The 65 Main Street project, involving the installation of a septic system, tank, and building addition within a regulated proximity to resource areas, was a focal point. The commission scrutinized the project’s details, particularly the proposed height of the septic tank, its location near the flood hazard zone, and the need for a waiver from the 35-foot vegetated buffer requirement. Additional discussions revolved around administrative concerns, such as changes to the applicant’s name and the clarity of signatures on project documents, which raised questions about the state’s acceptance of the project.

Ultimately, the project was approved with special conditions aimed at environmental protection. The commission agreed to waive the vegetated buffer requirement and closed the hearing for the project.

Another topic of significance included a discussion about a property on Worcester Road. The homeowners, who had initiated cleanup efforts and planned to plant flowers, voiced their intentions to the commission. Concerns were raised regarding land disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland and the necessity of a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA). The commission debated whether the homeowners should install straw waddles and add material to level the land’s contours. Some commission members emphasized the importance of not overburdening residents with regulations for minimal impact activities within their properties.

In a similar vein, the commission discussed a request from residents who wanted to fill a depression in their backyard. Due to the sandy nature of the terrain, there was a debate on the suitability of bringing in soil and the need to establish sustainable growth. To mitigate erosion, the placement of straw waddles was suggested. A site visit was scheduled to further assess the property and discuss special conditions. The commission expressed a desire to work cooperatively with homeowners to alleviate any stress caused by the regulatory process.

Furthermore, the commission addressed a resident’s request to remove trees near their property, citing concerns about root damage to the foundation and proximity to electrical wires. The resident explained their plan to replace the cottage and the associated risks posed by the trees. The commission acknowledged the need to consider the request in future meetings.

A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to a property with a deteriorating house where the owner sought permission to remove trees to facilitate a rebuild. The owner shared worries about the house’s foundation, which had settled and developed cracks. The discussion focused on whether the removal of the trees was necessary, considering both the safety hazards they presented and the potential environmental impact on the nearby slope and Vinton Pond. Commission members voiced differing opinions on the matter, with some suggesting that the compromised trees warranted removal. The property owner discussed the involvement of a general contractor and the complexities of the rebuilding process, expressing frustration with the length of the approval process. A site visit was planned, and the commission decided to hold the following meeting virtually.

In addition to these specific property concerns, the commission addressed a violation involving a $100 fine for a property owner’s failure to maintain a silt fence and sent a letter to another property owner regarding trash and debris on conservation land. The issue of ATV use on conservation land and the need for clear property boundaries were also debated.