April 15, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript
April 15, 2026 - Conservation Commission
All right. Seeing that it is 6.32 and we have a quorum present, I'd like to begin the Conservation Commission meeting for April 15, 2026.
The location for in-person meetings is wheelchair accessible. If you need any other accommodations in order to participate in the meetings, please contact Wayland's ADA coordinator 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 immediately before the meeting.
This meeting will be recorded and the quorum will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting.
The public is excluded from executive sessions.
In 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 only remote access, which it does, no in-person attendance by members or the public will be permitted.
If the meeting has remote access, one may watch or may participate remotely.
With the meeting linked, it can be filed the following.
And when required by law or allowed by chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location or in remote access as applicable.
And the public comment should be limited to two minutes per person.
With that, it looks like Linda is at town center there.
I see Cliff Lewis, Lisa Aubin, Shan Fisher, Luke Legere, Barbara Howell, and myself are all dialing in remotely.
With that, let's start the public hearings, please.
So this is 2A, 58 Pequot Road.
Linda, do we have a DEP number for this one?
No, we do not have a DEP file number. Okay. This is also a continuing notice of intent and file pursuant to Whalen's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Weather Protection Act, submitted by Sharon Botwetic for the construction of an addition and driveway expansion at 58 Pequot Road in Whalen, Mass. The proposed work is within 200 foot riverfront. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 43A, Parcel 40. Linda. I believe the applicant and her representative is on, if they want to let us know what the changes they did over Jessica and on making some hopefully positive changes to this. Do you have my drawings there? Do you want me to bring them up? I believe everybody should have had those in their agenda. Good. Okay. You're welcome to share the screen if you want. Well, if it comes to that. Okay. So, Jessica Snare, Spring Hill Design. And this is our second visit with you all. It's a continuation from last March 25th. We were asked to provide some specifics for mitigation where surface material and replacement trees were concerned. I met with Linda on the 31st and we discussed providing more permeable material at the new driveway and existing parking area. And removing... So, you're going to be talking about a removal of part of the parking area square footage, which we have done, and I'll detail it. The revised site plan indicates that the original asphalt the driveway will be reduced to the entry area just the upper part of it. The remainder of the driveway and parking and entry walkway to the front door will be replaced with a gravel surface or, in some cases, it's an existing gravel surface. And an eco grid grass parking area in the little extra one corner. at the access controls. Right, thank you. car parking area. We indicated on the original plan one tree to be removed, and we have indicated three new trees to be installed. We will select from the town's native tree species from the website, and we also added the erosion control barrier and detail to the plan. The comparison from the original asphalt to the new combination of asphalt and gravel, the original asphalt was 1,830 square feet, and it's now reduced to 770 square feet. And what that does overall is when you add up the structure coverage footprint plus the former asphalt hard impermeable, the overall building, even though we're expanding the shed to a two-car garage, plus the impermeable is a resultant reduction in hard surface. So, and that math is on the plan. So, hopefully, there was a chance to observe this, and I also wanted to bring up the DEP number, which just came to our attention yesterday, and I don't know, I know that my client paid it. Well, she paid it yesterday. We didn't know about it until yesterday. Well, I know. Well, I sent, sorry, I sent the check in over a month ago. You know, the original, check and paperwork was sent to the Mass DEP a month ago, and I have return receipts for all that. Yesterday, we were informed that there's an additional charge for an advertisement in a local newspaper or online journal, which I paid as soon as I learned about that, but we didn't find out until yesterday afternoon that the DEP number had not been provided. I, this morning, talked to Emily of Linda's office. I called DEP a couple of times, left messages. They did not get back to me, but it's been over a month. The check is cleared. The return receipt requested was received, so they've received my information. I don't have an explanation for why a month later the DEP number was not provided, but now that I know about it, I'm going to call them every day until I get an answer as to when they're going to do it. I paid my money, and it's been a month. Sure. Just so you know, we obviously can give you all kind of feedback and whatnot, but officially we can't close it until we have a DEP number, so we can bring it all the way up to the point where we can close it. The only process improvement in the future, if this is a known problem with DEP, which it sounds like it is according to Emily, I think it would be helpful. to let the homeowner know so we could start a week early prompting them. So just a little process improvement suggestion for the future. Got it. Thank you. Okay, Linda, I'll start with comments from you first, please. No, I mean, my comment to Jessica during our meeting a couple weeks ago, a few weeks ago, was that let's reduce the amount of impervious in the inter-repairing area, and that was a compliment. Okay. Okay. So the, you know, the best way to do it is to have that portion of the addition to add sort of an entrance in the riverfront area, in the inter-repairing area. So that's what you guys are looking at. Okay. Okay. The only question I had, did you address, Jessica, there was some technical comment on the Wetland Protection Act. When they reviewed this, it says something about the NOI and the National Weather Protection Act, and they said that's going to be the last much-used area. Okay. NOI proposes 690 square feet of riverfront alteration. The site plan details a net disturbance of 928. So she was wondering what the discrepancy was. And that was a comment from DEP. I don't know if I understand the question. Sorry. Well, see, under zoning in the bottom here, you still have net disturbance of 928 square feet. Oh. And then in the NOI, I guess you say 690. So the DEP was just looking for clarification on that. Well, it shouldn't have changed. The 928 was done in the revised, but I can't imagine what the difference, why it would have gone up.
No, I mean, this is what you presented, I think, in the original NOI. In the application. In the application was 690. Well, I think in the original application, we calculated it as best we could without having knowledge or experience and working with all of you. But if the changes have been made. You know, I, we used, you know, Emily had explained that a certain section is considered within the 100 foot buffer and another section was considered in front, in front of the, in part of the 200 foot buffer. So if that is the case, I calculated it based on what I understood at the time. If that has changed, then maybe there's a different calculation needed. It might make more sense to keep the 928 then, because that might be the engineered version. Mm-hmm. Versus our version. Mm-hmm.
Okay. We just need to know what to put on the application, on the permit, as far as area of disturbance. Yeah, I would, I would keep the engineers 928 then. Okay. All righty.
Commissioner, anything else?
I know we can't close today, but let's give all comments so we're ready to close whenever we get the DEP number. Yeah, thanks. I think the plan looks responsive to the issues and comments we raised last time. So I appreciate. The property owner and our team listening to us and making those improvements to the plan. I don't really have anything further. Okay. Thanks, Luke. Lisa, were you saying something? Yeah. Did anything in the, so based on the changes that we discussed when we opened this, has the total pervious versus impervious changed? Yes. Oh, yeah, dramatically. I just, like, I don't know what the numbers are. I didn't see it in the packet. So if you take the structure away. The ground surface, the impervious was 1830 in the existing, and it went down to 770 because of the amount of asphalt we removed. Got it. The other one has to do with structures. And if you add the structure before plus the impervious, it was 3,714. I don't know if that's a number that really comes up in the, you know, this, but just by comparison. The proposed structure is obvious. The impervious obviously got a little bit bigger, but the impervious was so reduced that the net result was originally 3,714 and is now 3,122.
Got it. So total with structure. Yeah.
Okay. Anybody else?
Okay. So we have to continue this, but hopefully at that point we're just putting a DEP number on this and closing it out. Can that happen outside of the three-week schedule? Or does that wait for the next hearing? Yeah, it waits for the next hearing. It does. Until the next hearing. Yep.
All right. Permission. When's our next meeting? May 6th, I believe it is, right? May 6th. Yes. May 6th. So I just. Just, I mean, there's a possibility we might have to move it to May 7th if town meeting goes over, goes into the third day. So that's a caveat. We have this in the same week. We have this in the same week. Town meeting. That's going to be a fun week. Oh, thank you. Fantastic. I move that we continue the hearing under the state act and chapter 194 to May 6th after 630 PM. Perfect. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Thank you very much. You're welcome to hear a second. Second. Thank you, Jenny. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. And Sean Faresley? Yes. All set? Thank you very much. You got it. Thank you. Thank you very much. You got it.
Okay. Moving on to 2B. This is 108 Lakeshore Drive, DEP, file number 322-1042. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Whalens Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Melissa Haley for the prior unpermitted. It's a continued notice of intent filed by Melissa Haley for the prior unpermitted renovation work and completion of said work at 1 Lakeshore Drive in Whalen, Mass. The proposed work is in with 100 feet of Deadly Pond and the property is shown on Assessor's Map 46B Parcel 35. Linda? Oh, let's see. I think we have the folks online here who were representing the owner. Do I see Doug Dillon? Yes, I'm here. Can you guys hear me? Yep. Perfect. All right. Let me just share my screen. As you said, Doug Dillon. A wetland scientist from Guard Consulting representing homeowner Melissa Haley, who is also online with us tonight for 108 Lakeshore. So, go ahead and share my screen. I know it's been a little bit since we have last met, so since then, we were able to meet with Linda in office and adjust our sort of general site plan according to the feedback provided. We're going to be proposing nearly 45 native plantings here. So, there was a comment made in the interim suggesting that some of the species be made to be more woody sort of shrub style plantings rather than herbaceous wildflowers. These are all perennials too, by the way. So, I've done that. I'm excited to see what it looks like. Thanks, Doug. Thank you. Thanks, Linda. These are very small areas. I just want to remind you guys. So this is a 140-square-foot area and cramming nine small shrubs in here in addition to the 30 herbaceous perennial wildflowers is already pretty tight. And in the lower area, crammed in an additional 10 plantings here, four of which are going to be a shrub, the New Jersey pea there. And up gradient, we have a much larger sort of dense woody shrub planting area where we're going to be having some black huckleberry, bearberry, and in addition to that, we're going to be having some milkweed. So all those guys are going to take very well to the hill slope there. They grow like monsters once they've kind of settled in, and especially the milkweed, they send up shoots all the time. So that'll be a nice, beautiful milkweed sort of pollinator area. So we have also, let's zoom in here. We don't have the engineer on tonight, so I'll just go over the changes in the plan. So we're going to be removing a large portion of the patio and returning it to a grassed state represented by the sort of cross-marked area right here, 48 square feet. Again, it doesn't sound like much, but the total area we're working with here is 148. So that's only a few hundred square feet in total. So that's a significant portion of the working area of the property. And any of the other patio areas we are proposing to maintain, you know, as proposed permeable, right? Because there was a decent chunk of this lower area that was a prior concrete patio before the disturbance. And, you know, in recognition of that, right, it's just sort of an in-kind replacement of what that was historically to a superior material, which will allow it to actually percolate and recharge at groundwater and do everything that it needs to do.
Yeah, Melissa, if I'm forgetting anything, please feel free to chime in. But I think we have addressed a lot of the comments and concerns that were brought up. But the prior meeting there, so that's it, Linda, I guess we'll start with you.
Yeah, I don't I don't have very many additional comments. Just one one piece was, you know, we're putting in the planting area next to the pond. Is there still a retaining wall there up against the water? Yes, there is. And then the plan was to sort of bifurcate and remove that from the submittal here in order to simplify and just sort of resolve the issue. So we're just going to leave that hand and, you know, when the time comes to apply for that, that'll be in a separate permit just due to the complexities involved with involving like a like a structural like engineer for the actual stonewall portion. So we kind of ran into that and just in the interest of simplifying this process, we decided to just excerpt that from from the application package. So we're just. No, that's fine. I just didn't know if you were planning on removing that if you were going to put in the planting bed. Or if you're just going to keep the retaining wall. That was. Yeah, I think just from a structural standpoint, it's just better left alone, frankly, just from a safety and erosion and just kind of, you know, erosion really is a kind of number one thing there. Stampling. And just one last thing you've ever read, there's it says something 10 feet setback from water line. And is this the OK, this is a water line coming into the house, right? Yeah, it must be if. OK, yeah, I just I didn't know. Oh, yes. I love the little notes on here. You know, water line can mean a lot of different things. So anyway. All right. No, that's it. I don't. Again, I think we've worked it and gotten a much better plan from from what was initially proposed. So, OK. OK, thanks, Linda. Commission, thoughts, comments, concerns?
Yes. OK. Go ahead, Barbara. Some of the plantings that they have. Bearberry, I only know of one spot and it's on top of Doublet Hill in Weston where it grows around here. And bearberry grows on rock. That's one thing. New Jersey tea, you don't find that around here.
I've seen it around. I mean, the bear. So. All the butterfly people I know, they look and look and look and try to find New Jersey tea. And there is a place, I don't know, Arlington or someplace like that, where there is a rare bunch of it. But that's it doesn't grow much around here. If we're placing that, we'll, you know. I mean, we can just swap that out. But yes, this is going to this is a rocky area, so the bearberry will do well, regardless. Well, OK. Be interesting to see in a year.
Anybody else? Commission? If they don't establish within the within a growing season, would we want to just revisit if it like I like these? I deliberately planted New Jersey, New Jersey tea myself. But I don't want to do it again. I don't want to do it again. I don't want to do it again. But it's true. I've never seen it out in the wild. So just keep an eye because it has to take part of our conditions. It has to take. Yeah, perfect. I mean, I love it. I'm hoping mine takes off. You might want to protect it from rabbits. Yeah. Let's take not.
OK. Anybody else?
All right. I'm good with it. Let's go with it. Can I get a motion to close this? I move that we close the public hearing under Chapter 194 and the State Act. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. And a motion. Next motion is Luke. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under Chapter 194 and the State Act with minor room and a motion to approve the project under Chapter 194 and the State Act. Yes. Thank you, Cliff. We second the motion. Any other? Any other motion? Any other revisions as discussed here this evening? Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? You got a second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Sorry. Yeah. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. All set. Here we go. right on to 2c uh this is 67a loker street and whalen dep file number 322-1056 to continue notice of intent and file pursuant to whalen's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection acts made by matt o'connor the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67a local street and whale of mass the property is shown on assessor's map 48 parcel 42 is located within 100 foot buffer zone overboard vegetated wetlands in the 200 foot riverfront area linda the applicant has asked for a continuance okay to the sixth presumably uh presumably yes okay am i gonna get motion i move that we continue the hearing under both chapter 194 and the state act to may 6th after 6 30 p.m thank you luke do i hear a second thank you cliff roll call please lucas yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yeah cliff lewis yes elisa alvin yes jenny brown yes and sean farz yes thank you uh we're on to 2d 123 dudley road and whalen mass dep file number 322-1061 uh it's a continuing notice of intent file pursuant to whalen's weapons and water resource protection bylaw and the level protection accident of joel goodwinson the construction of a single-family home, septic system, and a stormwater management system at 123 Dudley Road in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is within 100 feet of Dudley Pond, and the property is shown in Assessor's Map 47A, Parcel 72. Linda? I believe we had, I think, is Bert Corey on? I was looking in the attendees. Oh, you are here. Okay. I thought you were hiding in the attendees section, Bert. Bert is our peer reviewer, stormwater peer reviewer. The one thing you probably saw was a response from him, and a response, let's see, that was April 10th we received that. So that was just last week. I think that was in your agenda packet. So I believe all the issues with the stormwater have been addressed, and can you confirm that, Bert? All of the issues that I had pointed out in my peer review were addressed. There were a couple of items that we could discuss tonight. One of them was that there was going to be a landscape that would be submitted that you folks get to discuss as far as the plantings go. And then there was one item that I brought up with regards to the proposed soil absorption system and where the construction entrance is going to be. I think it was in narrative form that there was going to be a fence to protect the portion of the soil absorption system that could be protected from the truck traffic. I would just suggest that that, you know, that fence gets put onto the final set of plans just to try to prevent, you know, as the trucks travel over the construction entrance that nobody's going to pull over into, you know, a place that's unprotected by the, you know, the stone construction entrance and start putting undue weight onto the area for the soil absorption system. And then I was also suggesting that instead of two to four inches of stone, that geofabric with about, eight to 12 inches of stone be placed on that just so that we don't get the compaction and realizing that there are sandy soils there, there are gravelly soils. So, you know, it's one of those situations where, you know, during construction or after construction, when that starts to be built, I want to make sure that there's no compaction in the soils that are there. And so that would require some type of an inspection from the design engineer just to make sure that it's still meeting the, you know, the rates that they were using for the design. That's it.
Thanks, Bart. Linda, anything you want to add? Oh, no. Is Seth on? Seth Donohue? I am here tonight. Well, okay. I didn't know if you wanted to add anything to that. No, that was nice. I will add a little bit. It was spoken well, and we appreciate the peer reviewers' prompt reply. As the commission's aware, we received the first peer review from DGT prior to the last meeting. Our office had submitted a form. We'll reply to that along with updated plans and calculations. And the peer reviewer was kind enough to get us that back last week. We have no objections to the reviewer's comments related to essentially beefing up the temporary construction entrance. We'll be happy to do that and then add the recommended fencing to the plan. I will note to the commission, the plan from a plan view standpoint is relatively unchanged from what you reviewed prior. We have no objections to the reviewer's comments. We have no objections to the reviewer's comments. There was not any infrastructure that had to move around or any adjustments to that. There's just miscellaneous call-outs in response to that. And general good housekeeping on some of the notes that was recommended, and we appreciate that.
Thanks, Seth. Okay. Linda, all good on your end? Yeah, I think we've made, you know, there's some, I think they've addressed all the comments that we brought up in the first hearing regarding, you know, the construction entrance, the location of the infiltration. Okay. Okay. to try to save some trees you know mitigation and um in the in the riverfront i mean in the in the wetland buffer area i think they're saving a lot more trees down there um especially you know we're not going to let a lot of trees in the 15 30 foot um buffer area and no disturb area be removed so i think i think most of that's been addressed am i right seth that's correct so so one of the comments that was brought up is a planting plan and um it's my understanding that landscape architect is still working on that the applicant has been adamant that their intent is to meet the town's requirements for tree replacement under both chapter 193 and chapter 194 because it is a wooded site that's that's not a small amount of plantings and i've spoken about it in the past the the project or the site had a prior home down by the pond very close proximity to the pond surrounding that area was essentially a leveled area that is essentially absent of vegetation in some portions so our intent would be to revitalize that area and to add a additional and better vegetated buffer between the pond and the project area so we hope to have that plan in short order and be able to submit that to the commission for review and discussion related to species and methods for planting on that it wasn't clear to me what you're planning to do with that abandoned foundation uh so it would be removed and um that would be incorporated into the planting area itself great okay is there a cesspool there too someplace there is a drain line that goes into a hill uh so there's actually two leaching trenches uh per the board of health record plan on that and they go uh towards dudley road so those would be abandoned as required by the board of health great great thank you commission anything else i just had a question on the the review report as well more for my understanding um where i think was common c on stormwater basis of design um and i think they talked about the hydraulic condition of the wooded area was adjusted to account for compensatory plantings that will supplement the existing vegetation so just my general question on how these models work we're taking down you know a bunch of mature trees obviously we'll be revegetating um but they'll be small trees right so i don't know if that's taken into account is does a mature tree absorb more water and address these issues better than you know a new four inch dbh tree so i just is that factored into the calculations the hydrocad model uh will separate the surface covers into you know open space brush uh wooded areas uh and what the engineer is chosen to do was to account for the additional plantings that are in there so that it it wouldn't be turned into just open space it would have uh items like brush and all of that the things that slow the water down as it's moving across the surface and what that did is it made a slight change in the curve number uh which resulted in just uh eliminating that that very slight uh increase in peak flow for the just the 25-year storm event okay okay thank you yep
anything else did the green roof appear is that no longer in the plans that's correct so so the the issue with the green roof um well it was fantastic at mitigating short-term storm events uh the local regulations require us to mitigate runoff for for storm events up to including the statistical 100-year storm event which is in excess of 8 inches of rain in a 24-hour period so so a roof cannot do that it's it's a ton of weight to put up there as that infrastructure was not able to fully meet the local regulation how we were able to put that into the capacity of our infiltration system so we're not allowing the runoff to leave the roof it's still being collected and mitigated uh through the infiltration got it okay anything else see i do it with one raised hand i want to make sure i put that uh skip this one yeah can you hear me yep can you identify yourself for the record uh it's skip miller i'm at 121 dudley i'm next to the uh property next door um i just want to reiterate what i've said previously um i've been able to meet with joel um joel's a nice guy um i have no objections to a house going next door i just feel that the house that's being proposed is too big for the site the site is too complicated and i really feel it's up to the conservation commission just to not just take engineering models and pass fail numbers and rubber stamp and approval because it comes back with the numbers that you want to see the site is challenging there's been a long history of bad things that have happened there there's a ton of trees coming down whether that number has been reduced or not it's still a huge amount they're big mature trees that whether they can be offset with some complicated equation of re-growing it'll be hundreds of years before those trees are equal to these trees provide the shade provide the habitat provide everything that these trees currently do and engineering models just can't replicate what we have now um and my feeling is that the house should be smaller more in keeping with the neighborhood more respectful to the site more sensitive to the pond and the ecosystem and whether anyone else cares or not i'll be the one to say that uh it's too much and creating engineering solutions so that we can design to the max and engineer to the max and have engineering models say that it's okay that's uh that's up to you guys but i really think it's up to joel and the commission to try and scale this back to a point where it's in keeping with the neighborhood and more sensitive to the pond and the setting um that we have here because that's what makes dudley pond special and it's a very special part of our community um and i would just like to see it better protected and that's that's my two cents on the matter and I really hope we can find a happy medium that kind of strikes a better balance than engineering gimmicks and models versus just looking out your window and seeing the amount of mature trees that are scheduled to be cut down and stormwater treatment plans and everything else I just don't think it's in keeping with what should and ought to happen here. Okay thanks Kevin. Okay anybody else? Mr. Chair if I may just briefly throw out a number related to the comments that we received. Sure please. The total impervious area of everything on the site is limited to 13 percent of the buffer zone so I know there's been a lot of statements that it's too big there there's too much. The house itself is less than 10 percent of the site area so I respect that Dudley Pond and the surrounding neighborhood does have some unique houses and unique lots in it. This is in keeping with the town's regulations and that that's our goal here so I respect everyone's opinions but I just wanted to put that out there. Okay thanks Seth. Linda last words comments thoughts you're on mute just FYI. I mean the only thing outstanding right now is just the planting plan you know at some point we definitely need to address that and how the commission decides to do that is as a condition of the permit or wait to be able to review the plan and approve the plan before we you know issue a permit for that that's up to you guys okay. Commission I'll look up to you guys. Well I'll jump in I would like to see the plan I think I heard Mr. Donahue comment compliment on templating the plan and I think that's what I was going to say earlier that we would be discussing that at a future hearing I don't mean to put words in your mouth if I misheard you but it sounded to me like that's what the applicant was anticipating and I certainly would like to see the plan before we vote on the project particularly in light of the comments we've received from the neighbors so that's my preference. Thank you Luke. Anybody else? Yeah I would also like to see the planting plan and this is most likely on some of the press documentation but I think it's going to be a great presentation that we've had but do you guys happen to know to what extent you have a large beach dominant population on that parcel? Beach trees not beach. Yeah no no I can tell you that there is I don't know the exact number or percentage but there are beach trees in various states on the property. Is your concern related to disease? Yeah I'm so relating to some of the comments that came and just reviewing those and thinking about it in my head because we actually do read all the comments that come in um you know as we are about to lose large chunks of trees the beach trees um wondering how many of those coming down are beach trees that actually is helpful because we know they're most likely on their way out in a sense. Yes that's correct so I think one of the issues and I can discuss um with the project team um with or without this project it's likely that there would be difficulties with peach beach trees on the site at some point so we can look at that number for you. Yeah just out of curiosity but thank you. Okay sound like we're an hour having come back with the planting plan for comments anybody vehemently opposed to that? So if if I may just uh just a question for for the commission and and you know in discussing with the landscape architect um so they were proposing to come up with a list of list of plants um as opposed to a planting plan if you want to see an actual plan we can we can do that as well but but I'm curious as to do you want to see a plan or or a list of a list of plants and by you know and numbers of of each each of the plants? Yeah if you get a plan to show them where they're actually going to go roughly where the plants are going to be set. Okay okay that's fine yeah so I would say both really right I think typically what we see is a it's a plan of the land showing showing as Sean said where their where their plantings will go but also a table telling us what the plantings will be so we understand what's what. Okay so one of the things that we have not yet done that is will be part of the of the final design piece is to do a complete inventory of every plant um on the site and to determine if we have um as an example beech trees that are diseased or are dying that um we might want to consider although it's not impacted by the by the construction or by the by the project it may be that we wanted to propose taking down some sick trees and and and concentrating plantings in in those areas and so that that work hasn't been done yet and so I guess the one caution I'd like to to put out there or just understand the level of flexibility we have is if we submit a plan and say you know here are the here are the here are the species and here are the places we plan to put them once we do that that um that inventory of kind of trees we're not touching for now and and identify their condition are we able to then come back and say you know what we have some hemlocks that are really sick over here we'd like to take those down and add some trees there or some beeches that are in in really tough shape that we'd like to take down and plant in those areas so if I could um my first instinct is to say that if you have beech trees or hemlocks that are not slated to come down they're not in the in the construction plan and they're not you know posing a particular threat my personal preference is that you know they be left um to die in place and become habitat um they're incredibly valuable for woodpeckers and then eventually for hat for cavity nesters and critters like that um so you know maybe they could be snagged down the line if they started to need it but my preference would be to leave them and the root structures help hold the soil while the other plants sort of start to take root um speaking of somebody who also crammed a ton of trees and a small amount of land um on my own house um I did find that as I was going about and actually like in the position of having the tree and deciding where it is you know there is inherent flexibility you're like I'm going to you know scooch this over here maybe I'll scooch this over there so um once there is a plan um also having a table with numbers and a rough sense of where things are going um you know I was able to look at the local conditions and figure out on the fly as well you know how to scoot this over here and that over there but yeah okay tree roots I would agree with Shannon I mean there's a little bit of flexibility because you know even if you say you propose to put a tree here and it just happens to you know that that soil's not really you know a big rock there or something you know and you know really one of our our main requirements is that anything in the buffer zone is is a native species so you know other than that there is flexibility you know if you want to change one species to another that's you know as long as it's native that's that that's not a big deal landscape stock is always a big issue too so okay all right no I appreciate that thank you okay no other comments let's uh we're gonna continue once then uh to the six it's not after 6 30. yes I move that we continue this public hearing under both chapter 91 94 and the state act to may 6th after 6 30 p.m. thank you luke to hear a second second cliff thank you cliff uh roll call please luke was here yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yes cliff lewis yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean feliz yes all set thank you all right moving right along to E uh 169 rice road and whalen DEP file number three two two dash one zero five three this is a continued notice and intent filed pursuant to whalen's west and water resource protection of whalen. in the whalen protection act uh and the whalen stormwater land disturbance bylaw Alice ok very well p.local lab can't see the plug in my most recent staging transaction about fix chilena tell you that uh we went tralgic Tobin I don't know what's going on and why that's been reading the naszym «» — yahoo — toma on my record and airotox— وال— all—I just didn't mean to mislead you know I'm already farewell so in the sam stand for just a matter of a different era already last time not an an– see the olha— rice road and whalen mass the proposed work includes a demolition of existing church the construction of three new buildings parking services a courtyard sports field and stormwater management systems project is in the 200 foot riverfront area and the 100 foot buffer zone of boarding vegetated wetlands the property is shown in assessor's map 40 parcel 08 linda you're muted i believe we probably have a number of people on that will need to get moved over from um the attendees section so i think if we they identify themselves their other hands up i guess yeah this is uh my god for soon from uh san filipino church 169 rice road if you can please let uh our attorney john silversteel in please he's in he's in i believe i think i got do you get everybody um sean landon here from studio dsk if you could let our landscape architect in naomi campbell uh um cattrall please sorry i think she's already in there yeah she's already in okay great thank you it's all the hands i see in the air right yep all right who wants to kick us off here uh good evening mr chair jonathan silverstein i'm counsel for the applicant um i guess i'll get started with your permission um this application or actually two applications have been pending for some time um i think it's important to distinguish between the two one is a notice of intent because a very small portion of the property in the project is located within the uh 200 foot buffer zone uh riverfront zone um and uh a small amount of work to improve the safety of the vehicular access to the property is proposed in that portion of the site and as currently proposed will result in a net reduction in impervious area um that uh i haven't i haven't heard anything um since uh the project uh was slightly modified to result in that small uh in that reduction in impervious rather than the original um very small increase in impervious area uh and so i think it's important to distinguish between the two and i think it's important to distinguish between the two and i think it's important to distinguish between the two and and so uh i don't think um there's any further discussion required regarding uh the notice of intent and um we would ask that the commission vote this evening to approve the notice of intent um with respect to the uh request under chapter 193 for the stormwater management land disturbance permit uh there was a peer review uh jointly engaged by the planning board and the commission um that was completed in december and um there's been no further discussion regarding the peer review um there was also a comment letter from nova uh consulting uh back in november um the applicant's the applicant's wetland consultant responded to that four days later and there's been no uh further um comments from that reviewer either at this point we feel that we have addressed all of the substantive issues under both applications we believe that a vote should be taken
separately separately on each application separately separately on each application this evening. A couple of weeks ago, many months, seven months after the application was filed, a group of project opponents, after failing to prevent the site plan approval by the planning board at the 11th hour, submitted a comment letter, another comment letter from their attorney, as well as a comment letter from John Chessia. Even though that was extremely dilatory and untimely, we did respond to that. And yesterday afternoon, yet another um, last minute filing was submitted. We don't plan to respond to that. We don't think it's fair to force the church to continue to play this game of whack-a-mole, where project opponents continue to raise new issues and attempt to delay a decision that the church feels should have been forthcoming quite some time ago. So all of the project consultants are present. We're happy to answer any final questions members of the Commission may have. But it's our view that we've complied with all applicable requirements, and we would ask for favorable action this evening. Got it. Thanks, Jonathan. Thank you. Okay. Linda, I'll let you kick it off here. Um, okay. Mr. Silverstein mentioned that there was a Chapter 193. I just went through the entire stack today. Did I miss that?
I thought you guys, you guys only, you only filed under an order, an order of conditions and the Chapter 193. I'm sorry. I'll let Mr. Landon speak to that. We have, we have submitted, um, all the documentation that has been requested of us. Yeah, no, I'm just confused. I'm assuming Linda's coming back. Yeah, no, no, go ahead. Um, no, thank you. Let me just look through this. Okay. Look through the paperwork. Okay. You guys can move forward. Commission thoughts, comments, concerns. So just make sure for those new, they're asking us to close the hearing, right? So there's no, they're asking for a decision before, before that we leave today to make sure what those folks who are newer here today. Well, at least they want us to close, right? I mean, we could always read to deliberate, but yes, they, they, the applicant, I agree. The applicant's asking us to close the hearing. Um, this, this evening. So I see it hand raised, John, I don't know if we want to take this comment first before the commission. Sure. Uh, the Ben. Yes. Hi, how are you? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since we're, excuse me, in a little bit of a interlude, I just wanted to introduce myself in case, um, the commission wasn't aware of the town, uh, retained me, um, uh, Michael McCall and the board of select board retained me last week. As a special municipal council for three active Dover amendment applications, including this one. Um, so I'm new, new to the, uh, to the case, but have read correspondence between council that Linda and Emily have provided me. And I just wanted to make you aware that I'm, that I'm here. And to the extent that the commission has any questions regarding Dover amendment applicability or Dover amendment issues. And I realized that you're quite a ways through this process already. But I'm available to, um, you know, to answer questions that the commission may have on legal matters pertaining to Dover in this application. Thanks, thanks. I appreciate it. Um, look, we start, we say something. No, I guess I'm just a little, uh, thank you, Mr. Timon for introducing yourself. Appreciate it. Uh, glad, glad to have you on board here with the town. I guess I'm just a little unclear. Um, when you say Dover amendment issues with the conservation commission, Dover amendments, a zoning, uh, state zoning act provision. Uh, yeah, I know. Um, you know, I, I, I, I, I think that's state zoning act provision i'm i'm just curious are you here sort of what are you here to comment on the notice of intent and stormwater application or is this anything i guess i'm just a little unclear exactly what we might uh tap you to to weigh in on to the extent that the com i mean i see in the correspondence that dover amendment arguments are you know replete in them so um i agree that the dover amendment and conservation commission's hearings are not two things that normally go together um but it appears in this case that the dover amendment is being argued uh by the by the applicant as a basis um for approval or at least at pointing out that in the applicant's view it is not a basis to deny um what he's what the applicant is seeking so that's all but my charge from from um the town government is to um is to provide advice to boards and commissions that are have applications before them where the dover amendment may be relevant and to the extent that the those boards of commissions have questions about the law and i know that many of you are familiar with it and you've received arguments from you know uh well-qualified council on various sides about it but um i've been retained to be uh special municipal council to give you independent advice if if you need it you may not thanks that that's really helpful i guess i i would ask you just one question you're you're correct i agree we have uh heard a little bit and read a little bit about the dover amendment here in our concom proceedings my view is it's irrelevant it doesn't have any application here i guess i'd be curious if you agree with that um i mean my i think that i think the only potential relevance to it is the extent to which if if the commission were to deny this application based on solely town bylaw standards that are more stringent than the state wetlands protection act that that could trigger a dover analysis potentially on whether um those locally more stringent regulations that theoretically could be imposed to deny or restrict the exercise of religious use um that i think there's some potential relevance there um but you know the dover amendment does not override any state statute the wetlands protection act the stormwater handbook or local regulations that are on a par with those things and are not more stringent than those things are merely you know the localities essentially implementation of those state standards so it may not be relevant at all um but
i think that Mr. Laguerre you may be correct that it that it has no relevance you know i think that your view Mr. Laguerre may be correct that it that it has no relevance it seems like there are parties in the in the proceedings who believe that it's relevant so we might disagree yeah may disagree no thanks and just one last question and sorry everybody to have hijacked this are there cases saying that the dover amendment would be applicable to non-zoning wetland bylaws i'm just not familiar um i'm not i'm not good with this but uh yeah i'll answer it i'm just not familiar um i'm not i'm not a i'm not sure who's an advocate for uh dover amendment but dover amendment is not a no-brainer for the dover amendment you know i i've i don't know if there's any Um, I'm not, I'm not aware of a case that is like definitively said that one way or the other. Um, but, you know, I think, and again, like I said, it's unusual that a Dover, the Dover amendment arguments will be made in, in, in, in NOI proceeding. Um, but I do think that, as I said before, I think there's at least an argument that, um, that a Dover analysis would come into play to the extent any permitting board were to deny or limit a, an applicate, a religious use or educational use, Dover protected use solely on local regulations and are more stringent than state law. Understood. And I don't know whether that's even at play in, in the decision-making. And I realize that you haven't even reached your deliberative session yet. And so I obviously have no idea what the commissioner's views are going to be, um, on this. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Sean, for, uh, indulging me there. No, Mr. Chair, could I just make one clarification quickly? Um, sure. Uh, I, uh, Jonathan Silverstein again for the applicant, uh, for the record, I completely agree with Mr. Timon's, um, analysis and I want to be crystal clear. We are not claiming any exemption. Or entitlement to waive or vary from any state law requirement. We comply with the wetlands protection act. We comply with the stormwater handbook. Um, we believe we comply with all local bylaws, um, and re applicable regulations.
Our position is that to the extent there's any, um, discretion. Built into the local bylaws and regulations, that discretion cannot be used as a cudgel to force the church to reduce the size of its project, um, whether or not members of the public or members of the commission would like to see a smaller project. Um, so I just wanted to make sure to clarify that we do not believe, and we are not asking that we're entitled for. To, and we're not asking for any, um, waiver or relief from state requirements.
Okay, thank you, Sean. We have another hand, somebody who wants in, I believe. Well, before we do, I just wanna make sure commission of what we want in the meeting. You mean, I, I think he might, as he's he, I believe that might be the attorney for the butters. Who've sent in several additional letters, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy with, with y'all or just a comment. Can we just, can we finish with the, the, just going over some of that outstanding. Issues first. Sure. Yeah. So I'm saying, yeah, we're not, we're not doing comments yet. Okay, good. I wanted to invite Bert Corey to make, um, he's the one who did the stormwater review and give us, uh, just, uh, um, uh, the, his, his thoughts on, on where we stand with that.
Good evening, anyone, Bert Corey with DGT. I was a peer reviewer for the, uh, the project, uh, under the chapter one 93, um, got involved with it, uh, prior to, uh, the planning board. Decision, uh, so met with planning board also met with you folks. Uh, there were a couple of joint hearings. Uh, I issued some fairly lengthy peer review reports. The applicant responded, uh, and it was finalized. Uh, there were some comments that were open-ended somewhat in that it was some of the, some of the items that I was requesting were going to be prepared, uh, with the building plan set. Um, such as things like the, uh, the roof drainage system and how that is connected. Uh, but overall, um, as I went through my, my peer review, I was looking at it from the standpoint of the Massachusetts stormwater regulations and the stormwater handbook, as well as the, the, um, the, at that time, it was a draft set of regulations, uh, for the chapter one 93. Um, so I went through my entire, uh, went through the entire project and I issued my letters and, and found it to be, uh, acceptable.
Correct.
Linda, what you got? Uh, again, um, I wasn't sure, you know, the, the technical comments from DEP were fairly extensive and we related to stormwater and I wasn't sure if anybody in the, in the project team had addressed it to, to DEP, were they, were they satisfied with the, the revisions that you made? Are you asking me? I haven't heard it. I haven't. These are technical comments from DEP when they, when they first submitted the, the NOI, there was a fairly extensive comments and most of it was regarding stormwater. And so I just wanted to know if, if they had, if DEP was, was satisfied with the revisions that were made since the NOI was submitted. I can't answer that question. I haven't seen the comments from the DEP. Is Sean on there? Sean Malone?
Yeah. Let me get this on here. Yes. Hi, uh, everyone. Sean Malone, Oak Consulting Group. Um, yeah, I'm not aware of any DEP comments and I don't know of any submissions specifically to DEP or not.
Okay. So if you go in the wetland portal and type in your, your, um, your DEP file number, the DEP usually reviews these projects. So this is, again, this was dates back to September when you filed everything. And I, I mean, I. I don't know if you can see this, but, um, you know, I think, I think it's a step that often gets missed that, uh, DEP has their own technical comments and, you know, I think what they're wait for, what they wait is, is, uh, the revisions that were to, or, you know, your revisions that have addressed these comments. So, um, yeah, I was just curious if that had happened. So.
Not, not that I'm aware of, like I said, I, I haven't submitted anything to DEP. I don't know if anything went in otherwise.
Okay.
And the other thing is the other thing I was looking at this, this afternoon or this morning was, uh, the, we have a phasing plan from December 10th. I was, um, is that still valid? Cause I haven't, I haven't received anything else since then. So.
I can speak to that. Um, Mr. Chair, with your permission. Please. So, uh, during the planning board process, uh, the planning board indicated that it was. Uh, poised to deny site plan approval because the project phasing would, um, have the project last over five years. We don't believe that would, would have, would have been a valid basis for denial, but in order to avoid having that fight, we agreed, uh, not to phase the project and to construct it in a single phase. So there is no longer any phasing. Or phasing plan for the project. So this is no longer valid then. Is that what you're saying? It's no longer applicable.
Can this project be completed in the three year timeframe that our order condition is valid? Uh, the portion of the project that is subject to wetlands protection act jurisdiction, which is a very small portion of the project and only includes relocation of the access driveway will absolutely be completed within three years. Your storm. Water management permit by law does not contain any such three year requirement, and it's possible that it would be completed in three years, or it's possible that, um, it won't, but that's not subject to, um, the, the timeline of an order of conditions because it's that portion of the work is not, uh, within wetlands protection act jurisdiction. Okay.
Linda, anything else on your end? No, I mean, I typically, we issue stormwater chapter one, and he's be permits for one year. So that's, that's what we have done routinely and, and, uh, historically. So, and, and keep, so finish that thought, so, so finish that thought. So we, we were saying something else at the end of that, we typically, that's how we always issue it. So I, I, again, if, uh, you know, I think it's up to the commission to decide what the length of the permit would be for this particular project. But again, you know, typically. We've only ever issued chapter one to be threes, but there is no formal permit application under chapter one, a three, because we, the, the stormwater management is handled under the order of conditions in this case, and then the chapter one and four permit. So, okay, nothing else on your end, Linda, no commission, last comments, questions, concerns want to clarify. So Linda, I mean, our chapter one 94 is our three and three are issued in three year limits. Um, the chapter one 93s are folded in that. So if you have a stormwater, um, applicable project, um, and a wetlands, it gets folded into the, into the one 94. And typically our one 93s are for one year and we've always done one year. And if we, so this project would be asking us to, to sort of like go off book and expand and then like greatly expand the typical, um, stormwater permitting length. Yeah. I think we would typically do that as we would in order of conditions, which is three years, which is what we issue the chapter one 93 for 94 for also. Is the scenic road question still in the air? Last we spoke, Linda, you mentioned that is still very much, um, a matter that needed to be resolved. Um, Sean, Sean London dropped off the application that he submitted to DPW on Friday for a curb cut permit. To allow them to put into a new curb cut for the entrance. Um, uh, a new curb cut for the entrance and the second one, um, further, I think it's on the north side. Uh, the main entrance is 28 feet wide. The second entrance is 15. So that, um, those were the changes that were made since I think you, um, you also saw the last version of this. They, they removed three parking spots, but again, I think any clarification on that, because when I looked at the parking areas. There were 14 in the original plan and now there's 10. So is it three parking spots or is it four parking spots that are getting removed? Sean? There are three and they are just to the, uh, north of, of the main entrance. So there used to be 13 there. Now I believe that there are 10. Okay. Maybe it was 14 and now it's 11, but it's, it's, it, it is a total, um, removal of, of three spaces. Okay. Have we seen this drawing of the. The, uh, curb cuts and the entryways. Yes. Yes, you have. And the, uh, the drawings were actually dropped off. I believe it was, uh, last Wednesday, uh, last Wednesday morning. So packet somewhere should be in your packet. Uh-huh. Uh, Sean, are you able to, to share a screen with that? Let me, um, see if I can call this up. It was me one minute place that your site plan dated four, six. Yes. Okay. Just getting to the right plan now. I think what you dropped off the small, the smaller one that came was, uh, this is a site grading plan. That's how I see it. I see this plan has two entrances onto rice road. Is that correct? That's the right one. Can you all see the plan, uh, the plan on the screen? No, I just looking at the plan in the packet. How about now? There we go. Now it comes up. Okay. So. This is the main entrance, right here. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? Yeah. Yeah, and here are the parking space where the parking spaces, where we have, um, we have eliminated three spaces in this area here. So that's, that's where, um, where that modification has been made. So we have, this is the, the 15 foot wide, um, exit only, uh, driveway, uh, where you'll only be able to use the parking space. Okay. So. Okay. And then there are the two main entrances. Now, you'll be able to go to the north out of there. Um, this is the old, uh, main entrance. This is the new main entrance. And this one down at the south end is being removed, as well. Does that change the tree cuttings or impact on the wetland area? So there are three, three trees above the six-inch caliper, um, being removed in the right-of-way. Okay. Okay. Okay. and here and we've noted that to the DPW when we submitted that application and we will be replacing the earth and the stone wall in the place of the old driveway. So do those the trees in the right-of-way do they need to go through a public tree hearing? You bet. It's a scenic road they certainly do. So this is why we submitted the application so that they can review. Any other questions Cliff on this? No I don't think so. I'm sorry I didn't pick that up in the 350 pages of documentation. Who else? Commission? I'm sorry did I just interrupt someone? Go ahead Shanna please. I just wanted to say I am also concerned about the fact that we have a second peer review that suggests that there are other issues with the stormwater so. Yeah okay. Luke were you there? Yeah I was. I just you know I'm I was looking back through my notes from the past meetings in preparing for this evening and there are several instances along the way here where there have been questions raised about whether the project complies with the performance standards for the work that's being proposed in the riverfront area and it's not clear to me that those performance standards are satisfied or met and I guess I'd be curious Linda if you have a perspective on that what your view would be. I think you know Marty had been here previously and had commented on this a little bit but like I said I'm not convinced but I'd be curious Linda if you have a perspective you're willing to share on that. Marty is on the call I believe. I don't know if she's a, is she in the attendees section? We can ask her. Let me see. She's on. She's just unmuted. Oh, there we are. Everyone, I'm putting my camera off. I wasn't really prepared to speak tonight. Sorry, Marty, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I'm sorry. No, no, no, no. That's fine. You know, my original comments were, you know, the riverfront and performance standards and what that riverfront area was, you know, what interests was it protecting? And part of that was wildlife habitat and whether or not the mitigation they proposed actually mitigated, you know, the impacts of the wildlife habitat that was being lost. They never really, the applicant never really discussed, you know, how that, how that forested area riverfront along the road was, was, you know, acting for, you know, movement of wildlife from, you know, one side of the road to the other, you know, there's corridors there. And, you know, that was one of the things that, you know, I had recommended the applicant look at, you know, how's, how's regionally, a regional context, how, how that riverfront was performing for, you know, the interests it was protecting. And they really never, they really never, they didn't answer, they didn't provide the commission with, you know, any information on that. And, you know, the mitigation they're providing, you know, planting, sporadic plantings, you know, that they're disconnected. Really, you know, does that really mitigate what's lost? So I, you know, that, I don't think they ever really answered that question and address that to the commission. So through the chair, if I, if I may address that one, that was, that was something that I think Goddard had addressed back in, this would have been November 24th of 25 after NOVA had issued this original peer review letter to us. It was in common PS3. Of their original letter. And it was talking about riverfront area standards. Most importantly, bringing up exactly that the capacity of the riverfront area to provide important wildlife habitat. In that response back in November, we submit a memo and there was a response in there and it was addressing specifically the wildlife habitat capacity of the site. Some specific items that we called out were that the property at its present date is, is bisected by Rice Road. And so that riverfront area that we see on site. There's a roadway in the middle. That's a few sort of patches of the forested area between the existing site access. And we sort of demonstrated and described that the, the project seeks to move no closer. It was actually modified to, to not increase the impervious surface reduction and that the mitigation plantings were going to be reestablished within these areas. So we did provide an opinion that because this is a bisected habitat, we're only reworking the site entrances. We're not moving any closer and we are replacing those plantings. And, um, as attorney Silverstein had noted, we did submit. That letter in late November of 25, and there was never a supplemental response back or a comment given based on our opinion there. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you. So no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'll just commission members first. You guys can comment on that. All right. Go ahead. Yeah. Sean, if I, if I could thank you for that response and thanks Marty as well for, for weighing in. That's what you said was exactly what I had in mind. That's my recollection of the comments and discussions we've had previously. Um, you know, Mr. Tebow, we were talking about this last month. Um, so the idea that that wasn't revisited or raised again, I dispute that we have raised it multiple times. Um, I'm not satisfied for what it's worth. I do believe, uh, I understand your point about the existence of rice road. Um, but at the end of the day, I still think the amount of deforestation that's happening over here. The amount of work within the riverfront area that's proposed is going to negatively affect wildlife habitat and the value that provides. I haven't heard an answer that satisfies me in response to what mitigation you're proposing to address that. Um, so that's where I'm at. And I guess really, I was just asking Linda, was there something in the record that I missed? Cause there's, there's a lot in there. I acknowledge that. I think I've been pretty diligent about keeping track of what's here. Um, so. For what? That's. That's worth to the applicant and the rest of the commission. That's, that's my view on that particular issue.
Thanks Luke. Commission also, you know, thoughts. I mean, I share Luke. Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, I share Luke's concerns and I'm also, I still have concerns about the stormwater standards.
Yeah. Um, yeah, so I'll just round out with, uh, I agree that, uh, I agree with Luke's comments and various comments and this is. Disappointment to me is I called, I called us out back in last fall. We all came to me, came to us months before you were ready just to try to sneak in. So you have to protect less trees under our, our, our new regulation. So that's not lost to me. This is the kind of in the background and I feel, and I still think you didn't come close to the old standards. Um, so, um, I'm not even close to satisfied. So this is, yeah, we can talk more about different things, but this is not even not remotely close in my book.
Anybody else? Cliff? One, one question on the same drawing that we're just looking at along the, uh, the North East and, uh, uh, the North and the Northwest corner of the property, there's a fire road that is now there. It seemed to me that at one point in time, there was a, uh, a vegetated planting buffer that was there. Has that been removed?
No. Sorry. Um, no, that has not been removed. There is still the tree planting around, um, on the, uh, landscape plan. And which, which drawing is that? Uh, L four Oh one. I believe it is. Yeah. I'm much sure. Did you receive that one? I am not a hundred percent sure that it, um, you might, it would have been in a previous packet cliff. I'm not sure if that was in the, in this current one. It is not. It should, it should be on our website. Cliff. It is. It is there too. Yes. So I guess, you know, logistic question is, you know, if we issue a three year permit and order conditions and a chapter one 93, if not, I'm sorry, I misspoke one 94 for the, this project that includes the work in the wetland and riverfront area. And that deals with the stormwater and land disturbance on this property is, is what can you accomplish in three years? I mean, is this, is, are we giving you a permit for the entire project? Yeah. With the assumption that you can do this all in three years?
May I address that Mr. Chair? Please.
So you will be issuing us a permit for the entire project and it will be up to us either to complete it within the three years or request an extension, just like every other applicant.
Is that it, Linda? Your question? Yeah. I mean, I, you know, usually we don't walk into a project like this with a presumption that it's going to require an extension. You know, I mean, that's, you know, at some point it requires, oh, you know, reevaluation review of, you know, where they, where they stand. And typically, and that's really the reason for having three years is that gives us a chance to, to do that, you know, and, and, you know, an extension isn't guaranteed. You know, I mean, I think you would want to have a permit that, you know, you, what you can accomplish in a certain timeframe, right? We are not presuming that we're going to ask for an extension. We're asking for our permit. Okay. Just like every other applicant asked for a permit. It can take someone four years to build a house sometimes. And if they have to come back and ask for an extension, they have to come back and ask for an extension. We're not asking to be treated or asking not to be treated different from any other applicant.
I have a legal question, Luke. I think this, I can't, I think I'm kind of pointing this at you since you're our resident lawyer here. He's also, he's also a commission member of voting. So legal question has got to be sent to Ben. And we have, we're, we're, we're graced with Mr. Tyman's presence as well. So we have, we have that as well, but yeah. Ask the question, Jen, and somebody will answer it. So in, in the letter, I gather that the applicant's position is that they feel that the tree replacement guidelines are not binding. And they take the stance that if they don't get a favorable decision, they will choose not to plant the trees. We also have another letter from someone else who says that this is not necessarily the case. What is your take on that?
I'm sorry, Jen. I'm not, are you, I guess if the question is, could they just ignore a permit condition? I would say the answer would be no. Like, just because like, I don't like the permit condition. So I'm just going to ignore it. Is that what you're asking? I mean, so it was in the reading material. And I believe. Like, I believe I'm translating this correctly based on what we've read. Someone else from the commission can also back me up or the applicant is free to as well. But the position is that the majority of these tree planting guidelines are considered non-binding and that if denied, they'll choose. Yeah. Yeah. So that's the applicant's. I think you've just sort of explained, as I understand it, the applicant's position well, which is that essentially our, our, the mitigation. Requirements in our regulations are not applicable to this project, I think is essentially the applicant's position. And please, Mr. Silverstein, if I'm misstating that, correct me. But yeah, Shannon, I think that's, that's their position. As you said, there's an alternate legal opinion in our record that disagrees with that. I, I would rather not weigh in with, you know, legal advice to sort of to Sean's point where I'm going to be. Voting on this, I'm getting a little uncomfortable. I, I would maybe ask Mr. Time and if he would be willing to weigh in on this. Mr. Chair, could I clarify what I said first? Yeah. Well, thank you so much for your time and say that. Go ahead. Oh, thank you. I'm, I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it, but, but not tonight only because I have not, I mean, I've, I've seen what each lawyer has written, but I'm not well acquainted enough with the tree regulations and their applicability or non-applicability. Okay. On applicability in this application to really give you a, um, an intelligent answer at this point. And, and Luke, I certainly don't mean to put you in an uncomfortable position. I'm more sorting through sure. No, no. I mean, it sounds like it's relevant to the discussion. I just haven't, I just, I'm newly retained enough. I just haven't, it wasn't something that I looked at at all in preparation for tonight. I'd be happy to do. So, um, if, if the commission wants an opinion on that. I'm, I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it, but I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it, but I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it. Um, to try to, um, reconcile those two competing opinions from attorney Silverstein and Murphy. Um, but it would have to be, you know, for the next meeting if there is one. Right. Um, Mr. Silverstein, I think what you were saying, do you want to comment? Uh, I'd like to correct what was said about. Sure. And clarify exactly what it is I said. What I said was that. At the time we submitted our application. There was a. document on the commission's website entitled tree replanting guidelines, I believe. Guidelines, by definition, are not binding. They are guidelines. These guidelines had not been adopted as regulations, so they were not binding on the commission. So contrary to what Mr. Lazare said, I did not say that the regulations in effect at the time we submitted our application don't apply to us. There were no regulations in effect at the time we submitted our application. Nevertheless, and I would take issue, Mr. Chair, with the pejorative suggestion that we slid something in. We filed an application when we were ready to file an application. The fact that the commission had for a decade been considering regulations in various forms doesn't mean that you're sliding something in if at some point during that decade you don't apply. Got it. You can take issue with it all you want. We were getting past it. You came through out of context and out of order to come to us. So you can take issue with it all you want. All right. Commission, anything else? Any other comments? Yeah, I think Mr. Murphy is here and the attendees. Can we hear from him? Would that be appropriate?
You said Mr. Murphy? Yes.
One second. He has his hand in there. Let me see if I can pull him over. Barbara, were you about to say something too? I had a question. Go ahead. Yep. Linda, I think it's a question for you. If we approve a permit for any project and an applicant doesn't meet the three-year time frame for the project, do we have any obligation? Like, should the hearing come back to us in three years to grant the extension, or can we consider it anything new that's happened over that time period? They would have to request an extension, and that would be up to the commission to decide, would they? Jenny, we're not obligated to. You don't have to grant the extension. Okay. Like, we're not bound to any decision that we made if new things happen.
Right. Thank you. Yep. I brought over, who were you asking for? I'm sorry. I brought somebody over. Somebody had their hands raised. Mr. Murphy, you over? I think I brought him over.
Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Dennis Murphy from Hill Law. You've heard from me before. I wanted to answer some of the questions that I think I can. Attorney Legere asked about whether there's been a case, and I did cite a case at the bottom of page two that I think, of my recent letter, that I think definitively answers the question about whether Dover preempts municipal wetlands regulation. Um, there was also, I think, the question, about, um, the trees and, uh, you know, unlike the case that attorney Silverstein cited, you actually have a bylaw that has a replacement rate, and it actually says, as I pointed out in my letter, that you have, uh, the right to protect any tree over 10-inch DBH, diameter at breast height, And you have the discretion to retain any tree of that size on the site. And so one way to go about the interest of the commission in the tree issue is to exercise the prerogatives that you have. The last thing you want to do tonight is hear from more lawyers. So I'll cut it off there unless people have questions. We did bring Cheshire again. He did submit a lengthy report, and there is one new issue that didn't come out the last time. So if you want to hear from him, then I recommend the commission do so. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Murphy. Yes, I mean, if everybody's good, why don't we? I'd like to hear from him. Good evening. John Cheshire, Cheshire Consulting Services. There was a response to my prior comments prepared by the applicant. And I didn't get that information until later in the week, last week. So obviously, there is a limited amount of time in which to be able to respond, which led to why you received the data yesterday. Just there is only so much time to do it. Some of the comments required some extra work. I built a portion of their HydroCAD model in order to just sort of self-check that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. storage in the infiltration systems. What is proposed is a series of pipes, perforated pipes embedded in crushed stone. So basically I've inspected tons and tons of these things in the field. I do that as well. Basically you lay down crushed stone, you put the pipes in, you have connections at each end, headers to put it all together, and then you bury it within more crushed stone. So what you have is essentially a box of stone with a bunch of pipes in it. But when you run the HydroCAD model, what they have is they have a box of stone with voids and there's storage for that, and then they have a series of pipes. They didn't embed the pipes in the stone, so they overestimated the storage. So the model is not consistent with the plans and it's not correct because nobody can have a box of stone on one side and a series of pipes on the other. They're not connected. So I mean, I think that's a significant error. I know they don't seem to think so, but I've provided documentation to show it with the portion of the model. I just did one basin. Again, there was limited time to be able to build the entire model, so I just picked the one, I believe, on the north end of Rice Road that's closest to the road.
I'm going to just touch on sort of three major issues. I did provide a detailed response that includes backup documentation for what I commented on. You know, there were questions raised. I mean, the response by the applicant did not provide any backup calculation to justify what they were claiming as far as the infiltration rate adjustment due to the mounding. So I felt like I should do it myself. And you have those for, you know, a portion of it. And I just did one storm, so you wouldn't be inundated. You know, hundreds of pages. One of the comments I had regarded subsurface infiltration systems use as rate control. I provided some backup with that. It is in the handbook. And in fact, the section of the handbook cited by the applicant's engineer has a table. And right in the table, it has four subsurface structures. It says rate control, and it has an N-A, not applicable. There's another table in the handbook I also provided a copy of which says it's not to be used for rate control in the various storms. And then I also have been involved in multiple cases of appeals to DEP and things of that nature that we got letters from DEPs saying the same thing. So I just request that the Commission take a look at those things and include it in your deliberations.
I mean, I guess one of the things that shows in the results of my, you know, analysis of the model is that in certain storms, water will come out of the catch basins because of the undersized systems, because of the error in the volume. And if you take into account that, they would come out of the catch basin and basin one, even if you didn't reduce the infiltration rate. I provided documentation of that. But generally, and I've worked quite a bit with groundwater modelers on different projects. And generally, when the
mound reaches the bottom of an infiltration system, the infiltration rate drops pretty dramatically, generally, like a factor of 10. You know, there's no hard and fast rule, but that's sort of like the ballpark. That would be like a decimal point. So it's more than a 50%. It's like 100. It's a, it's a decimal point change. Anyway, I did provide some data on the mounding in terms of my comment that the specific yield should be a certain value. I actually, when I was first doing some of these mounding models, I got in touch with the developer of the program with the USGS, the guy down in New Jersey, and he responded to me and basically said that, you know, this specific yield should be 0.15. I provided a copy of that email. The table that's been used by many people, according to this USGS person, is not consistent with the way a stormwater system works. Specific yield in those tables is on an annual basis, not on a short rainfall infiltration system basis. And that's why if someone did enough research to read about it, they'd find out that it's not consistent with the way a stormwater system works. They'd find out that I was correct based on something I learned from the USGS. Anyway, so what's happened is the mound would be higher than predicted by the applicant. It reduces the infiltration rate. More water would come out. And if you took the applicant's 50% reduction, included the corrected design of the system with the pipes embedded in the stone, you'd actually have an increase in runoff rate in the 100-year storm. Again, I have provided a fairly detailed letter that includes supporting data for all of the comments that I have made. And just that is in the record. And if you have any questions, hopefully I can answer them for you. Thank you. Thanks, Sean. Appreciate it.
Okay. Commissions, any thoughts, comments, concerns on what you just heard?
None, Sean, other than to say I do have similar to what Shannon said, it concerns me that we have an engineer here with us tonight providing comments, which frankly makes sense to me on a very basic level when I'm looking at the project plans in front of us and which seem to undermine the other reports we've gotten from the applicants, engineers, and our peer review consultant on the efficacy of the stormwater systems. It's concerning to me, particularly given the project and its location. It's very concerning to me, too, as well as the DEP comments that don't seem to have been addressed. And can these things be reasonably addressed? I mean, I'll say a comment that no one wants to hear again at this point because we've all made it. But the stormwater issues could be much less challenging with a smaller project that, you know, didn't span the entire acreage. And which, you know, several things could be cut down without impeding worship or education. That touches more on Dover Amendment, but part of the reason this is extremely difficult is because it is extremely destructive and changes a great deal. Yeah, well said, Shannon, and I think you're right. We've all been saying those things from the very first night of hearing, and it just strikes me that the applicant has really not been responsive to the comments and concerns we've raised, to those issues we've raised, and I think they've made it pretty clear that they're not going to change the project design. So yeah, at any rate, that's all for me for now. Thank you, Luke. Thanks, Shannon, Lisa. Anybody else? I think everyone else where I stand in that those comments certainly didn't help from John. So yeah, I too am concerned about a whole bunch of different things, and clearly the applicant's not willing to work with us on these. So I think, Lisa, you just mentioned, can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? They're not going to address them. They want us to close the hearing. So with that said, any other last-minute thoughts, comments, concerns? I don't see any more hands. We got all the comments. Nope, someone's hands up. Someone's there for the church. Yeah. Good evening. I'm Maget Barsoom representing the church. So we have actually made changes. We've added quite a significant number of trees well above the big end of the beyond what is required by the bylaw that was in effect, not the bylaw, the guidelines that were in effect at the time of the application. So we've tried to do this. We've addressed all of those issues here with stormwater and the rest. And the size of the project cannot change.
I think that's kind of our point. I think you're right. It didn't change. We said it should because we would get here and it didn't change. And so here we are. So I think we agree with you. Right. So I mean, I understand. So I understand that the town doesn't like the size of this project. However, we've complied with the guidelines that exist in totality, complied by stormwater that has gone through peer reviews. Right. Well, again, so let me finish. The town has refused to allow us to do mitigation on the other side of the road. We've went back and changed the plans. And we actually now have a net reduction in the impervious surface in the riverfront. So when you look at the project in totality, one, we're significant. You're improving the stormwater that's there now. There is no stormwater management there at all. Okay. We are meeting all the requirements of the three planning guidelines that the town has. We're meeting all the stormwater requirements. And we're not even asking the town to do any mitigation on the town property.
So we've met the letter of everything that the town has put forward in terms of requirements or guidelines. I understand you don't like the size of the project. But that should. That appears to be an issue with the guidelines that you've set forth, right? We've complied with your guidelines. You just don't like the result of the compliance with the guidelines. Let me help you out there. Let me help you out there. It's not about liking or anything. And I guess seven people up here, we'll vote here in a second, to agree to disagree with you on that one. So you can certainly make your case. When you say that one, you mean what specifically? You mean that we have not met the guidelines for the tree replacement? Is that the case? Is that what you're saying? Is that a statement? I don't speak for everybody else. There's a whole host of things that we've spoken about. We've spoken about the last many meetings, and certainly the last 30 minutes, of where we think you might be missing the mark. And so I agree. I understand you disagree. Over the last seven months has been that the project's too big. Nobody's ever pointed to a tree or a guideline or a section of any rules or any regulation that we failed to meet. Right? Again, I disagree. No, I disagree. So let's talk about tree replacement guidelines, right? Did we meet and exceed the tree replacement guidelines? Is that a yes or a no? That's a mathematical. That's an arithmetic question. It's not a subjective. It's an arithmetic question. Do we meet and far exceed that or we don't? Here's the deal. I'm not being quizzed by you. We're about to take a vote. If you want to close it, we're going to close it. You don't get to quiz us individually. So if there are any more comments you want to make, go for it. But I'm not answering individual questions for you.
We've been here seven months. You good? That's correct. And nothing's... So we're good. Ready for our vote? Sure. Commission, we ready to go?
We're going to take a stab at a vote. Sorry. A motion, please. Sure thing. First thing, Sean, I move that we close the hearing, all hearings under Chapter 193, Chapter 194, and the State Weapons Protection Act. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second on that motion, please?
Do I hear a second?
Second. Thank you. Not a direct question, folks. Quick roll call. Luke Legere. Excuse me. Are you going to end the hearing? Are you ending this hearing? Yep. They want us to. Look, I need... I need to get my septic tank approved. I'm selling my house. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're sorry. We're ending this one on the Coptic Church, not the whole night. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're good. No, no, you're good. You're good. You're good. Sorry. So the motion was... I think I heard Shannon second Luke's motion. Roll call, please, Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Wait. Close the hearing. Oh, yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Sean Fares. Yes. Thank you. Would you like to get Nick and Sab in the next motion? Sure. I'll give it a shot. I move that we vote to issue an order of conditions denying this project under both the State Wetlands Protection Act and our local wetlands bylaw because it cannot be conditioned in a way to meet the applicable performance standards. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Barbara. This is a roll call, please, in favor of denial. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares, yes, as well. All right, folks. Here we go. I think we need a separate vote, Sean, I think on the... Oh, that's right. Chapter 193. Yep. Thank you, Luke. Good call. Sure. I move that we issue a denial of this project under Chapter 193 for failure to meet our standards and guidelines and performance standards. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin.
Lisa, what's that? Yes. Sorry. That's all right. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares, yes. All set. Thank you, Luke, for making those. Appreciate it. Okay. Yeah, no less. Onward. On to 2F. This is 68 Lakeshore Drive, New England, DEP file number 322-1057. This is a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Jeremy Jenkins for the path of the fact work performed at 68 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass. It's included an installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to a covered porch steps. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 42D, parcel 56, and is located within 100 feet of a boarding bay located in the Wetlands Bank and land underwater. Linda. I believe we have Kevin O'Leary here to discuss the project. Okay. Kevin. Hi. Good evening. I can't see myself on this. Can people see me? We can. Okay. There we go. Sorry. You're looking good. You're looking good. Yeah. And blank stare. Thank you. Jolson Company here for Jeremy Jenkins, the owner of the property. I think Jeremy is also present in the meeting, but I don't see his name right away. He's here. Okay. This is, I think, the third hearing on continuance for the items that were mentioned. This is an after the fact wetland filing for the installation of the dock, work on a set of porch stairs. And a patio retaining wall on the back of the existing house. I'd like to share a screen. I can pull up my site plan quickly if the commission allows it. Please. Visible? No? Yes, sir. Yeah. You're good. It is. Okay. I thought I saw somebody shaking their head. No. So this is the engineering site plan. I apologize. On this side of the house, first of all, North Arrow over here, Lake Shore Drive up here on the top. This is a paper street called Mona Path that goes back to the subdivision of the Dudley Pond properties in the early 1910s. We can talk about that in a little bit. This is the patio and retaining wall in this area of the house. The BVW. Sorry. Can you zoom in on that a little bit, Kevin? I'm sorry. Say that again. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? Make it a little bigger, please. I can try. Yep. Is that the area you wanted, Linda? Enlarged? No, that's good. No, that's good. Okay. So all the resource areas are down here associated with Dudley Pond, which is to the south of the property. There's a large triple-liter oak tree that's a central piece of the patio and retaining wall, which was constructed last fall, 2025. You can see the wetland flags here, 4, 3, 2, 1. There's a bank down in this area, edge of pond. There's a bank line right there, and this is the ramp, the gangway, and the floating dock. There's a small grassed area, or I'm sorry, sandy area here, which is just the difference between the high watermark and the low watermark. The survey was performed in August of 2025, so the water level was low, which is where we pick up the edge of the pond. But anyway, this is the retaining wall. It's about three and a half feet high. Generally, in this location where I'm circling it, what's proposed down here is a stone slit trench along the base of the wall. The patio was partially completed, and then the work was stopped, and what's been proposed is a tree well around this large oak tree. Since the last hearing, Jeremy Jenkins had got Arborist Cray Small to write another letter, that focuses on the health of the pond. Jeremy Jenkins was the director of the Arborist Cray Small, and I've been able to work with Jeremy for the last four years. The arborist has been working with the commission to get the tree in place to help the community and the community. Jeremy Jenkins is the director of the Arborist Cray Small, and he's been working with the commission to get the tree in place to help the community. It's on the south of the oak tree in the patio, and that's been submitted to the commission right at the deadline. I think it's three or four pages. I can pull that up on share screen also. It's got some pictures of the tree, which might be helpful for commission members to see. In addition, I'm going to try to scroll down here. These are the steps that are subject to some construction activity in the buffer zone. much the whole property is in the 100 foot buffer zone this is the buffer zone line way out here and it goes across the top of the plan there's a an existing driveway up here in this location it was disturbed partially by the town when they reinstalled or put a new water line into the property there's a secondary driveway over here where at the last hearing we introduced a storm water system which consisted of a deep sump catch basin and a recharge basin size for the 100 year storm to collect and dispose of the runoff from the driveway area as you can see this is an existing concrete driveway with no storm water controls um and um jeremy would like to be able to redo his driveway and install the uh the drainage system as shown now what this drainage system the function it performs is to collect and dispose of the storm water and as i said earlier everything flows uncontrolled off this property to the um pond um so this is a significant improvement for this area of the property um to collect untreated runoff treat it and then dispose of it below grade and we're it's our hope that the commission considers that when they um view the other portions of the property that were you know we'd like to maintain and not have to deconstruct anything um and continue through approvals with the commission um the other i think the other end of the other issue linda was the construction of this small portion of this wall within this mona path and uh jeremy had uh submitted to you i believe um the letter from town council relative to the legal status or partially the legal status of mona path in the previous hearing a few weeks ago i had made the statements that jeremy is in fact the owner of mona path by operation of the derelict fee statute of mona path and i think that's a very important issue and i think that's a very important issue um i think that's a very important issue and i think that's a very important issue and i think massachusetts um and i think the commission requested some additional information and that's where jeremy had submitted uh correspondence from town council jeremy what was the date on that correspondence was it 2018 um the correspondence was from 2024 what was okay i'm mistaken all right um i don't know if the commission members had saw or read that um that document um but i guess we're um but i guess we're uh you know back to asking for clarification um i think that's a that's a great um i think that's a great um i think that's a great um i think that's a great comments from the commission to um negotiate and and uh it's our aim would want to keep the patio and retaining wall in place and also have the commission approve the other work uh that's part of this project i i'd like to make a comment on the monopath it's clear this is a private way with with private ways the owner on one side owns to the middle of the way the owner on the other side owns the middle of the way given that jenkins is on on both sides they own both sides of the middle of the way yes agreed yeah now we we do need to leave the right of way and that's fine uh but uh the town doesn't own that area hold off cliff because it was i did i forwarded an email to um uh kevin from our town surveyor claims that it's privately owned um you know it's not it's again it's not part of you know the the deed for 68 lakeshore drive and um you didn't mention that in your in your you were just mentioning the the the town council and the town council was opinion was about whether or not the the porch needed to stay or needed to be taken out and and her decision was that you know that it you know it should just it's it should be allowed to stay but it she didn't give she didn't give much information about the ownership of mona path she covered that was covered by our our town surveyor who did who did research it and provide information about the ownership of mona path well the town council is quite clear on the ownership of mona path and that it belongs to the jenkins no she said that it was it wasn't clear that they they didn't do that they didn't have all you know they didn't do extensive research on it so and the and the town surveyor did so do we have a copy of the town surveyor's comments i thought i sent that to everybody is it in the packet no i would have sent that as an email no it was an email it was uh on march march 27th cliff uh there's an email from linda on march 27th let me see if i can which is the one we're talking about that's forwarding the town surveyors on march 27th he's looking for that linda do you have any comments or thoughts kick us off while you look for that well i mean again you know i think this this a lot of this discussion is focused on what can be built you know on on property again you know the the deed is clear what we're giving a permit for which is the deeded land you know that mr jenkins owns under his under his deed and that doesn't include you know this section of mona path and also you know the other question about putting in the retainer retaining wall in the patio in an area that would have been protected under our under the under chapter 194 so um you know that's the decision the commission's up to is you know this this was built without a permit and now he wants to he wants to keep it there but again these are these are situations where he's in the he's in the 15 foot no disturb you know area and he's also in an area that it's doesn't it doesn't it's not shown to me that he owns mona path so i'm sorry i can't find the email it's not in my email inbox let me see if i don't know so commission i guess with that context as cliff looks for this thoughts comments concerns i'll speak less well you know for what it's worth that i i don't i i hate to hold this up over this issue yeah um but with that said it does remain to me fuzzy uh i i'm familiar with the derelict fee statute i think cliff did a pretty good job of describing exactly what that does essentially it's as mr o'leary has described in the past but these things are highly fact specific the email that i saw from town council i don't think really got to this particular issue it essentially said to as i read it said the town does not own mona path but didn't tell us who does own mona path um and in other words it's possible that there are other private rights in mona path i'm not saying there are there might not be um but this is just very fuzzy um made fuzzier by the email that i saw from the town surveyor and so i i guess what i was hoping when we discussed this at our last meeting was that maybe we could get some kind of more formal opinion um to really just nail this question down cold once and for all and unfortunately what i've seen in advance of the hearing tonight and what we're talking about now doesn't as far as i'm concerned it doesn't quite seem like it's going to quite get there um and so that's it's a it's a problem i think would it be appropriate that we ask town council to to not do a limited uh search but a thorough search i i think that would i think we'd need that frankly um and i think that uh i was hoping you know i was hoping that the that uh the email that mr jenkins shared with us was was going to be that and unfortunately it just didn't quite get us there um i certainly understand why uh mr jenkins might have thought it would get us there i'm not meaning to suggest otherwise um that this is pretty thorny stuff and and like i said highly technical and fact specific right um but yeah cliff i agree i think that's i think that's what we need is not just answering the question of does the town have an ownership interest but you know essentially confirming for us that yes by operation of the derelict fee statute uh the applicant here does have rights over if not the entirety of monopath at the very least the area that we're discussing the work proposed in so just to clear out the burden of proof is on the applicant for this um the town i don't think would be willing to pay for the um you know the town council's opinion or a title search or a title attorney um so i mean i'm gonna have to put that back on the applicant to do okay yeah linda can i say i i do have a title search ongoing i've hired somebody and i also have an attorney so i'm happy to provide you guys with the results of that and a legal opinion if that's what you'd like i think that that would certainly you know from my just speaking for myself i think that would put my mind at ease with all of this and i'm genuinely sorry you're having to go through that but i i will say that it probably in the long run um you know will be a good thing for you to have yeah if that makes you feel any better i'm sorry to put you through this but i think it'll be best in the long run for you to have my hand barbara go ahead barbara go ahead way back when they had all these little campsites around dudley pond the people who lived on the other side of the street wanted access to the pond and they made these little paths and mona pass is one of them so the people who lived across the street from them could get down here or bring their boat down through there and get it into the water and all those little paths are still there we've had years ago there was a a big project that we had that concerned one of these paths because somebody would park their their boat on it and the people who lived next to it didn't like it but it ended up that it was a path to water access for the other campers these are all little camps a long time ago if i might i don't think mr jenkins is suggesting that he block the path or that he block access if he were going to put up a fence and block access and block a right-of-way personally i would object to that but he's not doing that no he's not blocking him yes it's still open it's still access but he owns it it just has access it meets all the requirements from what i can see so yeah so i agree with luke i think that's really helpful that's that's certainly one issue second issue is building inside our 15-foot no disturb and here's why i said this is we we've had we had this come up before in the past years my thinking is we have to maintain as if as if the person had come to us we would denied it because if we don't if i'm a neighbor we just got denied something 15 foot because they went through the correct process and someone doesn't i mean so the precedent there is horrible so that's my my thought on that i know we're not we can't solve it today because we still talk here about the other part but just as a normal piece we have had this come up once at once or twice in the last few years i mean i agree completely sean if it's in the foot 15 foot no disturb then it needs to come out and it needs to be set back the way it is we i mean this is not the only project we've had on dudley pond lately that it's not a long-term project but we need to do it again it's that's the the reason why we have the school district is because we need to do it again but at the same time it's it's a very very important project under our saying that we need to do it again it can't be done forever and over and over again and so i think it's really important to let the student know that we're going to we're going to have to do it again and we have to do it again and we have to do it again and we're having a lot of people who are asking forgiveness rather than permission and i agree with you about you know the the precedent that it said so jeremy did to kevin share that email from our surveyor with you so you have a basis for your title search no i don't have it okay linda i Also, I wanted to make one more comment. It's my understanding that the derelict fee statute was enacted for the specific reason to clear up these old rights of way or owner's unknown parcels and to grant the ownership rights to the adjacent landowners. And this is a perfect example of where that statute comes into play and clues up the ownership of it. And that's why we're bringing that to the commission's attention. I've also, in one of the prior meetings, had told the commissioner, reminded them that there was another very similar issue down between, I think it was 50 and 54 Lakeshore Drive, that was litigated in favor of the, property owner to extinguish and, I guess, reconfirm their ownership across another path or another right of way to Dudley Pond from Lakeshore Drive. So it's, it's as straightforward as it can be in regards to operation of the derelict fee statute. I think that, for what it's worth, the issue from my perspective is there may, there may be other owners with some rights in Mona Paz. I understand perfectly what you're saying. I understand how the derelict fee statute works generally, but kind of, as I've said a few times now, it's highly, this is all highly fact specific. So even though we have a ruling from the land court, you know, a few hundred feet away or whatever it is, that doesn't necessarily translate perfectly here. And it might be that there are other property owners with some form of rights to use this area, which is kind of what we, that's where we are, I think. And so, as I said, I'm, I'm sorry. We are sort of in this position. It's just, there's nothing any of us can do about it. And I think, frankly, nailing this down will be good for the property owners in the long run, but.
Okay. Thank you.
Sean, you know, you're muted. I think you just said something. Oh, sorry about that. Thank you, Ken. I said, yeah. So any other thoughts, comments from the commission? I mean, either way, we have to continue it until we get to that, that piece from Mr. Jenkins here. But anything else we want to leave? Anything else you want to leave us with today? I agree with what you and Shannon were saying also about the 15th, but for what that's worth. Agreed as well. Okay. Okay. So it's with that. There's nothing else from anybody. I don't see any hands. I guess we're then continuing then to May 6th, September 6th, 30 under both. Is that right? So moved. Okay. All right. So we're here a second. Second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Ferris. Yes. All right. See folks in a few weeks. Thank you. Thanks. Sean, I'm going to disappear for three minutes. I'll be back. Is this a magic trick or are you just letting us know? Both.
Okay. Okay. Uh, that was two F onto two G, uh, this is two 51 Commonwealth road, Wayland mass DEP file number three, two, two dash one zero six, three it's continued notice intent file pursuant to Whalen's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the protection acts meant by Deb Roberts for the repair of a septic system at two 51 Commonwealth road and Whalen mass. The proposed work is it, uh, is within a hundred feet of a board and vegetated wetlands property is shown on the assessor's map. 52. So 165, Linda, you're muted. Linda, I'm going to pass this off to Kevin. All right. Thanks, Linda. Um, Kevin, again, um, I did the septic replacement design for the existing three bedroom house at two 51 Commonwealth road. And this is our second hearing, uh, I'm sorry, the first hearing it's a continuance, um, the plan, uh, the construction management or wetland filing construction management plan was revised and resubmitted, uh, blast. I think it was last week to the commission's office and it, um, add some planting areas and I'd like to share a screen and pull it up and, um, continue, can the commission members see this? Yep. Yes. Thank you. This is the, um, no, this is the wrong plan. This is the septic replacement design plan that was also submitted to the commission, but it's not the one I meant to pull up. I'm just going to swap it out quick. All right. This is the wetland filing construction management plan. Okay. So this is the wetland filing construction management plan that was submitted to the commission. I'm going to pull up the presentation. This is the wetland filing construction management plan that was submitted to the commission. This is the wetland filing construction management plan and it's just a video that shows the planting area along the, uh, real lot line or southerly real lot line. And the planting area is just indicated with a dash line, uh, in circles indicating plants, uh, to be provided, um, goes to the easily direction then heads north to the back of the garage area. Um, there's been some additional notes on here that pertain to, um, uh, naturalizing this lawn area. And, uh. this location i've also planted i'm planted i've also plotted uh some additional trees existing trees that are just off the property these are hemlocks this one's 24 i think these are probably 12 to 16 inches in diameter then there's a big uh a 36 inch triple over here and then there's a huge uh i don't know what you call it a swamp maple i'm not sure it's got five liters two of them are 48 inches in diameter one with it's a triple liter it's 36 inches in diameter no work is proposed over here here's the 15 foot um i guess residential uh buffer zone area uh blue out here is 100 foot buffer zone to the bvw which was flagged last fall by russ waldron at um applied ecological services and with the wetland report i think it was provided to the commission with the initial filing um over here i put a note that was you up for discussion last week i'm sorry several weeks ago with the commission about setting steel pins at lock corners to delineate or provide some demarcation of ownership um in these two back corners um nothing else has changed up here i did go back i i apologize to take that back i did go out here and remeasure uh many of the trees i think linda you were going to go out there after i made the submission last week and um i was able to downsize some of these tree diameters um initially they were located by my uh survey chief and um i wanted to make sure double check the diameters and and indeed they were they're smaller than what they were were originally submitted so the updated uh diameters of breast height are shown on this plan down the bottom you'll see there's a rev date over here rev date and some general notes uh disturbance areas didn't change um so these are still good over here on this side of the plan and um the erosion control barrier is still in the same place i guess we're we have to establish or you know come up with a uh secondary not limited work but i guess demarcation which is basically the lot line this work for the plantings it's anticipated to be all handwork or light power equipment it's not intended for excavators to come down there and you know strip mine the area to put plants in um so that's the intent behind it um i'm trying to think there's anything else with this i think that's about it oh i know what the other thing was this um firewood storage area when i was out here a couple weeks ago i looked a little bit closer at this this appears to be the foundation of an old shed that's the the wood frame is long gone um i couldn't tell if this was cinder block that had been parched or if it was poured concrete it's certainly not new um i think that there was a little bit of a change in the way that the wood frame was built so i think that's a little bit of a change in the way that the wood frame was built a discussion at the commission's last hearing about uh removing it or was requested to look into it to see if it could be removed and we'd like to leave it in place because it appears to go below grade a couple feet and we'd have to get heavy equipment down there to take it out so i think that's it for my presentation and i'm happy to try to answer any questions thanks kevin no no start with you please yeah i did take i did take a second site visit down there and i i agree with uh the diameters that you came up with except for the size of the wood and for one the one that says 5d um on the way western side of the septic system that's kind of an odd shaped tree so i did circumference rather than diameter and if i did the calculation that comes out at six so i would i would include that one in your tree replacement um do you know which one is that up here over in this area is that the way western side of the septic area this the there's there's one that says 5d on it okay yeah i think i see okay yeah that that one yeah that one's the one so um the other thing i didn't notice again when i was out there second time i didn't see the first time that um over in the corner where the wetlands kind of encroach into the property um there's a whole pile of yard waste over there and even a um a wheelbarrow that's dumped tipped over and placed on top of it so that will be a condition in the permit all that stuff needs to get taken out and again i'm not even sure it's on the property line because i don't know where the property line is um and let's see you have in here that you were going to um you know do some seating in the in the area that was that was encroached on with lawn and when you're out there would you please remove whatever that there's some sort of a um like a bungee looking swingy thing over there that's attached to the tree so um that can get that should be taken down too because that's that's basically in the wetlands so okay is this over this area where am i looking it's behind the fire pit you know where you have that yeah so yeah where's this 40 tree you know that's just down there in that area so that will be a condition of the permit also but otherwise i mean there's not much uh comments i have with a with a septic system so okay yeah that's it question anything else thoughts comments concerns
on the um final plans could you put the datum on it uh yes there's no problem it's assumed it's assumed datum yeah we don't accept that you know what datum did you use well it was assumed i can i can apply a conversion put a conversion in a note on the plan in other words add so many feet to get to whatever navd 88 datum which is probably the one you're referring to right yeah 88 yeah okay anybody else question do we have tree species listed anywhere uh very just very general shannon it's the um the diameter with the d after d stands for deciduous um i meant more for like uh the proposed plantings oh uh i kind of i went a little bit generic with it up here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a i thought i got a little bit more specific than what's up here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a little bit more specific than what's up here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a i don't see it on the plan i don't see it on the plan i don't see it on the plan and probably just the conversion as well and probably just the conversion as well and probably just the conversion as well right so the chapter 193 now is based on right so the chapter 193 now is based on right so the chapter 193 now is based on two for one on dbh although it looks like two for one on dbh although it looks like two for one on dbh although it looks like those will be which i think is fine but those will be which i think is fine but those will be which i think is fine but those will be replaced those will be replaced those will be replaced within the buffer zone area based on on the plan here yep all of them except for three i think are in the buffer zone i mean it looks like it's a total of chapter 193 38 dbh so 19 dbh replacement is that what it would be helpful just to have usually we have a table that shows total dbh removed total dbh to be replaced okay and i think chapter 194 since there's one large tree that's what five two and a half inch trees and then for the two trees coming down that are six to eleven inches it's another six trees just to just have that table so we're on the same page of what's getting right but it's really a mix right between trees and small shrubs and high shrubs right for 194 i think not for 193 yeah we reduced a lot of the the shrub replacement in the recent 193 okay i can examine it and um add them to the plan it fails okay assuming we call ourselves down what would we like to do you want to make a motion or i move we close the hearing under chapter 194 in the state act is this in condition like assuming we get data on the trees that we closed be conditioned okay yeah because i should have asked i i assumed and maybe i should have asked i assume yeah i guess i take that as a yes a yes have linda that you were this everything we've been discussing are the sorts of things you'd be comfortable dealing with yeah it'll be a pre-construction condition so yeah okay love it uh so you uh luke made motion to hear a second second uh i think that was lisa uh roll call please luke legere yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yeah cliff lewis yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean yes thank you next motion i move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under chapter 194 and the state act uh contingent upon the receipt of additional information and minor plan changes discussed here this evening and with conditions as discussed
thank you luke do i hear a second thank you cliff roll call please luke was here yes barbara yes shannon fisher yes cliff lewis yeah lisa alvin yes jenny brown yes sean versa yes thanks kevin thanks very much have a good night folks you too thank you uh that was 2g
uh 2h going deep in the alphabet for this one uh three bracket road and whale mass dep file number three two two dash one zero six two is the continued notice of intent filed pursuant to way lens of wetlands and water research social protection bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Neil Harvey for the construction of an addition and modification to the supplement system at 3 Brackett Road in Wayland, Mass. The property, sorry, the proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarded vegetated wetlands and 200 foot riverfront area. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 24 Parcel 113. Linda. I think we're keeping Vito up late tonight, so. Oh, brutal. Sorry, Vito. That's good. It was a long meeting tonight. Yeah, you're telling me. All right, so Vito Colonna, Connerstone Engineering. So we had a continuance from last public hearing. Let me share the screen quick. And this was for 3 Brackett Road. Just to refresh, remember there was a proposed addition off the back side of the house. Right through here we had wetlands out the back with a perennial stream right through here. And the addition itself kind of split this inner 100 foot riverfront area. So there were I think three kind of main questions last time. One was basically about the preexisting the porch over here on when that was constructed, when it was enclosed, and whether that you know was under the current Rivers Protection Act. So Linda did some research. So did we and they both agreed. And essentially what was found was the deck itself was built pre-1997. And then subsequently later, the top structure was enclosed. So the underlying piers and everything was not altered during that time. I did have some pictures. So this is the deck itself right there. So the structure underneath was originally there pre-Rivers Act, and then this top part was enclosed after the fact. I think I have a couple more kind of side view pictures. So this is it from the backside also. And then one other question was actually just pictures of the area. It was kind of a question like what was going on in that zone. This is it right in here, this back part of the house right through there. This is kind of a side view. It would kind of come off this side portion of the house right through here. The contractor did provide us with a section of it. Let me see if I can get, this is just a, it's a hand sketch, but this is what they were intending on doing. There was kind of a question on how that would lay out because it was partial basement, partial part on sauna tubes. And essentially this was that existing house on the left side. And then it would be a basement on the, off the side, and it would be a walkout. So it would only be a frost wall foundation. And then the addition would overhang over that area with just a post and drilled helical piles. And if we look at that on the plan, I think I have a little detail of it. I just added this. This is not in your plan. I just worked this for presentation. But essentially this would be the yellow would represent the frost wall. And then the rest of this would be up on raised piers. And essentially this was that zone, this kind of outlaws. blinded red that's inside that inner 100 foot. It's about five square feet of area in there. And we did look at kind of what would happen if you did reduce that size to stay out of it. It would just kind of really shrink down this space to really not a really usable area for storage, which is what they were looking for underneath. And the contractor had indicated just essentially this is just a four foot trench. And then as soon as they're done, it's backfilled. It would be a fairly quick process in and out. So the only real permanent disturbance would be this corner right in there. And then as far as the mitigation goes, we discussed a few options. One of them was bulking up this back area. Before we had kind of swung this around as an existing swing set here. And we essentially moved that swing set out and then made this more uniform. And added about 250 square feet to that mitigation area. So now instead of a 2 to 1, it's a 2.7 to 1 ratio. So right through there. And that's all native plantings would pull out the existing turf and stabilize it with a natural mulch and then install the native plants throughout that area. And then one of the second items was if it was possible to have dark sky compliant lighting on site and then also eliminate any large spotlights in the back that may shine into the wetlands. And so we did expect that that any, you know, there would be no live spotlights in the back and then any existing lights, even the lampposts out front would get converted over to dark sky compliant fixtures just to help out because we are in pretty close proximity to that wetland in the back. I think that was all the changes that we had. I'm hoping that we met all the conditions, everything we discussed about last time. I can hand it back over.
Thanks, Vito. Linda, start with you, please. No, I think that Vito's done the work on the revisions that we asked for and bulking things up. Again, it's a tiny, tiny little piece of that is within 100 foot of a riparian area. The one thing we discussed was the building and the porch, whether or not that was done. That was the building permit that or the building file. I guess that wasn't done with a building permit either. The actual, the deck or porch, whatever, but they still gave them a permit to put it to screen it in later. The only thing, you know, that makes this project a little bit interesting is that the porch is not, is it within the 15 foot setback. So that's going to keep this project or this house pretty much non-compliant unless that's taken out. And but the zoning enforcement order said that was too old and it was just considered protected at this point. So.
Okay. Trish, anything else?
Are you good? I just want to say, thank you for doing that dark lighting stuff. The, the owners are happy to do so. They had no problems with it, so. Oh, I guess the last thing would be to apologize and make you sit through two and a half hours of that just for a quick 30 second decision. No, it's good. Well, we did that because he had the next, he had another project down here under storm water. We wanted to put them close together, but that didn't happen. Is it? That's not going to happen, right?
Okay. Then I just can't hear a motion then to close it. Under both please don't move. Thank you. Luke. We'll hear a second second. Thank you. Cliff roll call. Please. Luke was here. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. With Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean, there's a yes. Thank you folks. Okay. The next motion, please. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under chapter one 94 and the state act. Thank you. Luke. Do I hear a. Second second. Thank you. Cliff roll call. Please. Luke was here. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. With Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean. There's a yes. All set. Great. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Video. Appreciate it. Brown. Good night. You're right on to public meetings. This is three a six Brewster road and Wayland D dash one zero five. Four. It's request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to Wayland's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the protection accident by Michelle Levine for the replacement of us of a septic tank at six Brewster road and Wayland mass proposed work is within a hundred feet of boarding vegetated wetlands and the property is shown on assessor's map 44 parcel five. Linda. Yeah. I think this is a straightforward tank replacement that it's not a full septic replacement and it's getting done. It's actually in the same, in the same place as where the current one is. Right. The only confusion I have, and maybe Vito could probably, somebody can answer this for me as it says you're the existing tank to be pumped and backfilled, but then you're actually putting this, the replacement tank in the same place. Is that right? Yeah. I think Vito left, which is unfair. Oh, okay. He was the cornerstone guy that did it. Okay. So I showed up. Okay. I can get, I can get clarification from that. Later. So that's not a big deal. So it's basically like you said, Linda is replacing an existing tank exactly where it is. Yeah. No, I can get, I can get some clarification from Vito on that before I issue the permit or write the conditions for that. Okay. Or the project description or whatever, all that. Okay. Yeah. All right. Commission will go with us. Pretty easy. I know Shelly wants to good luck in the house sale, by the way. Yes. I want to sell my house. Sorry for scaring you earlier in the evening, by the way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was actually interesting. I mean, actually listening to all this was interesting. So thank you. That's a good word for it. Interesting. What was that? Well, we do it every three weeks. So you're welcome to join us every three weeks. Take your wits on the way out. All right. Can we get a motion then for Shelly here, please? Yes. I move that we issue a negative determination under the state act and a permit under chapter 194, allowing the proposed replacement of septic. Thank you, Luke. We'll hear some more. Thank you, Cliff. We'll hear a second. Second. Thank you, Cliff. Do a roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Alban? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Shawn Ferzi? Yes. You're all set, Shelly. Thank you very much. Linda, how do I get a permit? Do I just come back to you? Let me do it for you first. Okay. So let me get in touch with Vito either today or tomorrow or Friday. Okay. So these ones are easy. They're a lot easier than the other ones that we just voted for. All right. Thank you very much. You got it. Take care. All right. Bye. All right. On to four. Stormwater and land disturbance. This is 4A, 43 Barney Hill Road, SWLD-160. Linda? Vito was doing this one, and because our new regulations require abutter notices for large projects. He forgot to send out the abutter notices. So he wants to continue . Well, in his defense, this is his first year doing this. Well, hey, we just made up that condition. I love Vito. Okay. We can skip over that then. We're just going to continue it. Okay. All right. Moving on. On to 5A, COCs. Sorry. 5A is 129 Boston Post Road, DEP file number 322-1032. Linda? 5A is 129 Boston Post Road, DEP file number 322-1032. Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Yes? Oh, we have somebody from GPR on, right? We just did a site visit, looked over the site. I think the only question I have is because, you know, things really haven't started to emerge. The plantings that they put in, I really don't know how much Of that stuff is going to stay surviving, right? Do we come up with that number on that one? Uh-oh. You're on mute. There you go. Hello. Yes? Good evening, everyone. For the record, Lin-Hua Tse, I'm an engineer at GPR representing ICB, which is Exalamic Center of Boston. The question about the growth itself, you're right, you know, it's still early. We planted the trees that we were going to plant. I'm not sure if there's a condition that we could follow up on. Just, you know, not sure how we can go about doing that. You know, we're here to try to close out the permit. But would it be possible to make it a perpetual condition so that we can have the owner check in in a year or two just to make sure that the things are still growing?
I mean, would a partial certificate, I'm not sure that does the trick for the applicant here, but you can sort of decide. I mean, they're not in any position to be selling this place anyway, so we can do that. Is it a partial? Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. Everybody know what that is? You're real with that, everybody? Is the applicant, I guess we should ask, too, if the applicants, if that works for you? That works for us. I think we had this conversation before, too, during the actual permitting, is that any sort of planting that we do should be monitored and reviewed in the two-year period, which is typical for new planting, but in the resource area. I'm sorry, in the buffer to the resource area. Because when were these planted? Was that just this last fall?
I believe it was last fall. I don't know the exact timing, but they were working through, I think, late summer. Okay.
Okay. Fish, we're good then? Issuing a partial? And if so, can I get a motion? Accordingly. Sure. I move that we issue a partial certificate of compliance for DEP file number 322-1032, excluding the plantings. Which will be monitored, moving forward. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. With that, I'll let Shannon roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Louis Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Kenny Brown? Yes. Sean Faresley? Yes. Okay. All set. Sweet. Thank you so much. Have a good day, everyone. You, too. And on to 5B. 22. Lake Shore Drive. DEP file number 322-449. Holy cow. What year is that? Well, the funny thing is, is that this was on our agenda for last meeting, and something, it fell off our plate somehow during that long, long, long discussions we had. It was going to be delivered by Pony Express back then. No, it was 19, when was that? No, 2000, it says here. So, yeah. Anyway, so, yeah, no, this house is going to be delivered by Pony Express. This is also on the market, so it needs, they were looking, they're looking to clear up, clear out their old erudite conditions, the construction of a retaining wall along the bank. That was done, and, or was it done?
Yeah, no, it was never done, actually. It's listed as, he checked it off that this is no longer valid. The work regulated was never started. So, this is an easy one. Okay. Okay. I move we issue a certificate of compliance. That's for DEP file number 322-449. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. John Faresy, yes. Thank you. Moving right along. 5C, 39 Sherman Bridge Road, D-742. Hang on. I'm just, this one.
This, too, was for a barn that was built way back in their property with fairly good-sized lot and also just never closed, so I really don't have any issues with this one, either. Okay. I did appreciate the humor in the letter, though.
We're all good. Why don't you go ahead and hear a motion, then? Yeah. I move we issue a certificate of compliance for 39 Sherman Bridge Road, file number D-722-449. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. John Faresy, yes. Thank you. And wrapping up with 5D, 23 Alpine Road, D-970. Linda? Same thing. This was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. This was a tear down and rebuild. A lot of work. Some work in the buffer zone. But he did a really nice job of replanting all the trees that were taken down. And I don't have any issues with this one either. Okay. Do I hear a motion? I move that we issue a Certificate of Compliance for 23 Alpine Road, file number D-970. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. And Sean Faresa? Yes. Thank you. On to 6A, Boat-to-Return Performance Guarantee for 4 Field Lane, DEP file number 322-806. Linda? So, our current goal is to try to return one of these. these at least once a month, one of these proponents bonds. So this is our monthly requirement today.
So I think, what was it? It was $500, I think, Emily, was that right? This one I think was $1,200. Oh my gosh. Hold on to that one. Don't lose that one. All right. Can I get a vote then to return the performance guarantee for four fields lane, please? So moved. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Sean Perzy? Yes. Thank you. And top isn't necessarily anticipated by me, 40 hours in advance. Just one quick thing. I'm going to let her speak real quick, but Shannon's looking for a vote from us to chat with her, go before the school committee to talk about the outdoor education experience. So we talked about it yesterday. I said, why don't we just talk about it in this part today? And so give a quick second overview, Shannon. Yeah, I hope this comes out while I'm a little brain fried. Obviously, that parcel at Orchard Lane, Holiday Road is, you know, under some discussion right now up for a vote. It is currently owned by the school committee, even though the select board is currently putting up a proposal to study it for uses. Most likely, housing. But it is under the purview of the school committee at this time.
I've been doing some research into the fairly tremendous benefits of outdoor classrooms, and they're quite myriad. It could be a really cool use. So what I want is to just show up at the school committee meeting and during their public comment just portray this idea, give them some facts and figures so that I can email them in more depth about, you know, the benefits of these. I'm sure they're very aware of it. I just wanted to highlight the value of this forest as a potentially valuable resource that you know, I think they should maybe keep and put to use in this way. So, you know, obviously theirs is the decision. So I simply want to offer up the idea and suggest that if you guys agree, this is something that I could convey that the Conservation Commission has an appetite to support them. There are many, many grants out there and grassroots networks. works to help provide guidance about how to do outdoor classrooms so I just want to suggest that we might be willing to help lend resources maybe a little energy to help get some grants if this was something that appealed to the school commission in in any way so I would kind of like to know if this is something that sounds good to you guys to represent and then oh sorry I was going to say sort of not necessarily connected to that with the school board but there is also the use that I think that some of us are interested in using some of this land to help create a cross Wayland trail and I actually made a connection with the guy in in town who handles the Wayland um Bay Circuit trail and crazily enough he's actually come up with a little plan for a cross Wayland trail so I made that connection he's actually planning Sean to go to the uh the CPC tomorrow for a rare April meeting and he has these ideas that he's planning to propose to them to um that uses 17 glees in which is the old vials property and possibly you know depending on how things go with school committee interest part of um that holiday road um parcel to to help create that path so he's crazily enough working on that on his end it was it was kind of cool we made that connection and then um You know, my focus has really been like, is there a way that we could just convey to the school committee the potential value of this property and that we're willing to help them if they have any interest in it? I don't want to be taking it from him. I don't want to be like seeming like we're doing a grab. Just, you know, go with respect and an idea. That just makes me very clear. What you're asking for is a vote for us that we would be interested in exploring the idea with the committee on an HL. We're not committing to dollars or hours. It's just, hey, we like the idea. Talk to us more about it. Right. So make sure I'm helping you with the vote. Right. OK. Yeah, I think so. I mean, I'm certainly happy to go and do legwork down the line to get some of these mini grants if needed. But like, absolutely. I'm just, you know, if I go there and say that, I don't want to be the sole person and the rest of the commission is saying, well, this is terrible. We didn't agree to that. Right. Yeah. Gotcha. Yep. I for one would, you know, anything where we can kind of preserve the wooded. The area there, I think, is great. You know, there's a lot of other degraded property in the town where things can be built. And it would be nice to see this stay intact and go to good use. And I heard that guy talk. I think he spoke at Monday's hearing. Right. Yes. So, you know, I for one certainly support it. Me too. Yep. My support. If I might add a minute here. There's a huge amount of property at the middle school. A lot of which is wooded. Would it not be much more practical to put the open classroom at the middle school where they could actually go and use it? Could be. Rather than an orchard, which is, it's really not practical. You'd have to make a whole day out of it to go use it. I mean, yeah, that could be. And we're certainly not here to tell the school committee what to do. But they do have a lot of long-term plans underway. They're trying to figure out how to use the properties that they. They own to renovate and rebuild some of these out-of-date buildings that they have. So they're exploring various uses for their land. And you could absolutely be right, Cliff. They may say that's a great idea and they want to do it there. And, you know, that's that. It's their land. I'm just. We're just supporting the idea of having an outdoor learning space, whether it's up there or somewhere else. Sure. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. I don't think we should suggest. If they put it there, I think we should suggest that they look at this as an idea. Right. Yep. I mean. Oh, sorry. I was going to ask, like, is it. I mean, I was framing it with the concept of this land because this land is currently sort of like very much under discussion from kind of multiple groups at this point. So that was sort of my my my lead in, I guess, for that. Yeah, you recommend it. But we're just saying we we we support the idea as an example. Right. We're not saying how much money or land that we would give up on our end. It's just supporting the idea. Yep. Okay. I'm good with it. So I guess I'll make a motion. I don't want to make a motion to to back Shannon to go toward the school committee and chat about outdoor learning spaces and our help behind it. So moved. Thank you. Look, we're here seconds. I can. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Look, the year. Yes. Barbara Hall. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Do I am I allowed to? Yes. Yeah. You're you're you're on the idea. No, they can. I'm assuming assuming you're. Yeah, you bet. Yeah. Cliff Lewis. Sorry, Cliff Lewis. Lisa Albin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yeah. And Sean Farris. Yes. There you go, Shannon. Hey, all set. Nice. Thank you. Thanks for thanks for thinking of that and pursuing. Yeah, that's great. No public comments. There's no way someone can't say through all that, right? Yeah. Okay. It's to book. Oh, I don't know who the last one is.
And then Babs, how are we looking for the March 25th, 2026? They know that I added one thing. Hmm. Did you add one thing? Yeah. We discussed the fact that. Lender. After so many. Years of hard work. Was able to come through. The show me the money. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, anybody, anybody talks, it speaks a town meeting this year on a behalf of a conservation, we should start with after we brought in over $2 million, dot, dot, dot. Yeah.
Yeah. No good stuff on that. Okay. Um, so I guess. If anything else, um, I'm going to make the motion to approve the minutes with Barbara's addition else was fun. That just was omitted. Okay. I moved. We approve the minutes of the March 25th meeting with the edits that Barbara has just mentioned. Thank you, Luke. We'll hear a second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call. Please look good here. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Sean. Thursday. Yes. Thank you. And let's see if they are pressing me motions. Let's uh, it's a journey for the night, but almost makes the motion. I want to just call out the very lovely letter we received from a lady on Dudley pond who literally wrote in to tell us how great the trees are, how they're helping the pond and share her support. So I want to call her out and say, thanks. You're right. And I was kept like, as I was reading, I was like waiting for the. Boy, like, Oh, she's leaving this up, man. It's a little dark path. I'm going down buttering us up and she's going to hit us with something. But no, it was, you're right. It was really nice. It's refreshing. I second Shannon's motion there. Yep. That's good. Yes. All right. With that motion to an adjourn, please. So moved. Thank you. Luke. Do we hear a second? Thank you. Cliff last roll call the evening. Luke was here. Yes. Harder Barbara. Yes. No kidding. Barbara.
Barbara. Yeah. I said, yes.
Shannon Fischer. Yes. With Lewis. Oh, we're having so much fun. I want to pose. I want to keep. Yeah, that'd be good. That'd be kind of funny. Somebody is going to vote. No on these ones. It's going to happen sometime. Yeah. Uh, Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fersey. Yes. All set. All right. All thanks for the hard work.
No, we do not have a DEP file number. Okay. This is also a continuing notice of intent and file pursuant to Whalen's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Weather Protection Act, submitted by Sharon Botwetic for the construction of an addition and driveway expansion at 58 Pequot Road in Whalen, Mass. The proposed work is within 200 foot riverfront. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 43A, Parcel 40. Linda. I believe the applicant and her representative is on, if they want to let us know what the changes they did over Jessica and on making some hopefully positive changes to this. Do you have my drawings there? Do you want me to bring them up? I believe everybody should have had those in their agenda. Good. Okay. You're welcome to share the screen if you want. Well, if it comes to that. Okay. So, Jessica Snare, Spring Hill Design. And this is our second visit with you all. It's a continuation from last March 25th. We were asked to provide some specifics for mitigation where surface material and replacement trees were concerned. I met with Linda on the 31st and we discussed providing more permeable material at the new driveway and existing parking area. And removing... So, you're going to be talking about a removal of part of the parking area square footage, which we have done, and I'll detail it. The revised site plan indicates that the original asphalt the driveway will be reduced to the entry area just the upper part of it. The remainder of the driveway and parking and entry walkway to the front door will be replaced with a gravel surface or, in some cases, it's an existing gravel surface. And an eco grid grass parking area in the little extra one corner. at the access controls. Right, thank you. car parking area. We indicated on the original plan one tree to be removed, and we have indicated three new trees to be installed. We will select from the town's native tree species from the website, and we also added the erosion control barrier and detail to the plan. The comparison from the original asphalt to the new combination of asphalt and gravel, the original asphalt was 1,830 square feet, and it's now reduced to 770 square feet. And what that does overall is when you add up the structure coverage footprint plus the former asphalt hard impermeable, the overall building, even though we're expanding the shed to a two-car garage, plus the impermeable is a resultant reduction in hard surface. So, and that math is on the plan. So, hopefully, there was a chance to observe this, and I also wanted to bring up the DEP number, which just came to our attention yesterday, and I don't know, I know that my client paid it. Well, she paid it yesterday. We didn't know about it until yesterday. Well, I know. Well, I sent, sorry, I sent the check in over a month ago. You know, the original, check and paperwork was sent to the Mass DEP a month ago, and I have return receipts for all that. Yesterday, we were informed that there's an additional charge for an advertisement in a local newspaper or online journal, which I paid as soon as I learned about that, but we didn't find out until yesterday afternoon that the DEP number had not been provided. I, this morning, talked to Emily of Linda's office. I called DEP a couple of times, left messages. They did not get back to me, but it's been over a month. The check is cleared. The return receipt requested was received, so they've received my information. I don't have an explanation for why a month later the DEP number was not provided, but now that I know about it, I'm going to call them every day until I get an answer as to when they're going to do it. I paid my money, and it's been a month. Sure. Just so you know, we obviously can give you all kind of feedback and whatnot, but officially we can't close it until we have a DEP number, so we can bring it all the way up to the point where we can close it. The only process improvement in the future, if this is a known problem with DEP, which it sounds like it is according to Emily, I think it would be helpful. to let the homeowner know so we could start a week early prompting them. So just a little process improvement suggestion for the future. Got it. Thank you. Okay, Linda, I'll start with comments from you first, please. No, I mean, my comment to Jessica during our meeting a couple weeks ago, a few weeks ago, was that let's reduce the amount of impervious in the inter-repairing area, and that was a compliment. Okay. Okay. So the, you know, the best way to do it is to have that portion of the addition to add sort of an entrance in the riverfront area, in the inter-repairing area. So that's what you guys are looking at. Okay. Okay. The only question I had, did you address, Jessica, there was some technical comment on the Wetland Protection Act. When they reviewed this, it says something about the NOI and the National Weather Protection Act, and they said that's going to be the last much-used area. Okay. NOI proposes 690 square feet of riverfront alteration. The site plan details a net disturbance of 928. So she was wondering what the discrepancy was. And that was a comment from DEP. I don't know if I understand the question. Sorry. Well, see, under zoning in the bottom here, you still have net disturbance of 928 square feet. Oh. And then in the NOI, I guess you say 690. So the DEP was just looking for clarification on that. Well, it shouldn't have changed. The 928 was done in the revised, but I can't imagine what the difference, why it would have gone up.
No, I mean, this is what you presented, I think, in the original NOI. In the application. In the application was 690. Well, I think in the original application, we calculated it as best we could without having knowledge or experience and working with all of you. But if the changes have been made. You know, I, we used, you know, Emily had explained that a certain section is considered within the 100 foot buffer and another section was considered in front, in front of the, in part of the 200 foot buffer. So if that is the case, I calculated it based on what I understood at the time. If that has changed, then maybe there's a different calculation needed. It might make more sense to keep the 928 then, because that might be the engineered version. Mm-hmm. Versus our version. Mm-hmm.
Okay. We just need to know what to put on the application, on the permit, as far as area of disturbance. Yeah, I would, I would keep the engineers 928 then. Okay. All righty.
Commissioner, anything else?
I know we can't close today, but let's give all comments so we're ready to close whenever we get the DEP number. Yeah, thanks. I think the plan looks responsive to the issues and comments we raised last time. So I appreciate. The property owner and our team listening to us and making those improvements to the plan. I don't really have anything further. Okay. Thanks, Luke. Lisa, were you saying something? Yeah. Did anything in the, so based on the changes that we discussed when we opened this, has the total pervious versus impervious changed? Yes. Oh, yeah, dramatically. I just, like, I don't know what the numbers are. I didn't see it in the packet. So if you take the structure away. The ground surface, the impervious was 1830 in the existing, and it went down to 770 because of the amount of asphalt we removed. Got it. The other one has to do with structures. And if you add the structure before plus the impervious, it was 3,714. I don't know if that's a number that really comes up in the, you know, this, but just by comparison. The proposed structure is obvious. The impervious obviously got a little bit bigger, but the impervious was so reduced that the net result was originally 3,714 and is now 3,122.
Got it. So total with structure. Yeah.
Okay. Anybody else?
Okay. So we have to continue this, but hopefully at that point we're just putting a DEP number on this and closing it out. Can that happen outside of the three-week schedule? Or does that wait for the next hearing? Yeah, it waits for the next hearing. It does. Until the next hearing. Yep.
All right. Permission. When's our next meeting? May 6th, I believe it is, right? May 6th. Yes. May 6th. So I just. Just, I mean, there's a possibility we might have to move it to May 7th if town meeting goes over, goes into the third day. So that's a caveat. We have this in the same week. We have this in the same week. Town meeting. That's going to be a fun week. Oh, thank you. Fantastic. I move that we continue the hearing under the state act and chapter 194 to May 6th after 630 PM. Perfect. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Thank you very much. You're welcome to hear a second. Second. Thank you, Jenny. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. And Sean Faresley? Yes. All set? Thank you very much. You got it. Thank you. Thank you very much. You got it.
Okay. Moving on to 2B. This is 108 Lakeshore Drive, DEP, file number 322-1042. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Whalens Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Melissa Haley for the prior unpermitted. It's a continued notice of intent filed by Melissa Haley for the prior unpermitted renovation work and completion of said work at 1 Lakeshore Drive in Whalen, Mass. The proposed work is in with 100 feet of Deadly Pond and the property is shown on Assessor's Map 46B Parcel 35. Linda? Oh, let's see. I think we have the folks online here who were representing the owner. Do I see Doug Dillon? Yes, I'm here. Can you guys hear me? Yep. Perfect. All right. Let me just share my screen. As you said, Doug Dillon. A wetland scientist from Guard Consulting representing homeowner Melissa Haley, who is also online with us tonight for 108 Lakeshore. So, go ahead and share my screen. I know it's been a little bit since we have last met, so since then, we were able to meet with Linda in office and adjust our sort of general site plan according to the feedback provided. We're going to be proposing nearly 45 native plantings here. So, there was a comment made in the interim suggesting that some of the species be made to be more woody sort of shrub style plantings rather than herbaceous wildflowers. These are all perennials too, by the way. So, I've done that. I'm excited to see what it looks like. Thanks, Doug. Thank you. Thanks, Linda. These are very small areas. I just want to remind you guys. So this is a 140-square-foot area and cramming nine small shrubs in here in addition to the 30 herbaceous perennial wildflowers is already pretty tight. And in the lower area, crammed in an additional 10 plantings here, four of which are going to be a shrub, the New Jersey pea there. And up gradient, we have a much larger sort of dense woody shrub planting area where we're going to be having some black huckleberry, bearberry, and in addition to that, we're going to be having some milkweed. So all those guys are going to take very well to the hill slope there. They grow like monsters once they've kind of settled in, and especially the milkweed, they send up shoots all the time. So that'll be a nice, beautiful milkweed sort of pollinator area. So we have also, let's zoom in here. We don't have the engineer on tonight, so I'll just go over the changes in the plan. So we're going to be removing a large portion of the patio and returning it to a grassed state represented by the sort of cross-marked area right here, 48 square feet. Again, it doesn't sound like much, but the total area we're working with here is 148. So that's only a few hundred square feet in total. So that's a significant portion of the working area of the property. And any of the other patio areas we are proposing to maintain, you know, as proposed permeable, right? Because there was a decent chunk of this lower area that was a prior concrete patio before the disturbance. And, you know, in recognition of that, right, it's just sort of an in-kind replacement of what that was historically to a superior material, which will allow it to actually percolate and recharge at groundwater and do everything that it needs to do.
Yeah, Melissa, if I'm forgetting anything, please feel free to chime in. But I think we have addressed a lot of the comments and concerns that were brought up. But the prior meeting there, so that's it, Linda, I guess we'll start with you.
Yeah, I don't I don't have very many additional comments. Just one one piece was, you know, we're putting in the planting area next to the pond. Is there still a retaining wall there up against the water? Yes, there is. And then the plan was to sort of bifurcate and remove that from the submittal here in order to simplify and just sort of resolve the issue. So we're just going to leave that hand and, you know, when the time comes to apply for that, that'll be in a separate permit just due to the complexities involved with involving like a like a structural like engineer for the actual stonewall portion. So we kind of ran into that and just in the interest of simplifying this process, we decided to just excerpt that from from the application package. So we're just. No, that's fine. I just didn't know if you were planning on removing that if you were going to put in the planting bed. Or if you're just going to keep the retaining wall. That was. Yeah, I think just from a structural standpoint, it's just better left alone, frankly, just from a safety and erosion and just kind of, you know, erosion really is a kind of number one thing there. Stampling. And just one last thing you've ever read, there's it says something 10 feet setback from water line. And is this the OK, this is a water line coming into the house, right? Yeah, it must be if. OK, yeah, I just I didn't know. Oh, yes. I love the little notes on here. You know, water line can mean a lot of different things. So anyway. All right. No, that's it. I don't. Again, I think we've worked it and gotten a much better plan from from what was initially proposed. So, OK. OK, thanks, Linda. Commission, thoughts, comments, concerns?
Yes. OK. Go ahead, Barbara. Some of the plantings that they have. Bearberry, I only know of one spot and it's on top of Doublet Hill in Weston where it grows around here. And bearberry grows on rock. That's one thing. New Jersey tea, you don't find that around here.
I've seen it around. I mean, the bear. So. All the butterfly people I know, they look and look and look and try to find New Jersey tea. And there is a place, I don't know, Arlington or someplace like that, where there is a rare bunch of it. But that's it doesn't grow much around here. If we're placing that, we'll, you know. I mean, we can just swap that out. But yes, this is going to this is a rocky area, so the bearberry will do well, regardless. Well, OK. Be interesting to see in a year.
Anybody else? Commission? If they don't establish within the within a growing season, would we want to just revisit if it like I like these? I deliberately planted New Jersey, New Jersey tea myself. But I don't want to do it again. I don't want to do it again. I don't want to do it again. But it's true. I've never seen it out in the wild. So just keep an eye because it has to take part of our conditions. It has to take. Yeah, perfect. I mean, I love it. I'm hoping mine takes off. You might want to protect it from rabbits. Yeah. Let's take not.
OK. Anybody else?
All right. I'm good with it. Let's go with it. Can I get a motion to close this? I move that we close the public hearing under Chapter 194 and the State Act. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. And a motion. Next motion is Luke. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under Chapter 194 and the State Act with minor room and a motion to approve the project under Chapter 194 and the State Act. Yes. Thank you, Cliff. We second the motion. Any other? Any other motion? Any other revisions as discussed here this evening? Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? You got a second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Sorry. Yeah. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares a yes. All set. Here we go. right on to 2c uh this is 67a loker street and whalen dep file number 322-1056 to continue notice of intent and file pursuant to whalen's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection acts made by matt o'connor the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67a local street and whale of mass the property is shown on assessor's map 48 parcel 42 is located within 100 foot buffer zone overboard vegetated wetlands in the 200 foot riverfront area linda the applicant has asked for a continuance okay to the sixth presumably uh presumably yes okay am i gonna get motion i move that we continue the hearing under both chapter 194 and the state act to may 6th after 6 30 p.m thank you luke do i hear a second thank you cliff roll call please lucas yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yeah cliff lewis yes elisa alvin yes jenny brown yes and sean farz yes thank you uh we're on to 2d 123 dudley road and whalen mass dep file number 322-1061 uh it's a continuing notice of intent file pursuant to whalen's weapons and water resource protection bylaw and the level protection accident of joel goodwinson the construction of a single-family home, septic system, and a stormwater management system at 123 Dudley Road in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is within 100 feet of Dudley Pond, and the property is shown in Assessor's Map 47A, Parcel 72. Linda? I believe we had, I think, is Bert Corey on? I was looking in the attendees. Oh, you are here. Okay. I thought you were hiding in the attendees section, Bert. Bert is our peer reviewer, stormwater peer reviewer. The one thing you probably saw was a response from him, and a response, let's see, that was April 10th we received that. So that was just last week. I think that was in your agenda packet. So I believe all the issues with the stormwater have been addressed, and can you confirm that, Bert? All of the issues that I had pointed out in my peer review were addressed. There were a couple of items that we could discuss tonight. One of them was that there was going to be a landscape that would be submitted that you folks get to discuss as far as the plantings go. And then there was one item that I brought up with regards to the proposed soil absorption system and where the construction entrance is going to be. I think it was in narrative form that there was going to be a fence to protect the portion of the soil absorption system that could be protected from the truck traffic. I would just suggest that that, you know, that fence gets put onto the final set of plans just to try to prevent, you know, as the trucks travel over the construction entrance that nobody's going to pull over into, you know, a place that's unprotected by the, you know, the stone construction entrance and start putting undue weight onto the area for the soil absorption system. And then I was also suggesting that instead of two to four inches of stone, that geofabric with about, eight to 12 inches of stone be placed on that just so that we don't get the compaction and realizing that there are sandy soils there, there are gravelly soils. So, you know, it's one of those situations where, you know, during construction or after construction, when that starts to be built, I want to make sure that there's no compaction in the soils that are there. And so that would require some type of an inspection from the design engineer just to make sure that it's still meeting the, you know, the rates that they were using for the design. That's it.
Thanks, Bart. Linda, anything you want to add? Oh, no. Is Seth on? Seth Donohue? I am here tonight. Well, okay. I didn't know if you wanted to add anything to that. No, that was nice. I will add a little bit. It was spoken well, and we appreciate the peer reviewers' prompt reply. As the commission's aware, we received the first peer review from DGT prior to the last meeting. Our office had submitted a form. We'll reply to that along with updated plans and calculations. And the peer reviewer was kind enough to get us that back last week. We have no objections to the reviewer's comments related to essentially beefing up the temporary construction entrance. We'll be happy to do that and then add the recommended fencing to the plan. I will note to the commission, the plan from a plan view standpoint is relatively unchanged from what you reviewed prior. We have no objections to the reviewer's comments. We have no objections to the reviewer's comments. There was not any infrastructure that had to move around or any adjustments to that. There's just miscellaneous call-outs in response to that. And general good housekeeping on some of the notes that was recommended, and we appreciate that.
Thanks, Seth. Okay. Linda, all good on your end? Yeah, I think we've made, you know, there's some, I think they've addressed all the comments that we brought up in the first hearing regarding, you know, the construction entrance, the location of the infiltration. Okay. Okay. to try to save some trees you know mitigation and um in the in the riverfront i mean in the in the wetland buffer area i think they're saving a lot more trees down there um especially you know we're not going to let a lot of trees in the 15 30 foot um buffer area and no disturb area be removed so i think i think most of that's been addressed am i right seth that's correct so so one of the comments that was brought up is a planting plan and um it's my understanding that landscape architect is still working on that the applicant has been adamant that their intent is to meet the town's requirements for tree replacement under both chapter 193 and chapter 194 because it is a wooded site that's that's not a small amount of plantings and i've spoken about it in the past the the project or the site had a prior home down by the pond very close proximity to the pond surrounding that area was essentially a leveled area that is essentially absent of vegetation in some portions so our intent would be to revitalize that area and to add a additional and better vegetated buffer between the pond and the project area so we hope to have that plan in short order and be able to submit that to the commission for review and discussion related to species and methods for planting on that it wasn't clear to me what you're planning to do with that abandoned foundation uh so it would be removed and um that would be incorporated into the planting area itself great okay is there a cesspool there too someplace there is a drain line that goes into a hill uh so there's actually two leaching trenches uh per the board of health record plan on that and they go uh towards dudley road so those would be abandoned as required by the board of health great great thank you commission anything else i just had a question on the the review report as well more for my understanding um where i think was common c on stormwater basis of design um and i think they talked about the hydraulic condition of the wooded area was adjusted to account for compensatory plantings that will supplement the existing vegetation so just my general question on how these models work we're taking down you know a bunch of mature trees obviously we'll be revegetating um but they'll be small trees right so i don't know if that's taken into account is does a mature tree absorb more water and address these issues better than you know a new four inch dbh tree so i just is that factored into the calculations the hydrocad model uh will separate the surface covers into you know open space brush uh wooded areas uh and what the engineer is chosen to do was to account for the additional plantings that are in there so that it it wouldn't be turned into just open space it would have uh items like brush and all of that the things that slow the water down as it's moving across the surface and what that did is it made a slight change in the curve number uh which resulted in just uh eliminating that that very slight uh increase in peak flow for the just the 25-year storm event okay okay thank you yep
anything else did the green roof appear is that no longer in the plans that's correct so so the the issue with the green roof um well it was fantastic at mitigating short-term storm events uh the local regulations require us to mitigate runoff for for storm events up to including the statistical 100-year storm event which is in excess of 8 inches of rain in a 24-hour period so so a roof cannot do that it's it's a ton of weight to put up there as that infrastructure was not able to fully meet the local regulation how we were able to put that into the capacity of our infiltration system so we're not allowing the runoff to leave the roof it's still being collected and mitigated uh through the infiltration got it okay anything else see i do it with one raised hand i want to make sure i put that uh skip this one yeah can you hear me yep can you identify yourself for the record uh it's skip miller i'm at 121 dudley i'm next to the uh property next door um i just want to reiterate what i've said previously um i've been able to meet with joel um joel's a nice guy um i have no objections to a house going next door i just feel that the house that's being proposed is too big for the site the site is too complicated and i really feel it's up to the conservation commission just to not just take engineering models and pass fail numbers and rubber stamp and approval because it comes back with the numbers that you want to see the site is challenging there's been a long history of bad things that have happened there there's a ton of trees coming down whether that number has been reduced or not it's still a huge amount they're big mature trees that whether they can be offset with some complicated equation of re-growing it'll be hundreds of years before those trees are equal to these trees provide the shade provide the habitat provide everything that these trees currently do and engineering models just can't replicate what we have now um and my feeling is that the house should be smaller more in keeping with the neighborhood more respectful to the site more sensitive to the pond and the ecosystem and whether anyone else cares or not i'll be the one to say that uh it's too much and creating engineering solutions so that we can design to the max and engineer to the max and have engineering models say that it's okay that's uh that's up to you guys but i really think it's up to joel and the commission to try and scale this back to a point where it's in keeping with the neighborhood and more sensitive to the pond and the setting um that we have here because that's what makes dudley pond special and it's a very special part of our community um and i would just like to see it better protected and that's that's my two cents on the matter and I really hope we can find a happy medium that kind of strikes a better balance than engineering gimmicks and models versus just looking out your window and seeing the amount of mature trees that are scheduled to be cut down and stormwater treatment plans and everything else I just don't think it's in keeping with what should and ought to happen here. Okay thanks Kevin. Okay anybody else? Mr. Chair if I may just briefly throw out a number related to the comments that we received. Sure please. The total impervious area of everything on the site is limited to 13 percent of the buffer zone so I know there's been a lot of statements that it's too big there there's too much. The house itself is less than 10 percent of the site area so I respect that Dudley Pond and the surrounding neighborhood does have some unique houses and unique lots in it. This is in keeping with the town's regulations and that that's our goal here so I respect everyone's opinions but I just wanted to put that out there. Okay thanks Seth. Linda last words comments thoughts you're on mute just FYI. I mean the only thing outstanding right now is just the planting plan you know at some point we definitely need to address that and how the commission decides to do that is as a condition of the permit or wait to be able to review the plan and approve the plan before we you know issue a permit for that that's up to you guys okay. Commission I'll look up to you guys. Well I'll jump in I would like to see the plan I think I heard Mr. Donahue comment compliment on templating the plan and I think that's what I was going to say earlier that we would be discussing that at a future hearing I don't mean to put words in your mouth if I misheard you but it sounded to me like that's what the applicant was anticipating and I certainly would like to see the plan before we vote on the project particularly in light of the comments we've received from the neighbors so that's my preference. Thank you Luke. Anybody else? Yeah I would also like to see the planting plan and this is most likely on some of the press documentation but I think it's going to be a great presentation that we've had but do you guys happen to know to what extent you have a large beach dominant population on that parcel? Beach trees not beach. Yeah no no I can tell you that there is I don't know the exact number or percentage but there are beach trees in various states on the property. Is your concern related to disease? Yeah I'm so relating to some of the comments that came and just reviewing those and thinking about it in my head because we actually do read all the comments that come in um you know as we are about to lose large chunks of trees the beach trees um wondering how many of those coming down are beach trees that actually is helpful because we know they're most likely on their way out in a sense. Yes that's correct so I think one of the issues and I can discuss um with the project team um with or without this project it's likely that there would be difficulties with peach beach trees on the site at some point so we can look at that number for you. Yeah just out of curiosity but thank you. Okay sound like we're an hour having come back with the planting plan for comments anybody vehemently opposed to that? So if if I may just uh just a question for for the commission and and you know in discussing with the landscape architect um so they were proposing to come up with a list of list of plants um as opposed to a planting plan if you want to see an actual plan we can we can do that as well but but I'm curious as to do you want to see a plan or or a list of a list of plants and by you know and numbers of of each each of the plants? Yeah if you get a plan to show them where they're actually going to go roughly where the plants are going to be set. Okay okay that's fine yeah so I would say both really right I think typically what we see is a it's a plan of the land showing showing as Sean said where their where their plantings will go but also a table telling us what the plantings will be so we understand what's what. Okay so one of the things that we have not yet done that is will be part of the of the final design piece is to do a complete inventory of every plant um on the site and to determine if we have um as an example beech trees that are diseased or are dying that um we might want to consider although it's not impacted by the by the construction or by the by the project it may be that we wanted to propose taking down some sick trees and and and concentrating plantings in in those areas and so that that work hasn't been done yet and so I guess the one caution I'd like to to put out there or just understand the level of flexibility we have is if we submit a plan and say you know here are the here are the here are the species and here are the places we plan to put them once we do that that um that inventory of kind of trees we're not touching for now and and identify their condition are we able to then come back and say you know what we have some hemlocks that are really sick over here we'd like to take those down and add some trees there or some beeches that are in in really tough shape that we'd like to take down and plant in those areas so if I could um my first instinct is to say that if you have beech trees or hemlocks that are not slated to come down they're not in the in the construction plan and they're not you know posing a particular threat my personal preference is that you know they be left um to die in place and become habitat um they're incredibly valuable for woodpeckers and then eventually for hat for cavity nesters and critters like that um so you know maybe they could be snagged down the line if they started to need it but my preference would be to leave them and the root structures help hold the soil while the other plants sort of start to take root um speaking of somebody who also crammed a ton of trees and a small amount of land um on my own house um I did find that as I was going about and actually like in the position of having the tree and deciding where it is you know there is inherent flexibility you're like I'm going to you know scooch this over here maybe I'll scooch this over there so um once there is a plan um also having a table with numbers and a rough sense of where things are going um you know I was able to look at the local conditions and figure out on the fly as well you know how to scoot this over here and that over there but yeah okay tree roots I would agree with Shannon I mean there's a little bit of flexibility because you know even if you say you propose to put a tree here and it just happens to you know that that soil's not really you know a big rock there or something you know and you know really one of our our main requirements is that anything in the buffer zone is is a native species so you know other than that there is flexibility you know if you want to change one species to another that's you know as long as it's native that's that that's not a big deal landscape stock is always a big issue too so okay all right no I appreciate that thank you okay no other comments let's uh we're gonna continue once then uh to the six it's not after 6 30. yes I move that we continue this public hearing under both chapter 91 94 and the state act to may 6th after 6 30 p.m. thank you luke to hear a second second cliff thank you cliff uh roll call please luke was here yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yes cliff lewis yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean feliz yes all set thank you all right moving right along to E uh 169 rice road and whalen DEP file number three two two dash one zero five three this is a continued notice and intent filed pursuant to whalen's west and water resource protection of whalen. in the whalen protection act uh and the whalen stormwater land disturbance bylaw Alice ok very well p.local lab can't see the plug in my most recent staging transaction about fix chilena tell you that uh we went tralgic Tobin I don't know what's going on and why that's been reading the naszym «» — yahoo — toma on my record and airotox— وال— all—I just didn't mean to mislead you know I'm already farewell so in the sam stand for just a matter of a different era already last time not an an– see the olha— rice road and whalen mass the proposed work includes a demolition of existing church the construction of three new buildings parking services a courtyard sports field and stormwater management systems project is in the 200 foot riverfront area and the 100 foot buffer zone of boarding vegetated wetlands the property is shown in assessor's map 40 parcel 08 linda you're muted i believe we probably have a number of people on that will need to get moved over from um the attendees section so i think if we they identify themselves their other hands up i guess yeah this is uh my god for soon from uh san filipino church 169 rice road if you can please let uh our attorney john silversteel in please he's in he's in i believe i think i got do you get everybody um sean landon here from studio dsk if you could let our landscape architect in naomi campbell uh um cattrall please sorry i think she's already in there yeah she's already in okay great thank you it's all the hands i see in the air right yep all right who wants to kick us off here uh good evening mr chair jonathan silverstein i'm counsel for the applicant um i guess i'll get started with your permission um this application or actually two applications have been pending for some time um i think it's important to distinguish between the two one is a notice of intent because a very small portion of the property in the project is located within the uh 200 foot buffer zone uh riverfront zone um and uh a small amount of work to improve the safety of the vehicular access to the property is proposed in that portion of the site and as currently proposed will result in a net reduction in impervious area um that uh i haven't i haven't heard anything um since uh the project uh was slightly modified to result in that small uh in that reduction in impervious rather than the original um very small increase in impervious area uh and so i think it's important to distinguish between the two and i think it's important to distinguish between the two and i think it's important to distinguish between the two and and so uh i don't think um there's any further discussion required regarding uh the notice of intent and um we would ask that the commission vote this evening to approve the notice of intent um with respect to the uh request under chapter 193 for the stormwater management land disturbance permit uh there was a peer review uh jointly engaged by the planning board and the commission um that was completed in december and um there's been no further discussion regarding the peer review um there was also a comment letter from nova uh consulting uh back in november um the applicant's the applicant's wetland consultant responded to that four days later and there's been no uh further um comments from that reviewer either at this point we feel that we have addressed all of the substantive issues under both applications we believe that a vote should be taken
separately separately on each application separately separately on each application this evening. A couple of weeks ago, many months, seven months after the application was filed, a group of project opponents, after failing to prevent the site plan approval by the planning board at the 11th hour, submitted a comment letter, another comment letter from their attorney, as well as a comment letter from John Chessia. Even though that was extremely dilatory and untimely, we did respond to that. And yesterday afternoon, yet another um, last minute filing was submitted. We don't plan to respond to that. We don't think it's fair to force the church to continue to play this game of whack-a-mole, where project opponents continue to raise new issues and attempt to delay a decision that the church feels should have been forthcoming quite some time ago. So all of the project consultants are present. We're happy to answer any final questions members of the Commission may have. But it's our view that we've complied with all applicable requirements, and we would ask for favorable action this evening. Got it. Thanks, Jonathan. Thank you. Okay. Linda, I'll let you kick it off here. Um, okay. Mr. Silverstein mentioned that there was a Chapter 193. I just went through the entire stack today. Did I miss that?
I thought you guys, you guys only, you only filed under an order, an order of conditions and the Chapter 193. I'm sorry. I'll let Mr. Landon speak to that. We have, we have submitted, um, all the documentation that has been requested of us. Yeah, no, I'm just confused. I'm assuming Linda's coming back. Yeah, no, no, go ahead. Um, no, thank you. Let me just look through this. Okay. Look through the paperwork. Okay. You guys can move forward. Commission thoughts, comments, concerns. So just make sure for those new, they're asking us to close the hearing, right? So there's no, they're asking for a decision before, before that we leave today to make sure what those folks who are newer here today. Well, at least they want us to close, right? I mean, we could always read to deliberate, but yes, they, they, the applicant, I agree. The applicant's asking us to close the hearing. Um, this, this evening. So I see it hand raised, John, I don't know if we want to take this comment first before the commission. Sure. Uh, the Ben. Yes. Hi, how are you? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since we're, excuse me, in a little bit of a interlude, I just wanted to introduce myself in case, um, the commission wasn't aware of the town, uh, retained me, um, uh, Michael McCall and the board of select board retained me last week. As a special municipal council for three active Dover amendment applications, including this one. Um, so I'm new, new to the, uh, to the case, but have read correspondence between council that Linda and Emily have provided me. And I just wanted to make you aware that I'm, that I'm here. And to the extent that the commission has any questions regarding Dover amendment applicability or Dover amendment issues. And I realized that you're quite a ways through this process already. But I'm available to, um, you know, to answer questions that the commission may have on legal matters pertaining to Dover in this application. Thanks, thanks. I appreciate it. Um, look, we start, we say something. No, I guess I'm just a little, uh, thank you, Mr. Timon for introducing yourself. Appreciate it. Uh, glad, glad to have you on board here with the town. I guess I'm just a little unclear. Um, when you say Dover amendment issues with the conservation commission, Dover amendments, a zoning, uh, state zoning act provision. Uh, yeah, I know. Um, you know, I, I, I, I, I think that's state zoning act provision i'm i'm just curious are you here sort of what are you here to comment on the notice of intent and stormwater application or is this anything i guess i'm just a little unclear exactly what we might uh tap you to to weigh in on to the extent that the com i mean i see in the correspondence that dover amendment arguments are you know replete in them so um i agree that the dover amendment and conservation commission's hearings are not two things that normally go together um but it appears in this case that the dover amendment is being argued uh by the by the applicant as a basis um for approval or at least at pointing out that in the applicant's view it is not a basis to deny um what he's what the applicant is seeking so that's all but my charge from from um the town government is to um is to provide advice to boards and commissions that are have applications before them where the dover amendment may be relevant and to the extent that the those boards of commissions have questions about the law and i know that many of you are familiar with it and you've received arguments from you know uh well-qualified council on various sides about it but um i've been retained to be uh special municipal council to give you independent advice if if you need it you may not thanks that that's really helpful i guess i i would ask you just one question you're you're correct i agree we have uh heard a little bit and read a little bit about the dover amendment here in our concom proceedings my view is it's irrelevant it doesn't have any application here i guess i'd be curious if you agree with that um i mean my i think that i think the only potential relevance to it is the extent to which if if the commission were to deny this application based on solely town bylaw standards that are more stringent than the state wetlands protection act that that could trigger a dover analysis potentially on whether um those locally more stringent regulations that theoretically could be imposed to deny or restrict the exercise of religious use um that i think there's some potential relevance there um but you know the dover amendment does not override any state statute the wetlands protection act the stormwater handbook or local regulations that are on a par with those things and are not more stringent than those things are merely you know the localities essentially implementation of those state standards so it may not be relevant at all um but
i think that Mr. Laguerre you may be correct that it that it has no relevance you know i think that your view Mr. Laguerre may be correct that it that it has no relevance it seems like there are parties in the in the proceedings who believe that it's relevant so we might disagree yeah may disagree no thanks and just one last question and sorry everybody to have hijacked this are there cases saying that the dover amendment would be applicable to non-zoning wetland bylaws i'm just not familiar um i'm not i'm not good with this but uh yeah i'll answer it i'm just not familiar um i'm not i'm not a i'm not sure who's an advocate for uh dover amendment but dover amendment is not a no-brainer for the dover amendment you know i i've i don't know if there's any Um, I'm not, I'm not aware of a case that is like definitively said that one way or the other. Um, but, you know, I think, and again, like I said, it's unusual that a Dover, the Dover amendment arguments will be made in, in, in, in NOI proceeding. Um, but I do think that, as I said before, I think there's at least an argument that, um, that a Dover analysis would come into play to the extent any permitting board were to deny or limit a, an applicate, a religious use or educational use, Dover protected use solely on local regulations and are more stringent than state law. Understood. And I don't know whether that's even at play in, in the decision-making. And I realize that you haven't even reached your deliberative session yet. And so I obviously have no idea what the commissioner's views are going to be, um, on this. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Sean, for, uh, indulging me there. No, Mr. Chair, could I just make one clarification quickly? Um, sure. Uh, I, uh, Jonathan Silverstein again for the applicant, uh, for the record, I completely agree with Mr. Timon's, um, analysis and I want to be crystal clear. We are not claiming any exemption. Or entitlement to waive or vary from any state law requirement. We comply with the wetlands protection act. We comply with the stormwater handbook. Um, we believe we comply with all local bylaws, um, and re applicable regulations.
Our position is that to the extent there's any, um, discretion. Built into the local bylaws and regulations, that discretion cannot be used as a cudgel to force the church to reduce the size of its project, um, whether or not members of the public or members of the commission would like to see a smaller project. Um, so I just wanted to make sure to clarify that we do not believe, and we are not asking that we're entitled for. To, and we're not asking for any, um, waiver or relief from state requirements.
Okay, thank you, Sean. We have another hand, somebody who wants in, I believe. Well, before we do, I just wanna make sure commission of what we want in the meeting. You mean, I, I think he might, as he's he, I believe that might be the attorney for the butters. Who've sent in several additional letters, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy with, with y'all or just a comment. Can we just, can we finish with the, the, just going over some of that outstanding. Issues first. Sure. Yeah. So I'm saying, yeah, we're not, we're not doing comments yet. Okay, good. I wanted to invite Bert Corey to make, um, he's the one who did the stormwater review and give us, uh, just, uh, um, uh, the, his, his thoughts on, on where we stand with that.
Good evening, anyone, Bert Corey with DGT. I was a peer reviewer for the, uh, the project, uh, under the chapter one 93, um, got involved with it, uh, prior to, uh, the planning board. Decision, uh, so met with planning board also met with you folks. Uh, there were a couple of joint hearings. Uh, I issued some fairly lengthy peer review reports. The applicant responded, uh, and it was finalized. Uh, there were some comments that were open-ended somewhat in that it was some of the, some of the items that I was requesting were going to be prepared, uh, with the building plan set. Um, such as things like the, uh, the roof drainage system and how that is connected. Uh, but overall, um, as I went through my, my peer review, I was looking at it from the standpoint of the Massachusetts stormwater regulations and the stormwater handbook, as well as the, the, um, the, at that time, it was a draft set of regulations, uh, for the chapter one 93. Um, so I went through my entire, uh, went through the entire project and I issued my letters and, and found it to be, uh, acceptable.
Correct.
Linda, what you got? Uh, again, um, I wasn't sure, you know, the, the technical comments from DEP were fairly extensive and we related to stormwater and I wasn't sure if anybody in the, in the project team had addressed it to, to DEP, were they, were they satisfied with the, the revisions that you made? Are you asking me? I haven't heard it. I haven't. These are technical comments from DEP when they, when they first submitted the, the NOI, there was a fairly extensive comments and most of it was regarding stormwater. And so I just wanted to know if, if they had, if DEP was, was satisfied with the revisions that were made since the NOI was submitted. I can't answer that question. I haven't seen the comments from the DEP. Is Sean on there? Sean Malone?
Yeah. Let me get this on here. Yes. Hi, uh, everyone. Sean Malone, Oak Consulting Group. Um, yeah, I'm not aware of any DEP comments and I don't know of any submissions specifically to DEP or not.
Okay. So if you go in the wetland portal and type in your, your, um, your DEP file number, the DEP usually reviews these projects. So this is, again, this was dates back to September when you filed everything. And I, I mean, I. I don't know if you can see this, but, um, you know, I think, I think it's a step that often gets missed that, uh, DEP has their own technical comments and, you know, I think what they're wait for, what they wait is, is, uh, the revisions that were to, or, you know, your revisions that have addressed these comments. So, um, yeah, I was just curious if that had happened. So.
Not, not that I'm aware of, like I said, I, I haven't submitted anything to DEP. I don't know if anything went in otherwise.
Okay.
And the other thing is the other thing I was looking at this, this afternoon or this morning was, uh, the, we have a phasing plan from December 10th. I was, um, is that still valid? Cause I haven't, I haven't received anything else since then. So.
I can speak to that. Um, Mr. Chair, with your permission. Please. So, uh, during the planning board process, uh, the planning board indicated that it was. Uh, poised to deny site plan approval because the project phasing would, um, have the project last over five years. We don't believe that would, would have, would have been a valid basis for denial, but in order to avoid having that fight, we agreed, uh, not to phase the project and to construct it in a single phase. So there is no longer any phasing. Or phasing plan for the project. So this is no longer valid then. Is that what you're saying? It's no longer applicable.
Can this project be completed in the three year timeframe that our order condition is valid? Uh, the portion of the project that is subject to wetlands protection act jurisdiction, which is a very small portion of the project and only includes relocation of the access driveway will absolutely be completed within three years. Your storm. Water management permit by law does not contain any such three year requirement, and it's possible that it would be completed in three years, or it's possible that, um, it won't, but that's not subject to, um, the, the timeline of an order of conditions because it's that portion of the work is not, uh, within wetlands protection act jurisdiction. Okay.
Linda, anything else on your end? No, I mean, I typically, we issue stormwater chapter one, and he's be permits for one year. So that's, that's what we have done routinely and, and, uh, historically. So, and, and keep, so finish that thought, so, so finish that thought. So we, we were saying something else at the end of that, we typically, that's how we always issue it. So I, I, again, if, uh, you know, I think it's up to the commission to decide what the length of the permit would be for this particular project. But again, you know, typically. We've only ever issued chapter one to be threes, but there is no formal permit application under chapter one, a three, because we, the, the stormwater management is handled under the order of conditions in this case, and then the chapter one and four permit. So, okay, nothing else on your end, Linda, no commission, last comments, questions, concerns want to clarify. So Linda, I mean, our chapter one 94 is our three and three are issued in three year limits. Um, the chapter one 93s are folded in that. So if you have a stormwater, um, applicable project, um, and a wetlands, it gets folded into the, into the one 94. And typically our one 93s are for one year and we've always done one year. And if we, so this project would be asking us to, to sort of like go off book and expand and then like greatly expand the typical, um, stormwater permitting length. Yeah. I think we would typically do that as we would in order of conditions, which is three years, which is what we issue the chapter one 93 for 94 for also. Is the scenic road question still in the air? Last we spoke, Linda, you mentioned that is still very much, um, a matter that needed to be resolved. Um, Sean, Sean London dropped off the application that he submitted to DPW on Friday for a curb cut permit. To allow them to put into a new curb cut for the entrance. Um, uh, a new curb cut for the entrance and the second one, um, further, I think it's on the north side. Uh, the main entrance is 28 feet wide. The second entrance is 15. So that, um, those were the changes that were made since I think you, um, you also saw the last version of this. They, they removed three parking spots, but again, I think any clarification on that, because when I looked at the parking areas. There were 14 in the original plan and now there's 10. So is it three parking spots or is it four parking spots that are getting removed? Sean? There are three and they are just to the, uh, north of, of the main entrance. So there used to be 13 there. Now I believe that there are 10. Okay. Maybe it was 14 and now it's 11, but it's, it's, it, it is a total, um, removal of, of three spaces. Okay. Have we seen this drawing of the. The, uh, curb cuts and the entryways. Yes. Yes, you have. And the, uh, the drawings were actually dropped off. I believe it was, uh, last Wednesday, uh, last Wednesday morning. So packet somewhere should be in your packet. Uh-huh. Uh, Sean, are you able to, to share a screen with that? Let me, um, see if I can call this up. It was me one minute place that your site plan dated four, six. Yes. Okay. Just getting to the right plan now. I think what you dropped off the small, the smaller one that came was, uh, this is a site grading plan. That's how I see it. I see this plan has two entrances onto rice road. Is that correct? That's the right one. Can you all see the plan, uh, the plan on the screen? No, I just looking at the plan in the packet. How about now? There we go. Now it comes up. Okay. So. This is the main entrance, right here. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? Yeah. Yeah, and here are the parking space where the parking spaces, where we have, um, we have eliminated three spaces in this area here. So that's, that's where, um, where that modification has been made. So we have, this is the, the 15 foot wide, um, exit only, uh, driveway, uh, where you'll only be able to use the parking space. Okay. So. Okay. And then there are the two main entrances. Now, you'll be able to go to the north out of there. Um, this is the old, uh, main entrance. This is the new main entrance. And this one down at the south end is being removed, as well. Does that change the tree cuttings or impact on the wetland area? So there are three, three trees above the six-inch caliper, um, being removed in the right-of-way. Okay. Okay. Okay. and here and we've noted that to the DPW when we submitted that application and we will be replacing the earth and the stone wall in the place of the old driveway. So do those the trees in the right-of-way do they need to go through a public tree hearing? You bet. It's a scenic road they certainly do. So this is why we submitted the application so that they can review. Any other questions Cliff on this? No I don't think so. I'm sorry I didn't pick that up in the 350 pages of documentation. Who else? Commission? I'm sorry did I just interrupt someone? Go ahead Shanna please. I just wanted to say I am also concerned about the fact that we have a second peer review that suggests that there are other issues with the stormwater so. Yeah okay. Luke were you there? Yeah I was. I just you know I'm I was looking back through my notes from the past meetings in preparing for this evening and there are several instances along the way here where there have been questions raised about whether the project complies with the performance standards for the work that's being proposed in the riverfront area and it's not clear to me that those performance standards are satisfied or met and I guess I'd be curious Linda if you have a perspective on that what your view would be. I think you know Marty had been here previously and had commented on this a little bit but like I said I'm not convinced but I'd be curious Linda if you have a perspective you're willing to share on that. Marty is on the call I believe. I don't know if she's a, is she in the attendees section? We can ask her. Let me see. She's on. She's just unmuted. Oh, there we are. Everyone, I'm putting my camera off. I wasn't really prepared to speak tonight. Sorry, Marty, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I'm sorry. No, no, no, no. That's fine. You know, my original comments were, you know, the riverfront and performance standards and what that riverfront area was, you know, what interests was it protecting? And part of that was wildlife habitat and whether or not the mitigation they proposed actually mitigated, you know, the impacts of the wildlife habitat that was being lost. They never really, the applicant never really discussed, you know, how that, how that forested area riverfront along the road was, was, you know, acting for, you know, movement of wildlife from, you know, one side of the road to the other, you know, there's corridors there. And, you know, that was one of the things that, you know, I had recommended the applicant look at, you know, how's, how's regionally, a regional context, how, how that riverfront was performing for, you know, the interests it was protecting. And they really never, they really never, they didn't answer, they didn't provide the commission with, you know, any information on that. And, you know, the mitigation they're providing, you know, planting, sporadic plantings, you know, that they're disconnected. Really, you know, does that really mitigate what's lost? So I, you know, that, I don't think they ever really answered that question and address that to the commission. So through the chair, if I, if I may address that one, that was, that was something that I think Goddard had addressed back in, this would have been November 24th of 25 after NOVA had issued this original peer review letter to us. It was in common PS3. Of their original letter. And it was talking about riverfront area standards. Most importantly, bringing up exactly that the capacity of the riverfront area to provide important wildlife habitat. In that response back in November, we submit a memo and there was a response in there and it was addressing specifically the wildlife habitat capacity of the site. Some specific items that we called out were that the property at its present date is, is bisected by Rice Road. And so that riverfront area that we see on site. There's a roadway in the middle. That's a few sort of patches of the forested area between the existing site access. And we sort of demonstrated and described that the, the project seeks to move no closer. It was actually modified to, to not increase the impervious surface reduction and that the mitigation plantings were going to be reestablished within these areas. So we did provide an opinion that because this is a bisected habitat, we're only reworking the site entrances. We're not moving any closer and we are replacing those plantings. And, um, as attorney Silverstein had noted, we did submit. That letter in late November of 25, and there was never a supplemental response back or a comment given based on our opinion there. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you. So no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'll just commission members first. You guys can comment on that. All right. Go ahead. Yeah. Sean, if I, if I could thank you for that response and thanks Marty as well for, for weighing in. That's what you said was exactly what I had in mind. That's my recollection of the comments and discussions we've had previously. Um, you know, Mr. Tebow, we were talking about this last month. Um, so the idea that that wasn't revisited or raised again, I dispute that we have raised it multiple times. Um, I'm not satisfied for what it's worth. I do believe, uh, I understand your point about the existence of rice road. Um, but at the end of the day, I still think the amount of deforestation that's happening over here. The amount of work within the riverfront area that's proposed is going to negatively affect wildlife habitat and the value that provides. I haven't heard an answer that satisfies me in response to what mitigation you're proposing to address that. Um, so that's where I'm at. And I guess really, I was just asking Linda, was there something in the record that I missed? Cause there's, there's a lot in there. I acknowledge that. I think I've been pretty diligent about keeping track of what's here. Um, so. For what? That's. That's worth to the applicant and the rest of the commission. That's, that's my view on that particular issue.
Thanks Luke. Commission also, you know, thoughts. I mean, I share Luke. Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, I share Luke's concerns and I'm also, I still have concerns about the stormwater standards.
Yeah. Um, yeah, so I'll just round out with, uh, I agree that, uh, I agree with Luke's comments and various comments and this is. Disappointment to me is I called, I called us out back in last fall. We all came to me, came to us months before you were ready just to try to sneak in. So you have to protect less trees under our, our, our new regulation. So that's not lost to me. This is the kind of in the background and I feel, and I still think you didn't come close to the old standards. Um, so, um, I'm not even close to satisfied. So this is, yeah, we can talk more about different things, but this is not even not remotely close in my book.
Anybody else? Cliff? One, one question on the same drawing that we're just looking at along the, uh, the North East and, uh, uh, the North and the Northwest corner of the property, there's a fire road that is now there. It seemed to me that at one point in time, there was a, uh, a vegetated planting buffer that was there. Has that been removed?
No. Sorry. Um, no, that has not been removed. There is still the tree planting around, um, on the, uh, landscape plan. And which, which drawing is that? Uh, L four Oh one. I believe it is. Yeah. I'm much sure. Did you receive that one? I am not a hundred percent sure that it, um, you might, it would have been in a previous packet cliff. I'm not sure if that was in the, in this current one. It is not. It should, it should be on our website. Cliff. It is. It is there too. Yes. So I guess, you know, logistic question is, you know, if we issue a three year permit and order conditions and a chapter one 93, if not, I'm sorry, I misspoke one 94 for the, this project that includes the work in the wetland and riverfront area. And that deals with the stormwater and land disturbance on this property is, is what can you accomplish in three years? I mean, is this, is, are we giving you a permit for the entire project? Yeah. With the assumption that you can do this all in three years?
May I address that Mr. Chair? Please.
So you will be issuing us a permit for the entire project and it will be up to us either to complete it within the three years or request an extension, just like every other applicant.
Is that it, Linda? Your question? Yeah. I mean, I, you know, usually we don't walk into a project like this with a presumption that it's going to require an extension. You know, I mean, that's, you know, at some point it requires, oh, you know, reevaluation review of, you know, where they, where they stand. And typically, and that's really the reason for having three years is that gives us a chance to, to do that, you know, and, and, you know, an extension isn't guaranteed. You know, I mean, I think you would want to have a permit that, you know, you, what you can accomplish in a certain timeframe, right? We are not presuming that we're going to ask for an extension. We're asking for our permit. Okay. Just like every other applicant asked for a permit. It can take someone four years to build a house sometimes. And if they have to come back and ask for an extension, they have to come back and ask for an extension. We're not asking to be treated or asking not to be treated different from any other applicant.
I have a legal question, Luke. I think this, I can't, I think I'm kind of pointing this at you since you're our resident lawyer here. He's also, he's also a commission member of voting. So legal question has got to be sent to Ben. And we have, we're, we're, we're graced with Mr. Tyman's presence as well. So we have, we have that as well, but yeah. Ask the question, Jen, and somebody will answer it. So in, in the letter, I gather that the applicant's position is that they feel that the tree replacement guidelines are not binding. And they take the stance that if they don't get a favorable decision, they will choose not to plant the trees. We also have another letter from someone else who says that this is not necessarily the case. What is your take on that?
I'm sorry, Jen. I'm not, are you, I guess if the question is, could they just ignore a permit condition? I would say the answer would be no. Like, just because like, I don't like the permit condition. So I'm just going to ignore it. Is that what you're asking? I mean, so it was in the reading material. And I believe. Like, I believe I'm translating this correctly based on what we've read. Someone else from the commission can also back me up or the applicant is free to as well. But the position is that the majority of these tree planting guidelines are considered non-binding and that if denied, they'll choose. Yeah. Yeah. So that's the applicant's. I think you've just sort of explained, as I understand it, the applicant's position well, which is that essentially our, our, the mitigation. Requirements in our regulations are not applicable to this project, I think is essentially the applicant's position. And please, Mr. Silverstein, if I'm misstating that, correct me. But yeah, Shannon, I think that's, that's their position. As you said, there's an alternate legal opinion in our record that disagrees with that. I, I would rather not weigh in with, you know, legal advice to sort of to Sean's point where I'm going to be. Voting on this, I'm getting a little uncomfortable. I, I would maybe ask Mr. Time and if he would be willing to weigh in on this. Mr. Chair, could I clarify what I said first? Yeah. Well, thank you so much for your time and say that. Go ahead. Oh, thank you. I'm, I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it, but, but not tonight only because I have not, I mean, I've, I've seen what each lawyer has written, but I'm not well acquainted enough with the tree regulations and their applicability or non-applicability. Okay. On applicability in this application to really give you a, um, an intelligent answer at this point. And, and Luke, I certainly don't mean to put you in an uncomfortable position. I'm more sorting through sure. No, no. I mean, it sounds like it's relevant to the discussion. I just haven't, I just, I'm newly retained enough. I just haven't, it wasn't something that I looked at at all in preparation for tonight. I'd be happy to do. So, um, if, if the commission wants an opinion on that. I'm, I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it, but I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it, but I'm certainly willing to weigh in on it. Um, to try to, um, reconcile those two competing opinions from attorney Silverstein and Murphy. Um, but it would have to be, you know, for the next meeting if there is one. Right. Um, Mr. Silverstein, I think what you were saying, do you want to comment? Uh, I'd like to correct what was said about. Sure. And clarify exactly what it is I said. What I said was that. At the time we submitted our application. There was a. document on the commission's website entitled tree replanting guidelines, I believe. Guidelines, by definition, are not binding. They are guidelines. These guidelines had not been adopted as regulations, so they were not binding on the commission. So contrary to what Mr. Lazare said, I did not say that the regulations in effect at the time we submitted our application don't apply to us. There were no regulations in effect at the time we submitted our application. Nevertheless, and I would take issue, Mr. Chair, with the pejorative suggestion that we slid something in. We filed an application when we were ready to file an application. The fact that the commission had for a decade been considering regulations in various forms doesn't mean that you're sliding something in if at some point during that decade you don't apply. Got it. You can take issue with it all you want. We were getting past it. You came through out of context and out of order to come to us. So you can take issue with it all you want. All right. Commission, anything else? Any other comments? Yeah, I think Mr. Murphy is here and the attendees. Can we hear from him? Would that be appropriate?
You said Mr. Murphy? Yes.
One second. He has his hand in there. Let me see if I can pull him over. Barbara, were you about to say something too? I had a question. Go ahead. Yep. Linda, I think it's a question for you. If we approve a permit for any project and an applicant doesn't meet the three-year time frame for the project, do we have any obligation? Like, should the hearing come back to us in three years to grant the extension, or can we consider it anything new that's happened over that time period? They would have to request an extension, and that would be up to the commission to decide, would they? Jenny, we're not obligated to. You don't have to grant the extension. Okay. Like, we're not bound to any decision that we made if new things happen.
Right. Thank you. Yep. I brought over, who were you asking for? I'm sorry. I brought somebody over. Somebody had their hands raised. Mr. Murphy, you over? I think I brought him over.
Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Dennis Murphy from Hill Law. You've heard from me before. I wanted to answer some of the questions that I think I can. Attorney Legere asked about whether there's been a case, and I did cite a case at the bottom of page two that I think, of my recent letter, that I think definitively answers the question about whether Dover preempts municipal wetlands regulation. Um, there was also, I think, the question, about, um, the trees and, uh, you know, unlike the case that attorney Silverstein cited, you actually have a bylaw that has a replacement rate, and it actually says, as I pointed out in my letter, that you have, uh, the right to protect any tree over 10-inch DBH, diameter at breast height, And you have the discretion to retain any tree of that size on the site. And so one way to go about the interest of the commission in the tree issue is to exercise the prerogatives that you have. The last thing you want to do tonight is hear from more lawyers. So I'll cut it off there unless people have questions. We did bring Cheshire again. He did submit a lengthy report, and there is one new issue that didn't come out the last time. So if you want to hear from him, then I recommend the commission do so. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Murphy. Yes, I mean, if everybody's good, why don't we? I'd like to hear from him. Good evening. John Cheshire, Cheshire Consulting Services. There was a response to my prior comments prepared by the applicant. And I didn't get that information until later in the week, last week. So obviously, there is a limited amount of time in which to be able to respond, which led to why you received the data yesterday. Just there is only so much time to do it. Some of the comments required some extra work. I built a portion of their HydroCAD model in order to just sort of self-check that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. storage in the infiltration systems. What is proposed is a series of pipes, perforated pipes embedded in crushed stone. So basically I've inspected tons and tons of these things in the field. I do that as well. Basically you lay down crushed stone, you put the pipes in, you have connections at each end, headers to put it all together, and then you bury it within more crushed stone. So what you have is essentially a box of stone with a bunch of pipes in it. But when you run the HydroCAD model, what they have is they have a box of stone with voids and there's storage for that, and then they have a series of pipes. They didn't embed the pipes in the stone, so they overestimated the storage. So the model is not consistent with the plans and it's not correct because nobody can have a box of stone on one side and a series of pipes on the other. They're not connected. So I mean, I think that's a significant error. I know they don't seem to think so, but I've provided documentation to show it with the portion of the model. I just did one basin. Again, there was limited time to be able to build the entire model, so I just picked the one, I believe, on the north end of Rice Road that's closest to the road.
I'm going to just touch on sort of three major issues. I did provide a detailed response that includes backup documentation for what I commented on. You know, there were questions raised. I mean, the response by the applicant did not provide any backup calculation to justify what they were claiming as far as the infiltration rate adjustment due to the mounding. So I felt like I should do it myself. And you have those for, you know, a portion of it. And I just did one storm, so you wouldn't be inundated. You know, hundreds of pages. One of the comments I had regarded subsurface infiltration systems use as rate control. I provided some backup with that. It is in the handbook. And in fact, the section of the handbook cited by the applicant's engineer has a table. And right in the table, it has four subsurface structures. It says rate control, and it has an N-A, not applicable. There's another table in the handbook I also provided a copy of which says it's not to be used for rate control in the various storms. And then I also have been involved in multiple cases of appeals to DEP and things of that nature that we got letters from DEPs saying the same thing. So I just request that the Commission take a look at those things and include it in your deliberations.
I mean, I guess one of the things that shows in the results of my, you know, analysis of the model is that in certain storms, water will come out of the catch basins because of the undersized systems, because of the error in the volume. And if you take into account that, they would come out of the catch basin and basin one, even if you didn't reduce the infiltration rate. I provided documentation of that. But generally, and I've worked quite a bit with groundwater modelers on different projects. And generally, when the
mound reaches the bottom of an infiltration system, the infiltration rate drops pretty dramatically, generally, like a factor of 10. You know, there's no hard and fast rule, but that's sort of like the ballpark. That would be like a decimal point. So it's more than a 50%. It's like 100. It's a, it's a decimal point change. Anyway, I did provide some data on the mounding in terms of my comment that the specific yield should be a certain value. I actually, when I was first doing some of these mounding models, I got in touch with the developer of the program with the USGS, the guy down in New Jersey, and he responded to me and basically said that, you know, this specific yield should be 0.15. I provided a copy of that email. The table that's been used by many people, according to this USGS person, is not consistent with the way a stormwater system works. Specific yield in those tables is on an annual basis, not on a short rainfall infiltration system basis. And that's why if someone did enough research to read about it, they'd find out that it's not consistent with the way a stormwater system works. They'd find out that I was correct based on something I learned from the USGS. Anyway, so what's happened is the mound would be higher than predicted by the applicant. It reduces the infiltration rate. More water would come out. And if you took the applicant's 50% reduction, included the corrected design of the system with the pipes embedded in the stone, you'd actually have an increase in runoff rate in the 100-year storm. Again, I have provided a fairly detailed letter that includes supporting data for all of the comments that I have made. And just that is in the record. And if you have any questions, hopefully I can answer them for you. Thank you. Thanks, Sean. Appreciate it.
Okay. Commissions, any thoughts, comments, concerns on what you just heard?
None, Sean, other than to say I do have similar to what Shannon said, it concerns me that we have an engineer here with us tonight providing comments, which frankly makes sense to me on a very basic level when I'm looking at the project plans in front of us and which seem to undermine the other reports we've gotten from the applicants, engineers, and our peer review consultant on the efficacy of the stormwater systems. It's concerning to me, particularly given the project and its location. It's very concerning to me, too, as well as the DEP comments that don't seem to have been addressed. And can these things be reasonably addressed? I mean, I'll say a comment that no one wants to hear again at this point because we've all made it. But the stormwater issues could be much less challenging with a smaller project that, you know, didn't span the entire acreage. And which, you know, several things could be cut down without impeding worship or education. That touches more on Dover Amendment, but part of the reason this is extremely difficult is because it is extremely destructive and changes a great deal. Yeah, well said, Shannon, and I think you're right. We've all been saying those things from the very first night of hearing, and it just strikes me that the applicant has really not been responsive to the comments and concerns we've raised, to those issues we've raised, and I think they've made it pretty clear that they're not going to change the project design. So yeah, at any rate, that's all for me for now. Thank you, Luke. Thanks, Shannon, Lisa. Anybody else? I think everyone else where I stand in that those comments certainly didn't help from John. So yeah, I too am concerned about a whole bunch of different things, and clearly the applicant's not willing to work with us on these. So I think, Lisa, you just mentioned, can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? Can I be a director of a project? They're not going to address them. They want us to close the hearing. So with that said, any other last-minute thoughts, comments, concerns? I don't see any more hands. We got all the comments. Nope, someone's hands up. Someone's there for the church. Yeah. Good evening. I'm Maget Barsoom representing the church. So we have actually made changes. We've added quite a significant number of trees well above the big end of the beyond what is required by the bylaw that was in effect, not the bylaw, the guidelines that were in effect at the time of the application. So we've tried to do this. We've addressed all of those issues here with stormwater and the rest. And the size of the project cannot change.
I think that's kind of our point. I think you're right. It didn't change. We said it should because we would get here and it didn't change. And so here we are. So I think we agree with you. Right. So I mean, I understand. So I understand that the town doesn't like the size of this project. However, we've complied with the guidelines that exist in totality, complied by stormwater that has gone through peer reviews. Right. Well, again, so let me finish. The town has refused to allow us to do mitigation on the other side of the road. We've went back and changed the plans. And we actually now have a net reduction in the impervious surface in the riverfront. So when you look at the project in totality, one, we're significant. You're improving the stormwater that's there now. There is no stormwater management there at all. Okay. We are meeting all the requirements of the three planning guidelines that the town has. We're meeting all the stormwater requirements. And we're not even asking the town to do any mitigation on the town property.
So we've met the letter of everything that the town has put forward in terms of requirements or guidelines. I understand you don't like the size of the project. But that should. That appears to be an issue with the guidelines that you've set forth, right? We've complied with your guidelines. You just don't like the result of the compliance with the guidelines. Let me help you out there. Let me help you out there. It's not about liking or anything. And I guess seven people up here, we'll vote here in a second, to agree to disagree with you on that one. So you can certainly make your case. When you say that one, you mean what specifically? You mean that we have not met the guidelines for the tree replacement? Is that the case? Is that what you're saying? Is that a statement? I don't speak for everybody else. There's a whole host of things that we've spoken about. We've spoken about the last many meetings, and certainly the last 30 minutes, of where we think you might be missing the mark. And so I agree. I understand you disagree. Over the last seven months has been that the project's too big. Nobody's ever pointed to a tree or a guideline or a section of any rules or any regulation that we failed to meet. Right? Again, I disagree. No, I disagree. So let's talk about tree replacement guidelines, right? Did we meet and exceed the tree replacement guidelines? Is that a yes or a no? That's a mathematical. That's an arithmetic question. It's not a subjective. It's an arithmetic question. Do we meet and far exceed that or we don't? Here's the deal. I'm not being quizzed by you. We're about to take a vote. If you want to close it, we're going to close it. You don't get to quiz us individually. So if there are any more comments you want to make, go for it. But I'm not answering individual questions for you.
We've been here seven months. You good? That's correct. And nothing's... So we're good. Ready for our vote? Sure. Commission, we ready to go?
We're going to take a stab at a vote. Sorry. A motion, please. Sure thing. First thing, Sean, I move that we close the hearing, all hearings under Chapter 193, Chapter 194, and the State Weapons Protection Act. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second on that motion, please?
Do I hear a second?
Second. Thank you. Not a direct question, folks. Quick roll call. Luke Legere. Excuse me. Are you going to end the hearing? Are you ending this hearing? Yep. They want us to. Look, I need... I need to get my septic tank approved. I'm selling my house. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're sorry. We're ending this one on the Coptic Church, not the whole night. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're good. No, no, you're good. You're good. You're good. Sorry. So the motion was... I think I heard Shannon second Luke's motion. Roll call, please, Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Wait. Close the hearing. Oh, yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Sean Fares. Yes. Thank you. Would you like to get Nick and Sab in the next motion? Sure. I'll give it a shot. I move that we vote to issue an order of conditions denying this project under both the State Wetlands Protection Act and our local wetlands bylaw because it cannot be conditioned in a way to meet the applicable performance standards. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Barbara. This is a roll call, please, in favor of denial. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares, yes, as well. All right, folks. Here we go. I think we need a separate vote, Sean, I think on the... Oh, that's right. Chapter 193. Yep. Thank you, Luke. Good call. Sure. I move that we issue a denial of this project under Chapter 193 for failure to meet our standards and guidelines and performance standards. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin.
Lisa, what's that? Yes. Sorry. That's all right. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fares, yes. All set. Thank you, Luke, for making those. Appreciate it. Okay. Yeah, no less. Onward. On to 2F. This is 68 Lakeshore Drive, New England, DEP file number 322-1057. This is a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Jeremy Jenkins for the path of the fact work performed at 68 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass. It's included an installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to a covered porch steps. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 42D, parcel 56, and is located within 100 feet of a boarding bay located in the Wetlands Bank and land underwater. Linda. I believe we have Kevin O'Leary here to discuss the project. Okay. Kevin. Hi. Good evening. I can't see myself on this. Can people see me? We can. Okay. There we go. Sorry. You're looking good. You're looking good. Yeah. And blank stare. Thank you. Jolson Company here for Jeremy Jenkins, the owner of the property. I think Jeremy is also present in the meeting, but I don't see his name right away. He's here. Okay. This is, I think, the third hearing on continuance for the items that were mentioned. This is an after the fact wetland filing for the installation of the dock, work on a set of porch stairs. And a patio retaining wall on the back of the existing house. I'd like to share a screen. I can pull up my site plan quickly if the commission allows it. Please. Visible? No? Yes, sir. Yeah. You're good. It is. Okay. I thought I saw somebody shaking their head. No. So this is the engineering site plan. I apologize. On this side of the house, first of all, North Arrow over here, Lake Shore Drive up here on the top. This is a paper street called Mona Path that goes back to the subdivision of the Dudley Pond properties in the early 1910s. We can talk about that in a little bit. This is the patio and retaining wall in this area of the house. The BVW. Sorry. Can you zoom in on that a little bit, Kevin? I'm sorry. Say that again. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? Make it a little bigger, please. I can try. Yep. Is that the area you wanted, Linda? Enlarged? No, that's good. No, that's good. Okay. So all the resource areas are down here associated with Dudley Pond, which is to the south of the property. There's a large triple-liter oak tree that's a central piece of the patio and retaining wall, which was constructed last fall, 2025. You can see the wetland flags here, 4, 3, 2, 1. There's a bank down in this area, edge of pond. There's a bank line right there, and this is the ramp, the gangway, and the floating dock. There's a small grassed area, or I'm sorry, sandy area here, which is just the difference between the high watermark and the low watermark. The survey was performed in August of 2025, so the water level was low, which is where we pick up the edge of the pond. But anyway, this is the retaining wall. It's about three and a half feet high. Generally, in this location where I'm circling it, what's proposed down here is a stone slit trench along the base of the wall. The patio was partially completed, and then the work was stopped, and what's been proposed is a tree well around this large oak tree. Since the last hearing, Jeremy Jenkins had got Arborist Cray Small to write another letter, that focuses on the health of the pond. Jeremy Jenkins was the director of the Arborist Cray Small, and I've been able to work with Jeremy for the last four years. The arborist has been working with the commission to get the tree in place to help the community and the community. Jeremy Jenkins is the director of the Arborist Cray Small, and he's been working with the commission to get the tree in place to help the community. It's on the south of the oak tree in the patio, and that's been submitted to the commission right at the deadline. I think it's three or four pages. I can pull that up on share screen also. It's got some pictures of the tree, which might be helpful for commission members to see. In addition, I'm going to try to scroll down here. These are the steps that are subject to some construction activity in the buffer zone. much the whole property is in the 100 foot buffer zone this is the buffer zone line way out here and it goes across the top of the plan there's a an existing driveway up here in this location it was disturbed partially by the town when they reinstalled or put a new water line into the property there's a secondary driveway over here where at the last hearing we introduced a storm water system which consisted of a deep sump catch basin and a recharge basin size for the 100 year storm to collect and dispose of the runoff from the driveway area as you can see this is an existing concrete driveway with no storm water controls um and um jeremy would like to be able to redo his driveway and install the uh the drainage system as shown now what this drainage system the function it performs is to collect and dispose of the storm water and as i said earlier everything flows uncontrolled off this property to the um pond um so this is a significant improvement for this area of the property um to collect untreated runoff treat it and then dispose of it below grade and we're it's our hope that the commission considers that when they um view the other portions of the property that were you know we'd like to maintain and not have to deconstruct anything um and continue through approvals with the commission um the other i think the other end of the other issue linda was the construction of this small portion of this wall within this mona path and uh jeremy had uh submitted to you i believe um the letter from town council relative to the legal status or partially the legal status of mona path in the previous hearing a few weeks ago i had made the statements that jeremy is in fact the owner of mona path by operation of the derelict fee statute of mona path and i think that's a very important issue and i think that's a very important issue um i think that's a very important issue and i think that's a very important issue and i think massachusetts um and i think the commission requested some additional information and that's where jeremy had submitted uh correspondence from town council jeremy what was the date on that correspondence was it 2018 um the correspondence was from 2024 what was okay i'm mistaken all right um i don't know if the commission members had saw or read that um that document um but i guess we're um but i guess we're uh you know back to asking for clarification um i think that's a that's a great um i think that's a great um i think that's a great um i think that's a great comments from the commission to um negotiate and and uh it's our aim would want to keep the patio and retaining wall in place and also have the commission approve the other work uh that's part of this project i i'd like to make a comment on the monopath it's clear this is a private way with with private ways the owner on one side owns to the middle of the way the owner on the other side owns the middle of the way given that jenkins is on on both sides they own both sides of the middle of the way yes agreed yeah now we we do need to leave the right of way and that's fine uh but uh the town doesn't own that area hold off cliff because it was i did i forwarded an email to um uh kevin from our town surveyor claims that it's privately owned um you know it's not it's again it's not part of you know the the deed for 68 lakeshore drive and um you didn't mention that in your in your you were just mentioning the the the town council and the town council was opinion was about whether or not the the porch needed to stay or needed to be taken out and and her decision was that you know that it you know it should just it's it should be allowed to stay but it she didn't give she didn't give much information about the ownership of mona path she covered that was covered by our our town surveyor who did who did research it and provide information about the ownership of mona path well the town council is quite clear on the ownership of mona path and that it belongs to the jenkins no she said that it was it wasn't clear that they they didn't do that they didn't have all you know they didn't do extensive research on it so and the and the town surveyor did so do we have a copy of the town surveyor's comments i thought i sent that to everybody is it in the packet no i would have sent that as an email no it was an email it was uh on march march 27th cliff uh there's an email from linda on march 27th let me see if i can which is the one we're talking about that's forwarding the town surveyors on march 27th he's looking for that linda do you have any comments or thoughts kick us off while you look for that well i mean again you know i think this this a lot of this discussion is focused on what can be built you know on on property again you know the the deed is clear what we're giving a permit for which is the deeded land you know that mr jenkins owns under his under his deed and that doesn't include you know this section of mona path and also you know the other question about putting in the retainer retaining wall in the patio in an area that would have been protected under our under the under chapter 194 so um you know that's the decision the commission's up to is you know this this was built without a permit and now he wants to he wants to keep it there but again these are these are situations where he's in the he's in the 15 foot no disturb you know area and he's also in an area that it's doesn't it doesn't it's not shown to me that he owns mona path so i'm sorry i can't find the email it's not in my email inbox let me see if i don't know so commission i guess with that context as cliff looks for this thoughts comments concerns i'll speak less well you know for what it's worth that i i don't i i hate to hold this up over this issue yeah um but with that said it does remain to me fuzzy uh i i'm familiar with the derelict fee statute i think cliff did a pretty good job of describing exactly what that does essentially it's as mr o'leary has described in the past but these things are highly fact specific the email that i saw from town council i don't think really got to this particular issue it essentially said to as i read it said the town does not own mona path but didn't tell us who does own mona path um and in other words it's possible that there are other private rights in mona path i'm not saying there are there might not be um but this is just very fuzzy um made fuzzier by the email that i saw from the town surveyor and so i i guess what i was hoping when we discussed this at our last meeting was that maybe we could get some kind of more formal opinion um to really just nail this question down cold once and for all and unfortunately what i've seen in advance of the hearing tonight and what we're talking about now doesn't as far as i'm concerned it doesn't quite seem like it's going to quite get there um and so that's it's a it's a problem i think would it be appropriate that we ask town council to to not do a limited uh search but a thorough search i i think that would i think we'd need that frankly um and i think that uh i was hoping you know i was hoping that the that uh the email that mr jenkins shared with us was was going to be that and unfortunately it just didn't quite get us there um i certainly understand why uh mr jenkins might have thought it would get us there i'm not meaning to suggest otherwise um that this is pretty thorny stuff and and like i said highly technical and fact specific right um but yeah cliff i agree i think that's i think that's what we need is not just answering the question of does the town have an ownership interest but you know essentially confirming for us that yes by operation of the derelict fee statute uh the applicant here does have rights over if not the entirety of monopath at the very least the area that we're discussing the work proposed in so just to clear out the burden of proof is on the applicant for this um the town i don't think would be willing to pay for the um you know the town council's opinion or a title search or a title attorney um so i mean i'm gonna have to put that back on the applicant to do okay yeah linda can i say i i do have a title search ongoing i've hired somebody and i also have an attorney so i'm happy to provide you guys with the results of that and a legal opinion if that's what you'd like i think that that would certainly you know from my just speaking for myself i think that would put my mind at ease with all of this and i'm genuinely sorry you're having to go through that but i i will say that it probably in the long run um you know will be a good thing for you to have yeah if that makes you feel any better i'm sorry to put you through this but i think it'll be best in the long run for you to have my hand barbara go ahead barbara go ahead way back when they had all these little campsites around dudley pond the people who lived on the other side of the street wanted access to the pond and they made these little paths and mona pass is one of them so the people who lived across the street from them could get down here or bring their boat down through there and get it into the water and all those little paths are still there we've had years ago there was a a big project that we had that concerned one of these paths because somebody would park their their boat on it and the people who lived next to it didn't like it but it ended up that it was a path to water access for the other campers these are all little camps a long time ago if i might i don't think mr jenkins is suggesting that he block the path or that he block access if he were going to put up a fence and block access and block a right-of-way personally i would object to that but he's not doing that no he's not blocking him yes it's still open it's still access but he owns it it just has access it meets all the requirements from what i can see so yeah so i agree with luke i think that's really helpful that's that's certainly one issue second issue is building inside our 15-foot no disturb and here's why i said this is we we've had we had this come up before in the past years my thinking is we have to maintain as if as if the person had come to us we would denied it because if we don't if i'm a neighbor we just got denied something 15 foot because they went through the correct process and someone doesn't i mean so the precedent there is horrible so that's my my thought on that i know we're not we can't solve it today because we still talk here about the other part but just as a normal piece we have had this come up once at once or twice in the last few years i mean i agree completely sean if it's in the foot 15 foot no disturb then it needs to come out and it needs to be set back the way it is we i mean this is not the only project we've had on dudley pond lately that it's not a long-term project but we need to do it again it's that's the the reason why we have the school district is because we need to do it again but at the same time it's it's a very very important project under our saying that we need to do it again it can't be done forever and over and over again and so i think it's really important to let the student know that we're going to we're going to have to do it again and we have to do it again and we have to do it again and we're having a lot of people who are asking forgiveness rather than permission and i agree with you about you know the the precedent that it said so jeremy did to kevin share that email from our surveyor with you so you have a basis for your title search no i don't have it okay linda i Also, I wanted to make one more comment. It's my understanding that the derelict fee statute was enacted for the specific reason to clear up these old rights of way or owner's unknown parcels and to grant the ownership rights to the adjacent landowners. And this is a perfect example of where that statute comes into play and clues up the ownership of it. And that's why we're bringing that to the commission's attention. I've also, in one of the prior meetings, had told the commissioner, reminded them that there was another very similar issue down between, I think it was 50 and 54 Lakeshore Drive, that was litigated in favor of the, property owner to extinguish and, I guess, reconfirm their ownership across another path or another right of way to Dudley Pond from Lakeshore Drive. So it's, it's as straightforward as it can be in regards to operation of the derelict fee statute. I think that, for what it's worth, the issue from my perspective is there may, there may be other owners with some rights in Mona Paz. I understand perfectly what you're saying. I understand how the derelict fee statute works generally, but kind of, as I've said a few times now, it's highly, this is all highly fact specific. So even though we have a ruling from the land court, you know, a few hundred feet away or whatever it is, that doesn't necessarily translate perfectly here. And it might be that there are other property owners with some form of rights to use this area, which is kind of what we, that's where we are, I think. And so, as I said, I'm, I'm sorry. We are sort of in this position. It's just, there's nothing any of us can do about it. And I think, frankly, nailing this down will be good for the property owners in the long run, but.
Okay. Thank you.
Sean, you know, you're muted. I think you just said something. Oh, sorry about that. Thank you, Ken. I said, yeah. So any other thoughts, comments from the commission? I mean, either way, we have to continue it until we get to that, that piece from Mr. Jenkins here. But anything else we want to leave? Anything else you want to leave us with today? I agree with what you and Shannon were saying also about the 15th, but for what that's worth. Agreed as well. Okay. Okay. So it's with that. There's nothing else from anybody. I don't see any hands. I guess we're then continuing then to May 6th, September 6th, 30 under both. Is that right? So moved. Okay. All right. So we're here a second. Second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Ferris. Yes. All right. See folks in a few weeks. Thank you. Thanks. Sean, I'm going to disappear for three minutes. I'll be back. Is this a magic trick or are you just letting us know? Both.
Okay. Okay. Uh, that was two F onto two G, uh, this is two 51 Commonwealth road, Wayland mass DEP file number three, two, two dash one zero six, three it's continued notice intent file pursuant to Whalen's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the protection acts meant by Deb Roberts for the repair of a septic system at two 51 Commonwealth road and Whalen mass. The proposed work is it, uh, is within a hundred feet of a board and vegetated wetlands property is shown on the assessor's map. 52. So 165, Linda, you're muted. Linda, I'm going to pass this off to Kevin. All right. Thanks, Linda. Um, Kevin, again, um, I did the septic replacement design for the existing three bedroom house at two 51 Commonwealth road. And this is our second hearing, uh, I'm sorry, the first hearing it's a continuance, um, the plan, uh, the construction management or wetland filing construction management plan was revised and resubmitted, uh, blast. I think it was last week to the commission's office and it, um, add some planting areas and I'd like to share a screen and pull it up and, um, continue, can the commission members see this? Yep. Yes. Thank you. This is the, um, no, this is the wrong plan. This is the septic replacement design plan that was also submitted to the commission, but it's not the one I meant to pull up. I'm just going to swap it out quick. All right. This is the wetland filing construction management plan. Okay. So this is the wetland filing construction management plan that was submitted to the commission. I'm going to pull up the presentation. This is the wetland filing construction management plan that was submitted to the commission. This is the wetland filing construction management plan and it's just a video that shows the planting area along the, uh, real lot line or southerly real lot line. And the planting area is just indicated with a dash line, uh, in circles indicating plants, uh, to be provided, um, goes to the easily direction then heads north to the back of the garage area. Um, there's been some additional notes on here that pertain to, um, uh, naturalizing this lawn area. And, uh. this location i've also planted i'm planted i've also plotted uh some additional trees existing trees that are just off the property these are hemlocks this one's 24 i think these are probably 12 to 16 inches in diameter then there's a big uh a 36 inch triple over here and then there's a huge uh i don't know what you call it a swamp maple i'm not sure it's got five liters two of them are 48 inches in diameter one with it's a triple liter it's 36 inches in diameter no work is proposed over here here's the 15 foot um i guess residential uh buffer zone area uh blue out here is 100 foot buffer zone to the bvw which was flagged last fall by russ waldron at um applied ecological services and with the wetland report i think it was provided to the commission with the initial filing um over here i put a note that was you up for discussion last week i'm sorry several weeks ago with the commission about setting steel pins at lock corners to delineate or provide some demarcation of ownership um in these two back corners um nothing else has changed up here i did go back i i apologize to take that back i did go out here and remeasure uh many of the trees i think linda you were going to go out there after i made the submission last week and um i was able to downsize some of these tree diameters um initially they were located by my uh survey chief and um i wanted to make sure double check the diameters and and indeed they were they're smaller than what they were were originally submitted so the updated uh diameters of breast height are shown on this plan down the bottom you'll see there's a rev date over here rev date and some general notes uh disturbance areas didn't change um so these are still good over here on this side of the plan and um the erosion control barrier is still in the same place i guess we're we have to establish or you know come up with a uh secondary not limited work but i guess demarcation which is basically the lot line this work for the plantings it's anticipated to be all handwork or light power equipment it's not intended for excavators to come down there and you know strip mine the area to put plants in um so that's the intent behind it um i'm trying to think there's anything else with this i think that's about it oh i know what the other thing was this um firewood storage area when i was out here a couple weeks ago i looked a little bit closer at this this appears to be the foundation of an old shed that's the the wood frame is long gone um i couldn't tell if this was cinder block that had been parched or if it was poured concrete it's certainly not new um i think that there was a little bit of a change in the way that the wood frame was built so i think that's a little bit of a change in the way that the wood frame was built a discussion at the commission's last hearing about uh removing it or was requested to look into it to see if it could be removed and we'd like to leave it in place because it appears to go below grade a couple feet and we'd have to get heavy equipment down there to take it out so i think that's it for my presentation and i'm happy to try to answer any questions thanks kevin no no start with you please yeah i did take i did take a second site visit down there and i i agree with uh the diameters that you came up with except for the size of the wood and for one the one that says 5d um on the way western side of the septic system that's kind of an odd shaped tree so i did circumference rather than diameter and if i did the calculation that comes out at six so i would i would include that one in your tree replacement um do you know which one is that up here over in this area is that the way western side of the septic area this the there's there's one that says 5d on it okay yeah i think i see okay yeah that that one yeah that one's the one so um the other thing i didn't notice again when i was out there second time i didn't see the first time that um over in the corner where the wetlands kind of encroach into the property um there's a whole pile of yard waste over there and even a um a wheelbarrow that's dumped tipped over and placed on top of it so that will be a condition in the permit all that stuff needs to get taken out and again i'm not even sure it's on the property line because i don't know where the property line is um and let's see you have in here that you were going to um you know do some seating in the in the area that was that was encroached on with lawn and when you're out there would you please remove whatever that there's some sort of a um like a bungee looking swingy thing over there that's attached to the tree so um that can get that should be taken down too because that's that's basically in the wetlands so okay is this over this area where am i looking it's behind the fire pit you know where you have that yeah so yeah where's this 40 tree you know that's just down there in that area so that will be a condition of the permit also but otherwise i mean there's not much uh comments i have with a with a septic system so okay yeah that's it question anything else thoughts comments concerns
on the um final plans could you put the datum on it uh yes there's no problem it's assumed it's assumed datum yeah we don't accept that you know what datum did you use well it was assumed i can i can apply a conversion put a conversion in a note on the plan in other words add so many feet to get to whatever navd 88 datum which is probably the one you're referring to right yeah 88 yeah okay anybody else question do we have tree species listed anywhere uh very just very general shannon it's the um the diameter with the d after d stands for deciduous um i meant more for like uh the proposed plantings oh uh i kind of i went a little bit generic with it up here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a i thought i got a little bit more specific than what's up here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a little bit more specific than what's up here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a here in the notes section i don't think i i thought i had a i don't see it on the plan i don't see it on the plan i don't see it on the plan and probably just the conversion as well and probably just the conversion as well and probably just the conversion as well right so the chapter 193 now is based on right so the chapter 193 now is based on right so the chapter 193 now is based on two for one on dbh although it looks like two for one on dbh although it looks like two for one on dbh although it looks like those will be which i think is fine but those will be which i think is fine but those will be which i think is fine but those will be replaced those will be replaced those will be replaced within the buffer zone area based on on the plan here yep all of them except for three i think are in the buffer zone i mean it looks like it's a total of chapter 193 38 dbh so 19 dbh replacement is that what it would be helpful just to have usually we have a table that shows total dbh removed total dbh to be replaced okay and i think chapter 194 since there's one large tree that's what five two and a half inch trees and then for the two trees coming down that are six to eleven inches it's another six trees just to just have that table so we're on the same page of what's getting right but it's really a mix right between trees and small shrubs and high shrubs right for 194 i think not for 193 yeah we reduced a lot of the the shrub replacement in the recent 193 okay i can examine it and um add them to the plan it fails okay assuming we call ourselves down what would we like to do you want to make a motion or i move we close the hearing under chapter 194 in the state act is this in condition like assuming we get data on the trees that we closed be conditioned okay yeah because i should have asked i i assumed and maybe i should have asked i assume yeah i guess i take that as a yes a yes have linda that you were this everything we've been discussing are the sorts of things you'd be comfortable dealing with yeah it'll be a pre-construction condition so yeah okay love it uh so you uh luke made motion to hear a second second uh i think that was lisa uh roll call please luke legere yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yeah cliff lewis yes lisa aubin yes jenny brown yes and sean yes thank you next motion i move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under chapter 194 and the state act uh contingent upon the receipt of additional information and minor plan changes discussed here this evening and with conditions as discussed
thank you luke do i hear a second thank you cliff roll call please luke was here yes barbara yes shannon fisher yes cliff lewis yeah lisa alvin yes jenny brown yes sean versa yes thanks kevin thanks very much have a good night folks you too thank you uh that was 2g
uh 2h going deep in the alphabet for this one uh three bracket road and whale mass dep file number three two two dash one zero six two is the continued notice of intent filed pursuant to way lens of wetlands and water research social protection bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Neil Harvey for the construction of an addition and modification to the supplement system at 3 Brackett Road in Wayland, Mass. The property, sorry, the proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarded vegetated wetlands and 200 foot riverfront area. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 24 Parcel 113. Linda. I think we're keeping Vito up late tonight, so. Oh, brutal. Sorry, Vito. That's good. It was a long meeting tonight. Yeah, you're telling me. All right, so Vito Colonna, Connerstone Engineering. So we had a continuance from last public hearing. Let me share the screen quick. And this was for 3 Brackett Road. Just to refresh, remember there was a proposed addition off the back side of the house. Right through here we had wetlands out the back with a perennial stream right through here. And the addition itself kind of split this inner 100 foot riverfront area. So there were I think three kind of main questions last time. One was basically about the preexisting the porch over here on when that was constructed, when it was enclosed, and whether that you know was under the current Rivers Protection Act. So Linda did some research. So did we and they both agreed. And essentially what was found was the deck itself was built pre-1997. And then subsequently later, the top structure was enclosed. So the underlying piers and everything was not altered during that time. I did have some pictures. So this is the deck itself right there. So the structure underneath was originally there pre-Rivers Act, and then this top part was enclosed after the fact. I think I have a couple more kind of side view pictures. So this is it from the backside also. And then one other question was actually just pictures of the area. It was kind of a question like what was going on in that zone. This is it right in here, this back part of the house right through there. This is kind of a side view. It would kind of come off this side portion of the house right through here. The contractor did provide us with a section of it. Let me see if I can get, this is just a, it's a hand sketch, but this is what they were intending on doing. There was kind of a question on how that would lay out because it was partial basement, partial part on sauna tubes. And essentially this was that existing house on the left side. And then it would be a basement on the, off the side, and it would be a walkout. So it would only be a frost wall foundation. And then the addition would overhang over that area with just a post and drilled helical piles. And if we look at that on the plan, I think I have a little detail of it. I just added this. This is not in your plan. I just worked this for presentation. But essentially this would be the yellow would represent the frost wall. And then the rest of this would be up on raised piers. And essentially this was that zone, this kind of outlaws. blinded red that's inside that inner 100 foot. It's about five square feet of area in there. And we did look at kind of what would happen if you did reduce that size to stay out of it. It would just kind of really shrink down this space to really not a really usable area for storage, which is what they were looking for underneath. And the contractor had indicated just essentially this is just a four foot trench. And then as soon as they're done, it's backfilled. It would be a fairly quick process in and out. So the only real permanent disturbance would be this corner right in there. And then as far as the mitigation goes, we discussed a few options. One of them was bulking up this back area. Before we had kind of swung this around as an existing swing set here. And we essentially moved that swing set out and then made this more uniform. And added about 250 square feet to that mitigation area. So now instead of a 2 to 1, it's a 2.7 to 1 ratio. So right through there. And that's all native plantings would pull out the existing turf and stabilize it with a natural mulch and then install the native plants throughout that area. And then one of the second items was if it was possible to have dark sky compliant lighting on site and then also eliminate any large spotlights in the back that may shine into the wetlands. And so we did expect that that any, you know, there would be no live spotlights in the back and then any existing lights, even the lampposts out front would get converted over to dark sky compliant fixtures just to help out because we are in pretty close proximity to that wetland in the back. I think that was all the changes that we had. I'm hoping that we met all the conditions, everything we discussed about last time. I can hand it back over.
Thanks, Vito. Linda, start with you, please. No, I think that Vito's done the work on the revisions that we asked for and bulking things up. Again, it's a tiny, tiny little piece of that is within 100 foot of a riparian area. The one thing we discussed was the building and the porch, whether or not that was done. That was the building permit that or the building file. I guess that wasn't done with a building permit either. The actual, the deck or porch, whatever, but they still gave them a permit to put it to screen it in later. The only thing, you know, that makes this project a little bit interesting is that the porch is not, is it within the 15 foot setback. So that's going to keep this project or this house pretty much non-compliant unless that's taken out. And but the zoning enforcement order said that was too old and it was just considered protected at this point. So.
Okay. Trish, anything else?
Are you good? I just want to say, thank you for doing that dark lighting stuff. The, the owners are happy to do so. They had no problems with it, so. Oh, I guess the last thing would be to apologize and make you sit through two and a half hours of that just for a quick 30 second decision. No, it's good. Well, we did that because he had the next, he had another project down here under storm water. We wanted to put them close together, but that didn't happen. Is it? That's not going to happen, right?
Okay. Then I just can't hear a motion then to close it. Under both please don't move. Thank you. Luke. We'll hear a second second. Thank you. Cliff roll call. Please. Luke was here. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. With Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean, there's a yes. Thank you folks. Okay. The next motion, please. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project under chapter one 94 and the state act. Thank you. Luke. Do I hear a. Second second. Thank you. Cliff roll call. Please. Luke was here. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. With Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean. There's a yes. All set. Great. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Video. Appreciate it. Brown. Good night. You're right on to public meetings. This is three a six Brewster road and Wayland D dash one zero five. Four. It's request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to Wayland's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the protection accident by Michelle Levine for the replacement of us of a septic tank at six Brewster road and Wayland mass proposed work is within a hundred feet of boarding vegetated wetlands and the property is shown on assessor's map 44 parcel five. Linda. Yeah. I think this is a straightforward tank replacement that it's not a full septic replacement and it's getting done. It's actually in the same, in the same place as where the current one is. Right. The only confusion I have, and maybe Vito could probably, somebody can answer this for me as it says you're the existing tank to be pumped and backfilled, but then you're actually putting this, the replacement tank in the same place. Is that right? Yeah. I think Vito left, which is unfair. Oh, okay. He was the cornerstone guy that did it. Okay. So I showed up. Okay. I can get, I can get clarification from that. Later. So that's not a big deal. So it's basically like you said, Linda is replacing an existing tank exactly where it is. Yeah. No, I can get, I can get some clarification from Vito on that before I issue the permit or write the conditions for that. Okay. Or the project description or whatever, all that. Okay. Yeah. All right. Commission will go with us. Pretty easy. I know Shelly wants to good luck in the house sale, by the way. Yes. I want to sell my house. Sorry for scaring you earlier in the evening, by the way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was actually interesting. I mean, actually listening to all this was interesting. So thank you. That's a good word for it. Interesting. What was that? Well, we do it every three weeks. So you're welcome to join us every three weeks. Take your wits on the way out. All right. Can we get a motion then for Shelly here, please? Yes. I move that we issue a negative determination under the state act and a permit under chapter 194, allowing the proposed replacement of septic. Thank you, Luke. We'll hear some more. Thank you, Cliff. We'll hear a second. Second. Thank you, Cliff. Do a roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Alban? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Shawn Ferzi? Yes. You're all set, Shelly. Thank you very much. Linda, how do I get a permit? Do I just come back to you? Let me do it for you first. Okay. So let me get in touch with Vito either today or tomorrow or Friday. Okay. So these ones are easy. They're a lot easier than the other ones that we just voted for. All right. Thank you very much. You got it. Take care. All right. Bye. All right. On to four. Stormwater and land disturbance. This is 4A, 43 Barney Hill Road, SWLD-160. Linda? Vito was doing this one, and because our new regulations require abutter notices for large projects. He forgot to send out the abutter notices. So he wants to continue . Well, in his defense, this is his first year doing this. Well, hey, we just made up that condition. I love Vito. Okay. We can skip over that then. We're just going to continue it. Okay. All right. Moving on. On to 5A, COCs. Sorry. 5A is 129 Boston Post Road, DEP file number 322-1032. Linda? 5A is 129 Boston Post Road, DEP file number 322-1032. Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Linda? Yes? Oh, we have somebody from GPR on, right? We just did a site visit, looked over the site. I think the only question I have is because, you know, things really haven't started to emerge. The plantings that they put in, I really don't know how much Of that stuff is going to stay surviving, right? Do we come up with that number on that one? Uh-oh. You're on mute. There you go. Hello. Yes? Good evening, everyone. For the record, Lin-Hua Tse, I'm an engineer at GPR representing ICB, which is Exalamic Center of Boston. The question about the growth itself, you're right, you know, it's still early. We planted the trees that we were going to plant. I'm not sure if there's a condition that we could follow up on. Just, you know, not sure how we can go about doing that. You know, we're here to try to close out the permit. But would it be possible to make it a perpetual condition so that we can have the owner check in in a year or two just to make sure that the things are still growing?
I mean, would a partial certificate, I'm not sure that does the trick for the applicant here, but you can sort of decide. I mean, they're not in any position to be selling this place anyway, so we can do that. Is it a partial? Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. Everybody know what that is? You're real with that, everybody? Is the applicant, I guess we should ask, too, if the applicants, if that works for you? That works for us. I think we had this conversation before, too, during the actual permitting, is that any sort of planting that we do should be monitored and reviewed in the two-year period, which is typical for new planting, but in the resource area. I'm sorry, in the buffer to the resource area. Because when were these planted? Was that just this last fall?
I believe it was last fall. I don't know the exact timing, but they were working through, I think, late summer. Okay.
Okay. Fish, we're good then? Issuing a partial? And if so, can I get a motion? Accordingly. Sure. I move that we issue a partial certificate of compliance for DEP file number 322-1032, excluding the plantings. Which will be monitored, moving forward. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. With that, I'll let Shannon roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Louis Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Kenny Brown? Yes. Sean Faresley? Yes. Okay. All set. Sweet. Thank you so much. Have a good day, everyone. You, too. And on to 5B. 22. Lake Shore Drive. DEP file number 322-449. Holy cow. What year is that? Well, the funny thing is, is that this was on our agenda for last meeting, and something, it fell off our plate somehow during that long, long, long discussions we had. It was going to be delivered by Pony Express back then. No, it was 19, when was that? No, 2000, it says here. So, yeah. Anyway, so, yeah, no, this house is going to be delivered by Pony Express. This is also on the market, so it needs, they were looking, they're looking to clear up, clear out their old erudite conditions, the construction of a retaining wall along the bank. That was done, and, or was it done?
Yeah, no, it was never done, actually. It's listed as, he checked it off that this is no longer valid. The work regulated was never started. So, this is an easy one. Okay. Okay. I move we issue a certificate of compliance. That's for DEP file number 322-449. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. John Faresy, yes. Thank you. Moving right along. 5C, 39 Sherman Bridge Road, D-742. Hang on. I'm just, this one.
This, too, was for a barn that was built way back in their property with fairly good-sized lot and also just never closed, so I really don't have any issues with this one, either. Okay. I did appreciate the humor in the letter, though.
We're all good. Why don't you go ahead and hear a motion, then? Yeah. I move we issue a certificate of compliance for 39 Sherman Bridge Road, file number D-722-449. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. John Faresy, yes. Thank you. And wrapping up with 5D, 23 Alpine Road, D-970. Linda? Same thing. This was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. I think it was a two-way road. This was a tear down and rebuild. A lot of work. Some work in the buffer zone. But he did a really nice job of replanting all the trees that were taken down. And I don't have any issues with this one either. Okay. Do I hear a motion? I move that we issue a Certificate of Compliance for 23 Alpine Road, file number D-970. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. And Sean Faresa? Yes. Thank you. On to 6A, Boat-to-Return Performance Guarantee for 4 Field Lane, DEP file number 322-806. Linda? So, our current goal is to try to return one of these. these at least once a month, one of these proponents bonds. So this is our monthly requirement today.
So I think, what was it? It was $500, I think, Emily, was that right? This one I think was $1,200. Oh my gosh. Hold on to that one. Don't lose that one. All right. Can I get a vote then to return the performance guarantee for four fields lane, please? So moved. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Sean Perzy? Yes. Thank you. And top isn't necessarily anticipated by me, 40 hours in advance. Just one quick thing. I'm going to let her speak real quick, but Shannon's looking for a vote from us to chat with her, go before the school committee to talk about the outdoor education experience. So we talked about it yesterday. I said, why don't we just talk about it in this part today? And so give a quick second overview, Shannon. Yeah, I hope this comes out while I'm a little brain fried. Obviously, that parcel at Orchard Lane, Holiday Road is, you know, under some discussion right now up for a vote. It is currently owned by the school committee, even though the select board is currently putting up a proposal to study it for uses. Most likely, housing. But it is under the purview of the school committee at this time.
I've been doing some research into the fairly tremendous benefits of outdoor classrooms, and they're quite myriad. It could be a really cool use. So what I want is to just show up at the school committee meeting and during their public comment just portray this idea, give them some facts and figures so that I can email them in more depth about, you know, the benefits of these. I'm sure they're very aware of it. I just wanted to highlight the value of this forest as a potentially valuable resource that you know, I think they should maybe keep and put to use in this way. So, you know, obviously theirs is the decision. So I simply want to offer up the idea and suggest that if you guys agree, this is something that I could convey that the Conservation Commission has an appetite to support them. There are many, many grants out there and grassroots networks. works to help provide guidance about how to do outdoor classrooms so I just want to suggest that we might be willing to help lend resources maybe a little energy to help get some grants if this was something that appealed to the school commission in in any way so I would kind of like to know if this is something that sounds good to you guys to represent and then oh sorry I was going to say sort of not necessarily connected to that with the school board but there is also the use that I think that some of us are interested in using some of this land to help create a cross Wayland trail and I actually made a connection with the guy in in town who handles the Wayland um Bay Circuit trail and crazily enough he's actually come up with a little plan for a cross Wayland trail so I made that connection he's actually planning Sean to go to the uh the CPC tomorrow for a rare April meeting and he has these ideas that he's planning to propose to them to um that uses 17 glees in which is the old vials property and possibly you know depending on how things go with school committee interest part of um that holiday road um parcel to to help create that path so he's crazily enough working on that on his end it was it was kind of cool we made that connection and then um You know, my focus has really been like, is there a way that we could just convey to the school committee the potential value of this property and that we're willing to help them if they have any interest in it? I don't want to be taking it from him. I don't want to be like seeming like we're doing a grab. Just, you know, go with respect and an idea. That just makes me very clear. What you're asking for is a vote for us that we would be interested in exploring the idea with the committee on an HL. We're not committing to dollars or hours. It's just, hey, we like the idea. Talk to us more about it. Right. So make sure I'm helping you with the vote. Right. OK. Yeah, I think so. I mean, I'm certainly happy to go and do legwork down the line to get some of these mini grants if needed. But like, absolutely. I'm just, you know, if I go there and say that, I don't want to be the sole person and the rest of the commission is saying, well, this is terrible. We didn't agree to that. Right. Yeah. Gotcha. Yep. I for one would, you know, anything where we can kind of preserve the wooded. The area there, I think, is great. You know, there's a lot of other degraded property in the town where things can be built. And it would be nice to see this stay intact and go to good use. And I heard that guy talk. I think he spoke at Monday's hearing. Right. Yes. So, you know, I for one certainly support it. Me too. Yep. My support. If I might add a minute here. There's a huge amount of property at the middle school. A lot of which is wooded. Would it not be much more practical to put the open classroom at the middle school where they could actually go and use it? Could be. Rather than an orchard, which is, it's really not practical. You'd have to make a whole day out of it to go use it. I mean, yeah, that could be. And we're certainly not here to tell the school committee what to do. But they do have a lot of long-term plans underway. They're trying to figure out how to use the properties that they. They own to renovate and rebuild some of these out-of-date buildings that they have. So they're exploring various uses for their land. And you could absolutely be right, Cliff. They may say that's a great idea and they want to do it there. And, you know, that's that. It's their land. I'm just. We're just supporting the idea of having an outdoor learning space, whether it's up there or somewhere else. Sure. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. I don't think we should suggest. If they put it there, I think we should suggest that they look at this as an idea. Right. Yep. I mean. Oh, sorry. I was going to ask, like, is it. I mean, I was framing it with the concept of this land because this land is currently sort of like very much under discussion from kind of multiple groups at this point. So that was sort of my my my lead in, I guess, for that. Yeah, you recommend it. But we're just saying we we we support the idea as an example. Right. We're not saying how much money or land that we would give up on our end. It's just supporting the idea. Yep. Okay. I'm good with it. So I guess I'll make a motion. I don't want to make a motion to to back Shannon to go toward the school committee and chat about outdoor learning spaces and our help behind it. So moved. Thank you. Look, we're here seconds. I can. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Look, the year. Yes. Barbara Hall. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Do I am I allowed to? Yes. Yeah. You're you're you're on the idea. No, they can. I'm assuming assuming you're. Yeah, you bet. Yeah. Cliff Lewis. Sorry, Cliff Lewis. Lisa Albin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yeah. And Sean Farris. Yes. There you go, Shannon. Hey, all set. Nice. Thank you. Thanks for thanks for thinking of that and pursuing. Yeah, that's great. No public comments. There's no way someone can't say through all that, right? Yeah. Okay. It's to book. Oh, I don't know who the last one is.
And then Babs, how are we looking for the March 25th, 2026? They know that I added one thing. Hmm. Did you add one thing? Yeah. We discussed the fact that. Lender. After so many. Years of hard work. Was able to come through. The show me the money. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, anybody, anybody talks, it speaks a town meeting this year on a behalf of a conservation, we should start with after we brought in over $2 million, dot, dot, dot. Yeah.
Yeah. No good stuff on that. Okay. Um, so I guess. If anything else, um, I'm going to make the motion to approve the minutes with Barbara's addition else was fun. That just was omitted. Okay. I moved. We approve the minutes of the March 25th meeting with the edits that Barbara has just mentioned. Thank you, Luke. We'll hear a second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call. Please look good here. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Sean. Thursday. Yes. Thank you. And let's see if they are pressing me motions. Let's uh, it's a journey for the night, but almost makes the motion. I want to just call out the very lovely letter we received from a lady on Dudley pond who literally wrote in to tell us how great the trees are, how they're helping the pond and share her support. So I want to call her out and say, thanks. You're right. And I was kept like, as I was reading, I was like waiting for the. Boy, like, Oh, she's leaving this up, man. It's a little dark path. I'm going down buttering us up and she's going to hit us with something. But no, it was, you're right. It was really nice. It's refreshing. I second Shannon's motion there. Yep. That's good. Yes. All right. With that motion to an adjourn, please. So moved. Thank you. Luke. Do we hear a second? Thank you. Cliff last roll call the evening. Luke was here. Yes. Harder Barbara. Yes. No kidding. Barbara.
Barbara. Yeah. I said, yes.
Shannon Fischer. Yes. With Lewis. Oh, we're having so much fun. I want to pose. I want to keep. Yeah, that'd be good. That'd be kind of funny. Somebody is going to vote. No on these ones. It's going to happen sometime. Yeah. Uh, Lisa Aubin. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. And Sean Fersey. Yes. All set. All right. All thanks for the hard work.