During the meeting, a significant topic of discussion revolved around the removal of an increasing number of trees within a 100-foot buffer zone, which raised concerns among the commission members. The conversation highlighted that the number of trees proposed for removal had escalated from the initial estimate. One member expressed the need for another site visit to reassess the situation, stating, “I personally would like to go to gy just to see what are the trees,” indicating the importance of visually confirming the trees slated for removal.

The chairman acknowledged this desire. It was proposed that the member responsible for the project would mark the trees slated for removal, providing a list that included details such as species, height, and condition. This would help clarify the rationale for each tree’s removal. One member emphasized the importance of understanding the condition of the trees, mentioning, “if I see general… the general condition for example if I see trees that are bug infested or trees that are split by lightning,” indicating that some trees might pose safety risks and warrant removal.

The discussion also highlighted concerns about the significant increase in the number of trees proposed for removal, with one member noting, “we’re near the 35… now we’re at 40,” underscoring the unease regarding the change from the initial plan. Another member reiterated the importance of seeing the marked trees to assess their condition and understand the justification for the increased removal. The potential presence of endangered species in the area was also raised, adding another layer of complexity to the decision-making process.

Members expressed frustration with the timeline, emphasizing the urgency of addressing hazardous trees, particularly those that could pose risks during storms. One member voiced a specific concern about a large branch that could fall during a thunderstorm, stating, “every time it sways back and forth understanding you’re adamant to getting the job done.” This member was particularly focused on expediting the process of tree removal for safety reasons.

The conversation also delved into the responsibilities of the commission, with one member reminding others, “as a board or Commission of this town, we need to be mindful of liabilities of granting permits.” The discussion included reflections on past experiences where insufficient due diligence led to complications. Members acknowledged the need to approach the situation carefully, stating, “it isn’t our makeup to hold people up… but when you went from this to that it deviated in a large amount of tree removal.”

The commission agreed to schedule a site visit prior to the next meeting, with plans to reconvene on September 11th. The expectation was that the site visit would clarify the situation and enable a more informed decision regarding the tree removals. It was underscored that the commission needed to act responsibly, with one member stating, “it’s irresponsible to as commissioner to make this is a big responsibility for us,” highlighting the weight of their decision-making responsibilities given the potential implications for both the homeowners and the environment.

In addition to the tree removal debate, the commission discussed various other agenda items. A notable topic was a proposed extension of a drainage pipe on Pittsburgh Road, part of a public storm drainage project. Concerns were raised about the condition of the existing concrete structure and the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) lack of comments on the project, which was unusual. A member remarked, “I can’t believe they did say anything; it’s rare.” The commission agreed on the necessity of a preconstruction meeting to ensure compliance with erosion control measures, but no additional stipulations were deemed necessary.

Another discussion involved a seasonal dock installation at Vitten Pond. The Department of Public Services (DPS) advised the commission to verify the presence of a bordering vegetated wetland at the pond’s edge. The commission requested a scaled sketch plan depicting the dock’s proposed location and existing conditions. The technical aspects of dock installation, including anchoring and environmental impacts, were scrutinized, and the commission issued standard conditions for the project with unanimous approval.

Additionally, the commission addressed a request for a septic replacement project on Canal Street. The applicant presented details about the existing five-bedroom house with a failed septic system and the proposed replacement within the riverfront area. The commission unanimously approved the project after a thorough discussion on compliance and environmental impact.