May 6, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript
May 6, 2026 - Conservation Commission
Seeing that, 6.33, we have a quorum
like to begin the Conservation Commission meeting
for May 6th, 2026.
Down and remotely is myself, Barbara Howell,
Luke Legere, Lisa Albon, and Linda is also on camera.
I'm at home office.
This is not an in-person meeting, so I'll skip that part. This meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, it'll be made available to the public on Wacom as soon as possible after the meeting. Public may be excluded from executive session. In pursuit of Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person or via remote access in accordance with applicable law. If this meeting has only remote access, which it does, no in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch or may participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at the following link. And when required by law or allowed by myself, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location or in person where remote access is applicable. Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. With that, let's kick this off. Public hearings. This is 2A, 58 Pequot and Wayland, DEP file number 322-1064, continued notice of intent and file pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Sharon Botwinick for the construction of an addition and driveway expansion at 58 Pequot Road in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is within the 200-foot riverfront area and the property is shown on Assessor's Map 43A, Parcel 40. Linda. We finally have a DEP file number for this project, so we can probably close it out. I had a couple of questions, though, for either Jessica or Sharon. I'm here. I saw Sharon briefly. She's in a rehearsal tonight, so she's popping in and out. Oh, there she is. Thank you. So one of the comments by DEP was the amount of alteration and you had in your order of conditions or your notice of intent, I mean, you had listed 690, yet the revised plans that you submitted back in the beginning of April still says 928. So that was their question on the project. The last time we met, I thought we verbally... Oh, okay. Okay, yeah, but I had... That was prior to the... Oh, no, we saw the plan. Okay, I just want to confirm that verbally that it is 690, right? I estimated it to get it in for the very first meeting in March, and I estimated it as best I could, but then the engineer estimated it much better. So the new number is the right number. And I didn't know you could correct the paperwork, but if I could have, I would, but... So the right number is... Nine. 928, okay.
And did you receive back the green cards from your registered mail? I received them from one of the neighbors that's an abutter from two of the Wayland-owned properties, but did not receive them from the other three abutters. But I do have... I don't know why. I mean, they were sent over two months ago now, so I don't know why, but never received them from the other abutters. But I sent them, and I have copies of all of the ones I sent, so... Mm-hmm. Yeah, you submitted that. I just didn't... I didn't get it. There was no indication of when you sent those and if you had gotten green cards back, because that's... Yeah, I know it's... People just aren't home to... Go ahead. Sorry. No, people just aren't home to sign for certified mail, so that's often what the delay is, so... Anything else?
No, I'm good. Mission good?
Okay. Like that. Anyone want to make a motion, please?
Do I move that we close the public hearing under Chapter 194 and the Act?
Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Thank you, Babs. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Alvin? Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. Next motion, please, Luke. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the work proposed under both Chapter 194, and the State Wetlands Protection Act.
Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Alvin? Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. All set. Thank you. Thanks much. You got it. All right. Okay. On to number... For all your help, I hope the rest of your evening goes smoothly. Thanks, Sharon. Sure. Sorry, Sharon. You as well. Appreciate it. Thank you. 2B, this is 67A Loger Street in Wayland, DEP file number 322-1056. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland Wetlands and Water Resource Protection By-law and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Matt O'Connor for the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67A Loger Street in Wayland, Mass. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 42, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boardwalk. The apartment is processing yellowness and is functioning withoutẽ . Resridge is being planned to wait until May. As soon as possible. You know, I was going to say, I move that we continue this hearing under both the State Act and Chapter 194 to May 27th after 6.30 p.m. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Real quick, this is 2C68 Lake Shore Drive, DEP file number 322-1057. This is a continued notice of intent under both submitted by Jeremy Jenkins, also for continuation. Same date, Linda? It's the 27th as well? Yes. Okay. Can I get a motion under both of that for continuation, please? I move that we continue the hearings under both Chapter 194 and the State Act to May 27th after 6.30 p.m. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. And Sean Clair is a yes. Thank you.
Moving on to 2D. This is 123 Dudley Road, Wayland Mass, DEP file number 322-1061. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Joel Goodmanson for the construction of a single-family home, septic system, and stormwater management. The proposed work is within 100 feet of Dudley Pond and the property shown in the Assessor's Map 47A, Parcel 72. Lisa, Linda, excuse me. We'll hand it off to Seth to give us an update of what happened between now and the last time we met. I will be happy to. So, for the record, this is Seth Donahoe with Dillison Roy Civil Design Group. As you mentioned, I'm here tonight on behalf of Joel Goodmanson and Robin Glick. We're here today, mainly for a notice of intent that we submitted for a construction of a new dwelling at 123 Dudley Pond Road. The commission and your peer reviewer, we've had several occasions of back and forth, taking into consideration and recommendations that have been given to us throughout this process. Since the last meeting, the applicant has elected to essentially mirror the house and reduce the footprint slightly. When we originally started this project, there were concerns. There were concerns over the size of the house. Every meeting I've come to you, it feels like we're having the same conversation. We keep dropping it back, dropping it back. At the last meeting, we did receive a peer review comment letter from DGT Consultants, indicating that general compliance with Chapter 193, 194 stormwater requirements was in place, as well as the state's stormwater regulations, which are incorporated within those. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. that were presently in the prior design as well so we're utilizing the same infiltration area it'll now be receiving less impervious area and we also submitted a memorandum to the commission that documented the reduction in flow so the project will result in a reduction in the peak rate and volume of flow leaving the site and that's something that is required by your regulations so far right with your commission i will put up a screen view of the plan that was submitted please and hopefully it is there for you we got excellent excellent so the change the garage was previously on this side and the house was a slightly larger house so this was mirrored at this point and this was the stormwater infiltration area that was previously reviewed by your peer reviewer the collection system collects all of the impervious area of the site so that includes the roof of the in building as well as the driveway and that's conveyed to this area with a proprietary treatment device as well as some other features that help meet your local standards that was the bulk of the change the green area on this is is going to be re-vegetated and that was something that we had talked about in the previous presentation we had talked about in the previous presentation we had talked about in the previous presentation that we had talked back and forth that we had talked back and forth about and we did not have a planting plan at our last meeting about and we did not have a planting plan at our last meeting the client has retained gregory the client has retained gregory lombardi design group to put together that planting plan and elizabeth kenrick is on the call tonight if she would have the opportunity to be promoted to panelists or speaking abilities i can advance my screen to the actual planting plan that they've prepared okay hi everyone great so i'm going to move the plan forward for you elizabeth and if the commission desires to go back to some of the prior sheets after elizabeth is done i'll be happy to do so so as i mentioned we discussed having a planting plan put forward as part of this application they have now done so there is a complete planting list as well as tabulations on the top of how it meets your local requirements so with that i'll let elizabeth dive into the details of the plan they've prepared yeah so we've broken it out into the chapter 193 trees and then the plants for 194. so basically um to kind of keep things easier where we need 104.5 calibers for the 193 so right now we've shown those all as two and a half inch caliber trees and we're doing 42 of those and then for all the 194 plants you can see the breakout we've listed which tree and then if we're planning to replace it with the trees versus large versus small shrubs and we've talked a little bit about what we're going to do with the trees and then we've talked a little bit about what we're going to do with the trees and then we've talked a little bit about those kind of in the in the top of the bottom of the top columns um to the right so um right there yeah so we're proposing 27 trees 116 large shrubs and then the 285 small shrubs and then our specific plant list is below which is all made up of the native plants um as of now we've just done general planting zones a lot of it's going to depend on um the final availability of plants when it comes to the plant and then also where uh we want to kind of be aware uh when we're planting within the existing trees we're going to kind of shift things around to to not disturb the existing tree roots so um final final numbers and placement might change a little bit but ultimately we would meet the requirements um whether we swap out large versus small shrubs based on availability and there's also right now we're doing all two and a half inch caliber trees but if there's uh larger nicer materials available for some of the 193 trees we might upsize those and generally then downsize the quantity what's that what's the number on that on that plan you have up right now not the one i have i don't have that one either do i because i didn't have any names of the trees i think that was in our packet yeah okay yeah i do have three one but on the top it's says chapter 194 replacements where where do you have the chapter 193 replacements so basically the 193 and the 194 are all that included in the bottom all the quantities basically match that okay so so that the chart that you're pointing to right now though i think that's just the chapter 194 the detail there yeah so then seth if you kind of go down to the right where the plants are listed which one they were and then add at the bottom we're gonna add the one 193 one also the 193 and the 194 that was where the trees were placed so the trees in of course we are going to set them against each other but we can only use the tree range and just pretty much any tree capacity so so if i want to apply that to this astrology drop there then i need to
see if i want to清 zone or the frequency so you can see that that way tuwe i can see that as well
that I think was in the first column of chapter 194. They had a no for coming down, but they still had a DBH replacement.
What numbers? Could you read that back again? I wrote down 3119 and 3121, but I'm perhaps.
So if you look at 3119, I mean, these are small numbers, but I just noticed that, sorry, now I can't, now I can't see it. If you scroll up just a little bit more. Yeah, there's two trees there that have a no, but they have a replacement number next to them.
That one that the cursor's on. We can certainly check. So my hunch is that as we've revised this plan through several iterations here, some of the trees that were originally removed, if the commissioner calls, we actually ended up tightening up the work area on some of the earlier revisions that resulted from the. Request for changes, and that resulted in less trees. I think at our second hearing, we had a pretty significant reduction in the trees that were going to be proposed to removed. But if I recall correctly, Elizabeth, we had given you this total number that is the sum of all these columns, and that's exactly what you're replicating. So if the tree is not being removed at this time, it's still incorporated in the total number. It's still included in the total replication number. Okay.
I guess my general comment would just be if the applicant would consider, you know, we have, let me go back to my numbers. At least on Chapter 194, I think we have about 71, maybe 69 trees coming down, depending on those two that I just mentioned. And I know we're replacing with a lot of amazing native shrubs, but we're only replacing it with 27 trees, including those very old trees. Yeah. Yeah. So we're replacing with very large 24 plus trees. And I just didn't know if, you know, perhaps we can consider shifting some from shrubs to trees, depending on where there's room, just because the benefit of trees is that much more than shrubs. Again, it's not necessarily required, but the larger trees are certainly at more discretion. And I would just like to see if we can try to rebuild some of that density back, where it's possible. Yeah. I mean, I think we'd probably be open to that. I think we were leaning towards smaller just because we were wanting to minimize any disturbances to the existing tree roots and things that are out there. But if there's pockets that we can make that work, I think it's something we can, we would probably be open to. Yeah. And we'd be happy to consider that. And we're also very interested in looking for some trees that we can, you know, looking for opportunities to use fewer, but larger trees, if there are places where we can frankly get a machine in that can do that work and have some space for those trees to thrive. Right. I understand it can be probably challenging getting the newer trees that are larger in there, but even if it's, you know, lower caliper trees versus some of the shrubs, and again, the shrubs are great, just thought I'd bring that up, the more trees we can have in the mix, Sure. probably the better. You bet. No, we're, we're certainly open to do that.
And some of these trees don't really grow around here. We have one holly tree that I know of and it's at Greenways, but holly grows about to Marshfield and no further north than there. And. And another one that doesn't grow around here, I just saw it, is another, oh, inkberry, again, does not grow around here. Oh, I see. And. Again, I know, I know Shannon's not able to join, but I know she has planted a bunch of hollies in her yard and they seem to be doing well. It's a couple of years in, and now I have some babies in my yard. She lives next door to me. So I'm seeing a few. Pop up again, not, you know, that's only a data point of one. Yeah, we've had some warmer weather. Yeah, true. I mean, I would say we have used in our office, we've used both of those plants on on multiple other projects and they've thrived. But I think we would be open if you guys are opposed to those. For some reason, we would be open to adjusting to different shrubs if we need to. Well, I'm thinking. I'm thinking about the trees that if I make commissioners good, we've got to I think one of the things the applicants committed to meeting the requirement and to meeting that with native trees and shrubs, one of the things that will be something that will be a logistic situation here is nursery stock. There's a lot of plants here. And if I can recommend that. A condition of the oil. Yeah. We can have a good. And if I can get a good order, be that the final available stock at the time of planting be reviewed by Linda. And if you feel if Linda feels that we need to come back to the commission and discuss what's available and how that's going to be implemented into Gregory Lombardi's plan, I think that would certainly be worthwhile. But we're kind of getting into a very speculative realm here in that that we can agree that they want to do these. Depending on what's available in the spring that they go to plant them or the fall that they go to plant them. I would say the exact same thing. Long as you're clear with Linda before you plan it, I'm good. And so if we long as you maybe get more trees and shrubs, I think that would be great. But clear by Linda, that would be good with me. That's good with everybody else in the commission. Certainly fine with me, Sean. I think that's fairly typical, particularly when, to Seth's point, there are this many plantings that we're talking about. Yeah, we'll go with that, everybody. Yeah. For the record, Jenny Brown is joining us. Yes. Hi, sorry about that. No, you're good. Okay, Linda, anything else? Nope. Are you good with that? I do see a raise hand. One second. So commissioners, we're good. I guess this will be Skip, who has a comment. Yeah, it's Skip Miller. I'm 121 Dudley, next door to the property that we're discussing. I know I keep saying the same thing, but my opinion is the house is too big for the site, and this is just one more example of the same thing that keeps coming up. If there's any hardship with getting enough trees, the solution is don't cut down so many trees. Then you won't need to replant many. It's very simple, just like all the engineering tricks that we're doing with every other facet of the project. Okay. All right. So we are cutting down all the big old-growth trees. We all know that the canopy is very important as far as erosion, sediment control. It's a steep, complicated site. The roots. We're destroying everything that's really important to that site and then planting shrubs to try and make up for it, and it's just not even close to the same. Okay. I think Lisa's point is a very good one, in that we need to try and find more trees than shrubs to try to balance what we're doing. And slightly related to this is the center of the circle, which is immediately next door to this property, which is going to lose a ton of trees as well. So we're dramatically changing this immediate little microcosm. And shrubs aren't going to do it. They're not going to do it. They're not going to do it. They're not going to do it. And I'm no horticulturist, but it looks like there are tons of plants crammed together. I don't know what type of spacing we need, but expecting shrubs to grow on top of shrubs on top of plants vertically stacked, it just doesn't work. There should be a review to see if this planting plan is even viable. And if it even has a chance of surviving for a year, two years, three years. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And I'd also like to know what happens when and if it doesn't survive. We're just going to be left with a barren lot with a mansion on it. It just seems like, again, there's been so many mistakes on this property. The last thing we need is another. And this planting plan, as far as I can tell is just insanely dense. I don't know how plants can live like that. And shrubs do not replace old growth canopy trees. And I think we need to really, really try and find a way to get more older, larger, more mature trees onto the property. Or, as I've been saying, reduce the size of the house and reduce the amount of trees that are getting cut.
I would err on that side, but if we can't, make a planting plan work with trees, not shrubs. Thank you for considering my concerns. Thanks, Skip. Again, just for the record, they have to have two years of growing before we can sign off on the... So, yes, they have to come back and actually have them growing. They can't just throw them in. That helps.
And they can't be removed later, can they? No. No. Okay. I can speak to the sizing of kind of what we're showing. Right now, we're showing the smaller shrubs. Three feet on center, which is quite typical for a lot of the species we're showing. And then the larger shrubs, we're showing at six feet on center, which is, again, quite typical for what we're doing. And we definitely don't want to overcrowd the space. So, we would nestle them into the existing woodland. And I think, kind of as we discussed earlier, I think if we can make more trees work within the existing woodland area, we're definitely open to that and reducing the shrubs. And increasing the trees. Thanks, Elizabeth. Appreciate it. Yeah. I just have a question, probably more for Linda. So, just because we got another notice again, right? So, we already have water restrictions in place. Right now, it does not include new plantings. But going back several years, we've been in a drought situation. And I think at one point last year, it wasn't just the drought, right? It was also the issue with the well. But we couldn't even hand water. So, I just want to understand, you know, if there's someone here who can... Who can answer that question, make sure that, you know, when people commit to these plantings, they're going to be able to water no matter what. Because this is going to require a lot of water. But there might be more strict bans in place as we go through the years, unfortunately. But I just wanted to bring it up because it's a big undertaking. No, I agree. Typically, we do have conditions and perpetuities that do not allow sprinkler systems in the first under feet of a wetland buffer. However, we do allow... You know, one of those perforated hoses, you know, that can... On a temporary basis, because I think that would be impossible to hand water all this huge thing. And again, you know, we can't control the restriction on the water ban, if that's the case. So, you know, if it's new plantings, they can water. But I, you know, again, you know, that's... Who knows what it's going to be like in the next year or two, whether or not we still have a drought or a severe drought. You know, that's something I guess none of us can control. But we do allow, like I said, for a little bit more better watering system than other than sprinklers for a temporary basis, you know, for the first probably year or two while they're growing. So... Mission good? So, I think we're going to let Linda have a final approval on based on what's available at the nursery before it's in the ground, right? Yes. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make the motion? Sure. Can we... Oh, sorry. Sorry. Just because we also had the comment earlier. I mean, can we agree at least to a range of... Even if it's just two and a half dbh instead of the 27 trees and 100 shrubs, it's 40 trees or something. Can we get like some sort of range of what we would accept? Because I do think we need to increase the number of trees versus shrubs, at least by some amount.
How would you suggest we do that? If we don't know what's there? And remember, whatever we do here, we do for everybody. So, if they're covering our guidelines... Well, I guess more... What I guess what I'm thinking is there's the seven to-be-determined trees that are at our discretion that are over 24 inches. And again, I don't have as much history on the commission as everybody else, but the plan is set forth, has 27 trees. And so, yes, you're right. Chapter 194, you can replace with shrubs, but those trees over 24 inches, it's at our discretion. If I may, Mr. Chairman. What was that? So, yeah, but we'll bring that up to Linda. So, are you asking Lisa to give us, to give Linda a parameter to play in, you mean? Yeah, that would be fine. I'm sure you're hearing what you're saying. Okay. And what would you suggest that... What are you suggesting? Like, how would you...
I mean, there's... Right, there's seven... There's seven trees that are very large that are coming down. And those are the ones that have, like, 12 shrubs listed. You know, can they be five trees instead per... I mean, it's a lot, right? I'm asking for a lot. I don't know what's even possible. So, I'm just looking for other people to... No, I agree. I mean, I think that's the direction we're going anyway with our Chapter 193 requirements, you know, that we're asking for more trees. And after this town meeting ended, and after... After the floodplain management bylaw is getting accepted, we probably will be changing our Chapter 194 regulations to be in line with the Chapter 193. So, you know, at some point in the near future, that is all going to change. So that, you know, it's... You know, we're more than happy to start making... You know, moving in that direction, I think. But maybe we can make it, you know, that at least... The seven larger trees will at least have another 14 trees and shrubs. Or, you know, we're going to have another 14 trees and shrubs. You know, it may be a better, you know, or maybe a better ratio than that. But we could start with that, just because, again, the site seems to be pretty tight, you know, as far as tree plantings. That's what I'm thinking. Yeah. I mean, does that make sense? That for the larger trees that we're going to at least require at least two trees to, you know, and shrubs to be replacing those?
Anybody? I guess. Yeah, that sounds fine with me. Sure. I get... Yeah, sorry, Linda. I thought you were asking that more of the applicant team. Like, is that... Right. Is that feasible? Yeah, I mean... I guess this is a question I would now ask for the applicant team. I mean, does this sound feasible? I heard you saying you're open and amenable to more trees instead of shrubs. You're going to work with Linda. We all understand and appreciate that there are the realities of what's available at the time that the planting is going to occur. But are you open to what Lisa just laid out? Oh, we are. If I can... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I apologize for speaking over people earlier. As Mr. Goodmanson mentioned, he's the applicant. His desire is to actually plant larger trees where feasible. So exactly as you said, if it's feasible to do so, the intent would be the nursery has whatever DBH native plant available or native tree available, and we would like to sub out some of those smaller ones where feasible. And so that's if there's an open space that that tree can plant. can potentially thrive, we would absolutely like to bring that to Linda and say this would be the exchange in compliance with the regulations. So the numbers that are put forward now, they are indeed in compliance with the regulations. And we would like to be able to have the flexibility to bring that change administratively to Linda and say, we want to do something bigger and better. It's not a request to come to a change and say, hey, we promised you guys this, but the nursery only has 15 of whatever, where we said we were going to do 20, so we're only going to do 15 now. That's not what we're asking to do. We're asking to have the flexibility to work with the site and put in something bigger where appropriate. Gotcha. Yep. Commissioner, do you want to go with that? Go ahead, Barbara. This site, remember how steep it is. It's a very steep slope. How in the world are they going? To plant trees on that steep slope, I just don't. They couldn't get their equipment down there. You have to use a crane or something to. I think this is partially why we are leaning towards more shrub replacement than trees. That's my whole point, because this is too steep. It's a slope. And that's why I opposed this. I was on the original hearings and didn't like them. And so far, I don't see how this is possible. So just so I'm clear, Barbara, you're saying you don't want more trees than shrubs? I don't want anything above this slope. Right. It's too. It's too. It's too steep. It's it's you know, has every has have we all been there? Have we all seen it? Yes. Yes. So I go back to what's in our jurisdiction. We don't get to just it over that. This is being built. So what we're saying, we can't have them replace trees with the slope. Well, it's going to be what Lisa said. So how do we. Extremely difficult. That's right. That's not on us. So if they can't, they come back every two years, have to get replant, replant, replant, or they already hold up their own LLC. So I mean, technically, that's the mechanism that they can't replace it. If they have an open order in perpetuity, they can't sell the house. I mean, in the dystopic view of that of that, I go back to. So I go back to Lisa. I'm I don't want to get back into which tree and at which shrub if Linda's OK with it based on what's available based on what there are. Barbara say great I don't want any any say in that um so that's kind of my point I know it's steep and they may not be able to put trees in there so that's where I was kind of going back to what are we actually asking Linda to do so I'll go back to I'm okay if Linda clears this and they comply with our permit we either change the permitting process what we require or suck it up but we can't require them to do something we're not requiring everybody else to do is my point so no but Lisa did bring up a good point is that you know the larger trees that are greater than 24 inches we have a lot more um flexibility and what we can require and I think what I can put in there is in you know in the order of conditions to say is that you know the you know there is you know um preference for more trees on this on the slot in the planting plan if that can be accommodated so I mean I guess that's the only thing we can do at this point so okay right I feel like I'm Barbara and Lisa are taking two different things Barbara wants I mean I'm trying to I'm trying to go in the middle of the I'm trying to go in the middle of the I'm trying to go in the middle of the road saying that we can try to accommodate more trees but again it might be site conditions or landscape plan that make it impossible but I mean at this point that might you know I don't think we can make come up with a 100 decision on this when um you know it's uh let's kind of wait and see right that's what I was saying giving you the final approval when the plan comes in with with the what's available in the nursery yep so we go with that commission yes no maybe yeah I'm yeah I'm good giving Linda the discretion but I'm just going to Barbara's point you know with the planting plan as proposed even with the shrubs Barbara do you have a concern with the slope
even with all the shrubs or you're just concerned about the tree new tree plantings are you speaking to me yes I'm concerned about the whole project
on that slope
is there anything else we can do in our jurisdiction about it oh yeah I'm not I'm that's an open question if there is let's talk about it I mean the challenge is to building the house is not in our jurisdiction you know all we're doing is allowing the the construction of it within 100 feet of the buffer so that's really I mean we're only worried about the footprint okay right um okay uh oh wait one more comment uh Andrew uh Cohen I think it was where can you hear me yep good I live a 20 more road in Wayland Massachusetts I'm the architect for the Goodman's and Greenleaf's Barbara I respect your opinion tremendously but I do want you to understand that the house is occupying the steepest portion of the site and the there are of areas on the site that are not as steep and that are going to be very conducive to planting all the trees and shrubs that elizabeth has shown on her planting plan the steepest part of the site is going to accommodate a house that is being nestled into the slope and that there if you look at where the trees are proposed and where the shrubs are proposed they are not on this ledge they are not on this kind of dramatic escarpment they are on areas of the site that are very much appropriate for the planting of trees and shrubs so that's all i would like to add at this time okay thanks andrew that's helpful thank you so commissioner we good believe me is there one more hand i can't tell whose hand that is a skip from before sorry oh sorry before i don't know how to put it back down i'm sorry um so yeah so i might want to make the motion then sure i moved it we close the public hearing under the state wetlands protection act and chapter 194. thank you luke do i hear a second anybody second thank you lisa roll call please luke legere yes barbara howell no no we're closing barbara closing you're saying no to closing the hearing oh oh did you close the hearing oh yeah okay lisa oven yes jenny brown um should i abstain since i came halfway through yep you can do that thanks yep sean fares yes next motion luke yes i move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under the state wetlands protection act and chapter 194 with conditions as discussed and contingent upon linda being satisfied uh with the ultimate planting plan uh working collaboratively with the applicant team also as discussed previously thank you luke two a second please second thank you lisa uh roll call please luke lajere yes barbara howell no lisa aubin yes sean fair is a yes and jenny browns abstaining all right all set thank you very much i know this was a long review and we appreciate all your work on this and working with you on it no worries thanks Thanks for listening to our comments and responding to them. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Take care. Public meetings, number 3A. This is 8 Hobbs Road, D-1055. Request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to Waylands, Wetlands, and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Ann Budner for the replacement of a septic system at 8 Hobbs Road in Wayland, Mass. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 43, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boarding vegetated wetland and 200-foot riverfront area. Linda. We have the engineer on who can present the project to us. Okay.
Who's that? Alex. Sorry, I was muted. All right. That's no good. This is Alec Chonger. So Chonger's Engineering representing the applicant. Can you guys see my screen share? Yep, we can. Yes. Perfect. So pretty simple project. It's a septic replacement. They're selling the home and failed Title V. Excuse me. We're proposing to put the system in the front yard. There's a river. There's a perennial stream across the street on Hobbs Road over on number 3 Hobbs Road. As you can see right here, the 100-foot riverfront buffer is shown in black, and then there's a small little BVW as well, and that blue line or cyan blue, whatever they call it, that's the 100-foot BVW buffer. As for the site, you can't really tell. By this particular plan, but it is very steep and it drastically goes up, and it's not a good place for a septic system, which is why we're tucking in the front yard. This is really the only lawn area of the property. It's going to be a presby. It'll provide a little bit of additional treatment versus conventional. It'll be not really a mounded system, about six inches higher, and it'll blend nice with the landscape. We got comments from the Board of Health, very, very minor, just a couple standard comments that get revised. I'll submit that to the Board of Health hopefully by end of week. Other than that, I'm happy to take any questions.
Okay. Thank you. Linda, start with you, please. Oh, what do I have? Tree removal. Is it just the one that I saw on there? Yeah, just one. I don't have the type of tree. It's like an ornamental. It's nothing. I can try to pull it up on Google Street View real quick, if you like.
All right. Give me one second. I got to stop sharing here and then I'm sharing the screen. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Do you know Darren's schedule, Alex? Is he going to get to this before he takes some time off? I see, Darren's taking time off. I didn't. Oh, you guys. Yeah, I didn't. I am. I am. I can probably get if that's the case, I can definitely brush those. I can revise those comments by tomorrow. So we do that. Thank you for the input. I didn't know that. But that's the this is the tree that's shown that some sort of ornamental tree. I don't I don't know what the type is or not. Or some tree. Well, but that will be removed and I can share back to the screen if you guys are else I can put my plan back if you guys are all set with this one I think the only thing that I think Barbara might bring up and I'll bring up is that we just need datum on the plan and we're going to ask for that in the in the um as built yep it's on datum it's under uh where did I see that I didn't hear you are correct I did write it I did say assumed on it but it is navd88 so I can just correct my yeah I couldn't find the note on that either no I I did it's a it is on navd88 I just if you look under my under note number nine under general notes I didn't change it it does say assumed so it is on navd88 I can certainly update that for you uh can you see right here that that's where I typically do it it does say assumed but it is it is on grid I see no note nine which tell me it's it's under general notes number nine I it's a typo it's it says oh but it is on grid on navd88 I can it's I can just revise that on my plan because the contours are on grid I use my gps for this I just didn't update that note yeah because herons aren't aren't datum okay so just saying yep nope absolutely all my plans are on datum that's just sometimes I forget to get that note so anything else uh no just quick type on the first page um we're not the town of Newberry sorry um and that's just except timing is also required versus uh sure you're moving on um I would have fan vote um should have sleepened on that it was since the round the week that was that was just a typo then signature was there was no signature on the checklist but we do have a signature on the permit so I'm okay with that um you know that's it I think Okay good okay okay I'm good Linda's good a more on make the motion yes I move that we issue a negative determination under the Act and a Permit Under Chapter 194 Lisa, roll call please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. And Sean Ferzi, yes. All set. Thank you guys, have a good night. Thanks, you too. It's on the 3Bs, 23 Alpine Road, D-1056, request for determination of applicability, file pursuant to Wayland Wetlands and Water Resource Protection By-law and the Wetland Protection Act, submitted by Mark McKinley for the tree removal at 23 Alpine Road in Wayland Mass. The property, I'm sorry, the proposed work is to do 100 feet of aborted vegetative wetland and the property is shown on Assessor's Mat 06, Parcel 02. Linda? Do we have anybody on here for this? I'm on here. Oh, you are? Yes, this is Mark McKinley from 23 Alpine Road. Okay, well, so we talked about this a couple of times, I think, in the office here. The only thing is is that, you know, because a lot of trees were already taken down with the construction of this house, it's cumulative, so we are gonna need some sort of replacement trees for these, and I didn't see that in the application.
Yes, this is Mark McKinley, yes. So the replanting, I've started working with Abolited Grass,
Joanna McCoy there, to set up whatever the required replantings that we'll be needing. Okay. There are two of the four trees that we are removing will be,
and so we're just, I guess, in that preliminary process. Okay. Well, we can do it two different ways. We can hold off until we have a planting plan before the conservation approves this, or the other option is that they can approve this with a condition that I'm gonna wait to issue until I get a planting plan and have a chance to review it. So.
I'm assuming it's not complex. Linda, let me kick it back to you for permission. Would you feel comfortable doing it? Me? Yeah, if we allowed it and say, okay, I'm pretty sure we're not throwing you too much on your plate. Yeah, I mean, one of them is dead, so we're not gonna replace that anyway, so. Okay. Red maple, why are we taking down that red maple? There's one red maple that's damaged that's actually outside the buffer zone. I just included it in here so that the commission was aware of all the proposed activity on the property. It has damage on the kind of lower trunk and the canopy's been thinning. In the last nor'easter, a large limb fell down. All these trees that we're removing are within striking distance of the house. And so that's our primary impetus is just for safety purposes to remove these houses, or sorry, remove these trees. But Mark, you will need to replace the red maple though, because like I said, it's a cumulative process. The previous trees weren't taken out all that long ago for the construction of this house. I understand. It's just additive at this point, you know, what you're doing. So if you, and that falls under our chapter 193 requirements for a compensation, okay? Sure, yeah. Okay, commission, we good? Trans over for me with Linda, work with the applicant. Yes, yes. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay, okay. No hands, say hands up since I wanna make a motion. Sure, I move that we issue a negative determination under the act and a permit under chapter 194 with conditions as discussed and contingent upon Linda being satisfied with the forthcoming planting plan. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Ferzi, yes. Errol Set. Thank you very much. Thanks. On to 3C, 17 Sylvan Way D-1057, another request for a determination of applicability filed pursuant to Wayland Wetlands and Water Resource Protection By-law and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Ransom Shaw for the replacement of the septic system at 17 Sylvan Way in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarding vegetated wetlands. Property is shown in assessor's map 25, parcel 71. Linda. Oh, well let Vito take over. Just tell us about the project. Hey, Vito. Good evening. Vito Colon with Connor Stone Engineering. Just share the screen. Okay. So this is a septic replacement and it's at 17 Sylvan Way. They have a existing house here in the kind of central portion of the lot. The whole rear portion of the lot is a BVW delineated right across the back here. That 100 foot buffer extends approximately to the front edge of the house through here. The existing system is in the backyard kind of bubbled and red that's the approximate location of it. And it's in failure essentially because it's in the groundwater table. Groundwater in the backyard is, is very, very, very, very, very, backyard is you know very shallow it's maybe two feet down at best so that system's sitting in the groundwater table which has caused the failure the proposal what we're doing is going to replace the existing septic tank here with a new septic tank that also has a fast treatment system in it so it's similar to like a small treatment plant essentially and then from there we're going to pump it around to the front yard outside the buffer and put a new leach field out in that front yard area the soils here were very I guess to say poor the perk rate we have is a 60 minute an inch which is essentially the slowest you can have so it does make this system in the front yard very large so it is kind of fit in there as best we could this treatment system does allow us a 50 percent reduction in size so that's actually a 50 size of a conventional system that would be out there so work in the actual buffer zone is just for replacement of those two tanks it's all lawn area right there so there'd be no tree clearing required to get those tanks in and our limited work would come around the side of the house there are some existing trees along this edge right here and it does look like we can get alongside them with some tree with some clearing of the limbs to get up there we wouldn't remove the actual trees along the property line we think we can just squeak by there to get those tanks in in the back in the front there is some tree removal but it is all outside the buffer zone we have one Oak or Maple right here in the middle of the system and then another Oak down this end the system does require us to shift the driveway right now the existing driveway it's kind of off to the side right through where the system will have to go so just to go straight into the garage but that is where the there's an existing Oak tree right through there and then there are also two ornamental trees but like I said they're all outside the buffer zone there'd be no tree clearing in the back here during the construction we just have this standard erosion barriers around the limit of work and that work in the back should not take too long since it's just two tanks and then we restabilize with grass right after completion I think that's all I have any questions thanks Vito Linda start with you please oh um the delineation was done in December and I I I can't agree with it at all um I you know I pulled up the delineation that was done for 15 Sylvan Way which is right next door and they have the wetland delineation well inside that iron rod you know that's on the corner yeah and this delineation has it outside well you know to the back of that iron rod which puts the shed basically in the wetlands so and the fact that it was done in December I just I and then she has she has like GC1 like back towards the backyard whereas that would never line up with a delineation on 15. okay again you know way forward kind of almost forward of the 15 foot line even you know in accordance with the so I think I think it either has to be re-delineated or we have to do something creative like um uh ask for the shed to be moved outside of the wetlands um you know uh you know typically we always ask for a 15 foot vegetated buffer but again I mean that easily that maple's got to be within almost right at the borderline of the recording but I don't know what you know I mean I don't know if it makes sense um then go back up take a look at it uh now that it's you know springtime growing season um and then coordinate directly with you on you know if there's if they feel that it does need to be moved as you're saying we can move it as strongly that is where it is we'll have them to coordinate directly with you okay I can I can send you the plan I have for a 15. okay I think I have it oh yeah you guys did that thank you that's right it says Sullivan and Connors on here yeah yeah I remember that one it's been a while but I remember okay yeah I mean it's I mean it's it's easily you know 25 feet difference and you know that I don't think the wetlands change that much I mean people in this neighborhood are well known we've had a number of that already so anyway that also the wetland the street view diagram I know my copy is completely it's just black so I don't know what we got maybe Barbara got the color version no I have just black yeah black and we're supposed to be deciding if if we have to know the wetlands yeah and we've been through this this before with with guarded before because I have pointed this out more than once with this that they do it in December or we have certain period where they have to do it otherwise we can't accept it yeah yeah we'll have them get back out there and take a look yeah yeah I wish you would because like I said this is there's this is considerably different from what we we had at the neighbors you know it wouldn't even line up with it and uh again not only is the street view black but everything and and uh the God report like the FEMA floodplain match the soil survey the picture of the wetland resource area it's just black you know it's it's I don't know what happened oh and the ortho photo is black so um it'd be nice to have a better a better version of this yeah I'll see what maybe got scanned yeah that's what it looks like I'll hold it up weird yeah I thought yeah I don't know that's weird because yeah because mine came out mine looks fine it must be when it got scanned in or something okay and then um I forget to mention you have uh board of health it still has to go to a public hearing with Florida Health also one of the meetings and that's June 15th so we wouldn't be able to we have a little bit of time between then anyway um so no matter what we're going to look to continue anyway so do you want to continue after June 15th then yeah I think do you have a meeting the 17th oh questions I looked at this guy I think it was yeah you're right that would be three weeks from the 27th that would probably be a good day because that way we hopefully get through Board of Health hopefully get the wetlands looked at um and if they are that different it might give us some time to you know if we have to modify anything in time okay yeah I think for the health we want to know that too you know where the actual wetlands are yeah um and then I guess is there any other items too I we didn't I don't know if we finished going around with everybody so yeah anything else I know we're continuing to the 17th but any else from our end other than what Lisa mentioned or Linda mentioned no I mean based on the soils it doesn't seem like there are a whole lot of options and it appears to me that uh this has been designed as far away from the wetlands as possible so yeah I don't have anything more to add no I agree but I mean sometimes that might change whether or not the shed is in the wetlands it might change if you the oak tree might be in the wetland buffer zone you know or the other tree removal so I I Linda I agree entirely I'm just saying I don't have anything else you're not going to do anything about the design of the septic I'm I'm kind of more it's you know more important so okay all right well we don't need a motion for a continuance um so yes we'll be back on the 17th of uh June then sounds like okay all right all right Vito we'll see you then thank you thanks oh he's going to be right back yep well all right well we're on stormwater land disturbances for a 43 Barney Hill Road swld-160 Linda did we vote did we vote to continue it wasn't a public it wasn't a public hearing oh oh that's right um so Linda uh 43 Barney Hill Road what we got we're right back to Vito again on this one so yeah all right Vito okay let me just get the screen going okay all right um so on this one we have a existing single family house it's shown in this kind of uh lighter yellow color actually I think I have an existing this is the existing conditions plan here where they have uh the existing house in the middle gravel driveway uh up to Barney Hill Road and and then they generally have a kind of limit of yard it's not a some portions are well kept and some kind of a little bit overgrown but essentially this front area is their yard area itself uh in the back there's an off-site Wetland uh located off property in the back with a 100 foot buffer extends up essentially to the edge of kind of the existing clearing where the septic system is um over in this location uh that septic is fairly recent I think it's two or three or two years old I think it is um so that's a fairly recent installation uh right there so their proposal right now I can switch over there we go is kind of two components uh they build them in essentially two phases the first one was this addition off the side of the house um and that would also have a garage in it off that side so they'd come in expand the driveway um and the driveway itself they'd kind of loop together kind of create a looping driveway bring that driveway over connect it up to the garage area and what they proposed for the driveway is only a small section of pavement right in front of the garage areas just so they can park there and you know kind of use it for basketball and whatever and then the remainder portion of the driveway, they're going to use a permeable gravel system. It's basically like a geogrid. It gets infilled with gravel so it can take the loads but also pass stormwater through it. So they use that permeable gravel surface for the remainder of the driveway. And then redo the existing gravel driveway in that same type of surfacing material just to give it a little bit extra permeability. And then the second component that they would kind of complete after would be an ADU in the backyard with a pool and patio area out that lower level. So this is kind of a walkout basement in the back, and they're looking to put a pool and patio right out that walkout with an ADU in the back. As far as stormwater itself goes, we were looking to take the roof drains from the proposed addition in a portion of the existing house and send it to a subsurface dry well under the driveway. Out front would take an area drain. They collect a lot of surface runoff, anything that came off the driveway or kind of this green area, also send that to a dry well. And then in the back, similar situation would take the roof water from the ADU and the entire pool patio surface and send that to a dry well for infiltration. All those were sized to mitigate up to the 100-year storm, so it would control the rate and volume through all those storm events. The only discharge point – we had three discharge points. We looked at one to the rear, one is the small area off the side that goes to the abutter to the south, and then there's a little portion of the driveway right here that goes to Barney Hill Road. So we looked at all three of those points, and we controlled the rate and volume to all three points, leaving the site for all storm events. The overall limit of work is about 21,000 square feet, and that would be delineated with this erosion barrier to set that limit of work during construction. There is some tree removal. They are looking to save as many as they can. Up front, they would save these larger pine trees, kind of wind that driveway right through them since it's just going to be a gravel surface with that shallow grid system. They should be able to save those trees. But they do have a tree up in here that is a 10-inch. I think it's a maple, but I'm not positive. And then they also have a 17-inch tree and a – sorry, a 15-inch tree in the back that would require removal. And all we did, we just showed the mitigation size on the plan. We didn't actually have a specific planting plan, but at the top of the plan, it just shows total diameter removed was 42, and then the replacement would be 21 inches of diameter. I think that's how the bylaw goes now, the regulations going out. So we just showed that replication. We didn't have an actual plan at this point. And then, again, we're looking to see what the plan looks like. And then, again, if there's any problems with the plan, we can't say for sure, but it's a very, very good idea to And then the only component of the dry well is just to kind of note, we had soil testing done. It was done by Ted Doucette up in this area. It showed no groundwater to the bottom of test holes. So we have good depth of groundwater. And up here, we had a little bit slower perc rate, 25 minutes an inch, so we used that for the design of these front two. And then in design of the septic back here, which was done by our office, we had a faster perc rate, so we used that in design of this system at the bottom. But all the testing showed no groundwater restrictions or restrictions to ledge on the site. So that was good at least for that component of it. I think that is everything I can think of for now to get started. I guess we'll hand it back over. Okay. Linda, any thoughts? What do I have here? So the aerial photo from 2023 shows that they... It looks like they've already done it. They've already done some clearing from 2023 to 2026. And I know that I think they purchased the house in 2023, where the proposed addition is. It looks like there's been some clearing over there already. So we'll have to... If that's the case, we'll need a true removal count at some point, because again, it's cumulative. It'd be nice to have some inspection templates in the O&M plan. Okay. Okay. And is that done by Board of Health yet? Yeah, just because the septics were already in place. So everything... No new septic work other than the connection, which was stub was already left in the previous installation. So they... Oh, because I just... I figured Darren would want to see where you have the Coltec, which is the one in the back. Is the offset enough then? Yeah. We kept the 25 feet. Okay. Title five. But we can certainly send this over to Darren just to see. Yeah. Yeah. Just for his look-see and see if he has any comments. Yeah. Because before it goes to building... I mean, before you get a building permit, there's going to need to be stamped by Board of Health anyway. So it might be worthwhile touching base with him. I think one of the questions... And you wrote in the description that there's a potential vernal pool. Is that nearby or is that on the site? No, it's offsite. It's off... I don't have the mapping up. But it's offsite to the left, somewhere where there's a... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Down there to the left. Okay. I don't think... I don't have the map up. Yeah. I mean, the wayside has a huge conservation restriction on it. The back of 11 wayside, and I think the other one, whatever that one is, nine. So it's probably... It's most likely in there so that's back there. So... Okay. But it's a huge project. I don't know if you guys saw that it's over almost... Over 9,000 square feet of new... impervious and yeah this is you know this is really beyond my abilities to to um to review this you know the because there's a hydrocrine model with it so i think we i think the commission needs to decide how they want to handle this one okay in terms of getting a third party review yeah if this is going to require that i mean for me you just kind of answered it by saying you'd like one so no i mean i just can't i don't have the ability to review hydrocad models you know yeah no i'm not no i guess you're saying that's the easiest thing that we'll ever make um commission any reason we won't why we wouldn't no i i thought we needed one and then hearing linda uh just now i i'm with you sean i think it's seems obvious we need a peer review here okay um everybody's go to that commission yes okay while we're here can get a quick uh motion to hire a peer review for this one sure i move that we authorize linda to uh communicate with and recruit peer review consultants to help us with our review of this project thank you luke we'll hear a second second thank you babs roll call please luke legere yes barbara howell yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean fairs yes okay um so that'll be it for now then linda will yeah the only thing i wanted input about potential tree removal you know previous removal that was done so okay okay all right um do you know what meeting we should target do you want to just put it on for the next one i don't know if we'll get peer review back in time we can okay we just put it on then if something happens we gotta push it to the next one yeah that's fine so may 27th the next one okay okay perfect all right let's all go from here we're good to go we'll see you then okay all right thank you thanks good night uh on the five uh a this is the other category meeting schedule july to december 2026 linda oh i got nothing look at it make sure we're good you guys have to tell us if there's any sort of conflict or you know yep so i'll get back to linda on that please and thank you
5b topics not anticipated by the chair one thing um came to my attention today linda i saw her and talked to her then i sent an email out something along pequa and just basically digging a trench to unclog dudley no permit so um if we don't have a permit i like to openly talk about that in our next session um but you know um i should get the bottom of hey what happened be what why was it not without a permit pulled and if they're required to pull permit have them pull it and come back before us retroactively um so i was looking for the i wrote an email to mosquito control when this when this we had discussions about it again just give a little bit background for the commission there's an outfall pipe from pequa row that dumps right into that stream right where the aqueduct is. So yeah, there's a ton of sediment that's filled up in that area. It doesn't flow. You know, it's just basically, you know, it's stagnant water there because again, there's so much sediment. So there was some discussion about how to remove that. The MWRA was involved. They really wanted it gone. They wanted the water to flow under the aqueduct as opposed to pooling there. And so the decision was that maybe they should hire Mosquito Control to do that, you know, and Mosquito Control doesn't think they need permits for anything. So I don't know if you've had that experience, Luke, but I mean, they talked about, it wasn't until the contract was issued and I was CC'd on it. They were talking about dredging three to 400 feet of Dudley Brook for this one area of the sediment. And that's when I started getting a little bit more active and asked them why they didn't need a permit, why they thought that it was necessary to do that entire thing. And what really killed me was that the contract basically said they're going to have to do it. And I said, well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Take the dredge spoils and dump them on the banks. And this is all private property and it's wetlands. It's a bank. It's a perennial stream. And I just, it blew me away that they didn't really need any permits for this. And I asked the circuit rider and, you know, her, she hasn't had the best, you know, experience with Mosquito Control either, I don't think. And also that, that, you know, they, there's no, I even looked at case law, believe it or not. There's no recorded problem here with mosquito larvae, which I thought that would have to be documented. You know, if this, if it's Mosquito Control doing this, is this a problem area, you know, for mosquito larvae? And, and it just, you know, without having that documentation, it seems like they were kind of overstepping. So, and that was my, you know, and I basically told the homeowner that too, I said, I don't understand why they don't need a permit for this. And I really don't. And, and you can see now, you know, that the results of it, it's, it's, they're very unhappy, the homeowners there. So. So this might be real quick, two things. One, yes, there's the Mosquito Control, whatever they, their pitches to, but they aren't the ones who DPW hired them. So at the end of the day, DPW is in charge of what they hire people to do, what happens. So at a bare minimum, I would expect a heads up from our DPW. Here's what we're looking to do. There's a mosquito issue. We're looking to dredge or, Hey, we're hurting. We heard we don't need a permit, but the fact that we heard, didn't hear then after the fact. So I'd like to have DPW here to explain, but it's not for me, it's not a mosquito control issue. They can pitch whatever their, their BS pitches to, to municipalities. Great. At the end of the day, DPW owns this in my, in my personal opinion, if they want to blame on the mosquito control and go after them, happy to whatever that's them. But DPW was the one who did this in my opinion.
So I'd have them come, come speak to us and figure out, what they at a minimum, why they think it was a requirement to even let us know, let alone not get a permit, which I think they do need the permit. So I'll go ahead and fight that as well. But that's my, my two cents, unbelievable lack of respect and inner town, lack of respect. I'm not sure what goes on inner workings there, but that is lack of leadership from internally that this is, this happened. So we'll get to the bottom of it, but it's annoying that we have to police our own DPW. Where, where, where's the town manager in this? Where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, why they're not weekly meetings. This is, this is a gong show, but I'm tired of it. So I'd like someone to come explain to me next week or in the 27th. So either I can ask for that Linda, or you can, how best do we do this? I'm just shocked that they wouldn't even tell the homeowners, you know, this is their property. This is private property, the bank that, you know, they're, they're dumping all these dredge spoils on. And I mean that I would have thought notification would have been essential in this situation because now she's escalating it, you know, and, and, uh, she has every right to, so. Well, I just want to be very clear. She can escalate, that's her property. That's agreed. And I would too. On our end, there's a whole lot of different issues as well. And so I guess, shall I just email Tom Poehler and ask for him to come speak to us next, next, uh, meeting? Okay. I'll, I'll do that. I'll email Tommy. All right. Um, I'll cc Michael McCall because this is certainly under his watch. I don't know how this happens, but okay.
Anything else? I'm sorry folks. I need, I need to jump off. I apologize. Go Luke. Thanks brother. Have a good evening. We were waiting for your input. I have none. I would show it. I think we need to, you know, we need to hear from the people who are responsible for this, but, um, yeah. All right. Anyways, sorry. I gotta run. Have a good evening. All right. So I will email Tom Holder, ask for someone to come on the 27th, um, and explain themselves. And we can then at that point to discuss whether we require a permit or not, whether the mosquito control can say whatever they want. It's not their property, not, not their, not their backyard. So, okay. Well, that'll be fun. Um, I also have an update for 24 schools. I think way back when they used to spray, if, if you didn't want your property sprayed, you were supposed to tell the people downtown. That your property wasn't to be sprayed with mosquito stuff. Now they don't do any spraying, but in the old days, they were out here last week and sprayed by helicopter. Well, they can spray the wetlands. Yes. They spray the wetlands. With something, but they don't go up and down the streets. No, no. But they used to. In the old days. And you could say, you did not, you don't want your property sprayed. You'd have to request that. And that's the way it used to work. So Barbara, there is a little bit of caveat in that. I think if, if, if Wayland ends up having mosquitoes that have triple E have been tested for triple E, then they have a little bit more, um, uh, leverage to do stuff like that. There's a little bit of, in a way for the public to do the roadside spraying. But, um, let me very clearly that's not what this is. This is a way to get, this is a way to get around permitting to pretend as a mosquito issue. So there is all this is I'll say it very clearly. Um, so we'll, we'll, we'll discuss that openly with them next time, but that's not what this is. Um, real quick, 24 school street, you know, we did a denial, the applicant appealed, the denial to DEP. And. They, they, their attorney wrote a letter. know a few weeks ago they filed a motion they they don't want to go through the whole appeal process and the adjudicatory hearing they would much rather just refile with the conservation commission so that means we'll have a third notice of intent probably in the near future from them again with and who knows what sort of project that they will propose this time but um i you know we we have to i have to do a little bit of research on that because that means they have actually three um open pro project numbers already for this for this one site and um yeah i mean at some point they have to understand that we need to close those right so i'm looking at the web i think this predates me but i'm looking at the website i see like 2017. yeah predates i came on the commission was the other one yeah oh well before that yeah yeah 2015 maybe 2014. okay because i know i didn't see anything in the past year but that was the anrad they did in 2015 i think you know where they did the um area of research delineation and then after that they filed a notice of intent for the construction of a 12 12 townhouses on the property we denied that that went through a long appeal period and then he refiled again in 2020 um pandemic hit and there was like a two-year lag before he showed up he came back again and um and that's that was the you know the end of that was us denying the project again you know for um the same pretty much the same reasons so um okay we'll see you in the third time i'm looking forward to it before that so okay uh all right public comments there's no one here why would they be all right uh
we just had town meeting nobody wants any night meetings yet anymore do we oh i'm missing lacrosse uh babs how are we looking for april 15 20 26 uh meeting minutes we good to go i report i gave it i turned it in okay everybody else is good with it yeah yeah so we saved her um barbara's comments and she'll incorporate those so i'm guessing some minutes some edits in that so if you approve the minutes that will be with barbara's edits okay okay okay motion then please approve the minutes with babs edits
you're gonna say move as you want yeah so moved thank you lisa do i hear a second second okay thank you jenny roll call please barbara howell yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean there's a yes thank you last minute anything before we adjourn all right then we're down to the faithful four here we go uh last roll call please can't get a motion to adjourn for the evening so again you can say some move there you go perfect thank you lisa uh i'm gonna hear a second second thank you jenny uh roll call please barbara howell yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean fair is a yes we're all set you
This is not an in-person meeting, so I'll skip that part. This meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, it'll be made available to the public on Wacom as soon as possible after the meeting. Public may be excluded from executive session. In pursuit of Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person or via remote access in accordance with applicable law. If this meeting has only remote access, which it does, no in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch or may participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at the following link. And when required by law or allowed by myself, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location or in person where remote access is applicable. Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. With that, let's kick this off. Public hearings. This is 2A, 58 Pequot and Wayland, DEP file number 322-1064, continued notice of intent and file pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Sharon Botwinick for the construction of an addition and driveway expansion at 58 Pequot Road in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is within the 200-foot riverfront area and the property is shown on Assessor's Map 43A, Parcel 40. Linda. We finally have a DEP file number for this project, so we can probably close it out. I had a couple of questions, though, for either Jessica or Sharon. I'm here. I saw Sharon briefly. She's in a rehearsal tonight, so she's popping in and out. Oh, there she is. Thank you. So one of the comments by DEP was the amount of alteration and you had in your order of conditions or your notice of intent, I mean, you had listed 690, yet the revised plans that you submitted back in the beginning of April still says 928. So that was their question on the project. The last time we met, I thought we verbally... Oh, okay. Okay, yeah, but I had... That was prior to the... Oh, no, we saw the plan. Okay, I just want to confirm that verbally that it is 690, right? I estimated it to get it in for the very first meeting in March, and I estimated it as best I could, but then the engineer estimated it much better. So the new number is the right number. And I didn't know you could correct the paperwork, but if I could have, I would, but... So the right number is... Nine. 928, okay.
And did you receive back the green cards from your registered mail? I received them from one of the neighbors that's an abutter from two of the Wayland-owned properties, but did not receive them from the other three abutters. But I do have... I don't know why. I mean, they were sent over two months ago now, so I don't know why, but never received them from the other abutters. But I sent them, and I have copies of all of the ones I sent, so... Mm-hmm. Yeah, you submitted that. I just didn't... I didn't get it. There was no indication of when you sent those and if you had gotten green cards back, because that's... Yeah, I know it's... People just aren't home to... Go ahead. Sorry. No, people just aren't home to sign for certified mail, so that's often what the delay is, so... Anything else?
No, I'm good. Mission good?
Okay. Like that. Anyone want to make a motion, please?
Do I move that we close the public hearing under Chapter 194 and the Act?
Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Thank you, Babs. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Alvin? Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. Next motion, please, Luke. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the work proposed under both Chapter 194, and the State Wetlands Protection Act.
Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Alvin? Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. All set. Thank you. Thanks much. You got it. All right. Okay. On to number... For all your help, I hope the rest of your evening goes smoothly. Thanks, Sharon. Sure. Sorry, Sharon. You as well. Appreciate it. Thank you. 2B, this is 67A Loger Street in Wayland, DEP file number 322-1056. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland Wetlands and Water Resource Protection By-law and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Matt O'Connor for the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67A Loger Street in Wayland, Mass. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 42, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boardwalk. The apartment is processing yellowness and is functioning withoutẽ . Resridge is being planned to wait until May. As soon as possible. You know, I was going to say, I move that we continue this hearing under both the State Act and Chapter 194 to May 27th after 6.30 p.m. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Real quick, this is 2C68 Lake Shore Drive, DEP file number 322-1057. This is a continued notice of intent under both submitted by Jeremy Jenkins, also for continuation. Same date, Linda? It's the 27th as well? Yes. Okay. Can I get a motion under both of that for continuation, please? I move that we continue the hearings under both Chapter 194 and the State Act to May 27th after 6.30 p.m. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. And Sean Clair is a yes. Thank you.
Moving on to 2D. This is 123 Dudley Road, Wayland Mass, DEP file number 322-1061. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Joel Goodmanson for the construction of a single-family home, septic system, and stormwater management. The proposed work is within 100 feet of Dudley Pond and the property shown in the Assessor's Map 47A, Parcel 72. Lisa, Linda, excuse me. We'll hand it off to Seth to give us an update of what happened between now and the last time we met. I will be happy to. So, for the record, this is Seth Donahoe with Dillison Roy Civil Design Group. As you mentioned, I'm here tonight on behalf of Joel Goodmanson and Robin Glick. We're here today, mainly for a notice of intent that we submitted for a construction of a new dwelling at 123 Dudley Pond Road. The commission and your peer reviewer, we've had several occasions of back and forth, taking into consideration and recommendations that have been given to us throughout this process. Since the last meeting, the applicant has elected to essentially mirror the house and reduce the footprint slightly. When we originally started this project, there were concerns. There were concerns over the size of the house. Every meeting I've come to you, it feels like we're having the same conversation. We keep dropping it back, dropping it back. At the last meeting, we did receive a peer review comment letter from DGT Consultants, indicating that general compliance with Chapter 193, 194 stormwater requirements was in place, as well as the state's stormwater regulations, which are incorporated within those. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. This plan that I'm about to present to you is based on the DGT Consultants. that were presently in the prior design as well so we're utilizing the same infiltration area it'll now be receiving less impervious area and we also submitted a memorandum to the commission that documented the reduction in flow so the project will result in a reduction in the peak rate and volume of flow leaving the site and that's something that is required by your regulations so far right with your commission i will put up a screen view of the plan that was submitted please and hopefully it is there for you we got excellent excellent so the change the garage was previously on this side and the house was a slightly larger house so this was mirrored at this point and this was the stormwater infiltration area that was previously reviewed by your peer reviewer the collection system collects all of the impervious area of the site so that includes the roof of the in building as well as the driveway and that's conveyed to this area with a proprietary treatment device as well as some other features that help meet your local standards that was the bulk of the change the green area on this is is going to be re-vegetated and that was something that we had talked about in the previous presentation we had talked about in the previous presentation we had talked about in the previous presentation that we had talked back and forth that we had talked back and forth about and we did not have a planting plan at our last meeting about and we did not have a planting plan at our last meeting the client has retained gregory the client has retained gregory lombardi design group to put together that planting plan and elizabeth kenrick is on the call tonight if she would have the opportunity to be promoted to panelists or speaking abilities i can advance my screen to the actual planting plan that they've prepared okay hi everyone great so i'm going to move the plan forward for you elizabeth and if the commission desires to go back to some of the prior sheets after elizabeth is done i'll be happy to do so so as i mentioned we discussed having a planting plan put forward as part of this application they have now done so there is a complete planting list as well as tabulations on the top of how it meets your local requirements so with that i'll let elizabeth dive into the details of the plan they've prepared yeah so we've broken it out into the chapter 193 trees and then the plants for 194. so basically um to kind of keep things easier where we need 104.5 calibers for the 193 so right now we've shown those all as two and a half inch caliber trees and we're doing 42 of those and then for all the 194 plants you can see the breakout we've listed which tree and then if we're planning to replace it with the trees versus large versus small shrubs and we've talked a little bit about what we're going to do with the trees and then we've talked a little bit about what we're going to do with the trees and then we've talked a little bit about those kind of in the in the top of the bottom of the top columns um to the right so um right there yeah so we're proposing 27 trees 116 large shrubs and then the 285 small shrubs and then our specific plant list is below which is all made up of the native plants um as of now we've just done general planting zones a lot of it's going to depend on um the final availability of plants when it comes to the plant and then also where uh we want to kind of be aware uh when we're planting within the existing trees we're going to kind of shift things around to to not disturb the existing tree roots so um final final numbers and placement might change a little bit but ultimately we would meet the requirements um whether we swap out large versus small shrubs based on availability and there's also right now we're doing all two and a half inch caliber trees but if there's uh larger nicer materials available for some of the 193 trees we might upsize those and generally then downsize the quantity what's that what's the number on that on that plan you have up right now not the one i have i don't have that one either do i because i didn't have any names of the trees i think that was in our packet yeah okay yeah i do have three one but on the top it's says chapter 194 replacements where where do you have the chapter 193 replacements so basically the 193 and the 194 are all that included in the bottom all the quantities basically match that okay so so that the chart that you're pointing to right now though i think that's just the chapter 194 the detail there yeah so then seth if you kind of go down to the right where the plants are listed which one they were and then add at the bottom we're gonna add the one 193 one also the 193 and the 194 that was where the trees were placed so the trees in of course we are going to set them against each other but we can only use the tree range and just pretty much any tree capacity so so if i want to apply that to this astrology drop there then i need to
see if i want to清 zone or the frequency so you can see that that way tuwe i can see that as well
that I think was in the first column of chapter 194. They had a no for coming down, but they still had a DBH replacement.
What numbers? Could you read that back again? I wrote down 3119 and 3121, but I'm perhaps.
So if you look at 3119, I mean, these are small numbers, but I just noticed that, sorry, now I can't, now I can't see it. If you scroll up just a little bit more. Yeah, there's two trees there that have a no, but they have a replacement number next to them.
That one that the cursor's on. We can certainly check. So my hunch is that as we've revised this plan through several iterations here, some of the trees that were originally removed, if the commissioner calls, we actually ended up tightening up the work area on some of the earlier revisions that resulted from the. Request for changes, and that resulted in less trees. I think at our second hearing, we had a pretty significant reduction in the trees that were going to be proposed to removed. But if I recall correctly, Elizabeth, we had given you this total number that is the sum of all these columns, and that's exactly what you're replicating. So if the tree is not being removed at this time, it's still incorporated in the total number. It's still included in the total replication number. Okay.
I guess my general comment would just be if the applicant would consider, you know, we have, let me go back to my numbers. At least on Chapter 194, I think we have about 71, maybe 69 trees coming down, depending on those two that I just mentioned. And I know we're replacing with a lot of amazing native shrubs, but we're only replacing it with 27 trees, including those very old trees. Yeah. Yeah. So we're replacing with very large 24 plus trees. And I just didn't know if, you know, perhaps we can consider shifting some from shrubs to trees, depending on where there's room, just because the benefit of trees is that much more than shrubs. Again, it's not necessarily required, but the larger trees are certainly at more discretion. And I would just like to see if we can try to rebuild some of that density back, where it's possible. Yeah. I mean, I think we'd probably be open to that. I think we were leaning towards smaller just because we were wanting to minimize any disturbances to the existing tree roots and things that are out there. But if there's pockets that we can make that work, I think it's something we can, we would probably be open to. Yeah. And we'd be happy to consider that. And we're also very interested in looking for some trees that we can, you know, looking for opportunities to use fewer, but larger trees, if there are places where we can frankly get a machine in that can do that work and have some space for those trees to thrive. Right. I understand it can be probably challenging getting the newer trees that are larger in there, but even if it's, you know, lower caliper trees versus some of the shrubs, and again, the shrubs are great, just thought I'd bring that up, the more trees we can have in the mix, Sure. probably the better. You bet. No, we're, we're certainly open to do that.
And some of these trees don't really grow around here. We have one holly tree that I know of and it's at Greenways, but holly grows about to Marshfield and no further north than there. And. And another one that doesn't grow around here, I just saw it, is another, oh, inkberry, again, does not grow around here. Oh, I see. And. Again, I know, I know Shannon's not able to join, but I know she has planted a bunch of hollies in her yard and they seem to be doing well. It's a couple of years in, and now I have some babies in my yard. She lives next door to me. So I'm seeing a few. Pop up again, not, you know, that's only a data point of one. Yeah, we've had some warmer weather. Yeah, true. I mean, I would say we have used in our office, we've used both of those plants on on multiple other projects and they've thrived. But I think we would be open if you guys are opposed to those. For some reason, we would be open to adjusting to different shrubs if we need to. Well, I'm thinking. I'm thinking about the trees that if I make commissioners good, we've got to I think one of the things the applicants committed to meeting the requirement and to meeting that with native trees and shrubs, one of the things that will be something that will be a logistic situation here is nursery stock. There's a lot of plants here. And if I can recommend that. A condition of the oil. Yeah. We can have a good. And if I can get a good order, be that the final available stock at the time of planting be reviewed by Linda. And if you feel if Linda feels that we need to come back to the commission and discuss what's available and how that's going to be implemented into Gregory Lombardi's plan, I think that would certainly be worthwhile. But we're kind of getting into a very speculative realm here in that that we can agree that they want to do these. Depending on what's available in the spring that they go to plant them or the fall that they go to plant them. I would say the exact same thing. Long as you're clear with Linda before you plan it, I'm good. And so if we long as you maybe get more trees and shrubs, I think that would be great. But clear by Linda, that would be good with me. That's good with everybody else in the commission. Certainly fine with me, Sean. I think that's fairly typical, particularly when, to Seth's point, there are this many plantings that we're talking about. Yeah, we'll go with that, everybody. Yeah. For the record, Jenny Brown is joining us. Yes. Hi, sorry about that. No, you're good. Okay, Linda, anything else? Nope. Are you good with that? I do see a raise hand. One second. So commissioners, we're good. I guess this will be Skip, who has a comment. Yeah, it's Skip Miller. I'm 121 Dudley, next door to the property that we're discussing. I know I keep saying the same thing, but my opinion is the house is too big for the site, and this is just one more example of the same thing that keeps coming up. If there's any hardship with getting enough trees, the solution is don't cut down so many trees. Then you won't need to replant many. It's very simple, just like all the engineering tricks that we're doing with every other facet of the project. Okay. All right. So we are cutting down all the big old-growth trees. We all know that the canopy is very important as far as erosion, sediment control. It's a steep, complicated site. The roots. We're destroying everything that's really important to that site and then planting shrubs to try and make up for it, and it's just not even close to the same. Okay. I think Lisa's point is a very good one, in that we need to try and find more trees than shrubs to try to balance what we're doing. And slightly related to this is the center of the circle, which is immediately next door to this property, which is going to lose a ton of trees as well. So we're dramatically changing this immediate little microcosm. And shrubs aren't going to do it. They're not going to do it. They're not going to do it. They're not going to do it. And I'm no horticulturist, but it looks like there are tons of plants crammed together. I don't know what type of spacing we need, but expecting shrubs to grow on top of shrubs on top of plants vertically stacked, it just doesn't work. There should be a review to see if this planting plan is even viable. And if it even has a chance of surviving for a year, two years, three years. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. And I'd also like to know what happens when and if it doesn't survive. We're just going to be left with a barren lot with a mansion on it. It just seems like, again, there's been so many mistakes on this property. The last thing we need is another. And this planting plan, as far as I can tell is just insanely dense. I don't know how plants can live like that. And shrubs do not replace old growth canopy trees. And I think we need to really, really try and find a way to get more older, larger, more mature trees onto the property. Or, as I've been saying, reduce the size of the house and reduce the amount of trees that are getting cut.
I would err on that side, but if we can't, make a planting plan work with trees, not shrubs. Thank you for considering my concerns. Thanks, Skip. Again, just for the record, they have to have two years of growing before we can sign off on the... So, yes, they have to come back and actually have them growing. They can't just throw them in. That helps.
And they can't be removed later, can they? No. No. Okay. I can speak to the sizing of kind of what we're showing. Right now, we're showing the smaller shrubs. Three feet on center, which is quite typical for a lot of the species we're showing. And then the larger shrubs, we're showing at six feet on center, which is, again, quite typical for what we're doing. And we definitely don't want to overcrowd the space. So, we would nestle them into the existing woodland. And I think, kind of as we discussed earlier, I think if we can make more trees work within the existing woodland area, we're definitely open to that and reducing the shrubs. And increasing the trees. Thanks, Elizabeth. Appreciate it. Yeah. I just have a question, probably more for Linda. So, just because we got another notice again, right? So, we already have water restrictions in place. Right now, it does not include new plantings. But going back several years, we've been in a drought situation. And I think at one point last year, it wasn't just the drought, right? It was also the issue with the well. But we couldn't even hand water. So, I just want to understand, you know, if there's someone here who can... Who can answer that question, make sure that, you know, when people commit to these plantings, they're going to be able to water no matter what. Because this is going to require a lot of water. But there might be more strict bans in place as we go through the years, unfortunately. But I just wanted to bring it up because it's a big undertaking. No, I agree. Typically, we do have conditions and perpetuities that do not allow sprinkler systems in the first under feet of a wetland buffer. However, we do allow... You know, one of those perforated hoses, you know, that can... On a temporary basis, because I think that would be impossible to hand water all this huge thing. And again, you know, we can't control the restriction on the water ban, if that's the case. So, you know, if it's new plantings, they can water. But I, you know, again, you know, that's... Who knows what it's going to be like in the next year or two, whether or not we still have a drought or a severe drought. You know, that's something I guess none of us can control. But we do allow, like I said, for a little bit more better watering system than other than sprinklers for a temporary basis, you know, for the first probably year or two while they're growing. So... Mission good? So, I think we're going to let Linda have a final approval on based on what's available at the nursery before it's in the ground, right? Yes. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make the motion? Sure. Can we... Oh, sorry. Sorry. Just because we also had the comment earlier. I mean, can we agree at least to a range of... Even if it's just two and a half dbh instead of the 27 trees and 100 shrubs, it's 40 trees or something. Can we get like some sort of range of what we would accept? Because I do think we need to increase the number of trees versus shrubs, at least by some amount.
How would you suggest we do that? If we don't know what's there? And remember, whatever we do here, we do for everybody. So, if they're covering our guidelines... Well, I guess more... What I guess what I'm thinking is there's the seven to-be-determined trees that are at our discretion that are over 24 inches. And again, I don't have as much history on the commission as everybody else, but the plan is set forth, has 27 trees. And so, yes, you're right. Chapter 194, you can replace with shrubs, but those trees over 24 inches, it's at our discretion. If I may, Mr. Chairman. What was that? So, yeah, but we'll bring that up to Linda. So, are you asking Lisa to give us, to give Linda a parameter to play in, you mean? Yeah, that would be fine. I'm sure you're hearing what you're saying. Okay. And what would you suggest that... What are you suggesting? Like, how would you...
I mean, there's... Right, there's seven... There's seven trees that are very large that are coming down. And those are the ones that have, like, 12 shrubs listed. You know, can they be five trees instead per... I mean, it's a lot, right? I'm asking for a lot. I don't know what's even possible. So, I'm just looking for other people to... No, I agree. I mean, I think that's the direction we're going anyway with our Chapter 193 requirements, you know, that we're asking for more trees. And after this town meeting ended, and after... After the floodplain management bylaw is getting accepted, we probably will be changing our Chapter 194 regulations to be in line with the Chapter 193. So, you know, at some point in the near future, that is all going to change. So that, you know, it's... You know, we're more than happy to start making... You know, moving in that direction, I think. But maybe we can make it, you know, that at least... The seven larger trees will at least have another 14 trees and shrubs. Or, you know, we're going to have another 14 trees and shrubs. You know, it may be a better, you know, or maybe a better ratio than that. But we could start with that, just because, again, the site seems to be pretty tight, you know, as far as tree plantings. That's what I'm thinking. Yeah. I mean, does that make sense? That for the larger trees that we're going to at least require at least two trees to, you know, and shrubs to be replacing those?
Anybody? I guess. Yeah, that sounds fine with me. Sure. I get... Yeah, sorry, Linda. I thought you were asking that more of the applicant team. Like, is that... Right. Is that feasible? Yeah, I mean... I guess this is a question I would now ask for the applicant team. I mean, does this sound feasible? I heard you saying you're open and amenable to more trees instead of shrubs. You're going to work with Linda. We all understand and appreciate that there are the realities of what's available at the time that the planting is going to occur. But are you open to what Lisa just laid out? Oh, we are. If I can... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I apologize for speaking over people earlier. As Mr. Goodmanson mentioned, he's the applicant. His desire is to actually plant larger trees where feasible. So exactly as you said, if it's feasible to do so, the intent would be the nursery has whatever DBH native plant available or native tree available, and we would like to sub out some of those smaller ones where feasible. And so that's if there's an open space that that tree can plant. can potentially thrive, we would absolutely like to bring that to Linda and say this would be the exchange in compliance with the regulations. So the numbers that are put forward now, they are indeed in compliance with the regulations. And we would like to be able to have the flexibility to bring that change administratively to Linda and say, we want to do something bigger and better. It's not a request to come to a change and say, hey, we promised you guys this, but the nursery only has 15 of whatever, where we said we were going to do 20, so we're only going to do 15 now. That's not what we're asking to do. We're asking to have the flexibility to work with the site and put in something bigger where appropriate. Gotcha. Yep. Commissioner, do you want to go with that? Go ahead, Barbara. This site, remember how steep it is. It's a very steep slope. How in the world are they going? To plant trees on that steep slope, I just don't. They couldn't get their equipment down there. You have to use a crane or something to. I think this is partially why we are leaning towards more shrub replacement than trees. That's my whole point, because this is too steep. It's a slope. And that's why I opposed this. I was on the original hearings and didn't like them. And so far, I don't see how this is possible. So just so I'm clear, Barbara, you're saying you don't want more trees than shrubs? I don't want anything above this slope. Right. It's too. It's too. It's too steep. It's it's you know, has every has have we all been there? Have we all seen it? Yes. Yes. So I go back to what's in our jurisdiction. We don't get to just it over that. This is being built. So what we're saying, we can't have them replace trees with the slope. Well, it's going to be what Lisa said. So how do we. Extremely difficult. That's right. That's not on us. So if they can't, they come back every two years, have to get replant, replant, replant, or they already hold up their own LLC. So I mean, technically, that's the mechanism that they can't replace it. If they have an open order in perpetuity, they can't sell the house. I mean, in the dystopic view of that of that, I go back to. So I go back to Lisa. I'm I don't want to get back into which tree and at which shrub if Linda's OK with it based on what's available based on what there are. Barbara say great I don't want any any say in that um so that's kind of my point I know it's steep and they may not be able to put trees in there so that's where I was kind of going back to what are we actually asking Linda to do so I'll go back to I'm okay if Linda clears this and they comply with our permit we either change the permitting process what we require or suck it up but we can't require them to do something we're not requiring everybody else to do is my point so no but Lisa did bring up a good point is that you know the larger trees that are greater than 24 inches we have a lot more um flexibility and what we can require and I think what I can put in there is in you know in the order of conditions to say is that you know the you know there is you know um preference for more trees on this on the slot in the planting plan if that can be accommodated so I mean I guess that's the only thing we can do at this point so okay right I feel like I'm Barbara and Lisa are taking two different things Barbara wants I mean I'm trying to I'm trying to go in the middle of the I'm trying to go in the middle of the I'm trying to go in the middle of the road saying that we can try to accommodate more trees but again it might be site conditions or landscape plan that make it impossible but I mean at this point that might you know I don't think we can make come up with a 100 decision on this when um you know it's uh let's kind of wait and see right that's what I was saying giving you the final approval when the plan comes in with with the what's available in the nursery yep so we go with that commission yes no maybe yeah I'm yeah I'm good giving Linda the discretion but I'm just going to Barbara's point you know with the planting plan as proposed even with the shrubs Barbara do you have a concern with the slope
even with all the shrubs or you're just concerned about the tree new tree plantings are you speaking to me yes I'm concerned about the whole project
on that slope
is there anything else we can do in our jurisdiction about it oh yeah I'm not I'm that's an open question if there is let's talk about it I mean the challenge is to building the house is not in our jurisdiction you know all we're doing is allowing the the construction of it within 100 feet of the buffer so that's really I mean we're only worried about the footprint okay right um okay uh oh wait one more comment uh Andrew uh Cohen I think it was where can you hear me yep good I live a 20 more road in Wayland Massachusetts I'm the architect for the Goodman's and Greenleaf's Barbara I respect your opinion tremendously but I do want you to understand that the house is occupying the steepest portion of the site and the there are of areas on the site that are not as steep and that are going to be very conducive to planting all the trees and shrubs that elizabeth has shown on her planting plan the steepest part of the site is going to accommodate a house that is being nestled into the slope and that there if you look at where the trees are proposed and where the shrubs are proposed they are not on this ledge they are not on this kind of dramatic escarpment they are on areas of the site that are very much appropriate for the planting of trees and shrubs so that's all i would like to add at this time okay thanks andrew that's helpful thank you so commissioner we good believe me is there one more hand i can't tell whose hand that is a skip from before sorry oh sorry before i don't know how to put it back down i'm sorry um so yeah so i might want to make the motion then sure i moved it we close the public hearing under the state wetlands protection act and chapter 194. thank you luke do i hear a second anybody second thank you lisa roll call please luke legere yes barbara howell no no we're closing barbara closing you're saying no to closing the hearing oh oh did you close the hearing oh yeah okay lisa oven yes jenny brown um should i abstain since i came halfway through yep you can do that thanks yep sean fares yes next motion luke yes i move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under the state wetlands protection act and chapter 194 with conditions as discussed and contingent upon linda being satisfied uh with the ultimate planting plan uh working collaboratively with the applicant team also as discussed previously thank you luke two a second please second thank you lisa uh roll call please luke lajere yes barbara howell no lisa aubin yes sean fair is a yes and jenny browns abstaining all right all set thank you very much i know this was a long review and we appreciate all your work on this and working with you on it no worries thanks Thanks for listening to our comments and responding to them. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Take care. Public meetings, number 3A. This is 8 Hobbs Road, D-1055. Request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to Waylands, Wetlands, and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Ann Budner for the replacement of a septic system at 8 Hobbs Road in Wayland, Mass. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 43, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boarding vegetated wetland and 200-foot riverfront area. Linda. We have the engineer on who can present the project to us. Okay.
Who's that? Alex. Sorry, I was muted. All right. That's no good. This is Alec Chonger. So Chonger's Engineering representing the applicant. Can you guys see my screen share? Yep, we can. Yes. Perfect. So pretty simple project. It's a septic replacement. They're selling the home and failed Title V. Excuse me. We're proposing to put the system in the front yard. There's a river. There's a perennial stream across the street on Hobbs Road over on number 3 Hobbs Road. As you can see right here, the 100-foot riverfront buffer is shown in black, and then there's a small little BVW as well, and that blue line or cyan blue, whatever they call it, that's the 100-foot BVW buffer. As for the site, you can't really tell. By this particular plan, but it is very steep and it drastically goes up, and it's not a good place for a septic system, which is why we're tucking in the front yard. This is really the only lawn area of the property. It's going to be a presby. It'll provide a little bit of additional treatment versus conventional. It'll be not really a mounded system, about six inches higher, and it'll blend nice with the landscape. We got comments from the Board of Health, very, very minor, just a couple standard comments that get revised. I'll submit that to the Board of Health hopefully by end of week. Other than that, I'm happy to take any questions.
Okay. Thank you. Linda, start with you, please. Oh, what do I have? Tree removal. Is it just the one that I saw on there? Yeah, just one. I don't have the type of tree. It's like an ornamental. It's nothing. I can try to pull it up on Google Street View real quick, if you like.
All right. Give me one second. I got to stop sharing here and then I'm sharing the screen. Okay. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Do you know Darren's schedule, Alex? Is he going to get to this before he takes some time off? I see, Darren's taking time off. I didn't. Oh, you guys. Yeah, I didn't. I am. I am. I can probably get if that's the case, I can definitely brush those. I can revise those comments by tomorrow. So we do that. Thank you for the input. I didn't know that. But that's the this is the tree that's shown that some sort of ornamental tree. I don't I don't know what the type is or not. Or some tree. Well, but that will be removed and I can share back to the screen if you guys are else I can put my plan back if you guys are all set with this one I think the only thing that I think Barbara might bring up and I'll bring up is that we just need datum on the plan and we're going to ask for that in the in the um as built yep it's on datum it's under uh where did I see that I didn't hear you are correct I did write it I did say assumed on it but it is navd88 so I can just correct my yeah I couldn't find the note on that either no I I did it's a it is on navd88 I just if you look under my under note number nine under general notes I didn't change it it does say assumed so it is on navd88 I can certainly update that for you uh can you see right here that that's where I typically do it it does say assumed but it is it is on grid I see no note nine which tell me it's it's under general notes number nine I it's a typo it's it says oh but it is on grid on navd88 I can it's I can just revise that on my plan because the contours are on grid I use my gps for this I just didn't update that note yeah because herons aren't aren't datum okay so just saying yep nope absolutely all my plans are on datum that's just sometimes I forget to get that note so anything else uh no just quick type on the first page um we're not the town of Newberry sorry um and that's just except timing is also required versus uh sure you're moving on um I would have fan vote um should have sleepened on that it was since the round the week that was that was just a typo then signature was there was no signature on the checklist but we do have a signature on the permit so I'm okay with that um you know that's it I think Okay good okay okay I'm good Linda's good a more on make the motion yes I move that we issue a negative determination under the Act and a Permit Under Chapter 194 Lisa, roll call please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. And Sean Ferzi, yes. All set. Thank you guys, have a good night. Thanks, you too. It's on the 3Bs, 23 Alpine Road, D-1056, request for determination of applicability, file pursuant to Wayland Wetlands and Water Resource Protection By-law and the Wetland Protection Act, submitted by Mark McKinley for the tree removal at 23 Alpine Road in Wayland Mass. The property, I'm sorry, the proposed work is to do 100 feet of aborted vegetative wetland and the property is shown on Assessor's Mat 06, Parcel 02. Linda? Do we have anybody on here for this? I'm on here. Oh, you are? Yes, this is Mark McKinley from 23 Alpine Road. Okay, well, so we talked about this a couple of times, I think, in the office here. The only thing is is that, you know, because a lot of trees were already taken down with the construction of this house, it's cumulative, so we are gonna need some sort of replacement trees for these, and I didn't see that in the application.
Yes, this is Mark McKinley, yes. So the replanting, I've started working with Abolited Grass,
Joanna McCoy there, to set up whatever the required replantings that we'll be needing. Okay. There are two of the four trees that we are removing will be,
and so we're just, I guess, in that preliminary process. Okay. Well, we can do it two different ways. We can hold off until we have a planting plan before the conservation approves this, or the other option is that they can approve this with a condition that I'm gonna wait to issue until I get a planting plan and have a chance to review it. So.
I'm assuming it's not complex. Linda, let me kick it back to you for permission. Would you feel comfortable doing it? Me? Yeah, if we allowed it and say, okay, I'm pretty sure we're not throwing you too much on your plate. Yeah, I mean, one of them is dead, so we're not gonna replace that anyway, so. Okay. Red maple, why are we taking down that red maple? There's one red maple that's damaged that's actually outside the buffer zone. I just included it in here so that the commission was aware of all the proposed activity on the property. It has damage on the kind of lower trunk and the canopy's been thinning. In the last nor'easter, a large limb fell down. All these trees that we're removing are within striking distance of the house. And so that's our primary impetus is just for safety purposes to remove these houses, or sorry, remove these trees. But Mark, you will need to replace the red maple though, because like I said, it's a cumulative process. The previous trees weren't taken out all that long ago for the construction of this house. I understand. It's just additive at this point, you know, what you're doing. So if you, and that falls under our chapter 193 requirements for a compensation, okay? Sure, yeah. Okay, commission, we good? Trans over for me with Linda, work with the applicant. Yes, yes. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Okay, okay. No hands, say hands up since I wanna make a motion. Sure, I move that we issue a negative determination under the act and a permit under chapter 194 with conditions as discussed and contingent upon Linda being satisfied with the forthcoming planting plan. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Ferzi, yes. Errol Set. Thank you very much. Thanks. On to 3C, 17 Sylvan Way D-1057, another request for a determination of applicability filed pursuant to Wayland Wetlands and Water Resource Protection By-law and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Ransom Shaw for the replacement of the septic system at 17 Sylvan Way in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarding vegetated wetlands. Property is shown in assessor's map 25, parcel 71. Linda. Oh, well let Vito take over. Just tell us about the project. Hey, Vito. Good evening. Vito Colon with Connor Stone Engineering. Just share the screen. Okay. So this is a septic replacement and it's at 17 Sylvan Way. They have a existing house here in the kind of central portion of the lot. The whole rear portion of the lot is a BVW delineated right across the back here. That 100 foot buffer extends approximately to the front edge of the house through here. The existing system is in the backyard kind of bubbled and red that's the approximate location of it. And it's in failure essentially because it's in the groundwater table. Groundwater in the backyard is, is very, very, very, very, very, backyard is you know very shallow it's maybe two feet down at best so that system's sitting in the groundwater table which has caused the failure the proposal what we're doing is going to replace the existing septic tank here with a new septic tank that also has a fast treatment system in it so it's similar to like a small treatment plant essentially and then from there we're going to pump it around to the front yard outside the buffer and put a new leach field out in that front yard area the soils here were very I guess to say poor the perk rate we have is a 60 minute an inch which is essentially the slowest you can have so it does make this system in the front yard very large so it is kind of fit in there as best we could this treatment system does allow us a 50 percent reduction in size so that's actually a 50 size of a conventional system that would be out there so work in the actual buffer zone is just for replacement of those two tanks it's all lawn area right there so there'd be no tree clearing required to get those tanks in and our limited work would come around the side of the house there are some existing trees along this edge right here and it does look like we can get alongside them with some tree with some clearing of the limbs to get up there we wouldn't remove the actual trees along the property line we think we can just squeak by there to get those tanks in in the back in the front there is some tree removal but it is all outside the buffer zone we have one Oak or Maple right here in the middle of the system and then another Oak down this end the system does require us to shift the driveway right now the existing driveway it's kind of off to the side right through where the system will have to go so just to go straight into the garage but that is where the there's an existing Oak tree right through there and then there are also two ornamental trees but like I said they're all outside the buffer zone there'd be no tree clearing in the back here during the construction we just have this standard erosion barriers around the limit of work and that work in the back should not take too long since it's just two tanks and then we restabilize with grass right after completion I think that's all I have any questions thanks Vito Linda start with you please oh um the delineation was done in December and I I I can't agree with it at all um I you know I pulled up the delineation that was done for 15 Sylvan Way which is right next door and they have the wetland delineation well inside that iron rod you know that's on the corner yeah and this delineation has it outside well you know to the back of that iron rod which puts the shed basically in the wetlands so and the fact that it was done in December I just I and then she has she has like GC1 like back towards the backyard whereas that would never line up with a delineation on 15. okay again you know way forward kind of almost forward of the 15 foot line even you know in accordance with the so I think I think it either has to be re-delineated or we have to do something creative like um uh ask for the shed to be moved outside of the wetlands um you know uh you know typically we always ask for a 15 foot vegetated buffer but again I mean that easily that maple's got to be within almost right at the borderline of the recording but I don't know what you know I mean I don't know if it makes sense um then go back up take a look at it uh now that it's you know springtime growing season um and then coordinate directly with you on you know if there's if they feel that it does need to be moved as you're saying we can move it as strongly that is where it is we'll have them to coordinate directly with you okay I can I can send you the plan I have for a 15. okay I think I have it oh yeah you guys did that thank you that's right it says Sullivan and Connors on here yeah yeah I remember that one it's been a while but I remember okay yeah I mean it's I mean it's it's easily you know 25 feet difference and you know that I don't think the wetlands change that much I mean people in this neighborhood are well known we've had a number of that already so anyway that also the wetland the street view diagram I know my copy is completely it's just black so I don't know what we got maybe Barbara got the color version no I have just black yeah black and we're supposed to be deciding if if we have to know the wetlands yeah and we've been through this this before with with guarded before because I have pointed this out more than once with this that they do it in December or we have certain period where they have to do it otherwise we can't accept it yeah yeah we'll have them get back out there and take a look yeah yeah I wish you would because like I said this is there's this is considerably different from what we we had at the neighbors you know it wouldn't even line up with it and uh again not only is the street view black but everything and and uh the God report like the FEMA floodplain match the soil survey the picture of the wetland resource area it's just black you know it's it's I don't know what happened oh and the ortho photo is black so um it'd be nice to have a better a better version of this yeah I'll see what maybe got scanned yeah that's what it looks like I'll hold it up weird yeah I thought yeah I don't know that's weird because yeah because mine came out mine looks fine it must be when it got scanned in or something okay and then um I forget to mention you have uh board of health it still has to go to a public hearing with Florida Health also one of the meetings and that's June 15th so we wouldn't be able to we have a little bit of time between then anyway um so no matter what we're going to look to continue anyway so do you want to continue after June 15th then yeah I think do you have a meeting the 17th oh questions I looked at this guy I think it was yeah you're right that would be three weeks from the 27th that would probably be a good day because that way we hopefully get through Board of Health hopefully get the wetlands looked at um and if they are that different it might give us some time to you know if we have to modify anything in time okay yeah I think for the health we want to know that too you know where the actual wetlands are yeah um and then I guess is there any other items too I we didn't I don't know if we finished going around with everybody so yeah anything else I know we're continuing to the 17th but any else from our end other than what Lisa mentioned or Linda mentioned no I mean based on the soils it doesn't seem like there are a whole lot of options and it appears to me that uh this has been designed as far away from the wetlands as possible so yeah I don't have anything more to add no I agree but I mean sometimes that might change whether or not the shed is in the wetlands it might change if you the oak tree might be in the wetland buffer zone you know or the other tree removal so I I Linda I agree entirely I'm just saying I don't have anything else you're not going to do anything about the design of the septic I'm I'm kind of more it's you know more important so okay all right well we don't need a motion for a continuance um so yes we'll be back on the 17th of uh June then sounds like okay all right all right Vito we'll see you then thank you thanks oh he's going to be right back yep well all right well we're on stormwater land disturbances for a 43 Barney Hill Road swld-160 Linda did we vote did we vote to continue it wasn't a public it wasn't a public hearing oh oh that's right um so Linda uh 43 Barney Hill Road what we got we're right back to Vito again on this one so yeah all right Vito okay let me just get the screen going okay all right um so on this one we have a existing single family house it's shown in this kind of uh lighter yellow color actually I think I have an existing this is the existing conditions plan here where they have uh the existing house in the middle gravel driveway uh up to Barney Hill Road and and then they generally have a kind of limit of yard it's not a some portions are well kept and some kind of a little bit overgrown but essentially this front area is their yard area itself uh in the back there's an off-site Wetland uh located off property in the back with a 100 foot buffer extends up essentially to the edge of kind of the existing clearing where the septic system is um over in this location uh that septic is fairly recent I think it's two or three or two years old I think it is um so that's a fairly recent installation uh right there so their proposal right now I can switch over there we go is kind of two components uh they build them in essentially two phases the first one was this addition off the side of the house um and that would also have a garage in it off that side so they'd come in expand the driveway um and the driveway itself they'd kind of loop together kind of create a looping driveway bring that driveway over connect it up to the garage area and what they proposed for the driveway is only a small section of pavement right in front of the garage areas just so they can park there and you know kind of use it for basketball and whatever and then the remainder portion of the driveway, they're going to use a permeable gravel system. It's basically like a geogrid. It gets infilled with gravel so it can take the loads but also pass stormwater through it. So they use that permeable gravel surface for the remainder of the driveway. And then redo the existing gravel driveway in that same type of surfacing material just to give it a little bit extra permeability. And then the second component that they would kind of complete after would be an ADU in the backyard with a pool and patio area out that lower level. So this is kind of a walkout basement in the back, and they're looking to put a pool and patio right out that walkout with an ADU in the back. As far as stormwater itself goes, we were looking to take the roof drains from the proposed addition in a portion of the existing house and send it to a subsurface dry well under the driveway. Out front would take an area drain. They collect a lot of surface runoff, anything that came off the driveway or kind of this green area, also send that to a dry well. And then in the back, similar situation would take the roof water from the ADU and the entire pool patio surface and send that to a dry well for infiltration. All those were sized to mitigate up to the 100-year storm, so it would control the rate and volume through all those storm events. The only discharge point – we had three discharge points. We looked at one to the rear, one is the small area off the side that goes to the abutter to the south, and then there's a little portion of the driveway right here that goes to Barney Hill Road. So we looked at all three of those points, and we controlled the rate and volume to all three points, leaving the site for all storm events. The overall limit of work is about 21,000 square feet, and that would be delineated with this erosion barrier to set that limit of work during construction. There is some tree removal. They are looking to save as many as they can. Up front, they would save these larger pine trees, kind of wind that driveway right through them since it's just going to be a gravel surface with that shallow grid system. They should be able to save those trees. But they do have a tree up in here that is a 10-inch. I think it's a maple, but I'm not positive. And then they also have a 17-inch tree and a – sorry, a 15-inch tree in the back that would require removal. And all we did, we just showed the mitigation size on the plan. We didn't actually have a specific planting plan, but at the top of the plan, it just shows total diameter removed was 42, and then the replacement would be 21 inches of diameter. I think that's how the bylaw goes now, the regulations going out. So we just showed that replication. We didn't have an actual plan at this point. And then, again, we're looking to see what the plan looks like. And then, again, if there's any problems with the plan, we can't say for sure, but it's a very, very good idea to And then the only component of the dry well is just to kind of note, we had soil testing done. It was done by Ted Doucette up in this area. It showed no groundwater to the bottom of test holes. So we have good depth of groundwater. And up here, we had a little bit slower perc rate, 25 minutes an inch, so we used that for the design of these front two. And then in design of the septic back here, which was done by our office, we had a faster perc rate, so we used that in design of this system at the bottom. But all the testing showed no groundwater restrictions or restrictions to ledge on the site. So that was good at least for that component of it. I think that is everything I can think of for now to get started. I guess we'll hand it back over. Okay. Linda, any thoughts? What do I have here? So the aerial photo from 2023 shows that they... It looks like they've already done it. They've already done some clearing from 2023 to 2026. And I know that I think they purchased the house in 2023, where the proposed addition is. It looks like there's been some clearing over there already. So we'll have to... If that's the case, we'll need a true removal count at some point, because again, it's cumulative. It'd be nice to have some inspection templates in the O&M plan. Okay. Okay. And is that done by Board of Health yet? Yeah, just because the septics were already in place. So everything... No new septic work other than the connection, which was stub was already left in the previous installation. So they... Oh, because I just... I figured Darren would want to see where you have the Coltec, which is the one in the back. Is the offset enough then? Yeah. We kept the 25 feet. Okay. Title five. But we can certainly send this over to Darren just to see. Yeah. Yeah. Just for his look-see and see if he has any comments. Yeah. Because before it goes to building... I mean, before you get a building permit, there's going to need to be stamped by Board of Health anyway. So it might be worthwhile touching base with him. I think one of the questions... And you wrote in the description that there's a potential vernal pool. Is that nearby or is that on the site? No, it's offsite. It's off... I don't have the mapping up. But it's offsite to the left, somewhere where there's a... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Down there to the left. Okay. I don't think... I don't have the map up. Yeah. I mean, the wayside has a huge conservation restriction on it. The back of 11 wayside, and I think the other one, whatever that one is, nine. So it's probably... It's most likely in there so that's back there. So... Okay. But it's a huge project. I don't know if you guys saw that it's over almost... Over 9,000 square feet of new... impervious and yeah this is you know this is really beyond my abilities to to um to review this you know the because there's a hydrocrine model with it so i think we i think the commission needs to decide how they want to handle this one okay in terms of getting a third party review yeah if this is going to require that i mean for me you just kind of answered it by saying you'd like one so no i mean i just can't i don't have the ability to review hydrocad models you know yeah no i'm not no i guess you're saying that's the easiest thing that we'll ever make um commission any reason we won't why we wouldn't no i i thought we needed one and then hearing linda uh just now i i'm with you sean i think it's seems obvious we need a peer review here okay um everybody's go to that commission yes okay while we're here can get a quick uh motion to hire a peer review for this one sure i move that we authorize linda to uh communicate with and recruit peer review consultants to help us with our review of this project thank you luke we'll hear a second second thank you babs roll call please luke legere yes barbara howell yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean fairs yes okay um so that'll be it for now then linda will yeah the only thing i wanted input about potential tree removal you know previous removal that was done so okay okay all right um do you know what meeting we should target do you want to just put it on for the next one i don't know if we'll get peer review back in time we can okay we just put it on then if something happens we gotta push it to the next one yeah that's fine so may 27th the next one okay okay perfect all right let's all go from here we're good to go we'll see you then okay all right thank you thanks good night uh on the five uh a this is the other category meeting schedule july to december 2026 linda oh i got nothing look at it make sure we're good you guys have to tell us if there's any sort of conflict or you know yep so i'll get back to linda on that please and thank you
5b topics not anticipated by the chair one thing um came to my attention today linda i saw her and talked to her then i sent an email out something along pequa and just basically digging a trench to unclog dudley no permit so um if we don't have a permit i like to openly talk about that in our next session um but you know um i should get the bottom of hey what happened be what why was it not without a permit pulled and if they're required to pull permit have them pull it and come back before us retroactively um so i was looking for the i wrote an email to mosquito control when this when this we had discussions about it again just give a little bit background for the commission there's an outfall pipe from pequa row that dumps right into that stream right where the aqueduct is. So yeah, there's a ton of sediment that's filled up in that area. It doesn't flow. You know, it's just basically, you know, it's stagnant water there because again, there's so much sediment. So there was some discussion about how to remove that. The MWRA was involved. They really wanted it gone. They wanted the water to flow under the aqueduct as opposed to pooling there. And so the decision was that maybe they should hire Mosquito Control to do that, you know, and Mosquito Control doesn't think they need permits for anything. So I don't know if you've had that experience, Luke, but I mean, they talked about, it wasn't until the contract was issued and I was CC'd on it. They were talking about dredging three to 400 feet of Dudley Brook for this one area of the sediment. And that's when I started getting a little bit more active and asked them why they didn't need a permit, why they thought that it was necessary to do that entire thing. And what really killed me was that the contract basically said they're going to have to do it. And I said, well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Take the dredge spoils and dump them on the banks. And this is all private property and it's wetlands. It's a bank. It's a perennial stream. And I just, it blew me away that they didn't really need any permits for this. And I asked the circuit rider and, you know, her, she hasn't had the best, you know, experience with Mosquito Control either, I don't think. And also that, that, you know, they, there's no, I even looked at case law, believe it or not. There's no recorded problem here with mosquito larvae, which I thought that would have to be documented. You know, if this, if it's Mosquito Control doing this, is this a problem area, you know, for mosquito larvae? And, and it just, you know, without having that documentation, it seems like they were kind of overstepping. So, and that was my, you know, and I basically told the homeowner that too, I said, I don't understand why they don't need a permit for this. And I really don't. And, and you can see now, you know, that the results of it, it's, it's, they're very unhappy, the homeowners there. So. So this might be real quick, two things. One, yes, there's the Mosquito Control, whatever they, their pitches to, but they aren't the ones who DPW hired them. So at the end of the day, DPW is in charge of what they hire people to do, what happens. So at a bare minimum, I would expect a heads up from our DPW. Here's what we're looking to do. There's a mosquito issue. We're looking to dredge or, Hey, we're hurting. We heard we don't need a permit, but the fact that we heard, didn't hear then after the fact. So I'd like to have DPW here to explain, but it's not for me, it's not a mosquito control issue. They can pitch whatever their, their BS pitches to, to municipalities. Great. At the end of the day, DPW owns this in my, in my personal opinion, if they want to blame on the mosquito control and go after them, happy to whatever that's them. But DPW was the one who did this in my opinion.
So I'd have them come, come speak to us and figure out, what they at a minimum, why they think it was a requirement to even let us know, let alone not get a permit, which I think they do need the permit. So I'll go ahead and fight that as well. But that's my, my two cents, unbelievable lack of respect and inner town, lack of respect. I'm not sure what goes on inner workings there, but that is lack of leadership from internally that this is, this happened. So we'll get to the bottom of it, but it's annoying that we have to police our own DPW. Where, where, where's the town manager in this? Where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, where's his, why they're not weekly meetings. This is, this is a gong show, but I'm tired of it. So I'd like someone to come explain to me next week or in the 27th. So either I can ask for that Linda, or you can, how best do we do this? I'm just shocked that they wouldn't even tell the homeowners, you know, this is their property. This is private property, the bank that, you know, they're, they're dumping all these dredge spoils on. And I mean that I would have thought notification would have been essential in this situation because now she's escalating it, you know, and, and, uh, she has every right to, so. Well, I just want to be very clear. She can escalate, that's her property. That's agreed. And I would too. On our end, there's a whole lot of different issues as well. And so I guess, shall I just email Tom Poehler and ask for him to come speak to us next, next, uh, meeting? Okay. I'll, I'll do that. I'll email Tommy. All right. Um, I'll cc Michael McCall because this is certainly under his watch. I don't know how this happens, but okay.
Anything else? I'm sorry folks. I need, I need to jump off. I apologize. Go Luke. Thanks brother. Have a good evening. We were waiting for your input. I have none. I would show it. I think we need to, you know, we need to hear from the people who are responsible for this, but, um, yeah. All right. Anyways, sorry. I gotta run. Have a good evening. All right. So I will email Tom Holder, ask for someone to come on the 27th, um, and explain themselves. And we can then at that point to discuss whether we require a permit or not, whether the mosquito control can say whatever they want. It's not their property, not, not their, not their backyard. So, okay. Well, that'll be fun. Um, I also have an update for 24 schools. I think way back when they used to spray, if, if you didn't want your property sprayed, you were supposed to tell the people downtown. That your property wasn't to be sprayed with mosquito stuff. Now they don't do any spraying, but in the old days, they were out here last week and sprayed by helicopter. Well, they can spray the wetlands. Yes. They spray the wetlands. With something, but they don't go up and down the streets. No, no. But they used to. In the old days. And you could say, you did not, you don't want your property sprayed. You'd have to request that. And that's the way it used to work. So Barbara, there is a little bit of caveat in that. I think if, if, if Wayland ends up having mosquitoes that have triple E have been tested for triple E, then they have a little bit more, um, uh, leverage to do stuff like that. There's a little bit of, in a way for the public to do the roadside spraying. But, um, let me very clearly that's not what this is. This is a way to get, this is a way to get around permitting to pretend as a mosquito issue. So there is all this is I'll say it very clearly. Um, so we'll, we'll, we'll discuss that openly with them next time, but that's not what this is. Um, real quick, 24 school street, you know, we did a denial, the applicant appealed, the denial to DEP. And. They, they, their attorney wrote a letter. know a few weeks ago they filed a motion they they don't want to go through the whole appeal process and the adjudicatory hearing they would much rather just refile with the conservation commission so that means we'll have a third notice of intent probably in the near future from them again with and who knows what sort of project that they will propose this time but um i you know we we have to i have to do a little bit of research on that because that means they have actually three um open pro project numbers already for this for this one site and um yeah i mean at some point they have to understand that we need to close those right so i'm looking at the web i think this predates me but i'm looking at the website i see like 2017. yeah predates i came on the commission was the other one yeah oh well before that yeah yeah 2015 maybe 2014. okay because i know i didn't see anything in the past year but that was the anrad they did in 2015 i think you know where they did the um area of research delineation and then after that they filed a notice of intent for the construction of a 12 12 townhouses on the property we denied that that went through a long appeal period and then he refiled again in 2020 um pandemic hit and there was like a two-year lag before he showed up he came back again and um and that's that was the you know the end of that was us denying the project again you know for um the same pretty much the same reasons so um okay we'll see you in the third time i'm looking forward to it before that so okay uh all right public comments there's no one here why would they be all right uh
we just had town meeting nobody wants any night meetings yet anymore do we oh i'm missing lacrosse uh babs how are we looking for april 15 20 26 uh meeting minutes we good to go i report i gave it i turned it in okay everybody else is good with it yeah yeah so we saved her um barbara's comments and she'll incorporate those so i'm guessing some minutes some edits in that so if you approve the minutes that will be with barbara's edits okay okay okay motion then please approve the minutes with babs edits
you're gonna say move as you want yeah so moved thank you lisa do i hear a second second okay thank you jenny roll call please barbara howell yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean there's a yes thank you last minute anything before we adjourn all right then we're down to the faithful four here we go uh last roll call please can't get a motion to adjourn for the evening so again you can say some move there you go perfect thank you lisa uh i'm gonna hear a second second thank you jenny uh roll call please barbara howell yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean fair is a yes we're all set you