The most notable development during the meeting was the commission’s unanimous approval of a new guidance document for managing unpermitted docks, piers, and floats. The decision followed a discussion about the prevalence of unpermitted docks in Kingston, some of which have been in place for many years, while others are relatively new additions. This issue has been a longstanding concern for the commission, given the potential ecological impact these structures may have on local waterways.

The newly approved policy sets a revised cut-off date of January 1, 2015, for determining which docks will require permits. This decision replaces the previously proposed date of January 1, 2010, and reflects a more current approach to enforcement. The policy includes a two-year grace period for permitting docks constructed between January 1, 2010, and the policy’s issuance, during which local filing fees will be waived. This grace period aims to encourage compliance without imposing immediate financial burdens on dock owners. However, the commission emphasized that enforcement actions could still be taken in special cases where docks pose environmental risks.

Discussion of the policy also highlighted the commission’s efforts to standardize their approach based on practices from other towns. The agent clarified that this guidance does not constitute a change in regulations and does not require a public hearing notice, serving instead as an internal framework for addressing unpermitted docks. The commission retains the discretion to amend or rescind the policy as needed.

Another topic was the proposed construction on Indian Pond Road, which includes an accessory dwelling unit, decks, a hot tub, and a septic system upgrade within the 100-foot buffer zone to inland wetland resources. The commission expressed several concerns, particularly the project’s compliance with the Kingston Wetland Protection Regulations (KWPR). Notably, the existing house is only 16 feet from the wetlands, and the proposed additions would infringe further into the protected buffer zone, violating local standards.

Additional issues raised by the commission included the absence of FEMA flood zone and wetland setback lines on the submitted plans, as well as the potential presence of a stream that could influence jurisdictional boundaries and necessary setbacks. The commission stressed the importance of proper documentation and thorough investigation to address these deficiencies before moving forward with the project. A motion to deny the proposal was passed, citing incomplete plans and failure to meet regulatory guidelines.

The meeting also addressed ongoing enforcement actions at multiple properties, focusing on compliance with environmental regulations. At 176 Main Street, the commission recognized a violation involving the clearing of vegetation near a freshwater marsh. The landowner was commended for their cooperative efforts to remediate the situation, with erosion control measures already in place and a restoration plan underway.

Similarly, enforcement issues were discussed concerning a property near a vernal pool, where landscaping practices raised concerns about potential contamination. The commission underscored the importance of a site visit to assess the situation firsthand and determine appropriate measures to protect the resource area. The conversation highlighted the need for clear communication and adherence to wetland protection regulations, particularly regarding the application of fertilizers and pesticides.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on legislative matters, specifically the Massachusetts Ready Act, which proposes changes to the Wetlands Protection Act. The commission expressed concerns about potential implications for local oversight and ecological protections. A vote was taken to draft a letter on behalf of the commission, advocating for the removal of concerning language from the act and emphasizing the importance of preserving local authority in environmental decision-making.