uh good evening my name is Bob Connors it is 6m I'd like to call the June 4th meeting of the Newbury Conservation Commission to order Sean can you read the remote open meeting law Preamble and take a roll call the members present good evening my name is sha young opening the June 4th 2024 open meeting Sean I can barely hear you you hear me now better better okay I'll talk louder good evening my name is sha young opening the June 4th 2024 open meeting I am the conservation agent for the town of Newberry Conservation Commission please let me confirm that all members are present and can hear me Conservation Commission members would I call your name please respond in the affirmative Bob Connor yes Brad Duffin present Diane O'Brien yes Mary Rimer yes Mick Brown yes DJ KY DJ just signing in okay he's here and Woody night hello everyone yeah I don't see uh I don't see Woody yet no woody okay well he'll I just keep going Sean and hopefully he'll be able to join us good evening this June 4th 2024 open meeting of the Newberry Conservation Commission is being conducted remotely consistent with the ACT relative to extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency which extends the Governor's March 12th 2020 order through uh suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law General Law chapter 30 until March 31st 2025 this order suspends the requirements of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location and allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely so long as reasonable Public Access is afforded so that the public can follow along with deliberations of the meeting please note that this meeting is being recorded and that all attendees are participating by video and or telephone conference and the recording will be available on the Newberry access YouTube channel meeting materials were provided to the commission members prior to the meeting for review before we turn to the first item on the agenda permit me to cover some ground rules effective and clear conduct of our business and ensure accurate meeting minutes the chair will introduce each speaker on the agenda proponent will be given 10 minutes to present more time may be allowed to be at the discretion of the chair after they conclude their remarks we will go down the list of the commission members inviting each by name to provide any comment questions or motions please hold until your name is called for called further for all attendees except commission members and staff please remember to mute your computer or phone when you are not speaking please remember to speak clearly in a way that helps generate accurate meeting minutes please be aware that video participants can see you and that you should take care not to share screen your computer unless you have been allowed to do so anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording for any response please wait until the floor is yielded to you and state your name before speaking if the commission members wish to engage in discussion with other members please do so through the chair taking care to identify yourself when you wish to speak there will be an opportunity for public comment and questions during the meet during the public meeting after the commission members have spoken we will afford the public an opportunity to comment or ask questions as follows um yeah we can turn to the agenda okay thank you Sean all right team upcoming meeting meeting dates June 18th and July 2nd we have a minutes meeting Minutes review for October 3rd 2023 and May 21st 2024 uh I'll take these separately the October 3rd meeting this is kind of a some administrative cleanup between agents there was a gap the meeting minutes were approved uh but they never got posted and as been an iser trying to locate them so we've had a we have four or five of these that we've been working on so why don't we take a look at the October 3rd meeting minutes okay and the only ones present for that meeting were Bob Connors Diana Bryan Brown and TJ KY so any any questions on the meeting limit nope no questions from EV okay uh I'll entertain a motion to accept the October 3rd meeting so moved second okay roll call all in favor uh Diane yes Mick I TJ hi and Bob Connor votes yes okay the next meeting minutes uh May 21st 2024 why don't we take a moment to review those and everybody was present on those okay Mary did you have a question I did but now I'm trying to find the the minutes just lost them second un drafts I guess that's what it is 521 okay um just under the Sunset Club I think it was um sorry okay yep 1113 Sunset Club um it just the third bullet item I think should be deleted no impact from previous gas station we haven't determined that yet so just suggest that we take that out okay actually as I recall uh Matt had mentioned that that had been closed up from d and there was no outstanding issues on that Mick you would ask the question as I call yes uh yes I did this would have been a first certificate of compliance so I'm not sure why well we we had a general discussion of of what was outstanding as I recall and Matt had said he didn't think there was an impact beyond what the previous gas station impact was and it oh oh oh oh you're not talking about the actual gas station tanks and all of that stuff yes okay okay yeah I mean I don't have a problem with that yeah I had just asked if there was any open D files usually there there can be with you know service stations or gas stations so yeah I see that's what the question was yep that's where that's where it came in there okay Mr chair motion to moove is amended delet okay is there a second second okay all those in favor say I H roll call Mary yes TJ hi Woody Brad Mick Brad Brad Brad deff can you hear me all right Dan yeah yes and Bob Connor's vote Yes okay first order for yeah we have H Mary TJ uh Mick Diane and Bob Conor Brad Brad and Woody the only two that we can't confirm because we have lost Mr def temporarily hopefully he'll be back okay uh first matter certificate of compli D file number 0501 1344 14 plil and Boulevard this is the sunset Club this uh we had a side visit team and just a quick recap I think the at least my take was is that the the applicant needs to file a a new order of conditions to cover the expired order and the remaining work uh and then make case for whatever deviations uh that they've presented you know from my perspective it's what the storm water cels come back at with what they've done uh the the planting schedule versus you know my feeling is there can be no no no net reduction uh in the proposed planting I I I don't disagree with the location that they didn't put them in a long fence that they probably wouldn't be survived would survive but and then uh the comp completion of the burm on the corner of Old Point and Plum Island Turnpike but I guess we'll wait for the applicant to come back in with what they're what they're thinking but anyone else want to add any comments or is a result of a site INSP I don't just the question of whether not uh we want to issue an enforcement order directing them to file a notice of intent for the activities that have been done outside of the approval process yeah I mean I it comes out the same if that's if that's uh that's how we want to approach this maybe maybe that's the first step to keep this thing moving forward and get resolution what that's what I'm thinking is that they can know what it is that we want to have them file for okay I also I think it may be a cleaner way for them to to do work currently on the site as of right now since the orders expired they're not supposed to be doing work yeah I mean I I don't really see them I think to Mar's point and Mary jump in and correct me if I'm wrong issuing enforcement order you know directing them to file a notice of intent on how they're going to uh accomplish uh the work not completed uh and you know the remaining work that hasn't been performed well it's more of an issue of the work that has been performed and is is either not correct or um part of the original approval well Mary you have any wording you want to propose well I think that we maybe have to draft it uh May okay perhaps outside of a meeting because there are a number of items that we'll have to address and then maybe at the next meeting it can be presented okay for for vote if that makes sense for people and that that way we can maybe Sean can run it past the applicant and um make sure that that makes sense to them okay all right well why don't we continue this matter uh Diane do you have a question on this wasn't there some talk that somebody was going to be doing a plan that showed what was supposed to be done and what um was done and it was going to be an overlay thing so it make it easier to see exact I'm just thinking if we're going to be drafting something that's nothing we would be waiting for right yeah I was able to um look at the landscape plan and the the 11 by 17s that they provided at the meeting yeah compare that with my photos and notes from the meeting and so I think we know pretty much where things happened that weren't approved okay it's just a matter of listing each one of them and you know whether or not they they want they want to take them out or file a notice of intent for getting them approved well these work they didn't complete right that that will need to be completed but they can't do that without a new notice of intent right so I mean I think the simple wording on a an enforcement order would be that the applicant to file a notice of intent uh addressing incomplete work and deviations from the expired order and that's pretty much what it would be wouldn't it to me that seems right okay yeah Brad I I I see you I see you up there Brad yeah Mr chair I think there's three issues one is that the there needs to be an enforc order that one notes that they did not complete the that they're they're out of compliance with their their proposed plan number two is needs to show um they need to file a notice of intent that shows what they're going to do to fix the things that they have um and which would include the items that they've already installed as a notice of intent and then the third issue is they have new things that they want to add so I think it's a three-prong process that they need to go through yeah no no I I I don't disagree but we can't compel the the new things it's part of an enforcement order right no we can't we absolutely can't but the the enforcement order brings the things that they did back to what they originally said that they were going to do and the things that they didn't do they need to do to get a certificate of compliance first right they they they have really three issues they have an expired order exactly they need to address they have work that's on their recorded order of conditions that need to be completed but cannot be without a new notice and there's deviations from the plan that need to be addressed correct I I don't think we're here to give them Counsel on how they should come back I agreed their notice of in they need to file a notice of intent with what they're going to do to correct and remediate do we want to provide a date for them to do that by yeah you know I think it's it's more of a friendly enforcement order I'm just kind of thinking out loud that um we should let's put this on the agenda I think but it in a general sense are we in agreement that we we have an expired order of conditions that needs to be addressed uh pursuant probably to a filing of a new notice of intent that there's work that was not completed in the expired order that needs to be addressed in the new notice of intent and same with the deviations you know some some of the deviations that may be minor and some uh may be considered you know more significant but but I think I think Mary to your point is let's put this on the agenda Sean at the uh the next meeting what's that the 21st and 18 on the 18 excuse me and and why don't you get in touch with the with the applicant um and and let them know what what we're going to be addressing we'd like to have them on the call on the on the 18 that sound like a plan team or or Mr chair should we be issuing the enforcement order now so that it at least as Mary said we give them uh a time limit to come back to us with what their plan as to how to correct those things yeah I mean at the site at the site visit they made it clear that they're going to come in with a with a new notice of intent uh to what extent I I I think the you know my thought is they should be addressing the deficiencies they should be addressing the war deviation and they should not be addressing new proposed work uh because there's no certainty that uh that will be approved regardless right okay Mick you've got your hand raised what what are your thoughts uh yeah just I wasn't uh sorry I wasn't able to attend the the site meeting but I I do kind of feel that issuing a a an enforcement order sooner than later gets them on a path right and we set a date whether it's 30 days 60 days uh to refile um and I would think that that enforcement order would include a stop work basically until they you know till they submit their their notice right that be standard language and a notice or excuse me an enforcement order open to the public it I don't know how they you know short sort of shutting down the property I don't know how we would enforce a no work order in my was no like no more site improvements like no more plantings fences buildings things of that nature until it's defined in in an order of conditions you know what maybe the simplest thing to do is we isue an enforcement order where that the applicant is to appear before the board on June 18th uh with a plan uh with the understanding they're going to require a notice of intent and that gets them here on June 18th and and I think that's really the issue and you know no additional site work is to take place uh at this time I think that if we're in agreement on that then I think that's what the course of action we should probably take it's reasonable and it puts them on a a set path with the timeline so Mary are you okay with that we're we're going to issue an enforce yeah that's fine you can amend the order at the next meeting to establish different time frames if you want to that's that's fine I think that it's there's significant enough deviations from order of conditions we have to sort of make it clear get the ball roll yeah yeah okayy Diane what what are your thoughts any any phraseology you would like to incorporate no I mean not at this point I think next next meeting it can be discussed more what they intend to do and what their timeline like what a workable timeline would be for them since they are open um but I think they W close Mondays Tuesdays so you know next meeting seems like it can get nailed down more specifically okay TJ what are your thoughts I think that's a great idea in order to do that it's great okay Brad any any other thoughts on your part no I'm good thank you Mr chair okay so Sean what what I'm suggesting is we're going to issue an enforcement order one uh no additional s work is to be undertaken uh you two uh the applicant needs to come before the the commission on the June 18th meeting uh with a plan of action to address the expired order of conditions the deviation from the order of conditions and the proposed existing proposed work um that was in included in the uh expired order of conditions and I think until we get them in here to set a timeline other than getting them here on the 18th it is is is probably premature just to just knowing that it could take 30 30 to 45 days we're heading summer think big thing as long as no Works going on that's the the big thing but does that make any uh did we know they weren't coming today we just left it on the agenda um what I'm doing with Sean is any open item on enforcement orders just stay on the agenda so that you know we don't lose sight of them and okay so they weren't expected really to be yeah yeah I mean they could have been here but they they weren't required to be here I guess okay so all right team um do we want to ratify that enforcement order as as mentioned there a motion to ratify the enforcement order who Moved hey roll call all in favor Mary yes uh Brad I Mick hi TJ hi Diane yes and Bob Conor wrote CH okay so Sean just go over the wording I think you get a good sense of what what we're looking uh looking for there more of a notice to attend and establish a plan of action uh on next steps to get back into compliance okay uh next order of business the certificate of compliance for D file number 0501 1243 131 Scotland Road newb Golf Center uh Eric good evening we we are awaiting we have a communication from Joe Joe saraka uh he is reviewing the as builts uh to the the approved plans uh and he's in the process of that review he's going to provide a review letter upon the completion of that review we have not received that letter so there's no action going to be taken tonight okay okay so it's it's in process it okay Joe's going to check the boxes uh Eric and and the same thing we will then come take take appropriate action upon okay you received the s the letter from my engineer yeah he has all that okay and he's just doing his final review so maybe two weeks maybe longer we're just going to leave this on the agenda and uh it's going to carry forward Eric you know what you could do you could probably check with Sean okay prior to the next meeting if if there's going to be any action taken on this or it's just going to be uh you know continued okay all right all right so Sean just leave leave this on the agenda again where it's a certificate of compliance a public hearing doesn't require a motion to put it on to the next meeting all right uh next order is a certificate of compliance D file number 050 11131 uh 59 plumy and Turnpike uh no work has been started is is the request for the certificate of compliance and driving by it there was no work yeah so they have Bob Grasso here actually about this project from my understanding is that they have an noi I think it's expired too but they have not touched the site and Bob Grassle wants to close this order of conditions out so he can submit a new noi with new proposed work okay Bob why don't you sure give us your name address and my name for the record for the record my name is Bob grassel from engineering Land Services um I'm representing John hotnet at 59 plal and Turnpike uh the order conditions were issued in uh July of 25 of uh 2013 uh they were never recorded or work was never started um so what we're going he wants to start the process of a new project on the site uh we filed an nment tent Believe last week and we're on for the 18th uh the next meeting so we're for we're filing a form AA to close out the old n y so we can file for a new uh D number okay all right thank you Bob questions Mary any questions for Bob on this one no um I looked at it and the only thing I noticed is that there the are they're continuing to mow the part of the marsh that was delineated on that plan but it looks like that was a pre-existing condition so um yeah we'll we'll we'll address that address that in the in the notice of intent but yes otherwise looks good okay thank you Mary Brad any any questions on this one no issues thank you Mr chair okay Mick any questions on this one Bob thank you TJ any any questions on this matter no no further questions Diane any any questions no okay I have no questions uh Sean do you have any any followup on this one okay uh I will entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 59 pyland Turnpike no work has been sted so moved second okay roll call all in favor Mary yes TJ hi Brad hi Mick Diane yes and Bob Conor so chers okay thank you Bob thank you thank you for your time he hey next matter uh enforcement order 105 uh Northern Boulevard unpotted yard work team this was uh continued for 60 days and that puts it what what's that I think you had it Down For What ju July 16 okay you know what I'm doing I'm just leaving enforcements order on the agenda for a quick review so no further action is required on this one tonight all right we have no rdas gez that's Sean what's going on we haven't had any rdas at this meeting we've been uh you know inated with those in the past okay public hearing a municipal separate storm sewer system ms4 regulation updates uh Sean can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter or is there someone presenting this I see Renee are you presenting on this matter um I'm here I'm working on behalf of the town so I think it's up to Shan if you would like me to kind of walk you through the changes or if Sean wants to introduce them you you know this better than I do just identify yourself then you will yeah um Renee BAU with geoc consultants and our office is in South Hamilton Massachusetts um so we've been working with the town um to help Implement their the nifty's municipal separate storm sewer permit um for the past couple years um it was brought to our attention by EPA that the town had failed to implement the um ordinance requirements um early on in the permitting stage um and so this was brought to their attention um this permit year which runs from July 1st 2023 to June 30th 2024 um we reviewed the regulations and did determine that epa's findings were correct um in so over the past couple months the town has been working to go through and identify the locations in the town's ordinances that need to be updated to ensure they're in compliance with the nift's permit um we've done this with site plan and subdivision regulations and now we're going through to the Conservation Commission to update some of those rules and regulations to make them consistent um would you like me to s of share my screen and go through the major changes to the regulations for everyone I think that'd be very helpful br yeah everyone see my document I'll try to blow it up here a little bit so are we good yes I can see it um so on page one um under the purpose of the applicability of the regulations um prior to this it simply referred to the Massachusetts D storm water handbook we've updated that language to include reference to the nifty's ms4 permit issued by EPA um so again that you know what we're hoping for is mass DP is working on an update to the storm water handbook and that update should be consistent with the nifty's ms4 permit so that there aren't two sets of regulations that differ from each other um so moving forward you know if you ever amend these again you may just need to refer to one but right now we'll keep it in um just for knowing that in the future the storm water Hamburg will be consistent with the Nifty per um scrolling down I'm sorry I'm going to scroll a little bit here but to the next Red Line um I feel like it's slower when you're sharing your screen okay under part three which is the construction site erosion and siment control plan um under section one the standards in B we just add a reference which is required in the ms4 permit that the Swift be developed in accordance with the epa's construction General permit um so that's the language you see added there and additionally in that section um we added some additional minimum erosion siment control requirements that need to be included on the plans and projects um and these are outlined here um essentially minimize the amount of disturbed area and protecting natural resources site stabilization with projects are complete protecting slopes on the construction site protection of all storm drain inlets and armoring of all newly construction inlets the use of perimeter controls stabilized construction site entrances and exits controlling waste that may be discharged including you know building materials concrete wash out areas um just regular litter and debris waste and then ensuring to inspect all storm water controls at a consistent intervals um we did leave the additional requirements that were in there because they didn't conflict with the other ones um but we did want to make sure that we added those new requirements again so it was consistent with the under section four the storm water management plan under standards one again we referred to making sure that we're not only looking at the the D storm water handbook but also referring the nifty's ms4 permit also under that section um prior the water quality treatment requirement relied on the first inch of runoff which is consistent with the Massachusetts storm water standards that is inconsistent with the nift's ms4 permit um so we removed that language and indicated that need to be consistent with part 4 3D which we'll talk about in just a moment which is the new sort of water quality criteria for two different developments new development and Redevelopment number three the post-development storm water criteria um at a minimum it says all projects shall comply with in previous it with the performance standards of the mass D storm water handbook but we wanted to remove that because we're really outlining the specific criteria it needs to follow in order to meet the ms4 permit so if we scroll down here um so under the water quality section so some of the requirements that are still in the ms4 handbook were clearly outlined in here already including Channel protection as well as extreme flood protection so we left those in um really the major changes are to the water quality volume um previous that that was calculated is one inch of runoff um the way that the nipy permit is defining it they Define a definition for new development which is any construction activity or land alra resulting in one in a total disturbance equal to or greater than one acre um the key thing here is that you know for applicants who come in who have a larger plan for a development they can't just come in with one piece and per that one piece you really need to look at the full picture um even if they're only going to be doing a small piece so they can't fall under that one AC if they're splitting it up um and essentially what this water quality requirement focuses on is on um more associated with ensuring percent removal so it's focusing on 90% removal of total suspended solids and 60% of the annual total load of total phosphorus related to the total post construction and previous surface area on the site um additionally there's some requirements that installed bmps they need to demonstrate how they're Meeting those requirements so that you know that they provide calculations that are consistent with the ms4 permit and tools that epa's providing so that you know thirdparty reviewers Andor the commission can show that they are meeting the requirements that 90 and 60% um and then essentially um a requirement they retain the volume of runoff equivalent to or greater than one inch multiplied by the total privious cover so we aren't entirely losing the one inch but in most in some cases the one inch alone doesn't get us those 90 and 60% removal so EPA is really focusing on ensuring that applicants are demonstrating that any controls they're putting on site do meet those water quality criteria of TSS and total phosphorus um additionally it's meeting a combination of retention and treatment that achieves the above standards and if permitted by the town it has the sole discretion to utilize off-site mitigation that meets the above standards so if an applant comes in and says that they want a waiver this allows the town to say well you know if you can't meet it onsite then you guys would have the authority to make the applicant find an off-site location to demonstrate that they can meet those water quality requirements elsewhere and that's totally up to the commission if they decided they want to exercise that or not um the next one is for redevelopment um it provides a definition of what Redevelopment is um so it's defined as development Rehabilitation expansion construction Improvement of impervious Services demolition or phase project resulting in total serve acreage or greater than one acre that does not meet the definition of new development um for these the requirements are a little bit less so you'll notice here that in the new development it was 90% TSS and 60% total phosphorus in the Redevelopment it's 80% total suspended solids and 50% total phosphorus um and again the requirements below that are essentially the same um as prior to um which allow you know demonstrating the the that need to be provided to meet those standards retaining one inch actually it's retaining Point 8 Ines on site for the total post construction servious area and um oops and then for redevelopment activities um you know that are exclusively limited it kind of gives an exemption to this so you know for redevelopment activities they're exclusively limited to maintenance and Improvement of existing roadways widening adding shoulders um they shall improve indust get dis conditions unless infeasible or exempt from requirements through aob so Road wiing and other improvements to increase amount of curv area on the re development site greater than a single Lane with shall meet the requirements above so you know some of those projects where it's just kind of a you know you're going to go and Mill and repay and not really change conditions or add impervious cover you can be exempt from those but if those that are going to add impervious cover would need to meet those requirements are there any questions on those those are probably the most substantive changes in the ordinance yeah I think the the two questions I have on exemptions on on on storm water on these updates what impacts our residential one still exempt from storm water yep okay and what about agriculture and farming operation um at vast doesn't have a requirement per se on what types of properties are exempt I think they're really focused on that one acre um I would say most Residential Properties fall under that one acre but I know most towns and communities may have a specific instances in their ordinance where they say single family residential is exempt entirely um and I think if Agriculture and such is exempt entirely I don't think if they're proposing more than one acre I don't think EPA has an exemption for a certain type of land use kind of where I'm going with that even if it's residential um seems like it's specifically exempt residential one lot and up to four Lots yes that's how yeah that's how it was previous yeah yeah and remaining yeah and so I I have to double check just to confirm that Mary I don't want to state that and then be wrong but I know most communities in their ordinance have that in there as a special provision it's not written in EPA saying that you know you have to exempt these types of land uses but I know most communities add that in um and so I think but I know there's other communities that for large you know Residential Properties that add a lot of impervious cover they do want them to fall into that right if you have people building extremely large properties with tons of impervious cover some of them are making them required um but I I can double check that Mary and get back to you yeah and Renee on on the farming operations I mean is a simple planting of a field which could be five acres now going to fall under storm water management um I think if they're not doing impervious cover I don't think so okay okay so impervious is going to be the trigger yeah not necessarily because it it's also clearing of vegetation like if you're going to clear a piece of land so it's the activity as well I think that's the way it works yeah I think I think we're going to have to have some clarification on impacts to you know normal farming operations being that we're we're primarily an agricultural Community yeah I mean so the definition of new development you know it says it defined as any construction activity or land alization resulting in total Earth disturbance equal to or greater than one acre on an area that has not previously been developed to include impervious cover and and all of these water quality requirements are based on the calculation of impervious area so like the 90 and 60 is all based on pollutant load from inferious cover okay uh questions Mary any any other questions while we go through all the members and then Renee you can continue on Mary any other questions you have for Renee at this time uh TJ any questions I did have some sorry I was muted oh sorry Mary yeah I'm sorry um a couple quick things I'm I'm going to have to hop off shortly on this off this call but um are when you when you put in these um criteria is this the minimum necessary to retain compliance with the permit okay so there's not any additional um items that aren't specifically required as part of this they are not at the moment I would say that EPA is in the process of issuing a new draft ms4 permit for the Massachusetts communities which is expected at the end of this year and there may potentially be a additional requirements and the regulations that would need to be incorporated by the town in in the future to meet those requirements but currently all we have added is the very minimum that's required by the nifties this doesn't go above and beyond right that's what that's what it read to me um to be as well and then um you know just for background for the the rest of the members who may not this may be coming out of left field for them because we haven't had any applications under the storm water bylaw since I've been involved um that most of the time the um D storm water regulations are going to kick in for a project that is large enough to um to trigger these storm waterer eggs and so my understanding is in that case then the D storm water RS if they comply with those then they automatically comply under this provision is that correct that's the way it works in a lot of towns where there's not a separate application process if your notice of intent covers the whole area I think it says that at the beginning of this if your notice of intent and in your or your storm water management that's submitted to you covers the entire area to be altered and it complies with zp storm water Rags then it would then comply with this this bylaw as well if the if the project doesn't have Wetlands nearby then you would have a separate application just under the storm water bylaw yeah understanding yeah so the the only C out to that is most communities have updated their rules and regulations and those are more stringent now currently than the Mast deep standards so when you submit an application for instance if you don't have Wetlands on site you still need to demonstrate in a storm water report that you're meeting the mass D standards then you also need to demonstrate that you're meeting the town's local ordinance rules and regulations as well okay okay and then this also talks about an application is there an application form that's with these regulations it talks about making an you know the the applicant fills out the application and submits a fee but there isn't any fee schedule or application form that's attached to this is that something that you develop or we have to develop on our own or how how would somebody make an application because I don't think that anybody has done that yet okay I wasn't aware there wasn't an application so I I think if there hasn't been a lot of permit yet we make an application that's consistent with this that would go along with this worm water bylaw I'm not aware of one but perhaps it exists under the original bylaw I just I okay yeah not aware of that anything else mayam that's it thank you okay thank you Mary TJ any any questions for Renee on the lot to process here a lot to process especially being one of the people married this is one of my first times dealing with this but um under new development what is the criteria I know it's one acre but it can be part of a larger group what triggers being part of a larger group is it one owner one permit a BN a group of people is there a time limit as to when increments can be Mary were you gonna say something no go ahead go ahead yeah so typically you know you know it could be a large parcel like and I think the most common ones that you may refer to is like a commercial development like a large sort of big box development have an extremely large parcel you're you're going to zoning and merging lots and so if they come in for a single parcel to develop that single parcel you really want to understand what's the plan overall you know where is parking going to be you know where other buildings going to be even though you may be it may be a phase development approach um I would say the same May apply to a large subdivision right where maybe you know they want to put the road in but they don't want to build all the houses at once you want to really understand from the commission perspective where the total impacts are going be even though we're only going to build you know a handful of homes you know six to 10 Homes at the start and then do more later so that's kind of what we're talking about a common plan is really that you know you don't want to just look at a small portion like one piece of a larger common development and so typically when you see something like that you may you just need to typically ask applicants you know what the plan is for the overall site long term okay okay anything else TJ no that's it okay Brad any any questions yeah just to follow on to TJ's question Renee so would that include adjacent sites because we've seen not necessarily in this community but in other communities um that a developer starts out with a parcel um does the development and then continues the development into a subsequently acquired parcel that then is a separate application but it's really one big project yeah I would say that that's probably not going to be feasible right because at the time of the application that that developer apply doesn't own that adjacent parcel um you know so I would think it'd be at the time it would be sort of whatever that property owner owns you know and really you know I could see that you know I live in newbry for I'm right down the down from so I'm very familiar with what goes on um but yeah that's really hard to police you know I know that it right but I don't think there's a way to enforce that kind of say like are you interested in buying that parcel next door in 10 years or five years or two years you know whatever so when I so excuse me so so that that then just says would we be allowed to ask the question that or put a restriction that this is the only development that this development cannot connect to a future development um I don't think we can do that I don't think I mean that's really I don't think you can either but I'm asking the question because this seems somewhat restrictive for a a developer uh especially with the amount of impervious that they're allowed to uh develop with so yeah I I I just see some developers that are not on the up and up would try and SC this uh doing it incrementally right yeah still and still and still excuse me still um maintaining compliance with the written regulation but not necessarily with the spirit of the regulation yeah I I think the key here is sort of with these larger common developments what we want super like we want to catch is if they're coming in and doing a small portion of it and designing a storm water management system that can only treat the impervious from that area and then they come back and say well gez there's no more space left and I have all this development so we can't meet the criteria that's really what you want to prevent early on to make sure that they're saving adequate space to manage the storm water runoff from the larger development yeah I'm just thinking I'm thinking of the de development down at the old golf course in in new report right because that's exactly the the problem that they have yes okay thank you that's all Mr chair thank okay thank you Brad Mick any questions at this time for Rene I think mine were along the same lines of of Brad and TJ where know developer gets permitted for a property of three or four acres what's to prohibit them from adding on 0.9 acres and 0.9 acres to that subdivision you know after the fact and I think I think my question's answered but that that was my concern too that we have this one acre limit you know there are developers out there that will say well I just added on 0.9 Acres as a separate but it's still contingent with that same culdesac or something like that so but it's yeah kind of the same thought process but doesn't sound like we really have built into this okay thank you McAn what do you thoughts on this matter any questions for no I'm one of the ones that's coming out of left field so I'm don't have a problem with the regulation updates but I would need to review the rules and the regulations in more depth if and when um an application that involves the these issues comes up in the future so y i I think the perfect example of what everyone's been hinting around I own a 20 acre site that has 1,200 feet of existing Frontage on a roadway and I have five for a lots that are an acre or less but I have 19 19 Acres of undevelop land out back that I've left access to that's what we're trying to avoid is bifa it seems that the goal is to take the locus of the potential de development uh into consideration at the Forefront of the approval process then peace mail and ending up short-handed at the end right yeah and Bob for that development you probably have to run a road right up to tie in those other Lots well you know being being a developer Renee myself you would leave one lot that you wouldn't build on that would become your your road access yeah I mean I'm I'm think I'm thinking like a developer on this which is I guess dangerous from time to time but okay well Renee why don't you Mary any any other thoughts in your before Renee continues no I mean I apologize I have to hop off but I I think this is you know well done and I don't have any real comments on you know the changes that are proposed I just think we need to educate ourselves a little more on what the structure is in the town that would alert us to these projects that we might not see otherwise so we're only getting notice of intense for for projects that are that have Wetland that are within 100 feet of wetlands or in a Source area so we would need to talk maybe internally with the building department or whoever it is you know so that we can make sure that we capture these projects so they come they they do end up being directed to us um most of the time I think these are going to be larger projects and they're probably going to require planning Board review as well so sure there's that aspect of it and also a lot you know larger projects complex projects we can always have outside peer review of storm water uh under the D rags and under this as well because it is often more than what the local boards can handle on their own so this is going to be a two-step process it's going to be adopting the RS and then we're going to have to update the bylaw that's step two so tonight what's before us is just reviewing the rigs and as doing a Q&A on that thank you Mary I I'm I'm an Al if you need it okay all right thank you right thank you all right Renee why don't you continue yeah and then the final item um is is just an update to what's required on the record drawings or the asilt drawings that need to be provided from the applicant back to the town um so there were specific requirements in the nifty's ms4 permit um that U that they you know that they're required upon completion of construction and before release of the full performance guarantee prior there was they had two years after completion of construction to submit so we wanted to update that to ensure that they were getting those sooner um and then there's just specific requirements of what actually needs to be on the record drawings um so you know we we added additional things which included the that all on-site storm water controls both structural and non-structural designed to manage the storm water associated with the completed site needed to be on there um and then just a reminder that you know they needed to be stamped by a professional engineer um so that's um I think that's it yep let me go down just to confirm sure y so that's it okay so I I mean I I think just writing down the you know the questions was what were the exemptions y residential egg Fe schedule application um um pomy is saying that we should probably get those answers before we continue this until we get those answers um and and then again we're going to have to update the bylaw one quick question yes uh there was a recent Supreme Court case socket versus EPA where the Waters of the United States was redefined um bomo stringently how does what impact does that had on storm water and epa's reach beyond the navigable Waters of the United States I was involved in the case that's the only reason I good yeah I mean so in the nift's ms4 permit you know it really comes into play with sort of how we Define an outfall um so you know it's not so much in this rules and regulations from a storm water perspective it's not going to impact that very much it's more so you know where storm water is discharged through a pipe to from a site into they always say a water of the United States is how an outfall is defined and so I feel like every administr that definition changes and so you know well the Supreme Court changed that definition yeah so I guess you know EPA you know leaves their permits fairly vague and refers to you know if a storm water drainage discharges two waters of the United States so it's left vague in the permit and it's really up to the the the towns and permites to basically ensure that they're in compliance with that definition you know and really it comes down to I would say in the Nifty permit this one it's their outfalls right where pipes discharging and when it's determined outfall is whether it discharges to the water of the United States or not um does that answer your question Bob yeah I I I mean I I think what's happened is that the Nexus the Waters of the United States used to be you could be 40 miles away from a navigable body of water but uh intermittent stream could shed you know particulate into a more seasonal stream ultimately work its way uh into a navigable body of water uh under socket versus EPA the quot was very specific that it had to be directly uh connected to a navigable body of water and and not 12 miles away or it was an interesting case but so I would say that my main concern is the devil's in the details uh I'm always nervous when we are going to adopt a EPA regulation and ms4 regulation that is then going to be part of our uh regulation without knowing because that can change at any time and once we've submitted and committed to it U there's really no no going back on that so it it kind of keeps it it's plain vanilla right now these are pretty minor changes um but so the flood plane maps of femur and you know as we all know how those can change uh so the big thing here is what jurisdictional reach does EPA have under socket versus EPA on this storm water management and this request directly is is one of my questions to what exemptions uh how do we handle exemptions I what I want to have is I own pel a in its three acres and TJ owns pel B and its three acres I don't want to have a situation where that for me to develop p a i have to do the potential storm waterer Cs on an adjacent piece of property that I do not own I I just want to Clarity is the most important part here for me yeah and I would say that the you're talking about the offsite requirements correct right yeah well I think you know the I think the town in the Conservation Commission should basically limit the development on the site in order to accommodate the storm water management right so sometimes that's losing developable area right so you may have to give up a a parking area or you may have to give up you know portion of a building to allow it to remain on site um I have seen where communities have allowed it to go offsite a lot of times it happens on Town owned property um so and or they may contribute to A A Bank you know they may pay a fee into a mitigation bank that is then used in the future again to mitigate um locations on town-owned property and or it's kind of similar like a wetland bank right you know a wetland mitigation Bank where you've identified locations where you want to do a large you know Wetland mitigation project but doing small little ones you know for impacts doesn't make sense so you pull all the money and then you pick a parcel and then you do a larger project that has a larger impact um but I think most communities shy away from that because again it's administratively challenging and you have to find projects and then you have to you know the project may not be implemented to several years down the road and then that developer is gone and you you know to have ties to have them do construction so I think just hold applicants accountable for doing the storm water on the site is really what it should come down to so the the one acre or greater requirement is coming out of the the ms4 current ms4 yes okay re regardless of whether they're proposing 12,000 square feet of impervious surface on that acre no it's really yeah the one acre that so it's one acre of land disturbance you know but it's really most of the requirements are tied to impervious cover so if they're not doing really any impervious cover many of the requirements won't like the TSS requirements and the water quality requirements they won't have to do anything because they're not generating impervious cover okay so it's the one acre of disturbance with impervious cover is basically okay okay yeah so I think Renee if I think you hear we're concerned about the exemptions making sure we have Clarity on those Mary brought up a a good point on um fee schedule I mean is that something we establish and it something that we would include in the bylaw um and the application process is it a simple letter request or is there a template that we should be considering I I will note that um EPA is requiring that the town pass this by June 30th um so I just think just be aware that time is of the essence here as well yeah we have a June 18th meeting okay perfect that we we can continue this too but I again I I really want to I I'd really like to get an answer on socket versus EPA and how jurisdiction how does an acre of land in the middle of Newbury that's not near a navigable body of water fall under storm water management and EPA jurisdiction based on socket versus EPA okay that the state certainly but um I mean you know typically what happens here is whatever EPA does State just does it and adds 5% more to it that was the big outcry when socket was was defined all it did was established where Federal jurisdiction stopped and local and state jurisdiction began uh in eliminating an overlap so okay any any other questions team no no no no okay so Renee I think you've got the questions we've raised y um so uh do any other members have a request for additional information uh or additional content to this ms4 regulation update no no nope okay so the the there's no additional request Renee just the ones we mentioned okay so is there a motion to continue this public hearing to our June 18th move second okay all those in favor roll call TJ hi Brad hi Mick hi Diane yes and Bob Connor vot yes Renee thank you very much thanks have a good night okay okay next matter is a continued public hearing on D file number 0501 42418 temple boulevad West uh the applicant is requested to continue into the June 18th meeting they've downsized this project team apparently they've been talking to the neighbors uh and they've reduce the overall size footprint uh of the proposed work and I they're going to come in on the the June 18th meeting to present that so uh I'll entertain a motion uh to continue the public hearing to June 18th at the applicant's request so moved second okay roll call TJ hi Brad hi Mick Diane yes and Bob Connor's vot chess all right uh under Administration staff reports and updates team I had sent out a draft letter that the town is it's a recommendation for a grant uh to update our open space and Recreation plan and I sent that out to you was in the Dropbox but I also sent it out to you directly yesterday again it it's it's more that we're in support of it um we actually do play a role in open space and they're actually looking for conservation members who want to uh to sit on that I I have volunteered myself and um so any questions on this what what I'd like to do is it's it's a pretty standard template form we we do have a representative from the open space committee oh okay great yeah I think it's Christina Christina you could just give us your name and address and sure my name is Christina Hoffman I live at 21 Marsh Avenue and yes I am on the open space committee and thank you so much uh Mr chairman for um sending out that letter the letter that is supportive of the town going for grant money um we send it into one location and we um there are two different pots of money that we would be uh in line to possibly receive uh should they so Grant it um and we also are really looking forward to working with the Conservation Commission on the open space and Recreation Plan update great all right team any any questions on this matter let me just go around Mick any any questions on this TJ any questions on this no Diane great no let a look Brad any any questions on that no Mr chair thanks for sending that out okay so what what I would ask team is that there's a motion to authorize the chair to convert this draft letter uh on behalf of the commission and uh and provide it to the town so moved second okay all in favor of uh finalizing the letter dated June 5th on the community one stop for growth Comm the mass say I hi TJ TJ Diane hi Mick hi Brad hi and Bob Connor's vks yes okay thank you Christina I I sent that out so uh please like Kristen it it's good to go it was draft form as of yesterday now it's got the blessing of the commission so considered final thank you so much for your support I appreciate it take care okay uh Sean you what's the update Sean had an update a status update on 27 Coleman Road if you recall that was a Newbery Rowley work was done complaints uh cross jurisdiction D involvement and so Sean why don't you give us give us a quick overview on that and Sean received a communication from the his counterpart rowy right yep so so um I was in contact with Brett and Brent and he pretty much told me what's going on over there 90% of the work is in Raleigh um over maybe over 90% until it's figured out um the question that us agents had is whether the commissions would allow Raleigh to take over the entirety of this project because of the um the messiness of of getting to towns involved on such a smaller amount of um work that needs to be done on the Newberry side the residents are in the Newberry side but their properties are on Raleigh so it's a it's it's a complete um mix of of jurisdiction okay so you know what it actually uh it it the good thing is D's kind of quarterbacking this to a point oh they're involved with oversight um it would be great if they would just take it over completely and keep us in in the loop my my only concern is I it's hard to wave our jurisdiction without actually knowing uh what we're waving if rowy decides to handle this with an enforcement order uh then it precludes Newbury residents from notice on work being proposed with mediation uh and it kind of keeps Newber residents in the dark and that's my probably my biggest concern if Rowley requires a notice of intent incorporating all the work uh I again I think once that plan came in one plan should cover the work for both towns but the jurisdiction might still need to be bated I just don't know how Raleigh can enforce uh an order of conditions on newb and a newb owned property but that just kind of thought there John what I think that I think that based off of the amount of work that's being done in Newberry uh the it would be easier just for them to concentrate on the Raleigh side well if they're not doing any work in Newbury then they don't need our you know our involvement but if they're proposing some work I I think we just have to keep an open mind and you know mean from my perspective it's the notice to the neighbor so so the notice of the neighbors um with an enforcement order you don't have to notify the the neighbors so either way it wouldn't um the neighbors wouldn't be notified so we are doing a notice kind of here um letting everybody know what will what's going on in Raleigh but our commission could require an order we could issue an enforcement order requiring an order of conditions with a restoration plan and then that would Loop in all of the you know potties of interest within the 300 fet um I mean that's how this kind of started one neighbor was acting unilaterally and then the next neighbor was getting impacted by it and and so on but I'm going to stop there Mick what are your thoughts on this one this I think it's if if you start to split uh give jurisdiction to Ry in this case you kind of set a precedence right and at what percentage of property is it 51% is it 90% you know it you set that precedence I guess to that you are kind of giving up your jurisdiction on on town on land within our town um so John let everyone speak and I'll come back to you and then I think my next my next thought or question is like I would think there's no work occurring or impacting the portion of the land in in Newbury than they could file for an file an RDA which essentially would be negative correct now that's good that's I think would be that to me it would be the cleaner process so now the work is defined in rallies kcom up to the rally border and there's no you know if there's no work you know in Newbury then we give it a negative determination I actually I like that a lot Nick Nick I think that's a it's a good thought that way we still maintain control of you know land within our town and we don't set this precedence of like like I said well oh 51% of the project is in rale so you let us do this last time now you have to let do let us do it again type you know type of scenario I just think at the very least they they they file an RDA well and and again that's a public notice to to a buts too so that it's so okay all right mck Diane what do you thought no I mean Sean I understand what you were saying as far as the enforcement order not requiring um notice anyways but maybe like if the enforcement order required them to submit an noi and Ry the person in Newberry that might be affected by that wouldn't be given notice at that point um so I like the idea of us being in the loop because it seemed if I recall from this project it was the runoff that was coming into the new berry so it was really affecting us um and although we would trust Rowley um you know to do right by everybody um I still like the idea that we would be in charge of what happens on Newberry property okay thank you Diane BR what are your thoughts on this your your I it's difficult for me to Garner a a intelligent opinion on this without even understanding what the project is so I think it's incumbent uh as both Diane and mix said that we get a at least a bite at the Apple um just because of we are responsible for anything that happens in Newbury so whether or not we did a joint uh rowy Newbury conservation commission's uh attendance at a presentation by this developer or whether it we give you the authority to contact the uh chairman of the Raleigh Conservation Commission and and work out uh exactly how this thing would happen but I I agree with mix's assertion that we should never give up control of uh the effect that any development would have on on land that is within our jurisdiction thank you Mr chair DJ your thoughts yeah I I Echo uh yours and the other three uh board members opinion that um you know I'm not trying to make this Overcomers for you Sean but I don't I think it's irresponsible if we don't at least um have a look at the the project and know exactly what it is and what we would be signing off on so Sean I I I I think that the proper course of action is rowy should can certainly take the lead on this and pursue however they're going to address their uh this violation whether it's an enforcement order an noi uh and it would be wonderful if the rowy conservation required the entire scope to be on their plant on their submitt but Newbury is going to require an RDA to make a determination at some point whether this's work being done in Newbury that requires a further review in a possible noi or a negative finding that it is so insignificant that we we're not re we this issue in negative finding but I I think if we re we would let Raley know that whatever course of action they take Newber is going to require an RDA uh for any work that uh overlaps into the Newbury Town Line that sound like a playing Team yeah perfect thing right and I think I think Sean that keep that keeps it pretty simple an RDA gives us a peak I think it comes out the same way Rowley is still going to do all the heavy lifting and but whatever that plan shows it should include the entire scope of work if it spills over to us it an RDA has to come before us that gives our Butters a notice and then we can make a determination on how significant again rdas don't require a Butter's notices well it requires a public notice we have to we have to post it yes public notice yes yeah so which is a notice it's a notice to the public so all right team I Comm commission members I did have a um a some input on this um if if you can make it tomorrow they are having a site visit at 1M I believe that's all of Raleigh um conservation or of Raleigh Conservation Commission including the the two neighbors or the two abutters um it's at 1M tomorrow at 27 Coleman Road is there any plans have they is there any proposed plans or existing conditions and proposed remediation plans that have been done are they still that's still in the process they're still in the process they're doing the site visit tomorrow okay John I I would simply suggest that the Newber commission is going to require an RDA from the applicant on any proposed work that is going to be within the borders of the town of Newbury okay I'll let the let the owners know yeah and Mick that was a great idea I just think that keeps it clean we get a peek at it it's insignificant it's a negative if not we require them to do an noi even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then okay that's enough for you for the year all right it is it is now 720 team any any final comments Diane any words of wisdom you want to add to the Newbury Conservation Commission Brain Trust nope not today okay TJ any any final thoughts nope well good okay ni any any thoughts any comments no I am good Bob thank you okay Brad duffen motion motion to adjourn Mr chair okay is there a second second second okay roll call all in favor TJ hi Brad hi Diane Bob Conor thank you everyone good night good night thank you