06:04One of the central topics was the enforcement order related to unauthorized tree removal on Exchange Street. The commission outlined the details of the violation, which involved the unpermitted removal of trees in January. The property owner had been scheduled for a wetland delineation in early May, and the commission mandated a restoration plan submission by May 21, with a follow-up discussion slated for June 3. The enforcement order included a cease-and-desist directive for any further activities impacting the buffer zone and required a detailed site plan showing where trees and vegetation were removed. The commission members, after a brief discussion, unanimously agreed to issue the enforcement order.

08:46In another discussion, the commission addressed violations on Oakhurst Road, where a homeowner had conducted unpermitted work involving the removal of a dock and installation of a new retaining wall. The commission required sketch plans depicting the property before and after the alterations. During the meeting, the homeowner provided clarifications and expressed a willingness to comply with the commission’s requirements, including the proper staking down of erosion control measures and improving documentation. The commission emphasized the importance of comprehensive plans that include all modifications and future actions necessary, highlighting the need for appropriate plantings to protect the waterfront.

40:38Further scrutiny was given to the proposed installation of a water line by Bay Path Humane Society on Fruit Street. Elizabeth, a representative from Bay Path, discussed the organization’s ongoing efforts to expand their facility, supported by substantial fundraising efforts. The commission reviewed the proposal, which involved connecting a water line from a main on Pratt Way to the new facility, with assurances that no trees or woody vegetation would be removed. Joe, a commission member, provided observations after reviewing the wetland delineation and raised questions about potential vernal pools and the presence of non-native plants in the landscape plan. The commission agreed that further investigation was necessary, particularly concerning potential vernal pools, and emphasized the importance of filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to formalize the work and ensure compliance with environmental regulations.

34:44The meeting also covered a proposed amendment to a Notice of Intent related to an intermittent stream crossing for a new school entrance driveway. Claire Hogabone, a wetland scientist, represented the applicant and detailed the identification of a newly discovered intermittent stream. The project team proposed amendments to reflect these features accurately, with assurances that only native plantings would be introduced within the buffer zones. The commission members reviewed the revised information and found no issues, though they reiterated the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to proper procedures.

29:31A separate discussion focused on a proposal involving significant modifications to a previously filed NOI, particularly concerning disturbances within the riverfront area related to a septic system design. The applicant requested a waiver for the placement of a driveway within the 50-foot buffer zone, asserting it was permissible under town regulations. Commission members expressed concerns about the project’s scale and its implications for the limited buildable area.

58:50The commission also examined jurisdictional areas relevant to an ANRAD application, discussing isolated wetlands and the significance of elevation in determining water retention. Concerns were raised about potential vernal pools within the wetlands, and the applicant clarified the absence of a hydrological connection between two isolated wetlands. The commission emphasized the importance of accurate mapping and the potential need to include buffer lines for vernal pools in future plans.