all right it is now 6:30 p.m. recording in progress so this is the opening of the normally scheduled Norton Conservation Commission meeting Monday May 6 uh at 6:30 p.m. and as is required we are going to read the Preamble concerning this being a remote meeting pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 Bill extending several covid era policies and programs by allowing virtual meetings to continue from March 31st 2023 to March 31st 2025 this meeting of the Norton Conservation Commission will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public Andor parties with a right and or requirement to attend this meeting can be found at the end of this agenda members of the public attending this public hearing SL meeting virtually will be allowed to make comments if they wish to do so during the portion of the hearing designated for public comment by raising their hand virtually or pressing star9 if participating by phone no in-person attendance of members the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means in the event that we are unable to do so despite best efforts we will post on the Norton Cable website www. Norton Medi center.org an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings soon as possible after the meeting thank you Dan so um in the meeting tonight uh is myself Julian Cades chair Lisa cor Roa Vice chair we have Dan Pearson uh who is our clerk uh tomama best Paxton Pell uh Joseph carallo and Mark Fernandez was unable to join uh the meeting tonight um and uh we also have of course John Thomas our director and uh Megan her up our assistant um So Lisa your your audio is working better now I hope I think it is so so we don't have to shout no all right so we have um no new public hearings tonight we have a variety of continued public hearings the first um public hearing first continued public hearings are actually a collection of three uh even though they have separate uh file numbers of 250- 1152 1153 and 1154 we've been uh discussing them as a unit because they're all Contin contiguous as a lot B Lot C and lot D um so uh do we have a uh representative of the applicant for that project so uh Crane Street requested a continuance until May 20th all right M Mr chairman I will make a motion to continue that file until the meeting on the 20th second we have a motion by uh Dan Pearson seconded by Paxton uh roll call vote beginning with Tom and Joe Obin hi and Paxton and Lisa hi hi and Dan hi and I'll throw in an i motion carries um next item is file number 250- 11143 360 south wester Street concerning construction of a 35,000 squarefoot Warehouse um do we have a representative of that project tonight we do uh Mr chairman uh Carlos scy with C representing the applicant Patriot relocation services and just refresh my memory as to exactly I mean we've seen this I think at least twice before and what was the specific issue that we had yet to resolve sure uh I think the at the last hearing the conservation agent unfortunately had to step out during the hearing I think there was some conflicts uh during that one where we weren't able to get the full report from the agent on the town's behalf uh subsequent to that we did get the final peview comments just two minor comments as are related to operations and maintenance plan just clarifying you know the use of uh silt socks and rsion controls as part of the long-term uh o andm uh procedures versus construction period procedures so we CLE that up anded that uh and then one change that we also did uh was out of an abundance of precaution because there was a number of potential vernal pools around the site we actually pulled the storm water management infiltration systems back outside of the 100 foot buffer uh without materially changing anything else so it's the same water quality treatment same recharge same infiltration we just shifted the location slightly further back from the wetlands uh to provide a improved buffer uh so really it's the same uh project that we had at the last year with some minor changes uh to the layout of some of the the equipment uh we welcome some feedback from the town if you have any questions uh John any any comments I mean it sounds like this is pretty much addresses all the issues is that correct yeah I was actually able to get out there to review all the flags too I wanted to let the commission know that I didn't have any changes to the Wetland delineation that was done um by their Environmental consultant the only concern I had was how they were going to circumvent the potential veral pool uh conundrum and scenario they they have in front of them um as such it seems like they're conservatively approaching this as uh treating the vernal pools as if they were certified so they're trying to take everything out of those areas especially U alongside that they'll definitely be now the septic too is that's not our purview but that's going to be on Board of Health but they have the same purview when it comes to certified vernal pools have you guys take the Liberty to make those modifications if necessary as well we have uh we pulled the uh the Elric Fields outside the 100 foot buffer zone as well okay uh like you said out of an abundance of precaution uh because there are potential retreating them as such and we've designed a stor more system according with the system as [Music] well so are there any questions from commission members uh and if not questions from anyone uh in the meeting and if not it's my impression and John you can correct me correct me uh as needed uh we can entertain a motion to close uh this public hearing that is what's the 6th our next meeting is the 20th so yes we can definitely make a motion to close and issue an order conditions at the next meeting all right if there are no further questions or discussion I think uh we can consider that motion uh I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for file 250-1 143 second uh we have a motion by Lisa and Joe that was you that made the seconds okay yes oh yeah I got that and uh so roll call starting with t and Joe hi hi hi um Paxton and Lisa hi hi and Dan all right and I'll thr in an i motion curies so uh Carlos we will consider the order of conditions in our next meeting okay thank you just say a matter of process uh can we see a draft uh set of the uh I guess suggested special conditions if there are any and is that just typical process that we would just look at those and be back at the next year and just to review any sort of final issues there I think for this one um the major um aspects of this would be to have a final Swip ready and having construction plans available prior to the pre-construction meeting um and if there's any revisions those get addressed before any pre-construction meeting um but besides that I think it would be your typical but I can definitely send over a draft uh for your review sure that would certainly be appreciated uh thank you all for your time thank you thank you uh so next item on the agenda is um pile number 250- 11144 concerning um Reservoir Street a a 14 Lot subdivision uh do we have a representative for that applicant we do uh Mr chair Ned corkran attorney in Milton and I'm joined by Cameron Campbell who's the project engineer and uh we're prepared to move forward we I know there been some back and forth in review or peer review um comments we've responded uh there's a last I think a couple of last issues and I'll turn it over to cam to uh walk you through it thank you yeah what up now going my name's Cameron Campbell with toel berala one of the civil engineers on the project and we got comments back the second round of comments back from the peer review and they were essentially satisfied with everything except for the phosphorous removal calculations which we have corrected just didn't have enough time to send in uh prior to this meeting which we we can send to them uh soon and then a couple of minor little plan edits that they wanted with some notes and whatnot the the big issue that we've been trying to solve is the the waiver request for the uh stormw water BW for that 1 inch volume uh on site and we're looking for an approval with a condition that uh the client's open to allowing a condition for each and every house lot to be required to have a storm water review prior to the building permit being uh issue so it would allow the uh conservation department to review each drainage for each single house lot not just including the ones inside the 100 foot buffer and if the board's if the commission's open to that then we would be uh happy with that that and then I believe that was all that was really left for outstanding issues with this project can can I just are you able to entertain a question now yeah yeah absolutely uh I mean I'm I've been on the commission a long long time and and um you know I had initially asked when you talk about this as to whether was just like a foot of soil and and then ledge and you commented oh no there's there's at least 8 fet of soil before you hit ledge so it's puzzling to me that you that you say that that soil is so dense that it can't possibly absorb one inch of of uh initial rainfall I I'm I'm puzzled by that and and can you can you really back up that kind of statement yeah it's uh I did soil evaluations on site it's a logement till it's a dense till that requires quite a bit to get through it and the I know the peer reviewer also agreed with the soil logs and also the groundwater is within two feet of the uh soil of the finished grade as it as today so the soil is classified as a it's has a hydraulic group rating of a d soil which essentially doesn't allow infiltration it's like a0 uh 05 inches per hour rate when the minimum infiltration rate for Massachusetts storm water standards is 0.27 and they they spe the the massachus stormw standard specifically has a section in here that says if the site is completely made of crd soils or with ledge at the ground surface then you can meet the infiltration to the maximum extent pical which we've done by removing we originally proposed impermeable barriers on all our sorar systems so keep it out of the groundwater we've removed those to allow the storm water going into the into the uh into the uh detention Basin and the rain garden and the constructed Wetland the Infiltrate The Best of its ability and that's about what can be done on this site with the soils there unless you bring in a significant amount of fill and lift it all up and bring in a bunch of sand which I don't believe is really feasible at this location so basically what this tells us then is it's really not a developable lot developable lot for the intended use to meet the storm water standards and to meet the pound criteria for one inch well it me that's what it tells me it meets the state storm water standards right it's it's just the one bylaw in the town of Norton that requires that one in which is not which is not a state standard right but there's a reason it's a town standard so to me your offer of having each house lot come in that doesn't even compare I mean so what are you talking about that you're going to infiltrate the roof and maybe the driveway how does that compare to a sub Road and all that pavement to me that's not that's not going to cut it as a condition that would allow you to byass or or not meet this one inch criteria and and the other aspect to this is we had discussed because you you said um that there's no possibility of infiltration and and the water table is so high uh whether or not these houses are going to have full B basements and you said oh yes they're going to have full basements and to me that means you're going to be selling the the buyer uh a Perpetual problem that and you know no matter how well you seal up a basement it's it's still going to be full of water and so my view is okay put it on a slab and make it clear I don't think I definitely said they were going to have full basements I said it's a possibility uh and they do get I mean basements get built in groundwater all the time that's they do and there's some pumps and other different methods you can use to watertight basements granted it's not the most the best situation to have it built in the groundwater and but those we when we go when you go for a building permit on each lot this this doesn't approving the subdivision doesn't instantly approve that a house can be built on the lot um okay okay so you can't meet the onein criteria and you said you know I I mean I've worked for many developers over the years and the fact that you can't develop um because of the meeting that criteria means that yes you do have to bring in Phill and that's how you develop land that's marginal it doesn't meet infiltration criteria so the fact that you have to bring in Phil and it costs a lot of money really has no bearing on on you know on us approving or or not approving this project it basically means it's really not a buildable lot in the sense of infiltration and that you would have to bring in Phil well Phil will be brought in but in sense of in the sense of infiltration you design the infilt ation systems based on the most limiting soil which is the natural soil on grade so bringing in fill doesn't technically doesn't increase for the calculations doesn't increase your infiltration on site well we we'll back up a minute you just said if we had to build if we had to in order for us to meet that criteria we would have to bring in a lot of fill it would cost a lot of money is is that not what you said you bring in the fill to get the separation of ground water but the the infiltration rate will not change okay so but the bottom line is the town has criteria for infiltration and you don't need it so John Thomas have we ever allowed a way is there such first of all is there such thing as a waiver process from this one inch and has anybody ever asked for it and what were the circumstances so the bylaw is pretty vague as it but my understanding as it after reading through it is that you may or may not allow uh any sort of waiver request provided that it doesn't conflict with the um the purpose of the bylaw along with any sort of potential ms4 requirements that are associated with the bylaw so that's what it states within the bylaw so I'm waiting for an answer from the applicant as to how this request is basically going to adhere to our bylaw and why we should be granting a waiver and I really have not received an answer and I'm just looking for something this evening from them and I've asked them to basically be prepared to discuss it so I'm leaving it up to them to basically tell us how this is not going to be a burden to the town how this is not going to this is going to be an overall Improvement to existing site conditions um I can go on and on but I think Engineers should be able to provide us that information um especially for for just a roadway layout I mean we haven't even gotten to the house uh or the um the build buildability of the uh the 14 lots that they're trying to develop so you know I'm I'm waiting to hear something I just haven't yet so I'm waiting to hear from the applicant as to how this is going to you know benefit the town now bear in mind with regard to the applicant we have reviewed projects um with regard to building houses uh in this area except that the the the issue is they do it in exactly the manner you have referred to they have to bring in soil to create a septic system that's suitable and a house above the water table that is also acceptable but they certainly can't do the kind of incredible density that you are uh requesting and and that is that's where you're running into trouble as I see it the only way you can have all these houses with with functioning septics systems is by sewering it and um and you know you can do that I I mean I don't know what what that's going to cause Mr chair we we are uh uh providing sewer connection yes that's what I'm saying the other projects in this area did not have that didn't choose that option because it was prohibitively expensive for for what they could do but um this is the conflict the the commiss is dealing with is you are trying to overbuild a very poor site and you feel you can do it because you can bring sewer to it which if you couldn't okay it would be an ideal site for three or four houses um you're you know but you have uh an extensive Road system because of the density that you're trying to put there and that's causing the complication that we're talking about I I mean the inity doesn't go beyond the zoning scope so we are meeting the zoning regulations for this lot each lot is meets the zoning requirements so we're not going any denser than the town allows well you're not understanding you're you're avoiding the issue is that if if we had um if we had a u exposed ledge on the entire site um you would say well we're going to have to bring in soils to make this work um and you're saying well you don't have exposed ledge but you have soils that can't absorb any water uh which is you're saying mechanically is the same and my view is well okay you you you've got to reduce the demand for storm water systems in order to make that work but um you see the Dilemma you're asking in you you have this very low quality site uh and you're you're addressing the need for a sewer system by by having or a septic system by having it sewered but then you still have all of the impervious surface and uh and I think you're you're trying to uh increase the density beyond what it should be and asking us to give you permission to to do that uh you know and the the storm water design is sized to handle everything all the runoff from the impervious surface on site it's not increasing any flows off the site at all and if you look at now the soils are the same now as they are if we were to develop so the runoff from this site also goes directly to the wetlands or to the reservoir because they it's not infiltrating into the ground now so so we are matching the existing conditions with it with the infiltration as it's we it's infiltrating as best it can but but clarify for me then you you right now your designed storm water system is for the impervious surface of the roadway and and 20% of the buildable area on the lot which the peer revieww said was satis Factory we we assumed the Lots would be developed with 20% impervious area and added that into the storm water calculation so any further infiltration on the single family house lots that the condition of a storm water review would require would only benefit the the designed storm water management system the designed stor Manion system can handle the impervious for the House locks and the roadway as designed as it is proposed well then I'm I guess I don't understand why you're asking for a waiver then because it it doesn't infiltrate it detains and releases but it it releases in a manner that doesn't increase the PE increase the flows out to the residences it's how a detention system works you make a detention area which holds water and then slowly releases it over a period of time instead of just pushing all that water to your neighbors the bottom line to me is that the town has criteria for infiltration and you're not meeting that and you're asking for a waiver which tells me that this site really shouldn't be built on if you need a waver and you can't infiltrate to the extent that we require number one number two I believe the state is increasing uh John I haven't had a chance to look at 934 pages of State red changes to to be about an inch in the future from what I'm looking at right now right so the state is in the process also of updating their regulations to match what the town's requiring right now so why would we ever consider something that's that's goes against our own bylaw one and two goes against an imminently uh regulations going to be approved eminently by the state that part makes no sense to me I think well first of all the state um issues app approves modifications to its own stor water standards all the time if you can show that you can me it as practical as possible they will allow um issue allow orders of conditions to be issued in superseding orders if you get the DP this is no this is a brand new this is a brand new regulation to catch up with the rest of the world as they should be that the half inch is going to close to an inch so it's not that they're going this is that's going to be the new standard very soon understood but but those regulations also take into account the totality of circumstances and the and they allow um reviews to be to to do that to take in uh those those circumstances they're not bright line yes or NOS they are uh standards to be met but they allow you to adjust if you can demonstrate that it's it's practical or feasible to do so um I think that's important what you just said demonstrate that it's practical or in feasible to do so I think that's very important for this conversation um I think I think the stormore design as it is shows that it's practical to do so because it treats that one inch and decreases the flows I mean the here's the kind of the scenario that we have you're asking for a waiver and it's it the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that it's not feasible or there's no other alternative so I mean the Board needs to make a decision if you're asking for a decision tonight I mean I'm not certain that you're going to be able to get that waiver this evening but that's just me from an outsid are looking in um but you know I would just say that it's probably in your best interest to you know obviously you haven't gone in front of planning yet right we have we have we we have subdivision approval for from definitive subdivision approval from planning so you have all the house lots and everything designed for permit and everything else because you're going to have to go you have a water protection district and then I think there's some other sort of sensitivities you got to take into consideration with the planning board isn't that right they approved the subdivision the house Lots will be taken care of the building permit who's going to handle the storm water for the house Lots that's why we're that's why we're proposing a condition for the Conservation Commission I'm not going to deal with each one individually that's outside my purview so you're only that yeah you'd have to do it cumulatively so you're never going to do that peace meal so you're going to come in with one house and tell us it meets this criteria then you're going to come in with the next house so who's going to put the puzzle together cumulatively for us well if each house meets the inch and the storm water flows then cumulatively they'll all meet the inch and the storm water flows but you not propose them at all at the same time no but it'll be but if say each meet the storm water standards for those lots then the total will meet the storm water standards for Lots it's how it works it's not all going to be proposed at the same time they'll be proposed as a buyer buys a lot or a developer builds and as long as those lots meet the stor Mar standards then the whole project will one once every lot meets it but the subdivision itself still doesn't okay it does not meet the W it does not meet the Norton bylaw that is right right yeah just need to hammer that point home for the record may I ask a question I haven't been before town of Norton before has the town issued waivers to other sections of its storm water bylaw no not that I know of so no history of ever having issued a waiver to any provision in the Town St water B well there's been no design put before that is required that kind of a request not just for this provision I mean for any provision no I mean it's it's a pretty for our storm water bylaw it's pretty straightforward I mean it's not as uh elaborate or comprehensive as some other towns um but there are some Provisions in there that you know are a little bit more restrictive than the state's U handbook I do acknow that but from what I can tell since I've been here with the town there we have not granted any waiver uh to any applicant or a release or um of a waiver for certain activities within the bylaw I'm not suggesting that the town doesn't have the right to have a more strict standard than most towns do in some cases well it bear in mind this this particular area is a problem area right now and and that's why we're kind of sensitive to uh you're asking us to uh potentially ignore the fact that it's already a problem area and and make a special uh case uh and and not enforce something that we hope is going to prevent it from being more of a problem area understood with the problem we're also proposing a sewer which will alleviate septic systems along Reservoir Street if they're failed so it'll also in in the long run it can increase the environmental impact in this whole neighborhood down Reservoir Street allowing for a sewer tie in so you're taking failed septic systems out of the ground and tying into a sewer system for other houses along Reservoir stream yeah but my comment to that is right now there are not failed systems on reservoir uh street because the density there were in The Grove and that was a critical needs area but the area you're talking about developing in perhaps excessive density is not a critical needs area and the the the systems that are there have been designed to uh appropriately accommodate the difficulty of the area and those are those systems are functioning yeah there's there's no real can you still hear me that I freeze up we can we can read it there's no there's no real way to tell if you can there's no real way to tell if a system that's in the ground is failed or not without doing a ttle f inspection which only happens if the sells so T technically there could be a failed system in the ground you just don't know until the the buy until the owner sells the property we're getting off topic one thing I would like to point out for the record though is regardless of the density if it was less dense more dense they're still not going to be able to meet the criteria is that a true statement it doesn't matter about the density we will not meet the inch of infiltration no okay regardless of density regardless of how many houses are there correct if that is thee then there could be a lot potentially a lot of non-buildable lots in nor and it is only required to meet the of infiltration on site well that's fine with me um I you know this uh that's absolutely fine with me but anyway uh whether it is or not is not relevant uh we did say uh meetings ago that this was in fact we've we've said it a number of times that this is not a good area uh because of flooding and uh you know I I'm not in favor of this for for the very reasons mentioned by uh Lisa and and Julian um it's just not good it's not a good area to build in and I think I think you also have to understand um our role in the town our role is is is to protect the interest of those people who will be living here with those structures to be sure that the the uh investment they make in a house is going to be a Sound Investment and and we do not allow a significant defect uh in the building of that house simply because it was you know you're asking us for a labor and uh and and that's you know even though this commission does not oversee whether or not a house has a basement we're still sensitive to the fact that if you're building in the water table it's going to be a mess for that owner forever um and uh you know we're here to protect the interest of the homeowners and you're asking us to potentially look away it's not just the houses to take into consideration it's also the roadway and the storm water management maintenance of that someone's going to be having to put the bill for that making sure that there's no complications making sure that it's maintained monitored on a yearly basis so if there's any sort of imminent issues or uh issues that weren't collected or seen unforeseen AKA flooding issues that we've seen on Reservoir Street um that's all going to play a part in the future for the potential owners of those properties the HOA pwn whoever it might be is going to be responsible for managing out that that subdivision roadway for those houses that's that's the same for any subdivision right no and I understand that but we need to also understand that for instance the commission would be the one that would be partially um responsible because we uh if we did Grant a waiver then we would be basically saying that everything was hunky dory when we don't know if everything's hunky dory so that's kind of what I'm getting out with this is that you know how can we provide the shity that the roadway is going to be high and dry for the next 25 50 years I mean we just had some issues over on another Street in town because of rain issues that because of poor planning and Engineering you know 40 years ago we had to basically spend thousands thousands of dollars um trying to fix that situation so I don't want this to be an issue for the town in the future so I'm just saying that it'd be nice basically to have those shies in place and an applicant BM it'll present that kind of shity to us saying that everything will be fine because we have these parameters in in order and here's our plan so that's kind of what I'm getting at is that the the commission needs to hear that and I I haven't heard it so I guess my comment to that is the commission hired a peer reviewer to review our work and they have no issue with the design does the reviewer have the bylaw in mind did they comment on that so I actually asked the peer reviewer separately about some Provisions within the bylaw and they suggested they put some suggestions together which I sent over to the the applicant um but they basically stated that they are not thinking of this as of right now because it has to deal with the um the actual Lots themselves and they haven't thought of that process yet so a pview had some suggestions on how to do some improvements the Lots themselves but that's not part of the um this this application so it sounds like the only way you could maybe address it is to include the lots to start to address it is to include the Lots in this submission in terms of storm water that could be a solution that's an alternative that could be exercised by the applicant if they want to investigate it further um I think it's a good suggestion um whether they decide to do that it's on them the hus is on the applicant to present the the um you know the Alternatives as to whether it is something that were the commission would be willing to entertain as potential option I think we did worst case scenario with the Lots having no sort of drainage on them and it shows that the roadway uh systems can't handle it so anything on the locks will help the help the proposed systems as they are but we're not completely opposed to looking at the Lots I don't it'll just make the design meet the stor M standards more a design that already does it'll it'll make them meet it more so if it's to make meet it more why not show it then that doesn't make any sense yeah that doesn't make any sense at all so it does because we're showing worst case scenario and it shows that the worst case scenario meets it so any additional storm water control just makes it better but why but it already meets it so how many samples uh have you done AC cross this 14 how large is the site it's 14 acres or 20 acres or so so of that of that size how many spots have been sampled to establish that there is nowhere that can can meet this infiltration standard we did five throughout the site but the the existing map soils matches what we found on the site the soils are mapped as doils okay I I need I need to sanding check here so if you were to add the Lots into this equation would you ever meet the infiltration the towns one in no because we have to use we have to use the soils that exist there today the Bas okay that's all I want to know thank you I I don't think uh since there's a a pause here I I don't think we're going to be doing the applicant any favors by restating our position further uh I think you probably know by now that the information that we need from you and uh know we wish you well but it's you know it's we're not going to go well I can't speak for my my fellow Commissioners but I won't to go against the bylaw and this just doesn't sound uh like a reasonable project right now are you done providing information for the record or do you still think you're going to try and address the peer reviewer um suggest suggestions I guess that's the question whether we continue this hearing or whether you think you're done providing information for the record and you'd like us to act on what you've given us to date I think it I think it would be helpful if we had the opportunity to try to address those requests further um my concern I guess is if the issue of the one inch is absolute does addressing other questions or or ideas that have been raised by the peer reviewer help if you want my opinion and I don't give it out very often is that I don't I don't have the full picture scenario of what's going to happen with this property I think it's very important to see the big picture be able to be able to understand um whether I would be comfortable with granting a waiver knowing kind of what the intent is for the property I I mean you have a roadway you don't show me you know are you guys doing multif family houses you doing single family houses I don't know um that's all yeah and you don't you don't need to you don't need to release that information you have to tell me but for instance what I'm getting at is that it'd be nice to understand what the intent is for this property before my the board would entertain whether you know this is an acceptable um thing to Grant a waiver for um we don't have we don't have all the information regardless if you told me it was a warehouse versus a tent the number they're never going to meet the number so what does it matter what's out what's going out there that's what I can't get my head around doesn't matter what's going out there I understand your your position and my position is I'd like to know what's going out there to even you know consider you know the potential of a waiver release or granting of a waiver if we if the commission was ever going to be able to do it but you know my guess is that for instance a lot of the members on the board just they need more information um and if you're telling me that you don't think that for instance the scale or scope of the project as it's being kind of designed is ever going to meet that um standard then like Lisa just said I don't know if there's a point in you know prolonging this any further and and I I would add that that if this were not an area that had the kind of problems that have been repeatedly shown with water running down Reservoir Street uh sometimes for a week or 10 days at a time um that if that history weren't there I think more ofis would be receptable a receptive to U the possibility that okay you're asking us to U set aside one of the standards but this is the problem is you know it's a problem area and you're saying you recognizing it problem area and you want us to in effect ignore that and and it's like this is this is not what we're here to do I would we certainly not intending to ask the permission to ignore um it strikes me that um it may be time to pause and and request a continuance for the next two weeks to spend a little bit more time we we do have on the on the subdivision side we have subdivision approval for 14 Lots there 60,000 SQ foot plus house Lots we have a draft of a Conservation Commission which would take four 40,000 square ft of each of those lots and put into conservation restriction restricting the developable area to to M more modest lots for they appropriate for the size of scale of the homes um at 20,000 Square fet um we do need to go before the planning board for a special permit to address affordability requirements we're required to provide two affordable units within the um uh or provide for the ability to provide two or units uh within the division the development they can be done in within two two family structures so there may be two two family structures uh on the site um I think we were before the commission earlier this year and showed an overview of the prop of the area as to how the the conservation restriction was being laid out the areas that are subject to conservation restriction are contigous to each other so that they the benefit of the of the CR is significant um and the public benefit that's being provided for access to the Norton Reservoir itself is helpful so I think there's there's some some good things um it strikes me that we should come back before the commission with a presentation on the overall benefits we should look at um a more holistic approach to how we move the development um and you know uh trust that we'll have an opportunity uh to G to gain the waiver that we that we need here and so um unless cam you think otherwise I would suggest that we um request a continuance uh for two weeks Mr chair I'm motion to continue file 250 1144 or two weeks yeah I I don't think we can take that motion quite yet I think we have to see if Cameron is in agreement I'm in agreement with m y okay and and I think we have to ask are there any further burning questions or or uh you know we haven't asked other people in the audience if they have questions and so then we can continue then we can consider the so uh any questions from members of commission or comments or anyone else in the meeting I just want to make a quick comment on the on the the conservation restriction open space I don't know if it's a done deal yet but I am greatly disappointed in that layout again because of the and I've gotten on the record of saying this before I just think it's in a horrible location it's in people's backyards it's not contiguous so I don't know who has the final say on that but that doesn't Bo does we do not it doesn't yeah it doesn't cut it for me but um it's one one of requirements as part of the subdivision we're certainly open to to comments on how it could be recraft it yeah well I think I made my I said my concerns during the first hearing is that it's going to feel like somebody's going through somebody's backyard and I was dismissed so anyway if the commission has no authority to um to um you know change that then it is what it is but I just want to repeat that for the record I guess thank you all right if there are no further comments or questions we we can now entertain uh your motion to continue until our next meeting which is 520 so Dan your your motion is still active that correct all right second second uh so a motion made by Dan and second by Lisa that we continue this hearing for file number 2511 44 until May 20th so beginning with Paxton and Tama roll call vote how you vote hi hi Lisa and uh Dan hi and Joe hi and I'll throw it an I so thank you guys for your discussion tonight and we'll see you again thank you [Music] our next um continued public hearing is file number 250- 11151 300 South Washington Street uh which concerns the um construction of an in indoor self storage facility and um I guess there were still some peer review issues to be resolved uh do we have a a representative of the applicant or did they request a continuation they requested a continuance the applicant representative has a concussion so they will not be in attendance okay so I'll make a motion to continue to public hearing for file 250-15 one to the May 20th public meeting second we have motion made by Lisa seconded by Dan uh Lisa uh and Dan how do you vote hi hi Joe and Tomo hi hi and pxton I and I'll throw it an i motion carries um file uh number 250-1155 18 Country Club Way um which is um a notic m t for um addition of a sun room now this was a project which had occurred and this is um to put the paperwork in order as I understand it that's correct yes the applicant was just waiting on a DP file number and to send over us a uh plan they actually had the plan they just uploaded it wrong uh and they provided us hard copies that's okay they provided us hard copies to the office so we have the plan showing the buffers and the resource areas and the work area so everything is on file and on record for potential um the land owner and future owners of the property to know all right so as I understand then all the information is submitted we can go ahead and close the public hearing and then consider an order of conditions at our next meeting that's correct all right so any questions or comments otherwise we can consider a motion to close I'll make a motion to close the public Mr chairman I'll make I I think what we have here is a motion by Lisa to close and seconded by Dan yes and Dan you look like you're fro good okay there you go am I coming to another meeting you do not have to dy I will I will send you over the paperwork um May 21st okay thank you sir thank you you're welcome all right so we're gonna go ahead and do roll call starting with Lisa and hi and [Music] T Tom okay and Joe hi and Paxton hi and I'll thr and I the motion carries of the hearing for file number 250 1155 is closed um determination 1138 115 King Philip Road um I you and I'm not thank you I don't what was I guess Craig you are the um the representative for the applicant the a lot owners Bobby Grio and uh sorry I'm not recalling Sherry uh uh on the line as well the last time we were before you we uh came to an agreement to divide the filing we had a filing for a detach garage as well as a uh dock to go into the lake and at the meeting it was determined to divide it into two separate filings so I do have a new plan I just took all the dock information off I can I can show it if you like so you see this the only difference is I took off all the doc information changed the title remove the dock as shown on the plan so I believe it was left that we could close the hearing regarding the garage so as an update uh I don't know if you recall but I think we mentioned that the lady that was DP that was revealing the Mesa filing for the rare species in the lake had been out sick but she reached out to me a couple of weeks ago and asked for all the information to be sent to her and then uh last Thursday I believe it was I reached out just to see where she was on it and although her comment is that she's going to put her official um letter of uh on the May 10th is when the I guess the due date is for they have the 30 days based on when we submitted it so May 10th would be the day she would put it in the public uh record but she has noted that based on Welling protection act and The Endangered Species Act that we is not considered a take and we would be allowed to put a dock in removable dock that is not a permanent one as we were proposing to do obviously that's just one hurdle that we have but that's the latest update that I have on that information yeah we we actually had a section set aside for the discussion of the doc but and I I don't know John do we discuss it here or at least no I'd say I'd say clo well if the commission's comfortable with the plan as proposed for this request for determination I'd close this permit out and um obviously if the um land owners or Craig want to stick around for our public discussion about um you know the doc stuff then they can stick around to hear kind of what the board wants to talk about all right so as I understand it U everything is in order for this as a request for determination and we can consider a closure and then uh this this is our last hearing so that we can then consider uh positive or negative determination um do we have any further questions or comments if not I think we can consider a motion now to close um the public hearing for determination number 1138 so moved second so we have a motion from Lisa seconded by Tama for closing the hearing for 1138 um roll call vote beginning with Lisa and Joe hi hi Paxton and Dan hi hi and d and uh Tama hi and I'll throw in an I um as well as the motion carries we are now um we've completed our our our hearing so we can consider motion as to whether this is a positive or negative determination assuming the project is carried out according to the plan I'll make a motion to issue a negative determination of applicability for file 1138 second so we have a motion made by Lisa seconded by t uh roll call vote beginning with Joe and Lisa I Paxton and Dan I all right then I think that was an ie and Tama hi and I'll throw in an I so Craig you know but for the benefit of your applicant negative determination means that uh there's no need to file notice of intent uh and to and you can proceed with the project as designed on the plan thank you I'll sign off on the building permit too okay thank you well we still have to go to the zv for I mean the planning board because uh we're in the Water Resource Protection District but that's oh so you have to file special perit okay y okay all right thank you so I believe we are up to request for an amendment for the uh order of conditions applying to North Reservoir um for aquatic plant Management program uh technically I need to uh abstain from that vote because of um living contiguous with Norton Reservoir so um Lisa if you would be willing to um go through that yep so um if anybody had a everybody had a chance review the amended order if you have any comments or questions on it I thought it looked fine um so let's see John this is going to be reissued for another three years correct it was already extended oh extended for three years okay it already was extended this is just the amendment process okay all right yeah we extended it last time okay ah right right right okay so this is just the amended order okay um and I like that you called out the called out the amendment part of this order with highlighting it in the box which is helpful so it's helpful for everyone yes okay so does anybody have any comments or questions on this if not I need a motion to accept the amended oh this is the Second Amendment right to the of conditions for file 250- 978 so Move Motion by Joe seconded seconded by Tom uh roll call vote Joe and Paxon i i i Dan I will throw in an ey all right thank you next on the agenda is um review draft minutes for uh ail 22 uh I have no comments myself anybody have comments [Music] no I thought they look really good like to make a motion to accept the minutes I'll second so motion by Joe by Lisa to accept the minutes as drafted for April 22nd Lisa and Joe how do you vote hi hi Tom and Dan hi hi Paxton I and I'll vote I as well motion carries next item is um report from staff oh I think the most thing to report right now is that Dan did not have any comments for the meeting minutes I think that is well on top of that on top of that he has a comma um and so he's he's no longer clerk except on on the agenda today then then he's back to we we received two two new projects today I'll never live this down so we received one for 61 West Main Street and which is honeydew donuts and then we also received a um The Waiting River Estates project it's coming back so on southwester street so they submitted that today I'm still waiting on the digitals um to basically put up on the drive so waiting to get all that but we received all the hard copies today um can you sorry John do you do you recall when it was initially proposed oh River one yeah they came they came in front of us I want to say mids I want to say and mid 2000s yeah I think it was like 2010 20 between 2010 2015 I think I just can't remember off the top of my head so the fact that I don't remember this project is reasonable yeah well I was on the commission and I can barely I don't remember which one this is this the proposal for I could like three multif family units apartment buildings they had a lot of apartment buildings going on yes yes they did I know they revised it a couple times um and I think it was switching hands I don't know if it's switched hands again um from the owners but I know that um they did extend it through US recently the permit itself but they're coming back so so they're coming back because they want to reconfigure everything well I haven't I haven't looked at all that I just saw that that we had the new new package of materials I haven't taken a look or a deep dive through it yet so I have to I just know that waiting River Estates was on there so I have to take a look at it so so but um just to give everybody a heads up with the Rose farm uh we did get the RFQ in place um we're waiting to hear back from potential um folks um that will um potentially be looking towards um renting the space from us um and hopefully I'll have some news in the near future um after we look through the proposals um for that um but then I guess the other topic of discussion was kind of just for the commit um to talk about kind of this doc conundrum that we've got ourselves into so I did hear back from the state I uploaded the or Megan uploaded the email that I got back from the state it doesn't have a lot of real conrete information um but you know I did basically Advocate that my understanding is that if it doesn't have pure supports or if it doesn't have permanency it doesn't meet the chapter 91 criteria of a structure and therefore doesn't require a chapter 191 filing and she basically responded that I can see how you would see that obviously it seems like they don't have a position as to it being incorrect as me you know thinking that for instance a floating dock doesn't constitute the need for it being a like a dock structure that you would have with peer supports that would be on you know um in I guess on the coast or something like that so um the emails in there if you want to read through it and try to make heads or Tales of it I'll let you all do that but um you know my thought was you know I don't want to deter folks from you know just saying no when it's you basically I mean she basically told me some regulations that she could not find that it was a problem within an ACCC as well so you know I had some concerns looking for guidance and it seems that you know we did permit one in the past under I think it was 44 Bay Road when I was here um so the commission did permit that rolling rolling dock uh for Mr sorrow um but that was under an amendment process so same same waterbody same kind of procedure they went through the um the meepa process to go through that and you know he was there was no comments from d as it being an illegal activity or something that wasn't permitted in their comments um so I I just don't know how the commission wants to move forward with this process you know my thought was you know if an applicant wants to submit a notice of intent application I mean for the for putting in a floating dock you can condition it if we're going to have to basically change the language within the special conditions um to to to basically modify it to basically give them a time and season um making sure that they admin um the same kind of Provisions that are within the boat and waterways bylaw um there's a lot of things that obviously I could DRFT up potential conditions but that was my basically thought to the commission was to see if they would entertain this you know kind of floating rolling dock you know something that's going to have the least amount of impacts on the resource area as an option uh as a notice of in 10 application that could be permittable uh by the commission sure may have a couple questions for you Y when you say you reached out to De to talk about chapter 91 did you reach out to Waterway staff I reached out to D okay that's the D is not going to be able to answer this question it has to be Waterway staff Waterway staff so yeah so for instance when when we have the people that are reviewing the permits for us that are going in front of them that's Waterway staff correct no that's Wetland staff so oh D wetlands and waterways program okay so only the wetlands program looks at Wetland filings in order to answer chapter 91 question it's probably either Susan I think it's Susan you right now so on the chapter 91 website it says all inquiries about chapter 91 M you know send it to whoever so I think you have to go to the Waterway staff that's one issue the chapter 91 is one issue okay the second issue is that management plan so isn't that under the gu of DCR but I guess my question is if we're filing a notice of intent right does that go to DCR or someone fils a note has been sent with us do they go to DCR no but the whole thing about the AC and the the the management plan is either it's it's either meepa or the me office right eoea or it's DCR right or both of those agencies I don't know who oversees that that was the AC program information that I gave you right and I thought it was administered by DCR so I guess my I guess my question is we're talking about a two two separate issues no I know but we're talking about a floating platform that is 200 square feet just say plus or minus right yep within a water body yep and then we have large Square large Square you know multi-million dollar Pro projects they're going in an AC probably a footprint of 30 40,000 square feet I think that a 200 sqare foot platform is going to have less significant impacts than a 40,000 foot building well you can think all you want but it's what it's what the reg say which it says that you can't put a pier in a water it's not up here it's not a here okay then it doesn't you know I think that's that's the the the point of um decision is the if the bottom of the Great Pond is not Disturbed then I mean it is your impression John that that this is allowable if it's a floating I mean I I would I would envision like for instance the commission is tasked with determining whether a certain project is going to have any detrimental or significant impact to a resource area a seasonal floating platform or a seasonal floating or a rolling dock I mean you've got meepa you've got I mean sorry not Misa so for instance you've got the natural heritage we're saying it's not going to impose a significant risk that's going to not going to have any take on any sort of habitat and habitat's important within an so there's one agency saying that it's not an issue you got the the folks from I guess for instance I guess I contacted the wrong people to bet review the the notice of intent applications so for instance if they're not making any comments on it I mean isn't there some responsibility from the state to forward over these sort of cons um permit applications to certain agencies I mean why is it why should everything be um I guess I don't want to see my resp responsibility but I'm saying for instance why should it be you know why should if if a land owner doesn't know the process which obviously I'm trying to get at is that I'm trying to make it so that we have a system in place for the for the land owner to know what they can do and how they can permit these certain activities that's why people hire professional Consultants that know the regs and that knows the in know in the outs and rs John it's not up to you it's up to them to go get every one of these so I'm going to go back to the fact sheet that was issued by there's two separate issues here we going to go back to the fact sheet that was issued by eoa uh DCR excuse me it says new docks appear peers or other water dependent structures in and War tis great ponds blah blah blah are prohibited without a locally adopted Resource Management plan I'm still back I'm still back to that document okay one I understand that yep so two and and as far as I know there is no management plan in the in the town or for that Waterway okay and number two um you have to get a permit from chapter 91 that's that's on their website and again you should not be doing that John that should be the the applicants uh consultant should be figuring out exactly what permits they need not you my position as the conservation director is to advise land owners and residents the prop proper channels and proper procedures for moving forward if I if I if it's my understanding based on reading the um the water bodies regulations that the definition of a structure does not include a floating platform or a floating dock then for instance it's my understanding that it doesn't apply so that's where I'm getting at is that for instance I feel that for instance the floating platform and the floating dock is not defined as a structure under the 310 water bodies regulations we're not talking about a water body regulation this is DCR but that's exactly what we're talking about we're talking about what a structure is defined as and it it it says new docks or peers so does it go into the definition of a dock that says it's it's floating versus pile supported versus spotted does it does it get into that does it I'm talking about what a dock a doc is not listed as a structure you need to apply a peer is a structure so for instance if it doesn't meet the definition of a structure it doesn't need a chapter 91 license and that's why I'm getting at that's what I'm trying to get at is that I don't think it meets the definition criteria of it being a structure therefore it doesn't need to go the route of actually being a peer support structure which is what you're inferring is that a peer support structure would not be allowed because it's attached to the bottom of the ground it doesn't make that distinction it just says new peers or do but if you look at the regulations you're looking at a pamphlet I'm looking at the regulations but Lisa you you had mentioned there was a particular individual that may be able to help us well that's for chapter right that's for chapter 91 and again this is something that the applicants consultant should be doing when an applicant goes to a consultant the consultant tells them here are the permits you need to get through the process the town of Norton conservation agent is not responsible for identifying permits on behalf of an applicant I'm I'm not saying that for instance the Boating and waterways bylaw that was put in before I was hired does not mention any of this so that's where I'm trying to get at it doesn't mention any of this you're talking about I'm not talking about our local bylaw John I'm talking about the dcacc and I'm talking about chapter 91 right now how are we supposed to Advocate to the general public if it's not written down in our bylaws think well that's something that we have to revisit with our bylaw together how can we enforce it if it's not in our bylaws yeah but but I I think we're you know the the the fine point that I would like is if from the point of view of of this person that you were saying Lisa that maybe can help clarify this can we get that information just to educate the commission members as to what are the fine points is it that that allow a a something that can be used as a dock in other words a a point to launch a boat uh that makes it easier to launch a boat uh if it's if it's floating is that allowed if it's if it has to have PE secured in the ground is that a situation so just for our own education is there somebody that we can consult that will Define that for us yes so there's two programs that we're talking about one is the DCR AC so somebody would have to contact DCR about this management plan and the second one would be chapter 91 I think Susan Yu is the spokes not the spokesperson but the the the guru over there that you can answer uh ask questions of I think our bylaw is separate I think we need to look at our bylaw I didn't even know we had a voting bylaw uh tell you the truth but that's something that we are going to have to look at outside of these other two regulatory Frameworks and and to me the most important thing is this DCR AC that says it's not allowed so I guess until I see that what are the regulations that are tied to that Sean did you find it the AC regs give me one second I'll pull it up okay I mean again this is not up to us to determine this is up to you know somebody that's getting paid by the hour to a consultant to do this this is what I do think yeah but I think there's also an issue of of U helping commission members sure uh decide about these things is knowing These Fine points is it's not not like but the one stuff really has nothing to do with us it's um it's not us it's another state program not yeah it's not it's not us and then the hus is on the applicant to make sure they have all the permits what I'm getting what I'm getting at is that my point is that I don't think the floating platform and the rolling docks meet the criteria of it triggering the need for a chapter 91 permit which then would then trigger it to the next phase which is it being an actual Dock and it being prohibited within an AC what I'm getting at is I think there's there's a there's a uh uh availability for someone to permit this floating platform or rolling dock within a notice of intent project through the local commission and not need to go through the process of going through the chapter 91 process I think there's a way that the commission can have it it's just I'm trying to get the information give me one second John I I have a quick question yeah is a is a let's say it's not is a platform different than a doc so it depends on how it's adhere to the ground from what I what I understand the last plan Joe actually had a good comment was it showed it was um what did it it was on that that obviously that design wasn't gonna work yeah right so is it now going to be can is that what they're talking about well I I think for instance if you were gonna have a sorry if you were GNA have a temporary structure I think then for instance and it's not adhered to the ground my understanding is that it's not sitting on peers and it's not permanent um well not not adhere to the ground underwater correct as opposed to the ground adjacent the the the bond so I guess I mean I can send over a bunch of stuff and I'll try to get in touch with Susan you about the um the chapter 91 stuff but like I said I think that's outside our purview but I guess my question is is what is chapter 91 stance on I guess a floating and rolling docks if they meet certain criteria and and whether they would trigger the need for a chapter 91 permit I guess that's my question and I don't mean to be more convoluted in this whole kind of you know discussion it's just I'm not certain that for instance the criteria that for instance the applicant for one of the projects that's currently in front of us was looking for doing obviously the design that they had with the stilts I don't think is going to fly but I think that a floating or rolling dock May potentially be an option all right so there's a question on the on the board I don't know if we're ready to this is we're still having a discussion among Bo so the be chapter 91 I'm looking at the RS right now uh it does it says seasonal permanent or seasonal but I would have to look at the definition of structural um a structure but um it uh it does it makes the it doesn't make the distinction say could be seasonal or permanent so that's the first thing that anyway but the the one thing that I'm more concerned about though is the lack of the management plan through the AC program through DCR and that according to the prior conservation agent was why we could never allow anything on winon in the past and to that I would say that it should have been in the the all the language that basically she had there or whatever she basically thought of should have been documented and thrown in the Boating and waterways by a love because I can't find any of it okay well maybe I can ask her to help us on that one because I I think it's important enough all right right um how about if we uh so Mr Greco I I assume you've been listening to this and and if you think we're going to be able to shed some clear light on this um what's your question well well first let me just start Sher wants to speak as well but um you know you you you're just telling me at the beginning of all this you allow someone on Bay Road to put in a floating dock pretty much not a float a rolling dock rolling dock you roll in you move it out floating dock they float on the water yes our first submission was for something that did not screw into the floor of the Waterway but it sat on it and that's okay that that's out of the picture rolling dock floating dock simple you allowed one on Bay Road a rolling Dock and and what I'm just totally totally baffled here because there's docks all over this pond so I'm totally just sorry and I'm baffled so and and Sher also has a let me address your baffle we are a collection of volunteers me John is not but we are we are trying to do what is correct and will prot protect protect the interests of the applicants that we make a decision uh with regard to their project so you know what you're saying what you're asking is did we as a commission make a mistake we might have do we want to go ahead and make another mistake well no we don't I mean that's what this discussion is all about all right hold on hold on hold on sir no one's saying you made a mistake okay know no no you should well I would hope you didn't make a mistake any but but during our last meeting that we had what was proposed was that we went to Messa to get approval to make sure we weren't endangering any species in this pond with our floating dot okay and that's what we did and now Lisa and that email was for to and Lisa now brings up another side of the story of chapter 91 which was not brought up in the first meeting so we did what we were supposed to do asked by you and the committee to get permission from Messa to see whether or not we would be endangering any species in this Pond and we're not only one pram you never mentioned chapter 91 never mentioned chapter 91 now all of a sudden you bring up chapter 91 it's like you're totally against anything on this part it's like that's that's not really what's going you go back to the minut go back to your minutes go back to the Mee jul I would like to make a comment that we're having an open discussion about this issue not a specific discussion about this one property and that for that reason we're we are certainly allowed to have a discussion in a much more broad context than the one for this particular property and and while you can express your frustration that this should be simple unfortunately it's not simple for us because we are trying to be sure we are doing the right thing and uh and and abiding by our responsibility toward the town of n to all the citizens in Orton and to the state because that's what we are asked to do is admin totally totally understand so that tells me you didn't do right by everybody else on this Pond who has a dock in Bay Road who let me clarify let me let me clarify we have made a decision we have made a decision only on one application for a doc on that PK we made other determinations for other water bodies but lake wian is defined as a great Pond which means it's a a natural structure related to the way the glaciers left an impression on the land and that has different regulations totally understand and we and we did what Lisa said in the last meeting to go to who was it Messa Messa and we did and they see no ISS and they have Messa has no issue with and then Lisa throwing in this chapter 91 so now we now we a new problem right bear in mind bear in mind we are having an open discussion we don't have the answer to whether or not there is a structure we can permit on a great pond so that's what we're trying to resolve and it sounds like we're going to have to gather some more information before we could do that so um but and I would also sorry to interrupt Julian but I would also argue that it is the commission's responsibility to tear apart as many op and as many arguments as we can in order to assure that we're being the safest that we can be for the environment that we're in charge of protecting but we're not just protecting the environment we're also protecting the investment that people are making yeah to sound Y and and be aware that just because there are structures out there doesn't mean that they're legal and it doesn't mean that um that at some point there won't be a liability with regard to the necessity to remove them so that's that's a whole different ball of wax and with all and with all the respect I understand that but yet you're just telling me in this meeting that on Bay Road across the pond from us you allowed a rolling go not too long ago and it was all right but but you also have to understand that this is a an issue we have not yet fully clarified so we're we're not we're not okay so what's our next steps let let's let's well it sounds like we're we're going to need to to speak to a person by the name of Susan you who is involved with chapter 91 and who's speaking to Susan I'll reach out to Susan I'll reach out to her and try to find an answer um obviously the the biggest challenge here is for basically for me my job basically is to advise the commission on what I read and you know here is what I have and under 310 section n um 310 CMR section 9 is the is um is the waterways um regulations and it defines what a structure is so I mean if anyone wants to read up on uh the definition of what a structure is I can send it out to everybody as well to take a look at but as I read through the definition of a structure I am hard pressed to say that a floating or seasonal dock would meet the definition of a structure based on what the first sentence say it says means any man-made object which is intended to remain in place in on or over or under Thailand's great ponds or other waterways remain in place a seasonal dock is not it's not designated to remain in place so that is that is what that's what I'm reading here in the definition of what a structure is okay all right John um on the D website it says seasonal or permanent so but I'm just saying these are the regulations these are the regulations so we need the commission if you elect to do this work for the applicant John you need to double check with chapter 91 and then you also I'm not doing any work for theant I'm having an open discussion with the commission and then you also need to check with DCR about this management Resource Management plan and the applicability of that and whether or not um it's allowed because the understanding for the last 20 plus years was that it wasn't allowed because it was the lack of a resource area management plan on Lake W so it's my understanding is that the state needs to get their act in order if that's the case because how I read this in the regulations is is very contradictory to what they have on their website so do you understand how misleading that is for an applicant or someone who's in this position of author Authority basically to advise you know the commission as to kind of what is acceptable and what's not acceptable because if I'm looking at something and I need to know if something is I'm not going to look at a flyer I'm not going to look at something like that I'm going to read what the regulations say right that's why we need to contact DCR as well yeah to that out first and foremost forget about I don't care about chapter 91 because the thing in chapter 91 it really has nothing to do with us EX I'm talking I'm talking moment have a little respect sir never answer that question anyway who do I need to reach out to John can you tell me who I need to reach out to uh you do not need you do not you do not need to reach out to anyone I will reach out to Craig and he will advise you on the next steps thank you sir I'll mute myself now I apologize Lisa well um I I you know bear in mind that um getting angry about this doesn't help resolve anything and what we're trying to do is gather the information and and gather clarity as to what the intended concept was for example a a seasonal uh item I mean are we going to Define boats as a seasonal item or something that that cannot be allowed on a on a great pond because uh it can be considered a structure and and the answer is no we allow boats on on a great pond so I think there will be a way to resolve this but we need to get some more clarity um from the people that deal with the the fine points of these regulations thank you Julian and no disrespect to anybody I'm not it's just kind of frustrating no no no can I speak yes you all right certainly I mean it's just we're going we're going off the last meeting and what was asked of us to do and that's what we did and then like I said Lisa brought up a whole another ball game and you know what if she had said that from the last meeting maybe we would have researched it where we needed to research it but that was not asked of us what was asked of us did and the permission that we got to do so sir so that's the frustration when the committee ask us to do something we do it we're paying for this nobody else is paying for it but us and you know we did what we were told to do and then for her to come up with some other scenario that we need to do now isn't fair just not fair well she she has requested you to do anything uh and I think we're still trying to resolve exactly what is allowed under these regulations and then we can advise you but uh you know the the doc was removed from the pro the doc was removed from from the discussion and you know what was clearly defined as allowable has been acted on so we're doing that and the next step is to gather more information and then all of us can come to the same conclusion okay sounds good Julian thank you I appreciate it and and and and John if there's anything I need to do please email us no there's nothing that you need to do it's more so with with the collaborative the Conservation Commission understanding if this might be something that's permittable that's really the question is that do we have the right does the commission have the right to permit a floating do and a um a rolling dock as part of a notice of intent application if that's true and we don't have to basically have to go through the second secondary steps which is having you to go in front of the AC and all this other stuff that goes along with obviously you know you did do the right step by going through the the Misa process because that's required um so you have that letter I would keep that letter for records it's just the next step is for basically me to find out more information from the state because I I go by what definitions are and how things are defined in the regulations if certain things don't meet certain thresholds I don't think that they apply because that's the way it's written that's how I deduce whether you know and advise the commission if I'm wrong and that the state came out with new regulations or new uh stipulations but didn't modify their um you know definitions you know that's on them and they need to basically provide us guidance as to the next steps and that's what I'm trying to find out is that if it might have been an oversight from the state or whether it's just may have not been clearly identified uh because the waterways regulations is what we go by for any sort of dock or structure within a pond so that's kind of what we need to look at so hopefully that provided you enough information yes thank you John and uh now I I'll just stand down now at this point and uh yeah let us know next steps and again Lisa don't ever call me rude I'm not rude sorry I interrupted you again I apologize but uh I think I think Lisa has left the meeting so okay yeah I wonder why okay thank you all I'm I'm gonna stand down now so you guys could get on with you know I know we got the Bruins game on at eight o'clock so have a good night thank you fair up fair up all right so Craig I think we will uh be giving you the feedback that we can get to help clarify this yeah thank you uh so I think that brings us to the end of our agenda unless uh there's there's something else here I have a quick one Julian yeah go ahead as we do this I think we need clear definitions of some of these things just you know for future reference so when we do face these challenges we're completely clear as a a group you know as We Gather this information we need to know what a doc is what a structure is they need to be pretty clear to the public and all to us so this way there are no questions because to to vote Yes or No we need Super Clarity on these things especially where there's no bylaw within our within our rules and wrecks yeah well this is not something that we've been faced with very often because I I'll you know from my own perspective actually living on the downwind side of the of Norton Reser there's no way in hell that I would want a dock because I can just see the the storms beating the heck out of it and it just becomes a chronic maintenance problem and um and a lot of things float down on this Shore that you know people have tried to keep on their their particular Shore so that's another issue and and in general these are not things that we have to deal with so we haven't been faced with the need for absolute clarity about every fine point and the last the last thing that I want to do as basically The Shepherd of the commission the one that's basically the administrative person is to be advising the public and any other people wrong information or misleading them as to the correct process and what actually is correct so I'd rather have all the information available to the general public for the commission and also for um the for the board and also the general public so that for instance they know before they even get into this process and that goes with everything not just the doc concerns in question it's more all the applications that come in front of us so I just want to basically be able to provide that information so that way they know what they're up against when it comes to permitting a project here in town and I understand you know that you know we H or the applicant hires certain Consultants but it's also my responsibility to Advocate to the general public the general sense as to the processes so I think I should know exactly what the processes are I'm not going to do the work for them but I should be advocating to them what needs to get done yeah I I think part of our role is to help the the the general public sort through this I I it's I don't I don't feel comfortable just saying well get your consultant and that's the end of it yeah we should have a checklist we have a checklist for all online permitting but for instance we don't have one for this concern of the docs this was kind of a topic of discussion which is why we've spent you know 40 minutes discussing it all right so we will try to um get more clarity from this person sus you or whoever heard associate might be yeah I'll put I'll put together a culmination of information for the board members to review I'll send that I'll have Megan send that out as a as a kind of a pamphlet snap snapshot uh in email email um but I'd like the commission just to take a look to see kind of what their thoughts and uh Notions are for as we move forward with this process it's just I I I know that you know certain things get um released by the state but some of it might not be going into great detail and it could get misconstrued so I'd like to basically uh make sure that we're doing the right thing yeah all right any further issues to discuss um if not we can consider a motion to adjourn it's so moved second all right so we're going to do a a thumbs up or an eye or however so good night Julian and John and Dan and the game good night