September 30, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript

September 30, 2026 - Conservation Commission

Autoscroll:

All right, seeing that it's 632, we have got a quorum. I'd like to begin the Conservation Commission meeting for Wednesday, September 30th, 2026. If the location for in-person meetings is wheelchair accessible, if you need other accommodations in order to participate in meetings, please contact Wayland ADA coordinator at 508-358-6821, at least two business days in advance of the meeting. While the municipality will do its best to accommodate you, certain accommodations may require the hiring of outside contractors who may not be available if requested to meet you before the meeting. This meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting. The public will be excluded from executive sessions. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote access in accordance with applicable law. If this meeting has remote access, which it does, no in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch or may participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at the following link. And when required by law or lawed by myself, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location, in this case with remote access. And the public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. With that said, I see Lisa Aubin, Barbara Howell, Cliff Lewis, John Storr, Shannon Fischer, myself, Sean Farrell, signing in remotely. And Linda, are you at headquarters there, town building? I'm sure. Sounds lovely. Thank you. So, with that, let's move on to the agenda for the public hearings, please. This is 2A, MWRA Interconnection and Happy Hollow Water Treatment Facilities as DEP file number 322-1068. Notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Wayland Department of Public Works for the construction of new water infrastructure in Wayland. The proposed work includes a connection of an NWRA water system, connection of a pump station and water treatment facility, and replacement of a water main. The project area is in within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland and bank bordering land subject to flooding, and a 200-foot riverfront area. The project is shown on a Wayland's assessor's map 46D, sorry, 46C, 46D, 42B, 43A, 37, 38, and 33. Linda. Well, there's a whole slew of people here, I think. I'm not sure who's presenting this project to the commission. I can start off with just some opening remarks, and then I will hand it over, if that's okay. Please. All right. Well, good evening, everyone. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Tom Holder. I'm the Public Works Director in Wayland. With me tonight is the project design team from Kleinfelder, and Kirsten can introduce them in a moment. As you mentioned, the project we're discussing tonight is the long-term water supply project, which many of you are familiar with. We have previously met with the Framingham Conservation Commission, two meetings with them. They closed their hearing, and we met with them as a fair amount of this related work is within Framingham, in addition to Wayland. With that, I will now like to turn it over to the Kleinfelder team to present the project to you. Just before you do, I should let everyone know that in my previous life, I served on the Board of Public Works, which had a lot of work to do with the initial planning for this project. So, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, but I wanted to let everyone know. Thanks, Tom.
Thank you, Tom. Thank you, everyone, for having us on the agenda tonight. My name is Kirsten Ryan. I'm the Project Manager for the Kleinfelder team, working closely with Tom at the DPW. I have a number of members of the team here. I've got some of them I can see because they came in as panelists. Some I can't, but that's okay. I'm going to, I'll mention who they are, but I have Jen Neckenman and Matt O'Dowd, I believe, who are water design engineers. I think we have Travis Pryor, who's a landscape architect. Mike Hansen, who's our senior stormwater designer. And then we have a support staff person, Ada Marcus, and wetland specialist, Emma Maronka. So, a lot of folks. It's a big project. But I have a slide presentation that, if I go right through it, I think it'll be about 20 minutes, maybe a little bit more. So, I'm going to try to move quickly without going too fast. And hopefully that's a good format. And I plan to talk about a brief summary and overview of the project and status where we're at, wetland jurisdiction and impacts, minimization and mitigation, and chapter 193, stormwater and tree issues. So, let me get right into it. So, this is a project that's really critical to restoring Weyland's water supply. All of the town's wells have PFAS contamination. This project will replace temporary treatment system at Happy Hollow. That's really at the end of its useful life with a new permanent PFAS facility for the long term. It'll also implement an interconnection to the MWRA water system. That will serve as a supplemental supply for if Happy Hollow is offline or in periods of high demand. And that will need to have a new pipeline pump station for that interconnection. In addition, we'll need to replace a good chunk of some aged, really outlived their useful life and undersized water means within old Connecticut paths to make this new water supply system function. Just for a really brief history and status, I won't read everything on here. I know that the DPW has been putting all these slide decks and presentations and things on their website. But this started back in 2021 when this temporary treatment system at Happy Hollow was needed to be put online. It's located in the floodplain at that site. Alternatives were studied for a couple of years. And then in 2023, it was voted to proceed with the selected alternative, which is under design and before you now. We believe, and the state agencies at MEPA and the other state agencies concur, the selected alternative is the most environmentally protective and cost-effective solution, which meets Whelan's water needs. So that final environmental impact report, or FEIR certificate, was received on the 14th of September. We had a planning board site plan review hearing on September 9th. We had a lot of good feedback from the board members and some members of the public that we've been working to address since then. We're still working on that. We just got third-party design review comments from the site plan review, third-party person on Monday. And we had a design review advisory board meeting on the 29th last night. So I think some members of the public might be here looking to see improvements to the way that Castle Road pump station looks. We're not quite there yet. We're working on it, you know, to get ready for the next planning board hearing. So I just want to kind of put that expectation out there. We're going to be focusing on the other parts of the project, which Castle Road actually does not have wetlands adjacent to it. So let me zoom out to the bird's eye view of the overall project. It has many elements to it. It stretches quite a ways, a distance. These things that are called out with green are the ones where there's wetland resources adjacent to the work. So those are the areas I'm going to focus on. But this starts over in Framingham to the west at the UMDUBRE's shaft L, where we will interconnect to that infrastructure. And then a new pipeline, a new transmission main, as it's properly called, will be installed within the Haltman corridor, parallel to that aqueduct along the southern boundary of that corridor. Once we get over the Wayland line here, use this tool to be easier over here, we need to cross a culverted stream. So we'll be doing that with a transit method, which I'll show you. The transmission main continues along that Haltman corridor till we get to in between Wallace Road and Castle Road, where the pump station will be located. And that pump station will push the water into the distribution mains on Old Connecticut Path. These will need to be replaced. This portion of the project has no resources, so it won't be discussed. When we get up towards the high school and the west and aqueduct, we do have to cross it with the pipeline. So we do need to come out of the roadway. Sorry, all this work is in the roadway. Come out of the roadway, do a little grading, and connect to an existing newer pipe that goes along in front of the high school. Then continue with our new pipe further on up Old Connecticut Path, cross again. But all of this, north of this location, northeast of it, is work within roadway and no resource areas. So the Happy Hollow piece behind the high school, the existing Happy Hollow facilities are located there. We are creating a new infrastructure there, getting all of the existing infrastructure functionality out of wetland resource areas. And then the existing water main that currently goes right down this, like, stream alignment will be abandoned in place. A new pipeline, a new water main will be constructed further away from that wetland resource. So I'm going to start here on the west at the culvert crossing and kind of zoom into that location, which is right here. It's going to be a buried water transmission main. Let me just dive in. Here's a photo of what, you know, that looks like if you haven't already walked on it. You know, this is a typical view down the Hultman. And the actual Hultman Aqueduct is more or less centered in this kind of berm. Our pipeline will be off to the south of it. I believe this is facing east. So this would be south.
There's a lot of constraints that we have to work with in designing this infrastructure. First and foremost, the MWA's infrastructure and their requirements. So we've been really working with them and meeting them with them continuously for the last couple of years and to make sure that we can maximize separation from the Hultman Aqueduct to, you know, help avoid any conflicts there. So they have requirements. We obviously want to minimize impacts to adjacent wetlands. So largely we've done that through the tarantula's crossing in this area, trying to minimize tree removal as much as possible. It's not going to be entirely possible due to the need to have the pipeline installed. And then the finished product with the new transmission pipeline will look, it'll look very similar to this. It'll be a grass surface for future maintenance. It needs to be wide enough that, you know, a truck can drive over and get there. So, so all of this will require some impact to the buffer zone, riverfront, to the land slopes, the corridor, and the tree clearing necessary.
This is a section of the design plans showing that work. Here is the Wayland-Framingham border. Transmission main is in the pink. The proposed new transmission main is coming over the border. And this, the blue dots are like the wetland flag. So this is the culverted stream here. With a 50-foot buffer in yellow and 100-foot in orange. And the riverfront area in blue. So our pipeline will be coming in. And basically, through this corridor here, this will be the trenchless crossing. And I'll show you kind of a picture of what the machine looks like. But we're actually going to, should have worked this way. Because we're going to actually be starting on the east side of the stream for this section. And this red box, and Jen Neckerman can correct me if I misspeak any of this. She's the expert here. But this red box is what's called the launch pit, where the machine will be in there and will tunnel the transmission main over the top of the culvert. And this is called the receiving pit, where it comes up out of the ground. So this is much smaller.
So temporary and permanent impacts, I believe. But, yeah, largely the permanent impacts here will be the need to clear some trees in these areas and a little bit of grading here and here.
Here's an example of what that type of machine looks like, typically. So this would be placed in that larger sort of pit in the ground. The pipeline would be advanced across and then come up out here and then connect to the trench and the rest of the work.
So this is a good low-impact method. We evaluated a number of different methods, including open cutting, which is like the least, I mean, the most disruptive going around billing. We didn't want to do that, and this was determined to be the best solution for here.
Okay, next I'm moving up along Old Connecticut Path. Again, I'm skipping over Castle Road just because of the absence of wetland areas. There will need to be some free clearing, I should say, on this section of the Holtman. You can see a little bit of the green line there. That's tree, necessary tree removal, and a little bit of green line here near the pump station. And we can talk about trees at the end if we have time, but I'm going to jump up to this crossing of the West End where there's some wetland resources near that, near the high school.
So here's a picture of, I believe this is facing east, up the West End, looking from off the side of the road at an Old Connecticut Path. So we need to, we evaluated this extensively with MWA, which way should we go about this. This was the solution. We're going to basically come up out of the roadway, up and over this a little bit, but we do need to do a little grading. And there is, we would be in the buffer zone here.
Design goals, you know, again, coordination with MWA, minimizing impacts of wetlands. There's no tree removal associated with this location. And erosion and sedimentation control will be very important. It's going to be, I think, the closest that we come to the edge of the wetland boundary here. But we would be restoring it, you know, with something, a native seed mix, but it would need to be looking similar to this to be mowed for access.
This is the plan, design plan view of that, again, with the pink being the proposed water main, being in the roadway, in the roadway, then needing to come up and out and over like this and back and connect into the existing infrastructure. So this sort of red box here represents the limit of disturbance in this that's not already within, like, the pavement in this area and some grading work. And the blue dots are, this is the wetland boundary here and here. So we would have erosion controls, you know, hugging along here.
Okay. Next, I'm going to go into the Happy Hollow site and talk about that treatment facility and distribution main replacement.
So we'll be constructing a new PFAS facility that's outside of the resource areas. This is a great benefit to the long-term resiliency of the infrastructure and also benefits the resource. You can see a picture here of what's already there right now, some older buildings that aren't used. And then the temporary system under this vinyl enclosure is all located right down near the wells and near the riverfront and flood zone. So once all the new infrastructure is in place, approved, operational, you know, we make sure all the kinks are worked out, these buildings would no longer be needed. They would be removed and disposed and appropriately. And then this area could be, you know, restored to essentially what it looks like in the natural areas around it. With, you know, obviously erosion and sedimentation control is going to be important down here during the work. And there will not be any tree removal required down here. And we would use some type of native mix. And we can talk about native other plantings as well. We haven't quite gotten there in our design yet, but we can certainly do that.
A little bit more detail on this site. This kind of shows you with an aerial underlay. The red outline is the work zone, the limit of disturbance. So we do need to go in to this area within the resource area to demolish those structures. We also need to replace a well pump. You know, it's very small work limited in here. That's going to be temporary in nature. Um, I mentioned the water main, um, behind. The water main, I'll show you in a minute. The existing water main goes like right through this wetland here right now. As far as we can tell, I think it's very difficult to locate accurately, but it's in there. Uh, it's not a good place for a water main. You can never really repair it without hurting the resource area. You can't really see if there's leaks. So it's going to be very beneficial both to the resource and to the water system to move that up as far upland as we can, kind of tucking it behind the school buildings and back out to Connecticut path. And then the treatment facility itself will be up in this area, which is completely out of the riverfront and flood zone. Um, so let me show you a little bit closer about what that looks like.
And those are those existing buildings that will be demolished. Um, the facility is up here. There's an existing, um, paved driveway right now and an existing, um, corrosion control building that's active right now. That, that is also something that we'll need to keep running until everything's active and then it will be demolished, an existing driveway. But, so we will need to reconfigure the driveway a little bit. We've really tried to minimize the amount of new pavement, um, quite a bit and then removing these impervious structures out of the flood zone. Um, I forget what our net impervious on this site is, but it's not very large. Um, the actual facility is right here, and then we need to have some, um, backwash saloons for backwashing the filters and stormwater management on this site. Um, this is that water main that I mentioned, um, the plans for it. You can see I have put in the dark black dash, the approximate location of the existing main down in, with, within this resource area. So, and the new main coming up, still needs to be within the buffer zone. It's still going to be within the buffer zone, but I believe it might be out of the 50-foot buffer zone, which I don't see on here right now. But, just approximating, it looks like it's definitely going to be out of the 50-foot in this section here.
Um, it, it will still need to be within the riverfront, obviously, same as existing conditions. And, and then this continues the rest of that water main, um, sorry, existing down here, proposed, up, uh, farther out, farther away from the resource. Oops, it's pretty tight back in this corner, so we can't really get much, much farther away than this. Um, and then continuing out to the Connecticut path. So, it's certainly going to be an improvement over existing conditions, for sure.
A little bit redundant. I mentioned removing things out of the flood zone. This just kind of demonstrates, um, on the flood zone map that we're doing that here at Happy Hollow.
Yeah, just another illustration of where the flood zone boundary is, and the existing infrastructure that's within it. That'll be relocated. Well, not relocated. I mean, replaced with new infrastructure. Um, okay, so, kind of getting into a summary here, um, in the transmission rain portion, we have both temporary and permanent impacts, including tree removal and grating. For the distribution system portion, um, specifically the Westin-Aquadock crossing, we have, um, a small area of, uh, grating within the buffer zone. For the Happy Hollow, we have, um, some tree removal associated with, get which section? But I can look back at it. But some temporary impacts, and then, you know, moving the infrastructure out of the flood zone and riverfront area.
Uh, performance standards, we believe, have been met for all the wetlands and stormwater requirements. We may need some, a variance for some of the tree requirements. Um, we'll talk about that in a minute, but as you could imagine, it would be difficult or impossible to replace trees in situ for some of these locations. But we can talk about that in a little bit, um, summarizing avoidance, minimization and mitigation, using my words, on a selected route. You know, we believe it minimizes wetland impacts as much as possible. Um, construction within existing disturbed land to the extent practical. Using the trenchless augerbore method, limiting tree clearing as much as possible. Uh, minimizing new impervious surfaces. Um, you know, even at the pump station in the Upland area in Castle Road, we've, um, have part, part of that is gravel to minimize new impervious. And then, obviously, the stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required prior to construction, um, mitigation, I mentioned that, removal of infrastructure from the resource areas, uh, moving them farther away from resource areas, and then restoration, um, with a seed mix afterwards. Almost done. Um, relating to chapter 193 on stormwater and land disturbance bylaw, we have 0.2 acres of added impervious and 5.6 acres of land disturbance. And so we, we acknowledge this as a major project under chapter 193, um, the stormwater management systems, um, provide groundwater recharge, they attenuate peak flows, they comply with all of DEP's, uh, stormwater standards, and also with chapter 193 and 194. Um, our stormwater design report, you know, addresses those requirements with calculations. I can also show you drainage plans, we can talk about them, um, I don't have them in this active slide deck, but I have some hidden slides that we could talk about if you'd like. Uh, lastly, the tree clearing, um, for upland areas in chapter 193, um, I think, uh, we determined there was about 0.17 acres total in the upland area within the whole of an aqueduct corridor. We don't have an exact tree count, we have individual trees, so when we started the project in 2024, uh, the surveyor, you know, was scoped to identify, uh, I think, trees greater than 6 inches or greater, DBH, within certain areas that were jurisdictional to our understanding. So, um, some, some cases, we don't, we don't have individual trees identified at this time. Um, as far as the Happy Hollow site, we do have individual trees, 6 inch plus identified, and we have counted about 29 trees, um, needing to be removed. Yeah, and so we're working with the DPW to, and looking for, you know, obviously your comments on, on that topic, because the locations of plantings for all those trees may not be feasible. So, um, I think that is all I had, so I can open it up, I can jump back to certain things as you like. Thank you. Uh, Linda, we'll start with you, please.
Um, I just want to let the commission know, I, just, this, this evening, I sent you the, um, peer review comments from, um, Bills and Roy for this project. I wanted to put it up on your, the beginning of your email chain. Um, again, we only received this, uh, came on Saturday, only signed on Monday, so it did not make it into the agenda packet. Um, and I guess you guys probably haven't had a chance to really work at it, or to review it and, um, address or respond to that, right? So, um, I think that covers, uh, most of my concerns, I think. Um, I mean, the, like the old PFAS infiltration system area, you know, the Happy Hollow would be a great place to do a little bit of true, true replacement and, um, and maybe some, um, restoration activities. But other than that, I mean, I don't, um, I don't, did I, did you send out the environmental impact report that was issued on the CEP 14th? Was that, or is that part of your... Is that a question to me? Yeah. Was that, is that on the website? Um, the environmental impact report, all those reports are on their web, on this website. Okay. The certificate may not have made it there yet. Okay. Okay. But we can certainly put it there. Okay. So, and the only other question I have is, um, you do mention, um, riverfront impacts. And, uh, are those all within the Holtman, um, aqueduct area? Um, no, there's also some along the, um, Happy Hollow location. Oh, okay. Yeah, the culvert crossing at the Holtman. And let me go back to, uh, maybe. Yeah, because that stream's considered perennial, the one that goes right by the high school?
I believe that's how it was identified by the wetland scientists. Okay, just checking.
That's, that's our understanding of the resource area. Yeah. So this, I'm just asking. Yep.
Hmm. And the tree removal, a lot of the tree removal, is that, is, will that be within the Holtman aqueduct also, the, along the aqueduct? Yes, let me grab. Um, they do tree cleaning anywhere, don't, don't they, as part of the vegetation management plan, so.
Yeah, and they keep their corridor clear for their, their infrastructure. It's that, that we need to be a certain distance away from the MWRA infrastructure. So that causes us to have to push into the tree line. Oh, okay. This is a little, um, the green, you can see kind of this green line here. Oh, yeah, that's down there by Podmeadow, right? Yes, Podmeadow's here, and this is that, um, stream that's culverted. Okay. This green hatching that's right here and here. Okay. A little, little tiny patch here. Okay.
Well, it's just because you, I think you identified that as permanent impacts, but, um, would that be more or less temporary if you're just, if you're putting in a pipe and then just burying it again, right? Um, where there was, where there needed to be grading. Oh, okay. In the workforce area, that would be permanent. I think we considered the tree clearing permanent. Uh, people that calculate all the impacts will, can chime in if I have that wrong, but. Wait, we considered the tree clearing. I didn't know how you came up with that number. That's why I was just asking. Yeah, the tree clearing was considered to be a permanent impact in areas, especially where we didn't, we knew what the trees wouldn't be able to be replanted in that specific area. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Because you're going, you need to maintain it as a grassed access path, a roadway. Mm-hmm. That's Aiden Marcus from Kleinfelder speaking.
Thank you.
Linda, anything else on your end? No. Mm-mm. All right. We should open up to you. So we'll open up to comments. Thoughts, comments, concerns. So something like Linda, you're okay with the things as they stand currently. Yes. Yeah. And if you see the peer review, the peer reviewer did have a number of comments, both for planning board and for conservation. So assuming they address those comments, you're okay with it. I guess is what I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think I could mention, you know, what I think in skimming the document, I saw some comments relating to the way that the flags were, you know, they didn't identify bank in some cases.
So, I mean, if we need to go back and have things reflagged, you know, I suppose we could do that. We feel like we're outside of those resources. So I don't know how important it is to the commission, but. Well, maybe the easiest thing is just to let me know if, like, we could do a site visit on those specific locations. Yeah. That'd be great. I think it would probably be an easy yes or no, whether or not we really need to see that. But, I mean, I think we all understand that there's going to be impacts, you know, that's it's not quotable. So, you know, just exactly how sensitive of where it is, you know, we could figure that out pretty quickly in the field. So, yeah.
Okay. Commission, anything else? Or anything, period? I don't know what's on. Just a question for Linda. I noticed in the documents that the wetland flagging was done in January, I think back in 2024, but it was in January. And I know we usually try to encourage people to do it outside of winter months, but is that okay in this situation?
I guess I'd have to spend more time reviewing that. I, again, I think, like I said, I think all these, these impacts are fairly unavoidable based on the design. And so that might, that information might not be as, you know, as material as it would be for other projects. So, you know, and that, again, that can be answered in the field if we do a quick, like a site visit at some point to review some of these areas. So, and the commission's welcome to join in a site visit. So, yeah, I'll, I'll definitely join.
Commission, any other thoughts, comments, concerns?
Okay. I did see someone had a comment. So I guess this will open up to any comments. So, Shireen, and I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that, had a quick question about how long the work will take and how to manage, how they're going to manage traffic, the kids coming in off the bus. So if you want to speak to that, I guess.
Yeah. Excuse me. The construction overall schedule is expected to take two years, but for the portion within Old Connecticut Path, that work, I would expect to move pretty quickly. Maybe, maybe Jen can give us a rough idea on what she thought about how long that portion of the work would take. Actually, this is more of a planning board question. You know, we don't really handle traffic and. True. No, we'd certainly be requiring the contractor to present the engineer with us with a traffic management plan that we need to approve.
Perfect. Okay. Anybody else? By the way, Linda, when's our next meeting for continuation? What's the next date? Oh, we're doing a Tuesday meeting, I think. What day is that? I think that is. That's November, though. Oh, is it? Yeah. Yeah, so I think the next meeting is October 21st. 21st, I have. Yeah. The following one is on a Tuesday because of the veterans. Yeah. We're already a month ahead. How did that happen? October 21st. Okay. So assuming I'm looking for a continuation here to the 21st, everybody?
Linda, yes? Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Show the time frame. Okay. Okay.
That was under both. Can I have a motion then for continuation under both to sometime after 630 on the 21st of October, please? So moved. Thank you. Was that Shannon? Mm-hmm. All right. Go ahead, second. I'll second. That was Cliff. Quick roll call, please. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storr? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Sure. Yes. And Sean Ferzi, yes. All right. We're all set. We'll see you folks in a few weeks. And then in terms of Linda, the site visit, is that something you're going to set up in the meantime, I'm assuming? Yeah, we could do that in the meantime. Okay. Sounds like a plan. You can let us know about that, Linda, in case we want to come? Yeah, I'll send it out to everybody. Perfect. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, commission. Bye-bye. Thank you. Have a good night, guys. Thank you.
Okay. On to 2B. This is the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail. Do we have a DEP number here, Linda? We do. Okay. Can we just get one? Oh, 1069. Okay. So, DEP file number 322-1069. Notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the construction of a trail on an inactive railroad right-of-way beginning in Sudbury and extending into Wayland. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a boring, vegetated wetland bank and land underwater, boring land subject to flooding, and a 200-foot riverfront area. The product is shown on an assessor's map 22, 23, 26, and 27. Linda. Well, who wants to present this to the commission for the project team? Yeah, I'm going to present. I'll introduce myself and the team, and then I'll share my screen. Sound good? Yes. Okay. My name is Amber Christofferson. I'm a trails and greenways planner at DCR, and I'm joined by our consultant team from BHB. We have Marissa Gustoflius, who's the project manager, Dan Kanata, who's the environmental specialist and will be presenting part of the presentation with me, and Shanta Keller, who's the structural engineer. I hope I got your guys' titles correct, and if I didn't, you can reintroduce yourself. Okay. We have about a 10-minute presentation planned. Let's see. All good on the screen?
All good. Okay, great. All right. So this is part of the Mass Central Rail Trail and a section from Sudbury to Wayland. We will be going to the Sudbury Conservation Commission on October 19th, so we're coming to Wayland first, and as I mentioned, I'm with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and working with BHB, who's our design, engineering, and permit consultant. And this is a photo of the existing rail bridge and Sudbury River. So just a little bit of project background, for those of you that are not familiar of the Mass Central Rail Trail vision, it's a planned 100-plus-mile off-road greenway from Northampton to Boston following the former rail alignment for the most part. This section here in yellow is what we call the MCRT wayside, which is a 23-mile piece of the corridor that DCR has a 99-year lease with the MBTA. So the MBTA is the underlying property owner, and we are the essentially owner and operator for all intents and purposes. Just a little bit of context around the greenway network in the vicinity, this section of the Mass Central Rail Trail is highlighted in yellow, very closely linked to the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, which runs north-south, and part of the growing network of the Mass Central Rail Trail. I won't get too focused on this, but you can see a lot of the shared-use path pieces are starting to come together for a contiguous network. Just to focus in on the wayside corridor that DCR has been advancing since we signed the lease with a T in 2010, I don't know if folks here are familiar with the first days of construction, which was in 2019, the five miles in Whalen and Weston. That was built around 2019 in partnership with Eversource, as the path runs alongside the towers. In 2023, the city of Waltham built three miles, you can see on the far eastern edge of the corridor. In 2025, DCR rehabilitated two of the rail bridges, one at the Weston-Waltham border over the train tracks, and one on the eastern end of our lease area in Waltham. And then this past year, we completed, we're still finishing up some punch list items for the 7.5 miles in Hudson, So, and Sudbury. That was also a joint project with Eversource. So this project is picking up where that one left off from the east, extending 1.9 miles from the Sudbury substation where the path ends today into Whalen at the train depot slash route 127. Okay, so just a few slides here to set the stage. We have several goals for the project. I won't read all of them, but essentially, the biggest goal of this project is about bicycle and pedestrian safety and creating a safe, accessible path for all types of non-behicular modes. We're seeking to minimize environmental impacts and promote climate resiliency, preserve cultural resources, and provide regional greenway connections. Looking back to that map, and very specifically, this is about the last mile in the gap to create 17 contiguous miles of the MCRT Wayside Corridor. And when you factor in the connection to the Bruce Freeman, which just had a significant chunk built, you're looking at about 44 contiguous miles. So, you know, we think a huge asset to local and regional users. So, just to go through a few of the elements, it's a 10-foot-wide proposed shared-use path. As I mentioned, from the substation to Route 27, the total project length is 1.92 miles, 0.36 in Sudbury, 1.56 in Whalen. The work's going to entail grading, minor tree clearing, wood fencing, tree protection, erosion and sediment controls. There's two roadway crossings that both exist today. There'll just be enhanced crossings, and then rehabilitation of the existing timber bridge that spans the Sudbury River, installation of a timber overlook, and benches, bike racks, and signs.
This is a map from our design set. You can see where the project begins on the left. The yellow line is the 1.92-mile proposed path. You can see the Sudbury-Wayland-Town line is pretty quickly into the path there on the western stretch. Then there's the proposed timber overlook, the bridge rehabilitation improvements of the Route 20 crossing with Andrews Ave. And then that stretch there is an existing stone dust path. And so this project is proposing to resurface that to the asphalt, so there's a consistent and safe and accessible route for the entire stretch of the corridor. And then the last piece is the crossing to the existing MCRT that was built in 2019. This is a typical cross-section. You can see a 10-foot-wide asphalt path with two-foot grassed shoulders, reinforced shoulders, I should say. There's a sub-base below that. And then you can see there's differing cross-sections depending on where you are on the profile, but there's cuts into the embankment that are lower or higher. We'll get into some of that cut and fill discussion. So for the timber overlook, the top photo there on the left is an example of a similar type wooden overlook, and it will be a little bit west of the bridge in that photo, roughly where that pink arrow is. And then the design plans show it at the bottom in this drawing. The bridge rehabilitation, we are proposing to retain much of the structure and for the most part, just put decking and railing on to make it safe and accessible.
I think that's the last slide I have, and then I'll kick it over to Dan, is progress to date. This project has been a long time coming. It was initiated back in January 2020, and you can see some of the design milestones along the way leading us to where we are right now, which is permitting. We'll go through all the permits that we're getting, but the two most relevant ones here are the NOI Wayland, and then we're going to go to Sudbury.
All right, Dan, I hope I didn't go too fast. No, you did great. Thank you, Amber. So I'm Dan Canata, environmental scientist with VHB, working here with DCR on the project. Again, as Amber said, this is a project where we're trying to really provide a critical connection, but also have an opportunity to minimize environmental impacts where possible and mitigate as needed. As Amber alluded to, there is a fair bit of permitting for this, given the sensitive resources in the area. The overall wayside section, the 23-mile section of the MCRT, did receive its MEPA certificate back in 2014. We will be filing with the Sudbury Conservation Commission imminently. The Chapter 91 Waterways Division of DEP is going to be receiving just a minor modification for our work on the bridge structure. There's going to be ongoing coordination with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program through MISA, Mass Endangered Species Act. That is just for work that coincides with priority and estimated habitat. And separately, this will go through some federal permitting, the nationwide permits with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Section 404, and associated Section 7 rare species coordination that is required to go along with that.
So we'll just have a real quick overview. I think some of Amber's figures probably gave a clearer picture on this. And at the end of the presentation, we do have our impact plan set available if there are any specific questions there. But the limits of this section of the project are starting at the Sudbury and Whelan Town Line, and mostly along the toe of the slope of the railway embankment, we do have bordering vegetated wetland associated with Washbrook and the Sudbury River. We can go to the next here.
Yeah, and primary work in this section here, we've got the work in bordering land subject to flooding and the riverfront area, a minor amount of work associated with the bridge rehabilitation at the Sudbury River. We can go to the next slide.
And eventually, we reach Route 27. Again, more wetlands at the base of the rail embankment and along the corridor. And again, most of our impacts has been minimized as much as possible.
So in terms of those impacts, for land underwater, this is our work at the Sudbury River. There's about three cubic yards of dredge that's actually structural dredge. It's associated with some of the wood of the bridge being removed to allow for rehabilitation. The only other work that will impact the actual bottom of the stream bed is the silt curtain that is proposed to be installed just during construction for protective measures there. Work in bordering land subject to flooding. Again, this is an area where the floodplain does encroach into the rail bed. Overall, there is going to be an increase in flood storage capacity along the corridor in Weyland. That will be just an improvement over the capacity at the current time. Bordering vegetative wetland. These are mostly sliver impacts from grading and installing erosion controls during work. We are proposing wetland replication, which we will get to in a little bit. And in areas of temporary disturbance, which is the majority of those impacts, we'll do on-site restoration using a native wetland seed mix. Work in riverfront area is primarily associated with the work that's happening on the trail embankment itself. So this is degraded from its natural state. And then work in the buffer zone. Again, just given the sheer number of resources in this area, there's a fair bit of work that is required there.
Next slide. So in terms of replication, we are proposing a 1.5 to 1 ratio of BVW compensation. I should note that based on comments we received from DEP, we are going to be modifying the orientation of this replication area just slightly to hopefully enhance the hydrologic connection there. We will work on that and get a revised version of that to the commission for final approval. Where is this along the corridor?
Yeah. It's hard to describe because it's in this contiguous area.
Dan, it's west of the overlook, right? It is. Yeah. We can, once we get through the presentation, we can probably zoom in on this area a little bit more clearly just to show. Yeah. It's tough in the PowerPoint, unfortunately. And then our replication area, we like with our areas of temporary disturbance, we'd be doing a native wetland seed mix, but also trying to provide some native shrubs that would be representative of the area and some of the areas of impact just provide an enhancement for habitat and replication value there as well. Next one. And then in terms of other mitigation measures, tree protection is proposed along areas where there's going to be machinery in close proximity to existing trees where possible. We have silt sacks proposed in existing catch basins at the road crossings and then sediment control barriers, which will likely consist of compost filter tubes along the limits of work to prevent cementation.
Great. So I think that's it. Yeah, I don't know. Does that wetland replication show up on this plan? It might not. Is this there? Right here? Yeah, there. It's, yeah, it might. It's hard to tell. It's going to be easier to tell on the PDF, but that's give or take where we're looking. Yeah.
Okay, well, I'm going to stop sharing my screen right now. And as Dan alluded to, we did take a look at and address some of the initial comments that came from DEP, Linda, and the commission. We'll defer to you on how you want us to, if you want us to answer those now or how to proceed. But we did look into those. Thank you. Well, let's open up to Linda first. And I guess, Linda, during your question or comments, you can then rope that in, if you like. Yeah, no, I did look at the, I think Emily might have sent you the comments. I don't know if you'd seen them before. DEP, they were far more comments than we normally get from projects. So congratulations. Yeah. So again, you know, one of the things is they recommend is a peer review is encouraged. And I don't know if you guys want to take a stab at their comments. You know, their water comments first and then, you know, and come back and the commission can decide whether or not, you know, after you've addressed the comments, whether a peer review is still required. Like they like the country drainage idea, you know, by having the shoulders on the side. Is that my interpretation? Is that right? Yeah, I think there were a couple of things there. One was just some definitions around the disconnected impervious areas. I think that was a question. So I don't know. I mean, I could take a first stab or Dan or Marissa.
I mean, not right now. You know, I mean, we could, we also type these up. We can put some questions in, you know, however you want to do it. But I think, I mean, you're going to need to address it to DEP anyway. At that point, if you put something formal together or some sort of document or something, I think that you could share that with us and we could see the response from DEP, if they're satisfied with that, if they still think a peer review is required or if they would or recommend it, however they say that, or we can address that at the next meeting. Does that make sense? Yeah. Hi, Linda. This is Marissa Gatzawfuli. Yes, from BHB. We are planning on putting together a formal response to comment memo that we will submit with formal brain responses to all of the comments from DEP. Okay. Do you have a copy of those comments, Linda, or no? I think, I thought Emily sent those. Did she send those? She did. Yeah. In a separate email, Cliff. When did that come?
It was recently. It was Monday. Yeah. It was recent. I don't think I remember seeing that either. Oh.
Babs hasn't. Maybe it was just me. Yeah, we're getting good stuff. Barbara Gutter's my copy, though.
I get the hard copies. Anyway, so a couple of things in your, I just, some inconsistencies, I think that need to be cleared up in the first, in the letter that's in the beginning of the NOI packet. It says the White Island replication would be 1 to 1.5. The rest of the document in the narrative states is a 1 to 1 replication. Typically, it should be 1 to 1.5, I believe. But that's, that's, can be under discussion. Also, what else did I say? Oh, let's see.
I had some question mark here. I figured out. Oh, and topography. And you guys don't have contours on the plan at all. You know, and there's, there's some discussion about topography and grading and, and compensation or land subject to flooding. And it makes it really hard for me to review this because you have, you don't have any contours on the plan, on the plans at all. And I know there's some seriously steep embankments over there. So I think, I think that would be very, would be good information to have.
Let's see. What else am I? Oh, and the location of the overlook. So as much as I like the idea of an overlook, the placement of this is going to be really impossible for public safety to get to. I mean, we find that, you know, places like an overlook and we have something similar in one of our properties tend to become teenage hangouts at all times and days of the night. And it still, it should be located in a better place to allow public safety to get there, you know, as opposed to right at the end of the bridge there. So one of my suggestions, you know, that we have the Route 20 landfill that's, that's, that abuts the rail trail in a good, a good section of that. And so I think, and I could be wrong, I'm, I don't think Tom Holder's on anymore. The public's, the DPW director, but there is some discussion and maybe Cliff could probably chime in on this too. When there's discussion about the reuse of this landfill, this closed landfill, there was some discussion about making a path, a public, a public path that goes from, through the way down area, you know, so that, so people from like Alta Oxbow and other places have access that might even be parking there to get to the rail trail. And maybe that might be a better place for a lookout because then it's easy access for the public safety to get there. And also because it's a priority habitat, you know, that's, you know, that's all nesting birds over there that, so you're putting an overlook right in an area of where the nesting birds to probably use, again, you know, it's, it's a good idea. I just, I just worry about the, the location. And again, the, the landfill, part of the landfill plan is to put a, a soccer field there. So there's going to be a lot, there's going to be a lot. There's going to be two spaces on that property that will be very appropriate for this. One is sort of in the middle is a, is a community common area that can be reconfigured one way or the other. There, there's a nice embankment there where you could put a very nice overlook. If you wanted to, the, the path that Lynn just talking about is on the Western part and it connects from a parking lot off of route 20 down to the rail trail. And so that would be another good place to put something like that.
Yeah. And like I said, it's, you know, when you get too close to the, to the Washbrook and the, and the wetlands, what you'll get is you got a lot of phragmites there and read and you're going to have 12 foot high phragmites, which might actually block the entire view from the public anyway, you might want to move it up a little bit, a little bit more elevation. And because the route 20 landfill is mowed and it, and, and the vegetation is, is managed there. I don't know. Maybe this could be a joint project with DPPW because I do think they need some involvement in this. And that's my next point was the, the wetlands. You know, you did the wetlands in 2023. Amber and I went out there at some point, it was way too overgrown for us to do much observation there. But at one point, I think it was in January this year, DPPW went through and mowed the entire, they were working on mowing the entire route 20 landfill and they did well more than, than what they should have. They were well into MBTA property, into the priority habitat. And so much of the wetlands on that, on the inside, you know, like between the rail trail and the route 20 landfill, a lot of that was destroyed by heavy equipment and by, you know, like depositing vegetation and the cut debris in that. So I think there's going to be some, some need to do a little bit more with, as far as restoring the wetland area over there. And again, that, that really falls on DPW to do that since they're the ones that cause that, but maybe there can be, uh, some exchange of work and ideas at that point, um, at some point along the way here during the construction phase. But, um, so again, wetland replication that, you know, I, I agree with that, that should be done, but I think it should be done also, um, with, with that in mind that, uh, it wasn't, um, you know, a lot of it was already destroyed. So, okay, I'm all set. Anybody else? Commission? Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
Okay. Either way, it sounds like we have to continue, um, as is. In the meantime, uh, I'll let you send out the, um, hopefully we'll, we have a hand raise, excuse me, on the second. Go ahead, Larry. Hi, uh, Larry Kiernan, 17, Concord Road. Um, I agree with Linda that, um, the location is important on the, uh, lookout. I think it's been years, but, um, I think it was pretty close to the landfill. So, we may not be that far off, um, and the other thing to think about is that the, there is going to be railing the whole way. People are going to stop at a logical spot and it's going to get crowded. People are going to bump. So, they do need these lookouts, um, so just logistically, it's important, it's in a good place. Thank you. Thanks, Larry. Can I just add to that real quick? I do, I, I'm a huge favor of the guardrails. Um, again, it's all priority habitat there for nesting birds. So, that's something that we very much have to protect, you know, the, the, the, the habitat there, which again, is going to be on the Washbrook side. You know, of the, of the rail trail. Okay.
And one other, uh, hand to raise, um, I believe it's James. Yes. Hi, uh, this is Jim Hartford. I live over in, uh, near, uh, in, uh, the, uh, Waveland Commons condos. My question is about what are the plans for the crossings on Route 20 and Route 27? The concern there is safety of the users of the rail trail, but also balancing with the heavy traffic on both of those roads. Yeah. Um, I don't know, Marissa, if you want to, I can talk through it. If you're able to pull up one of the intersections, like the key, um, improvement at Route 20 and Andrews Ave next to Russell's garden center is adding a new crosswalk and connection perpendicular to Route 20. Um, so that's one of the, the biggest things is the path is going to dump out right at a, a new crossing.
Yeah. Okay. Um, and, um, there's going to be new, you know, bike pad signals and all of those things. Would it be possible to bring that crossing out at the light that's not very far away from there? It is the, where the light is, um, Cliff, you know, where the, where Russell's with the intersection with Russell throughout. I'm going to bring it out there at the light. Oh, good. Okay. Um, so that the crosswalk that's like page up and down on the left, that's going to be a brand new crossing, um, in order to make a more seamless connection right from there. And all, every single direction of the intersection will have upgraded crosswalks and everything. But, um, Marissa, I believe that the signals are going to function pretty similar as they do today, as far as the phasing with vehicles and bikes, pet bike peds. But, um, that's correct, Amber, it's, it's a big, it's a, it's a fast road. It's a state road. Um, MassDOT has reviewed this design four times in the last six years and make sure it's meeting the most current standards for traffic safety. Um, I don't know if there's anything else, Marissa, to add. No, I think that covered everything, Amber. Just to reiterate, um, comments we got after we are going to be upgrading, um, all the crossings. So this current plan just shows the two, but, um, our final plans will have all of the crosswalks, uh, restriped. Yeah, we're going to restripe all of them because some of them have been fading. As far as the crossing on the Eastern end, um, there's so many numbers and names at that intersection. I never know what to call it. Um, but by the old train depot, that's going to remain largely as is, um, with enhanced, um, push buttons, but that signal is going to be similar to today. That one, the curb cuts are going to be widened so that it's not so narrow as you go through. That works pretty well today. Yeah. It's better than going North where you have like a two phase crossing. So, um, so this is Jim. Can I ask another question on this? Yep. Go ahead. So, so I'm okay on the route 27 side, but back on a route 20, uh, by Russell's, I've heard that the town center owner is planning on making some changes to the entryway on Andrews Ave here on the West side entrance into the town center. I don't know if those are factored into these plans. So that's one point. The other point is when I'm coming east on route 20 to turn left into Andrews Ave right across from Russell, I noticed that the cars coming, traveling west on route 20, there's a little rise in that road and it's hard to see the cars and they come fast, uh, over that little rise just before the intersection. And I'm just thinking of, you know, young families with strollers and kids on little bikes. I just see a little potential for some danger there. You might want to take a look at that again and make sure you're accommodating the, uh, you know, the, the, the way this, the vision, the visualization from the roads and from the crosswalks. I'm done. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Jim. By the way, we have been coordinating with NP Whelan. That's the new owner of the town center about this whole plan and their intention for new signage. It shouldn't conflict, but we'll follow up. It's the Boston post road. There's a hill that comes down before Russell's. I'm old enough to remember when there were train accidents, people would be coming down the hill so fast and the train would be going across. And I can remember more than one car smashing into the railroad tracks. And it's a very dangerous, um, because of that hill. They put, um, you know, little walking bridges on some of those trails. And this, this really should have one of those because somebody will get killed walking across Boston post road. Agreed. Are you saying that cars that are traveling from the west to this intersection, that's a downhill? They're coming towards Sudbury and you go down, they're going too fast down that hill and the site visit isn't that great from, you know, the shopping center side. Yeah, I agree. But again, traffic is not something we discuss. That's not, you know, it's not a conservation issue. So that again, it's something that really needs to be taken up with the planning board. So just mentioned here. Yep. Okay. Anybody else? Not really getting the same thing. Continuance, um, under both for sometime after 630 on October 21st. I'm going to sign off here. You good?
Do I get a motion for continuance? There's no move. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Yeah. Second. Thank you. It goes, Lisa. Roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yeah. John Storr. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All right. It'll be a few weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Thanks. Um, on 2C. This is a 67A Loker Street, Wayland. DEP file number 322-1056.
Uh, it's continued notice of intent file pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act, submitted by Matt O'Connor for the demolition of the existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67A Loker Street in Wayland, Mass. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 42, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boarding vegetated wetlands and a 200-foot riverfront area. Linda. Yeah, I think Matt's on for the, as the applicant.
Yes, I'm here. If you can hear me. We're here. Hey, Matt. Hi. Thank you, uh, ladies and gentlemen of the board. I appreciate you, um, hearing us and continuing, uh, on our, uh, request for this project. I think, um, I've got, uh, Brandon and, uh, Karen, um, who, uh, is our wetland specialist and engineer, uh, on the call as well. I don't know if you can click them in or if you need to, um, I, I just promoted Karen to, uh, she should be on her way over. Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Yep. Um, so, uh, since our last meeting, um, I think that we've, uh, submitted some additional, um, uh, you know, documentation, uh, I guess most specifically a, uh, mitigation, uh, plan. Uh, so Karen and I had walked, walked the site and identified, uh, some invasive species. Uh, hopefully the, uh, commission has had time to, um, take a look at that. Um, as well as, uh, a clarification of, uh, of, uh, a prior plan that we, uh, had submitted. Um, and I think that you guys had requested to ask, uh, Karen to, to comment, uh, if you guys had some further questions, uh, for her specifically. Um, but, uh, yeah, so I'm hoping that we, you know, are meeting and exceeding, uh, you know, the expectations of the, of the board here.
Okay. Uh, Linda. So Matt, is the, the planting plan from July, the, your July submission, is that still valid then? Yes. Oh, okay. Okay. Cause I was confused. Um, you, you just have, you were just showing invasive control on this one then, the way you submitted. Sorry. Yes. Yeah. I tried to identify that specifically as a mitigation plan. Um, sorry if that wasn't clear. I used red pen. No, no, no. I get that. But I just, I didn't, I want to make sure that this didn't supersede something like that. You're still doing. No, no, it's just the tree removal and planting plan is still valid though. Yeah. Purely, uh, to demonstrate the, um, mitigation. Okay. Okay. And, um, as I was, I reviewed the Dulles and Roy, um, uh, peer review, and it looks like most of the, um, most of the things have been addressed right through that.
And I mean, the only thing is that the operation and maintenance plan, is that something you were planning on putting together later, or is that something that you're going to submit now prior to permitting?
So the, the site maintenance, Linda? Operation and maintenance of the stormwater. Yes. So this is Brandon Ducharme from David E. Ross. So yeah, the operation and maintenance plan was submitted, uh, with the drainage report. Uh, it was, but that was, that was an older one though, wasn't it? The, the, I thought, I thought, uh, um, Dulles and Roy had a comment about updating it to include, um, what was it? The, uh, long-term pollution prevention plan.
Uh, that, that comment was addressed with the peer review. So I think what happened in the initial review is, is they missed that section of the document. And so once we had a meeting with them, this was, boy, this was, oh, now. Yeah. Okay. I was with the planning board. Did I have that meeting? I don't remember. I was with the planning board. Yep. Oh, okay. I wasn't part of that. All right. So that, that is in the, okay. That hasn't been, that you did submit that is what you're saying. Yes. Okay.
And have you, have you, are you finished with the planning board? The process? No, we are not finished with the planning board. It sounds like they would like to make a decision. Uh, the one piece that they are waiting from a zoning, uh, aspect is a copy of the triple net lease.
Okay.
Um, so I, I don't know what you, how you want to handle this. Um, like, I mean, we, we talked about waiting for the planning board process to be finished and, um, and then we would, um, close the hearing and issue, um, when those, uh, order conditions, is that still what your, uh, the, the plan is? Uh, my, so my understanding was that there may have been a discussion between the planning board and conservation. So we were hoping to get, uh, a conservation decision. If I misunderstood, uh, no, um, Robert told me that you, they were still waiting for some information to, uh, lease, uh, lease. It's, it's a, uh, it's the lease with the nonprofit organization. That's going to, you know, lease. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, because there were certain waivers and certain, um, aspects of what they were, they were going to, um, the decision requires that because you're filing under, is that under the Dover amendment then? Yeah. And so I guess that, that hinges on the, you get them getting that information, whether or not the, the waivers would be granted. So that's, I guess, I guess that's why it made sense for us to wait until all that information was, was, was complete. I mean, it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be a big deal. It would just be a matter of making sure that they, they, um, they have everything they need to issue a decision. Right. Yeah, my, what I'm told is they just want a copy of the trip on that lease. I thought that that, you know, was a zoning issue that was mutually exclusive of a conservation issue. Um, I, I apologize if I, uh, okay.
Well, we'll let the commission decide that. How's that sound? I'll tell you that I was muted. So say, is there anything else on our end, Linda, that conservation needs, or if we were to conditionally, uh, we can't close those and we can't open it if nothing happens. That's right. Yeah. I mean, we can't, we just can't accept new information after we close the hearing. So if there's nothing new that you're going to submit, then, um, we can close the hearing. So, so yeah, I was like that, that's, so I guess I'd throw Matt the gamble back on you. If something does change, we have to, we have to have a whole, start the whole thing over again, because once we close, we can't reopen it. So I'm willing to take that gamble if you are, uh, at least open it to the commission. Uh, if we could open to the commission, I, again, my understanding was that, you know, all that, that, that, and that, that they were asking me what the conservation, uh, you know, decision was. So it was, you know, they were saying, well, what did they say? Cause we've kind of gone through all the other, uh, town departments, um, and I, I, again, I, I might've misunderstood, but I thought that there had been a conversation between the two departments, um, so that I could bring my decision from, um, conservation, uh, you know, to planning. Uh, you know, I, I don't think, I don't think that there's anything else that, you know, from a conservation standpoint, we would be submitting, I don't, um, you know, again, they, they're, the reason they haven't given me the decision is, is purely because of this trip on that lease, which I don't think it will certainly, in my opinion, is not going to change anything with regard to the site, with regard to, um, you know, wetlands, with regard to, um, you know, anything we're looking at here. Um, so, gotcha. So commission, um, I'm okay with it. We want to say he believes that there's nothing's going to change, even if this triple net lease and something has to be changed with that will have nothing to do with our role in this. And so his gamble is if we close this right now and, and, or give him the, uh, permits and it does change, he has to go back and start the whole, the whole new LOI all over again. Um, so we don't really have much, and on my opinion to lose here, if we really believe that we're, for us, we're good and he's satisfied our commission's, uh, conservation side. I have one quick question though, man, did you, did you get a curb cut permit from DPW for Hobbs Road?
Um, I have not received the curb cut. Well, let me rephrase that. I received an old expired curb cut permit from, from Hobbs Road that had the, um, curb cut much further down more towards the more in the riverfront. Um, so, you know, kind of way back, you know, in the planning stage, we brought it more towards, um, Alden Road, which is how we've, uh, you know, currently shown it. And we've, I've had discussions certainly with DEP, you know, about that. Um, it sounded like they wanted, you know, to hear from, uh, you know, conservation, uh, but I do not have a specific curb cut permit for this new curb cut on that side. No, I do not. Well, I have not heard from DPW regarding that, the status of that. That's why I'm just asking you, um, because again, if, if the location changes or something, or the width changes or something like that, then, then the whole plans change again. So I just, I just want, you know, just so you understand that the consequences, if, if there are, uh, changes, we, you know, we can't really accept new information after we close the hearing. Okay. So. Sure. Sure. So we're still waiting for the curb cut permit. Is that my understanding? I feel like we've talked about this before and we still don't have closure on that. No, it doesn't sound like it. Why don't we just continue until we get it? Okay. Um, doesn't conservation have to sign off on the curb cut permit for DPW to, to give it to me? I haven't heard anything from, from DPW. So that's why I didn't even know if you had submitted it or not, because I have, I have, I've had no, I've had no communication about this particular permit with DPW. So, so that's why I wasn't sure you had even applied for it. That's, that's why I'm asking. Yeah, I've had certainly numerous, numerous discussions with DPW about this specific opening. Um, you know, like I said, way back, that's how we arrived to, you know, where we are. Um, so, you know, no, I, I, my understanding was I would go through the different town departments, get approvals and then apply for permits as, as a, you know, part of the permit application. Um, you know, there, there's numerous different permits that I've got to apply for.
So does that match up and make sure I'm reading the tea leaves? Does that change your, uh, willingness to, to take that bet or are you still asking us to close, close tonight?
Yeah. I mean, I, I don't intend on changing anything. It's not been indicated to me in any way, shape or form that we needed to change anything. So, so here's what I'm, I'm, I'm happy to bring it to, for the commission, just, I hate to see DPW say, yeah, we need to move it X, Y, and Z. And that would, so just, uh, it's, it's a risk you're certainly taking by not, by just not continuing it and make sure DPW gives you a, for sure permit, or at least a written verbal something, but happy to. Does conservation have any issue with it at all? I mean, it's showing the prints, I think we're all, I make sure we're, I think we're all saying from what we've seen, we're okay to close it now and, and vote for, to issue the permit. So there's nothing from a perspective that would prevent you from signing off on the opening we've presented. DPW is going to ask me if you manage your stormwater for the opening, because you can't send your runoff to Hobbs Road. And if you can demonstrate that the, the stormwater runoff is managed, so you're not sending anything into a public roadway, then they would probably issue it. But you have, if you're, if you are discharging, because you, you do say somewhere that you're discharging, um, from the rain garden into the street. And, um, I think DPW is going to have an issue with that also. So, um, again, you, you can't use the public, you can't use a catch basin as part of your, your stormwater management. Right. So if I could, uh, and I'll ask Brandon to comment on managing that. So there's an existing opening that has been, is shown in the prints. Uh, I don't think that DPW was aware of the fact that there was an DPW has a catch patient on the property. So as part of the plan, we're going to be moving that for them at our own, uh, cost really. Um, so. Yeah, Matt, if I may, you know, when this issue first came up, that's when we had, um, a couple meetings with DPW, one on site where we went over both the location and impacts of, of the curb cut, as well as we looked at the drainage and that was all modified to accommodate their concerns. So that's when we had revised the drainage. Well, that was just one of Dillis and Roy's comments that, that where was it, that, you know, you didn't have two feet of separation underneath the rain, the rain garden. And, um, where does this, and it says prior to discharge to the street. Um, so that's why I was just concerned by that's, that's comment number 23. So that, that's, that's the only thing that, that, that sparked my attention. Okay.
Um, so not, not to beat, not to beat the dead horse. We're good. We want us to close this and we feel confident that DPW is going to issue what you want them to issue. Yeah. Yeah. Again, if, if, you know, from a conservation perspective, um, yes, if, if, if, again, if the board doesn't have any issue with it, that would prevent DPW for issuing it. Cause I believe that deep, um, sorry, conservation has to sign off on the application as well.
Yeah. Linda's saying we're good commission. We go with that boat and to close and issue permit and. Okay. All right. With that, can I get a motion? Well, let's see. Who wants, at least you want to try this one? Uh, to issue in order. Close the hearing first. Close the hearing for both. Okay. Uh, oh, I don't have my cheat sheet. All right. That's good. You're good. That's my little cheat sheet. Uh, I'm okay. I move to close the hearing under the state act. In chapter one, any four. There you go. Yep. Do we hear a second? Okay. Yeah. Do we hear a second on that motion? Yeah. Thank you, Shannon. Quick roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storr. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. And Sean Fairsey. Yes. Okay. Now the next motion, Lisa. I move to approve the project and issue in order of conditions under the state act. And permit. Under one, any four. Yep. And a permit. Okay. Do we hear a second on that? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storr. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean Fairsey. Yes. You're all set. Good luck. Thanks. Members of the board. I know it's been a long process. I very much appreciate your patience. And I think this is going to be a good thing for our town. You got it. Good luck with it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you very, very much. Bye.
Okay. We're on to D. Sorry. 2D. 68 Lakeshore Drive. DEP file number 322-1057. A continued notice of intent. File pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw. And the Wetland Protection Act, submitted by Jeremy Jenkins for the after-the-fact work performed at 68 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass. Including installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to the covered porch steps. Property is shown in Assessor's Map 42D, Parcel 56. And is located within 100 feet of boring vegetative wetlands, bank, and land underwater. Linda. The applicant is asked to continue this hearing. To the 21st, presumably? Yes. To November. Yes. Oh, no. That's right. November. Oh, November what? What's the date on November 1? 10th. 10th. 10th. Thank you, Emily. Do I hear a motion, please, to continue sometime after 630 under both, November 10th? No move. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. I think I heard a Shannon and Lisa combo there. I'll give it to Shannon. Roll call, please. Lisa Alban? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. I said it was my minutes.
Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storer? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. And Sean Fairsey? Yes. Barbara, what did you lose there, kiddo? I lost my agenda. Oh. Almost to the end. We're cracking. Almost. I can email it to you, Barbara. Yeah, but I have to shut this off. And then. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, we're on 2E. 26 Rice Road, Wayland, Mass. DEP file number 322-1066. It's continued, abbreviated notice of a resource area delineation filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and Wetlands Protection Act submitted by Adam Stack for the confirmation of resource area delineations at 26 Rice Road in Wayland, Mass. The site is shown in Assessor's Map 48, Lot 93. Linda? I was going to do an update on what my conversation with DEP recently regarding, I think the question last time was, how do we handle an intermittent stream during drought situations? Alicia Galen, who I spoke with, said that, you know, the stream definition is pretty vague. It doesn't really, it does not address, you know, situations of an intermittent stream during a drought. You have to show gradient, you have to show, you know, direction of flow. And again, there's all kinds of obstructions there on that property that could cause the flow to move in different directions. But there was, you know, the contours do show a bit of a stream or a tendency for a stream to flow that direction. And there's also a culvert at the end. Again, I spoke with Dave this afternoon, Dave Burke, who did a peer review out there, and he saw no signs of, you know, any hydric soils. He saw really no signs of any water flowing at all, you know, in that environment. And he was also out there, I think, was it yesterday? And looked to see if after all this rain, if there was, you know, again, any signs of flow, didn't see any. I was out there today. Also, I did not see any, you know, nothing looks, I mean, everything's a little bit damp, obviously, from the rain. But I did not see anything that looked like water had been flowing, had been carrying debris or anything like that. So that's one issue. The second issue was how to handle the situation where we have a violation on the property for the previous order of conditions and whether or not that limits us from issuing another permit for this at this time. And her suggestion was, is that originally we, I think the commission asked for a new notice of intent, she considers this a violation of the Wetland Protection Act and recommended that the Conservation Commission actually issue an enforcement order in this situation and allow the applicant to address their violation through an enforcement order, which would be submitting a new set of plans, stormwater report, that sort of thing, in order for the commission to approve the project that was built and not the project that they had approved in 2018. And so I think that would require us to either rescind our vote from previously where we asked for a notice of intent and issue an enforcement order or stick with the original plan that you guys had voted on. So those were the two things that came out of that discussion with DEP. So just to put a point on that, you're saying from the discussion, the best way to do this is to rescind our previous order, issue an enforcement order, start from there, then kind of work our way through. Yes. And address violation through an enforcement order. Now, this was DEP's recommendation. I'm not saying this is what I'm recommending. This is exactly what our circuit writer said, because she said it's a violation. It should be handled like a violation, which would be through an enforcement order. If I could just play a quick devil's advocate. Is there any reason why we shouldn't, I must say listen to DEP, is there any, why wouldn't we do that and listen to what DEP says? Or I'm trying to, I'm failing to see any reason why we wouldn't do that.
No, I mean, we've done that many times before. Anytime there's a violation, we issue an enforcement order. And that, and usually the enforcement order, it's the, the violation is, is, is handled through, you know, the, an enforcement order versus a brand new filing. So.
Okay. Last question. I'll open up before I give my opinion.
If, I mean, well, I'm giving my opinion. All right. I got my thoughts. Commission thoughts and certainly questions. This is definitely not a, a usual thing we handle. I'm happy to lay, lay it out more differently if someone has some questions on it, but does they have to understand a, what Linda just said, what she's asking us to do or, or what to contemplate doing where we got a handle on it? Yeah. So maybe just for my benefit, because in the year I've been on the commission, we haven't done this. So to issue an enforcement order, what's, what's entailed, right? My understanding of a new notice of intent is they have to, their as built plans, which were different than what was the approved plans. They would submit with the as built plans, right? And we would go from there. The, the enforcement order would be different. So I'm just trying to understand. Correct. It's, it's almost like, and again, Linda, please throw a shoe at me if I'm saying this incorrectly. Let's, let's solve the problem we have currently for us, which is an enforcement issue, solve that, then do the new NOI base. And so versus try to combine two at once. And so I agree with it. And, um, DEP is saying that's how we should handle it. So, um, yeah, essentially what, what we would be doing. It would be similar to what asking for an NOI, but we would not be asking for an application. We would not be asking for, um, you know, the abutter notices. We would not be advertising this as a hearing, like a new NOI. We would, we would be handling the violation through an enforcement order. So that this same information would need to be submitted, such as a set of plans, you know, and, and, um, you know, stormwater report, the, the plans need to include, you know, all the information that we normally ask for in a, for an NOI. But instead of going through another formal hearing process, we would be handling this again under an enforcement order, you know, and they, and in order to comply with the enforcement order, we, they would, they would require the applicant, we require approval from us for the new set of plans, you know, so it would probably result in an amended order of conditions, you know, under the same DEP file number. So it's typically not a new project is this, you know, it's this, we're, we're handling this as an amended, uh, order of conditions and that would probably be the end result. So, okay. So commission's thoughts, comments, concerns, and, or more questions, you have, does anybody have a thought or a feeling before I share mine? And I have no problem treating a violation, like a violation and going with the enforcement order for internal opinion. Seems reasonable to me. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I would say the exact same thing. This seems like very reasonable and kind of a no brainer, especially if DEP's already kind of weighed in. Um, I don't know why we wouldn't follow the recommendation. Um, so Linda, in terms of operations, um, what we need to do in terms of a motion, you're asking for a motion to rescind our previous order and, uh, enact an enforcement order is the actual motion looking for. And yeah, issue an enforcement order and ratify the enforcement order, which would be, um, you know, the submittal of, um, the material, um, that we need in order to improve this project as it was built. Um, Doug, do you have any input on this? Doug, do you have any input on this? No, that sounds fun to me. Yeah. Doug, do you have any input on this? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so it's another notion of theоand ambience and port gardens that, uh, almost function in practice. Like a notice of attend, but without, you know, the WPA form three and sort of, you know, it w'd entail a submission of, uh, no planting plan and all the, all the items, um, required So it allows for it to be amended and corrected in a much quicker fashion rather than filing it with a notice of intent, if that's the direction the commission would look to proceed.
Yeah, was that a question? No, we don't have any issue with that as far as handling this. But, yeah, I do have just some additional information sort of clarifying and agreeing with Linda and Dave's points with the resource area pleniation. I visited it during the storm, actually, and I have some photos that just sort of corroborate those prior statements as well. Gotcha. Okay.
All right. So first things first, commission. If we're all good, no more chat. Okay. Can I get a motion then, everybody can hear what Linda said? Basically to rescind our previous order and to issue and ratify our enforcement order. That's what we're looking for. So I'll move. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. I think that was Lisa. Roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storm. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Thank you, folks. Linda, for this evening, what else? Any other motions or anything else we want to make sure we cover? I think we should take a vote to ratify the enforcement order. I know you haven't seen it yet, but that's going to include everything that we just talked about, that and all the new, all the material that we needed in order to approve the project as built will need to be included and submitted to the Conservation Commission for their review and approval. So that's, that's what the statement is going to be in the enforcement order. And I think what I need is an actual vote to ratify that when I, so that I will include that in the enforcement order when I issue it, that it was ratified. Okay. Okay. Make a motion to ratify the enforcement order.
Yep. To be, to be issued this week. To be issued this week. Thank you. Do I have a second? Yep. Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storr. Yes. Shannon Fischer.
Shannon. Yes. Thank you. And Sean Ferzi, yes. Okay. Anything else, Linda, for tonight on motions for this? Not, not for the previous project, no. The hearing is about the abbreviated notice is for the NRAD, so. Say again, sorry. The hearing is actually for the NRAD that was committed, that was submitted for the resource area delineation.
Correct. I think it's important for us to get through this project process first with the enforcement order. I know that's up to the commission to decide. So, would we continue the NRAD?
Again, I think it's an important step that we understand, you know, the hydrology and the stormwater systems and all those other things that could play a part in how the natural resources have potentially changed since 2018.
Okay.
Commissioner, any thoughts? Are we good with that?
Does the employee have an input on that? I have, like I said, I have some additional materials just to go to commission, so if I'm able to share my screen just to kind of.
So, taken 928 during the rain event, we'd already got about three, three and a half inches of rain by this point. So, what we did in the field, the yellow flag indicate areas where Dave and I had tested extensively soils and the, you can kind of see them here, the yellow and blue flags are areas where we had implemented the flag changes. So, really, it's naturally just, you know, maybe 50, 60 years ago or however long it was streamed, but naturally it's just really not there and not functioning realistically as a stream. And there's not a bank or there's not a bank or any sort of panel that's, frankly, delineatable. So, these were areas that even with the hint of channel in the peer review that Dave and I had agreed to add. So, this, or the flag revision is actually included as being, you know, resource area now. So, the remaining areas are just, like, totally overgrown with a mixture of vegetation, a lot of it upland. Like, it looks like this, essentially just totally just filled in. There's not really any discernible bank or any feature. And, again, this was, well, it was actively raining. It can kind of be, in most cases, just totally soaked. And I actually went ahead and stuck my arm up a culvert and it was full of dry material. Not any hydric soils, not any hydric material, not any sort of evidence of sediment transport or drift or anything or watermarks. It was dry, just material that had sort of found its way in there over the decades and the age of the culvert as well. I mean, the age on this concrete is, you can tell it's been there for many, many, many decades. So, it's really not serving a purpose at this point. If it wasn't transporting any water, if the materials in there was dry, it's just, you know, I don't see any evidence of hydrology or conductivity. So, just, I think, in establishing what the resource area lines are that will enable us to approach this issue better because sort of inciting, you know, mitigation plantings and rectifying the issue, understanding what the shape of the resource areas on the property are right now is important and will allow for the full sort of package to be implemented and done appropriately, right? So, just, you know, in terms of siting species with proximity to wetland, you know, like the more wetland-favoring species, right, like blueberry, like it's important for just all around plantings to go where they need to go. So, just, in addition to reflecting the conditions of the property as they stand today, this is, you know, based on my findings in the field, based on my interactions with peer reviewer on site, this is sort of the final version where we have, you know, these additional set of flags, as I showed you guys at the last meeting, representing the ultimate extent of really what you could even consider a resource area. And again, this is, there's not, this is what that looks like.
So, that's the latest as of two days ago.
I just thought it was important for everyone to see what we have here, actually. So, I do think it's important to establish and kind of reach a culmination on this particular point. And with that, I can return it back to the staff and or the commission if there's any comments or points of discussion that we'd like to engage in.
Thanks, Doug. Anybody have any questions for Doug?
Okay. So, I guess with that, the 20, to continue with the October 21st, Linda? Yes. Is the date? Okay. That's our next date. So, can we get. I'll just ask for a point of clarification. Yeah. With, we would like to determine the extent of the resource area so that we can move forward with that. Is that, is that not possible that we're saying? Well, I, I do need payment for the peer review first because the commission doesn't want to get saddled with that. So, can we, can we close on that portion of this project? And then I'll send you the, the quote from, from Dave Burke. I've been remiss in doing that. So, yeah, I just want to make sure we're moving forward and able to sort of not have this ANRAD kind of hanging in the background. But yeah, absolutely. If, if I believe Adam and Dave are both on and they're getting this message as well. So. Yeah. Let's get, let's get the peer review paid for before we close out on this, on this, on this ANRAD. And, and end up closing this project already without, I would like payment first. And then, like I said, I think, I think that the focus really needs to be on that, on the violation. Since that's been out there since pretty much 2018. Okay. So.
As if we hadn't had the violation, we wouldn't have the conditions that exist today. Well, let's, let's do one, let's clean one thing off at a time here. Um, so for now, we're looking for continuance under both, uh, till October 21st, I believe. After 630. After 630. Thank you. We're working on that. So moved. Thank you, Shannon, I believe. Do we hear a second? A second. That was Cliff. We'll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Lisa's, oh, you're on mute. Yes. Uh, Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storer. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean Fair is a yes. All right. We got our, everybody's got our marching orders. So we'll see you folks on the 21st of October. Thank you very much. Just super quick, just before we take off, is there any remaining items that you would see clarification on that I can look to provide you, or is it just, um, you know, determining sort of the administrative kind of like the payment, like you were just saying? Mm-hmm. Yeah. For this part, but we still need, we still need quite a bit of information regarding the information regarding. Sure, sure. Yep. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. So. Yep. All right. All right. Thanks, John. I'll enjoy the rest of the evening. You too. Let's go with one F. Uh, 61 Lincoln Road, New Wayland, DEP, uh, do we have a DEP number here, Linda? No, we do not. Okay. Uh, no DEP number. This is a notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by William Haney for the installation of a Beaver Pond Leaver Pipe System. The proposed work is with 100 feet of a boring vegetated wetland and a 200-foot riverfront area. The product is shown on the assessor's map, uh, 08, parcel 02. Linda? Um, I believe we do have, is there somebody here representing the clients? Yes, Judy, and then this is Ryan Rosine. Okay. Here representing the, uh, the applicant. Um, I'm a wildlife biologist and wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. Um, I can go ahead and share my screen and kind of go over the, the project, but as you, as you heard, we don't have a DEP file number yet, so we will have to continue. Um, but looking to get you guys familiar with the project, um, and answer any questions you guys might initially have. Um, so yeah, so we're looking here at 61 Lincoln Road. Um, here's a nice aerial overview of the property. It's about a 10-acre site. You can see the house and driveway. And then this large wetland system here on the northwest side of the property, and this black dashed line here is Hazel Brook, which is a perennial stream that runs down this way and turns along the western property boundary, flows underneath the driveway, and then eventually into the Sudbury River downstream of it. Um, so the site is not within an area of critical environmental concern. It's not within priority habitat or estimated habitat. There's no certified or potential frontal pools on site. Um, and there's, um, this bigger portion of the wetland is, is mapped as zone X under FEMA, non-jurisditch digital, and there's a small section down here by the driveway that's, uh, classified as zone A. Um, so I'll continue down a little bit. So I'll go, you'll see in a little bit, I'll go through some aerial photography of kind of the issue at hand. Um, but this is more of a preventative, you know, project to, you know, make sure nothing happens in the future, but over the past, you know, six or seven, eight years, there's been some beaver activity on site. You can see here on this map that this is where the beaver dam is located. It's actually completely changed this, this wetland up here that used to be more, um, an emergent marsh, and now is basically a flooded beaver pond. So here I can zoom in a little bit if it helps. So this is a near map aerial image from April of 2018. This is facing South now, and you can see here kind of along this Western side is Hazelbrook flowing downstream to the property. So you can see it's, you know, normal emerging wetland. Here's April of 2019. Nothing really has changed yet.
March, 2020, you start to see a little bit more water. Um, but this also might be, you know, from, you know, being March and, you know, water levels higher, snow melt, things like that. Um, here, March, 2021, you can kind of see, you know, some additional water levels rising. You can start to kind of see part. This kind of here is hard to see, uh, but it's the start of the beaver dam blocking, you know, the stream. And so water is flowing around, um, to the left over here. March, 22, you see a lot more, you know, inundation within this wetland system here. And you can kind of see a little bit better the, the beaver dam here. And then since March, 2024, this whole area is now basically open, open water. Um, and so it has increased the water levels, um, you know, adjacent to the house and just along the whole property edge here. It hasn't risen a crazy amount where it rises to the level of like threats to the house or like emergency for, um, you know, infrastructure or things like that, which is why we're here before you, um, and just some additional pictures from like April of this year. You can kind of see it's still like that. So here's some pictures from just a couple of months ago when I was on site with beaver solutions to kind of identify, you know, the best path forward. Um, this is actually standing on the beaver dam here. We can see the beaver dam, um, along here and it continues on.
And then this is another, this is looking the opposite way towards the house in the background, the beaver dam goes all along here. It's a pretty wide beaver dam that's looking out into the wetland. And then this is just where it crosses the stream. Hazel Brook goes underneath the driveway to the house. It's a small culvert.
Um, so I'll just show this. So basically what the project is proposing is to install, uh, beaver pond leveler device that's was developed by beaver solutions. Um, they've beaver solutions has installed thousands of these across the state. Um, there might even be some ones within the town of Weyland anyways. Um, it would DPW has a lot, um, in different towns and things like that. But essentially what it is, is you install, uh, HDPE pipe through the dam. You set it at whatever water level is appropriate for the site. And then it's about a 40 foot length of pipe, and it's held down by some cinder blocks that are just, um, tied to it to keep it kind of weighted on the bottom. And then at the inlet you have, you know, it's all on the bottom of the stream. And then you have this mesh dome, um, over it so that the intake can't get clogged. And so it basically creates a permanent leak in the beaver dam. Um, and you know, we're doing this to kind of just manage the water level. So the whole thing with the way beaver solutions, you know, wants to do these projects is they want to, you know, maintain the habitat for the beavers. Um, because there's been numerous studies where if you remove the beaver dam or you'd put a notch in it and don't put a pipe in and you just kind of release some water, beavers are just going to come back, rebuild the dam. And if you do trapping, you know, within a year or two, beavers are going to be back and you're going to have the same issue. So all other solutions are a short-term solution. This is a long-term and environmentally friendly solution, um, that doesn't affect the overlying wetlands. Um, it still allows for all the same functions of the wetland, um, while just maintaining a certain water level and in heavy, you know, rain conditions or flooding conditions, as in with a normal beaver dam that wouldn't have one of these, if the water level gets to a certain height, it's just going to flow over the beaver dam. So it doesn't restrict flow at all. Um, and they design these, they'll put different size pipes in. So you can see here, it says 10, 12 or 15 inch diameter pipes, and they can put in multiple like one, two or three, depending on the size of the watershed. So beaver solutions actually does a watershed analysis. And based on the size of the watershed, um, they can calculate how, what, how many pipes they need and what size to basically carry the capacity of the stream and not affect the flow. Um, so for this property, it has a pretty small watershed size and there's a stream stats report that was included in the NOI. And so what beaver solutions is proposing to use as a one 10 inch pipe. Um, and so they're only proposing to drop the water level, a maximum of six inches from the current conditions. Um, this will just maintain the water level. So it doesn't get any higher, um, but it still allows, uh, a minimum of three feet within the flooded wetland, um, for beavers to, you know, continue to inhabit and survive. Uh, cause any lower than that beavers, they wouldn't survive the winter in anything lower than three feet of water. So they won't, they won't put a pipe in that reduces the water level beyond that.
So, so we're, sorry, what was that? Is there a beaver lodged there? Uh, we couldn't see one when we were there. Um, it may be further back. Um, it might be pretty far back in the, in that beaver pond. Um, so we didn't see one when we were on site, um, but we didn't, we didn't look too in depth at that either, but there was evidence of fairly recent beaver activity. So. And beavers are really good. I mean, we all love beavers here in the conservation, but, um, you know, I mean, they, they, they usually maintain a, um, a certain pond level to allow them to get in and out of their, their, their lodge really easily. They don't want to expose the entrance. They also don't want to get it, you know, make it too deep either. Um, so, I mean, it's kind of important to know exactly if that six inches is, is, is going to harm, you know, or it's going to cause any, any harm to their, to their, their beaver lodge and their environment. Yeah. And I can get some more information from beaver solutions about that. And if they did any additional, um, review of that, um, for the specific site. Um, so, so the work is, um, considered to impact to land under waterways because the, the pipe will be located within the stream channel of Hazelbrook. Um, and so that, that we put in the NOI about 40 feet, uh, 40 square feet of disturbance, um, to land under waterways. It's probably an overestimate because this mesh, you know, uh, dome, you know, intake fence, it's, you know, pretty thin, um, like metal and has these big mesh openings. So it's really not, um, you know, probably as much as that 40 feet plus a rounded pipe sitting along the bottom is not the same as like a, a rectangular pipe. But anyways, we kind of overcompensate a little bit for, um, potential alteration to land under waterways. Um, so yeah, we went through, we provided, um, all this information. We did do an alternatives analysis for under your bylaw. I don't know if you want me to go through that a little bit. Um, we don't need to, we have all that. So we don't need. Okay. That works. Um, and then I'll just quickly kind of show you this, so this kind of just showing the resource areas on site. Um, they're all, you know, based off of DEP wetlands and kind of approximate because we felt we didn't need to field delineate these because we're actually working within the stream. Um, so there won't be any impacts to like BBW or, or riverfront area, buffer zone, things like that. Um, and then I'll just show you kind of what this is going to look like. So this is zoomed in here. You can see the beaver dam, it is pretty long. It's like 150 feet long, um, two to four feet high. And so here we'll have, you know, this is the outfall that will be put just a little, you know, six inches below through the beaver dam and 40 feet upstream will be that domed intake, uh, mesh fence. Um, so that's essentially what the project is. Um, and I guess I'll open it up to any questions or comments from the commission. Thanks Ryan. Commission, thoughts, comments, questions, concerns.
And before we hop in, for, I can speak for that. They have these all over message, uh, over this area, uh, Memorial Forest has like two of these, um, has been there for probably about a year or two. So I've seen, I've seen them in action. And they work only if the beaver can't hear the sound of the water, because the sound of the water is what makes them start building their dam higher and higher. So they, this outflow has to be, so it's under the water. So they can't hear it. Yeah. Well, so, so the, the, the outflow where it flows out of the beaver, like on this end, so that will be above the water. And so there will be that sound of Russian water, which is why they put 40 feet from it, because the beaver beavers will hear the water rushing, um, through the pipe and out. And so they'll try to patch it up and so they build it outwards and, and so they won't realize where the actual intake is. Um, you know, there have been instances where some beavers do eventually find out where that is and, and can have some, can sometimes clog that, but beaver solutions does do yearly maintenance on, on all their devices. So they would be checking these yearly and, and monitoring, um, if there needs to be any adjustments or things like that. So if they can still hear it, are they going to go nuts, cutting down even more trees than they might otherwise try to continue to dam that up?
Uh, that's a good question. I'm not exactly sure. I mean, they, they'll continue. I mean, I don't know how, how long they'll continue for that. Um, I guess there's the potential I can, I can get some more information from beaver solutions on that and what they've experienced. And, you know, they're the experts in this and they've obviously managed these thousands of these across the state. So I can ask them for more information on that. Um, yeah. It hasn't been my experience anecdotally. No. Okay. Yeah. It's been like that for two and a half years. They haven't changed at all over Memorial. Okay. Sweet. Yeah. And if, and then, you know, once the water level, you know, drops below what that pipe is set at it, nothing will flow out of that pipe, you know? So if we're in drought conditions or things like that, and water is just naturally, you know, dropping in that beaver pond, eventually the water is going to stop in that flowing out of that pipe. So.
Yep.
Okay. Commissioner, anything else? Questions, comments, concerns? Either way, we have to continue it because we don't have a DEP number. So don't need to do anything particular today, but okay. With that, uh, can we get a motion please under both to continue sometime after 630 on October 21st, please? Yep. You got it. So moved. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Shannon. Uh, quick roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storer. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. And Sean Fersey. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. One quick question. Did anybody, a site business wasn't brought up at all? And I don't know if that was necessary for this or anybody wanted to see the site. Just want to check in on that before.
I've been there. I mean, I've been there. It's, I mean, maybe a couple of years ago, we did closure on a previous permit. So I am familiar with the site. Waterless, I'm pretty happy then too. But I mean, I'm happy. If there's a commission member who'd like to go, I'm more than happy to join them and do it and visit the site another time.
Christian, well, if you want to, let Linda know. She can always set it up. We want to go see it. I don't need, but I do love a good beaver dam. They're very cool. Yeah. I do too. I have a lot of respect for beavers. They're very cute.
All right. Okay. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Have a good night. Thanks, you too. Thank you. On to public meetings. This is 3A, Sixth Lynn Lane in Wayland, D-1061 is a request of determination of applicability filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Jody Deenan for the construction of a deck and a porch at Sixth Lynn Lane in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is 100 feet of a boarding vegetative wetland and the property is shown on assessor's map 49, lot 15. Linda.
Is that Mike? Would you like to present the project to the commission? Sure. Yeah. Actually, I'm David Scharf. I'm the architect. Oh, well, you're representing the Deenans. And so the project started with a kitchen renovation and conversion of a screen porch into a mudroom. So that sits between the garage and the kitchen. And we wanted to just shift the access to the backyard from the old screen porch to the kitchen and build a larger deck and stairs into the backyard. And I don't know, is it helpful to share my screen with the site plan or do you all have it in front of you? I don't. The only plan I have, which was a topographic site plan, is what was sent in. And that doesn't show anything. That doesn't show the location of the porch, unless I'm missing it somehow. I thought I saw it in the packet. It does. I suppose that. Yeah. Then mine must have got, Barbara probably has mine then. You know, I've got a topo map. And my question is, when were the wetlands delineated? Who did it? And there was stairs that end up in the 30-foot no-disturb.
I believe this was all done by our engineer who prepared the plot plan. VTP associates. Did you send in something electronically? Because I went looking for stuff by email and I didn't have it either. Hi, this is Mike. I don't know why David has my name. I apologize. My webcam is not working. I think I emailed the Conservation Commission the project drawings depicting the new deck as well as the updated plot plan from VTP associates. And I spoke to Joe from VTP about the delineation. And he said when they were out there doing their survey, it was already marked out. He has no knowledge of who marked it previously. And I don't think the Deanans do either because they were there when they purchased the home. So he just went by what was marked out. But we don't know anything about when the wetlands were delineated. Who delineated them?
Correct. That was Joe from VTP's thoughts on it. We have a septic plan 2021 in our files.
It doesn't look like that was ever closed out either.
And it says that wetland delineation was done by Oxbow associates on September 10th, 2021. Does that answer your question, Barbara? I guess so.
Well, can you show your plan? Because I can't find it anywhere. So I guess Barbara and I didn't get it.
David, are you able to do that? Yeah. Here it is.
Yeah, well, that's what I have. But mine doesn't show the deck on it, though.
It's this one.
I mean, this is identical to what's in my packet. Oh. Let's see, we have the topo plan without the deck on it. And then there's something in the front. You're doing an open porch, too. Yeah. Yeah. And that would be basically a hard scape at grade, which there's already a brick patio there. So we're basically going to put a roof over it. It's already impervious. Does it have a roof?
No, we're adding a roof. So we've got drainage from the roof. Yeah. So we need information for that.
But again, new, you know, that's not part of the project description either. Was that something added later?
No, this was all submitted at the same time. Okay.
So I think an important piece of this is what Barbara brought up, is that you have the stairs going right into the 25-foot buffer. And here the Wayland Conservation Commission has a 30-foot no disturb back there. Okay. So we could... In some way, can you change the stairs? Yeah, we can orient them going parallel to the deck so that they're not crossing into the 25-foot buffer. Yeah. Well, so our no disturb is 30 feet, the 30-foot line. 30 feet. Okay. There should be a 30-foot line on your plan, not a 25-foot, because 25-foot doesn't mean anything to us. So... Okay. That's what we can measure, because it's a scaled plan, so... Okay.
And you said it's helical piles, so... Helical piles, yeah. So they were over 26 feet. There would probably be maybe four of them.
Okay. And what's going to be underneath the deck? Is it... Will it be open? I mean, it's... It'll be open, yeah. Usually we'll do... Crush stone. Yeah. So is it, what, five, six feet underneath? Is there... I mean, is it storage possibility, or is it just for water retention? I mean... Oh, this... The height of... Yeah, what's the height of the deck?
It is... Yeah, I mean, it's a full story and a half, maybe. So it's 99.4 feet. I would say seven feet. Yeah, and the land is 92 feet, so seven feet. Yeah. Yeah, so I don't have any of this, Cliff. Oh, it's on the screen. Well, I know. I can't... Yeah, it's pretty small. Yeah, the deck's at 99.4, and the, I would say, the grades at, like, 92 at that point. Yeah. Right. Yeah, no, I would put a conditioner in there to make sure you have, like, six as a crushed stone underneath there. And is this lawn? Is this being built over lawn? No, it's all... I can share a picture of... You brought the swerve anyway? I can share a picture of what's back there.
That's sort of the current condition of the backyard. So it's all... Yeah, it is over lawn. It's all lawn. Yeah. Yeah, okay, okay.
I don't have an issue with this. It seems like a really simple project. But I'd like to get those a revised plan, if you can get that to me, so that when I'm issuing a permit, I'm referencing the plan that shows the stairs and the going sort of perpendicular, or what you said, parallel to the edge. Okay, so would the... I'm going to flip back to the other drawing in a sec, sorry.
So this right-hand corner, like this, we just have to show the 30-foot line. We have to just make sure that any of this deck is outside of that, or just the stairs? Oh, I think the stairs need to be, like you said, oriented, so they're not sticking out into the 25-foot wetland buffer. Okay, all right. If you can pull it out to, you know, to the long-end side, or the one side, I mean. Yeah. So, okay. Okay. I mean, it's all lawn anywhere right there, so we're not disturbing something that hasn't been disturbed before in a way, so... Mm-hmm.
Anything else, Linda, on your end? Nope.
So you're good with that? I'm assuming those are met? Mm-hmm. Commission, thoughts, comments, concerns? Anything else you want to add on?
Okay. I'm good with it. Linda's good. Lisa, you want to try to make this motion? Any help with this one? This is a... So we're doing a request for determination, so we're... You don't have to close the hearing. We're doing a negative determination. With a condition that we need a revised plan, so... Right. So I move to issue a negative determination. Under the State Act. Yep. And permanent or Chapter 184, subject to revised plans and review by Linda. Here we go. Good motion. Do we hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storer. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean Fares, a yes. You're all set. Great. Thank you. Thanks, all. Thank you. Appreciate it. Take care. On to 4. This is Stormwater and Land Disturbance. This is 4A, 80 Oxbow Road, SWLD-168. Linda. The applicant is still waiting for a peer review for this. That just came in today. So, I think we'll be seeing it probably at the next meeting.
Okie doke. I don't see 80 Oxbow Road on the GIS. They have 180.
Maybe 86. You could try. 86. Okay. I thought 80 was on there. There's a house at 80. No, there's a house at 180. No, they demolished the house already at 80. So, it's an empty lot. So, they did that before I think they even applied for a permit. So, any kind of permit. So, it's been a... Then they wanted to... They actually wanted to build two houses, 8086. And I think that plan has changed now. Okay. I got it. Yeah. I'm sorry. It's there. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, next one is... 55 Woodridge Road, SWLD-169.
So, I did not receive any new material for this. So, I'm not sure if we have anybody on for that.
Wouldn't... The attendees... Wouldn't appear so. So, I was working with them to change... They changed some of the stormwater management so they wouldn't have to remove as many trees. So, they wouldn't have this big riprap apen in the front of their house, which I thought was kind of unsightly. And then what they did do, though, is they added an extension to their driveway, I think, over the last year or two. And that never was permitted. So, I think that that's the only outstanding issue is how we address the runoff that comes off this additional driveway extension. So, that's it. So, I guess we'll deal with that either at the next meeting or so. Does that sound right? Sounds lovely.
Okay. Moving right along. We're on number five. Certificate of Compliance. This is 5A. 5 Lundy Lane. DEP file number 322-1009. Linda. The applicant wanted to discuss the partial certificate of compliance that I issued for this with the commission. That's right. Is anyone here? I don't see anybody here. Lisa, do you see anybody here? Or Linda, do you see anybody here? No, I don't see anybody. I think it's just us, huh? It's one attendee. What? Okay. Well, we'll pass on that for now.
Linda, we're on 6A, community garden fees. What you got? I think Emily put in a bunch of stuff for you, didn't she, to show you what other communities charge? So, this is not something we can, you guys can look at this, think about it, and we don't have to make any, we don't have to do any action on it right now. Because, again, I think it was just something that we had brought up before about how to deal with all the people that just sort of abandoned their plots. And then, you know, it's a lot of work on us later on to deal with all the weeds. So, and whether or not we need to charge more money. So, think about it. We won't be sending out applications again until April or March next year. So, would it make sense to think about, A, a deposit or B, an abandonment fee? Yeah, we could do that instead of raising the rates even. Yeah. I think we talked about an abandonment fee last time. Yeah. We thought that people are abandoning it for different reasons and it might be hard to collect that. We collect it up front. Yeah, but then I have to give it back? How do I do that? Just keep it on file. So, which is a lot of the thing about giving it back? But that's just it. I mean, you know, I put it in an account and then it's like the performance bonds, you know, that you have to get a W-9 form. You have to put it in a savings account. You have to, it gets, you know, it gets a lot more complicated. The treasurer department would probably hate me if I did that. Just tuck it aside. It's like the tariffs, you know, collect them, but they never go back. You know, just collect. Oh, I see. And put them in a safe that we have to buy in the department. You don't want to do that. Okay. These new things. Do these proposed fees fully cover like the work that you guys do for this? Because I was like, dang, we're still really low, even if we, the proposed ones. Um, I don't think anything's ever going to cover the amount of work. I mean, you have no idea the amount of people that come in in March and April to ask about things, to ask if they can have more plots and they could, you know, then, you know, and then we have to order hay. And then we have to, we have to, we have to deliver the hay and put them in all the individual plots. I mean, it's just the whole community garden thing is an unbelievable amount of work. You know, so it's, it's, uh, I guess it's just a labor of love for us at this point. So can you make an estimate? Can you try quantifying that at all? Oh, you know how much work it is? I mean, you know, grinds out there every week mowing, you know, how many hours? I don't know. I'd have to ask them, but all the plots have to be outmowed, you know, the, the access, the, you know, everything around the, the, you know, the water spigots and stuff like that. So, yeah, it's, it's, it's a surprising amount of work for, it shouldn't be taxpayer supported. No, no, we ought to get paid for it. So what an estimate of how much time it takes would be great. Okay. We can do that. All right, super.
Okay.
Public comment. Do I see anybody? Nope, just us. Yep. I like that. Eight. Approval of management. Wait, wait, before you jump, I have one other thing under other. There was discussion about 17 Gleason at our last meeting. Also just wanted to update you that I have not received anything from them as of after they, they, they tried to drop off a permanent application for a use center that had no backup plans or anything. I did, I did, I did send, I think Jilson and company is doing the survey, which is what I asked for, you know, property survey. I did send them an email and ask them what the status of that was, I did not hear back if that had been done or not. But I think at some point, you know, I think we have to start issuing penalties for just, you know, no communication, no, no update on status or anything or what, you know, where they are. But, um, I, we need to get their attention somehow, I think, so. And remind me, what was the first day that they broke ground, as it were, or got on the first treat-up? How long has it been? Oh, gosh, I'd have to go back and look. I don't have it, I don't have it in front of me. Sorry. There we go. Oh, sorry. Has it been more than 30 days, 60 days since they responded to you? Like, what's the. Oh, God, it has been, at least been 30. I can't, I, I have to go back and look. They, um, it's very possible that Jolson's, uh, backlog is more than 30 days. Oh, most surveyors are 60 to 90 days backlog. There'll be a long time before they can get out there. Yeah. Yeah. But I'll find out. But I, I still was, I was, still was hoping for, and I asked them for status reports and status updates about where the, where they are with the project. And, um, you know, uh, at some point I'll just, I'll just remind them that I, I need. You need something. Yeah. I need an update. I have trouble to write you an email for God's sake. Yeah. If it's easier for you to say next, our next meeting is the 21st, but we don't hear by you from then we're about to start finding you. Okay. Is there a, like, could we have already slapped penalties on them? I mean, they've done some pretty egregious stuff. They have. Sure. Like, should we not be penalizing them now? I mean, they're completely ignoring you by the sound of it.
You're, you can make whatever motion you like. Yeah.
So what, what would you be, what would you have Lynn to do? What would your motion be shown to have her? I mean, put no thought into this. I don't know. I don't know what the options are. This is like paint with a brush. So it could be as easy as Lynn has to reach out tomorrow to say, we're starting October 1st. We're, today, we're going retroactive from day one. We're going to, so if we look at, there's no, it's not, it's not a usual case. So it's not like a, here's what happens every time. This is, they're ignoring a violation. Lynn's asking at least for an update on. I would give them 30 days. Have Lynn to send them a note. Say, if we don't hear from you by November 1st, we're going to start finding you. But haven't they already had 30 days to do things? Oh, yeah. Have they, have they done much of anything after that very initial flurry?
No. No. I mean, I got, like I said, they showed up because I asked them for a permit to, for the tree removal. And instead of sending, giving me a permit application for that, they gave me a permit application to build a youth center. And I said, that's not what I asked for. You know, you have to compensate for all the trees and, you know, get permission for all the tree, after the fact, tree removal and compensate for them. So, yeah. There seems to be a lot of contempt, you know, for, for the rules on this one. And, and, you know, I. Is it. So, what could a hybrid approach could be, since it's been at least 30 days since we've sent the notice, since tomorrow's the 1st of October, Linda, could you reach out and saying, starting October 1st, the commission's, since it's been 30 days, commission's going to be starting the fines October 1st. And we'll discuss whether or not we actually want to level these, level these fines on, on the 21st of October. So, our clock starts, whether or not we actually hand them the fine. We talk about it in three weeks or whatever on our next meeting, gives them, clock's talking about we don't have to give it to them. We don't want to. But we can if we want to. Sure. Yeah. So, on the 21st, we say, you know, they haven't gotten back to us. Or, yeah, that, that, that did it. Now they're, they're playing ball. We say, great, the clock's done. We're, well, thank you. Or, now we told you, on October 1st, so 21 days ago, your fine was X, now it's Y. Yeah, we can do that.
We'll do that. So, the motion would say, Linda to reach out saying, let them know that since it's been more than 30 days, we begin fining on October 1st. Though we have a meeting on the 20th, October 21st, we'll hear about you from then. We will make a vote to whether or not we want to start being levying these fees on you and just start fining. That's good. So, move. Okay. I like it. Do you have a second? Second. Thank you, Jen. Roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. You bet. Yes. John Storer. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Sean Fair. There we go.
Okay. To the minutes. Babs, how are we looking for September 9th? They're fine. Yes. I love that answer. I think it was just one thing I mentioned.
Okay. Do I hear a motion then to approve the minutes of September 9th, 2026, please? You bet. So moved. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Quick roll call, please. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storer. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. And Sean Fair is a yes. Thank you, folks. Real quick before we adjourn, I told Linda about it today, and I'm not sure it might just be mine. I've had some wicked email issues with Tana Wayland in particular, and so I'll have to deal with it, but Linda, when it's asked for my, or asked for the administrator, to whom do we reach out? Like, who is that in Wayland? It's, you put in a help ticket. So it's just help at wayland.ma.us. So if they, okay, I'll get you offline then. Okay, there's no, okay.
Okay. I'll figure out what's going on.
We can, we can send in a help ticket for you. I mean, either Emily or me. Okay. And just ask them if they, I mean, you just, I just need to know your issues. So, and that's just, you can't log in anymore, or you don't receive anything, or? It'll, it'll say, can't connect, and then I won't get much emails, and all of a sudden I'll get like a dump of like a 40 emails all at once, and like, some I've been like from a couple weeks ago. So, it's just, it could be my email collaborator that brings everything together, but I don't know. So, I'll have to figure that out. Okay.
That was it for my end. Okay. That's all I got. Anybody else? If not, do we get a motion to adjourn? There you go. Motion to adjourn. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Shane, roll call, please. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storer? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. And Sean Fierzy? Yes. All set. Everyone, folks. Thanks, everybody. Bye, everybody. Bye. Bye.