Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] So, um, I call the meeting to order. Before we get started, let's introduce everyone in this meeting. I'm Sandy Brock. I'm going to call your name. Please confirm that you can hear me by verifying that you are present. I'll start with the uh commissioners. Amira, since you're on my screen, you get to go first. Present. Thank you. Travis, I'm here. Uh, Noah, present. And Jonathan, present. All right. The commissioners are here. I will go with staff. Jan, present.

Okay. This open meeting of the conservation commission is being conducted remotely via Zoom pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order as most recently extended on March 29th, 2023. Access information for the public has been provided on the town website. This meeting is being recorded. Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you are not speaking. Uh this is done on a phone by pressing star six. As chair, I will introduce each speaker on the agenda. Please note that you will not have screen sharing privileges, but staff can display any visuals for your queue. Uh during periods of public comment, participants must use the raise hand icon in the Zoom menu bar to indicate they would like to speak. Uh this is done on a phone by pressing star 9 and then pressing star six to unmute when you are called upon. Participants who raise their hand will be recognized one at a time. It will be promoted to speak. Finally, each vote taken will be conducted by a roll call vote. As a reminder, the commission is concerned with state and town wetlands and storm water regulations. Uh concerns outside perview must be addressed to the appropriate boards. For example, road conditions must be addressed with the sluff board. Traffic concerns must be addressed with the planning board. Fabulous. Uh so uh let's see here. So, we have a a public hearing that's a continuation, right?

Yep. Is everyone here for that? And can we just start with that? Yep, we can start with that. Okay, great. All right. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and grafted wetlands protection bylaw, conservation hold a public hearing to act upon a notice of intent application for grafted wetlands bylaw permit for the repair of a septic system at 15 Kell Road. And who is here to speak to that? Evening everyone. This is Nate Belts with Land Design Collaborative. Uh, can you share uh your screen or or is it not working? I can share mine.

Okay. No, I'm just talking this. He doesn't have his photo on. Not that that's critical or anything, but we're just looking at an icon. Uh, is Yeah, the logo. But, um, go ahead, Nate. Please. Uh, kind of Oh, I get it. I know. I understand. Thank you very much. If you want now, go for it.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll keep this very brief. Um, Nate Belts with Land Eye Collaborative here on behalf of Patrick Hagerty. Um, this is for Septic Repair at 15 Keith Hill Road. Um, we had the last meeting on August 19th and it was continued because no D file number was received. We have since received a D file number. No comments from D. Um, and with that, happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you very much. Um, so Jan, um, nothing since last time has changed except for that we received a D number.

That's correct. And their only comment was asking if they've received of approval from board of health, which they did on August 1st. All right, great. Um, I'll go around to the commission just to check to see if anyone else has any other questions. I think last time we had kind of addressed them. Was everyone present at the hearing that um we had for this previously? So Travis and Jonathan missed that hearing, but they watched the video and signed the Mullen form, so they're eligible to vote.

Very good. Thank you. So I'll just uh at this point go around once to everyone to see if they have anything else to add. Then we'll open it up to the public and if nothing else, we'll continue on. So, Noah, uh, do you have any questions or comments on this? No questions. Uh, Amamira, any questions or comments? Nope. No questions or comments. Uh, Jonathan, any questions or comments? Nope. I watched the video from last time and I've looked at the the notes and everything and I don't have any questions. Thank you very much. And then Travis? Nope. Nothing for me.

Okay. Thank you very much. I have no questions either. I will open it up uh to the to the public. Jan, let me know if anyone's there or um if there's anyone that raised their hands. Oh man.

Not hearing anything, Jan. Nothing from the public.

Nothing for the public. Uh so basically last time we had uh reviewed this uh staff had given their take on it and there's a recommendation to close a hearing issue uh on order. Uh the special conditions uh that we had chatted about was no disturb signs shall be installed along the existing tree line adjacent to wetland flag 1-3 then along no disturbance line from wetland flag 4-6. uh no disturb barrier shall be installed along the no disturb line from the existing tree line intersects uh the no disturb line through WF wetland flag number six that's all the conditions that we had that we are uh that we came up with correct chair

that's right uh I'll go back to the applicant Nate any questions on those conditions no questions all right Uh since no one else had any questions, no uh comments from the public, do I have a motion to close the hearing, issue an order of order of conditions uh uh with the conditions I just previously stated? I'll move to close the hearing and issue the permit for 15 Keith Hill Road with the conditions as discussed. Do I have a second? I'll second that. All right. So, we have a motion and a second. We will do a roll call vote. Uh air on the screen, so you get to go first.

Yes. Uh Noah, uh your vote. Yes. All right. Um Travis, yes. And Jonathan not hearing John. I feel like we lost Jonathan. I don't see his screen anymore.

Okay. All right. Um, we're not going to hold this up since we do have a quorum. Um, I am also a yes. I was about to say unanimous, but that I can't until Jonathan gets back, but uh that's okay. We have a quorum. We can uh proceed with that. So, um, yep. Uh, so we're all set. It passed and you'll get just contact our staff uh to get the order of conditions. So, thank you very much. All right. Thank you everyone. Have a good night. Byebye. All right, so let's give Jonathan a minute to get back on. I wonder what was going on.

It kind of seems like maybe he lost power or something. Like it doesn't even look the way it normally looks when someone just has their camera off. Norally it shows their name on it and it's just a dark screen, right? And I think now he's gone. Yep. Yeah. That I don't know. I mean, I don't think any of us live that close to him. I I have power, but don't know. So, because we do have a quorum, we'll, you know, hopefully Jonathan will kind of join us again, but we can continue on. Uh, so Jan, action items. Anything particular? Uh, we can start with the minutes.

Start with the minutes. Okay. So, we have minutes from August 19th and July 22nd. Um, does anybody have any comments or questions or proposed edits to them? Go around. Roll call. Travis. Uh, just that I wasn't here for August 19th and I can't remember if I vote on those or not. Uh, you can because it it is you're you're actually just reading it. You don't have to be here to approve it. That is up to you how you want to do it to be quite honest. But is that fine? No comments on July 22nd. Yeah. Okay. Uh, air, no comments. Noah,

I also was not here for the August 19th meeting. Um, right. I'm not sure is that stuff I can't vote on because of that?

No. So, so this is an administrative action. So um so just like you would review something coming in a letter or something the minutes um if you don't understand something you would ask what were happening. So because it's that administrative side of things you can vote uh vote on it. As always if you want to abstain that's perfectly up to you. Um, what I'll do is I'll do we'll do the motions for each of the minutes just to give people the opportunity if they weren't here and they don't feel comfortable voting for it, but that's not really an issue. And has Jonathan gotten back on yet? Actually, I think he just did.

Yeah, coming on now. Okay. So, Jonathan, are you back with us? Yes. I don't know what just happened. Okay. Everything went choppy and then I could hear people talking, but I couldn't touch anything on my screen. So, it just crashed completely and it was screened and then came back. But I'm now back. So, I apologize. I don't know what just happened. I was just staring.

That's okay. Earlier today when I was home on a on a on a business call, I I kind of went almost nothing because I my internet went feed went really low and then it disappeared and then I just reboot it and I got right back on it. I don't know. It was it was a it was a Wi-Fi thing. So yeah, we have BIOS is pretty consistent here at the house, but um I didn't hear screaming from upstairs of that nothing's work working. Oh, I'm assuming it was just me. So, did I miss the vote then or?

Yeah, you did miss the vote since it was a full it was a quorum that So, we were just talking about uh the meeting minutes. Do you have any comments or questions or edits on any of the on the two uh August 19th and July 22nd? Uh, no. I went back and looked at the August 19th because that was the one I missed. Um, and I was present at the other meeting. Uh, so no, I don't have any questions or comments. All right, sounds good. So, can we have a motion for the uh July 22nd m uh meeting minutes? We're going to separate them so everyone can if you weren't here, you can vote on it. Even if you aren't here, it's up to you. You can always abstain. So, I have a motion for July 22nd.

I'll move to approve the July 22nd meeting minutes. I have a second. And a second. I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Travis, yes. Uh, Mera, yes. Uh, Noah, yes. Uh, Jonathan, yes. I am also a yes. That's unanimous. Um, so do I have a motion for the August 19th uh meeting minutes? So moved. Second. Right.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and second. Roll call vote. Amira, are you on my screen? Yes. Noah, yes. Travis, yes. Jonathan, yes. I am also Yes. That also uh uh passes and that is unanimous. Okay. What's up next, Jan? You're on mute. Jan, thank you. 40 years, 5 years now. Should know by now. Um, we can go straight down the list. So, uh, the request for partial certificate of compliance for 22 clear view.

All right. Uh, uh, any So, you guys went out and and looked at it. So, it's all it's a partial it's all set, correct? Yep. So, it's um asking to remove just this one lot from the entire subdivision. Uh site is stable, lawns established, and there's no wetlands or storm water infrastructure on this site. All right, sounds good. Uh do I have a motion? I'll move I'll move to issue the partial certificate of compliance for 22 View Street. All right. Do I have a second? I'll second that motion.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Travis. Yes. Uh air. Yes. Uh Noah. Yes. Uh Jonathan. Yes. I am also a yes. And again carries unanimously. Okay. Up next. Just keep on going down the list. Sure.

I'm sorry. Just making uh the agenda a little bit a little bit clearer for me to read. Okay. So, next up is three Leland uh Street. Um this is for a request for certificate of compliance. Jan, why don't you give out your report?

Sure. Um so, this was the first single family house that we had trigger our storm water bylaw. Um and because of that, we were a little um we were a little lenient. We didn't require peer review. Um and we waved some provisions for them. Um, so we received an asbuilt and noticed that the asbuilt looked um a little bit looked different than what we had approved on the plan. So I went out and performed a site visit on August 26th. Um, so I think I'll probably just bring up some photos. Cool. So, just to familiarize you, um we approved um for a barn to be completed along with some driveway here. Um so, this is just a look at um just the general site there. So, we're looking northward this way at the front of the barn, like standing at the edge of the driveway. Um and this is in the back of the barn looking that way. Um so, looking southward. Um let me bring up the plan that we approved. We did um approve a bit of a minor change. There was supposed to be um a retaining wall that went along the side of the barn um that was supposed to run the entire length. I'll bring up the approved plan. Um so they this was um just a minor field change that was made. They to end the retaining wall here when originally it was approved to run along the full length of the barn here um which included a swale

just at the back here and then a swale that went along the full length that almost encircled the barn. There was a level spreader proposed up here and this swale then discharged down this way to a um into a culvert that went under the driveway and then to another level spreader here. Um and this whole area was graded as well over here. Um this barn here was constructed and the driveway around it. Um so this is the asbuilt plan just to give you an idea. Um, so we can see here that a boulder retaining wall was built instead. Um, well, the retaining wall, um, the swale up here that was supposed to encircle the barn was not constructed and a boulder wall here was constructed. Um, a rip wrapping boulder wall was constructed here. Um, so when I went out and did my site visit, I saw that the covert that runs under the driveway here, um, was installed, but it was installed, um, it was approved to be 24 in, and it was installed at, uh, 12 in. So, we can go back to the photos. Um, so this is just the graded area to the east of the barn. Um this is the inlet to the cover here that discharges under the driveway. Um and it there's already um a little bit of erosion starting here. It's hard to see, but there's some real happening um into the inlet of the culvert. So the dis the covert goes under the driveway and then discharges to a level spreader which was hidden under this um was buried under the

boulder and rip wrap slope west of the driveway. Um and I was not able to see the outlet of the cover. It's under these these rocks here. Um and this is just a picture of the boulder and rip wrap uh wall. And I took some measurements and found that in a few places this uh boulder wall had actually croached into the 25 no disturb area. Um so up at the closer up this way at the base here um it was measuring from wetland flag three um about 19 ft. And then down closer to um this end of the driveway around wetland flag 18, it was measuring about 20 feet to the to the base of the wall down here.

Okay. Did you receive a report from the in their design engineer uh identifying compliance to the order of conditions and uh a detailed list of what is different from the design plan to what was actually built? Uh no, we didn't. We received the asill plan and just a cover letter on top of that, but it didn't detail. It didn't go into detail. All right.

Um, another thing we noticed is um the wetland sign says wetland habitat keep off when um we generally are required to say a protected wetland resource on the signs. We have that out outlined in the order of conditions. Um, so this is just a picture of the boulder wall that was constructed behind the barn. Um, this approved swale was supposed to run along this crest here and then down alongside of the barn and then discharged to that culbert down that went under the driveway. Okay.

And this is just another picture of the boulder wall behind the barn. And you can sort of see another uh freestanding wall here. So, that freestanding wall um is intended to be the level spreader that was approved at the northwest corner of the barn. Um there's nothing conveying water to it. Um just another picture of the other way. There's um water supposed to convey down this way and hit the level spreader here. Um so I brought that up to Mr. Johnson who was there when I did the site visit and he submitted this photo of the freestanding wall level letter install. Um so we can just see how it was installed there. Um yeah and other than that while I was there I found that grass clippings had been dumped um within the 25 foot no disturb area down closer to wetland flag 20. Um I told Mr. Johnson about this and he did remove the clippings immediately.

Yeah. So that's that's all we have. Okay. Um I get a few questions. To me the first thing is is um typically when um and to be honest I have to this is just under the this is both under our uh bylaw and under the storm water. That's correct.

Okay. Yeah. So um typically we'd be looking for the design engineer to um basically do a letter that's uh that's saying that says generally it says that it meets generally the design obviously there's been definitely some changes from what the design was to what was actually built. Um from my perspective, we should that be should be the first thing. Give the designer uh the professional engineer an opportunity to describe all of the changes that were made feel whether he knew about them or not. Um and also to uh that should also that letter should also include how those changes impacted his design and if he recommends any kind of uh remedial or corrective work done because it's obviously not even you know you don't have to be perfect but you got to be close and so that would be something I would say is a standard thing that's required when especially you have a plan um that's stamped by a professional engineer that I would want to see up front before we do anything else. Um, but we can continue to talk about that. Let me go around to the um commissioners to see if anyone else has any other comments or questions. Travis,

I don't have a lot more to say than what you just said, Sandy. Aside from yeah, it'd be good to know also why the all these order of conditions weren't followed and how they're going to be resolved so that they're compliant with the original permit that we issued a couple years ago. Okay. Uh Noah, do you have any questions? Um no questions for me.

Sure. Any questions? So the the changes that um were made um and that we can see in the asbuilt plan, those changes required um the engineer or just the the person applying for the permit to come before the commission and and kind of present these changes. Correct. Typically if if it was typically yes that's what would happen on these type of changes like uh Jan mentioned there was a minor change that was brought in front of us. Correct Jan? Uh no that one was just a field change. That was just a field change. Okay.

And and it's it's important to understand the difference between a field change and a design change. A field change may be something as simple as the shape of the swale is a little different but the functions there. Um, as far as uh a design change is not constructing the swale where it was originally proposed, uh, a design change is going from a 24in pipe underneath the driveway to convey the storm water um, across from the, you know, the hillside um, to a 12-in. So, those are the things to me are is are the difference between kind of a field change and a design change. And those were the things that you know that kind of highlight to me that you know first of all give the design engineer an opportunity to um you know go through this describe all the changes um and find out from him if he if he recommends or she recommends you know uh mitigation or or corrective work or whatever. That's that's up to the applicant and their engineer to do that. So, but that is a part of that's definitely a part of the, you know, the process of getting a certificate of compliance. So,

Got it. Yeah. I just know that in the past when people have had changes to their plans, they've come before us and presented those changes. Um, so I was just curious that that probably should have been done in this case. Uh, but I guess we'll Right. And I would generally say in this case, here it should have been done. Okay. Um, Jonathan, any additional questions or comments? No, I echo the concerns that you have um Sandy and what Travis brought up. It's just not a slight deviation. This looks more like a pretty significant deviation from what was designed. So,

so we do have the applicant here and so I want to give him the opportunity or them the opportunity to explain how things changed and if they realize the type of changes they were doing that they were altering the design. So, Mr. Johnston. Yeah. And we we do have um his engineer John Ferico in the attendees. I'm going to permute him to speak. Oh, great. Great. Yep. And whether it's the, you know, the homeowner or the engineer, uh, I don't really mind who speaks if someone could kind of just let us know why the changes happened. [Music]

Oh, sorry, Mr. Johnson. We can't hear you. How about now? Can you hear me now? Yeah, you're a little bit faded, but we can hear you.

Um, Craig Johnston, the applicant, three Leland Street. Um, first I'd like to just say that this is a this this is the first project I have ever taken on of this scale. And from the onset I made we made it a priority to to engage to hire only licensed professionals a professional engineering group a reputable contractor and a experienced developer. I trusted these professionals that I we hired guide us through the process. At present, as a layman, the site is currently stable with healthy natural growth throughout. Even after Saturday's heavy rain, it looked like everything was working fine. The water was flowing down the hill, draining into the cover. And then in the back uh of the building, there is a swale at the top of the hill that the water was running down to the left of the hill into that level spreader. Um, so when when I received these uh when I received Dan's report, uh,

I quickly spoke with my site contractor and I didn't know if it was wise to have him on at the meeting tonight, but I'm more than happy to walk through Jan's comments and or um, see how best or what the next step is working with the conservation commission to to rectify these um issues.

Yeah. And that's why I I you know suggested that the engineer of record kind of give his opin give their opinion just so that you know from just a pure thing of comparing two plans and looking at what's on them you know the you know that it's changed. It's not what we had thought when we approved it. And so again, it's it's not like it's one of those things where like you said, what's the next steps? Well, my next step would be to have the design engineer do an assessment of, you know, a letter saying, here's what changed. This is why it changed. This is still functioning or not functioning or whatever. Uh or if he says, well, it just needs this or that. I, you know, it does the site looks stable, but that's, you know, and it was one storm. granted.

Yeah, understandable. Yeah, agree.

You know, so that to me is the next step is is not to just say something like say like you have to rip it up and do exactly what was on the plants. Let's take a different approach, but we need to be since you know since we issued a permit, we just need to make sure that we're complying with the design intent of that permit and to make sure that you know it will function not just now but in the future and so forth. And of course, you know, Jan made kind of notice that, you know, no, it didn't have a big gully running down, but there's the beginning of erosion and whether that was because of the storm and those type of things. But it's one of those things where I'd like to do it kind of one step at a time

and not jump. So if your uh engineers on the call if if they could kind of just go through and when they did the comparison and if they can do basically what's usually typically required from the professional engineer a letter when you do it or when you get a certificate of compliance. So so Jan status of the engineer

you should be allowed to speak. Yeah, so can can you folks hear me? Yes, I can.

Oh, I am so sorry about that. I didn't see an option pop up for the video or anything. Um I wasn't sure if I I was able to to speak or anything on that end. Um so just for the record, uh John Federica with Ger and Helnon. Um unfortunately I'm not the engineer of record for the plans. Um but uh I will be able to kind of um help uh disseminate some of the information from tonight. Um we we did provide a uh cover letter um that we typically would provide with any of our um certificate of compliance requests and that letter after um reviewing the site with our uh PE um did feel that um things were in substantial compliance and as far as any of the changes noted um he did um point out I believe it was like three of the major changes had occurred out there. Um, I'll briefly just kind of um go through a few of the points and then um I'm more than happy to answer any more specific questions um regarding

Hold on one second there. So, Jan, did we get that cover letter? Uh, yep. I have it up. Okay. I didn't see it when I looked through the file before.

And John, go ahead and uh

Oh, yeah. Sorry. So, uh, as far as things go, um, regarding, uh, like the first comments about the, uh, the rip wrap swale, um, that was shown on the plans, um, we did look into that, um, prior to stabilization occurring. And then we did have a second field visit, um, once the grass on the hillside was stabilized to see if, um, the rip wrap swale was going to be warranted. And based on the grading um everything that we had observed out on site um and the fact that the uh the slopes did not appear as steep as initially when we were uh working on the design um the engineer did not feel uh that it was a substantial change where uh water is generally going to be directed towards the northwestern level spreader um as well as the southern uh flared end section. um regarding anything on the flared end uh section and that pipe. Um he did also look into that based on uh field observations. Um the fact that we didn't uh appear to see any sort of standing water. Um he did feel that that 12-in pipe was um acceptable for the flows that we do have um out there. Um and uh we were able to um during one of our asbuilts uh prior to full um construction of the wall um were able to identify where that pipe location was. And in one of the photos provided by Jan, you did see a portion of that level spreader that was sticking out. Um so at least um on our opinion that is functioning as intended for for that uh portion of the site. Um the reason for the uh rip wrap slope um or boulder slope, however you'd like to call that out, um going a little bit closer towards the wetlands and into the no disturb. Um unfortunately during construction um the contractor had run into some ledge out on site and uh after

trying to break up ledge as best as possible um from uh an overall standpoint uh a decision was made to shift the building forward. And as a part of that shift, um the stone wall also had shifted as well. Um unfortunately, our office did not catch that change until the asbuilt portion or else we would have come back in front of you for the amended order of conditions there. Um so we do apologize on that end for it. But um overall um it would be in our opinion that uh any work to try to remove that wall and pull anything out of the no disturb buffer um could potentially create um more disturbance um to that buffer zone, especially now that everything has um fully vegetated in um and um become stabilized throughout the whole entire site. Um, in terms of our recommendation for any sort of remedial action, um, typically we're not dealing in the no disturb buffer too much. Um, and honestly we wanted to get the opinions of the conservation commission. Um, on other sites where we might have had these type of disturbances, we might ask to, um, remove, you know, any invasive species that are on site or, um, you know, kind of follow the direction of the conservation commission on that end. Um I'm not aware if the site does have anything like that. Um but um we're more than happy to to discuss any sort of options and if we do have to um revise and resubmit anything to the commission we will do so um expediently possible there.

I appreciate that. So uh just curious when you move the building and you move things you didn't think that you had to come back in front of the conservation commission. That change um was not um at least for to my knowledge um was not um mentioned to us until we went in for the asbuilt portion and then saw that the building had shifted forward.

Okay. So, some of the things were decisions of the contractor and so forth. And I get you hit ledge. I understand that part of it type of thing. Um, and you know, some things, you know, the the, you know, when you go from a field change to an actual design change, there's a there's a a line you cross. And, you know, from our perspective, as we've already always said, you know, uh, we're here to protect the wetlands. We're here's a reason for it, no disturb zone, which helps protect that the wetlands and so forth. So, those things are what we're really concerned with. And of course, the other main item is the store water. So I think it would be helpful and and I will go around to the rest of the conservation commission to ask is is if we do since you have the original design and you have the asbuilt it will be very easy to do a comparison um between the two and just so that we understand um you could do something as simple as you know take the original design and you know it can be read and the new design is the new design and I think it would be very helpful for the commission to understand when you say something shifted, you know, shifting something 6 in or 12 in or 2 feet is one thing, shifting it 10 or 12 feet is another. And so that would be kind of to for us to understand kind of the magnitude of the shifts. And now that you're into the no disturb, instead of being 20, I don't know, six or 27 feet from the wetlands, you're now 20 feet. So it'd be really helpful for us as a commission to um you know to understand that you know as far as as far as making decisions on uh you know whether you should remove you know the the rip wrap that's in the no disturb is that is that more of a

impact to the uh you that buffer area or not? I don't think we're going to make that decision tonight, but I think it would be very helpful if you gave us more details about that just to understand. You know, you say rip wrap all the slope constructed in the no disturb. Okay. Uh yeah, what does that mean? 5T from the wetlands, 15 from the wetlands, 24. So I think that amount of information would be helpful. And you since you already have the asbuilt, that should be fairly straightforward. And then I would suggest, you know, kind of your uh I'd call it corrective actions. Um you should kind of put that in a letter of what you think needs to be done to meet the intent

of the original design. Um so if you have, you know, 24 in uh pipe underneath the the driveway, you know, it it has the you know, uh carrying capacity of a certain CFS and now you have a 12 in. And we know that's not just half of it. We know it's probably a third or less of the uh carrying volume. And just to compare what was going to that pipe previously and what's going there now, has that changed? Um you know, those type of things of being a little bit more um informative and detailed on what the asbuilt is. And then I think, you know, I I will, you know, rely on you to come up with what you think is best for your client. um as far as proposing kind of what can be done, what is you know what in your opinion uh meets the previous design intent uh just so that we can you know start having a conversation. I'm not for just saying rip as I said before rip it up and put it back the way exactly we're here. Let's look at uh from our perspective how we're going to protect the wetlands and make sure the storm water is being um is being addressed as was originally intended in the original design. So,

sure. Um I do have a follow-up question if you don't mind. um on other uh projects where um that the commission's been involved in where a no disturbed area may have been um touched in any way, shape, or form. Um has the commission been in favor of um one remedial action versus another um just because I know um when we go to have this discussion again with our PE on things um as well as Mr. Johnson um and his family. Uh we just want to make sure that you know we we are taking into account um what is typically um going on in the town of Grafton as well as something that we also feel is going to be um enough mediation for for any disturbances. So, um, in a number of cases, it's not always that big of an intrusion and typically you move whatever's in it and you restore the vegetation with, you know, appropriate plantings and those type of things. Um, I don't remember off the top of my head. Uh, a little too many projects have come in front of the commission since I've been on it to kind of pick out, you know, um, you know, alternatives to removing that. Um, I'll leave it up to you to make a good case for whatever you want to do. Um, you know, again, we we're trying to protect the wetlands and make sure that the storm water because it's required a storm water permit that we're meeting those criteria and

find out a path to that that you know hopefully is not a hopefully doesn't further disturb the no disturb or something else and then you know um but again I think the only other thing that we may do but I I'll wait till we get this additional information is maybe ask our peerreview engineers to take a look at it. Um I may be a professional engineer but I am a volunteer on this commission and I do not perform civil engineering duties. Um so I you know I I don't feel comfortable just reviewing it myself. I would rather for the applicants uh perspectives to have a third third party you know peer reviewer to take a look at that. But um why don't you go through your process first before we see it um so that we can have a better sense of exactly what has changed which we you know we know it's changed we just don't know by how much um don't know what the impacts are. So

sure that that won't be a problem. Um we'll make sure that we do um circle back to Mr. Johnson on things. Um and um we'll have our PE um provide a little bit more information on his analysis um for the uh pipe flow as well as some of the other drainage uh concerns that were expressed. Um obviously, you know, we want to make sure that everything is um done right um for the craft here. Um so u you know, anything that we can do to to offer an appropriate mitigation um we are more than happy to do so. Um and um obviously we'll we'll make sure that um uh if we do have to go through any other actions um you know we we'll we'll follow appropriate measures on on that portion.

I appreciate that. Let me go around the commission again just to give uh other commissioners any kind of uh any other questions they have or any other suggestions. Uh Travis, you have to be up there so you get to go first. I think you covered everything. All right, Noah. Well, I'm happy with the suggestions that have been talked about already. Amira,

um I I guess I would like to better understand. So, it in the previous order of conditions, uh there were a couple of waiverss granted. Um and it I think it was like against compliance to the storm water graft and storm water management bylaws. And I guess I would like to understand if this plan had it been submitted in front of the commission whether it would like whether that waiver would have been evaluated. Does that make sense?

Yeah. A different way to say that is is that they requested waiverss from our stormwater bylaw because of the way it was designed. Right. with the way it was built, would you have had further waiverss or more extensive impacts that you know may have changed the process of deciding whether those waiverss were accepted, right?

So yeah, I think so. No, I think that's excellent good to bring up. So just as another thing is to um make sure that the waiverss that were granted that are still applicable to the what was actually constructed. So I think that's good. Yeah, that's that's my main concern. Um because you know there was some leniency granted in the first place for this um you know it's just kind of big deviation it seems like. And uh if if you don't mind me asking um with the bird are still applicable in any way shape or form um is that something that um

you're cutting out a bit. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the beginning of u I apologize for that. Um as far as um the the discussion about the waiverss um if they were still applicable if if this design uh presented tonight um was presented to the commission initially. Uh would that be something that um would be coming from the town side and you folks would be letting us know if if you felt it's still applicable or as a part of our uh updated analysis you would like us to um confirm or deny if those would still be applicable there. I

I think it's it's uh from my perspective the waiverss were requested by the applicant. So the applicant should discuss how th these construction changes um have impacted those waiver requests um and then we can review that. So per the permit they were granted but were they sufficient in the and was the waiver sufficient for what's being what has been built now. So, we just want to make sure um yeah, just a a good kind of question for Meritt that that what we had previously voted on is still applicable or is it or is there another waiver required? Sure. So,

thank you for that clarification. Yeah. Anything else, Amir? No, nothing else. Thank you, Jonathan. I I don't have anything else to add to what's already been said. Okay. Uh, Jant, so kind of you understand where we're at now. Yes.

So, uh, let me ask uh the applicant kind of so you're in front of us to get a certificate of compliance. Uh, we can just, uh, you know, continue that this discussion. Um, I don't think we need to I mean, I I'll ask the commission. I don't think we need to deny um the certificate of compliance. We're just, you know, it's up to you uh if you want us to vote on it or not. But um I think it's pretty clear we would not issue the certificate of compliance. Crystal clear. Um I'd rather not have you vote on it. Okay.

John, do you know how long it's going to take you to do the items that they're requesting of you? Um, as far as the covert analysis, um, that should be something we can turn around, um, definitely before the next meeting. Um, if we are to submit any information, um, do you folks, um, need to have that like week or two before the meeting or this is just something that we can, um, submit a couple days prior just to give you a chance to take a look and and further discuss? So, that's a good question. So, first, let's start with um, Jan. When is the next meeting?

Uh the next meeting is September 23rd and we would need any documents a week prior to that which would be the 16th. So a week from today.

Okay. Um it would be in our opinion um to uh not vote or anything on the certificate compliance especially where we will be providing some additional information there. Um so if if it is possible to to do it as a continuence um that would be my preference for it. Um, and then in the event that uh we still need a little bit of time um after the 16th um to possibly address any of these concerns, um I can speak with Mr. Johnson and uh follow up with uh Jan or or anybody at the commission office um to um request a further extension there. Um and then we could provide um like a a status update um if we needed just another week or um where we are kind of in our review of things.

Yeah. Yeah. Please. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. If I could just ask the next question. Um Dan, if you don't mind, what's the what's the following date for the for the meeting? Uh the following after that would be October 7th. John, is that a better date for all of us just to make sure we have everything we need so we're not wasting the commission's time? Uh that would be a more ideal date for us. Um but not sure if the commission or um you Mr. Johnson would be in in favor of pushing it out that far. Well, it's not up to me. It's up to the commission that date.

Right. So, this is a request for certificate of compliance. So, we're not in a permit process at this moment. So, um if you want to come back October 7th, we don't have to do a continuence or anything. uh we would just appreciate, you know, the fact that you've said that you do not wish us to vote on this, that's fine. Um but that, you know, we'll just kind of wait till you get back to staff and say, "Hey, we'd like to be in front for this action item on October 7th that you know,

Jan, that's right. I mean, this is not a public hearing. It's, you know, it's so you have the flexibility. Uh, you know, to be quite honest, I appreciate the fact that you're going through this process. Sometimes we have to chase people down to do a certificate of compliance. So, we're happy that you're in front of us. Uh, but as far as, you know, we just want to work this out and if you need that extra two weeks, I we have no problem with that. So, I I I would appreciate that. And our preference right now would be to to go uh back in front of the folks all in the seventh meeting. So just you know on that case there it would be reaching out and contacting us with the information you know seven days ahead of time. Sure.

So that it can get on the agenda and again it will be on the agenda as an action item. Okay great. Um if um anything that we do submit um after you folks have a chance to do an initial review if that did have to go to peer review or anything um is there a peerreview fee that would be associated with that or is that something that's just done um just to make sure um you know our supplemental information is um appropriate in this case?

So good question. We have we've had the same peer reviewer. all of the town um departments have uh the same peer reviewer. Um they're pretty reasonable, but yes, there would be a fee to do that. Um uh I guess what I'm trying to do is give you the opportunity to give us information before we ask you to do that. Sure. Um in that case there, we'll definitely try to make sure that we we get you the information as soon as possible, well before that week deadline. Um so that uh once you have a chance to to take a look at the updated information if if we do have to follow up accordingly on anything um you know we do have some time before that um October 7th meeting just to to keep everything uh moving forward.

The other thing that we can do is to Jan you can reach out to Graves and kind of get an estimate for this type of what we're doing here so so that you would un so that we would have it ahead of time. So yeah. Yep. I can do that. Yeah. Yeah. We're not looking to have everything go in front of peer review, but this one is kind of uh changed in the field. So, um

Sure. Um yeah, no problem. If you could definitely provide that information um beforehand, um we would appreciate it. Um whether we need to go that route or not. Um and uh yeah, we we'll make sure that a couple of these points um we will address and uh reflect anything um as far as any updates go. um if if we had to show any like um sign locations or anything like that that might have been missing from the plan, we'll make sure all that's reflected on there appropriately.

Yeah. Uh and again, uh we're more than happy to, you know, um have our staff share all of their comments and so forth with you so you understand what you know um what we're looking at. I would guess I will probably go take a look at the site. So, uh to Mr. Johnson Johnston I would say you know we have the right to go on the site I we will give you the heads up on what it would kind of come and it's just walking outside you know that's it it's just a pretty straightforward okay

I know Mr. Johnson was available when um Jan had conducted her site visit um if Mr. stock is available for any future site visits. Um you can always feel free to reach out to our office and um either myself or or one of our other engineers there um can make themselves available to uh to walk the site with you if need be.

Okay. And we'll discuss amongst uh you know amongst the commission. We don't typically do a group um visit just because we have to do open meeting stuff all that kind of fun stuff. Um, but again, uh, we'll chat with everyone here and see who wants to go out and so forth. But again, this is fairly straightforward. It's really just looking at a garage and what's being put around it and so forth. So,

Sure. No, I I do appreciate your folks's time tonight. Thank you very much. Um, Mr. Johnson, I will turn it over to you in case you do have any um final comments. Um, but at this point here, I think I'm all set with um everything we need to um get us moving forward with this. Sounds good to me. No, I don't have any else. I appreciate your time and hopefully we can figure this thing out. Um, that's the end goal and whatever you guys need, we'll try to get here. All right. I appreciate that. And that's, you know, we're just we're trying to do um trying to follow what we're supposed to be doing as part of the commission. Completely understood.

Yep. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you all. Have a good night. You too. All right, Jen, what's next? Um, we can pass over the request for a certificate of compliance for 8 Millennium Drive. Um, we're just waiting on their erosion control to come up. Um,

so we'll get that next time. Um, so the next is the acceptance of the baseline report for 179 uh through 183 Upton Street. Okay. So, these are the ones uh so these are the ones along Silver Lake. So, uh a couple of folks on here probably have no clue what we're talking about. So, I will kind of do a brief discussion. So um basically uh from time to time uh uh you know parcels that were under a certain protection for agricultural and so forth when they go to sell it they have to have first refusal to the town because of the the way the taxes are set up. The town then can if they wish to buy it um and purchase it um based on a whole procedure. As part of that procedure, we are putting um this happens to be 179 to 183 Upton Street, which is right along Silver Lake. It's called the L Robertson lots. They had done a subdivision there. So, the town because it's a a budding other open space, uh they basically decided to purchase the property. So, once the town purchased it and we want to have a conservation restriction put on it, this is the fun part. And if you want to know more about this actually uh MACC has a actual uh presentation and training on this on conservation restrictions which I think I'm going to attend sometime because they do come up. So conservation restriction has to be held by not the owner of the property. So if the owner of the property is the town of Grafton then we will have um a conservation restriction held by typically the Grafton Land Trust. And Jan, this is that's the way this one is set up.

That's right.

So the uh Grafson Land Trust will own or will hold the conservation restriction. So the kind of con uh conservation restriction basically doesn't allow for any um well it's how how it's written it it typically for this one here would allow any kind of development or whatever, but you can do certain you know sometimes certain work around it to for hazardous trees and stuff like that. So it's it's it there's a state template that we typically use for the conservation uh uh restriction. And now what we're asking this way is that part of that process they have to do what's called the baseline report which describes the site. And I don't know Jan if you have any more descriptive on what the baseline report is. Um, yeah. So, it's walked through by someone qualified to do a baseline report and it just kind of is what it sounds like. They assess the area. They get a baseline of what it looks like um where the boundaries are, what resource areas are on there and put them in a report um just as the beginning of the CR process.

Right? So, at this point, what we're doing is we're not voting on the conservation restriction document. We're voting to accept the baseline report that is part of the process to get to the conservation restriction and then when we get the conservation restriction, we'll have another opportunity to review it. Um it's a lot of legal ease. I typically look at what uses are allowed. As an example, passive recreation or hiking or something would be an allowed use. Um an example of a conservation restriction is the golf course. And so there's certain use allowances under that restriction. So, um, but we're not there yet. We're just talking about the baseline report and basically the staff has reviewed that. Um, and so they're recommending that we accept it. So, we need to do a vote on that. So, I will go around and ask people if they have questions. Uh, I know for uh I know I always have to look up stuff when these things come up. So, Amra, do you have any questions on this? I don't think so.

Okay. Yeah, but it's good. It's kind of one of those things. It is a good thing. And and in our open space plan, these lots have always been identified because they connect existing open space. So, this is, you know, we've been watching these lots for a long time. Uh the money, uh a lot of uh you know, CPC money was used to buy these. So there's a whole process here and and Grafton's very proactive about this stuff. So So we're working the plan, you know. So it's all from my perspective that's good. So I Yeah. But that's pretty much what it is. So yeah. No, no questions. Just exciting stuff.

Yeah. Great. Uh Jonathan, any questions? Nope. No questions. Seems straightforward. Yep. Uh Noah, any questions? No questions. Travis, there's a really cool photo on page 32 of an ice house and then the the training Sandy mentioned the MACC training. I took at least one of them on the CRS and it was pretty good. So yeah, it's it's a little more interesting than the permitting stuff. So it's encourage you to take some of those. Yeah, this is the fun stuff. Cool. Spicer's ice house with team.

But no, no questions. This looks good to me. Yep. And and again, it's like the um MACC is going to be doing their um fall blitz, which is when they do all the fundamentals and stuff. So, there's going to be a lot of stuff uh available to take. And we have our fall conference. Oh, I should know the date. I had board meeting last night. I don't really know the date off top of my head, but you know that's something that always has a lot of good uh you know uh classes and sessions and stuff on that. So yeah, I had a wetland delineation for beginners today.

Oh, did you? Oh, we actually that's funny because I had the uh uh the MAC board last night meeting and they were talking about that and uh it was like uh was that was that Mike Howard who was doing the who's instructor? I can't remember his name. Probably. It probably was. Yeah. Yeah. They're professionals. That's what they do. Yeah. It was It was a good class. Yeah. Oh, that's great. Um and that's and then Noah, those are the type of things that you want to learn more about. There's there's definitely a lot of availability of taking different classes and so forth. So, yeah. Send me an email if you have any questions. No, I've been taking a lot of the classes. It's been

Yeah, I definitely will because there's seems like a lot there. There is and like I said like you know Travis took that CR class and it's like I was listening to what what was you know what was going on with it. I'm like God that's when because they're going to update it and I'm like God that's when I want to because I you know it comes in front of us and that's not my background. I know just enough about it to be dangerous. So it's just Yeah. So, all right, having kind of said that and filled it in, um, so we need to have, uh, we need a motion, right, Jan, to accept it. That's right.

All right. So, can I have a motion to accept the, uh, baseline report for 179 183 Upton Street? So, move. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Amira, yes. Uh, Travis, yes. Jonathan, yes. Uh, Noah, yes. I'm a yes and enthusiastic, uh, unanimous vote. So, uh, other than that, Jan, are we down to last motion? That's all we got. Okay. Do I have a motion? Motion to adjurnn.

Second. We have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Jonathan, yes. Uh, Travis, yes. Amira, yes. Noah, yes. I am also a yes. Thank you very