##VIDEO ID:xgQwrtsYmEM## so why don't we get going uh good evening my name's Bob Connors it's uh 6:01 PM I'd like to call the October 15th meeting of the Newbury Conservation Commission to order Mason please read the remote open meeting law Preamble and take a roll call of members present as a preliminary matter this is Mason ferret conservation agent of the new Conservation Commission and I call the October 15th meeting to order and permit me to confirm that all members are present can hear me Members when I call your name please respond in the affirmative Mary rimmer yes TJ Cony yes Mick Brown yes Diane O'Brien Woody Knight yes Bob Connors yes and Frank wamp yes good evening everyone this open meeting the Newby Conservation Commission is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of March 12 2020 due to the current state of emergency and the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the covid-19 virus in order to mitigate the transmission of covid-19 virus we had been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public Gatherings and as such the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location further all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely for this meeting the new Conservation Commission is convening by Zoom as post on the agenda of the Conservation Commission section of the town's website identifying how the public may join please note that this meeting is being recorded and that attendees are participating by video conference accordingly Please be aware that other folks May able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording applicants or the representatives may be called upon to speak and or share information to the screen if able on the Fly we're now turning to the first item on the agenda before we do so permit me to cover some of the ground rules for effective clear conduct for our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes the chair will introduce each speaker on the agenda after they conclude their remarks the chair will go down the line of members inviting each by name to provide any comment questions or motions please hold until your name is called further please remember to mute your microphone please use earbuds and please remember to speak clearly in in a way that helps generate accurate minutes for any response please wait until the chair yields the floor to you and state your name before speaking board and committee members should be called upon in first name alphabetical order to ease the process after the board and committee members have spoken the chair will afford public comments as follows finally each vote taken in the meeting will be conducted by roll call okay thank you Mason all right upcoming meeting dates November 5th and November 15 I first I'd like to welcome Frank wet Camp back to the commission thank you Frank and and it would be traditional at this time when we have a new member uh that uh the board entertains reorganization um I'm a big proponent of sharing the chair with whoever would like to be it U but is does anyone have an interest does anyone want to make a motion to reorganize I guess I we there's no motion there's no second so Mary you and I are I nominate you [Applause] Bob I second a n expect us to jump into that one Bob well you know what it's it's part of the part of the process all right uh well welcome welcome Frank thank you thank you many uh meeting minutes to review October 1st why don't we take a a quick look at those and see if we have any comments Corrections or concerns okay hearing none I I'll entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 1st so moved thank you Mary uh second second okay uh Frank actually you can't because you weren't at that meeting okay then I'll second okay Mick second okay uh all in favor roll call Mary yes TJ hi Woody yes Mick hi uh Diane and I was not at the meeting so it is approved with a with four okay first order of business is a request for a determination 14 Pine Island Road applicant would like to construct and add a mudroom and a two-car garage to existing dwelling in property Mason can you provide an overview uh on this matter for us yep uh so this project has already uh come before the commission um but the applicant is returning to submit a plan with the resource area delineated and also the proposed work to be sketched out um in relation to the wetlands and the buffer zone um and with that I will allow John to share the screen if he would like to hey John just give us your your name and address and then make your presentation you're you're on mute John if you're there you go how's everyone doing I'm John Mel 14 Pine Island Road um here to hopefully construct a mudroom and a two-car garage um within the 100 foot buffer outside of the 50 Foot Wetland buffer I can pull up a plan I provide Mason with the um engineered septic plan after last meeting as you guys wanted to see further detail um so I think he might have uploaded that onto the portal I'm not sure um but if you're looking at that plan that shows existing dwelling 48 feet from the 100 foot buffer zone and we're going in that direction but on completion of the construction we'd still be well within 100 foot buffer zone um let me see if I can p up yeah I don't see anything that I in my folder for this project is am I missing something I have the John I have the existing site plan that you gave me I just don't have the one with the um New proposed mudro and garage um so I can share the existing one if you'd like yeah I think the one that show where the where the 100 foot buffer line is or where it was at that particular date I think that would be be helpful can you zoom in on that John and then just point out where the where the buffer is okay okay so the left side of your house is the 50 Foot buffer from the is that the 50 Foot buffer or is it there's buffer on both sides there's Wetland on both sides right where is the 50 Foot buffer on let's say the right side of your plan here is that 50 foot would be almost by the front left existing dwelling see got you dash line okay all right look like it's so so you're outside the 50 Foot buffer but within the 100 foot buffer on the right side Wetlands I guess is that am I saying this correctly okay okay so and John what what is the I mean typically John what we would have is a proposed site plan showing the proposed existing conditions the buffer uh and the proposed Foundation location um so what you're what you're what you're showing is to the left of the existing house you're going out how many feet towards the 100 foot buffer so the mudroom Dimensions is 14 feet wide by just shy of 20 feet deep and then the garage is 26 feet wide by 28 ft deep so if you take the 14t and the 26 it' be 40 ft off the front left corner and my measurement on that front left corner existing to 100 would be 48 approximately 48 feet if that 50 foot buffer because that's about two feet in based off the one one inch to 20 feet scale on this site plan John can you can you you had an elevation of your building plan which gave us a front elevation showing the existing house with the with the addition yeah if you could put that up I think that might be helpful so that was a rough sketch based off the dimensions proposed mud room here and then the garage okay let me see if I can get the uh no I think I mean I think that gives us Clarity pretty much on on where you're at and the hatch line is the 50ft buffer correct going yeah hash line yeah okay all right why don't I hold you there John and why don't we open this up to questions from the members uh Mary questions on this project on this RDA um I think what you know we had talked about previously is you know that this plan needs to I mean I this is a section of the plan but we need to I I just guess we need more context because it doesn't show where the wetlands are or anything so just need information on the existing conditions plan and with the title and date and scale and all that kind of stuff because this is a you know this is construction activity looks like you're probably going to have to change your driveway as well is that right um Mason did you scan that engineered plan that I submitted to you you have that access to that one if you could pull that up that would show all the stamp dates and the engineers yeah that it's just on it's just they're on two separate plans so I'm not sure that's helpful we need you know a full site plan showing all of the work with the wetlands with any grading that needs to happen around any tree clearing erosion control boundaries um you know anything that you're proposing to do to relocate the driveway to access this garage that might be in the buffer zone so I just I have a lot of questions I don't think that we're quite there yet this doesn't seem like an RDA to me at all it seem seems like an noi um but well I should say that is this area that where the garage is is this is it do you need to clear to put this in or is there lawn now or what is the area oh it's just grass on it's grass now I'm going to just um those are my comments for now Bob okay thank you Mary H so let's move on uh TJ questions for John on this one um not not questions it doesn't doesn't seem like it's a it's a big deal but I agree with Mary we we need to see the whole big picture together before we can with the driveway going in and what does and doesn't need to be done before we can go further okay so all right TJ I'll I'll go around a couple of times just to see if other comments generate more questions Woody uh questions for John on this project I don't really have any questions it seems straightforward other than what's previously been said that just that needs to be on a a farm plan so okay uh Mick any any questions on this one actually Mick you probably have a bird's eye view of this property don't you know wrap me out there Bob [Laughter] but no I I'm I'm familiar with the property I'm across the street um and it's my understanding just based on you know local knowledge and Mary probably has the same local knowledge this property sits on a peninsula really in between two sections of maybe separate Wetlands or even connected Wetlands so I I think uh as Mary suggested what would be good is to get a kind of a a a pan out section of this plan that shows Wetlands to the east Wetlands to the west and then the associated 50 foot and 100 foot borders associated with those two Wetlands that really do kind of confine the property on the East and on the west so I think that's important to include in that and you know J the home own like provide as much detail as you can like where where your silt barriers are going to be and where your Wetland protection areas are um as Mary suggested where your driveway improvements are going to be if any but we really need to see you know I see a 100 foot Wetland boundary and a 50ft wetland boundary and I just don't know which B which Wetland that is associated with so it's a little confusing to us and I know you've put a lot of effort into this already but just those are the things we kind of need to to find like which Wetland boundary is it to the east or to the west of the property so we can help you you know kind of move forward with the project but really it's not enough information right now but hopefully that helps you towards the next step of really getting a detailed you know engineering plan together okay thank you Mick Frank any any questions on this one you're on mute Frank uh I'm not familiar with the property um I agree with what's been said so far okay so John what what what seems to be the next step uh doesn't typically the building department want a proposed uh site plan showing your foundation with setbacks yes okay it I think that what what what I'm hearing is you're going to need a you're going to need a site plan with existing and proposed conditions identify where the the Wetland buffer zone is uh typically we require some sort of aosion control on the at the buffer lines and you could typically show that I think Mary's point is the how do you propos to do your driveway your as I recall because I think Mason and I when we were out there your entire front yard is almost a kind of a grally uh I'm not going to say a manicured lawn but more you can kind of drive a vehicle all over your property I think I was almost parked where your where your building is looking at when we pulled in but but I think showing your proposed driveway what what that's going to help us ascertain is can we can we look at this as an RDA or are you going to have to do an noi I mean at first blush where the building is proposed outside the 50 buffer and outside the 100 buffer we've allowed these by rdas in the past I think the impact of what your driveway is going to do uh will will be will be helpful to determine if we can continue down this pathway you're going to need it for let's just say this the commission decides that you have to come in for a noi the plan that you're preparing for the RDA is identical what you're going to need for the noi so it's you might be able to skip a step depending on the detail you put on the plan but let me Circle back to Mary Mary any any further questions did I do a summary of that that made sense to everyone yeah my I'm looking at mass mapper and and looking at the plan and and the wetlands that are shown on mass mapper are much closer to the garage than what is indicated on this plan they're shown at you know 46 ft from the existing house John if you stop sharing your screen I can pull up the M yeah so one I have a question about the Wetland delineation and it doesn't seem to have any indication of who did it or when it was done or how it was done so typically we you know you have you hire somebody to do that for you it's not just the edge of the pond there's Wetland vegetation along um the pond on both sides and yeah that is is not what I'm looking at but that's you know you can probably you can estimate it from yeah from the green using the um see the measuring tool there yeah right there length even if that's right that's only 49 feet you're showing it at 100 feet or more so um so that's why I'm I'm saying that you know the Wetland needs to be delineated you need a topic graphic survey because you're part par portions of the site are in flood plane and you don't know how much it's in flood plane until you do topographic survey it's you know there's just not quite enough information here um it's not clear where the where the driveway I mentioned will turn in and whether you need to fill anything to do that so I just think you know take you can use go back to the same engineer that did your site plan for your septic system and have them updated a little bit for you that would it'd be a saving but I I guess can't see we're not quite there yet with this I think there may be a way to do it but if that Wetland is where it is it's the impacts are considerably greater so okay thank you Mary TJ any any any further comments you want to add to this nothing further no okay Woody how about yourself no nothing further either thank you Bob okay Mick any anything further yeah you're you're on you're on mute M quick question John I I know that your septic was shown on the plan there's no one uh proposed changes to the septic right okay I I did find one other plot plan I don't know if it would help you that I submitted with the building department I don't know if you guys have reviewed this you want to look at it can you see that yeah there's way more detail on this when was this done it looks like Hancock in 202 March 20222 oh great great great great okay yeah this is actually the plan we're looking for actually I just modified that other one half F kind with the sketch but basically if you can see we're going to be going right here yeah yeah and again it doesn't quite look like they I they Flagg the wetlands either they they it looks like they pulled something from GIS so it may be closer or further away you know that's just the gis overlay on there but you can H ask them to have somebody flag the Wetland so we know exactly where it is and then add your addition your garage to this plan in the in the driveway I mean this is is you know so you want a full delineation there yeah I mean that's what we'd ask for anyone you know to you can't just take that because the information online is just an estimate from aerial photography or something it's it could be could be way less in that and you don't want to impinge your property more than you you know you need to um it could be more doesn't look like it is from the aerial but it would be helpful to have that correct um not only helpful but we require it that's part of what we have to do is review the and make sure the Wetland is identified correctly and protected so we would need Road control barriers shown the location of work any grading around the work all that stuff Hancock will know what to what to show in the plan okay thank you Mary y uh Frank any any further questions okay so John I think it what what I would suggest is why don't you reach out to Hancock tell him you're coming in for an RDA and and and the question is whether this project is going to be allowed on an RDA or have to be or a fall into an noi it seems like it's drifting more towards an noi with the The Limited information we have right now um but but that any any other comments John do you want to make any other comments or any other the members have any further comments on this what I'm gonna go go ahead yeah if you're if you're within two feet of the Wetland I mean if you don't have a decent buffer zone between the limit of work and your Wetland you know you're going to probably be in a notice of intent so just it it looks like you're probably going to be looking at that based on this image yeah if you're within the 50 Foot buffer zone it it's it's a different different standard for us where we can consider the RDA but once you're within the 50 Foot buffer you're you're likely going to need an noi so I guess the question is John what do you want to do do you want to continue this for 30 days to give you a chance I don't know how backed up most these Consultants have but it seems like 30 days is what it's been taking to get and if you're going to have to do a Wetlands delini deliniation then that may take some time yeah I'm working with Hancock on another project in it right now so I have a good rapport with them so well we can we can continue this to the next meeting but I'm gonna suggest why don't you continue it to the uh to the November 19th meeting just to give you 30 days to try to put this together okay and all right so I'll entertain a motion to continue this matter to the November 19th uh meeting at the applicant's request so moved okay do we have a second a second okay roll call all in favor Mary yes PJ hi Woody yes Mick hi and Bob Connor's votes yes Frank sorry were you you weren't here when this get posted we you don't have much of a voice on this one tonight thank you John thank you okay uh next matter is uh it's a open enforcement order it's expired D file number 050 1344 to wpoint Road Sunset Club uh respondent has submitted an noi uh and I guess the matter is do we want to consider closing this ex enforcement order Mason what on the original forcement order I I don't have it in front of me but as I recall it was no further work refresh erosion control and submit an noi correct there were no other requirements on that I can double check that for you okay e don't know if I have it right here in the folder I I need some more time to dig that up okay well you know why don't why don't we do this uh we'll just kick this to the next meeting but I as as I recall I I'm pretty sure that's what it is but um certainly there's there's no urgency tonight to to close this matter out all right so moving on next enforcement order is 105 Northern Boulevard unpermitted work applicant has provided a revegetation plan planting has been completed uh I sent pictures out to the members Mason I think you did a site inspection yep uh yeah I was able to go out on the site and there was grass plugs in the front side and backyards um there PL planted appropriately with spacing um and ended up sewing in and connecting to um the existing vegetation in the back part of the backyard um and I also have some photos I can share this is the front yard here those might be too too close together I think that's 11 by 11 grid not 12 by 12 [Music] but these were the rest of the plantings that he was putting in in this area here to tie in with the existing vegetation now looks good yep all right so thank you Mason Mason uh what's your what's your what's your recommendation on this yeah I recommend that we ratify this enforcement order I think he um successfully in in completion um completed his planting plan um as it was shown on the plans okay questions from the members Mary what are your thoughts on this no I mean I if there's not a hurry on issue of closing out the enforcement order just you know we could wait a little bit to make sure these new plantings take and that there are the remaining plantings are installed but um I think that it's pretty good effort to date to rectify the situation so those are my only thoughts okay well you know what may why don't we consider doing this I'm going to throw this out there why don't we amend the enforcement order uh that the agent will do a final review uh in you know may of 2025 uh to verify that the plantings have taken and then we'll just close out the enforcement order at that point but we'll take it off our agenda it'll just be continued we'll put it on that whatever the first Monday of May is yep does that sound good yeah sound great Woody does that make sense to you yes it does and plantings look good yeah uh TJ how about you what are your thoughts on that perfect okay and Mick sounds like a good plan to me Bob I'm good with that all right so Frank just just for background uh unbeknownst to most people when you live in Plum Island you you really can't do much in your yard without permission from us uh this was a a perfect example and I I want to give both Heidi and Jim High marks uh that they been very cooperative and the effort they've put into it it it's so much easier to resolve these matters when we have cooperation and thank you Jim and Heidi for doing that it looks great down there so I'll entertain a motion to amend the existing enforcement order uh including that uh no no further review will be taken until the first Monday in May at which time the agent will make a determination on the success of the planting no moved second okay all those in favor Mary yes TJ I W yes Mick hi and Bob Connor's votes yes so Mason you've got the wording on that basically we'll take this off the future agendas first Monday in May is when we'll inspect third Monday in May is when we will consider closing this out yep I okay quick question for um for Heidi and Jim did you fertilize by any chance just curious when you put the plants in did you add any fertilizer you're on mute Jim if you're uh yeah we can't hear you yeah I think you're on mute or your are your your volume is down Jim I believe Jim you can kind of give maybe a thumbs up or a thumbs down but they've been in for about a week or so um they originally had um a little bit of soil in um the pot that they came with and from what I saw it looks like there's continued growth on the plants okay yeah sometimes know you a little bit of fertilizer in the spring you might might be helpful or even in the fall yeah yeah okay all right moving on thank you Jim and Heidi all right moving on next matter is enforcement order for D file number 0501 1326 108 Main Street uh at our last meeting or at the uh September 17th meeting as I recall we agreed to amend this uh to take no action there either going to request an extension of time or file an noi um on 12312 in anticipation I hope that some State activity May to this permit so no further action is required on that uh enforcement order D file number 0501 336 three new report turnpike unpermitted work uh the original uh not the original enforcement order was basically a stop work order do re refresh existing erosion controls and submit an noi all of those conditions have been met uh at this time so do we want to consider closing this out where we do have a valid notice of intent uh and they have an expired order of conditions that they're going to want to close out so it I don't see whether there's a gap on uh they're going to wind up doing this so so uh why don't I stop there Mary what are your thoughts on this one uh I'm abstaining from this project oh okay conflict so thank you yep sorry about that what are what are your thoughts on this one sounds good I close out the uh order sounds good all right thank you TJ what are your thoughts on this matter yeah you're on mute TJ no no further no no thoughts I'm good okay Mick what what's your thoughts on that yeah just um excuse my ignorance I guess Bob but just trying to understand the process so they we're going to close out an expired order of conditions and how would how do we re establish order of conditions for the work that's going to be ongoing so so the the empirical CH chronology of this is an order of conditions that expired we we issued the enforcement order that we're discussing now that basically was to give them a heads up don't do any further work refresh the erosion control and to submit an noi by a date CT they they've met the conditions of the enforcement order we on our continued public hearings will be discussing the notice of intent we're not issuing a certificate of compliance for the expired order that's still open okay that's still open it it should be covered by what they've submitted for the noi right and then they'll have to close both out the old order and the New Order once they're in compliance but yeah so the matter is is there any reason to keep the enforcement order uh in in place or do we consider closing it out because they've met the conditions of the original order I don't think if they've met the requirements of the enforcement order of course that can be closed or yeah that's the only that's the only thing being discussed at this at this moment so yeah M because there was just control over not control to have governance over continuing work outside of that enforcement order right okay okay all right uh Frank what what we have here is that an order of conditions that expired U and typically what we've been doing is issuing enforcement order um I'm going to call it a friendly enforcement order but it just gives some insight to the applicant that it really can't proceed with any of the work that was proposed on the expired order that you need to file a new not notice of intent uh to pick up those conditions uh and um basically refresh the erosion control so they've met the standard on the enforcement order but there's still a outstanding expired order that they're going to have to get a certificate of compliance on and then the New Order of conditions uh when it's approved will also require a certificate of compliance so we we have a double check on making sure that we get to the Finish Line on that so just for FYI on this where you're yeah sounds good okay all right I I will entertain a motion to uh close the enforcement order for three Newbery report turnpike uh as presented don't move second okay uh roll call all in favor TJ hi Woody yes Mick hi and Bob Connor votes I all right uh next matter enforcement order EP file number 0501 1201 it's expired 30 Riverview Drive un permitted work Mason can you give us a an overview on this and where we stand on this yeah uh so I think a couple of the members have been able to come out to the site uh to get some eyes on it but to sum it up um there was unpermitted work um alteration of an inland Bank um to help out some flooding issues that was happening on the road in relation to a bvw that was across the street um there was a site conducted with the concom members on 105 um and we had kind of discussed some remediation possibilities um and gone over the work that has already been done okay uh well I see the the applicant is I see a handsome couple in my screen here do you want yeah would you rules on any of us so yeah no I know we're just Youth Of America compared to our ages for go absolutely B do do you have anything you want to offer or do you want to just answer questions what would you like to do uh I I apologize I wasn't uh at the last meeting I did drive by the property yesterday and uh saw what looked like kind of a remnance of of the old the old Swale that was there about a 10 foot section but oh if I if I could share my screen I can yeah why don't you do that okay be great just gonna take a second here can you all see this yep okay and I guess this must be this the Swale here yeah that's your clamshell parking lot um and I'm if I remember correctly the stream flows in this direction yeah you can almost see Mary like the there's like a black like I think they may be like like a black line goes across the street like of like black top right there yeah that's it y yep uh so there's Wetland here um and then I don't remember what the size of the cul was um under the road 12 inch or something well 12 yeah Y and then there um was a this has all been covered around the the parking area now into an open sale right here and then it goes back underground under a little Farm Road into the TAC crop field here yep so um and I believe that this shows as a little stream on the USGS map although in this one it goes in the other direction it looks like it's going to to a pond and out here I mean yeah there is a pond that that's Matt you know that that's way bigger in the dire like that doesn't kind of do that yeah path oh it's com okay yeah that that makes sense okay it's going this way yeah okay yeah yeah turn I mean that does go yeah correct yeah you can see the pond is it's just not that way back here that irrigation Pond exactly yep just for folks that didn't get a chance to get to the meeting and so the issue is it does qualify as an intermittent stream because it's flowing out of a wetland into another Wetland um there was an active Channel there that's now been piped about a 100 linear feet or so we estimated yeah and it's it is dry most of the time um I'd say you know 90 to 95% of the year it's actually dry um so it's just when we get heavy rains that kind of thing that it it's becomes a little stream right yeah okay so I guess uh Mary what what are your thoughts how do we resolve this for this family that the lake well it seems they have a couple of options and um or we have a couple of op opt options one is to restore original conditions because there was a resource there one is for them to file and after the fact notice of intent with some professional support from a wetland scientist to convince us that that work was done in compliance with the regulations because the stream either wasn't a stream or the bank didn't have any Bank function that is um you know needed to be protected or something like that um I mean I don't think that there's an option to just let it sit because there is there was a you know direct alteration to a resource even though it is an intermittent stream it doesn't flow all the time it's a conveyance from one Wetland to another and we don't know by the problem is that it there's no problem if you would take it would be a lesser problem if you had taken the pipe out and allowed daylight the Stream but when you bury a stream then the channel capacity of the stream has to be taken into account whether or not you're um affecting the you know the the uh flow capacity of the channel by culting it you use the same covert size I think as what was there already so there's already a restriction under the road and that restriction is just continuing out into the to the open ditch so that's probably not you know Pro it's probably not an issue hydrologically you know that of in terms of creating Upstream um impacts because they're already um but but it could cause some impacts further Downstream I mean it'll back up onto your property just further down is what will happen yeah the one thing I I don't know if um for Baba who whoever it was is like we didn't mention kind of what the other side yeah like that like that that has all filled in over the years so like where more water used to have a place to kind of like settle y now it just comes and it wants to go this it it just is all yeah and there's ways of um you know we can certainly allow cover coverts that have been buried with sediment to be you know for that sediment to be removed that's that can be done by hand and is not is allowed in the regulations it's the loss of the channel that's the issue and that's yeah that so that's where now at Daylights into a deeper ditch that was created as sort of a settling Pond which is not a bad idea and they were talking about planting in this area and then it goes into a culvert again under the little Farm Road at the end of the that picture there yeah okay Mary why don't I do this why don't I why don't you hold your thoughts and I'll Circle back and see what other members have okay okay H Woody what are your thoughts on this one um I don't have any questions at this time um it's I went on the sidewalk and I'm kind of trying to figure out how what the best thing to do here is so I'm just kind of sitting back listening okay thank you witty TJ what are your thoughts on this one I I was not on the sidewalk so that's the first time I'm I'm seeing this um um so I I don't it looks like we we've got our back against the wall a little bit and there's some things that we we have to hold to um but try to figure out how to make make it as the least amount of pain possible for the applicant um so I'm going to listen a little bit more too okay Mick what what are your thoughts on this one I mean you know one thought one thought comes to mind this drain pipe that goes across the road is it actually a town owned was it put in properly or is it just someone on one side of the street is getting rid of some water to the other side of the street and this is kind of disorganized on all this where that what what are your thoughts Mick well that that that really is in the same line with my kind of initial question and Mar sorry couldn't to make it that morning to that s sidewalk sorry you weren't feeling but um like the initial I guess alteration was the installation of that covert and and the installation Bas of the street or the neighborhood correct oh probably or or I mean or it could have been a drainage feature for the road when the road was built yeah exactly that's what I'm that's kind of what I'm envisioning is like when they put the neighborhood in they put Riverview you know in or it was installed to accommodate flow you know across a low spot so um if I I you know I'm not like but what I say is like okay so now we going back to the original like who installed it how was it installed was it installed correctly and obviously whether it's clogs or or improper installation it's now causing issues on this property so you know you know K we're we're really working to help you alleviate the impact of your property but just trying to understand the process and you know kind of who owns this now is really I think a big question to me if I might yeah yeah certainly for one second so like one thing that um Mary had put the pictures up the you're exactly right someone put a pipe under that ground and this is our property we're trying to deal with I don't want to keep going back to my neighbor across the street when we moved in that pipe was mostly full of sediment even on my neighbor's side of the street so I I dug that out so that the water washed through and so the water did leave that side the right side of the street the Wetland side of the street so it could go through if I mean I think we did walk over there if I didn't if I don't dig that out that will fill in the water won't even come across the street um that will fill in right there the other thing was the other pipe that we showed was the one that the the the other pipe you see a picture of it was a 10- foot pipe that the tractor had run over so the reason for a majority of the flooding is that pipe had been crushed and filled with sediment for as long as we've ever been here which caused more back up on the property until it goes up and over the little hump so we fix that too so again it's I look at that was done a long that was done 10 years ago but it's a big that is and then go 10 feet back and clog it with that you're not really going to drain your property um and it's historically wet I mean we we know that but that did not help for sure once we put that in it made the water move much just just moved to continue where it wanted to be which is the pond out at the end yeah you know I and I I don't disagree with like some of the actions you you've taken you're trying to alleviate the flooding both on the south side of the property and to the north on your side I understand that it's to me I'm like trying to get my head around like who kind of owns this like the the Wetland was originally altered at some point the flow was originally altered you know to accommodate the street and homes and things like that so how do we go properly go through the process to make sure that the flow happens and that where the flow goes is you know is properly accommodated for so that's it's kind of like you know it's like I'm going back to the Chicken and the Egg I guess who put the pipe in and who owns it so what what I what I'm going to suggest is this is that the I think to Mary's point clean of the pipes you know wasn't the problem and we all get it you know what what action you've taken what we're trying to do is find a way the least painful way forward for you guys without making you take this all apart uh and and I think the best suggestion we can we can offer is engage a service of a wetland consultant and see if they can review this and determine how little impact if any your actions has taken and and go from there so that you're you're not faced with kind of undoing what you did without a permit I mean sadly that that's what I'm looking at and again that's just following the RS um I I doubt the original drain pipe across the street was put in with any thought and it was exactly like you suggested it was to drain the other side of the street get the water off my property put it on someone else's property uh and hang on one second um but that's my kind of my overview where where you're at right now Mary what what would you like to add to that and yeah no I agree this you know either end the culverts at either end the existing culs and repairing repairing or maintaining the culs at either end are aren't a a concern of mine um it sounds like the downstream covert was done a while ago anyway um it's just we can't have people burying streams you know even if it's an intermittent stream um and so there needs to be a filing to allow it and and the you know the conditions described that allow this particular thing to happen so so it can be properly permitted or it needs to be restored in my mind that's those are my I mean unfortunately it's that's yeah my take on it okay so guys I I think you've kind of got the the Dilemma that you're you're in it either almost really got to put back the Swale the way it was but you're going to still need a minimum of an RDA or or an noi but you need you need someone that can give you some uh Wetland guidance on this which we we can't we're sadly we're we're the we the review uh side of this equation and I and I know it's p it it looks great down there when I drove by it I couldn't even find it could just see a little trench out back um but but that's the Dilemma that we're in so so just so I'm clear on what you need from us um so we need basically a Wetlands specialist to either say like yes what we've done is okay as long as you guys do like plant or you know plant around the like little retention area or like we basically need somebody to say this is what you need to do in order to like yeah either we either we can issue you an enforcement order and and direct you to restore the conditions in which case you don't have to necessarily engage anybody um or you can to keep it you need to go through the permit process and get somebody to can I go back to like the the question I have is there's a there's a kind of goes back to maybe what Mick said there's a a man-made pipe that went under the ground Matt's let just I again I don't want to do like on the other end a tractor drove over it and it stopped the water what if the tractor now drives on my property and stops the water right coming across the street how would that be any different at that like so I'm just saying like where the water comes across the street now if that pipe had been run over there by a tractor water would never come from that side of the street over to my side of the street so how does that I mean you can you can maintain existing structures if they're damaged that's the you know that's a different thing okay know what it is you just need someone that can give you some guidance on sure how much impact or how minimal impact what you're done and how it complies with the RS and and again we don't we just we're just here enforcing what the RS are trying to do it in the least painful way for you but I think if you find a wetland consultant that's familiar with Newbury and get some guidance from it and know what they're going to do they're going to tell you yeah this is so minimal what we can we can do an noi or you can't do it even with an noi and your better off going the enforcement order and just putting the swell back in and putting the swell back in honestly is probably your cheapest and and fastest time because we can just mandate that you do that but if you want to keep the improvements you're you've got to take another couple of extra steps yeah I think we'll do I mean I think what we did is the right move I mean we live here every day so we yeah yeah no we get it yeah so why don't we do this why don't we just continue this matter uh to the next meeting and what you guys can decide talk to a consultant and and he'll give you he's going to give you yeah just go the enforcement route because you're never going to be able to get it approv I can't find a way to approve what you did ba based on the current rags and and that's what we're dealing with we don't have a local Wetland bylaw uh in this part of town so it's strictly the protection act at the state level that we're we're managing at this point okay okay all right so Mason right now this is a just an a verbal enforcement order yes I would suggest that the laes don't need to necessarily come to the meeting if they just want to leave a message with Mason as to how you want to hand it so what I'm what I'm suggesting mayy why don't we just leave it a verbal enforcement order for the time being uh let them get some bearing on what direction they want to go we can review it at our next meeting and you guys you can just tell tell Mason that we we've you know we're hiring somebody and you know we'll we'll just we'll just kick this down to the next meeting and give you a chance to figure it out and he should have a list of Consultants too yeah yep and I can send that over to you um whenever assume we can use if we have somebody else that we know we can use whoever okay no yeah yeah no it just make sure they're familiar with the RS that's the big thing and yeah um and and we'll go from there okay all right so team why don't we continue this to the and we'll put it on for November 5th agenda we'll just carry this forward to November 5th it it doesn't require a motion or anything because it's it's not a public hearing so all right we'll continue this to the November 5th meeting for an update from the owner all right thank you guys thank you thank you okay uh enforcement order 62 mil Road D file number 050419 Mason I know what where do we stand on this I know you've had some yeah so we we had issued a verbal enforcement order just to stop work um we had told him that he needed to stabilize the backyard with seed and Hy also cut up a fallen tree that had fallen into the buffer zone area um since our last meeting he has completed all these things I believe that we went over and looked at the pictures um from last meeting and he was in compliance with all the work that he said he was going to finish up okay so the only thing we want to do is verify the vegetation is I mean this is just straight grass yard anyway isn't it correct okay do do we want to consider this like we did on 105 Northern just continue this matter to May one and let the uh agent do an inspection and because there's also a request for a certificate of compliance on this and just wrap both of them up at that time May one and then if everything looks good Mason we'll we'll put it on the agenda for the the May 16th meeting yep or whatever the third meeting of May is does that sound like a plan team sounds good sounds good okay okay doesn't require any further action we have no extension requests uh certificate of compliance 7 Marsh Avenue D file number 051 1413 uh this was close out the order of conditions on the property U Mason why don't you give us an overview of this what was this was this a a new house was it an addition what was uh so this order is for the Demolition and the rebuild of a single family home um it's subject to Riverfront regulations um the owner is looking for a partial certificate of compliance in order to sell the property um and at this point the demolition has been completed um the erosion controls were refreshed and reestablished um and all bare soils in the property were seated and stabilized um within the past couple weeks um these are issues that we had noticed or that I had noticed before um that I recommended that he cleaned up before coming in for his partial cooc um and then I also have a letter from him um explaining what is left to be done by the Future Property Owners as well as what has been completed um and I have some photos to share of the site as well okay is the uh is the applicant or the representative on the line on the call believe yes he is I'm here can you hear me yeah yes hi if you could give us your name and title that' be great yeah I'm pet arvier I'm the um property owner I also live 17 Marsh AV in Newbury which is an adjacent property um this was I'm not sure if this would recollect any memories but um this was the blood property Arthur blood um pretty much the picture here you see this was like a junkyard there was a small house that was up by Riverside um so I I had submitted an noi to take the house down and then um again put in the appropriate erosion controls and kind of bring the property back to more of its natural state um that was done on the noi um everything you see there was on the certificate of compliance um the it gets into a little bit of a backstory here is I had the noi submitted the noi was submitted such that there was an existing structure that was within the 200 foot boundary um quite frankly it probably encroached on the 100 foot boundary so I submitted an noi that showed an exist um a new structure that would potentially that would potentially go with you know and encroach on the 200 foot boundary um that noi was approved basically with these appropriate coc's that um you're looking at here actually after the two weeks there is grass growing now it's pretty much the grass has all grown in but um based on getting some Consulting advice um they had recommended that I don't go for a complete um COC approval but I go for a partial COC approval such that I could sell the property and the new potential owners could take advantage of the structure that was there prior and that the noi was submitted such that it showed a new structure going in to the 200 foot um boundary um what I was what was described to me is if I went with a complete C approval that that um opportunity to build within the 200t boundary would be null and void and that if the new owners of the property wanted to encroach on the 200 foot boundary they have they would have to submit an noi from you know from the start from the beginning if you will so that's what that's where we are this let me let me ask you a question so you you've not actually constructed the house is that correct no no I'm selling this as a lot of land and then and then the new owners again um the partial um C approval would allow them to builds such that as the noi um basically um shows on the noi that there is a a structure within the 200 foot boundary um this CLC was um basically it was uh required that I fill in obviously the foundation with the or the foundation was removed but everything was removed fill in the hole if you will um then seed it and put um salt hay down um in order order to end the appropriate erosion controls that Mason has described and Mason's been to the property a couple times and um no I mean it looks like you've stabilized the property after the demo for sure it I'm I'm somewhat confused because you can transfer the property with an open order of conditions especially if they have a house to be built uh they may want to come back and and do a minor amendment to it or what have you as little things change but it would be uncommon for the commission to to Grant even a partial certificate of compliance when the majority of the work you you've done the demo you've done the stabilizing of the site which is which is great and it's a great Gateway for a new owner to undertake construction uh but I I I don't I just don't personally I just don't see where we would be entertaining as a partial certificate of compliance because it' be everything that it just it's typically it's only Landscaping remaining we're waiting for it to vegetate or some other minor condition after 90% or 95% of the work is complete and you're probably at the 30% just on the demo and and vegetation here but yeah the I I think this is It's to me it's probably more 95 closer to Almost 100% complete on the COC I think if I if I wanted to go for a complete approval I think it's it's there uh for the approval and to close out the C my the advice that I received was don't close out the COC because it will limit the new owners in terms of them being able to Al the lack of a better term piggyback the current noi and what was described on the noi yeah I mean the not the not the order of conditions follows the property not not not not you but why don't you Hold here let me open this uptic questions from the members and just get get get some discussion going Mary what what are your thoughts on this one so I can kind of see both sides of this because um it was a um a project where the the work that was closest to the river was a demo and restore and that's done and there's about half of the house it's just inside the riverfront area and that would be the part that he's trying to preserve as approved so that someone else didn't have to go through the same permit process if they wanted to build it within that same envelope before this order expires in 2026 it looks like so you know I I canot sort of understand why somebody might be hesitant to to take on um an open order where it isn't clear um whether the work done has that has been done to date is in compliance I guess is what the issue is that that's that's exactly it yeah do we have a do all conversations go through the chair just so we have Clarity on how this meeting is run do we do we have an ASU plan showing what's been completing and what what is to be completed well we have the plan in the Dropbox of what was proposed but I didn't see anything of it you know there wasn't an as built of the interim stage yeah I mean how do we condition a partial Mary without having a minimum and as build showing all that and then referencing it uh for work remaining I mean that well yeah you could do you could you know the as built of the Topo would be the only thing because there was you know there wasn't any grade changes proposed in that area it was just um removing debris and removing the building um I don't is there any further planting or anything like that proposed or is all just seeding I'm not sure why there was so much clearing or maybe it was maybe the I'm looking at the photos wrong wrong there's only the clear the seating was only in the area immediately around the building that was taken down is that right Mason yes that was where that proceeding needed to be the other part were fully vated and I assume the order did require an asz buil uh the order did not require an asz built it didn't require an as build okay just a written letter from the engineer okay do we have that uh yes I that [Music] is right here I don't know if I put it in the drop box I guess if we had a letter that you know was was saying that the the work that has been done to date was in compliance with the order then I can sort of understand why you want to just protect that approval in the future for the next couple of years anyway just so somebody he could then Market it as a permitted lot yeah but I mean it it is a permit they have a permit to do all this work my my has oh I see yes so he does still have that right that would be carried over anyway right yeah it follows the property and the work that this gentleman has done could be totally disturbed by the next person doing the development true I mean I I just think it should be handled in its entirety and yeah that I I can see that too but okay Mary let me move on to to Mick what are your thoughts on this one you're you're on mute yeah I'm on mute sorry uh yeah I'm just kind of trying to wrap my head around this whole partial completion uh where the application on file I think it's dated 101 October 1st first this year says that the regulated the work regulated by the above reference order conditions has been satisfactory completed so that's to me requesting a complete you know on the order of conditions that that's on on file so I don't see I guess I'm just I'm not understanding really correctly how we can do a partial order of conditions and how that helps I mean to me to clean the property of that order of conditions so it can be sold saying that the work has been complete would be to the advantage of the of the seller and also a clear you know title for the owner that they know if they have to build they have to you know put in their own order or put in their own noi to construct property so I just I I guess I just I'm not understanding the whole you know advantage or disadvantage of a partial approval yeah I I mean in the past we haven't entertain partial certificates of compliance if if all the vegetation wasn't installed uh right yeah and so here we don't even have the structure installed it we're probably at the 30% of the total scope of the project that's been approved where the demo has been done and we typically won't entertain a COC even a partial until they're at a 90% completion uh and then we carefully identify what is remaining to be done what what is still open so that there's no no confusion we add Clarity to it but all right well you know what we're going to talk about this a little more so I'll just keep going on uh uh Woody what are your thoughts on this and we'll go to TJ I don't have any questions or comments at this time thank you okay TJ what are your thoughts on this yeah TJ you're on stepped out for a minute yep okay all right so I'm not comfortable setting a precedent that uh when a majority of the actual construction excavation hasn't been performed and that issuing a partial certificate of compliance is premature at this time I mean that's that's what I'm looking we if I may Bob um obviously that you know the a certificate of compliance has a box on it that says a por you know this is um a portion of the work has been completed or the full amount of work work has been completed so you could issue a certificate of compliance that would just say a portion of the work has been completed but that would close out the whole order so that's you know so that I don't think that's what he wants to do I think he wants to keep the order active and I yeah they have having the order of conditions is the is the real sellable item and I'm talking probably do something like issue a letter or something to saying that as of this date the site is in compliance with the order of conditions or something like that you know if he needs to have something for to show somebody there is an issue with the buyer I don't it doesn't seem like there should be an issue with the buyer it's a permit so yeah yeah it's a permit again my big thing is all the work this gentleman's done looks great the the next owner comes in and he stockpiles all the spoils from the excavation in this new vegetated area we've already signed off on it now becomes an enforcement order to get them take it out of it you know you know what I mean it just I think we complicate a a simple process if they don't want to do it then they just is you know they can request a full certificate of compliance at that point yeah exactly if they decide not to build so okay anyone is anyone in favor of issuing a partial certificate of compliance on this I'm just kind of doing a straw pole I am not okay Mary what do you you I can go either way but I I will go with the board if that's what they want to do that's fine too okay what do what are your thoughts on this after the discussion I would say no no parti okay Frank what do you what do you think on this well I'm curious if if he doesn't get the certificate of completion approved is he unable to sell the property and then how does the next buyer okay no they the value is this it's having a permit to allow this work that is locked in for a period of time that if regulations change next month may be precluded if he didn't have that permit so it properties are sold and transferred all the time with a order of conditions it's cont it's considered value add to the property than being unpermitted to do the work but um but beyond that that you know that's we're not here to provide title or transfer advice our typical model is you're at a 90% completion and we'll do a partial uh if you're at 100% completion we'll give you a you know a full certificate of compliance and it U so I I don't think it's ready for a certificate of compliance or partial certificate of compliance so okay two hands up I don't know if you want to entertain that but yeah who's H yeah TJ and and the applicant yeah just just I let TJ chime in and me Melvin chime in here in a minute but this is pet L here again the just to be clear the the only thing that I'm trying to sustain for the buyer is the noi had designated a new structure going into the 200 100 foot boundary and it was taking advantage of grandfathering the existing structure that was there prior to demolition yeah no no that's very clear to all of us we actually I remember this and we recommended that you get the nii before you tore the house down to preserve options right uh but you have one order of conditions that covers the entirety of the project uh and and if I if but but if other than other than so you're saying leave the COC open and let the buyers inherit the COC that's yeah yeah the buyer has a a a buildable permit to go forward that is of of Great Value especially in this area uh it it would not be an impediment to title you know at this point at some point whoever does the work has to close it out it I mean you can close out the entire certificate tonight based on the work you done because you're abandoning the rest of the work and but why you wouldn't want to do that because that diminishes the value of your project but why don't we why don't we do this TJ you have your hand up what do you want to offer on this H good evening TJ melv Millennium engineering uh I worked with Peter on permiting this uh I guess Mary had brought something up and I'm not sure if the commission would entertain it but uh would the commission be willing to to write a letter just saying the work done today is in compliance with the approved plans essentially not issuing a partial COC but just saying what he's done is is in compliance with the plans but we don't we don't have an as built uh that shows what's been done and it's in compliance with the plans wouldn't that be you'd generate that letter if you're the site professional TJ yeah I just didn't know if if Peter needed something from the commission um I I guess that was kind of the the thought was if if he needed something from the commission you know just stating what he's done isn't you know going against the approved plans um but other than that I'm I'm on board with the commission and I was actually the one that had recommended to Peter not to close it out um just for the the buildable aspect of the law itself so I I guess it's it's up to Peter if he needs something from the commission or uh I guess how he wants to proceed with that I mean we can do an as build if that helps get a letter if he needs it if he doesn't then um I guess it sounds like the commission does not want to issue a partial so um I I think again as it's been stated it can be sold with an open order it happens yeah all the time the buyer's attorney had recommended a partial so I mean that partial approval they're a little nervous about taking this on they probably don't understand it as well as as they need to so and quite frankly I need an answer fairly quickly or the backing out of the deal so well for me with without an asbill plan specifying exactly what's done and what's to be done uh and then certify by the engineer I just don't I'm not comfortable considering even that limited uh certificate theal certificate of compliance it's it it's typically I don't recall the commission every doing that but that that's my position on this oh I guess what's my next steps then I I can just leave it open as is and try to Market and sell a lot with this open and convince them that it's the benefit to the buyer to keep it open or is there an option to close this out totally at this point and just say close it and then I don't have to deal with it with a future bar maybe the buyer can just contact the conservation agent or or Bob directly I mean just clarify some things misunderstanding yeah everything that you've done is is exactly what appears it should be done and and Mason has verified it uh I think Mary's point is why don't you just have the buyer's attorney contact the agent and he can give them a status update of it and TJ you back it up with a with your you know your report um I mean having the order of conditions in place is is the value to you a whole lot there from from a development standpoint but so they could just watch this they could watch this meeting too yeah so guys look at we're not going to take any action at this time you you've got some direction that we've given you um so anything else TJ you want to add anything else or or the the owner want to add anything else no I guess I'm a little surprised but that's uh that's it I'll go with what the commission recommends okay thank you all right next matter is D file number 050 13673 gadison Lane lot three applicant would like to close out the open order of conditions on the property request a certificate of compliance Mason can you give us an update on this matter yep uh so this is a new single family home on an approved subdivision there's a bvw at the back of the property as well as assault Marsh there's no work within the resource areas um and then there was some noted field changes um that were identified that had no further impact on um sare Zone and resource areas let me grab that real quick [Music] so the change it [Music] asilt so the field changes and modifications that were noted um were two retaining walls that were installed that were not on the original plan a large Rock retaining wall that was installed on the back side of the patio um and then a small retaining wall in the backyard about 15 feet from the screen porch uh the patio a a patio was proposed to be installed in the backyard um and it ended up having a larger footprint by 39 square feet um that was within the 100 foot Wetland buffer that can be seen in these photos as well so right here is the limit of the silt sock we're not seeing your screen oh sorry um right here was a limit of the silt sock that was moved five foot five feet closer to the house which is also one of the changes noted by the engineer then this is the EXT exension of the retaining wall next to the patio um The Patio is right here and this is the extended portion of it right here same um same structure but just a different angle the tile patio is up here that was extended 39 feet further or 39 square feet further into the Wetland uh buffer zone this is the tile patio right here and I believe this is the corner um that extended this is the other retaining wall right here um this photo is taken pretty much from um this this spot right here so another retaining wall there both of them together okay well what why don't I have you stop there Mason is the applicant or his consultant here to make make a presentation or to provide answers members may have uh yeah my name is Adam TR uh gadon Lane LLC I'm here on behalf of the applicant U Mike and Sue Collins and yeah I can answer any questions that uh come up I'm actually looking at the we're looking at the letter from the engineer now and it does appear that the proposed Landscaping was installed slightly bigger than what was shown but we're right at the edge of the 100 foot buffer and we were having Disturbed area already you know we were inside the limit of work it just ended up being a little bigger on the patio and a little more retaining wall um than was initially shown but all again still within the limit of work okay Mason on the on the on the engineers letter uh what what are the variances from what was proposed in the plan versus existing one second I've got that here if you want um two retaining walls that were not on the proposed plan um a large rock wall retaining wall installed along the back ptio and small retaining wall was installed in the backyard about 15 feet from the screen porch so I think that's what Adam was just referring to is the okay so rock wall um the only retaining wall that was proposed was in on the sidey yard of the dwelling so this was due um The Patio was supposed to be installed in the backyard and was was installed about 39 squ feet larger than the 100 foot footprint you know what if it's installed over what was lawn so it's sort of a minor um uh 60q foot tile patio with 115 square feet of stone surrounding it was installed in the backyard that was not proposed so there must be a little like fire pit or something is that what that is yeah so that's like stuff that the owners kind of did kind of just placing Stones down and it's in that area down there below which is within the 100 foot well in buffer okay I don't see any oh that probably that little yeah okay but it it's within the area that we we were doing work and got approved for clearing of trees up to a certain size um maintenance clearings so we had approval up to the 50ft mark and I believe none of that's inside that okay so it would have been either lawn or or this little garden yeah would be either lawn or this yeah so everything the Varian is all outside the 50 Foot buffer some hearing everyone looks like that's the case okay Mary any questions uh on this no Adam nope okay TJ any questions for Adam on this no no questions okay Woody any questions for Adam on this no I don't have any questions thank you both okay Mick any questions I am all set Bob thank you okay I do not have any questions are there any raised hands from the public at this time like it do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information at this time okay hearing none uh I will entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance with three gadison lane lot three so moved I'll second okay roll call all in favor Mary yes TJ I Woody yes Mick all and Bob Connor's V chance Frank you know what we we appreciate your service here tonight well I hope I added some insight to everything for you yes no you know your color commentary he could have voted on that one uh I wasn't here for the GS and Lan nobody wasn't here when when the request came in CU you just the hearing yeah well you know what I I got a ruling from Lisa today Mary just to be yeah that's in it interesting yeah so okay next order of business is a certificate compliance for D file number 050 1389 68 Green Street lot one and 68 Green Street Lot two uh why don't we take these separately uh Mason want to give us a quick overview I know you did a site inspection on this yep uh so this was the construction of a single family home um on a subdivision um had a garage a porch in a deck um out of Riverfront jurisdiction um and when I was on the S sidewalk I had some comments and notes about um the constructed wetland in the backyard of Lot number one um on the site plan there was some proposed rocks and rip wrap um for an emergency Spillway area to prevent some scouring um that I didn't see while I was on site um and then there was also questions raised about the uh proposed plantings if there was any um for this kind of retention in Basin area um so I don't know if the applicant or their consultant is here to address those questions okay yeah is the owner or the applicant for this project available for a presentation or to answer questions from the members uh good evening TJ melv with Millennium engineering that could uh so I can pull up the as built plan if that makes it easier all right um so sorry Miss I know you said you had a couple questions um as far as the the last one is the one I remember yes this is supposed to be planted um I know it was very much planted at one time um it sounds like that may have changed recently um and then sorry what what were the other questions that you had written uh the emergency Spillway so on the back of that um it shows yeah right here okay that wasn't seen while we were on site okay um I I mean it appears that they shot it from survey so I'm not sure how I can go back and see what we have for pictures or um not sure if it was removed um but we can definitely note to get that put back in yeah just there was concern because there was um some almost visible scouring at the back of that constructed Wetland um so there was concern about that area filling up um and then spilling into um the riverfront area behind it do you do you have pictures of that Mason that might be helpful if you uh the the the two question were vegetation and this erosion around the spillways of the the drain pipes going into this it sorry no no go ahead Mary what were you what were you no my recollection is that the Basin was pretty well vegetated it just didn't appear to be it was mostly just grass so whatever they had planted originally it maybe was not wet enough to support what was on the original okay got you but it it is agitated but the backside where the um emergency Spillway was proposed that is a low spot in the burm and it did look like there was some erosion there and we didn't see the stone um you know that would create that velocity dissipation on top of the spillway so that was missing and I don't know if this is the one Mason where there was some um not fully vegetated along the edge of the Wetland as well or is that the other lot that's that's the other lot okay so the only so the only issue on this one Mary is the yep rip wrap rip wrap spway yep okay but everything else was satisfactory all right so TJ I guess the question is all the vegetation is in um you you can probably ask the commission for a partial certificate of compliance and we'll exclude or we'll highlight the spillway or do you want to mean at contractor you probably put that Spillway in rather quickly and come back the next meeting and just get a full COC uh yeah I think I think that'd be the route we we choose to go just continue out and uh try to get that installed in the interum okay so we'll continue this to the November 5th meeting okay is that is that good with for you TJ yeah TJ uh yeah that's great okay all right any any other questions team that way there I think we can wrap that one up with a a full good okay all right so the the other 68 Green Street Lot two de file number 0501 1391 TJ why don't you give us your presentation on that and then we'll open it up to questions sounds like there was some vegetation was still sparse on this one right plan up good evening TJ M with Millennium engineering um so this is lot to uh kind of the lot that's in question um again here's kind of the limit of or the the limit of the 100 foot buffer zone um you know the plan's generally in conformance with the the approved plans um and you know we're requesting a certificate of completion um I'd be happy to answer any questions or comments that anyone has the S sidewalk okay why don't you give us your overview then I'll open it up to questions yeah so after the site walk we had some kind of comments and observations um one of them being the the needed receding and stabilization at the top of the bank um as well as um what looked like an Old Farm Road still existing um in the resource uh buffer area so at the bottom of the slope um there was some pavement and some crushed stone as well that was down there um and then the erosion controls are still in place too so that's something that um we'd like to see removed now that it's uh the bottom of the bank is fully vegetated okay questions Mary uh questions no yeah I think Mason summed it up I think there's just a little bit of um uh unst unstable slope on the south side of that house there just not unstable unvegetated where it is barely close to a steep slope it would be good to get that button up a little better and um and there seems to be some remnants of pavement right at the bottom of the slope again on the South Side um where it must have been some sort of a road that went through there at some point but um the order of conditions probably addressed removal of um debris and that uh should be looked at as well Mason do you have some pictures of the ve the unvegetated area in question and they pement yep I think it just add Clarity to TJ and the owner what what we're looking at let me uh I don't think those got uploaded too Diane took a lot of pictures I know that's I was just realizing that a lot of them were on her phone um I do have some though that I can share so this is um kind of what we were seeing from that Old Farm Road here you can see um at the bottom of this picture that's beyond this erosion control barrier it looks like in that image so um I you know I would just say maybe whatever can be removed without using heavy equipment and maybe there's maybe there's a limited amount that can be done there but it is beyond the the limit of work um and then this area right here it's pretty much you know the first first five five or six feet I would say um at the top that that needed some Rabil uh revation and stabilization this photo shows it a little bit better just to clarify that's behind the house or is that yeah the side kind of where you had your mouse originally um was where the stabilization needs to happen um and then um closer to lot one is where the Old Farm Road was okay and sorry just to clarify know Mason you had said you guys want to see the erosion control taken out before the CSC is issued yes okay okay so team it obviously we could we could entertain a partial certificate uh just a excluding the the vegetation that was mentioned and that the removal of the waddle or whatever else was in the erosion control um TJ is that are you looking for a partial on this because you you're certainly not going to get vegetation in the next between now and the next meeting just with temperature is dropping the way it is but yeah I I think the partial in this one would would be adequate okay so what do we what do we want to identify is to be completed on the on the certificate on the pel removal of the erosion controls ying and then you know hand removal of any debris that's at the base of the slope okay okay debris removal base of slope okay but not not bringing in an excav rip up old road if it's just stuff that can be taken off the Sur by hand yeah okay right hand okay all right uh I'll entertain a motion to issue a partial certificate uh of completion for 68 Green Street L 2 uh with the the following exceptions um removal of erosion control receding of spice areas and re removing debris by hand at the lowest slope is that covered pretty much yeah do we know whether or not there's any urgency again to get this now or is it something we can just do a full part full certificate on in the spring is there some something that's are you just trying to close this out or is there some yeah I I don't want to speak for the owner but I know the lot's been sold um and I know we're trying to get close out from planning as well um so that's why I'm only leaning towards the partial on this one like like Bob said you know we're not going to get grass grown there between now and the end of the year so um if the commission would entertain that I think that'd be the way we'd want to go that sounds fine okay so we we have a motion for a paral with those exclusions uh do we have a motion don't moved okay do we have a second second okay all in favor roll call Mary yes TJ hi Woody yes Mick hi and Bob Conor Ro I uh Mason do you have you you've got Clarity on what we're going to exclude on that yep yeah I got good to go okay all right thank you TJ okay next matter certificate of compliance D file number 050419 6 62 Middle Road the applicant wants to close out the open order conditions team what we did on the if you remember we had a a verbal enforcement order on this that we we elected to continue to May first meeting in May at vegetation stabilization uh and then removal of the enforcement order and uh issuance of a certificate of compliance at that time do we we could consider it a tempor a partial certificate of compliance excluding the vegetation uh or is the owner here is there anyone from the property owner or the applicant here that which which item are you on Bob 62 62 yeah 62 Middle Road do we go back to that well it it was continued from the last meeting it I don't know if it did it not make it on the agenda I yeah I'm not seeing it on the agenda no I have it as an enforcement order but that's it yeah me as well well it was a certificate it was originally a certificate of compliance uh at the uh September 17th meeting right I thought we were going to wait till that grass grew well I think we just we didn't take we didn't make it we were doing the enforcement order in the meantime right so right but I thought we were waiting on yeah I I think I know I think we're that's the discussion we're having now with a piggyback piggyback matching what we did on the enforcement order yes okay because on your uh on your October 1st meeting minutes there was a motion to continue the certificate for 62 Middle Road and it was seconded motion by O'Brien second by Mick Brown that's how it got on my call stre okay that that was in the minutes that were approved okay I don't remember what we decided to do there other than yep now that's so hence that's why we're dealing with it so yeah why don't we just we'll address this we'll piggyback this Mason with the enforcement order for an inspection first meeting in May uh and if it's ready to if both are ready to go we'll put them on the agenda and close out the enforcement order and entertain issuing the full SE okay yep okay okay next matter uh continued public hearing uh notice of intent to EP file number 0501 1432 three new report turnpike for for construction of a mixed use residential retail building parking area installation utilities and all Associated grading within a 100 ft of BBW and ivw Mason why don't you give us a recap of where we're at I know we've had a couple of site inspections out there um why don't you tell us where we're at yeah so since our last site inspection um we've been waiting um for them to get the wetlands red delineated at the back of the property um and [Music] also erosion control has been installed corre refreshing erosion controls okay uh TJ are you on this one or is it Matt on this one uh this is me as well uh okay good evening TJ melv Millennium engineering um see as you guys were discussing uh we had the S sidewalk we talked about reestablishing the Wetland line Mark West from West Environmental went back out um and the line has been added to uh most recent plan that we had submitted U I'll hop back to that in a second but um yeah the ER new erosion controls have been installed um as we discussed on site doing a a waddle backed up with the silk fence um we have submitted revised plans uh the only change just pull up and going of go through it quickly um the only plan the only change that was made uh from the original plans that we had submitted was we actually just slightly extended this walkway a couple feet um the exterior door was about 2T past Where the Sidewalk stopped before um and as I mentioned kind of getting back to the let me zoom in uh the Wetland line uh so maras again went back out and kind of reestablished this as the Wetland line here um noting that the areas kind of where my mouse is here and here uh that Wetland line change was a result of the previous erosion controls being not located in the correct location uh and therefore these areas have been areas of disturbed bvw U which we um will be proposing to to restore um again new erosion controls are in place so once that restoration work is done the old erosion controls would come out um and kind of return that back to the way it was other than that there's no other plan changes uh since the last time we were year um we're also going through a minor modification with planning um and Joe soaka had reviewed it on their end uh he just had two minor comments one was extending this and providing a detail for the retaining wall um which is why we had revised PL submitted last week um so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions the commission may have okay so TJ were we were talking on the site you were adding the the back uh walkway in the back retaining while to support the walkway and the question was raised on what impact the storm water did that have in the rain Garden that was back there as you were encroaching into that how did we what what did the final calculations come out on that U so when we had actually submitted this notice of intent I had rerun all of the storm water calculations to include that that loss of uh the the minimal area for the Basin so the the storm water report and all the drainage calculations represent the Basin as is proposed versus um you know what not what was previously approved so it was a a very minimal change in the Bas and storage okay and status of site plan review at the planning board are you where were you at on that um pending any other review comments which I I don't anticipate as like I said the two comments we had from the peer review engineer was to provide a detail for the retainer wall and extend that southerly walkway by a couple feet U I'm hoping that we get the minor modification approval tomorrow okay all right questions from the members TJ any any questions for TJ on this m no well good okay thank you TJ Woody any any questions on this one for TJ no I don't have any questions for TJ we will see him tomorrow night at the planning board he's on the okay Mick any any questions on this one uh no questions from me Bob thank you okay I have no questions on this one either are are there any raised hands from the public at this time I I don't see any but uh everyone take a look for me I have more stuff on my screen here then I I don't see any okay don't see any all right do do any of members have request for a site visit additional information plan Amendment or adding additional content uh to the notice of intent no okay hearing none uh I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing so moved okay we have a okay mck okay roll call all in favor TJ I Woody yes Mick I and Bob Connor's votes I all right uh so team at this time this is when we would entertain any uh special conditions to be incorporated with a a vote on an order of conditions Mason do you have any any comments or any special conditions you want to add to this no Beyond we normally okay no no additional special conditions okay Mick anything you think we should be adding pretty thorough submitt yeah no I think it's a thorough submitt I don't have any additions at all okay Woody how about yourself anything you want thank you TJ any anything you want good all right I will entertain a motion to issue an order of conditions for three new report turnpike um with the usual conditions uh roll call all in favor TJ hi Woody yes Mick hi and Bob Connor's votes I so TJ as you know we've been asking applicants are the Consultants to submit a draft order of conditions yes yeah I uh I had submitted one to Mason a couple weeks ago after our sidewalk okay great and and just for the commission I I kind of mirrored it based on the previous order of conditions so a lot of the the same conditions that were imp imposed at that point are in this one as well okay yeah I'll I'll review it we can uh if it's in order I'll add We'll add the signatures and get those out forth with to you awesome thank you okay uh next order of business is a continued public hearing notice of intent D file number 050 1437 46b Cottage Road demolition removal existing residential structure Follow by construction of a new three-bedroom single family residential structure on a full foundation and other Associated site improvements Associated site improvements include new septic tank pump chamber installation new pave driveway reconnection to existing Utility Services Mason can you give us a an overview where we are on this one uh yeah I was able to check out the site um like you said demolition entire reconstruction um it's in the riverfront area I believe they still need to delineate the top of the bank um and have that flagged um and there was some additional comments and questions but I can bring those up um after the presentation if those aren't answered okay yeah I Matt are you doing the presentation on this can everybody hear me okay yep yeah just identify yourself Matt just for the record absolutely so Matt sign out with Millennium engineering uh here tonight representing the applicant uh James construction um for his application before the commission as was uh described by Mason it's a demolition of the existing residential home and then the Reconstruction of a new uh single family residential home essentially in the same place um what we have here on the screen now is the existing conditions you can see uh the house here to be removed is an existing two-bedroom home um because the existing system septic system was sized for two bedrooms uh the proposed structure that we show on sheet two uh is also well I'm sorry it is a proposed three-bedroom home because the system was sized with three bedrooms um so we have a problem where the existing tanks that are there today are in way in the way of where the new structure is going and so as part of the the project that we're showing here is the installation of two new tanks a septic tank and a pump chamber and then the reconnection to that existing Force man that goes up to the leech field here now um as you saw on sheet one um we have a structure that sits uh 73.8 ft uh from the rear lot line um here shown here with the dimension and the proposed uh structure is at uh 79.2 so we are essentially pulling it back about 6 feet um to the front base of this year so pulling it away from the river and then the actual home itself is even further back than that because there like a Farmers porch it kind of wraps around the the side of the house here um with the construction of the new garage and the orientation of the driveway there's an extension of the existing pav surface uh you can see when I zoom in here there's an existing pav driveway that comes onto the property now and then beyond that it was gravel where the the pavement took the turn and went to the neighbor's property um from there it extended out as gravel originally we're proposing to pave that um and to have a little Hammerhead turn around for the the car's backing out to be able to make the turn and pull out in a very comfortable way um there's no major site grading of any kind proposed on this whatsoever it's essentially uh keeping the site grades exactly as they are uh removing the old structure and constructing a new one on a full Foundation um at an elevation here at uh 16.8 for the top of the foundation um the flood plane we show on the plan along with all the buffer zones here we have AC EC uh area critical environmental concern uh just you know off the edge of the embankment here as well as as we identifi the mean high mean low and all the various elevations related to the river itself um so the structures is outside of the flood plane outside of the actual uh River embankment um outside of the resource area that's delineated as salt marsh and all the work is taking place essentially within the buer zone of those resource areas but entirely within the resource area uh for Riverfront um we do show the limit of The 100 put riparian Zone here cutting through the middle of the home and so the majority of the uh the garage and a portion of the actual uh residential uh living space is outside of 200 feet where a portion of the Interior living space and the deck that wraps around is all within the inner 100 foot riparian Zone um and again you can see that on sheet one the the intent here is to try to take up the majority of the space of the existing home uh it is EXP Landing in the direction of the side property line right now that structure is 27.1 Ft from the side Lot line uh and the proposed structure is going to be 11.9 ft so it's coming over about 15 fet in that direction towards the side Lot line um on sheet one I'm sorry sheet two we do have an impact table up here we zoom into that so in this table here you can see what the existing uh site removal is we have approximately 1,64 ft of residential structure coming out an additional 1,461 squ ft of existing gravel driveway uh that's coming out and for a total impact removal of 2525 Square fet proposed site improvements include the new residential structure which is 2875 Square ft and then the paved driveway of 1886 Square fet for total proposed impact going back in of 4,691 square ft um we've identified the the riverfront areas shown on the plan it has a total Riverfront area of 16,000 square feet uh with a breakdown of the portions of the property that are within the inner rip perion and outer rip perion uh for the 10% calculation for the lot being 1677 square feet so you can see we are exceeding that with the proposed but we are under the 5,000 square foot uh and the majority of that again is within areas that are already impacted that's the driveway the gravel driveway and the actual structure that's there now um so those inner riparian impacts are shown here so is a net increase on the inner riparian of 231 square feet for the structure um again within Footprints of other impacts and then the outer raran where the majority of the impacts take place uh the increase is a total of 1,992 square ft in that that portion of the out riparian um sheet two of the plan set does show some construction details and calculations for the existing sep tanks that are going to be replaced so we have pump calculations here that are related to board Health approval as well as uh tank details a detail for the uh erosion control we're proposing entrenched silt fence um and I'll go back to sheet2 in a moment and show you where those are being proposed and then we also provide a architectural profile of the structure uh and in this case here you can see keep mov the pictures of everybody out of the way um here you can see the the base blood elevation for this area here is a Zone AE with an elevation of 13 with the mean ground being at 15.5 so we're 2 and a half ft above the flood plane elevation with the living space of this being up at 16.8 for Topp of foundation and the rest this is related to zoning as far as zoning Heights and showing conformance with the uh the 35 ft limit on the height of the structure um and again I'll go back to sheet two on sheet two we have a line identified here as EC for erosion control and so we're essentially completely encompassing the area of the work uh to make sure that there's no impact to the resource areas of any kind being proposed um and I believe that is essentially it I know we presented once before the commission and we didn't get a chance to really delve into it um so I'm looking forward to any questions the commission has and and I'm happy to take those now okay uh Matt there was a some technical comments that recently popped up on the portal uh for this for this filing I did see that uh I didn't catch it until uh the end of the day yesterday uh but I did pick it up and I just switching screens here did the did the screen switch for you you guys as well or just me no not yet this is the d portal um and so I did see here that it talks about the work being described as adjacent to castto bank um and so we we did identify that as we have a tily influenced um the paraca river right there tily influenced and we have clearly a an embankment there so we have Coastal Bank um and then we it does say that they want some type of a cross-section of it and for that to be delineated um we can add that to the plan if if the commission you know feels that that's necessary I think the important thing here is that the the work is further away from the river than what's there so we didn't feel that it was necessary at the time of the submission to go through a an ad depth analysis of that that particular embankment there is no Works being proposed on it and we're moving what work we are proposing further away um but if the commission wants to see that we can we can definitely you know do a cross-section of that there and delineate the edge of the top of the embankment okay questions from the members Mary questions from M on this filing um yes so number of things um yes the DP comments first they're going to want to have a see a transect and they're going to want to see the Coastal Bank delineated if you put the plan back up your Co top of Coastal Bank is most likely going to fall right near where your erosion control B boundary is shown there at the top of the slope where the break is I'm guessing it's going to fall right about there so you'll need to adjust your yeah roughly 15 right there might be it might skip down to the 14 and on the North side there but that's why you put you know one or two trans SE perpendicular to the slope and use the D guidance document for identifying what the top of the slope what where the break and slope where it ceases to be greater than um 4: one I think you probably have done that before um and yeah so you're you need to adjust the buffer zones accordingly once you do that and then um the other thing is just is this a are you reusing the foundation or any part of the original structure no part of the original structure will be reused they'll be reusing up you know the footprint so the the the whole Foundation hole will be expanded for the New Foundation you will so you'll use some of the old Foundation or would you have to take it out and start from scratch we'd be taking it out and starting from scratch okay so it's new construction essentially so my question is about how you are complying with the riverfront regulations because there are two different ways of going at it one is a Redevelopment and one is new development and it seems like how you're presenting this is a combination of both and so for redevelopment of a previously developed Riverfront area you have to show an improvement to existing conditions and you can't exceed the you know the total area of work under their normal Riverfront rigs you you can't build within 100 feet of the river you have to if leave it undisturbed so you're you're proposing to work within the 100 foot Riverfront area but pulling it back but you're also increasing the overall footprint in the 100 foot River Front area it looks like so there's a disconnect here in the regulations and how this is complying with it so I think um it would be helpful if on the table that you show of table of impacts if you have side by side comparison of existing in proposed so that we can see under existing conditions what is that area of impact in the 100 foot and 200 foot Riverfront area compared with the what you're proposing to be able to evaluate whether there's an improvement to existing conditions um significant enough to allow this to proceed under the Redevelopment Provisions or if you're proposing this as a new development with the 5,000 square feet and 10% which you mentioned that doesn't have to do with that doesn't have to do with Redevelopment so you it just looks like you're mixing the two because under a new development we and you're take not using any of the foundation you have to do an Alternatives analysis and you have to look at other areas in the lot where this could be built that were further away from the river in compliance with the regulations so I think there's just a little bit of more evaluation that needs to happen in to demonstrate that this actually complies with the ref RS one way or another which whichever way you're going to go so um side bys side comparison of all the impacts or you talking identify whether or not you're one you're you're filing under the Redevelopment standards or the new development standards is it that makes a difference on how we look at this and two under the your table of impacts yes to have a column with proposed and column with existing so we can compare directly what was there and what are you proposing to do all right I I think I understand I guess my my original question was more along the lines if you were looking for a comparison of like the volume of the structure within the buffer to show that it's not being expanded or if it was more of an overall impact comparison showing you know everything within it and sound like you want the whole thing yeah I mean it would be helpful to visualize this if you showed the um existing structure within this proposed footprint you know cross-hatched as well then you could see where you were pulling it back and you know and whether it's wider you know in the in that 100 foot riparian Zone we can absolutely do that yeah but like I said if you're if you want to if you're you got to use one or the other and and it makes a huge difference in whether or not we got to look at the rest of the lot and whether there's another place to put this on the lot that's outside of the river fund area then we have to do that if you want to do it under the Redevelopment standards you can't be make it conditions any worse than under current conditions and you have to then show improvements and and I think you know minor you know couple foot difference in where you are on the riverfront area is not really what that that's not what was intended you need to show some significant improvements either storm water um you know enhancement plantings something else you know to meet the requirements of the Redevelopment Provisions so that's good Matt you had a table on the previous sheet did you go back to that yes on this sheet here the existing conditions is a zoning table okay but now there was another one that was showing um the square footage yep he had that but it wasn't related to directly related to the existing yeah okay just walk me through this for some reason this removal existing structure so that's the existing structure is, 164 Square ft existing gravel driveway removed okay so that's removal of it that that's you're eliminating impacts there with those two that number correct that's correct I I think what may hinting at is is more down here where the inner riparian impacts are broken out so we have the existing here uh with the proposed below it and in more of a table format you know that might make it a little clearer but I think this is with the number that we're looking at here to see that there's an increase in the the uh the volume or you know the footprint of the structure within the inner iperion um and that that should probably be minimized so that way it's at least neutral it's it's no no larger of an increase um if if not if making making it better and showing an improvement I think that's what Mary I don't want to put words name up Mary but I think that's what you were asking for yeah like one correct because otherwise if you don't do the Redevelopment then you can't be within 100 feet of the river at all So you you're if you need if you're keeping the structure where it is and you're applying under the Redevelopment standards then the 10% 5,000 square feet doesn't really come into play it's it's not making conditions worse and plus showing improvements and they can't just be token you know it has to be a significant Improvement so so it looks to me like we're almost there in balancing that number it wouldn't take much more to move the structure to get that to balance or to show an improvement there um and then we could look at other improvements that might push us over that token Improvement that you might be considering that to be um with vegetation and storm water and stuff like that so it's just looking at those I I I think I completely understand what you're asking for okay okay I'll Circle back Mary than okay TJ any any questions uh from Matthew on this one uh well I have a question for Mary a technical question what determines which way this goes as far as a Redevelopment or new development one is it is it the the applicant that determines it or or is it the the actual proposal of where the house is and and um yeah the applicant decides which set of rules they want to design to okay but then so if they use the Redevelopment they have to leave the house where it was they can't go any closer to the river than existing conditions and plus in approve movement so they they have a little bit of a tin right they got they set back a tiny bit more from the river not much but they're also increasing the amount in the 100 foot Riverfront area by a couple hundred square feet so that's not g to fly yeah that's fine y so so no no other questions then and and Mary just again for qualification if they had to if the structure was totally removed Redevelopment wouldn't be in play if there wasn't an existing structure on correct you can't you can only do Redevelopment if there's a previously developed degraded area right okay okay TJ anything else no okay thank you TJ Woody any any any questions for uh for Matthew on this one I actually uh have a question for Mary as well so a clarification um so training someone out here tonight mayor yeah right the Redevelopment if they went under Redevelopment here they'd have to at least reuse the foundation or they'd have to leave a wall up in the existing structure um I don't think that you have to do that because it is previously developed it's previous you know it's the condition of the site at the time you take on the work so you could build in the same footprint without the same foundation without the same Foundation a New Foundation but it would have to be within the same yeah it's not like um whatever the Plum Island rules are um for redevelopment no you you can you can as long as you occupy the same Disturbed area so that's why would be really helpful for him to show the existing house on this image so you could see the overlay where it where it hangs over the existing footprint of the existing house okay thank you Mary that's St and um my other question would be for the TJ uh no I'm sorry Matt um the existing garage that's that's not going to be removed that's going to stay that's correct you can see here this is the proposed conditions and and the garage is still there so we have no intention of uh modifying or removing that structure okay thank you I'm good Bob with questions okay thank you Woody Mick any any questions on this matter from none from me at this time but great education Mary thank you last was over yeah all right so Ju Just to do a recap Matthew you're you're clear in what Mary's looking for and you have Clarity in what the technical comments for DP came in at I am I I do have one further question to ask Mary um put you back on the hot seat um so the the question uh about the the cross-section for D to show the the top of the first observable bre break which I agree with I think is going to be right up near elevation 15 yeah you said to adjust to adjust the buffers but the riverfront is not based on the embankment of a Coastal Bank correct or is that a separate buffer zone you want to see it'll be a separate buffer zone okay yeah I mean right now you're showing a buffer zone to uh the salt marsh I think yeah limit of 100 foot Wetland buff you know 100 foot Wetland buffer it says right goes through your proposed garage should probably be rewarded as a Sal 50 that's you've got a 50 and 100 foot yep and instead of you can just adjust take those out and move it landward with the buffer zones to the Coastal Bank and just use the landward most buffer [Music] zones okay does that make sense yeah okay uh I don't have any questions at this time Matthew are there any question any raised hands from the public at this time if anyone would like to speak just give us your name and address okay hearing none uh so Matthew I'm anticipating you're going to request a continuance on this matter yeah two continu should be plenty of time okay so we'll continue it to the first meeting of uh November what is that November 5th yeah okay all right I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing at the applicant's request to November 5th B moved do we have a second second okay okay roll call all in favor Mary yes TJ hi Woody yes Mick hi Bob Connor's votes yes okay thank you Matthew um are you going to be around for the next one Old Point be I'll be representing that one as well okay so next matter is the continued public hearing on D file number 05014 1435 2-8 oldpoint Road applicant proposes to remove one existing landscape boat feature to permit one previously installed 8 by2 temporary structure shown on the plans as a mobile merge container into complete install ation of previously approved PL planting in various alternative locations and species prior plantings have been approved as part of D file number 0501 1344 uh so Matt why don't you give us an update where that's at or Mason do you have any anything any update on this before we go to Matt or no comments we can go to Matt okay Matt why don't you give us a refresh of where we're at on this all right so again Matt signo from Millennium representing the applicant um Vincent Goen I I he was here at the last me I don't see him on tonight but we can proceed um we looked at the comments that we got from d and from the commission at the last uh public hearing there was concerns about the uh the mobile merch shed that's shown here on Steet two um being on on the grade and whether or not it should be considered the temporary structure and whether it needed to comply with uh T performance standards and it was suggested that uh putting it on a cinder block uh you know footing would get it up off the ground and allow the movement of wind water and sand so that note has been added to the plan here to repl that grade on a cinder block footing um the comments we most recently got back from De are related to these planting areas here Dune uh sand structures here along the corner um just to remind the commission that the the intent of this application here is to actually um essentially reactivate an expired permit so this is showing exactly what was on the original permit plan it's essentially a foot and a half to two foot mound of sand here in the corner and I think where de is looking for is just clarification that that's that's the intent is this to be about two feet off uh two feet of mounted dun sand with the planting added to that um I have no problem adding some you know Contour elevations on you it's it's a struggle at this scale so I may have to pull it off and show it as a detail off to the side but we can identify the fact that this is a potentially an 18 in to 24 inch uh Dune structure along this corner um I I don't believe there was any other significant comments from the the commission at the last meeting the the plantings that we have in here are representative of plantings that were on the prior approval in the same quantities um and the only real I think outstanding issue was that and then a impervious surface comparison was asked for and so we added that table up here in the corner um where you can see in this table you get what the existing roof structures were Pavements concrete pads um brick paver stones you know total impervious area on the site prior to construction commencing with the original permit then we had what was proposed and the net change resulted in a reduction of 13,2 92 squ F feet of imper area that was part of the original approval Millennium went out and did an updated survey in 2024 we' compared those numbers here what we found to be on site at this time and what that net change was from the the approval what was proposed to what's there now so you can see in the case of the roof there's an additional 434 squ feet of roof structure there today over what was approved there is an additional 60 square feet of pavement that was there from what was approved uh and then we have the reductions we have a net reduction in a concrete pad of 275 square feet that was intended to stay in as part of the original approval and then the pav Stones those were all new and those were added so net reduction all the way straight down we have um a total increase of about uh 219 square feet over the original approval um so it's very close to to what was there um but it's still a substantial decrease over what was there prior to the approval being put in place what the existing was much higher at 19716 and what we found there today is 6,643 square feet so uh pretty much a 13,000 foot reduction in the overall ovious area on the site and with that I'm happy to answer any questions okay thank you Matthew Mary questions for Matthew on this you're muted Mary does that include the tank was there the pad is there a pad supporting the the above ground gas tank so there's not a pad there's a wall and so what they did was they put it in ins yeah they put it inside a wall that's here and the size of that wall is substantially smaller than the size of the wall that was originally proposed in this area where they had seating um as I told the applicant I said I'm not really sure how the wall was approved before they don't typically allow walls but there was a very large yeah wall here that was not put and so this is substantially smaller than that okay but you're not counting that propane tank as part of the impervious I would assume correct because it because rain water need to get out of it got it okay um and that includes all of the I that's all the questions I have for right now Bob okay yeah I'll Circle back Mary TJ any any questions for Matthew on this yep no I'm good okay Woody any questions for Matthew and Woody where where where are they add on the planning board here with site plan review just curious um to be honest with you I don't know um I think we were waiting I think we were waiting on conservation to weigh in Matthew is that your recollection on this just that's correct we we had I think a like a joint site walk originally with the commission and the planning board and the direction we got from the town planner at the time was that they did not want us to come back before them until we had worked out the changes with the Conservation Commission so we have not officially applied to go back before them okay Woody any anything else for Matthew at this time um the on the table where it says 219 would that would that basically be accredited to the merch trailer put that well that that is part of the increas from the roof um so what we found was they they had the uh the merch shed that wasn't originally approved that's had a square footage of roof roof uh and then directly next to the merch shed uh there was kind of a uh a little bar area that was built on top of the deck and that had a little bit increased root area on that deck so the combination of the merched and that that little bar is what equals the increase in the roof area okay and um that's the only question I have for thank you okay thank you Woody Mick any questions for from Matthew on this uh no questions for me right now Bob thank you okay and so the one of the questions that came up at the last meeting Matthew was the the elevation of the merch shed and what FEMA guidelines may be in play with that and the mer shed is is been is considered a temporary structure by the building inspector and it's not habitable and as I recall FEMA guidelines are first habitable floor have to be a certain base elevation above base flood elevation which would not apply to this structure that's not habitable um is that your understanding of that am I citing that correctly believe so I think that's the same standard they apply to a 10 x10 shed or something like that if it's not citable um then it's just performance standards that we we really worry about not Raks okay all right Mary I'm going to circle back to you and before I open this up to public comments so uh what is the how high is it elevated above grade then because I obviously it doesn't if it doesn't need to comply with thema regulations for elevation it does need to comply with Dune standards so is it one foot or how how how much is a we've been we've been requiring a cinder block I guess an 8 inch cinder block Mary has been kind of what we've been doing just to have have something again where it's a temporary structure it it's there today y could be could be rough that's what I'm trying to understand is I mean I guess when you bury when you put it in the sand one Tinder block could be 4 inches after you put the building on top of it so I'm trying to understand how much it's elevated you know it I was there actually this weekend and it's up probably about six inches on the cinder block that it's on now okay very good okay yeah uh and then the last thing I had was on the um retention areas I think TJ had mentioned at the last meeting that those were not constructed to size um is that now proposed to be corrected at this time here the the consensuses with the engineers that um they don't function the way they originally intended uh for instance and and I'll show you the one up here in this particular area there was supposed to be a uh like a hard pack gravel that was put in here and the thought was that some of the runoff from that would get into a biod detention area here well they didn't end up doing the hard pack gravel um what we have is just basically clean wash stone that was placed in this area here so it's much more pervious and this area because they had to install these these hardened structures the sewer manhole cover that was found and the other manhole CET here there is no real way to put one in this area so the what the applicant is asking of the commission is with the the considerable reduction impious impious surface um that was originally part of this plan that uh there's still a significant Improvement to the environment here and that this one did not have to be constructed because it wouldn't function correctly the water wouldn't get in there um and it's not designed to to see runoff from the roof of the structure we had a net reduction of another large concrete pad that was you know originally shown here and so a combination of of these features the the removal of the pad and the change over to a regular gravel material here we felt was enough to justify why this P detention area didn't need to be constructed uh the one further down in this area is constructed it's a little smaller than what was originally intended but it was intended to receive run off from this paved area um and that just doesn't happen the water comes in it gets into this kind of H you know grass you know area planted area here between the fence and the pave surface and it soaks into the ground here before ever gets here as a matter of fact the plants in this particular area aren't receiving enough water to really act as through rain Garden so um the letter we produced basically said that it we felt that it wasn't necessary to actually have the rain Gardens to perform the functions that they were intended because they weren't functioning correctly and that letter was sent to Joe Saka uh in anticipation of filing with the planning board and just to get his opinion on it make sure he agreed and he had no issues with it at that time yeah understand it's difficult when you're dealing with sand to get direct storm water so but I'm also trying to understand how this complies with d storm water EGS which you're not exempt from so at least for some treatment I understand it's your land sub to Coosa storm Flowage so we don't need we're not talking about Peak rate attenuations or anything like that but you need to there need you know how you can can that Swale be grasped and call that a you know a bior retention sale or something is there some way of meeting that standard I don't quite understand Mary let let me do this for one second if I could get everyone's attention could you all please mute we're getting a little background interference from somebody at this point so if uh okay thank you Frank all right excuse me Mary go ahead please that was my point I just uh I mean I guess the you know the town is relying on Joe swatka for the storm water review and he doesn't have an issue I'm just raising the question like it doesn't appear to comply with the D storm water Rags so which is part of our review mat what is the total what is the total area of the site what what is the square footage of the site the site the whole site yeah I don't think it's big enough to compot to uh trigger this town storm water bylaw right yeah no that that that was one of my questions no I think it's less than an acre okay don't have the the total area here listed I have to pull it up on the tax card quickly if you wanted me to do that um because we weren't proposing any new structures we didn't add a zoning table to this particular plan right yeah the question is our our storm water BW is an acre of disturbance or more would would trigger that Plum Island does fall within that Waters of the United States but but again you're not yeah and but you're not disturbing a full acre because you have existing pavement that was that's existing existing grades that haven't changed okay D relies on the project type more than the size right but just one other level of jurisdiction that yeah we can eliminate for for this okay anything else Mary at this point uh no thank you okay uh TJ I'm gonna go around one more time and then we'll open it up to the public TJ any any follow-up questions from Matt on this uh no not at this point nope okay Woody any any follow-up questions for Matt on this project no I'm good thank you Bob okay Mick any any followup questions on this no questions for me Bob thank you yeah and for me no no follow-up questions to me uh I mean when I look at the net reduction uh to the site P pull that table up again Matt just because I wanted to uh be accurate yeah so a a net reduction of 13,000 square feet of impervious uh is it's a substantial amount from the from the original gas station there yeah from from the the combined structures and the paved area and the okay I have no further questions I'm G to open this up to the public I see Steve Mansion Steve just give us your name and address and uh ask your questions to Matt that you have certainly uh Mr chair thank you for the chance to comment um this is Steve manin on 14th Street Plum Island a couple things um the idea the placing of the um merchandise container above ground I think is a market Improvement and I'm glad to see that happening I do wonder if you know one cinder block is enough given the potential for flooding in the area and that's a question I would turn back to the commission to decide whether it's sufficient given the propensity for uh high water in that area um I am particularly concerned about raising that since I believe there's an electrical service to the uh merchandise container and whether that introduces additional concerns which may or may not be under the purview of the commission but I just wanted to raise that as something to you know consider if it does fall into your purview um I still find myself scratching my head a little about the idea that this being a mobile temporary structure it's one thing to declare It Mobile it's one thing to declare it to be temporary but I'm not sure what the criteria are to make that determination particularly given that if the wor severe flooding expecting expected again like there were in January you know how would the mobility issue be addressed in real time by the applicant and again maybe that's solely an issue for the building inspector but if it does fall into the purview of the Conservation Commission I'd like to see some discussion about you know what the plan is to move the structure given its U electrical hookup to Higher Ground I know there um that the mobile kitchen is meant to have some uh Provisions for moving it to Higher Ground and that involves not only electrical but gas and I'm not suggesting we go back and look at the uh mobile kitchen at this time but merely want to point out that there are Provisions I hope to talk about when the mobility option must be exercised uh leaving that behind um I believe the applicant is no longer talking about the Pavilion which at one time was being proposed for the site I know the zoning board of appeals approved a pavilion going in but I'm wondering um if the discussion about a roof coverage of the site needs to entertain some discussion about the Pavilion as a future structure again I'm not sure at all sure of the answer of that but I just want to call it to the attention of the commission that right now a pavilion is not being proposed but what if it is how does that enter into your deliberations and finally uh if the corner of Old Point and Plum Island Boulevard is going to have some sort of rais Dune area or some or vegetation I'm wondering how that affects the um sight lines I know that it can be a little bit tricky if you're trying to uh particularly you know make a turn off of oldpoint Road either going east or west onto Plum Island Boulevard and perhaps the applicant can just talk about that a little bit more so that we have good sight lines that um you know do not create a hazard and with that I'm done thank you Mr chair yes Steve do refresh me I'm just taking some notes Here on your comments after you were talking about the merched on the electrical in the building whether it was um you know how is it determined by to be temporary or what have you on the electrical again it it becomes the the domain of the electrical inspector on that for the for the obvious and and the same we rely on the building inspector's determination on what's temporary what's permanent uh and and then we go from there but you had one other point and and I'm sorry I I'm having a senior moment that you made that I just wanted to make a notation of my own notes Here sight lines yeah know the sight lines your sight lines were more on the height of the BM that they're proposing to put in is that what you're talking about Steve yes for for that final comment I think with regard to the merchandise Shack uh I think I'm even more senior than you are Bob but I think my H comment had to do with uh if the determination is made that the merchandise Shack is mobile and like does that mean that we need a plan to address the mobility issue well I think I framed that that was it that was it thank you Steve I I think the mobile and temporary are two different terms uh it's been deemed a temporary structure uh by the building inspector because I had verified that with them and and that's how we're treating it the mobility of it is I guess the owner could always remove a temporary structure at any time whether it was for a flood or for they no longer want a merch yet or they they're proposing something else that's different uh and it doesn't require a permit to remove it from the building inspector I guess is the that's the definition that that Peter had given me on how we determined you know the applicability of whether it was a temporary structure or a permanent structure sure and if if I may Mr chair um I think at the last meeting I phrased it in terms of you know the January floods which were pretty extensive down there as you may recall what happened on at Sandy way for instance and I appreciate that and again I'm not trying to revisit the the kitchen but in terms of Mobility I'm thinking that there may need to be some sort of plan or trigger because certainly during the height of the floods when the um Plum Island Turnpike was closed if there were a more serious threat being posed one couldn't get you know a tractor down there to move you know the kitchen for example or the uh merchandise shed so again I don't know whether such a plan would be under the purview of the commission U but that was one of the other points was related to uh Mobility at the last meeting and now this meeting yeah um so Stephen from from our local bylaw I I I don't recall that we have a section that covers mobility and and Mary I'm unfamiliar if the WPA has such an application as well no no so I guess we don't have jurisdiction because it isn't either in iar and the WPA and and that's the guidance that we go by but we we so we piggyback with what the electrical code requires and certainly what the building building inspector determines you know what the what the structure is but so let me stop there and let me have Matt uh Matt do you want to respond to any of Steve's comments so um when it comes down to the m am I good yeah yeah you're good you're good excuse me when it comes down to the uh the definition of Mobil Mobility or temporary as the chair indicated um that's more of a uh jurisdiction of the building inspector to determine whether or not it's mobile um I would suggest that um because we are going to end up back in front of the planning board at some point that um that they would be the more appropriate board to tackle whether or not a plan needs to be in place um and what that plan would entail having the details of that spelled out as part of their approval um um so I do feel there's a possibility that that there's a definitely a board here that that's more equipped to handle that particular discussion uh as far as sight lines I wanted to bring up this photo so that way the commission could see this um this is the current conditions and we're talking about adding sand for the left side of this and so they're kind of going along uh the road in back of this here so uh you know a twoof foot mound of sand is going to have no effect on the sight lines that isn't currently there today uh with the way this corner is built out with the sign and the uh vegetation and the post that are here now um so I don't feel like the the re reimposes here at all I think you know the sight lines we have today or the SES we're gonna have tomorrow and they won't change um I think that was the three questions yeah and Matt the the burm that we're calling uh that that was on the original site plan that was approved by the planning board as well it was okay all right Steve any anything else before I move on yeah one final thing uh I don't preport to understand the significance of uh roofs on buildings but could you comment um perhaps Matt could comment some more about what the significance of should of Pavilion be proposed in the future whether that would be something that would come would become a concern for the concom again I don't purport to understand fully the discussion that was occurring about the uh roofs on the site but I just raise it as uh please inform me and then I'm thank you I I forgot that you brought the Pavilion so uh what I can tell you and the rest of the public is that the applicant does intend to move forward with a project that would include a pavilion but that would require us to come back to the Conservation Commission uh we originally attempted to do that with the commission and it was the commission's direction for us to take that off kind of come back and reapply to get the old permit reactivated and deal with uh the discrepancies that were found when we did our as built um and so that's what this permit does is it it will deal with those discrepancies and it will reactivate the original approval and allow him to complete the work that he was supposed to do as part of the old permit once that's approved uh we've been instructed that if we want to look at the Pavilion that we could then attempt to come back in and amend the permit which would then require us to deal with the roof run off and the storm water from that and and the rest of the the wetlands protection standards that would apply to that structure as well um so he does plan to come forward with something but it will require a full review uh a new essentially an amended notice of intent which will have U new butter notifications and and so that will go out and there'll be a separate hearing uh to bring up that as a completely separate issue thank you for that and defer to the commission I'm done okay thank you uh Steve are there are there any other members of the Public Public that have h a question or wanted to add comment at this time okay do any members have a request for additional information plan Amendment or adding additional content to the notice of intent um I just have one point that de p in their technical comments for this project recommended the project proponent provide a Civ analysis for grain size comparison during the notice of intent process rather than prior to commencement of work and um the plans should also be revised to show how high these raised Dune features will be I think the I think we talked about them being only a couple feet high uh the Dune right features but there these there are not toppo there's not toppo here on this plan but Matt Can you estimate those are contour lines so it's got to be higher than two feet I guess there there six inch lifts that they're showing here from the original sixts okay yeah so this is about a two foot Mound here whereas we got about an 18inch Mound over here this where it kind of tails off we be way down to around you know a foot um so I think we can add those numbers if commission probably a note to the plan that that you know those Contours are represent half foot um you know half foot Contours or six foot or six inch Contours so then you can estimate the the height above grade absolutely yeah because if these were one foot conts that would be a four to five foot M doesn't make maybe just a note just that says Max Max height or whatever it's going to be above grade and as far as the Civ analysis goes it's not been the commission's practice to require that as part of the notice of intent process um so I don't know about the rest of the members but I'm comfortable in making that a special condition but not requiring that be done as part of the non yeah I agree and I as I recall too Mary we have uh approve Mason should have approved sandpits that meet the Civ analysis that uh we've been using and so typically applicants of the contractors would would be reaching out to the agent and and getting pre-approval of that prior to and there were three um Bentley Warren had an additional pit that they were hauling from that met the or something yes yeah it was but I think you know a special condition that would state that whatever we used before for special condition regarding yeah installation of sand so something provide Civ analysis uh to the agent prior to construction you know meeting meeting compatable grain size with the beach me meeting the new Conservation Commission standards okay okay any anything else team just that that plan be noted with the we're got to add a add a note to plan to have a note on the dep of the Contours as shown Matt said they're 6 in so they'll just add that as a note We'll add that as a special condition you want add some something about the merch shed elevation you know being that's on I think it's already on the plan showing it that it's on a on a cinder block at it okay okay anything when we show the ray structure I'm sorry we show the ray sandbeds here we'll just add a note below it that says you know this one here is 18 inches uh 18 inches high the one down here is 24 inches high and that the the Contour if you want I can try to squeeze in numbers on those to make it very clear I think yeah okay all right any anything else team okay whatever other special conditions were in the original order of conditions appear be a carryover yep okay okay I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing so moved okay second second uh who was that TJ yeah okay all right uh so special conditions we're gonna one of them will be a carryover of previous special conditions on the expired order of conditions civil analysis to be presented to the agent prior to uh Construction and adding a note to the plan identifying the Contours of the proposed Dooms of the proposed fors any anything else we're thinking of do we want to have say anything about mon you know monitoring of the planting so that they Ser you know there's a certain year guarantee yeah I I think in our special conditions it's a two-year growing cycle okay to make sure that they that's should be covered it it is covered by the uh by the I'm going to call it our usual condition conditions okay yeah yeah a usual special conditions okay all right I will entertain a motion to issue an order conditions for 2-8 Old Point Road with our usual conditions and the forementioned special conditions so moved okay do we have a second second okay roll call all in favor Mary yes TJ hi Woody yes Mick uh and Bob Connor's votes yes thank you Matthew thank you okay the next matter is D file number 050 1436 uh 286 high road to construct in addition to an existing single family dwelling with Associated utilities and expanded driveway within the 100 foot buffer to Salt msh area Mason why don't you give us an update on this you mentioned early they're asking for a continuance yeah Bill Hull had reach out um asking to continue to the next meeting okay well team then I'll entertain a motion to continue this public hearing to the November 5th meeting at the applicant's request so move second TJ and Mary okay roll call all in favor Mary yes TJ hi Woody yes Mick hi and Bob Connors roach yes okay team that is it um it is now 8:56 pm and I'll entertain Mason unless you have some some content you want to share with the commission uh no no no news right now okay no updates all right I'll entertain a motion to adjourn don't moved second okay all in favor Mary Woody yes Bob Connor all right thank you everyone uh great meeting tonight got a lot done Janice did you have anything you wanted to uh add part of the just watching Newbury fan Newbury conservation fan club all right just saying hi and you know see how the Old Point Road is important to me too so yeah no it's h one island with two zip codes that's what we always say out here oh yeah all right thank you everyone have a great night thanks bye welome welcome Frank