The Conservation Commission at its meeting Tuesday night warned a homeowner not to remove any more trees from her property after receiving a violation notice for clearing at least 74 trees in January.

Conservation Administrator Judy Day told the commission she received a phone call on Jan. 3 from a concerned neighbor about significant tree removal being conducted at 10 Exchange Street, across from Whitehall Brook.

When Day arrived, she witnessed several trees “actively being removed,” while others “had been cut down.” She issued a cease-and-desist order later that day after determining that there was a perennial stream there.

Homeowner Padma Jammalamadaka said she purchased the home last September. She described many trees being “broken and fallen.” After neighbors expressed concerns about trees potentially falling on their homes, she decided to have them removed. She called Anna Rogers, the town’s environmental and inspectional services coordinator, before hiring a tree removal service.

Rogers had advised her to hire a wetland scientist to assess the property, which Jammalamadaka said she did not realize contained wetlands. Despite that advice, she hired a tree removal service for an estimate. Because of the weather, the wetland boundary could not be delineated.

In a site walk with Jammalamadaka on Jan. 6, Day observed additional wetlands. She and Rogers gave approval for one dead tree to be removed after issuing the violation. Day estimated that 74 trees had been removed, although she was unsure of how many were under the commission’s jurisdiction.

Said Jammalamadaka: “We just wanted to clear some stuff so that we can at least see what we could do with the property.”

But later that week, a different neighbor reported additional trees being cut down, Day said.

Co-vice chair Ted Barker-Hook, who chaired the meeting at that point, asked Jammalamadaka why she allowed this to happen. She said she had already paid for the service.

Barker-Hook implored her not to have any more trees removed until the delineation could be completed in the spring

“In your effort to save money, you may have cost yourself a lot,” he said, “either in replanting trees or in fines.”

Jammalamadaka apologized, saying she would “do whatever is necessary to replenish the trees.”

This case was used as an example later in the meeting during the discussion on guidance for issuing violations. In the past, commission members talked about education efforts for residents so that they understand and abide by the rules, along with developers. Community education was prioritized as a goal for this year.

Hayden Rowe widening moves forward

After analyzing the town’s proposed street widening plan at 129 Hayden Rowe Street, the commission voted 6-1 to issue an order of conditions with a condition added for an invasive species management plan. This property abuts the proposed Charleswood Elementary School, which will be located at 147 Hayden Rowe Street.

Consultants explained that a country drainage system was the best and most cost-effective solution for the town. Commission co-vice chair Matthew Moyen agreed after hearing the presentation on drainage options.

“It clarifies the fact that a closed drainage network just isn’t practical out here,” he said, noting that catch basins would have to be installed every 50 feet in that case.

Member Ed Harrow, who voted against the approval, raised the issue of knotweed on this property.

“To do that and to ignore what’s next door just because it’s not town property is how we got to the point we are now in Hopkinton … knotweed all over the place,” he said.

Claire Hoogeboom, a wetlands scientist at LEC Environmental Consultants, said she was open to having an invasive species management plan as a condition for the project’s approval. But she stressed that it expands the limit of work for the project onto private property “that wasn’t necessarily a part of the original application.”

Chris Eberly, the project manager from Vertex for the Charleswood Elementary School, agreed, saying, “It’s part of a larger issue within town.”

He added that the expansion of the roadway is for the school’s benefit.

Hopkinton Stone & Garden hearing continued

After a lengthy series of continuation requests over the past year, the commission reviewed a proposal by Hopkinton Stone & Garden to build a two-story medical office building at 28 Lumber Street. This lot, which is vacant, abuts New View, Inc., a plant nursery at 32 Lumber Street. The hearing was continued to Feb. 25 to allow commission members time to review the previous meetings on the proposal, which began about 18 months ago.

Scott Goddard of Goddard Consulting represented the applicant. He explained that “it’s been a very active 18 months” because there had been “multiple iterations of peer reviews.”

He noted that the front of the property had been a “gravel borrow area” in the 1970s. Part of this area had cut into the groundwater table, creating an isolated vegetative wetland. It is barren and does not contain any wildlife habitat features.

The width of the parking area was reduced, Goddard said, in order to reduce the environmental impact. Infiltration systems were moved to both sides of the building.

This iteration proposes “about half” of the environmental impacts as previous plans. The original proposal would have displaced 13,000 cubic feet of floodplain area; the current amount is about half that size. More wetland replication area was added to the project.

Harrow called the revised plan “a vast improvement.”

Representatives from The Trails fail to appear to discuss request

Representatives from The Trails did not appear at the meeting. They were going to ask the commission to amend its Jan. 7 decision to release three lots on Waterville Lane for development. A cease-and-desist order had been in place because of previous stormwater management violations.

Owner Vin Gately had appeared at the Planning Board meeting the previous evening to contest the claim by the town’s Department of Public Works that stormwater runoff from The Trails caused damage to Wilson Street. The Planning Board requested that the town’s engineering consultant get a dollar amount for the road damage to present at its next meeting on Feb. 24. Gately contended that the road was in poor condition before construction and said the town was trying to make him pay for road improvements rather than damage repair.