um okay so this is the uh April 30th 2024 meeting of the Hopkinson Conservation Commission and I'll kick it off with the remote meeting script pursuant the chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public May access the meeting via virtual means participants may ask access this meeting through the remote meeting link is posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when when requested or required by law or Allowed by the chair persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting May do so by raising a hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak this meeting is being recorded by hcam please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair we now confirm attendance of members and staff please respond with present if you're on the call uh Melissa present Ed Ed is present Matt present uh Jim I don't believe is on the call and Ted and Janine aren't joining the meeting tonight but we have a quorum so um we can proceed and then for staff Kim present Anna present and Joe with Lucas environmental present okay great Jeff Jim is in in Carol and he's gonna try to get in but he doesn't know okay perfect thanks Ed for the update um okay so let's see we'll start off with the work session items we have no documents for review tonight uh no draft minutes for review which takes us to one Fox Hollow Road this is a minor plan change request or minor project change request for um Mr saki so Kim do you want to give us a little bit of background sure so um this is the last undeveloped lot in the subdivision um so right now we're looking at the original plan that was approved by the Conservation Commission it's a single family home with Associated driveway and septic uh you'll see here in this lower Yellow Line This is the 100t buffer to bvw and then this line that's closer to the house this is a 125 foot no disturb line to Vernal pool the applicant is requesting a minor plan change so here are [Music] our updated plans so the orientation of the house was adjusted and subsequently the septic system had to be moved into the front of the house versus the back and at this point the applicant needs to gain access to the back of the house to um come into compliance with the Board of Health there's a really deep slope that kind of slopes down to this Wetland area and then this is the edge of their property so this is actually subur Valley trustees property so the applicant is proposing a temporary Access Road shown here which is beyond the current limit of work so that they can access this area back here additionally uh because there was a change in the orientation of the home and the septic system accordingly the applicant is asking for a minor plan change to accommodate additional grading associated with the driveway location which also needed to be changed to um accommodate those those field changes so the applicant is offering two options this is option one which includes uh grading out the driveway from this steep drop and then the second option includes some retaining walls so it limits the the grading a little bit more um you know it limits the pushing into the buffer zone and the veral pool buffer we still have that temporary Access Road shown and um I think I'm you know I'll pass it I believe Tony Esposito who is the applicants engineer is on the call so um with that I would probably pass it to him for some more additional details okay great thank you Kim uh Mr Esposito are you on the call I am here uh good evening uh good evening um it is a uh honor and a privilege to be in front of the Hopkinson Conservation Commission this evening um Kim made a a very quick summary about uh you know what we're trying to do and the applicants asked me to provide you with these two options uh basically to feel out the commission um as to what they prefer what has worked historically in town and so on and so forth while I completely understand that it's up to the applicant to propose to the commission what they want to do uh this is kind of a let's have some feedback type of situation um in the first page we just show the uh the what we believe is the worst case scenario for the access road as if we would be going with the rip wrap 2 to1 slope option uh which even though it's the rip wrap option some retaining wall and option one will still be required mostly along the abing line to the conservation land because at 2: one we might need a grading easement into the other land and there was some uh discussion that that is a conservation uh lot if you will and that it would be better if it was left as natural as possible um the access road hugs that lot line for very simple reason the the house is erect uh it's not quite finished inside to the best of my knowledge and I have to cut back the grade the rough grading of the driveway temporarily to get the access road so we can access the back and start doing the preliminary the the work that needs to be done to still comply with even the previous order condition I.E the drainage system that was proposed for the front is now proposed for the back little grading to flatten out the slope and back to support the drainage system and then we work our way out and start working on the grading for the driveway uh in a counterclockwise if you will uh route and uh we the contractor previously thought that he could go on the uh as you're facing the house to the right side of the house for an additional access the building contractor or the general contractor said I have concerns about the foundation even though he thinks he can make it so basically with the constructed Swale in the drainage easement as you see in a cross-hatched area uh that was uh constructed actually by the G at the request of the neighbors whether they did it through a homeowners association or just a neighbor group uh and that limited his access to the rear so uh the 2:1 slope is close to the Wetland it has a little bit more disturbance within the 100 option three is about anywhere from 50% to May maybe uh double a cost of uh based on preliminary pricing I got from cont contractors that's a segmental wall in two tiers in option two uh what we will do is we we grade a 5- foot area that's about 2% shedding away from the driveway with a fence and curbing so any car that happens to come into the driveway a little fast dur in the winter and have to catch some ice there's something for the car to hit before it topples over into the Wetland so we had to put some safety features and which extended the grading out into the buffer zones two- tiered walls are approximately four feet in height and uh there the wall provider on the plans right now I believe is their name is ideal but there is or an or equal option uh for segmental walls uh to you know basically construct the wall it going to have to be reinforced with a plastic membrane uh so going that would be going back towards Fox Hollow Road so if we were to go to option two we can reduce slightly the access road a little but we wanted to show uh we wanted to show the on sheet one the maximum we think we we need we also line the edge of that access road with erosion control uh hay Bal Sil fence straw Waddles whatever the commission finds most appropriate for a site like this um all right what else do I need to mention uh so I I think that gives us a kind of a good overview Mr Esposito so a couple things um thank you for the uh summary of the uh scope that you guys are uh the different Scopes that you're contemplating I guess from a commission standpoint you know the option that minimizes impacts to the wetlands and buffer zones is the is the option that you know we desire um secondly I will say that there's some pretty significant modifications that are being made to the site um that weren't addressed in the original order of conditions um you know the dra the the foundation shift of the house the drainage system being shifted to the back of the house uh the temporary access road to get to the back of the house um you know the the grading and the retaining wall um and regarding the easement you know associated with the grading you know the conservation restriction is held by the Sudbury Valley trustees I think it's going to be a very high hurdle for you to guys to to to get them to allow you to get access to that property um uh you know associated with in easement so I'll just give you the heads up on that if you want to you know if you want to go down that road you certainly um that that's you know your prerogative but I think it'll be a challenge um so having said all that you know I think that a minor plan change request is inappropriate in this case you know I think we're looking at an amended or um you know notice of intent and that's my view I'll open it up to Kim and the other commission members for their input je this is Melissa um I would agree with everything you said that's this is a significant change um to the original original order so I think um yeah it's not a I wouldn't classify it as a minor modific ification um and I I don't think we can we can consider um any alternative that involves the adjacent property without that agreement being worked out either the easement you're referring to Melissa correct y okay okay thank you Ed Matt I have a two I guess two comments one of which is um which I think you've more or less alluded to this is a huge change in what we originally approved and to have made all these changes with no notification to the concom until after the fact and to not have done this behind the house construction work before it was inaccessible um is I I don't think they've done the work yet Ed I I thought I understood the house was I think the I think the house foundation and the structure is being built but as far as the retaining walls and the yeah yeah yeah yeah I understand that but what I'm saying is they they have boxed themselves into a corner right got it okay asking us to to bail them out that's all got it I would tend to agree with with uh with what's being said I haven't seen the original plan but from what everyone's describing this is a fairly substantial change from what you guys had originally approved prior to me joining the commission so it sounds like an amended order is appropriate thank you Matt okay um Kim Joe did you have anything to add no additional comments for me it's um an amended order is consistent with the commission's General policy that additional impacts result in um amendments thank you um so does that make sense U Mr Esposito uh well I I have a question does are you saying that the applicant must file for a new notice of intent and Order of conditions is that the direction you're going in yes it would be an amended uh notice of intent correct so that means the whole nine yards a Butter's list and so on and so forth as if it was a original filing that true correct okay to the chair H yes Kim yeah Mr ESO I would say you know you already have a plan you already have plans right um then the the amended order I would say is a little bit different um a little bit easier and I can walk you through um but it is opening up the order again and and going through that that hearing process yep through the chair I I've filed notice of intents I can't remember if I've ever filed for an amended order at least not by myself so uh I may need a little walkth through um yeah there they're a little bit more straightforward than the full notice of intent um you know you do have to go through the notification process again the public notification uh but you know feel free to reach out to the office with any questions and you know Kim and Anna can assist you okay um just to be clear this the plans I have before you there was no intent to access the conservation land okay all right I and we know we can't drive over the easement because not unless we cover it up and because there's drainage SES and rip wrap and all that there not unless we bury it and then uh and then rebuild it that would be our option just to you know get around the nap location uh P of the driveway as well that we have to abide by yeah my apologies I thought I heard in your narrative that you said that you know if you were to do the retaining wall that you might have to access the um Conservation Area to to do that so I misunderstood my apologies so that's a good thing I don't I don't think I I don't think that uh is worth going after but you know it someone else on the team will have to do that negoti yeah I would agree that you know um if you can avoid it that's probably the uh you know the best way to do it uh because I think the negotiation is very Valley trusty so it's not a hopkington entity yeah um even though it's in hopkington and um I think it would just be a kind of a protracted process for you guys so if you can avoid it you know that would be the commission's recommendation okay any other [Music] questions uh nope so I think Kim from a procedural standpoint um uh does the original notice or order conditions uh I guess it doesn't need to be retracted right um they can just file the amended noi yep we just work I'll work with uh the project team to get the uh amended and filed okay all I just want to make sure that they don't have to do anything um no and the commission doesn't need to take any formal action on this request either got it um okay it looks like you have a um comment from the public uh yes do we have any comments from the public yeah hello uh this is uh V and SII from one fox h Road yes good evening sir yeah hi good evening uh thank you everyone for uh your suggestions uh thank you Tony for the presentation uh so uh question is like um so what are the changes that are required for order of conditions uh should we appear before the board again for the next meeting uh it probably won't be the next meeting but you can um so there's more permitting because of the scope of the changes on the projects Mr saki it doesn't qualify for a minor plan change it has to be an amended notice of intent U so there'll need to be a new filing for that it'll take a little bit of time for your consultant to pull that together um so you know if you can if you can do that fairly quickly I would say you know you'll be before the commission possibly in June again I think our May meetings are going to be a little bit of a stretch you to pull all that together and you have to do the public notice of course so um you know I think I think you uh y so I go ahead uh no so we uh the construction is also going on uh pretty slow uh and then so we are actually um uh so we we we we are relying on a A lender to fund the project so there is a uh like a uh notice from the that the project needs to be finished in certain time um so uh like what would be the process to expedite the things uh so we're just wondering what uh the process would be to have your consultant pull the application together as quickly as possible and submit it to our office okay so uh that means Tony right uh yes okay okay all right um yeah okay so uh I I'll touch B with Tony and then okay and and and Mr espito you know as we said in the hearing is welcome to reach out to Kim or Anna if uh you know if you folks have any additional questions okay yeah thank you everyone y uh thank you sir any other comments questions from the public okay we'll move along with the new hearings um what's the time check here let's see 7:25 okay so we have um 22 West Elm Street this is a request for determination of applicability for an above ground pool in deck so I'll open the hearing officially the hopin the Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday April 30th 2024 at 7 virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by Eric prisbe and if I mispronounce that I apologize to install an above ground pool and replace a deck with a patio the location is 22 West domm Street assessors map R22 block 212 lot zero okay do we have a consultant or the applicant on the call uh I am here uh Derek shitz but close on the the last name I know it's a tough one wouldn't want to have to uh spell that if I was your teacher yeah um so there is um I'll say four parts to the project right so I'll start on the the front walkway so right now it's blue stone that's degrading and the idea is to just replace the blue stone uh that's pretty simple but it is within the the 50 Feet um and then moving around to the side of the property uh that walkway with was damaged with the plow um so the idea is we're going to fix that again there's the grading with the the old stones and replace those stones which um moves to the back where the pool would be um and I know there was a few questions so I'll try to address them as I go so um one question was about back washing or draining so the idea with the pool is that it will be backwashed or drained to the Northeast east side of the property so that way it stays away from the uh Wetlands um and then the deck and patio area would also be kind of redone at the same time um with the same patio stones and then a sitting wall around the Pao will be um created okay and then there was a question about straw Waddles which I'm not opposed to putting in for the installation to make uh installation of the the patio as well as the pool to make sure that there's nothing that leeches over to the Wetland area um there was a question about the stakes on the northwest side near the deck so if you look at the um position of the wall that extends out from the deck it it is angled um and the reason for that is the septic tank is there so we had to angle that wall to avoid the septic tank the stakes that are on the property are the um rough marks of the septic tank um and then the last part is Landscaping which along the seating wall would be native plants uh there's a question of which plants uh we haven't finalized that yet um we plan on working with Weston Nursery um to put native plants in there um that are flowering for pollinators and things like that okay all right that sounds good um so Joe did you want to go through your comments on the uh permit application please uh sure um I think uh a number of the comments were were just addressed by the applicant but um I got a couple more that I just want to mention um I did the delineation and was in general agreement with almost all the flags just a couple that I thought um were were a little bit low um flags a23 and uh A3 and A4 um none of those would impact the uh buffer zone uh where work is being proposed um so that that's not uh very impactful and I thought those were off by only maybe uh four to six feet at most um uh the applicant addressed the question on what was Stak uh Northwest of the deck area just as a general comment on resource areas there is a stream um intermittent stream interior to the BBW um it is intermittent based on um mapping and stream stats so there is no Riverfront area present so that's not showed on the plan correct it's not correct it's it's interior to the to the uh BBW okay so that wouldn't be um confirmed on the plan the the uh intermittent stream corre um administratively I didn't see the RDA filing checklist in the material reviewed or the Bop calculation worksheet I'm not sure if those were submitted or not um and the minor issue latitude and longitude were were um were off on the uh the uh WPA form one by about almost a th000 feet um commission may want the cor coric coordinates uh for the project uh provided uh the applicant addressed the native shrubs or native plant list um and I did notice that the second page of the the certified AB Butters list seemed to be missing from the application U material that I reviewed um and I thought that should be submitted just to be sure that all the uh abutters were properly notified and the applicant addressed the comment on U the back wash or draining um and that sounds like it's going away from the Wetland which is appropriate the uh Elon noted that the uh existing conditions plan is dated February 27th 24 uh whereas the um delineation report the Wetland border report was dated uh stated that the delineation was done in March so I don't know if the uh plan is is dated correctly because it does show the the delineation that apparently occurred after the plan was was U prepared and and uh had mentioned the erosion control barrier which the uh applicant addressed so I don't have any further comments at this point okay um so looks like the comments were addressed Kim was the application complete as far as you're aware in terms of some of the Joe didn't get the review it apparently the abuts notification list and the RDA checklist did that look yeah I didn't catch I didn't catch the Butters maybe if Derek could just um resend that over to Me Maybe the second page got cut off um for whatever reason but um you know the we have the affidavit I know that the butters list was certified so I'm sure it's there um I feel okay about the the other items um I can get the latitude and longitude on the on the any form that we decide to issue okay all right questions or comments from commission members nope questions or comments from the public okay I think we can take a vote on this one cam it sounds like um and Janine's coming into the waiting room now or to the meeting uh so if I can get a motion to um issue a negative request for determination of applicability we're 22 West Dome Street who the chair uh yes Kim did you mean to issue that with the conditions for Native plantings backwash away from the Wetland and installation of erosion controls they absolutely did thank you so moved and a second I'll second all right we'll do the roll Melissa hi Matt hi Ed Hi and um and I and jeanine's on the call but since she missed most of the hearing I abstain she'll abstain okay all right thank you sir you good to go oh wait wait wait I just want I just wanted to say to Derek if he hasn't left yet that um he uh completed the application himself and it was if not the best second best homeowner application I have ever received it was obvious that he did a lot of research into what it is that we do um so I just wanted to say kudos to you so he gets a sticker on his report card it was a really great report honestly all right yeah okay nice job Derek thank you through the chair my headphones disconnected for a second did you also include a signature page um uh when's on next meeting here the 21st good call Anna yeah uh can I get a motion to have um Kim sign on behalf of the members present please so add second we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Matt hi Ed hi and Jeff is an i Janine I'm still I'll obain okay okay great thank you all right so moving along open play Zero East Main Street this is a notice of intent for commercial building um in recreational sport courts uh the applicant has requested a continuation to May 21st but I have to uh open the hearing hington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday April 30th 2024 at 7:00 p.m. virtu online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by open Play to construct a commercial building Recreational Sports courts and Associated site work the location is zero East Main Street assesses map Bar 14 block n lot D and can I get a motion to continue this until May 21st please moved all right and we'll do the roll call vote Melissa hi Janine hi Matt hi Ed I and I'm an i okay Mass labor is training trust fund um 37 East Street this is a notice of intent for the cola building uh parking lot and drainage uh repairs good evening Mr chairman this is Scott g g Consulting how are you this evening good Mr G I just have to open this up um formally before we uh have you jump in uh if you can bear with me for a second I gotta find the upington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday April 30th 2024 at 7 virtually online to hear all person interest and notice of intent followed by mass Labor's training trust fund for the COA building entrance upgrades parking lot and drainage system improvements with Associated site work the location is 37 East Street assessors map R20 block 10 lot zero okay thank you go ahead Mr G yeah good evening thank you so uh I'm here on behalf of the the the applicant which is the New England Labor Training Center George Connors is also online from Conor Stone engineering John Rine who's the architect is also online so you have everybody here who might be um you know questioned on this project in any way the only thing administratively that we lack for this evening is a d file number we have inquired with the the D about getting the file number um I'm sure you know they've been a bit a bit behind on their file number issuances as of late uh other other than that I think we have a fairly straightforward application and I hope we can wrap up any issues this evening this application is not something new to the board you saw this a few months ago when we were before you with a request for determination of applicability it was determined that a notice of intent was more appropriate uh so we withdrew the RDA and we're back before you with a notice of intent the scope of activity is fairly minor it falls within Riverfront area and buffer zone but this is all kind of within an existing developed infrastructure area it's largely hardscaping Landscaping type issues that we're proposing uh to have happen on the site so on the left side of your screen is all the work within the 100 to 200 foot Riverfront area that exists out there today so everything in red is impervious surfaces and everything outside of the red is really landscaped areas uh for the most part except for when you get close to the Wetland on the um upper right part of the screen it is wooded and naturalized in that area more or less we are proposing to remove some of that pavement so there's about 530 Square ft of of removal of impervious surface so there's a reduction in the impervious surface on the site that's a pretty straightforward request I believe under the riverfront Redevelopment regulations um in addition the applicant is voluntarily per proposing some storm water management with collection of the storm water along that stretch of roadway with a storm scepter unit for some water quality control and a discharge into the wooded area with the clean runoff as of right now there's nothing if you go out there it just it just sheet flows off of the the pavement and all into the into the brook and the Wetland so so any storm water management is an improvement over what is there today I think by the letter of the law under the riverfront Area Redevelopment standards we don't need to propose the storm water management improvements simply just removal of Pavement in and of itself is considered a benefit both to the functions and values of repairing zones um including storm water because now there's more available area for infiltration but nevertheless we have included those voluntary upgrades and that work does take place within the buffer zone which is the only place to discharge the water which is already going in that direction we got a peer rreview letter dated April 24th 2024 from Lucas environmental there's a it's it's a couple pages long I read through it uh and I mean I don't want to speak for joob I don't think there's anything in here that's really substantive that would change the request uh that's before you uh on page two it talks about being in in general agreement with the Wetland delineation there was one small tweak to mean annual high water flag B4 which is on the upper part of your screen um no no that's the Wetland flag if you go to MW B4 which is right where the arrows y right around there so there was a request to tweak that one flag which if we even if we tweaked it a couple feed it wouldn't change anything with respect to the request um there was a request on the top of Page Three for some kind of a documentation about total degraded area on site maybe looking at the site in a more holistic approach that is I will say of all the comments I think that's the one that I I might feel a bit differently on in that I think for a fairly this is a large property with a lot of infastructure going on and I think quantifying everything going on in the site within River Front zones would be a bit honorous for the scope of this application I think the river and I think the riverfront Redevelopment standards allow isolated projects like this to take place knowing that they by themselves represent improvements to the riverfront function functions so I'd request that we don't need to satisfy that request of Lucas everything else is pretty small there was a just recognizing that there's a couple of small white pine trees where the outfall is going we're proposing to restore that area with Native seaing which I believe is appropriate for the area um what else was there was a comment about the fee at the bottom of page that was resolved with Kim uh checklist for completeness is all sense all makes sense the the last thing is on page four of of Joe's review letter there is bullet point number three which is an ABCD four minor plan change requests these all are very very very minor and very reasonable I don't think they would be necessary for the commission to close and vote on this but um you know we can certainly submit a modified plan that reflects those four notes one is the labeling of the blsf line not that's if you look right near the Wetland Edge elevation 239 that Boulder line that's that's the blsf line or flood plane line which doesn't have that designation on the plan true not sure it's needed because no Works proposed within it so I think that comment could go without the the second one is about whether or not pibs are necessary I think in this particular case I don't see the need for them this is all kind of existing um infrastructure out there there was a comment C about the general notes on the plan asking for clarification on uh who performed the Wetland delineation and that the the citation of the aerial photogrametry with the with the date of that and all I mean those are some typos I suppose that could be that could be adjusted and D makes reference to citing straw bale instead of hay bales under the erosion and sediment controls which is reasonable and certainly I think that that one there for sure could be conditioned by the by the board so I think that more or less hits the the main points from Joe's letter I don't see anything there that that you know kind of is a showstopper I think this is a minor project and I'd like to see us Advance this conversation tonight hopefully to the point of closure if not darn close to it and it I I know many commissions have a practice of not closing public hearings without a d file number so that can be discussed it is possible you could close it subject to the N file number coming in within prior to the next hearing for issuance but I'll put it back to the the commission with that before you but maybe Kim the the yellow plan on yellow and red plan might be the better one for graphical depiction there we go all right thank okay great thank you Mr godded um so yes the the hopkington Conservation Commission has adopted the policy of not um issuing um or or closing until we have a d file number just so you're aware of that y but I think we can get pretty close um in our conversation tonight so let me just uh give Joe the opportunity to respond and Joe um you know let's just kind of touch on the you know the high level things here I don't want to go Bullet by bullet through kind of the administrative type Ticky Tac stuff you know maybe if you can respond to um the uh um you know the cumulative impact comment the Alternatives analysis whether you know you feel that's sufficient um and I guess you know in general you know question the back of my mind Mr G is you know you're proposing to cut down you know some fairly large trees out there you know I guess after Joe's done maybe you can just respond you know is that necessary um if it is you know I'd like to hear that but is it you know is there an opportunity to avoid that if we can so Joe if you don't uh mind jumping in sure um just initially regarding the comment of our comment on the flag change I did have a chance to go back out there and look at that flag with some lower water levels and I think it's probably um you know 12 to 15 feet low of the mean high water line but the buffer zone um is or the inner riparian zone is about 100 feet or I mean 30 from the U proposed work so it wouldn't impact the proposed limit of work just wanted to mention that okay great thank you with the uh uh comment regarding the table um if I recall we have uh the commission has requested that previously of projects on uh the laborers uh site uh when there's work in the riverfront area so I think there's um uh there may be something that has been submitted previously that has everything totaled up to this point um I think seeing as it is it is one lot and there is a lot of uh activity that has occurred within the riverfront area even though most of it is in um degraded or developed area you know an upto-date table might be uh useful for the commission um maybe not so much for for this project but for one another one comes down down the uh the platee um as as you had mentioned the uh uh trees that are being proposed to cut there are several larger trees noted in the uh application um for uh live White Pines ranging from 18 to 22 inches um with regards to the Alternatives analysis the they uh provide an alternative uh moving the uh storm water Outlet closer to the Wetland but I didn't see anything in there as to why the storm water Outlet couldn't be uh set back a little bit further from the Wetland and possibly avoid some of those larger trees it may be elevation related but there was no discussion of that in the narrative um uh with respect to the plan changes I would agree that most of those are minor items as far as labeling the bordering L up at the flooding um pibs um and the erosion control I think that covers all the ones you'd asked about if not please remind me of any of the other ones you wanted me to to touch on I think that was it um that was what I had on my list Mr a couple quick thoughts to Joe's comments that might help the conversation and then you guys can take it away one one is you know I like I like the idea generally in principle of having a total cumulative amount of Riverfront area for the entire parcel when projects come before you within Riverfront area I would say the next time that there's a proposal to increase in any way degraded surfaces or impervious surfaces within Riverfront area that request makes 100% sense to to demonstrate know the whole you know 10% pre-existing versus new new development Redevelopment all that stuff but when there's a very minor and it's a reduction in impervious surfaces not and not closer to the river that level of detail is automatically Satisfied by the delta in this application so I'd request that that that is a bit onerous relative to the scale and scope of what we have before you but the next time something comes in or if something comes in that increases River Front disturbances absolutely number one number two on the the storm water stuff the storm water scuff is proposed here as a discretionary Improvement the applicant would be happy to not propose it I don't think it's required under the RS I think from the Wetland RS it's considered an improvement and a benefit and that has to be weighed versus the removal there some of those trees are dead but there's a couple alive pine trees in there that outfall has been pulled back as much as it can and still have positive pitch to The outfall so from the storm scepter we have an outfall at elevation 2413 we pulled the outfall to the pipe all the way down to just the 241 so there's only 3/10 of a foot elevation change from the outlet to the scepter to the outlet of the pipe we have to have some pitch and so basically at the earliest point that that uh water can be daylighted through gravity is where the the the rip wrap and the pipe outfall lands so I don't think that any further Al alternates exist in order to still accomplish that gravity feed storm water management um yeah so those are my two comments that hopefully can assist your conver ation chair that's what I assumed on the uh the outfall but it it wasn't mentioned as in the Alternatives as far as why they couldn't pull that back so um yeah that yeah it would be it would be helpful um Mr G to include that in the Alternatives analysis just for you know so the records complete and we understand yep you know why you couldn't do it I I like the storm water improvements that you're proposing there I think that'll be helpful um as far as the cumulative analysis in the riverfront area um you know I think that seems reasonable to me but I'm GNA open up I I'll defer to Kim on that um and you know it seems to make sense that you know in the next phase of you know any type of work at at this site if there's an increase then it would make sense but again you know I'll defer to Kim and I'm going to open up to the other commission members for their comments and questions who the chair uh yes Kim all right I want to touch on both the the storm water and then the cumulative impacts in case I get sidetracked uh so first storm water um I would love to know from our stormw Consultants on the commission I was under the impression that the Redevelopment triggered by um the repavement of the parking lot required uh St water Improvement to the maximum extent practicable under the current ma storm water standards is that is that correct that is correct yes Redevelopment projects requireed to some kind of improvement yeah okay just wanted to verify that so it's not it's not a voluntary you know um Improvement it's required it's yeah you have to demonstrate compliance with I think it's standard two and three to the maximum extent practicable standards 4 six the pre-treatment component and then I want to say it's like eight to a certain degree so there's a maximum extent practicable component to Redevelopment projects within jurisdiction okay thanks Matt thank you Matt um and then the second thing I wanted to touch on was just the cumulative impacts um if we're talking about scale and scope like from my perspective over here as the agent I think we have a filing on on almost every single building in this campus um I'm really you know I'm excited for Laborers Training fund I'm happy that they are having so much investment in Hoppington and that they're having success and that they're able to run these great programs but that being said unfortunately I think the agent before me set a precedent that these projects could be peac Meed and I'm trying to kind of undo that um because imp permitting we think about single incomplete projects obviously practically that can't always happen um because the way the nature of construction but when we evaluate Riverfront area the regulations are clear that it needs to happen cumulatively um so you know I just I do feel like I I'm struggling to really say whether or not um any of the projects meets meets the performance standards and then when accumulative impacts do come in it's not always clear as to how they exactly they were calculated in terms of what we're considering Disturbed permanently temporarily undisturbed um and you know Conor stone is doing all of these projects is the engineer on file so I'm assuming that they have a full campus CAD uh already in place with all the existing projects so I'm not sure that it really would be such a huge lift for them to be able to provide some cumulative impact numbers okay all right Kim um questions or comments from all the commission members um I just have a a general question um going along the theme of the camp looking at the the campus wide is there a um like a campus-wide operation and maintenance plan that this um storm scepter unit kind of gets worked into and cleaned on a routine basis can you talk about that for at all Scott yeah so any on the call really yeah I think I think George Connors is on the call with us might be helpful for him to to chime in on that let me just see if I still see him on the I'm here there are storm scepter on several of the various building sites there are onm for those all approved most of the uh storm water management facilities are uh in in the process of being constructed there are onm for those and there's an o and m for this one as well okay is this and is this property in the Charles River water no no okay George can you comment too on the previous discussion we were having about the ease or difficulty of a cumulative mapping of Riverfront um you know development on this entire property uh up until this particular project there's been cumulative um tabulations of the wetlands impacts including River Zone uh the last project was the uh extension of a gas line through the campus went through existing driveways and under Culver by Directional Drilling and that tabulation has been provided during that process there were some Provisions to the tabulation as the pipeline location changed but there is a uh final uh tabulation of the riverfront area on site up until this particular location which is not a new location I will note that we had agreed sometime in believe it was November or December on a s sidewalk him that we would um do this uh drainage improvements inorder order to expedite the uh little bit of a change at the front of the uh Roya building here it was certainly A system that we were going to try and take it right down to the existing bridge at the river crossing but during that process we brought it back here out of the river Zone because of some uh issues with the review in terms of Riverfront area that has impacted to a greater extent um it is not this particular project that changes that tabulation lesser of an impact so it would be a a change it would just be a a a um you know a decrease in Riverfront area impact yes yeah and I guess deferring to Kim's kind of comment it doesn't sound like it would be too heavy a lift to update that and I guess for um you know maybe a narrative as to um you know the methodology behind those calcul those uh calculations excuse me Kim is that what you had in mind yeah that would be great um okay uh question any other questions or comments from the commission um through the chair I would like to see M mitigation for the healthy trees just as we would require from a homeowner yep good point so we typically you know for the the live trees that are coming down we typically require a two to one replacement was that a question Mr chairman no that was a that was a h statement okay and one quick comment yes Matt there are calculations in the storm water report for the out protection which are great it would be even better if there was an out protection detail included in the plan set okay all right um questions or comments from the public okay so I think um you know we still have to wait until the next meeting for the D um file number to get issued you know I think there's a few more things that need to be addressed which I think are pretty straight forward and uh shouldn't be too heavy of a lift as Kim said so so um did did you have any questions Mr G and Mr Connors before we continue yeah as far as the comments for the plan changes the things that I heard so far were the um Outlet control protections then the cumulative impact numbers on a graphic there were those couple items listed on the Lucas report for additional plan changes the BLS F line can be easily done um the request or the comment about piib is there agreement on that whether or not there's anything needed in that regard um so Kim what what are your thoughts there this is not typically a location where the commission has historically required a p a pib um there's not a lot of activity in that area right I mean it's already kind of like you know um landscaped type area um okay so you don't think we need him I don't think so I mean obviously we always want to encourage um our property owners to be aware of of the Wetland boundary and um you know not dump leaves into it or plow snow into it but um this is definitely a little bit different than you know homeowner's backyard okay um I'll defer to Kim's uh judgment and yeah so I think we have our marching orders we'll work on getting that DP file number and those couple plan tweaks we discussed into you in advance of the next hearing we'll try to stay on d a little bit to make sure that file number comes in and if it if it's we're on a tight uh construction schedule for this would it be if could I make the request that if possible to have a draft order ready for Signature at the next meeting so that then we don't have to wait one additional meeting after that to get a a per in hand we're looking to break ground on this you know very quickly upon I mean with the Laborers Training they're always looking to break ground very quickly I mean it's every application that's the god it I mean come on yeah um I mean I'll defer to cam and an because they have to do the the work and I mean it's really up to may I interject something please sure um we're in the uh final aspect of most most of the work out there on the um the headquarters building and the um train building and uh building out front uh and they're actually starting some Landscaping on those particular U sites so if we'd like to really be out of here this uh summer and I know we keep asking but this Coya building came up as a s of a last minute thing I didn't anticipated project up and it's a fairly small and insignificant project in terms of the work in that area we get it we just have a I mean you know we have a lot of applications before us you know this isn't the only one so you know Kim andan are are you know busy every day uh most of the day you know with the workload that they have so you know I again I'll defer they have to put the draft order together um so you know I'm going to have to defer to Kim whether she's comfortable in agreeing to that or not and not to no okay I'll get I'll give it my best shot I'm I'm 90% confident I gotta leave myself like a smidge of wiggle room though thank you okay um thank you Kim all right uh if I can get a motion to uh continue this hearing until our next meeting May 21st I'll make that motion and a second please yep and we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Janine hi Matt hi Ed I and Jeff is an i okay all right thank you gentlemen all right moving along uh Logan 30 lak sh drive this is a continuation of a notice of intent great uh good evening chairman Barnes members of the commission uh I'm Drew Logan the homeowner um I thought I would uh remind everybody of the last meeting and the improvements that uh we're proposing and then turn it over to Dave Market on to address the items that were noted by uh Lucas environmental as well as the Conservation Commission from uh from the last meeting uh so to kind of recap um The Proposal there's really uh three phases of of this project I'll start with phase one um which is located on the south side of the existing house and that proposal is to um there you go right there there are currently three um tiers of patio with existing uh stone that is in you know various uh phases of disrepair it's it's old uh the house is uh reconstructed and and added on in the late 80s and and hasn't been um hasn't been uh kept up to speed since then so the the the concept here is to go from three tiers to two tiers um uh that would involve retaining wall uh that is on the the the west side there um moving along also uh next to the house and the side of the the lot so um that is U there you go perfect the um the second and third phase of the project uh involved the driveway on the north side of the home this driveway currently is all concrete and it goes all the way to the lake and forms a uh a boat ramp um and again that concrete driveway is is likely you know 40 years old so it's in it's in h pretty bad shape so phase two of the project would be to replace um the the uh area nearest the lake um as you can see on the plans here with uh with cobblestone on either side of the uh the current driveway and then put uh lawn in the center um as I mentioned last time the this is a significant Improvement for the drainage on the lot uh during rainstorms the water comes right down from the street and washes right into the lake and uh this is going to improve not only I think the the beautification for the lot but also will help with uh with storm water drainage and then the phase three would be to just replace the um the rest of the driveway so basically from where you see the red circle there where the papers start uh to the street okay thank you Logan Dave are you uh available to walk through um some of the details yes I am yep uh good evening um good evening just to remind the board uh we had proposed uh three pibs on the Northern side of the property uh last time uh the we have medallions uh installed at three locations uh an oak an oak and an oak um uh Joe had brought up the the question as to uh whether we could add more pibs going easterly uh towards uh Lakes Shore uh there is really no trees available to do that if if the board desires I suppose we could put in uh a 4x4 post short one with with the piib um but there are no uh no more existing trees uh available for us um one of the comments that the board had recommended that we do uh last time was to add a a dry well off of the uh existing porch uh We've provided one that's uh 3 feet deep six foot round uh with stone around it uh that's going to take that down spout nearest the nearest the porch into that location uh a couple comments that Joe had had brought up previously uh have been addressed with the with the flood zone uh through uh uh there you go yep and then uh lab some labeling uh some buffer zone uh ideas uh we had proposed uh three High Bush blueberries uh that we would plant in and around uh the existing plantings in the mulch bed um and um and then I guess one of the concerns we had uh that Joe had brought up I I guess I missed that uh that uh I thought we were dealing with uh a flag number six over by that existing bridge on the Northern side uh where we had uh uh some hydric soils um Joe had mentioned in his letter that uh it went all the way kind of a foot to two to 4 feet off of the existing retainer wall um I was on un sure from Joe whether that went uh on both sides if that was on both sides of the boat ramp or if it was just on that one Northern Edge uh nearest the bridge to the boat ramp um so and then I guess uh in talking with Drew Logan uh we are going to file uh for chapter 91 for the docks uh we were a little unclear as to how we would present uh the existing retaining walls uh file for a wall that um is quite old uh is original and not sure when it was built uh I'm assuming it was in the 60s uh the lot was created 1921 thereabouts so I'm sure the wall has been there for quite some time but uh Mr Logan's uh having us prepare documents for the following with chapter 91 for the two dos okay I think uh and then there was AC cross section of the ramp that was provided as well correct that's correct yep yeah that was one of Matt's comments okay okay I think I'm good um I'll open it up to questions from the commission members changes look good yep I agree thank you okay questions or comments from the public uh yes Kim the only concern I had that I mentioned to uh Mr Logan was that I was slightly concerned that these blue uh blueberries were going to um not survive they like to be a little bit wetter um so if you're amendable um Mr Logan I'm happy to work with you at the time whenever you're ready to do plantings to um find something that be a little bit might have a higher chance of survival there absolutely I'd rather put something die so I appreciate that feedback thank you you're welcome all right thanks Ken okay questions or comments from the public all right and we have an application number so I think we are ready for a vote on this if I can get a motion to close and approve the notice of intent um with the conditions noted um and a signature page please and and the signature please page that Kim will sign on behalf of the members present thank you Anna so moved and second second and then we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Janine hi Ed I Matt I and Jeff is an i all right great thank you folks thank you very much have a good evening thank you all right moving along hopkington Stone and garden 28 Lumber Street this is a continuation of a notice of intent for a commercial building good evening Mr chairman again Scott g g Consulting Wetlands consultant George Connor's engineer from Connor Stone engineering and Doug D wolf from the new from New View who is on with us as well so you have you have the whole team this this project has been going on for some time and um I'm excited to see that we've made substantial progress both in substantive responses to the commission's earlier reviews with supplemental submittals and then a a good and thorough review from Lucas memorandum number two dated April 26 2024 which I think was last Last Friday so Kim is this the plan that has the the two com comparison Maps top to bottom okay good good good maybe just for the time being could you kind of Zoom it out so we can see both at the same time this is a this is a good graphic at a high level and then we can zoom in to the details to show where this project started off and where we are today okay the top graphic is where we started off the bottom graphic is where we are today North is up on your plan South is Down East is to the right West is to the left for orientation purposes so just to refresh memories here all right we have a a site that sits in between Lumber Street and Route 495 to the on the left side of the screen or to the left of the stone wall on the western half of the site you have an elevated more till like material with a high silt content and behind that stone wall that angles on the site plan there is a bvw it's a naturally occurring bvw it runs sort of up and down Lumber Street paralleling Route 495 in that general part of town There's a significant soil change that happens immediately to the east of that stone wall where it enters into a very coarse sand and gravel type of composition okay so everything east of that retaining wall where the soil changed was mind gravel during the Route 495 construction operation going back many decades at this point so everything that we're proposing for development on the site is is in that lower tiered mind portion of the site so that's everything in color right all the way from from the left side of your screen all the way to Lumber Street this is the portion of the site that sits you know several feet measurable feet you know 8 feet or some such thing you know lower than the the left side of the site okay the area where the building is proposed is the area that sits handily above the groundwater table such that it's an nonf flood storage kind of an area the part of the site that is in the irregularly shaped green okay is has been cut into the groundwater table and has developed some Wetland characteristics and has maximum 100-year flooding extent out to the red line which is kind of like a closed loop which would qualify as isolated land subject to flooding so under your and that's both under the state and your bylaw the ilsf so ilsf has has distinctive characteristics for performance standards under the ACT which is where we think we need to start the conversation the state doesn't recognize isolated vegetated Wetland so the benefit of that green area is per your bylaw but the broader red area of isolated land to flooding is a state a state regulated area with two performance standards one is flood control and the other is wildlife habitat so this went we went through an anrad process we went through multiple years of review we were asked on multiple years and multiple times to evaluate this area for Vernal pool conditions that's been done it's been independently reviewed by Europe peer reviewers confirming the absence of veral pool activity within it because of the the gravel composition the water fluctuates fairly rapidly within that lower portion of the Basin so there's it's wet enough near the surface to develop Wetland conditions at times there's standing water it disappears with enough rapidness that it doesn't seem to support the type of amphibian uh habitat that would be indicative of Vernal pool habitat so we have we're more or less dealing with a flooded depression or at least partially flooded depression so if we remove wildlife habitat from the standards of review then we're looking at this being more or less a flood storage analysis it's a little bit different than blsf which is the bordering land subject to flooding where you have to have one foot to one foot incremental and cumulative compensation at every foot as flood waters rise ilsf doesn't have that same measurement of success but the volume of water does have to be accounted for so that there's not increased flooding which can be done in any number of ways further excavations uh in this case subsurface flood storage accounts for part of that okay so what what we did is we moved from up top to where the brown area in the center of your screen encroaches into the isolated Vegeta Wetland by just shy of 5,000 square feet and we reduced that passing Lane to the rear of the medical building narrowed it up enough just for the minimum acceptable width for an emergency vehicle removed the storm water infiltration that was proposed behind the medical facility to tighten that rear lineup as much as could be done which is gives us just over 2,000 ft of ice a vegetative Wetland alteration Now by doing that we still have to under your bylaw compensate at a one and a half to one ratio of ivw fill and replication that's done in the three zones adjacent to the green that are outlined in blue so in three different areas these are basically side slopes of EX former excavations right and the area that's on the southern part of your screen where the where the blue um the blue circle is if you remember from previous iterations of this analysis of the site that's an area that has stockpiles and of from Landscaping activities that's encroached from the adjacent property so that that excavation is on an area that's U it's already being used for some purposes not indorsed by this property owner but encroachment by the adjacent Landscaping yard so it's a it's a heavily Disturbed area as well so anything we're Excavating these are areas that are already excavated and we're just kind of pushing back the slopes at three different spots which will does two things one if we get it to the right elevation which is this ele same elevation as the green area we will accomplish the appropriate Wetland hydrology for isolated vegetated Wetland replication but it will also double as the ability for flood storage capacity with some additional flood storage capacity within the subsurface infiltration systems that is now on the sides of the building instead of to the rear of the building under the parking lot now the other nice thing about the modification that we made is if you look at the upper site plan on the left hand side of the green there was a fairly long elongated section of excavation that was going to require into this steep you know 8ot slope or or something right and so that was going to have to we were going to have to chase that slope back and then you would have excavation that would start getting a bit closer to the more naturalized bvw and the scenario that we have now on that lower map we're not we're not pushing back very much at all into that rear part of the site so as to keep more and more of that natural bvw buffer zone in intact so this the new program and I think now if you don't mind Kim you could zoom into that lower lower map because that's the focus of this conversation yeah this one right here and I think this graphic does does a good job at highlighting the important uh pieces of this we we meet the storm water management standards we have one and a half to one restoration of isolated vegetated Wetland we separate ourselves from the Wetland kind of imp perpetuity with now a retaining wall at the edge of the parking lot we've identified that the main function and value of that Wetland area is flood control and we've made sure that all flood control standards are being Satisfied by the design both in excavation and in storm water management and then if I look through memorandum number two from Lucas um nearly to to a point there was no further comments or questions needed that's the majority of the comments there's there's a couple things in there that that maybe could use some additional information one of note to get a a a nice um invasive species management protocol and program rolled into this which we can and will submit either as part of the public hearing process or even as a condition to an order of conditions and then and then have that be approved sub subsequent to the issuance of the order but prior to any construction beginning so I think we've come a long way on this it's been a long road but I'd like to turn it back to the commission to receive comments and Dialogue on this current iteration thank you thank you um Joe did you want to touch on your high level points please sure um like Scott mentioned um the vast majority of the comments I think were were uh addressed and we had no further comment uh he did mention that uh we recommend that the invasive species management plan be submitted um also noted that um the replication plan um states that existing soils might be reused but I think that that's probably U not a good idea here um because of the existing invasive species probably the seeded um but the uh plan does also describe use of uh soil amendments if needed for the replication areas uh with regard to the uh uh storm water uh volume um I guess the the general question is um is the uh isol the land subject to flooding um is is flooding being increased into that area and it sounds like from the discussion that um with the storm water management that that's not being proposed uh to increase um and that would potentially impact the proposed um replication areas and the prop and the existing isolated budget state of wetland if there was an increase um in the in the hydrop period say if additional water was being um put into the area I think that's it for most of the uh major issues that I had there were a few notes on the plans which I suggested a couple plan notes be added um but I think that pretty much covers uh the uh the points that I had remaining and the the Alternatives analysis was sufficient uh For You Joe yes it was okay okay um so Mr Gard you said that all of the storm waterer standards were met correct yes Kim did we get um did we have a peer review for the storm water uh you know portion of this project there was a this is on my um was on my notes to talk about so um when this project was filed and I think it was like eight months to 10 months ago the applicant had also applied for site plan review and a storm water management permit through the planning board um but since that time uh the applicant has withdrawn those those permit requests um so I talked to the planner and he indicated that there was not a storm water review completed via the planning board so typically how uh it works is that the concom will jump on the storm water review completed for the planning board but in this case uh because the application was was withdrawn we have not had a storm water review um my recommendation to the commission is to have an engineer take a look at this um for compliance with the the Massachusetts storm water standards and also just to verify the ilsf calculations compensation calculations I would bump it to the applicant to ask them if when an engineer is looking at this project if they would desire for that engineer to also evaluate the project under the hopkington local um storm water regulations if that is something that uh they will be headed for regardless we had a initial storm water review on the first plan it's changed so we would want or hope to be able to get the same engineer who did the original uh review to look at this new what what engineer was that Mr Connors I'm thinking it was beta but I I don't recall specifically I certainly can look in the records but um this plan was ready to be approved pending conservation from planning board but it just went on and on and on so we withdrew it potential changes in members and voting yeah that's um if you want to look into that and let us know who it was um Matt and Melissa is there any conflicts with you folks if beta does the review of this yes Kim unfortunately beta no longer works for the town of Hoppington um they're not taking on any new work so um hopefully it wasn't beta um H you know we have different um contractors that we're working with now that are on call um so unfortunately though I don't think we'd be able to continue with beta at this point yes so it would be um you know if you can let us know Mr Connors you know know the the we have Wesson and Samson and tyan bond that contracted with the town currently as well as Lucas but Lucas is in uh they're not storm water review Engineers right I I'll check and call okay all right I'll open up to that's the only question I had so I'll open up to questions comments from the commission members who the chair uh yes Kim I got a lot of questions um I was wondering if Mr G could run us through the Alternatives proposed um just to give me a better understanding of what that looks like so what I what I tried to do at the beginning of this was to share the previous version versus the current version those were the Alternatives considered for this application was it was there something more than that that you were looking for uh in our discussion Kim did the applicant consider a different configuration of the building or a smaller building footprint George do you have any comments on other project considerations that may have been done out here yeah we went to um this with a two-story building it's U the uh the minimum um footprint that we could possibly get for the so we went to two story all right I haven't um you know to be candid I haven't gone through the Alternatives analysis myself I'll do that before the next meeting um but that that information is captured in in the uh the Alternatives analysis Mr Connors yeah I think there's some discussion of but um recently I read I think in Lucas Lucas review um yes we had uh hated that in the beginning okay if you can double check you know and make sure that it captures you know we'll we'll look at it at our end you know I will if you can just double check to make sure that's um you know as comprehensive as it should be you know and it captures the different Alternatives that you looked at would be helpful um to the chair yes J just wonder why this is the minimum size building but it be smaller to get it out of 50 the um zoning line is 60 feet back from the street that leads a very small area see almost um Mr gard's dark yellow line that's about the 60 foot set back right but could the building be smaller I don't know why this is the minimum siiz building that that's well confusion be economical to build that site with a smaller building we went to two stories rather than three um and we have minimum size U driveway going around with fire protection radius building is 5,000 square foot on a base that information would be helpful to be included in the Alternatives analysis if it's not already in there okay thank you Janine sure any other yes Matt yeah I do have one quick item on storm water whether it's captured by the peer riew or not it's going to be something of interest to me uh the plans appear to show proprietary separators as the only line of treatment prior to discharge for the parking lot areas the handbook currently only allows you to use those as a pre-treatment measure for new developments so if anything's going to be routed directly to the resource areas it would typically want to be the clean roof runoff and the parking area runoff would want to be routed through a treatments either a proprietary separator forb Etc uh isolator Row in the infiltration system and that recharged so we want the cleaner water discharging directly the more polluted water to go through the appropriate treatment train before discharge and from what I'm seeing here it's it's flipped the opposite way thank you Matt okay any other comments from the commission who the chair yes Kim uh the regulations indicate that there is a waver process and a burden of proof for alteration of resource area and 50 foot no disturb zone so as the commission kind of works through this project I would just ask I would recommend you um you know formulate your own your individual opinions as to if the burden of proof has been met in this case um my other consideration and I think that this will be probably uh addressed by the storm water engineer but um something that I'm considering is if the storm water system isn't perfectly maintained throughout the years will that result in any loss of the compensatory storage capacity yeah that's a good point um yeah okay okay thank you um comments questions from the public I don't see anyone hands raised Matt did you have another comment nope I'm good okay doesn't look like there are any comments or questions from the public so if I can get a motion to continue the hearing until our next meeting May 21st I assume that's the meeting you uh you would like to yeah I think that makes sense I I assume in the meantime we'll work with Kim and get the peer review for storm water coordinated does that sound like the right Next Step Mr chairman uh yes and Scott please um you know discuss with your applicant and let me know um the full scope of of what you would like to be considered whether just the wetlands protection act or also the local storm water bylaw do you see any is there a reason why it wouldn't automatically be wolf well currently you only filed with us so I mean we we as a commission don't technically have the authority to review under the storm water the local storm water bylaw that's the planning board but you know if the conom approves this application you would still need to get a storm water permit through the planning board before con construction so um you know obviously you'd be headed there anyways so it makes sense to do both cim right is what you're suggesting I think um it does I think but also you know if the applicant wanted to separate it out that's also an option that they have okay okay we we'll we'll discuss that Cam and confirm confirm with you but and we'll also find what what prior have been done on this property and by what firms all right thank you thank you okay so is there a motion to continue to May 21st I'll make that motion this is Zed and a second second and we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Janine hi Matt hi Ed why and d and I okay thanks again gentlemen uh Wall Street development 12 North Mill Street this is an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation Mr petroy are you on the call he's not on the call but I'm I'm here as a standin I don't have much to add just to just to be qu of a listener and then report back uh to him I understand that him and Kim are discussing issues regarding peer review fees that's that's all I know at this point yeah so you know I think the messaging to Mr pety is you know fees are non-negotiable um but uh you know let me allow Kim to kind of give the commission um some contacts I know she's been talking with them uh since the last meeting so we' be hopeful to get an update from Kim sure so uh this project is an anrat application for 12 North Mill Street the Conservation Commission and our peer reviewer reviewed the BBW boundary previously um the commission discovered that there was an intermittent stream interior to the BBW that had not been flagged or confirmed previously so um the applicant added the intermittent stream to the anrad plans however um the applicant elected at that point um to let me know that he did not intend to um fund further peer review so I instructed our peer reviewer to stop work um therefore the intermittent stream Bank flags that were added um in association here with this interment stream have not been reviewed by our peer reviewer um so at this point we have outstanding invoices um but we do also have you know some understanding about the um the anrod I spoke to Mr petroy today and let him know that those invoices were still outstanding for work that had already been completed by the peer reviewer and um did not have anything to do with the stream and he had indicated that um he intends to fund those invoices that's about all I have thank you for the update Kim you're welcome so the intermittent stream um wasn't reviewed by uh Lucas but you know as in other um and RADS we can uh close it with the understanding that that boundary hasn't been um officially designated uh through the inrat process yeah so in all of mys I specifically name the flags that are being confirmed and Associated resource areas and jurisdictions got it okay uh yes yeah a portion of that intermittent stream was uh reviewed initially the one that cuts through the middle of a site um the the additional one coming off of North Mill Street that was not reviewed got it okay Joe thanks for the clarification so the one in the middle of the the site we can confirm uh the lower one to the northern portion we won't confirm those boundaries Ed did you have a question no just that um I have uh walked across the site um I I did find an odd spot that my feet didn't get wet um this looks to be an incredibly challenging site and that's all I have to say um through the chair so can I can I confirm I think I know the answer to this but I just want the I guess the confirmation um so since we are not confirming the some of the boundaries of the intermittent stream if an NDA comes before us it will they will need to be confirmed at that time like they I could they'll need to go out and and confirm the the intermittent stream at that time if there's proposed Ina impacts to that resource area Janine they would if there's no proposed impacts you know they stay away from that area um and it's not there's no incursion then they wouldn't necessarily need to confirm it okay thank you and just you know Kim it might be helpful to kind of give a little background on the site because this is our uh I would say I think 18 or 20 years ago this came before the commit U by Mr pety um it was denied at that point in time um what was propos I think it was a single family home if my memory serves it was denied under the bylaw but I believe it was approved under the ACT does that sound right Kim I don't want to misspeak or maybe it was denied under both I know now I'm trying to scratch my head um I think it was double denied was it double denied I think you're right yeah Anna Do You Remember was there an was there a superseding order yeah I I believe so this I don't remember off the top of my head I can look it up quick I wouldest yep sorry I would suggest anyone who's half curious to get some good boots and take a walk through this um I I fail to understand how someone could find a place to put a house here and to gain access to it um it's very wet right and this is just a resource area delineation at this point chair y I just need to caveat that by saying anyone who is a commission member if the anrad is still open can access the property if the application is closed OS there's um no longer access unless a new permit is filed so we just want to be respectful of the private properties owner private owner rights as well yeah that's a good point Kim thank you who the chair yes an yeah it looks like it was originally um denied under both the Act and the bylaw then there was a superseding order then I see another bylaw only denial and then it looks like it went to Superior Court right what what what year was the original um 1997 yeah 1997 yep okay um okay all right so Mr G do you have any questions nope I understand it perfectly thank you okay all right so Kim um I guess hopefully at the next meeting the outstanding invoices will be paid and then we can uh um you know vote to to approve and close this filing if that's the case yeah all right um okay so if I can get a motion to continue the abbreviated notice of resource area delineation to May 21st so moved and the second second and we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Janine hi Matt hi Ed hi and d and I okay all right thank you Mr G thank you all have a good night you too um and I think with that Kim unless you have anything else that it's a wrap for the even oh thank you all right yeah I'm glad one of us is paying attention all right 70 uh so briansky L Office 71 West Main Street it's a request for a certificate of compliance Kim did you want to give us some background please so let me put the as hang on there we go okay this was um so the original order was the for the conversion of a single family home into a dry cleaning business and Associated parking area and storm water management system the storm water management system consisted of a trench drain a manhole and a small subsurface infiltration area so the applicants requesting a certificate of compliance at this point I did receive from glm and andm inspection report for the subsurface infiltration Lucas went out and provided a review earlier in April um everything kind of checked out except for there was some like debris in the back just kind of like junk in the back of the lot and uh the trench was kind of full of gck the the drain trench up here so um I had reached out to the lawyer the lawyer coordinated got the debris pulled out of the buffer zone in the woods and also the trench um cleaned of junk so they provided photos of those two actions being taken so at this point um unless Joe has anything else to add to it my recommendation is to issue the certificate of compliance and to carry those special conditions that are listed in perpetuity okay thank you Kim Mr Mar did you have anything additionally to add I have no involvement with this one oh okay um oh Joe Joe sorry you I don't have any yeah I don't have anything to add uh beyond what K had mentioned okay um all right R any questions or comments from the commission questions or comments from the public if I get a motion to uh issue the certificate of compliance for 71 W Main Street please with a signature page please and to have Kim sign on behalf of the members present it's what happens when you get old you get forgetful I'll make that motion in a second second and we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Janine hi Ed first I'm going to make a comment Jeff you have no idea what it means to get old but I will say I said Matt I and I'm an i all right okay um so last but not least uh H long Corp 109 Winter Street this is a request for a two-year extension permit Kim did you want to give us a little bit of background on this one please sure here comes the plans let's see okay so this is 109 Winter Street this was a notice of the or rather an order of conditions that was originally issued by the HCC in 2017 for a driveway crossing over an intermittent stream with a cold for access to a single family home construction of that single family home and the associated utilities and Grading um so in um 2020 the commission also issued a three-year extension for this application in 2023 the commission issued a one-year extension and now in 24 the applicant is requesting a 2-year extension of this order um I did meet they have obtained a contractor and I did meet with the contractor on site um probably last week there is a number of um items that they now need to address uh the site is subject to the town's local storm water regulations because it disturbs um a little over an acre so they need to obtain the storm water management permit from planning board um we needed an updated Swip uh the site has since been granted an anr so it's been broken up into two separate Lots um so we might have some easement questions about the you know the replication might be kind of on a different lot at this point Joe might be able to comment on that um but yeah I think that's I think that's ENT um the summary a lot of the flagging is missing as well Kim correct yeah I know the appan is working on refreshing that as well yeah okay so um you know my sense and I want to throw this out to you know Kim and the commission members is you know there's a lot has changed since the original application uh was filed back in 2017 U or when the order of conditions was issued in 2017 was filed prior to that you know most significantly the lot line uh change um but you know given the complexity of the site um you know the stream Crossing uh the having to meet the towns storm water um RS you know I'm just hesitant to extend this out another two years I think it might be time for a reset on this one um but that's my thoughts let me uh throw that out there for uh the other commission members I would agree with that I would agree with that this looks look similar to another lot we've seen recently and held to a particular standard yeah yeah yes Mr Mar or not did you have a we have only become involved with this as of late it was mostly related to uh the boundary line um definition of the bound line and the change in the lot line that you mentioned a moment ago so I reached out to Dan McIntyre who did the permitting for this back in in 2017 and he shares the same opinion that I have that there was a general policy for applicants um given that the uh Town Wetlands protection bylaw and the wetlands protection uh at the state level um the stor water handbook all the the guidelines that that they um they produce are very similar so an applicant if they had um Wetlands issues would seek um review of the storm water with the commission if it was more related to subdivision and and wholesale development then that review would sit with the planning board and Dan did produce uh a stone Mar analysis for the site talked about us uh flows sitewide through the Calver attenuation for those flows uh medic ation for erosion control the incorporation of liid techniques so in the file is Storm Water Analysis uh done at that time for the project the policy seems to have morphed into more of a a concurrent review by both groups but I just didn't want anyone to get the impression that this was never analyzed thoughts were never given to how storm water would impact the surrounding area um based on site activities that's all when when was that analysis done Mar 2017 I saw uh back and forth between beta beta group and Dan back in March of 17 coordinated by Don McAdam so yeah so I mean 2017 was you know seven years ago oh understood completely just I didn't want anybody to get the impression that no analysis ever took place that okay okay got it thank you yeah um hi hi everyone um my name is Stephen I'm the son of uh Sally and and uh and Frank yes good evening sir helping them out today my my mom she has anxiety and heart pation so I want to alleviate as much pressure off as I as I possibly can uh so to give some background uh we delayed this project uh this long mostly due financial difficulties we underestimated how much the uh culvert um cost and after that we well after we had Mass enough un Mass enough money we uh Co came along and my dad he uh uh he didn't have he didn't he's a home contractor so naturally he was out of work for a few years um and after covid the the cost of labor and material skyrocketed and so so again we didn't we didn't have enough but now we we finally have finally have enough and we're ready to go we have uh an architect building on a on a design of the house and uh and we're we're very very we're very hopeful to to get this started we have already hired the uh the contractor the contractor has already started uh the the the the job like they they they ordered the cette and U and we have hired the um the architect design in the house and almost done as soon as we got this design we will we will have the Builder in um you know to to to build right away you know and we wish we we really hope we can to start the job and complete the job as soon as possible but um please understand yeah there are always some that take unexpected turning in your life you cannot control that but we and we hired the contractor he uh why we hire him because we know they they they they they know the conservation land very well because they told us the the the the owner of the father is the uh conservation committee themselves so they they they have a lot of experience dealing with the um the the wet L and the conservation land so who's the who's the contractor ma'am CMS CMS Charlie Michael Sam uh C uh cmsc yeah okay yeah yeah that's Pat maro's group out of Malboro uh which group is it pat marrow they've been around as long as I've been in this game so yeah they know a lot about the wet line exp the the the the the conservation right that's what that's yeah that's one of the most reason we hiire them we really want to do things right to make sure that uh you know everything is right and to uh work efficiently and you can you know understand that although we we as homeowner we the knowledge we have is limited but we hire the best people to deal the problem if there is a problem for us to make sure the work will be in fully compliance so that's why we hire the best you know Joe is the best yep yep Mr Maran is one of the best for sure yeah um so a couple questions for why was the lot subdivided what was the purpose of that we want to keep the old house we want to keep the house there if we don't subdivide the house has to be demolished got it okay okay and then my second question is you mentioned that you have an architect doing the design of the house yes um I mean do you anticipate so you have a proposed um kind of footprint here on the plan is it going to you know in a in a driveway kind of um design you know the location of the driveway do you foresee that changing at all getting smaller or you know is it gonna you know for most intense and purposes going to be consistent with what's shown on the plan here uh it will be smaller it will be smaller because uh the the we um because we we uh the the the the budget because of the budget so make it will be smaller okay but it's going to be in that location it it it should be I think the the call there could be small changes yeah because it's a smaller yeah no I got it okay um yeah but I guess the question is is it going to be located where it's shown on the plan here or because you know we want to make sure that what you're putting in is going to be consistent with what has been approved at the site so if there's going to be changes to the location of the house changes to the location of the driveway um a shifting of the house you know that may a w kind that you know you'll need to come before the commission if any of that's going to change from what's shown here on the plan so I guess I guess what I'm saying is I'm leaning towards I mean Kim I want to refer to you on this you know and the other commission members you know obviously but yeah I kind of understand and can empathize you know if they had Financial challenges you know why it was getting uh pushed and I guess if you know we have uh you know if we if the applicants can assure us that you know the design change is going to be consistent with what we're seeing on the plan here then I'm kind of leaning towards Maybe you know allowing the oneye extension how do how do you feel about that Kim thank you um I I have I guess two questions and concerns my first one is um what is uh going to happen with the the driveway is the driveway to access the existing house about is that configuration going to change because that's also in the in the buffer zone I think that I'm not sure that the common Drive is allowed to stay um so just the applicants plans on that like is that going to end up being changed and then the second thing my my bigger concern with this site and maybe this is just something you know to work through with the site contractor um this is a pretty steep slope down to the the resource area in the Stream I just want to make sure that um if this gets grubbed which is the applicants um you know first kind of move because they need to um take soils from this area to build up this area and install the the CT that it is you know properly maintain Orin and simate control is properly maintained so that we don't just kind of have this mud slide down to the the resource area it's my my big concern is a big is the big slope down yeah area like it's it it's very um management is going to have to be very very very tight um it it does it reminds me of the First Street sites I mean have you met with the contractor out here I have yeah and um have they provided you know this is kind of outside the prview of the commission but you know uh so um for the applicants you know Kim has an important Point here you know there's a lot of work that needs to be done at the site you know there's a covert that's being put in a very long driveway um you know there's a lot of slope that needs to be graded and movement of soil you know and construction costs have been increasing so we don't want to get into a situation as Kim had said where the contractor comes in grubs the site you know um and then there's you know no budgetary resources to complete the project or if you run into issues you know that it remains you know a grubbed undeveloped property for you know a number of years and that that's not really under the I guess I'm you know that's not really for us to contemplate that's something that you as the applicant needs to contemplate where it will affect you is if the project isn't um you know maintained from an erosions in you know uh from an erosion uh control basis then you know fines will be issued to to to you right so if it's sitting there and it's not being maintained and you can't build the house um you know we don't want to we don't want to have to issue a single family homeowner fines for a project like this you know we we try to avoid it so we just want to make make sure that you're aware of you know the challenges at the site you know um and you know what the expectations of the commission will be um when the contractor goes out there and the work starts you know it needs to keep moving along and and the site needs to be stabilized and maintained Kim did you have anything else to add or Melissa um what's what's the actual expiration date on this is it like imminent I think it already expired we can't June 5th 20 June June oh June okay the asked for a two-year extension last year and the commission granted one year I don't I'm leaning towards a one-year extension um just to you know work with the applicants and then we'll kind of see what the status is um next year yeah I think that's probably a good idea Jeff and maybe um since the architect is just coming on board um you know just acknowledging that like you said if there's any significant changes um to the plan then then they should come back and we should talk about that because I mean I know a lot of times we get these plans where where someone someone inherits a plan that wasn't Theirs to begin with you know and then as you work through the process um things change or you try to make it your own um or you inherit a problem that you didn't realize as far as the grades when you really get into start look at that with your contractor or your architect we just the one we had at the beginning of the meeting where they rotated the house you know if they yeah they they they just took a box on a lot and you know then when they actually got in there and wanted to build their version um it changed and they got into trouble because now we're going to have issues with the foundation in the ground and trying to make that work so um yeah I mean y sorry yep sorry I was just G to say I'm glad I'm glad that they you came today and you know are proactive and asking for the extension and um I just I guess put those things on your radar um as you're really building the project and envisioning it as your own absolutely thank you thank you for um thank you and uh and yeah we will keep all those things in mind and and yeah so Mr ly if you know is if you're work you know as as Melissa said as you're working through the process with the arch you know if things start to change at the site um you know just make sure you're you're in communication with uh Kim and Anna at our office um and you're keeping them kind of up the speed on what's going on if you would through the chair yes Ed this is Ed I'm trying to remember um about the stream Crossing and exactly what we agreed to for that at the time and then if we did not Grant the extension would that be an opportunity for us to relook at that stream Crossing if we thought that what we know today would cause us to do something differently than what we agreed to then I think it was just a box called it it was a I thought I heard Mr Lynn say the contract already ordered it I heard that I don't so I don't think there's an opportunity to go back and change it at if they already order it U was it a box covert Kim it's a bottomless Culvert bottomless okay substrate at the bottom so kind of in line with where the commission seems to be their mindset currently okay I'm happy I think the things that we've changed I think the things that we've started to look at differently in in regards to single family homes in these lots are are like Kim was saying the erosion the sequencing of construction um and those those type of impacts putting roof drainage and dry Wells um which I think I not sure what went on here [Music] but okay all right um any other questions or comments from the commission or from the public okay if I can get a motion to um okay I don't see any hands uh issue on oneye extension for 109 Winter Street I'll make that motion and the second through the chair uh and and to have um Kim sign on behalf of the members present Anna I will second and we'll do the roll call Melissa I anine I Matt hi Ed I and d and I that that site plan looks like a goldfish have a profile of a goldfish thank you very much okay you're welcome folks yeah just keep us um you know as we said keep Kim in uh Anna up to speed on on progress with the architect and you know let them know if anything changes um substantively yeah our contractor has already promised us that they will make sure everything will be U doing correctly and right according yeah by the rules by the regulations they have already promised us okay well good luck don't always believe everything the contractors tell you I will say that but but this seems very good guys they seem very good they're all they're all good guys too nice Fe especially when they're trying to get away with something thank you for taking the time yeah thank you have a good evening thank you good night good night uh okay Kim is that it that's it this time all right so that wasn't too bad 920 okay um a motion to adjourn so moved and a second second and we'll do the roll call Melissa hi Janine hi Matt hi Ed hi and I'm and I all right have a great night everyone thank you good night everyone bye e e e e e e