May 27, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript

May 27, 2026 - Conservation Commission

Autoscroll:

So now that we've got a quorum and everybody's here, I'd like to begin the Conservation Commission meeting for May 27th, 2026. The location for in-person meeting and wheelchairs are accessible. If you needed other accommodations in order to participate in the meeting, please contact Waylon's ADA coordinator at the following number, or at least, sorry, with at least two business days in advance of the meeting. While you and Mr. Pelley will do his best to accommodate you, certain accommodations may require the hiring of outside contractors, may not be available if requested immediately before the meeting. This meeting may be recorded, and if recorded will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting, the public will be excluded from executive sessions. In pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law. If this meeting has remote access, attendance by the members of the public will not be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch and 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 remote access, as it is here. Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. And with that, I see everybody here, Barbara Howell, Cliff Lewis, Luke Legere, Jenny Brown, Lisa Aubin, Shannon Fischer, myself, all signing in. And Linda, are you remote as well? Well, and for the folks who are on, as a reminder, we're going to go to executive session, and Linda wants me to remind everybody that the first couple public hearings, both A and B, are asked to be continued. So we're going to come back in and go right into 3C, and 4A and 5A on our agenda are also continued. Just you can keep your schedule accordingly. Hopefully, we shouldn't be more than about maybe 10 minutes or so in executive session here, timing-wise. So, with that, I'd like to get a motion pursuant to GLC-330A to discuss strategies relating to pending litigation known as in the matter of Cascade Development, Massachusetts Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolutions, docket number WET 2024-0020, DEP file number 322-1000, that I declare that discussing the matter at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission. Can I get a vote? Please go into executive session. So, Luke. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Cliff, quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Sean Farza, you guys, as well. Okay. So, everybody sign off here. Go to the other email. Sign in there. And we'll be back here, folks, in the audience, hopefully here pretty quick. Thanks, guys. Okay. Thank you, folks, for being patient. Let's hop back into this real quick. So, this is public hearing for 3A, 67 Loker Street. 67A Loker Street, DEP file number 322-1056. Continuing notice of intent filed pursuant to Wales, wetlands, and water resource protection bylaw 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 Loker 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 boring vegetated wetland and 200-foot riverfront area. Linda?
Is this a 67A wants to continue? Sorry. I was just texting. I'm busy. When's our next June meeting? I think I didn't get that email. Emily did, so that would be the 17th. 17th? Yeah. They're still working on the peer review responses in the planning board process. Okay. The 17th is what I have. Okay. Can I get a motion in for continuation or both for the 17th of June for sometime after 630, please? So moved. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Leisure? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. John Fair is a yes. Thank you, folks. 3B is the 68 Lakeshore Drive, DEP file number 322-1057. It's a continuing notice of intent filed pursuant to the Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act, submitted by Jeremy Jenkins for the after-the-fact work performance 68 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass. As the installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to the covered porch steps. Property shown on an assessor's map 42D, parcel 56, is located within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetlands, bank, and land of their water. Linda? They have also asked to continue until our next meeting. I think they did ask to continue until the 17th, but we somehow voted the last time for this meeting, so we're just doing it again. I move that we continue this hearing under Chapter 194 and the Act to June 17th after 6.30 p.m. Thank you. Luke Doyle here. Second. Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Lazier? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Luke Lewis? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. John Fares, a yes. Thank you, folks. 3C, Sherman Bridge Road, Wayland, DEP. Do we have a DP number here, Linda? Oh, I thought we did. Shoot. Let me go look it up. You can continue, okay? Yep.
I think you said you have the number, but you're kind of robotic. Your connection's a little off, to let you know. Oh, great. Sorry. No, you're good.
Yeah, so let me open this up, and we'll come back to that DP number there. This is a notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resources Protection Bylaw and the Wetlands Protection Act spent by the Wayland Department of Public Works for the Rehabilitation of Sherman Bridge, located at Sherman Bridge Road in Wayland, Mass, and extending towards Lincoln Road in Sudbury, Mass. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarding of a dedicated wetland bank and land underwater, boarding land subject to flooding, and a 200-foot riverfront area. The project is shown on Wayland's Assessor's Map 06. Okay. Yeah, the problem. Linda? That is DEP file number, 3-2-2-1-0-6-5. 1-0-6-5. Okay. Thank you. Can I open the up? I didn't change anything. Can you hear me any better? I can switch up headphones if need be. Yeah, no, you're really broken up, and basically we can't understand anything that you're saying. Apologies. Any better now? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Way better. Let's not go headphones then, and let me just turn up some volume on my end. Apologies for that, everyone. Let's do that.
Okay. Sorry about that. I have a PowerPoint to share. Let me share my screen, and then we can get started. Can we get an introduction of who you are? Yes, sir. I was going to get going once I have the cover page. My name is Mike Riccardi from TEC, working on behalf of the DPW. Paul Pacholi is here representing DPW, and Pete Angle is also here from TEC. I think based on how the invites came in through Johnson, who submitted stuff for us, he's in under Johnson Dang, but that is Pete Angle from TEC as well. Great. Thank you. No problem. So, let's try this.
Should we see in a PowerPoint, if I share it correctly?
It's about to. There you go. Yeah, you're good. There we go. It goes. Fantastic. I will get started. As Linda said, this is a notice of intent for Sherman's Bridge Road over the Sudbury River. Mass DEP file number 322-1065.
Project location is Sherman's Bridge Road over the Sudbury River. An aerial map on the left, and an elevation view standing on the sidewalk looking towards Weyland on the right.
As we said, DEP file number 322-1065.
This is just a snip from DEP website. I just wanted to note, in case there's some cross-referencing of numbers, these numbers shown here on this slide are for the cumulative project because the bridge is shared equally by Sudbury and Weyland. And we plan to go before the Sudbury concom next week.
A quick outline of what we plan to cover in this presentation. We'll run through existing conditions, the proposed work that we're planning for the project, resource area impacts, and a couple additional things under that, what we plan for resource area protection, and then a discussion on the wood preservatives planned for the redecking. I will start with some existing conditions photos of the roadway surface or kind of bridge superstructure. I'll work left to right. General condition of the decking boards, a rotted section of deck. In the middle on the right, existing condition of the bridge railing being held together by a one-by, probably purchasing Lowe's or Home Depot, and then just a general elevation view again, standing in the middle of the road. I think in this view, looking towards Sudbury.
A few photos, additional photos of that deck and the fasteners. These were taken by Paul earlier today and shared. And as you can see, we have some issues. Timber deck is decaying. The fasteners are struggling to help keep things in place. On the right, as you see, some of these fasteners pop up, posing some safety issues to motorists. And I believe we can assume that a plow sometime this winter would have bent over that fastener on the right, we could share more of this. I don't know if Paul has them on his desk, but fasteners that are coming loose and resting on the deck. So long story short, as I'm sure some of you know, if you're users of this bridge, we have somewhat of a problem with this structure. Part of where we got involved with this project is DPW from both communities, Wayland and Sudbury. Have done their best over the last decade plus to maintain this, replace decking boards, replace fasteners. And it's just gotten to a point that routine maintenance is no longer adequate. And so we've partnered with the towns and are proposing a, I guess I'll get into what we're proposing, but we're proposing a deck replacement with some localized substructure repairs to the bridge. The substructure repairs are needed. You can see an elevation on the left. And part of our issues that we're seeing down below at the water level are rusted fasteners. You can see on the right is a steel bolt that is connecting the diagonal bracing to the timber piles. And we have rusted nuts and washers that are no longer helping secure everything in place, which has led to what we see in the middle here of that diagonal brace that's meant to support the piles has become disconnected. And on the bottom is just resting on the bank. So what we're proposing is to replace all those steel fasteners in the substructure. So every spot that a diagonal brace connects to the timber piles, looking to replace those to help re-secure everything. There's one area of timber decay and rot in one of the piles. I just would like to note that it's at a pier that's within the Sudbury town limits, but it's something that we've shown throughout the plans and wanted to discuss it here. Mike, what is it used for fasteners? One-inch diameter stainless steel fasteners, steel threaded rods, and new nuts and washers. What kind of stainless? Fantastic question. I can pull up the plans to give you the ASTM spec after I get through, if that's okay. Okay. From our inspection as well, there's three diagonal braces that have some decay as well. So planning to reinstall three new braces. And then part of the more significant work up at the roadway level is to replace those existing decking boards with glulam deck panels, install a timber-wearing surface on top of that glulam-oriented diagonal to traffic. The glulam deck panels allow us to install crash-compliant glulam bridge railings and in maintaining the characteristic of the sidewalk using rough-sawn timber handrails, rough-sawn timber sidewalk planks. And something that had been mentioned by folks over the last few months as we've discussed this project was it'd be great if we could take down the telephone cables that cross the river. So something that we're going to try to accomplish as part of this project is to install some PVC conduits below the bridge to allow for that future cable relocation.
Proposed bridge cross-section. We can come back to this in more detail. I figure that might help describe things, but just want to point out maintaining travelway roadway width and adding a couple crash-tested bridge rails that we've researched and have proposed for the project to increase safety at the crossing.
So some of the stuff that I think is most relevant to conservation is kind of what we're doing down closer to the water level. As I mentioned, we are proposing one area of a pile jacket. And that is a FRP wrap with a grout port that would pump grout in between the existing rotted pile and the FRP sleeve to kind of help bolster that section. These photos are from a project that we worked on on behalf of Wyneland DPW. I believe we presented to the commission in 2020, from what I can tell. And this was Route 27 over the Sudbury River. In this case, we had a few more pile jackets. And again, all this work that we're planning for this is at one location, and it's within the town of Sudbury. But I just wanted to help explain what we're trying to do there. How far down did the pile jackets go? In our case, from the inspection report, the area of rot is about two feet high, about one foot above, at the time of inspection, water level. So presumably about a foot above bank and traditionally, I believe, six inches or so below the area of decay is where the grout sleeve would be placed. And the deeper stuff doesn't rot? You're okay with that? From our inspection and from MassDOT inspections, the area of rot seems localized to above water level. Okay.
And sorry, I just wanted to mention as well, in this photo on the left, shows completed repairs at that Route 27 over the Sudbury River location, where you can see some new timber braces that were installed diagonally between piles. And then you can see the one on the right closest to us is the appearance post FRP sleeve installation and grout. So really just attempting to bolster that pile and prevent future decay.
Next, we'll kind of talk more about resource area impacts, which I'll send over Pete's way.
Good evening. Peter Engel, also with TEC. I'll talk more about kind of the environmental resource area issues with this project. So as you can see in the image, obviously the Sudbury River, perennial river, and then there's wetlands basically in the green hatch in every corner. And then obviously all the work is either over the river or within the riverfront area, all within the 100-foot riverfront area. And then the Sudbury River also has a FEMA floodplain, 100-year floodplain, and a regulatory floodway. The entire deck of the bridge is under the 100-year flood elevation. So all the work proposed, some of it being temporary during work, but all the work is within bordering land subject to flooding.
In Whalen, there's no impact to bank. There's no impact to land underwater. There's no impact to wetlands in either town. So the primary impacts are to the riverfront, which is in the area of the existing bridge, existing road, previously degraded, disturbed area, and then the bordering land subject to flooding. So between the two towns, it's about 550 cubic feet. So I guess back to the proposed decking that Mike was talking about. So because the existing decking is only basically a single board, and in order to put up those crash-tested railings, guardrails, whatever you want to call them, that requires that glulam structural decking and then a wearing course above it. So the deck of the bridge will increase in thickness by about three inches. It's a fairly large bridge, so that ends up being a fill situation within the land subject to flooding, which we would consider not significant based on the numbers we've come up with. So overall, cumulatively between the two towns, it's about 555 cubic feet of fill between the decking and then there's some portion of the road where the deck will be three inches higher, so they'll have to blend that in with asphalt pavement to the existing road. Within the entire town right-of-way, that fill, which cumulatively is 555 in Wayland, it's about 285, makes up less than 0.4% of the available 100-year flood storage volume within the town's property. So from that perspective, it's minimal. Mike, if you want to go to the next slide,
this is the floodplain. The floodplain is almost like, I want to say 800 feet wide from the center line of the Sudbury River in both directions into both towns, so it's fairly wide. So from a compensatory storage situation, it's going to be very, very difficult to provide any compensatory storage without chasing and regrading, reprofiling the road at the limit of the floodplain, which is about 300 feet from the limit of work. So what we've done, and Mike, I don't know if this was part of a mass DOT permitting, or we also just had it done based on what we do with a lot of bridge work, is we have a H&H hydrologic and hydraulic assessment done of the river. Basically, in this situation, there's very minimal change other than that deck thickness, whereas in other situations, we're going from a 12-inch pipe to a much larger pipe, so you want to analyze flood elevations pre and post, you know, existing bridge versus proposed bridge. So we did that H&H model or had our sub-consultant do that work, and basically the model tells us that even with that 3-inch difference with that 555 cubic feet of fill over the whole project, it's so minimal that the proposed water surface elevation during a 100-year storm does not rise even 0.01 feet. And so under the FEMA rules, basically he needs to do a no-rise certification, which we have, and that will be reviewed by both you and the ZBA for work within the special flood zone or floodplain zoning district, as well as the local floodplain administrator, I think is the building commissioner. So in our opinion, that, you know, that 555 cubic feet, although it might sound like a high number in this exact location of this enormous floodplain, it's very minimal and results in no vertical or horizontal extent or change in the floodplain. And then as far as the back to the riverfront being the only other impacted resource area really, it's already previously degraded, disturbed. So no increase in disturbance there. And then lastly, I think, Mike, you can move forward. This whole section of the Sudbury River is within a natural heritage priority habitat. So we had to file with natural heritage under the MESA guidelines. And we've provided them everything that we've provided conservation and ZBA and mass fish and wildlife came back with a no-take. So basically an approval that the project will not take state-listed rare species. And then as far as protecting the resource areas during construction, again, there's no, in Whalen, there's no work within the water level. In Sudbury, it's that one pile, which, you know, we show on this plan a sandbag cofferdam with a floating silt fence, which is likely not even going to be necessary. The idea would be to do that work, especially during low water, so you wouldn't even have water up to the pile when that work is being done. But otherwise, compost, filter tube, basically along both sides of the road and down along the abutment to capture any runoff from getting into the river.
And that's just a picture of the cofferdam that would basically be used for water control. But again, that's wood only be in Sudbury if it's even needed.
Thanks, Pete.
Lastly, this had been discussed as this project has kind of been known to folks over the last few months. And there was some discussion about the wood preservatives being proposed to the GULAM and the way that we kind of presented it as a project team was what's... Can you back up these GULAMs? Do they run a thwarp chip or lengthwise on the bridge? They would run perpendicular to traffic. Perpendicular to... So across the bridge. And they're basically a big, thick piece of composite wood? Four-foot-wide panels with some variance at the ends to get everything to match. Four-foot... Yes. Four-foot-wide and how long? Our out-to-out is... I'm going to zoom back really quick. They go across the whole bridge? They would be across the roadway portion of the bridge. Okay. And how thick is this? Five and a half inches thick. Okay. So this is a substantial piece of stuff. Okay. Yep. It's like a big sheet of plywood, sort of. Cliff, we have a piece of it in the DPW conference room if you'd like to come and have a look. Okay. No, I got the idea here. That's good. Thank you.
I'm going back. So, to backtrack slightly, we've been working on this project on behalf of DPWs of both towns in consultation with MassDOT because they're interested in the structure and maintaining its integrity and keeping everything safe as deterioration has progressed. We've been working with a glulam supplier on behalf of MassDOT, and they've shared that to properly protect this bridge, we need to install some sort of wood preservative to the glulam members and to the handrails as well. They've shared that there are three alternatives for the wood preservative to be applied to the glulam members. I'll start with the one that is the most common or has been the most common over the usage of timber bridges. It's CCA, which is chromated copper arsenate. As I said, longest proven track record. Any research that I can find shows excellent durability, service life, and all these numbers can vary based on exposure conditions, but just to give a rough order of magnitude, 40 to 75 years, fairly resistant to leaching. It's a water-based preservative, so it would be applied to the individual pieces before they're glued. Obviously, the cons are the arsenic in it, and around 2003 was generally phased out of residential applications, but is still allowed for this application of a timber bridge. I'll take for each of the laminates in this glulam. Another good question. I have shop drawings from the supplier that I can look up, but I believe that in total to get that five and a half inch thickness is four members that are glued, but I'll pull up the... And this stuff is painted in a factory someplace before it's glued together? Is that the idea? If, in the instance of CCA, yes, where it's water-based and the information that the supplier had shared, wood is treated in a pressure tank with water as the carrier for the treatment. The wood is then glued together and fabricated in the shop. Does this leach out over a long time and need to be replenished somehow? I don't believe with the replenishing, no. And this will generally be the same answer for all three alternatives. And there are some differences with the amount of leaching, which we'll get to. But in general, from what our research tells us, is that the leaching of, if any happens at all, is traditionally in the first couple months after installation. So in my view, fabrication for this entire structure has been shared from the supplier that would take around 90 to 120 days. And I would think depending on their storage location that some of the leaching would happen before any transport to the towns and to the project location anyway. And a study that I found that can be shared as supplemental information if need be from the USDA approximately 0.16 to 0.72% of total arsenic content leached during testing of this preservative. In general, that is a fairly consistent number for all three options that we're going to share. Some have some better, which we'll talk about, but in our view, a small amount, not to diminish. We don't want some of these materials entering the river, and that's why we're kind of having this discussion with you folks here.
I wouldn't necessarily say that CCA is our first choice, but I wanted to present it to the commission in that it's a water-based treatment and is generally the most commonly used preservative currently and in past bridges of this nature. How long has this been in mainstream service? As far as I know from the early, I guess I don't want to, there have been tests of applications of at least 75 years where wood is still being protected with CCA from our research. So 70s at least beyond. So very common in the past, still used for different applications and possible for this project here as well.
The next is a more recent alternative, DCOI, and you can see the actual name and that's what we have. I'll save you the attempt of pronouncing everything there, but does a great job protecting against fungi mold decay, no heavy metals and is a more environmentally friendly alternative. The issue from our perspective is there's still some early leaching because of the different chemical processes and it's a fairly new alternative that has come into practice of late. So in terms of its durability or robustness, it has a shorter historical track record where I can't cite other projects with some of these other alternatives that have been in place and are functioning as intended. So just wanted to present this one. The third You have accelerated weatherometer kinds of tests on this stuff I assume, yes? I can I have not seen any historical weatherometer tests but I can say that each and all are not listed as any type of restricted use tested side by EPA so I would trust at least to start the testing that's been done to get EPA approval but I can provide more information if requested the last for the glulam pieces themselves and what we presented as kind of our view of the we presented in the NOI application and presenting here as well as kind of I think our best middle ground where copper naphtinate no arsenic or chromium it's a
and because of the oil based it's highly water insoluble so less leaching fewer contaminants and entering the stream as I said here ideal for stream crossings where environmental concerns exist and kind of finding that balance of durability and environmental acceptance where it can be viewed as a
extended durability over the DCOI has this been in service in places I came across research articles in the 90s that discussed this kind of as a new technology in that time frame so at least 30 years has been installed so where we
slightly less durability but I would still feel comfortable with a 25 to 30 year service life from what we can tell in other applications sort of painted on the surface after the glue lambs are all glued up I think good way to think of it likely wood is glued and fabricated in the shop and wood is treated with oil as the carrier for the treatment and it's a very thin coating then correct any trouble with termites and stuff getting through that coating into the wood I don't believe so there are some USDA and not Fish and Wildlife Service but there are some research articles USDA Forest Service where they've taken pieces after the fact and tested and it's still in great shape protecting the main meat of the glue and the wood internally the glue lambs are just mechanically bolted to the to the structure they're just bolted they're not glued down in addition to bolted down correct aluminum brackets on the side of the stringers that run parallel to the roadway and then bolted countersunk bolts through the
there again I'll pull that up and give you a better answer on that stainless fasteners the interaction of the stainless steel and the aluminum is problematic I have come across that research and I don't want to say I defer the fabricator has been a great and MassDOT have been a great partner in
approved through the chapter 85 process and I would have full confidence in them presenting or not proposing a fastener that was not compatible with the brackets themselves but something that we can double check brackets what about cost of these three alternatives part of a bigger discussion I from the fabricator there's been no mention of any cost difference and as the project currently stands MassDOT is being a valued partner for both towns and is providing the purchasing of the material and the
Sudbury and to Wayland so we've been working with DOT and have an approved design they've been working with their fabricator and as it currently stands there will be no cost to either town DOT is paying for construction the one drawback with the copper nap is can have an initial odor and oily residue but I think what was mentioned before is any type of initial leaching that seems to be the common place between all three preservatives would happen probably before delivery even happens and I would hope that odor would be very minimal by the time insulation occurs in town the decking that goes on top of these is that to be treated the same way as the glue lambs themselves that would be slightly different and that's a good a good lead-in to the proposed preservative as it stands for the actual hand rails and the sidewalk planks and those wearing surface planks is I'm sorry I have a typo here it's micronized copper azale but it's not QNAP so MCA for short and it's a water-based treatment so it's more ideal for locations of human contact because of that kind of oily film that sometimes sticks around with the QNAP there's still some copper present some possible early leaching but in general holidays it's a very minimal percentage of what goes in from all kind of research that can be proven so or research that can be shared if needed so what kind of wood are you going to use here Douglas fur or southern yellow pine is what is proposed throughout for everything yes sir so that the wearing surface is going to be treated differently than the load bearing surface yeah and the intent of that is the wearing surface is really intended to help even more protect that glulam decking and the intent is if there's a need down the road to replace those boards we went with rough saw rather than a glulam wearing surface to kind of help with any potential future maintenance which is hopefully well down the road for those wearing surface planks and that is what we have from a presentation point of view we'd love to open it to questions and I'm going to stop sharing so I can pull up some of that
we had an internal meeting last week with Sudbury group and conservation here and DPW and tech and we did have a few questions and one of them was a little bit more research on these treatment methods for the wood and what the toxicology is again we do have a priority habitat within the riverbed there and so it's important to understand exactly what is something more toxic than so we did receive new material today a new notice of intent and plans and I guess it'd be nice to know what differs in the new material that you sent again the conservation commission does not have this they need the material at least a week before so I don't know if you can go over that also and the other thing was the no rise no impact certification was that are you waiting for a signed version of that from FEMA is it as far as the no rise so FEMA I spoke with FEMA representative yesterday and they actually sent me to DCR today who handles or is kind of like the in between for the national flood insurance program between FEMA and the state so FEMA there is no FEMA permit FEMA does not permit construction projects FEMA is in charge of developing flood mapping so if there was a rise or any change to the flood plane that's when FEMA would have to be involved in order to approve those changes to the mapping from a national flood insurance program perspective they basically create these maps and then the state and local communities basically take the responsibility of permitting those projects through both the well and protection act and most communities now have floodplain overlay districts which kind of takes a brunt of that as well for more so for regulatory flood ways since the well and protection act doesn't actually have anything to do with flood ways so from what I've been told the permitting is locally it's through well and protection act through that special permit through and the local flood administrator so that's kind of where the flood stuff is at as far as those revisions so I'm not sure who had asked for it at that meeting we had last week but basically the only changes so we updated that impact plan to show where I think we had the whole work within the BLSF as temporary which some of that is temporary but the majority of it is permanent so that was changed and the only other change to the entire NOI was basically updating the form 3 impacts to split it from a cumulative impact to on a town basis okay okay and last thing is I know we talked about when we did site visit that was many months ago was you know that we're always interested in finding some way to make an improvement over existing conditions and my suggestion at the time was doing a little bit of storm water management and we're getting the two approaches especially the wayland one it's coming from a hill a lot of water coming down there and I know you have the you still have the openings in the side of the bridge and a lot of the water to escape that way but we were hoping that
those are some items that I thought we would address at some point we were hoping to address so how does that sound sure initially we proposed the project with a asphalt wearing surface over the bridge and that way to help collect storm water directed to catch basins and the approaches heard plenty of
removal of the asphalt wearing surface and as it stands today with the design there will be gaps in both the wearing surface planks and the glulam deck panels so from a stormwater perspective on the bridge would be the same conditions as what's out there currently where there's gap between the decking boards and no real way to collect it from an
approaches on both sides we're limited with town right away to be able to try to discharge anything out through the wing walls we could go straight through the abutments but in my opinion that would add some potential structural issues to those abutments as well that are functioning as intended and so I guess just a way of saying open to that discussion but from a bridge perspective itself nothing is really functioning changing from what's out there currently and there's no real way to help collect any of that storm water on the bridge something that we'd like to point out is today somewhat bumpy driving over that structure which likely would shake loose contaminants that are on vehicles hopefully we have a slightly smoother riding surface for users and potentially that would help not continue to migrate contaminants from vehicles onto the bridge deck and then into the river below so one last question is the entirety of the project within the town of Wayland property because again most of the flood plain so much of that is fish and wildlife land I just wanted to make sure that what we're permitting is strictly on town land because otherwise we might need some changes to the notice of intent besides the fact that the other half of the bridge is Sudbury
work is either within Sudbury or Wayland public right-of-way so that's that kind of to piggyback off what Mike was saying with discharging any stormwater elevation wise to put a catch basin at the approach of the bridge and discharge that it would have to discharge out onto federal property which could likely take an act of Congress to get that allowed so that is kind of one reason why that's not proposed I think it was originally discussed but yeah no there's no work outside of the right-of-way in either town so it's all town owned property I think the original discussion was just a big rip wrap apron on either side
has pretty big access points headed down to the water is that where you were referring to yeah I mean I thought when we were out there we were looking more on the other side right on the opposite side of the boat ramp because I would think that the boat ramp side would be probably a lot harder to find a place for that so okay Commission thoughts comments concerns all good again I was looking for some more toxicity data on this treatment things so I don't know what you guys had researched since last week yeah I would say that we can provide additional information we knew from when we met last week there was we were already less than a week from this hearing but from a toxicity point of view the CCA is probably the worst where there's arsenic involved the DCLI likely is probably the most environmentally friendly from a toxicity point of view and I think QNAP finds a middle ground we can provide more information to you
toxicity side CCA in general is probably our worst case so if that's kind of a let's throw that out right from the start even though it would provide the most robust longest service life we could phase that out and try to present these other two from a toxicity point of view if that would
have some sort of input but without having more information and more data on that it's kind of hard for me to weigh in on that sure what we're looking for was some general feedback from the commission see what the thoughts were and as it stands I think the best alternative to this site for continued use of the bridge is the panels and we're kind of pigeonholed into what's available and from our research that they're functional preservatives across the board some kind of good better best and what we're trying to find with you all is kind of that best option and hopefully that can satisfy everyone Do you need some sort of action from this commission anytime soon?
Yeah I guess there's a long lead time on the fabrication side so 90 to 120 days we have shot drives to review pending this conservation hearings from both communities so if we based on the differences of the application before or after fabrication kind of changes what the timeline is CCA being water based kind of has to go on before fabrication the oil base gives a little bit more time where these members can be fabricated and then be treated after the fact so in general if there's a kind of a feeling of finding some sort of best alternative from the oil base point of view and potentially some sort of way to I guess feel good about what we're proposing that would help kind of get that order started potentially so that's kind
path item I guess is getting the fabrication started and the order placed the CCA is the only one that gets applied before the glue lambs are fabricated before the glue lambs yes the other one for the kind of the less significant members of this structure are the rough sawn timber members which are not fabricated those are for the sidewalk handrails is also water based treatment that would be applied
if we were to select the CCA that would be a critical path item but if we were to select one of these others it's not correct well I think Cliff we'd either have to select it or eliminate it one of those two will put us in a position to meet our required timeline with the state just to give a little background to this and Mike you've been working on this for about a year and we're at a critical point now where the state is on board to continue with what we're calling plan a but we do need to get it
construction company lined up to perform the work and as you can see from the photographs it's in desperate need so yeah really the decision is to either eliminate the most toxic the CCA or choose it because of its longevity that would be a decision for this group but I think that's what we would be most looking for ASAP so you want at some point for us to take a vote whether we're approving the use of CCA or not you don't want us to pick the other two you're saying tell us yay or nay on that CCA and we'll go from there is
time the deck level of this bridge is underneath the expected value expected height of the subway river during a hundred year storm is that correct yes so it's not impossible that you'd have a big piece of ice that would come down during the hundred year storm and take this
not changing besides three inches of rise beyond what the current structure is doing today I understand it's not because we're putting the stuff it just that's the way that it is but in that situation let us assume that the whole bridge is wiped out then whatever we have on the
is the worst case for this there's some information on both the other alternatives about contamination to soil and minimal impacts there based on the chemical composition so I think I can help so if again to make sure I'm very clear if all you are looking for for tonight is a vote thumbs up thumbs down CCA I think we can probably talk about that for all three seconds knowing who's the commission to get a quick answer as long as you're not asking for the other two to make a choice today we'll get more information that and so if all you're looking forward to tonight is that commission do we
place structure and the stuff is nasty you know and probably our soils and our yard are probably contaminated for life from arsenic from that so I would definitely say not CCA again but let me point out that Sudbury conservation still gets to vote on this also but I guess I have a strong suspicion they're leaning in the anti CCA direction we have to
okay so if that's what we're looking for tonight then does anybody want to make a motion about CCA that we can take a quick vote right now sure I think that we vote to direct the applicants to not use CCA in construction of the project thank you
Barbara Howell yeah Cliff Lewis yeah Jenny Brown yes Lisa Aubin yes Shannon Fisher yes there we go in terms of the rest of it I think Linda I heard
just to listen in and report back or we could you know we could we're so off I mean we're way different weeks and different days and times for the meeting so it's kind of hard to have a joint meeting with them okay but I
and kind of go from there is that right Paul I think that works for the town I think that's yeah I think the biggest hurdle is to be able to order our materials which we know are going to take three to four months and having an application process at least chosen that is going to at least buy us the time we'll need to get this group whatever they need as far as further information so as far as I'm concerned I think we've accomplished that tonight perfect all right with that can I have someone make a motion for continuance that are both for some time after 630 on the 17th of
jenny brown yes lisa oven yes shannon fisher yes and sean fair yes all right all set thanks folks thank you very much thank you thanks guys all right on to public meetings so we're on 4a we're at 107 concord road and wayland d-1058 it's a request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to wayland's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection act submitted by montessori escuela for the replacement of a septic system at 107 concord road and wayland mass proposed work is partially within 100 feet of a border vegetated wetlands property is shown on assessor's map 15 parcel 26 linda they ask to continue until our next meeting thank you no one to make a nice comment about how good my spanish was there no okay we don't need any motion there on the 5a stormwater land disturbance this is 43 barney hill road swld dash 160 linda they are also continuing we just just today received a quote for a peer review for the stormwater so that should take probably a week or so to accomplish okay okie doke thank you on to 6 certificate of compliance 6a is 149 concord road d dash 971 back in the day linda let's see do we have somebody on for that i don't know if there's anybody joining us for that let me look where my 149 oh i don't yeah i think i think this is a straightforward septic replacement right oh no this was a deck that was the deck that was converted to a porch so emily made a site visit and she didn't see any issues with this project and with the completion of this so okay in fact it looks yeah we're good to go okay we're good thoughts good can i vote please to issue the certificate of compliance for 140 on
thank you luke do i hear a second thank you cliff roll call please luke lazier yes barbara howell yes cliff lewis yes jenny brown yes lisa alvin yes shannon fisher yes and sean fairzy yes thank you uh to 6b uh 43 jeffrey road dep file number 322-1052 linda i think this was the septic sorry i kind of confused uh where are we okay sorry finding all my paperwork here uh again emily took a site visit she didn't see any issues with that um checked with board of health this afternoon and they reviewed the project they have not issued um uh their completion certificate but they um darren told me he had no issues with that and will probably be um issuing the certificate of compliance tomorrow so you should be all set mr black um again we rely on them to the board of health to provide us with a with their closure before we close out but in this case it sounds like you're
rooms yes yes yes yes yes look lewis yes jenny brown yes lisa alvin yes shannon fisher yes yes thank you on to 6c 26 rice road formerly three thompson road dep found number 322 dash nine two five i remember this one linda oh who we have on the on board for this one i thought i saw doug dylan in the audience. Is he still there?
Yep. There's the panelists.
All right, Doug, go ahead. How are you? Great. As you said, Dylan, wetland scientist from Goddard Consulting here alongside Vito from Connerstone who performed the as-built engineering on this. So, 26 Rice Road, formerly known as 3 Thompson Road. And while I start to talk, I'm going to pop up plans here with a permit issued in 2018 for the construction of a single family house for the owner and applicant, Adam Stack. So, this is expired being from 2018, and so we're submitting, you know, sort of request for compliance in addition to the as-built. So, we're slightly out of the sort of validity window of the original policy. So, the original permit had a few conditions, some of which were maximum, which were not. One of the chief conditions was the commission of a vernal pool certification report. report. So, I believe that Matt Burns from BSC had been out there once or twice 2017, 18, and I believe even 22. And we sent our guy out there who visited twice this April, and those reports came back as it not being like a criteria which matched the prior reports by Matt Burns. So, a single you know, spotted sea alamander egg mass was found, and I believe Matt Burns found similarly a handful of years ago, finding, you know, one or two spotted sea alamander egg masses, which does not meet the criteria for certification under the Department of Fish and Wildlife protocols. So, that's just, you know, not meeting criteria. But chiefly is that the house was built in an alternate location from the original proposed plans. So, in 2018, September, October, November, 2018, the original house permit had the house located to the west, sort of somewhat centrally located in the lot right here and with a sort of a circular kind of lollipop driveway that turns out of the property. Out of the buffer zone and out of the riverfront area, I believe Snakebrook, yep, Snakebrook located to the far west, this little divot on the property. So, fully out of all the resource areas. So, really, the driveway is the primary piece of the project in any sort of jurisdictional resource area as well as what was permitted as lawn. So, the as-built location features the house more northerly located up along here. Still, out of the buffer zone, the house itself, the driveway accommodating this new location is a slightly different shape as well. There is also a small ADU or sort of a garage kind of storage building located to the south there, which does clip slightly into the sort of last 10 feet
in a moment here because his area of expertise was constructed in a slightly different manner as well. Vito, if you're ready, I'll hand it over to you real quick.
Sure. Vito Colano with Connerstone Engineering. So, we reviewed the as-built conditions versus that original design plan and just to go over the storm water aspects first. The original, the previous plan had essentially four storm water components, two subsurface dry wells and two surface basins. I think there was a second plan done after that one that modified that central basin. That one right there. And so essentially they've constructed that front dry well and the bioretention area that goes along with it and also the rear detention basin off to the left of the screen. And those three components, I went out and inspected them after rain. They were all dewatered and it seemed like they were functioning as they were supposed to. There was no sediment buildup and all the vegetation was growing in them as well established. However, the second infiltration dry well was not installed.
kind of to the left of the driveway. And right now there's a six inch pipe that's stubbed out that I was presuming that that was intended to go there at some point, but right now that just discharges onto the ground surface. So three of the four systems were completed. And then as far as the driveway and stuff within the buffer zone, the driveway is generally compliant with the plans except for a bump out. It looks kind of like a eyebrow off to the side as you come in. It's about 520 square feet extra pavement. Yep, right through there. It's kind of an extra lane, sort of another parking area, I guess, if the two cars are coming or something like that. But that was bumped out and that's closer towards the wetland than what was allowed on the plans. And the second component of the driveway is it was supposed to be an asphalt berm along the edge to contain all the storm water and direct it to that infiltration basin or bioretention basin. So that wasn't installed. So right now stormwater just kind of sheet flows off the edge of the driveway and isn't collected. Those are really the kind of the stormwater components and the only other one was the plan did show an upland non-habitat or non-breeding habitat area. It was kind of where it kind of yeah.
Yeah. It was I don't think it's actually shown on that. Yeah. It was not on this version but it was essentially a box approximating this area. It's not on any of the actual plans of record.
So it kind of was off the edge of the stone wall. If you go down to the as built we can kind of point it
was encroached into that area. So those are really the kind of things I saw looking between that old approved plan and the current as built conditions.
Was that additional structure in the approved plans but just in a different location or was that not in the approved plans as part of the order of
the septic field that everything else is new to the Conservation Commission.
I know there's a lot to take in here. Large property with a lot going on a lot of as built changes. A few other things I forgot to mention my first run through there was a proposed box culvert under the driveway that was for drainage as well as mentioned as reason for that and the majority of the plantings which were required for the original order of conditions were installed and met the survival criteria. And where are those Doug? Where are those? I don't see any natural vegetated non-bouverns. There were a lot of blueberry so if you'd been on I don't know if you were able to make a site visit but there are a ton of blueberry that I found one or two that still have the tags on them and you're able to just piece together that those were the blueberries specified in the original order conditions. So it meant approximately two blueberry plants are put in and this naturally vegetated non-breeding should be maintained along the western edge
march with boulders to prevent destruction of the protected habitat. So that was not put in I didn't see any of that so you know the idea was that we wanted to preserve some sort of migration pathway to the vernal pool and that's all been destroyed that's all grass up there you have driveway now right to the ADU and the garage you have I mean again this is so little of this is what we actually or any of this is what we permitted so I also have to heavily disagree with your analysis of the vernal pool I like to point out that we actually looked at purchasing this property at some point when it went for sale I
2017 that says I determined this pool is in fact a vernal pool according to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife okay so that was 2018 and 2017 and it since it's basically died at this point you know and you know we were trying to do the best we could when we permitted this to try to keep preserve some of the natural vegetation preserve some of that migration pathway into the vernal pool and obviously we failed with that you know trying to protect that so where is that right there in the front yeah okay I you know was not involved in the original submission of this permit package I was and sort of speaking from the information I've been able to collect and obviously you know as you guys are saying you were as far as the vernal pool goes I'm not the wildlife biologist myself but you know it just per the criteria wasn't certifiable and was not certified and as of a month ago just hasn't been I was I'm probably the only one that was here and I was here Barbara come on now I was there with you I was here for this one took part in 2018 on 712 and the project was the limited access project for the construction of a driveway 5.8 acres with a certified vernal pool wetland riverfront to the west and the driveway placement at that time was constrained by the vernal pool and we worked very hard to get a place where the frogs the wood frogs and so forth could cross because they couldn't go in the direction of the aqueduct and on august 2nd a mention was made of replacing a new house but that didn't come under that thing at the time limited project wildlife corridor to be on the edge and vernal pool on one side snake brook is on the other and we wanted an enhancement of the breeding habitat this is all from my notes and it was a vernal pool then and it's a vernal pool now well not anymore Barbara but so I guess I'll go back I remember this very distinctly and we literally had debates on this that this driver was going to bifurcate and could hurt this vernal pool so I distinctly remember us not wanting exactly what we're sitting with and so I get Doug you weren't there the original so I'm saying it's your fault but I mean we literally had debates about not having to sit here and have this discussion so
I can read you sections of the order conditions here that we addressed this in the order and none of this was met I mean there's also 75 trees removed and I don't see a replanting plan was never submitted I don't see any compensation for those they have to be installed with 180 days when the existing tree was cut there's you know vernal pool nonbreeding habitat west of the vernal pool
habitat approximately 45 feet west of the stone wall shall be maintained and undisturbed during the active 2019 vernal pool breeding season and any successive years when construction is going a wetland scientist or amphibian biology will monitor the vernal pool for spring migration and active breeding none of that was ever done or submitted to us we asked for the removal of the trees and the access drives we
want any construction done during the vernal pool breeding season again as determined by wetland scientists or amphibian biologists again none of this stuff was done and then we see we have a project that we've never seen before okay I mean at some point they should have applied for like an amendment or something because I mean I'm really not sure what we can do in this situation how did they get a building permit for this or is this just built without a permit I'm assuming they got a permit but they never asked you know they didn't follow they didn't consult with our order conditions obviously sorry I'm confused what do you mean how do we deal with this to deny the certificate yeah yeah I know but I mean how do we
expire too so we start from scratch with the new NOI then that is specified in the condition somewhere as essentially the option I lost that exact page but I do recall seeing that in there that you know certain deviations in excess of a certain amount so if you know ultimately that's what's going to be required in order to obtain the certificate of compliance that's what we'll need to do I mean I think this is the easiest thing I've ever seen in compliance it's not even like close to what we heard did who did the vernal pool this time did Matt Byrne do it Matt Byrne did one or two of the other ones and we had our in 2026 who did it yeah just let's say we had our wildlife biologist Ryan Rosine I think we should have Matt do it he's done it
time there it one or two spotted salamander egg masses had been observed which anything prior to that as you guys are saying sounds like it was a different story so I'm confused it was considered a vernal pool and then once all of this work was done now there's no signs of it doesn't that just mean that it was destroyed by the work so it was listed as a PVP a potential vernal pool and my read of the order conditions was in recognition of that and it's it yes it was to be certified and you know back back in 2018 2019 and you know seven eight years later now here we are and was it certified then before work was done no it was supposed to be as they did it the condition in the permit was he was supposed to certify it
happened and in 2017 the realtor actually did a vernal pool assessment with matt burn and he decided yes it is certifiable vernal pool it has all the aspects of certifying he went out there again in 2018 matt burn did I think as part of this project and said yes you know everything again you know the following year it's still as
you never certified the vernal pool we're not going to touch this until you certify it and so he hired matt burn to go out
up in the pictures I mean it is holding water like it's physical characteristics it sounds like yeah they just destroyed all the life that would go into it everything we wrote in the order condition to preserve the migration pathway and the nonbreeding habitat was not done okay it was it was developed you know so and it's most of it is grass so and then the road
never seen this project you know it's completely different from what we permitted so oh sorry easy thing we're all talking around have them refile yeah let's deny the COC and then if they want closure on it they're going to refile this is a new
yeah man Barbara we literally didn't want to have this conversation all that time ago I remember having these meetings good gosh okay solid then I think get a motion and to deny the certificate of compliance for 26 rice road and require them to file a
yes Barbara Howell yes Louis Lewis yes Jenny Brown yes Lisa Aubin yes Shannon Fisher yeah and Sean fairs yes as well okay here we go all right I appreciate your time everybody thanks Doug thank you thanks Vito and on to 7 A extension of request for one weird meadow path DEP file number 322 dash 10 10th Linda yeah I don't know if we have anybody on for this Tina is that are you the yeah I'm Michael Morton from Black Builders I'm here as well okay well here we'd like to demonstrate how you do a project I like to report also that I have been getting regular inspection reports for this project again probably the
so I think all of you should be invited when we do the closure on this one for the for the site visit because it's it's a it is it's definitely one of the most beautiful properties in Whalen I think but so they they've been they they submitted recently some updates to their planting plans it got very complicated for me to review all that I think did did we pass it off to you Shannon oh maybe not you sent me an email but I haven't had a chance I didn't realize I was the main point person on this I just thought I can have a next meeting yeah yeah I mean I guess we'll probably try to schedule a site visit at some point too because I'd like to see you you talked about not planting on the slope and avoiding certain areas and maybe Shannon and I can can head out there next week at some
I don't have a problem with extending this because it's a fairly large project and we still need to get all those plantings in so I'd like to do that while we still have a valid order of conditions okay okay commission we good grant your request can I get a motion then to extend the request for one weir meadow path extension sorry I didn't mute it sorry I think I missed it how long of an extension are we talking about here a year that's what you asked for right yes yeah I move that we issue an extension on the order of conditions for one weir meadow path for a period of one year thank you Luke do you second second thank you
yes cliff lewis yes jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes shannon pitcher yes all set thanks folks great thank you so much you got it on to 7b herd pond additional treatment dep file number 322 1040 I think I saw Tom oh there's Tom hey Tom hey guys everybody yes thank you I am I am here because about a year ago the commission kindly approved permitting to apply herbicide clearcast on herd pond in an effort to fight the ongoing abundant growth of water chestnuts and through separate communications with Emily she reminded me that the permit was good for only that one season last year so very timely notification from her and I'm here to request from the commission permission to apply herbicide again this year when we applied it last year it wasn't as effective as we'd hoped there was some browning and killing of the plants but there's a lot more of it that wasn't treated and we want to give another shot that one season last year of applying the herbicide didn't give us a sense of whether we have a shot at applying a herbicide more effectively to treat the water chestnut in addition to the hand plan that we do or not and so when Emily raised awareness I'm here to take any questions about it but upon doing so request permission to apply herbicide again under the conditions that we provided the commission last year i.e. standard application of the compound within the confines that we provided last year that documentation is not here I can provide it all again separately but basically it's a request to repeat activities that were done last year under the permit when it was initially granted gotcha next time but let's start with you any thoughts comments concerns um I remember an email exchange you were you were emailing back and forth with Stephanie Hodge too because she had did she have some concerns about putting it near fish and wildlife land or was was she okay with that right so uh no this is so this is where Emily was present at me so the background on this uh when there's what's called the south cove of herd pond and that is really now basically chock full of water chestnut and we were hoping in particular that that area of the pond would be cleared out and the herbicide made very little of a dent there and it was a misunderstanding on my part we thought that Solitude the company that was contracted to do the work did not go close to that boundary on the on the pond to apply the herbicide that was and so my perception was that they that they had shied away from fish and wildlife boundaries and didn't apply the herbicide and meeting with Stephanie Koch and the Solitude team my misunderstanding was cleared up the boundary between fish and wildlife property and the state is fixed as merely the fact that the water level was high enough last year that it was over that boundary and so Solitude couldn't apply the herbicide because that water was in the boundary for fish and wildlife so it was just a misunderstanding on my part it wasn't that they didn't apply the herbicide per the plan it was they were restricted from going that far into the pond to treat further nevertheless there is still a lot of the water chestnut within the permitted boundary that we want to try again this year we don't know if part of the reason for the lack of efficacy was a timing
did see some effectiveness on the plants but there was still a lot that was green and unaffected by the applicants of the herbicide but Linda to your point that whole meeting with Stephanie was because of a ultimately a misunderstanding where we thought solitude did not go all the way to that boundary to apply the herbicide they in fact did the water lift was high enough that it went into fish and wildlife territory where they could not go and apply the herbicide and Stephanie clarified that for us instead if we do want to go that far that's a whole separate permitting process that is sort of not going to happen in the time frame of this season so the ask here is simply to treat within the boundaries last year and we'll forward all that information to you and the commission again to hit the water chestnut with herbicide see if it makes any more of a dent than it did last year and if it didn't you know we might have to come with a
to your point that whole meeting was ultimately a misunderstanding on my part that solitude applied to the herbicide as far as they could without trespassing into that federal territory so any water chestnuts on that side of the boundary are just not going to be treated but it's shallow enough can they do hand pulling down there can they do what down
they used to have proper boats and crews that could go out there and for the days they were on the pond they
does get a crew out there they use all that time up pulling up the plants that are in other areas of the pond so we were hoping Tom Largue and I that the herbicide would really do a number on that South Cove area knock back the water chestnut enough where when we had the hand pulling crews out that they could complete the job or at least get it back to more manageable levels so yes there will be hand pulling it's just it's kind of diminishing returns year over year based on Solitude's ability to get crews and the equipment they can use well I think we do have some reporting requirements which is let us know what you're planning on treating where you're treating how much you're applying and then
and it seems like it's really targeted to South Cove anyway so but but to your point I was going over the OC I do owe you the report from last year so I have all that documentation I'll compile that and send it to
trying to form a record basically that help us with decision making in the future too so okay so my action within the next couple of weeks is to compile that and send it
herd pond water chestnut whisper because the timing the ideal timing depends on water levels and temperature but it's also going to depend on when the solitude can get a crew out
for the commission before we apply that stuff but June will be the earliest mid to late June all right sounds good so just a quick question on timing it sounds like aquatic plants must be quite different because I always my understanding is that for the most part applying herbicides to plants on the ground is
he says the seed so bad that one of the kids from the refuge drove over with her car and got a flat tie up that is what the seeds are like those seeds are nasty they're sharp I tell Tom Largie the silver lining is he talks about a seed bank and he's not wrong I'm telling him now that seed bank has got to be saturated at this point there can't possibly be any more seeds down there but who knows but yeah those seeds Tom Largie and I have gone through the past two seasons and we get or I get cut up he has me hauling these
treatment program as per approval from last year with the same terms and conditions for Herd Pond thank you Luke do we hear
just as a side note I pulled up pictures to see what these seed pods look like and everything on there is like how to grow water chest nuts where to get water chest nuts from how
let me double check here nope okay babs how are we looking for the May 6 I just had a minor thing I turned them in very minor minor oh on the minutes I thought I saw me voting to adjourn along with everyone which I didn't do because I wasn't there oh okay remove Shannon from adjournment okay thank you Shannon good catch anybody else all right with babs and shan's edits we good to approve the minutes if so can get a motion I move that we approve the minutes from the May 6 20 26 meeting with further revisions as discussed thank you Luke do I
yes Cliff Lewis oh I have to abstain wasn't I wasn't there thank you and I also saw your name on there did I do something too you seconded something oh yeah yeah making sure you didn't use out that I seconded the adjournment okay get me out of there come on uh Jenny Brown yes Lisa Aubin yes Shannon Fisher is going abstain and Sean fair yes all right anything any last minute what we got watch out for turtles they're on the road again I rescued two this week they're on the run huh yeah they're we got good signage on Clay Beale road I'm not sure how many turtles we've saved but they're good signs thanks I just I just signed the heck out of Stonebridge which turns out to be a
yeah I drive three or four times every day I don't think I've seen a smash turtle so not not clay pit stone stone road I drive on clay pit so I don't know the signs might be doing some good there that'd be great because I saw a lot of smash turtles there last year that's why I signed it up were you able to put some on sedge meadow I know I found a few small ones there last year right you found babies which means there must be an adult um well I'm out of signs but I'll order like 12 more I'll see if I can do a walk down there just to that so Shannon I'm working with the police the police chief also I have a little bit
uptick in traffic on Pelham Island Road I think people are trying to avoid route 20 you know from Sudbury and they come down and they fly down Pelham Island Road so we're hoping to put up some signs maybe some with little flashy things that says slow down or wildlife crossing or something like that so hopefully we'll have this
I think I'm going to get a lot of push back from DPW on that but we see a car coming fast and you just drag them out real quick people like to speed on these small roads I
should sign up to snow plow in the winter time to find out about the speed bumps all right well Shannon thank you for doing that appreciate it I got nothing else Linda anything else on your end no there was a oh I did get a new grant from DOT for doing design work on the culverts downstream of the Snakebrook dam we're going to design Thompson aqueduct and loker culverts because we just want to make sure that they are adequate now with the new design with the Snakebrook dam so that was $150,000 that DOT gave us to do design work so that's great nice and remind me what's the time that the dam supposed to be completed what was there oh they're doing they're going gangbusters down there so originally we thought what we've done in phases we're going to do the crest of the dam do the low level outlet and work on the spillway and they're basically doing all three at once for the most part they and we have a time saver because what they did is they decided to camera the low level outlet that outlets back to Snakebrook dam when that comes from the gatehouse and dumps the water downstream of the Snakebrook dam originally that was planned or proposed to have
the same what they were planning to do with the intake one which is just slip line it and would avoid a lot of disturbance down there by not taking all the piping out and replacing it and the other problem is that the gatehouse walls or the basement or the foundation walls are probably two to three foot thick so the idea of drilling through that to get a new pipe in there was like nobody wanted to do that and potentially ruin the structure itself the gatehouse so it's easier just to use the existing pipe that already goes through the wall there are the basement foundation so we've been out there for a regular basis and it's amazing what's going
hope so you know nice love it all right anybody else folks all right last roll call tonight please anyone make the motion to adjourn so moved thank you Luke do your seconds yeah I can second tonight because I'm here okay thank you Cliff for being here and for
yes Shannon Fisher yes yes as well all good night everybody