2026-09-22 - Conservation Commission Meeting

Summary

Summary built from ASR auto-captions (no speaker labels; names and numbers may be misheard). The Charlton Conservation Commission opened with a public inquiry about stormwater runoff at 84 Glen Echo Shore Road; the conservation agent (Rose Conway) asked for and received a motion, passed by voice vote, to issue a stormwater violation letter to the owner whose driveway discharges onto the abutting property (84 Glen Echo Shore Road Storm Water Violation). August 19 minutes were approved. 360 Worcester Road (commercial building near the mini-golf site, tied to the Planning Board schedule), 11 Sunset Drive (deck/swim spa near Gluck Lake), and 80 Richardson Corner Road were each continued to October 28.

The commission then closed the hearing and issued an order of conditions for the Worcester Road gas station / drive-thru / five-apartment project (Hayden Enterprises Gas Station Special Permit); the applicant's engineer summarized the previously disturbed 4.75-acre site, double-walled fiberglass tanks with 24-hour monitoring, oil/water separators and spill shut-off valves, and an emergency-only gate onto Old Worcester Road, with a special condition that no land disturbance begin until the land disturbance application is filed and a possible return if MassDOT's curb-cut review forces changes. A resident of Stevens Road asked about leak history from the former gas station where the CVS now stands. For the National Grid substation at Snake Hill Road (New England Power Company Snake Hill Road Substation), Peter Defusco and Alison Milman of BSC Group described a redesigned three-sided open-bottom box culvert that eliminates stream-bed and bank impacts, reduced wetland fill, tree-clearing justification, and a July 28, 2026 Army Corps 404 approval (to be re-verified for the new culvert). The agent will require supplemental test pits near the basin before the land disturbance application. One commissioner asked for more time to review the DEP comments, but the commission voted to close the hearing, with the order to follow in a week or two.

An order of conditions was voted for 18 Oxbow Road (Chris McClure for the owner, clean-fill grading of about 23,000 sq ft behind a Route 20 garage). The most contentious item was Lot 5 Smith Road, where the applicant's representative (David Saddowski) requested a waiver of the town's land disturbance permit because the lot disturbs only about 14,300 sq ft; the agent argued the lot is part of a common plan of development (older ANR subdivision) exceeding one acre and recommended denial. After heated exchange, including a commissioner (Mitch Dunn) moving to grant the waiver (no second), the commission voted to deny the waiver, then closed the hearing and issued an order of conditions requiring a land disturbance permit application before disturbance (Lot 5 Smith Road Land Disturbance Waiver Denial). Routine items followed: a septic replacement at 55 Oxbow Road along the Little River (closed), a single-family house at Lot 5 on Gul Road for PMD Development (closed), and an ANRAD confirming wetland boundaries at Lot 8 Daniels Road for C.R. Hansen Construction (boundaries accepted after joint field walk with the town peer reviewer, with a potential, uncertified vernal pool).

James Dro of Expedited Engineering presented the redesigned 35 North Main Street proposal for GM Properties: nine by-right duplex lots (7 on North Main, 2 on Stevens Road) in place of the earlier 30-40 unit townhouse plans rejected by the Planning Board, with closest work 15 ft from wetlands and a discussion of filing fees (riverfront surcharge, building rather than single-family fee category); an abutter, Ashley (32L Stevens Road), raised concerns about density and septic proximity to wetlands. The hearing was continued to October 28 (35 North Main Street Duplex Subdivision). The commission approved a minor amendment to the order for 933 Sturbridge Road (Route 20), enlarging the culvert scour-protection apron at McKin Street Brook by about 1,000 sq ft at MassDOT's request, and issued certificates of compliance for 11B Colum Drive, 59 Pumpkin Lane (complete), another Pumpkin Lane file (invalid, never commenced), and Rams Road. Under old business a South Charlton Reservoir resident questioned why the wake-surfing matter was not on the agenda; the commission and agent explained that the study proposal must first go to the Lakes and Ponds committee and nothing will be discussed or voted until findings return (Wake Surfing Bylaw - South Charlton Reservoir). The meeting adjourned.

Issues discussed: 84 Glen Echo Shore Road Storm Water Violation, Hayden Enterprises Gas Station Special Permit, New England Power Company Snake Hill Road Substation, Lot 5 Smith Road Land Disturbance Waiver Denial, 35 North Main Street Duplex Subdivision, Wake Surfing Bylaw - South Charlton Reservoir

Transcript

0:02 | Yes,
0:02 | >> you guys are ready. This meeting is now
0:05 | called to order. First item, public
0:08 | inquiries.
0:10 | 84 Glen Neco Shore Road storm water
0:13 | runoff. What's that about?
0:15 | >> I brought this to the commission last
0:16 | time was a complaint about storm water
0:18 | runoff. I say that would be waiting for
0:21 | a nice storm to go and look at it to see
0:23 | if the water was indeed running towards
0:25 | the abing property and it was. So, I was
0:28 | going to ask the commission to make a
0:29 | motion to uh for me to issue a letter of
0:32 | storm water violation to the property
0:36 | owner who has the driveway impeached and
0:39 | discharged onto the abing property.
0:42 | >> Oops. So, I need a motion. I'll make
0:44 | that 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,
0:54 | 2026.
0:56 | I 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
1:05 | hearings. First one, D number 128-203
1:10 | 360 Worester Road. The applicant has
1:13 | filed an NOI for the construction of a
1:15 | commercial building, paved driveway,
1:17 | parking lots, storm water infiltration,
1:20 | and associated site work within 100 ft
1:22 | of the buffer zone of BVW. Where we at
1:25 | with that?
1:25 | >> So, we'll be continuing it to when does
1:28 | planning 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.
1:38 | Motion to continue.
1:39 | >> Second.
1:40 | >> Second.
1:41 | >> All in favor?
1:42 | >> All right. Is this the the one the
1:44 | planned?
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
1:52 | little 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
2:02 | 11 Sunset Drive. The applicant has filed
2:05 | an NOI for the construction of a deck
2:08 | with a swim spa, permittable paver
2:11 | patio, fence, and retaining wall within
2:14 | 100 ft of Gluck Lake.
2:16 | >> We will be continued to October 28th.
2:23 | 28th 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.
2:35 | Next on the list is DP number 128 2015.
2:39 | Just says Worester Road. The applicant
2:42 | has filed an NOI for the construction.
2:44 | Uh of
2:45 | >> we have a man approaching the deis
2:48 | of a five fuel pumps, two diesel
2:51 | stations, two 20,000galon underground
2:54 | tanks associated with a gas station and
2:56 | drive-thru and propose proposed
2:59 | convenience store with five residential
3:00 | units above it. All work is within 100
3:03 | ft of BBW. This is the one we've been
3:05 | seeing for months, correct?
3:07 | >> Since August.
3:09 | >> Since August. We're just waiting on
3:11 | planning board some storm water but it
3:13 | looks like everyone has been addressed.
3:15 | How 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
3:22 | quickly over what
3:25 | from the last meeting at the last
3:26 | meeting. No, there was no changes on the
3:28 | plan but uh I guess the board was
3:31 | waiting for the planning uh board
3:34 | >> this was waiting to close. Yes. and they
3:36 | did
3:37 | >> close and they approved the the all the
3:39 | special permits and the uh
3:41 | >> I don't know if you want me to go
3:42 | through I can just
3:43 | >> you can just give a an overview to
3:45 | refresh everyone's mind
3:46 | >> excuse me if we is there anybody in the
3:48 | audience that wants to see these plans
3:50 | >> absolutely
3:52 | >> nobody okay
3:53 | >> so basically uh at the last presentation
3:56 | I I stated that the property is about
3:58 | 4.75 acres and uh it's located in the in
4:02 | the commercial business district a gas
4:04 | station was allowed use as of right, but
4:06 | we applied for a special permit for the
4:09 | drive-thru and the apartments, the five
4:12 | apartments on the second floor. Uh, this
4:15 | site, uh, approximately 2.5 acres of
4:18 | this site was previously disturbed with
4:20 | the with the gravel processing
4:22 | operation. I'm sure you're all familiar
4:24 | with the site. It's been there for 25,
4:26 | 30 years. And uh so we we filed for
4:30 | notice of intent in conjunction with the
4:32 | planning board and part of the uh
4:35 | process review process. We had we hired
4:38 | traffic consultants. We also hired the
4:40 | environmental consultants through your
4:42 | office that reviewed the the projects.
4:44 | They had some comments. D had few
4:46 | comments too. I addressed those with
4:48 | with Rose and I I sent the memo uh and
4:52 | they sent the revised plans to uh D. All
4:55 | the 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
5:05 | believe originally 36 38 comments all
5:08 | the comments addressed there's couple
5:09 | minor comments that we had to did part
5:12 | of the planning board conditions that we
5:16 | just revised those couple minor plans on
5:19 | they they mostly like drafting errors
5:22 | not nothing to do but we got the okay
5:24 | from uh the storm water and I I'll be
5:27 | applying for this for the storm water.
5:29 | >> Oh, that's fine. This I won't hold this
5:30 | back. I'll just have a special condition
5:32 | there.
5:33 | >> I heard that and really it didn't have
5:35 | you know I went online I downloaded the
5:37 | application. Everything's reviewed.
5:40 | >> It's straightforward at this point.
5:41 | >> Straightforward. So just to refresh your
5:44 | memories basically we're in the buffer.
5:47 | Uh there's a small portion of the
5:48 | drive-thru that is between the 50 foot
5:51 | buffer and 100 foot buffer that we will
5:53 | be altering. And again, this is areas
5:56 | that previously degraded or developed or
5:59 | altered. There's no new alteration with
6:02 | this project. And we kept the the scope
6:05 | we kept the the the limits of the
6:07 | alteration to within the existing uh
6:11 | previously disturbed areas. And we
6:13 | actually uh uh claim some of this area
6:17 | that was previously graveled. And this
6:19 | will be turned into a green space. And
6:21 | again, this is all between the 50 and
6:23 | the 100 foot buffer. Uh all this snow
6:26 | storage out of the 100t buffer, fuel
6:30 | operations, fuel tanks, buildings, storm
6:33 | water, septic, all outside the 100 foot
6:36 | buffer. And also we propose a 6-foot
6:41 | fence all along the southerntherly side
6:44 | of the property from the mo the this the
6:48 | north west corner all the way to
6:53 | this 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
6:59 | also we have a small retaining wall but
7:01 | we have some landscape but we do have
7:04 | also a fence. So that's would prevent
7:06 | any
7:08 | probably debris going to the back of the
7:10 | river and also we did that so some of
7:13 | the residents that live to the south the
7:16 | you know to prevent any glare to to
7:18 | lighting I mean and this was all part of
7:21 | the site review so um and we with the
7:25 | storm water I don't want to go into a
7:26 | lot of details but you know right I I
7:28 | think I mentioned this at the last
7:30 | meeting you know there's nothing there
7:32 | now you know whatever your operating
7:34 | machines with hydraulics and there's no
7:36 | treatment, you know, whatever.
7:37 | >> It's an improvement.
7:39 | >> It is, you know, we we truly did the you
7:43 | know, a good job to to make sure because
7:45 | we understand the the the sensitive area
7:48 | here and uh so everything will be
7:51 | collected, treated that we have shut off
7:53 | valves for emergency spills and all
7:55 | that. So uh and also I think I mentioned
7:59 | at at that time that that's the existing
8:02 | gravel driveway currently uh used for
8:06 | access in the property off of old
8:08 | worcester road will be closed with two
8:10 | gates only emergency personnel and curb
8:14 | cuts we have to go to do mass if there's
8:17 | any changes on the plans from we'll have
8:19 | to come back that's what the planning
8:21 | board and the planning board approved it
8:23 | >> uh at the last meeting I think They sent
8:26 | me a copy of the draft condition. Yes, I
8:28 | think you got a copy to it. So, I think
8:31 | we're good to go. So,
8:34 | we kindly ask your approval tonight so
8:37 | we can continue on.
8:40 | >> So, the total disturbance within the
8:41 | buffer zone, we're talking about less
8:43 | than 30,000 square feet and near the BVW
8:47 | around 40 ft. Uh it was delineated and
8:50 | it was also our alley uh confirmed the
8:54 | lines. Uh findings have been confirmed.
8:58 | Uh
9:03 | something
9:09 | no is another project. No, that's it.
9:11 | And the only special condition outside
9:13 | of the uh original conditions that we
9:15 | usually issue is just a special
9:17 | conditions that the lane disturbance
9:19 | should not started until the lane
9:22 | disturbance the lane disturbance
9:24 | application is filed. So which is a
9:26 | little bit so I don't have any concerns
9:28 | of the project has met all storm water
9:30 | has been reviewed by graves approved by
9:32 | planning board. Uh uh questions and
9:36 | comments from D have been uh
9:40 | >> addressed
9:40 | >> addressed. Peer review comments have
9:43 | been addressed.
9:45 | >> Board members have any questions.
9:48 | >> I guess we talked a little bit about
9:49 | that access way on the side. You said
9:51 | that's going to be chained closed just
9:54 | for emergency.
9:55 | >> It'll be a gate. Yeah. And only
9:57 | emergency personnel will have access to
9:59 | the box. whatever it be fired, police or
10:02 | so be another means of eagerness to the
10:04 | fire department. I guess it's there.
10:06 | Might as well use it.
10:08 | >> That's what our feeling. But again,
10:10 | we're going back to DOT. There was a
10:12 | discussion with the planning board.
10:13 | Maybe make this or here maybe one way
10:15 | out or something. But the the residents
10:18 | did not did not like that. So, we're not
10:20 | going that route.
10:22 | >> It would impact the wetlands in the
10:24 | area. So unless and only when DOT
10:26 | actually requires that to be changed, we
10:30 | will remain like that. If they do, then
10:32 | he'll come back to us with a different
10:34 | plan.
10:35 | >> Okay. Any
10:36 | >> And these are underground tanks as well.
10:38 | You said the storage tanks.
10:42 | Um are they double walled? Are they
10:44 | steel?
10:45 | >> Double walled with
10:47 | >> Vita root protection 24-hour monitoring.
10:50 | This is this is fire codes. Yeah. Okay.
10:53 | Yeah. Absolutely.
10:56 | >> I just have one question. Um, for the
10:58 | revision that you were talking about for
11:00 | the 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
11:09 | apply for the curb cut with the states.
11:12 | So, states have different requirements.
11:14 | So, sometimes when they go to the state,
11:16 | they can come back with their
11:18 | requirements that will impact what has
11:20 | been approved. If that is to happen,
11:23 | they will come back and he will come
11:25 | back and show the commission what
11:26 | possible change is going to have to be
11:29 | made in order to comply with the state
11:31 | requirements and then we work together
11:34 | then. But there's nothing in the works.
11:35 | Nothing has been so correct.
11:37 | >> Perfect.
11:38 | >> Any members of the audience have a
11:40 | question?
11:41 | >> I just do just out of curiosity. Um I'm
11:43 | Ashley Rzbow 32L Stevens Road. Um, I
11:47 | just learned about this project, but I
11:49 | was part of the properties that got
11:51 | affected by the old uh gas station where
11:53 | the CVS is now where the gas leaked into
11:56 | the water and then um Exxon had to come
11:59 | and replace we connected to sewer. Is
12:01 | there any plan like should that happen
12:03 | in that area for you guys like how that
12:06 | would be handled on this side here? Like
12:10 | do you guys kind of remember what I'm
12:12 | talking about with this?
12:15 | I I can't tell you what happened there
12:18 | because obviously I don't know. It could
12:20 | have been an old tank with like steel
12:23 | old in the old days they used to put
12:24 | steel tanks in the ground and they rot.
12:26 | We all know that. So now the rules are
12:28 | different 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
12:40 | mentioned on the storm water. I don't
12:41 | know if you're familiar with storm
12:42 | water. storm water is when you if you it
12:46 | collects the runoff when from the rain
12:48 | but in case there's some debris or
12:52 | pollutant on site let's say you have an
12:54 | oil spill or something from a car that
12:56 | leaks.
12:57 | >> So we take that into deep some catch
13:00 | basins then we take it through oil water
13:01 | separators you know treat it before we
13:03 | discharge to the to the wetlands. Uh and
13:06 | also if there's any large leak like a
13:09 | catastrophic leak, let's say uh
13:12 | something broke with with the pump or
13:15 | the pipe or uh that leak uh 500 gallons,
13:20 | something like that which will be all
13:21 | contained in the in the drainage system.
13:23 | There's also a uh shut off valves that
13:26 | all employees will be trained to the
13:29 | locations are shown on the plans with
13:31 | the signage and all the you know we do
13:33 | this on my client operates about 15 gas
13:36 | stations in the commonwealth of
13:37 | Massachusetts and this is something that
13:39 | we do so you can shut those valves off
13:42 | and then prevent any water going into
13:44 | the ground you know.
13:45 | >> Okay. That's are well known facility.
13:48 | >> Oh yeah. and and this was all reviewed
13:49 | by Europe review and uh you know so we
13:52 | this has been going on for like three
13:54 | four months back and forth we made like
13:56 | three four different revisions on the
13:57 | plane so
13:58 | >> yeah I just want I just it was just I
14:01 | completely understand you know this is
14:04 | absolutely
14:07 | >> be recommended to close the public
14:08 | hearing and issuing the order of
14:10 | conditions 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
14:19 | talking. 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
14:29 | realize this is you. So, [laughter]
14:32 | >> thanks.
14:33 | >> All right. Next, we have D number
14:35 | 128-2029
14:39 | Snake Hill. The applicant has filed an
14:42 | NOI for the construction of a new
14:43 | substation to provide power to an Amazon
14:46 | warehouse 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
14:59 | just put it. Did you just put it there?
15:01 | >> Oh, no. I have it on my laptop. Do you
15:03 | need it on a flash drive?
15:04 | >> Yes.
15:05 | >> Thank you. Yeah.
15:07 | >> Why is there a flash drive there? What
15:08 | is that?
15:10 | see the flash drive. Can you see what's
15:13 | in there
15:16 | through the
15:20 | >> I actually think it's hers.
15:22 | >> Alison, did you ever take yours last
15:24 | time?
15:27 | >> Yeah,
15:27 | >> I have several. I'm just going to pop
15:29 | this.
15:30 | >> Yeah, just left it here.
15:32 | >> I think that's the one that's there, but
15:35 | if there are revisions anyway, so it
15:36 | Yeah, let's eject that day if you don't
15:38 | mind.
15:41 | While Ellison's getting the media ready,
15:43 | I'll introduce the project if that's
15:44 | okay with everybody.
15:45 | >> Yes, sure.
15:46 | >> All right. Good evening. My name is
15:48 | Peter Defusco. I'm a lead environmental
15:50 | scientist with National Grid. I'm the
15:52 | applicant for the project.
15:55 | Um, we kick this off on July 15th for 29
15:59 | Snake Hill Road where we're building the
16:00 | new substation to support the Amazon
16:02 | warehouse. This is a transmission
16:04 | substation. So, we'll be building um
16:09 | a fence enclosed facility on our
16:11 | existing property. It will loop into
16:14 | overhead transmission infrastructure.
16:17 | There's an overhead transmission line to
16:19 | the north behind where this structure is
16:21 | proposed.
16:23 | To the east is Carpenter Hill Road. Um
16:25 | the way the property flows, it's a large
16:28 | hill and then an intermediate bench
16:29 | where we're proposing the station and
16:31 | then another hill downward sloping west.
16:35 | Thank you.
16:36 | >> To the south is Snake Hill Road.
16:39 | Um coming from the station, we'll have
16:41 | distribution lines going underground in
16:44 | the access driveway and then to the
16:47 | roadway where it connects to existing
16:49 | distribution poles.
16:53 | We had some
16:55 | D comments uh which were reviewed and
16:58 | submitted. We were also peer-reviewed by
17:00 | Mr. R. Allen um before he retired. It
17:02 | was nice to get out there in the field
17:03 | with him on June 30th uh where we
17:07 | addressed uh Mr. Allen's comments as
17:09 | well.
17:11 | And with that, I will hand it over to
17:12 | our representative for the project, BC
17:14 | Group.
17:15 | >> Hi, my name is Alison Milman. I'm here
17:17 | on behalf of the applicant as a
17:19 | representative from BSC Group.
17:21 | >> Okay. So I had given a presentation the
17:23 | last time uh and this is uh an update to
17:27 | basically what we've presented on and uh
17:30 | you [clears throat] know the responses
17:31 | that we've provided as well as um some
17:34 | changes to the plans. We provided
17:36 | responses to our DP reviewer as well as
17:38 | the peer reviewer as um as Pete had
17:41 | mentioned.
17:47 | So, as Pete said, this is a new
17:48 | substation with distribution and
17:50 | transmission line upgrades. Um, these
17:53 | are the this is the scope of work. This
17:54 | is the um to refresh your memory. Um,
17:57 | it's an existing 64 approximately acre
17:59 | lot. Um, it's mainly forested. Um, it
18:02 | does contain an existing substation and
18:05 | transmission um facilities within the
18:07 | site. Um, and as well as a solar site.
18:10 | Um and the the proposed scope is to
18:14 | build a new substation tie it into the
18:15 | transmission as well as a distri ex
18:17 | existing distribution system. Um and all
18:20 | of these um you know activities are
18:23 | supporting that new substation and uh
18:26 | transmission facilities.
18:29 | Okay. So that's the site location 29
18:32 | road. Okay. So now we're getting into
18:34 | the meat here. These are the changes um
18:37 | that have been realized since I I
18:39 | initially uh presented to the
18:41 | commission. Um so uh one of the the big
18:45 | changes that I'd like to present is is
18:47 | the culvert design has significantly
18:49 | changed. So originally it was an
18:50 | extension of the existing corrugated
18:52 | metal pipe. Uh but now they are
18:54 | proposing um a box culvert concrete
18:57 | three-sided box cover c cover c cover c
18:59 | cover c cover c cover c cover c cover c
18:59 | cover c cover c coververt with a
19:00 | concrete sides um open bottom
19:04 | um and so that that has changed our
19:06 | impact substantially so I would say our
19:09 | our bank impact now is only associated
19:11 | with 315 linear feet of tree removals
19:14 | because the uh new box the preset box
19:17 | cover culvert will span the stream banks
19:20 | um our border vegetative wetland impacts
19:22 | have decreased to 256 square ft of fill.
19:26 | Um 28,000 square feet of tree removals
19:30 | and then land underwater. We've uh
19:32 | removed impacts to those because we are
19:34 | not putting anything into the bottom of
19:35 | the of the stream. It will be completely
19:38 | spanned um with the box cover. So it's
19:41 | only associated with tree removals and
19:43 | those trees are mostly canopy canopy
19:45 | cover not growing in the actual stream
19:48 | bed.
19:49 | So again, the culvert was re-evaluated
19:52 | to to address the mass stream crossing
19:54 | standards. Um, and then the other, you
19:57 | know, the other avoidance and
19:58 | minimization measures that I had
19:59 | presented to you before is that we, you
20:00 | know, the company was able to site the
20:02 | new proposed substation outside of any
20:04 | wetland. We're looking at very small 100
20:06 | foot buffer zone impacts only associated
20:08 | with that new facility.
20:13 | Okay. So this is um plan sheet C7 from
20:17 | VHB's design plan. Um and this shows the
20:19 | new proposed culvert design uh that was
20:22 | submitted to the commission. Um you'll
20:24 | see here that you know we have the the
20:26 | wing walls associated with the the new
20:29 | box culvert. Um and there's only a small
20:32 | amount about 200 square feet of now is
20:35 | proposed within to be a permanent impact
20:37 | within the adjacent wetland. So there's
20:39 | a fring there's a bordering wetland to
20:41 | that intermittent stream. Uh but we no
20:43 | longer have any impacts to the stream
20:45 | bed or the stream bank associated with
20:47 | the culvert. Um and you'll see here
20:49 | below in the schematic that the culvert
20:51 | will span and it'll have an open bottom.
20:53 | Uh they're proposing to have a cobble
20:56 | bottom to kind of mimic the substrate
20:58 | upstream and downstream um and to
21:00 | provide a more natural um you know
21:03 | water a waterway crossing than what was
21:05 | originally what's what's there now and
21:08 | what was originally proposed.
21:15 | Okay. So, I'll go through our responses
21:16 | to the pre-review um that we've
21:19 | submitted to the commission. Uh we have
21:21 | increased the bordering vegetated
21:22 | wetland, a small section there that's on
21:25 | the um southern side of the intermittent
21:27 | stream that was flagged and added to the
21:29 | plans and that resulted in a minor
21:31 | increase in the in the BVW tree clearing
21:34 | numbers.
21:36 | [clears throat]
21:39 | Uh another comment from the peer
21:41 | reviewers that they recommended the
21:43 | monitoring frequency of every week and
21:45 | then after a quarter inch of rain or
21:46 | more. Uh our response is that that was
21:49 | already the plan. The the project will
21:50 | trigger the need for a construction
21:53 | general permit authorization under
21:54 | through the EPA. So we'll be preparing a
21:56 | storm water pollution prevention plan
21:57 | and submitting a notice of intent and
21:59 | that will automatically require uh with
22:02 | >> the monitor
22:02 | >> the weekly and the post drain
22:04 | inspections. Correct.
22:06 | And then um copies of the monitoring
22:08 | reports will be sent to the commission.
22:10 | Um if that's included in in the order
22:12 | that's an interest
22:16 | I keep wanting to change it on my
22:17 | laptop. It's so funny. Um
22:20 | [clears throat]
22:21 | now we're going into the D comments. I'm
22:23 | skipping. There was a redundant comment
22:24 | about the covert between the peer
22:26 | reviewer and the DP. So I'll just
22:27 | address that when we address DP
22:29 | comments. Um there was a question about
22:32 | the finger-like um
22:36 | wetland flag. Okay. So 6 associated with
22:39 | the proposed work on the stream crossing
22:40 | is not accounted for on page three. Um
22:42 | and then I had responded that originally
22:45 | yes it was included and I just kind of
22:47 | spelled out the math. Um and then I
22:50 | referenced the fact that you know we did
22:52 | have a peerreview and that we did add
22:53 | additional wetland based on that peer
22:55 | review.
22:58 | We've submitted updated plans to DP as
23:00 | well.
23:01 | Uh there was a question by the DP
23:03 | reviewer about the impact to a
23:05 | finger-like projection of wetlands. So
23:07 | um this is an existing cart path where
23:10 | there's a wetland that basically bleeds
23:11 | over into the into the cart path that's
23:14 | proposed to be upgraded and used um for
23:16 | the substation access. Um so it's less
23:20 | than 500 square ft. Um it meets the uh
23:24 | folk compliance of 310 CMR 10.554.
23:28 | uh which precludes the need to provide
23:30 | replication for this very small amount
23:32 | of wetland fill that's along the
23:34 | existing road. [clears throat]
23:41 | D commented on the test pit information
23:43 | that VHB had provided um in their storm
23:46 | water report. Uh VHB's response is here.
23:50 | Um but an analys you know in a summary
23:53 | um they will be doing supplemental test
23:54 | pit locations if needed immediately
23:57 | prior to construction to confirm um
23:59 | their their assessment um but they they
24:02 | did take representative test pits
24:04 | already and they are using they have
24:05 | used those as basis for their design
24:07 | >> but they will be they will be doing at
24:10 | the location the test bits I don't need
24:13 | that to be done now but this should be
24:15 | provided before the land disturbance
24:18 | application is submitted
24:20 | Okay,
24:20 | >> that that would be a condition that I'm
24:22 | going to be putting in the order, a
24:23 | special condition cuz the test bits must
24:26 | be done at the closest to the location
24:29 | of 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
24:39 | a condition.
24:41 | >> Yes, I that's why [clears throat]
24:42 | because I we we we work together to make
24:44 | sure then uh who am I talking to back
24:47 | and forth? Uh
24:50 | so I just want to make sure that that is
24:52 | addressed now so I don't need to go
24:53 | back.
24:58 | Yes. So uh VHB will work with national
25:02 | agree to schedule additional test pits
25:04 | as soon as possible as necessary. So uh
25:07 | that's one of the special conditions I
25:09 | will have on the order that it that will
25:12 | be necessary and and should be done
25:14 | prior to disturbing which means during
25:17 | the process of the uh lane disturbance
25:20 | application.
25:22 | >> Okay. So we should submit the we should
25:24 | intend to submit the results of their
25:25 | test pits with the land disturbance
25:27 | application.
25:27 | >> Yes. Okay.
25:28 | >> So just when do you think you'll be
25:30 | starting the project? Is there a
25:32 | timeline to start the project?
25:35 | It's fall, right?
25:37 | >> Yeah.
25:37 | >> Is it just fall?
25:39 | >> Yeah. What part of the project are we
25:41 | talking about?
25:42 | >> Disturbance. Any anything that relates
25:44 | to disturbance
25:45 | >> this fall? Fall winter.
25:46 | >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, yes, you have time.
25:48 | Yeah. So, you should just make sure that
25:51 | those test bits are kind of scheduled
25:54 | [clears throat]
25:54 | as you file the land disturbance because
25:57 | the land disturbance, the storm water
25:58 | has already occurred. Uh the storm water
26:01 | management review has already occurred.
26:03 | Yes. So it will be a fast it once you
26:06 | file within 30 days and last I will be
26:09 | ready to be issuing the permits. So
26:11 | those test piece must occur prior you
26:13 | filing or during the process because all
26:15 | what I need is really to go for
26:17 | advertisement and that doesn't come from
26:19 | the commission. I approve that myself.
26:22 | So just try to schedule those test bits
26:26 | uh as you're filing it
26:29 | but we can discuss that further.
26:32 | Do you have a concern? You you sound you
26:34 | look
26:36 | >> No. Yeah, you look [clears throat] a
26:37 | little bit
26:38 | >> No. Do you have a question?
26:39 | >> In my head, the only thing I'm wanted to
26:41 | make sure we cover is if it's already a
26:42 | planning board condition,
26:44 | >> then the redundancy sounds
26:46 | >> unnecessary, but if if it needs to
26:48 | happen for your land disturbance permit,
26:49 | which I understand is a
26:51 | >> any so they they did that because we
26:54 | worked together.
26:55 | >> So I told them that because when Graves
26:57 | review, he reviews our regulations as
27:00 | well. Yeah. So, but because I'm also
27:02 | issuing a permit to you, I'll have that
27:04 | as a special condition under my order.
27:07 | >> Okay.
27:07 | >> So, uh but redundant or not, it should
27:10 | be listed on all permits. So, we avoid
27:14 | work to commence before that step is
27:17 | taken.
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
27:28 | commission?
27:28 | >> Okay. So when Graves reviewed under
27:30 | planning board, I asked the planning
27:33 | board to to the review to also be for
27:35 | our storm water bylaw and regulations
27:38 | which our commission has jurisdiction
27:40 | over. Got it. And the reason I do so is
27:42 | so when you come to us, I don't ask you
27:44 | to go for peer review again.
27:46 | >> Yes. So all the pre-review is completed
27:48 | at the same time would because you'll
27:51 | have to it'll take longer and you cost
27:53 | you more because the same set of plans
27:55 | would have to go back to Graves
27:57 | Engineering for then him to review just
28:00 | our uh bylaw.
28:01 | >> I I understand. Yes. Thank you for
28:03 | clarify
28:06 | >> thank you.
28:06 | >> Yeah.
28:12 | >> Okay. Uh, another DP comment was on the
28:14 | stormwater VHB storm water report. The
28:16 | standard for calculations were not
28:18 | included. Um, and then we've submitted
28:20 | VHB's revised storm water report to
28:22 | provide the pre-treatment upstream of
28:25 | the infiltration basins. Um, and they've
28:27 | updated the TSSE removal calculations in
28:30 | that report and was submitted to the the
28:32 | commission for review and as well as the
28:34 | DP.
28:40 | Okay. Okay, so this this gets into the
28:41 | stream crossing standards and how the
28:43 | original proposal to extend the existing
28:45 | corrugated metal pipe did not meet the
28:48 | uh mass stream crossing standards. Um
28:50 | and we have now received an updated
28:53 | design from VHB for a three-sided box
28:55 | cover culvert. Um and that this design
28:57 | does meet the Massachusetts stream
28:59 | crossing standards to the extent
29:00 | practicable.
29:07 | Okay, so this this slide really talks
29:09 | about our responses to the mass DP
29:11 | comments about alternatives analysis
29:14 | that was conducted um to reduce impacts.
29:18 | There was a you know the big question
29:19 | here was about the amount of tree
29:21 | clearing that's being proposed within
29:23 | regulated resource areas. And so, um,
29:26 | Pete and I worked with the transmission
29:29 | line engineering group as well as the
29:31 | their forestry group, um, to provide
29:33 | responses. The responses are pretty
29:35 | verbose, but I've broken them down what
29:37 | I think are the key points in in in
29:39 | bullets on this slide. Um, and that they
29:42 | looked at, you know, connecting to the
29:44 | existing transmission line with the new
29:46 | tap line at different locations um, um,
29:49 | within that that property along that
29:51 | line. Um however if they had shifted it
29:55 | um farther away um it would result in
29:58 | because of the longer distance a midspan
30:01 | structure that would land into a
30:02 | wetland. So then we'd all now we would
30:04 | have a permanent impact you know
30:06 | associated with that. Um and as well as
30:09 | um there was some ground and wire
30:10 | clearances issues um with the other
30:13 | alternative locations.
30:16 | Um and then their response was that they
30:19 | you know through their analysis the
30:20 | current design minimizes impacts to the
30:22 | extent practical within the confined
30:24 | transmission line right away. Um and
30:27 | then our forestry representative at
30:29 | National Grid uh reviewed and she said
30:31 | that tree removals are necessary to
30:33 | accommodate all all necessary uh aspects
30:36 | of the of the work. And something to
30:38 | keep in mind is that, you know, leaving
30:40 | strips of trees that are that have grown
30:43 | up in interior forest, excuse
30:45 | [clears throat] me,
30:48 | pretty much um vulnerable to the
30:50 | elements and they've never that they've
30:52 | never experienced before being an
30:54 | interior forest tree. Um they are
30:56 | high-risisk failure because they just
30:58 | aren't they didn't develop the ability
31:00 | to withstand uh heavy winds, ice, things
31:02 | of that nature that you know uh exterior
31:04 | trees do. Um and so that would be
31:06 | putting facilities at a risk of damage
31:08 | if if they only if they got a carved out
31:11 | um tree [clears throat] clearing areas
31:12 | and and left strips of trees um on the
31:16 | property. So that was the reasoning
31:17 | behind behind the the total area of tree
31:20 | clearing.
31:21 | [clears throat]
31:26 | Okay. Um another DP comment was about uh
31:29 | 401 and 404.
31:32 | and we [clears throat] are uh you know
31:33 | we're we're at less than 5,000 square
31:35 | feet of impacts uh you know with our
31:37 | order of conditions we that'll satisfy
31:39 | the 401 requirements. Um and then the
31:42 | 404 application was approved by Army
31:44 | Corps um on June 2020 um I'm sorry uh
31:49 | July 28th 2026.
31:51 | >> Do you mind just sending me that if you
31:53 | don't mind?
31:54 | >> Sure.
31:54 | >> Yes, thank you.
31:55 | >> Yep, I can do that. Uh and then we will
31:57 | be needing to resubmit uh for
31:59 | reverification with the updated culvert
32:01 | design, but we wanted to get through the
32:02 | course the local review process first.
32:08 | >> Do you want the permit or the
32:09 | application?
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
32:20 | changes that have happened since we last
32:21 | we last uh presented to the commission
32:24 | on this project and at this time unless
32:26 | Pete has anything he'd like to add. I
32:28 | think we're we'll deal with any
32:29 | questions that there might be.
32:31 | >> Do you have any questions for us?
32:33 | >> Uh can you start the public or or the
32:36 | commission if you don't mind? I just
32:37 | need to look at something that I forgot.
32:39 | >> Any commission members have questions?
32:43 | Any audience members before turning over
32:46 | to Rose?
32:51 | >> Okay, that's it. No, I don't have any
32:53 | questions. 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
32:59 | going to have a couple uh probably a
33:01 | week or two to finish the special
33:03 | conditions to issue the order, but
33:05 | >> I'm ready to close. Okay,
33:07 | >> hang on. Do you have a question? I still
33:09 | need further review because it is slopy
33:11 | there and there's a lot of trees being
33:13 | taken down.
33:16 | >> I don't have a reason for do further
33:19 | review.
33:19 | >> I do.
33:20 | >> I
33:21 | >> I'd like this I'd like more information.
33:22 | That's all I'm asking.
33:23 | >> The information you can pro I can
33:25 | provide 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
33:31 | to review all that stuff.
33:33 | >> Okay. Well, this application has staying
33:35 | with us for a bit now in my office. So I
33:38 | can't hold the public hearing to be
33:39 | closed. I can give you the information
33:42 | to you right now. So you related to the
33:44 | question 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
34:06 | some time to go over the the questions
34:07 | for the D. I wasn't aware when would you
34:11 | roughly did you receive these? When did
34:14 | you receive these?
34:15 | >> The dates there.
34:17 | >> We usually we usually have this
34:19 | discussions during the meeting.
34:21 | >> So the qu the answers are here. So the
34:24 | the GP say that
34:28 | >> Nick what day?
34:30 | >> September.
34:32 | >> September 4th.
34:35 | So if you are if you have well we can
34:38 | discuss that outside the meeting because
34:39 | it appears that would be something else
34:42 | uh related that we can't uh discuss for
34:44 | uh further going forward but uh to hold
34:48 | the project from being approved because
34:50 | it
34:51 | >> well it's a good size projectable
34:54 | >> question. You can ask a questions and
34:56 | they're here to respond. I just saying
34:58 | to continue the project because you have
35:01 | a question about the clear that has been
35:03 | already responded has been peer-reviewed
35:05 | has been already peer-reviewed by two
35:07 | professionals. It's just I feel that we
35:10 | have in my opinion enough information to
35:12 | close the public hearing tonight. So if
35:15 | you disagree with that we can vote and
35:17 | the commission can make a decision. So,
35:19 | but I won't have any additional
35:21 | information to give it to you other than
35:23 | they what I already have and they won't
35:25 | have any additional information to
35:26 | provide other than they already have
35:28 | been provided.
35:30 | It would just be a matter of you reading
35:32 | a document which I have in front of you
35:34 | right now. So, I'm happy to uh I'm ready
35:39 | to make a recommendation to close the
35:40 | public hearing issue the order
35:42 | conditions
35:43 | so 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
36:04 | will contact you and I'll let you know
36:05 | when the permit is.
36:07 | >> All right. Thank you. I just got in a
36:08 | couple weeks.
36:14 | that.
36:15 | >> Oh, it just looks like
36:18 | that you had additional questions. Yeah,
36:20 | that's why I asked. [laughter] It
36:22 | >> was nice seeing you guys. All right,
36:24 | have a good night. [clears throat]
36:25 | >> It was what?
36:28 | >> He was like thinking deeply and I was
36:29 | like, there's a question there.
36:31 | [laughter]
36:32 | >> Have a good night.
36:34 | >> Okay, next DP number. This is an old
36:37 | one. 128-1971
36:40 | 80 Richardson Corner Road. Is that you,
36:42 | Chris?
36:44 | >> No.
36:44 | >> Where are we?
36:46 | >> The applicant has filed an NOI for the
36:49 | proposed extension widing of an exist
36:51 | existing farmer's wall and fill within
36:54 | 15 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.
37:19 | Next, we have D number 128-202418
37:23 | Oxbow Road. The Afghan has filed an NOI
37:27 | for clearing, filling, and grading work
37:29 | within 100 ft of the buffer zone.
37:33 | That is you.
37:35 | >> Yes.
37:38 | >> All right. Good evening. Chris Mccclur
37:39 | with B Engineering
37:42 | here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Ron
37:46 | Royer, who fortunately could not be with
37:49 | us tonight. If it was, it would be on
37:52 | this side of the fence for a little bit.
37:55 | Um so, um John owns property on Route
37:59 | 20. Um he's got frontage on Oxbow Road
38:03 | and also on Route 20. Um it's adjacent
38:06 | to the self- storage area there. A few
38:09 | years back that area was reszoned for
38:11 | all commercial and that included all of
38:13 | our bronze lot. Um so he's got a home
38:17 | here and then he has access both of curb
38:19 | cut through mass DOT and also a driveway
38:22 | access on on Oxwell Road. Ryan's looking
38:25 | to take advantage of current um material
38:29 | that is available in the town and I'll
38:31 | bring in some clean fill um to fill up
38:34 | an area of this land that is u well
38:37 | basically it's he wants to level the
38:39 | land in behind um well be the front side
38:41 | of this property on Route 20 and the
38:43 | back side of this garage. Um the
38:46 | wetlands were delineated by uh Glen
38:48 | Kabowski. Uh we are proposing to um to
38:52 | put some um erosion control sediment to
38:55 | protect the wetss. Um give ourselves a
38:58 | couple of feet of space in between the
39:00 | PW and the slope and then um and then
39:05 | create a 3 to1 slope up to where we can
39:08 | um get a flat area for grading in that
39:10 | backyard. Um graded area is
39:13 | approximately 23,215.
39:15 | I don't have um the disturbance within
39:18 | the 150, but you can see here um it's
39:22 | probably I would probably say like
39:24 | 17,000 give or take um within the within
39:28 | the 100. Um [clears throat]
39:31 | he has no plans for any development if
39:34 | he did uh first and for have to go
39:36 | through site plan uh approval. Um he
39:39 | would also have to um go in front of a
39:42 | mass as the applicant just discussed. So
39:45 | I would be oh we did as you heard we
39:49 | were issued a math EP file number and uh
39:52 | we responded to a couple of their
39:55 | comments and the narrative and I um CC
39:58 | arose on that and really it's um
40:00 | construction phasing is what they were
40:03 | concerned with. Okay, the source really
40:05 | um goes deep. What are you going to do
40:07 | to protect it as you part? Um and and we
40:10 | have done projects such as this many
40:12 | times in the past. So uh we show uh we
40:16 | show erosion controls as as the um slope
40:20 | comes up continues to maintain that
40:22 | protect it um get um you know salt
40:25 | control on there and then and not just
40:28 | wait till it's you know erosion controls
40:31 | on the bottom and then wait till you
40:32 | finished up on the top um intermediate
40:34 | uh phasing of the [clears throat] uh
40:36 | erosion control to prevent sediment from
40:38 | migrating down the hill during the
40:40 | construction. So
40:42 | that's all I really have. If you have
40:44 | any questions, I'd be uh happy to answer
40:46 | them 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
40:55 | to the finished?
40:56 | >> This is up to the west. So trying to get
40:59 | trying to get as much area for him as as
41:02 | we can and we do that. Um using that
41:06 | I've been over there and looked at that.
41:07 | It looks looks good.
41:11 | [clears throat]
41:12 | >> Do you have any questions?
41:13 | >> No. My concern was just for the slope
41:17 | interruptors that we was address to
41:19 | avoid an erosion going to the welllands.
41:21 | But I don't have any question. There's
41:23 | really no besides the lane disturbance
41:25 | which is less than an acre, right?
41:27 | >> Yeah.
41:27 | >> Okay. Have there's no construction being
41:30 | proposed. So,
41:32 | >> and DP number.
41:33 | >> Yeah. I'll be recommended to close and
41:35 | issue the order conditions. Want to make
41:37 | a 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.
41:51 | DP number 128-2025,
41:55 | lot five, Smith Road. The applicant has
41:58 | filed an NOI for the construction of a
42:00 | single family home driveway well septic
42:02 | system within 100 ft of the bordering
42:05 | vegetated wetland.
42:08 | >> Is that you?
42:09 | >> Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, uh
42:11 | board members and general public. My
42:12 | name is David Saddowski. I'm the
42:14 | principal of DJing Associates. We're out
42:16 | of Clinton, Massachusetts. I'm here
42:19 | representing the applicant uh Quickly
42:21 | Way Construction. They've done four or
42:23 | five other projects in [clears throat]
42:25 | Charleton. Uh three over on Berry Corner
42:27 | Road and a couple other locations too
42:30 | over by the golf course on Berry Corner.
42:32 | >> Just not to interrupt you, is that the
42:34 | revised plan? Yes.
42:35 | >> Do you mind if I have so pass to the
42:37 | commission?
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.
42:47 | Thank you.
42:48 | >> Yeah, I submitted those 1117s of color.
42:53 | Um wetlands were delineated by Art
42:55 | Allen.
42:57 | Scott Jordan delineated the wetlands for
42:59 | Michael Deck and um Haley Ward did a
43:03 | peer review on the storm water. Um D
43:07 | came back with only one comment that was
43:09 | talked about uh sweeping the driveway.
43:11 | We added a storm scepter and a also a uh
43:15 | a French drain in the driveway so that
43:17 | we could pick up any types of uh silts
43:19 | or whatever. We're taking the roofs and
43:21 | we're recharging them 100% into a cult
43:26 | system. Uh we do have some u during the
43:30 | um land disturbance part we do have some
43:32 | pits where um prior to putting the BMPs
43:36 | in place silts can be collected. There's
43:39 | um 14,300
43:43 | square [snorts] ft of area that could be
43:44 | disturbed as a result of this project.
43:46 | We need a septic system and we need uh
43:49 | you know we're constructing a house. All
43:52 | of that's within the buffer. There's no
43:54 | wetlands to be filled as a result of the
43:56 | project. There's no stream crossing.
43:58 | There's no wetland crossing. We have
44:00 | frontage on um Smith Road. I had asked
44:04 | for one waiver since we were under an
44:06 | acre. I asked for a waiver land
44:08 | disturbance permit.
44:09 | >> Can we just first if you don't mind just
44:11 | finish the wetland area? Sure. Yeah. So,
44:14 | uh, what's the closest point of
44:15 | disturbance for the welllands, if you
44:18 | don't mind?
44:19 | >> No, I have to get my glasses.
44:20 | >> It's okay. I can get my my ruler. Oh,
44:23 | you can. Okay.
44:30 | >> So, on the plan shows offsets. Um, it's
44:34 | 20 it's 19 feet to the rip wrap. It's um
44:39 | 21 and a half ft to the um there's going
44:42 | to be one culvert head to protect the
44:44 | overflow pipe.
44:46 | Um it's 33 feet the closest to any of
44:49 | the structures or 31 ft to any of the
44:51 | structures. There's a small twoft
44:53 | retaining 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
45:08 | the plan.
45:09 | >> Yep. Yep. Okay. Perfect. Yeah, that's
45:11 | all my question. So, as far as the
45:14 | wetlands protection act, he has met
45:18 | requirements. I don't have a concern
45:19 | with that. So, this project is part this
45:23 | parcel is project of is part of a uh ANR
45:27 | plan that is considered a common plan of
45:30 | development. So
45:33 | David as the um
45:37 | representative for the applicant
45:39 | requested us to waiver to wave him
45:44 | complying with storm water and filing
45:46 | lane disturbance application. That's the
45:48 | >> I have explained to David that is part
45:51 | of our lane of our bylaw and our lane
45:54 | disturbance I mean in your rules and
45:56 | regulations that under section three on
45:59 | the lane disturbance permit and
46:00 | procedures. Number two,
46:03 | development or redevelopment involving
46:06 | multiple separate activities in
46:08 | discontinued locations or on different
46:10 | schedules if the activities are part of
46:13 | a larger common plan of development.
46:15 | that all together not individually
46:18 | disturbs more than 43,560
46:21 | square foot or more land. So Mr. David
46:24 | appears that it is a interpretation
46:26 | situation and as he interpret that he is
46:29 | not
46:31 | uh he does not need to comply with our
46:33 | bylaw or regulations and he requested me
46:35 | for a waiver. I of course has the
46:37 | authority as as I have for the storm
46:40 | water as um the agents and he disagreed
46:46 | with my uh response and they told he
46:49 | could come in front of the commission
46:50 | and request the waiver to the
46:52 | commission. But my recommendation is
46:54 | clearly to deny. This is a storm water
46:56 | rules and regulations that came straight
46:58 | from our bylaws and is in place for us
47:01 | to comply with MS4 uh permit with APA
47:05 | and the town has been complying with
47:07 | that for the past I don't know four
47:10 | years. So, but he give him the time to
47:13 | make his case if he'd like to proceed.
47:16 | >> Certainly. Uh I think I I did comply
47:19 | with the storm water. Uh it's the land
47:22 | disturbance that I'm talking about. Um,
47:25 | if we want, why don't we just say this?
47:27 | When Charleston was formed, there was 10
47:28 | firearms. Every time a piece of property
47:31 | is taken out, that would be subdividing
47:33 | from a common piece. That would mean
47:34 | everyone would have to do a land
47:36 | disturbance permit. Um, this subdivision
47:39 | was approved before in 2002. There was
47:42 | 20some lots. It went nowhere. Um, it sat
47:45 | forever. They've got four back lots and
47:48 | every one of those is over 10,000 I mean
47:50 | 10 acres.
47:52 | Um, ours is a 1.7 acres up in the front.
47:55 | We're not in common. We don't touch any
47:57 | parts of that in the back, but under I
47:59 | mean the Smith family owned that whole
48:01 | street. Anytime a lot gets cut out, they
48:03 | should do a land disturbance under that
48:05 | interpretation that it's in common
48:07 | because at one point it was part of the
48:09 | same.
48:10 | >> That's not what she said.
48:11 | >> I know it's not what she said, but
48:12 | that's what I'm trying to say is if
48:14 | you're going to if you're going to take
48:15 | a piece of land, all the disturbance is
48:17 | back there and we have a small piece up
48:19 | here and we're not in common. We don't
48:21 | own any of the back. We don't touch any
48:23 | of the back. And we have no influence on
48:26 | what type of driveway they put in, what
48:27 | type of access, what type of buildings,
48:29 | what type of anything. They should all
48:31 | do the disturbance because they're
48:32 | disturbing over an acre each. I don't
48:34 | feel with us only disturbing 14,300
48:38 | that we qualify for it. Under your
48:40 | chapter 175, section 9, waiverss, it's
48:45 | allowed to give a waiver. Has this
48:46 | commission ever given a waiver?
48:48 | >> Yes. for specific components of the
48:52 | requirements not for the entire I'm
48:55 | sorry I did not hear you saying Mr.
48:57 | Chairman my apologies.
48:58 | >> No I I'll let you answer the question.
49:02 | Waivers are there to for for example
49:05 | there has been situations where an
49:07 | applicant was trying to comply with the
49:10 | regulations and unfortunately they
49:12 | [clears throat] found ledge and
49:13 | unfortunately their basin had to be
49:15 | minimized or the swale had to be changed
49:18 | locations or it it was just no way of to
49:22 | implement such a part of the
49:25 | requirements. That waiver is not to be
49:27 | requested to completely wave the bylaw.
49:33 | >> That's what you're requesting. You
49:34 | request for the commission to wave
49:37 | >> for you to filing a lane disturbance
49:39 | application which is part of the bylaw.
49:42 | So if there is any component in that
49:44 | lane disturbance application that for
49:46 | some reason for for due to site
49:49 | constraint that cannot be met. That's
49:52 | when you're going to come in front of
49:53 | the commission would be my my
49:55 | recommendation. Bring some such
49:58 | constraints to the commission. Explain
49:59 | why it's not work. what you be what you
50:02 | will be proposing uh in lie of that of
50:06 | that lack of compliance and then the
50:09 | commission will vote on a waiver but
50:11 | you're requesting to not to file the
50:14 | permit
50:16 | at all. So that's not what the waiver is
50:19 | related to. So that's my response.
50:22 | >> All right. Through the chair, um I have
50:24 | the section right here on waiver. It
50:25 | doesn't say anything about complying
50:27 | with ledge or whatever. We're going to
50:29 | do the storm water that it's not like
50:31 | we're throwing the whole bylaw out. All
50:33 | I'm talking about is the land
50:35 | disturbance part of the of the actual
50:40 | work that we would have to do. There's
50:41 | enforcement. There's certainty. There's
50:43 | waiverss. I'm just wondering if it says
50:44 | that the waivers are available. It
50:46 | doesn't say the it lists the condition.
50:49 | It just says the waiver is available. I
50:51 | just feel that we're disturbing 14,000
50:53 | square ft of land. We don't meet the
50:55 | 43,000.
50:57 | >> Oh my An acre is 43,560.
51:00 | Do you have something to add, Bros? Oh,
51:02 | >> correct me if I'm wrong. The whole
51:04 | point, if I'm understanding you right,
51:06 | is we've had this happen when the storm
51:08 | water management got implemented. Is
51:10 | when it got implemented, it
51:14 | put it four or five developments. What
51:17 | was happening is the first two or three,
51:19 | correct me if I'm wrong, weren't
51:21 | complying with the storm water. Then the
51:23 | last person that developed a lot got
51:25 | saddled with the storm water management
51:27 | for the whole development.
51:29 | >> This is the last it were you were five
51:31 | lots left on this common plan of
51:34 | development. So he as he said it was
51:37 | first back in 2002 but the laws have
51:40 | just been split and the regulations have
51:43 | been placed. Back in 2002 we didn't have
51:46 | we're not enforcing the regulations. We
51:47 | didn't have regulations when we had the
51:49 | bylaw which is not being enforced. So
51:51 | this common plan of developments is just
51:53 | brand new and there are four and the
51:56 | total four is falls within being a
51:59 | development or redevelopment that
52:01 | involves multiple and separate
52:04 | activities in discontinu locations on
52:07 | different schedules meaning well my
52:09 | strategy is here the next one might come
52:11 | back next year and it doesn't matter
52:14 | what matters is that combined
52:18 | it will disturb more than an acre and
52:20 | this is in place. Why? Because even
52:22 | though his lot doesn't disturb an acre
52:24 | and he doesn't need to comply with it in
52:26 | his mind, it might still affect the lot
52:29 | the boarding lots and then the body lots
52:31 | going to have the same thought process
52:32 | and that's why this town have complaints
52:34 | over complaints over complaints of storm
52:37 | water runoff. My is dividing diver
52:40 | diverting the water into my
52:42 | >> I understand that. But my point is one
52:44 | of the things we ran into if I remember
52:46 | is when this went into enforcement there
52:48 | were some situations if I maybe I'm
52:51 | misremembering that the last person
52:55 | >> the last developer the last piece was
52:57 | saddled 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
53:06 | many lots do you have there together all
53:09 | all together
53:09 | >> we have one lot it's 1.7 acres and we're
53:13 | disturbing 14,000 square ft. And through
53:15 | the chair, we're going to
53:17 | [clears throat] comply with storm water.
53:18 | It's not we're going to have any runoff
53:19 | going into anyone else's lot or
53:21 | impacting anything. We're recharging the
53:23 | roof 100%. We're recharging the driveway
53:26 | 100%. Anything in peries on the lot is
53:29 | being recharged 100%. Being handled by
53:31 | the storm scepter and TSS removal is
53:34 | over the applied number. We need storm
53:37 | water. I'm just talking about the land
53:39 | disturbance.
53:42 | It's not like I'm avoiding your bylaw or
53:44 | doing anything like that. There's files
53:46 | with the federal government that you
53:47 | have to do when you disturb over an
53:48 | acre. We're not doing that.
53:50 | >> And we're not requesting you to file
53:52 | with EPA. No one is. I
53:55 | >> I I just, you know, I read through your
53:57 | documentation. I read through your
53:58 | waivers. The waivers asked before.
54:01 | >> And what does the waiver say? Would you
54:02 | like to read what says on the waiver?
54:04 | >> Yeah. Could you w read that waiver to
54:06 | us?
54:06 | >> Sure.
54:09 | Did by the way did anyone look at my
54:11 | application I filed in August or look at
54:13 | the plans before tonight?
54:15 | I just seeing the correspondences going
54:18 | back and forth here last
54:19 | >> yes that was sent to the commission in
54:21 | the past
54:22 | >> the this is how it starts a the
54:24 | conservation commission
54:27 | not the storm water management the
54:29 | conservation commission may wave strict
54:31 | compliance with any requirement of this
54:33 | bylaw or the rules and regulations
54:36 | >> promulgated here where such action is
54:39 | allowed is not is in the public interest
54:43 | and is not inconsistent with the purpose
54:45 | intent of this bylaw. Um, the applicant
54:48 | may submit a written request, which I
54:50 | did, to be granted such a waiver. Such a
54:52 | request shall be accompanied by an
54:54 | explanation or documentation supporting
54:57 | the waiver request. And I said that
54:58 | we're disturbing only 14,300
55:01 | square ft and demonstrating that strict
55:04 | application of the bylaw does not
55:06 | further the purpose or objectives of
55:08 | this bylaw. And we're not. We have an
55:10 | erosion and sedimentation control plan
55:12 | that I submitted. I submitted a storm
55:14 | water plan. We've done storm water
55:16 | calculations. Anything we're disturbing
55:18 | on the site, we're recharging 100%.
55:21 | We're meeting all the requirements.
55:23 | All waiver requests shall be discussed
55:25 | in a decision will be made by the
55:27 | conservation commission.
55:29 | >> And here we are
55:30 | >> within 30 days of receiving the waiver
55:32 | request. If in the com the conservation
55:35 | commission's opinion, additional time or
55:37 | information is required for review of
55:39 | the waiver request, the commission may
55:42 | continue a consideration of the waiver
55:44 | request to a date certain announced at
55:47 | the meeting. In the event the applicant
55:49 | objects to a continuence or fails to
55:52 | provide requested information, the
55:53 | waiver request shall be denied. That's
55:55 | all that's in the waiverss, not what was
55:58 | said earlier.
55:59 | >> What was said earlier? You said that I
56:01 | have to have a specific information.
56:02 | Something on the site wasn't working.
56:04 | >> I said it has happened in the past. You
56:06 | asked does
56:07 | >> No, you said you said about you said
56:09 | does the commission grant a waiver? And
56:12 | I said yes, they do. And here's an
56:14 | example. And that's the example I gave
56:16 | because that's what happened in the
56:18 | past.
56:18 | >> All right. Anyways, that's that's the
56:20 | section on waivers. I just feel this
56:22 | 14,000 square feet being disturbed
56:24 | [clears throat] here. We don't need a
56:25 | land disturbance. We need storm water
56:28 | and we need to meet all the regulations.
56:29 | We recharge 100%. It was reviewed by
56:33 | Haley Ward and they said that we we
56:35 | complied with the storm water foland
56:41 | disturbance permit application is
56:43 | required as part of the regulations. We
56:46 | have uh
56:48 | requests for every applicant that is
56:51 | part of a common plan on development or
56:53 | that disturbs more than an acre. The
56:55 | fact that he does not disturb more than
56:57 | an acre on his parcel does not mean that
57:01 | he really he can be granted a waiver
57:04 | >> to not submit
57:05 | >> should not submit the application
57:07 | because again as part of our lane
57:10 | disturbance permit procedures you must
57:13 | file a permit and again I'm not going to
57:15 | read for the third time because his
57:18 | project combined part of AD&R plan
57:20 | develop together disturbs the one acre
57:24 | it's like no one is the waiver is not to
57:28 | wave a link disturbance application. The
57:31 | waiver is set there to wave requirements
57:34 | of the lane disturbance application that
57:37 | he may then prove that you know it
57:41 | whatever uh back in back information he
57:44 | can provide. I absolutely request the
57:48 | commission to deny his request because
57:50 | it will set a you might as well throw
57:53 | the regulations away because the lane
57:55 | disturbance applications is what I have
57:57 | in order to monitor in order to enforce
58:00 | it all storm water propo that's being
58:03 | proposed if I don't have that
58:05 | application that don't issue that
58:06 | permits I have no grounds or authority
58:09 | to review any of this to not do site to
58:12 | not request for as build for all storm
58:15 | water uh uh components that have been
58:17 | proposed to not I need the operation in
58:21 | many maintenance plane for every restor
58:24 | that they are proposing it's part of the
58:26 | permit is just it's
58:29 | >> so through the chair so the gentleman's
58:34 | offer to guarantee to recover 100% of
58:37 | any storm water
58:38 | >> it's not the storm water
58:39 | >> it's not the storm water that's what the
58:42 | saying is storm water
58:43 | >> it's the permits It's it's the permit
58:46 | process.
58:47 | >> It's part of the applica to submitted an
58:51 | application from link disturbance. That
58:53 | application is where is as an order
58:56 | conditions. I writeed the the conditions
58:59 | of the all the storm water that has been
59:01 | proposed management I'm sorry the storm
59:04 | water management if it's a cold if it is
59:06 | a swale if it is a basin that is under
59:09 | that permit. That permit is storm water
59:12 | related only. I do s inspections before
59:15 | it started. Every time they dig, before
59:18 | they bury any storm water they are
59:19 | proposing, I'm there to check. I need
59:21 | that permanent order to make sure that
59:23 | they are in compliance.
59:25 | >> I will never it
59:28 | in my recommendations should be denied.
59:30 | I don't have if the board can't grant a
59:34 | waiver.
59:35 | >> We have presented to us. We have I we
59:38 | have already been oh this waiver I I
59:40 | asked him I told him you may going from
59:43 | the commission as is written my
59:44 | recommendation is going to be no because
59:46 | you're requesting to wave a permit
59:48 | application
59:50 | >> not a part of the require the
59:53 | requirements within the application he's
59:55 | asking to the application complete
59:58 | application to be waved heard of yes
60:01 | >> I'm asking for just the land disturbance
60:03 | part of it not the storm
60:04 | >> a land disturbance application ation
60:08 | land disturbance permit application.
60:11 | That's what you request to be waved.
60:14 | We can't wave for you filing
60:18 | an application that's required for
60:21 | review of storm water. If you in the
60:23 | process of filing the link disturbance
60:26 | permit application, you encounter
60:29 | components that you may not fulfill,
60:32 | then you may come and say, "Listen, in
60:34 | the process of filing this application,
60:36 | Can I give an analogy? This Yeah, I'll
60:38 | make sure. I don't know if this is the
60:39 | right analogy. This is what I'm asking
60:40 | for clarification for the board.
60:42 | >> If if we if you were going to build a
60:45 | house, I this is the best analogy,
60:47 | right?
60:48 | >> And you're saying, okay,
60:50 | I'm going to comply with the the
60:52 | electrical portion of building the
60:53 | house. I'm in compliance. Why do I need
60:56 | a permit to actually build the house? Is
60:57 | that kind of like
60:58 | >> the same thing? No, he's the he just
61:01 | needed a order conditions, right?
61:04 | He just filed for a notice of intent
61:06 | because he needs the order condition.
61:10 | It's he's asking for a order conditions
61:13 | to be
61:15 | >> approved without filing the application.
61:17 | >> I need the application. The application
61:20 | is part of the process. I I do not
61:23 | understand the reasoning behind it and I
61:26 | feel that we're never going to agree. I
61:28 | don't know what how he is um
61:34 | perceiving
61:35 | but again the waiver is there which we
61:38 | have granted we had on Highland Highland
61:42 | uh road with Chris Hansen there was a
61:46 | gentleman across the street who
61:47 | discharged water towards uh the property
61:51 | is against to discharge water to a
61:54 | different property.
61:56 | Chris Hansel was filing for a land
61:57 | disturbance application at the time
61:59 | could not comply. I recommended the
62:03 | commission to file uh to grant a waiver
62:06 | for the water to continue being
62:07 | discharged. Chris Hansen agreed to uh
62:10 | retreat the water because there was no
62:12 | way there was no other way.
62:14 | >> It was at some point, right?
62:16 | >> Yeah. I just think it's ridiculous
62:18 | if we was to give him a waiver and they
62:21 | have say five lots like we had before or
62:23 | whatever it was and
62:27 | each one individually meets the storm
62:29 | water less than 43,000 ft but the guy at
62:32 | the end the last lot is responsible for
62:35 | all five
62:35 | >> is not and that's why we try to avoid we
62:38 | don't want that happening so that's why
62:41 | we enforce for each one of them because
62:44 | we don't want the last lot be
62:46 | responsible each lot as a separate in
62:48 | >> and we're doing it
62:49 | >> and he's not disturbing 43,000 square
62:52 | ft.
62:52 | >> You're not following the intent of the
62:55 | law. Mitch,
62:56 | >> could I could I summarize? All right.
62:59 | >> Basically, we're going to meet the storm
63:01 | water. It's not like we're asking you
63:03 | understand. We understand that
63:06 | we're not going to have anything. All
63:08 | we're talking about is a land
63:08 | disturbance
63:11 | permit.
63:12 | >> I'm going to summarize and I'll be done.
63:14 | You guys can vote. Yep.
63:15 | >> All right. Every single back lot has to
63:18 | file a land disturbance because they're
63:20 | all disturbing over an acre. Their
63:22 | driveways are 500 ft long to get back
63:24 | there by by 20 ft wide. They just by
63:27 | having a driveway, they need a land
63:29 | disturbance. Every single other one
63:30 | does. This is not being left on anyone
63:33 | out there. It's not like there's 20
63:34 | something lots. They're all one of
63:37 | them's 17 acres. They're disturbing
63:38 | three and a half acres.
63:40 | >> It's not the
63:41 | >> Anyways, I I just like the commission
63:43 | vote. Thank you,
63:44 | >> Mitch. To answer your question, that's
63:46 | correct. That's why each one is being
63:48 | treated individually, but you must
63:50 | remember it is part of a plan. So, each
63:54 | one of them must have their own
63:55 | individual permits.
63:58 | So, I can monitor the storm water of it.
64:01 | If I don't have a permit application, I
64:03 | can't. Well, his his disturbance on that
64:06 | particular lot, if it was by itself,
64:10 | >> if it's not, well, you're wrong. It's
64:13 | not.
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
64:25 | straight from EPA. So, that's why I mean
64:29 | the the bylaw has been here before we
64:30 | did the regulation to start. would have
64:32 | to 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
64:39 | the intent if he would come with the
64:41 | lane disturbance permit application.
64:44 | >> All making it prohibitive for some
64:47 | people to build.
64:48 | >> We're not prohibiting. We're noting
64:50 | >> we're giving him the permits. I'm just
64:53 | close to I'm ready to recommend
64:56 | >> I'm recommend to close and issue the
64:58 | order conditions storm water part of
65:01 | most of it has been provided. Now all I
65:03 | need is the lane disturbance permit
65:05 | application. So I have the authority to
65:08 | go to the site and inspect the erosion
65:10 | control the to the storm water
65:13 | management part of it. He's asking to
65:15 | not file for a permit.
65:19 | That's what his waiver is asking because
65:22 | he sees through the chair not to file a
65:25 | permit.
65:26 | >> You have any right to go on the site.
65:28 | Once I come for an NOI, you can go on
65:29 | the site anytime you want and you can
65:31 | monitor anytime you file permit.
65:33 | >> Yes, I filed an NOI already and that
65:36 | allows her to go on. Any commission
65:37 | member can go on. Okay.
65:38 | >> That's B. That's an erroneous statement.
65:41 | It is not
65:42 | >> go on the site because I found an
65:43 | >> to inspect the erosion to to inspect the
65:47 | storm water management that has to be
65:49 | approved under the ling disturbance
65:51 | permit application.
65:53 | That's what I said. Yes, I can go on the
65:55 | site to inspect erosion controls. I can
65:56 | go on the site to inspect runoff, but I
65:59 | need the permits that has been issued
66:02 | just for the storm water components
66:04 | because that's not under our order or
66:06 | conditions. We have a bylaw and a
66:09 | regulation that requires you to file for
66:11 | a permit. So a storm water manage can be
66:15 | >> well looked under that.
66:17 | >> You write special um you write special
66:19 | considerations into every order of
66:22 | conditions. Write a write a thing that
66:24 | says that you can go inspect the storm
66:25 | water management part without have to
66:27 | file a land decision tomorrow. Makes
66:28 | >> sense to me.
66:29 | >> Why don't you make that a special
66:31 | condition anytime inspection?
66:33 | >> I would do not write that condition.
66:35 | >> Why not? because it's against the laws
66:38 | that we here to obey for it is I'll be
66:40 | happy to work I'll be happy to to I'm
66:43 | not writing that I says that that I can
66:46 | put something about storm water but I'm
66:48 | not going to write what I supposed to be
66:50 | right on a lane disturbance permit
66:52 | application
66:53 | [snorts] it's a permit that must be
66:56 | filed
66:56 | >> it's only an extra three or 4 thousand
66:58 | 5,000 I know
66:59 | >> it's $100
67:01 | >> the permit fee application $100 twice a
67:04 | year there's all types of different
67:05 | things that have to be done out of every
67:06 | of those.
67:07 | >> And and why is that? Because if someone
67:10 | come here and file for a link
67:13 | disturbance permit application and
67:15 | comply with the requirements of the lane
67:17 | disturbance application, I know and the
67:19 | commission knows that that system will
67:22 | be there and if it does fail, I have
67:24 | authority to say repair, maintain, how
67:27 | is it working, is it treating, is it
67:29 | keeping the water safe? But I am not
67:31 | doing that because that is not under the
67:33 | Wellins Protection Act. It's under my
67:35 | bylaw and my bylaw has to be issued
67:37 | >> with the EPA. You didn't write the
67:39 | bylaw.
67:39 | >> He it has the town wrote it,
67:42 | >> right? So you're it's your
67:43 | interpretation cuz you didn't write it.
67:44 | You are you are implying
67:47 | I am done. I'm done. My recommendation
67:50 | is to deny the recommendation.
67:51 | >> If you compose and write it, then you
67:53 | know the intent. If you copy it from a
67:55 | website, you don't.
67:56 | >> I don't know who copied from a website.
67:58 | So, I think this just should be over
68:00 | now.
68:00 | >> One one question through the clear.
68:02 | You'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
68:13 | for a permit,
68:14 | >> okay,
68:15 | >> for the storm water.
68:16 | >> Now, what if the board wants to vote
68:18 | against your denial?
68:20 | >> Then I I really don't know.
68:22 | >> I don't know either. So you're going to
68:25 | open it up Pandora's box because
68:26 | >> you're setting a precedence for everyone
68:29 | to stop who has file disturbance
68:32 | application filing is separate. There's
68:33 | no precedent. You can't get one thing.
68:35 | >> Can she answer Can she answer his
68:37 | question or are we going to keep
68:38 | interrupting? Sir,
68:39 | >> please
68:41 | >> go ahead.
68:42 | >> Well, I've said I says uh I I think it's
68:46 | ridiculous that we can't if she denies
68:50 | it.
68:51 | >> She's I recommend you understand what
68:54 | she's denying.
68:54 | >> I'm recommending the commission to deny
68:57 | based on the fact number one. It's part
69:00 | of a regulations that he must file a
69:02 | permit.
69:03 | >> Okay. But number two,
69:04 | >> if it's illegal for us to vote for him
69:06 | in his favor, why why are you
69:09 | recommending
69:11 | >> we have to?
69:13 | >> Because at the end of the day, it's it's
69:14 | the at the end of the day is the
69:16 | commission's decision. But I'm here to
69:19 | aim you to the where the regulations are
69:21 | made.
69:22 | >> Are we going to comply with the regs or
69:24 | not? 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,
69:34 | she explained to me why we're not.
69:35 | >> It's not my word. Cuz as a building
69:37 | inspector, do you think you should
69:38 | inspect different parts of a building
69:40 | inspection or you do you wave did you
69:42 | wave like electrical inspections or
69:43 | plumbing inspections because you thought
69:44 | that was it was a burden on a a builder
69:47 | to like well I don't want to have to do
69:48 | the plumbing because that's going to add
69:49 | more to the cost of building out. So I'm
69:50 | just curious as a building inspector did
69:52 | you do that?
69:54 | >> I I wasn't even listening to to what you
69:57 | say.
69:57 | >> That shows you how engaged you are in
69:59 | being a commissioner then.
70:00 | >> So Meech is is is
70:02 | >> you're quite you're quite engaged
70:04 | yourself, aren't you?
70:05 | >> I am.
70:05 | >> Okay. All right. So it is it is the
70:08 | authority of this commission
70:11 | >> to to enforce our bylaw and regulation
70:13 | as written.
70:15 | >> We may issue waiverss
70:18 | if it is part of the requirements of
70:21 | such permit that the applicant may not
70:24 | comprise. He has not a choice.
70:26 | >> We grant him a waiver based on what he's
70:28 | told us. I will completely disagree
70:31 | because that goes against our bylaw.
70:34 | >> Oh, I'm just telling you that I
70:36 | disagree.
70:37 | >> It goes against our bylaw, Mitch. It
70:39 | goes against our regulations.
70:41 | >> People have filed. I have J boys here
70:44 | who have filed.
70:45 | >> I'm sitting here talking and thinking as
70:47 | a 50-year builder. I know what they're
70:50 | up against.
70:51 | >> Uh
70:53 | it may not be right in your mind, but
70:56 | >> it's not my mind, Mitch. It's what the
70:59 | regulation says. It's a bylaw.
71:01 | >> I would make a motion to give him a
71:02 | waiver.
71:03 | >> Okay.
71:03 | >> Period. If nobody wants to second it,
71:06 | fine. 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
71:15 | him
71:16 | >> to to violate precedent and and just
71:19 | wave
71:19 | >> violate wave the permit?
71:21 | >> No. Yep.
71:23 | >> No seconds.
71:24 | >> Motion does not carry. Do I have a
71:25 | motion for denial?
71:28 | I'll make that motion. Do
71:29 | >> we have a second?
71:32 | >> Second.
71:33 | >> All in favor?
71:34 | >> I I
71:38 | have it.
71:38 | >> Did you have a majority? I
71:40 | >> Yeah, they're alternates. They can't
71:41 | vote.
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
71:50 | it.
71:51 | >> It has been denied.
71:52 | >> So, you had four eyes,
71:54 | >> three people. There was no need because
71:57 | they 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
72:18 | well.
72:19 | >> Mhm.
72:21 | I'll be issuing the order conditions and
72:23 | the one of the conditions will be that a
72:26 | lane disturbance permit application must
72:28 | be filed prior to commencing
72:29 | disturbance.
72:32 | Thank you.
72:35 | >> We can move forward.
72:36 | >> Did you guys vote to close the hearing
72:38 | yet?
72:38 | >> No, we can now move forward to close.
72:40 | >> I think that's the formal thing to do if
72:42 | we're going to go by regulations.
72:43 | >> Well, it has been a little elevated
72:45 | meeting, so we're not expecting that. So
72:48 | I request recommend the commission to
72:50 | close the u public hearing and issue the
72:52 | order 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
73:02 | the 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
73:12 | luck.
73:14 | D1282025.
73:17 | That's what we just voted on, right?
73:21 | >> 128202255
73:23 | Aqua Road. The applicant has filed the
73:25 | NOI for the installation of a new septic
73:28 | to replace a failed one within 100 ft of
73:31 | the BVW.
73:34 | >> Do a waiver chill J for your lane
73:36 | disturbance.
73:39 | Cuz if you're going to be bring it to
73:41 | everybody, 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.
74:04 | Papers.
74:05 | >> Thank you. Yep.
74:13 | Um so 55 Oxbow Road is a existing house.
74:18 | Um it's it's located along the Little
74:20 | River on Oxbow Road and has a field
74:23 | septic system. Um so we're proposing a
74:25 | new leechfield in the back of the house.
74:28 | The house is here, the street is here.
74:30 | Uh the new leechfield will be in the
74:31 | back. Um it's it's in the same area as
74:35 | the existing system now. Basically out
74:37 | of the back of the house there's a
74:38 | cesspool and a leech line that that does
74:41 | head out from there. So we proposing a
74:43 | new leash field here. The river is in
74:45 | the back here. Um
74:49 | erosion controls around the bottom of
74:51 | the system. We're not in the flood
74:52 | plane.
74:54 | We are in the riverfront zone, but again
74:56 | there's no other other place on the
74:58 | property for the the new leashfield to
75:00 | go. Um D did have did have a comment
75:06 | about the um
75:08 | the 50 foot setback um and that
75:11 | replacement systems are allowed in that
75:14 | and they had a question regarding the
75:16 | delineation as well.
75:18 | >> Uh I did go out today and check the
75:20 | delineation. Basically uh there's a
75:23 | stone wall that kind of runs along the
75:24 | edge of the river. Um it's about a twoft
75:27 | drop down into the river. So, I hung
75:29 | river fl or bank flags along that area
75:32 | as well. And I did write up a narrative
75:34 | and sent that off to back to D as well
75:37 | as to Rose with some photographs.
75:45 | >> DP had questions. Um there was no
75:48 | flagging. He flagged today. There's not
75:51 | much BVW there as he said is really the
75:54 | river which is well defined. Um the
75:56 | pictures we're seeing today
75:58 | >> [clears throat]
76:10 | >> I mean, you know, it's well defined. You
76:12 | have the stone and you have the river.
76:14 | There'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
76:27 | today. Um, so we have to wait.
76:30 | >> No, there they usually don't make
76:32 | comments on on um
76:36 | >> on revisions. They just request the
76:38 | commission to
76:41 | >> request additional information from the
76:43 | applicant, which I did. So I would
76:46 | imagine they would never, you know,
76:48 | intervene on a sept septic repair
76:52 | because of a flag or something like
76:54 | that. So it was a recommendation. So
76:56 | >> So you recommend clothes?
76:57 | >> Yeah.
76:58 | >> I also did send them the photographs.
76:59 | They
77:00 | >> He did send the P the photographs and
77:02 | the and the and the letter explaining
77:03 | that there is no other place to be
77:05 | there's no other location to be placed
77:07 | in that system.
77:10 | >> Any questions from the board?
77:13 | Any questions from the audience?
77:16 | We have a motion to close.
77:17 | >> Motion to close. Second. Second. All
77:20 | >> in favor? I have it.
77:26 | Why do his should have switched his
77:29 | plan? Uh his your next is
77:32 | >> Oh, actually there's one in between,
77:34 | right?
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
77:41 | we move forward with J? Because the next
77:44 | one is 35 North Main Street
77:46 | >> and it might take a bit. Are you opposed
77:48 | to that?
77:49 | >> It's just a single family home. Yeah.
77:52 | Does the commission to swapping so Jake
77:54 | can present his next project? Mitch,
77:57 | >> no, I have no problem.
77:58 | >> You have no problem? Okay. Because it'll
77:59 | be because I know your pro it's going to
78:01 | take 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
78:12 | 128-2023
78:14 | lot 5 road. The applicant has filed an
78:17 | NOI for the construction of a single
78:19 | family home driveway and associated work
78:21 | with 100 feet of the BBW.
78:23 | >> Oh, okay. Got it. Okay.
78:30 | >> I don't know where that goes. Okay.
78:34 | So just to start this it it clearly
78:37 | trigger our uh wetlands and also is part
78:41 | of a common plan of development that all
78:44 | together disturbs more than an acre. So
78:46 | it does require a land disturbance
78:48 | application. So he has already provided
78:52 | a storm water uh has been peer reviewed.
78:55 | Now that we go through the process that
78:56 | we have been going through the past
78:58 | three years, once this is issued, Jay
79:00 | comes back to the commission and files
79:03 | his lane disturbance permit application
79:05 | so he can start disturbing.
79:07 | Go ahead, Jay.
79:09 | >> Um, so this property on the road is lot
79:12 | five.
79:14 | Uh, it's owned by PMD Development and
79:17 | they're looking to do a house on the
79:19 | property. Uh, it is a 4 acre lot or just
79:22 | over 4 acres. So, the house is proposed
79:25 | in this area here with a driveway that
79:26 | would go down to Gul Road. The septic
79:29 | system is in the front and the well is
79:31 | in the back. Uh, the BBW is it comes
79:34 | from the back and it it comes down here
79:37 | and then it goes back up. Um,
79:40 | this this property had a NRA filed
79:43 | probably two years ago or was it less
79:46 | than that? Some somewhere around that.
79:47 | >> Yeah, it's on here.
79:48 | >> Um, which was reviewed by Art, correct?
79:50 | Art Allen who?
79:51 | >> Yeah. So back in the day they request
79:53 | confirmation of the uh area of the
79:57 | >> this was a larger a large parcel that
79:59 | they split up into eight nine lots I
80:02 | think it was.
80:03 | >> Yeah. So it was issued back in 2023.
80:06 | >> 23. Um so we we located the the flags
80:10 | that were out there still and that's
80:12 | what's shown on this plan here. So the
80:14 | house the house uh everything the house
80:17 | driveway septic system and well is all
80:19 | outside the 50oot buffer zone. That's
80:21 | the line that comes down right through
80:22 | here and and through here. So everything
80:25 | is outside of the 50 other than some
80:26 | grading, but we do have erosion controls
80:29 | um at the bottom of the slope around the
80:31 | edges of the grading. Um and as Rose
80:33 | said, this this does have storm water
80:35 | that had gone to Haley Ward for peer
80:37 | review. Um and D also did issue uh a
80:41 | number and they had a few questions. Um
80:46 | >> you want me to go through those or few
80:48 | comments?
80:49 | >> D's comments. It was they were
80:51 | questioning a flood zone which is
80:52 | actually on lot four. There's no flood
80:54 | zone on this property. I did send them
80:56 | the um overall map that shows the flood
80:58 | flood zone line to show them that it's
81:00 | off of our property. Uh they wanted a
81:03 | TSS removal sheet to go along with the
81:05 | storm water which I did send them and
81:07 | gave a copy of that to Rose. Uh and they
81:09 | had a question about the the wetland DVW
81:13 | data forms which they should have
81:16 | because it was part of the ENRAD.
81:17 | >> Yep. Um and they also did recommend the
81:20 | commission a perpetual uh condition for
81:24 | the on andm activities
81:26 | which would be you probably do that
81:28 | anyways don't you?
81:29 | >> Yes. And that's the opera operation
81:31 | man's plan and that's also a go under
81:34 | the lane disturbance. So they just don't
81:36 | know that you're filing disturbance.
81:38 | Yeah. Um,
81:41 | but other than that, if you have any any
81:44 | questions,
81:47 | you all set.
81:48 | >> I don't have any questions.
81:50 | >> Questions from the board.
81:53 | >> Audience.
81:54 | Are 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.
82:09 | Now, 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.
82:23 | 35
82:25 | North Main Street. The applicant has
82:27 | filed a NOI for the construction of nine
82:30 | duplexes within the riverfront. There's
82:33 | no wetland alteration storage with this
82:36 | project.
82:39 | >> Um,
82:43 | >> yep.
82:54 | >> [snorts]
83:03 | >> This is the one that's had multiple
83:04 | variations, right?
83:06 | >> Yeah. Uh, it's
83:09 | Am I speaking off the record when I
83:11 | >> just a general comment? You don't have
83:13 | to go into any specifics.
83:14 | >> Um, uh, the I'd say the primary
83:18 | difficulty previously was with the
83:19 | planning board side of things. they just
83:23 | didn't really want the type of
83:26 | development that was proposed before
83:28 | with first 40 then 36 then 33 units um
83:32 | but which were I think in compliance
83:34 | with the village zoning district but
83:37 | at any rate um so
83:40 | >> this is where we're at now
83:41 | >> yep so the applicant looked at okay what
83:43 | is uh and allowed by right use um and
83:47 | that's what is proposed now are uh nine
83:50 | duplex lots
83:51 | um on the same site.
83:54 | >> So you've gone from 30 or 40 units down
83:56 | to 18.
83:58 | >> Yes.
83:59 | >> And I would and [laughter] I would just
84:01 | note as a as a as a quick item, not
84:04 | trying to be huffy or anything. Uh there
84:06 | is riverfront area, but actually only
84:08 | one of the proposed buildings is is
84:11 | itself is actually in the riverfront
84:13 | area.
84:15 | And we uh
84:19 | >> I thought that plan was pretty nice when
84:20 | you last
84:24 | I'm not I'm not an impartial party.
84:26 | >> Of course. Is so where is this with the
84:29 | planning board?
84:30 | >> We Oh, we just had
84:31 | >> Oh, they just started
84:32 | >> a meeting. Yeah, we just had a meeting
84:34 | with the planning board uh last week.
84:36 | >> Um and
84:39 | there's a lot to do still.
84:41 | >> Yeah, he's just really reintroduced. say
84:43 | their response to that this plan is uh
84:47 | favorable 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.
84:56 | Um so I'm James Dro from Expedited
84:59 | Engineering here representing GM
85:00 | Properties was the owner of the property
85:03 | and uh as we were just saying the uh
85:06 | this is uh site at 35 North Main Street.
85:09 | The existing house uh is in this area
85:13 | and was the subject of a uh previous
85:16 | filing for a development uh of uh multif
85:21 | family town houses pursuant to the
85:23 | village zoning district. The planning
85:25 | board
85:27 | just did not really want that uh
85:29 | development and and so the applicant
85:32 | withdrew uh filings and came back and
85:35 | said, "Okay, what is a use by right?" Um
85:38 | and and in this village zoning district
85:40 | uh a duplex is a used by right. So we uh
85:44 | have drawn up a division of the site
85:47 | into nine separate lots uh seven on uh
85:52 | North Main Street, two at L Stevens. Um
85:56 | I would just uh
85:59 | characterize I think what was said
86:01 | before was correct. There's no wetland
86:03 | alteration proposed at all. Now, we had
86:05 | a uh a temporary alteration proposed to
86:08 | bring sewer from units over here uh to
86:12 | the uh existing sewer in North Main
86:14 | Street. Now, we are proposing to serve
86:16 | these two uh lots, the septic systems in
86:20 | the back of the property. The seven lots
86:23 | here would be ser served by connection
86:25 | to the sewer. We actually uh already did
86:28 | get a vote from the uh water and sewer
86:31 | commission that they would accept uh
86:33 | this discharge. Um I would note that the
86:38 | wetland boundary is was the subject of
86:41 | uh previous anor delineation which was
86:44 | then uh extended by the states what it
86:48 | was permit extension act or whatever
86:50 | exactly it was called and then we had an
86:52 | extension uh here. Um the site
86:57 | I'll orient it the well route 20 is is
87:01 | out this way and the site uh gets
87:04 | drainage from a much larger area than
87:06 | the site itself. Um and what we're
87:10 | proposing to do now for drainage uh here
87:13 | is um we essentially have have lots in
87:17 | pairs or or or a group of three. Um,
87:21 | this duplex would have a driveway that
87:22 | goes down. The driveway edge would be
87:25 | would would have curb. There'd be a
87:27 | catch basin collecting all the runoff on
87:28 | the driveway and we would discharge all
87:31 | the roof runoff from this building to
87:33 | that catch basin. Um, the same thing
87:36 | next door. This duplex would have a
87:39 | driveway that goes downhill and there'd
87:40 | be curving all around this pavement.
87:43 | There's a catch basin which would
87:45 | collect all the runoff. The runoff from
87:47 | these two catch basins would go to a
87:49 | manhole through a storm water filter
87:51 | unit and then to an ingground detention
87:54 | area. Um I think there are three lots
87:58 | together. Uh this lot with again the
88:02 | paved area being captured by a catch
88:04 | basin. This lot the paved area being
88:06 | captured by a catch basin and this lot
88:09 | pavement being captured by a catch
88:10 | basin. These three send their collective
88:14 | run off through a drain anhole through a
88:16 | storm water filter unit and to inground
88:18 | detention.
88:19 | These two units uh these two lots I'll
88:21 | say I should say are paired similarly um
88:25 | downhill to uh the back of these units
88:28 | catch basin at the low point of this
88:31 | parking area. Downhill uh to the back of
88:34 | these units catch basin low point of
88:37 | parking area. They both send their
88:39 | discharge to a drain manhole. Again,
88:41 | storm water filter unit and again
88:43 | inground detention. Um, and the reason
88:45 | we set it up this way is we wanted to
88:47 | have the inground detention uh outside
88:51 | of we didn't want to have it under a
88:52 | parking area. Uh, if we could at all
88:55 | help that. We also have actually in this
88:57 | area some of the the better soil that we
88:59 | have. Um, and so just thought it was
89:03 | would be it made more sense. Also, the
89:06 | uh those storm water filter units, the
89:09 | very whether it's a CDS
89:12 | um unit or any of these other things are
89:14 | are pretty expensive, and you really
89:15 | don't want to be buying, you know, nine
89:18 | of them uh for for a property. That's
89:21 | probably getting yourself a bill of
89:23 | somewhere in the area of 80 to $100,000.
89:26 | So, um but that's how the drainage is
89:30 | being handled here on these two lots.
89:33 | drainage is being collected run through
89:36 | a CDS uh filter unit and then going to a
89:40 | a leeching trench. Um the same thing
89:43 | over here. Run off from this driveway
89:47 | and this other piece of driveway being
89:50 | collected by a catch basin going through
89:52 | a CDS storm filter unit going to an
89:54 | infiltration trench. Um, so we're going
89:57 | to have um meet all the TSS removal
90:01 | requirements
90:02 | um in the in the DP stormage management
90:05 | standards. Um we're not just as before.
90:10 | The way that the drainage essentially is
90:12 | working is that you have this 6acre
90:15 | site. You have a I'll get the exact
90:18 | number wrong. Another 64 65 acres north
90:22 | of this. It picks up drainage all the
90:24 | way to Route 20, but not of any of Route
90:27 | 20 itself. If you were at uh the the uh
90:30 | uh CVS and you look uh immediately on
90:33 | the east side of it and there's those
90:35 | odd piles of stuff, not sure just what
90:39 | all of them are. That area is draining
90:42 | here.
90:44 | It's the the uh drainage area coming to
90:48 | the culbert that the actual pair of
90:50 | culberts that leave the site is much
90:52 | much larger than this site. And by
90:56 | dealing with the TSS and getting some
90:58 | infiltration, uh all of this is is a
91:01 | little bit out of sync with that much
91:02 | bigger I'll call it wave of water uh uh
91:05 | coming from offsite. Um
91:09 | I guess I would uh just know to cut we
91:12 | you know we had uh feedback on I I won't
91:15 | get too much into the sort of the
91:16 | planning board items.
91:18 | >> Yeah I I don't I guess my biggest
91:20 | question did you mention the biggest
91:22 | change 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
91:33 | different total alteration. I think we
91:35 | only dropped a couple tenths of an acre
91:37 | or two or three tenths. I think the
91:39 | alteration now is expected to be 2.3
91:42 | acres. I think we were at 2.5 or 2.6
91:45 | before. And part of that because you
91:48 | have a uh you're going to have a septic
91:50 | system out here that you're going to end
91:51 | up pumping to. And while this is all
91:54 | just going to be grass in the future
91:56 | over a over a pump line and grass over a
91:59 | >> less septic system leeching area, it's
92:01 | still al altered area,
92:02 | >> right? Uh but it is it is less
92:04 | impervious and and you know there were
92:06 | units proposed here and
92:08 | >> you know you
92:09 | >> and that's was the buffer was very
92:11 | minimal the retaining walls.
92:13 | >> Yes.
92:14 | >> Correct. So what is your closest point
92:16 | to disturbance to
92:17 | >> well all on on these lots we've actually
92:20 | put in proposed multiple retaining walls
92:24 | one two three on on four lots to stop
92:28 | before the 25 foot line. Uh on this lot
92:32 | the we've got the two unfortunately the
92:34 | leeching trench to get the TSS removal.
92:37 | Other than that uh we're stopping at 15
92:39 | ft is the nearest point.
92:41 | >> Um again we tried to get uh 25 but it's
92:45 | it's tough there. Uh there's just not
92:48 | there's also there one of the good
92:50 | things in a way on this side is you have
92:54 | a lot of elevation drop. So, it's it's
92:56 | relatively easier to uh to put in a uh
93:02 | to fill a bit and put in an infiltration
93:04 | structure. Here, we're kind of stuck
93:07 | with the relatively flat topography that
93:11 | we need to have uh an infiltration
93:13 | trench that gets close to the wetlands.
93:17 | Uh what else I would note? Uh we got uh
93:21 | DP comment which was actually really
93:23 | just about the uh the money.
93:26 | >> They were not comments. So they were
93:28 | well it was a issue a DP file number was
93:31 | not issued.
93:32 | >> Correct.
93:33 | >> It was just a initial uh looking over
93:36 | the application that Rebecca called me
93:38 | and we discussed. So she puted that in
93:40 | an email. So she's ready to issue the
93:43 | comments when that has been addressed in
93:45 | a new file. uh uh NOI transmitter form
93:49 | is sent to them.
93:51 | >> Yeah.
93:51 | >> Yeah. What uh what the what was issued
93:55 | on the on their website is she not she
93:57 | said well you should have we included we
93:59 | said there are uh eight buildings within
94:02 | the 100 foot uh buffer zone at $500 per
94:05 | building and other charges it was $4,000
94:07 | something dollars. And her comment was,
94:10 | well, there's there's work on some of
94:13 | these lots within the riverfront area,
94:15 | and you should have upped the fee for
94:18 | that by 50%. For instance, the uh
94:21 | building here on lot 7 that's partly
94:24 | within the the riverfront area. Uh I
94:27 | think we had said, well, okay, this is
94:28 | one of eight buildings within 100 feet.
94:31 | That's $500. And her point is uh if
94:34 | you're working within a riverfront area,
94:36 | you should it's 50% greater fee. So that
94:39 | should have been uh 750. So I I I think
94:42 | there's a total there's three lots where
94:44 | that was the case.
94:45 | >> Uh three times 250 750 more. So you're
94:48 | going to get a uh town another check for
94:51 | 375 and the state also another check for
94:53 | 375.
94:54 | >> Okay. That was just fee related. Uh
94:56 | there was something I have to bring to
94:57 | the commission and uh so the application
94:59 | was filed on the single family homes.
95:02 | That 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
95:08 | under?
95:09 | >> The NOI came uh the the the fee was as
95:12 | if you're building proposing single
95:14 | family homes.
95:15 | >> Okay.
95:16 | >> Uh I thought it was just building,
95:18 | >> right? So building that is $1,000.50
95:22 | per
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
95:29 | comment to the river area. So but she
95:32 | what she's saying is that the those are
95:34 | not single family homes. It should be
95:36 | under category
95:38 | uh 3B.
95:41 | >> I'm sorry, it's a big schedule, but I
95:44 | can send that to you. So, she would like
95:46 | to have the NOI revised to uh represent
95:49 | those numbers
95:51 | >> in addition to those three units that is
95:53 | within the river front area. Okay.
95:55 | >> So when that I just want to make sure
95:56 | the commission is okay with the
95:58 | different 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
96:08 | every time someone file with us. So it
96:10 | goes under that category. It's if it's
96:12 | for a single family home there is a
96:15 | price. If it's for it's for a building
96:17 | there's a different category. is for a
96:19 | beach enra engracement or you're just
96:21 | putting sand on your beach or if you're
96:23 | living in front of the balik it's a
96:24 | different category and goes on there's a
96:26 | different five different schedule and
96:28 | like and five less within them so it's
96:31 | many of them so he file on the single
96:33 | family home which he's not proposing
96:35 | single family home should be under
96:37 | buildings
96:37 | >> okay
96:38 | >> and that's a different fee yeah if that
96:40 | makes sense
96:41 | >> so there have been an official NOI
96:43 | submitted 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
96:51 | discuss up there.
96:52 | >> Okay. Um what else did I want to say
96:55 | here? Uh
96:57 | just trying to think of I guess I would
97:00 | just uh leave it at that and try and
97:02 | answer any questions. I I one other just
97:05 | quick thing I would note is that uh even
97:07 | though this is not a multif family uh
97:09 | project anymore, we're still I think
97:11 | have the requirement to run sidewalk uh
97:14 | passes. So we'll end up having a a
97:17 | sidewalk coming just off the wetland
97:21 | over here. Um it's a requirement that
97:24 | just have to do for um the village
97:26 | district. It's not not by choice.
97:28 | >> Okay.
97:30 | >> That stream that comes down through
97:32 | there, I think we class that as a
97:34 | intermittent.
97:36 | >> Which stream?
97:37 | >> Yeah. Yeah. The
97:38 | >> Oh, yes. It's actually through this
97:41 | site, but we the reason we show the 100
97:44 | and 200 foot bounds out is it's still
97:47 | officially uh perennial beginning at the
97:50 | next property.
97:51 | >> Yeah.
97:52 | >> One of the actually I think the the
97:54 | woman who lives here at the next
97:56 | property was at the the planning board
97:58 | site.
97:59 | >> So are the flags is still in place?
98:02 | >> I don't know that they're all still in
98:03 | place now. It's been it's been a while.
98:05 | >> Yeah. So, I'm trying to do a sign
98:07 | inspection again next week uh to just
98:11 | look at this filing and the location and
98:14 | so if you could make sure that at least
98:18 | uh call me to confirm if they are in
98:22 | place and if they're not a time when
98:24 | they will be they should be in place for
98:26 | the next review.
98:28 | >> Fair enough.
98:28 | >> Yeah. Yeah. I was planning for next week
98:31 | to get this rolling. Um but if they're
98:33 | not there, they just let me know when
98:35 | they are.
98:35 | >> Okay. [clears throat] Yeah.
98:36 | >> Uh and just big picture, we're continued
98:39 | on the planning board side out to
98:40 | October 21st. Um you know, the
98:43 | >> So our next meeting will be the 28th.
98:46 | Yeah.
98:46 | >> So hopefully we have things addressed by
98:50 | then.
98:50 | >> We've got a comment letter from Graves
98:52 | Engineering uh that was done uh and
98:56 | actually does touch on some of sort of
98:58 | the there's always overlap.
99:00 | >> Yes, of course. There's always overlap
99:02 | in oversight between planning board and
99:03 | conservation commission where they're
99:05 | both looking at some of the same things
99:07 | >> and and uh but we've got that. Um did I
99:11 | believe the applicant dropped off a
99:12 | check now for the peer review?
99:14 | >> He did for the peer review. He was doing
99:16 | the river phone area. I told him to hold
99:17 | off because I know there was something
99:19 | else to discuss with you. So when you
99:21 | come up with that number he can drop it
99:23 | off all together. Yeah. I'm not
99:25 | concerned with the fees but I just
99:26 | needed the peer review to start.
99:28 | >> Right. And you know we will try and and
99:32 | integrate both the responses to, you
99:35 | know, what the planning board said and
99:37 | what their outside reviewer said and you
99:40 | folks and and audience members and the
99:42 | outside peer all the different parties
99:45 | into a a first.
99:47 | >> Yeah, perfect.
99:48 | >> I'll I'll just try and answer any
99:50 | questions.
99:50 | >> Okay. Yeah. Any questions?
99:52 | >> I say board members have questions.
99:57 | >> You guys here from the audience have
99:58 | questions? 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