16:37The most pressing topic of the meeting was the ongoing enforcement order for a property on Powers Road, where unpermitted grading and filling in a buffer zone had occurred. The commission discussed a detailed restoration plan, which included the excavation of the area and the implementation of a meadow mix seeding near wetlands. This plan was intended to stabilize the soil and support plant growth throughout the season. The commission recommended installing straw waddles at the slope’s base to enhance protection against erosion. Additionally, a vegetative barrier of dogwood, blueberry, and Winterberry was proposed between designated flags to buffer against water flow. The commission emphasized the necessity for a thorough inspection of the fill’s stability before proceeding with grading and planting.

The presence of a storage container on the property sparked debate over its compliance with wetland regulations. Although the container was reportedly added post-purchase, it required relocation away from the buffer zone. The commission considered whether to mandate its removal or permit a temporary structure, with conditions for its eventual removal within six months. The urgency of moving the container was underscored by its proximity to the 50-foot buffer zone and the need to finalize restoration plans. The commission planned to commence restoration activities by mid-April, contingent upon weather conditions, and prioritized the container’s relocation as an initial step.

32:39Another discussion revolved around the reconstruction of a shed and dock on Sarah Indian Way. John Brooks, the property owner, presented two alternatives for the shed’s reconstruction, focusing on erosion control measures related to soil excavation. The commission stressed the importance of preventing materials from being stored near the pond to avoid erosion and vegetation damage. Brooks’s proposal to move the shed upland sparked a requirement for a stabilization plan to be approved by a conservation agent. His alternative plan, which included natural elements for stabilization, faced scrutiny over its potential effectiveness. The commission explored the use of erosion mulch for added stability and discussed the implementation of a linear drain to manage roof runoff. Public comments highlighted concerns about the drainage plan’s specifics, prompting further clarifications on its design.

47:31Public commentary, particularly from Paula Foresight-Torielli, raised additional concerns over the accuracy of architectural drawings and the proposed dimensions of the shed. Foresight-Torielli questioned the communication of changes in the shed’s size and its compliance with setback requirements. Brooks addressed these concerns by affirming that the new plan was to scale and complied with the necessary setbacks. He explained the alterations from the original shed dimensions were required to meet regulations, justifying the inclusion of a porch and stairs for safety reasons.

0:10The meeting also featured administrative matters, including updates on the hiring process for an assistant conservation agent and the potential shift to in-person meetings after March 31. The commission discussed the challenges of hiring a candidate who preferred a 25-hour work week, given the potential for the position to require up to 40 hours. The members also deliberated on the legislative process governing virtual meeting regulations, with a decision forthcoming that would impact the commission’s meeting format.

32:39The commission addressed a request for determination of applicability for a shed and dock reconstruction on Sarah Indian Way, with Brooks presenting slides and detailing the project. The commission was keen to ensure that all stabilization and drainage plans were comprehensive and effective in preventing future erosion and runoff issues.

Public hearings on other development projects were also on the agenda. The commission dealt with a request for a shed and dock reconstruction on Sarah Indian Way, considering erosion control and stabilization plans. Public comments from Foresight-Torielli raised concerns over the accuracy of architectural drawings, prompting Brooks to clarify compliance with setback requirements. The commission closed the public hearing with a unanimous vote to issue a determination of applicability.