Conservation Commission May 9, 2023 1

uh 2023 and this is the uh meeting of the uh Conservation Commission it is about 7:03 p.m. and I will uh my name is uh Patricia saradu and I will open the public meeting um I'm going to take a roll call first uh Nat we're gonna have to we're gonna to do everything has to be done now every vote every has to be done by roll call so sorry no worries present just gonna give

myself a mute it's okay and Joe present and Kelly here and myself Patty saru so that constitutes a quum a quorum um just a little bit of administrative stuff about our Zoom meeting tonight due to the roll back of the covid-19 state of emergency order as of 1201 a.m. on June 15 2021 the enacting legislation also passed on June 15 2021 the governor signing said legislation on June 16 2021

and verification of Same by Town Council this meeting is being held remotely this extension was further extended by an executive order from the governor on March 12th 2022 until July 15 2022 then further on July 16th 2022 until March 31st 2023 on March 29th 2023 the governor signed a further extension for the hybrid remote meeting options to the municipalities extended to March 31st

2025 public hearings will continue to be accessible for live interactions by the public using the following information and that's the information on your on your agenda um so uh let's head on into the administrative portion um can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the April 11th 2023 public meeting so second um and I have to take a roll call so Nat uh hi or yes okay and I'm an i and

uh Joe yes and Kelly y um so that motion passes unanimously um can I get a motion to approve for the approval of the field trip reports of the April 25th 2023 meeting so moved second second and roll call Nat I Joe I Kelly yep and myself as an I so that motion passes unanimously and uh finally uh can I get a motion to receive the minute of the April 25th 2023 meeting

second and uh roll call vote Nat hi Joe hi Kelly yeah and myself is an I so that motion passes unanimously on to the field trip reports the first field trip report is the continued request for a certificate of compliance D file number 15 - 2400 from Prime engineering for the Western detention basins at Dartmouth Business Park uh put my glasses on sorry to off Commerce Drive the Western end culdesac um

Mark yes uh I'm going to handle the first field trip report and then I'm going to turn over the last three to Adam okay so this and the reason I'm taking this one is this has been ongoing discussions between uh Prim engineering DPW and the conservation staff uh there are still some unanswered questions related to the um the detention Basin complying with DPW requirements uh we received an email

which I forwarded to the commission indicating that uh Prime engineering wanted to continue this again and till uh May 23rd of 2023 they met with DPW on site um and I think they've got a handle on what needs to be done so uh I we recommending uh to continue until the 23d thank you Mark um Madame chair I just want to announce that Richard M is just joined the meeting thank you

Richard glad to have you the field trip reports number one uh so can I get a motion for a continuance uh for this until May 23rd 2023 go second second uh Nat hi uh Joe Kelly yeah Richard yes um and myself uh so that uh that's an i for myself and so that motion passed unanimously and on to the field trip report number two Adam hi yeah and I apologize my camera

is just not turning on but um this is this an older subdivision filing uh there were receding partial coc's as the previous excuse me point point point of order I think we need to read it in at least the legal ad oh I'm so sorry I'm so sorry that's my mistake sorry Adam no no problem my mistake that was my mistake this is a request for a partial certificate of compliance for D

55- 0555 from attorney Brian Glover for map 115 lot 9-6 or 18 twin cons drive now you're up Adam sorry about that no problem this is an older subdivision filing uh there were receding partial coc's as the previous work was in compliance so there for staff recommends issuing a partial certificate of compliance thank you very much Adam you're welcome um so uh can I get a motion for a

partial certificate of compliance so move second can uh Nat hi Joe hi Kelly hi and Richard all right and myself as an I so that motion passes unanimously on to number three of the field trip reports uh this is a request for determination of applicability from Maurice kso who is proposing an inground pool in the river Riverfront area on land described as map 166 lot 91 otherwise known as 47 gford Avenue

um Adam yeah like you said this is for an in theground pool in the riverfront area it will cause no disruption to the resource area and the pool is in an existing lawn area therefore staff is recommending issuing a negative uh two determination with standard erosion control device segregating the work area from the downg gradient resources uh thank you can I uh can I get a motion for a negative -2

determination with the conditions as Adam described so mov second uh uh roll call vote Nat hi Joe hi Richard hi Kelly hi and myself is an I so that motion passes unanimously uh on to uh by and by the way anybody in the audience a negative2 is a is a good thing so so no worries um on to number four in the field trip reports this is a request for determination of applicability from

South Coast invest ments who is proposing to demolish and replace an existing home within the same footprint in the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as map 123 lot 80 otherwise known as 111 Prospect Street um Adam yeah like you said again this is the project for the demolition of the existing house and to build a new one in the existing footprint in the

buffer zone to a board vegetated Wetland there will be an active continual use between the project site and the bvw and the proposed use will be less impacting than the existing conditions therefore staff recommends a negative-3 determination did you say negative3 Adam yes I did great thank you no problem Commissioners can I get a motion for a negative3 determination so moved second uh and roll call vote Matt hi uh

Joe hi Richard hi Kelly hi and myself is an I so that motion passes unanimously um we're going to move on to the public hearings uh the first is a continued public hearing D file number 15-26 59 on the notice of intent from Potter Street solar LLC for a single family dwelling and a ground mounted solar panel array on the rear portion of the lot within bordering land subject to flooding in

the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as map 138 lot 144 otherwise known as Potter Street um can I get a motion to wave the reading second and that will also have to be a roll call vote so Nat hi Joe hi Richard hi Kelly hi and for myself is an I so that motion passes unanimously um is there anybody here for the applicant good evening Madam CH

commission members for the record Christian Fallen principal engineer and president of F and quot uh since the last meeting we have um received comments from the town um jush proposal pay review consultant um DPW and um we've talked with Board of Health and the building department um since then if I may I'll share my screen yes thank you

can you all see the see the plan set yes great so this is the actual plan set that was um comments were made from DPW um I'm just going to scroll through them real quick just to give you an idea of the the revisions um very minor uh plan note note notes Here were made um this here the second sheet they just wanted to show this green area they just want it

to be uh shown on every plan um which is just really a drafting um they wanted to you know see the easements on every plan and the top of the bank um of the ined stream on the plans the third sheet again um just had a question in regards to an easement on the plan the fourth

sheet they just had some notes down at the bottom um basically um cut and C the existing utilities um very minor notes which are outside 100 foot buffer zones nowhere near the wetlands um no comments in regards to the solar arrays had some comments in regards to the the sidewalks um again solar rays one little detail they wanted us to add a a vertical Granite curb detail to the details we have on our

plans um all the other comments be addressed the big difference between this plan set and the original set is we decided to um as you can see here we decided to sorry trying to get back to the uh so I can see you guys we decided to um pull the residential dwellings from the project um after talking with the Board of Health Chris mus um it just didn't make sense financially for us to to go

forward with residential and you know with the environment environmental area and some of the surrounding areas um we just don't want to go forward with doing a phase two which would require you know um borings out there to the site so we decided just to do Sola um we have an email from Chris um stating that he wouldn't need any more additional information from us um we met with the building

department for these revised plans and he has no issues with it we did have a meeting with uh Gus Roso and Paul duat and Mark gett um again during that meeting um no really major issues um came up um one issue these are the comments from Gus reposo which are six comments um one of the comments I'll just go through them real quickly existant topography um of adjacent Lots now keep in mind with this

development we're not changing any of the grades here with the with the solar arrays are um the only thing we're going to be doing is basically these drilled um ground screws they just go directly into the ground um so there's really no there's no excavation whatsoever um one thing we did add is the 12in crush Stone which is a drip edge we did that for the entire um solar array um you know a previously project

they just did that within the 100 for buffer zone but we actually did it for the entire project um just to mitigate any future runoff um issues it's also important to note that as we said we're not changing the topography so if we zoom in the the Topography of the site grades doesn't direct any storm water to any of the abounding property owners um therefore we're not changing any of

that we're not changing any of that um actually we're we're reducing quite a bit just from the demolition of the existing structures and the REM the removal of all the asphalt off site so it's actually going to be a significant Improvement in regards to storm water um again we know the history of the site you know yes there may have been some filling back in the 1960s um unfortunately you know a lot of

this work was done before the the wetlands protection act existed um and certainly wasn't anything that I ever did um I'm I'm purchasing this property just do solar I think it makes the most s economically um and for the for the town and for the abas um again I can go through Gus's other comments talks about soils we provided the soil information again we're not increasing any impervious area here

um talks about construction sequencing notes and um lay down areas which we do show on our plan we have a proposed construction lay down area here which is more than enough area um to lay down you know solar panels each one will be done individually it's not like we deliver the whole entire site at once these are SE three separate permits um three separate tiin to urce so we feel the project presented tonight

certainly doesn't um have any negative impacts to the to the Wetland resource areas uh which is your jurisdiction and uh we fully comply with D um I don't know what else we could we could provide here um like I said the history of the site is the history of the site um but we feel we the plans presented are certainly in full compliance with with the regulations with your own regulations

and with any other Town we're not seeking any variances and if we were again that would be you know a different board anyway but um we hope we can move forward with this project and uh we'll be glad to any answer any questions the the commission may have thank you thank you uh Mark could we have staff comments please yeah Christian could you uh get rid of your plans so I can Sheriff uh screen please

sure thank you first let me say that um solar use is not the issue here as far as staff is concerned our issues are deal with a much more complex issue which I think uh Christian is understating my my uh screen I want to show you a couple of things first is uh the existing fil perimeter I've encircled the three lots subject Lots here and I am going to say that as

Christian did going through the plans he kind of lumped the three filings together my comments are going to be very similar for all three so I'm going to do them once uh in uh to save time here so I've encircled the three lots and what's important to note is that notice the concave nature marut you off Yeah marker you did you have something up on the screen that you you don't see it

no dud because it's up on my screen okay

um uh why is this not

happening I practiced this it worked before it always happens on the night of the meeting oh I'm seeing something coming up there you go you got it now got it y okay I must not have hit a button okay so let go back this first window is taken from Mass GIS and what it shows is the fill perimeter in the lighter green and a general D Wetland assessment in the darker shaded green with the plant

perimeter okay and my question is as an analyst is why wouldn't this Contour have crossed here and this Contour is very similar to where the wetlands Contours are so it begs the question the third little inser here shows again the three lots the project area and shows conservation jurisdiction over this site the blue and the green are a 100-year flood plane the pink is a 100-year floodway these orange areas are areas

that D suspects were Wetlands that have been filled notice that those Wetlands appear on two of the sites in their comments when they issued the file number they requested that the uh applicant research out the when the fills were done as they relate to the regulatory statutes of the ton this has not been done this was day one now I know I know that Christian is saying we didn't do the fil I get it and

as non-property owners they're not responsible for it right now however they were apping for a project on a problematic site which Christian has admitted to and basically the project is to cover over a potential problem and that problem is the fill what did the fill do is it impacting Wetlands is it impacting the protectable interests of wetlands of which groundwater the protection of

groundwater is one we don't know the answer to that it's not staff's responsibility nor the commissions to answer that question that question was posed by a reviewer to the applicant haven't gotten that answer yet we've we've dodged around it several times but we haven't gotten the direct answer and the work hasn't been done minimize the comments yeah the DPW comments are minimal but we've been at this since November

28 2022 and we're asking the same questions over and over and over again and they just haven't been responded to our drainage consultant has asked the same questions and much of his questions are and concerns are to the contents of the fil which is a question that I have the applicant reports the soils to be ridgeberry soils which are hydrac soils that may have been a pre-existing condition the Department of Public

Health the conservation staff and Christian's own consultant who consult conducted a walkover paper study in ESA phase one also concludes that these soils are Urban soils and contain indications of both solid and potentially hazardous waste interfacing with potential wetlands and groundwater Christian does not want to spend the money to do the face too I understand that unfortunately he's got a

sight that his application has opened up this investigation and I in good conscience cannot recommend to the commission to approve this project until these questions are satisfactorily answered I don't have the answer I'm only going to the indications of my own eyes of 40 years of experience Christian consultant who concurs with me and public health this site is potentially an unlined unsecured unpermitted

landfill and to just sit back and say oh yeah we'll put solar on it and not do anything to protect the surrounding environment if in fact it is landfill is irresponsible to for the commission to do and I think it is important to keep that all in context our jurisdiction is for existing and those pre-existing resource areas that may have been filled without proper authorization and Christian is

right the filing started around 1962 and the filing continued well into the 2000s after 1983 there were filing requirements we don't know when those fills took place we don't put there okay somebody has to do that work and it's not the town and it's it's not the state I mean the applicant wants to use the site it's their responsibility I know the commission did not and's a curious thread here to how this project

has been presented because we haven't gotten answers excuse me to certain questions we also had an application back in November 28 with a an applicant otter Street solar LLC in March I just happened to take a look to find out that that was not a registered Corporation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts it was a fanton applicant as of April 21st of this year it is now a legitimate

Corporation but for almost five months we were looking at an application from nobody legally and that presents a question to me in terms of the zoning which I know the commission says is not their jurisdiction first plan set showed One Connect Commissioners in his email said this was a single project prohibited then they changed to three connections now Christian just kind of thumbed through

in his sketch and said well we have three connections well no they don't they have one connection they have three connections coming down to a series of Transformers that leave the site as a single connection okay I happen to know that Joe Braga is considering this as a single connection I don't know what's real and what isn't I know is we have gotten minimal information not all of the questions

have been asked not all of thews have been satisfied and we're being asked to review a project that may have Wetland impacts and we said all that I don't exactly what what the commission can do then The Fill as described by Mr fallin's consultant in their Esa phase one does not meet the standard of General condition 7even which issue is exists in all orders of conditions which states any fill shall

contain no trash refuse rubbish or debris including but not limit to Lumber bricks plaster wire lack cardo pipes tires ashes refri refg Ator Motor Vehicles or any or any excuse me or parts of any of the foring if you read the summation which I emailed to you folks two weeks ago many of those things are listed in the executive summary of the esa so I don't our our hands are tied

here okay on the thought that we didn't do it it's somebody else's problem now I I agree with they didn't do it but nonetheless it is a site that is going to be worked on which is going to have a screw into it which is going to require digging to put in overhead poles and I believe he shows subsurface electric conduits which are going to need excavation we be digging into materials that are suspicious that

we don't know the entities and we're going to destabilize them I think and I've said this right along we are at a very premature stage if we are being asked to approve this tonight my recommendation is I'm not requesting to approve it tonight okay for incomplete information that does not allow the commission to review this project adequately against the presumptions of significance for the existing and

potentially pre-existing resources that may have been filled illegally back in the day to support a new project which is just going to cover everything over I would also submit that this project might trip jurisdiction at D in solid waste and hazardous waste I don't know that I'm not it's not my expertise I did work ons though a long time ago and this certainly has the feel of something like

that so to end to end my uh dissertation here fish has several options you can the boort recommendations either in two ways you can deny the project out right based on Limited in information provided to meet the commission's charge to protect the presumptions of significance and protectable interests of the jurisdictional resources present on site or historical you can move in second this is the second option you can

move to approve and second but then not support that motion moving forward third you can ask you can allow for continuance to respond to all of our needs I would suggest that uh there'll be a timeline on that we could request that the uh applicant and I I know they probably won't do this but you have to give them their option to withdraw without cred until such time as they can provide the

information and lastly but not recommended the commission may and second the motion to approve the project as proposed according to the revised plans dated April 24th 2023 with conditions I know that was a mouthful but that was a shorten version great thank you very much Mark um Commissioners do you have any comments do you have any

questions um I do um I think first of all it's important to note that this applicant has come before us numerous times it's now may and we've seen this over and over again and I you know sometimes those things happen but I think in this case I'm disturbed by the fact that we have not received answers to the questions that we've asked uh here from this commission and I'm I'm not going to talk about other

departments um so I think that bothers me quite a bit um I want to say that I I do not object to the project outcome or the fact that this site is going to be reused uh or has some reuse potential but it needs to be analyzed and it needs to be implemented properly so I I want to make that distinction um the project outcome is a good outcome but it you

know it has to be done properly um you know we are governed by the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act uh regulations chapter uh 131 section 40 and 310 CMR 10.0 and the town Wetlands bylaw chapter 360 and although I like the idea of the project I I think that we do not have the answers to our questions and in my view um I can't support this project um I would I would uh if the

commission I'd like to hear from the rest of the Commissioners but we have asked for information from the applicant who continues not to provide it for us and I think that's disturbing I and I think that that does provide grounds for uh a denial or uh or to continue or to approve a project with conditions but I'm not I I can't approve it I I I can't honestly get behind this project uh

because we don't have the answers that we need and in order to approve this project I would I would need those answers and I I think staff has repeatedly asked for that um the other departments you know how they want to make their determinations is is their that's their business and that's their findings and we don't get involved in that so I want to be clear about that as

well this is a Wetlands issue this is uh this is something that we need answers to we need to make sure that when we approve work on a site that it's done properly that's part of our regulatory job so um that's my comment uh Commissioners I welcome yours Paddy I I largely agree with your line of thinking um and I guess my only question for the applicant is and if it's acceptable give him a

chance to respond are do do do you have do you agree with some of the assessments that have been you know some of the opinions that Mark has raised and do you have an answer I guess for those those questions or are they do you agree that they're outstanding if I may Madam chair certainly um so the questions that Mark has addressed um regards to the The Fill that's been placed on site that's all

indicated in the 800 page um phase one that we had done the fill that was placed there was done in 1960s um we we did we did everything we possibly can to get that data um there was some issues that were done in 2000 however that was um the Board of Health agent had that on file and that's stuff was taken care of there was some tires and so forth put on the site um so

Madam chair I don't know what questions are you're looking for um but the DPW is all set um excuse me sorry I don't mean to interrupt you but I really am not interested in in the other commissions and the other departments um you know just well just BEC I just want to be clear that just because DPW says it's okay and I I don't have any evidence to that but I don't really

care can you tell me what question specifically that I I haven't answered I think I'm going to refer you to staff for that I think that that's been asked I'm gonna refer you back to Mark the staff is talking about an LLC the we're not talking about the LLC I'm I'm I I want to interrupt you again I'm sorry but I'm concerned about the fill and and I don't The Fill that's on

the property and I believe that you were asked to do some uh uh research uh some work that has to be done to to look at the fill um and see what kind of fill it is and that I think Mark I think I I wrote this down because that was Mark's one of uh staff's requests and uh there's been no answer and no work done on that Madam chair I'm going to quote

the conclusion of the report its summarizing and its findings and recommendations it states quote additional assessment activities be conducted to evaluate conr soil and groundwater quality I'm going to underscore groundwater quality based on the historic use and potential filling of the subject property with soils of Unknown Origin that to me speaks that there are potential problems yeah

I don't I don't and that's a quote okay I don't know how that can be argued my question is I walk out there I make observations I'm an individual I see garbage I see refuse I see gas cans I see steel drums I see dilapidated buildings these are all indications of a problematic site I read a report paid for by the applicant that tells me additional activities be conducted to evaluate

current soil and groundwater quality based on the historical use and potential filling of the subject property not arguing with them they agree with me they they say that they've got questions I've got questions I'd like some answers I I I don't know how you you refute that and I really don't want to spend a lot of time refuting it it is what it is thank you Mark I I think comment but that's the comment

that's the quote and and Chris I'm gonna give you a a moment to respond to that but I think we have seen this you know since November now um and I we keep coming back to the same thing which is we still don't have the information that we need and you know we just don't have enough information so I actually would like to hear from you to see if that's something that you're intending on

doing um or would you like I mean there is a suggestion to withdraw without prejudice until you can get the information and reapply so again we filed this plan with d d doesn't have any additional comments um the only one that has comments is Mark that's fine looking to test soil that was placed there back back in the 1960s which to be honest you don't have jurisdiction over um and we're not touching it

so yeah I'm gonna dis that's not what I'm hearing from staff by staff you mean Mark that would be correct yep and and the peer review consultant same thing he he we had the meeting together face to face and the and what he said quote not quote for quote but pretty damn close the only reason why I have this comment on here is because Mark wanted it on here so I'll leave it at that are you

saying that uh that particular person lied he didn't no he didn't lie he said he has that comment on there because that's what Mark wanted I saying that he didn't agree with the comment it's just what I said he said he put it on there because that's what Mark wanted but are you saying that that he disagreed with the comment the the the the the comment itself you understand what I mean no I don't

okay um well so Christian just Pat if you don't mind me asking so the the second point there on that that previous page you just showed that recommends a third soils investigation that you're saying was only added because Mark wanted it there is that correct correct as an engineer as an engineer Watson the the storm water conditions whether the soils are C soils or D soils were not

changing we're not changing that soil material so if we evaluated as a seed during pre development which we're still going to evaluate it as a c for postd development so as far as storm water goes here we're reducing the amount of impervious area um and we're adding Stone trenches so it's going to be doesn't take an engineer to figure that out it's the same amount of water less impervious

area there going to be less less runoff um so that was the talk we had when we met Madam chair that assessment was done on ridgeberry soils not Urban Land Urban Land was never raised by the applicant it was raised by reviewers and to speak to the question Christian who in D did you submit this to signed off on this excuse me who you just said that you submitted to DP and

they had no questions who did you submit it to and who didn't ask any questions we submitt it to the typical formality you submitt it to D office you're not answering my question you filed an and you followed it with the wetlands people that's the normal formality they commented they wanted you to disclose the results of when the filing takes place of which your consultant said it went from the 60s to

2000 okay they wanted a justification as to how that fit in with regul compliance if it didn't need to be filed then we don't have an issue nobody has shown us that okay nobody has documented when the fills took place I have not seen that when you say you file it with d wet ones did you file it with d solid waste hazardous waste well don't say you filed it with d EP is a big agency

so again what what question did I not answer you looking for someone to do soil testing out there to excavate and see what the what the soil is answer yes where are you looking where are you looking to do test pits design the project okay you can get experts to do a project you have two to four aces of fill out there pick a spot pick the hot spots I'm not

going to go out there and point it out give me a characterization I'm not providing the information you want I'm asking you what you want I want a characterization of the material the composition and its chemical characterization I mean it says it it says it in the esa it says it in their conclusion okay I'll read it again current so and ground quality based on historic use and potential

filling that says to me do some soil testing if you find a TI full of Autos we need to know that okay that's going to have to be addressed okay there there there is fill there that is illegal fill whether it's then make that a special condition of approval if something gets dug up no no no we're not going to prove something approve something that we have questions on and then put conditions to

answer our questions no I'm not gonna I'm not willing to do that when we talked to Chris from the Board of Health this was his comment the C of D with Board of Health Land Development and reuse regulations do not trigger if the project is just solar in Wetlands a project is a project is a project okay um I think some of these questions that you have Chris might be better handled

offline since you you seem not not to have a clear idea perhaps going forward of testing and what kind of testing and so on and so forth but well you're saying I'm not answering your questions but you can't tell me what exactly you want which is it's it's we're going to keep going in circles here no we're not uh because we've spent a great deal of time on this and I think that it's to me at

least it's very clear uh What uh staff has requested for information um and certainly if you're willing to provide this information as as been asked then we can can we can uh we can do several things I mean we can uh we can S suggest that you withdraw without prejudice until you get these this information to the to staff uh we can continue although I'm not in favor of continuing too much more than

we already have since November we've been doing this forever um and still not getting the information that we need um what Chris what are you thinking about now if if you're willing to go back and get this information are you willing to do that if it's just doing test pits out there we can spend a day out there doing test pits I'm not sure what's that what that's going to resolve well I I I

it it seems odd to me that we keep going around and around on this because I think what Mark has said if I'm understanding him correctly is that we need to know we we do need some testing done out there to see what kind of fill is out there before we approve a project and I think without knowing that information we can't go forward in my view other Commissioners May disagree with me and that's fine but

I what I'm hearing we don't have enough information that's the only thing that's holding you back from voting uh that to me I mean I I'm only speaking for myself uh the other Commissioners I mean I think we need to be sure that the information that staff has requested um be provided because we need that so that we can see what kind of soils we have and I think that uh any other

concerns or questions that staff has about these soils uh I think those should be addressed and I know that this is this just has been going on for a long time I think this is I think it's time to either um you know either get us the information or withdraw uh I would suggest you withdraw without prejudice until you get the information you can continue to someplace uh to a Time

further down the line when you have have that information and certainly uh I'm sure that you'll be in touch with Mr Garrett and Adam to see if that information is completely done um I mean I I think you know as a as a commissioner um I think we have the responsibility the regulatory responsibility to be sure that the uh that the project um is analyzed properly and then implemented properly

um and without the information I I just don't know what we're we're dealing with so I I couldn't possibly prove it I for just for myself I I don't I'm not speaking for the other Commissioners but I think that I think when uh when a commission asks you for the information and you never give it I think it I think it's of concern so I'd like to hear from did any of the

other Commissioners would you like to speak I've been I've been talking a lot and I stopped talking a little bit and hear your concerns or your comments um I just agree I agree with you Patty I also agree unless the information is is forthcoming I feel that the the application should be withdrawn without prejudice um I I would not approve uh with conditions at this point Chris do you w to I'm I'm going to

open it up to anybody in the audience who would like to comment but would you like to comment on this Chris before I do that if you want it open test pits if that's the only thing that you're looking to get done then we'll get it done I think you're going to I I think I I'm not going to say it's the only thing I think you have to address the concerns

uh uh for uh research on the fill that is necessary to get done and that's been communicated so I don't I don't I think I don't want to be part of your design team um so I think that you have information about what needs to be done and uh so I I don't want to say you're you're trying to sort of tell me if that's all you want I'll do it well I'm

going to direct you right back to staff on that I think you need to get all of the research on the soils that is being requested and I will state about evaluate current soil and groundwater quality okay that means physical and chemical chemical means sampling and Analysis I mean it's it's self-explanatory it's right there in your Esa you know what they called out as potential problems common sense is a very good

firm I trust them implicitly they would know what to do they could run their scope past me for approval uh prior to spending a lot of time and effort in the field and we go from there um at this point Chris and uh I'm going to open it up to anybody in the audience who would like to comment is there anyone who'd like to comment I'm G to make sure I can see

everybody I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand um but you know please feel free to to comment this is a public hearing okay I'm not I'm not hearing anybody um Chris do you have anything else to say or do you want to what's what what do you want to do going forward do you want to ask for a continuance um I'm inclined to give you one more continuance but that's going to be it

otherwise we'll but I I will ask the commission uh we have you know we have several choices ahead of us you know here you know we can deny the project outright you know I'm so I'm repeating what Mark said earlier these are our choices we can deny the project outright we can suggest uh to the applicant that he uh withdraw without prejudice until you can get the information and then

reapply that's another Choice uh we can continue um but there has to be a timeline um we can approve the project with conditions and I think that's the end of the uh I think those are the our only choices so um Commissioners the um the applicant has uh is requesting to continue um when if if we uh allow that when would you have this testing done by the site would have to be dig safed um

probably be able to do the soil testing not next week the week after so I think it would probably I think be wise uh to give it a month um the first Hearing in June would be fine I would recommend the second Hearing in June I don't have the date at my fingertips but that would give them enough time labs are backed up uh that would be uh I think a little bit more

fair to the applicant yeah that yeah I I think that's probably right and then it ALS I want to say it's the 25th Christian but don't hold me to that I don't have the dates in front of me I can look it up that's fine believe it's the 20th 20th no the I see the 25th is a you'll be probably right it is the 20th I think you're right actually uh yeah I I we're

gonna sort of say that Commissioners what is your is there any more discussions this filing before we uh make a motion and for the record we've been discussing this is one project we have three filings so if the continuance is requested Chris you're requesting it for 15 2658 2659 and 2660 obviously we have record commission thank you Mark Commissioners what's your pleasure motion for a Contin motion for motion for a

continuance to the second count Conservation Commission meeting of June that would be the 27th of June by the way okay that's the 27 thank you motion for a continuance to the second meeting of June which is June 27th second could I make could I make one suggestion um certainly the with a condition that the soil testing that's been suggested be approved by Mr Garrett prior to the next um cont obervation commission

meeting uh I think that would have to be a second motion I'm not sure about the protocol okay um Mark is that is that a do we have to do aend the motion to include that I would I would submit that that might be a little difficult just I would say approval prior to implementation hold them to a date no yeah I I would agree with that although though I I understand your meaning Joe

and certainly uh you know all of this information would have to be in by this time otherwise um it would either be continued or the applicant can withdraw without prejudice or or come back whatever so I mean those those choices will still exist okay so um I'm GNA have to do a roll call Vote for This so uh this is a motion to uh that's been seconded to continue this public hearing

until uh the second Hearing in in June which is June 27th 2023 so roll call vote Joe yes Nat I Kelly I and Richard yes and myself votes yes so that motion uh passes unanimously um thank you on to the next public hearing in which is uh I'm going to read it into the record this is continued public hearing D file number 15- 2660 on the notice of intent from Potter Street solar

LLC uh for a single family dwelling and a ground mounted solar panel array on the rear portion of the lot within bordering land subject to flooding and the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands on land uh map 138 lot 14 4-1 otherwise known as Potter Street uh can we have a uh can uh make a motion uh folks to weigh the reading so move move

I can um and I'll do a roll call vote uh Nat hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and myself uh voting I so that motion passes unanimously uh Mark I'm assuming we're going to uh be continuing this until the same yeah I think it's the it's the same motion as the last hearing okay Commissioners uh can I get a motion to continue uh this public hearing until June 27th 2023

7M um roll call vote Natt I Kelly hi Richard uh yes Joe yes and myself voting I so that motion passes unanimously um on to the third public hearing this is a continued public hearing D file number 15- 2658 on the notice of intent from Potter Street solar LLC proposing a ground mounted solar panel array on the rear portion of the lot within bordering land subject to flooding and the 100 foot buffer zone

bordering vegetated Wetlands on land described as map 138 44-2 otherwise known as Potter Street can I get a motion to wave the reading please moove second um and a roll call vote please uh Nat hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting I so that motion passes unanimously um and this is also going to be continued um so can I get a motion to continue the public hearing until June 27th 2023 at 7

pm second and a roll call vote Nat Nat I'm sorry just it's a roll call yeah Kelly I Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting I so that motion passes unanimously and uh thank you Chris for uh for coming this evening going to move on to uh number four continued public hearing D file number 15- 2674 on the notice of intent from Craig Weatherly to construct a 128 foot long dock with Associated gang

way and Float system within land subject to Coastal storm Flowage land under the ocean land containing shellfish Rocky intertitle Shore and buffer zone to salt marsh Coastal Bank and bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as map 35 Lot 24 otherwise known as 153 Gulf Road um can I get a motion to weigh the reading move second uh roll call vote Nat hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes

and myself voting I that motion passes unanimously and who is here for the applicant I don't see anybody um I believe this was uh Tom Hardman Tom Hardman um is there anybody here for this uh public hearing that is representing the applicant can I suggest since Tom isn't here we post we postpone I can call him yeah okay um I'll uh so I'm going to need a motion to do that I believe so um I'm

going to put this down at the uh bottom of the list um so uh can I have h a motion to move um public hearing number four uh to the end of the public hearings so move second um and roll call vote n hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and and Patty votes yes so that motion uh passes unanimously and it has been moved down to uh the bottom um we'll move on

to number five which is a continued public hearing D file number 15- 2682 from Chris Bowen for drainage improvements to address an existing drainage overflow issue within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as Matt 49 Lot 19 or 285 Old Westport Road uh can I get a motion to wave the reading second roll call vote on that for Nat I Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes

and Patty vot voting I so that motion passes unanimously and who is here for the who is here for the um applicant uh good evening this is uh Christopher Garcia with ggd Consulting Engineers uh with the civil engineers on the project representing the university tonight great welcome thank you um at our last hearing um you know we reviewed the proposed drainage sale that the university wants to construct at an

existing storm watera outfall that was uh causing some drainage issues um down near Chase Road um one of the outstanding items uh during the last meeting was the drainage analysis and reviewed by the thirdparty consultant we had since uh since the last meeting issued the drainage analysis had that reviewed um uh there was five I would say minor comments which we have addressed and

reissued a new set of drawings new set of drainage analysis um on the 28th of April uh since then we've gotten a letter uh in agreements with the with our revisions uh from uh Mr raposo um and I believe that was the only outstanding item at brought up at the last meeting I can present the plans the board so chooses uh that's you know Mark do you think that's necessary or absolutely not

I think Chris is absolutely right uh we were all pretty much in agreement with what was being proposed uh based on the discussion uh we did not have the response from Gus at that point we did get a response he had the five issues they uh GDC uh did respond he signed off on it I sent you his memorandum indicating as such so at this point uh staff would recommend to the commission to issue a

standard order of conditions as per the revised plans dated 42823 thank you Mark um is there anybody uh any Commissioners want to be heard on this application uh is there anybody in the audience that would like to be heard not seeing any hands raised okay he hearing none um Commissioners what's your pleasure recommend standard order of condition as per the revised plan dated 42823

second um uh we'll do a roll call vote Nat hi Kelly I Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting yes makes it unanimous so that motion passes and thank you very much for coming this evening thank you have a good evening same to you we're gonna move on to uh public hearing number six um this is public hearing D file number 15- 2682 from Derek and Jason coutu from coutu construction I hope I pronounced

that correctly to construct three limited industrial buildings with ancillary parking within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as map 61 lot 5-14 and 5-16 otherwise known as 11 and 13 Commerce Way can I get a motion to weigh the reading second second um and I'll get a a roll call vote on that Natt I Kelly I Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting I so that motion passes

unanimously and who is here for for the applicant Madam chair uh the applicant emailed the staff last week requesting a continuance I forwarded that email to uh to the commission requesting to be continued uh to the uh 20 3rd of May thank you Mark this is tied to the COC that we continued early on they're kind of tied together okay uh can I get a motion to uh continue until uh May 23rd at

7M second and can I get a roll call vote on that yes or I Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting I that motion passes unanimously um and we are going to do number seven the last public hearing um is D file number 15- 2683 from Jason and uh Jazelle Hutchins for Beach nourishment within the coastal Beach and in land subject to Coastal store storm Flowage and the installation

of a privacy Private Hedge uh within the 100 foot buffer zone to a Coastal Bank a man-made Coastal Bank on land described as map 107 Lot 19 otherwise known as Smith Neck Road um can I get a motion to weigh the reading so move second uh roll call vote Matt hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting I that motion passes unanimously and who is here for the applicant uh good evening Madam chair

commission members Dave deant from sh deant Leone representing the applicants and owners good even hi Dave hi should I go first or is it Mark first no no it's on Hot Seat come on all right so can I screen sure

sure okay so the uh the property um is map 107 Lot 19 it doesn't have an address because it's affiliated with the property across the street uh where Jason and Jazelle are um I think finishing up building a new house um the commission's seen the property before in the past in the last four or five years or so uh we came before the commission for permission to build um a pile

support of Timber Pier with the gang way and Float as you see on the plan right here and we also came under a separate filing to build a uh rebuild a stone rip WRA uh seaw wall um along the the boundary of the property uh on the east side of Smith Neck Road um a little more history um somewhere between the construction of both of those items which complete and have certificate

compliances issued there was a privet hedge that was built or installed along that property boundary uh without any survey Stakes uh prior to its placement and and uh it was discovered a probably a majority of that was over the the property line into the street layout and was not permitted um eventually all of that was removed um so we're back to square one with the seaw wall running

the length of the road road which exists um so the seaw wall the pier exists we're here this evening um for the placement of beach nourishment in the lower Southwest quadrant of the property uh the property is about 300 linear feet from the North Boundary to its South we're operating in the 25% uh southernly portion um essentially where there is a beach that they can enjoy uh themselves um he does uh Mr uh

Hutchins would like to install the Private Hedge back on his property um tightly between the street line and the the boulder seaw wall we would be setting survey Stakes prior to the placement of that he's informed me that he's aware of comments made by the town planner of the planning board that he he'd be more than happy to have a condition that it remain at uh no higher than four feet um he simply wants it for

privacy when they're on the beach um so we're proposing nourishment um no thicker than 6 in on average throughout this area um this area was beat up on that December 22nd 23rd of 22 uh storm um so the placement of the sand would be above the high tide Line North of the beach grass an average of 6 Ines would um amount to 60 cubic yards over an area of 3,300 square feet um that is the the

gist of the uh project um and if happy to answer any questions thanks very much Dave uh Mark do you have staff comments we do um I was pretty I'm pretty much in favor of the project um David and I'm I'm gonna ask you the question did you see my email today from I did yes I did okay uh I forwarded to David as well as the Commissioners an email that I received received literally midm

morning that uh apparently there is a dredge study being conducted by B uh for I guess waterways or the Harbor Master Town certainly uh relative to dredging the channel in the harbor and um his suggestion was basically would uh would the applicant be willing to share that information with fa just to make sure that this is not going to impact what they're seeing in terms of sand uh sand transport and

the like my sense is it it shouldn't because it's in a an area that is sheltered by the The Rock there to the South but I'm not I'm not an expert so uh I guess my my question would be to David would you mind affording that information too far for them to review um no not at all um it would that be a two-e continuance I don't think that that's a

if I if I could if I could interject here um this is a a dredging feasibility study um you know that that the town would be um involved in um so I don't believe that that you know that's a feasibility study for for dredging and so I think that that's I think my understanding is that the that there is a lot of um sand there's like a sandb bar that parallels

Smith Neck Road um northward from the project site but also along the the south side of the causeway out to nun2 and I think for anybody who sails uh who sails through they they they probably are noticing uh that there's a hump um and uh some of that it's been uh postulated that a lot of that has come from uh Phil from um that area uh nourishment from that area but

um sorry I didn't get interrupted so I don't think that that feasibility study I mean I mean I think Mark are you asking that they they submit data to for the in to the uh feasibility study no I'm just asking for them to submit their plan to fa to see if it impacts you know what they what they are finding I mean this is a request from the Harbor Master I'm translating yeah I

can read it uh let's see say what did he say I think I've got this here yeah well here it's it he it is in the fifth paragraph I'm reading rather than add more nourishment or sand to the problem area being study I asked the commiss Conservation Commission to consider the impact any added sand will contribute to the accumulated impediment please allow F engineering time to consider what if any impact any more

sand will bring to the anticipated Harbor dring project okay to be fair this is a this is a filing it's you know we we have a response requirement here I'm just asking would David afford that information to F to see if this really is an issue I I and and in in Steve's memo he does speak about the SAR and n12 and all of that and he doesn't know if

it contribut I guess he's asking is this is this a Target area for sand transport offshore to the bar I me I think that's that's the sum total of what he's asking okay and all I'm asking David is if he would afford that to F for their review thank you for clarifying that Mark um I don't have no objection to forwarding the plan to fa so long as you can provide me with who the direct

contact is or you know if they want to um are we talking PDF or CAD either way you know be more than willing to share the information with them um you have this plan the plan that you're showing us is there any other supporting documentation uh no there wouldn't we would probably have we have more Contour information um rock formation information towards the pier that's probably not shown on this plan so um as

far as more information is that is that in plan form or narrative plan form why don't you send me both plans and the PDFs I'll get them to Steve to get them to fa and you know what whatever date we decide to continue to whether it be two or four weeks out uh I give them that deadline we need comment by you know to move forward does that Sate

I I don't mind a twoe continuous one bit um my clients out of the country I don't know I don't know how happy you would be for a full month's continuance but um four week four week right not four months oh did I say I meant four I'm not so sure he like four weeks he wanted to put some sand down in June I know that so um what would that bring us to

June sounds like sorry I couldn't unmute June 13 okay yeah I don't I can't see that being a big problem um unless August comes soon I can make that leap and say um we we can respectfully request um with the understanding that Mark would give them a cut off to uh submit comments and I forward yeah I'll forward the information to you tomorrow Mark yeah David what I would do is the

the hearing is on the 13th so we would back that out to the Thursday before we need their response by 3 pm on you know whatever that is June 9th I I don't know what but whatever the Thursday is by 3M okay okay okay um is there anybody in the audience Commissioners do you have any comments I don't know Michael Commissioners do you have any comments nope um is there anybody in the

audience that would like to be heard so what else is going on um okay uh Commissioners can I get a a motion to continue this public hearing until June 13th at 7.m just you um feedback yeah I think so I think somebody in the audience is uh needs to mute themselves because they're or stop talking so that we can get on with business here um I'm going to do a roll call vote

Natt hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes myself voting I so that motion passes unanimously thank you Dave thank you good night thanks David thank you um I see that there Tom hi Tom hi madam chair I apologize for my tardiness my organizational skills what they used to be and I actually thought someone else in my office was covering this meeting but um you're right you're right on time I don't really think so I don't like

this way um uh so we are GNA move back to that uh item that we moved to the last uh which is um item number four this is a continued public hearing D file number 15- 2674 on the notice of intent from Craig Weatherly to construct 128 foot long dock with Associated gang way and Float system within land subject to Coastal storm Flowage land under the ocean land containing shellfish Rocky intertial

Shore and buffer zone to salt marsh Coastal Bank and bordering vegetated Wetland on land described as map 35 Lot 24 otherwise known as 153 Gulf Road can I get a motion to weigh the reading so move second and roll call vote on that Nat hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and myself voting I that motion passes unanimously uh Tom it's all yours thank you madam chair um I believe at our last

meeting there was some communication from the um Harbor Master which would have lik us to take a look at shortening the length of the dock um by about 32 feet which would have been too B of um pilings back so I took that back to the clients and as well as the U the crew that helped me put this together and um that looked very reasonable the points that were brought up by both the

Commissioners and uh and the staff made perfect sense so we took it back took a look at it yes we were able to pull it back 32 feet and get pretty much the same depth of of water out at the end of the dock I spoke with the client and they were amenable to doing that so we have submitted revised plans that pull the dock back a good 32 feet and uh

in a accordance basically have the same depth of water out at the uh out at the end of the float thank you Tom do you have a screen share that you uh I I I don't I apologize I ran in and I completely but I did see that up just a second ago I believe someone had it up maybe Mark has it no I I I I have a hard copy I emailed Tom's email to the

Commissioners what I can tell you is it's the old Pier 32 feet shorter it was proposed at 128 it's now proposed at 96 they're still in that 3 to four foot meow water range they've uh reduced the square footage coverage from 820 2 square feet to 704 square feet so and they've pulled the um boat in the end of the dock further away from the highspeed recreation area uh which is still of some concern

for the Harbor Master uh and he wants uh Gant to know that the highspeed area pre-exists their dock so any wave action caused by that there going to be subject to um you know I I will probably list that in a in a condition it's not something the the uh the applicants need to do it's they just need to deal with it you know and I did make them aware of that and his concern

Mark I made them aware of of his concern and they acknowledged it okay and they they realize that that's the case okay okay that's fine uh so uh if Tom doesn't have anything else uh I'm prepared to uh with the new plan let me get my notes Here uh they sh by 32 feet uh redu square footage uh let's see so I'm prepared to recommend a standard order of conditions 1 through

40 um with condition 42 for the signage being put out to condition 48 and adding uh seven seven additional conditions which I will read into the record here um the first one would be condition 41 an anchored floating boom and Sil curtain shall be deployed and maintained throughout the construction period to to completely isolate the project work from the open day condition 42 all landside

construction work shall be segregated from the downgrading jurisdictional Wetland Resources with properly installed and maintained State and entrenched hay bals or Waddles and silk fence along the lawn Edge extending 50 feet north and south of the proposed dock 43 barge grounding will be avoided throughout the construction period 44 since the project area is mapped as shellfish habitat and its footprint is a

direct impact to land containing shellfish the commissioner shall require one-time payment to the town's dedicated shellfish seed account the commission considers a density of 35 cob mercenary mercen area seed per square foot at $70 per th seed over 704 square feet sufficient to mitigate resource area habitat loss totaling to the onetime payment of 1,700 $25 to the town's dedicated shellfish

seat account as administered by the Harbor Master shellfish Constable I would also put just a condition alerting the uh applicants as I just mentioned to the wave of action caused by the pre-existing highspeed Recreation Area offshore of their particular site there's also um a question that arose about uh the 30in stops on the on the float uh so they don't ground either so uh you

know the float stops would have to have a 30in stop for grounding uh at low tide and then the last one would be the sign the required sign the file number that would be my recommendation and are we adding a a not a condition but a comment about the high speeed I yes that's uh sorry that's that's 45 okay 46 is uh the Stop and 40 47 is the sign thank

you um Commissioners do you have any comment comments on this application is there anybody in the audience that would like to be heard on this application hearing hear hearing none uh Commissioners what's your pleasure recommend a standard order of conditions as per the Revis plan submitted with the additional conditions as outlined by Mr Mark Garrett thank you um I'll do a roll call

vote Nat hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes um and myself voting yes so that motion passes unanimously thank you Tom thank you everyone for your patience time thank you and um and um this this will not happen again I can assure you don't worry it was perfect actually so well I'm glad that it was but it's not the way I like doing things but that's always good to see you thanks doctor

take care good to see you all have a great enjoy this great weather take care same to you thanks bye-bye thank you okay commissioner so we are on to items for discussion uh Mark I guess we have a bill well we got two bills actually uh we have the 3500 to Gus Roso for the Potter Street drainage review uh I need approval to sign off on that uh can I get a motion to uh approve

paying the $3500 Bill to Gus reposo hotter Street drainage review second um I have to do a roll call vote Nat hi Kelly yeah Richard yes Jo yes and myself voting yes so that motion passes unanimously do we have another bill yes we do we have another $3,500 bill for Gus Roso that I need to sign off on for the UMass drainage reveal um can I get a moot that's for

$3,500 also can I get a motion to uh pay the $3,500 Bill too for the umou project um roll call vote net hi Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes myself voting yes that motion passes unanimously uh we're on to B if I could just jump in the point here um that's his spended all of the review money for Potter Street so if there are any other reviews and there will be they

will need to add more money to the kitty understood just FYI for you okay um we're down to enforcement issues Mark yeah uh I want to summarize real quick here as you know Town Council was going to uh review those uh EOS and he did and he doesn't disagree with them but and I do and I do agree with him I think that the Potter Street uh issue is bigger than

just the wetlands issue I think there is a potential nightmare out there not saying there is one but there is a potential one out there so he has requested that the Town Administrator Shan m have a meeting a multi- departmental meeting just on this particular issue with those departments that are need to put inputs in uh as to how an enforcement action would you know affect them uh and there might be

some there might be some issues that uh come up that the town might not be too excited about so uh he wants to evaluate moving forward on those uh you know quite carefully so that's where that stands we have a couple of other things that I wanted to uh bring up uh any of you who have gone down to the Rogers Street boat ramp Landing will have noticed that somebody has configured rocks along the

shoreline uh the harbor Minister reported it to me it was the brothers Gooba of I believe it's 7:15 Dartmouth Street or 615 dartus Street I forget the address uh we sent them a letter they've been in contact with us I told them to remove the unnatural rocks that they had placed and he said he would um that was a couple days ago it hasn't been done yet but just in case some sees it we you know

about it uh another issue um our friend at 51 adner po away has been playing on his property again uh and is in content technically with the uh supplemental judgment that was issued by the Superior Court ran and I have talked about this the neighbor ratted him out all he was doing was raking leaves and cleaning up uh I guess if we all wanted to be jerks about it we could say hey he's in contempt of

court was minor stuff we alerted him to the fact that he we knew what he was doing and that he was technically in contempt of court but we weren't going to push the action just he needs to contact Conservation Commission before he or conservation staff before he does anything that letter was sent out yesterday certified return receipt this happened on Friday and Sunday pass so just to make you aware of

that uh I also sent you a memo or copy you want a memo that Adam had written up regarding the uh plantings uh that were due on April 28th largely most of it has been completed couple of projects did not quite make the deadline we have been leaning on them and they are working towards getting it completed some have plant Supply problems others uh have uh have just not been as diligent as they

should but they are aware that that we're leaning on them and we've given them a little Grace but we told them you know enough is enough so uh everybody seems to be pretty close to closing in 218 hor Neck Road they actually added plantings uh Woodberry Street just hasn't has put the shrubs in but they haven't put the seed down um and Mar at 22 slokum is uh they just can't get the plants they they've

got a lot of planting to do they've put in a lot of stuff what they've done looks great but they just have to get on it and they're working on it uh we they basically have given us an open door policy to go in there anytime we want so we've been in there two or three times and uh they're they're proceeding uh and given the length of time that it's

taking us to get to this point while they're not totally complying with deadline we've got we're a heck of a lot farther in a year than we were in five years so that's probably a good thing uh other than that uh not an Enforcement issue but my last comment was to thank Kelly for her time with us uh and uh her inputs and herh support along the way uh I know we'll miss her

and I'm sure the Commissioners have personal comments but from the staff good luck and thanks thanks Mark I appreciate that I'm gonna miss you guys well we're gonna miss you um you've been uh just an exemplary commissioner throughout how how long have you been commissioner yeah I'm not entirely sure um I think I joined in 2017 but I'm not positive about that so yeah that's I I think you might maybe

before that no you I think you were before that I think you started just before I came on yeah yeah so when came I came on 2015 yeah I think that's right Kelly I think you've you've you've been here since before 2017 I think so I know you at least for a year or two years before then but well time FES you're having fun well you know what I you've been is that what this is n

Fun and I I also want to say that um I just I I think I really value I really have valued you being a commissioner because you have this you just have a really good legal mind and I know you've got training but it's just very it's just sharp and concise and uh you know I think it's been really helpful to the commission you've been consistent um I think you're wise and so thank you

you're very sweet I don't want to embarrass you but I also want you to know how much we value who you are as a person and all the contribution you've made to this Commission because it's really been a lot you you tend to be quiet but when you say something it really it's it's a lot so we're just so appreciative um so appreciative of everything and uh hope you come back

sometime thank you yeah no I've I've absolutely enjoyed my time and I am I am sad sad to say goodbye um but on Tuesday nights you will find me out racing sonars so enjoying enjoying our beautiful buzard that's my alternative well thank you Kelly's been a pleasure wish you well thank you take care Kelly thanks Richard appreciate it you guys have fun we're always having fun um so with

that said um can I get Mark do you have anything else Mark yeah I want go to sleep good me too all right so I can make the motion to adjourn I always do that part anyways do that go ahead motion to adjourn okay can I get a second second and I got roll call vote daddy compliment you on a very well-run meeting you've you did a great job well

you're very sweet um anyway uh Nat thank you Joe n Kelly hi Richard yes Joe yes and myself saying I and thank you Mark and Adam for all you do for us um this was this was a lot on the agenda very appreciate your expertise thank you as Nat said it's fun you good night everyone