July 8, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript

July 8, 2026 - Conservation Commission

Autoscroll:

Seeing that we've got a quorum and at 633, I'd like to be in the Conservation Commission meeting for July 8, 2026. The location for in-person meeting and wheelchair is accessible. If you need other accommodations in order to participate in the meeting, please contact Wayland's ADA coordinator at the following number. 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 an outside contractor who may not be available if requested immediately before the meeting. This meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, which it is, it will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon after the meeting is practical. Public will be excluded from executive sessions. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote access and, of course, with applicable law. Since it has remote access, no in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. Since it has remote access, one may participate remotely at the following link. Anyone required by law or allowed by myself, persons wishing to provide public comment or other ways to participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location, in this case, remote access. The public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. With that said, Linda, are you at HQ there? I am. Okay. Linda's dialing in from town meeting. I see Barbara Howell, Shannon Fischer, Cliff Lewis, John Storr, Lisa Aubin, and myself are all dialing in remotely. Okay. With that, we're going right into executive sessions. So for those folks who are on right now, we'll be off this and come back in as soon as we can. And because I determined that a discussion in open session will have detrimental effect on the town's litigating position, I ask for a motion to move to executive session pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, to discuss strategies with respect to litigation known as a matter of Cascade Development, LLC, Massachusetts Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolutions, docket number WET 2004-0020, DEP file number 322-1000. Can I get that motion, please, for bringing us into executive session? Yeah. So moved. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. I think that was Lisa. Roll call, please. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storr?
Oh, you're on mute.
Yes. Great. Perfect. Thank you. And Sean Fares, a yes. All right. Hope everybody got the email from Emily for the executive session. Hang up here. We'll see you back on the other side in a second. And everybody in this meeting will be back as soon as we can. Thanks, everybody. See you in a second.
Linda's here. Wait for Barbara. Wait for John.
John's back. John? Yeah, wait for Barbara. I won't get going yet. Wait, should I check to see if she's still in there?
Yeah, I think hers is usually a little bit slower on the exit piece. But yeah, see if she's still... No, she's not in there anymore. Yeah, hers takes a little bit longer to kind of convert over it, I've noticed. You can open the public hearing if you want, though. Here we go. So, 4A, 67A, Loker Street, DEP file number 322-1056. Continued Notice of Intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw. And the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Matt O'Connor for the demolition of an existing barn and construction of a six-unit compact apartment facility at 67A, Loker Street in Wayland, Mass. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 48, Parcel 42, and is located within a 100-foot buffer zone of a boring vegetated wetlands and 200-foot riverfront area. Linda? I believe we have Matt O'Connor here to discuss the new... We received new material. I think you guys all received that, including plans, new stormwater management report, and what else was there? Oh, the peer review responses. Yep. Okay, John? Matt, excuse me, Matt. Oh, sorry. Yes, that's correct. We have resubmitted. We have added some changes to the site plan. Most notably, I would say, is the lower-level rain garden.
And we've been back and forth, like I said. We actually... I have a planning board at 714, but if I do have to jump to that, with the permission of the conservation board, I'll leave Brandon, our engineer. I'll leave it in this meeting to answer any further questions. But, yeah, I think we've gone through the concerns, hopefully, as the board sees fit. That's good. Thanks. Brandon, Linda?
Do you have any questions for Brandon? I don't know. Does he have anything to present before... Is he there? Yeah, I see you, Brandon. Yeah. Or I can share my screen if you want. Sure.
So, we were before you at the last meeting just kind of talking briefly about the changes. This plan set has been revised twice since we were last before you folks, mostly just to address the peer review comments. And most of those comments were pertaining to site distance. We have done larger radius curbs at both entrances, both on Alden Street and on Hobbs Road. Um, we have provided some additional, um, we have a stockpile area just, um, just to the right side here of our infiltration system for stormwater. Uh, we've added, uh, a refueling area here, and then more of the significant changes is based on the comments for screening and site distance. We've updated the proposed planting mitigation plan, and this was also updated based on the comments we last received from your board, uh, just pertaining to... We, we went through, um, and updated the table of tree removal and tree replacement, as well as we've gone in and identified, um, species for the plantings. And basically what we've done is we've, we've added more evergreen, um, coniferous trees here to provide additional screening from, uh, Alden Street. We've also kind of pulled, pulled that vegetative barrier back. And the reason why we added to it is because we're removing, there's an existing, uh, stockade fence that, that runs along most of the property frontage on both Alden and Hobbs. Um, so again, just kind of working through improving the site distance for any oncoming traffic coming from the intersection towards the stop sign, uh, just to get additional site distance. Um, we, we, we pulled those proposed plantings further into the site. Uh, there was also a couple changes, uh, based on, uh, the fire chief. We, we've added a potential new fire, uh, hydrant location as well as just added a, uh, a new water line that will, uh, provide, uh, firefighting water to the building because we are proposing a sprinkler system.
Those. So, and I think we can, they're going to get to be pretty big after a while. Is that not going to be a problem with the screening and the site distances?
So the proposed plantings, we, we've kind of pulled them back quite a bit. Most of the site distance is, is a long, basically within the right of way here. Those trees get to be very big. They're not the same size 30 years from now as they are today. Yeah. And Cliff, I think one of the, uh, maintenance items would be to prune the, uh, lower limbs. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And that is being proposed and that was talked about. Okay. In a maintenance, you know, going forward. Yeah. Great. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir.
And so one of the, one of the larger, uh, reasons for our continuing, um, from our initial submittal was to, um, have the peer review of the drainage, which we, we, we went through, we got initial comments back from the peer review. Uh, we've addressed those comments. We submitted revised plans and calculations, just running, uh, storm predictions using NOAA rainfall. And I just got a, a response letter from Robert Hummel, um, back from the peer review, essentially saying that they are all set with the, the drainage design and we addressed, adequately addressed all their comments.
Okay. Linda, anything else on your own? Um, 10, I'm still counting up the trees and I, I'm, I'm trying to 11, 12, 13, I guess I'm, I'm missing one of the trees that's supposed to go down. I, you have 14 on your table. I have, I can't, I can only find 13. So, so, and again, not, not required or some of the trees that we're including are trees that are within the right-of-way. Um, so we're just providing, we're including replication for those trees, which will be discussed during a tree hearing, um, DPW with DPW. And does that include, I think in our last meeting, there were two that had to come down due to right-of-way? Yes. These two trees here. That's included in the 14? Yeah. Okay. But like I said, I can only, I only count 13. So I guess I'm, I'm missing a tree somewhere. So.
I only count 12.
Anyway. Um, and the. Well, we should have adequate then. Yes. Adequate replacement. The curb cut. Is that a permit you've already applied for from DPW? So we applied for the curb cut on, uh, Hobbs Road, uh, in our meeting with DPW, this, this is an existing curb cut.
So the curb cut process, uh, Linda is a, an additional permitting process, um, the Hobbs side. But I mean, that, that's, that's what drives your project is being able to have a curb cut there in the parking in the back. So that's why I just wanted to know what the status of that was. Yeah, we met on site with, uh, DPW, uh, those openings specifically, uh, with some members of the, uh, his board. Okay. And I, I did have, still have a question about the delineation that the way you have it presented on the plan. I know you have used the, the regulations say you can take a perpendicular line from the head wall and you do that for the 200 foot riverfront area, but the 100 still has sort of a, an arc to it, a radius, you know, around the last point, the bank for B1. So, you know, it's like we have two different delineation lines on here.
Uh, I think the arc you're looking at this, this is the, the 100 foot buffer zone, not, not the inner 100. Oh, where's that?
You have limit of inner riparian zone and 100 foot buffer. So as, as you can see here, this, this is the culvert. This is that 90 degree. This is the 200 foot and this is the inner 100 foot. Then this line here is the 100 foot buffer zone, which does extend inward from the. Oh, but I'm talking about the one that's associated with the stream on Hobbs. Cause you have that label as the same thing. You have it labeled as inner riparian and the buffer zone. Yeah. So that's, that's why I was confused by that. Yeah. This, this line here marks the perpendicular and the, the issue is basically the inner 100 is on top of the, the 100 foot, which the inner riparian ends here and the 100 foot continues because it's essentially the edge of this wetland. It's essentially a drainage ditch that goes across the frontage of the, the property across the street. Okay. Okay. And so your new, your, um, total impervious in, in, or alteration in the riverfront, you have us 3000, where, what, where did I see that's 3,295 square feet. Correct.
Okay. Um, but for all that impervious that you're putting in the, um, in a riparian and the outer riparian, uh, typically, um, DP requires restoration for that, um, the riverfront restoration. So, and especially if it's impervious, it's usually done on a two to one basis. So, um, I think we're going to see, we're going to need to see a little bit more restoration on this project in order to approve something in the riverfront.
So when you say rep two to one replication, what, what are we replicating? Well, I mean, if you put in, you know, 500 square feet of impervious and you need a thousand feet of, um, riverfront restoration area. And so that could be the conversion of law, you know, from lawn to, to a natural, you know, material, um, seed mix, you know, um, plantings, that sort of thing. So, um, I think you, you do have a wetland scientist. Um, did you use a wetland scientist for this? We, we do. Yes. Um, and again, I'm just asking the question as it stands, the only impervious area on the site now is, is the barn itself, which is being replaced with the building and the concrete floor. And then there's a small, there's a concrete pad that extends this way that will be removed. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So we're, we're less impermeable, correct? Well, you're adding a parking lot in the back. Right. Right. We're reduced from 12 to six.
So you're saying there's one there now?
No, the prior plan. Yeah, but pre-existing conditions versus- We designed, the stormwater management was designed for a larger parking area. We kept the stormwater the same.
Exactly. Yeah. But we're talking about existing conditions versus proposed. Right. And I'm unclear, like, in terms of redevelopment project, um, you know, we can eliminate impervious area to, to compensate for it. But in the case of this, where the only impervious area is a concrete pad in the building, you know, the, the net, there isn't any additional impervious area that can be removed. I'm not asking for removing impervious. I'm asking for restoration for the, the installation of impervious and within the riverfront. I mean, the redevelopment also says that within 200 foot riverfront area, proposed work shall not be closer to the river than existing conditions or a hundred feet. And again, that's, that's very much changed. That's, uh, you know, you can't meet that one. And, uh, and the proposed work at a minimum should be an improvement over existing conditions. Um, right. So we're, we're allowed to do work within the riverfront. Um, I, wait, in terms of the inner 100, I, the only part I can see is a, probably about one square foot of the parking area that's inside the inner 100. Everything else is outside of the inner 100. Okay.
Again, for me, that was confusing because I didn't realize, you know, again, you had that line marked as both the riverfront and the buffer zone. So, um, that's why it looked like the entire entrance is within the inner riparian based on your plan. Um, yeah, the, uh, the two streams we're talking about is this riverfront, his Alden, and it's a funny shape one. So it's, it's one stream. Then you've got this riverfront.
Yes. So in accordance with the DEP guidelines, the, um, there's a culvert, the perennial stream enters a culvert and the length of this culvert is greater than 200 feet, which is what splits that riverfront area up. So it's, it's all part of the same perennial stream. Um, the area where. Um, the riverfront ends is because the stream is confined within a culvert.
So, uh, Linda, if I, sorry, if I may be excused, I'm going to jump to a planning board. Sure. Yep. I'll be over after. Thank you, thank you all from the commission. Thank you. Um, Linda, anything else on your end? No, I think, I think we just need further discussion about the redevelopment in a previously developed riverfront area and the restoration and mitigation for that. And I don't know if you want to bring, um, your, your wetland scientists on board for the next, you know, for, uh, uh, the next meeting, but I think, um, that's, that's something we probably need to do, um, uh, do that in more detail if you have to go over, especially if you have to go move to the planning board. Um, I mean, I like to wait for the planning board to finish their decision and their, um, you know, um, close their hearing before we, um, and, uh, so their process is done before we, we finish ours. Does that make sense? It makes sense. Yep.
So, uh, Linda real quick. What's, what's our next meeting here? It would be the 29th. Is it the 29th? I can't really see that far. Yeah. 29. 29. Yes. So it's not like where do you want to continue then to 29th then? Mm-hmm. Okay. Commission, any other thoughts, comments, concerns before we continue it? I had one little tiny point that I wanted to mention, you know, reading, reviewing the peer review, just kind of reminded me to, to double check something, um, in signs and lights, you know, you guys aren't going to have a significant sign, but are the lights going to be dark sky compliant? So we, we actually don't, don't have any exterior lights for the parking lot. The only exterior lights are what's attached to the building, which is all, it's within a porch and it's a downward facing light. And the details to that has been provided through the architectural plans. Yep. Okay.
Okay. Anybody else?
All right. Go with everything else. Can I get, um, a motion please for continuance to the 29th sometime after 630 under both, please? Yeah. So moved. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. I think that was Lisa. Roll call, please. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storr? Yes. Sean Therese? Yes. All right, folks. We'll see you in a couple of weeks. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you.
All right. Moving on to 4B. This is 8 Carpenter Road. Do we have a DEP number here, Linda? No, we do not. Okay. No DEP number. This is a continued notice of intent and filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act, submitted by Steve Garofalo, the construction of two additions, a deck and expansion of a driveway, subject system replacement, and associated utilities. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarding vegetated wetlands and boring land subject to flooding. The project is shown on Wayland's Assessor's Map 48, Lot 113. Linda? Let's see. I think you might need to move over, Steve. Is he in the attendees? Yep. I see someone raise their hand one second. Okay.
Here it comes.
Hey, come over. Hi. Can you guys see me? Hear me? I can hear you. Yep. Okay. I don't know how to get my picture up, but let's see.
So I was just, I know you guys are still waiting for the peer review storm manage, for the storm management. No. But we had, I'm sorry? And the number. DP number, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yep. And there's still, we had a wetlands, the wetlands people come back out and they reconfirmed that everything that was done in March is still correct. And that was submitted to Linda by veto. So we have that one. I think we can hopefully check that one off for the wetlands confirmation.
You got that, Linda? Yes, I got that. Okay. Thank you. And we're still waiting for the peer review. And then the other third item was the planting plan. I submitted that on the 22nd. And I was just wondering if that was all set to go. And that would be my question.
Can you just confirm how many trees you took down? Okay. There's a, there's a plant, there's a eight cop on the road planting plan, a matrix that I sent in with that whole package. And let's see. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 12. 12 was on that matrix that I sent in. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13. Two were standing dead. If you read, if you look at that, two were standing dead. There was live hazardous. One that was against, leaning against the house. There was a lot of brush. I'm not sure the word. What was the word for it? Saplings and brush. We, my wife and I, she's sitting right here. We went, spent a good couple of days putting everything together. It's quite a comprehensive package. Some of the trees were outside of the 100 foot wetlands buffer and also outside of the 200 foot storm, I'm sorry, riverfront buffer area. As I said during the last meeting, when we took down like five trees, I didn't realize we were in a wetlands area. As soon as it was flagged and I found that out, I went in and talked to Linda about it. And I had pictures of all the trees that we had on the property, which they were submitted with that whole plan that I gave Linda on the 22nd. And so, because, you know, they were taken down and they were, the stumps were ground. I was, you know, I want to do everything right. So I had pictures. So I submitted those. I mean, I didn't, you know, I just want to make sure that that plan is correct. I also have a plan showing the dwelling with the buffer zones. And I also have put together the replacement plantings.
And I had a plan that showed those in color on where we're going to plant those. Rosium azaleas, red maples, highbush blueberries, all that stuff. I mean, we had to do this three years ago. So we're familiar with it. We thought we didn't have to do it this time. We were only taking down five trees. But then, like I said, we realized we were in a wet, a wetland. So we're now going to the board trying to do things right. I'm sorry.
So I was just wondering if that plan was acceptable.
Well, I think one of the things we talked about the last time was that when you take down trees prior to getting a permit for it, we usually ask for, you know, double the amount of tree plantings. You know, compensation for that. So right now you're just compensating for the trees that are in the wetland buffer area. And you're not compensating for any of the trees that are outside the wetland buffer area.
Let's see that. Within the buffer area. Right. Right. So if they weren't in the buffer area and there were six, let me see if I can remember the six or less. No. Seven or less, six inches in diameter, then we didn't need a permit. So that's why those weren't included. The ones within the 200 foot buffer area for the riverfront and the 100 foot buffer area for the wetlands were compensated for with native species.
I don't know how the commission wants to handle this. I look at it as 12 trees that were removed and not, you know, so.
Some of the trees were stressed and hazardous. There are 10 trees that were listed on. 10 live trees were removed. 10 live trees that were removed were not being compensated enough as the issue. Yeah, I think I think we should. I think the compensation needs to be ramped up. So so all this was done prior to getting a permit for it. So so I got I could make a recommendation to Steve prior to coming back next time. Just shoot the planting plan you have in mind over to Linda and she can kind of help pre-approves like, hey, by the way, you're still short or wherever else. That way it can help maybe save some time on on on your end. I accept. Yeah, but it's really you guys's decision in the end. So I know. Yeah, I mean, it's hard. A lot of these photos were look like they were taking during winter. So it's hard to know what trees were dead or not, because the leaves are off the trees just by these photos. You know, there's a couple of large oaks. I don't know why they would have been hazardous. I certainly understand the trees that were literally growing, you know, one foot from the foundation of the old house. But it's a little hard to make a determination after the fact. You know, still without permission. I do think that, like, someone else should correct me on this, but I'm looking at one of the big ones, and it does look like a Norway maple bark to me. There are maples in front. There were two maples in front, yes. Yeah, I'm not, like, fully oriented. There was no oaks. Sorry.
No oak trees. Like, I think that one with a big, and I just double-checked myself, too, running it through my little ID app, but that one with a gnarle in it, like sort of a hole. Nice nice maple, actually. That says Norway maple to me, so I don't know if that matters, but I'm just pointing that out. That is a maple. Yeah, but Norway maples are invasive. Okay, yeah. So my guy that does the trees, he was verifying that the ones that were dead were dead, and also that the ones in front were the Norway maples. There's two in the front, and those were not in the buffer zone. I have a drawing that we spend a lot of time on this. I have a drawing. I wish that I could get my screen up, but I – they have it. Okay, so do you see that one that says planting plant, and it shows the – it's got collars on it. It shows the two buffer zones, and it shows the plants we've planted. So you guys have that, right? The whole package, it's all one – yeah. So those two trees were in front of the house. So you see where it says proposed addition? That's not even there now because, you know, we can't get – we need to get past this stage here to do the proposed addition. So the trees were in front. Those two Norway maples were in front, and those were the biggest trees. And they had – you know, my guy says, you know, I said, maybe we should leave at least one. He goes, well, they're sickly, and they're hazardous, and, you know, you should probably take them down if we're taking everything down. So I was being advised by him as well as, you know, this one's dead. You know, all this other stuff is – I think I was talking about it being brush, but what's the word for that? Saplings. So, I mean, you saw those pictures. I mean, this house, if you guys remember from the last meeting, it's been vacant for 35 years. So if someone – in my opinion, if someone was living there, we wouldn't even have these trees there because they would have maintained the property. So, you know, we came in, and we tried to clean it up so we could, you know, see the house. And, you know, the neighbors were saying, geez, we didn't even know there was a house. You know, this looks a lot better, blah, blah, blah. But we don't want to do things that are wrong, but when we found out that we were in the wetlands, I went to Linda right away. So – and I had pictures because everything was down in stumps, so I understand that. I volunteered all the pictures. We have everything that I think you guys need. Thank you very much.
I would like to try to get – if Linda is saying you guys have to approve this, I'd like to try to get past this. This is the second, you know, meeting we've had and I'd like to try to – I understand we still need the peer review, but I want to try to cut everything off. I'm sorry. Linda, you're right. How many more trees were you saying you'd like on your end? I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
It's in the regulations. If you take down the trees prior to getting a permit, we usually ask for double the amount of compensation. That's the way it was written in the regulations. Also, again, we have no idea the size or any, you know, of any information on these trees because, again, they were taken down and the whole property was stumped. All the trees were stumped. So there's nothing left on the property that we could identify either the type of trees or the size. There's still – there is still some trees. I get it. I'm speaking here. But – and, I mean, what we're going on is the information that was presented here tonight. So I think it's the commission's decision whether or not they want to see a more robust planting plan or if they want to continue with what they have here. So – All right. I'll speak to the last commission. Thoughts? Everybody understand what we're being asked and what the issue is? I'll just chime in. I think it's okay the way it is. I don't think we need to ask for double. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? I'm sort of – like when it gets split between, like, you know, Wetland Riverfront versus otherwise, and then we have over the threshold, if you add them together, I start to get confused about where we're putting in the 193 regulations and where we're putting in the 194 because those are still different. So I sort of feel a little unclear, I guess. Well, I'm saying, are you okay with what he's getting for a planting plan? Okay. Let me go next then. Let someone else chime in. Okay. Anybody else?
I just need a minute. I'm looking at the map again. I mean, at the end of the day, we removed up the 12 trees, but we didn't have any information for sure about, like, we didn't have the information that they were working on. So we really only have two trees going back in, and then a bunch of shrubs is all we have, right? Mm-hmm. Yes. Yep. Yep. We need more than that. So in your mind, Barbara, what would that look like?
Well, we need more trees than shrubs.
So basically kind of going back to what Linda was saying, double amount. Yes. Going back to the regulation. Okay. So if there's two trees proposed, do we want to ask for four trees, or are we asking to kind of change up some of the shrubs to trees? Because some of the shrubs are going to be by the house, and those have to stay shrubs. But some of them are on the perimeter. I mean, either way, it could be significantly less than the current 193 regulations, which would, like, add up all the DBH. Which divide by half, and that's how much is going back in. Obviously, we have discretion.
And I would stake that at least one of these is a Norway maple. I'm inclined to think. So I'm willing to, I have no idea if that's an 18-inch or one of the other ones, but I, so I'm willing to count one of those trees out, that Norway maple, but that's me totally guessing in some ways here, and I certainly don't want to leave things on. But it does seem like very few trees for what was taken down. Okay. And I think there were some arborvitae as well that are non-native. Yeah, those barely count as trees. So, specifically, are we asking, so, Shannon, are you, like, with Barbara, you want to see, within the regs, double what's there now? In this case, two trees, whatever those bushes are? Can I just say, Shannon, on number 10 on the picture, if you look at the top right, number 10, that was the other Norway maple. So is that, like, so that's number 10 in the pictures. Okay, so. It was the other one in front that was a Norway maple that my guy, my tree guy told me was, there were two in front. You can see they look different, and they're all gnarly, and they have holes where squirrels were going in. So, item, page, sorry, picture number one, and on the top right corner is the number. And on picture, I believe mine had the numbers in. And then picture number 10, that's the other, it looks different. That's the other Norway maple that was in the front. Number 10, I think, is what I've been looking at. Okay, the very first picture is number one. That's the other maple. So, it was less clear to me, but, I mean, where there's one, there's often more. Okay, that's what he told me. I'm sorry. Yeah. Who was the arborist, by the way, out of curiosity? Edward Newboy? I meant the outfit.
I don't have it in front of me right now. I don't have it in front of me right now. But I was, you know, I kind of feel it might be, I don't want to, you know, it's a little unfair that I have to double everything. When I'm coming forward with everything, as soon as I knew there was an issue, I knew I had an issue three years ago. And I knew that we had to not take down six or more, you know, more than six trees, you know. So, I was following those rules. So, I don't think it, I feel it's unfair that we have to double everything. Because I'm coming forward with all this information where people would just say, oh, well, everything's down. You know, I have, whatever I have for information, I'm handing in. Yep. Gotcha. Thank you. Sorry. So, Shannon, specifically, what are you asking for then? We know Barbara wants double, Cliff says he's okay. What are you asking for specifically? I'm not sure right now. I'm really not entirely sure. On the one, like, I don't, I don't really, I don't know. When we're talking double, does that mean adding two more trees? Double the compensation. So, two trees and then however many shrubs that would make up for whatever the, was taken down. According to Linda. So, I think she's using the number of 10 trees down or whatever. So, Steve, to your point, again, I personally don't think it was done malice intent and you're looking to, you know, get one around. So, I agree, but we don't want to slap the book on you, as it were. So, I'm personally okay if we try to maybe do a hybrid approach where we say double everything, double the trees, double the shrubs, double everything. If we could maybe convert some of those shrubs into more trees for more canopy, that to me may be kind of a decent approach. And I'm not sure, Linda's not, I don't see Linda there. But that might be a way to kind of get both, best of both worlds and maybe do that. Barbara, if that were proposed, would you be okay with that? I'm just adding a few more trees instead of having double everything? I suppose that's better than.
I don't know how well highbush blueberries are going to do against a house. But I just don't like this whole plant. We can always work with them on an alternate shrub by the house and then maybe the azaleas that are proposed in the back or further in the back or further away from the house, maybe two of those could be changed up to trees. Yeah. And so what if we said, work with Linda to add two more trees to this plan as long as it's okay with, you know, with Linda, what trees we're adding and kind of go from there? How's that for everybody? Is that a good hybrid approach? That way he doesn't have to come back again. He can work with Linda offline and we're giving him kind of a border to play in and figure it out? Does that work? It's okay with me. This doesn't affect, this doesn't create some sort of precedent. Like we're able to practice discretion. Like if we're lenient on this one, that doesn't mean we're like bound in all future cases. Okay. Yeah. As long as we've got reason for what we do, we can. Yeah. No, this is. Yeah. Nope. This is all right. Yeah. I'm fine with adding more. Yeah. Like, like your plan, you guys have cooked up is better than this. Linda, is that good with you? I know I can't see. Are you listening to this or hearing this? I'm listening. Yeah. I just find it, you know, you know, we don't have good information about what was taken down and what was removed and because there's no evidence of it right now. So, um, I would much rather see, you know, at least double the amount of trees on here and keep the shrubs. That's what we've said. Okay. So Steve, how's that sound? Why don't we, we can, I guess I'll call for a motion to close the hearing. And we can't, we have no DEP number. I'm sorry. We can't close the hearing. I just understand what you're saying. So we're adding two more, two more trees. Correct. Thank you. Okay. I just want to understand. That's pretty lenient, honestly. Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. So either way we have to continue it because technically we don't have a DEP number, but in the meantime, we're on the trees by Linda and make sure she's good with the plan. And that way we can just hopefully close once we have a DEP number in two weeks. Well, we're still waiting for a stormwater management or stormwater report for a peer review. I mean, so another step to go to with that. Okay. Right. So there was one other thing. I just, I want to be fair about everything we're doing. So the last time you guys were asking about one more thing. So you were asking about a DEP number and we did immediately apply for a DEP number. And I've been following up with Cornerstone on that. And they said that we, we, we're just waiting for them to issue the DEP number. I just want to be a hundred percent forward on, on everything. So that's the other item that we probably should make note of. Thank you. Yeah. We, yeah, we see that. No worries. They'll, they'll issue that. Hopefully we have it by next time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, all right. So we've got, so work with Linda, a new planting plan, adding two more trees. Um, we'll get a motion here in a second to continue. And hopefully we've got the peer review done by then. And then we're, we're moving forward by next time. Sound good.
Okay. With that, can I please get a motion under both, uh, Wetlands Protection Act and 194, uh, for continuance sometime after 630 on July 29th, please. I move that we continue to July 29th sometime after 630 under both the Wetlands Protection Act and our bylaw. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Barbara Howell. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. John Storr. Yes. Sean Fares, a yes. All set. See you in a few weeks. Thanks, Steve. I have one just quick. I'm going to be on vacation during that, but I, I still will call in, but I was just wondering if it, if it's possible to put me like first on the agenda. If not, that's okay. Yeah. I mean, we'll be at 630. We can try our best. You'll have to be at 630, but yeah, we can try to do our best. Yep. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome.
We're on to 5A, Certificate of Compliance for 5As, 5 Lundy Lane, DEP File Number 322-1009. Linda. I believe we have somebody, is it Susan MacArthur, who just threw the, threw this screen share up. Okay.
Yeah. Can you hear me? I can. Okay. Thank you. My name is Susan MacArthur from MacArthur Environmental Consulting. Also on line tonight is Rick Gilbody. He's the homeowner applicant for 5 Lundy Lane, and we have filed this request for Certificate of Compliance to fully close out the project at the property under the order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission on July 24th of 2023. And the work consisted of the construction of an addition at the rear of the existing house a wraparound porch around the front and sides of the house, a screened-in porch at the rear of the house, installation of a subsurface infiltration system and septic tanks under the driveway, a drywall on the west side of the house, a raised leaching field enclosed with a retaining wall and fencing at the rear of the house, as you can see up here, the construction of a bioretention rain garden, which is up toward the road, and that's on the northwest portion of the yard, and the relocation of a shed to an area outside of jurisdiction up in the back there. And some of this work is within the 200-foot riverfront area, well, most of it is, and the 100-foot buffer zone, to a bordering vegetated wetland. So the bioretention area plants are healthy. They exhibit new growth. The area is comprised of approximately 29 native shrubs and herbaceous plants. The ground cover is mulch, and it's pretty much free of weeds, and the driveway is slightly pitched toward the east, which is this side here, meeting the grade requirements of the approved site plan. I know that Linda has gone out to the site. Her concern was that water flows down the driveway. Yes, some water does get into Lundy Lane. It does make its way into the roadway, but I just want to make it clear that there are no catch basins in the road at all, and it is bermed up on the other side of the pavement. And it's kind of bermed up, so there is no way that any driveway runoff is getting into this wetland on the other side of the roadway. So, you know, the site has been designed to capture as much runoff as possible. And with that, I think that that's it. Do you have any questions? Thanks, Susan. You're welcome. Linda, start with you, please. So we've heard this before, the request for COC, and there were concerns about, again, the way the stormwater management is functioning or not functioning. And we continued this discussion until there was a chance to go out and look at the site during a precipitation event. Obviously, those have been far and few over the last few months. And there was one time I did go out there during a rainstorm, and I did see exactly what Susan said, which is the very little water actually ends up on the side where this supposedly trench drain was put in. There is there's very little pitching of the water. It does. It does enter into the Lundy Lane. Also noted that the rain garden at the other end doesn't seem to drain. I think maybe groundwater levels are too high, but it does get completely filled up with water. And so what happens is that there's a lot of that water doesn't necessarily exit to the street, but it exits to the abutting yard. And so that whole area in the front of this five Lundy and the abutter on the other side, there's a lot of standing water there. And again, then it eventually just overflows into the street also. So there's things that just aren't working well on this site. Again, it was challenging. The groundwater levels are really high, which is why there's this massively raised leach field. And also the reason why the leach field is so large because of the poor soils on the site. And so this, you know, it just makes it hard for a stormwater system to really function properly here, especially everything that was every, you know, the stuff that was placed in the front is, is, is, I mean, I can't, I can't make any, you know, observations on that in the subsurface stuff. I mean, that's, you know, that's, I'm just looking at more surface stuff. Okay. Linda. Oh, I'm sorry. I just wanted to make note that, so the, the bioretention area up front where my cursor is, that is a depressional area. And, you know, I mean, it was meant to hold water and, but, you know, hold it, but then drain it. And keep in mind that there is this wetland, you know, this area was flagged, right? Adjacent, you know, and it does go on to the other property. So, so yeah, they, they get water over there, but this is, you know. Can I just say one thing, just before, I appreciate that. So I'm a homeowner. I've lived at this property for 10 years. Um, and we built this house in 2024. I think I understand what you're saying. And believe me, uh, I've lived here long enough to observe some of the water issues that come with the property. Um, but I think based on the plan we put together that was approved by this commission and the amount of, I think, um, the capture that we have from the systems that were put in. And, uh, we are absolutely doing as much as we can to catch as much water on this property. There's nowhere to put it. And naturally we are at the lowest point in the entire neighborhood. And we've absolutely made very significant improvements to the capture of runoff into the street, um, than what was here before. Cause I lived in the home before. Um, so although yes, when we have a significant, um, season, when there's a, when there's a lot of snow and melt for that rain garden, yes, it will, you know, have some water in it, but it will eventually absorb into the mixtures of soil and sand that was asked for as a part of a special request for, to put this rain garden in. I mean, the rain garden alone costs $25,000 to put in, but wasn't initially in our plans. And we appreciate that we had to do it. And I believe strongly that we did it in the correct way to catch as much water as possible on the property. And even further, you know, to the driveway point, I totally understand what you're saying, Linda, based on the fact that that property line runs, you can kind of see it, you know, we can, we are discharging a portion of that water to that area, right? That trench here where there was trap rock and there was a drain. There's a, basically a lot of trap rock underneath that area, but capturing, you know, all of that is just not possible. We're going to flood our neighbor's property, right? Cause you can't put the water anywhere. So I'm just trying to make an appeal to the commission that, that we are doing everything in our power based on the limitations of this lot to capture as much as we can. So that's, that's all I wanted to say here in terms of, you know, cause I was involved in the construction. Linda, you were here while this was going on. We, we, we have done as much as we can with the limitations of this lot as possible to get this, um, to capture as much as we can.
Gotcha. Thank you, Linda, thoughts, start with you. Oh, I think this is just a situation where, you know, the, the design was, you know, it was approved that we went through peer review. We looked at it and, you know, but again, I don't think it necessarily implemented in the way it should have when, when, when it was built. I mean, obviously the, it, it doesn't look at the driveway. I have videos of the driveway. It's definitely not pitched towards this, this swale at all. You know, there's, there's, there's, there's, you can see there's actually a stream right in the middle of the driveway where most of the water tends to just exit the street. And again, you know, that is one of our, you know, one of our reasons for having a stormwater bylaw is to manage your own stormwater and not to send it, you know, to a municipal system, the municipal street or to somebody else's yard and things like that. And again, yeah, there are challenges, I get it. There's some serious challenges on this site, but you know, you, you know, the, the design has to be implemented in the field. And when it's not, that's when you see the issues that we're seeing here. Yeah, but I'm saying that in the field, it was implemented in the way it should have been, but again, you can't discharge, but like, let's take the driveway, for example. You know, discharging that level of water from our driveway is going to flood into the neighbor's property based on how close that is to their, the property. I mean, you can see it here on the site plan. So what I'm saying is sometimes a design before implementation is one thing. When you get into the field, you have to appreciate that they have to do the best they can with what they're given and try to design it so that they're not throwing all this water into my neighbor's property. And, and that's just the reality of the construction of the, of the home and the site plan. So I definitely hear you, Linda, I just think that there's, there's very little we can do here to, to remediate the limitations of what, not only the property, but also the road, you know, like we just had a situation like two hours ago. I don't know if you've heard of this yet, but like 15 feet behind me, there was a massive water main break on Lundy and they're digging it out right now. Like there was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of gallons of water that were discharged from Lundy Lane into the brook. Like I watched it happening. Like there is no catch basis. There is no way to move water off of this neighborhood. So like, I, I'm just trying to make sure that everybody here, um, for someone who's lived here prior to the construction, during it and after that, and observing it, that we've done, I think absolutely the maximum to achieve the most capture of water on this property as possible. And not to mention that we have, you know, sign off from, you know, the building department and board of health as well. Um, this is the last component of this. And I, and I feel strongly about this, but your ASBIL doesn't show at all where, you know, the call text underneath the driveway. Um, I, you know, there's, there's very little information on your, on your, on your plan that you submitted. Um, you know, how, again, was it the intent that that was going to pick up just roof water or is that also picking up? That was based on what this commission said. It couldn't pick up anything except roof water. Okay. Well, I mean, again, that's not shown on the ASBILT. So, right. But that's, but that was anything for the two systems. We don't know how it was designed, but we don't know how the ASBILT doesn't show at all what, what's getting picked up. Okay. There's, I mean, again, I remember when you were out here citing this, when it was happening. So it's, and look, you have a lot going on and believe me, I appreciate the fact that there's a lot happening, but like this was during the construction process. You were very involved in terms of being out here and citing what we were doing. So like that, the amount of tanks underneath our driveway and then the ones obviously to the opposite side of the property, I believe are capturing every ounce of water hitting our, hitting the roof of our home and capturing it into a gutter system. That is also protected by, um, like the, you know, the leaf guards and everything since we're in a heavily wooded area. Um, but to me, like, again, this is all through observation of what I'm seeing and what I'm observing living here for two years. Um, but again, like, like you said, you pointed out acutely that, um, as you get closer to the road, the groundwater is, is, is starts to become a problem. And I appreciate that, but the team who built this, like was directly in, in contact with you to put these subsurface filtration, these filtration systems in place to ensure that they were capturing all this water. And I've had no issues with that, the, you know, the, the runoff to this point on the house. No, I'm, I'm just pointing out a technicality, which is your SBIL really doesn't show where that water is coming, that what water is getting captured and going into the subsurface chambers. Because typically they show drain pipes, they show, you know, um, you know, downspouts, things like that. So we're just going on the, on the, you know, on the fact that we have to believe that you put it in the way it was, the way it was supposed to be designed. I would invite anybody on this commission. I'll walk, I'll walk anybody around this property who wants to make it out here. Um, like, again, I'm, I am. That's not the point though. The point is that, you know, we need to have that documented. Okay. You know, and you're, you're asked to sell the house tomorrow and you're gone. We, this is a documentation that we need to really make sure on the house is that Linda, if he updates the, the as built to, to reflect whatever you want to reflect, is there anything else technically that is a, as an issue for you, the as built? No, no, like I said, I just, I, you know, I don't, I don't think the driveway is ever pitched in the way it was supposed to. So, and, uh, there's a lot of water, it's, it's a large driveway that comes out, you know, that's, that's getting managed in this, you know, for this, uh, property. So. But be, so yeah, but if we have an updated as built, it's just one of those, we have a monitor is what you're saying? No, no. So you're good if we have an updated as built? Well, yeah, I guess at this point, you know, um, we need to close this project. So, and we'll just put, you know, um, I'll document that in the, in the COC. Okay. Okay. Commission thoughts, comments, concerns. Well, we can basically close, um, the COC, have him, make sure he gives Linda the updated as built and go from there. Anybody have any thoughts, comments, concerns on that?
Okay. Oh, good. All right. Question then, uh, for a certificate of compliance, please, for 17 Hazelbrook Lane. No, 5 Lundy. Sorry, 5 Lundy, excuse me, 5 Lundy with conditions that we talked about. Do we need to close it first or does that come after? That's neither. That's only for open meeting. This is a certificate of compliance. I just need a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 5 Lundy Lane. I move we issue a certificate of compliance for 5 Lundy Lane. And is that conditional on the submission of the? Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. That he updates the as built with Linda. Okay. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Shan, do I hear a second? Yeah, second. Thank you. Cliff, quick roll call. Barbara Howell? Um, yes. Oh, uh, Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storer? Yes. And Sean, if there's a yes. All set. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, all. Have a good one. Bye. Thank you. Uh, all right. On to 5B, certificate of compliance still for 17 Hazelbrook Lane, DEP. No, School Street. This is 5, we're not doing Hazelbrook? I thought 5, 3B was School Street. It's Hazelbrook. Hazelbrook. Oh, sorry. 5B is Hazelbrook. Yep. 5B is Hazelbrook. So, 17 Hazelbrook Lane, DEP, file number 322-1036. Go ahead, Linda. No, my agenda is old, I guess. It must be a previous version. So, 17 Hazelbrook, what you got? All right. Good evening. Thanks for your time this evening. I am Joe Wood, one of the architectural designers for the property owner, Connor Davis. And we have Dave Burke, who was the wetland specialist on that here as well. I'm happy to share the plan as we discuss the certificate of compliance. I know we had our order of conditions issued October 24. And now that we've kind of wrapped up the construction of the barn and the greenhouse and the temporary disruption to the access road, essentially, we're just looking to close this out. And if there's any questions, we're happy to talk through anything. So, if I may, Joe, or Mr. Chair, this is Dave Burke speaking. This project was carefully planned to the extent that there was no substantial permanent construction within any resource area. And that includes riverfront and your bylaw, upland resource area, buffer zone, et cetera. What the bulk of it was, was getting that running an extensive trench out to the rear barn for utilities. And that's largely a limited project. But under your bylaw, et cetera, we figured we probably should best off filing a notice of intent, which is what we did. So, the result being, and you should have a letter from Mr. Gemma stating that things are within compliance and et cetera. And stormwater has been installed and you've got an OEM plan for that. And the big one, I think, would be that the site is 100% stabilized within jurisdictional areas and outside of jurisdictional areas. Connor and his wife took careful pains to make sure that the property was seeded immediately after it was raked out and the road was dressed off. And they have, so that was done five or six weeks ago. And the grass has come out very nicely. It's been cut at least once that I know of. It is a native mix as far as I know. And it looks good. There's no threat of erosion at this time. So, happy to entertain questions if there are any. I do know one open-ended item is to have Linda or a board member come out and walk the site, which I think is just a scheduling component at this point. Is there a roadway or driveway out to the barn? There was an existing cart path that was essentially used for light travel back into this back of the property. And in conversations, the property owner Connor and Linda had conversations about using a permeable stone that's curbed so that we can contain it and just help lessen the impact on trees that we're driving. That's what's showing in the shaded area there? Correct. Yeah. That was pre-existing, right? But you added the permeable? Correct. You can kind of see lingering parts that aren't going to get to P-stone that really do get to the edge of the property. But that sort of main pathway from the house over a bridge to this back property is now P-stone. Was that previously paved or was it just dirt? It was just dirt. It was like a two-track truck passage. We'll try to pick up out there or something.
Okay. Thank you. Linda, any thoughts? Any thoughts, comments, concerns? No. Again, I haven't been out there. I wasn't sure if there was any commission members that were interested in joining or heading out there to take a look at it. So I didn't want to schedule anything until we had met here. But I can do it. I mean, we can close this contingent on a site visit. And I've been out there before for, what was it, erosion control, maybe something else. They had some changes to the plan. And I think I met them out there. So I don't have any concerns with the buildings because those are all outside the wetland buffer. So the utilities, excuse me, Linda, the utilities followed the contract out there too, right? I didn't mean that. Yeah, yeah. They were in the pre-existing road and now they're under the existing trail, path, road, whatever you want to call it. Just for the record, I hadn't mentioned that. But the only thing, there's some information lacking in the O&M plan. There's only like discussion of forest pavement in here. There's really very little discussion about what type of system you guys, what type of subsurface system you guys put in. So the first page of that operations plan should be just for the stormwater management. Kind of showing what we're looking for when there's a heavy storm, the sort of no touch zones as far as what was in the order of conditions for lawn clippings and hazardous materials down those underground downspouts. You can't identify at all what you guys put in though. Like what is it that you're doing an O&M plan on? Is it, you know? So underground we have on the proposed plans that shows these four concrete, four footy alleys.
I think that's nice to have in an O&M plan and then some inspection templates too. So that's my only thing. I would beef this up a little bit. And I mean, Connor probably knows what he's doing with this. But again, we'd like to have this sort of a long-term thing just to, so, you know, anybody who moves in or, you know, takes over this property understands what's in there. So if you could just add, even just, you know, you could even throw that detail in there, you know, of the leech, of the leech galleys and then an inspection template, I think would be, would make it a more complete O&M plan. I can certainly add this page so they have the background of what. So in that maintenance plan too, it's just, you know, inspecting that annually or after a big, a big rain event. So adding that, adding that sheet for reference for what they're looking at, certainly. Do you need, excuse me, Joe, do you need the language in there, Linda, in perpetuity? Is that something you guys require? Oh, well, that, that I will include on the COC, all the different conditions in perpetuity. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Yes, I suppose so. As long as we're not wanting for that term, as we were in Wellesley, for the sign-off on the, on the storm water management plan. Yeah. I mean, like I said, most, you know, a lot of these plans show, identify the, you know, who, who's responsible, things like that. You know, we're, this is, this is done, this is a more truncated sort of O&M plan that I've seen. But like I said, I just, I'd like to see at least a detail. I'd like to see an inspection template so they understand when, how, you know, how to submit the information to the commission.
Okay. Commission, anything else on our end? No. Thoughts, comments, concerns? No. Okay. So, it looks like we're going to approve the COC condition upon a site visit, sounds like. And if we're all good with that, can I get a motion to that effect, please? Yep. So moved. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. I think that was Lisa. Roll call, please. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storer? Yes. And Sean Fairza? Yes. All set. So is anybody interested in doing a site visit? Yeah, Linda, let me know potential days, times, and I can join you. Okay. I can be available also.
Perfect. This is the homeowner, Connor. Linda, would you be able to provide us notification of? Oh, of course. I'll give you, I mean, I'll give you a list of dates or potential dates or something. Sure. And I'd be happy to show you around some of the improvements we've made. Awesome. All set, folks. Well, appreciate it. Thanks. As always. Thanks for your time. You got it. Thanks, David. You're welcome. Thank you. Moving on to Certificate of Compliance 5C. This is School Street Gas Main Replacement D-1050. Linda. Oh, I told BST Group we didn't need a representative here. This is, we've been doing this, I think, multiple times in the last few years, putting in gas lines in certain areas. It's just a real quick, dig a small trench, replace the gas line, fill it up on this, or cover the trench on the same day. So, I don't know, anybody who's probably driven on School Street can probably see the evidence of what they've done. And so, this is a really straightforward, you know, COC request. So, and that's just under the bylaw, too. Okay. Anybody else have any thoughts on that? We good? Okay. Can I get a motion, please, for the Certificate of Compliance for School Street Gas Main Replacement? I move, we issue a COC for the School Street Gas Main Replacement. Thank you, Shannon. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Cliff, roll call, please. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Alvin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storer? Yes. And Sean Fares, yes. Thank you, folks. On to public comment. Double check, I don't see any answers. We're fans, we're attendees. Man, we're flying soldiers. That's rare. We usually have a little audience. I like this. I want to chime in about the tree.
Yeah, we have a public comment. Tree preservation. Linda, you said you'd be available next week for that? Yeah. It's been a crazy week with the settlement discussions and everything this week. No, I understand. But next week, are you okay? Yeah, that's fine. On Monday? Yeah, Monday works. Okay.
I can do Monday as well. I'm pretty open that day. Yeah, I can do Monday too. Great. Why don't you guys pick a time? And then we'll... Anytime in the morning is fine with me. Okay. 10 o'clock?
11 o'clock would be better. Okay. 11 o'clock is good. And we meet in town building? Sure. In town building, yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're all gone. Thank you all for doing that.
June 17th. Babs, how are the minutes there? Are we good to go? Yes, I gave a minor correction. I like minor. Well done. Anybody have any other thoughts on the June 17th minutes other than Barbara's minor corrections? I might have added a few minor ones too.
Okay. If we have no objections, can I get a motion to approve the minutes of June 17th, 2026 with both Barbara and Linda's minor corrections, please? Yep. So moved. Second. Thank you both. Do I hear a second? Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Obman? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. John Storr? Yes. Sean Fair? Yes. Thank you, folks. All right. That's all we got on this. Officially, John. Sorry. You didn't come light, but welcome. Glad to have you. Thank you. I'll have Linda publicly or whatever, but I'll get your cell phone. We can touch base and offline or whatever, but glad to have you on board. Thank you. Welcome. Sean, can I pass yours along, too, to John? No. Absolutely not. Yes.
Either that or I'm going to post it publicly, so there. Go for it.
All right. So I think that's all we've got on this end. Anybody else getting before we do it unusually and, John, don't get used to this 815 nonsense. This is a very early time for us. Savor the flavor.
I'm going to make a quick motion then to adjourn for tonight. Yep. Move to adjourn. Thank you, Cliff. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Sharon. Roll call, please. Barbara Howell? Yes. Lisa Obman? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yep. John Storer? Yes. And Sean Fairz. Yes. We are adjourned. We are adjourned.