January 28, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript
January 28, 2026 - Conservation Commission
Seeing that we've got a quorum, 632, we'd like to begin the Conservation Commission meeting for January 28, 2026.
This is a remote access meeting only.
The location of the in-person meetings and wheelchairs is accessible.
If you need other accommodations in order to participate in the meeting, please contact Waylon's ADA coordinator, 508-358-6821, or 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 may be recorded, and if recorded, will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting.
Public will be excluded from executive sessions.
In pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and or via remote access in accordance with applicable law.
If this meeting has only remote access, as we do, no in-person attendance by members or the public will be permitted.
If this meeting has been remote access, one may watch or may participate remotely with the meeting that can be found at the following link.
And when required by law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting,
may do so at the meeting location or in-person or remote access as applicable.
Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person.
Man, they have us reading more and more every day.
With that, I see Cliff Lewis, Barbara Howell, Shannon Fischer, Jenny Brown, Lisa Albon, Luke Legere, Linda Hansen, and myself are all dialed in remotely.
Linda will be working from her iPad, so we won't be able to share her screen today.
Comment or so we have to use our packets as an FYI.
With that said, I'd like to call or to the public hearing, so this would be 2A, 108 Lakeshore Drive, DEP file number 322-1042.
It is a continued notice of intent while pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Melissa Haley for the prior unpermitted renovation work and completion of said work at 108 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass.
Proposed work is in 100 feet of Dudley Pond, and that property is shown on Assessor's Map 46B, Parcel 35.
Linda.
Do we have anybody here for that?
Oh, Melissa's here.
I'm here as well.
Oh, okay.
We did not receive any new material for this project, so I guess you just need to update us where you're at with this.
Yeah, so we have also, sorry to backtrack a little bit, Doug Dillon, Goddard Consulting here, you know, as Chairman just said, representing Melissa Haley of 108 Lakeshore.
So we have Melissa in attendance here as well.
I've also called upon Alec, who is in the attendees column, our project engineer.
So last time we were all together, I believe there was some kind of mentions of a potential third-party stormwater review.
Just kind of continuing that, we have Alec here, so I suppose if we want to discuss any elements of the project stormwater, we can do so.
So if you give me just an extra moment, we can bring the plans up.
These are showing up for everyone, all right?
Yeah. Yep. Okay. Perfect.
Alec, make it on? Yes. Yep, I moved him over.
Can you guys hear me? Hello? Yep, hello. Hey, how are you doing? Alec Chong, I didn't hear a lot of what was going on. I didn't have audio, so Doug, if you said something, if you always want to update me, hi. Yeah, just kind of reintroducing where we last left off. Kind of teeing it up to these guys, if you want to describe kind of the- Yeah, absolutely. Sorry about that, guys. Sure. So, hi, Alec Chong, I'm at Chong's Engineering. So, I know this has been going back and forth for a while. So, as you all know, there's some unpermanent work here that we're trying to mitigate. So, in terms of stormwater, this is kind of a difficult project in terms of stormwater mitigation. I understand there was unpermanent work in terms of pervious area that was added or not added. And there is some concern for the butters, some runoff going towards their direction. In terms of the stormwater bylaw, it's kind of hard to mitigate anything here. There was some sort of an increase. It's not like it's a new build where you're tearing something down and you're throwing into chambers. We are restricted drastically on where to put everything. We are proposing some riprap and some stone along the front left corners, the front of the retaining wall on the left side. You can't take any credit for stormwater infiltration because we're within the Title V setback. So, it's essentially just allowing for erosion control and to slow the water coming down. Excuse me. And in terms of if you were to try to provide TSS removal or any phosphorus removal, we never did test bits back there. But I don't anticipate groundwater being deeper than 18 inches. And the bylaw doesn't let you take any TSS removal credit if you don't have two-foot water separation. And the existing conditions of the site, I wasn't involved in the project. I got involved after I guess they got in trouble. But based on the existing contours of the site, it's good to assume, it's safe to assume that there has always been a water issue between both these neighbors. This is a very steep slope. You're pushing things down at almost a three-to-one slope. It's hitting the driveway, sheet flowing down. It's going back to the lake. There isn't too much options to slow it down. I'm happy. I think the commission, just correct me if I'm wrong, Doug, like I understand we have to figure out what you want them to take away, add. But in terms of stormwater mitigation, we really are kind of stuck just because it's a project where there's really not much options to provide any.
Yeah. Thank you, Alex. So, Melissa, are you on right now? Do you? So, I guess from my perspective, I'm happy to do whatever you want in order to make it so that my front door is not a river. And also so that if there's water coming to the pond that shouldn't be going to the pond, that somehow I can help on my tiny little lot, I will do that. But, I don't know, there's like a space, a tiny space, maybe 12 inches between the pond and the posts, you know, the driving posts to my house. I can put in plantings, you know, really, I'm happy to do whatever you want. I just want it to be livable and to not have to, you know, be at these meetings for the next two years. Excuse me, this cliff here, I mean, I've looked at this quite a bit, and we need a stormwater plan for this. We can't just say, oh, we can't deal with the stormwater. That isn't going to work. Can I speak? We've got a homeowner thing? I have a tiny little sliver of this, right? That's what Alec has said, that we can't do anything about it. No, and I'm saying for stormwater mitigation, because I understand Wayland has a stormwater rig, which kind of mimics the mass stormwater bylaw. But in terms of peak rates, so the increase in impervious area, I can say we estimate around 154 for that patio area and the wooden deck. The wooden deck is slotted, so that's town by town on how you decide for that impervious area. What about the covered parking area and this wall across the street? That was already there. That was already there. The covered parking area. No, I didn't change any of that. That was already concrete there. Correct, yeah. That's not concrete. I don't know. That black stuff. Black top. It was asphalt, and they put a roof over it so that it's still impervious. The area that's in the patio on the bottom, it's kind of closest to the pond, to the right side of the house. We are proposing making that having some sort of a reservoir. But like I said, when you're trying to mitigate peak flows, the stormwater bylaw, we're not going to have two-foot separation, so you truly can't mitigate peak flows per the bylaw standards. And you're not going to get TSS removal as well because you're not going to have that two-foot separation. I think that with the commission, probably, I'm assuming you guys have to determine what was permitted, what was unpermitted, and the proportion, if they were to bring this to you ahead of time prior to, if they were to bring this ahead of you the correct way, I'd say, the mitigation would be, it would be very difficult to provide the mitigation because you're dealing with, you don't, I don't know, it's hard to explain if you're not engineers, but there's not much to provide here because you don't have the area. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you can't do anything. We're restricted by the regulations, though. We're not going to mitigate the peak flows. We're going to have less than two-foot groundwater separation. And if the increase in stormwater runoff is this only 154 square feet, we are providing a 12-inch reservoir, which is allowing from volume storage. But you're not going to be able to take any TSS credits or phosphorus credits or peak rate credits because we're not going to have that groundwater separation. So under the stormwater bylaw, you're supposed to meet it to the maximum extent practical, which is practical. That's a tough word for me. But you're supposed to meet it to the maximum extent, which in my opinion we are because we are really restricted with what we can and can't do here. So the stormwater mitigation portion is this, there really isn't much option to provide TSS removal or phosphorus removal or any of that if that's what the commission is trying to get. Linda, let me get your thoughts on this. Well, again, you know, I mean, we're trying to do as best we can, like you just said. First of all, you know, we have to figure out some way to keep the water from pooling in front of the door. I mean, there's a retaining wall getting built across the street. I thought there was some interest or some discussion about putting a rain garden or something up there to collect some of the water before it funnels down into the street. But there's also a tall retaining wall that was put in front of the house, which tends to push all the water from the street into the neighbor's yard. And then there was this sort of gravel pack that was put behind the retaining wall. I just don't know how that's going to function. I don't understand what, you know, maybe you can explain that a little bit more. But we're trying to look for something here that's going to make an improvement over existing conditions. If you can't meet the stormwater management handbook requirements, I mean, you know, there's nothing we can do about that. This site is highly constrained, but we need to see an improvement. And that's all we're looking for here. We know this wasn't permitted. We need mitigation and we need some stormwater management for this project. And otherwise, we're just going to go round and round and round again every single meeting. And we are, correct. Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you. Are you done? Yes. So we are providing mitigation, though. If you look at the patio area on the, Doug, can you please point to that area correct? We are proposing, and that is a bluestone paver or some sort of paver patio. We are proposing and removing that and putting a reservoir below it to allow for storm volume to be collected in there. So during rain events, it's going to be collected. Where is the drawing? You talking about the detail? I mean, we can provide, we can certainly provide a detail. I mean, it's essentially a reservoir. It's 12 inches of stone. If that's what you guys are looking for, that's not a problem. It's a standard cut sheet detail I can provide. It's just there's, it's not, I mean, it's not taking credit for TSS or any of that. It is providing something, but it's not going to give you any of the credits that you, I'm not sure if it sounds you guys are looking for. But again, we are providing a reservoir. If you want a detail, we can certainly provide that. And on the left side, we're providing like a riprap section here. We're really not allowed to take any credit because we're within the Title V setbacks here. But I'm proposing having crushed stone to reduce the erosion, to allow the water to kind of go down, to allow the water to follow the road, follow the path, follow the side of the yard and go towards Dudley Pond, which is where it's going to end up going. Because that's, that's mimicking existing conditions. Well, I mean, we need, we need to see a plan. We don't see any plan here. I can certainly provide a detail. I just, I don't understand. It's, it's crushed stone. It's, it's, it's, it's, if that's, if you want a detail, we can certainly provide that detail. Yeah. So I think he says there, replace patio area with permeable pavers with minimum stone reservoir of 12, was that inches? Yeah, inches. Sorry, my eyes suck, but. So, so, so, so right now, what are you saying? Like, I don't know what that looks like. Sort of like a triangle-ish sky right there. Right now, it's pavers on top of dirt with spaces in between them. So I think what he's saying is we'll dig all that up, put a bunch of stone, and then put the pavers on top still with spaces between them. Isn't that what that means? That's a reservoir bed, yes. That's a standard cut sheet detail I can provide it. I can make a sheet two of it. It's not a, not an issue. Okay. So I, I know nobody cares about my opinion because I don't know what I'm talking about, but my goal for all of this is to get this done before the spring, because that's when everything's going to melt and come to my front door. And also be able to hire people. And also, if you want me to put in plants, to have time to put in the plants. So hopefully we can wrap, wrap this up. Linda, so I know part of your issue, or, you know, everybody's issue, was that there weren't enough native plants. So I'm willing to put them wherever you want. I don't, I don't think putting some plants in is going to mitigate the stormwater. No, no, no, but the original violation. Hey guys, I'm going to speak now. No one else speaks. Thank you. I'm going to talk now. Thank you. Linda, as this plant sits here before us, are you saying it needs to get more for an improvement? And I don't mean, I'm not talking about native plants. Well, there's two issues. Again, the stormwater, which I just mentioned was, I thought we were going to capture some of that on the slope, kind of upslope of the retaining wall. And there was some discussion of tearing that or putting tears or putting it in a rain garden or something. There's the issue with the retaining wall that seems to be funneling all the water to the neighbor's house. And I'm not, again, I'm not sure, I don't have any, a lot of details about how, what this, is a stone garden, you know, is that meant to capture the rainwater or the stormwater runoff? I can't provide any, I can't provide any treatment there. You're too close to the septic setbacks. Oh, you are. Okay. Yeah, that's what those squares are. If you look at the red, the red dash or the setbacks, you're not allowed to take it. Oh, okay. The, the, we, the place that we're collecting runoff is from the patio area. The rain garden on the top, if you scroll up to the backside, that's a steep slope. It's, it's, it's got, the water's going to fly down there. I didn't, I was, I didn't, I'm not aware of the rain garden. Maybe it wasn't part of a meeting, but that's a steep slope. We're proposing some trees in there. That's going to reduce the water coming down. So see, we say right there, there's retaining wall expansion. The expansion was perfect. That was when I think the first meeting was involved. We proposed some retainer wall. There's all sorts of things right there. That, that, that expansion was there. Cause as it is now, it's just a bare slope. So we did propose that. I think that's what you're talking about, where we talked about like doing some terracing with the stones and, you know, just trying to make it so that it doesn't come like a funnel down the hill, which you did before. I have to say, like when I moved into the house, it was horrifying because it was like going right in through the front door. So this isn't new, this isn't anything I've done, but. And then the other thing is we, you're, you're proposing about putting a retaining wall along Dudley pond. I don't think we haven't. Well, that's already there. The problem is that. But you said you wanted to replace it. So let me finish. No, I won't replace it or fix it because it's collapsing. And if you've ever seen my house, my house is almost in the pond. I get this. Could you let me finish on my statement? Okay. Which is we need details about how you're replacing that or fixing it. Right. I don't see any details on your sheet. How that is. Oh, sorry. That's by others though. Cause I'm on a structural. That was, that's, that was my first meeting. That's not going to be on my civil plan. Cause that's a more of a structural detail. I know what that's, I'm just saying that's what we're missing. And then I, when I spoke to Melissa the other day on the phone, I said, we need to have some mitigation there where the patio is that you're taking out. Um, there's no, is there a reason to have, is there a reason to have, oh my God, can I just finish? Is there a reason to have the, a retaining wall there? Can, can that just be, you know, a mitigation area? Yes, because that part is really clean. Linda finish. I can't. So, so let's make it real easy. Cause I don't want to waste our time here. I can tell you personally, I'm not going to approve any of Linda's not okay with. So we want to be efficient with time coming to us before having already Linda sign off on something is kind of a waste. So my recommendation is everybody on the call meet with Linda and when Linda and only when Linda says, yep, this looks, looks good. Let's bring it to the commission. Would I personally bring it to us? I don't want to go back and forth to try to like understand what she wanted. And here's like set up a meeting talking about salt and like, I don't know, like, it's very difficult. Right. So, so this is pretty normal standard procedure. So I think the team, Alec, Doug, Melissa, should go to Linda's office and sit down and say, what do we need to do? And it's that easy. We don't want to be here anymore. We don't want to, I personally want to hear about this case anymore either, but we're not going to move forward until Linda's okay. And so I'm not going to spend time with commission going back and forth on details and arguing. So that's what I'd recommend because I don't want to go back and forth like this, like no one does, including the applicant. So when is our next meeting, Linda? February 11th. Is there any reason y'all can't be in her office before February 11th and come to some type of understanding that we can vote on next time? Is that doable? In order to have things in by your deadline, I believe it's a business week for, what's your meeting after that? Just so we can.
March 4th. March 4th.
Yeah. We'll try to get in there as early as we can. I just want to, you know, I want to promise something that would, you know, take us like a week and a half and then we're kind of like really, really past the wire there. Well, here's what I say. I just asked for our continuance. So if you say, listen, it's not possible. Let's do the 4th. That's fine. I just want to, if you can do before next time, we'll continue it to the 11th. If you think that's kind of too tight, we can, we can do the 4th. Certainly. Yeah. Yeah. We'll shoot for that. And, you know, we'll play it by ear from there. Sean, I'm heartened to hear that you also want this wrapped up. That's all I've ever wanted after two years. So. I think we all do. All right. So I think I heard you say the 11th is, is okay. Yep. Or shoot for the 11th. Right. Okay. Commission. Any other thoughts, comments that we can give them before they go meet with Linda that we can, hopefully we have this done. I think I've voiced this before, but it's just kind of my opinion that any work that we would never have permitted initially should be ripped out. Like if we wouldn't have permitted it, it shouldn't be there. And I think that may apply to a lot of the impervious. So that's kind of my take. I'm still kind of there. But we'll see what, what happens at the next meeting. I don't understand that exactly. Because what would I do? Like take it out and then put in broken up concrete and, you know, falling down fence and a plastic walkway, because that's what was there before. So that part, I don't understand because that seems anti-conservation, like to rip out something that's all there. So I should be clarified. I don't want to speak for Shan. I think what she said was anything that had you come before us and we would not have approved that you can't do that, we shouldn't approve. And then we know that, yeah, that should be taken up and fixed or whatever, but like a normal process, I think she said we would approve, right? And so Linda will know all that stuff. And so, again, I think Linda can help clarify that. Right, Shan, is that kind of what you meant? Yes. Okay. Yep.
Okay. So, Commissioner, if hearing nothing else, can I get that emotion that we're going to do, I think, for continuance after 630 for February 11th? Thank you. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. I got here. Cliff there. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Cliff Lewis? Yes. And Sean Fares is a yes. All right, folks. We'll see you here in a couple of weeks. Good time. Thanks. All right. We are on to 2B. This is 67A Loker Street, DEP, file number 322-1055. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw, and the Protection Act suspended by Matt O'Connor for the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67A Loker. 7A Loker Street in Wayland, Mass. Property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 42, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boring vegetated wetlands in the 200-foot riverfront area. Linda? I'm not sure who's here for the project team.
This is... Yep. Go ahead, Brandon. I was going to say, this is Brandon Ducharme with David E. Ross, the engineer. Also, Matt O'Connor, the applicant. Hello, Conservation Board. How are you? Hello.
So, I guess if I may, just to kind of update you with where we are with the project, at one of our previous meetings, we modified this site plan. And we made some concessions to reduce the overall impervious area. We're proposing a six-bedroom supportive housing residence in place where there was an existing barn structure. We had a facility parking area here in the back off of Hobbs Road, as well as first-floor access through a drive-under garage off of Alden Street. Based on some initial feedback from the commission, we've reduced the overall impervious area by about 2,000 square feet, which obviously we eliminated some of the parking spots, as well as some of the staging area here for the garage bay in the back. And then at one of the last meetings, we had done a drainage design.
A few of our drainage structures consisting of there was a catch basin here along the right-of-way or within the right-of-way of Hobbs Road. And that collected stormwater, went to a stormwater treatment unit, and then went to a subsurface infiltration system here, the overflow on that system tied back into some of the existing drainage way that's for the town road system amongst these three roads, as well as we had a catch basin along Alden Street here, which picked up all of the runoff from this back area and then tied that into one of the existing catch basins. Presently at the site, there is an existing catch basin located in the back here that does pick up the existing drainage and ties that into that system. Now, Matt's had a few discussions with DPW at the direction of Linda, just in regards to the placement of those units. What we've done is we've revised this plan. We acknowledge it was submitted at the end of last week. So we know that the commission certainly can't act tonight, but we just kind of wanted to provide you with an update. What we've done is we've pulled those catch basin structures into the locust property. So we've removed those from the right-of-way. And then the overflow for the subsurface infiltration, we've removed the connection to the existing drain. And what happens now is that pipe will daylight within the site, and then it'll go down to where we're proposing a rain garden. That rain garden is in place where the previous plan had impervious area. So we've removed that impervious area. We've added a rain garden. We've also added a stormwater treatment unit within a catch basin here on the back parking staging area. So that stormwater will be collected into that catch basin and also will be directed to that rain garden. So essentially what we've done is we've now contained all the stormwater units as well as the drainage disposal to within the locust property. We're in the process of filing this revised plan with the planning board. We understand and acknowledge that that will be reviewed as part of that filing. But really what we wanted to do is just update the commission and just get some feedback on some of these improvements that we've made to the plan. Thank you, Brandon.
Thank you. I guess Linda, we'll start with you. Yeah, the discussion I had with different land use people here over the course of the last few days after you submitted the plan on Friday was that I guess the first step was a determination by the building commissioner for ZBA. I think you have that and the next step would be going to the planning board to get approval from that. And we would do a joint peer review for the stormwater with the planning board. And so I would suggest that you focus on that process first and get through the planning board and their changes and have the stormwater reviewed. And then we can, once you have a determination from them or decision, then we can finish up with you guys here in conservation. Okay. Linda, I did, this is Matt O'Connor. I did speak to Robert Hummel and I was advised to file or request from the building commissioner, but in speaking with him, his understanding of the regulation is that that is not necessary, nor the ZBA.
The, and yes, he did recommend to file with the planning board where, and he did acknowledge as well that you will be, you know, interviewing or, or selecting, you know, independent, you know, review person. I think that what we're looking for is the acknowledgement from the board and yourself that this is a, potentially a, an approvable plan. Uh, cause of course, you know, uh, we are working with a nonprofit agency, so costs are a concern. So we're hoping to get, um, your blessing or I should say a preliminary blessing, if I may, uh, before we're forced to, uh, spend money on a, uh, review for your, uh, decision. Uh, and then, like I said, that will obviously go before all the other town departments as well. Um, I think the planning board will also ask for a peer review for stormwater. None of us here have the expertise to, um, you know, um, review a stormwater plan like this. Sure. Um, the one thing you need to add is probably tree removal. If you're taking down any trees on this property for this, for this redevelopment of the property, um, the, the email I received from the building department was that the zoning determination was to indicate that you needed site, that site plan, the site plan approval was required and that, again, you don't need to go to ZPA, but what we needed was just, um, the intended use of the property. And that was, that was supposed to be through the building commissioner. And I think he determined that whatever you told him that the intended use was would need to get site plan approval. And that's through the planning board. Okay. Yeah. So that hasn't changed. It's just that, you know, it's a process where we're asking you to follow that, that starts with the planning board and, um, we'll probably end with conservation. Okay. Yeah. So we, we did go through that process, um, of, I guess, notifying or get a, uh, determination, uh, of the property from the building department. We do have that. And yes, I do understand that there is a planning board review for group homes and supportive housing projects, but again, we're, we're, uh, looking to, I did not have a chance to, I guess, uh, Joe's on not around, uh, to sit down and ensure that we were on the same page into far as, uh, I guess the town was not aware. I didn't have record of the existing, uh, catch basin that's on my property there. Um, so they had said at the time that they would choose to remove it. And I think that we've gone forward and, um, redesigned with that in mind, that that would be removed. So I think we, we, from what you see, is this, uh, approvable, I guess I would say, or, yeah, that was definitely one of my concerns about you had, but the previous plan had you connecting to town drainage and under our, our chapter 193 bylaw, that's not allowed. So, and I don't think, I don't think DPW would allow that either. So that that's, that's an improvement over what we saw in a previous version of your plan, but again, let's start with the planning board and we'll do a joint peer review to review the stormwater. Okay.
So it's not, so we, it's not approvable through your department independently. Without, like I said, start with the planning board. We'll do a joint peer review of the stormwater. And then when you finish with the planning board, you come back and we'll, you'll finish up with us. Okay. And, and, and we'll issue our, our permit for this. Okay. And to make sure, Matt, the reason we can't permit this, A, the planning board might change something, but B, the stormwater reviews, we're, we're going to need that same information that the planning board is going to need, um, if there's trees coming down. And so in other words, there's a lot more information that we would need before we can even say this is approvable. Um, but certainly it's an improvement from what we talked about last time, but there's more that we could have to need to see before we can say it's approvable, if that makes sense. All right. Yeah. So I think we do have the, when you mentioned the trees, I think we do have that, um, on the prints, Brandon, that's correct. Yes, we, we do. We've got a planting plan that, that goes through the number of existing trees that are removed as well as the, the trees that will be, uh, replaced. But I think too, what, what Matt's getting at is, you know, obviously we fully acknowledge that, that the drainage will be reviewed through that. And, um, but a lot of what drives the size and scope of that drainage is the layout of the impervious area. So, you know, before we go through that process with planning board, uh, is the commission comfortable with the, with the layout of the, the parking, um, and the driveway as, as shown, you know, just, I guess what that does, it just gives more comfort that we know we're really just, you know, making sure that, that the drainage or the stormwater that we're proposing here, you know, mitigates for that area. But we just, you know, we don't want to go through that process, come back and say, yeah, no, there's, can, can you cut more spaces or, you know, we're just trying to get a feel for, are you comfortable with the, with the overall layout of the site to date? Yep. Fair question. So commission, I'll, yeah. All people in the head for thoughts. Well, my only question with that is, I mean, you still need to curb cut permit from DPW for Hobbs road and, and I don't know what the, I don't know what their requirements are in order for them to issue a curb cut permit. Yeah. I am in discussion, like I said, with, uh, Joe and Abigail about the curb cut permit. Um, I think Joe is just not, you know, available. Uh, he's probably sleeping from snowplowing still, but, um, uh, yeah, so that, I, I know that that is part of the process. Um, we have that, we, you know, had that application and, uh, previously, um, is there a way that we could start taking any steps forward on identifying or soliciting a peer review for the stormwater? Again, that, that will be done jointly, Matt. So, uh, you know, once you, once you apply to the planning board, that will start the process of us, you know, um, getting quotes and finding out who's available to do a peer review and you'll be part of that process. You know, you'll be involved in that. But again, um, the planning board first needs to take a vote to, to hire a peer reviewer for the stormwater management. Okay. So, you know, there's, I don't know what else I could do until I have, have some clear direction from the planning board, what, what, what they want to do. Okay. I didn't, I, I must've misunderstood what they told me. Uh, so you're saying that the town bylaw requires the planning board to come up with a decision or to give you, uh, I don't know, permission or direction or sign off, uh, for you to start the process of looking, uh, for a peer review, uh, company? No, it's, again, it's, it's a mutual, you know, we're, we're, we're, we're trying to save you money by doing one peer review and not doing one, one by, by the conservation commission and another by the planning board. We want to do a joint one, but again, this has to be done to, you know, with, with the planning board still needs to make a decision about whether or not, you know, whether they want to move forward with a, with a peer review or not. Once, once they take that vote, then we'll start the process of hiring a peer reviewer. Okay. So, so even though it's a, a, uh, conservation controlled matter, and so far as hiring the peer review, what you're saying is in Wayland, we don't get a peer review until it's approved by the planning board. Is that correct? No, let me, let me out there. So we could order our own peer review right now. Oh, good. You have to pay for, and then the planning board could then order you in two weeks for another peer review that you have to pay for. And so it's like, we, we have to have one peer review. So let's hear what playing board wants to see in their numbers. We'll say here, we'll hear what we want to see. And the one review will satisfy both planning requirements and hours, which is saving time and you, a lot of money.
Okay. So it might be, I think we're clear on that process, Matt. I'm just trying to, I just want to maybe some just feedback on the overall layout just to make sure that, um, the commission members are, are fairly comfortable with what we're proposing. Okay. Is that, uh, possible to get that comment? Yeah. So commission members, anyone, anybody want to comment on that? Uh, can I just ask you a question, Sean? Uh, yeah, please. So I'm looking at the plan here and if I'm reading this correctly, the line that I see as the 200 foot riverfront area line looks like it takes like a 90 degree turn. Um, which I'm just curious about cause it doesn't, and I'm looking at the a hundred foot, which is also the buffer zone boundary and maybe something else. I can't quite read that, but, um, that seems to extend sort of in a fairly straight line as one would expect. So I'm just curious, is there a culvert or something? What's what's with the 90 degree turn there? Nope. Great question. Um, so what it is, is there's a perennial stream that runs, um, alongside Hobbs road and then it goes into a head wall and there's a culvert. And one of the things from a regulatory standpoint is that culvert is longer than 200 feet. So based on that, the riverfront area extends perpendicular to where the stream enters that pipe, um, and, and extends beyond. And then it picks up again on the other side, which, um, explains why there's kind of a 90 degree, um, point where it exits the pipe. So good question. That's helpful. Thanks. I suspected that was the case. I just wanted to, to confirm. Excellent. Um, cause yeah, I, obviously from, you know, and going to sort of the question pose, I think that the reason I'm asking that question is, you know, the work in riverfront area is obviously something that we would be taking a very close look at as the commission. So, um, you know, based on this and the design that you're proposing here, it looks like you're mostly outside of riverfront area or largely outside anyways, uh, which, you know, in my view is a, is a good thing. Actions. Thanks Luke. Anybody else in commission have any thoughts, comments for them, uh, as it pertains to the layout here before we get to the, uh, stormwater?
It's better than it was.
Yep. Good to hear. Thank you. Yep.
Anybody else?
Yeah. So I'll just wrap up saying, yeah, it's certainly better, better than it was. And again, I don't want to see that you kind of stormwater and, you know, as long as you can get capture runoff and, and I I'm, I'm, I'm okay with what I see right now. So that helps. Okay. So the, the biggest objection now is to get the, uh, the planning board so that you can get a peer review, correct?
Correct. Yep. Excellent. Thank you, Sean. You're welcome. And Linda, well, this, um, it wasn't in our packet. Um, so, but I don't see it on the website either. Is that something we can get a copy of in the meantime? Yes. So it came in after the pack, after the packet was delivered. So typically we don't accept new information and, uh, less than a week before the meeting. So, and we still have not received any hard copies. So usually that's, that's the official submittal for us as receiving hard copies, but we can, we, I can, I can forward the email to everybody that we received from Brandon with a new plan on it. And I do have incidentally, I apologize. The closed when I got there this afternoon, but I do have, um, correct me from two, uh, rolled copies of the prints and then a one copy of the, uh, you know, 200 page, uh, stormwater review document. Is that correct? Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. I'll drop that off Linda tomorrow in your office, if that's okay.
Anybody else? Linda? Nope. I'll say, all right. So, um, in terms of continuation, the 11th, I mean, I'm not sure when the playing board meeting is, but they're probably presumably not for the 11th or the 11th can be okay to continue.
Linda, do you know? I don't know. They're, I know they're meeting tonight, so I don't know when the next meeting is. So, I mean, I don't know how far in advance. If it needs to submit something, I don't think they'll be ready for the February 11th meeting for us. If they still have to submit an application to planning board and get it advertised and on the, on their agenda. So I would more than, I mean, I think I would suggest that March 4th would be a better date to continue to. March 4th. Okay. March 4th. I would think that would be beneficial just because they, we are going to have to submit. They're going to have to notify, advertise that hearing, hold the hearing, you know, it'd be good for us to get some initial input from the planning board prior to coming back. Okay. Excellent. Okay. So that'd be March 4th. Conservation. All right. So if I'm seeing nothing else, I guess the commission then can I give a motion, please, for continuation under both for sometime after 630 on March 4th, 2026. I think I heard Cliff say that. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second.
Yes. Jenny Brown.
Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All right. See you in a few months, a couple months. Excellent. Thank you very much. Conservation commission. You got it. Thank you. Appreciate it.
All right. On to, this is 2C. 68 Lakeshore Drive, DEP file number 322-1057. 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 after-the-fact work form at 68 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass., including installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to the covered porch steps. Properties shown on an assessor's map 42D, parcel 56, and is located within 100 feet of a boring vegetated wetlands, bank, and land underwater. Linda. I believe we have the representative on to discuss this. Yes. This is Kevin O'Leary at the Jilson Company and the engineer for Jeremy Jacobs, the home owner at 68 Lakeshore Drive. Hi, Kevin. Hi. Jeremy contacted me early in the fall about an enforcement order that was issued by Conservation Commission for work that was unpermitted on his property. So, we put together a site plan and a wetland filing. It came, I want to say, the end of November or mid-November, and it shows the existing conditions. I just tried to share a screen here. I don't know if, can people see that? Nope. Nope. Sorry. You're good. Try again.
See it now, no? Nope. Nope. Nope. Sorry. Try once more. I think I know what I'm doing here, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
Shareable now? Nope. All right. You have a little green button at the bottom of your screen. Oh, there you go. There you go. What are we doing? Here it comes. There it is. Now you're sharing. Okay. Thank you. You're sharing your email, though. You're not sharing the plan. Yeah, you're sharing your main desktop thing there. I know what I did. There we go. I'm going to start over again.
On there now? Yeah. There you go. Yep. Site plan. Okay. Thank you. This is basically page 51 of our packet, right? Yeah, it's in our packet. Yep. Okay. So this is the site plan that was submitted. It's about a quarter acre lot. It's two parcels. There's about a 5,200 square foot lot over here and a 6,000 change, 6,000 square foot lot over here. So together, it's about a quarter of an acre. The existing house was constructed a little bit more than 100 years ago. It sits about 50 feet off of Dudley Pond. I wanted to see if I can go back one sheet here. This is the locust map for those who aren't familiar with the area.
That's where 68 is up here on the north shore of Dudley Pond. This is Lakeshore Drive. And then back to the site plan. I'm sorry. I'm not as good as other people with these, but I'll continue to try.
So this is the site plan. Existing conditions topography shows the house. There's a covered porch over here. This is a raised patio that was installed, correct me if I'm wrong, generally, but over the summer of 2025, other work that's subject of this filing is a floating dock and a gangway that was constructed and floated out under Dudley Pond. A third component of this filing is work up along this entryway step that was in the process of being reconstructed. I think, I think, in general, in the same size, shape, and area. It's a walkway that went up to his existing asphalt driveway. The driveway was very heavily damaged by, I believe, DPW when they installed a new replacement water line to the house. And they had dug up, and Jeremy can tell or describe a little bit better what happened here. But the driveway is in great disrepair due to activities of the DPW to replace the service line. So I think the main, two main components, the raised patio, and then the floating dock, which we've made a notice of intent filing and a Chapter 194 submission for the commission to review. I put the plan, the site plan together and the wetland filing as quick as I could in accordance with the enforcement order. I have not provided hydrological stormwater runoff computations, but it's my belief that I could probably comply with the stormwater standards in these two recharge basin areas, one over here and one over here, to offset any increase in runoff from the raised patio. I could collect roof runoff, there's already downspouts in place, and pipe them to the recharge basins in these two locations. Another component that Jeremy and I had brief discussions on was his existing driveway. Water comes down his driveway and into his garage under in this end of the house on the northern side. And at a minimum, we're looking at something maybe like a trench drain or a catch basin in here and then collecting it and disposing of it also in this recharge basin. So that's another component. I think that we can overcome the impervious area of the patio, but I didn't want to start work and then have the commission have concerns over the size and location of the patio and have to, you know, get into revision after revision and just have more things to submit. I'd rather I want to try to simplify it. That's why we put the plan together quick, made the submission, and I want to listen to commission members' comments. Kevin, the Mona Path, who owns that piece of property? It's unknown. The town, I thought. I can comment on that. We had this researched by attorneys when I bought the house, so I have an email from an attorney and she contacted, actually there's an email in June of 25 to Linda and Mike McCall about it. So, it's not owned by the town, it's a private way, but there is a drainage easement that's 10 feet wide there. But I, Cliff, I actually gave you a copy of that email when you visited me, so if you still have it. If it's a private way, somebody owns it. Maybe that's the wrong term. It's probably not owned, really. Yeah, I don't believe, Cliff, I don't think there's a deed to it. That's the problem. When this area was subdivided around the turn of the 20th century, parcels that were not built on, I believe, might still be in the master deed to the parcels that were subject to the development. Yeah, I know, the whole place is a mess, you know. Yeah, it can get tricky. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not aware of any deed to the town that says, here's the metz and bounds from Monopath to town of Wayland, and I don't think there's an acceptance document that was approved by the select one.
There's some sort of an easement that allows people to go from Lakeshore Drive to the pond, is that right? I'm not aware of an easement, an access easement. There's also a 10-foot-wide drainage easement on this side of the property. Jeremy, I'm not sure if that was the easement that you were referencing earlier, but it lines up with a catch basin across the street. There's no pipe visible down here near the pond. The eastern 10 feet of Monopath is what the attorney determined was a drainage easement, so that would be the right side of Monopath and then 10 feet wide, so it's not this 20-foot span that's shown in terms of the water. But it was sufficient to determine the porch was not encroaching on any town property and then sort of allowed me to proceed with the purchase of the house. Right. I think also, and obviously I'm not any kind of title examiner or a title attorney, but with the deed to both properties on either side of Monopath, the owner always has estoppel rights to the middle of the right-of-way or of the Monopath layout. Because Jeremy owns on both sides, that goes across the entire Monopath. Yeah, but that's not an attorney's decision. I mean, that's for a title attorney to determine that. I mean, I'm the one who requested our town council opinion, because when this project needed to be closed in order for you to purchase it, there was a question about why the deck was built off the property and whether or not, you know, we could close out on the permit because there was a deck that was built out off, you know, was not on the property and it was connected to the house. It was my understanding that, yes, it was determined to potentially be a private way. However, our town surveyor feels that it was an extension of the road. You know, that's how much of Dudley Pond was developed. There was many of the roads that sort of dead-ended into Lakeshore. There was a continuous that went all the way to the pond to provide public access from the people who lived, you know, upstream, you know, above the pond. And you'll see that all over Lakeshore. I mean, all over Dudley Pond is built like that. So I'm not sure this is that much different, but I do have concerns because you've just built, you know, both a dock and a ramp. And it looks like, I don't know if there was sand brought in and you have your patio and your retaining wall is also on Monopath or an off property that is not part of your deed. And again, you know, legally, when we issue permits, it will be for your property. And we can't really issue a permit for something that's not on your property. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Linda. I think that we need to look into it further. We need to, I think, address your concerns in writing. Does the ramp fall into the same category? Do you own property all the way to the waterline? Or is that part of Monopath in this questionable space? That's part of Monopath. Ah, okay. It doesn't have to be. It's a floating dock, so it can, it doesn't have to be.
So we need to figure out that, what we're actually trying to permit and where the lines are and what. So, okay, Linda, does our town turn, like, what's the next step on our end for that? I mean, I can get a better understanding from our town survey. He has researched the Dudley Pond area very heavily. They're working on a whole other project here regarding sort of a communal septic sort of thing or stormwater. I mean, a shared sewer system. So I know there's been a lot of research that has just been recently put into this. But, I mean, there's a second issue here, which is, if you see the retaining wall, a portion of that is within the 15-foot no disturb also. And, you know, typically we don't allow that either. So, you know, we have to make a decision about how we're going to permit this in general. So, one, again, with property issues, and number two, you know, working in an area that we probably would not have permitted if this had come to us beforehand. So, again, you know, that's, I think those are the two main issues we have to discuss with this particular project. So, okay. And you, presumably after we talk to the attorney, know what we're actually permitting? Or do I have part of that discussion now? What are you asking? Well, the whole property issue has to be, I have to do another additional research on that and talk to the town surveyor. However, again, I was just pointing out that, you know, part of this retaining wall was built within the 15-foot no disturb, you know, in order to develop this patio. You know, gotcha. Can I ask a question? Jeremy, when I was often, we looked at the tree and the sand. Did you have somebody make an assessment of whether that's likely to damage the tree?
I'm going to call an arborist. I think that was a great suggestion. I will definitely look at the one side of the tree. I need to see that tree decay and fall down on top of your house. And I will, I can absolutely change the height of the level if that's determined for sure. Yeah. Was there a site visit to this property?
Cliff came. A what? Oh, Cliff made arrangements to go see the property. I just walked out and looked at it. I see. Yeah, Linda, you were there also, right? I was there previously. I was not there with Cliff. Yes. What is the tree in question? Do you have the photos from the, I think it was in our last packet? The tree is basically buried in the, in that sand, the patio sand. You see the big, the big round, brown spot? Yeah, that's, that's, what species is it? It's an oak. Like, I'd hate to lose an oak without, without cause. It could be the patio work would damage it. But since the patio work is very much in play at this point, I guess that's an open question. Yeah. I mean, right now it's just, it's just, Shannon, it's just sand right now. Okay. So the, the retaining wall was built and it's between probably like a few inches to almost three and a half feet tall. And the area between the house and the retaining wall was filled with sand. So that, that was not the existing condition. Okay. The existing condition, it was, it was just a walkout sort of slider from the house. I mean, I will say it does seem like on Lakeshore, we have a lot of asking forgiveness versus permission here where we're having some, some issues on things that we probably would never have permitted. And I think that the comment that I made for the other property stands here and that if we would not have originally permitted, you know, should be removed. So that's, that's kind of where I stand on that personally as well. If we wouldn't have done it in the first place, then it shouldn't be there.
Okay. Anybody else have any thoughts? I know we, we still have to continue this, but any thoughts we want to get now before we presumably hear what we're actually permitting and have that discussion then? Well, the, the other thing about the dock, and I think Kevin might be aware of this, but under a chapter 91 license by the state in order to put this in Dudley Pond, what they, what you can, you can only put a dock in if it's for accessing and parking a boat. You can't, you can't put in sort of a floating dock that you will use as, as to put lawn furniture on or anything that's, that's, that's not what they would, they would not permit that. Okay. Okay. The state would not. So it just needs to be a straightforward dock for the use of accessing a boat and parking a boat, but not for, um, recreation, you know, like putting again, you know, patio furniture and stuff on. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Linda. Um, I think that, um, a comment that was made on the prior hearing at 108 Lakeshore, I think we, um, will work more closely with Linda or with Linda on a lot of these issues before we come back to the commission and get answers instead of going on. Well, I know we have to go on a, well, I know we have to go on a continuance or set some date for a continuance, but, um, we can work with Linda more to try to get closer to having the answers to these concerns. Okay. Okay. Kevin, do look, do look at that tree in the base of the tree, cause that, that concerns me greatly. And I, I'm not qualified to say what, what happened in there, but it does concern me. Okay. Yes. Thank you. I've written that note down. Thank you.
There's no sand. Well, it says here on the plan, sand on either side of the dock. Down by the dock. Oh, I don't know why it's a, I mean, it's, there's nothing there. It's just dirt. I'll take another look at Linda. That was what was, uh, put on the plan by my surveyor, but I didn't, uh, I didn't go out and walk this area of the property. I'll look at it closely and see if it warrants a change. And sand was also brought in to fill in the patio. Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, Shannon, that re the retaining wall for the pad is about three, three and a half feet high at the highest point, which is right where that leader for that 11 foot marker is. Okay. You see that on the plan, um, in this area. So the wall right here in this elbow area is about three and a half feet high above existing grade on the downhill side. And then when the wall was built, it was back filled with sand up in this area. Doesn't that need a, uh, a railing at the top? Probably, but yeah. I mean, it shouldn't really be there because it's in the 15 foot no disturbed. So. All right. Well, it, it went in on an area that I don't want to say it was disturbed, but it wasn't, um, I guess it was partially lawn and weeds in this area. So. But you, you could always replace the, the, basically what you're going to do is put pavers on top of the sand, but you could always replace that just with a decking material and leave the, take all the sand out and make it a pervious subsurface. Yeah. That's an option. Yes. We could also maybe use it for a little bit of recharge. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Something. Or rip it out. Yeah. We prefer not to rip it out, but we understand your concern, Sharon. Shannon. Sorry. It just does seem like there's a lot of work happening on this particular street. And it, we don't want to set a precedent where if you just do it without the permit, then you get to keep it because that becomes a cheat code for anybody who wants to do stuff that would never be permitted. So, you know, I think that's a precedent that we have to be very careful about setting. Understood. Okay. Commissioner, anybody else? Um, in terms of timeline, Linda, uh, and applicant, you know, Kevin, uh, I know that next one's on the 11th of February. Is that enough time? No, I need more than that. Okay. Um, going to the 4th of March, Kevin. Yeah. That's something we could put on the calendar. Yes. Okay. Um, so soon we have no other thoughts or comments, commission. Um, can I get a motion to continue under both, uh, to March 4th sometime after 630. Yep. You got it. So move it. Thank you, Cliff. Thank you, Luke for the second, or Luke for the, yeah, Cliff for the second, I'm assuming. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yep. You bet. And Sean affairs a yes. All set. See you in a few weeks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, on to 2d. Uh, it's eight, nine and 10 Essex street, uh, Turkey Hill village condominium DEP file number three, two, two dash one zero five eight. This is a notice of intent file pursuant to Wayland's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection acts amended by Turkey Hill village condos for the replacement of a, of a septic system at eight, nine and 10 Essex street and Wayland mass. The project is with a hundred feet foot buffer zone of a boring vegetated wetlands property shown on the assessor's map. 45. Parcel CM to Linda. So we have a guest appearance by Vito tonight. So I think I'll invite him to do a presentation. All right. Vito. Hello. Good evening. Um, so Vito Colonna, Connerstone engineering. Uh, I'm just going to share the company again. Uh, Connerstone engineering. Connerstone. Uh, yeah. Connerstone. Connerstone. Yep. Okay. All right. Okay. Just a quick look at where the site is. Um, it's off of rice road. Uh, this road right here is rice road. Um, it's Turkey Hill condos. Um, there's an access drive that comes in and wraps to the back here. And the units that we're looking at are in the back corner here. Uh, units, uh, eight, nine, and 10, uh, right in this corner right here. Um, switch to the site plan. Okay. So, um, right now these three units have a shared septic system. It's in the back yard area, uh, right through here. Uh, it's shown this kind of red bubbled shape. Um, the area right behind the units immediately is a lawn area, uh, then it's boarded by a kind of a landscape strip, and then it's all wooded, uh, in the back here. And then further to the back is a BVW, uh, that wraps around. It's kind of a, a pretty sharp slope. It's maybe six to seven feet high. And right along that Towa slope is a pretty defined wetland, uh, right along the back through here. Um, so as I said, the system they do have is in failure. It's currently about 55, uh, feet from the edge of the wetland. Uh, they were experiencing back up, uh, into the D box. Uh, there wasn't anything breaking out on the ground surface, uh, but it was backing up, uh, into the D box, um, and surcharging a little bit. Um, so we went out and did some test pits. Um, we found suitable soils. Um, they are kind of a little bit of a tight soil. So it is a 30 minute perk rate. Uh, so it does make the system rather large. Um, but we were able to fit that in, uh, right in this kind of rear area. Um, we've just fit it outside the 75 foot buffer zone, uh, which is a water health requirement. Uh, to be that minimum 75 feet from the wetland. Uh, we're also pinned in by a drain line, uh, that runs right through here. That we have to be 10 feet off of that drain line. Um, and typically you'd need to be 20 feet off of the foundation. Uh, we have asked for relief, uh, from that, from the board of health to go as close as 16 feet, um, to the foundation over here. And that just allowed us to that little bit of space to be able to pull it far, far enough away from the wetland, uh, to give at least 75 feet. Um, border health has reviewed the plan. Uh, we did get comments back. They haven't fully approved it yet. Uh, but they had a few comments and we've addressed those. Um, so I'm thinking we're just waiting on kind of the final, uh, approval in the documents through border health. Um, one thing to note on the system itself, we did use a IA system. Uh, Presby, uh, environmental, um, it's a geotextile, it's a sand filter. So it does allow us a 40% reduction in the footprint. And it also provides some enhanced treatment, uh, of that effluent before it enters the, enters the, uh, enters the ground. Um, let's see a few other things. Um, also through border health, uh, one of their conditions was that any of the garbage grinders be removed, uh, from these units. I believe, uh, one, at least one of them does have one. Uh, so that'll be confirmed through border health before they do their final sign off. Darren usually does a walkthrough, uh, just to confirm that those garbage grinders are removed. Um, let's see. Uh, oh, the only other thing I wanted to mention, there are some trees to be removed. Um, we did try to pull this as far as we could into that lawn area, but we are encroaching a little bit on, um, these three trees right here. This one is out into the yard a little bit, and these two are into the kind of the wooded area. It's not too thick in there. There's really no undergrowth. Uh, but there would be these three trees that need to come down. Um, I, this is a maple. I, it could be a Norway maple. I wasn't positive. Um, but then we have also a pine and a cedar, and we've mitigated that with plantings. We're showing along this back edge, uh, just to kind of infill that area with some low shrub plantings, uh, of native species. Um, and I think that that's all I have for this. I guess if I'll hand it back over for questions. Thanks. What's there now for, for septic, what's there now? Oh, right now there's a leach field. Um, they do have trenches. Um, it's a clay, they're, um, clay pipe, uh, trenches. Um, there's a tank right here. And then there's a series of them. Uh, they kind of run through here. We hit one of them over in here. So they're at least this far over. They could be a little bit further. Uh, hit the end of it over here and also over here. So, uh, they're kind of spread out through that back area. Uh, but it's an old leach field of trenches with clay pipe. Okay. And you're gonna put in another leach field with trenches that works better than the old one. Yep. Yep. Okay. Okay. Linda, have any thoughts? Uh, I need a butterfly notification proof that the butters were notified. I know that she had an 11 page list here. So, um, yeah. Um, also the delineation was done November 25th, um, in November, 20, 25. So we don't, we don't accept that. It's also, there's some mistakes made with that. At one point she identifies it as a, um, isolated, um, wetlands. And in another section of the, her report, she identifies as a bordering. So I'm, I'm not entirely sure. I'm assuming it's isolated, but it's, it's hard to know. Um, also you're, you said in your, on your plan that she were adding a tree also, 21 shrubs and a tree. Or is that, has that changed? I think it's just the shrubs. Oh, okay. Double check. I thought it said. Oh, one tree. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. I didn't see where the tree was though. Yeah. Um, let me just look. I thought I was, I thought we just were doing shrubs, but proposed 21 shrubs in one tree. We'll have to highlight where the tree is then. Um, I missed that. Soil stockpile area probably. Yeah. It's going to be very, very tight in there. Um, you're going to have to ship it out essentially as they're going. Um, the only access is going to be between these two units. Um, Oh yeah. You're going to catch space in there. Yup. Yeah. So it's going to, it's going to be really tight. They probably doesn't have to bring a, um, a dump truck in and just kind of load into the truck almost. Okay. A lot of that out. They will have some stockpiling, but there's really not much space out there to do so. Okay. Oh, what else did I have? Oh, you're, um, you need to update your filing fee. Okay. Um, we, we did update them in 20, June, 20, 24. Uh, what's in your packet here was our old filing fees. It doesn't change for this one. This is a category one. It's still a hundred dollars, but I just wanted to update you on that. Um, and the catch basin, I mean that, that I, I had to focus in on that. Okay. Does that drain directly into the wetlands? Is that what it does? Yup. Yeah. It was, so it drains off to the side. It comes out, not into the well end, but it's right. I mean, I forget how far away it is, but it's not like into the well end, but it comes into that buffer. Um, right. So it collects the street drainage and then it just to, from one catch base into another, and then into the, then discharges. Yup. Yeah. It's, you know, how they used to do it. I know. Yeah. Um, yeah. So it collects. Yeah. It's just catch basin to catch basin. And then they discharge it. Um, it's probably like we show it right around that 30 foot. I can get, I can get an exact measurement for you how far off. No, it's not a big deal. It's just kind of disappointing to see that. But, um, uh, and did you have a revised plan that you submitted to health in with your comments? Yep. Yeah, we did. Um, so we can get that to you. We'll update that with the tree, um, and get you any updates with border health. Yeah. I mean, we might as well wait until Darren has signed off on that revised plan. Cause I like, I like to at least reference the same plan that they, they've approved in our permit. Yeah. So, um, I mean, we can close this and everything if you, I mean, I'm okay with this project today. Everybody needs a septic. Right. But, um, I just want to make sure that we have, we both have the same plan and we're permitting the same plan. Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't think. I'm sorry. I think the border health changes, they were just, um, mostly note changes. Um, nothing with a layout. Right. I'm like that. So that's fine. Like I said, I don't, I don't, I mean, it's a pretty tight, very tight. So I can't imagine there's going to be many, um, but there's much we can do with this. Right. Okay. Okay. Commission. Anything else? If you could get it, if you wanted to, uh, shoot us a picture of the bark of that tree, we could tell you if it's Norway or not. In which case, I won't cry any tears over it. Yep. I think it is, but I wasn't positive at the time. Uh, cause it was pretty smooth, um, the bark on it. Um, and usually I can tell the leaves, but at the time there wasn't much to see. So. Yeah. There probably won't be now, but we can give it a shot. Yep. Guarantees. There's a great trail over there. Shannon. If you want to take a nice walk over from the. Yeah. It's right underneath the. Mm-hmm. I'll make a note of that for my walk. Uh, maybe tomorrow or Friday. No. Uh, okay. Anything else? Okay. Uh, I get them a motion then. If everybody's in, in favor of, uh, favor of this, please. Motion to close first. I'm sorry. Yeah. I move that we close the hearing under chapter 194 and the state act. Thank you. Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Lisa Alban. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. And Sean. Yes. Thank you. Next motion, please. I'm going to see you on order of conditions approving the project under both the State Wetlands Protection Act and chapter 194. Thank you, Luke. Do you have a second? Second. Thank you, Babs. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Lisa Albin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All set. Thank you. Thanks, Vito. all right uh to public meetings this is 3a uh 37 45 and 47 waltham road carroll school uh d-1046 it continued to request for determination filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the protection act chapter 193 submitted by carroll school for the construction of a new school building with associated parking area septic system and utilities at 37 39 and 45 waltham road in whalen mass the proposed work is partially within 100 foot buffer zone of a boring vegetative well property shown in assessors map 5 laws 14 15 and 16. linda i believe we have uh sean here i thought i saw sean yes oh there you are i'm sorry i didn't even recognize you um we've had i just want to update the commission we've had numerous um like zoom meetings and zoom calls to discuss the stormwater um the two outstanding issues i believe are the mounding heights and the inner basin connectivity or transfer or whatever however ect wants to call it so that was between us the staff here um carroll school and the peer reviewer so i did get we did receive another set of revised plans it's been i think two since the last meeting and um we're just working through the last of the issues i believe is that right sean yes yes i would agree yep did we deal with the snow storage area that was a question that was unresolved last time i was the snow storage i don't i don't um what did you do with that sean yes so and and actually i just jumped over from the planning board meeting the rest of our team is still at that meeting um and they brought up the the same comment and uh you're correct we still owe you the plan showing those uh couple areas but basically um we're going to take i think uh it was 15 spaces that we have um beyond what's required by zoning to have temporary snow storage and then everything not able to be stored on site is going to be removed how are we assured of that um that'll just be uh a condition of approval um i don't know if that would be something that the uh building department uh code enforcement has jurisdiction over um but it you know the carroll school is gonna make sure they have enough parking spaces to meet their needs yeah i'm sure they are i just don't want the snow to get pushed off into waltham road oh no yeah absolutely and i i would imagine there's um you know the the abutters are very uh active in that neighborhood and if anything like that were to happen which uh we absolutely do not want to happen and it should not happen but if it does i'm sure that the carroll school will be notified and rectify the situation immediately so one of the big changes and sean can uh discuss that even further was that uh we pulled a lot of the roof runoff and sent it out towards the the fields in the back as opposed to putting it into the infiltration basin it's fairly clean water it will eventually end up in the wetlands and that was that did reduce a little bit of the mounding heights that they were seeing um and they have by where the infiltration basin is so i think there's just a few other items that need to be addressed right in order to reduce the mounting yes and yep and one of the other things that we did add to the subsurface system was an overflow to limit the amount of water that would uh be able to be built up in that system and and again that would be clean water that would be discharged down into the the field areas um with those changes we did make sure that our numbers did not uh increase the flows to that wetlands were still below pre-development levels uh but it did help to kind of disperse the stormwater a little bit more uh across the site and and like linda said using the fields and some of the open areas um other than that it was just uh this i think a couple analysis points that ect wanted some kind of clarification on and we'll just continue to work with them to make sure that um we're all talking the same thing but i think we're we're pretty close and i think we do have a system that meets all the regulations and and will function well so do you think i'll have the revised plans and everything ready for our next meeting on february 11th that's in two weeks i am hoping so okay so that would mean that you would need to have hard copies in hand by uh the fourth wednesday yes yeah so if it's if it's all right i'd like to continue to that hearing uh with that hope if we don't meet that then um i think at this point we would just continue not waste anybody's time until we we have all that resolved unless there's any other comments or concerns from the commission
anything else all that drainage is gravity fed yes correct yeah okay uh all right well we don't have to make an official vote because it's just a just a public meeting um but it sounds like we'll see you here in the next meeting on the 11th with uh finalized updates and then uh working with linda great thank you very much y'all awesome thanks sean appreciate it take care all right on to 3b 37 old sudbury road whalen d-1052 it's request for determination filed pursuant to whalen's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection act submitted by barry wiley for the addition to an existing deck at 37 old sudbury road whalen mass uh that's when 100 foot feet of boarding vegetated wetlands the property is shown on assessor's map 14 lot 54. linda oh who we have here for for this hi folks my name is barry willie i'm the i'm the contractor um that's going to be hopefully doing the work out there for my client mike perfect and i'm the property owner michael all right go on barry what do you got so um we are just proposing to add on to an existing deck um the deck is approximately 14 feet off the back of the house so we're going to come out with the with the add-on 14 feet and then um another eight foot four inches in the opposite direction with a small landing off of that and a set of stairs down to grade approximately 150 square feet total counting the counting the stairs on the platform linda start with you comments thoughts um i don't have a ton of comments i mean this is a pretty straightforward project um one thing is you know we always we'd love to have um closure on the previous permanent these are these are really old i think um from 2004 but none of that none of that was actually closed out but um i'm not even sure what the permit was for actually but um at some point what we need to have is probably a more precise plan right now we just sort of have a hand-drawn thing i'm guessing the building department's going to require a little bit more structural like you know plan that shows you know something to scale um and what we can do is we can make that a condition of um of the permit that you would submit us an as built when the project is finished with with the uh a plan to scale as opposed to a hand-drawn thing okay um this is the plan that we got it was 30 years old yeah i know right so so i did submit um this this drawing to the building department and i wasn't told that they needed anything more than that i don't have a problem doing it but at that point it's like that's kind of outside of my realm and and now we're looking at probably hiring architect to do a design okay we look at the wetlands that's that's what we're determining right i can just add to that that when i was in there last i was right next door to you guys at the building department i spoke to them and they said they were um good to go you guys were the last people to ask for me yeah so they just need this this this content that's what you submitted with the um the joist and the that's all they're looking at then right okay okay i mean we look at things differently we look at things like distance from the wetlands we look at the size and you know the alteration you know and right so we don't look at those kind of specifics we look more at and you know where are you on the plane i know on the as and this is all over lawn right there's existing lawn underneath this correct okay and then how many how many supports are you putting underneath it um we have four five seven seven twelve inch um by four foot deep sauna tubes okay the sauna tubes okay okay commission anybody else someone's pretty good with it okay as am i anyone make the motion for the negative termination i move a negative determination
under the wetland protection act under the wetland protection act and a permit and a permit okay okay there we go under both all right go here second second thank you luke uh roll call please luke was here yes barbara howell um
we're voting a negative under the wetland protection act yes yes we are yeah uh shannon fisher yeah jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes all right all set thanks all thank you thank you you got it good night you too uh and uh shannon well done on your first uh motion that's not that's that's always the awkward one with the negative termination it kind of sounds like we're saying no but well done and and the permit under chapter 194 it's real yeah those are the thorniest ones shannon yeah those are the hard ones um all right on to my screen for a this is a vote to release performance guarantee and close escrow account for 20 harrison street uh dep feed file number three two two dash seven oh six it's back in the day linda oh yes we're we're we're frantically oh we did oh i should start by we did we did find another senior workout person to help us with this our nice we've been we've been you know the town's been after us the auditors have been after us we have over three hundred thousand dollars in performance bonds that were never returned they sit in individual bank accounts and draw you know and um our biggest our biggest hurdle to returning those is just a lack of records if we don't have any understanding of who wrote the check and who we're giving the money back to it's it's almost an impossible job so we're trying to go after some of the easy ones the ones that have documentations the ones that have copies of checks so slowly but surely we're making our way through a stack and we're sending out second notices to a lot of people who never responded to the first notices so again you might see one or two of these almost on every meeting and this was an easy one it was they had closed out on their permit and they uh um the only thing lacking is you know a request for return of the performance bond so um we can if we can just approve that one so how much money is this i uh emily might know that i don't know i think it's like about a thousand maybe oh is it okay thank you do i do i have that on the table emily uh no sorry no worries we're drowning again in paperwork i think we got five new filings this week for our next meeting so give it up yeah well unrelated no i won't be here next time just kidding oh i'm just kidding uh all right so we then vote okay a motion then uh to release performance guarantee for 20 harrison street please so thank you cliff uh roll call please luke lazier yes barbara hall yes yes shannon fisher yes jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes sean fair is a yes thank you folks uh 4b vote to keep the penalty for old sorry six old tavern road d-722 this will be a fun story linda go ahead again this this we've done this before the the minutes say that like 150 dollars are forfeited and the treasure would just like a little bit more clear language on that what does that mean and what happens is that they've done they obviously didn't um submit inspection reports or there was something that um the commission voted to keep 150 of the the performance bond these people got the rest back and so this 150 has been sitting in this the savings account for years now and uh she would just would like um more clarification of what forfeit meant and i and i guess that's basically it's a penalty that the commission was collecting for for some performance issue and so and it gets returned to the general fund um you know it just gets transferred to our general fund this 150 does so if we i don't know how better to describe that maybe luke has some better language for this that we're we're we're keeping this as a penalty for non-performance issues something like that that seems like what we're doing we can only guess at this point sounds like a good description uh it's ancient history you know i mean we're we're just we're just gravel we're just you know yeah okay um so this is more housekeeping commission we'll go with that any questions or before we throw a quick vote okay um luke do you want to make that motion sure um so i move that we we vote to sorry just went so linda what do you actually need us to authorize you do you need us to authorize you to transfer this to the general no we just have to we're just clarifying the language that what it was said forfeit in the minutes and the the treasurer just wanted a better description of what that meant and for us it's just a non-performance issue and we we kept 150 i think that's what it was for a penalty for a non-performance issue so okay uh sure i move that we vote to retain and keep the penalty money left for old uh six old tavern road d dash seven two two thank you luke do i hear a second yes i can thank you cliff roll call please luke lazier yes barbara hall yes shannon fisher yes denny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes thank you uh 300 000 to go yeah uh signed conservation for a couple weeks yeah for alice drive dep file number three two two dash five five two holy mackerel so this this was a subdivision a four house subdivision there is a conservation restriction on the back of this property it's a dead end off the old con i don't know if you guys are familiar with this i think it's near where the aqueduct is um but the odd thing is again there must have been six copies of a cr in the in the file but only one of them one of them was signed by the owners and and notarized and the pages for the conservation commission and the select board are blank and it was never recorded and he wants to close out on this project so this is one of the outstanding issues that this was never i mean it was never followed through by anybody it doesn't appear um is it too late to do this now i mean this was this was signed in 2013. where was it 2008 this was signed this is right by pod meadow yeah we had a trail that actually was on their property and we had to move our trail trail off their property and put that zigzag one that comes down over the slope now and um
they um were going to give us the conservation restriction um just as a small one by the pond
oh i don't know about i don't i don't remember the pond being there oh there's a huge pond oh is there okay a pod pod meadow i was we did some walks there last year it's like the really big pond and there's like a little bitty pond that i wasn't sure could be a vernal pool or not oh the small one is on one side yeah and the big one is on the other yeah that's a biggie and the alice road is kind of but by the smaller pond okay oh i see it yeah no it's on the so the odd thing is that the plan was recorded the plan that it's associated with the cr was recorded but that the cr itself was not so we're kind of in a bit of a you know a quandary of what to how to proceed with this and i i misstated it i think it was signed in 2013 it looks like and i think a trail goes on it's the whole idea of getting that cr was that's where our trail used to go and still goes i think the trail definitely like pew like but it's so steep it's kind of good that it does that anyway it's actually a nice area oh it's one of my favorites so linda sorry you're saying the cr was executed signed but just not never recorded it was signed by the owners of these properties the four different or two or three different owners the commission never the commission the commission never signed it nor did the select board sign it so is it is it too late to do that have we missed is it like past you know statute of limitations or anything at this point i i don't know the answer to that question i mean we can just try right yeah let's do it and see what happens okay so the question i mean i think as a general rule and like nobody quote me on this please um you know having the owners sign it is sort of the most important thing i think the the owner was uh an engineer yeah who dr chang we worked with him on several projects yeah he's on the board of public works oh is he oh yeah oh i didn't know that he's the he's the guy that designed your water system well in this case again you know it's it's you know everybody agreed to it you're right i mean that's the way it was you know that's it was agreed to that's i mean it's an area that they can't really use anyway because it's pretty wet um so it was just again it was just a condition of the whole permit of the subdivision permit and you know i don't want this holding them up as granting this uh certificate of compliance for this project because the commission didn't sign the cr and that seems to be like an administrative you know problem that happened with the conservation department and not with the actual owners so um doesn't it doesn't seem fair to sort of penalize them so if the deed was never recorded and if any of those properties that are part of the conservation restriction if they sold during that time since 2013 is that an issue if the new homeowner was never made aware of that so we didn't have one we did have one closure i think and that that went through this commission too when i was here and what we did was a declaration of restriction um for that particular house which is for alice road or drive and again this is just formalizing that you know this this declaration that was that was written before by their closing attorney in order to close on the sale of this house because again the cr wasn't wasn't executed so it wouldn't come up in the title search or something even if it wasn't on the deed yeah well it is on his deed on for alice drive but so now what we're trying to do is just just put it in and again the the plan was always that shows the cr was recorded it's just that the cr wasn't recorded so um i think what we do need to do is just vote to accept the cr and then the decision needs to be made whether i can sign it for you or if you guys want to come in and each individually sign it um two things what one do we still have thing where i can sign for the whole commission is that or that just where you can simple commission i can sign for the whole commission but if you come in sean i need somebody to have your the signature notarized so i need at least one person to come in and um notarize the have their signature notarized right i'm happy i mean i'm happy to do that so not everybody has to come by the office and sign um so either way um okay anybody else any thoughts we're good to uh approve this or i'm going to prove it assign it essentially accept it accept it and then sign it all right so can i get a motion then please to accept the conservation restriction for alice drive don't move thank you luke do you hear a second thank you cliff roll call please luke leger yes barbara hall yeah shannon fisher yes uh jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes thank you folks do we need topics you need to go to the select board then too next yeah we'll go to the select board after this sure yeah uh topics that reason participated by me i've got nothing on my end anybody else last minute things i just have a general question going back to shannon brought it up i think we're all thinking this with the kind of the unpermitted work going on in dudley pound and we know it happens in other areas of town but i'm still new to the commission in this process i know that we have um penalties we can charge right if someone is violating chapter 193 or 194 and i assume that includes unpermitted work but are we using those penalties is that how would it work in something like this and i can always talk to linda offline but um you know if you read some of the language you know every day that goes by is considered a new violation you know and it can stack up pretty quickly but um i share shannon's concern and probably your all of yours that you know we're going to have to work with these two homeowners on deadly pond you know some of the work was already done and um try to do something to improve what's there now but is this going to keep happening you know is this a concern that the rest of the commission shares and what can we do about it so if you're at so make sure we have to talk in generalities right we can't talk about specific right cases right sorry yeah no no you guys make sure we're very clear right um if you're asking in general has this happened before yes unfortunately welcome to concom um uh and i don't remember a time and certainly babs is our historian here where we actively will put a penalty on hey that doc has been there for so and so not only to change it you owe us x amount of dollars i don't remember ever doing that it's more about hey we need to get back to square one and as shannon said typically the commission's view is hey if we weren't going to permit it in the first place you can't you know scapegoat it by not asking us and asking for forgiveness right um so i that said could we again i sort of talked to luke about could we impose fines for having gone this long i guess in theory but i don't think we ever have before but but yeah this happened now unfortunately we have to happen but we're back to back with like neighbors so that and that's kind of awkward right and so um but yes this happens one or two times a year we'll get one of these kind of deals come in i mean the preferred thing is to work around what's been done try to make improvements on top of that so they're not yeah i think i that that's like sorry go ahead go ahead i was just gonna say i think i prefer them ripping it out i mean there should be consequences you do stuff that shouldn't be done there like you bought this house that's right you know that got these restrictions it's on you for not doing your homework like it's gonna cost money then you shouldn't have done it in the first place rip it out and then we'll see what we would have permitted i like that i was just gonna say that you know i have experience dealing with ticketing and fines under 21d which is what we're talking about here there's a real administrative burden like a real one that goes along with that i mean it's a dale like you know linda or emily every day would have to be issuing these tickets you have to file them in district court on essentially a bi-weekly basis you have to go in for hearings to get those in four it's so that's not to say you would never do it right but i think in my view you'd really reserve that for a pretty egregious situation and like you know if we have a scenario where work was done without a permit and we issue an enforcement or take some kind of enforcement posture and we have a property owner who comes in and is trying to work with us whatever that might look like right but they're not thumbing their nose at us and ignoring us right you know i think that's sort of to shannon's point to my this is just me sort of speaking for myself i think that's preferable if you have a situation where we're seeking enforcement and the landowners just ignoring us entirely well then maybe you really don't have a choice other than to go the fine route and then you know as that hole plays out if they keep ignoring it then it becomes a criminal matter um right so it's definitely a tool in our toolbox lisa but it's you know again just speaking for myself i view that as kind of like a last resort no i appreciate that i just i don't have the history to know if we've ever really used these fines it's in the documents and um you know i'm not calling out the people that were on here earlier because clearly they're working with us which is great it's just you know you you don't want to keep seeing this happen around dudley pond because it's just going to degrade the water quality right and that's not good for the homeowners that live right there that's why they bought the property right and a lot of people don't know the science behind the storm water and right and so yep well i agree with i agree with this with everything luke said because i'd much rather start on the right foot with with the homeowner and hope for cooperation as opposed to slapping with the fine you know and and we have every right to do that and town council has also told me that we have to document every day the violation so which means that you know if i issue a fine one day if i want to issue another daily fine the next day i have to go back out there i have to document it with photographs issue another a whole other ticket you know and and what it comes down to is i have never in all my career have have i ever successively collected a fine okay um the framingham court will not even consider they don't consider wetlands violations a finable offense okay i i've sat through that whole hearing before for somebody who did a very very egregious um violation here in wayland and when i worked in on maynard i again another huge egregious filling the wetlands you know collecting everybody's landscaping debris from you know four town area and filling a wetlands i ended up having to get dep involved in that one because i again no cooperation whatsoever i tried finding him and the the magistrate in conquered court said she had she just assumed i was in the wrong court of law and i kind of had explained the law to her and that still didn't get get any farther we didn't get any farther with that so i just like i gave up and i decided to get dep involved in that one like you deal with them i'm not i'm done you know so and that's usually the the sometimes the the um the way things get done but speaking of violations that was one of my things i was going to talk about public comment we did have one over at um the south 20 landfill um dpw was advised by their engineer that they needed to do a little bit more clearing and grubbing and um and test pits to investigate the extent of the waste you know the and the the and the condition of the landfill cap and they completely destroyed the priority habitat they completely destroyed the wetlands and it was not on their property this is on mbta property so you know they just i just learned today that i know there's survey markers out there okay it's so obvious they say every source right away and like you just you cut everything you know i mean it's just right up to the rail bed i mean i just i'm just just mind-boggling okay so my approach on that one is um this is be their second violation for the same exact site um that i'm working with uh natural heritage because it is a priority habitat and what i've asked them for is i want you to come up with a restoration plan for this i don't want to be the bad guy here i want them to come up with what's going to be an appropriate restoration for this property that uh that they worked on they cleared without a permit and without permission from the landowner to do that so and um so that's that's on the on the horizon here for us at some point and the second thing is we had a pre-construction meeting for the stank brooke dam um uh the contractors getting started by doing um you know collecting all the material he needs buying buying all the um uh and or aligning contractors to help with him in certain aspects of the job and um mobilizing staging getting materials they need we are going to close um hamlin woods parking lot for probably the duration of the construction because they do need a place to store things they need a place for their employees to park they need a place for equipment storage so you'll see signs up probably in this coming week that we're just notifying people that this is going to be closed as of i think february 23rd is the start date and um directing them to the parking lot that's further up on rice road um that's just south of the farm pond so um you know there might be something a lot of pushback i know it's a popular area to go walking and enjoying the outdoors but we we're so constrained we have absolutely no place you know it's all it's all private property that they have to to access the dam to begin with and you know we're trying to make their lives as easy as possible tours i mean and it's going to be a huge disruption to the people that live right there so that that seemed to be the logical place for them to at least uh you know park and leave their equipment and stuff like that so how long do they think when they remind me again what's the estimate you know we have it through september so for 10 you know february most of the work will be done february through september and then there's still going to be wetland restoration work there's going to be um we're going to restore we plant a lot of the trees there so there's still going to be ongoing work it won't be necessarily as as intensive um after the end of september but um the the project duration will probably be until december so of this year so cool so the first start the first piece will be um working on the low level outlet and um raising the level of the dam so yeah and then they're going to move to the spillway work after that so love it yeah and no public access so nobody can go over there and and and and watch what they're doing okay where's all the disruption going to be the the access we have is from uh um 68 rice road which is a private um property and we have an access um arrangement to get to the empowerment there but it's not it's not it's it's all private property it's their driveway we're pretty much driving down to get to it so and uh i i think we can get some arrangements for the people across the street they kind of two separate driveways we're hoping maybe to rent a a parking spot or two for the neighbors you know the the butters so they at least have um because a not only is it the access just really constrained it's a really tight driveway i'm not sure how they're ever going to get a crane down there for to remove the trees so that that will be the first challenge so it just impacts five or six houses though right mainly one i mean mainly just mainly just one yeah well right we have to annihilate yeah okay yeah daily for for eight months okay
bring your driveway out of it though they will get a new driveway out of it they're going to get a whole bunch of nice new trees you know in the backyard too so all of us are doing our civic duty too you can too yeah exactly yeah but you know the sad thing is they just bought this house they had no idea what what was in store for them absolutely not the previous owner didn't mention anything that there was going to be at you know eight to ten month construction project in their backyard so um well the good news is they have quite a nice backyard with no neighbors and they have all this beautiful so now you know at the wait a few months to get it get it pristine again and a big pond and a big pond um okay um any else public comment commission i don't see any hands raised we're alone here all right um babs how are we looking for the january 7th uh minutes they good fine i turned them in that a girl okay anybody else have any thoughts okay that was our world's fastest meeting ever for the january oh you mean january 7th one yes yeah that was that was pretty good i'm bummed the first meeting i missed was super fast because i'd rather like have to miss big ones i was i was happy i was so sick
uh but emily did you incorporate her changes i don't i don't remember seeing those i did they're just not in the packet right now but they were just minor editorial things yep they were minor changes okay all right can i get an approval of the minutes with babs's edits please for january 7th 2026 no move thank you clip do i hear a second second thank you there goes luke roll call please luke was here yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher abstain i wasn't there jenny brown yes lisa alvin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fares a yes thank you thank you and if there's nothing else can i get a motion please for adjournment
thank you luke do i hear a second second thank you cliff roll call please luke was here yes yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yes jenny brown yes lisa alvin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fares a yes all right folks appreciate it
These are showing up for everyone, all right?
Yeah. Yep. Okay. Perfect.
Alec, make it on? Yes. Yep, I moved him over.
Can you guys hear me? Hello? Yep, hello. Hey, how are you doing? Alec Chong, I didn't hear a lot of what was going on. I didn't have audio, so Doug, if you said something, if you always want to update me, hi. Yeah, just kind of reintroducing where we last left off. Kind of teeing it up to these guys, if you want to describe kind of the- Yeah, absolutely. Sorry about that, guys. Sure. So, hi, Alec Chong, I'm at Chong's Engineering. So, I know this has been going back and forth for a while. So, as you all know, there's some unpermanent work here that we're trying to mitigate. So, in terms of stormwater, this is kind of a difficult project in terms of stormwater mitigation. I understand there was unpermanent work in terms of pervious area that was added or not added. And there is some concern for the butters, some runoff going towards their direction. In terms of the stormwater bylaw, it's kind of hard to mitigate anything here. There was some sort of an increase. It's not like it's a new build where you're tearing something down and you're throwing into chambers. We are restricted drastically on where to put everything. We are proposing some riprap and some stone along the front left corners, the front of the retaining wall on the left side. You can't take any credit for stormwater infiltration because we're within the Title V setback. So, it's essentially just allowing for erosion control and to slow the water coming down. Excuse me. And in terms of if you were to try to provide TSS removal or any phosphorus removal, we never did test bits back there. But I don't anticipate groundwater being deeper than 18 inches. And the bylaw doesn't let you take any TSS removal credit if you don't have two-foot water separation. And the existing conditions of the site, I wasn't involved in the project. I got involved after I guess they got in trouble. But based on the existing contours of the site, it's good to assume, it's safe to assume that there has always been a water issue between both these neighbors. This is a very steep slope. You're pushing things down at almost a three-to-one slope. It's hitting the driveway, sheet flowing down. It's going back to the lake. There isn't too much options to slow it down. I'm happy. I think the commission, just correct me if I'm wrong, Doug, like I understand we have to figure out what you want them to take away, add. But in terms of stormwater mitigation, we really are kind of stuck just because it's a project where there's really not much options to provide any.
Yeah. Thank you, Alex. So, Melissa, are you on right now? Do you? So, I guess from my perspective, I'm happy to do whatever you want in order to make it so that my front door is not a river. And also so that if there's water coming to the pond that shouldn't be going to the pond, that somehow I can help on my tiny little lot, I will do that. But, I don't know, there's like a space, a tiny space, maybe 12 inches between the pond and the posts, you know, the driving posts to my house. I can put in plantings, you know, really, I'm happy to do whatever you want. I just want it to be livable and to not have to, you know, be at these meetings for the next two years. Excuse me, this cliff here, I mean, I've looked at this quite a bit, and we need a stormwater plan for this. We can't just say, oh, we can't deal with the stormwater. That isn't going to work. Can I speak? We've got a homeowner thing? I have a tiny little sliver of this, right? That's what Alec has said, that we can't do anything about it. No, and I'm saying for stormwater mitigation, because I understand Wayland has a stormwater rig, which kind of mimics the mass stormwater bylaw. But in terms of peak rates, so the increase in impervious area, I can say we estimate around 154 for that patio area and the wooden deck. The wooden deck is slotted, so that's town by town on how you decide for that impervious area. What about the covered parking area and this wall across the street? That was already there. That was already there. The covered parking area. No, I didn't change any of that. That was already concrete there. Correct, yeah. That's not concrete. I don't know. That black stuff. Black top. It was asphalt, and they put a roof over it so that it's still impervious. The area that's in the patio on the bottom, it's kind of closest to the pond, to the right side of the house. We are proposing making that having some sort of a reservoir. But like I said, when you're trying to mitigate peak flows, the stormwater bylaw, we're not going to have two-foot separation, so you truly can't mitigate peak flows per the bylaw standards. And you're not going to get TSS removal as well because you're not going to have that two-foot separation. I think that with the commission, probably, I'm assuming you guys have to determine what was permitted, what was unpermitted, and the proportion, if they were to bring this to you ahead of time prior to, if they were to bring this ahead of you the correct way, I'd say, the mitigation would be, it would be very difficult to provide the mitigation because you're dealing with, you don't, I don't know, it's hard to explain if you're not engineers, but there's not much to provide here because you don't have the area. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you can't do anything. We're restricted by the regulations, though. We're not going to mitigate the peak flows. We're going to have less than two-foot groundwater separation. And if the increase in stormwater runoff is this only 154 square feet, we are providing a 12-inch reservoir, which is allowing from volume storage. But you're not going to be able to take any TSS credits or phosphorus credits or peak rate credits because we're not going to have that groundwater separation. So under the stormwater bylaw, you're supposed to meet it to the maximum extent practical, which is practical. That's a tough word for me. But you're supposed to meet it to the maximum extent, which in my opinion we are because we are really restricted with what we can and can't do here. So the stormwater mitigation portion is this, there really isn't much option to provide TSS removal or phosphorus removal or any of that if that's what the commission is trying to get. Linda, let me get your thoughts on this. Well, again, you know, I mean, we're trying to do as best we can, like you just said. First of all, you know, we have to figure out some way to keep the water from pooling in front of the door. I mean, there's a retaining wall getting built across the street. I thought there was some interest or some discussion about putting a rain garden or something up there to collect some of the water before it funnels down into the street. But there's also a tall retaining wall that was put in front of the house, which tends to push all the water from the street into the neighbor's yard. And then there was this sort of gravel pack that was put behind the retaining wall. I just don't know how that's going to function. I don't understand what, you know, maybe you can explain that a little bit more. But we're trying to look for something here that's going to make an improvement over existing conditions. If you can't meet the stormwater management handbook requirements, I mean, you know, there's nothing we can do about that. This site is highly constrained, but we need to see an improvement. And that's all we're looking for here. We know this wasn't permitted. We need mitigation and we need some stormwater management for this project. And otherwise, we're just going to go round and round and round again every single meeting. And we are, correct. Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you. Are you done? Yes. So we are providing mitigation, though. If you look at the patio area on the, Doug, can you please point to that area correct? We are proposing, and that is a bluestone paver or some sort of paver patio. We are proposing and removing that and putting a reservoir below it to allow for storm volume to be collected in there. So during rain events, it's going to be collected. Where is the drawing? You talking about the detail? I mean, we can provide, we can certainly provide a detail. I mean, it's essentially a reservoir. It's 12 inches of stone. If that's what you guys are looking for, that's not a problem. It's a standard cut sheet detail I can provide. It's just there's, it's not, I mean, it's not taking credit for TSS or any of that. It is providing something, but it's not going to give you any of the credits that you, I'm not sure if it sounds you guys are looking for. But again, we are providing a reservoir. If you want a detail, we can certainly provide that. And on the left side, we're providing like a riprap section here. We're really not allowed to take any credit because we're within the Title V setbacks here. But I'm proposing having crushed stone to reduce the erosion, to allow the water to kind of go down, to allow the water to follow the road, follow the path, follow the side of the yard and go towards Dudley Pond, which is where it's going to end up going. Because that's, that's mimicking existing conditions. Well, I mean, we need, we need to see a plan. We don't see any plan here. I can certainly provide a detail. I just, I don't understand. It's, it's crushed stone. It's, it's, it's, it's, if that's, if you want a detail, we can certainly provide that detail. Yeah. So I think he says there, replace patio area with permeable pavers with minimum stone reservoir of 12, was that inches? Yeah, inches. Sorry, my eyes suck, but. So, so, so, so right now, what are you saying? Like, I don't know what that looks like. Sort of like a triangle-ish sky right there. Right now, it's pavers on top of dirt with spaces in between them. So I think what he's saying is we'll dig all that up, put a bunch of stone, and then put the pavers on top still with spaces between them. Isn't that what that means? That's a reservoir bed, yes. That's a standard cut sheet detail I can provide it. I can make a sheet two of it. It's not a, not an issue. Okay. So I, I know nobody cares about my opinion because I don't know what I'm talking about, but my goal for all of this is to get this done before the spring, because that's when everything's going to melt and come to my front door. And also be able to hire people. And also, if you want me to put in plants, to have time to put in the plants. So hopefully we can wrap, wrap this up. Linda, so I know part of your issue, or, you know, everybody's issue, was that there weren't enough native plants. So I'm willing to put them wherever you want. I don't, I don't think putting some plants in is going to mitigate the stormwater. No, no, no, but the original violation. Hey guys, I'm going to speak now. No one else speaks. Thank you. I'm going to talk now. Thank you. Linda, as this plant sits here before us, are you saying it needs to get more for an improvement? And I don't mean, I'm not talking about native plants. Well, there's two issues. Again, the stormwater, which I just mentioned was, I thought we were going to capture some of that on the slope, kind of upslope of the retaining wall. And there was some discussion of tearing that or putting tears or putting it in a rain garden or something. There's the issue with the retaining wall that seems to be funneling all the water to the neighbor's house. And I'm not, again, I'm not sure, I don't have any, a lot of details about how, what this, is a stone garden, you know, is that meant to capture the rainwater or the stormwater runoff? I can't provide any, I can't provide any treatment there. You're too close to the septic setbacks. Oh, you are. Okay. Yeah, that's what those squares are. If you look at the red, the red dash or the setbacks, you're not allowed to take it. Oh, okay. The, the, we, the place that we're collecting runoff is from the patio area. The rain garden on the top, if you scroll up to the backside, that's a steep slope. It's, it's, it's got, the water's going to fly down there. I didn't, I was, I didn't, I'm not aware of the rain garden. Maybe it wasn't part of a meeting, but that's a steep slope. We're proposing some trees in there. That's going to reduce the water coming down. So see, we say right there, there's retaining wall expansion. The expansion was perfect. That was when I think the first meeting was involved. We proposed some retainer wall. There's all sorts of things right there. That, that, that expansion was there. Cause as it is now, it's just a bare slope. So we did propose that. I think that's what you're talking about, where we talked about like doing some terracing with the stones and, you know, just trying to make it so that it doesn't come like a funnel down the hill, which you did before. I have to say, like when I moved into the house, it was horrifying because it was like going right in through the front door. So this isn't new, this isn't anything I've done, but. And then the other thing is we, you're, you're proposing about putting a retaining wall along Dudley pond. I don't think we haven't. Well, that's already there. The problem is that. But you said you wanted to replace it. So let me finish. No, I won't replace it or fix it because it's collapsing. And if you've ever seen my house, my house is almost in the pond. I get this. Could you let me finish on my statement? Okay. Which is we need details about how you're replacing that or fixing it. Right. I don't see any details on your sheet. How that is. Oh, sorry. That's by others though. Cause I'm on a structural. That was, that's, that was my first meeting. That's not going to be on my civil plan. Cause that's a more of a structural detail. I know what that's, I'm just saying that's what we're missing. And then I, when I spoke to Melissa the other day on the phone, I said, we need to have some mitigation there where the patio is that you're taking out. Um, there's no, is there a reason to have, is there a reason to have, oh my God, can I just finish? Is there a reason to have the, a retaining wall there? Can, can that just be, you know, a mitigation area? Yes, because that part is really clean. Linda finish. I can't. So, so let's make it real easy. Cause I don't want to waste our time here. I can tell you personally, I'm not going to approve any of Linda's not okay with. So we want to be efficient with time coming to us before having already Linda sign off on something is kind of a waste. So my recommendation is everybody on the call meet with Linda and when Linda and only when Linda says, yep, this looks, looks good. Let's bring it to the commission. Would I personally bring it to us? I don't want to go back and forth to try to like understand what she wanted. And here's like set up a meeting talking about salt and like, I don't know, like, it's very difficult. Right. So, so this is pretty normal standard procedure. So I think the team, Alec, Doug, Melissa, should go to Linda's office and sit down and say, what do we need to do? And it's that easy. We don't want to be here anymore. We don't want to, I personally want to hear about this case anymore either, but we're not going to move forward until Linda's okay. And so I'm not going to spend time with commission going back and forth on details and arguing. So that's what I'd recommend because I don't want to go back and forth like this, like no one does, including the applicant. So when is our next meeting, Linda? February 11th. Is there any reason y'all can't be in her office before February 11th and come to some type of understanding that we can vote on next time? Is that doable? In order to have things in by your deadline, I believe it's a business week for, what's your meeting after that? Just so we can.
March 4th. March 4th.
Yeah. We'll try to get in there as early as we can. I just want to, you know, I want to promise something that would, you know, take us like a week and a half and then we're kind of like really, really past the wire there. Well, here's what I say. I just asked for our continuance. So if you say, listen, it's not possible. Let's do the 4th. That's fine. I just want to, if you can do before next time, we'll continue it to the 11th. If you think that's kind of too tight, we can, we can do the 4th. Certainly. Yeah. Yeah. We'll shoot for that. And, you know, we'll play it by ear from there. Sean, I'm heartened to hear that you also want this wrapped up. That's all I've ever wanted after two years. So. I think we all do. All right. So I think I heard you say the 11th is, is okay. Yep. Or shoot for the 11th. Right. Okay. Commission. Any other thoughts, comments that we can give them before they go meet with Linda that we can, hopefully we have this done. I think I've voiced this before, but it's just kind of my opinion that any work that we would never have permitted initially should be ripped out. Like if we wouldn't have permitted it, it shouldn't be there. And I think that may apply to a lot of the impervious. So that's kind of my take. I'm still kind of there. But we'll see what, what happens at the next meeting. I don't understand that exactly. Because what would I do? Like take it out and then put in broken up concrete and, you know, falling down fence and a plastic walkway, because that's what was there before. So that part, I don't understand because that seems anti-conservation, like to rip out something that's all there. So I should be clarified. I don't want to speak for Shan. I think what she said was anything that had you come before us and we would not have approved that you can't do that, we shouldn't approve. And then we know that, yeah, that should be taken up and fixed or whatever, but like a normal process, I think she said we would approve, right? And so Linda will know all that stuff. And so, again, I think Linda can help clarify that. Right, Shan, is that kind of what you meant? Yes. Okay. Yep.
Okay. So, Commissioner, if hearing nothing else, can I get that emotion that we're going to do, I think, for continuance after 630 for February 11th? Thank you. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. I got here. Cliff there. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Jenny Brown? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Cliff Lewis? Yes. And Sean Fares is a yes. All right, folks. We'll see you here in a couple of weeks. Good time. Thanks. All right. We are on to 2B. This is 67A Loker Street, DEP, file number 322-1055. It's a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw, and the Protection Act suspended by Matt O'Connor for the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67A Loker. 7A Loker Street in Wayland, Mass. Property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 42, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boring vegetated wetlands in the 200-foot riverfront area. Linda? I'm not sure who's here for the project team.
This is... Yep. Go ahead, Brandon. I was going to say, this is Brandon Ducharme with David E. Ross, the engineer. Also, Matt O'Connor, the applicant. Hello, Conservation Board. How are you? Hello.
So, I guess if I may, just to kind of update you with where we are with the project, at one of our previous meetings, we modified this site plan. And we made some concessions to reduce the overall impervious area. We're proposing a six-bedroom supportive housing residence in place where there was an existing barn structure. We had a facility parking area here in the back off of Hobbs Road, as well as first-floor access through a drive-under garage off of Alden Street. Based on some initial feedback from the commission, we've reduced the overall impervious area by about 2,000 square feet, which obviously we eliminated some of the parking spots, as well as some of the staging area here for the garage bay in the back. And then at one of the last meetings, we had done a drainage design.
A few of our drainage structures consisting of there was a catch basin here along the right-of-way or within the right-of-way of Hobbs Road. And that collected stormwater, went to a stormwater treatment unit, and then went to a subsurface infiltration system here, the overflow on that system tied back into some of the existing drainage way that's for the town road system amongst these three roads, as well as we had a catch basin along Alden Street here, which picked up all of the runoff from this back area and then tied that into one of the existing catch basins. Presently at the site, there is an existing catch basin located in the back here that does pick up the existing drainage and ties that into that system. Now, Matt's had a few discussions with DPW at the direction of Linda, just in regards to the placement of those units. What we've done is we've revised this plan. We acknowledge it was submitted at the end of last week. So we know that the commission certainly can't act tonight, but we just kind of wanted to provide you with an update. What we've done is we've pulled those catch basin structures into the locust property. So we've removed those from the right-of-way. And then the overflow for the subsurface infiltration, we've removed the connection to the existing drain. And what happens now is that pipe will daylight within the site, and then it'll go down to where we're proposing a rain garden. That rain garden is in place where the previous plan had impervious area. So we've removed that impervious area. We've added a rain garden. We've also added a stormwater treatment unit within a catch basin here on the back parking staging area. So that stormwater will be collected into that catch basin and also will be directed to that rain garden. So essentially what we've done is we've now contained all the stormwater units as well as the drainage disposal to within the locust property. We're in the process of filing this revised plan with the planning board. We understand and acknowledge that that will be reviewed as part of that filing. But really what we wanted to do is just update the commission and just get some feedback on some of these improvements that we've made to the plan. Thank you, Brandon.
Thank you. I guess Linda, we'll start with you. Yeah, the discussion I had with different land use people here over the course of the last few days after you submitted the plan on Friday was that I guess the first step was a determination by the building commissioner for ZBA. I think you have that and the next step would be going to the planning board to get approval from that. And we would do a joint peer review for the stormwater with the planning board. And so I would suggest that you focus on that process first and get through the planning board and their changes and have the stormwater reviewed. And then we can, once you have a determination from them or decision, then we can finish up with you guys here in conservation. Okay. Linda, I did, this is Matt O'Connor. I did speak to Robert Hummel and I was advised to file or request from the building commissioner, but in speaking with him, his understanding of the regulation is that that is not necessary, nor the ZBA.
The, and yes, he did recommend to file with the planning board where, and he did acknowledge as well that you will be, you know, interviewing or, or selecting, you know, independent, you know, review person. I think that what we're looking for is the acknowledgement from the board and yourself that this is a, potentially a, an approvable plan. Uh, cause of course, you know, uh, we are working with a nonprofit agency, so costs are a concern. So we're hoping to get, um, your blessing or I should say a preliminary blessing, if I may, uh, before we're forced to, uh, spend money on a, uh, review for your, uh, decision. Uh, and then, like I said, that will obviously go before all the other town departments as well. Um, I think the planning board will also ask for a peer review for stormwater. None of us here have the expertise to, um, you know, um, review a stormwater plan like this. Sure. Um, the one thing you need to add is probably tree removal. If you're taking down any trees on this property for this, for this redevelopment of the property, um, the, the email I received from the building department was that the zoning determination was to indicate that you needed site, that site plan, the site plan approval was required and that, again, you don't need to go to ZPA, but what we needed was just, um, the intended use of the property. And that was, that was supposed to be through the building commissioner. And I think he determined that whatever you told him that the intended use was would need to get site plan approval. And that's through the planning board. Okay. Yeah. So that hasn't changed. It's just that, you know, it's a process where we're asking you to follow that, that starts with the planning board and, um, we'll probably end with conservation. Okay. Yeah. So we, we did go through that process, um, of, I guess, notifying or get a, uh, determination, uh, of the property from the building department. We do have that. And yes, I do understand that there is a planning board review for group homes and supportive housing projects, but again, we're, we're, uh, looking to, I did not have a chance to, I guess, uh, Joe's on not around, uh, to sit down and ensure that we were on the same page into far as, uh, I guess the town was not aware. I didn't have record of the existing, uh, catch basin that's on my property there. Um, so they had said at the time that they would choose to remove it. And I think that we've gone forward and, um, redesigned with that in mind, that that would be removed. So I think we, we, from what you see, is this, uh, approvable, I guess I would say, or, yeah, that was definitely one of my concerns about you had, but the previous plan had you connecting to town drainage and under our, our chapter 193 bylaw, that's not allowed. So, and I don't think, I don't think DPW would allow that either. So that that's, that's an improvement over what we saw in a previous version of your plan, but again, let's start with the planning board and we'll do a joint peer review to review the stormwater. Okay.
So it's not, so we, it's not approvable through your department independently. Without, like I said, start with the planning board. We'll do a joint peer review of the stormwater. And then when you finish with the planning board, you come back and we'll, you'll finish up with us. Okay. And, and, and we'll issue our, our permit for this. Okay. And to make sure, Matt, the reason we can't permit this, A, the planning board might change something, but B, the stormwater reviews, we're, we're going to need that same information that the planning board is going to need, um, if there's trees coming down. And so in other words, there's a lot more information that we would need before we can even say this is approvable. Um, but certainly it's an improvement from what we talked about last time, but there's more that we could have to need to see before we can say it's approvable, if that makes sense. All right. Yeah. So I think we do have the, when you mentioned the trees, I think we do have that, um, on the prints, Brandon, that's correct. Yes, we, we do. We've got a planting plan that, that goes through the number of existing trees that are removed as well as the, the trees that will be, uh, replaced. But I think too, what, what Matt's getting at is, you know, obviously we fully acknowledge that, that the drainage will be reviewed through that. And, um, but a lot of what drives the size and scope of that drainage is the layout of the impervious area. So, you know, before we go through that process with planning board, uh, is the commission comfortable with the, with the layout of the, the parking, um, and the driveway as, as shown, you know, just, I guess what that does, it just gives more comfort that we know we're really just, you know, making sure that, that the drainage or the stormwater that we're proposing here, you know, mitigates for that area. But we just, you know, we don't want to go through that process, come back and say, yeah, no, there's, can, can you cut more spaces or, you know, we're just trying to get a feel for, are you comfortable with the, with the overall layout of the site to date? Yep. Fair question. So commission, I'll, yeah. All people in the head for thoughts. Well, my only question with that is, I mean, you still need to curb cut permit from DPW for Hobbs road and, and I don't know what the, I don't know what their requirements are in order for them to issue a curb cut permit. Yeah. I am in discussion, like I said, with, uh, Joe and Abigail about the curb cut permit. Um, I think Joe is just not, you know, available. Uh, he's probably sleeping from snowplowing still, but, um, uh, yeah, so that, I, I know that that is part of the process. Um, we have that, we, you know, had that application and, uh, previously, um, is there a way that we could start taking any steps forward on identifying or soliciting a peer review for the stormwater? Again, that, that will be done jointly, Matt. So, uh, you know, once you, once you apply to the planning board, that will start the process of us, you know, um, getting quotes and finding out who's available to do a peer review and you'll be part of that process. You know, you'll be involved in that. But again, um, the planning board first needs to take a vote to, to hire a peer reviewer for the stormwater management. Okay. So, you know, there's, I don't know what else I could do until I have, have some clear direction from the planning board, what, what, what they want to do. Okay. I didn't, I, I must've misunderstood what they told me. Uh, so you're saying that the town bylaw requires the planning board to come up with a decision or to give you, uh, I don't know, permission or direction or sign off, uh, for you to start the process of looking, uh, for a peer review, uh, company? No, it's, again, it's, it's a mutual, you know, we're, we're, we're, we're trying to save you money by doing one peer review and not doing one, one by, by the conservation commission and another by the planning board. We want to do a joint one, but again, this has to be done to, you know, with, with the planning board still needs to make a decision about whether or not, you know, whether they want to move forward with a, with a peer review or not. Once, once they take that vote, then we'll start the process of hiring a peer reviewer. Okay. So, so even though it's a, a, uh, conservation controlled matter, and so far as hiring the peer review, what you're saying is in Wayland, we don't get a peer review until it's approved by the planning board. Is that correct? No, let me, let me out there. So we could order our own peer review right now. Oh, good. You have to pay for, and then the planning board could then order you in two weeks for another peer review that you have to pay for. And so it's like, we, we have to have one peer review. So let's hear what playing board wants to see in their numbers. We'll say here, we'll hear what we want to see. And the one review will satisfy both planning requirements and hours, which is saving time and you, a lot of money.
Okay. So it might be, I think we're clear on that process, Matt. I'm just trying to, I just want to maybe some just feedback on the overall layout just to make sure that, um, the commission members are, are fairly comfortable with what we're proposing. Okay. Is that, uh, possible to get that comment? Yeah. So commission members, anyone, anybody want to comment on that? Uh, can I just ask you a question, Sean? Uh, yeah, please. So I'm looking at the plan here and if I'm reading this correctly, the line that I see as the 200 foot riverfront area line looks like it takes like a 90 degree turn. Um, which I'm just curious about cause it doesn't, and I'm looking at the a hundred foot, which is also the buffer zone boundary and maybe something else. I can't quite read that, but, um, that seems to extend sort of in a fairly straight line as one would expect. So I'm just curious, is there a culvert or something? What's what's with the 90 degree turn there? Nope. Great question. Um, so what it is, is there's a perennial stream that runs, um, alongside Hobbs road and then it goes into a head wall and there's a culvert. And one of the things from a regulatory standpoint is that culvert is longer than 200 feet. So based on that, the riverfront area extends perpendicular to where the stream enters that pipe, um, and, and extends beyond. And then it picks up again on the other side, which, um, explains why there's kind of a 90 degree, um, point where it exits the pipe. So good question. That's helpful. Thanks. I suspected that was the case. I just wanted to, to confirm. Excellent. Um, cause yeah, I, obviously from, you know, and going to sort of the question pose, I think that the reason I'm asking that question is, you know, the work in riverfront area is obviously something that we would be taking a very close look at as the commission. So, um, you know, based on this and the design that you're proposing here, it looks like you're mostly outside of riverfront area or largely outside anyways, uh, which, you know, in my view is a, is a good thing. Actions. Thanks Luke. Anybody else in commission have any thoughts, comments for them, uh, as it pertains to the layout here before we get to the, uh, stormwater?
It's better than it was.
Yep. Good to hear. Thank you. Yep.
Anybody else?
Yeah. So I'll just wrap up saying, yeah, it's certainly better, better than it was. And again, I don't want to see that you kind of stormwater and, you know, as long as you can get capture runoff and, and I I'm, I'm, I'm okay with what I see right now. So that helps. Okay. So the, the biggest objection now is to get the, uh, the planning board so that you can get a peer review, correct?
Correct. Yep. Excellent. Thank you, Sean. You're welcome. And Linda, well, this, um, it wasn't in our packet. Um, so, but I don't see it on the website either. Is that something we can get a copy of in the meantime? Yes. So it came in after the pack, after the packet was delivered. So typically we don't accept new information and, uh, less than a week before the meeting. So, and we still have not received any hard copies. So usually that's, that's the official submittal for us as receiving hard copies, but we can, we, I can, I can forward the email to everybody that we received from Brandon with a new plan on it. And I do have incidentally, I apologize. The closed when I got there this afternoon, but I do have, um, correct me from two, uh, rolled copies of the prints and then a one copy of the, uh, you know, 200 page, uh, stormwater review document. Is that correct? Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. I'll drop that off Linda tomorrow in your office, if that's okay.
Anybody else? Linda? Nope. I'll say, all right. So, um, in terms of continuation, the 11th, I mean, I'm not sure when the playing board meeting is, but they're probably presumably not for the 11th or the 11th can be okay to continue.
Linda, do you know? I don't know. They're, I know they're meeting tonight, so I don't know when the next meeting is. So, I mean, I don't know how far in advance. If it needs to submit something, I don't think they'll be ready for the February 11th meeting for us. If they still have to submit an application to planning board and get it advertised and on the, on their agenda. So I would more than, I mean, I think I would suggest that March 4th would be a better date to continue to. March 4th. Okay. March 4th. I would think that would be beneficial just because they, we are going to have to submit. They're going to have to notify, advertise that hearing, hold the hearing, you know, it'd be good for us to get some initial input from the planning board prior to coming back. Okay. Excellent. Okay. So that'd be March 4th. Conservation. All right. So if I'm seeing nothing else, I guess the commission then can I give a motion, please, for continuation under both for sometime after 630 on March 4th, 2026. I think I heard Cliff say that. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second.
Yes. Jenny Brown.
Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All right. See you in a few months, a couple months. Excellent. Thank you very much. Conservation commission. You got it. Thank you. Appreciate it.
All right. On to, this is 2C. 68 Lakeshore Drive, DEP file number 322-1057. 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 after-the-fact work form at 68 Lakeshore Drive in Wayland, Mass., including installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to the covered porch steps. Properties shown on an assessor's map 42D, parcel 56, and is located within 100 feet of a boring vegetated wetlands, bank, and land underwater. Linda. I believe we have the representative on to discuss this. Yes. This is Kevin O'Leary at the Jilson Company and the engineer for Jeremy Jacobs, the home owner at 68 Lakeshore Drive. Hi, Kevin. Hi. Jeremy contacted me early in the fall about an enforcement order that was issued by Conservation Commission for work that was unpermitted on his property. So, we put together a site plan and a wetland filing. It came, I want to say, the end of November or mid-November, and it shows the existing conditions. I just tried to share a screen here. I don't know if, can people see that? Nope. Nope. Sorry. You're good. Try again.
See it now, no? Nope. Nope. Nope. Sorry. Try once more. I think I know what I'm doing here, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
Shareable now? Nope. All right. You have a little green button at the bottom of your screen. Oh, there you go. There you go. What are we doing? Here it comes. There it is. Now you're sharing. Okay. Thank you. You're sharing your email, though. You're not sharing the plan. Yeah, you're sharing your main desktop thing there. I know what I did. There we go. I'm going to start over again.
On there now? Yeah. There you go. Yep. Site plan. Okay. Thank you. This is basically page 51 of our packet, right? Yeah, it's in our packet. Yep. Okay. So this is the site plan that was submitted. It's about a quarter acre lot. It's two parcels. There's about a 5,200 square foot lot over here and a 6,000 change, 6,000 square foot lot over here. So together, it's about a quarter of an acre. The existing house was constructed a little bit more than 100 years ago. It sits about 50 feet off of Dudley Pond. I wanted to see if I can go back one sheet here. This is the locust map for those who aren't familiar with the area.
That's where 68 is up here on the north shore of Dudley Pond. This is Lakeshore Drive. And then back to the site plan. I'm sorry. I'm not as good as other people with these, but I'll continue to try.
So this is the site plan. Existing conditions topography shows the house. There's a covered porch over here. This is a raised patio that was installed, correct me if I'm wrong, generally, but over the summer of 2025, other work that's subject of this filing is a floating dock and a gangway that was constructed and floated out under Dudley Pond. A third component of this filing is work up along this entryway step that was in the process of being reconstructed. I think, I think, in general, in the same size, shape, and area. It's a walkway that went up to his existing asphalt driveway. The driveway was very heavily damaged by, I believe, DPW when they installed a new replacement water line to the house. And they had dug up, and Jeremy can tell or describe a little bit better what happened here. But the driveway is in great disrepair due to activities of the DPW to replace the service line. So I think the main, two main components, the raised patio, and then the floating dock, which we've made a notice of intent filing and a Chapter 194 submission for the commission to review. I put the plan, the site plan together and the wetland filing as quick as I could in accordance with the enforcement order. I have not provided hydrological stormwater runoff computations, but it's my belief that I could probably comply with the stormwater standards in these two recharge basin areas, one over here and one over here, to offset any increase in runoff from the raised patio. I could collect roof runoff, there's already downspouts in place, and pipe them to the recharge basins in these two locations. Another component that Jeremy and I had brief discussions on was his existing driveway. Water comes down his driveway and into his garage under in this end of the house on the northern side. And at a minimum, we're looking at something maybe like a trench drain or a catch basin in here and then collecting it and disposing of it also in this recharge basin. So that's another component. I think that we can overcome the impervious area of the patio, but I didn't want to start work and then have the commission have concerns over the size and location of the patio and have to, you know, get into revision after revision and just have more things to submit. I'd rather I want to try to simplify it. That's why we put the plan together quick, made the submission, and I want to listen to commission members' comments. Kevin, the Mona Path, who owns that piece of property? It's unknown. The town, I thought. I can comment on that. We had this researched by attorneys when I bought the house, so I have an email from an attorney and she contacted, actually there's an email in June of 25 to Linda and Mike McCall about it. So, it's not owned by the town, it's a private way, but there is a drainage easement that's 10 feet wide there. But I, Cliff, I actually gave you a copy of that email when you visited me, so if you still have it. If it's a private way, somebody owns it. Maybe that's the wrong term. It's probably not owned, really. Yeah, I don't believe, Cliff, I don't think there's a deed to it. That's the problem. When this area was subdivided around the turn of the 20th century, parcels that were not built on, I believe, might still be in the master deed to the parcels that were subject to the development. Yeah, I know, the whole place is a mess, you know. Yeah, it can get tricky. I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not aware of any deed to the town that says, here's the metz and bounds from Monopath to town of Wayland, and I don't think there's an acceptance document that was approved by the select one.
There's some sort of an easement that allows people to go from Lakeshore Drive to the pond, is that right? I'm not aware of an easement, an access easement. There's also a 10-foot-wide drainage easement on this side of the property. Jeremy, I'm not sure if that was the easement that you were referencing earlier, but it lines up with a catch basin across the street. There's no pipe visible down here near the pond. The eastern 10 feet of Monopath is what the attorney determined was a drainage easement, so that would be the right side of Monopath and then 10 feet wide, so it's not this 20-foot span that's shown in terms of the water. But it was sufficient to determine the porch was not encroaching on any town property and then sort of allowed me to proceed with the purchase of the house. Right. I think also, and obviously I'm not any kind of title examiner or a title attorney, but with the deed to both properties on either side of Monopath, the owner always has estoppel rights to the middle of the right-of-way or of the Monopath layout. Because Jeremy owns on both sides, that goes across the entire Monopath. Yeah, but that's not an attorney's decision. I mean, that's for a title attorney to determine that. I mean, I'm the one who requested our town council opinion, because when this project needed to be closed in order for you to purchase it, there was a question about why the deck was built off the property and whether or not, you know, we could close out on the permit because there was a deck that was built out off, you know, was not on the property and it was connected to the house. It was my understanding that, yes, it was determined to potentially be a private way. However, our town surveyor feels that it was an extension of the road. You know, that's how much of Dudley Pond was developed. There was many of the roads that sort of dead-ended into Lakeshore. There was a continuous that went all the way to the pond to provide public access from the people who lived, you know, upstream, you know, above the pond. And you'll see that all over Lakeshore. I mean, all over Dudley Pond is built like that. So I'm not sure this is that much different, but I do have concerns because you've just built, you know, both a dock and a ramp. And it looks like, I don't know if there was sand brought in and you have your patio and your retaining wall is also on Monopath or an off property that is not part of your deed. And again, you know, legally, when we issue permits, it will be for your property. And we can't really issue a permit for something that's not on your property. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Linda. I think that we need to look into it further. We need to, I think, address your concerns in writing. Does the ramp fall into the same category? Do you own property all the way to the waterline? Or is that part of Monopath in this questionable space? That's part of Monopath. Ah, okay. It doesn't have to be. It's a floating dock, so it can, it doesn't have to be.
So we need to figure out that, what we're actually trying to permit and where the lines are and what. So, okay, Linda, does our town turn, like, what's the next step on our end for that? I mean, I can get a better understanding from our town survey. He has researched the Dudley Pond area very heavily. They're working on a whole other project here regarding sort of a communal septic sort of thing or stormwater. I mean, a shared sewer system. So I know there's been a lot of research that has just been recently put into this. But, I mean, there's a second issue here, which is, if you see the retaining wall, a portion of that is within the 15-foot no disturb also. And, you know, typically we don't allow that either. So, you know, we have to make a decision about how we're going to permit this in general. So, one, again, with property issues, and number two, you know, working in an area that we probably would not have permitted if this had come to us beforehand. So, again, you know, that's, I think those are the two main issues we have to discuss with this particular project. So, okay. And you, presumably after we talk to the attorney, know what we're actually permitting? Or do I have part of that discussion now? What are you asking? Well, the whole property issue has to be, I have to do another additional research on that and talk to the town surveyor. However, again, I was just pointing out that, you know, part of this retaining wall was built within the 15-foot no disturb, you know, in order to develop this patio. You know, gotcha. Can I ask a question? Jeremy, when I was often, we looked at the tree and the sand. Did you have somebody make an assessment of whether that's likely to damage the tree?
I'm going to call an arborist. I think that was a great suggestion. I will definitely look at the one side of the tree. I need to see that tree decay and fall down on top of your house. And I will, I can absolutely change the height of the level if that's determined for sure. Yeah. Was there a site visit to this property?
Cliff came. A what? Oh, Cliff made arrangements to go see the property. I just walked out and looked at it. I see. Yeah, Linda, you were there also, right? I was there previously. I was not there with Cliff. Yes. What is the tree in question? Do you have the photos from the, I think it was in our last packet? The tree is basically buried in the, in that sand, the patio sand. You see the big, the big round, brown spot? Yeah, that's, that's, what species is it? It's an oak. Like, I'd hate to lose an oak without, without cause. It could be the patio work would damage it. But since the patio work is very much in play at this point, I guess that's an open question. Yeah. I mean, right now it's just, it's just, Shannon, it's just sand right now. Okay. So the, the retaining wall was built and it's between probably like a few inches to almost three and a half feet tall. And the area between the house and the retaining wall was filled with sand. So that, that was not the existing condition. Okay. The existing condition, it was, it was just a walkout sort of slider from the house. I mean, I will say it does seem like on Lakeshore, we have a lot of asking forgiveness versus permission here where we're having some, some issues on things that we probably would never have permitted. And I think that the comment that I made for the other property stands here and that if we would not have originally permitted, you know, should be removed. So that's, that's kind of where I stand on that personally as well. If we wouldn't have done it in the first place, then it shouldn't be there.
Okay. Anybody else have any thoughts? I know we, we still have to continue this, but any thoughts we want to get now before we presumably hear what we're actually permitting and have that discussion then? Well, the, the other thing about the dock, and I think Kevin might be aware of this, but under a chapter 91 license by the state in order to put this in Dudley Pond, what they, what you can, you can only put a dock in if it's for accessing and parking a boat. You can't, you can't put in sort of a floating dock that you will use as, as to put lawn furniture on or anything that's, that's, that's not what they would, they would not permit that. Okay. Okay. The state would not. So it just needs to be a straightforward dock for the use of accessing a boat and parking a boat, but not for, um, recreation, you know, like putting again, you know, patio furniture and stuff on. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Linda. Um, I think that, um, a comment that was made on the prior hearing at 108 Lakeshore, I think we, um, will work more closely with Linda or with Linda on a lot of these issues before we come back to the commission and get answers instead of going on. Well, I know we have to go on a, well, I know we have to go on a continuance or set some date for a continuance, but, um, we can work with Linda more to try to get closer to having the answers to these concerns. Okay. Okay. Kevin, do look, do look at that tree in the base of the tree, cause that, that concerns me greatly. And I, I'm not qualified to say what, what happened in there, but it does concern me. Okay. Yes. Thank you. I've written that note down. Thank you.
There's no sand. Well, it says here on the plan, sand on either side of the dock. Down by the dock. Oh, I don't know why it's a, I mean, it's, there's nothing there. It's just dirt. I'll take another look at Linda. That was what was, uh, put on the plan by my surveyor, but I didn't, uh, I didn't go out and walk this area of the property. I'll look at it closely and see if it warrants a change. And sand was also brought in to fill in the patio. Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, Shannon, that re the retaining wall for the pad is about three, three and a half feet high at the highest point, which is right where that leader for that 11 foot marker is. Okay. You see that on the plan, um, in this area. So the wall right here in this elbow area is about three and a half feet high above existing grade on the downhill side. And then when the wall was built, it was back filled with sand up in this area. Doesn't that need a, uh, a railing at the top? Probably, but yeah. I mean, it shouldn't really be there because it's in the 15 foot no disturbed. So. All right. Well, it, it went in on an area that I don't want to say it was disturbed, but it wasn't, um, I guess it was partially lawn and weeds in this area. So. But you, you could always replace the, the, basically what you're going to do is put pavers on top of the sand, but you could always replace that just with a decking material and leave the, take all the sand out and make it a pervious subsurface. Yeah. That's an option. Yes. We could also maybe use it for a little bit of recharge. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Something. Or rip it out. Yeah. We prefer not to rip it out, but we understand your concern, Sharon. Shannon. Sorry. It just does seem like there's a lot of work happening on this particular street. And it, we don't want to set a precedent where if you just do it without the permit, then you get to keep it because that becomes a cheat code for anybody who wants to do stuff that would never be permitted. So, you know, I think that's a precedent that we have to be very careful about setting. Understood. Okay. Commissioner, anybody else? Um, in terms of timeline, Linda, uh, and applicant, you know, Kevin, uh, I know that next one's on the 11th of February. Is that enough time? No, I need more than that. Okay. Um, going to the 4th of March, Kevin. Yeah. That's something we could put on the calendar. Yes. Okay. Um, so soon we have no other thoughts or comments, commission. Um, can I get a motion to continue under both, uh, to March 4th sometime after 630. Yep. You got it. So move it. Thank you, Cliff. Thank you, Luke for the second, or Luke for the, yeah, Cliff for the second, I'm assuming. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yep. You bet. And Sean affairs a yes. All set. See you in a few weeks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, on to 2d. Uh, it's eight, nine and 10 Essex street, uh, Turkey Hill village condominium DEP file number three, two, two dash one zero five eight. This is a notice of intent file pursuant to Wayland's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection acts amended by Turkey Hill village condos for the replacement of a, of a septic system at eight, nine and 10 Essex street and Wayland mass. The project is with a hundred feet foot buffer zone of a boring vegetated wetlands property shown on the assessor's map. 45. Parcel CM to Linda. So we have a guest appearance by Vito tonight. So I think I'll invite him to do a presentation. All right. Vito. Hello. Good evening. Um, so Vito Colonna, Connerstone engineering. Uh, I'm just going to share the company again. Uh, Connerstone engineering. Connerstone. Uh, yeah. Connerstone. Connerstone. Yep. Okay. All right. Okay. Just a quick look at where the site is. Um, it's off of rice road. Uh, this road right here is rice road. Um, it's Turkey Hill condos. Um, there's an access drive that comes in and wraps to the back here. And the units that we're looking at are in the back corner here. Uh, units, uh, eight, nine, and 10, uh, right in this corner right here. Um, switch to the site plan. Okay. So, um, right now these three units have a shared septic system. It's in the back yard area, uh, right through here. Uh, it's shown this kind of red bubbled shape. Um, the area right behind the units immediately is a lawn area, uh, then it's boarded by a kind of a landscape strip, and then it's all wooded, uh, in the back here. And then further to the back is a BVW, uh, that wraps around. It's kind of a, a pretty sharp slope. It's maybe six to seven feet high. And right along that Towa slope is a pretty defined wetland, uh, right along the back through here. Um, so as I said, the system they do have is in failure. It's currently about 55, uh, feet from the edge of the wetland. Uh, they were experiencing back up, uh, into the D box. Uh, there wasn't anything breaking out on the ground surface, uh, but it was backing up, uh, into the D box, um, and surcharging a little bit. Um, so we went out and did some test pits. Um, we found suitable soils. Um, they are kind of a little bit of a tight soil. So it is a 30 minute perk rate. Uh, so it does make the system rather large. Um, but we were able to fit that in, uh, right in this kind of rear area. Um, we've just fit it outside the 75 foot buffer zone, uh, which is a water health requirement. Uh, to be that minimum 75 feet from the wetland. Uh, we're also pinned in by a drain line, uh, that runs right through here. That we have to be 10 feet off of that drain line. Um, and typically you'd need to be 20 feet off of the foundation. Uh, we have asked for relief, uh, from that, from the board of health to go as close as 16 feet, um, to the foundation over here. And that just allowed us to that little bit of space to be able to pull it far, far enough away from the wetland, uh, to give at least 75 feet. Um, border health has reviewed the plan. Uh, we did get comments back. They haven't fully approved it yet. Uh, but they had a few comments and we've addressed those. Um, so I'm thinking we're just waiting on kind of the final, uh, approval in the documents through border health. Um, one thing to note on the system itself, we did use a IA system. Uh, Presby, uh, environmental, um, it's a geotextile, it's a sand filter. So it does allow us a 40% reduction in the footprint. And it also provides some enhanced treatment, uh, of that effluent before it enters the, enters the, uh, enters the ground. Um, let's see a few other things. Um, also through border health, uh, one of their conditions was that any of the garbage grinders be removed, uh, from these units. I believe, uh, one, at least one of them does have one. Uh, so that'll be confirmed through border health before they do their final sign off. Darren usually does a walkthrough, uh, just to confirm that those garbage grinders are removed. Um, let's see. Uh, oh, the only other thing I wanted to mention, there are some trees to be removed. Um, we did try to pull this as far as we could into that lawn area, but we are encroaching a little bit on, um, these three trees right here. This one is out into the yard a little bit, and these two are into the kind of the wooded area. It's not too thick in there. There's really no undergrowth. Uh, but there would be these three trees that need to come down. Um, I, this is a maple. I, it could be a Norway maple. I wasn't positive. Um, but then we have also a pine and a cedar, and we've mitigated that with plantings. We're showing along this back edge, uh, just to kind of infill that area with some low shrub plantings, uh, of native species. Um, and I think that that's all I have for this. I guess if I'll hand it back over for questions. Thanks. What's there now for, for septic, what's there now? Oh, right now there's a leach field. Um, they do have trenches. Um, it's a clay, they're, um, clay pipe, uh, trenches. Um, there's a tank right here. And then there's a series of them. Uh, they kind of run through here. We hit one of them over in here. So they're at least this far over. They could be a little bit further. Uh, hit the end of it over here and also over here. So, uh, they're kind of spread out through that back area. Uh, but it's an old leach field of trenches with clay pipe. Okay. And you're gonna put in another leach field with trenches that works better than the old one. Yep. Yep. Okay. Okay. Linda, have any thoughts? Uh, I need a butterfly notification proof that the butters were notified. I know that she had an 11 page list here. So, um, yeah. Um, also the delineation was done November 25th, um, in November, 20, 25. So we don't, we don't accept that. It's also, there's some mistakes made with that. At one point she identifies it as a, um, isolated, um, wetlands. And in another section of the, her report, she identifies as a bordering. So I'm, I'm not entirely sure. I'm assuming it's isolated, but it's, it's hard to know. Um, also you're, you said in your, on your plan that she were adding a tree also, 21 shrubs and a tree. Or is that, has that changed? I think it's just the shrubs. Oh, okay. Double check. I thought it said. Oh, one tree. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. I didn't see where the tree was though. Yeah. Um, let me just look. I thought I was, I thought we just were doing shrubs, but proposed 21 shrubs in one tree. We'll have to highlight where the tree is then. Um, I missed that. Soil stockpile area probably. Yeah. It's going to be very, very tight in there. Um, you're going to have to ship it out essentially as they're going. Um, the only access is going to be between these two units. Um, Oh yeah. You're going to catch space in there. Yup. Yeah. So it's going to, it's going to be really tight. They probably doesn't have to bring a, um, a dump truck in and just kind of load into the truck almost. Okay. A lot of that out. They will have some stockpiling, but there's really not much space out there to do so. Okay. Oh, what else did I have? Oh, you're, um, you need to update your filing fee. Okay. Um, we, we did update them in 20, June, 20, 24. Uh, what's in your packet here was our old filing fees. It doesn't change for this one. This is a category one. It's still a hundred dollars, but I just wanted to update you on that. Um, and the catch basin, I mean that, that I, I had to focus in on that. Okay. Does that drain directly into the wetlands? Is that what it does? Yup. Yeah. It was, so it drains off to the side. It comes out, not into the well end, but it's right. I mean, I forget how far away it is, but it's not like into the well end, but it comes into that buffer. Um, right. So it collects the street drainage and then it just to, from one catch base into another, and then into the, then discharges. Yup. Yeah. It's, you know, how they used to do it. I know. Yeah. Um, yeah. So it collects. Yeah. It's just catch basin to catch basin. And then they discharge it. Um, it's probably like we show it right around that 30 foot. I can get, I can get an exact measurement for you how far off. No, it's not a big deal. It's just kind of disappointing to see that. But, um, uh, and did you have a revised plan that you submitted to health in with your comments? Yep. Yeah, we did. Um, so we can get that to you. We'll update that with the tree, um, and get you any updates with border health. Yeah. I mean, we might as well wait until Darren has signed off on that revised plan. Cause I like, I like to at least reference the same plan that they, they've approved in our permit. Yeah. So, um, I mean, we can close this and everything if you, I mean, I'm okay with this project today. Everybody needs a septic. Right. But, um, I just want to make sure that we have, we both have the same plan and we're permitting the same plan. Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't think. I'm sorry. I think the border health changes, they were just, um, mostly note changes. Um, nothing with a layout. Right. I'm like that. So that's fine. Like I said, I don't, I don't, I mean, it's a pretty tight, very tight. So I can't imagine there's going to be many, um, but there's much we can do with this. Right. Okay. Okay. Commission. Anything else? If you could get it, if you wanted to, uh, shoot us a picture of the bark of that tree, we could tell you if it's Norway or not. In which case, I won't cry any tears over it. Yep. I think it is, but I wasn't positive at the time. Uh, cause it was pretty smooth, um, the bark on it. Um, and usually I can tell the leaves, but at the time there wasn't much to see. So. Yeah. There probably won't be now, but we can give it a shot. Yep. Guarantees. There's a great trail over there. Shannon. If you want to take a nice walk over from the. Yeah. It's right underneath the. Mm-hmm. I'll make a note of that for my walk. Uh, maybe tomorrow or Friday. No. Uh, okay. Anything else? Okay. Uh, I get them a motion then. If everybody's in, in favor of, uh, favor of this, please. Motion to close first. I'm sorry. Yeah. I move that we close the hearing under chapter 194 and the state act. Thank you. Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Lisa Alban. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. And Sean. Yes. Thank you. Next motion, please. I'm going to see you on order of conditions approving the project under both the State Wetlands Protection Act and chapter 194. Thank you, Luke. Do you have a second? Second. Thank you, Babs. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Lisa Albin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All set. Thank you. Thanks, Vito. all right uh to public meetings this is 3a uh 37 45 and 47 waltham road carroll school uh d-1046 it continued to request for determination filed pursuant to waylands wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the protection act chapter 193 submitted by carroll school for the construction of a new school building with associated parking area septic system and utilities at 37 39 and 45 waltham road in whalen mass the proposed work is partially within 100 foot buffer zone of a boring vegetative well property shown in assessors map 5 laws 14 15 and 16. linda i believe we have uh sean here i thought i saw sean yes oh there you are i'm sorry i didn't even recognize you um we've had i just want to update the commission we've had numerous um like zoom meetings and zoom calls to discuss the stormwater um the two outstanding issues i believe are the mounding heights and the inner basin connectivity or transfer or whatever however ect wants to call it so that was between us the staff here um carroll school and the peer reviewer so i did get we did receive another set of revised plans it's been i think two since the last meeting and um we're just working through the last of the issues i believe is that right sean yes yes i would agree yep did we deal with the snow storage area that was a question that was unresolved last time i was the snow storage i don't i don't um what did you do with that sean yes so and and actually i just jumped over from the planning board meeting the rest of our team is still at that meeting um and they brought up the the same comment and uh you're correct we still owe you the plan showing those uh couple areas but basically um we're going to take i think uh it was 15 spaces that we have um beyond what's required by zoning to have temporary snow storage and then everything not able to be stored on site is going to be removed how are we assured of that um that'll just be uh a condition of approval um i don't know if that would be something that the uh building department uh code enforcement has jurisdiction over um but it you know the carroll school is gonna make sure they have enough parking spaces to meet their needs yeah i'm sure they are i just don't want the snow to get pushed off into waltham road oh no yeah absolutely and i i would imagine there's um you know the the abutters are very uh active in that neighborhood and if anything like that were to happen which uh we absolutely do not want to happen and it should not happen but if it does i'm sure that the carroll school will be notified and rectify the situation immediately so one of the big changes and sean can uh discuss that even further was that uh we pulled a lot of the roof runoff and sent it out towards the the fields in the back as opposed to putting it into the infiltration basin it's fairly clean water it will eventually end up in the wetlands and that was that did reduce a little bit of the mounding heights that they were seeing um and they have by where the infiltration basin is so i think there's just a few other items that need to be addressed right in order to reduce the mounting yes and yep and one of the other things that we did add to the subsurface system was an overflow to limit the amount of water that would uh be able to be built up in that system and and again that would be clean water that would be discharged down into the the field areas um with those changes we did make sure that our numbers did not uh increase the flows to that wetlands were still below pre-development levels uh but it did help to kind of disperse the stormwater a little bit more uh across the site and and like linda said using the fields and some of the open areas um other than that it was just uh this i think a couple analysis points that ect wanted some kind of clarification on and we'll just continue to work with them to make sure that um we're all talking the same thing but i think we're we're pretty close and i think we do have a system that meets all the regulations and and will function well so do you think i'll have the revised plans and everything ready for our next meeting on february 11th that's in two weeks i am hoping so okay so that would mean that you would need to have hard copies in hand by uh the fourth wednesday yes yeah so if it's if it's all right i'd like to continue to that hearing uh with that hope if we don't meet that then um i think at this point we would just continue not waste anybody's time until we we have all that resolved unless there's any other comments or concerns from the commission
anything else all that drainage is gravity fed yes correct yeah okay uh all right well we don't have to make an official vote because it's just a just a public meeting um but it sounds like we'll see you here in the next meeting on the 11th with uh finalized updates and then uh working with linda great thank you very much y'all awesome thanks sean appreciate it take care all right on to 3b 37 old sudbury road whalen d-1052 it's request for determination filed pursuant to whalen's wetlands and water resource protection bylaw and the wetland protection act submitted by barry wiley for the addition to an existing deck at 37 old sudbury road whalen mass uh that's when 100 foot feet of boarding vegetated wetlands the property is shown on assessor's map 14 lot 54. linda oh who we have here for for this hi folks my name is barry willie i'm the i'm the contractor um that's going to be hopefully doing the work out there for my client mike perfect and i'm the property owner michael all right go on barry what do you got so um we are just proposing to add on to an existing deck um the deck is approximately 14 feet off the back of the house so we're going to come out with the with the add-on 14 feet and then um another eight foot four inches in the opposite direction with a small landing off of that and a set of stairs down to grade approximately 150 square feet total counting the counting the stairs on the platform linda start with you comments thoughts um i don't have a ton of comments i mean this is a pretty straightforward project um one thing is you know we always we'd love to have um closure on the previous permanent these are these are really old i think um from 2004 but none of that none of that was actually closed out but um i'm not even sure what the permit was for actually but um at some point what we need to have is probably a more precise plan right now we just sort of have a hand-drawn thing i'm guessing the building department's going to require a little bit more structural like you know plan that shows you know something to scale um and what we can do is we can make that a condition of um of the permit that you would submit us an as built when the project is finished with with the uh a plan to scale as opposed to a hand-drawn thing okay um this is the plan that we got it was 30 years old yeah i know right so so i did submit um this this drawing to the building department and i wasn't told that they needed anything more than that i don't have a problem doing it but at that point it's like that's kind of outside of my realm and and now we're looking at probably hiring architect to do a design okay we look at the wetlands that's that's what we're determining right i can just add to that that when i was in there last i was right next door to you guys at the building department i spoke to them and they said they were um good to go you guys were the last people to ask for me yeah so they just need this this this content that's what you submitted with the um the joist and the that's all they're looking at then right okay okay i mean we look at things differently we look at things like distance from the wetlands we look at the size and you know the alteration you know and right so we don't look at those kind of specifics we look more at and you know where are you on the plane i know on the as and this is all over lawn right there's existing lawn underneath this correct okay and then how many how many supports are you putting underneath it um we have four five seven seven twelve inch um by four foot deep sauna tubes okay the sauna tubes okay okay commission anybody else someone's pretty good with it okay as am i anyone make the motion for the negative termination i move a negative determination
under the wetland protection act under the wetland protection act and a permit and a permit okay okay there we go under both all right go here second second thank you luke uh roll call please luke was here yes barbara howell um
we're voting a negative under the wetland protection act yes yes we are yeah uh shannon fisher yeah jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes all right all set thanks all thank you thank you you got it good night you too uh and uh shannon well done on your first uh motion that's not that's that's always the awkward one with the negative termination it kind of sounds like we're saying no but well done and and the permit under chapter 194 it's real yeah those are the thorniest ones shannon yeah those are the hard ones um all right on to my screen for a this is a vote to release performance guarantee and close escrow account for 20 harrison street uh dep feed file number three two two dash seven oh six it's back in the day linda oh yes we're we're we're frantically oh we did oh i should start by we did we did find another senior workout person to help us with this our nice we've been we've been you know the town's been after us the auditors have been after us we have over three hundred thousand dollars in performance bonds that were never returned they sit in individual bank accounts and draw you know and um our biggest our biggest hurdle to returning those is just a lack of records if we don't have any understanding of who wrote the check and who we're giving the money back to it's it's almost an impossible job so we're trying to go after some of the easy ones the ones that have documentations the ones that have copies of checks so slowly but surely we're making our way through a stack and we're sending out second notices to a lot of people who never responded to the first notices so again you might see one or two of these almost on every meeting and this was an easy one it was they had closed out on their permit and they uh um the only thing lacking is you know a request for return of the performance bond so um we can if we can just approve that one so how much money is this i uh emily might know that i don't know i think it's like about a thousand maybe oh is it okay thank you do i do i have that on the table emily uh no sorry no worries we're drowning again in paperwork i think we got five new filings this week for our next meeting so give it up yeah well unrelated no i won't be here next time just kidding oh i'm just kidding uh all right so we then vote okay a motion then uh to release performance guarantee for 20 harrison street please so thank you cliff uh roll call please luke lazier yes barbara hall yes yes shannon fisher yes jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes sean fair is a yes thank you folks uh 4b vote to keep the penalty for old sorry six old tavern road d-722 this will be a fun story linda go ahead again this this we've done this before the the minutes say that like 150 dollars are forfeited and the treasure would just like a little bit more clear language on that what does that mean and what happens is that they've done they obviously didn't um submit inspection reports or there was something that um the commission voted to keep 150 of the the performance bond these people got the rest back and so this 150 has been sitting in this the savings account for years now and uh she would just would like um more clarification of what forfeit meant and i and i guess that's basically it's a penalty that the commission was collecting for for some performance issue and so and it gets returned to the general fund um you know it just gets transferred to our general fund this 150 does so if we i don't know how better to describe that maybe luke has some better language for this that we're we're we're keeping this as a penalty for non-performance issues something like that that seems like what we're doing we can only guess at this point sounds like a good description uh it's ancient history you know i mean we're we're just we're just gravel we're just you know yeah okay um so this is more housekeeping commission we'll go with that any questions or before we throw a quick vote okay um luke do you want to make that motion sure um so i move that we we vote to sorry just went so linda what do you actually need us to authorize you do you need us to authorize you to transfer this to the general no we just have to we're just clarifying the language that what it was said forfeit in the minutes and the the treasurer just wanted a better description of what that meant and for us it's just a non-performance issue and we we kept 150 i think that's what it was for a penalty for a non-performance issue so okay uh sure i move that we vote to retain and keep the penalty money left for old uh six old tavern road d dash seven two two thank you luke do i hear a second yes i can thank you cliff roll call please luke lazier yes barbara hall yes shannon fisher yes denny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes thank you uh 300 000 to go yeah uh signed conservation for a couple weeks yeah for alice drive dep file number three two two dash five five two holy mackerel so this this was a subdivision a four house subdivision there is a conservation restriction on the back of this property it's a dead end off the old con i don't know if you guys are familiar with this i think it's near where the aqueduct is um but the odd thing is again there must have been six copies of a cr in the in the file but only one of them one of them was signed by the owners and and notarized and the pages for the conservation commission and the select board are blank and it was never recorded and he wants to close out on this project so this is one of the outstanding issues that this was never i mean it was never followed through by anybody it doesn't appear um is it too late to do this now i mean this was this was signed in 2013. where was it 2008 this was signed this is right by pod meadow yeah we had a trail that actually was on their property and we had to move our trail trail off their property and put that zigzag one that comes down over the slope now and um
they um were going to give us the conservation restriction um just as a small one by the pond
oh i don't know about i don't i don't remember the pond being there oh there's a huge pond oh is there okay a pod pod meadow i was we did some walks there last year it's like the really big pond and there's like a little bitty pond that i wasn't sure could be a vernal pool or not oh the small one is on one side yeah and the big one is on the other yeah that's a biggie and the alice road is kind of but by the smaller pond okay oh i see it yeah no it's on the so the odd thing is that the plan was recorded the plan that it's associated with the cr was recorded but that the cr itself was not so we're kind of in a bit of a you know a quandary of what to how to proceed with this and i i misstated it i think it was signed in 2013 it looks like and i think a trail goes on it's the whole idea of getting that cr was that's where our trail used to go and still goes i think the trail definitely like pew like but it's so steep it's kind of good that it does that anyway it's actually a nice area oh it's one of my favorites so linda sorry you're saying the cr was executed signed but just not never recorded it was signed by the owners of these properties the four different or two or three different owners the commission never the commission the commission never signed it nor did the select board sign it so is it is it too late to do that have we missed is it like past you know statute of limitations or anything at this point i i don't know the answer to that question i mean we can just try right yeah let's do it and see what happens okay so the question i mean i think as a general rule and like nobody quote me on this please um you know having the owners sign it is sort of the most important thing i think the the owner was uh an engineer yeah who dr chang we worked with him on several projects yeah he's on the board of public works oh is he oh yeah oh i didn't know that he's the he's the guy that designed your water system well in this case again you know it's it's you know everybody agreed to it you're right i mean that's the way it was you know that's it was agreed to that's i mean it's an area that they can't really use anyway because it's pretty wet um so it was just again it was just a condition of the whole permit of the subdivision permit and you know i don't want this holding them up as granting this uh certificate of compliance for this project because the commission didn't sign the cr and that seems to be like an administrative you know problem that happened with the conservation department and not with the actual owners so um doesn't it doesn't seem fair to sort of penalize them so if the deed was never recorded and if any of those properties that are part of the conservation restriction if they sold during that time since 2013 is that an issue if the new homeowner was never made aware of that so we didn't have one we did have one closure i think and that that went through this commission too when i was here and what we did was a declaration of restriction um for that particular house which is for alice road or drive and again this is just formalizing that you know this this declaration that was that was written before by their closing attorney in order to close on the sale of this house because again the cr wasn't wasn't executed so it wouldn't come up in the title search or something even if it wasn't on the deed yeah well it is on his deed on for alice drive but so now what we're trying to do is just just put it in and again the the plan was always that shows the cr was recorded it's just that the cr wasn't recorded so um i think what we do need to do is just vote to accept the cr and then the decision needs to be made whether i can sign it for you or if you guys want to come in and each individually sign it um two things what one do we still have thing where i can sign for the whole commission is that or that just where you can simple commission i can sign for the whole commission but if you come in sean i need somebody to have your the signature notarized so i need at least one person to come in and um notarize the have their signature notarized right i'm happy i mean i'm happy to do that so not everybody has to come by the office and sign um so either way um okay anybody else any thoughts we're good to uh approve this or i'm going to prove it assign it essentially accept it accept it and then sign it all right so can i get a motion then please to accept the conservation restriction for alice drive don't move thank you luke do you hear a second thank you cliff roll call please luke leger yes barbara hall yeah shannon fisher yes uh jenny brown yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes thank you folks do we need topics you need to go to the select board then too next yeah we'll go to the select board after this sure yeah uh topics that reason participated by me i've got nothing on my end anybody else last minute things i just have a general question going back to shannon brought it up i think we're all thinking this with the kind of the unpermitted work going on in dudley pound and we know it happens in other areas of town but i'm still new to the commission in this process i know that we have um penalties we can charge right if someone is violating chapter 193 or 194 and i assume that includes unpermitted work but are we using those penalties is that how would it work in something like this and i can always talk to linda offline but um you know if you read some of the language you know every day that goes by is considered a new violation you know and it can stack up pretty quickly but um i share shannon's concern and probably your all of yours that you know we're going to have to work with these two homeowners on deadly pond you know some of the work was already done and um try to do something to improve what's there now but is this going to keep happening you know is this a concern that the rest of the commission shares and what can we do about it so if you're at so make sure we have to talk in generalities right we can't talk about specific right cases right sorry yeah no no you guys make sure we're very clear right um if you're asking in general has this happened before yes unfortunately welcome to concom um uh and i don't remember a time and certainly babs is our historian here where we actively will put a penalty on hey that doc has been there for so and so not only to change it you owe us x amount of dollars i don't remember ever doing that it's more about hey we need to get back to square one and as shannon said typically the commission's view is hey if we weren't going to permit it in the first place you can't you know scapegoat it by not asking us and asking for forgiveness right um so i that said could we again i sort of talked to luke about could we impose fines for having gone this long i guess in theory but i don't think we ever have before but but yeah this happened now unfortunately we have to happen but we're back to back with like neighbors so that and that's kind of awkward right and so um but yes this happens one or two times a year we'll get one of these kind of deals come in i mean the preferred thing is to work around what's been done try to make improvements on top of that so they're not yeah i think i that that's like sorry go ahead go ahead i was just gonna say i think i prefer them ripping it out i mean there should be consequences you do stuff that shouldn't be done there like you bought this house that's right you know that got these restrictions it's on you for not doing your homework like it's gonna cost money then you shouldn't have done it in the first place rip it out and then we'll see what we would have permitted i like that i was just gonna say that you know i have experience dealing with ticketing and fines under 21d which is what we're talking about here there's a real administrative burden like a real one that goes along with that i mean it's a dale like you know linda or emily every day would have to be issuing these tickets you have to file them in district court on essentially a bi-weekly basis you have to go in for hearings to get those in four it's so that's not to say you would never do it right but i think in my view you'd really reserve that for a pretty egregious situation and like you know if we have a scenario where work was done without a permit and we issue an enforcement or take some kind of enforcement posture and we have a property owner who comes in and is trying to work with us whatever that might look like right but they're not thumbing their nose at us and ignoring us right you know i think that's sort of to shannon's point to my this is just me sort of speaking for myself i think that's preferable if you have a situation where we're seeking enforcement and the landowners just ignoring us entirely well then maybe you really don't have a choice other than to go the fine route and then you know as that hole plays out if they keep ignoring it then it becomes a criminal matter um right so it's definitely a tool in our toolbox lisa but it's you know again just speaking for myself i view that as kind of like a last resort no i appreciate that i just i don't have the history to know if we've ever really used these fines it's in the documents and um you know i'm not calling out the people that were on here earlier because clearly they're working with us which is great it's just you know you you don't want to keep seeing this happen around dudley pond because it's just going to degrade the water quality right and that's not good for the homeowners that live right there that's why they bought the property right and a lot of people don't know the science behind the storm water and right and so yep well i agree with i agree with this with everything luke said because i'd much rather start on the right foot with with the homeowner and hope for cooperation as opposed to slapping with the fine you know and and we have every right to do that and town council has also told me that we have to document every day the violation so which means that you know if i issue a fine one day if i want to issue another daily fine the next day i have to go back out there i have to document it with photographs issue another a whole other ticket you know and and what it comes down to is i have never in all my career have have i ever successively collected a fine okay um the framingham court will not even consider they don't consider wetlands violations a finable offense okay i i've sat through that whole hearing before for somebody who did a very very egregious um violation here in wayland and when i worked in on maynard i again another huge egregious filling the wetlands you know collecting everybody's landscaping debris from you know four town area and filling a wetlands i ended up having to get dep involved in that one because i again no cooperation whatsoever i tried finding him and the the magistrate in conquered court said she had she just assumed i was in the wrong court of law and i kind of had explained the law to her and that still didn't get get any farther we didn't get any farther with that so i just like i gave up and i decided to get dep involved in that one like you deal with them i'm not i'm done you know so and that's usually the the sometimes the the um the way things get done but speaking of violations that was one of my things i was going to talk about public comment we did have one over at um the south 20 landfill um dpw was advised by their engineer that they needed to do a little bit more clearing and grubbing and um and test pits to investigate the extent of the waste you know the and the the and the condition of the landfill cap and they completely destroyed the priority habitat they completely destroyed the wetlands and it was not on their property this is on mbta property so you know they just i just learned today that i know there's survey markers out there okay it's so obvious they say every source right away and like you just you cut everything you know i mean it's just right up to the rail bed i mean i just i'm just just mind-boggling okay so my approach on that one is um this is be their second violation for the same exact site um that i'm working with uh natural heritage because it is a priority habitat and what i've asked them for is i want you to come up with a restoration plan for this i don't want to be the bad guy here i want them to come up with what's going to be an appropriate restoration for this property that uh that they worked on they cleared without a permit and without permission from the landowner to do that so and um so that's that's on the on the horizon here for us at some point and the second thing is we had a pre-construction meeting for the stank brooke dam um uh the contractors getting started by doing um you know collecting all the material he needs buying buying all the um uh and or aligning contractors to help with him in certain aspects of the job and um mobilizing staging getting materials they need we are going to close um hamlin woods parking lot for probably the duration of the construction because they do need a place to store things they need a place for their employees to park they need a place for equipment storage so you'll see signs up probably in this coming week that we're just notifying people that this is going to be closed as of i think february 23rd is the start date and um directing them to the parking lot that's further up on rice road um that's just south of the farm pond so um you know there might be something a lot of pushback i know it's a popular area to go walking and enjoying the outdoors but we we're so constrained we have absolutely no place you know it's all it's all private property that they have to to access the dam to begin with and you know we're trying to make their lives as easy as possible tours i mean and it's going to be a huge disruption to the people that live right there so that that seemed to be the logical place for them to at least uh you know park and leave their equipment and stuff like that so how long do they think when they remind me again what's the estimate you know we have it through september so for 10 you know february most of the work will be done february through september and then there's still going to be wetland restoration work there's going to be um we're going to restore we plant a lot of the trees there so there's still going to be ongoing work it won't be necessarily as as intensive um after the end of september but um the the project duration will probably be until december so of this year so cool so the first start the first piece will be um working on the low level outlet and um raising the level of the dam so yeah and then they're going to move to the spillway work after that so love it yeah and no public access so nobody can go over there and and and and watch what they're doing okay where's all the disruption going to be the the access we have is from uh um 68 rice road which is a private um property and we have an access um arrangement to get to the empowerment there but it's not it's not it's it's all private property it's their driveway we're pretty much driving down to get to it so and uh i i think we can get some arrangements for the people across the street they kind of two separate driveways we're hoping maybe to rent a a parking spot or two for the neighbors you know the the butters so they at least have um because a not only is it the access just really constrained it's a really tight driveway i'm not sure how they're ever going to get a crane down there for to remove the trees so that that will be the first challenge so it just impacts five or six houses though right mainly one i mean mainly just mainly just one yeah well right we have to annihilate yeah okay yeah daily for for eight months okay
bring your driveway out of it though they will get a new driveway out of it they're going to get a whole bunch of nice new trees you know in the backyard too so all of us are doing our civic duty too you can too yeah exactly yeah but you know the sad thing is they just bought this house they had no idea what what was in store for them absolutely not the previous owner didn't mention anything that there was going to be at you know eight to ten month construction project in their backyard so um well the good news is they have quite a nice backyard with no neighbors and they have all this beautiful so now you know at the wait a few months to get it get it pristine again and a big pond and a big pond um okay um any else public comment commission i don't see any hands raised we're alone here all right um babs how are we looking for the january 7th uh minutes they good fine i turned them in that a girl okay anybody else have any thoughts okay that was our world's fastest meeting ever for the january oh you mean january 7th one yes yeah that was that was pretty good i'm bummed the first meeting i missed was super fast because i'd rather like have to miss big ones i was i was happy i was so sick
uh but emily did you incorporate her changes i don't i don't remember seeing those i did they're just not in the packet right now but they were just minor editorial things yep they were minor changes okay all right can i get an approval of the minutes with babs's edits please for january 7th 2026 no move thank you clip do i hear a second second thank you there goes luke roll call please luke was here yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher abstain i wasn't there jenny brown yes lisa alvin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fares a yes thank you thank you and if there's nothing else can i get a motion please for adjournment
thank you luke do i hear a second second thank you cliff roll call please luke was here yes yes barbara howell yes shannon fisher yes jenny brown yes lisa alvin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fares a yes all right folks appreciate it