually, I'll get there. Uh how about 70 Yeah, 75 seems to work. So, um just to kind of orient everyone, there was a question about the drainage from behind the retaining wall um that goes into these plunge pools.
Um so, what we did is we uh rerouted that. Originally, I think it was going to the the land of Mr. Tom Seaford. Um so, at his request, which was a logical one, we just kind of redirected it. We don't expect heavy flow, uh but again, uh just, you know, perception is also everything, too. So,
we're just kind of directing it to this plunge pool, and it would sheet flow towards South Laurel Drive. Um in addition to try to, and and put a letter together to this effect um because of the abutter notification issue related to South Floral Drive and to make sure
that we had a defensible um uh you know filing what we did is we we researched I researched actually the exemptions and we believe that the as long as we didn't have new grading and new work associated
with the access to the existing house um if it was more of a maintenance activity and just repair and kind of you know ongoing uh normal activities it would be exempt. So under my letter that was dated June 22nd I
detail what I believe to be an exemption related to um the driveways and other activities just if it's okay with the commission I'll just read this real quick. This is one part. So under 310 CMR 10 022B
2Q >> [laughter] >> um is there's an exemption for maintenance repair and replacement of existing structures facilities and improvements associated with an existing single family residence. So we kind of are relying on that as it relates to
the I'll go back to the plan to the you know minor driveway improvements. You'll notice that I removed any sort of grading activities. We can kind of go with the existing grade. Um and then I've pushed or maybe pulled is the word
pulled the rain gardens back into the property a little bit to basically accommodate having all of the non-exempt work within the limit of work on the subject property thereby hopefully uh you know negating the need
for notifying every abutter this side of the Mississippi. >> [laughter] >> Um and then we have also provided and I'll find it here and O&M uh, as requested uh, kind of just a basic O&M related to the plunge pool
{slash} rain gardens. Um, owner responsibility, who is the owner? Um, rain garden installation, a basic inspection schedule uh, maintenance activities associated therewith um, and then just kind of some other, you know, basic information and
record keeping. Um, I would be happy to answer any questions the commission should has. I think we covered everything, but certainly any other questions you have that's what we're here for. Thanks. >> Yeah, my only question uh, when I printed out the plan it was so
small that I couldn't even How deep are the uh, rain gardens? >> Um, so they're about um, with the contour about a foot and a half. Uh, maybe two more maybe like foot and a half to feet. Depending on exactly where you are.
>> Okay. Um, and you feel like sort of the dimensions are the correct size for the the flows of drainage that that you're going to Sounds like on the north side you're not really expecting very much, but maybe on the south you might be getting a little bit more.
>> Yeah, slightly >> volume >> slightly more and again the rain gardens aren't overly scientifically um, uh, you know, in terms of snow storm water analysis. I would argue that they're, you know, they're they're more of a um, a functional
um, uh, outlet than they are attenuation in any real capacity. So, um, again just just um, providing uh, you know, anti-scouring and you know, in a in a little, you know, most first
first flush uh, stuff will be will be caught in those and then sheet flow effectively over the land like like the water I before. And again, as you're as you had mentioned that anything from behind the wall we expect to be just a a trickle at best. And then kind of on the
south side there, you know, there'll be a couple roof leaders picked up and you know, that will discharge on into the plunge pool that's a little bit bigger. >> Mhm. Okay, yeah. And then as long as I guess your description of it
um there's definitely kind of riprap and stuff by the um by the uh where the water first comes out. Um But the rest of the rain garden is really just sort of it sounded like a um a soil that's
that's for rain gardens. I'm just concerned if you get a lot of flow of some of that getting washed away, but as long as it has enough of a base of rock um and then you get some vegetation growing in there even if you do get some good rains um it should
it should survive, right? >> [laughter] >> Yeah, anti-scour you know, it's you know, anti-scour. Yeah, we'll we'll we'll ensure that there won't be any sort of migration of stone or you know, these would be you know, the stone used could you know, will be angular and can withstand any sort of scouring that we
would expect from a typical roof leader or any sort of sheet flow that we would expect again minor amount of area going to it which is good and permeable soils along the way. So we expect to you know, despite this the little bit of the slope will we would
expect pretty permeable soils as well. >> Okay. All right. That's all I was a little bit curious about. Um Anyone else on the commission have any questions? >> I'm sorry if this is just my memory.
Sorry, go ahead. >> Oh, I'm sorry. This is Scott. Can I follow up on the septic system? I know we talked about uh the design for the septic system and whether or not any of the uh
the leaching field effect could reach the wetlands and there was discussion of extending the uh the barrier further around the septic system to protect the wetland and I I looked at the plan, but I couldn't see
that that adjustment had been been made, but if you could talk a little bit about that for me. Thank you. >> Uh yeah, through the chair, absolutely. Good question and yes, that was discussed. Um it's not shown on this plan because we would be and I think the
proper way to do it would be um to just have it as a condition and we could then update that impervious barrier for the Board of Health. Um just to make sure they're okay with it and then we would handle it in an as-built plan to the Board of Health, just so they know. I mean, if anything, it's a belts and
suspenders type of thing. But yeah, if that was a condition of the permit, that would probably be the best way to do it. We did I just wanted to we wanted to be accurate with what was approved. That's why we didn't show it on this plan, but yes, it is it was discussed and uh we
can easily do that, if that makes sense. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Bob, you have your hand up? >> Sure. Um Rob, the last time we met, we talked about um uh any applicable permits that would be
needed have been applied for and it sounds like you've applied for the Board of Health um uh sign-off. Uh Was there any other anything else required like a a curb cut or anything like that that might be considered a local permit? >> Um
so I haven't investigated the uh a driveway permit, so to speak, uh under our work. But, there you know, there is existing access um where you essentially utilizing the existing access that's kind of our way around the um you know, the butter
notification for, you know, a great deal of of people that would be along the corridor of South Laurel Drive. Um as far as the other permits, uh we have communicated with the building department. Uh we are in good stead with
regard to the, you know, zoning-related matters. Uh so, we're all set there. And then, we have also received Board of Health approval on the septic system. >> Okay, great. Uh quick question. So, the the area that does exist um
uh remaining on the map that that is strictly, as you noted in your letter, exempt uh or sorry, yeah, exempt exempt tasks. That um rectangle, the piece of land that that's on is is the South Laurel
Drive right-of-way? >> That is correct. Yep. So, I just to orient you, and I'll try to I don't know if I can color on this thing. Uh I don't know if this will Oh, yeah. Okay. Let me just back up. So, uh so, this line
and this line are the right-of-way. So, this is the right-of-way, kind of a legal area. And then, the edge of pavement is here and here. >> Okay. >> See those lines? >> Um in your opinion, Rob,
the um the uh sandy soil and the uh rain gardens and uh and everything else is sufficient for to keep the uh area from being blown out in a in a rainstorm? You know, got the
additional pervious surf Well, I guess we could have a house pervious to a surface surface impervious surface. But do you But you don't think it'll be things will be blown off down downstream? We we we can't do a
stormwater analysis on this cuz it's a single unit, but you're comfortable that uh everything you put in will will be able to handle the uh the water during a storm event? >> Yeah, we're comfortable. We're really where we want to make sure that there's no concern and I think we all should be,
you know, thinking the same thing is um you know, during construction, we want to make sure that obviously all the silt fences is properly installed um and that um you know, everybody's comfortable that, you know, if there were something, you
know, a rain event during, you know, when the ground is exposed or opened, so to speak, that that um you know, the the soil can't migrate. Uh once, you know, once the the home is constructed, you know, everything is loamed and seeded,
you know, septic system installed, you know, turf and [snorts] and other landscaping established, um we feel very comfortable that the rain garden uh coupled with the remaining buffer, which is essentially, you know, the tree line, would be here, will will act as a
a pretty solid filter um for any sheet flow that's kind of heading in that direction kind of perpendicular to the contour. Uh again, there's, you know, obviously areas that will run this way and then um if the water comes off over here, it'll eventually head my kind of more directly
to the wetland, but there is a nice uh vegetated buffer and, you know, with us eliminating some of the impacts um on this side, actually, we're we're providing more of a um
a a an existing vegetated filter buffer in this area from kind of here to here, so we've increased the buffer back uh by avoiding some of the the work that we were proposing here. >> Right.
Good. Thank Thank you very much for um uh listening to our our questions at the last meeting and and I appreciate the uh notification that was sent to us through the town hall. >> Absolutely. Thank you. And thank you for the heads-up on the the thought process.
>> Yeah, I think through the ver This is at least your fourth meeting, third or fourth meeting, I think. With each meeting it it it the stormwater especially got more addressed, you know, each time and I I I we do appreciate all the changes
that you've made. Um and so at this point, are there any comments from the public? Oh. Tom? >> Thanks. >> A little bit of feedback. >> Is now a safe time to speak?
>> Now I don't hear feedback. I think it's I think that's better. >> One second. My volume isn't up here. I'm sorry. Can you just speak again so I can hear you? >> Yeah, you sounded okay that time. >> Perfect. Okay, great. Sorry. Um everything's in order now. Okay. Um I
had several questions that go in a few different directions, please. Um Madam Chair, uh it appears as though this new um NOI, revised one and whatnot, went up yesterday on the Conservation Commission
website. Um is there any concern about a 48-hour notice period for the public to have had a chance to look at these before tonight's session? >> With updates and things, there's no requirement for the 48-hour notification. You know, that's that's
agendas that that absolutely have to be with the topics that are going to be discussed at a meeting. Those require 48-hour posting. Um you know, updates of information don't necessarily require that. So
I feel like, you know, this this wasn't a huge real change to everything in my opinion and and I feel like everybody has been coming to the meetings and asking questions at the meetings and and getting a lot of information at the meetings. So no, I'm not concerned about
that. >> Okay, thanks. Um thanks for letting me ask as well. Um I don't know when to ask, but I wanted to get more, please, of an explanation about the exemption. Specifically whether it's an exemption
for roads or ways, I'm not quite sure um about the exemption that they mentioned. Please. Let me restart there, maybe. >> Sure. Um if I could share my screen. So Rob, could you >> Oh, yeah. >> sharing. >> All right, here.
How do I get out of here? Sorry, just 1 second. Um stop share. How's that? Right. >> All right, let's see if I can bring up I thought maybe folks would be wondering. >> [sighs] >> Um
Think is this. All right, can folks see my screen? >> Yeah. >> So this is this this is the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. So these are the state regulations. And um the this is the buffer zone section. So
this is activities within buffer zones. So these are what are considered minor activities within the buffer zone that are that are allowed within the buffer zone under the state regulations. Um and Rob was referring to Q,
which is down which actually I was reading it reads a little bit differently than what Rob had in his letter, but it refers to driveways. What it says is the repair or replacement of an existing and lawfully located driveway servicing not more than
two dwelling units provided that all work remains within the existing limits of the driveway and all surfaces are permanently stabilized within 14 days of final grade. So, this is basically saying any driveway that has been considered a driveway um and you know has the legal use as a
driveway, which I believe this this does. There's they've been using it as a driveway. Um that work even if it's in the buffer zone, if it's in the buffer zone, it is allowed under the Wetlands Protection Act. >> Okay, so if it's on land that they don't
own such as the South Laurel Drive. >> Yes, I mean that that falls to um driveway easements and and the legal use to use something as a driveway and I think as the Gripcos have stated and
you know, this was a driveway. It's historically been a driveway that went to the house that's that's there right now. So, it's legally a driveway. This is how I understand it. >> Um [snorts] there's no driveway currently in the
road and this would include a driveway in the road that I'm aware of. And um I don't know where there is a current driveway the map where I would imagine there might be one in terms of where there appears to be
Well, where they've for example brought vehicles in for some tree works on the property. Doesn't appear to be where the driveway is on the map on this NOI revision. It appears to be in a new spot. >> [snorts] >> Well, I'm going to and Rob or the group
goes can respond to this. >> that I understand to be existing in other words is on the southernmost edge of the of the lot if there is one. I'm not even sure that there is an existing one. >> Well, I can stop sharing and I think the
group goes or Rob or should respond and sort of explaining what kind of a access is is legally set up for that property. >> Yeah, I mean that there's an exist obviously, you know, no one's been helicoptered into the site
lately. Usually people drive in and out and accessing the house. This is the just for everybody's you know, uh let me see if I can do this again. I'm not sharing I just realized. Sorry. But essentially if I can share share
again. Sorry guys. One second. Okay, so I'm sharing again. So this this is the existing structure, right? So I've you know, people people pull in from the South Laurel Drive. Um, you know,
DEP in general and under the exempt activities people people are allowed to maintain the access to a single family home. That's the the bottom line. Um, so you know, DEP as long as you don't go crazy and don't start you know,
creating a lot of new disturbance, they don't really want to hear or see a filing typically for something that is just the maintenance of an existing driveway um to a right-of-way. So, this is obviously the right-of-way. It also, frankly, is in the
right-of-way. So, while the driveway on the property is a driveway, arguably this is access from the roadway. Uh it is, you know, in my opinion, a driveway as well. But, um this, as uh the Grimcos had mentioned and and as you can see
from the actual physical location of South Laurel Drive I'm sure from year to year and decade to decade South Laurel Drive, you know, might shift a little bit here and there based on the travel paths. But, this this is the access to the single-family home and that can be
maintained as necessary, um which would mean, you know, you know, handling, you know, you know, nuisance vegetation that might have popped up since the house hasn't been, you know, aggressively utilized, so to speak. So, um yeah, so this is the proposal is to basically get to the lot
as they have in the past. Um and then, you know, on site the driveway is not an exempt activity and we have filed for that. >> Um the existing driveway that I'm aware of is on the southern edge of the property. That's where the most recent
vehicle activities have accessed the property. >> We have trees We have some trees >> where you have it illustrated that wouldn't There's no Like, the trees are too big for access. There are very much on the southern edge of the property is where people have been entering it.
Um but so, I'm just not aware of an existing driveway and it appears the exemption you quoted is about existing driveways. >> Well, there's So, if you look at the language of my my My language is not only related to driveways. There's other
exempt activities related to work in right-of-ways, etc. So, I mean, it's definitely an exempt activity in in mind. >> [clears throat] >> Um in your mind, but have you had that determined? >> Um determined in what way? It would be
determined by the Conservation Commission. Um so we have the burden of proof is on the applicant and the Conservation Commission uh reviews that information and they make their determination. So I I have not determined anything and and that's not my >> All right, wait. So driveways are in the
zoning bylaw. Um all all uh regulations are items about driveways that I'm aware of. >> That's an independent uh that's a different silo from a permitting standpoint. Uh that would be >> Right, but I understand this I know I would require um
local permitting to be basically done if I'm satisfied for zoning as well. And so this driveway >> I think I think we're confusing the issue. So we're here just for the notice of intent tonight. If there's other uh permitting related to zoning or any any
of that matter, um you know, that like I said, there's an existing driveway here. Um you know, so I just think sticking to the the subject matter would, you know, >> Okay. Um would there be tree cutting in the road? >> No.
>> No tree cutting? >> Uh >> So that That's Can I just Can I just break in and just say that I think there's some confusion. Um Tom seems to think that the existing driveway is south of where it is on this plan, but I think um looking at this, there's
existing vegetation right now that's south of where you're showing the access. So where you're showing the access is the cleared area where people are driving right now and south of it is a whole lot of trees. >> um at the extreme southern edge of the
property, there is width and it has historically been most recently where the vehicles have accessed. But separately from that, please, um would there be tree cutting in any portion of South Laurel Drive?
>> Um tree cutting So, there if you can see where we have we have all the trees located. Um so the trees in South Laurel Drive, there's there's one tree you know, as far as vista pruning and what other, you know, activities they would like to do. Right now, we're
proposing that just the access comes between the trees. There's one tree here. Um looks like a 12-in uh um caliper tree. Um but the driveway can easily go around that. If the commission wanted to condition that that's that wouldn't, you
know, be necessarily an issue. >> Just wondered if there is any vegetation or um alterations in this buffer zone area. Um and it has South Laurel Drive. Uh and I'm still confused about why the
owner of that land wouldn't need to apply as well for any alteration at all, even the um change of surface. Um I'm concerned also if the highway department hasn't been consulted.
Um since there's service and emergency vehicle access to think of. Um >> Again, this is a conservation filing at this point. >> Right. Um and the 8-ft strip of land,
um are you considering that separately? That's on the western boundary that is not part of South Laurel Drive. >> I'm not sure where we're talking. Sorry. >> It's not indicated on your diagram, but
it's in the deed for the lot that um includes the proposed house. And uh there's There was talked about at the last session of the continued hearing. Um but there's an 8-ft strip of land that runs along the western boundary of
lot 841. Uh that is not conveyed to the uh owner in the deed, but it's not South Laurel Drive either. >> Um I'm just going off of a survey uh
conducted by Eaton Associates, uh Randy Eiser, PLS. Um we're working Our activities are all proposed within the limit of the boundaries as defined by Eaton Associates. >> Right. Well, um
maybe the owner wants to speak to that. It was mentioned at the last meeting, and it is in their deed. I I wanted to know how that was being um addressed, please. >> Possibly the Grip Co can respond to that. Maybe.
>> Yes. Um that 8-ft strip That 8-ft strip has has uh enlarged considerably actually over the years because South Laurel Drive is actually now partially over
the uh property of 35 South Laurel Drive. The The drive has shifted west. Um but the 8-ft strip is owned by the same people who own A150, and we have written permission from them to do whatever we need to do over the
8-ft strip. Plus, we have a deeded right of way over the 8-ft strip. And just to be clear about the driveway, um we have spoken to the Aloisi family who owned uh, A41 when they actually built the original
house and all of that area in um, the 8-ft strip all the way down to where South Laurel Drive was at that point was cleared. So, the vegetation that has grown there
um, has grown over the 40 years that Ted Hodgin has owned that property. He has been He's kept the electricity on to the old house. Um, it's never been disconnected. He started to do some renovations in the old house
and then he didn't and he's the one who has let the uh, the shrubs and the all the uh, small vegetation grow. And that really a lot of it is is um, some of it is dead. We've talked to
um, Northeast Utilities because the wires actually go right through some of that vegetation and there will be some clearing of the vegetation that's going to be where the driveway is
now. You're correct Tom that the current driveway is further to the south of the the um, property but that's only because all all the uh, the junk scrub has grown in on the rest of the the part. Nobody's been
Well, very few people have been going back and forth on the road the or the driveway. So, putting the driveway whether it's centrally located or whether it's off to one side is simply a matter of maintaining where the driveway
historically was at one point. At historically that entire area in front of A41 was part of the driveway. >> Um, >> Right. >> Has any of the ownership I I I thought that um the question was whether the
permission you had was sufficient regarding the questionable ownership. >> Um it's a right of way. We don't need permission to cross a right of way to a house that's existing. >> We have a deeded right of way across it.
Across the entire area. >> And as far as from a jurisdictional stamp standpoint, it's exempt regardless of the underlying fee interest. >> And um as far as the um
question about um zoning and local permitting, Mr. Levec said that they're in good step um according to some sort of zoning authority. Um has there been any sort of formal determination about that? >> Yes.
>> Because um and when was that? >> I don't have a date, but we um submitted our plans to the uh building inspector that are the accurate for the you know regional group. Um and it was determined that we're by right.
>> Was it I have [clears throat] uh some communication from the zoning enforcement officer um June 22nd. Was it after that? >> Um no, I believe it was well before that. >> If you want, I can share an email with
you, but um he wrote me that regarding 36 South Laurel Drive, no zoning determination has been made. >> So, we had extent of extensive conversation. I'm not sure which which zoning person you're talking to, but the >> The zoning enforcement officer. um
included emails with you in his response. Um >> Um So >> He reviewed all of the communications among people about this, and he made sure to point out to me, as he
said he pointed out to you, that um everything that is provided to you is for informational purposes and does not constitute a binding opinion or determination. >> Well, >> No. >> we'll be we'll be issuing submitting a building permit, and then at that point we'll get
a formal determination, but um I don't I don't know that anything that we've been told by the building inspector would change regardless of the the status, but we've been it's been made very clear to us. We have correspondence back and forth.
>> He says it would need to go in front of the zoning board of appeals. >> What's that? >> is not about the zoning or a permit to our house. This is a meeting from the conservation commission permitting us to put a septic where we want to put it. >> Yeah, we have board of health approval.
We have extensive conversations with the building department. Uh upon and the issuance of an order of conditions, we would be in a position to submit a a uh you know, a permit for a building construction, at which point the
building inspector will let us know if they have any other further questions or concerns, but as far as um our our conversations to date, it's it's been made very clear that we do not require uh special relief under zoning. >> Yeah, and I so I think at this point
what we would do is it's clear that the applicant is is making attempts to get the required local and state permits, and what we would do is include that as a condition in our conditions is it all state and local permits that are that
are needed would be obtained and work, you know, cannot commence until those have been obtained. So, if there is in the end some kind of a zoning um thing that needs to be obtained, then they would have to do that under our order conditions.
>> Okay. Thanks. Um and my last uh question, please, had to do with the septic system. Um I believe it's 6 ft from the property line or 6 and 1/2 ft from the property line. Um >> [clears throat]
>> one, please, is that true? And if that's true, um who would be liable for anything beyond that property line, like south of the property especially, where it looks most possible something might flow over? Would it be the property owner of that
immediately abutting property? Um would it be the conservation commission? Would it be the property owner? Please. >> So, with regard to the septic system, I'm not sure what dimension you're looking at, but I see the closest point
to the property line, at least as I'm reading it, um right here, 11.8 ft. Um >> The southern boundary of the diagram, is that a portion of the septic system there? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I see what you're talking about. Yeah, that's the tank. Yeah, the
septic >> That's where I'm at, please. >> Okay, yep. Yeah, so that is that is a location of a septic tank. So, that's a solid tank, uh watertight, um all the sewer is sewer line to that, and then the sewer line to the distribution box
into the system is all watertight. Um and then the leach field is is is this rectangle here. Uh so, as far as liability goes, if there's a septic failure, um it's the responsibility of the owner um to uh to reach out to somebody that is
certified to to deal with the septic uh either repair uh or address whatever concerns come up. So, that would be the the liability of the owner. If there was a design flaw or a construction flaw, obviously they would have recourse
against the designer or the contractor. >> Would it be theoretically possible to move the portion that's less than 50 ft? Or some of it anyway. To between the 50 and 100 ft area.
Kind of north of the existing um material in the front of the house and then perhaps move the well south. >> Yeah, we already have approval from the Board of Health. They have a term, you probably heard it. It's called maximum
feasible compliance. >> Mhm. >> So, they look at all of the different criteria for the septic system design, well locations, proximity to property lines, proximity to structures. Obviously have to meet all of the ground
water separations from seasonal high ground water. There's a number of factors that go into it. There's arguably countless hours that we especially on a site, this is a tricky site. It's not the biggest property in the world. So, we worked closely
to make sure that we achieved maximum feasible compliance. And again, we do have approval of the septic system. So, we have no intent or interest in going back because this is what was approved by the
Board of Health as the maximum feasible option for the site from a septic standpoint. >> Thanks. I am I uh I guess I was hoping that like a a true competent like scientist helps determine
that it just appears that there's so much available area in the northern portion of the diagram. Um and uh I thought the Conservation Commission did have a certain [clears throat] amount of authority about
um when a septic system is in the 50-ft area to see um and I know that the Board of Health has its own authority to but um I guess I might even be beseeching the Conservation Commission whether they
might um have any advice. There's one sentence I read in the regulations about I I don't know if it's a competent scientist or a competent specialist who um might be able to show that a
septic system could be differently located in the best interests of the wetlands. Yeah, I think anyhow >> As I think, you know, under the regulations, um if a septic is approved by the Board of
Health, it's Title 5, and it's and it's within the 50, the ConCom really um doesn't have much say in terms of um sort of the function of the septic system, meaning like you know, nitrogen
releasing or anything. We have more say in or we what we want to really look at is um construction impacts, which to me, there's silt fence going up, there's erosion control going up, so I think during construction,
I think we're going to be all right. Um I think at the first meeting we had, we asked the same sort of questions about potentially being able to move the leach field into different spots and and even though it might look like there's a lot of room if you look
at the size of that leach field, I I do really feel like the the Board of Health and and probably the consultants and other people have really looked at trying to place it um you know, as far away from the wetlands but also it has to meet all these other
requirements of title five. >> Mhm. Um I guess I was wondering what circumstances are those that would lead the Conservation Commission to engage a separate specialist to investigate something like that? Or is it only on people who would appeal
or something? It In the regulations [clears throat] it appears as though the Conservation Commission might have recourse to a specialist about some septic matters even after an approved title five design. >> Um I don't I can bring that up, too. If Here, uh Rob, can you stop sharing?
>> Yep. >> Um All right, so this is the section of our local bylaw regulations wetlands. So this is the section on septic. Um So I think what's
Tom is referring to is let's see here. 600 >> Nine. >> Nine. Is it 32? >> 352. Yes, please. >> 32. [clears throat] Yeah, so if an applicant seeks authorization for new construction, expansion, or zoom within
the 50 foot of the aura um and such a system receives approval from the Board of Health, the Commission shall presume the design meets requirements for effluent impacts. Um and the Commission shall only review construction impacts, which is what I
said. And I think you're referring to this last sentence that says, "However, this presumption of no adverse impact on the values may be overcome by credible evidence from a competent source that such a system does not protect the values." Um >> Yes.
>> So, yeah, I think that's what they're saying if the if the commission really questioned the Board of Health's approval of the Title V, we could sort of question the um the uh
What is it? The the way that that septic system deals with sewage. Um if we really questioned it, I guess. Um and one of the things that's been brought up in this meeting that that Scott asked about
was to actually increase where the um the sort of permeable wall wraps around the septic and and he we're going to in our conditions, we're going to ask that it gets extended around. Right now, it's just sort of on
the western side heading towards the road, and we're going to extend it around this the southern end to make sure that the leach field doesn't potentially have any kind of kind of an impact on the wetlands themselves. So, that was one thing that
the commission asked for to kind of just make it so that we trust that that system is is going to do what it needs to do. So, personally, I feel comfortable with the current system and and it the Board of Health has approved has approved it, and it was designed all
right. Um but I guess if other commissioners question it, then we do have the right to have the applicant actually pay to have a competent source sort of look at it again. That's that's
what that's saying. So, I will stop sharing. And I guess that's, you know, just a question for the ComCom, for the other commissioners too if other people feel there's any issues that they see with with that subject any dangers to the
wetlands. So we we are not really concerned about your other question where you're asking about if something happens to an abutting property. The com com [clears throat] that's not neces- that's not something we would be really assessing. We're strictly looking at that septic system and saying is that
could that have any impact on the wetlands? Um and I guess like I said before adding the extension of the impermeable wall that we asked for and will be in the conditions makes me feel perfectly safe
with that septic system. But if other commissioners have concerns feel free to speak up. >> Can Can we ask that uh in in the order of conditions that the septic be um
pumped every 2 years or is that something that we can ask for? >> So I I can speak to that. Uh >> Okay. >> So the tank itself so it's certainly I would highly recommend that these folks depending on the usage um pump their
pump their tank just for the longevity of the septic. Um that said the you know the leach field will still be utilized when you know when people are utilizing the system. So that's not necessarily going to change the effluent loading for this soil
absorption system. If anything typically that's removing solids. So when somebody would pump a tank they're usually removing the solids from the tank but the effluent that there's a baffle in the tank itself. Um so it it essentially separates solids from the you know from
the liquids or the gray water. Does that make sense? So the gray water would still continue on to the soil absorption system based on on usage and again this is you know uh you know not to say it couldn't be easier around but you know, it'll likely get more usage I'm guessing in the summer just
being near the near the lake. >> Are you saying that when the septic pumping the septic doesn't make a difference because it's really about the leech fields getting too much >> Well, I guess yes. I not that not that pumping the septic system, I'm sorry,
septic tank doesn't matter but typically you're you're pumping solids out of the septic tank. If you if there was for some reason a tight tank then you're then that holds not only the solids but the the effluent too. So in this case the effluent will continue on regardless of the solids,
you know, um Yeah, so the effluent will still load into the soil absorption system. And that's why the impervious barrier is just a belts and suspenders approach which you know, wrapping around that southern side certainly would
you know, prevent any sort of you know, potential breakout of this of the system. So yeah, it's it's you know, there's a typical breakout distance before people or before title five allows you to grade away. So it has
to be flat for a certain distance. So we have that and then the impervious barrier is just a you know, again another safeguard to make sure that it the the effluent is just slowly leaching into the ground and not migrating somehow out of the side if
somebody were to cut the slope or something. >> Thank you. >> Yep, thank you. >> [snorts] >> Michael, you have your hand up? >> Uh if the group because wanted to respond to that, I'll let them go first. >> Linda, you have your hand up?
>> Yep, I do. Um just for historical purposes we've owned 35 for 33 years now and we've had our our septic tank pumped every other year. >> Good idea. Good, you know, good to do. >> Yeah. Yeah. Especially that close to the lake.
That's good. Michael, did you want to comment on something? >> I just wanted to ask um the other commissioners if there's ever been any precedent for um requesting some kind of testing years down the line like to address our concerns like if um want to test for nitrogen levels or something in
the in the wetlands that neighbor the septic tank. >> Yeah, I not since I've been on the commission. Um No, I've never heard of testing downstream of septic systems.
Um [clears throat] Um Rhea, you have your hand up? >> Hello, hello. You could hear me, everybody? >> Yes. >> Great. Um I just wanted [clears throat] to say uh you know, I've been living here as long as the Gripkos and just going back to the driveway piece. I remember when there was like I think college students
living there in the house and that whole area was like a driveway, that whole front lawn. So, I don't really know what is a driveway or not, but it was all cleared. Um so, that kind of seems like all systems go um to me. I don't think it
was like a little tiny 8-ft spot. I just remember there being some parties there and uh it was just a big lawn for a big driveway, yes. These things happen. So, just wanted to give that as a historical piece. >> Great. Thank you.
Bob, do you have your hand up? >> Yeah, I just kind of wanted to reply to Michael um uh septic systems do fail. Um there there are are are breakouts etc. Um uh waste is detected in nearby waters. Are there nutrient nutrient spikes
occasionally? Uh often just simply cuz due to the smell, but generally the the Board of Health that handles that and as well as the remediation. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Frank, you have your hand up? >> How are you doing?
Start video. Thank you very much. A um my husband and I only had we moved here 8 years ago. We've never lived in a beautiful place like this. I mean this is amazing living here. I've never lived on a dirt road. I lived in Providence, Rhode Island in the city. I used to walk to restaurants up
the street. But this is an amazing thing. Our main concern here was basically the environment. You know, and the bottom line is the Gripkos are going to build a beautiful house behind us and our property value is going to go up and we we really appreciate that. But
that our main concern was the environment. So, I just wanted to say that. >> Thank you. Yeah, that that's our main concern, too. Um I don't see any other hands up.
All right, so at this point I um I don't have any more questions. If any of the commissioners still have any concerns or questions, now is your chance. Also from the public, too. Um and if I don't see any, then oh, Mayor?
>> I just wanted to kind of go back to my the first night that we were on this public hearing. Uh in that of the order of conditions, something to do with the roads in the in the in just making sure that it's in
there. I know the Gripkos Gripkos will build I'm sure they will make sure that the roads are maintained while this construction is going on. But I again, I want to go back to that because um on my side, on the west side, you know, there's
there's continual um construction and and the equipment does eat up the roads. And I just want to make sure that it doesn't change the runoff um and that um you know, whatever can be attributed to
equipment is taken care of. So, I again, that was my initial comment and I just wanted to go back to that in some way. And I understand that I think Rob said at one point during maybe the second hearing or that you know
that's not the responsibility of the Grip Co's, but that's good neighbors and you know, if they are willing to do it, I just want to make sure that that is done because um it's it is very important to the runoff and what goes into the lake.
>> Thank you for reminding everybody of that. Um Linda, you have your hand up to respond? >> Yeah, I just want to say um that we actually have um paid uh Dave who does the the plowing of the roads, we've paid him
to um correct the grade on um parts of South Laurel Drive when the water has um been threatening to go into the lake um it ends up now in our driveway. So, and we've brought gravel to um fill
in the ditches, which we haven't created. But we're very concerned about the road. We're [clears throat] very concerned about about the entire area. Um we love it there as well. So I don't think it needs to be an order of
condition. There are trash trucks that come down our road um all summer long, spring, summer, and fall. They only stop in the winter. And they do a job on the roads and we've done a fair amount to correct that.
Um all I can say is you know, look at our history. >> All right, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, seeing no more comments or questions, um I'll take a
motion to close the public hearing. >> I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing. >> All right, second? >> Second. >> All right, roll call. McDuffy? >> Aye. >> Fox? >> Aye.
>> Douglas? >> Aye. >> Khan? >> Aye. >> And Wilson, aye. All right, so the public hearing's closed. Um we need to put the order conditions together, which is the actual permit. So
at our next meeting, um will I'll put it together and I'll bring and present it to the commission for their sort of approval and whatnot. Um as the applicant and the consultant, you don't necessarily have to come cuz there really aren't going to be questions anymore. It's just us
putting together the permit, but you're more than welcome to come. Um we'll have it on the agenda, but the public hearing itself is now closed. Um so we thank you for coming to the lots of different meetings. >> Thank you.
>> And yeah, and and making changes to the plans and everything to to, you know, make it a better application for the wetlands, I guess. >> Okay, thank you. >> All right, and if our next meeting is
my phone's at the 25th. Just so you know. No, today's 25th. It's July 9th. Would be our next meeting. So, if you want to come back just to to see the permit. But then after that night
it'll get approved and then we would be mailing it to you. So. >> Right. Thank you for your time again. Appreciate all all your efforts. >> All right. Thank you. >> everybody. Thank you everybody. >> Bye-bye, guys. >> Thanks.
All right. Next is just that we had um discussing the regulations for um conservation areas again on the agenda, but really at this point we're we've done our review and as we talked about before they've gone to
town council and are being looked at. So, we'll talk about them about them again after you're back from >> [snorts] >> um town council. And then the last thing is unanticipated business. Does anybody have anything they want to share? No.
Bob? >> I I would just really like uh uh uh Scott and the others to know that this uh this the the project as far as improving the um the trailways is just a
remarkable project and thank you for everybody who who took place in that and we often do a lot of things, but we don't often take a bow and really uh this has been an outstanding project from its beginning. We've got good people that are are are working on it and and
honestly I think that can't be overstated. >> Yeah, no, I'm really excited about it. The these are the fun things that we do. What we just did right now with 36 Laurel Drive, I don't find that fun really that much. Those Those projects are interesting, you
know, like they bring a plan forward and you're like, "Oh, look at that. They're going to build a house and where's the drainage going to go?" And it's all It's fun, but you end up having to be the regulator, which sometimes isn't fun, but taking care of conservation land and doing
like trail work and stuff is I is really fun. I think it's it's going to be great. And um Walker is really wonderful. He's the Terra More. Um I think it's going to be great working with him. That That's the company that that did the um bog bridging and everything at
Brightwater Bog. >> Which is outstanding, yeah. >> Oh, yeah, they did a phenomenal job. Yeah. >> Yeah, so that's who we've got now as our contractor, so >> Cool. >> Be good. >> So, what what work are we doing as Conservation Commission members? Because
wasn't there parts that we were supposed to be participating? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> [laughter] >> We are on the hook to do the um wetlands delineation, which Beth referred to earlier.
We've done part of that. >> We did. Yeah, Scott and the one out did part of it. >> [snorts] >> More left to do there. And then um the blazing of the trails when we finally have them uh finalized and approved and
constructed where to blaze those. And I think some of the painting of the structures that remain um that is something that we need to talk about doing as well. So, maybe um a good project for
uh likely early fall, I'm thinking or um might be uh for us to do, but yeah, uh it should be a good project, but those are the things we're on the hook to do. >> Sounds good. >> we also have to um
the town I think the highway department um uh Uh, we talked about the signage as well and that's something we're going to um, be on the hook for either constructing and/or paying from from our own funds to to
finalize, but I think that I'm going by memory, but I think those are the parts of the grant that were that we were on the hook for. >> Yep. Okay. Matteo, you have your hand up? >> Um, I know during the site visit Beth, when we were there, um,
it looked like some of the blazes had been repainted. Bob, you were there you were there as well. I wasn't sure Scott if you had gone out and done some blazing already or not. >> Yeah, there is a variety of blazing that's been done over the years there.
Um, I'm not sure I think some by the club, some of them by local uh, neighbors and others that have done some blazing, but it's not very consistent uh, throughout, so that's something
we're going to need to I think in there we actually talked about re- re- painting some of those blazes and then re-blazing. >> Yeah. I'm I'm thinking in particular about the fact that that, um, Tar Moors is going to be re-routing some of those trails, so some of the blazes
have to be obscured or removed possibly. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I think, um, the area where it's going to be moved is the blazes are sort of red and they and they were very faded.
Right in the front, there was some nice white blazes that kind of get you through the beginning. Um, but yeah, we'll have to look at all of that. >> [snorts] >> All right. I think that's it. I think that's it for tonight.
>> [laughter] >> Um I take I'll take a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Okay, second? >> Second it. >> Great. All right. Fox? >> Aye.
>> Douglas? >> Aye. >> McDuffy? >> Aye. >> Khan? >> Aye. >> Wilson? Aye. All right, thanks everybody. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you, commissioners. >> Thank you. See you in a couple weeks. >> Yep.