2026-09-22 - Conservation Commission Meeting

0:02Yes,

0:02>> you guys are ready. This meeting is now

0:05called to order. First item, public

0:08inquiries.

0:1084 Glen Neco Shore Road storm water

0:13runoff. What's that about?

0:15>> I brought this to the commission last

0:16time was a complaint about storm water

0:18runoff. I say that would be waiting for

0:21a nice storm to go and look at it to see

0:23if the water was indeed running towards

0:25the abing property and it was. So, I was

0:28going to ask the commission to make a

0:29motion to uh for me to issue a letter of

0:32storm water violation to the property

0:36owner who has the driveway impeached and

0:39discharged onto the abing property.

0:42>> Oops. So, I need a motion. I'll make

0:44that motion.

0:45>> I need [snorts] a second.

0:46>> Second.

0:47>> All in favor?

0:48>> I

0:48>> I.

0:50>> Next. Approval of minutes August 19,

0:542026.

0:56I need a motion to approve the minutes.

0:57>> Motion to approve the minutes.

0:59>> Second.

0:59>> Second.

1:00>> All in favor?

1:01>> I.

1:02>> Eyes have it. All right. Public

1:05hearings. First one, D number 128-203

1:10360 Worester Road. The applicant has

1:13filed an NOI for the construction of a

1:15commercial building, paved driveway,

1:17parking lots, storm water infiltration,

1:20and associated site work within 100 ft

1:22of the buffer zone of BVW. Where we at

1:25with that?

1:25>> So, we'll be continuing it to when does

1:28planning board continue to?

1:30>> 10:21.

1:31>> So, we'll continue till 10:28.

1:33>> 28. Okay. So, uh 1028.

1:36>> I need a motion to continue to 1028.

1:38Motion to continue.

1:39>> Second.

1:40>> Second.

1:41>> All in favor?

1:42>> All right. Is this the the one the

1:44planned?

1:45>> Yes.

1:46>> Gas station with the

1:47>> No.

1:47>> Oh, sorry.

1:49>> No. Yeah. That's where the uh uh a

1:52little it was a little a mini golf.

1:55>> Oh, the miniature golf course. Okay.

1:57>> All right. Next item. D number 128 2018

2:0211 Sunset Drive. The applicant has filed

2:05an NOI for the construction of a deck

2:08with a swim spa, permittable paver

2:11patio, fence, and retaining wall within

2:14100 ft of Gluck Lake.

2:16>> We will be continued to October 28th.

2:2328th is fine.

2:24>> I need a motion to continue the 28th.

2:26>> Motion to continue.

2:27>> Second.

2:28>> Second.

2:29>> All in favor?

2:30>> I. [snorts]

2:33>> All right.

2:35Next on the list is DP number 128 2015.

2:39Just says Worester Road. The applicant

2:42has filed an NOI for the construction.

2:44Uh of

2:45>> we have a man approaching the deis

2:48of a five fuel pumps, two diesel

2:51stations, two 20,000galon underground

2:54tanks associated with a gas station and

2:56drive-thru and propose proposed

2:59convenience store with five residential

3:00units above it. All work is within 100

3:03ft of BBW. This is the one we've been

3:05seeing for months, correct?

3:07>> Since August.

3:09>> Since August. We're just waiting on

3:11planning board some storm water but it

3:13looks like everyone has been addressed.

3:15How are you?

3:16>> Good. Okay. This is fine. Yeah.

3:19>> You presented before, right?

3:21>> Yeah. Yeah. I I just wanted to go

3:22quickly over what

3:25from the last meeting at the last

3:26meeting. No, there was no changes on the

3:28plan but uh I guess the board was

3:31waiting for the planning uh board

3:34>> this was waiting to close. Yes. and they

3:36did

3:37>> close and they approved the the all the

3:39special permits and the uh

3:41>> I don't know if you want me to go

3:42through I can just

3:43>> you can just give a an overview to

3:45refresh everyone's mind

3:46>> excuse me if we is there anybody in the

3:48audience that wants to see these plans

3:50>> absolutely

3:52>> nobody okay

3:53>> so basically uh at the last presentation

3:56I I stated that the property is about

3:584.75 acres and uh it's located in the in

4:02the commercial business district a gas

4:04station was allowed use as of right, but

4:06we applied for a special permit for the

4:09drive-thru and the apartments, the five

4:12apartments on the second floor. Uh, this

4:15site, uh, approximately 2.5 acres of

4:18this site was previously disturbed with

4:20the with the gravel processing

4:22operation. I'm sure you're all familiar

4:24with the site. It's been there for 25,

4:2630 years. And uh so we we filed for

4:30notice of intent in conjunction with the

4:32planning board and part of the uh

4:35process review process. We had we hired

4:38traffic consultants. We also hired the

4:40environmental consultants through your

4:42office that reviewed the the projects.

4:44They had some comments. D had few

4:46comments too. I addressed those with

4:48with Rose and I I sent the memo uh and

4:52they sent the revised plans to uh D. All

4:55the storm water was reviewed by

4:58>> Graves engineer review

5:00>> uh by yeah uh uh

5:02>> Graves

5:03>> Graves Engineering and there was like I

5:05believe originally 36 38 comments all

5:08the comments addressed there's couple

5:09minor comments that we had to did part

5:12of the planning board conditions that we

5:16just revised those couple minor plans on

5:19they they mostly like drafting errors

5:22not nothing to do but we got the okay

5:24from uh the storm water and I I'll be

5:27applying for this for the storm water.

5:29>> Oh, that's fine. This I won't hold this

5:30back. I'll just have a special condition

5:32there.

5:33>> I heard that and really it didn't have

5:35you know I went online I downloaded the

5:37application. Everything's reviewed.

5:40>> It's straightforward at this point.

5:41>> Straightforward. So just to refresh your

5:44memories basically we're in the buffer.

5:47Uh there's a small portion of the

5:48drive-thru that is between the 50 foot

5:51buffer and 100 foot buffer that we will

5:53be altering. And again, this is areas

5:56that previously degraded or developed or

5:59altered. There's no new alteration with

6:02this project. And we kept the the scope

6:05we kept the the the limits of the

6:07alteration to within the existing uh

6:11previously disturbed areas. And we

6:13actually uh uh claim some of this area

6:17that was previously graveled. And this

6:19will be turned into a green space. And

6:21again, this is all between the 50 and

6:23the 100 foot buffer. Uh all this snow

6:26storage out of the 100t buffer, fuel

6:30operations, fuel tanks, buildings, storm

6:33water, septic, all outside the 100 foot

6:36buffer. And also we propose a 6-foot

6:41fence all along the southerntherly side

6:44of the property from the mo the this the

6:48north west corner all the way to

6:53this end here.

6:54>> Is there a curb mot?

6:56>> What's that?

6:56>> Is there going to be curbing?

6:58>> Oh yeah, we have we have curbing but

6:59also we have a small retaining wall but

7:01we have some landscape but we do have

7:04also a fence. So that's would prevent

7:06any

7:08probably debris going to the back of the

7:10river and also we did that so some of

7:13the residents that live to the south the

7:16you know to prevent any glare to to

7:18lighting I mean and this was all part of

7:21the site review so um and we with the

7:25storm water I don't want to go into a

7:26lot of details but you know right I I

7:28think I mentioned this at the last

7:30meeting you know there's nothing there

7:32now you know whatever your operating

7:34machines with hydraulics and there's no

7:36treatment, you know, whatever.

7:37>> It's an improvement.

7:39>> It is, you know, we we truly did the you

7:43know, a good job to to make sure because

7:45we understand the the the sensitive area

7:48here and uh so everything will be

7:51collected, treated that we have shut off

7:53valves for emergency spills and all

7:55that. So uh and also I think I mentioned

7:59at at that time that that's the existing

8:02gravel driveway currently uh used for

8:06access in the property off of old

8:08worcester road will be closed with two

8:10gates only emergency personnel and curb

8:14cuts we have to go to do mass if there's

8:17any changes on the plans from we'll have

8:19to come back that's what the planning

8:21board and the planning board approved it

8:23>> uh at the last meeting I think They sent

8:26me a copy of the draft condition. Yes, I

8:28think you got a copy to it. So, I think

8:31we're good to go. So,

8:34we kindly ask your approval tonight so

8:37we can continue on.

8:40>> So, the total disturbance within the

8:41buffer zone, we're talking about less

8:43than 30,000 square feet and near the BVW

8:47around 40 ft. Uh it was delineated and

8:50it was also our alley uh confirmed the

8:54lines. Uh findings have been confirmed.

8:58Uh

9:03something

9:09no is another project. No, that's it.

9:11And the only special condition outside

9:13of the uh original conditions that we

9:15usually issue is just a special

9:17conditions that the lane disturbance

9:19should not started until the lane

9:22disturbance the lane disturbance

9:24application is filed. So which is a

9:26little bit so I don't have any concerns

9:28of the project has met all storm water

9:30has been reviewed by graves approved by

9:32planning board. Uh uh questions and

9:36comments from D have been uh

9:40>> addressed

9:40>> addressed. Peer review comments have

9:43been addressed.

9:45>> Board members have any questions.

9:48>> I guess we talked a little bit about

9:49that access way on the side. You said

9:51that's going to be chained closed just

9:54for emergency.

9:55>> It'll be a gate. Yeah. And only

9:57emergency personnel will have access to

9:59the box. whatever it be fired, police or

10:02so be another means of eagerness to the

10:04fire department. I guess it's there.

10:06Might as well use it.

10:08>> That's what our feeling. But again,

10:10we're going back to DOT. There was a

10:12discussion with the planning board.

10:13Maybe make this or here maybe one way

10:15out or something. But the the residents

10:18did not did not like that. So, we're not

10:20going that route.

10:22>> It would impact the wetlands in the

10:24area. So unless and only when DOT

10:26actually requires that to be changed, we

10:30will remain like that. If they do, then

10:32he'll come back to us with a different

10:34plan.

10:35>> Okay. Any

10:36>> And these are underground tanks as well.

10:38You said the storage tanks.

10:42Um are they double walled? Are they

10:44steel?

10:45>> Double walled with

10:47>> Vita root protection 24-hour monitoring.

10:50This is this is fire codes. Yeah. Okay.

10:53Yeah. Absolutely.

10:56>> I just have one question. Um, for the

10:58revision that you were talking about for

11:00the DOT, um,

11:02>> what is the is that already in motion?

11:06>> The DOT,

11:07>> there's no revision. Yes. So, he will

11:09apply for the curb cut with the states.

11:12So, states have different requirements.

11:14So, sometimes when they go to the state,

11:16they can come back with their

11:18requirements that will impact what has

11:20been approved. If that is to happen,

11:23they will come back and he will come

11:25back and show the commission what

11:26possible change is going to have to be

11:29made in order to comply with the state

11:31requirements and then we work together

11:34then. But there's nothing in the works.

11:35Nothing has been so correct.

11:37>> Perfect.

11:38>> Any members of the audience have a

11:40question?

11:41>> I just do just out of curiosity. Um I'm

11:43Ashley Rzbow 32L Stevens Road. Um, I

11:47just learned about this project, but I

11:49was part of the properties that got

11:51affected by the old uh gas station where

11:53the CVS is now where the gas leaked into

11:56the water and then um Exxon had to come

11:59and replace we connected to sewer. Is

12:01there any plan like should that happen

12:03in that area for you guys like how that

12:06would be handled on this side here? Like

12:10do you guys kind of remember what I'm

12:12talking about with this?

12:15I I can't tell you what happened there

12:18because obviously I don't know. It could

12:20have been an old tank with like steel

12:23old in the old days they used to put

12:24steel tanks in the ground and they rot.

12:26We all know that. So now the rules are

12:28different regulations. So

12:30>> which is great. I just was

12:31>> so double wall fiberglass tanks

12:34>> and with 24-hour monitoring

12:37>> and all the piping same and also I

12:40mentioned on the storm water. I don't

12:41know if you're familiar with storm

12:42water. storm water is when you if you it

12:46collects the runoff when from the rain

12:48but in case there's some debris or

12:52pollutant on site let's say you have an

12:54oil spill or something from a car that

12:56leaks.

12:57>> So we take that into deep some catch

13:00basins then we take it through oil water

13:01separators you know treat it before we

13:03discharge to the to the wetlands. Uh and

13:06also if there's any large leak like a

13:09catastrophic leak, let's say uh

13:12something broke with with the pump or

13:15the pipe or uh that leak uh 500 gallons,

13:20something like that which will be all

13:21contained in the in the drainage system.

13:23There's also a uh shut off valves that

13:26all employees will be trained to the

13:29locations are shown on the plans with

13:31the signage and all the you know we do

13:33this on my client operates about 15 gas

13:36stations in the commonwealth of

13:37Massachusetts and this is something that

13:39we do so you can shut those valves off

13:42and then prevent any water going into

13:44the ground you know.

13:45>> Okay. That's are well known facility.

13:48>> Oh yeah. and and this was all reviewed

13:49by Europe review and uh you know so we

13:52this has been going on for like three

13:54four months back and forth we made like

13:56three four different revisions on the

13:57plane so

13:58>> yeah I just want I just it was just I

14:01completely understand you know this is

14:04absolutely

14:07>> be recommended to close the public

14:08hearing and issuing the order of

14:10conditions I need that motion

14:12>> I'll make that motion

14:13>> second

14:13>> second [snorts]

14:14>> all in favor

14:15>> I

14:15>> approved

14:17>> thank you very much Thank you. I will be

14:19talking. I mean,

14:20>> yeah, we I'll we'll talk next week.

14:22>> Yeah. Thank you so much.

14:23>> Thanks for the presentation.

14:24>> Well, thank you for your help.

14:26>> Oh, of course.

14:27>> We exchanged emails, but I didn't

14:29realize this is you. So, [laughter]

14:32>> thanks.

14:33>> All right. Next, we have D number

14:35128-2029

14:39Snake Hill. The applicant has filed an

14:42NOI for the construction of a new

14:43substation to provide power to an Amazon

14:46warehouse within 100 ft of the BBW.

14:48>> I'm guessing that's you.

14:50>> How are you, Alison?

14:51>> I'm well. How are you?

14:52>> Good. Good.

14:53>> And you presentation?

14:55>> Oh, sure. Yes. Um, do you Oh, Dale, she

14:59just put it. Did you just put it there?

15:01>> Oh, no. I have it on my laptop. Do you

15:03need it on a flash drive?

15:04>> Yes.

15:05>> Thank you. Yeah.

15:07>> Why is there a flash drive there? What

15:08is that?

15:10see the flash drive. Can you see what's

15:13in there

15:16through the

15:20>> I actually think it's hers.

15:22>> Alison, did you ever take yours last

15:24time?

15:27>> Yeah,

15:27>> I have several. I'm just going to pop

15:29this.

15:30>> Yeah, just left it here.

15:32>> I think that's the one that's there, but

15:35if there are revisions anyway, so it

15:36Yeah, let's eject that day if you don't

15:38mind.

15:41While Ellison's getting the media ready,

15:43I'll introduce the project if that's

15:44okay with everybody.

15:45>> Yes, sure.

15:46>> All right. Good evening. My name is

15:48Peter Defusco. I'm a lead environmental

15:50scientist with National Grid. I'm the

15:52applicant for the project.

15:55Um, we kick this off on July 15th for 29

15:59Snake Hill Road where we're building the

16:00new substation to support the Amazon

16:02warehouse. This is a transmission

16:04substation. So, we'll be building um

16:09a fence enclosed facility on our

16:11existing property. It will loop into

16:14overhead transmission infrastructure.

16:17There's an overhead transmission line to

16:19the north behind where this structure is

16:21proposed.

16:23To the east is Carpenter Hill Road. Um

16:25the way the property flows, it's a large

16:28hill and then an intermediate bench

16:29where we're proposing the station and

16:31then another hill downward sloping west.

16:35Thank you.

16:36>> To the south is Snake Hill Road.

16:39Um coming from the station, we'll have

16:41distribution lines going underground in

16:44the access driveway and then to the

16:47roadway where it connects to existing

16:49distribution poles.

16:53We had some

16:55D comments uh which were reviewed and

16:58submitted. We were also peer-reviewed by

17:00Mr. R. Allen um before he retired. It

17:02was nice to get out there in the field

17:03with him on June 30th uh where we

17:07addressed uh Mr. Allen's comments as

17:09well.

17:11And with that, I will hand it over to

17:12our representative for the project, BC

17:14Group.

17:15>> Hi, my name is Alison Milman. I'm here

17:17on behalf of the applicant as a

17:19representative from BSC Group.

17:21>> Okay. So I had given a presentation the

17:23last time uh and this is uh an update to

17:27basically what we've presented on and uh

17:30you [clears throat] know the responses

17:31that we've provided as well as um some

17:34changes to the plans. We provided

17:36responses to our DP reviewer as well as

17:38the peer reviewer as um as Pete had

17:41mentioned.

17:47So, as Pete said, this is a new

17:48substation with distribution and

17:50transmission line upgrades. Um, these

17:53are the this is the scope of work. This

17:54is the um to refresh your memory. Um,

17:57it's an existing 64 approximately acre

17:59lot. Um, it's mainly forested. Um, it

18:02does contain an existing substation and

18:05transmission um facilities within the

18:07site. Um, and as well as a solar site.

18:10Um and the the proposed scope is to

18:14build a new substation tie it into the

18:15transmission as well as a distri ex

18:17existing distribution system. Um and all

18:20of these um you know activities are

18:23supporting that new substation and uh

18:26transmission facilities.

18:29Okay. So that's the site location 29

18:32road. Okay. So now we're getting into

18:34the meat here. These are the changes um

18:37that have been realized since I I

18:39initially uh presented to the

18:41commission. Um so uh one of the the big

18:45changes that I'd like to present is is

18:47the culvert design has significantly

18:49changed. So originally it was an

18:50extension of the existing corrugated

18:52metal pipe. Uh but now they are

18:54proposing um a box culvert concrete

18:57three-sided box cover c cover c cover c

18:59cover c cover c cover c cover c cover c

18:59cover c cover c coververt with a

19:00concrete sides um open bottom

19:04um and so that that has changed our

19:06impact substantially so I would say our

19:09our bank impact now is only associated

19:11with 315 linear feet of tree removals

19:14because the uh new box the preset box

19:17cover culvert will span the stream banks

19:20um our border vegetative wetland impacts

19:22have decreased to 256 square ft of fill.

19:26Um 28,000 square feet of tree removals

19:30and then land underwater. We've uh

19:32removed impacts to those because we are

19:34not putting anything into the bottom of

19:35the of the stream. It will be completely

19:38spanned um with the box cover. So it's

19:41only associated with tree removals and

19:43those trees are mostly canopy canopy

19:45cover not growing in the actual stream

19:48bed.

19:49So again, the culvert was re-evaluated

19:52to to address the mass stream crossing

19:54standards. Um, and then the other, you

19:57know, the other avoidance and

19:58minimization measures that I had

19:59presented to you before is that we, you

20:00know, the company was able to site the

20:02new proposed substation outside of any

20:04wetland. We're looking at very small 100

20:06foot buffer zone impacts only associated

20:08with that new facility.

20:13Okay. So this is um plan sheet C7 from

20:17VHB's design plan. Um and this shows the

20:19new proposed culvert design uh that was

20:22submitted to the commission. Um you'll

20:24see here that you know we have the the

20:26wing walls associated with the the new

20:29box culvert. Um and there's only a small

20:32amount about 200 square feet of now is

20:35proposed within to be a permanent impact

20:37within the adjacent wetland. So there's

20:39a fring there's a bordering wetland to

20:41that intermittent stream. Uh but we no

20:43longer have any impacts to the stream

20:45bed or the stream bank associated with

20:47the culvert. Um and you'll see here

20:49below in the schematic that the culvert

20:51will span and it'll have an open bottom.

20:53Uh they're proposing to have a cobble

20:56bottom to kind of mimic the substrate

20:58upstream and downstream um and to

21:00provide a more natural um you know

21:03water a waterway crossing than what was

21:05originally what's what's there now and

21:08what was originally proposed.

21:15Okay. So, I'll go through our responses

21:16to the pre-review um that we've

21:19submitted to the commission. Uh we have

21:21increased the bordering vegetated

21:22wetland, a small section there that's on

21:25the um southern side of the intermittent

21:27stream that was flagged and added to the

21:29plans and that resulted in a minor

21:31increase in the in the BVW tree clearing

21:34numbers.

21:36[clears throat]

21:39Uh another comment from the peer

21:41reviewers that they recommended the

21:43monitoring frequency of every week and

21:45then after a quarter inch of rain or

21:46more. Uh our response is that that was

21:49already the plan. The the project will

21:50trigger the need for a construction

21:53general permit authorization under

21:54through the EPA. So we'll be preparing a

21:56storm water pollution prevention plan

21:57and submitting a notice of intent and

21:59that will automatically require uh with

22:02>> the monitor

22:02>> the weekly and the post drain

22:04inspections. Correct.

22:06And then um copies of the monitoring

22:08reports will be sent to the commission.

22:10Um if that's included in in the order

22:12that's an interest

22:16I keep wanting to change it on my

22:17laptop. It's so funny. Um

22:20[clears throat]

22:21now we're going into the D comments. I'm

22:23skipping. There was a redundant comment

22:24about the covert between the peer

22:26reviewer and the DP. So I'll just

22:27address that when we address DP

22:29comments. Um there was a question about

22:32the finger-like um

22:36wetland flag. Okay. So 6 associated with

22:39the proposed work on the stream crossing

22:40is not accounted for on page three. Um

22:42and then I had responded that originally

22:45yes it was included and I just kind of

22:47spelled out the math. Um and then I

22:50referenced the fact that you know we did

22:52have a peerreview and that we did add

22:53additional wetland based on that peer

22:55review.

22:58We've submitted updated plans to DP as

23:00well.

23:01Uh there was a question by the DP

23:03reviewer about the impact to a

23:05finger-like projection of wetlands. So

23:07um this is an existing cart path where

23:10there's a wetland that basically bleeds

23:11over into the into the cart path that's

23:14proposed to be upgraded and used um for

23:16the substation access. Um so it's less

23:20than 500 square ft. Um it meets the uh

23:24folk compliance of 310 CMR 10.554.

23:28uh which precludes the need to provide

23:30replication for this very small amount

23:32of wetland fill that's along the

23:34existing road. [clears throat]

23:41D commented on the test pit information

23:43that VHB had provided um in their storm

23:46water report. Uh VHB's response is here.

23:50Um but an analys you know in a summary

23:53um they will be doing supplemental test

23:54pit locations if needed immediately

23:57prior to construction to confirm um

23:59their their assessment um but they they

24:02did take representative test pits

24:04already and they are using they have

24:05used those as basis for their design

24:07>> but they will be they will be doing at

24:10the location the test bits I don't need

24:13that to be done now but this should be

24:15provided before the land disturbance

24:18application is submitted

24:20Okay,

24:20>> that that would be a condition that I'm

24:22going to be putting in the order, a

24:23special condition cuz the test bits must

24:26be done at the closest to the location

24:29of the basin and they have not.

24:32>> Okay.

24:33>> So, I think I got that response.

24:38>> You call if the planning board also put

24:39a condition.

24:41>> Yes, I that's why [clears throat]

24:42because I we we we work together to make

24:44sure then uh who am I talking to back

24:47and forth? Uh

24:50so I just want to make sure that that is

24:52addressed now so I don't need to go

24:53back.

24:58Yes. So uh VHB will work with national

25:02agree to schedule additional test pits

25:04as soon as possible as necessary. So uh

25:07that's one of the special conditions I

25:09will have on the order that it that will

25:12be necessary and and should be done

25:14prior to disturbing which means during

25:17the process of the uh lane disturbance

25:20application.

25:22>> Okay. So we should submit the we should

25:24intend to submit the results of their

25:25test pits with the land disturbance

25:27application.

25:27>> Yes. Okay.

25:28>> So just when do you think you'll be

25:30starting the project? Is there a

25:32timeline to start the project?

25:35It's fall, right?

25:37>> Yeah.

25:37>> Is it just fall?

25:39>> Yeah. What part of the project are we

25:41talking about?

25:42>> Disturbance. Any anything that relates

25:44to disturbance

25:45>> this fall? Fall winter.

25:46>> Oh, okay. Okay. So, yes, you have time.

25:48Yeah. So, you should just make sure that

25:51those test bits are kind of scheduled

25:54[clears throat]

25:54as you file the land disturbance because

25:57the land disturbance, the storm water

25:58has already occurred. Uh the storm water

26:01management review has already occurred.

26:03Yes. So it will be a fast it once you

26:06file within 30 days and last I will be

26:09ready to be issuing the permits. So

26:11those test piece must occur prior you

26:13filing or during the process because all

26:15what I need is really to go for

26:17advertisement and that doesn't come from

26:19the commission. I approve that myself.

26:22So just try to schedule those test bits

26:26uh as you're filing it

26:29but we can discuss that further.

26:32Do you have a concern? You you sound you

26:34look

26:36>> No. Yeah, you look [clears throat] a

26:37little bit

26:38>> No. Do you have a question?

26:39>> In my head, the only thing I'm wanted to

26:41make sure we cover is if it's already a

26:42planning board condition,

26:44>> then the redundancy sounds

26:46>> unnecessary, but if if it needs to

26:48happen for your land disturbance permit,

26:49which I understand is a

26:51>> any so they they did that because we

26:54worked together.

26:55>> So I told them that because when Graves

26:57review, he reviews our regulations as

27:00well. Yeah. So, but because I'm also

27:02issuing a permit to you, I'll have that

27:04as a special condition under my order.

27:07>> Okay.

27:07>> So, uh but redundant or not, it should

27:10be listed on all permits. So, we avoid

27:14work to commence before that step is

27:17taken.

27:18>> Okay.

27:18>> So,

27:19>> so the jurisdiction would be to both.

27:21>> Yes. So,

27:24>> um

27:24>> or would it fall under

27:25>> storm water juris under the conservation

27:28commission?

27:28>> Okay. So when Graves reviewed under

27:30planning board, I asked the planning

27:33board to to the review to also be for

27:35our storm water bylaw and regulations

27:38which our commission has jurisdiction

27:40over. Got it. And the reason I do so is

27:42so when you come to us, I don't ask you

27:44to go for peer review again.

27:46>> Yes. So all the pre-review is completed

27:48at the same time would because you'll

27:51have to it'll take longer and you cost

27:53you more because the same set of plans

27:55would have to go back to Graves

27:57Engineering for then him to review just

28:00our uh bylaw.

28:01>> I I understand. Yes. Thank you for

28:03clarify

28:06>> thank you.

28:06>> Yeah.

28:12>> Okay. Uh, another DP comment was on the

28:14stormwater VHB storm water report. The

28:16standard for calculations were not

28:18included. Um, and then we've submitted

28:20VHB's revised storm water report to

28:22provide the pre-treatment upstream of

28:25the infiltration basins. Um, and they've

28:27updated the TSSE removal calculations in

28:30that report and was submitted to the the

28:32commission for review and as well as the

28:34DP.

28:40Okay. Okay, so this this gets into the

28:41stream crossing standards and how the

28:43original proposal to extend the existing

28:45corrugated metal pipe did not meet the

28:48uh mass stream crossing standards. Um

28:50and we have now received an updated

28:53design from VHB for a three-sided box

28:55cover culvert. Um and that this design

28:57does meet the Massachusetts stream

28:59crossing standards to the extent

29:00practicable.

29:07Okay, so this this slide really talks

29:09about our responses to the mass DP

29:11comments about alternatives analysis

29:14that was conducted um to reduce impacts.

29:18There was a you know the big question

29:19here was about the amount of tree

29:21clearing that's being proposed within

29:23regulated resource areas. And so, um,

29:26Pete and I worked with the transmission

29:29line engineering group as well as the

29:31their forestry group, um, to provide

29:33responses. The responses are pretty

29:35verbose, but I've broken them down what

29:37I think are the key points in in in

29:39bullets on this slide. Um, and that they

29:42looked at, you know, connecting to the

29:44existing transmission line with the new

29:46tap line at different locations um, um,

29:49within that that property along that

29:51line. Um however if they had shifted it

29:55um farther away um it would result in

29:58because of the longer distance a midspan

30:01structure that would land into a

30:02wetland. So then we'd all now we would

30:04have a permanent impact you know

30:06associated with that. Um and as well as

30:09um there was some ground and wire

30:10clearances issues um with the other

30:13alternative locations.

30:16Um and then their response was that they

30:19you know through their analysis the

30:20current design minimizes impacts to the

30:22extent practical within the confined

30:24transmission line right away. Um and

30:27then our forestry representative at

30:29National Grid uh reviewed and she said

30:31that tree removals are necessary to

30:33accommodate all all necessary uh aspects

30:36of the of the work. And something to

30:38keep in mind is that, you know, leaving

30:40strips of trees that are that have grown

30:43up in interior forest, excuse

30:45[clears throat] me,

30:48pretty much um vulnerable to the

30:50elements and they've never that they've

30:52never experienced before being an

30:54interior forest tree. Um they are

30:56high-risisk failure because they just

30:58aren't they didn't develop the ability

31:00to withstand uh heavy winds, ice, things

31:02of that nature that you know uh exterior

31:04trees do. Um and so that would be

31:06putting facilities at a risk of damage

31:08if if they only if they got a carved out

31:11um tree [clears throat] clearing areas

31:12and and left strips of trees um on the

31:16property. So that was the reasoning

31:17behind behind the the total area of tree

31:20clearing.

31:21[clears throat]

31:26Okay. Um another DP comment was about uh

31:29401 and 404.

31:32and we [clears throat] are uh you know

31:33we're we're at less than 5,000 square

31:35feet of impacts uh you know with our

31:37order of conditions we that'll satisfy

31:39the 401 requirements. Um and then the

31:42404 application was approved by Army

31:44Corps um on June 2020 um I'm sorry uh

31:49July 28th 2026.

31:51>> Do you mind just sending me that if you

31:53don't mind?

31:54>> Sure.

31:54>> Yes, thank you.

31:55>> Yep, I can do that. Uh and then we will

31:57be needing to resubmit uh for

31:59reverification with the updated culvert

32:01design, but we wanted to get through the

32:02course the local review process first.

32:08>> Do you want the permit or the

32:09application?

32:10>> Oh, just the permit.

32:11>> Okay. Okay.

32:13>> It's all um a portal.

32:14>> Yeah, I now too. So,

32:17>> okay. So that summarizes um you know the

32:20changes that have happened since we last

32:21we last uh presented to the commission

32:24on this project and at this time unless

32:26Pete has anything he'd like to add. I

32:28think we're we'll deal with any

32:29questions that there might be.

32:31>> Do you have any questions for us?

32:33>> Uh can you start the public or or the

32:36commission if you don't mind? I just

32:37need to look at something that I forgot.

32:39>> Any commission members have questions?

32:43Any audience members before turning over

32:46to Rose?

32:51>> Okay, that's it. No, I don't have any

32:53questions. I think everything has been

32:55>> We need to continue this now.

32:56>> No,

32:57>> I'm ready to close an issue. I'm just

32:59going to have a couple uh probably a

33:01week or two to finish the special

33:03conditions to issue the order, but

33:05>> I'm ready to close. Okay,

33:07>> hang on. Do you have a question? I still

33:09need further review because it is slopy

33:11there and there's a lot of trees being

33:13taken down.

33:16>> I don't have a reason for do further

33:19review.

33:19>> I do.

33:20>> I

33:21>> I'd like this I'd like more information.

33:22That's all I'm asking.

33:23>> The information you can pro I can

33:25provide the information now.

33:27>> That's fine.

33:27>> Yeah. What is it the question?

33:29>> Oh, the D comments. I need to I'd like

33:31to review all that stuff.

33:33>> Okay. Well, this application has staying

33:35with us for a bit now in my office. So I

33:38can't hold the public hearing to be

33:39closed. I can give you the information

33:42to you right now. So you related to the

33:44question from D. We can discuss that now

33:57>> about the trees

33:59>> the m for the clear tree clearing.

34:01>> Yeah. So what's your question?

34:04>> I have several questions. I would need

34:06some time to go over the the questions

34:07for the D. I wasn't aware when would you

34:11roughly did you receive these? When did

34:14you receive these?

34:15>> The dates there.

34:17>> We usually we usually have this

34:19discussions during the meeting.

34:21>> So the qu the answers are here. So the

34:24the GP say that

34:28>> Nick what day?

34:30>> September.

34:32>> September 4th.

34:35So if you are if you have well we can

34:38discuss that outside the meeting because

34:39it appears that would be something else

34:42uh related that we can't uh discuss for

34:44uh further going forward but uh to hold

34:48the project from being approved because

34:50it

34:51>> well it's a good size projectable

34:54>> question. You can ask a questions and

34:56they're here to respond. I just saying

34:58to continue the project because you have

35:01a question about the clear that has been

35:03already responded has been peer-reviewed

35:05has been already peer-reviewed by two

35:07professionals. It's just I feel that we

35:10have in my opinion enough information to

35:12close the public hearing tonight. So if

35:15you disagree with that we can vote and

35:17the commission can make a decision. So,

35:19but I won't have any additional

35:21information to give it to you other than

35:23they what I already have and they won't

35:25have any additional information to

35:26provide other than they already have

35:28been provided.

35:30It would just be a matter of you reading

35:32a document which I have in front of you

35:34right now. So, I'm happy to uh I'm ready

35:39to make a recommendation to close the

35:40public hearing issue the order

35:42conditions

35:43so you can vote.

35:46>> So, we have a DP.

35:47>> Yes. Do I have a motion?

35:49>> I'll take that motion.

35:51>> Second.

35:52>> Second. All

35:53>> in favor?

35:57>> In favor?

35:58>> Yeah.

36:00>> Yes.

36:01>> Nice to have it.

36:02>> All right. Thank you so much. Yeah. I

36:04will contact you and I'll let you know

36:05when the permit is.

36:07>> All right. Thank you. I just got in a

36:08couple weeks.

36:14that.

36:15>> Oh, it just looks like

36:18that you had additional questions. Yeah,

36:20that's why I asked. [laughter] It

36:22>> was nice seeing you guys. All right,

36:24have a good night. [clears throat]

36:25>> It was what?

36:28>> He was like thinking deeply and I was

36:29like, there's a question there.

36:31[laughter]

36:32>> Have a good night.

36:34>> Okay, next DP number. This is an old

36:37one. 128-1971

36:4080 Richardson Corner Road. Is that you,

36:42Chris?

36:44>> No.

36:44>> Where are we?

36:46>> The applicant has filed an NOI for the

36:49proposed extension widing of an exist

36:51existing farmer's wall and fill within

36:5415 ft of the BDW.

36:57>> We will be continued to

37:00>> 28th.

37:01>> I need a motion to continue.

37:02>> October 28th. So

37:04>> 20th.

37:05>> Oh, is it October?

37:06>> October

37:07>> 28th. Yes. Sorry, I

37:09>> Okay, I need a second. Second.

37:11>> All in favor?

37:13>> I.

37:17>> All right.

37:19Next, we have D number 128-202418

37:23Oxbow Road. The Afghan has filed an NOI

37:27for clearing, filling, and grading work

37:29within 100 ft of the buffer zone.

37:33That is you.

37:35>> Yes.

37:38>> All right. Good evening. Chris Mccclur

37:39with B Engineering

37:42here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Ron

37:46Royer, who fortunately could not be with

37:49us tonight. If it was, it would be on

37:52this side of the fence for a little bit.

37:55Um so, um John owns property on Route

37:5920. Um he's got frontage on Oxbow Road

38:03and also on Route 20. Um it's adjacent

38:06to the self- storage area there. A few

38:09years back that area was reszoned for

38:11all commercial and that included all of

38:13our bronze lot. Um so he's got a home

38:17here and then he has access both of curb

38:19cut through mass DOT and also a driveway

38:22access on on Oxwell Road. Ryan's looking

38:25to take advantage of current um material

38:29that is available in the town and I'll

38:31bring in some clean fill um to fill up

38:34an area of this land that is u well

38:37basically it's he wants to level the

38:39land in behind um well be the front side

38:41of this property on Route 20 and the

38:43back side of this garage. Um the

38:46wetlands were delineated by uh Glen

38:48Kabowski. Uh we are proposing to um to

38:52put some um erosion control sediment to

38:55protect the wetss. Um give ourselves a

38:58couple of feet of space in between the

39:00PW and the slope and then um and then

39:05create a 3 to1 slope up to where we can

39:08um get a flat area for grading in that

39:10backyard. Um graded area is

39:13approximately 23,215.

39:15I don't have um the disturbance within

39:18the 150, but you can see here um it's

39:22probably I would probably say like

39:2417,000 give or take um within the within

39:28the 100. Um [clears throat]

39:31he has no plans for any development if

39:34he did uh first and for have to go

39:36through site plan uh approval. Um he

39:39would also have to um go in front of a

39:42mass as the applicant just discussed. So

39:45I would be oh we did as you heard we

39:49were issued a math EP file number and uh

39:52we responded to a couple of their

39:55comments and the narrative and I um CC

39:58arose on that and really it's um

40:00construction phasing is what they were

40:03concerned with. Okay, the source really

40:05um goes deep. What are you going to do

40:07to protect it as you part? Um and and we

40:10have done projects such as this many

40:12times in the past. So uh we show uh we

40:16show erosion controls as as the um slope

40:20comes up continues to maintain that

40:22protect it um get um you know salt

40:25control on there and then and not just

40:28wait till it's you know erosion controls

40:31on the bottom and then wait till you

40:32finished up on the top um intermediate

40:34uh phasing of the [clears throat] uh

40:36erosion control to prevent sediment from

40:38migrating down the hill during the

40:40construction. So

40:42that's all I really have. If you have

40:44any questions, I'd be uh happy to answer

40:46them as best I can.

40:48>> Board have any questions?

40:51>> You have any questions?

40:53>> What is the slope from the wet line up

40:55to the finished?

40:56>> This is up to the west. So trying to get

40:59trying to get as much area for him as as

41:02we can and we do that. Um using that

41:06I've been over there and looked at that.

41:07It looks looks good.

41:11[clears throat]

41:12>> Do you have any questions?

41:13>> No. My concern was just for the slope

41:17interruptors that we was address to

41:19avoid an erosion going to the welllands.

41:21But I don't have any question. There's

41:23really no besides the lane disturbance

41:25which is less than an acre, right?

41:27>> Yeah.

41:27>> Okay. Have there's no construction being

41:30proposed. So,

41:32>> and DP number.

41:33>> Yeah. I'll be recommended to close and

41:35issue the order conditions. Want to make

41:37a motion?

41:39>> Second.

41:39>> Second.

41:40>> All in favor?

41:41>> Eyes have it.

41:45>> Thank you, guys.

41:45>> Sure.

41:46>> Thank you.

41:50>> Next.

41:51DP number 128-2025,

41:55lot five, Smith Road. The applicant has

41:58filed an NOI for the construction of a

42:00single family home driveway well septic

42:02system within 100 ft of the bordering

42:05vegetated wetland.

42:08>> Is that you?

42:09>> Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, uh

42:11board members and general public. My

42:12name is David Saddowski. I'm the

42:14principal of DJing Associates. We're out

42:16of Clinton, Massachusetts. I'm here

42:19representing the applicant uh Quickly

42:21Way Construction. They've done four or

42:23five other projects in [clears throat]

42:25Charleton. Uh three over on Berry Corner

42:27Road and a couple other locations too

42:30over by the golf course on Berry Corner.

42:32>> Just not to interrupt you, is that the

42:34revised plan? Yes.

42:35>> Do you mind if I have so pass to the

42:37commission?

42:38>> No, sir.

42:39>> I only had the PDF. Thank you.

42:44>> I have two of them folded up.

42:45>> Okay, that's perfect. Okay, appreciate.

42:47Thank you.

42:48>> Yeah, I submitted those 1117s of color.

42:53Um wetlands were delineated by Art

42:55Allen.

42:57Scott Jordan delineated the wetlands for

42:59Michael Deck and um Haley Ward did a

43:03peer review on the storm water. Um D

43:07came back with only one comment that was

43:09talked about uh sweeping the driveway.

43:11We added a storm scepter and a also a uh

43:15a French drain in the driveway so that

43:17we could pick up any types of uh silts

43:19or whatever. We're taking the roofs and

43:21we're recharging them 100% into a cult

43:26system. Uh we do have some u during the

43:30um land disturbance part we do have some

43:32pits where um prior to putting the BMPs

43:36in place silts can be collected. There's

43:39um 14,300

43:43square [snorts] ft of area that could be

43:44disturbed as a result of this project.

43:46We need a septic system and we need uh

43:49you know we're constructing a house. All

43:52of that's within the buffer. There's no

43:54wetlands to be filled as a result of the

43:56project. There's no stream crossing.

43:58There's no wetland crossing. We have

44:00frontage on um Smith Road. I had asked

44:04for one waiver since we were under an

44:06acre. I asked for a waiver land

44:08disturbance permit.

44:09>> Can we just first if you don't mind just

44:11finish the wetland area? Sure. Yeah. So,

44:14uh, what's the closest point of

44:15disturbance for the welllands, if you

44:18don't mind?

44:19>> No, I have to get my glasses.

44:20>> It's okay. I can get my my ruler. Oh,

44:23you can. Okay.

44:30>> So, on the plan shows offsets. Um, it's

44:3420 it's 19 feet to the rip wrap. It's um

44:3921 and a half ft to the um there's going

44:42to be one culvert head to protect the

44:44overflow pipe.

44:46Um it's 33 feet the closest to any of

44:49the structures or 31 ft to any of the

44:51structures. There's a small twoft

44:53retaining wall.

44:55>> Okay.

45:00>> And that's associated with the

45:03>> the back corner of the of the structure

45:05>> of the structure. Okay.

45:06>> Yeah. You can see it's it's labeled on

45:08the plan.

45:09>> Yep. Yep. Okay. Perfect. Yeah, that's

45:11all my question. So, as far as the

45:14wetlands protection act, he has met

45:18requirements. I don't have a concern

45:19with that. So, this project is part this

45:23parcel is project of is part of a uh ANR

45:27plan that is considered a common plan of

45:30development. So

45:33David as the um

45:37representative for the applicant

45:39requested us to waiver to wave him

45:44complying with storm water and filing

45:46lane disturbance application. That's the

45:48>> I have explained to David that is part

45:51of our lane of our bylaw and our lane

45:54disturbance I mean in your rules and

45:56regulations that under section three on

45:59the lane disturbance permit and

46:00procedures. Number two,

46:03development or redevelopment involving

46:06multiple separate activities in

46:08discontinued locations or on different

46:10schedules if the activities are part of

46:13a larger common plan of development.

46:15that all together not individually

46:18disturbs more than 43,560

46:21square foot or more land. So Mr. David

46:24appears that it is a interpretation

46:26situation and as he interpret that he is

46:29not

46:31uh he does not need to comply with our

46:33bylaw or regulations and he requested me

46:35for a waiver. I of course has the

46:37authority as as I have for the storm

46:40water as um the agents and he disagreed

46:46with my uh response and they told he

46:49could come in front of the commission

46:50and request the waiver to the

46:52commission. But my recommendation is

46:54clearly to deny. This is a storm water

46:56rules and regulations that came straight

46:58from our bylaws and is in place for us

47:01to comply with MS4 uh permit with APA

47:05and the town has been complying with

47:07that for the past I don't know four

47:10years. So, but he give him the time to

47:13make his case if he'd like to proceed.

47:16>> Certainly. Uh I think I I did comply

47:19with the storm water. Uh it's the land

47:22disturbance that I'm talking about. Um,

47:25if we want, why don't we just say this?

47:27When Charleston was formed, there was 10

47:28firearms. Every time a piece of property

47:31is taken out, that would be subdividing

47:33from a common piece. That would mean

47:34everyone would have to do a land

47:36disturbance permit. Um, this subdivision

47:39was approved before in 2002. There was

47:4220some lots. It went nowhere. Um, it sat

47:45forever. They've got four back lots and

47:48every one of those is over 10,000 I mean

47:5010 acres.

47:52Um, ours is a 1.7 acres up in the front.

47:55We're not in common. We don't touch any

47:57parts of that in the back, but under I

47:59mean the Smith family owned that whole

48:01street. Anytime a lot gets cut out, they

48:03should do a land disturbance under that

48:05interpretation that it's in common

48:07because at one point it was part of the

48:09same.

48:10>> That's not what she said.

48:11>> I know it's not what she said, but

48:12that's what I'm trying to say is if

48:14you're going to if you're going to take

48:15a piece of land, all the disturbance is

48:17back there and we have a small piece up

48:19here and we're not in common. We don't

48:21own any of the back. We don't touch any

48:23of the back. And we have no influence on

48:26what type of driveway they put in, what

48:27type of access, what type of buildings,

48:29what type of anything. They should all

48:31do the disturbance because they're

48:32disturbing over an acre each. I don't

48:34feel with us only disturbing 14,300

48:38that we qualify for it. Under your

48:40chapter 175, section 9, waiverss, it's

48:45allowed to give a waiver. Has this

48:46commission ever given a waiver?

48:48>> Yes. for specific components of the

48:52requirements not for the entire I'm

48:55sorry I did not hear you saying Mr.

48:57Chairman my apologies.

48:58>> No I I'll let you answer the question.

49:02Waivers are there to for for example

49:05there has been situations where an

49:07applicant was trying to comply with the

49:10regulations and unfortunately they

49:12[clears throat] found ledge and

49:13unfortunately their basin had to be

49:15minimized or the swale had to be changed

49:18locations or it it was just no way of to

49:22implement such a part of the

49:25requirements. That waiver is not to be

49:27requested to completely wave the bylaw.

49:33>> That's what you're requesting. You

49:34request for the commission to wave

49:37>> for you to filing a lane disturbance

49:39application which is part of the bylaw.

49:42So if there is any component in that

49:44lane disturbance application that for

49:46some reason for for due to site

49:49constraint that cannot be met. That's

49:52when you're going to come in front of

49:53the commission would be my my

49:55recommendation. Bring some such

49:58constraints to the commission. Explain

49:59why it's not work. what you be what you

50:02will be proposing uh in lie of that of

50:06that lack of compliance and then the

50:09commission will vote on a waiver but

50:11you're requesting to not to file the

50:14permit

50:16at all. So that's not what the waiver is

50:19related to. So that's my response.

50:22>> All right. Through the chair, um I have

50:24the section right here on waiver. It

50:25doesn't say anything about complying

50:27with ledge or whatever. We're going to

50:29do the storm water that it's not like

50:31we're throwing the whole bylaw out. All

50:33I'm talking about is the land

50:35disturbance part of the of the actual

50:40work that we would have to do. There's

50:41enforcement. There's certainty. There's

50:43waiverss. I'm just wondering if it says

50:44that the waivers are available. It

50:46doesn't say the it lists the condition.

50:49It just says the waiver is available. I

50:51just feel that we're disturbing 14,000

50:53square ft of land. We don't meet the

50:5543,000.

50:57>> Oh my An acre is 43,560.

51:00Do you have something to add, Bros? Oh,

51:02>> correct me if I'm wrong. The whole

51:04point, if I'm understanding you right,

51:06is we've had this happen when the storm

51:08water management got implemented. Is

51:10when it got implemented, it

51:14put it four or five developments. What

51:17was happening is the first two or three,

51:19correct me if I'm wrong, weren't

51:21complying with the storm water. Then the

51:23last person that developed a lot got

51:25saddled with the storm water management

51:27for the whole development.

51:29>> This is the last it were you were five

51:31lots left on this common plan of

51:34development. So he as he said it was

51:37first back in 2002 but the laws have

51:40just been split and the regulations have

51:43been placed. Back in 2002 we didn't have

51:46we're not enforcing the regulations. We

51:47didn't have regulations when we had the

51:49bylaw which is not being enforced. So

51:51this common plan of developments is just

51:53brand new and there are four and the

51:56total four is falls within being a

51:59development or redevelopment that

52:01involves multiple and separate

52:04activities in discontinu locations on

52:07different schedules meaning well my

52:09strategy is here the next one might come

52:11back next year and it doesn't matter

52:14what matters is that combined

52:18it will disturb more than an acre and

52:20this is in place. Why? Because even

52:22though his lot doesn't disturb an acre

52:24and he doesn't need to comply with it in

52:26his mind, it might still affect the lot

52:29the boarding lots and then the body lots

52:31going to have the same thought process

52:32and that's why this town have complaints

52:34over complaints over complaints of storm

52:37water runoff. My is dividing diver

52:40diverting the water into my

52:42>> I understand that. But my point is one

52:44of the things we ran into if I remember

52:46is when this went into enforcement there

52:48were some situations if I maybe I'm

52:51misremembering that the last person

52:55>> the last developer the last piece was

52:57saddled with handling

52:59>> right so that's why we're avoiding that

53:01>> does that make sense

53:03>> so what was happen

53:04>> that's how it was left I believe how

53:06many lots do you have there together all

53:09all together

53:09>> we have one lot it's 1.7 acres and we're

53:13disturbing 14,000 square ft. And through

53:15the chair, we're going to

53:17[clears throat] comply with storm water.

53:18It's not we're going to have any runoff

53:19going into anyone else's lot or

53:21impacting anything. We're recharging the

53:23roof 100%. We're recharging the driveway

53:26100%. Anything in peries on the lot is

53:29being recharged 100%. Being handled by

53:31the storm scepter and TSS removal is

53:34over the applied number. We need storm

53:37water. I'm just talking about the land

53:39disturbance.

53:42It's not like I'm avoiding your bylaw or

53:44doing anything like that. There's files

53:46with the federal government that you

53:47have to do when you disturb over an

53:48acre. We're not doing that.

53:50>> And we're not requesting you to file

53:52with EPA. No one is. I

53:55>> I I just, you know, I read through your

53:57documentation. I read through your

53:58waivers. The waivers asked before.

54:01>> And what does the waiver say? Would you

54:02like to read what says on the waiver?

54:04>> Yeah. Could you w read that waiver to

54:06us?

54:06>> Sure.

54:09Did by the way did anyone look at my

54:11application I filed in August or look at

54:13the plans before tonight?

54:15I just seeing the correspondences going

54:18back and forth here last

54:19>> yes that was sent to the commission in

54:21the past

54:22>> the this is how it starts a the

54:24conservation commission

54:27not the storm water management the

54:29conservation commission may wave strict

54:31compliance with any requirement of this

54:33bylaw or the rules and regulations

54:36>> promulgated here where such action is

54:39allowed is not is in the public interest

54:43and is not inconsistent with the purpose

54:45intent of this bylaw. Um, the applicant

54:48may submit a written request, which I

54:50did, to be granted such a waiver. Such a

54:52request shall be accompanied by an

54:54explanation or documentation supporting

54:57the waiver request. And I said that

54:58we're disturbing only 14,300

55:01square ft and demonstrating that strict

55:04application of the bylaw does not

55:06further the purpose or objectives of

55:08this bylaw. And we're not. We have an

55:10erosion and sedimentation control plan

55:12that I submitted. I submitted a storm

55:14water plan. We've done storm water

55:16calculations. Anything we're disturbing

55:18on the site, we're recharging 100%.

55:21We're meeting all the requirements.

55:23All waiver requests shall be discussed

55:25in a decision will be made by the

55:27conservation commission.

55:29>> And here we are

55:30>> within 30 days of receiving the waiver

55:32request. If in the com the conservation

55:35commission's opinion, additional time or

55:37information is required for review of

55:39the waiver request, the commission may

55:42continue a consideration of the waiver

55:44request to a date certain announced at

55:47the meeting. In the event the applicant

55:49objects to a continuence or fails to

55:52provide requested information, the

55:53waiver request shall be denied. That's

55:55all that's in the waiverss, not what was

55:58said earlier.

55:59>> What was said earlier? You said that I

56:01have to have a specific information.

56:02Something on the site wasn't working.

56:04>> I said it has happened in the past. You

56:06asked does

56:07>> No, you said you said about you said

56:09does the commission grant a waiver? And

56:12I said yes, they do. And here's an

56:14example. And that's the example I gave

56:16because that's what happened in the

56:18past.

56:18>> All right. Anyways, that's that's the

56:20section on waivers. I just feel this

56:2214,000 square feet being disturbed

56:24[clears throat] here. We don't need a

56:25land disturbance. We need storm water

56:28and we need to meet all the regulations.

56:29We recharge 100%. It was reviewed by

56:33Haley Ward and they said that we we

56:35complied with the storm water foland

56:41disturbance permit application is

56:43required as part of the regulations. We

56:46have uh

56:48requests for every applicant that is

56:51part of a common plan on development or

56:53that disturbs more than an acre. The

56:55fact that he does not disturb more than

56:57an acre on his parcel does not mean that

57:01he really he can be granted a waiver

57:04>> to not submit

57:05>> should not submit the application

57:07because again as part of our lane

57:10disturbance permit procedures you must

57:13file a permit and again I'm not going to

57:15read for the third time because his

57:18project combined part of AD&R plan

57:20develop together disturbs the one acre

57:24it's like no one is the waiver is not to

57:28wave a link disturbance application. The

57:31waiver is set there to wave requirements

57:34of the lane disturbance application that

57:37he may then prove that you know it

57:41whatever uh back in back information he

57:44can provide. I absolutely request the

57:48commission to deny his request because

57:50it will set a you might as well throw

57:53the regulations away because the lane

57:55disturbance applications is what I have

57:57in order to monitor in order to enforce

58:00it all storm water propo that's being

58:03proposed if I don't have that

58:05application that don't issue that

58:06permits I have no grounds or authority

58:09to review any of this to not do site to

58:12not request for as build for all storm

58:15water uh uh components that have been

58:17proposed to not I need the operation in

58:21many maintenance plane for every restor

58:24that they are proposing it's part of the

58:26permit is just it's

58:29>> so through the chair so the gentleman's

58:34offer to guarantee to recover 100% of

58:37any storm water

58:38>> it's not the storm water

58:39>> it's not the storm water that's what the

58:42saying is storm water

58:43>> it's the permits It's it's the permit

58:46process.

58:47>> It's part of the applica to submitted an

58:51application from link disturbance. That

58:53application is where is as an order

58:56conditions. I writeed the the conditions

58:59of the all the storm water that has been

59:01proposed management I'm sorry the storm

59:04water management if it's a cold if it is

59:06a swale if it is a basin that is under

59:09that permit. That permit is storm water

59:12related only. I do s inspections before

59:15it started. Every time they dig, before

59:18they bury any storm water they are

59:19proposing, I'm there to check. I need

59:21that permanent order to make sure that

59:23they are in compliance.

59:25>> I will never it

59:28in my recommendations should be denied.

59:30I don't have if the board can't grant a

59:34waiver.

59:35>> We have presented to us. We have I we

59:38have already been oh this waiver I I

59:40asked him I told him you may going from

59:43the commission as is written my

59:44recommendation is going to be no because

59:46you're requesting to wave a permit

59:48application

59:50>> not a part of the require the

59:53requirements within the application he's

59:55asking to the application complete

59:58application to be waved heard of yes

60:01>> I'm asking for just the land disturbance

60:03part of it not the storm

60:04>> a land disturbance application ation

60:08land disturbance permit application.

60:11That's what you request to be waved.

60:14We can't wave for you filing

60:18an application that's required for

60:21review of storm water. If you in the

60:23process of filing the link disturbance

60:26permit application, you encounter

60:29components that you may not fulfill,

60:32then you may come and say, "Listen, in

60:34the process of filing this application,

60:36Can I give an analogy? This Yeah, I'll

60:38make sure. I don't know if this is the

60:39right analogy. This is what I'm asking

60:40for clarification for the board.

60:42>> If if we if you were going to build a

60:45house, I this is the best analogy,

60:47right?

60:48>> And you're saying, okay,

60:50I'm going to comply with the the

60:52electrical portion of building the

60:53house. I'm in compliance. Why do I need

60:56a permit to actually build the house? Is

60:57that kind of like

60:58>> the same thing? No, he's the he just

61:01needed a order conditions, right?

61:04He just filed for a notice of intent

61:06because he needs the order condition.

61:10It's he's asking for a order conditions

61:13to be

61:15>> approved without filing the application.

61:17>> I need the application. The application

61:20is part of the process. I I do not

61:23understand the reasoning behind it and I

61:26feel that we're never going to agree. I

61:28don't know what how he is um

61:34perceiving

61:35but again the waiver is there which we

61:38have granted we had on Highland Highland

61:42uh road with Chris Hansen there was a

61:46gentleman across the street who

61:47discharged water towards uh the property

61:51is against to discharge water to a

61:54different property.

61:56Chris Hansel was filing for a land

61:57disturbance application at the time

61:59could not comply. I recommended the

62:03commission to file uh to grant a waiver

62:06for the water to continue being

62:07discharged. Chris Hansen agreed to uh

62:10retreat the water because there was no

62:12way there was no other way.

62:14>> It was at some point, right?

62:16>> Yeah. I just think it's ridiculous

62:18if we was to give him a waiver and they

62:21have say five lots like we had before or

62:23whatever it was and

62:27each one individually meets the storm

62:29water less than 43,000 ft but the guy at

62:32the end the last lot is responsible for

62:35all five

62:35>> is not and that's why we try to avoid we

62:38don't want that happening so that's why

62:41we enforce for each one of them because

62:44we don't want the last lot be

62:46responsible each lot as a separate in

62:48>> and we're doing it

62:49>> and he's not disturbing 43,000 square

62:52ft.

62:52>> You're not following the intent of the

62:55law. Mitch,

62:56>> could I could I summarize? All right.

62:59>> Basically, we're going to meet the storm

63:01water. It's not like we're asking you

63:03understand. We understand that

63:06we're not going to have anything. All

63:08we're talking about is a land

63:08disturbance

63:11permit.

63:12>> I'm going to summarize and I'll be done.

63:14You guys can vote. Yep.

63:15>> All right. Every single back lot has to

63:18file a land disturbance because they're

63:20all disturbing over an acre. Their

63:22driveways are 500 ft long to get back

63:24there by by 20 ft wide. They just by

63:27having a driveway, they need a land

63:29disturbance. Every single other one

63:30does. This is not being left on anyone

63:33out there. It's not like there's 20

63:34something lots. They're all one of

63:37them's 17 acres. They're disturbing

63:38three and a half acres.

63:40>> It's not the

63:41>> Anyways, I I just like the commission

63:43vote. Thank you,

63:44>> Mitch. To answer your question, that's

63:46correct. That's why each one is being

63:48treated individually, but you must

63:50remember it is part of a plan. So, each

63:54one of them must have their own

63:55individual permits.

63:58So, I can monitor the storm water of it.

64:01If I don't have a permit application, I

64:03can't. Well, his his disturbance on that

64:06particular lot, if it was by itself,

64:10>> if it's not, well, you're wrong. It's

64:13not.

64:13>> It's part of a bigger plan.

64:14>> I know it's not by itself, right?

64:16>> I think it's ridiculous,

64:17>> but that's the bylaw plan

64:20>> and we have no

64:23>> that's the bylaw unfortunately. That's

64:25straight from EPA. So, that's why I mean

64:29the the bylaw has been here before we

64:30did the regulation to start. would have

64:32to try to meet the intent of the bylaw

64:35>> and that's the intent.

64:36>> Well, I don't we would not be meeting

64:39the intent if he would come with the

64:41lane disturbance permit application.

64:44>> All making it prohibitive for some

64:47people to build.

64:48>> We're not prohibiting. We're noting

64:50>> we're giving him the permits. I'm just

64:53close to I'm ready to recommend

64:56>> I'm recommend to close and issue the

64:58order conditions storm water part of

65:01most of it has been provided. Now all I

65:03need is the lane disturbance permit

65:05application. So I have the authority to

65:08go to the site and inspect the erosion

65:10control the to the storm water

65:13management part of it. He's asking to

65:15not file for a permit.

65:19That's what his waiver is asking because

65:22he sees through the chair not to file a

65:25permit.

65:26>> You have any right to go on the site.

65:28Once I come for an NOI, you can go on

65:29the site anytime you want and you can

65:31monitor anytime you file permit.

65:33>> Yes, I filed an NOI already and that

65:36allows her to go on. Any commission

65:37member can go on. Okay.

65:38>> That's B. That's an erroneous statement.

65:41It is not

65:42>> go on the site because I found an

65:43>> to inspect the erosion to to inspect the

65:47storm water management that has to be

65:49approved under the ling disturbance

65:51permit application.

65:53That's what I said. Yes, I can go on the

65:55site to inspect erosion controls. I can

65:56go on the site to inspect runoff, but I

65:59need the permits that has been issued

66:02just for the storm water components

66:04because that's not under our order or

66:06conditions. We have a bylaw and a

66:09regulation that requires you to file for

66:11a permit. So a storm water manage can be

66:15>> well looked under that.

66:17>> You write special um you write special

66:19considerations into every order of

66:22conditions. Write a write a thing that

66:24says that you can go inspect the storm

66:25water management part without have to

66:27file a land decision tomorrow. Makes

66:28>> sense to me.

66:29>> Why don't you make that a special

66:31condition anytime inspection?

66:33>> I would do not write that condition.

66:35>> Why not? because it's against the laws

66:38that we here to obey for it is I'll be

66:40happy to work I'll be happy to to I'm

66:43not writing that I says that that I can

66:46put something about storm water but I'm

66:48not going to write what I supposed to be

66:50right on a lane disturbance permit

66:52application

66:53[snorts] it's a permit that must be

66:56filed

66:56>> it's only an extra three or 4 thousand

66:585,000 I know

66:59>> it's $100

67:01>> the permit fee application $100 twice a

67:04year there's all types of different

67:05things that have to be done out of every

67:06of those.

67:07>> And and why is that? Because if someone

67:10come here and file for a link

67:13disturbance permit application and

67:15comply with the requirements of the lane

67:17disturbance application, I know and the

67:19commission knows that that system will

67:22be there and if it does fail, I have

67:24authority to say repair, maintain, how

67:27is it working, is it treating, is it

67:29keeping the water safe? But I am not

67:31doing that because that is not under the

67:33Wellins Protection Act. It's under my

67:35bylaw and my bylaw has to be issued

67:37>> with the EPA. You didn't write the

67:39bylaw.

67:39>> He it has the town wrote it,

67:42>> right? So you're it's your

67:43interpretation cuz you didn't write it.

67:44You are you are implying

67:47I am done. I'm done. My recommendation

67:50is to deny the recommendation.

67:51>> If you compose and write it, then you

67:53know the intent. If you copy it from a

67:55website, you don't.

67:56>> I don't know who copied from a website.

67:58So, I think this just should be over

68:00now.

68:00>> One one question through the clear.

68:02You're denying the

68:04>> I'm denying his request

68:06>> to wave

68:07>> to wave the permit

68:08>> the lack to wave for him to not apply

68:13for a permit,

68:14>> okay,

68:15>> for the storm water.

68:16>> Now, what if the board wants to vote

68:18against your denial?

68:20>> Then I I really don't know.

68:22>> I don't know either. So you're going to

68:25open it up Pandora's box because

68:26>> you're setting a precedence for everyone

68:29to stop who has file disturbance

68:32application filing is separate. There's

68:33no precedent. You can't get one thing.

68:35>> Can she answer Can she answer his

68:37question or are we going to keep

68:38interrupting? Sir,

68:39>> please

68:41>> go ahead.

68:42>> Well, I've said I says uh I I think it's

68:46ridiculous that we can't if she denies

68:50it.

68:51>> She's I recommend you understand what

68:54she's denying.

68:54>> I'm recommending the commission to deny

68:57based on the fact number one. It's part

69:00of a regulations that he must file a

69:02permit.

69:03>> Okay. But number two,

69:04>> if it's illegal for us to vote for him

69:06in his favor, why why are you

69:09recommending

69:11>> we have to?

69:13>> Because at the end of the day, it's it's

69:14the at the end of the day is the

69:16commission's decision. But I'm here to

69:19aim you to the where the regulations are

69:21made.

69:22>> Are we going to comply with the regs or

69:24not? That is the

69:25>> you're pretty much we are the enforcing

69:27>> it doesn't have to come to us

69:29>> and and

69:30>> her word is final.

69:32>> Yeah.

69:32>> No, nothing final. Instead of the word,

69:34she explained to me why we're not.

69:35>> It's not my word. Cuz as a building

69:37inspector, do you think you should

69:38inspect different parts of a building

69:40inspection or you do you wave did you

69:42wave like electrical inspections or

69:43plumbing inspections because you thought

69:44that was it was a burden on a a builder

69:47to like well I don't want to have to do

69:48the plumbing because that's going to add

69:49more to the cost of building out. So I'm

69:50just curious as a building inspector did

69:52you do that?

69:54>> I I wasn't even listening to to what you

69:57say.

69:57>> That shows you how engaged you are in

69:59being a commissioner then.

70:00>> So Meech is is is

70:02>> you're quite you're quite engaged

70:04yourself, aren't you?

70:05>> I am.

70:05>> Okay. All right. So it is it is the

70:08authority of this commission

70:11>> to to enforce our bylaw and regulation

70:13as written.

70:15>> We may issue waiverss

70:18if it is part of the requirements of

70:21such permit that the applicant may not

70:24comprise. He has not a choice.

70:26>> We grant him a waiver based on what he's

70:28told us. I will completely disagree

70:31because that goes against our bylaw.

70:34>> Oh, I'm just telling you that I

70:36disagree.

70:37>> It goes against our bylaw, Mitch. It

70:39goes against our regulations.

70:41>> People have filed. I have J boys here

70:44who have filed.

70:45>> I'm sitting here talking and thinking as

70:47a 50-year builder. I know what they're

70:50up against.

70:51>> Uh

70:53it may not be right in your mind, but

70:56>> it's not my mind, Mitch. It's what the

70:59regulation says. It's a bylaw.

71:01>> I would make a motion to give him a

71:02waiver.

71:03>> Okay.

71:03>> Period. If nobody wants to second it,

71:06fine. I don't care.

71:08>> Do you have a second?

71:10>> I'm sorry.

71:11>> Do we have any seconds

71:12>> to to not to give him a motion to give

71:15him

71:16>> to to violate precedent and and just

71:19wave

71:19>> violate wave the permit?

71:21>> No. Yep.

71:23>> No seconds.

71:24>> Motion does not carry. Do I have a

71:25motion for denial?

71:28I'll make that motion. Do

71:29>> we have a second?

71:32>> Second.

71:33>> All in favor?

71:34>> I I

71:38have it.

71:38>> Did you have a majority? I

71:40>> Yeah, they're alternates. They can't

71:41vote.

71:42>> Oh, what? They're winking or

71:45>> I didn't hear anything.

71:46>> They cannot.

71:48>> Did you catch that part? I can repeat

71:50it.

71:51>> It has been denied.

71:52>> So, you had four eyes,

71:54>> three people. There was no need because

71:57they the your motion didn't carry.

72:02>> And again, it

72:03>> you win again.

72:05>> I don't win, Mitch. It's a revelation.

72:07>> That's enough. I'm It's done.

72:09>> Okay.

72:10>> It's done.

72:11>> I'll be waiting. I'll be issuing

72:13>> I apologize for the board.

72:15>> I'll be Shouldn't do that.

72:16>> That is That is

72:17>> I apologize for some of the board as

72:18well.

72:19>> Mhm.

72:21I'll be issuing the order conditions and

72:23the one of the conditions will be that a

72:26lane disturbance permit application must

72:28be filed prior to commencing

72:29disturbance.

72:32Thank you.

72:35>> We can move forward.

72:36>> Did you guys vote to close the hearing

72:38yet?

72:38>> No, we can now move forward to close.

72:40>> I think that's the formal thing to do if

72:42we're going to go by regulations.

72:43>> Well, it has been a little elevated

72:45meeting, so we're not expecting that. So

72:48I request recommend the commission to

72:50close the u public hearing and issue the

72:52order conditions.

72:54>> Issue the denial.

72:55>> No

72:56>> no this is the order.

72:58>> I need that motion

73:00>> to close the public hearing and issue

73:02the order conditions.

73:03>> Motion made.

73:04>> Second.

73:04>> Second.

73:05>> Second.

73:06>> All in favor?

73:07>> I

73:08>> I have it.

73:09>> Thank you very much for your time. Good

73:12luck.

73:14D1282025.

73:17That's what we just voted on, right?

73:21>> 128202255

73:23Aqua Road. The applicant has filed the

73:25NOI for the installation of a new septic

73:28to replace a failed one within 100 ft of

73:31the BVW.

73:34>> Do a waiver chill J for your lane

73:36disturbance.

73:39Cuz if you're going to be bring it to

73:41everybody, then we might start it now.

73:44>> Thankfully, I don't need one for this.

73:46>> We'll need for the next one.

73:48>> Yeah.

73:53[clears throat]

73:55>> This is pretty straightforward, Jay.

73:58>> Yeah.

74:04Papers.

74:05>> Thank you. Yep.

74:13Um so 55 Oxbow Road is a existing house.

74:18Um it's it's located along the Little

74:20River on Oxbow Road and has a field

74:23septic system. Um so we're proposing a

74:25new leechfield in the back of the house.

74:28The house is here, the street is here.

74:30Uh the new leechfield will be in the

74:31back. Um it's it's in the same area as

74:35the existing system now. Basically out

74:37of the back of the house there's a

74:38cesspool and a leech line that that does

74:41head out from there. So we proposing a

74:43new leash field here. The river is in

74:45the back here. Um

74:49erosion controls around the bottom of

74:51the system. We're not in the flood

74:52plane.

74:54We are in the riverfront zone, but again

74:56there's no other other place on the

74:58property for the the new leashfield to

75:00go. Um D did have did have a comment

75:06about the um

75:08the 50 foot setback um and that

75:11replacement systems are allowed in that

75:14and they had a question regarding the

75:16delineation as well.

75:18>> Uh I did go out today and check the

75:20delineation. Basically uh there's a

75:23stone wall that kind of runs along the

75:24edge of the river. Um it's about a twoft

75:27drop down into the river. So, I hung

75:29river fl or bank flags along that area

75:32as well. And I did write up a narrative

75:34and sent that off to back to D as well

75:37as to Rose with some photographs.

75:45>> DP had questions. Um there was no

75:48flagging. He flagged today. There's not

75:51much BVW there as he said is really the

75:54river which is well defined. Um the

75:56pictures we're seeing today

75:58>> [clears throat]

76:10>> I mean, you know, it's well defined. You

76:12have the stone and you have the river.

76:14There's no [clears throat]

76:19>> Wish they were all like that.

76:20>> H

76:21>> wish they were all like that.

76:22>> I know.

76:24>> So DP is fine. He submitted the comments

76:27today. Um, so we have to wait.

76:30>> No, there they usually don't make

76:32comments on on um

76:36>> on revisions. They just request the

76:38commission to

76:41>> request additional information from the

76:43applicant, which I did. So I would

76:46imagine they would never, you know,

76:48intervene on a sept septic repair

76:52because of a flag or something like

76:54that. So it was a recommendation. So

76:56>> So you recommend clothes?

76:57>> Yeah.

76:58>> I also did send them the photographs.

76:59They

77:00>> He did send the P the photographs and

77:02the and the and the letter explaining

77:03that there is no other place to be

77:05there's no other location to be placed

77:07in that system.

77:10>> Any questions from the board?

77:13Any questions from the audience?

77:16We have a motion to close.

77:17>> Motion to close. Second. Second. All

77:20>> in favor? I have it.

77:26Why do his should have switched his

77:29plan? Uh his your next is

77:32>> Oh, actually there's one in between,

77:34right?

77:34>> Yeah, you have. Are you okay to wait?

77:36>> Yeah. Oh, yeah.

77:37>> Yeah. Um how does the commission feel if

77:41we move forward with J? Because the next

77:44one is 35 North Main Street

77:46>> and it might take a bit. Are you opposed

77:48to that?

77:49>> It's just a single family home. Yeah.

77:52Does the commission to swapping so Jake

77:54can present his next project? Mitch,

77:57>> no, I have no problem.

77:58>> You have no problem? Okay. Because it'll

77:59be because I know your pro it's going to

78:01take a bit. So,

78:02>> all right, Jay, go ahead.

78:04>> Okay. So, I got

78:05>> I only worked till eight.

78:07>> Is it what?

78:08>> I only worked till 8.

78:10>> So, the next this is for D number

78:12128-2023

78:14lot 5 road. The applicant has filed an

78:17NOI for the construction of a single

78:19family home driveway and associated work

78:21with 100 feet of the BBW.

78:23>> Oh, okay. Got it. Okay.

78:30>> I don't know where that goes. Okay.

78:34So just to start this it it clearly

78:37trigger our uh wetlands and also is part

78:41of a common plan of development that all

78:44together disturbs more than an acre. So

78:46it does require a land disturbance

78:48application. So he has already provided

78:52a storm water uh has been peer reviewed.

78:55Now that we go through the process that

78:56we have been going through the past

78:58three years, once this is issued, Jay

79:00comes back to the commission and files

79:03his lane disturbance permit application

79:05so he can start disturbing.

79:07Go ahead, Jay.

79:09>> Um, so this property on the road is lot

79:12five.

79:14Uh, it's owned by PMD Development and

79:17they're looking to do a house on the

79:19property. Uh, it is a 4 acre lot or just

79:22over 4 acres. So, the house is proposed

79:25in this area here with a driveway that

79:26would go down to Gul Road. The septic

79:29system is in the front and the well is

79:31in the back. Uh, the BBW is it comes

79:34from the back and it it comes down here

79:37and then it goes back up. Um,

79:40this this property had a NRA filed

79:43probably two years ago or was it less

79:46than that? Some somewhere around that.

79:47>> Yeah, it's on here.

79:48>> Um, which was reviewed by Art, correct?

79:50Art Allen who?

79:51>> Yeah. So back in the day they request

79:53confirmation of the uh area of the

79:57>> this was a larger a large parcel that

79:59they split up into eight nine lots I

80:02think it was.

80:03>> Yeah. So it was issued back in 2023.

80:06>> 23. Um so we we located the the flags

80:10that were out there still and that's

80:12what's shown on this plan here. So the

80:14house the house uh everything the house

80:17driveway septic system and well is all

80:19outside the 50oot buffer zone. That's

80:21the line that comes down right through

80:22here and and through here. So everything

80:25is outside of the 50 other than some

80:26grading, but we do have erosion controls

80:29um at the bottom of the slope around the

80:31edges of the grading. Um and as Rose

80:33said, this this does have storm water

80:35that had gone to Haley Ward for peer

80:37review. Um and D also did issue uh a

80:41number and they had a few questions. Um

80:46>> you want me to go through those or few

80:48comments?

80:49>> D's comments. It was they were

80:51questioning a flood zone which is

80:52actually on lot four. There's no flood

80:54zone on this property. I did send them

80:56the um overall map that shows the flood

80:58flood zone line to show them that it's

81:00off of our property. Uh they wanted a

81:03TSS removal sheet to go along with the

81:05storm water which I did send them and

81:07gave a copy of that to Rose. Uh and they

81:09had a question about the the wetland DVW

81:13data forms which they should have

81:16because it was part of the ENRAD.

81:17>> Yep. Um and they also did recommend the

81:20commission a perpetual uh condition for

81:24the on andm activities

81:26which would be you probably do that

81:28anyways don't you?

81:29>> Yes. And that's the opera operation

81:31man's plan and that's also a go under

81:34the lane disturbance. So they just don't

81:36know that you're filing disturbance.

81:38Yeah. Um,

81:41but other than that, if you have any any

81:44questions,

81:47you all set.

81:48>> I don't have any questions.

81:50>> Questions from the board.

81:53>> Audience.

81:54Are you recommending

81:56>> closing the public hearing issues?

81:59>> I need a motion. Motion moved. Second.

82:02>> Second. All

82:03>> in favor? I. Nice to

82:04>> have it.

82:09Now, do you want to do the

82:11>> the Yeah,

82:13>> the north main street.

82:15>> Yeah.

82:16>> Thank you.

82:16>> You okay?

82:17>> I'm just like,

82:19>> yes.

82:2335

82:25North Main Street. The applicant has

82:27filed a NOI for the construction of nine

82:30duplexes within the riverfront. There's

82:33no wetland alteration storage with this

82:36project.

82:39>> Um,

82:43>> yep.

82:54>> [snorts]

83:03>> This is the one that's had multiple

83:04variations, right?

83:06>> Yeah. Uh, it's

83:09Am I speaking off the record when I

83:11>> just a general comment? You don't have

83:13to go into any specifics.

83:14>> Um, uh, the I'd say the primary

83:18difficulty previously was with the

83:19planning board side of things. they just

83:23didn't really want the type of

83:26development that was proposed before

83:28with first 40 then 36 then 33 units um

83:32but which were I think in compliance

83:34with the village zoning district but

83:37at any rate um so

83:40>> this is where we're at now

83:41>> yep so the applicant looked at okay what

83:43is uh and allowed by right use um and

83:47that's what is proposed now are uh nine

83:50duplex lots

83:51um on the same site.

83:54>> So you've gone from 30 or 40 units down

83:56to 18.

83:58>> Yes.

83:59>> And I would and [laughter] I would just

84:01note as a as a as a quick item, not

84:04trying to be huffy or anything. Uh there

84:06is riverfront area, but actually only

84:08one of the proposed buildings is is

84:11itself is actually in the riverfront

84:13area.

84:15And we uh

84:19>> I thought that plan was pretty nice when

84:20you last

84:24I'm not I'm not an impartial party.

84:26>> Of course. Is so where is this with the

84:29planning board?

84:30>> We Oh, we just had

84:31>> Oh, they just started

84:32>> a meeting. Yeah, we just had a meeting

84:34with the planning board uh last week.

84:36>> Um and

84:39there's a lot to do still.

84:41>> Yeah, he's just really reintroduced. say

84:43their response to that this plan is uh

84:47favorable relative to the previous one.

84:50>> It's probably a fair

84:51>> Yeah, it's a fair statement.

84:52>> Yeah, the bar was slow.

84:56Um so I'm James Dro from Expedited

84:59Engineering here representing GM

85:00Properties was the owner of the property

85:03and uh as we were just saying the uh

85:06this is uh site at 35 North Main Street.

85:09The existing house uh is in this area

85:13and was the subject of a uh previous

85:16filing for a development uh of uh multif

85:21family town houses pursuant to the

85:23village zoning district. The planning

85:25board

85:27just did not really want that uh

85:29development and and so the applicant

85:32withdrew uh filings and came back and

85:35said, "Okay, what is a use by right?" Um

85:38and and in this village zoning district

85:40uh a duplex is a used by right. So we uh

85:44have drawn up a division of the site

85:47into nine separate lots uh seven on uh

85:52North Main Street, two at L Stevens. Um

85:56I would just uh

85:59characterize I think what was said

86:01before was correct. There's no wetland

86:03alteration proposed at all. Now, we had

86:05a uh a temporary alteration proposed to

86:08bring sewer from units over here uh to

86:12the uh existing sewer in North Main

86:14Street. Now, we are proposing to serve

86:16these two uh lots, the septic systems in

86:20the back of the property. The seven lots

86:23here would be ser served by connection

86:25to the sewer. We actually uh already did

86:28get a vote from the uh water and sewer

86:31commission that they would accept uh

86:33this discharge. Um I would note that the

86:38wetland boundary is was the subject of

86:41uh previous anor delineation which was

86:44then uh extended by the states what it

86:48was permit extension act or whatever

86:50exactly it was called and then we had an

86:52extension uh here. Um the site

86:57I'll orient it the well route 20 is is

87:01out this way and the site uh gets

87:04drainage from a much larger area than

87:06the site itself. Um and what we're

87:10proposing to do now for drainage uh here

87:13is um we essentially have have lots in

87:17pairs or or or a group of three. Um,

87:21this duplex would have a driveway that

87:22goes down. The driveway edge would be

87:25would would have curb. There'd be a

87:27catch basin collecting all the runoff on

87:28the driveway and we would discharge all

87:31the roof runoff from this building to

87:33that catch basin. Um, the same thing

87:36next door. This duplex would have a

87:39driveway that goes downhill and there'd

87:40be curving all around this pavement.

87:43There's a catch basin which would

87:45collect all the runoff. The runoff from

87:47these two catch basins would go to a

87:49manhole through a storm water filter

87:51unit and then to an ingground detention

87:54area. Um I think there are three lots

87:58together. Uh this lot with again the

88:02paved area being captured by a catch

88:04basin. This lot the paved area being

88:06captured by a catch basin and this lot

88:09pavement being captured by a catch

88:10basin. These three send their collective

88:14run off through a drain anhole through a

88:16storm water filter unit and to inground

88:18detention.

88:19These two units uh these two lots I'll

88:21say I should say are paired similarly um

88:25downhill to uh the back of these units

88:28catch basin at the low point of this

88:31parking area. Downhill uh to the back of

88:34these units catch basin low point of

88:37parking area. They both send their

88:39discharge to a drain manhole. Again,

88:41storm water filter unit and again

88:43inground detention. Um, and the reason

88:45we set it up this way is we wanted to

88:47have the inground detention uh outside

88:51of we didn't want to have it under a

88:52parking area. Uh, if we could at all

88:55help that. We also have actually in this

88:57area some of the the better soil that we

88:59have. Um, and so just thought it was

89:03would be it made more sense. Also, the

89:06uh those storm water filter units, the

89:09very whether it's a CDS

89:12um unit or any of these other things are

89:14are pretty expensive, and you really

89:15don't want to be buying, you know, nine

89:18of them uh for for a property. That's

89:21probably getting yourself a bill of

89:23somewhere in the area of 80 to $100,000.

89:26So, um but that's how the drainage is

89:30being handled here on these two lots.

89:33drainage is being collected run through

89:36a CDS uh filter unit and then going to a

89:40a leeching trench. Um the same thing

89:43over here. Run off from this driveway

89:47and this other piece of driveway being

89:50collected by a catch basin going through

89:52a CDS storm filter unit going to an

89:54infiltration trench. Um, so we're going

89:57to have um meet all the TSS removal

90:01requirements

90:02um in the in the DP stormage management

90:05standards. Um we're not just as before.

90:10The way that the drainage essentially is

90:12working is that you have this 6acre

90:15site. You have a I'll get the exact

90:18number wrong. Another 64 65 acres north

90:22of this. It picks up drainage all the

90:24way to Route 20, but not of any of Route

90:2720 itself. If you were at uh the the uh

90:30uh CVS and you look uh immediately on

90:33the east side of it and there's those

90:35odd piles of stuff, not sure just what

90:39all of them are. That area is draining

90:42here.

90:44It's the the uh drainage area coming to

90:48the culbert that the actual pair of

90:50culberts that leave the site is much

90:52much larger than this site. And by

90:56dealing with the TSS and getting some

90:58infiltration, uh all of this is is a

91:01little bit out of sync with that much

91:02bigger I'll call it wave of water uh uh

91:05coming from offsite. Um

91:09I guess I would uh just know to cut we

91:12you know we had uh feedback on I I won't

91:15get too much into the sort of the

91:16planning board items.

91:18>> Yeah I I don't I guess my biggest

91:20question did you mention the biggest

91:22change from the other project and the

91:25>> sure and how

91:27>> Oh yeah

91:28>> greatly scaled down

91:29>> the scaled down. Okay.

91:30>> Yeah. Yeah. It's not actually a hugely

91:33different total alteration. I think we

91:35only dropped a couple tenths of an acre

91:37or two or three tenths. I think the

91:39alteration now is expected to be 2.3

91:42acres. I think we were at 2.5 or 2.6

91:45before. And part of that because you

91:48have a uh you're going to have a septic

91:50system out here that you're going to end

91:51up pumping to. And while this is all

91:54just going to be grass in the future

91:56over a over a pump line and grass over a

91:59>> less septic system leeching area, it's

92:01still al altered area,

92:02>> right? Uh but it is it is less

92:04impervious and and you know there were

92:06units proposed here and

92:08>> you know you

92:09>> and that's was the buffer was very

92:11minimal the retaining walls.

92:13>> Yes.

92:14>> Correct. So what is your closest point

92:16to disturbance to

92:17>> well all on on these lots we've actually

92:20put in proposed multiple retaining walls

92:24one two three on on four lots to stop

92:28before the 25 foot line. Uh on this lot

92:32the we've got the two unfortunately the

92:34leeching trench to get the TSS removal.

92:37Other than that uh we're stopping at 15

92:39ft is the nearest point.

92:41>> Um again we tried to get uh 25 but it's

92:45it's tough there. Uh there's just not

92:48there's also there one of the good

92:50things in a way on this side is you have

92:54a lot of elevation drop. So, it's it's

92:56relatively easier to uh to put in a uh

93:02to fill a bit and put in an infiltration

93:04structure. Here, we're kind of stuck

93:07with the relatively flat topography that

93:11we need to have uh an infiltration

93:13trench that gets close to the wetlands.

93:17Uh what else I would note? Uh we got uh

93:21DP comment which was actually really

93:23just about the uh the money.

93:26>> They were not comments. So they were

93:28well it was a issue a DP file number was

93:31not issued.

93:32>> Correct.

93:33>> It was just a initial uh looking over

93:36the application that Rebecca called me

93:38and we discussed. So she puted that in

93:40an email. So she's ready to issue the

93:43comments when that has been addressed in

93:45a new file. uh uh NOI transmitter form

93:49is sent to them.

93:51>> Yeah.

93:51>> Yeah. What uh what the what was issued

93:55on the on their website is she not she

93:57said well you should have we included we

93:59said there are uh eight buildings within

94:02the 100 foot uh buffer zone at $500 per

94:05building and other charges it was $4,000

94:07something dollars. And her comment was,

94:10well, there's there's work on some of

94:13these lots within the riverfront area,

94:15and you should have upped the fee for

94:18that by 50%. For instance, the uh

94:21building here on lot 7 that's partly

94:24within the the riverfront area. Uh I

94:27think we had said, well, okay, this is

94:28one of eight buildings within 100 feet.

94:31That's $500. And her point is uh if

94:34you're working within a riverfront area,

94:36you should it's 50% greater fee. So that

94:39should have been uh 750. So I I I think

94:42there's a total there's three lots where

94:44that was the case.

94:45>> Uh three times 250 750 more. So you're

94:48going to get a uh town another check for

94:51375 and the state also another check for

94:53375.

94:54>> Okay. That was just fee related. Uh

94:56there was something I have to bring to

94:57the commission and uh so the application

94:59was filed on the single family homes.

95:02That was Rebecca's comments.

95:03>> Okay.

95:04>> They are not single family home.

95:06>> I Okay. In in what way were we filing it

95:08under?

95:09>> The NOI came uh the the the fee was as

95:12if you're building proposing single

95:14family homes.

95:15>> Okay.

95:16>> Uh I thought it was just building,

95:18>> right? So building that is $1,000.50

95:22per

95:22>> Oh, okay.

95:23>> Yeah.

95:24>> Oh, so she's Okay. So understood.

95:26>> Yeah. So that in that was an additional

95:29comment to the river area. So but she

95:32what she's saying is that the those are

95:34not single family homes. It should be

95:36under category

95:38uh 3B.

95:41>> I'm sorry, it's a big schedule, but I

95:44can send that to you. So, she would like

95:46to have the NOI revised to uh represent

95:49those numbers

95:51>> in addition to those three units that is

95:53within the river front area. Okay.

95:55>> So when that I just want to make sure

95:56the commission is okay with the

95:58different the change because usually

96:01>> it's called called nickel and dimeing

96:03[laughter]

96:04>> and again there's

96:05>> Massachusetts.

96:06>> So there is a schedule for transmitt fee

96:08every time someone file with us. So it

96:10goes under that category. It's if it's

96:12for a single family home there is a

96:15price. If it's for it's for a building

96:17there's a different category. is for a

96:19beach enra engracement or you're just

96:21putting sand on your beach or if you're

96:23living in front of the balik it's a

96:24different category and goes on there's a

96:26different five different schedule and

96:28like and five less within them so it's

96:31many of them so he file on the single

96:33family home which he's not proposing

96:35single family home should be under

96:37buildings

96:37>> okay

96:38>> and that's a different fee yeah if that

96:40makes sense

96:41>> so there have been an official NOI

96:43submitted for this

96:44>> yes okay he just submitted yeah

96:47>> um okay Uh

96:49>> yeah, that's a fee issue. Yeah, we can

96:51discuss up there.

96:52>> Okay. Um what else did I want to say

96:55here? Uh

96:57just trying to think of I guess I would

97:00just uh leave it at that and try and

97:02answer any questions. I I one other just

97:05quick thing I would note is that uh even

97:07though this is not a multif family uh

97:09project anymore, we're still I think

97:11have the requirement to run sidewalk uh

97:14passes. So we'll end up having a a

97:17sidewalk coming just off the wetland

97:21over here. Um it's a requirement that

97:24just have to do for um the village

97:26district. It's not not by choice.

97:28>> Okay.

97:30>> That stream that comes down through

97:32there, I think we class that as a

97:34intermittent.

97:36>> Which stream?

97:37>> Yeah. Yeah. The

97:38>> Oh, yes. It's actually through this

97:41site, but we the reason we show the 100

97:44and 200 foot bounds out is it's still

97:47officially uh perennial beginning at the

97:50next property.

97:51>> Yeah.

97:52>> One of the actually I think the the

97:54woman who lives here at the next

97:56property was at the the planning board

97:58site.

97:59>> So are the flags is still in place?

98:02>> I don't know that they're all still in

98:03place now. It's been it's been a while.

98:05>> Yeah. So, I'm trying to do a sign

98:07inspection again next week uh to just

98:11look at this filing and the location and

98:14so if you could make sure that at least

98:18uh call me to confirm if they are in

98:22place and if they're not a time when

98:24they will be they should be in place for

98:26the next review.

98:28>> Fair enough.

98:28>> Yeah. Yeah. I was planning for next week

98:31to get this rolling. Um but if they're

98:33not there, they just let me know when

98:35they are.

98:35>> Okay. [clears throat] Yeah.

98:36>> Uh and just big picture, we're continued

98:39on the planning board side out to

98:40October 21st. Um you know, the

98:43>> So our next meeting will be the 28th.

98:46Yeah.

98:46>> So hopefully we have things addressed by

98:50then.

98:50>> We've got a comment letter from Graves

98:52Engineering uh that was done uh and

98:56actually does touch on some of sort of

98:58the there's always overlap.

99:00>> Yes, of course. There's always overlap

99:02in oversight between planning board and

99:03conservation commission where they're

99:05both looking at some of the same things

99:07>> and and uh but we've got that. Um did I

99:11believe the applicant dropped off a

99:12check now for the peer review?

99:14>> He did for the peer review. He was doing

99:16the river phone area. I told him to hold

99:17off because I know there was something

99:19else to discuss with you. So when you

99:21come up with that number he can drop it

99:23off all together. Yeah. I'm not

99:25concerned with the fees but I just

99:26needed the peer review to start.

99:28>> Right. And you know we will try and and

99:32integrate both the responses to, you

99:35know, what the planning board said and

99:37what their outside reviewer said and you

99:40folks and and audience members and the

99:42outside peer all the different parties

99:45into a a first.

99:47>> Yeah, perfect.

99:48>> I'll I'll just try and answer any

99:50questions.

99:50>> Okay. Yeah. Any questions?

99:52>> I say board members have questions.

99:57>> You guys here from the audience have

99:58questions? Yes. Hi, Ashley Brisb 32L

100:00 | Stevens Road. Um, no

100:03 | >> further.

100:04 | >> Yeah, I'm I'm a corner.

100:05 | >> Okay.

100:06 | >> No, right on the top. That's me.

100:09 | >> Um, so, um, I haven't been able to see

100:12 | the new plans yet, so this is great that

100:14 | you brought that. Um,

100:16 | >> I know the closest point to the wetlands

100:20 | in the last plan was about 25 ft.

100:24 | Correct. In that corner. Was that

100:25 | >> No.

100:26 | >> Where was that?

100:26 | >> No. We also we also in the last plan had

100:29 | uh a couple of leeching trenches

100:31 | proposed which were going to go right

100:33 | close to the

100:34 | >> So I'm just I'm just saying you said the

100:35 | closest point right now is 15 ft. What

100:37 | was the closest point before that?

100:40 | >> Well, if you leave out the leeching

100:42 | trenches, it's that's probably about

100:44 | what the closest point was before.

100:46 | >> Okay. Yeah, because I know that that was

100:48 | like the biggest issue is that we were

100:50 | just so close that

100:51 | >> I would say that the primary difference

100:53 | and and benefit maybe from the

100:55 | conservation commission uh point of view

100:58 | of this plane versus the previous one is

101:01 | that we've gotten better separation on

101:03 | the north main street line

101:05 | >> than than there was before

101:07 | >> because their their buffer through the

101:09 | wall retain wall was five feet in a few

101:11 | [clears throat] locations. one was right

101:13 | there.

101:14 | >> And I I just I'm just trying to with all

101:16 | these reiterations and everything, it

101:18 | was the back section, those two lots off

101:20 | L Stevens Road,

101:22 | >> that that was the that was the

101:25 | >> what I gathered was the contentious

101:28 | point, not just between

101:31 | >> there were a couple other points. Um

101:33 | >> there were few location maybe over here

101:36 | and over here that were also,

101:38 | >> right? And I think it was just like the

101:40 | the density of all of that behind in

101:43 | that particular corner where you guys

101:45 | have everything going on to me. Now the

101:49 | buildings have kind of adjusted and the

101:50 | road is out which is great. Um and it's

101:52 | that's a huge improvement overall. Um

101:55 | but I feel like that's still really

101:57 | dense and still kind of right up against

101:59 | that wetland border with a lot going on.

102:01 | Now you have a septic thrown in and I'm

102:04 | I know now we don't have the sewer

102:06 | coming in through that where you do the

102:08 | temporary thing and like that's great

102:10 | but now the septic's pretty close to the

102:13 | wetland border so it's just

102:15 | >> that's 25 ft.

102:17 | >> Yeah.

102:17 | >> Actually this the leeching areas by

102:20 | title 5 have to be 50 feet off wetlands.

102:22 | That's

102:23 | >> I'm just trying to make sure with like

102:26 | sewage and things. close to so they they

102:30 | have they relate unrelated to uh

102:34 | conservation they have to meet

102:36 | requirements from the board of health so

102:38 | they meet need to meet their setbacks

102:40 | >> I I would just note that both of these

102:42 | systems will be pump systems you're

102:44 | going to have septic tanks out back of

102:47 | the units you're going to have pumps and

102:49 | you're going to pump it it's really pump

102:50 | only pumping up a couple feet

102:52 | >> but to these areas and what you have

102:55 | when you have that kind of system is you

102:56 | have an alarm on the pumps. If they ever

103:00 | don't go off and the water is has risen

103:02 | in the pump chamber above a certain

103:04 | point, you get an alarm going off.

103:07 | >> Never want to hear it, but

103:11 | >> there should be a flashing light. Uh,

103:14 | sometimes it does, sometimes it's set up

103:17 | on the back of a house. Sometimes it's

103:19 | set up in in a basement such that it,

103:21 | you know, the noise and the light makes

103:23 | it possible for

103:24 | >> it's appropriate on your notes first

103:26 | before anybody else cuz you do Yeah.

103:30 | >> People have some questions.

103:34 | >> Just that that corner right there.

103:42 | >> Yeah.

103:44 | you making.

103:45 | >> We're going to continue at this point.

103:47 | It's just

103:48 | >> I know.

103:48 | >> I know.

103:50 | >> This is going to be continued. So, we're

103:51 | going to have more time.

103:52 | >> Yeah. No.

103:53 | >> Yeah. If if there aren't any other

103:54 | questions, I mean, I will ask uh the

103:56 | commission to please continue. Um we,

103:59 | you know, we have a lot of procedural

104:01 | things to square away with the the fees,

104:03 | etc.

104:04 | >> And we have review from, you know,

104:08 | >> we got storm water going, we got EOTA

104:10 | going. Yes. So we I think we'll have a

104:13 | lot of more information on the next

104:15 | meeting. So since the planning board uh

104:18 | meets on the 21st, I'll be recommending

104:21 | to continue to the 28th.

104:24 | >> Make sense?

104:24 | >> So I need a motion to continue the 28th.

104:26 | >> Motion to continue 28.

104:28 | >> Second.

104:29 | >> Second.

104:30 | >> All in favor?

104:32 | >> I continue.

104:35 | >> Thank you for your time.

104:36 | >> Thank you.

104:38 | Next we have a

104:39 | >> Oh, we already waited lot five.

104:41 | >> It'll come back now. I forgot.

104:43 | >> Sorry.

104:44 | >> Yeah, we're down.

104:47 | >> We're on the I think it's

104:50 | >> it says D number

104:53 | and had DV numbers.

104:54 | >> Yeah, they did.

104:55 | >> Yep.

104:55 | >> All right. D number 128-2021

104:58 | lot 8 Daniels Road. applicant has

105:01 | submitted an abbreviated notice of

105:03 | resource area delineation for review and

105:05 | confirmation of the wetland boundaries.

105:09 | >> Okay, Joe, how are you?

105:12 | >> Oh, well, thanks. It's doing well. Thank

105:15 | you.

105:15 | >> Great. Uh, do you mind just doing a

105:17 | quick uh narrative I mean overview what

105:19 | the project is uh the intent and where

105:24 | we're at at this time?

105:27 | Thank you.

105:29 | Uh I'm the wetlands consultant for uh

105:32 | Chris Hansen, CR Hansen Construction uh

105:36 | services. Um he owns lot 8 Daniels Road.

105:42 | I think it's like a 12

105:45 | 1/2 acre parcel. Um I was contracted to

105:50 | uh flag the uh all the wetlands on the

105:53 | property. Um, I flagged uh two for

105:57 | vegetated wetlands. One in the center,

105:59 | which is the

106:01 | A wetland uh BBW. There's a smaller BBW

106:06 | closer to Daniel.

106:07 | >> He doesn't have the plan. I'm sorry. I

106:09 | thought he was showing the plan.

106:10 | >> That's BB BBW. And then there's a an

106:13 | area um toward the central center

106:18 | portion of the property on one of the

106:20 | boundary.

106:22 | Uh this is flagged as an isolated

106:24 | wetland um which does have a a potential

106:28 | burn pool located within it. Um it also

106:32 | is possibly an isolated land subject to

106:34 | flooding. And that's basically how we

106:36 | elected is that it's a it's a isolated

106:40 | vegetated wetland that is a possible um

106:44 | isolated land subject to flooding um and

106:47 | a potential veral pool. So public areas

106:52 | were flagged. Uh the review consultant

106:55 | for the town

106:58 | uh reviewed the line. We made some

107:00 | changes. Um we met on the site on the

107:04 | 17th I think it was. Um and we walked

107:08 | walked the boundaries. Again we were in

107:11 | agreement. We made some field changes.

107:14 | Those were reflected on the ANRAD plan

107:17 | that was prepared by uh Alpha Omega uh

107:20 | engineering.

107:22 | Um and

107:25 | we're just looking for um agreement on

107:28 | the boundaries that are shown weapon

107:31 | boundaries that are shown on the plans.

107:36 | >> Tom,

107:38 | >> does anyone have any question?

107:41 | which is

107:41 | >> so he's not proposing any construction

107:44 | or disturbance. He's just asking

107:46 | confirmation of the boundaries and what

107:49 | type of resources are within the parcel.

107:52 | So he delineated the board of vegetating

107:54 | wetlands. There are some other resources

107:57 | that was also puted there. So we had

107:59 | their peer review going over there were

108:02 | you know some difference of opinions. We

108:05 | all gathered together on the parcel to

108:08 | agree. There were some coverts. there

108:10 | was some BVW. So that has all been

108:13 | revised and put it on the plan. So what

108:16 | we'll be doing tonight is agreed that

108:18 | that delineation

108:21 | >> exactly

108:22 | >> is depict what's on the field and then

108:25 | what is when somebody actually chooses

108:27 | to develop or to disturb they are going

108:30 | to take that as agreed upon. So they

108:34 | won't have to be delineating the wetland

108:37 | again if they choose to separate those

108:39 | that that part. suing different lots.

108:41 | Does that make sense?

108:43 | >> So when they come over the that has

108:45 | already been agreed, the line have been

108:46 | agreed on, it has already been have a

108:49 | documentation uh proving that

108:52 | >> it saves them time.

108:53 | >> Yes. And they don't they don't need

108:55 | because sometimes this can be this or

108:57 | red which is what we issue can is value

108:59 | for three years. They can push for

109:01 | another three years. So some people

109:03 | might not you know develop right away or

109:06 | they might not sell the loss or divide

109:07 | the loss. So that's on the record. It's

109:10 | there. It's done. So I don't have any

109:13 | concern has been again peer reviewed by

109:16 | two scientists. So

109:19 | >> do you just need a motion?

109:20 | >> You just I just need the motion to

109:22 | accept the boundaries as uh depicted on

109:25 | the plan.

109:26 | >> Do I have that motion?

109:28 | >> How many how many uh uh Oh, never mind.

109:32 | >> I tried.

109:33 | >> Sorry. How uh 12.11 acre. Okay.

109:38 | >> 12.8.2.

109:40 | Yeah. 12.1.

109:41 | >> Yeah.

109:43 | >> Was there a vernal pool in there also?

109:45 | You said.

109:46 | >> Yeah.

109:46 | >> Isolating.

109:47 | >> It's potential. It has not been

109:49 | certified.

109:50 | >> Okay.

109:51 | >> So, it cannot be certified at this time

109:53 | of the year either because they have to

109:54 | be certified at different times. So, and

109:56 | again, they can either do that at

109:59 | different time the commission requires

110:00 | or when someone comes to file and it's

110:03 | the time to be that's when we do that.

110:06 | But right now I can't force them to

110:09 | certify whether I mean to determine

110:12 | whether is a veroo or not because

110:14 | there's no way of certifying that at

110:16 | this time of the year.

110:17 | >> Well, I just know they're usually on the

110:19 | plans if they've already been certified

110:21 | because they have to be on the deed.

110:23 | >> Yeah. So, yes. And then they will have

110:25 | to ask for permit and permission for a

110:28 | different department for the states in

110:30 | order to allow because they're protected

110:32 | areas but it's a potential. So nobody

110:34 | has certified.

110:35 | >> Okay.

110:36 | >> Yeah.

110:37 | >> Okay. Do I have a motion to accept the

110:40 | deliation?

110:40 | >> Motion made.

110:42 | >> Second.

110:43 | >> Second.

110:43 | >> All in favor?

110:44 | >> I have it.

110:47 | >> Thank you.

110:49 | >> Thank you, Roach.

110:50 | >> Yeah, of course. I'll contact you next

110:52 | week. Thank you. You mind passing that

110:54 | over, please?

110:55 | >> Sure.

110:56 | >> Thank you. And it says we have a request

110:58 | for minor amendment to DP number 1281

111:02 | 933 Serbridgeidge Road Route 20.

111:04 | >> Thank you for

111:05 | >> No.

111:08 | >> Okay. What is that?

111:10 | >> Minor amendment.

111:12 | >> Uh

111:15 | sorry this has been a bit

111:17 | >> keep pushing this one. So they they have

111:21 | they had the order condition that was

111:23 | approved by us but as always sites like

111:26 | that when the construction is over 20

111:28 | they need to go to DOT. So that's an

111:32 | example of what could happen with the

111:35 | gas station.

111:36 | >> So they did all the permitting D uh

111:39 | local permitting.

111:42 | I think even

111:46 | EPA and now when they went to do they go

111:49 | well I need this to be changed. So

111:52 | because the state road we need to kind

111:54 | of work together with them. So they had

111:58 | to

111:59 | uh wind the PL uh the bridge the that

112:03 | they had proposed for the covert at

112:06 | Mckin Street Brook to improve the

112:08 | protection uh of scour protection is

112:12 | what's called. So it it was a little it

112:14 | has to be full width to flush to

112:17 | gradient stone rip wrap apron that's

112:19 | keyed into the stream bed and extend

112:22 | beyond the wing walls. I know that's

112:24 | kind of Let me see if there's a Oh,

112:26 | there's a plane here.

112:29 | So, there has not been it won't impact

112:31 | the area that had been. So, he did in

112:33 | red. So, the black is what was uh first

112:37 | approved and the red is what's the

112:39 | changed

112:40 | >> quite a bit.

112:40 | >> The permanent impact will increase

112:43 | approximately 1,000 square ft. Um

112:47 | however the the grades flood storage

112:50 | calculations and the compensatory

112:53 | storage will remain unchanged

112:59 | and

112:59 | >> that's to comply with the route 20

113:00 | >> that's to comply with D. I mean we could

113:02 | if the commission choose to to have him

113:05 | um file for a full amendment. I don't

113:08 | see the the the need for it but it it

113:11 | can be a possibility. You have the the

113:13 | authority to do so.

113:28 | have to be further away. [laughter]

113:32 | >> Need the magnifying glasses there.

113:33 | >> Are you recommending?

113:35 | >> I'll be looking to Yes. A a motion to

113:38 | approve the change under a minor

113:40 | amendment.

113:42 | >> Need a motion.

113:43 | >> Motion.

113:43 | >> Second. Second.

113:45 | >> All in favor?

113:46 | >> I

113:49 | >> Okay. Certificates. Certificate of

113:53 | compliance. First one is D1281727

113:59 | >> 11B

114:01 | Colum Drive.

114:03 | >> Yeah. So this was issued few years ago.

114:06 | There was some change uh that it was uh

114:10 | submitted by the engineer who did the

114:12 | final sign inspection. Uh there was

114:15 | additional

114:17 | uh it was the the order conditions was

114:20 | for a pool install. The the location of

114:24 | the pool shifted and they also installed

114:26 | a shed. Uh but it was all within the

114:29 | buffer, not the the the BVW was not

114:32 | altered by any means. So that was the

114:34 | only difference. So, I would still

114:35 | recommend uh issuing a complete educator

114:38 | compliance.

114:39 | >> Need a motion.

114:39 | >> Motion made.

114:40 | >> Second.

114:41 | >> Second.

114:42 | >> All in favor?

114:42 | >> All right.

114:43 | >> Nice to have it.

114:46 | >> Next, we have D128-189259

114:50 | Pumpkin Lane, formerly lot one.

114:55 | >> Yeah. So, that's our famous pumpkin lane

114:57 | construction that we had issues back a

115:00 | few years ago. uh they just never filed

115:03 | for educator compliance. That educator

115:05 | compliance itself was related just to

115:07 | the driveway. So I'll issue a complete

115:10 | certificate compliance. Do

115:11 | >> you need a motion? [snorts]

115:13 | >> Motion.

115:14 | >> Second.

115:15 | >> Second.

115:15 | >> All in favor?

115:16 | >> I [clears throat]

115:20 | DP number 128-187257

115:24 | Pumpkin Lane.

115:26 | >> I might have switched it. So that was to

115:31 | the first one that we approved was

115:32 | associ it never commenced. Yeah.

115:36 | >> So so that is uh uh invalid certificate

115:41 | of compliance. So

115:42 | >> with 1892.

115:43 | >> Yes.

115:44 | >> So same

115:46 | >> same. Yeah. Yeah. I just need the motion

115:47 | to show an invalid instead. I apologize.

115:51 | >> Motion ago.

115:52 | >> Thank you.

115:52 | >> Second. [laughter and gasps]

115:53 | >> Second.

115:54 | >> All in favor. Not that would matter, but

115:57 | just to be on the record. And the 57

116:00 | pumpkin lane was associated with the

116:01 | driveway.

116:02 | >> Are we set with 57?

116:05 | >> Yeah.

116:05 | >> Okay.

116:06 | >> That's a a complete certificate.

116:09 | >> DP128-20118

116:12 | Rams Road

116:13 | >> that was associated with the

116:14 | installation of a septic system just few

116:16 | months ago that I would recommend issue

116:19 | with complete certificate compliance.

116:21 | >> I need a motion.

116:23 | >> Second.

116:23 | >> Second.

116:24 | >> All in favor? All right.

116:25 | >> All right.

116:27 | >> Okay.

116:28 | Enforcement violations.

116:29 | >> Nope.

116:30 | >> Old new business.

116:32 | >> No.

116:33 | >> So, I can make

116:35 | >> Oh, I'm sorry. [laughter]

116:38 | >> Old new business, but I had a couple

116:41 | questions and a couple comments on the

116:43 | way last time.

116:47 | >> It It's just not on J's agenda. So, we

116:49 | we're not discussing tonight.

116:52 | >> All right. I know I talked I didn't come

116:53 | to the last meeting,

116:54 | >> right? But I thought that is not all in

116:56 | your business.

116:57 | >> Uh

116:58 | >> we're not discussing it tonight. No,

116:59 | it's all not on the agenda for a purpose

117:02 | because we're waiting for uh I think I

117:04 | put that on email for you.

117:06 | >> Um I didn't get no response because

117:08 | there was a lot of inaccurate statements

117:09 | and it was vote based on some of those

117:11 | statements.

117:11 | >> We will be reviewed that as I explained

117:13 | to you it was just a initial

117:16 | >> discussion

117:17 | >> discussion. So we are kind of aware of

117:20 | what's happening. Everything is being

117:22 | reviewed and that's why we chose to not

117:24 | have on the agenda to discuss because we

117:26 | like to review each item, each comment

117:29 | and each information that was provided

117:31 | to us and additional information that

117:33 | we're requesting prior to continue

117:35 | discussing based on information that may

117:38 | may not be reliable. So

117:41 | >> old old business on the agenda why is it

117:44 | on the agenda

117:46 | >> because we don't have new information to

117:48 | >> discuss

117:52 | about like other boards that I'm on

117:55 | that's

117:56 | >> so you can you can require the request

117:58 | the commission to discuss uh all their

118:00 | old business I'm just trying to explain

118:02 | to you that the commission is reviewing

118:04 | everything that has been commented and

118:07 | submitted to us and we had not closed

118:09 | should be they are not closed. I don't

118:12 | believe they should be making a

118:13 | decision.

118:14 | >> We don't have anything yet about South

118:16 | Charleston to even look at other than

118:18 | what residents have been providing.

118:20 | >> So we we did have a discussion about

118:23 | having a

118:24 | >> somebody go and look at

118:26 | >> we're having someone to conduct a study.

118:28 | Yes,

118:28 | >> I understand that you

118:30 | >> there might have been things said and

118:32 | things that were not said in the last

118:33 | meeting and we're taking off

118:35 | >> or not we're all taking it's just not

118:38 | it's not on the agenda and I just feel

118:41 | that being such a um

118:44 | >> contentious

118:44 | >> contentious subject to have just one

118:47 | party here to have a discussion over it

118:49 | would be unfair that's my take

118:52 | >> that's fine so it's not so I don't have

118:54 | to because honestly I was going to

118:56 | someone was going to be where you go,

118:57 | folks. That's our fear because last week

118:59 | >> there was a vote and it was based on

119:02 | >> there was no vote.

119:03 | >> No, there was a vote that there was a

119:04 | vote move to study. One person voted

119:07 | against it which is totally fine. It

119:08 | doesn't agree with me. You might have

119:10 | >> tons of reasons.

119:11 | >> Yeah,

119:11 | >> that could have happened that last week

119:13 | it was voted to not go to study based on

119:16 | some truly inaccurate

119:19 | some misstatements. How deep it is,

119:21 | where it's conducted. I sent you an

119:23 | email video show

119:26 | that was my fear. I'm like, "Holy crap,

119:27 | that could have got voted down based on

119:29 | it."

119:30 | >> Yes. And that's why I request the study

119:32 | to give time. So, yeah. So, everyone has

119:35 | actually the time to

119:38 | >> to review what has been sent to us and

119:42 | any additional information

119:43 | >> and I do appreciate that. I get that you

119:45 | all do more than just this. So, what I

119:46 | sent you all is it's a ton. I get that.

119:48 | >> It's a lot.

119:49 | >> No. And I I acknowledge I love tri but

119:52 | so if I want to talk to you about some

119:53 | of your comments like you were saying

119:54 | how the other

119:55 | >> the other someone said the other lakes

119:56 | and ponds weren't aware of this the

119:58 | lakes and ponds commission twice voted

120:00 | unanimously so the other lakes are aware

120:02 | of it and then you said something about

120:04 | you can't move

120:05 | >> I didn't say that it will they will

120:07 | >> no one of the opposition was saying oh

120:09 | you better tell the lakes the other

120:11 | lakes are aware of it yeah

120:12 | >> but then you also said something about

120:13 | getting permission or getting the

120:15 | approval of the lakes and ponds which

120:16 | that confused me only because

120:19 | get approval. No, approval for what?

120:21 | >> No, you made a comment. I watched the

120:23 | video that well, we have to run this by

120:24 | the other. We got to get approval from

120:26 | the boards of the other lakes first. To

120:28 | me, it should be like citizens

120:31 | >> if they choose to conduct their own

120:34 | study.

120:34 | >> No. And and it keeps going just south

120:36 | reservoir, but like does nothing prevent

120:38 | it from going down any other lake

120:40 | tomorrow?

120:40 | >> Understood. I think the the focus is

120:42 | Southton. So we wanted to we wanted to

120:45 | focus on that lake first because then

120:46 | the next potential lake is Glenn Eko.

120:48 | >> It will just be a precedence. You know

120:51 | what I mean?

120:51 | >> No.

120:52 | >> Yeah. So that's what I mean.

120:54 | >> Like so any taxpayer account we control

120:58 | pay for we have a highrisisk dam that

121:00 | the femur and core engineer stuff I sent

121:02 | you shows

121:03 | >> and and I feel like it should be

121:05 | everybody not just people. It is and

121:07 | that's why it's all being under review

121:09 | and that's why that it goes to the board

121:10 | of select if the commission approves and

121:12 | that's why it goes to the town meeting.

121:14 | So because as you say everyone in town

121:16 | should be looking at it and voting on it

121:19 | not just lake residents. You're correct.

121:21 | It's just it's a law and it's new and

121:24 | it's it you know a lot of people feel

121:27 | that it should come from the state from

121:29 | the local authority. So, it's a

121:30 | contagious and we're just trying to take

121:32 | our time since we don't have to rush for

121:34 | this town meeting to make sure that we

121:37 | have enough information to make the best

121:39 | decision and have that push to our to

121:41 | the next level.

121:42 | >> I'll keep So now I know if it's not

121:44 | listed on the agenda because the house

121:46 | is a long meeting. You all do a walk

121:48 | away. I don't think anyone realizes I've

121:50 | learned that these last couple meetings

121:52 | appreciate.

121:52 | >> So, yeah. So, and uh yeah, it could it

121:54 | could have let's say we have 15 people

121:56 | here for some reason. They asked the

121:58 | commission to discuss under old business

122:01 | because you have some additional

122:03 | information to submit it that would

122:04 | impact everyone's decision. Yes.

122:08 | >> I would be recommend the commission to

122:10 | open that.

122:10 | >> What happens? They come in a group. So

122:12 | you saying if it was eight or 10 of them

122:14 | then

122:15 | >> but it was but it was on the per it was

122:17 | on the

122:18 | >> No but you just said if there's a group

122:20 | like a bigger a larger number here

122:23 | tonight when it came to old

122:25 | >> if if you had if if you all had

122:28 | additional information that had not been

122:30 | submitted to us that would impact any of

122:34 | the decisions. So we agreed that that

122:36 | day that we would be continue this

122:39 | meeting to be discussed until I had uh

122:43 | the study

122:45 | sub this uh a proposal is sent to the

122:48 | lakes and pon committee for them to

122:50 | approve and then bring in front of the

122:52 | commission. So that's why it wasn't on

122:54 | the agenda because that will be your

122:55 | next step is to have that proposal

122:58 | approved and then have the findings

123:00 | coming back. And when that finds come

123:02 | back, that's why I will notify everyone.

123:04 | Once I have those findings, the

123:06 | commission should be ready to make that

123:08 | decision and that should be a meeting

123:09 | that will be posted.

123:12 | >> Does that answer your question?

123:14 | >> But I still a little bit of confusion

123:16 | like that when you said there's like 10

123:17 | or 15 people here than they could have

123:19 | and they had more information they

123:21 | could. So now my fair is I got to come

123:23 | down.

123:23 | >> But do you have that's not what I meant

123:26 | people?

123:27 | >> I mean I'm not talking about the amount

123:29 | of people. I'm talking about because of

123:30 | the amount of new information that would

123:32 | be brought into the commission.

123:34 | >> By all means do you have new information

123:36 | to provide to the commission or the what

123:39 | has been submitted tonight?

123:42 | >> So you're not talking to refute like 20

123:44 | foot comment that was made last week

123:45 | that we only

123:46 | >> No, because we are aware of that. It's

123:48 | on the paper for some locations. What I

123:52 | what I I feel that the way I say it

123:55 | might have you might have interpreted in

123:57 | a different way. What we have was a bad

124:00 | matric study that shows in some

124:02 | locations some some depth but not

124:05 | entirely of the lake

124:07 | >> not close to 20 ft. That was what was it

124:09 | was voted on that was stated it was 20

124:11 | ft deep and then you all made a vote

124:12 | based on it.

124:13 | >> That's my we didn't make a vote based on

124:15 | that. vote

124:17 | >> to go to his his concern is that if

124:20 | there's

124:22 | >> I get what he's saying that we voted to

124:24 | to go forward with the study

124:26 | >> but people were saying that well you

124:28 | don't really need that cuz it's 20 ft

124:29 | that you know there's they're giving out

124:31 | they were throwing out numbers that

124:32 | aren't currently yes

124:34 | >> so we were fortunate that we did proceed

124:36 | with the that's his concern was that we

124:38 | did

124:39 | >> if I'm sitting out there and I did read

124:40 | and it is like 20 feet is the going

124:42 | standard so if I'm sitting up there and

124:43 | I hear no it's 20

124:45 | You know, yeah, we only do it right

124:47 | here. I didn't point it to you, but I

124:48 | can show you videos,

124:49 | >> but we all know

124:51 | >> I might have said even if there were

124:54 | >> but the study wasn't just for the death.

124:56 | The study was for much more.

124:58 | >> I'm saying my favorites could have got

125:01 | >> it would not it would never I it'll

125:03 | never allow that because even if there

125:04 | was an air that might have been 20 ft

125:06 | somewhere, we know that the entire lake

125:08 | does not does not have at the same

125:11 | depth. We know that. We're aware of

125:13 | that. Is does is anybody aware of that?

125:16 | >> So that that would never happen. It

125:19 | would just wouldn't but the voting for

125:21 | the study was not just related to the

125:23 | death of the lake was related to erosion

125:26 | was related to the bed was related to

125:28 | invasive species was in comparison that

125:31 | we're requesting requiring requesting to

125:33 | compare the difference of you know of of

125:36 | jet skiing or or any other activities.

125:39 | So that was not the reason for the vote

125:41 | for

125:42 | >> No, I understand that. I was just saying

125:44 | like if if someone was influenced by

125:45 | certain things said they were inaccurate

125:47 | chance.

125:49 | >> Do we answer that? Cuz no disrespect is

125:50 | getting kind of

125:51 | >> Yeah. No. And I'm sorry.

125:52 | >> Yeah. Yeah.

125:53 | >> So I know you're concerned what was said

125:55 | and what was but that voting had nothing

125:57 | to do with you know numbers or or

126:02 | >> Okay. Yeah.

126:03 | >> Thanks. I want

126:05 | >> No, no, of course. Yeah. No, you have

126:07 | the right. So as again when I said a

126:09 | large group of people I meant the new

126:11 | information they would be bringing from

126:12 | the commission not because they there

126:14 | will be more people

126:15 | >> it's not on the agenda I don't have to

126:16 | worry about

126:17 | >> no correct we are not going to be

126:19 | discussing it's not going to be voted

126:20 | until I have more information I will

126:23 | actually bring to the less importance

126:24 | committee first

126:26 | >> when I saw new business that's just what

126:27 | I was

126:28 | >> yeah no of course yeah by all means yeah

126:30 | thank you

126:30 | >> yeah of course yeah of course

126:34 | >> are we ready to make a motion

126:36 | >> yes the marriage Motion to adjurnn.

126:38 | Motion to

126:39 | >> second.

126:39 | >> Second.

126:40 | >> All in favor?

126:43 | >> Thank you for