December 22, 2025 – Route 20 South Landfill Visioning Committee – Video & Transcript
December 22, 2025 - Route 20 South Landfill Visioning Committee
So we'll call and order the meeting of the Route 20 South Lancel Vision Committee for Monday, September 22nd, 2025 at 6.03 p.m.
This meeting is on Zoom only.
People can watch it, of course, through the link that's posted on the town website.
It will be taped, available for viewing on Blakey as well.
We welcome public comment and persons attending tonight's meeting, Cliff Lewis, Seema Cherian, Mark Norton, Mike Spelman, and Salton Faye with us.
As always, the most appreciative is Tom Holder, TV Deputy Director.
So the agenda this evening will include public comment, consideration of our minutes of our last meeting on November 24th of this year,
and then we'll continue to explore the best uses of the South Landfill, located at Route 20,
focusing on the 17 proposed uses outlined in our committee's June 5th-2023 meeting.
Discussion may also include consideration of possible preferences with post-concepts and ideas outlined by consultants hired by the town.
We'll also consider issuing a report to the select board, draft reports in our packet, and we'll also discuss the idea of a public forum.
And please wait a moment. Welcome, Aaron Givens.
Good. How are you? Very good. Aaron is with us at 605, dressed for the occasion. We are honored. Yeah. So, why don't we move on to public comment? Anybody online would like to give public comment?
Craig Griffin. Craig, feel free to provide the public comment. And if you could just give us your address as well. Thank you. Hi. Craig Griffin. Can everybody hear me? Yes. 92 Boston Post Road. Weyland, obviously. I was asked to come on on behalf of the Weyland Youth Lacrosse to talk about the field situation, potential use of the landfill.
I guess the – well, I guess thank you guys for being on this committee. I'm sure it's not easy, right? To quick overview of the Weyland Youth Lacrosse, I've been doing the fields for a number of years. I'm also a coach, and every spring it becomes a major issue, a sit-down with many people in the rec department, other sports that are vying for the fields. Weyland Youth Lacrosse is about 381 kids just in the spring, which divides up into about 17 teams from K through 8th grade. So, it's always a battle trying to get fields. So, I guess my comment and my thought here is anything that can be done to better the South Landfill on Route 20 would be awesome if it was fields. Right now, there's about five fields that are not even dedicated for lacrosse, are appropriate for lacrosse in the Weyland. So, it's always very challenging splitting that between soccer, field hockey, and all the other towns. So, I guess a big positive vote for anything we can do to get fields approved at that site. So, thank you. Thank you. Okay.
Jessica Trawa? Hey, everybody. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Good evening, Jessica. Hi, so this is Jessica Greer Trawa from 10 Adams Lane, and I'm just here on behalf of the Future Weyland Dog Park Committee. So, thank you for hearing us out a couple months ago when we were sharing our ideas. We just understand, based on your agenda this evening, you might be talking with more intention about some goals for the Old South Landfill area. And just wanted to share, you know, an update in that since, you know, since we've had a chance to meet with you, our group has gone ahead and started to draft some governance structure around the dog park. I know that that was a question that you had had for us around some of the role clarity. And so, we just wanted to give you that update, recognizing that you might be talking about, you know, a dog park or considering it. So, I'm happy to answer questions if that comes up during your meeting this evening. I thank you very much for your comment, Jessica.
Brian Thornton? Yes, hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, Brian. Great. Brian Thornfeld, 47 Shaw Drive. I'm here on behalf of Weyland Town Soccer. I'm the president and have been with the sport since my kids were playing in kindergarten. They're 13 now. I've been coaching and part of the board. So, you know, I think the main thing, similar to what Craig's comments were, any new space available for playing fields and, you know, I'm kind of thinking across many sports because my kids play multiple. I just happen to be, you know, you know, we overlap field usage with the sports that Craig brought up. I mean, the only other thing I'd say is, you know, we're also vying for space with adult leagues, you know, softball, also adult soccer. And then in-town clubs as well from, you know, direct experience. You know, we're often scrambling as coaches and board members to reschedule games based on lack of field availability, inclement weather, over usage of fields. We have, you know, just one example is the middle school and clay pit get vastly overused. And, you know, anytime early spring, mid, late fall, they're already in disrepair from overuse, which causes less than optimal playing conditions for sure, but also, you know, can lead to injuries and poor, poor play. Um, so it, you know, keeping our, our, our, our games and our, our kids and our parents in town is really important for, you know, travel time. If we're a Wayland home game, we want to play in Wayland and not have to, you know, sacrifice our, our commute to, um, to adjacent towns or, or, or farther away. Um, and, you know, I think in 2021, we were talking about, um, building three fields and we had Loker come on, but, you know, that's a great start. But, you know, years ago we were in need of three and we got, we have one, um, I know we've all been through the field, you know, the field availability discussions and, and whatnot. But, um, huge endorsement for more grass fields, multi-purpose sports. Um, it, it seems like a, a, a great spot for, for additional space. I'll yield back my time. Thank you very much. I think that did have a comment. I see no one else. I'm sorry? I see no one else. Oh, okay. Thanks, brother. Uh, item three in our agenda is consideration of our minutes from November 24, 2025. I want to thank the CIMA for being willing to draft minutes for tonight's meeting to thank Chris Lewis for wrapping these minutes on the 24th. I would like to send a motion for approval of the minutes of November 24, 2025. If I hear a motion. Can I move, Sam? I hear Mike Spelman did move. I hear a second. So moved. A second. Second. Second for the CIMA. All right. Thank you. Um, comments on the minutes. Do you need, sorry. Um, do you need me to vote for enough votes? Cause otherwise I wasn't present and I, I won't. No, you can abstain if you like. It's up to you. I appreciate you asking. All right. So those are in favor of the motion. Cliff? Uh, yes. Mike? Yes. Emma? Yes. Mark? It didn't hear. It didn't come through your voice. Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you, Mark. And, uh, uh, Erin. I'm going to abstain. Okay. I'm a yes. Five zero one on that, um, uh, motion. And that motion carrots. Moving on then to item four. When we left off at our last meeting, we were kind of in the middle of viewing in further detail the proposed uses for the, um, South landfill area. And, um, based on our discussion to date, I, I mean, court was created and put it in the packet. It, it's simply a draft, not reflective of any final seasons of this, this committee. But I felt, given the timeframe that we're working with, our committee done over the 26th, I believe, our mission over the next year. So we want to, uh, have a working report, I think, going forward to edit. And we've also talked about having a public forum. And we'll get to that in a moment. But, um, I'm not sure if all of you had a chance to review the proposed report. But in it, um, you focus on several uses of the South landfill. Passive recreation and open space, solar panels, rectangular grass fields, dog park, shared surface parking, dual bus parking, shared restroom, public materials center for public works, a vegetative buffer area, and nature-based design elements with potential small outdoor amphitheater. And, um, within that, most areas include a bird, a bird wildlife structure. That's on item, item one, page seven of the draft report, passive recreation and open space. So I guess I'd like to open up for comments on those ideas. And if you like, I can try to pull up 17, page 17 uses, then we'll prove that even, we'll have 23, but people want a visual. Um, but, uh, if people have comments on negative or positive, on, on those uses, are there other uses that people like that have to consider? Or are there other uses that are listed that you prefer not, not now, if they can be built? Yeah. I think these encapsulate a lot of the ideas that have seemed to be the priority of at least those from the community that we have heard from and some of the needs that have been laid out or, or touched upon over the time that we've been working on this committee. Um, I do appreciate your efforts to pull it together too, Tom. Yeah. On this clip, I think the only thing that, uh, that doesn't fit here is the housing. And we beat that up pretty well, trying to get it to work, but it doesn't. So everything else looks like it ought to fit in. Um, and to that point in the report, I do mention and align it to the housing and how we've looked at it. Um, but it's pretty, it seems, it appears to be economically unfeasible. But on that issue, uh, Holder, can you update us on any further testing done at the site? Since we last met or to our last night, two meetings ago. Uh, at the last meeting I had reported, um, along with Lee Cosco, he was on for a brief period about, um, the actual depths of the waste that was found. We did borings and, uh, essentially we found it to be moderately shallow toward the east, but, uh, much more deep and significant as you move westward. So we had that information. What we're doing now is, uh, we've, um, advanced an effort to perform test pits, uh, along the perimeter, the, the northern perimeter along Route 20, uh, and also, uh, on the eastern portion, just beyond a fence that's located there. And what we're looking to determine is the actual footprint, how far does, uh, the municipal solid waste actually extend, uh, toward Route 20 and then eastward towards the wetland. So that will complete what the DEP was asking us, um, in essence, to perform a full assessment. We'll have all of the data that we need, uh, to be able to offer to them, uh, this is what they were looking for, uh, to really continue our discussions. Um, based on my comments on options for the space, I use the word option in the report. Maybe the word we should use is recommended, but that aside, you feel that all those items can be achieved. And would you leave that to the collaborative based on your understanding of what I'll call usable acreage? Do you think the items that were listed documented to you would, uh, with the idea that the solar probably would be a canopy over a parking area versus a solar farm, mini farm? Yeah, my understanding of the parcel, um, coupled with what mass DEP is presented and spoken to us about. Um, it would appear that everything listed, all of the options, or if you decide to call them recommendations are achievable. There was a question at our last meeting as to whether, um, you know, when we installed water and perhaps sewer utilities, or whether there were footings to support stadium lighting, those types of things. Would that be acceptable to the DEP? And we reached out to Weston and Samson, both of the engineers there, and they responded back, uh, quite confidently that they have engineered those types of things on landfills. Even where, you know, there was, um, significant waste found at the location. So I think, I think what you have written here in this report, I do believe, uh, would be, uh, permittable by mass DEP. A lot of comments on the uses that we're talking about. No, it's a great compilation, uh, Tom. Um, do you think it's feasible for us to get all 10 options on there again, but do we leave that to the collaborative? Do we need to come up with a prioritize these things and say, okay, well, we can't do a amphitheater because we don't have the room for it. Um, and then, you know, wants needs nice to haves. And so that the collaborative has something to look at. So like, okay, well, we don't have room for this or that. Uh, let me, let me chime in here because I, I've done some sketches and, you know, based on various sites and bits and pieces that the collaborative done, but haven't put anything together. It, it certainly looks like if we put the, uh, the bus parking in the material center, uh, way to the east and, and share a driveway between them, uh, it will make a whole lot less space than you would otherwise need for both of them. And we put the field way on the other end where it's high and flat, uh, to keep the fill to the minimum. And if we're able to get the central parking in the middle of that space, we should be able to get everything in. Cause you'll have a nice community space in the middle and all, all these other activities will fit, uh, in there. I mean, not all of them will be huge, uh, but they'll all, they'll all get in there. The trail will get in there. The place for bird watching will get in there. There's a space for a dog park. You could put a very small amphitheater down overlooking the, uh, the wildlife area. So you can, you can fit all those things in. Yes. Yeah. Way to work, Cliff. Thank you. And if, and if, if that's the will of the committee, it'd be my recommendation that we, uh, engage the collaborative to, to actually do a real drawing so we can have something to show. So, to Cliff's, to Cliff's point, um, um, Tom Holder, I'd like to have a talk to the committee about a public forum, possibly agility to get away seven. Um, and, and the collaborative has given us some diagrams already. Do you think the collaborative could put something together as early as the seven for public, public consumption? Or do you recommend maybe not doing that? In other words, we, we have the collaborative do that later based on what the select board wants to pursue. I would just be considerate of, this is a, a busy time of year. Uh, a lot of family obligations. I think the collaborative staff, uh, do a fair amount of traveling. It's what I've experienced in their participation throughout the year. So I'm not so certain we would be able to get their attention and have them be able to provide a deliverable by January 7th. Got it. Tell you what. What would you expect the budget would be necessary for that? Yeah. Am I jumping in here, Tom? I'm sorry. No, no, no. Good question, Cliff. Yeah, no, it's a really good question because, um, as mentioned in this report, we've been using, uh, funds that were appropriated a number of years ago. Uh, and the work between Weston and Samson, the collaborative, and also the work that DPW staff have performed, getting the property into the condition it is now. Uh, and also understanding that we have a little bit more work to do this winter. We have extremely limited funds. I don't have a figure for you tonight. I would imagine that we would have enough funding to have the collaborative, uh, take some of Cliff's sketches, uh, be able to put together a professional concept drawing and perhaps even attend a forum. Um, and, but I think anything more than that would require seeking, you know, additional funds. Well, I'm a big fan of visual, uh, visual aids. So maybe it makes most sense to me to reach out to collaborative from the cost firm after the budget, Tom, and number two, what their timing is. Maybe what we do is we utilize that information to then schedule public forums following. So it's late January, it's late January. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, it makes sense to me, Tom. Um, yeah, I think all the uses are fairly non-invasive to do. I think, especially for the landfill, parking lots seem viable. I think the main question again is, um, are we at some point going to, have we reached out to the community and we've gotten, this is what we need? Um, I know fields are a requirement, but the question of, do we have the resources and space to do a lacrosse v soccer? I don't know the differences. I don't know what's bigger and what needs to be, uh, done, but we have a field that can be used for both. And the other thing is, I know there was, um, point there for having like a bird watch tower or a bird watch structure. Uh, and I, even though I'm from the conservation field and I would argue, we need it. We need it. What is the use for it? And is it better to, um, what are inter-built structures there? If you're looking at using canoe access, if you're trying to include that as part of the river access, that was one of the points that was there. Is that going to be a part of the drawings or do you need to incorporate that? Or rather than building structure, go for some kind of more natural landscaping that allows for more birds to come in, which would be more useful for birders anyway. So are we looking at those aspects of, do we need this? Really? Can we get it out of the list? You've picked up a little bit, Seema, but let me see if I get your, your, your point. First of all, on the cost, we raised a good issue. We stuck with Tom Holder today. I think on this issue of, all right, if we get all these things, what would, like the cost be? Well, Tom was going to reach out to the rest of Samson to try to get a sense of the ridiculous ballpark. And we're talking about ballpark. In today's dollars, we don't know if, even if the slide board chose to pursue, some of all of these ideas, I'm in the case. Like the day's dollars, overall, big picture, big picture. So that, that's something that we'll work on. I think that's important to put in the report, too. Awesome. Regarding me, um, I personally spoke with Catherine Brenner about, you know, the situation. I, I open up to Mark from the Recreation Commission who want to comment on what you're seeing, what you're hearing relative to the meetings here. Yeah. I, I think the public comment, um, is pretty consistent to what we see, um, through our, our meetings, um, and through our, you know, just involvement in the community. Um, you know, we're, we could use additional capacity. No question. Um, I know there's demand on all fronts from, you know, all the different sports. Uh, I think I mentioned last time, you know, one of the great things that we're excited about with the Recreation Commission, you know, spearheaded by Catherine is the adding new programs like field hockey for, um, you know, kids that wanted exposure to that. Um, so it's not just supporting the, the current conditions. It's, you know, we've seen an explosion in a lot of other, um, you know, sports that have, you know, need to need access to that space. So, uh, absolutely on the field side. And, um, we're definitely, you know, continuing to hear both in public meetings, um, and through the community, the requirement for our need for a dog park or ambition for a dog park, a place for people to come together. Um, and so, uh, you know, from a recreation perspective, those uses make a lot of sense. There's a public, you know, demand for it. Um, and, you know, similar to, I think what everyone else has said and, you know, Cliff, appreciate you putting pen to paper and thinking it through. Love to see what the concept looks like. You know, are we trying to put 10 pounds in an eight pound bag? Like, what are we looking at here? Um, or does it fit pretty nicely? Um, it'd be good to be able to evaluate that and, and start making decisions. Sam, I think you heard, you, you, uh, said something about river access. Yeah. That is still part of the plan. It's one of the points that we want to ask for their drawings. Okay. Let me bring up the, um, aerial on this, on this site. Can you, can you all see the aerial drone on this? Yep. I'm gonna stop here. So, um, now, Tom Holder, based on the Eastern buffer on this product, is it feasible to put, um, some sort of a structure here that would, that would connect without landfill space and parking with, with the river for like canoe or kayak access? Or is it, is it totally challenged? Yeah. It's, it's, it's tough for me to remark on that. I mean, I, I know I had been asked, uh, to offer an opinion on, you know, providing some sort of a wooden, you know, bridge structure over the current swale or whatever to the rail trail that I know is achievable. I am not certain, um, what kind of access could be constructed to get access to the river. There is a boat ramp currently, um, right there. Exactly. Um, you know, and, and a moderate amount of parking, but, uh, I am not certain as to whether something could be done where you were. You had your mouse earlier. Mm-hmm. So, when town center would be considered, there was a lot of discussion about town center somehow, including a physical boat ramp here. And, uh, arguably there's a boat ramp there now. It's a, it's a driveway. And you can, and you can put in your boats here. That's not huge, of course, because it's not, it's not. Um, but I still think that is a potential, potential. Some of you have been over concrete where they were put in, um, um, that's a, uh, a lovely spot over there. Something like there might, might, might, might be difficult. I just think the distance between Eastern Point, it's a buffer, natural buffer. And, and this is, it's all marsh. Unlike this area, which is, we come right up to the river bank. Here, there's no real river bank. So, I just, with Josima, to your point, I think it's a tough one. Yeah. Now, I'm, I'm just looking here on the GIS. It, it's quite a, it's quite a distance from the nearest point even in the south landfill to get actually to the river. Uh, and I think, you know, even if you had a, a boardwalk or something there, no one would use it because it's, it's a long way. Let me just make a quick measurement here. Um, uh, measure a distance here. To the river itself is about 1,500 feet. So, 1,000 feet. That's an awfully long way. I don't think anyone's going to want to lug a kayak 1,000 feet. And that's from the nearest point on the, uh, on the south landfill. They, they'd much prefer to just go across the street and put it right in the river, right in the existing boat ramp, I'm pretty sure. Steve, I'm not sure you mentioned the rail trail at all. But, uh, Tom and Paul and I have chatted a bit about the connection with the rail trail and the south landfill. The idea of some sort, and we've actually talked to DCR about this. They didn't, they didn't see a problem. That you put in some sort of a small tiny bridge that connects rail trails in the south landfill and the parking. Now, we have to be careful that it doesn't get too parked. We'll keep parking for other use. And we know that. Very interesting. That's a town life. That people wouldn't have a liking to that parking lot. Which sometimes, that's talented. But, I think a connection between DCR, uh, rail trail and south landfill is natural. Did I miss anything? Um, no, um, are we still thinking dog park to include dark dog park as part of their drawing options? Let's, let's, let's talk about that. I, I, I will tell you personally, I'm, I'm somewhat hesitant for various reasons, including environmental. That's why I mentioned that here. I was like, we are going to do it. I think it's like, what would be wise to engage it. It's not problem. It's contract like they didn't meet standards. It's not contract. But, but that aside, I would, I'm open to, I'm open to the people's view about, uh, what they think, what they think about a dog park. What are your thoughts? I'm not particularly opposed to a dog park. My only thing is, I don't think it, the landfill side would fulfill their requirements in terms of, I heard during one of their presentations, if they wanted to grab a coffee, have a chat, have a community. And I think town center is much better suited for that purpose in terms of space and amenities compared to, uh, the landfill area. So, um, I don't think it fits their, it ticks all their boxes, but from a youth perspective, if you're, it's what do we have to give up in order to get a dog park? Um, would you rather have fields? I think so. Yes. From a number of people, we can serve a multi-use field for cross ports. I think it would make more sense. So that's where I'm at. Well, you made a good point. That is from a rich term. Mike, by a priority perspective, I wouldn't want to give up a plain field for a dog park. Yeah, a dog park. But it is enough land for both, right? Let me chime in here. The thing about a field is it's big, and it's a fixed length-width ratio. Uh, the dog park is small and you can put a dog park most any place. Uh, so it, it will not interfere with the field in any way. Um, personally, I think one of the keys of the dog park is not so much the park itself, but it's the, the commitment of the organization behind it. Um, and if you have a, you know, a group of people that are really, you know, willing to, to step in and support the dog park, uh, in a, in a way where they, they sort of have a group that takes care of things and takes care of itself. I mean, that's the kind of, of community activity I think we'd like to encourage. Um, and, and the dog park might be just a focus for doing that. They, we will have a new Dunkin' Donuts, I guess it's called a Dunkin', uh, pretty soon. You can get your coffee over there, come over, put some benches at the dog park. I think it wouldn't be quite as convenient as at the town center, but right now there's no place to get a coffee at the town center either. So, I think, I think the dog park people would be happy. And the, the real key is, you know, get the, get the community involved in, in this, you know, in this activity. Get the community involved in the birding, get the community involved, uh, in the other activities, the amphitheater and stuff. You know, have a place where community involvement makes sense. Let's have thoughts on the dog park. Well, I think I agree with the SEMA, uh, that it's a nice to have. And, uh, and also Cliff brings up a good point that it doesn't have to be a regular shape. It can be wherever we can put it. Um, but it, we also, I mean, I think they, they were hoping that maybe there would be like a water tap there. So that might, might have to be in proximity to someplace where there's water. But I think, I think the landfill was their second choice. It was like there, like there would be our backup town center is there, is there, is there Mount Rushmore or Everest, I should say. I'm pretty sure we could get some water over there. We'd probably want water anyhow as a drinking fountain sort of a thing. Yeah. Small amount of water. Uh, if, if that were a major consideration. Sorry, I, I was curious and my apologies if this was discussed in the past two meetings that I missed, but. Has the select board chimed in at all on what they are looking to see here? Do they have any, they just want us to give a recommendation and they're, they want to be, they're kind of going to run with that or. Well, I'm not sure what they'll run with, but keep in mind that this committee was formed back in 2021. Right. Different board at the time, different ideas. Um, but either, but, uh, but, and frankly, we're charged with kind of reviewing the area of exploring what can be done. We used to have, vendors were hired. We didn't comment there. Okay. So we have ideas that we think of. Perfect. And then they'll. They'll. They'll think of them there. We're going to have to sit down with them. Nor do I think that's really. Yeah. Yeah. I tried to kind of explore and recommend. I would hate to try and not that I'm opposed to dog park. But I would hate to try and fit that in based on all of the kind of different pieces that it seems like they're looking for and then have it be that really, this isn't the ideal place for them. And that they end up elsewhere, IE town center, um, especially with the new ownership there that seems to really want to engage with the community, um, and work with the public on, on getting that site really more robust and up and running. Um, so I think if that puts more limitations on what, not necessarily what else we could fit, but what we need to make it work there, IE water, et cetera. Maybe we leave that as a kind of, um, I don't know. A last on the list of if it can work, if this is kind of the only place we're going to be able to get it in town, then. Let's find a way. Describe it as if there's room and if it's feasible, sort of thing. Yeah. Seema, how does that deal with you? More along those lines. I mean, it's the idea of having community. I agree with Clifford. You need to have some kind of maintenance, make sure the right kind of people are maintaining it. It comes with the mission of your bringing community together, I'm assuming, and it's going to serve people outside of Wayland too. So as long as the people who are engaged in it understand there is maintenance involved in it. There's, um, dog walking dog rules and all those that the forms and the etiquette is followed through. I'm, I'm not posted from personal experience over at her farm. There's plenty of unruly dogs around. If they want to go, uh, and work in, uh, in the, that landfill site, we can work in. That's great. I think, uh, yeah, I don't, I don't want to. I don't want a case where, uh, we don't give them the space and then they end up not having the town center area would seem to be their number one choice. Yeah. I'd love to open the space for them. They don't have it, but this is, um, doesn't seem like they're the space. They're at a stage where they can say they can definitely get the area at town center yet. So, just so I'm clear, you're, you don't love the idea of a dog park. I'm not opposed to it. It serves the community, serves people. That's great. You should have it. Um, but if it is, I'm, I guess my primary concern is I, from an overall perspective, I think we're trying to cram too much into the space. And I don't have a good idea of how much space we really have to devote to bus parking, fields, parking for all the members in the fields, the traffic that's gonna result from that. And then still have an aesthetically pleasing trail connection for birding and having that ecological aspect to it. That's, I guess, my main worry. Um, dog parks are usually not, uh, hand in hand or, uh, harmoniously with birding. So that would not be a viable option, but hey, would not want to do a disservice to the community if that's what they want. If that's what a dog park is needed, then that's what we should do. Thoughts, Mark? Yeah. You know, I don't want to add to cost. I can appreciate additional schemes being drawn out, um, as additional work and additional costs. But I think, um, you know, that investment now will probably better serve the community long-term with getting a right fit. Uh, similar to a SEMA, um, it'd be nice to, you know, start to see it scoped out, um, and maybe scoped out in a couple of different fashions. So we can, we can really start to dial into what the right fit is, um, and make those decisions. I think right now, of course, we all want to satisfy everybody. Um, but when you start putting pen to paper, it might not be feasible. What I'll do is I'll tweet the report to kind of reflect, uh, the committee's, um, concern that, well, I'll word it in such a way that, you know, a high priority needs to step back on some of these ideas. I do agree with the proponents of the dog park that I face closer to commercial area, like town centers, more I think. So we'll see what the new owner has to play. So other, other comments on the other, just using the draft report. I guess my, my thought is how can I help to, um, review and finalize the report? And, um, could we maybe get some sketches that are not high, um, cost and, um, then the best way to move forward with scheduling a public forum. But what I'll, what would be helpful is we, we also review the report. So the next time we do meet and come in with any other concrete suggestions that we're doing tonight to help refine it. I'll keep, I'll keep the committee apprised of my communication. And, um, I'll break the book out by the opening, uh, with the collaborative, scheduling perspective. And, I mean, uh, let's see what they have to say. Uh, I'll speculate. Well, uh, well, the ability to do it. Well, uh, well, the ability to do it. Well, uh, well, the ability to do it. I can, uh, line item. And then we'll take it to the end of that. Okay. Uh, Molder, uh, any thoughts or anything? I just had one remark on, on, on page five, uh, the last paragraph. Uh, the last paragraph. Uh, I'm not sure what, if, what the intent of that, that sentence was at present, the property is not actively programmed for public or municipal use, uh, beyond routine monitoring. So DPW does make use of that lower portion. Um, we do some materials management there. Uh, we actually have plans to, uh, when we have the new water tank constructed, the, uh, the contractor is going to make use of that property. Uh, we, we do get some economical benefit from allowing contractors to use that for their use. So I just wanted to, I didn't want it to be, uh, inferred that we don't use that. I appreciate that comment. Just so we're clear, uh, that. That's correct. That's correct. That would be. Uh, what's the timing on that, by the way? Uh, late summer, uh, fall of 26. All right. I'll, I'll modify that paragraph. Thank you. All right. All right. All right. All right. Anything further on item than item four? Um, well, do you think we have, uh, I'll ask it this way. Can you give the ballpark as to how much budget money is for work at the collaborative going in, in, in San Francisco? I would say, um, less than 10,000. Well, if there's nothing else, I'm happy to entertain a motion to, as I say, I'll be in touch with the committee based on my conversation with the collaborative and keep, uh, posting emails right now with the meeting scheduled on. Um, 13th and 13th February. So, I'll give you a sense at the time, whether we can get an activity. And I'm determined to get this committee. Do we at that point. It's all. so I'll give you a sense at a time of whether we can get that practically.
But I'm determined to get this committee to a 10-point I think it's 226 or it wouldn't be 226 but it would be at the end of February. Sounds good to me, Tom. You made a good step here with this report that you put together. I just can't get it all in one look at it. You have to think too much.
I appreciate the comment and entertain a motion to adjourn at 651. So moved. Second.
Thanks, Mark. Moved by Aaron. Seconded by Mark. Those in favor, I put. Yes. Mike, yes, we need a verbal yes because of the audio. We need to renew. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Rules are rules. Rules are rules. Deema? Yes. Mark? Yes. Aaron? Yes. Tom. So it's 7-0 and appreciate your time this evening. Hope you have a great holiday. Get up talking with us. Thanks, Tom. Have a good holiday. Have a good holiday.
And please wait a moment. Welcome, Aaron Givens.
Good. How are you? Very good. Aaron is with us at 605, dressed for the occasion. We are honored. Yeah. So, why don't we move on to public comment? Anybody online would like to give public comment?
Craig Griffin. Craig, feel free to provide the public comment. And if you could just give us your address as well. Thank you. Hi. Craig Griffin. Can everybody hear me? Yes. 92 Boston Post Road. Weyland, obviously. I was asked to come on on behalf of the Weyland Youth Lacrosse to talk about the field situation, potential use of the landfill.
I guess the – well, I guess thank you guys for being on this committee. I'm sure it's not easy, right? To quick overview of the Weyland Youth Lacrosse, I've been doing the fields for a number of years. I'm also a coach, and every spring it becomes a major issue, a sit-down with many people in the rec department, other sports that are vying for the fields. Weyland Youth Lacrosse is about 381 kids just in the spring, which divides up into about 17 teams from K through 8th grade. So, it's always a battle trying to get fields. So, I guess my comment and my thought here is anything that can be done to better the South Landfill on Route 20 would be awesome if it was fields. Right now, there's about five fields that are not even dedicated for lacrosse, are appropriate for lacrosse in the Weyland. So, it's always very challenging splitting that between soccer, field hockey, and all the other towns. So, I guess a big positive vote for anything we can do to get fields approved at that site. So, thank you. Thank you. Okay.
Jessica Trawa? Hey, everybody. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Good evening, Jessica. Hi, so this is Jessica Greer Trawa from 10 Adams Lane, and I'm just here on behalf of the Future Weyland Dog Park Committee. So, thank you for hearing us out a couple months ago when we were sharing our ideas. We just understand, based on your agenda this evening, you might be talking with more intention about some goals for the Old South Landfill area. And just wanted to share, you know, an update in that since, you know, since we've had a chance to meet with you, our group has gone ahead and started to draft some governance structure around the dog park. I know that that was a question that you had had for us around some of the role clarity. And so, we just wanted to give you that update, recognizing that you might be talking about, you know, a dog park or considering it. So, I'm happy to answer questions if that comes up during your meeting this evening. I thank you very much for your comment, Jessica.
Brian Thornton? Yes, hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, Brian. Great. Brian Thornfeld, 47 Shaw Drive. I'm here on behalf of Weyland Town Soccer. I'm the president and have been with the sport since my kids were playing in kindergarten. They're 13 now. I've been coaching and part of the board. So, you know, I think the main thing, similar to what Craig's comments were, any new space available for playing fields and, you know, I'm kind of thinking across many sports because my kids play multiple. I just happen to be, you know, you know, we overlap field usage with the sports that Craig brought up. I mean, the only other thing I'd say is, you know, we're also vying for space with adult leagues, you know, softball, also adult soccer. And then in-town clubs as well from, you know, direct experience. You know, we're often scrambling as coaches and board members to reschedule games based on lack of field availability, inclement weather, over usage of fields. We have, you know, just one example is the middle school and clay pit get vastly overused. And, you know, anytime early spring, mid, late fall, they're already in disrepair from overuse, which causes less than optimal playing conditions for sure, but also, you know, can lead to injuries and poor, poor play. Um, so it, you know, keeping our, our, our, our games and our, our kids and our parents in town is really important for, you know, travel time. If we're a Wayland home game, we want to play in Wayland and not have to, you know, sacrifice our, our commute to, um, to adjacent towns or, or, or farther away. Um, and, you know, I think in 2021, we were talking about, um, building three fields and we had Loker come on, but, you know, that's a great start. But, you know, years ago we were in need of three and we got, we have one, um, I know we've all been through the field, you know, the field availability discussions and, and whatnot. But, um, huge endorsement for more grass fields, multi-purpose sports. Um, it, it seems like a, a, a great spot for, for additional space. I'll yield back my time. Thank you very much. I think that did have a comment. I see no one else. I'm sorry? I see no one else. Oh, okay. Thanks, brother. Uh, item three in our agenda is consideration of our minutes from November 24, 2025. I want to thank the CIMA for being willing to draft minutes for tonight's meeting to thank Chris Lewis for wrapping these minutes on the 24th. I would like to send a motion for approval of the minutes of November 24, 2025. If I hear a motion. Can I move, Sam? I hear Mike Spelman did move. I hear a second. So moved. A second. Second. Second for the CIMA. All right. Thank you. Um, comments on the minutes. Do you need, sorry. Um, do you need me to vote for enough votes? Cause otherwise I wasn't present and I, I won't. No, you can abstain if you like. It's up to you. I appreciate you asking. All right. So those are in favor of the motion. Cliff? Uh, yes. Mike? Yes. Emma? Yes. Mark? It didn't hear. It didn't come through your voice. Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you, Mark. And, uh, uh, Erin. I'm going to abstain. Okay. I'm a yes. Five zero one on that, um, uh, motion. And that motion carrots. Moving on then to item four. When we left off at our last meeting, we were kind of in the middle of viewing in further detail the proposed uses for the, um, South landfill area. And, um, based on our discussion to date, I, I mean, court was created and put it in the packet. It, it's simply a draft, not reflective of any final seasons of this, this committee. But I felt, given the timeframe that we're working with, our committee done over the 26th, I believe, our mission over the next year. So we want to, uh, have a working report, I think, going forward to edit. And we've also talked about having a public forum. And we'll get to that in a moment. But, um, I'm not sure if all of you had a chance to review the proposed report. But in it, um, you focus on several uses of the South landfill. Passive recreation and open space, solar panels, rectangular grass fields, dog park, shared surface parking, dual bus parking, shared restroom, public materials center for public works, a vegetative buffer area, and nature-based design elements with potential small outdoor amphitheater. And, um, within that, most areas include a bird, a bird wildlife structure. That's on item, item one, page seven of the draft report, passive recreation and open space. So I guess I'd like to open up for comments on those ideas. And if you like, I can try to pull up 17, page 17 uses, then we'll prove that even, we'll have 23, but people want a visual. Um, but, uh, if people have comments on negative or positive, on, on those uses, are there other uses that people like that have to consider? Or are there other uses that are listed that you prefer not, not now, if they can be built? Yeah. I think these encapsulate a lot of the ideas that have seemed to be the priority of at least those from the community that we have heard from and some of the needs that have been laid out or, or touched upon over the time that we've been working on this committee. Um, I do appreciate your efforts to pull it together too, Tom. Yeah. On this clip, I think the only thing that, uh, that doesn't fit here is the housing. And we beat that up pretty well, trying to get it to work, but it doesn't. So everything else looks like it ought to fit in. Um, and to that point in the report, I do mention and align it to the housing and how we've looked at it. Um, but it's pretty, it seems, it appears to be economically unfeasible. But on that issue, uh, Holder, can you update us on any further testing done at the site? Since we last met or to our last night, two meetings ago. Uh, at the last meeting I had reported, um, along with Lee Cosco, he was on for a brief period about, um, the actual depths of the waste that was found. We did borings and, uh, essentially we found it to be moderately shallow toward the east, but, uh, much more deep and significant as you move westward. So we had that information. What we're doing now is, uh, we've, um, advanced an effort to perform test pits, uh, along the perimeter, the, the northern perimeter along Route 20, uh, and also, uh, on the eastern portion, just beyond a fence that's located there. And what we're looking to determine is the actual footprint, how far does, uh, the municipal solid waste actually extend, uh, toward Route 20 and then eastward towards the wetland. So that will complete what the DEP was asking us, um, in essence, to perform a full assessment. We'll have all of the data that we need, uh, to be able to offer to them, uh, this is what they were looking for, uh, to really continue our discussions. Um, based on my comments on options for the space, I use the word option in the report. Maybe the word we should use is recommended, but that aside, you feel that all those items can be achieved. And would you leave that to the collaborative based on your understanding of what I'll call usable acreage? Do you think the items that were listed documented to you would, uh, with the idea that the solar probably would be a canopy over a parking area versus a solar farm, mini farm? Yeah, my understanding of the parcel, um, coupled with what mass DEP is presented and spoken to us about. Um, it would appear that everything listed, all of the options, or if you decide to call them recommendations are achievable. There was a question at our last meeting as to whether, um, you know, when we installed water and perhaps sewer utilities, or whether there were footings to support stadium lighting, those types of things. Would that be acceptable to the DEP? And we reached out to Weston and Samson, both of the engineers there, and they responded back, uh, quite confidently that they have engineered those types of things on landfills. Even where, you know, there was, um, significant waste found at the location. So I think, I think what you have written here in this report, I do believe, uh, would be, uh, permittable by mass DEP. A lot of comments on the uses that we're talking about. No, it's a great compilation, uh, Tom. Um, do you think it's feasible for us to get all 10 options on there again, but do we leave that to the collaborative? Do we need to come up with a prioritize these things and say, okay, well, we can't do a amphitheater because we don't have the room for it. Um, and then, you know, wants needs nice to haves. And so that the collaborative has something to look at. So like, okay, well, we don't have room for this or that. Uh, let me, let me chime in here because I, I've done some sketches and, you know, based on various sites and bits and pieces that the collaborative done, but haven't put anything together. It, it certainly looks like if we put the, uh, the bus parking in the material center, uh, way to the east and, and share a driveway between them, uh, it will make a whole lot less space than you would otherwise need for both of them. And we put the field way on the other end where it's high and flat, uh, to keep the fill to the minimum. And if we're able to get the central parking in the middle of that space, we should be able to get everything in. Cause you'll have a nice community space in the middle and all, all these other activities will fit, uh, in there. I mean, not all of them will be huge, uh, but they'll all, they'll all get in there. The trail will get in there. The place for bird watching will get in there. There's a space for a dog park. You could put a very small amphitheater down overlooking the, uh, the wildlife area. So you can, you can fit all those things in. Yes. Yeah. Way to work, Cliff. Thank you. And if, and if, if that's the will of the committee, it'd be my recommendation that we, uh, engage the collaborative to, to actually do a real drawing so we can have something to show. So, to Cliff's, to Cliff's point, um, um, Tom Holder, I'd like to have a talk to the committee about a public forum, possibly agility to get away seven. Um, and, and the collaborative has given us some diagrams already. Do you think the collaborative could put something together as early as the seven for public, public consumption? Or do you recommend maybe not doing that? In other words, we, we have the collaborative do that later based on what the select board wants to pursue. I would just be considerate of, this is a, a busy time of year. Uh, a lot of family obligations. I think the collaborative staff, uh, do a fair amount of traveling. It's what I've experienced in their participation throughout the year. So I'm not so certain we would be able to get their attention and have them be able to provide a deliverable by January 7th. Got it. Tell you what. What would you expect the budget would be necessary for that? Yeah. Am I jumping in here, Tom? I'm sorry. No, no, no. Good question, Cliff. Yeah, no, it's a really good question because, um, as mentioned in this report, we've been using, uh, funds that were appropriated a number of years ago. Uh, and the work between Weston and Samson, the collaborative, and also the work that DPW staff have performed, getting the property into the condition it is now. Uh, and also understanding that we have a little bit more work to do this winter. We have extremely limited funds. I don't have a figure for you tonight. I would imagine that we would have enough funding to have the collaborative, uh, take some of Cliff's sketches, uh, be able to put together a professional concept drawing and perhaps even attend a forum. Um, and, but I think anything more than that would require seeking, you know, additional funds. Well, I'm a big fan of visual, uh, visual aids. So maybe it makes most sense to me to reach out to collaborative from the cost firm after the budget, Tom, and number two, what their timing is. Maybe what we do is we utilize that information to then schedule public forums following. So it's late January, it's late January. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, it makes sense to me, Tom. Um, yeah, I think all the uses are fairly non-invasive to do. I think, especially for the landfill, parking lots seem viable. I think the main question again is, um, are we at some point going to, have we reached out to the community and we've gotten, this is what we need? Um, I know fields are a requirement, but the question of, do we have the resources and space to do a lacrosse v soccer? I don't know the differences. I don't know what's bigger and what needs to be, uh, done, but we have a field that can be used for both. And the other thing is, I know there was, um, point there for having like a bird watch tower or a bird watch structure. Uh, and I, even though I'm from the conservation field and I would argue, we need it. We need it. What is the use for it? And is it better to, um, what are inter-built structures there? If you're looking at using canoe access, if you're trying to include that as part of the river access, that was one of the points that was there. Is that going to be a part of the drawings or do you need to incorporate that? Or rather than building structure, go for some kind of more natural landscaping that allows for more birds to come in, which would be more useful for birders anyway. So are we looking at those aspects of, do we need this? Really? Can we get it out of the list? You've picked up a little bit, Seema, but let me see if I get your, your, your point. First of all, on the cost, we raised a good issue. We stuck with Tom Holder today. I think on this issue of, all right, if we get all these things, what would, like the cost be? Well, Tom was going to reach out to the rest of Samson to try to get a sense of the ridiculous ballpark. And we're talking about ballpark. In today's dollars, we don't know if, even if the slide board chose to pursue, some of all of these ideas, I'm in the case. Like the day's dollars, overall, big picture, big picture. So that, that's something that we'll work on. I think that's important to put in the report, too. Awesome. Regarding me, um, I personally spoke with Catherine Brenner about, you know, the situation. I, I open up to Mark from the Recreation Commission who want to comment on what you're seeing, what you're hearing relative to the meetings here. Yeah. I, I think the public comment, um, is pretty consistent to what we see, um, through our, our meetings, um, and through our, you know, just involvement in the community. Um, you know, we're, we could use additional capacity. No question. Um, I know there's demand on all fronts from, you know, all the different sports. Uh, I think I mentioned last time, you know, one of the great things that we're excited about with the Recreation Commission, you know, spearheaded by Catherine is the adding new programs like field hockey for, um, you know, kids that wanted exposure to that. Um, so it's not just supporting the, the current conditions. It's, you know, we've seen an explosion in a lot of other, um, you know, sports that have, you know, need to need access to that space. So, uh, absolutely on the field side. And, um, we're definitely, you know, continuing to hear both in public meetings, um, and through the community, the requirement for our need for a dog park or ambition for a dog park, a place for people to come together. Um, and so, uh, you know, from a recreation perspective, those uses make a lot of sense. There's a public, you know, demand for it. Um, and, you know, similar to, I think what everyone else has said and, you know, Cliff, appreciate you putting pen to paper and thinking it through. Love to see what the concept looks like. You know, are we trying to put 10 pounds in an eight pound bag? Like, what are we looking at here? Um, or does it fit pretty nicely? Um, it'd be good to be able to evaluate that and, and start making decisions. Sam, I think you heard, you, you, uh, said something about river access. Yeah. That is still part of the plan. It's one of the points that we want to ask for their drawings. Okay. Let me bring up the, um, aerial on this, on this site. Can you, can you all see the aerial drone on this? Yep. I'm gonna stop here. So, um, now, Tom Holder, based on the Eastern buffer on this product, is it feasible to put, um, some sort of a structure here that would, that would connect without landfill space and parking with, with the river for like canoe or kayak access? Or is it, is it totally challenged? Yeah. It's, it's, it's tough for me to remark on that. I mean, I, I know I had been asked, uh, to offer an opinion on, you know, providing some sort of a wooden, you know, bridge structure over the current swale or whatever to the rail trail that I know is achievable. I am not certain, um, what kind of access could be constructed to get access to the river. There is a boat ramp currently, um, right there. Exactly. Um, you know, and, and a moderate amount of parking, but, uh, I am not certain as to whether something could be done where you were. You had your mouse earlier. Mm-hmm. So, when town center would be considered, there was a lot of discussion about town center somehow, including a physical boat ramp here. And, uh, arguably there's a boat ramp there now. It's a, it's a driveway. And you can, and you can put in your boats here. That's not huge, of course, because it's not, it's not. Um, but I still think that is a potential, potential. Some of you have been over concrete where they were put in, um, um, that's a, uh, a lovely spot over there. Something like there might, might, might, might be difficult. I just think the distance between Eastern Point, it's a buffer, natural buffer. And, and this is, it's all marsh. Unlike this area, which is, we come right up to the river bank. Here, there's no real river bank. So, I just, with Josima, to your point, I think it's a tough one. Yeah. Now, I'm, I'm just looking here on the GIS. It, it's quite a, it's quite a distance from the nearest point even in the south landfill to get actually to the river. Uh, and I think, you know, even if you had a, a boardwalk or something there, no one would use it because it's, it's a long way. Let me just make a quick measurement here. Um, uh, measure a distance here. To the river itself is about 1,500 feet. So, 1,000 feet. That's an awfully long way. I don't think anyone's going to want to lug a kayak 1,000 feet. And that's from the nearest point on the, uh, on the south landfill. They, they'd much prefer to just go across the street and put it right in the river, right in the existing boat ramp, I'm pretty sure. Steve, I'm not sure you mentioned the rail trail at all. But, uh, Tom and Paul and I have chatted a bit about the connection with the rail trail and the south landfill. The idea of some sort, and we've actually talked to DCR about this. They didn't, they didn't see a problem. That you put in some sort of a small tiny bridge that connects rail trails in the south landfill and the parking. Now, we have to be careful that it doesn't get too parked. We'll keep parking for other use. And we know that. Very interesting. That's a town life. That people wouldn't have a liking to that parking lot. Which sometimes, that's talented. But, I think a connection between DCR, uh, rail trail and south landfill is natural. Did I miss anything? Um, no, um, are we still thinking dog park to include dark dog park as part of their drawing options? Let's, let's, let's talk about that. I, I, I will tell you personally, I'm, I'm somewhat hesitant for various reasons, including environmental. That's why I mentioned that here. I was like, we are going to do it. I think it's like, what would be wise to engage it. It's not problem. It's contract like they didn't meet standards. It's not contract. But, but that aside, I would, I'm open to, I'm open to the people's view about, uh, what they think, what they think about a dog park. What are your thoughts? I'm not particularly opposed to a dog park. My only thing is, I don't think it, the landfill side would fulfill their requirements in terms of, I heard during one of their presentations, if they wanted to grab a coffee, have a chat, have a community. And I think town center is much better suited for that purpose in terms of space and amenities compared to, uh, the landfill area. So, um, I don't think it fits their, it ticks all their boxes, but from a youth perspective, if you're, it's what do we have to give up in order to get a dog park? Um, would you rather have fields? I think so. Yes. From a number of people, we can serve a multi-use field for cross ports. I think it would make more sense. So that's where I'm at. Well, you made a good point. That is from a rich term. Mike, by a priority perspective, I wouldn't want to give up a plain field for a dog park. Yeah, a dog park. But it is enough land for both, right? Let me chime in here. The thing about a field is it's big, and it's a fixed length-width ratio. Uh, the dog park is small and you can put a dog park most any place. Uh, so it, it will not interfere with the field in any way. Um, personally, I think one of the keys of the dog park is not so much the park itself, but it's the, the commitment of the organization behind it. Um, and if you have a, you know, a group of people that are really, you know, willing to, to step in and support the dog park, uh, in a, in a way where they, they sort of have a group that takes care of things and takes care of itself. I mean, that's the kind of, of community activity I think we'd like to encourage. Um, and, and the dog park might be just a focus for doing that. They, we will have a new Dunkin' Donuts, I guess it's called a Dunkin', uh, pretty soon. You can get your coffee over there, come over, put some benches at the dog park. I think it wouldn't be quite as convenient as at the town center, but right now there's no place to get a coffee at the town center either. So, I think, I think the dog park people would be happy. And the, the real key is, you know, get the, get the community involved in, in this, you know, in this activity. Get the community involved in the birding, get the community involved, uh, in the other activities, the amphitheater and stuff. You know, have a place where community involvement makes sense. Let's have thoughts on the dog park. Well, I think I agree with the SEMA, uh, that it's a nice to have. And, uh, and also Cliff brings up a good point that it doesn't have to be a regular shape. It can be wherever we can put it. Um, but it, we also, I mean, I think they, they were hoping that maybe there would be like a water tap there. So that might, might have to be in proximity to someplace where there's water. But I think, I think the landfill was their second choice. It was like there, like there would be our backup town center is there, is there, is there Mount Rushmore or Everest, I should say. I'm pretty sure we could get some water over there. We'd probably want water anyhow as a drinking fountain sort of a thing. Yeah. Small amount of water. Uh, if, if that were a major consideration. Sorry, I, I was curious and my apologies if this was discussed in the past two meetings that I missed, but. Has the select board chimed in at all on what they are looking to see here? Do they have any, they just want us to give a recommendation and they're, they want to be, they're kind of going to run with that or. Well, I'm not sure what they'll run with, but keep in mind that this committee was formed back in 2021. Right. Different board at the time, different ideas. Um, but either, but, uh, but, and frankly, we're charged with kind of reviewing the area of exploring what can be done. We used to have, vendors were hired. We didn't comment there. Okay. So we have ideas that we think of. Perfect. And then they'll. They'll. They'll think of them there. We're going to have to sit down with them. Nor do I think that's really. Yeah. Yeah. I tried to kind of explore and recommend. I would hate to try and not that I'm opposed to dog park. But I would hate to try and fit that in based on all of the kind of different pieces that it seems like they're looking for and then have it be that really, this isn't the ideal place for them. And that they end up elsewhere, IE town center, um, especially with the new ownership there that seems to really want to engage with the community, um, and work with the public on, on getting that site really more robust and up and running. Um, so I think if that puts more limitations on what, not necessarily what else we could fit, but what we need to make it work there, IE water, et cetera. Maybe we leave that as a kind of, um, I don't know. A last on the list of if it can work, if this is kind of the only place we're going to be able to get it in town, then. Let's find a way. Describe it as if there's room and if it's feasible, sort of thing. Yeah. Seema, how does that deal with you? More along those lines. I mean, it's the idea of having community. I agree with Clifford. You need to have some kind of maintenance, make sure the right kind of people are maintaining it. It comes with the mission of your bringing community together, I'm assuming, and it's going to serve people outside of Wayland too. So as long as the people who are engaged in it understand there is maintenance involved in it. There's, um, dog walking dog rules and all those that the forms and the etiquette is followed through. I'm, I'm not posted from personal experience over at her farm. There's plenty of unruly dogs around. If they want to go, uh, and work in, uh, in the, that landfill site, we can work in. That's great. I think, uh, yeah, I don't, I don't want to. I don't want a case where, uh, we don't give them the space and then they end up not having the town center area would seem to be their number one choice. Yeah. I'd love to open the space for them. They don't have it, but this is, um, doesn't seem like they're the space. They're at a stage where they can say they can definitely get the area at town center yet. So, just so I'm clear, you're, you don't love the idea of a dog park. I'm not opposed to it. It serves the community, serves people. That's great. You should have it. Um, but if it is, I'm, I guess my primary concern is I, from an overall perspective, I think we're trying to cram too much into the space. And I don't have a good idea of how much space we really have to devote to bus parking, fields, parking for all the members in the fields, the traffic that's gonna result from that. And then still have an aesthetically pleasing trail connection for birding and having that ecological aspect to it. That's, I guess, my main worry. Um, dog parks are usually not, uh, hand in hand or, uh, harmoniously with birding. So that would not be a viable option, but hey, would not want to do a disservice to the community if that's what they want. If that's what a dog park is needed, then that's what we should do. Thoughts, Mark? Yeah. You know, I don't want to add to cost. I can appreciate additional schemes being drawn out, um, as additional work and additional costs. But I think, um, you know, that investment now will probably better serve the community long-term with getting a right fit. Uh, similar to a SEMA, um, it'd be nice to, you know, start to see it scoped out, um, and maybe scoped out in a couple of different fashions. So we can, we can really start to dial into what the right fit is, um, and make those decisions. I think right now, of course, we all want to satisfy everybody. Um, but when you start putting pen to paper, it might not be feasible. What I'll do is I'll tweet the report to kind of reflect, uh, the committee's, um, concern that, well, I'll word it in such a way that, you know, a high priority needs to step back on some of these ideas. I do agree with the proponents of the dog park that I face closer to commercial area, like town centers, more I think. So we'll see what the new owner has to play. So other, other comments on the other, just using the draft report. I guess my, my thought is how can I help to, um, review and finalize the report? And, um, could we maybe get some sketches that are not high, um, cost and, um, then the best way to move forward with scheduling a public forum. But what I'll, what would be helpful is we, we also review the report. So the next time we do meet and come in with any other concrete suggestions that we're doing tonight to help refine it. I'll keep, I'll keep the committee apprised of my communication. And, um, I'll break the book out by the opening, uh, with the collaborative, scheduling perspective. And, I mean, uh, let's see what they have to say. Uh, I'll speculate. Well, uh, well, the ability to do it. Well, uh, well, the ability to do it. Well, uh, well, the ability to do it. I can, uh, line item. And then we'll take it to the end of that. Okay. Uh, Molder, uh, any thoughts or anything? I just had one remark on, on, on page five, uh, the last paragraph. Uh, the last paragraph. Uh, I'm not sure what, if, what the intent of that, that sentence was at present, the property is not actively programmed for public or municipal use, uh, beyond routine monitoring. So DPW does make use of that lower portion. Um, we do some materials management there. Uh, we actually have plans to, uh, when we have the new water tank constructed, the, uh, the contractor is going to make use of that property. Uh, we, we do get some economical benefit from allowing contractors to use that for their use. So I just wanted to, I didn't want it to be, uh, inferred that we don't use that. I appreciate that comment. Just so we're clear, uh, that. That's correct. That's correct. That would be. Uh, what's the timing on that, by the way? Uh, late summer, uh, fall of 26. All right. I'll, I'll modify that paragraph. Thank you. All right. All right. All right. All right. Anything further on item than item four? Um, well, do you think we have, uh, I'll ask it this way. Can you give the ballpark as to how much budget money is for work at the collaborative going in, in, in San Francisco? I would say, um, less than 10,000. Well, if there's nothing else, I'm happy to entertain a motion to, as I say, I'll be in touch with the committee based on my conversation with the collaborative and keep, uh, posting emails right now with the meeting scheduled on. Um, 13th and 13th February. So, I'll give you a sense at the time, whether we can get an activity. And I'm determined to get this committee. Do we at that point. It's all. so I'll give you a sense at a time of whether we can get that practically.
But I'm determined to get this committee to a 10-point I think it's 226 or it wouldn't be 226 but it would be at the end of February. Sounds good to me, Tom. You made a good step here with this report that you put together. I just can't get it all in one look at it. You have to think too much.
I appreciate the comment and entertain a motion to adjourn at 651. So moved. Second.
Thanks, Mark. Moved by Aaron. Seconded by Mark. Those in favor, I put. Yes. Mike, yes, we need a verbal yes because of the audio. We need to renew. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Rules are rules. Rules are rules. Deema? Yes. Mark? Yes. Aaron? Yes. Tom. So it's 7-0 and appreciate your time this evening. Hope you have a great holiday. Get up talking with us. Thanks, Tom. Have a good holiday. Have a good holiday.