[0:00] All right, the time is 6:30 and a quorum being present, I call this meeting to

[0:05] order. First item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for July 15th and

[0:11] August 12th. Are is there any discussion for those minutes?

[0:17] They look pretty standard to me. >> So I will request a motion to approve

[0:22] those minutes. >> I will make a motion to approve those

[0:25] minutes. >> Do I have a second?

[0:26] » Second. >> All those in favor? I chair votes I as

[0:29] well. >> All right. Agenda um item A is a public

[0:35] hearing a request for determination of applicability for Isaac Reyes 36 Shady

[0:40] Lane Assessor's map 99 lot 78. This applicant has requested a continuence to

[0:46] the 916 2026 meeting. Could I have a motion to continue this to the 916 2026

[0:52] meeting? >> So moved.

[0:53] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[0:55] » All those in favor? I >> chair [clears throat] votes I as well.

[0:58] Um all right. Agenda item B is a public hearing request for determination of

[1:03] applicability for PJD. Bernardo 45 McNeel Way assessors map 33 lot 44. Is

[1:10] there anybody here for that? Could you please come up and then if you just want

[1:15] to introduce yourself and then explain what this uh RDA is all about.

[1:21] » Hi my name is Jay Henshaw. Actually, I represent Jiala Pools, which is

[1:25] representing 45 McNail Way. Uh, we're requesting uh lenience on building an

[1:32] above ground pool. Now, if you've read the narrative, it's kind of lengthy, so

[1:37] I'll try to shorten it down pretty much. This entire property is completely

[1:41] surrounded by wetlands.

[1:45] It's a large property, but very small usable portion of it. Uh, the homeowners

[1:51] are pretty ecologically conservative people and they've opted to

[1:56] do an above ground pool for this project instead of a more, you know, intrusive

[2:00] inground pool. It's a flat property. It's a small project really 16x 28

[2:08] overall uh ground disturbance. It's going to be basically just removing sod.

[2:15] Once the sod's removed, [clears throat] uh we're just going to put down a

[2:18] masonary sand and the pool will sit on that. the uh

[2:25] the time it'll take and the you know for a disturbance would be a day.

[2:30] » We'd like to bring in a small mini skid steer to remove the saw that would be

[2:35] there probably for about 40 to 50 minutes be on the property and then

[2:39] gone.

[2:42] And that's really all there is to it. We're using a uh we'll be installing a a

[2:47] cartridge system so no back washing, no water discharge under the ground. What

[2:51] are you planning on doing with the sod? >> Uh, we'll probably have to take it off

[2:55] off site most likely because I don't see any place you could we could put it.

[2:58] » Okay. [clears throat]

[3:02] » It's not a lot. So, >> no.

[3:07] » Uh, cartridge system. Does that mean um salt water?

[3:10] » No, no, no, no. It just means no. You don't have to bag wash basic paper

[3:15] filters. >> Oh, okay.

[3:16] » Well, kind of. Kind of. That sort of. Yeah, that's the idea. But they're not

[3:20] paper anymore. [clears throat] Fabric filters to catch it.

[3:23] » It's a basic like it's an air filter. >> Yeah.

[3:25] » Yeah. >> Exactly. So there's no you're not

[3:28] discharging water when you're cleaning the filter. When you use most typical

[3:31] filters, you either if you're using a sand system, you have to backwash the

[3:35] system, which is reversing the flow of the water and flushing water out onto

[3:38] the ground. That's treated water, which you don't want to do with wetlands. Uh

[3:42] same similar thing with DE. You don't want to be dumping DE into the wetlands,

[3:46] you know, that's never going away. You know, so cyrs

[3:51] basically uh non-intrusive,

[3:56] no discharge, no no treated water >> except for when you winterize the pool,

[4:00] you'll have to pump it down. >> When we winterize the pool, you have to

[4:03] draw water. Yeah. And you you observe a dissipation period. So I I agree with I

[4:07] think the narrative of we've run into this before is we want to pump that or

[4:11] remove it somewhere um not in the wetlands cuz it is it will

[4:17] be chlorinated water correct in that pool. Well, what you do is when you just

[4:21] when it's situation like this, you just observe a certain dissipation period cuz

[4:25] the chlorine will dissipate after. >> Right. But we don't want it pumped into

[4:30] the >> No, we wouldn't pump it into the

[4:31] wetlands. And what we do is you're not draining the pool,

[4:34] » right? No. You drop the water 2 or 3 in. >> It's not a substantial amount. It's

[4:40] relatively small amount. >> The pool stays filled basically for the

[4:44] winter. >> Correct. No, but you still have to drop

[4:46] us again. >> Yeah. You drop it about 3 or 4 in.

[4:48] » Yep. which is hundreds of gallons. >> Yeah, probably probably three or 400

[4:53] gallons. >> Straight volume. But we're just making

[4:55] sure >> the property owner is aware it's not

[4:59] going to go into the wet vents. >> No, of course.

[5:01] » Yeah. How many gallons is a pool this size typically?

[5:07] » 16 28.

[5:11] » A little less than 13,000 gallons. >> All right. 13,000. But you're

[5:16] [clears throat] saying that not all 13,000 has to be removed every winter to

[5:21] properly winterize. >> But we're talking about a couple hundred

[5:25] gallons, maybe a thousand or so. >> I would say in the volume, you're

[5:30] probably looking at a thousand gallons to dump out of there.

[5:32] » But the the chlorine um no matter how much you put in there,

[5:39] by the time you're winterizing it, some of it has dissipated out of the water.

[5:44] That's what you're saying. >> Most likely all of it.

[5:46] » All right. So, we still don't want the water dumped,

[5:53] you know, just pumped into the [clears throat] wetlands or something

[5:56] like that. >> Uh so that like the standard um you

[6:00] know, special condition of, you know, it not being uh pumped in the direction of

[6:05] the wetlands, put it in the direction of um anywhere else. That makes

[6:10] » We understand that. In some cases, maybe we can uh maybe the homeowner can put in

[6:13] a small drywall to take it. >> Yeah.

[6:18] » So, are we comfortable with that? >> I think we just need I think we need to

[6:23] put it in the conditions. >> Yeah, absolutely. You you you guys

[6:27] agree? >> Yeah.

[6:29] » Yeah. I've written up a draft condition I can share with you, but it basically

[6:32] is the same effect as that. >> Yep.

[6:38] » Um All right. I'm having trouble finding

[6:44] a um special condition. [clears throat]

[6:55] I just want to read those out. The standard um

[7:04] the standard special conditions. Why can't I

[7:08] just give me a second?

[7:15] I say them roughly 10 times every meeting. I could probably do it in my

[7:23] sleep. Um

[7:27] but all right I'm going to say for this uh conditions may include or shall

[7:34] include the applicant shall install and maintain perimeter controls around the

[7:38] area of work to prevent the deposition of debris into nearby resource areas.

[7:42] Perimeter control shall act in um rem perimeter control shall remain in place

[7:47] until all areas of erodable materials have been stabilized at the site. These

[7:52] controls shall act as a limit of work. No equipment can be stored or work done

[7:55] past that point. Prior to any construction activity commencing, the

[7:59] following must be completed. ESC's shall be installed by the applicant or an

[8:03] agent of the applicant and the conservation agent shall inspect and

[8:07] approve uh the installed ESC's. And then um in addition to that,

[8:14] how are we going to phrase this? the the um the any water drained out of the

[8:23] » any water discharge. >> This is sort of a draft, but if this if

[8:26] you feel like commissioner feels like that language is too uh restrictive, I

[8:30] can address it before issuance. I think any water discharge needed.

[8:35] » So this says in perpetuity all water drained from the above ground pool

[8:39] structure in order to close it over winter shall be siphoned and disposed of

[8:44] offsite by a professional pool company. Due to the proximity of the proposed uh

[8:48] pool to wetland resource areas, salinized and/or chlorinated water may

[8:53] cause significant damage to wetland vegetation and fauna. The applicant

[8:57] shall submit a yearly copy of any invoices paid for pool closing services

[9:01] provided to the conservation agent. Failure to submit said documentation or

[9:06] its equivalent within a timely fashion no later than October 31st of each

[9:10] calendar year shall be considered a violation of the conditions um of this

[9:14] determination of applicability. So I think we've agreed that that's a little

[9:20] bit above and beyond what we would like to see. Uh but all water drained from

[9:26] the above ground pool um structure in order to um close it over winter shall

[9:34] be uh drained away from the wetlands. Um and I guess

[9:43] any indication that there is um chlorinated or salinated water going

[9:50] into the wetlands causing um issues um will be a violation notice that they

[9:56] will be they'll have to take care of. Is that

[10:00] » do you all right that's adequate for us? >> Yeah, I think it's adequate. It's not

[10:06] going to be a way to see that unless it's reported by a neighbor though. you

[10:09] know, isolated wetland area. >> I think we just kind of put as

[10:14] pract practical. I mean, you're going to pump a line, you're just going to let it

[10:17] go back to the earth. Traditionally, let sand do its filter job. Yeah.

[10:21] » We don't recommend the use of saline systems and swimming pools anyway.

[10:25] » And just uh if it eases anybody's mind, the amount of chlorine that is used to

[10:31] maintain a swimming pool is really very very small.

[10:34] » Now, we're uh way less than >> I'm pretty familiar with the costs per

[10:37] million. Um I'm just >> we just have to treat this with cuz it

[10:43] it's in a very >> Yeah.

[10:46] » interesting area. >> Um so we're given on the you know the

[10:51] location. We just want to make sure we're protecting our resources.

[10:56] » Um all right. So those are the proposed those are the

[11:02] special conditions. Um, I'm going to find this once again.

[11:10] Just give me one second. Um, so

[11:16] this is a public hearing. If there's anybody in the public who would like to

[11:20] uh make a comment, now is the time to do so. But not seeing anybody rise. Could I

[11:27] have a motion to close the public hearing?

[11:29] » So motion. >> Do I have a second?

[11:31] » Second. >> All those in favor? I

[11:33] » I >> chair votes I as well. And could I have

[11:36] a motion for a negative determination of applicability as discussed at this

[11:41] meeting? >> Uh I'll make that motion.

[11:44] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[11:45] » All those in favor? >> I I

[11:47] » chair votes I as well. >> Thank you very much.

[11:49] » Thank you. >> Have a good night.

[11:52] » Thank you. Um before we move on, I just want Yeah. Here. Um so one of the things

[11:58] I noticed in your um u memo was that like we do allow certain things um you

[12:06] know to be you know in the no build zone. Um, [laughter] I think before the

[12:12] end of this meeting, we should have a discussion about um a quick discussion

[12:16] about u updating the bylaw to allow um pools within this zone as part of the

[12:25] other structures but with conditions attached to it about how we would be

[12:30] comfortable about approving those and stuff. So, I just want to bring that up

[12:34] now so we can have a discussion. >> And I'll add a note to that. If we're

[12:37] going to start looking at the bylaws, I think we need to get a ahead of the

[12:42] lithium battery battery. >> All right. Y

[12:45] » what other towns cuz we're seeing all sorts of stuff. So I think that needs to

[12:50] be part of our bylaw uh review, too. >> All right. So, um

[12:55] » because it's a different threat than we're used to.

[12:57] » Yeah, I I I get that. But um All right. So um and we we can put this as a future

[13:04] agenda item on other um stuff that might be a little bit both of these might be a

[13:09] little bit bigger uh you know discussions

[13:13] I just wanted to get the just get the conversation started.

[13:20] » All right moving on. Um, agenda item C is a public hearing, a request for

[13:25] determination of applicability for Nick and Kimucher

[13:30] 221 Mitchell G Drive, Assessor's Map 87, lot 61. I'm sorry if I said your name.

[13:36] » Oh, no, that's all good. [laughter] >> How you doing tonight?

[13:40] » Pretty good. How are you? >> Good.

[13:41] » Need you to introduce yourself for the record and then explain what you plan on

[13:46] doing. >> My name is uh Nicholas Buché. I am the

[13:48] owner of Contour Building and Remodeling [clears throat] and I'm

[13:53] looking for uh relief. We are building uh proposing to build a um 24x [snorts]

[14:00] 32 um attached garage to the left-hand side of the property [snorts] which

[14:05] abuts the town of Tukberry's property. Um,

[14:10] it's it's just a garage, drive-in garage with a massive bedroom above. Um, you

[14:15] know, your typical concrete foundation, freeze, frost wall. Um, it's pretty

[14:21] straightforward. Um, so that's that's about the project.

[14:27] » All right. [laughter] Um

[14:30] so the there's a a lot of discussion about the um

[14:38] the basin or the the the drainage easement that is um my understanding is

[14:44] that it was built before uh 1996 the November 18th 1996.

[14:53] Therefore, it qualifies as a naturalized. It's in our jurisdiction.

[14:58] Um, so what I don't see on the um plot plan or you know the addition is where

[15:08] that actual um you know where the wetland boundaries are. Um so I I think

[15:15] that to me would be very beneficial to see exactly how far away these things

[15:21] are on a map and stuff. It doesn't have to be perfect, but like you know

[15:24] something uh to that effect. >> So my question is so it was back then in

[15:28] 1996 it was a storm water runoff. Does that automatically make that wetlands in

[15:35] the back? >> Cuz I actually met with the engineer who

[15:39] designed that property [snorts] and they've we've uploaded his letter to you

[15:43] tonight. Um, and when he met with the original developer and with the town

[15:49] engineer, it was never designed to be wetlands. So, does it automatically

[15:54] get classified as wetlands? >> Nick, I wasn't able to upload that uh

[15:58] just now. So, if you want to share that >> copies of that?

[16:01] » Um, yeah, Nick has an email from Joe Seraku, who I guess was the the old town

[16:06] engineer. um you know indicating that he he believes that the storm water system

[16:12] and you know the houses in that area wouldn't have been built until after um

[16:17] that 1996 date. But you know everything that I've been able to find is that the

[16:22] the design is from January of '95. Uh all the houses that house um has a

[16:28] mortgage dated sometime in 1995. Um, so [clears throat] everything that I I've

[16:34] been able to uncover has pointed to it having been built before 1996 and

[16:39] therefore being a naturalized um resource area at this point. Uh, the

[16:44] project is about, I think we measured it. It's about 70 ft from the the center

[16:50] line of the, you know, the the stream or the the outlet. Um, you know, we we just

[16:56] used a rough tape measure while we were out there. And you know, I think if it

[17:00] is a wetland, you would delineate that from the, you know, the mean annual high

[17:04] water or the the bank. Um, so that would probably be closer to like 65 60 ft. Um,

[17:12] so outside of the no build zone, but still definitely in the buffer zone um

[17:16] to that area. So I guess my understanding of all of this was that if

[17:22] it's been maintained as a drainage, you know, it, you know, nothing has grown

[17:28] there, then it's still just that it doesn't automatically become considered

[17:36] naturalized wetlands. If it doesn't have the characteristics of the wetlands,

[17:40] » yeah, in my my view, it does have the characteristics of a wetland. Uh, you

[17:45] know, I went out in the, uh, August, you know, I think it was during a period of

[17:49] drought and it was still, uh, you can see from the pictures, uh, there's a

[17:53] clear water flow, um, you know, line. You can see the wet soil. Doesn't

[17:58] really, it's not even a mapped easement on the town's website, so I don't know

[18:02] if it's one that has been maintained. Um, and it was, you know, grown in with

[18:07] jeweleed, which is a, you know, a native plant. Um so not looking like there's a

[18:14] lot of u been a lot of maintenance from my view but uh that's you know certainly

[18:20] up for interpretation. >> So I mean looking at the pictures not

[18:26] being a wetland scientist it does look like a wetland to me. It's clearly not

[18:33] just you know grass and uh you know culvert or something like that. Um, so

[18:41] but I I guess you're bringing up the, you know, when the site was approved

[18:46] versus when it was actually built, >> right?

[18:49] » I don't know how to interpret that without something without some

[18:54] documentation showing, >> you know, like the ideal thing would be

[18:59] somebody holding up a newspaper after having just built it. That seems

[19:03] unrealistic. So, >> and that's what I was running into

[19:06] because I did go to to the uh DPW to speak to the engineer and he agreed too.

[19:12] He's like, "We have no paperwork." >> And so, I don't know where I'm supposed

[19:15] to get this paperwork for besides hire an environmental engineer. But on the

[19:18] flip side to this, on every neighbor that is around this, I pulled the files

[19:23] with Sam at the building department. And there's been uh since the last one was

[19:27] 2015, there was permits issued at both properties

[19:31] all the way around. There's this everyone has pools, sheds, decks,

[19:36] fences, additions, and they've all been approved all the way up to 2013.

[19:40] Actually 15, I think, is the one we found.

[19:44] » Yeah, I I remember >> when we pulled the files. So, that's why

[19:46] I was just on this one here. [clears throat] I was just looking. I'm

[19:49] like, well, I get it. I understand there's something there that we have to

[19:53] deal with, but I also look at the history of all the surrounding neighbors

[19:57] and the exact budding neighbor next door. and those building permits issued

[20:01] and conservation signed off. >> So I guess the

[20:08] something like a shed or a fence would either be by right or

[20:12] » ground pool next door. >> Yeah. So that that would either be by

[20:16] right or an RDA. Um we're talking about an ADU.

[20:20] » This is not an ADU. I I

[20:26] was under the assumption of >> it's uh yeah basically that was my

[20:29] interpretation but it's basic you said it's a garage with a

[20:32] » it's a master bedroom above a garage and ADU classified with a kitchen.

[20:36] » Yep. Okay. So you know it is a it's an addition. It's an addition.

[20:42] Um

[20:45] » All right. >> And that would also have another music

[20:47] egress if it was an ADU. This would just be a garage into the existing garage

[20:52] that we're going to build next to. And I like I said, I I this is I was

[20:57] raising that concern when I met with Sam at the building department just because

[21:00] there is an ingground pool next door. And um this uh not this c this

[21:04] homeowner, but the previous home owner to this property. There's a sun room

[21:07] that was added. There was a deck that was added and it was all signed off by

[21:11] the conservation committee uh department when they did these building permits.

[21:25] It's 24 by 32. That's

[21:29] » That's

[21:32] » And you going for variance on setbacks, too? I

[21:34] » already got approved. [clears throat]

[21:38] » And the above ground swimming pool is already there. Is that

[21:41] » That is existing. >> That's existing.

[21:50] Um yeah, I don't know if the members of the commission were able to review the

[21:54] attachment that's the plan from um of the drainage from 1995 does show sort of

[21:59] the path of uh of that drainage channel part of a more extensive

[22:04] » system that you provided with the mortgage. Uh traditionally they don't

[22:08] issue mortgages on houses that aren't built.

[22:10] » That was the information I got from >> from the building department. Yeah. Um,

[22:14] so that [clears throat] I have to have to agree with the timeline ties in.

[22:21] [clears throat] Um, because if it would be anything, it

[22:24] would be a construction loan, not a mortgage.

[22:27] Um,

[22:31] yeah. So, I mean, my interpretation is that it is a resource area. Um, it's,

[22:35] you know, the commission's discretion whether this activity is significant,

[22:39] you know, would alter that area. um and you know and in that case should require

[22:44] a notice of intent. So I guess that's the the question.

[22:49] » Yeah, it's like I'm trying to >> we can't look at what else has been

[22:55] approved by other people. We have to look at what we're looking at in my

[22:58] opinion >> and I agree with you 100%. I was just

[23:00] pointing the fact no I >> you know I just see all this and and

[23:03] that was not just this house and the one next door that is the next three on the

[23:08] other side too and one of them just put a substantial addition in on the against

[23:13] the same area you know

[23:20] » it's the to me what what's getting to me is the size of the addition

[23:27] um like just something of this, you know, size.

[23:32] I'm used to it being an NOI. Um, and with, you know, but we went within the

[23:39] 24. We actually, this addition was larger. We scaled it down just because

[23:43] of having the, you know, finding that there was we're going to need a variance

[23:46] anyways. We didn't want to be that close to the property line. And at 24 ft for

[23:51] two cars is pretty tight. Um, generally a standard size garage is 26 ft wide. So

[23:58] we shorten this up to 24. That's why we went back 32 just give a little bit of

[24:02] depth so we could fit.

[24:07] » And all right. So [clears throat] Sam from like from the plot plan that

[24:15] they provided where is the actual drainage?

[24:21] » We measured that drain is 90 ft from the back corner of that garage.

[24:28] That was the back corner. And then we did say, you know, coming 24 ft to the

[24:32] the front. >> At what angle they were holding it, I

[24:34] mean, I guess if I was to swing in the tape one way, I could get to, but the

[24:39] furthest I went back when I met with Joe Saw Walker, the civil engineer, we had

[24:42] 90 ft,

[24:46] » 90 ft from the wetland or >> 100 foot buffer zone.

[24:51] » So, so the wetland begins, you know, for all intents and purposes at the outlet

[24:55] of the pipe. Um, and so I measured basically from the top of that concrete.

[25:00] I I remember as getting, you know, mental math to to about 70 ft to the

[25:06] actual like closest corner. Maybe there's some flexibility there, but um I

[25:11] would say the wetland system probably does extend out towards the property

[25:16] another 3 to 4. You know, it's difficult to say um cuz it had been really not

[25:21] raining recently, so I was only able to see just where the water had settled. I

[25:25] would imagine, you know, 3 or 4 foot wide um you know at that point and then

[25:31] it it does look like it branches out into a larger system. At least it was

[25:35] planned to um you know with the drainage that drainage plan um you know it is

[25:40] grown in with trees. So I don't know how um often the back portion would be

[25:45] inundated but um >> and I guess so my next question for the

[25:50] commission is that this is where this, you know, drainage is

[25:58] happening. It's the town of Tukberry's property. Not only that, but it's under

[26:03] our consu conservation. So, like,

[26:08] what is the consequences of allowing something like this to go through as an

[26:15] RDA? What are we doing to our property right now? Um, you know, it's it's a

[26:22] large addition, you know, I mean, looking at it from the

[26:27] rest of the um the house, there's other stuff around there. There's the swimming

[26:33] pool, there's the playground, there's the shed, all those things are pretty

[26:36] small. um the additional runoff like I I

[26:40] personally don't think it's that big like you know it's it's a considerable

[26:47] size up from the existing structure but um it's not like they're

[26:54] you know proposing to cover the entire property

[26:58] » and we're willing to work with you I mean whatever we need for barriers you

[27:02] know flushing our concrete we already have that established what we're doing

[27:05] that's being hauled off site There only will be a small amount of fill to back

[27:10] fill, but the rest is hauled away. Also, we're doing everything in our power

[27:14] because it is, you know, the town's property next door to make sure there is

[27:17] nothing over there at all. Um, but we would take any recommendations from the

[27:21] board, too, if there's anything else additional you want us to do.

[27:27] » So, Daniel, concerned about additional flooding of that property. Well, I mean,

[27:31] so I I guess to to backtrack a tiny bit, I'm saying that as the property owner,

[27:40] that's a concern that I've seen many times. People build a, you know, their

[27:45] ne, you know, there's a new house being built and they go, "Oh my god, this is

[27:48] going to flood my basement." Now, we are in that position where we're the de

[27:54] facto owners of this property. We are the neighbors right here.

[28:01] like we don't have a house right here. So the the issues of any additional

[28:08] flooding, are we concerned with that? Like what's the let's play worst case

[28:14] scenario where this is pitched in such a way that all additional storm water is

[28:19] going straight into our property. Are we concerned?

[28:24] I'm not super concerned. It's a big addition, but it's not so big. And it's

[28:31] it's a naturalized wetland, but it's a wetland. It's, you know, gathering that

[28:36] water already. Um, you know, am I I guess am I sounding like a crazy person

[28:43] by being concerned about this? >> I think it should have an NOA.

[28:48] » You think it should be an NI? >> I think this should we should know where

[28:50] it is. >> Delineate it. I don't see a problem with

[28:55] this, but I think We're

[28:57] » got a qu. So if we have to get that, is that the town's responsibility to update

[29:01] the records on that or do we have to find that?

[29:04] » That would be you and we're not proposing to build anything. So

[29:08] » no, I know. But so I I guess way I'm asking that question is like if the town

[29:12] had to do road work and adjust that sink basin one day, that would have to

[29:16] probably come to conservation. >> Correct. Yeah.

[29:18] » So they would have to find it if it was this town doing the work. Correct.

[29:22] Well, if they need if they need to do it, they would come to us with the plan

[29:26] unless it was an emergency repair. Correct.

[29:28] » Yeah, that's >> um and they notify us they're working in

[29:32] the the buffer zone or wherever they are.

[29:35] » Yeah, >> cuz we've gone high and low looking for

[29:37] this paperwork. I mean, I've been to engineering, I've been to your office,

[29:41] I've been everywhere to try to find this and then when I stumbled upon the actual

[29:44] engineering, it's like it was all proof. Like, [laughter] and I get what you're

[29:48] saying. But >> yeah, I think the reason the reason I

[29:51] would like to see it as an NOA because then we would actually know

[29:56] » it would be labeled and it's on a plan. >> So

[30:00] yeah, I can tell you right where the literally the town of Turk is written on

[30:04] this plot plan. That's where that pipe is. If you you can see the drain in the

[30:07] street and she goes straight back. It's exactly right there. I think we've kind

[30:11] of measured that out. But I understand you probably need a document. But

[30:16] » yeah, that but we did find it. I would feel I would feel better and then we can

[30:20] just you know it's flagged we know the location.

[30:24] » Yeah. So I mean I I don't want to insinuate that the

[30:30] only difference between an NOI and an RDA is having that detailed u um you

[30:36] know wetland delineation. But I would feel a lot more comfortable

[30:42] regardless of what type of permit it is to have at least a better idea something

[30:48] because right now I I you know not that I don't trust what you're saying but we

[30:54] don't have anything in the records that we can look back on and go all right we

[30:58] all agree that this is exactly where you know the the wetland delineation would

[31:04] be going. anything count with conservation coming out to verify it

[31:08] with me? >> So, I mean that's where it gets tricky

[31:11] is that like you know we're >> we found

[31:15] » we're not experts open like [laughter] we should really have a wetland

[31:20] scientist if we're doing everything you know exactly as it should would get a

[31:24] wetland scientist to go out and delineate everything. um because of the

[31:30] nature like you know it's that tricky thing of this is a naturalized wetland

[31:36] over a natural wetland how much we want to do that um is there a way to find for

[31:44] the neighbors that have pulled all the permits that recently that they may have

[31:46] that too I mean it's it's they had to go through the same process here

[31:53] I mean they that pool was just put in 2018 so they had to come here

[32:00] » that I mean it's literally right next to it's the abuing property.

[32:03] » We could make a motion to continue and do some homework

[32:08] » to try to avoid >> Are you Are you looking for the

[32:11] delineation? What What documentation are reop?

[32:13] » Well, yeah. If the abuing neighbor has had permits pulled and they've had

[32:16] additions and pools put in, they've had to then deal with the same exact issue

[32:20] we're doing because it's literally the abuing neighbor.

[32:24] » I mean, that would all be That would all be public record.

[32:28] » Yeah. And the thing is the town has nothing, no files on anything, but

[32:33] conservation did sign off >> from 2018 on that pool permit.

[32:39] » Yes, >> that would be my question. I I guess

[32:42] » I mean, we found all the records for it and that's and I'm not being frustrated

[32:45] with you guys. I just, you know, understand I'm looking at this like,

[32:48] well, how did all this work get done? If this is now an issue, but how did all

[32:51] this other work get done? And I'm fine with a continuence and I understand but

[32:55] » Well, I'm just trying to do it on your benefit.

[32:56] » Yeah. No, I'm saying that's good. I'm saying

[32:59] » I don't have to say to you, look, we want an NOI versus an RDA.

[33:02] » Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm I'm agreeing with you 100%. I'm just at some point

[33:05] somebody had to come to the conservation committee and discuss this project and

[33:10] the same issue that we're having. But you're saying that all of those they

[33:16] there's signed off >> the sign off we we have the permit you

[33:20] know application with 199 other paperwork can be found

[33:27] » zero zero they only have the building permits

[33:30] that have all been signed off by every department they have plans that were

[33:34] submitted plot plans that were submitted as builts that were submitted all of

[33:39] it's been signed off >> so I

[33:43] You have plot plans that were submitted >> and none of those show any sort of

[33:47] wetland delineation. >> None.

[33:49] » No, the uh the area is not mapped on the town software as a wetland. It's not um

[33:54] mapped as an easement, a drainage easement. I just basically in doing my

[33:58] desktop review said that looks like a wetland and it went out and it was

[34:02] wetland. Um, so I I don't know that it was, you know, if a preliminary desktop

[34:08] review was all that happened, I don't know that it was would have been caught

[34:11] by anyone previously. >> But if we're going from 96 to 2018,

[34:16] that's a long time and that's a lot of permits that were opened.

[34:23] Somebody had to catch it at some point or if it was an issue, bring it up.

[34:30] » All right. So I I guess at this point, you know, regardless of what type of

[34:36] permit submitted, I would like the applicant to provide us with something

[34:43] that shows the where the wetland starts and then we

[34:50] can look at that and go, all right, 100 ft from there is the buffer zone. Um,

[34:57] ideally it would be a wetland scientist >> that would provide a full delineation of

[35:02] this given the history of this. I would be comfortable with just something on

[35:09] record that we can agree this is the line where it goes. Are you is everybody

[35:15] else comfortable with that? That's where I'm kind of

[35:18] » as long as they're credible, >> you know, and if if in the future, I

[35:22] mean, what that means is if if you just, you know, if you take this plot plan

[35:28] » and you just draw a squiggly line on it and you say that is what it is and we

[35:33] all agree that's where it is, it's you taking the risk that someday there will

[35:38] be a delineation >> and it would show that you falsified

[35:42] that and stuff. So that that's what I'm >> doing that.

[35:45] » Yeah. [laughter] So I I I just want everybody to be like

[35:48] we're all in good faith that this is where we think

[35:51] » and I can find that really quickly. I mean if you even need me to have the old

[35:55] town engineer come out with me and plot it right onto that plot plan that line

[36:00] from is it from the opening of the pipe in the woods? Is that what I'm going off

[36:04] of? >> Yeah. Yeah. I feel like I could probably

[36:08] flag it based on slope and you know the characteristics there. I could help with

[36:12] that, but it's yeah, up to the commission on what they're looking for.

[36:15] Um I think >> I mean I have no problem going out there

[36:18] flagging it. Meet somebody out there and go over it. I I'm going to be honest.

[36:21] The thing is we're just under the gun cuz it's getting closer to it's getting

[36:25] late to start cutting foundations >> and we're trying to get this done. Um

[36:29] there's a few things going on at the home. So I'm just trying to

[36:32] » and I understand we have to go through this process and I'm not trying to rush

[36:35] anybody, but we're just getting close to getting this thing in between. We still

[36:39] have to wait for our 20-day cool off period from zoning. We've been approved

[36:42] over there already. So, I'm just trying to get that cut in and follow whatever

[36:47] you guys need us to do. >> So, I guess at this point,

[36:53] I would entertain a motion to continue for them to be able to update paperwork

[37:00] to give us some idea of where the actual drainage is. And you know, we can

[37:06] estimate where the wetland buffer zones are. Is that

[37:11] » I think that's a fair >> Yeah, that's fair.

[37:14] » There's no record of the drainage system >> in the town and DPW has nothing.

[37:20] » There's no records of any maintenance, but there is that um initial plan from

[37:24] 1995. >> Okay.

[37:25] » Um that just shows it does kind of show where the wetland would be. you know, it

[37:30] shows the grading to make the detention basin and the um you know, the flow

[37:35] path. So, uh you know, I would expect that the wetland system would pretty

[37:40] much follow that. >> Yeah. Okay.

[37:44] » All right. Um so, would that mean coming back to conservation next month? Is that

[37:49] » Yes. On the 16th? >> 16th of

[37:53] October. >> Yeah. September.

[37:54] » September. >> September.

[37:55] » Two weeks. Yeah. >> September 16th. Okay.

[38:00] All right. Could I have a motion to continue

[38:03] uh this public hearing request for determination uh request of

[38:08] applicability to the next meeting on September 16th, 2026?

[38:14] » So moved. >> Do I have a second? Second. All those in

[38:16] favor. >> I chair votes I as well.

[38:19] » Just to clarify with the board, that is me meeting just updating this block

[38:22] plan. Correct. >> Yeah. I I just

[38:24] » Right. I I would like to make sure Sam would agree with the flagging in

[38:31] principle. Is that fair? Fair fair. >> Sure. Yeah. Um yeah, I'm happy to go out

[38:36] and uh once once you have it put forward, I'll go out and take a look. Um

[38:41] » so I'll flag it and have you verify. Is that

[38:45] » whatever? I guess I I don't know what whatever the commission feels most

[38:48] appropriate. Um I I feel >> before this continues. Uh can I have a

[38:53] motion to reopen? >> Sorry. I want to have clarification.

[38:57] Sorry. >> Um can I just have a motion to reopen?

[39:01] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[39:03] » All those in favor? I >> chair votes eye. All right. So you can

[39:06] go and flag it and Sam, you'll do another site inspection and verify

[39:14] um where the flags are. Are you comfortable with

[39:19] that? Like you're, you know, I'm not sure if we're asking you to do too much

[39:24] that like I know you're not a wetland scientist. Like, so

[39:27] » Well, yeah. I mean, I know Nick uh probably also

[39:30] » Yeah. >> not a wetland scientist.

[39:32] » Yeah. [laughter] >> So, I don't know if it's um if it just

[39:35] makes more more sense for for me to to do it. Um Nick could be present or

[39:41] » I'd like I'd like to be there and then we could just So, we're just marking the

[39:44] pipe, correct? marking the boundaries of the wetland, I

[39:49] would assume. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so that would yeah just

[39:53] involve walking basically through the ditch and um I'll have to get some PVC

[39:58] flagging, but it's something that I can is doable.

[40:00] » All right. Do you mind doing it? >> No. No, not at all. Um,

[40:04] » I'll buy you a coffee. We'll do this. >> All right. Um, and just to be clear,

[40:10] this is not a full delineation that we would typically get.

[40:15] This is very informal. We just want >> No, I appreciate that and I appreciate

[40:19] looking at what I was trying to explain to you from past projects. I just just

[40:23] trying to make it fair for me too. Like [laughter]

[40:26] so I thank you for uh being lenient with us and working with us on this.

[40:29] » All right. At this point, I'm going to ask for another motion um to continue

[40:35] this public hearing request for determination of applicability to the uh

[40:39] September 16th meeting. >> So moved.

[40:42] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[40:43] » All those in favor? I >> chair votes I as well. Thank you very

[40:46] much. >> Have a great night.

[40:53] » Thank you. >> Thanks everybody.

[40:58] » All right. Um we have agenda item D, emergency

[41:03] certification for Walter and Patricia um Mark Kenowitch.

[41:09] [laughter] >> I was trying to figure it out. I'm

[41:12] hoping that I said that right. Uh for 99 Roger Street. Um this is I forget. Is

[41:19] this tree removal or is this uh >> this is a failed septic

[41:23] » 905? >> Yep. Um and the wetlands Yeah. very

[41:26] visible from the road. So uh place conditions on that. Uh so I'd request

[41:30] the commission move to ratify that.

[41:36] » Seems pretty standard. Yep. We encourage surge.

[41:42] » Yeah. >> All right. Um, if there's no further

[41:48] discussion, could I have a motion to ratify the emergency certification?

[41:53] » I'll make that motion. >> Do I have a second?

[41:55] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[41:56] » I. >> Chair votes I as well. Agenda item E is

[42:00] a uh enforcement order for Joe and Patricia Lazaro for 350 Pinnacle Street.

[42:06] So, this is tree cutting. Um my understanding is that there was

[42:11] essentially a a larger tree that was removed and a few smaller trees. You

[42:17] went out there, you stopped, they stopped um all activity. Um,

[42:23] so I guess like the the enforcement order,

[42:30] the the this the pictures I you know that um were provided

[42:36] um the

[42:40] the the the two there's a pretty rough looking stump

[42:48] um and then a another stump dump that was a bit bigger. Um,

[42:55] you know, the the activity has stopped. I guess

[43:00] do we trying to get a, you know, scope or a

[43:06] sense of how much clearing was done? It doesn't seem like it was a ton. Uh, but

[43:13] it it was more than nothing. Um, you know, it's

[43:21] » Was this Was this a Good Samaritan phone call?

[43:27] » It Yeah, it's so it's been suggested that it was a sort of an I I don't know

[43:32] who who the phone calls from, but it was Yeah, it was reported to me. Um,

[43:35] » anonymous reporting. >> Anonymous reporting. Uh, take it

[43:39] take whatever that means. But, um, basically, yeah, I was called out there.

[43:43] Um most of the vegetation that was removed was like vining material. So it

[43:48] was a lot of um grape and um bittersweet. So you know the landowner

[43:54] expressed concern over the health of the trees.

[43:58] It you know would have been something I think was roughly equivalent in that

[44:01] sense to like vista pruning which could have been you know proved through an

[44:06] RDA. Um it is you know definitely within the 25 foot no disturb zone uh

[44:12] especially in in one area um where I I'd taken the picture but you know a portion

[44:18] of that was in the 25 ft uh no disturb zone um there were I think definitely

[44:25] like two trees that were removed. Another stump that I took a picture of

[44:31] the way it was sprouting it seemed like it was probably um like a grape vine

[44:34] like a large woody vine. Um, [clears throat] but there was definitely

[44:38] two that I think were probably red maples that were one of them was was

[44:43] leaning quite substantially towards, you know, the house, which um is a

[44:48] consideration, but uh the the landowner said basically and and she did bring me

[44:53] the uh the invoice and the the contract that she had and the work prop uh

[44:59] proposed was supposed to be limited to just um vine removal. you know, there

[45:04] wasn't any uh sign on for for tree removal. You said that was provided by

[45:08] the uh you know, just the contractors while they were out there and observed

[45:12] them. So, I uh I just chose to initially

[45:17] uh issue a cease and desist, have them stop work and they cleaned up and and

[45:21] moved out. But um if the commission was wanting to uh require further

[45:26] restoration or or planting of trees or shrubs um certainly within your uh your

[45:31] jurisdiction, your power to do so. Um just uh yeah I think uh felt confident

[45:39] in my discussion with the the land owner and with the scope of work that um they

[45:44] would come back in you know to the commission in the future and and um you

[45:48] know that it could be just like a a first warning I guess with a a sort of

[45:52] limited >> learn

[45:54] » lesson learned potentially. I I >> looking at the photos, it seems like I

[45:58] like I don't really know what we would be restoring if we requested if we, you

[46:04] know, needed a restoration plan. >> I I agree with you. I think common sense

[46:08] is they got a lesson. We're not going to we don't know for sure.

[46:13] » Yeah. >> What left there. So, I say we

[46:17] » Yeah. Yeah. And I'll just say I think like

[46:19] » in terms of depth they knocked a few feet back of that was it seemed to just

[46:24] be all the material I was looking at was either grape or bittersweet. It was

[46:28] vining material >> invasive vines.

[46:30] » Yeah. Yeah. Grape is like you know technically native but it is a nuisance

[46:35] um in many in many ways. Um >> yeah I said we don't complicate their

[46:39] lives anymore. >> Yeah. I mean it's just unfortunate

[46:41] because like if they came through as an RDA like would anybody have

[46:46] » like you know it would have been a very simple thing but like you is this what

[46:52] Abigail had done tried to talk to some of these tree vendors for the old upsell

[46:56] the neighbor has a tree >> she did two um sessions for tree vendors

[47:02] » exactly this oh hey we can take that one down you know um [clears throat]

[47:08] » so anyway lesson learned Um,

[47:10] » yep. I think so. And and the landowner also I don't, you know, express that

[47:14] they had called the town a few times and there might have been a transition or

[47:16] might might not have been somebody. Um, so I think that's just another reason to

[47:22] sort of >> slap on the wrist and, you know, if if

[47:24] something does happen in the future, then we can look back on it. But, um,

[47:29] » okay. >> My recommendation.

[47:30] » All right. So, luckily we don't get a tremendous amount of enforcement orders.

[47:37] Can you remind me about how we need to close this out? Do we ratify enforcement

[47:43] orders or do we >> Yeah, I've just written up a document to

[47:47] have have you signed as the chair. Um there's not really a formal if you would

[47:50] make a motion to to ratify it and then I have something for you to sign to

[47:54] basically be on the record. >> All right. So, I'll take a motion to

[47:58] ratify the enforcement order. Um and hopefully it doesn't come back unless

[48:03] it's an RDA. >> So moved. Do I have a second?

[48:07] » Second. >> All those in favor? I

[48:09] » votes I as well. >> All right. Um, agenda [clears throat]

[48:14] item F is a public hearing notice of intent and land disturbance permit for

[48:18] Marberg 1777 LLC 1777 Main Street, assessor's

[48:24] map 85, lot 1 D file number 305-1233. Um the applicant is requesting it uh to

[48:34] continue until the September um 16th meeting. I just want to bring up that uh

[48:41] Linda and Tom, you both went out and did a site visit with them.

[48:45] » All right. So I I let's just keep that fresh in our mind so when they come I I

[48:50] want to hear more about it, but without the applicant being here, you know,

[48:55] let's not talk about >> with us. He's been out. You've been out

[48:58] there twice, right? >> Mhm. Yeah.

[49:00] » Y >> um All right. So, I'll take a motion to

[49:04] continue that to the um September 16th, 2026 meeting.

[49:08] » I'll make a motion. >> Do I have a second?

[49:10] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[49:12] » I chair I as well. >> Uh agenda item G, public hearing, major

[49:16] land disturbance uh for uh ETS, Inc. 600 Wuburn Street, Assessor's Map uh 3, lot

[49:25] 82. applicant uh has requested a continuation into the September 16th,

[49:31] 2026 meeting. Um not much to say about this one either.

[49:38] Uh could I have a motion to continue this to the September 16th, 2026

[49:43] meeting? >> So moved.

[49:44] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[49:46] » All those in favor? >> I chair votes I as well. Agenda item H

[49:50] is the same property public hearing notice

[49:55] of intent Gene Sullivan 600 Wuburn Street assessor's map 3 lot 82 DP file

[50:00] number 305-1231.

[50:04] Um could I have a motion to continue this to the September 16th, 2026

[50:10] meeting? >> Do I have a second?

[50:12] » Second. >> All those in favor?

[50:13] » I chair U votes I as well. Um, all right.

[50:19] Public hearing, notice of intent and land disturbance permit, uh, and land

[50:23] disturbance, uh, for Tyler Ryan, 7375 Hillman, street assessor's map 35, lot 6

[50:29] DP file number 305-123, uh,2. Now, I hate to do this to you,

[50:36] Dennis, out of an abundance of caution, you've recused yourself from all these

[50:41] other meetings. Could do you mind? >> I'm out of here. [laughter]

[50:46] I just want to be know everything. >> You don't have to tell him twice.

[50:50] [laughter]

[50:52] » I think he was looking forward to >> see you later.

[50:57] » See you. >> Um,

[51:02] » this shouldn't take long. So, if you don't want to be

[51:06] » Don't have to leave. [laughter] >> Never mind. All right. Um,

[51:10] » he's gone. Fix it. My understanding is that um the applicant is requesting to

[51:18] uh withdraw without prejudice. So I just want to be very careful um that we like

[51:25] you know that means that they could come back at any time and we can't really you

[51:32] know take what they said at previous meetings into account all that much. Um

[51:38] you know even if it's a very similar thing. So let's just keep that in mind.

[51:43] Um you know try not to discuss it discuss it in a quorum all that much

[51:47] [laughter] um for you know transparency's sakes. U

[51:52] but with that being said um could I have a motion to I guess grant or ratify

[51:58] their um request to withdraw the application without prejudice.

[52:03] » I'll make that motion. >> Do I have a second?

[52:05] » Second. >> All those in favor I

[52:07] » chair votes I as well. Um, all right. Administrator's report. We have a

[52:13] emergency certification for Sander uh Dukshshire 375 Kendall Road. Um,

[52:19] » yeah. Did Dennis definitely leave? Do we do we feel like he's gone? Did he

[52:24] actually is he out of the building or can he be invited back in?

[52:28] » Oh, he's he's gone that way.

[52:32] » Um, yeah. So, uh, the commission has previously ratified this, uh, emergency

[52:37] certification, but the, uh, they actually needed a little bit more time

[52:41] to to finish it. Um, so they didn't get started. They didn't actually apply for

[52:45] their permits, um, until a little bit later in the month. So, uh, I have been

[52:49] informed that everything is finished, but they just had before the the

[52:53] expiration date, they'd requested, um, an extension to the 31st just to, you

[52:58] know, two or three extra days to actually finish uh, that that tie-in.

[53:02] So, my recommendation would be to um to vote to grant that request. Um and I

[53:08] prepared a memo for you to sign that just indicates why the extra time was

[53:12] needed. >> All right. So, do we actually have to

[53:15] make a motion for extending the emergency certification?

[53:21] » I I don't think there's a formal process for it. And so, I would I would

[53:26] recommend just just doing it to cover your bases.

[53:28] » All right. Then I will take a motion to con to uh extend the emergency

[53:32] certification. >> So moved.

[53:34] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[53:36] » All those in favor? >> I

[53:38] » chair votes I as well. All right. So before we adjourn um so I I just so

[53:45] the issue of pools and uh you know very close to the wetlands. I think we should

[53:50] you know start to discuss what we would like to see. We we

[53:57] you know we very rarely I don't think we've ever said no to something like a

[54:03] pool somebody enjoying their backyard. Um we just the the issue for pools are

[54:10] that there's a tremendous amount of chlorinated or

[54:15] water with chemicals in it in it um that could be going into the wetlands. We

[54:22] want to avoid that. So, um, we can kind of start to come up with ideas. Maybe

[54:29] there's another town, uh, close by that has something that, you know, allows

[54:36] them, you know, to build pools that close to the wetland, but with other

[54:44] provisions of how that can be safely done. So they can't just dump, you know,

[54:51] 13,000 gallons of water into the wetlands. If that's the if if the com if

[54:56] the >> I think we need to I agree we need to

[54:59] » a little bit of boilerplate language. >> Yeah. and and I I don't think it should

[55:05] be, you know, by right, you know, you just automatically get it, you know, but

[55:12] something that's a little bit more guidelines on how we

[55:15] » like we should at least protect the 25 foot

[55:18] » zone, you know, at least don't build in that. And I know it's a problem cuz

[55:22] there's houses that are >> built so close to the wetland.

[55:25] » Yeah. But, you know, then if you want a pool, you need to move because that we

[55:30] need to at least protect that 25. >> I know

[55:33] » it's not like >> if you have [clears throat] a pool that

[55:36] close to the wetlands, the water's going to get in there. There's there's no

[55:39] one's going to be able to police that. So, it

[55:41] » it's all a give and take. Like, you know, I'm sure when we all bought our

[55:45] houses, there was good things about where the location was and then there's

[55:51] other annoying things about where it is. I have National Grid who can come and

[55:57] just clear cut my lawn anytime they want to. But

[56:01] » save me from buying a lawnmower. >> Yeah, exactly. There there are benefits

[56:04] that I don't have to do that. Um but so like that might be one of the

[56:10] unfortunate things is like if you buy a house right next to the wetlands, it's

[56:14] going to be really difficult for you to have a pool. You know, maybe that means

[56:20] there's a jacuzzi there that, you know, we're we're more comfortable with a

[56:25] small, you know, uh, pool or something. And and maybe that's it. Like, you know,

[56:30] within the 50 foot zone, you can have a pool within the 25 foot, you're really

[56:38] limited to a certain size pool or something that whatever we feel

[56:42] comfortable. >> Right. And it's And

[56:44] » yeah, I would say nothing in the 25. >> You say nothing in the 20. No. And and

[56:48] if you are going to be right on that cusp, if it it would have to be above

[56:52] ground and you would have to have like a drywall so you could discharge, you

[56:56] know, we we got to we've got to protect this cuz it's

[57:00] » Yeah. >> You can't you can't police it.

[57:04] » Um >> Yeah.

[57:07] » Yeah. I would just suggest the the condition that I tried was, you know, an

[57:11] attempt to police it. I think it could be workshopped, but basically I think

[57:15] there could be a way to have, you know, if a determination is issued for a pool

[57:20] in the 25 to 50 foot zone, they have to, you know, give some indication of of the

[57:25] maintenance and it could be a routine reporting thing where I I don't have any

[57:30] intentions of of leaving anytime soon. So, where, you know, could actually

[57:34] receive that information, store it, make sure it's recorded. Um, it doesn't have

[57:38] to be exactly uh a pool, you know, a professional pool company

[57:42] » with a, you know, that does come do, you know, a cleanout and and has the the

[57:47] invoice. It could be um a written statement from the the landowner

[57:51] describing what they did. Um but having a you know an annual summary um just it

[57:59] could be a >> or like you know another

[58:02] like you mentioned that it's would be relying on neighbors to report their

[58:07] neighbors. That's always a tricky thing like it's it's not fun to Yeah. Like but

[58:13] perhaps it's like you know one of the special conditions or one of the not

[58:18] special conditions the automatic condition is that like the conservation

[58:22] agent can go and inspect on a yearly basis or something like that maybe you

[58:27] know by you know yearly or what whatever it might be whatever we feel comfortable

[58:31] with um to you know >> right traditionally you're going to deal

[58:35] with this winterizing. >> Yeah just winterizing.

[58:39] » Yeah. Um, >> but we could at least get a sense of

[58:42] like >> I I agree. I I think it's

[58:44] » Hey, all of these trees are dying. [laughter] Like clearly,

[58:47] » you know, nothing else in turns into a check a checklist for the homeowner.

[58:50] » Yeah. Yep. >> Yeah. Exactly.

[58:52] » You're going to have to pick your permit up. Here's take this checklist because

[58:55] this is what you're going to get. You know,

[58:57] » if you're within, you know, if you're within so so far of the wetland, you

[59:02] know, a distance of the wetland, then this is what you need to do.

[59:05] » Mhm. Yeah. >> You know, boom, boom, boom. Down the

[59:08] line. and I can just look at the thing, check it off and

[59:10] » Yeah. >> But I agree with Linda, we got to draw

[59:12] the line at 25 ft. We just got to say enough.

[59:16] » Yeah. Um and just for my own review, you know, if the commission would entertain

[59:22] the topic of uh you know, in ground pools versus above ground, um you know,

[59:26] and whether those should be viewed differently, if they're both in the same

[59:29] footprint. Um in my mind, an above ground pool is much less disturbance. Um

[59:35] » and usually temporary, too. Yeah, it doesn't have to be a

[59:39] » once you sink that money into an ingground

[59:41] » draw down an above ground pool less volume and traditionally they're not

[59:45] 20,000 25,000 gallons you know if we're looking at percentages you know it's a

[59:50] thousand you know uh um the previous man there was he was pretending it was

[59:55] dimminimous it's like it's not it's not it's a thousand gallons you're taking

[59:58] » yeah it's it's not nothing um you know um

[1:00:03] » no I think we that's a great Um

[1:00:08] » yeah you so like I mean we can start coming up with like actual language. Um

[1:00:15] nothing like I I don't want to put something on the agenda just yet but we

[1:00:21] like we can at least start thinking about it and put it put something on the

[1:00:25] agenda in the future in the near future uh once we have like maybe some wording

[1:00:31] uh done. Now, changing the bylaw would require um you know, going to town

[1:00:36] meeting and stuff, >> right? We have to get the article in.

[1:00:39] » Yeah. Yeah. So, >> that's a that that's a process. This

[1:00:43] isn't going to happen overnight, but you know,

[1:00:45] » uh I can take a look and see if it would necessitate a bylaw change or if it

[1:00:49] could just be the regs cuz I know the regs.

[1:00:51] » Oh, yeah. >> You can update the regs with, you know,

[1:00:53] public public meeting, publicly noticed. Um it's much easier. So I think if uh

[1:01:00] I have to get town council's perspective on it, but as long as that all aligned

[1:01:04] um >> or you know if they think that it could

[1:01:06] be a separate policy document that >> we want to we we want to do it

[1:01:09] correctly. >> Yeah.

[1:01:10] » We want to be able to enforce it. >> Um all right. So and then so battery

[1:01:16] storage. Um this is the other thing. um like

[1:01:22] I I guess I want to be careful because I think you know we can't go above and

[1:01:28] beyond what the state allows or doesn't allow or I this is where it gets

[1:01:36] confusing for me personally is that it's like the state says you can do one thing

[1:01:41] sometimes you can be more strict other times

[1:01:45] depending on how they write it we can be less strict I believe. Um well, reading

[1:01:51] reading the one of the towns that was dealing with this, they said that they

[1:01:56] were changing their their town policy to address a

[1:02:03] newer threat to the environment. And that fire that was uh I saw the article

[1:02:09] that was passed around the fire that uh now the now the groundwater is

[1:02:14] contaminated from a lithium battery burning actually burning. All right.

[1:02:18] » Now, that's a concern. >> Yeah.

[1:02:20] » Um and especially since we were talking about something and it's not over that

[1:02:24] was right next to the Great Swamp. >> Mhm.

[1:02:27] » Um I think it's something we need to we need to look at.

[1:02:31] » Yeah. I just want to be careful because like, you know,

[1:02:36] » it's got nothing to do to me. It's something that has brought

[1:02:41] a new threat to us and we're not taking it. It just it was in front of us.

[1:02:46] » No. No. I and I get that. I just I want to be very careful when crafting a law

[1:02:52] because we can't I think the the risk we take is if we just said, you know,

[1:03:00] lithium ion batteries are not allowed within 100 ft of the uh buffer zone or

[1:03:07] whatever it is, >> right? You know what? I don't think

[1:03:09] we're going to do a blanket statement, >> but I'm just saying that might mean that

[1:03:13] anybody who owns an electric car would not be able to own their electric car if

[1:03:19] they're in, you know, the uh, you know, if they're on the buffer zone.

[1:03:24] Obviously, I I don't think anybody's intention is to say you can't, you know,

[1:03:28] own a certain type of car. I don't think the, you know, state would allow us to

[1:03:33] draft and adopt a bylaw saying as such. Right. So like

[1:03:37] » I think though reading articles about you know cuz it is a new up and coming

[1:03:42] thing other towns were addressing it. We've already had a we've already had a

[1:03:47] um you know a failure of it and they and they detected the chemicals in there in

[1:03:54] the groundwater. So >> we need to look at that. You know um

[1:03:58] don't forget this project that came before us had the state 100 was it 112

[1:04:04] exemptions. so they could build it.

[1:04:07] » It was a a massive amount of >> And

[1:04:11] » could we but could we put in something like we need to have full containment in

[1:04:17] case of emergency if you're a battery plant of this size cuz that that was a

[1:04:22] big issue. There was no containment if there's a fire and it goes on for 8 days

[1:04:26] and >> you know burns for 8 days.

[1:04:28] » I think just I do I I think it needs to be looked at.

[1:04:32] » Yeah. And you know, I don't want to do blanket statements, but I think we need

[1:04:35] to see what are other people doing. >> Yeah. Exactly. I think

[1:04:38] » and let's let's see go from there. You know, we don't need to say boom boom

[1:04:42] boom, but other people are addressing it.

[1:04:44] » Yeah. And we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We can look at other towns and

[1:04:49] seeing what they're doing. Uh >> cuz I don't know what's reasonable at

[1:04:53] this point. like you know um if there's a

[1:04:59] a limit of like you know for if it's one or two we take that risk but if it's

[1:05:06] over a certain number we say we really got to you know do some research on what

[1:05:12] is the adequate you know way to contain something like this. Um, [snorts] and

[1:05:17] then, you know, compare that to what the state would uh, you know, allow us to

[1:05:22] actually permit and stuff. >> I agree [clears throat] with Steve. I

[1:05:26] think we just need, you know, find out what other people are doing first.

[1:05:29] » Yeah. >> And then start to see what's

[1:05:32] » what makes sense. >> Yeah. Exactly.

[1:05:35] » Yeah. We don't want to do a hard line, but we also want to see because I read

[1:05:39] two articles that towns were addressing this headon. M

[1:05:43] » they're conservation people. >> They're not not just

[1:05:46] » No, they were they were like, "Okay, this this is

[1:05:49] » we're seeing a trend." >> Mhm.

[1:05:51] » Um and I'm sure we had some visibility in that.

[1:05:54] » Yeah. Um All right. So, you know, again, I don't think we can come to any, you

[1:06:01] know, I don't want to rewrite the law right now. [laughter] Um, but we can,

[1:06:05] you [clears throat] know, think about this and, um, you know, do some research

[1:06:09] on other towns, see what they're doing, and and then come back and either maybe

[1:06:13] it's a regulation um, um, update, maybe it's a a bylaw update, whatever it is.

[1:06:19] Uh, we can just be prepared the next time something like this happens. And,

[1:06:24] you know, we're going to have a little bit more force behind,

[1:06:27] » right? I think we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't look into it.

[1:06:32] » All right. With that, if there's no further discussion, I will entertain a

[1:06:36] motion to adjurnn. >> Do I have a second?

[1:06:39] » Second. >> All those in favor. Chair

[1:06:41] » votes I as well.

Conservation Commission - 9/2/26

Transcript