August 20, 2025 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript

August 20, 2025 - Conservation Commission

Autoscroll:

Luke Legere: Let's go ahead and call to order the meeting of the Wayland Conservation Commission for August 20. 2025 this meeting is remote. Only one may watch or participate remotely with a meeting link that can be found at the website available. excuse me. the link available on our website. and pursuant to chapter two of the act of 2025 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law. This meeting may be recorded. which will be made available to the public on WayCAM as soon after the meeting as is practical. right? So with that said. why don't we go right ahead and dive into the public hearings? One a we have a public hearing on a Notice of Intent filed for 297. and 311. Boston Post Road DEP file number 322. dash. 1051. this was filed pursuant to the Wayland wetlands and water resource protection Bylaw and the Wetlands Protection Act submitted by urban US Retail LLC for the work at 297. and 311. Boston Post Road in Wayland mass. The proposed work includes the conversion of an existing building to an outdoor retail area extensive landscaping and the improvement of existing utilities. The project is within the 200 foot riverfront area and the 100 foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated weather and the property is shown on assessors map. 23. parcels. 1413. and 13. A Linda. This is deja vu. Okay. not just me. good. Linda Hansen: and probably a lesson learned for all of us. The butter lownesses were not sent out prior to the previous hearing that we had on July 30. So we have to reopen the hearing. and we need to again go through. well. we don't have to go through the whole process of. of. I guess. presenting the information. I think it's a matter of of seeing if there's any butters who are have joined us and have any interest in participating. Does that make sense. Luke. or do you? Luke Legere: Yeah. sure. I mean. I guess maybe I would just give the applicant. an applicant an opportunity really quickly. if there was anything different from what we heard last time. Linda Hansen: there is a little bit Maggie on from from Langdon engineering. and she did. I think you guys got it in your agenda packet. I'm not sure Barbara got the hard copy. but there was some. you know. we talked about some typo. kind of information that was in the narrative. And so she did address all that. And. well. she could tell you herself. she's right there. Maggie.
Unknown: So first. I just want to start off by apologizing for having to come back in front of you guys. but it's nice to see all of you again. So we did revise. per the last hearing. we revised the Notice of Intent packet. We described how the project aligns with waylands wetland by law. we expanded on the operation and maintenance manual. and we have also we did not include the riverfront multiplier. So we revised that form. and those are being sent out today. I believe so. And then we've also worked with our landscape consultant. We don't have a revised landscape plan at this point yet. but we're definitely willing to work with the Commission to get that approved.
Luke Legere: Okay. thank you. So I think we all remember pretty well the project commission members. any questions from any of us on our side of the table before we open it to the public. Shannon Fischer: My only question had been about landscape. and it sounds like that's being going to be addressed. So. Luke Legere: okay. great. Well. Seeing and hearing no other questions. Are there any questions or comments from any members of the public attending this evening?
I am not seeing any hands raised or hearing anyone so I'm taking that as a no. all right. so then I think. unless I'm mistaken here. Linda. we're just gonna. as you said. sort of deja vu. We did this once before. so we can do it once again. So I guess first I would take a motion to close the public hearing under Chapter 194 in the state act. Shannon Fischer: I can make the motion. but I just realized I do have one more question. Oh. sure. go ahead. please. I just wanted to ask on the plans on page 94 or sorry. page 94 of the application. I don't know what it is for you. It did mention that for ongoing maintenance. for that flood storage basin. there would be. like. once a year for. Fertilizer. And I think. you know. we'd like. like. don't. Linda. don't we typically like to see not too much fertilizer kind of used in these buffer zones. That's one of the benefits of native plants. is that. is that a thing Linda Hansen: typically. all our call. our conditions and perpetuity include no pesticides. herbicide. fertilizers in resource areas and buffer zones. There's. there's many. many. you know. organic alternatives. And we ourselves use just an organic compost. you know. in all our properties. And I think that can easily be done here. too. I mean. they have a fairly robust planting plan for the front in order to maintain a garden. And that was another thing I was going to bring up. You know. we do have no underground sprinklers. but the urban asked for. or the developer asked for. if they could put in a drip line in order to keep a lot of these plants alive. And especially. I mean. like this year. you would have definitely needed that. you know. So I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if the commission has a problem with that. but I think. I think we can just. you know. we can. We can keep that condition in perpetuity. And I think. I think. you know. developer that can probably adjust their their plans in order to use a more environmentally sensitive fertilizer.
Luke Legere: I'm good with that. Do that. Okay. alrighty. Then one final shot. Anybody on the Commission have any other questions? No. okay. then I would take that motion to close the hearing under the state act in chapter 194 so moved. Thank you. Shannon. Do I have a second? Second? Thank you. Barbara. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara how. yes. and I am a yes as well. right? I would take another motion to issue an order of conditions approving the project under Chapter 194 in the state act. subject to conditions as discussed and upon Linda signing off on a final planting plan for that for the project.
Unknown: So moved. Luke Legere: Thank you. Barbara. Do we have a second? Second? Thank you. Jenny. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how Yes. and I am a yes as well. Linda Hansen: Real quick. Maggie. I know you have some they have some time constraints. How do you want me to deliver the order conditions? I think. think I could probably have that ready by tomorrow. Do you? Are you? Are you responsible for for recording that. or is somebody else going to do that? We I would record it. yeah. so you want the original then. yep. yep. okay. and so I will send the last time I sent a certified mail letter. it took over a month to get there. It ended up in Arlington. Texas for like. three weeks. and the postmaster here said he's never encountered such incompetent sort of services. I don't know the best way of getting it to you. Unknown: Got a mailing issue on this project? Do you Linda Hansen: want to send a runner? Do you want me to send it regular mail or. Unknown: yeah. just send it regular mail. Okay. yep. Linda Hansen: Well. we can just keep our fingers crossed. I always have a second copy here. Okay. okay. I have. I have signature authority. so it's easy for me to prove the second one if you don't get it within a few days. Okay. that's Unknown: good. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you everybody. Luke Legere: Thank you. Good to see you again. Alrighty. moving on. 1b this is one oh elite. excuse me. 108 Lake Shore Drive DEP file number 322. dash. 1042. it's a continued hearing on a Notice of Intent file pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection by law and the state Wetlands Protection Act submitted by Melissa Haley for the prior unpermitted renovation work and completion of said work at 108 Lakeshore drive in Wayland. The proposed work is within 100 feet of Dudley pot. The property is shown on assessors map. 40 6b parcel 35 Linda Hansen: Linda. the applicant has asked to continue to our next meeting. which is September 10. Luke Legere: I would take a motion to continue the hearing under both chapter 194 and the state act to September 10. After 630
Barbara Howell: I move that we continue to September 6. Under what objection at chapter 194 I think Luke Legere: it was September 10. Unknown: Oh. I thought you said the sixth. 10. right? Linda. Linda Hansen: 10. yes. Okay. I got that right. don't I? Unknown: Yes. Luke Legere: Okay. so we have a motion to continue under both the state act and chapter 194. to September 10. After 630 Do I have a second? Second? Thank you. Shannon. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara how. yes. and I say yes as well. Okay. 1c. 397. Boston. Post Road DEP file number 322. dash. 1048. continued hearing on a Notice of Intent filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection Bylaw and the state Wetlands Protection Act submitted by Dan skin for the after the fact. paving work and installation of stormwater management at 397. Boston Post Road and 99 Pelham Island Road in Wayland. The proposed work is within the 200 foot riverfront area and the 100 foot buffer zone of boring vegetate wetlands. The property is shown on assessors map. 23 parcels. 004. and 015. Linda Hansen: Linda. the applicant is asked to continue to September 2. Luke Legere: Okay. I would take a motion to continue the public hearing under both chapter 194 and the act to September 10. after 630 Unknown: so moved second. Luke Legere: Thank you both. Shannon Fisher. oh yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara Howell. yes. And I am a yes as well. All right. 1d 43 Jeffrey road DEP file number 322. Dash 0152. this is a Notice of Intent filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection by law and the state Wetlands Protection Act submitted by Thomas black for the replacement of a septic system at 43 Jeffrey Road in Wayland. The project is within the 200 foot riverfront area and the 100 foot buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands. And the property is shown on assessors map. 28 parcel 15. Linda. Linda Hansen: What it appears we have two twins called Dylan Brady on and then we have Thomas black. the owner. So I know who wants to take on the the presenting this to the commission Unknown: that is correct for the record. Dylan Brady. with Brady consulting. so if I share my screen. absolutely. thank you.
And can everyone see that? All right. not yet.
Luke Legere: Yes. I can see it now. Unknown: Great. So again. yeah. for the record. Dylan Brady with great consulting. they present Mr. Thomas black at the septic repair at 43 Jeffrey road. the existing wetland resource areas at 43 Jeffrey road consist of a bordering vegetative wetland shown in a dashed blue line here. as well as a mean annual High Water associated with the Sud Bay River in purple here. Then there's the associated underfoot buffer zone that's shown in Sean with the inner and outer riparians shown in a magenta line. the existing system. as I zoom in here. is shown as this dashed line that goes down gradient to its backyard. Here. we were proposing to remove that and as well the existing septic tank. which is located here. and replace that with a 1500 gallon concrete septic tank here. and then a Presby system located here. The existing system is located 60 feet away. approximately from the bretland versus area. This new system is located 85.4 feet away. so it's about 20 feet further away from the resource area than existing This is not an upgrade. This is going from a three bedroom system to a three bedroom system. We do not need any local upgrades or variances in terms of Board of Health for this system. And with that. I'll just turn over the commission with any questions you may have about the Luke Legere: project. Thank you very much. Linda. why don't we start with you. please. Linda Hansen: Where did you say the existing one is? Is that on the plan? Unknown: Yeah. I'll zoom in here. as long as you can see all this. So it's this dashed line here. So it is somewhat it starts within proposed system. but it goes downgrading here. So our new system is going to go with the slope here and move further away from the resource area. Okay. so
Linda Hansen: it looks like the inter repairing area is fairly vegetated. like with canopy and lawn. right? Unknown: Yes. So the smaller dash line here is just landscaping planting area. and then where it's labeled tree line. that is the actual vegetated area back here. So most of the 100 foot is fairly vegetated. maybe just right here. This is more landscaping and lawn area than tree line. Linda Hansen: Yeah. because typically. we always ask for vegetative buffers. but if you already have one. then. then it might not be a need for that. What was my other question was. oh. did you get approval from from a Board of Health yet? Unknown: The. Do have the the application. but we don't have approval yet. We aren't anticipating any any major comments. just again. there's no variances or local upgrades requested. So okay. Linda Hansen: I know Darren wasn't in today. so I didn't have the chance to ask him what the status was. but no. I doesn't look like you have my too many. too many options here. Do you?
Unknown: No. no. we. we explored some test holes. as you can see on the right side of the lawn here. but that would obviously cause a lot more excavation and disturbance to run a line all the way across the backyard up here. So we figured this would have the least impact. just keeping it close to where it is existing. Linda Hansen: and no retaining wall required. Unknown: nope. nope. It's very. very slight grading here. It's only about two inches just to meet minimum grade. But very. very slight change in grade here. okay. Linda Hansen: Well. my only request is that if you do get make changes. I mean. you know. we can close the hearing and everything tonight if the Commission's fine with it. but if you end up making a revised plan for the board of health that I would request a copy of that so. and I don't. would kind of prefer to issue. wait to issue the order conditions based on if there are any changes. again. they're probably going to be minor. like you say. They probably won't affect the location or. you know. it would probably just be design changes from from Board of Health. But we always like to have the same plan on record. So Unknown: yeah. we would have to be accepted condition. Just saying that if any changes are made to the Board of Health process. that would supply you a new plan in the most updated plan. yeah. no. appreciate that.
Luke Legere: That all for you. Linda. yeah. that's all for me. Okay. thanks. Commission members. Any questions?
Unknown: Straightforward.
Luke Legere: I know I know. I agree. Shannon. it's further from the wetlands. It's like for like system in terms of bedrooms capacity. So. as Linda said. I don't see a ton of options available to the applicant here. right? Let's open this up to see if there are any members of the public who have any questions. comments or concerns. Seeing no hands. I will take that as a sign that there are none.
Linda Hansen: You have a wetland summary report from South River environmental. Is there a name associated with a person who did the wetland delineation? Unknown: Yes. it's John Zimmer. I'm not sure if you include it on the summary report. but it's John Zimmer. Is his Linda Hansen: name? Okay? All right. good enough. Thank you. Luke Legere: So Mr. Brady. as as Linda indicated a moment ago. typically. we tend to leave these open until the Board of Health process is wrapped up. just to be efficient and ensure that. you know. basically. you don't have to come back to us again with revised plans. So we could do that. Or if there's any kind of a time constraint and the applicant wants to sort of run the risk of maybe needing to come back. we could just go ahead and close and vote right now. What would your preference be? Unknown: Yeah. actually. I believe Mr. Black is online. so I can leave it up to him. but I am more than comfortable with closing tonight. I'm not anticipating any comments with this one that will change the plan drastically. So I'm comfortable with that. but I'll leave that up to Mr. Black. and I agree with that. I'm comfortable that as well. There is no time constraint on this at all right now. thank you. And just. would you just identify yourself for the I'm sorry. this is Thomas black. 43 Jeffrey road. so I'm agreeing with the idea of closing out tonight as Dylan Brady just Luke Legere: said. understood. And thank you very much. Okay. last chance commission. Any questions. comments. thoughts. concerns. hearing. None. I would take a motion to close the hearing under the state Wetlands Protection Act and chapter 194
Unknown: so moved. Luke Legere: Thank you. Shannon. we have a second. Second. Thank you. I think Jenny beat you to it. Not totally sure. Um. thank you both. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara how. yes. I also vote yes. Unknown: Thank you very much. It was weird meeting you all. Have a great night. Thank you. everybody. All right.
Luke Legere: Sorry. I'm a little scattered. Did we actually vote? Was that just to close the hearing? Did we vote to issue? No. you just call okay. I thought so. Okay. that's what I thought. So we got one more to go. I would also. Also take a motion to issue an order of conditions approving the project under Chapter 194 and the state act with conditions as discussed. Moved. Thank you. Shannon. Do we have a second? Please? Unknown: Second? Luke Legere: Thank you. Barbara. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara how. yes. and I am a yes as well. Okay. now we are done. Thank you. Mr. Black. have a good evening. All right. moving along to 1e 13. Charena Road. DEP file number 322. dash. 1041. this is a continued hearing on a Notice of Intent filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection Bylaw and the state Wetlands Protection Act submitted by Carol Sid and Patricia Laza wiki for the demolition of the existing house and development of a new three house subdivision at 13 Charena Road in Wayland. Project is shown on assessors map. 38 lot 157. and is located within the 100 foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. Linda. Linda Hansen: let's see where are we at? There's way too much paperwork here. I have your responses from August 7. is that correct to the peer review? Was that that was just provided on the letter of transmittal. right? Kevin. Kevin O'Leary: yes. okay. all right. Linda Hansen: And then a new planting plan was that what else that came in there? Kevin O'Leary: Yes. on that same letter of transmittal. and also the alternate water line plan. I can share screen and pull that stuff up if it's okay. Linda Hansen: I wanted to do that because. I mean. I think I have my act together here. I did have a few questions about certain things. But why don't you start Unknown: okay? I
Kevin O'Leary: hold on one second. I'm need to find the right stuff.
Linda Hansen: There's an alarm going off in my um. an extra officer. See what that is. So I'll be right back.
Kevin O'Leary: Right. Can people see that please? Yes. okay. this is the overall submission plan. They're all linked together. This is one of two on the sheets. This is the second sheet. This is the water. the alternate water. main plan that was submitted on August 7. And by the way. I'm Kevin O'Leary from the jillson company. and with me is Carol and Mark Seto. the project proponents. This plan was created after the last hearing that there was a willow tree down in this area that the butter at 11 Charena Road. Vanessa Jason had expressed concerns with the water line that was proposed going in from Charena road. So we've relocated to come up with a sketch plan. or actually an official plan. that ties the water into old Connecticut path and enters the property through approximately a 40 foot wide strip of land that's owned in fee by the project development. And it comes down here to Seto wood lane and tees goes right or easterly to a proposed hydrant in the cul de sac. and then goes westerly a couple 100 feet. or probably 150 feet. to a hydrant on the opposite side of the road. This is the first lot. Is Number One seal wood lane. which is not part of the Notice of Intent filing. but has its frontage on this 50 foot right of way. This hydrant here has to be within 800 feet of this existing hydrant down here. This is a fire department requirement. So we just place the hydrant here and we give it a distance. It's about. you know. like I said. 574 feet to the hydrant up here. It's 202 50 feet away or separated. So this is the alternate water main and hydrant plan submitted back in the beginning of the month. This is the revised tree plan. I'm just going to reduce the scale a little bit. I'm sorry. And this was revised pursuant to DEP. GTS comment. or comments relative to the tree replacement planting schedule in this area of the plan where they came up with a slightly different count of the number of trees that were to be removed. We recounted ours. adjusted the numbers. adjusted the replacement and mitigation plantings and resubmitted it. or put a rev date on it and resubmitted it beginning of this month. Beyond that. This is the letter of transmittal that has the DGT response. This was submitted with the two plans with three plans in in here. DG T's comments. and then my response is right below them. with the date. August 7. And these are the three plans that was. I'm sorry. two plans. And then the the. you know. the O and M plan was modified or slightly revised. and assigned sign and dated by the project opponent. Carol Seto. And that was also a comment from DGT that we provided. Back to Linda. so this is what is pending. We haven't heard back from DGT. At least my office hasn't heard back from DGT yet. I don't know if Linda has heard back or not on this. or if a response is necessary.
Luke Legere: So Linda. I think you're muted if you're trying to talk. I to
Linda Hansen: talk. I have not heard back from DGT.
Kevin O'Leary: So this plan has gone through Board of Health for subdivision approval and review and approval of the stormwater I computations and drainage design planning board has approved the plan. and we have not revised this plan. You can see that the the water main is still in place down here. I was waiting for any additional comments from DGT before we revise the plan to remove the water line and come down this lot line between a one and a two into the roadway area. And there's a couple other minor adjustments and modifications also that I'd like to discuss when appropriate with the Commission. perhaps at this meeting. Linda Hansen: So Kevin. do you need approval from the fire department for the change in locations to the hydrants?
Kevin O'Leary: I think that they need to review it. I don't know if an official approval is required. We had an approval letter previously. and the hydrant was down in this location. See that hydrant still on the plan right in here. but we satisfy their 800 foot not exceeding 800 feet. So we're not sure if I don't. I don't believe an official approval is required. Okay. I can double check. So
Linda Hansen: I think a couple of outstanding things. There's a waiver you submitted for submitting a 40 scale plan. That was your plan. I don't think the the commission has has approved that waiver. Is that correct?
Kevin O'Leary: I uh. yeah. there were a few waivers submitted with the with the application. And I think I I submitted another waiver on the letter of transmittal when I submitted it. when it was submitted with this packet. it's I gotta find
Linda Hansen: it for waivers being requested for reducing the tree compensation by about 50% Kevin O'Leary: right? Yes. that's because. and I give it's in this paragraph. right here. I can read it says another tree count was performed. This is in response to dgts comment. Another tree count was performed. tabulated quantities removal and replacement had been adjusted on the revised proposed planting plan. Listed above. minor count discrepancies from the August 4 DGT quantities listed above remain. please accept the following as a waiver request from both chapter 193 and 194 replacement tree and shrub guidelines. Health of existing trees and the health of the existing trees is not distinguished in the guidelines in the site development areas of the property the trees proposed for removal are significantly aged. with noted declining health in the submitted arborist reports. it's unjust to provide fully compliant healthy replacement trees for in place dead and dying ones. Removal of the sickly vegetation will serve to reduce the dead and dying disease trees in in invading. harmful insects and invasive plants. Yeah. so that's the waiver request submitted.
Linda Hansen: What confuses me is that you say in response that more plantings will be provided the time of individual lots are permitted and developed. but you're taking down a lot of trees on the lots that when you haven't even provided plans for how those are getting developed. So would it make more sense to wait to to come up with a planting plan. a tree removal thing. until you developed the plans for the individual lots? Kevin O'Leary: It may. if it doesn't delay the commission acting on this application? Well. I Linda Hansen: think was probably gonna delay the app. The vote is that that you're asking for a 50% reduction in the amount of replacement plantings you're planning on doing for all the trees. I mean. I have. I've accounted 91 trees of mature. of live trees that you're taking down. Is that correct? Kevin O'Leary: I can't confirm your number. but it's. it's on the plan. Linda Hansen: Yeah. no. that's what you have. You have 42 and 56 minus seven. right? As far as I can tell. it looks like you're proposing to just replace that with 31 trees. So that's and 20 or 50 some shrubs. either 60 some shrubs. I guess. So I don't think we want to wait to find out what you're planning on putting in on the individual lots later. I mean. that's typically not what we do. You know. as just as you say in this. in your response here. because then you go back and say you're not doing non structural and led techniques because. because of the existing healthy. over story and understory vegetation. But again. if you're taking down most of the trees on lot for a you don't you no longer have that. You know. you know what I mean. It's just. I'm not sure I'm following this so well. Kevin O'Leary: the majority of the replacement trees. as you can see. are going back in on lot a four in this area. They're the colored symbols in here. In lot a four. Here's the lot line. It comes down here. and then back to Cedar Wood lane. So I think all the replacement plantings are in or on lot a four. and some of the trees are in the cul de sac area. You know. you can. you know. we've located them and plotted them and then put X's through the ones that are coming down. And the average report. I think the commission. I know the commission has it. And in that report. here's the report. there were pictures of prior to the foliage in the spring. and then full foliage in the summer. And this is what the site looks like. The trees are are all overgrown with invasive species. And the arborist conclusion is that this. there's no value to this. It's. it's. it's overrun.
Um. this is a second report with it in foliage. So as you can see. Linda Hansen: am I missing something that is there? Oh. there's a legend. Okay. you have trees. right? I mean. some tweaking is going to have to be done. You have. you have trees on a rock pile. so. or trees and shrubs. so.
Kevin O'Leary: yeah. and this. this aerial. and I'm glad you brought that up. because the the rock pile areas are fill material that was dumped there years or decades ago. And that's I tried to denote. or pick up the the areas of fill. So these trees have come up in material that probably doesn't even have any top soil on it. other than what's. you know. fallen and decayed there over the time that they've been in place. But this was used as a stockpiling area by the prior owners. or the the owners prior to the prior owner. or. you know. subsequent. prior owners. You can see that there's rock piles all over the place in this property. or in this area of the property. So it's. it's. it's been clear cut. My guess is there's a. you know. there's a couple 24 inch trees over here that are out of the way. And probably. you know. we're able to mature without being damaged by the fill. but it has the indications that that this was completely cleared area. or a cleared land in a prior generation. or with a prior generation. there's not much in here that's. you know. significant in reach. In regards to the diameters. you can see there's a 12 inch. Here's a 16 inch. and it's all it's mostly dead ash trees. I don't know if we give a species in the arborist report. I don't think. I think he just generalizes. because there's too many trees to be specific about it. But up in this area of the property where the grade is more natural and doesn't appear to have been all to. Record. you get into your more mature. established vegetation. And that's why we're. you know. we're not going into this area. you see the limit of work right here. So. you know. the proposal is to try to get rid of this vegetation. and get rid of these trees that you know have become dead and dying with the diseases and the bugs. and that's what the arborist report points out so and that's why I justified it. That's why I thought 50% was a fair estimate. I think it's probably conservative high. that that's the amount of trees that are. you know. more than half dead. Barbara Howell: Can I just say something No. many been a years ago. when my brother was probably a senior in high school. He had a part time job with Charlie Wheelock. and they worked in this area. and they took all the soil from this whole entire area out before Wayland farm is changed their laws and now forbids that. But this whole area was stripped. and then they sold the loan that they took out. and there was nothing left. And when they get through. that's when you know. Torino lane. named for Charlie Wheelock and his wife. Rina. was put down. and then they did the same thing by River Road. That's why we laid ahead. I don't know if he did it. he stopped in Sudbury. but that he was just stripping Wayland. And then they passed some rules.
Linda Hansen: Well. the thing is. there's not much native material left here about it.
Barbara Howell: Ground was all the good loam was removed.
Linda Hansen: So does the Commission have any interest in doing a site visit to view the condition of the trees?
Shannon Fischer: I'd actually be really interested in it in a site visit too. because I know sometimes. like if the trees are alive. even if they're swamped with bittersweet. you can just mow that down. and they have a good chance of popping back. If they're dead. they're dead. but there could be some that could be saved.
Kevin O'Leary: Well. I think that they probably also have that. I think it's a beetle infestation also. and I don't know that removing the weeds around the bottom of the tree will save it from the beetles up high or throughout wherever they're located. I don't know what. what kind of beetles. I don't have to read the arborist report. It's down. It's been submitted. Here's the first one. It's dated April 4. the second arborist report. which was more focused on the willow tree near 11 Charena. unfortunately has the same date. He omitted to change the date on the letter. so just be mindful that they're both dated April 8. But the first one pertains more to the trees and the vegetation in the area shown on the plan. Um.
Linda Hansen: I can send that along if somebody. if you guys. don't have it anymore. Unknown: yeah. I'd have to Shannon Fischer: go dig through it and find it. If you have it handy. Linda and like. that would be great. Yeah. Linda Hansen: It's a short two or three page. What is it? Seven page. Kevin O'Leary: right? There's a paragraph right here. It says a majority of the trees are in extremely poor condition. in health. They've been overgrown by bittersweet and Rosa. Rosa. multi flora and grape and have been killed by the overgrowth of these plants. Many of the trees have been many of the trees have broken tops due to the weight of the vines on the dead trees. most of the white ash are dead or have decay. Ash yellows are detected on one of the dead ash trees. Ash yellow ash. Yellows is a micro plasma. plasma. like organism that has no effect. no effective. known cure. It is assumed that this may be the reason for the decline. as well as other factors. There are no wonderful plant species be found on the plot. and the plot is considered to be good for firewood only. It goes on says it normally would be suggested that a forest stand be thinned out by removing diseased and structurally damaged trees. But if. Occurred. it would be clear cut once again. which in this forest stand assessment should be done? This would be an opportunity to call invasive species and replant with native species. Pictures of the forest stand are supplied on pages two through four.
Shannon Fischer: I certainly sympathize. It's a mess of invasives. Linda Hansen: but it is. Where does it say something about a beetle? Did I miss it? Kevin O'Leary: No. was that? That plasma like organism? Oh. that's what I was referring to. I call it a beetle. but I guess he calls it something different. Shannon Fischer: The ashes are probably goners. That's i that
Kevin O'Leary: encircling a Japanese barberry in this picture. or you oriental bittersweet Tree of Heaven.
Linda Hansen: But are you counting Tree of Heaven on your tree? Count then Kevin O'Leary: yes. if it's got the diameter. yes. and Linda Hansen: Noire Maples also. yes. Yeah. I mean. I think typically. I don't think the commission has any interest in keeping either one of those. So I'd Shannon Fischer: actually be interested in. like. a robust forward plan to maintain that Tree of Heaven before. like those seeds really take root. But I would actually go a long way for me is having a plan in place to really be monitoring. sweeping through that on a regular basis to keep those guys from coming up.
Kevin O'Leary: I think this Tree of Heaven right here is. I think it's one of these trees. Maybe it's in this general area. Linda Hansen: Well. they tend to grow in groups anyway. It's rare to see just a single one of them other than or it could be a sumac then. But. I mean. maybe that's a good reason for site visit. just to go through and take a look at. you know. Shannon Fischer: do a better eliminate all the Norway maples and tree of heavens and in the tree count. Does that make sense? Shannon? It actually like it really could change things if this has been colonized by that. and then you may not even need a waiver. I mean. this poor land seems like it's really been through the ringer. So the idea of replanting with positives and controlling the invasives is actually really appealing to me. But yeah. we might be able to see that. And then you may be counting trees that we'd love to see the last of.
Kevin O'Leary: Okay. if it benefits the project. I'm in favor of it. okay.
Linda Hansen: And I think it might be worthwhile for the commission to get this done with is to just take a vote on the waiver of the 40 scale plan. and so we don't have to have that hanging over us again at the next meeting. Luke Legere: Yeah. sure. I think that's a good idea. Linda. maybe first we'll just see. Are there any other questions from the Commission? Or Linda. do you have anything else before we can do Linda Hansen: that? I mean. I'd like to just have a quick chat with Bert Corey to make sure he's okay with responses that Kevin provided. I know Bert was on vacation last week. so he's probably just catching up right now. but that that shouldn't be. I don't think. I don't see why that would be. wouldn't be resolved by the next meeting. So okay. Luke Legere: yeah. that that kind of gets to one of my main concerns is just wanting to make sure DGT is good. So I think to me. that's an outstanding item. hopefully an easy one to check off. but one nonetheless. sounds like we've got some. maybe some interest in a site visit Shannon. Do you still think that would be beneficial? Shannon Fischer: If Linda's down for it. I'm happy to go and check it out. and we could try to schedule it for sooner than later. so that we don't have to drag it Linda Hansen: out the next week. Would be good for me. We come out a few days. So Luke Legere: I think that makes sense given the second waiver request we were just discussing. and the potential. at least. for a sort of creative solution to to these issues around the vegetation. So okay. good. So then it sounds like we're going to need to continue. So why don't. before I take open this up to public comment. why don't we just take that vote really quickly on the waiver request? So I would take a motion to approve a waiver to allow for a 40 scale plan. So moved. Thank you. Shannon. Do we have a second six. Them. Thank you. Barbara. Let's do a quick roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how. yes. and I'm a yes as well. Okay. so that's that will table the second waiver request for now. and I am going to open this up to public comment. I see Vanessa Jason. You have your hand raised if you'd identify yourself for the record. please. Unknown: sure. Vanessa Jason. 11. Charena Road. can you hear me? Yes. we can. Good evening. Hi. Good evening. I just want to say. Kevin. I'm really. really appreciative that you put forth those second plans to move the water main. That really means a lot to me. I that I you know how I feel about that tree. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to throw one thing out there. just because I've kind of come this far in that tree preservation plan. there was just one. I think the way it was described to me. it was relatively standard and minor. But one thing. when the road is being repaved. that something. I don't know what this is called. but. I mean. I don't know what this means. It's called Root matting. So I don't know. Kevin. maybe you're familiar with that. but basically it's just so that excavators and whatnot don't drive over the roots to crush it. So is that something like. I don't know if that involves an order of conditions. or I. again. I don't know really how that works. but I wanted to just throw that one thing out there. because I've come this far. Thanks.
Luke Legere: sure. Thank you. So. yeah. I think we could find a way to condition that. Linda. do we that sounds like something we would have done previously for other projects? Is that? Right? Linda. yeah. okay. okay. Linda Hansen: wetland matting that we use. I'm sure it's something fairly similar. So. Luke Legere: okay. good. yeah. I'll make a note here. Others please do likewise. just so we remember that when we get to that point of the proceedings. Okay. not seeing any other hands raised. So I think that's it for the public comment. So it seems as though we are going to be continuing out to our next meeting on September 10. Mr. O'Leary. anything else for us? Kevin O'Leary: Yeah. just I'm looking at a different screen. and I thought there was another waiver. maybe for the contour interval.
Linda Hansen: oh. for the Kevin O'Leary: Yeah. I don't Linda Hansen: think we need. I don't think we need a waiver request for that. I think that's. that's still a guideline in the chapter 193 is that what you're looking at. Kevin O'Leary: well. it's. it's a waiver on the application. It's on page four. Is Linda Hansen: that? 194 193 now. 194 Oh. okay. okay. And it's
Kevin O'Leary: under the section of waivers. which is above the signature. you know. the lat the signatures on the fourth page. the site plan. minimum requirements waiver. And I check the box and say list. and it's a one foot contours are not proposed on the entire site. And I have an asterisk there. and it says two foot contours are used on most of the plan to reduce clutter and make the plan easier to read. So I think I need a vote on that also. Linda Hansen: So Kevin. when you submit plans for the individual lots. will you go back to the one foot contours? Are you going to stick with the two foot contours?
Kevin O'Leary: Well. as an example on lot a one. which is one cedar wood lane. I do I show two foot contours. But in a tricky grading area. or a tight grading area. I provide one foot contours for the contractor to understand what I'm trying to demonstrate. In other words. it shows more detail for the in an area that needs the contouring of the grading. Linda Hansen: yeah. because there's extensive grading a lot. one a number one. cedar wood. That's why I thought maybe you might need me more details for that. Kevin O'Leary: No. it's. it's well. it's follow the plans. fallible. it's readable. Yeah. I believe the same No. I was gonna say I think the same way was asked for. but I'd have to look at the filing.
Luke Legere: Well. it's. I don't see much harm in taking a vote on the waiver request. even if it's maybe unnecessary. Linda. do you? No. okay. so why don't we go ahead? Then I would take a motion to grant the waiver as. Requested for relief. uh. regarding the contour intervals.
Unknown: So moved. Luke Legere: Thank you. Shannon. Do I have a second? Second? Thank you. Jenny. Roll call vote. please. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara Howell. yes. and I'm a yes as well. Okay. Mr. O'Leary. anything else for us Kevin O'Leary: is the next move by the Commission tonight to close. not close this hearing. but continue it Yes. Luke Legere: So that's we're discussing continuing to September 10 to just wrap things up with DGT. Hopefully that'll be quick and painless and get out to take a look at the site with an eye towards the trees. so we can discuss the sort of follow up on the discussion we had previously about your other waiver request and potentially creative ways to deal with some of the invasive invasives out there. So we'll be back here September 10. And if all goes well on those things. I unless I'm missing something. I think we'd be in a position at that point. hopefully to close unless something else comes up that we're not envisioning. Is that right? Linda. right? Am Linda Hansen: I? I think that's those the outstanding issues.
Kevin O'Leary: Um. Luke. the one thing I wanted to just bring up quick was the lot a one or number one cedar wood lane is a request for determination of applicability. and that. I think. is on the agenda next with the Commission. And there's a. there's a discussion topic I'd like to have you know that may include portions of the Notice of Intent filing for cedar wood lane. So I don't know if it on procedure on your half. If you continue the hearing. can we still talk about it? You know about the most of the impact. but the the involvement of Lot. a one on the roadway. If you close. not close the hearing. but continue it. Luke Legere: If we continue the hearing tonight. and then we go on to discuss the request for determination. and in the course of that discussion. issues arise which relate back to this notice of intent. What I would say is the hearing will remain open to the so to the extent we need to. okay. but the record cover anything we might discuss. we'll be able to do that on September 10. If we closed tonight. then the answer would be. no. we're going to be stuck with the record as it exists. right? Okay. think if you're worried about that. Mr. O'Leary. I would say that's another reason to just go ahead and continue this. to just leave open the possibility of having a further discussion on anything we might need to Unknown: Sure. Thank you. Okay. Luke Legere: alrighty. then I will take a motion to continue this public hearing under both chapter 194 and the state act to September 10. after 6:30pm Unknown: so So Luke Legere: moved. Thank you. Barbara. Do I have a second? Please? Second? Shannon roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how. yes. and I to vote yes. Alrighty. Don't go anywhere. please. Mr. O'Leary. turning to our public meetings. to a 13 Charena road once again. but this time. lot one. excuse me. a one. File number D. Dash 1044. this is a continued hearing on a request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection Bylaw and the state wellness Protection Act submitted by Carol CEO for the demolition of the existing single family house and reconstruction of a five bedroom single family home and associated utilities. including a driveway. walkways. septic system and a stormwater management system at lot a one of the 13 Charena Road subdivision in Wayland. Massachusetts. The project is shown on assessors map 38 lot 157. and is located within the 100 foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. Linda. you want to kick us off here. Linda Hansen: Sure we did get a peer review for this dated August 8 from DGT associates. And I just wanted to call attention to a couple of things that I think hopefully Kevin's working on. One is the increase in the impervious for the barn that wasn't shown on the plan. It was shown on the watershed plan. and it looks like you're increasing it from 1100 17 to 3452 and he. I guess Art said something about not seeing any improvement in or no stormwater infrastructure for that increase in impervious so maybe that's something you can address in your response. Also. So let's see. the walkway wasn't included either in the. I guess. in the post development sub area plan. which is a watershed plan. I think. And also I think that was it. right? Oh. and there was. there was one tree that was not shown that we were planning on taking out. right? So I think we have a few changes to make. Oh. there was a question about the TSS removal too. Did you see that? You saw that comment? Right? Yes. Okay. so you still. you still working on the responses for this? Then Kevin O'Leary: yes. but I'd like to talk to the Commission about the details and the proposal on the plan. if I could do screen share again. please go for it.
Can the commission see that on the screen? Is that site plan visible on your screen? Luke Legere: Please? Yeah. it is okay. Thank you. Kevin O'Leary: This is the site development plan. And you'll notice down here in the bottom is a revision date of July 7. And that's what is. that's the last submission for this plan to the commission. Burke Corey comments in his August 8 peer review letter. They pertain to this. you know. this recharge basin that's proposed in this location. We for our post development hydrological analysis. We took the entire proposed house through gutters and downspouts around the house that are detailed on the plan. and we bring that with pipes into the recharge basin. We also take the driveway and we grade it into a catch basin here. and the catch basin is connected to the recharge basin. So this recharge basin consists of. I think there's 24 by four by four concrete chambers surrounded by stone in this location of the property. the Commission might find some of the line work in here. You'll see that is an existing driveway up here with the existing house I've located. or I've proposed the erosion control barrier around work areas. But this house is to be demolished and removed this recharge basin Burt Corey comment is that the the TSS removal from a catch basin to an infiltration basin in a zone two needs to have additional treatment to remove more pollutants or suspended solids. We looked at a couple different BMPs that might be appropriate or suitable for it. but we were not able to fit them on the property. So what we were going to do is. and we've looked into this a little bit. is propose another contact basin in the roadway. generally in this location. down here. and then we wouldn't need to catch the driveway of the the new proposed driveway before it gets into the roadway. And they would all flow down to the existing catch basins down the street. and then flow back through the contact unit and then discharge into the wetlands. The other thing that we've done is. and I've created a simplified plot plan. I'll blow up the scale here a little bit so that the Commission can see the proposed house and garage. the existing driveway. the proposed driveway reaching trenches for septic. existing barn proposed driveways. These barn driveways. you can see that they overlay an existing driveway into the barn. In that this driveway doesn't overlap the existing it doesn't overlay the existing driveway. but the existing driveway and house are coming out. so we're swapping out impervious areas in performing our post development analysis. If this driveway in this driveway were built out. we would still show a decrease in the flow leaving the project site and leaving the roadway to the existing head wall into the wetlands. So we don't need to retain any of the flow. because we're showing a decrease as a result of the road construction. where we have a set of basins up in here that push the flows that used to flow into the wetlands back to a recharge basin located up near the cul de sac. So now. with just the roof of the house. which is clean piped into the recharge basin. we don't. Need that extra cleaning unit called the contact before the catch basin. because now. if we put a catch a contact unit down here. it catches everything and flows into the road and just and creates a cleaner discharge before it goes into the wetlands. So this driveway is not proposed on the current plan that's been submitted. I'm just going to scroll up here. You can see that only the existing driveway is there. and here's the limited work or erosion control barrier. This was done as an exercise to show or to demonstrate that we're still going to be less with the post development runoff volumes and rates without any detention or stormwater treatment other than the deep sump catch basins in the contact unit before discharge. So this will work with the contact unit in the street. and then we don't have to catch these driveways. They can go down and go into the double. the deep sump. catch basins. and back to the contact unit. and then into the wetland. I haven't finalized this to respond to Bert. but that's what he's saying in these two paragraphs. This 11.000 I mean 11 117 square feet is the existing dash driveway into the barn. This new driveway is the 3400 square feet that he mentions in here. So what we're proposing. or what we've thought about. is when we do the contact unit that provides the additional treatment. if we wait on paving these driveways and put them in as gravel. then we're further reducing the runoff. post development runoff until the roadway is constructed and the contact unit goes in. and then these driveways would be suitable for pavement. So that's what we're trying to achieve with this. It's. it's a. I don't know how to say it. it's. if you think about it. it's got a. you know. it's got a windy path to get to the end. but we can satisfy all the requirements. and we've proven that by the way that we've analyzed this. what we what we owe. or what we have coming. is if we. you know. putting the call tech. I mean. the contact unit. in here. and then responding to Bert Corey on his last peer review letter.
Linda Hansen: I am. you know. I'm a little leery of that. I'm not sure I'm. I'm comfortable with that. Kevin. you're adding 1900 square feet of driveway runoff from the house. You're adding 30 452 square feet of impervious from the from the from the barn. And then you're adding all the private roadway. you know. the roadway runoff. into that one contact unit. Do you have the capacity for that? Kevin O'Leary: Yes. you can size. You can really. yeah. you can upsize the contact unit and make it bigger if the flows require it. because Linda Hansen: that's a lot of flow. I mean. I don't know how much. how much impervious that that roadway would be from one driveway to the other. that that distance. Kevin O'Leary: but. but at the design points. at the design points. it's still showing a decrease in flow. We're not increasing the post development rate or volume of runoff. Unknown: Yeah. and I'll Kevin O'Leary: detail that my response to Bert Corey. these are the these I get Linda Hansen: that. But what I'm saying is now you're adding a contact unit to for a water quality unit there that has to. has to accept all that flow. right? I just want to make sure that that what you're putting in has the capacity to do that. Kevin O'Leary: Yes. I'll make sure it does.
You can see a little bit this drive. this proposed driveway. is approximately equal to the existing paved driveway. yeah. But Linda Hansen: again. it's not. it's not an one to one thing. It's. it's what you're doing is now directing all that water from from a driveway. which is typically not clean. into. you know. into a water quality unit. right? It. you know. at the end of the driveway by the barn. And again. that's the question. isn't how much you're how much you I mean. it's the question is. how much you're generating. not. I'm not looking at the difference between pre and post. I'm just worried about making sure that you can manage that. because that's a lot of water. you know. So. Kevin O'Leary: yeah. I love the when we size the contact unit. it will that will be sized appropriately. okay. Linda Hansen: that's all. That's the only point I'm making. Yeah.
Luke Legere: any other comments or reactions? Linda. Linda Hansen: no. I like to. I'd like to get Burt's. you know. Response. Because he's a he's an engineer here. So not me. yeah. Luke Legere: well. and I sort of was thinking the same thing. Mr. O'Leary. thank you for that. And I what you said. I understood what you were saying. but I also understood that I. you know. I know what I don't know. and I think we need an engineer to be the one sort of taking a closer look and vetting this. So. yeah. I think we'll see what. see what bird has to say. and go from there. but I do now see why you mentioned earlier in the prior hearing that there could be a discussion here which might affect that Notice of Intent. Kevin O'Leary: Well. I don't think it. It doesn't necessarily affect that. Luke in in my preliminary opinion. because there's already a manhole here. And if we replace a manhole. an old man hole. with a new one. it's. you know. assuming it doesn't get significantly bigger. I don't think it will. but it's worked within an already. I don't wanna say disturbed area. but it's going under the pavement. Luke Legere: No. I understand. I'm just saying it's proposed sort of being an area that's part of that notice of intent that that's really. I wasn't meaning to suggest anything more than that. Yep. Okay. okay. so it's alright. So commission members. any questions from anybody on the commission?
Shannon Fischer: No question. I just know it looks like we're also sending this large amount of water a little closer to the wetlands too. which feels a little weird. but I'm with you. Luke. We'll wait and see what. what some of that feedback is. yeah. I Linda Hansen: mean. that's where it's going right now. Anyway. you know. art so. but even more. yeah. it's just probably at a bigger rate. And finally. I mean. because of the increase in impervious. you know. so
Luke Legere: Barbara Jenny. any questions or comments doing this Barbara Howell: under a determination?
Linda Hansen: Yeah. that's how it was submitted. Barbara. right? Yeah. Barbara Howell: what we're still doing. all this under determination. Luke Legere: that's what's. yeah. that's what we're looking at as a request for determination. Kevin O'Leary: right? That the contact unit. Luke would be under the open noi for the roadway. Luke Legere: right. which back to the point I made them opening. right? So. yeah. so it's. they're bleeding together a little bit. Barbara. as is not shocking. I guess. given the fact that it's all part of the same. right? So Barbara Howell: the drainage is going to be under the original Linda Hansen: the roadway drainage order of Barbara Howell: that we haven't approved yet. Yes. exactly. Luke Legere: right. I think it seems to me. Barbara that we know we need Bert Corey is going to take a look at this. And you know. I suspect once Bert offers feedback. we and the applicant will have a much better sense of whether this is a path that's worth pursuing further. or whether it appears to be sort of a dead end. so to speak. But. yeah. you're but you're right. Lin. I Barbara. you're right. I mean. there's ultimately. what we're hearing about right now would affect the Notice of Intent. and part of this would be proposed under the noi. and then we've got what's whatever's left under this request. See.
okay. all right. any comments from the public? Seeing none. I will take a motion to continue this matter to September 10. after 6:30pm
so moved. Jen. do I have Second? Second? Thank you. Jenny. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara Unknown: how. yes. yes. Luke Legere: And I also vote to continue. Okay. Unknown: next week. Luke Legere: All right. thank you. Mr. O'Leary. we'll see you in a Unknown: couple weeks. Few weeks. actually. Luke Legere: site walk next week. Oh yeah. correct. yeah. Well. let's we'll keep you posted on the date. Okay. Kevin O'Leary: thank you. All right.
Luke Legere: Okay. moving on to 2b. 65 Riverview circle file number D. Dash 1045. this is a request for determination filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection by law and the state Wetlands Protection Act submitted by Laura veneria for the installation of a fence at 65 river view circle in Wayland. Property is located within the 100 foot buffer zone of a boring vegetated wetland. and it is shown on assessors map 30 6c parcel 44 Linda Hansen: Linda. so I've been working with the land of. Owners during the transaction of this. This was recently purchased. and they have a small child and a dog. and we're asking to see if they could in a fence along their backyard. Keep in mind. this is right up against the Sudbury River. and there's lots of wetlands back here. but for the most part. it is a fairly it is a lawn. I mean. it's an established lawn. And some work was done between the transactions to make sure that the the size of the law and the size of the property was adequately delineated. because that that was not done by the previous owner. So there was a lot some encroachment on us. Fish and Wildlife land. So I think that's been resolved. So and I think these. these guys are well understand where. where the limits of the lawn are. Isn't that correct? That's correct. As you're representing Unknown: Laura Yes. Lawrence Venaria. Attorney at Law Clark and fellows. PC. 55 William Street. Suite 210 Wellesley. Massachusetts. here on behalf of my clients. Laura Venaria and Christopher Gordon. good evening. Good evening. All. We submitted a description along with the application. It's a relatively modest fence. only spanning two courses the house will serve as two of the boundary lines. Before the enclosure. we're requesting a four inch wildlife corridor. Laura and Christopher have mini dachshund. sort of a hunting breed. Want to make sure that he doesn't escape and that he doesn't farm any wildlife that might want to pass through the yard. The proposed enclosure will span approximately 42 feet in length from the edge of the house and 55 feet wide to the abutting property at 61 Riverview circle. The fence will remain entirely within the lot lines of the property. No digging or construction will occur beyond the lot lines. And we feel that pursuant to 310. CMR. 10.02 2b 2b that this qualifies as a minor activity.
Luke Legere: Thank you. sir Linda. Did you mention what Linda Hansen: type of fence you were going to put in? Unknown: Though. observe. we're inclined to put in an aluminum fence. though we're open to other types of material if the commission prefers a different material type. Yeah.
Linda Hansen: I don't have any input on the fence design. so Luke Legere: okay. but you're good. Otherwise. Linda orange. wow. yeah. yeah. Linda Hansen: we. I think we beat this one to death for a while. didn't we like I said there was. there was an encroachment into the Fish and Wildlife lands and part of the garden and the backyard. So I think all that's been resolved. Yes. the Unknown: garden has been removed. There are blocks running along the property line that the prior owners put in right before the closing. we'll make sure that the fence is fully within the lot lines and is not over the boundary of the Fish and Wildlife land. Linda Hansen: Because I don't think here there's a recent survey. right? There wasn't a that was just the mortgage plot plan you have. There Unknown: was a mortgage plot plan done if the Commission requires a more robust survey we can certainly obtain that. Linda Hansen: Yeah. I mean. the only thing I would suggest is maybe even we can. I don't. I doubt US Fish and Wildlife has any boundary markers. I mean. I know they do. like all the way along the high school. There's. there's. you know. it's well established where the UN so I don't know. You mean. it might be worth a phone call. you know. calling over to Sudbury and finding Barbara Howell: out they probably don't have the staff to put them in. Linda Hansen: No. they don't. But. I mean. I know at one point when they when they received the land. they did do a survey. So I just don't know if there's any sort of. you know. permanent markers that they put in. but you know you could give them a call that save you the cost of having ever having to do a survey that way. and at least in the rear line. So certainly.
okay. Luke Legere: commission members.
Linda Hansen: I thought it was usually. Six inches for fences. But with a dachshund. I think they're typically six inches tall anyway. and it sounds like Linda's okay with this. So we kind of have to preserve the wildlife at the same time as not necessarily letting you know. free range animals coming in there. they probably get consumed. So. you know. both the ways. sometimes so and the dachshund might get consumed too. Unknown: We hope not. but it is like Shannon Fischer: I was a little torn. because. you know. right by the river. that's great habitat. You hate to fragment it. but it sounds like you guys have fully talked about it. So if Linda's happy. but Linda Hansen: Shannon. if you take a drive down Riverview. There's a bunch of lots that aren't even developed down there. It's. it's pretty wild. okay. you know? And so there's. there's plenty of space. We have a couple of other neighbors who are doing some serious encroachment. So there's. there's those. But. you know. it's not conservation land. so it's. it's. really. isn't my problem. But yeah. there's. it's. yeah. there's quite a bit of wildlife down or wild. the wilds down there. So. Luke Legere: yeah. I had the same thought Shannon. but it does seem where it's a lawn and. you know. it's essentially that we're closing with the house. It's not a ton of fencing. So. Shannon Fischer: yeah. it looks pretty small lot too. So it is a small lot. Yeah. yeah. Luke Legere: Jenny or Barbara. Any comments. thoughts. questions. concerns. Okay. I'm good with this. Seems like we're all good. So I would take a motion. I don't see what. We don't have a public hearing. So I would take a motion to issue a negative determine determination under the Act and a permit under Chapter 194
Barbara Howell: I'm moving negative determination under wetland Protection Act and a permit under Chapter 194 Luke Legere: Thank you. Barbara. Do we have a second? Second? Thank you. Jenny. Roll call vote. please. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how. yes and I to vote yes. we're all set. Thank you all. Have a great evening. You too.
Okay. moving along to certificates of compliance. Three. a. 21 snakebrook Road DEP file number 322. dash. 954. Linda.
Linda Hansen: we have Bruno. You are you want to let the project or the commission know about your project or your how you want to close? We Unknown: started in the middle of covid and built a home and
finished a couple of years later. but it's taken a while to get all the documents put together to close the orders of conditions. So that's really what I'm here to do. We got the final plot plan done just a month ago. We're working with veto over at Cornerstone. and he also provided a letter stating that we met or exceeded a bunch of the requirements. So I'm hoping that I can finally close this and close this notebook essentially.
Linda Hansen: Okay. thank you. Linda. The only thing we say I haven't done a site visit yet. Probably out tomorrow afternoon doing some site visits. I don't know if it's okay for me to stop by. Sure. Yeah. that's a requirement for closure on this. I mean. this is one of these typical lots where that was developed by free riverfront. There's well more than 10% of the. you know. of the lot is developed of the riverfront. And there's really not much we can do about that. since. like I said. that was done long before. but. you know. high 50s. yeah. keep in mind that. I mean. you know. any additional work you do on this will probably be limited. you know. to outer repair. Oh. you're well into Oh. yeah. you really don't have much. Only riverfront. yeah. Unknown: no. we don't have any more plans. Good. Everything is. you know. in the front of the house. essentially. And I've just gotta. we have to take the fence out from around the pool. and I'm having that put in hopefully in the next month or so. But that doesn't interfere with anything else should be.
Linda Hansen: My only note from a site visit long ago was that you had a chain link fence right at the wetlands. and that's. yeah. that's been totally removed. And that's what I think we asked you to do that. right? Yeah. you would ask me Unknown: to put in a six inch corridor for the for the wildlife. and I just offered to remove it. And you guys were okay with that. so it worked out fine. Linda Hansen: Okay. okay. yeah. All right. well. let me do a quick site visit. I don't have those are the only notes I had regarding this project. So Unknown: I've got a there should have been a letter.
Linda Hansen: The letter I was looking at my old notes about compliance and things like that. I think I might have. I think I'm okay with that. So. Luke Legere: okay. so Linda. are you okay with us then voting contingent upon your visiting the site and being satisfied? Or would you rather have us wait and do this? No. Linda Hansen: you guys can vote. Because if. I mean. if there's something I see that's this. and I'm. you know. doesn't it's not in compliance. It will be. it will be put on the COC. you know. yeah. will be added to the COC. Is an outstanding issue. Luke Legere: okay. yeah. hey. Barbara. Barbara Howell: what question of the in the picture that came with it has the playground in the front and in the back. It looks like a straight line of shrubs. Is that at the 15 no disturb. because it looks like the mode behind between them and behind them.
Unknown: The those those shrubs are the shrubs that we were required to install. And Barbara Howell: is it mowing between them and behind them? It looked like it in the picture. Yeah.
Unknown: I think there. yeah. it is.
Linda Hansen: yeah. Our preference would be not to have lawn in the 15 foot no disturb. You know. that's the point of it. Is not having. not disturbing that area. Unknown: So we don't really. I mean. those. those bushes. got real big. So we really don't. don't go back there. but we can stop mowing that. That's. you know. that's. I mean. I've got two young boys. so what I'm trying to do is minimize ticks and things like that. you know. And they go back and play a lot. and I encourage them to get outdoors. So as much as I can make that happen. I too. but I understand where you're coming from. Like. we've already got. there's a ton. We've have a half an acre of lot that we don't. we can't access. So. you know. we've got just that strip of grass. essentially. But we. you know. Linda Hansen: we can talk about a site visit if you're there tomorrow. Yeah. I'll be around. Okay. we can have that conversation then. okay.
Luke Legere: okay. and I would take a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for DEP file number 322. dash. 954. contingent upon Linda visiting the site and confirming the work was done as approved.
Shannon Fischer: so moved. And I might recommend. if with concerns about ticks. tick bait boxes or something worth looking into. there's no spraying. and it might help so So moved. Luke. Luke Legere: thanks. Janet. okay. we gotta reach on the table. Do we have a second?
Unknown: Second? Luke Legere: Thank you. Jenny. roll call vote please. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara how. yes. and I vote yes as well. All right. thank you. sir. Have a good evening. Unknown: Thanks everybody. Have a good night. You too. All right. for a Luke Legere: two or Lane SWD. dash. 126. additional tree removal and conservation Linda Hansen: restriction. Can we move Brian Nelson over to participant?
Luke Legere: There he goes. Okay. He's in Hi.
Unknown: This is Brian from MetroWest engineering. Here just to go over a quick request to remove four trees in the conservation restriction area at two Orchard Lane. Is it okay if I share my screen? Yes. thank you.
I think that's loading. Can everybody see that? Okay. yes. okay. great. So this is the entire site for this plan. North is going straight up the page. We and I'm going to start kind of at the northwest corner. Our property runs along a small section of Orchard Lane where it connects into training field road. and then we run along the southerly side of training field road. Road. then turning running southeasterly up to the intersection of training field and Concord road. We head west along the southerly boundary. Kind of jog out around a tennis court. which is located here. heading along other properties that are Orchard Lane addresses. Kind of jog back northeast and then Northwest up to the point of beginning. This is a little over four and a half acre parcel. It's about 4.6 acres. And we were before the commission in 2022 for work associated with renovations to the existing house. which are kind of tucked into the south central part of the property. And then again. before you in June of 2024 for work associated with a new pool house. new septic system. and some basically modifications to circular part of the driveway. and then the driveway as it leads from the house down to Orchard Lane. And I'll zoom in just a little bit. and the property is encumbered. There are four conservation restriction areas. and the one that we'd like to talk about tonight is bounded by Orchard Lane training field road. And then it's this dash line that comes into the property and basically wraps around the existing detached garage and terminates over here at this angle point in the lot. And what we're asking for tonight is there are four trees that we would like to remove in the conservation restriction area at the entrance to the driveway. Zoom In just a little bit more. There are two Norway maples and one sugar maple. which are located close to the end of the driveway. and we'd like to remove these just for sight line reasons. just to provide a little bit better visibility coming into the site. And as we come up the driveway. there is a red oak that's located right up against the edge of the driveway. And the reason for this request is this tree was not shown. and this is a kind of an omission on our part with our survey. these two trees were not shown in the original survey. so when the driveway was location was adjusted. The driveway was laid in very close to this red oak. and I don't think it's going to fare well in future years. And so we'd like to remove that now. while construction is still going on at the site. and in compensation for the removal of the trees. we'd like to propose six. three inch caliper trees. We've got two sugar maples proposed at this location near training field road. and in this location near the rain garden. which has recently been constructed. And then we've got two red oaks and two white oaks. so four. three inch caliber oaks. kind of in this thinner area right here. which we feel would offer adequate compensation for the trees to be removed. That's that's why we're here. And I'd be happy to answer any questions or offer any more clarity if there are questions. Luke Legere: Thank you. Mr. Nelson. Linda. Linda Hansen: yeah. I mean. it's. I think this is a question up to the commission. It's an. it's a nicely wooded lot. It's. it's. I agree with the replacements. It's a nice. three nice varieties to put in there. And for future generations. I guess.
Luke Legere: Okay. commission members. thoughts. comments. concerns. questions. Barbara Howell: the big one that down at the beginning of the driveway said absolutely necessary.
Unknown: The uh. the the ones down near the corner of Orchard Lane and in the driveway. Barbara Howell: It's a beautiful tree right down here. It's the beginning of the driveway.
Unknown: These are very close to the driveway. They're about four feet off the edge of the driveway. There's a cluster of there's a six inch Norway. yeah. those weigh in an eight inch sugar maple. Oh. it's one on Norway. Yeah. there's two of them. Actually. I'll go back to my screen share. I'm sorry I shouldn't have taken that down. Let that load again. and I'm going to zoom in close to the driveway. If so. this is. this is the edge of pavement along Orchard Lane. and this is the turn into the driveway. So immediately adjacent there's a six inch caliper Norway. a 10 inch caliper Norway. They're kind of clustered together. and it just would provide a little bit better sight distance. looking out as to what's coming. Up more training field road than Orchard Lane. as this driveway is in close proximity to the to the intersection of the two streets.
Barbara Howell: The fire department. okay. the stone there. This 123. there's six of them. Unknown: these right here. yeah. yeah. this is just like a decorative Barbara Howell: Yeah. Could a fire a fire truck Unknown: get around? Yes. Barbara Howell: and they know about it. Unknown: I believe so the plans were submitted through part of the permit application. So I believe the fire department. seen Barbara Howell: them. looks like a hook and lad or whatever. My check with the fire Unknown: I think they should be able to make the turning movement as they come westbound on training field and then make the swing in this way. Please stop. Linda Hansen: They're good drivers of Barbara. They're good drivers.
Luke Legere: I anything else from the Commission? I Shannon Fischer: mean. I have no problem with the removal of the two Norways. but I'm having a little like. I'm I'm a little stuck on the sugar maple. and I'm wondering. like. is the red oak actually showing damage. or is it just an assumption of damage? Unknown: It's not showing damage. At this point. it was looked at by an arborist. and when they saw the proximity of the driveway to the oak. you know. basically the edge of the driveway is is coming very close to the trunk. the arborist didn't feel like. five years down the road that it was going to be as healthy as it is now. Shannon Fischer: I mean. it might not be that hard to remove if the time comes. because it's right on the road. somebody could. like. maybe get in there and just. hmm. I don't know. Um. Barbara Howell: why do you have to take it down? Shannon Fischer: Yeah. you can use a crane to take it down or do it by hand. which could but if the ground was frozen. that might work around. I don't know. It's a little tough. It's like. I don't love taking down a tree just because it's right next to a driveway. and even. even less. the sugar maple. which looks like it has a little more room. but the two Norway certainly take them down. and good riddance for those for sure. it's kind of my thoughts. I don't know what does the rest of the commission think?
Luke Legere: Yeah. well. the Norway. I think. I suspect we all agree. are sort of an easy call. Yeah. I tend to agree with what you just said. Shannon. I'm a little hesitant and reluctant to give the green light to taking down trees that are currently nice. big. healthy trees. because there might be a problem down the line. Yeah. I'm not totally comfortable with that either. Barbara Howell: and they're in the restricted area. Luke Legere: right? Well. that's. I think that's why we're. that's why we're here to talk about this.
Unknown: yeah. and we felt that in. you know. as basically. for the sugar maple and the red oak that. you know. planting six three inch caliber trees was a. you know. a good way to compensate for their removal. And again. that. you know. three inch calipers. decent size. We could up. probably upsize to three and a half to four inch caliper. if they can be sourced. I mean. there's Shannon Fischer: nothing that's as good as a tree that grew there naturally. And. you know. a nice mature tree with that nice. mature root system. like. I appreciate. like. the zeal. like this a solid planting plan. but those. but it's tough to take down a mature. healthy tree. Linda Hansen: I'm still a little stuck on that. Yeah.
Luke Legere: yeah. all right. well. I guess the question becomes. what do you want to do? We can. you know. we can approve. We could partially approve what's proposed. We could approve it all we could approve. none of it. that's our menu of options. Barbara Howell: Just take down the two no away maples and leave the others.
Luke Legere: And just so I think. just to be clear. I. So as I understand it. and please. Mr. Nelson correct me if I'm wrong. but the replacement plantings were really intended for the other two. the sugar maple and the red oak. Is that what I heard you say earlier? Yeah. Unknown: it's primarily for the red oak because the red oak is a nice tree. The sugar maple is. I don't think is anything outstanding. It's. it's kind of clumped together with the two Norways. and its canopy isn't robust or great. you know. the red oak is. is looking healthy. you know. And think the owner is concerned about the roots popping up through the driveway and. and that. you know. again. that's what I see. Is the big one here is. is. it's the red oak. Because. yeah. it is. Honestly. it does look to be fairly robust and fairly healthy. And arborist assessment was that. you know. it looks good now. you know. but being so close and the roots being under the driveway that you know. wasn't optimistic about its health. But again. that's a projection into the future as well. Into the future Shannon Fischer: as well. The sugar maple canopy might look a lot better when the two Norways are out of the way. So there is that. And even though it might not be a looker. it might be really great habitat to a lot of insects and birds. even if not to humans. And so
Luke Legere: well. Shannon. do you want to make Shannon Fischer: a motion? I don't know what I would. what would what motion would we make? Luke Legere: Well. as I said. you could. I mean. we could move to just approve what's proposed and vote up or down. We could. you know. make move to deny what's proposed and vote up or down. or we could move to approve part of what's proposed and deny the rest. So for example. we could have a motion to approve removal of the two Norway excuse me. Norway maples. but not the other two. Shannon Fischer: What are you leaning towards? Like. like. I value the rest of the commissions take before I propose something. Luke Legere: Yeah. I think I'm sort of leaning. at least in the short term here. towards. I guess the final of those three options that I just laid out. I think. to me. I'm I think the Norway maple coming out makes sense. As I said before. I'm less comfortable with the idea of taking down others. just because prospectively. there could be issues. I understand what the property owners are saying. I get where they're coming from. But. yeah. I don't know. I think on balance. that's kind of where I I tend to land in my mind. But that's just. that's just one guy talking. Shannon Fischer: We could make a motion for the to allow the removal of the two Norway maples and just that. if barber and Jenny are also on board.
Unknown: If we do that. then I would say that the the compensatory plantings necessarily wouldn't need to apply them. because the Norways are just invasive. I Luke Legere: mean. that's where I was going earlier. Mr. Nelson. I think that. to me. that's a i That would be a fair trade. so to speak. I think if we're not going to give permission for removal of the other two trees. then in my view we would. we shouldn't really. fairly be asking for a compensatory plant. Shannon Fischer: Yeah. it's almost an improvement. and there's still plenty of roots down there that it's not going to it's not as though we're going to radically change storm water or anything like that by the removal of these two trees. So sure I can propose a motion for the removal of the two Norway Maples without the requirement of additional compensatory plantings. Luke Legere: Thank you. Shannon. Do we have a second? Second? Thank you. Barbara. Roll call vote please. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how Yes. and I'm a yes as well.
Unknown: Thank you very much. All right. Luke Legere: thank you. Miss Nelson. Have a good evening. You too. Take care. All right. 4b draft town report. Linda. oh. we're Linda Hansen: just looking for comments. Emily prepared a Tom report using barbers from last year as a template. and Unknown: Dave and me. it's just. Linda Hansen: you know. a lot of it's just numbers. I mean. Emily can talk to it too. you know. what we've done. what we achieved. that kind of thing. And then if you have. anybody has any comments to it. or some additions. you know. we'd like to always. like. plug ourselves a little bit of all the fantastic work that we do. so
Shannon Fischer: that it looked great. We could also. like. Was there much we you could add. like. a little bit. like. you finish these cool trails. Yeah. We have an awesome newsletter now. like. Oh. definitely we could add some of the public outreach stuff that we've been we've been starting. Luke Legere: Yeah. that was my thing. too. And I think I suspect Shannon is doing more than I'm even aware. So I'm not even going to try to list them. because I'm sure there's others I've missed. But yeah. I think that was what jumped out at me as something we could maybe pat ourselves on the back for a little Shannon Fischer: bit. We had a couple tables. We had a couple. you know. couple weekends here and there where we had a table outside of Brussels so we could talk to folks about our outreach things like that. ooh. And we did the rivet Rangers this year. That was a lot Barbara Howell: needs to be in it. The what? All that needs to be in it. Yeah. we could add all that.
Shannon Fischer: Okay. we gotta start moving on this. on the Escar stuff too. like we got that resolution and we gotta. we gotta move it forward. Yeah. I don't know what to do. but we should do something. Linda Hansen: Well. we will. They will be asking for isn't it another one article we have to put together that that meshes with the previous bylaw.
Shannon Fischer: Yeah. we could do that. If there's any. there's something we could do sooner. but it's almost over. So.
Linda Hansen: I think that was. that was really the resolution. right? Yeah. Luke Legere: okay. well. yeah. well. so thanks. thanks Emily for drafting that. And I guess those are. I think there's some good suggestions of things we could add in anything else while we're on the topic. Shannon Fischer: Good. And Brian's bird watch his walking. walk. Bird walks too. because that's. I mean. that's community outreach as well. and that. you know. that's important. Linda Hansen: Then we have another one coming up. Is it October 4. Emily. Barbara Howell: you could take a look at. I have Weston's town report. I get it every year. and I have this. And maybe you could take a peek at because they do that same kind of thing about what they've been doing. And maybe Sharon could take a look at it to get an idea. Linda Hansen: Yeah. Emily. can look at it too. I'm sure it's online. So Unknown: yeah. I'd love to. yeah. look at it on paper. Linda Hansen: Oh. I bet we can find it online. Barbara. if you could. Barbara Howell: I mean paper. So much you see it. Shannon Fischer: I'm with you. but I'm honestly with you. Barbara. on that one you should read too. Unknown: Okay. I just had a quick question. Should I add our the changes to the chapter 194 regulations to this too? I don't think I put that down. We Linda Hansen: haven't adopted anything yet. so I think that's probably going to be for next fiscal year. Take on that. Luke Legere: yeah. I think that's right. Wait till it's all said and done. Okay. but Linda Hansen: what was the bird walk? Emily? Was that October 4? Was that the next one Brian's Unknown: doing? Yeah. October 4 at how common Shannon Fischer: everyone should come? Linda Hansen: Definitely. Okay. Okay. I have a couple of additions for other though. that kind of last minute things. Yeah. sure. Please go. I have a. I have an enforcement order. so I would like to you guys to ratify. It's at 68 Lakeshore drive. So I don't know if remember. we close. we had to close the order conditions. sort of in rapid fashion because of a transfer of ownership. the new owner has since put in a retaining wall and a masonry patio within about six feet of the pond without a permit. I think I have pictures I know. Can I share? Am I able to share? Let's see if this works. There it is.
Unknown: Oh. wonderful. Linda Hansen: That's the pot. Well. I can't do that. That's the pond where the pretty much. where the erosion control is. yeah. yeah. it's right there. And there. Do I have more pictures? I thought I had more pictures. Here's then on top of that. they put in a dock. and Doc is not supposed to have lawn furniture on it either. Unknown: Was this the one where they were. where it was a floating dock. There was some. didn't we see this property. and they have tried to say that it was floating and not permanent. or was that something else Linda Hansen: floating? Docs need chapter 91 permits too. because anytime you put anything to even hold the floating dock down that hits the sediment that's Lane underwater. that's owned by the state and and they. you know. you know. even those like foamy things that kids use and. Nowadays. I mean. I was. I was informed by waterways that those need to be permitted too. So. I mean. we don't. we don't go after any of things. The only thing our jurisdiction is for. This is in construction of it and the installation of it. And that wasn't done either. and we wouldn't get and then this is just a view of the retaining wall from a different angle. and you can see that. I mean. the pond is right there. where that. that greenery is. you know. it's it's close. And if I go back to the first one. where the guys standing there that that's not even on their property. and the construction of this little patio and stairway was allowed for some. for many. many years ago. for some reason. it's on a on a property called Mona path. which is like an extension of Pine Ridge Road. And so now they put the patio partially on that road too. So I have. I was a cease and desist. and I want an noi for any. you know. work that's that's getting done within the 100 foot of the of the pond. which is pretty much the whole property. So I also put a require. a request. a requirement. that they needed to turn in noi by next week or No. yeah. next week. I don't know if they can. I'm not sure if they can manage that or not. But you know this. this is pretty egregious. You know this. all this work done. like I said. it's going to be. what. six feet from the pond. if even so. Luke Legere: And so you said you've already issued the enforcement order. and you just need Linda Hansen: you I issued it today. There was a bit of a delay. and I was going to send the hard copy tomorrow after after the commission votes to ratify it. Luke Legere: Okay. yeah. that's I just wanted to make sure I knew what exactly we needed to vote on. So. um. Okay. I'm convinced. uh. commission. Any questions for Linda. Shannon Fischer: no questions. But I'm also concerned about the roots of that tree. like. are we going to be back here in a year or two? And they say this tree's dying because we cut all the roots off. and now we have to take down this massive tree. Linda Hansen: But. but. but. Shannon. ask yourself. we ever approve this? I mean. they're well into the 30 foot no disturb. you know. I mean. it's one thing to issue a cease and desist. but the question is. are they allowed to keep this? Not even on their yard? No. Luke Legere: yeah. Well. cross that bridge when we come to Linda Hansen: cross that bridge. but one thing at a time. Luke Legere: So I would take a motion to ratify the enforcement order issued by Linda today for 68 Lake Shore Drive. So moved. Thank you. Shannon. Do I have a second? Second? Thank you. Jenny. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how Yes. and I vote yes as well. Okay. what's next? Linda. one Linda Hansen: last thing. last thing to do. We've been working on these. these performance and let me stop sharing screen. We've been working on performance bonds for a long time. This is something that Brian Monahan collected for like. 16 years. Right now we have still over $300.000 tucked away in bank accounts. It's just. it's. it's. it's an unbelievable amount of work every single one of these to deal with them. because a they need compliance. They need order. I mean. certificate compliances. there's gotta be a vote whether or not they get their money back. A couple people have agreed to let us keep their mind. And I'm not sure if this ever went in front of the commission. I think it did to accept the tax the donations for 30 Standish Road. which was three. $1.312.48 and then 221. Boston Post Road agreed to give us their performance bond back which to. and this goes to the conservation gift fund. And so this will be $543.40 so if I could get a quick motion to accept those donations. Luke Legere: so moved second roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara how. yes. and I also vote yes. That was sort of like a trick. like a trick question. Now. no. So Linda Hansen: now they get less trickier. We have. It's just downright an embarrassment. almost that there were no minutes were done for for a number of years. I guess I have for what I don't even know the date for this. This was August 5. 2010 the it says here in a in. in notes from Brian Monahan for 10 Jericho lane. there was a motion to refund the performance bond all but $150 and the vote was taken. I can't even read this six dash one. I think it was some somebody must have not said no to that. I. Yeah. so the Finance Committee doesn't. or the finance department doesn't know what to do with that. you know. so they were looking for clarification if the motion was to return everything but $150 which was probably a penalty for not doing something. But again. I don't know what that penalty is. Do we do? We make a second vote tonight to say to just clarify what that motion was. I really don't know. I mean. there's no but Luke Legere: none of us really. I mean. maybe Barbara does Barbara Linda? Do you like Barbara Linda? The other you have? Can you shed any more light on this? I don't know if we. if we don't know what it was. I'm not sure how we could really clarify it. I Linda Hansen: mean. there's. there's a second one. there's this draft minutes I have this time from June 17. 2010 also the same year. And that here. it said a motion was made. seconded. voted four zero to forfeit $175 and return the remainder of the performance bond. Is there any clarity in that? Treasury Department didn't like that either wording. either. because I don't know what forfeit means in this in this context.
Luke Legere: nor do I You're the attorney. I studiously avoided anything that looked or smelled like tax law. I mean. I couldn't have worked harder to stay away from that stuff. So yeah. this sounds like taxi kind of stuff. So you're talking to the wrong guy. Linda Hansen: Well. you know. Luke. I don't know if you know this. but for 16 years. they collected performance bonds on pretty much every order conditions and with no just no logic as to the amount they collected. why they click and why they didn't return it all. that's why we have all this. And like they said. sometimes it was a matter. They didn't turn in inspection reports. and so they were penalized a certain amount of money. and that was returned to the the town general fund. We don't. we don't ever see that. The Commission doesn't ever see that. But again. you know now there's this $175 sitting out there with with interest. It's now $193 and we're trying to figure out what to do with it. You know. do we give it back? Do we keep it? I mean. do we go? We just make a clarify this. Maybe what I can do is send you like in the next agenda packet. send you copies of what I have and I'm not sure would there be any more clarity with that. but I you know. the treasurer's office and the finance department is really just trying to ask us for some clarity on what to do with this information. You know that. and that's all I have. It's basically draft minutes or notes. So
Luke Legere: I mean. my reaction is. if we can just give the money back. that just seems like. I mean. if we don't know why it was not given back in the first place. I'm personally not really comfortable trying to. like. justify that after the fact. I don't know. I mean. I'm not sure that's really even an option for us at this point. Give this point. given the time it's passed. But Linda Hansen: Barbara. do you have better notes on this? Barbara Howell: If you give me. I'll look back. If you give me. yeah. I'll give Linda Hansen: you the dates. Luke Legere: Okay. yeah. yeah. Maybe Linda. do what you just suggested. which is share with us in our next agenda packets. what you have Barbara's notes will probably tell us far more than whatever is in you know you're going to be sharing with us. but maybe we can between what you share with us and what Barbara is able to find. Maybe we can get a little bit of clarity here make some sense of it. but based on what you're saying. I'm. I'm at a loss. frankly.
Linda Hansen: $300.000 too. So that's and then we have yet a third one. which is. you know. another. another variation of this theme. which is. we took in money for peer review services for wetland delineation. we agreed. the money was brought in. the peer review was done. the invoice was sent in. paid. but finance didn't take it out of this account. They must have taken it out of our budget or something else. And so now this money is still sitting there. you know. 20 years later. whatever it was. and they're asking me for clarity. And I like. this is your mistake. you know. why? Why are you asking me for clarity? And then the question is. where should the money go? And I mean. of course. I'd say. into our gift fund. if anything. But I'm not sure they're gonna. they're gonna agree to that. But. I mean. I even have a statement here that says Peter Fletcher's payment was taken from the wrong account. So I don't know how much and what wrong account that was. I have to assume it was our budget at the time. But yeah. again. I mean. if you guys want to see what I have as far as backup before. Are you guys make any decision on this one? But I mean. to me. this seems like a no brainer. This is your mistake. you know. Give us back the money. you know. so. But Luke Legere: again. it seems like the easiest thing to do is to whoever made the mistake figure out where the money was taken from originally and the and that's where it goes to just Linda Hansen: there's. there's no records. This was actually no finance records. because it's 20 years old. So. okay. I'm the only one who has records. believe it or not. everything was destroyed a number of years ago. everything that was more than a certain years. You know. they only have to keep things for a certain number of years. But you know. we have. we set up all the files. We still have all the receivables. all the payables for that date back that far. So we can at least produce some backup. But you know. it's just. they just look at us with. you know. it's just everything gets clouded over eventually. because this is just such a crazy thing to begin with. So all Luke Legere: right. well. I guess maybe the same. same thing there. just same thing. Want to see what you got. and Linda Hansen: let me unload that on you. I love to Luke Legere: see if anybody has an epiphany. Linda Hansen: Definitely do not think I will be of help for this. but we'll look at it. I mean. we had a senior work off person three years ago. I think it's been that's Janie. the same way she's doing the mosaic this year. We wanted to give her a fun job after this. she she spent 120 hours putting together an Excel spreadsheet and searched. She went through every one of our files. trying to find out. when the money came in. was it given back? Was what wasn't given back? Where these people live now? Are they still alive? This massive spreadsheet she generated. and. I mean. we're still sitting there. like we still. you know. the amount of work to give that back is this? Is this enormous. It really is. you know? So. yeah. we're never doing that again. Okay. just saying. I said that. I think where you were. you weren't there. Luke. but I said that at one point. we're not a bank. I never wanted to be a bank. We're not taking any more money in. okay. Luke Legere: So. yeah. I'm on board with that. If I wasn't before. I definitely am now. after this conversation. Linda Hansen: Oh. God. KP. low is like we are doing what?
Anyway. so we're down to one last thing. Oh. public comment Luke Legere: first. Yeah. okay. yes. public comment. Do we have any public comment? Linda Hansen: I am we have Lisa on I don't know if you know that she's part of the attendees. She was appointed last night by the by the Select Board as our newest member. but she hasn't been sworn in yet. so she looks like she attended as an attendee tonight. Luke Legere: Thank you. Lisa for attending. We look forward to having you join our ranks and appreciate your willingness to serve. but we won't put Lisa on the spot here tonight. Okay. I don't see any public comment. but thank you. Linda. that's good call out there. Okay. number six A approving the meeting minutes from July 30. 2025 Barbara. did you have any Unknown: I gave them and turned them in. Linda Hansen: Okay. they've already been incorporated. I'm not sure they're in your version. because you would have gotten the version last week. and I think Emily just update. made Barbara's revisions again. mainly editorial. I had a few editorial changes in that nothing of substance or context. Luke Legere: Yeah. they look they look fine to me. Thing. okay. Could I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 30. 2025. please. So moved. Thank you. Barbara. Do we have a second? Second? Thank you. Shannon. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yes. Jenny Unknown: Brown. yes. Barbara house. yes. Luke Legere: and I to vote yes. Okay. anything else? Seeing. nothing. I would take a motion to adjourn.
Unknown: So moved. Thank you. Luke Legere: Barbara. do have a second? Second? Thank you. Shannon. Roll call vote. Shannon Fisher. yep. Jenny Brown. yes. Barbara. how. yes. and I vote yes. One of these. somebody's gonna vote. No. One of these next. I know it's gonna happen. just to mess Linda Hansen: with everybody. but not mess everybody up. Luke Legere: All right. that does it for our meeting this evening. Thanks. everybody.