June 17, 2026 – Conservation Commission – Video & Transcript

June 17, 2026 - Conservation Commission

Autoscroll:

All right. Well, seeing that we're all here, we've got a quorum. I'd like to begin the Conservation Commission meeting for Wednesday, June 17th. Location for in-person meeting is wheelchair accessible. If you need other accommodations in order to participate in the meeting, please contact Wayland 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 outside contractors who may not be available if requested immediately before the meeting. This meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, will be available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting, the public excluded from executive sessions. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote access in accordance with applicable law, and this meeting has only remote access. No in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch, may participate remotely with a meeting link that can be found at the following link. And when required by law or allowed by myself, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so with remote access, and public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. With that said, I've got Cliff Lewis, Barbara Howell, Lisa Aubin, Shannon Fischer, and myself all dialing in remotely. And Linda, are you at the office? I am. Yes, I'm at the office. She's at headquarters. Beautiful. With that, for those on the line, we have to kind of go to executive session. We'll be back as soon as we can here. Let me open up to 2A, the executive session. I've been pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as a matter of Cascade Development, LLC, Massachusetts Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution. Docket, WET 2024-0020, DEP file number 322-1000. If I determine that the discussion in open session will have a detrimental effect to the town's litigating position, which I do. We'll also be going into review, Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A7 to review and approve executive session minutes from May 27, 2026. So, could I get a motion from somebody to bring us into executive session, please? I move we go into the executive session. Second. Perfect. It's as easy as that, Shannon. Thank you, Shannon. Thank you, Luke, for the second. We'll get a quick roll call. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. And Sean Fair is a yes as well. All right, folks, we'll sign out of this one. We'll be back here in a little bit. See you in the other folks.
Okay.
Barbara, Luke, Shannon, Cliff, Lisa, waiting for Linda. I'm here. All set? Are we all back? Perfect. Hang on. I'm going to text Emily, too. I'm sorry, say again? I said I need to text Emily. Oh, she's still in there? Oh, no, she never joined. Oh, yeah, she was in there.
All right. Thank you, folks, for your patience. Thank you, Luke, for joining us here. All right. On to public hearings. This is 4A, 67A Local Street, Wayland, DEP, file number 322-1056. The 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 Local 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 wetland in a 200-foot riverfront area. Linda? Do we have somebody here for that?
Anybody? Yes, I'm here. This is Brandon Ducharme with David E. Ross. Okay, because we didn't receive any new information, so that's why I wasn't sure what we were discussing. Yeah, so basically, we just kind of wanted to provide an update since we have been continuing for quite a while. At the last meeting that we had with you folks, we continued for what I recall to be two things. One was to have the drainage design reviewed, which was going to be done in part with the planning board through that process. And at that time, we had not yet filed for site plan approval. And the other thing that was mentioned was having the curb cut filed for and approved for the new driveway entrance on Hobbs Road. So we've met with the planning board twice now. The planning board had hired Dillis and Roy to review both the site plan application as well as the drainage report. I believe you folks were copied on that letter. I know it was addressed in part to you. But we've had a chance to go through their comments. We pulled together a revised plan set as well as provided some additional information pertaining to the design of the drainage system. And at this point, we're just waiting to hear back from the review consultant that we did indeed address all of their concerns. Matt and I also met with the DPW on site this morning. We were looking at a couple of things. We were looking at both the new curb cut along Hobbs Road, as well as during our discussions with the planning board, there was some concern for the site distance for the secondary access, which is along Alden Street. And essentially what we're proposing is to maintain the existing curb cut. But in order to improve those site lines, we've requested removal of two trees that would be in the town right of way. So I believe Matt today emailed the DPW director to go ahead and get on his radar and schedule the public tree hearing for that. And that's going to be afterwards that we anticipate a planning board decision on July 16th with the contingency that we, you know, meet the DPW requirement.
So we'd like to see if there is any additional information that your board needs to go forward and go through the entire process to get a sign off from the conservation commission here. Sure. Because I think we're pretty close to having a final set of plans. And obviously we need to submit those updated documents to you to give you guys ample time to review that. But we also, because it has been a little while, we just want to make sure to see if there was any other outstanding issues from where we left off besides the drainage and the DPW. Thanks. So Linda, I'd start that question with you first. Well, I have to admit, I wasn't sure. I didn't realize you guys were going to be on today. I didn't really prep for this hearing and take a look at all the historical information you submitted. But I think we did talk about the riverfront analysis, just making sure that, you know, that you're allowed 10% alteration or 5,000 square feet of the riverfront area on your property. And I think, I think I had some concerns about that because you were putting in a parking lot in the back, but I believe you reduced that from the original application. So I, again, I just need to take a look at that. I haven't, I haven't, I haven't really gotten up to speed with that. Again, I didn't realize, I didn't, I wasn't sure you guys were coming tonight because we, other than the stormwater review, I hadn't, I hadn't seen anything new from you. So, okay, of course, no, that's understandable. But if there's nothing else from the commission members, even if you, if you do have a chance to kind of take a look at that, maybe you can just reach out to us if there's an item that we're leaving out that was previously discussed at the meeting. I did also have a question if it would be appropriate to start your process to obtain a, I'm going to call it a tree permit or a tree exchange permit for cutting trees and then replanting trees. I don't know how long of a process that may be, but if I could get some advice in that direction, if we could start that process, or if you feel as though it's too premature or what your thoughts would be, Linda. Well, that would be part of the permit that we issue would be, you know, you would tell us how many trees you're taking down, the size of the trees, you know, the location of them is important. If they're within the riverfront, if they're outside of the riverfront, that sort of thing, there's, there's two different processes for replacement and compensation, depending on where those, you know, depending on location. So that, that's usually written within the permit. We approve, well, we would approve your planting plan that would compensate for what you're taking down. So, you know, if you, if you're, if the planting plan is based on the compensation requirements, then, you know, usually we're fine with that, but, you know, we need to have, we need to have that in our permit, the planting plan and, and have it approved as part of one of the, the plan sets, you know, the, that's, that's enlisted, you know, as approved plans on the, on the permit. Okay. So is there a, like, could I come down and get, is there like a paper permit application that I fill out or. No, it's, it's part of what you already have applied for. You know, that as part of this whole, you know, this, this, the, the construction of the, you know, of this, of this new building or this building you're planning on doing this, that, and the other thing. And if one of them is tree removal, that would be one of the scope items that's in your application and that will be approved in our permit. Okay. All right. It's not a separate, it's not a separate application. I didn't, yeah, I didn't, um, I guess understand that. So essentially we've already applied for it. Mm-hmm. I see. Okay. All right. Thank you. I would in the, you know, to help you with timing between now and the time you come, come to us, definitely speak with Linda, show her the planting plan. And so that, that, that can help save you some time too, is that are coming to us for ideas. If you have time, run it by her and make sure she's okay with it, that that could save you some time too, you know, run, doing both simultaneously. So would I bring a copy of the, the, uh, paper print that we've submitted to the office? Um, I don't have that already. I mean, I have that already. If that's, if that's the most recent version, so.
Yeah. Go and talk, go and talk, look at her plan and make sure she, we have the right, the right amount of trees and the right, right kind. And if I already have it electronically, that's fine because I would probably share it with some commission members to get their input also. So, you know, uh, uh, uh, a meeting might not be that efficient. I'd much rather have the information electronically that I can distribute. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. What we can do, Matt, is we'll just get an updated plan just because the only additional trees that we've added since the original submittal were these, the ones within the right of way as part of it, we talked over the DPW. They have a whole separate, uh, process. Yeah. Um, so those are part of that process, you know, street trees are, are exempt from our process. Okay. But if, I mean, if you have, if you change the, the size of the parking lot, does that mean you're saving some trees or is that, that, I mean, again, I'm not, I'm not, I have, I'm not really up to speed on that. So that, that kind of information would be important. So, all right. All right. So I think we'll, Brandon, we'll mark those two trees we talked about today and submit them that submitted, uh, way. And then also a replacement plant for that. And then is it, it, is it okay if we mark a tree to be removed and then ultimately in the end, uh, we do not have to remove it? Is that okay? We prefer that direction than the other direction that taking down than what you had planned on it. Like reapply and start the process all over again or anything of that nature. No, no. I mean, to us, that's the less alteration and that doesn't, that doesn't work anymore. Or, you know, an amendment or anything else. Okay. You can just memorialize that in the certificate of compliance when you apply for it. Okay. I just wanted to be clear. We didn't have to kind of go back and forth, like I said, because I believe my understanding is that we're going to get a big decision from the planning board, um, with some contingencies of one of which is the, uh, DPW process. Then I suspect, um, uh, conservation's process will be, uh, noted, uh, as well. Yep. Okay. Okay. Excellent. Um, and so Linda, when's our next meeting? Uh, when are we meeting again? Oh no, July. Oh, what is it? Is it 8th? July the 8th. July the 8th.
Um, presumably that's, that's enough time. Do you want to continue to the July the 8th then? Yeah. I don't, I don't know if we're going to have the planning board decision. Uh, I think they're giving us their decision. We gave an extension to the 16th. Um, the one after that then? Well, I mean, unless you feel as though that the updated information suffices a decision from your board. Um, I guess, Matt, what I, what I'd recommend is obviously you guys would need the, the updated revised plan of materials, uh, a week prior to the 8th? Yes. Correct. Okay. So as long as we can get that done and, and allow them time to look at it, then we could, we could meet. Okay. And so when, are you responding to the peer review or have you done that? We, we, we responded on, um, June 10th at the, just prior to the last meeting. So, so really what I'm just waiting to hear back from the review engineer is that, you know, signing off saying that we've satisfied with our responses. So that's what we're going to need for the stormwater. So.
Okay. All right. So we're looking for continuance. Shan, you want to make the motion for continuance?
Nope. You're on mute. Sorry. I move that we continue until what was the date? July 8th. July 8th.
After 630? After 630. Under both. Both Protection Act and Chapter 194. Under both. Yes. Under both. Under the Wetlands Protection Act and Chapter 194. I'll have to get a hang of this. Okay. Good. Take, take some notes here. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Luke. I think I said I heard a second. Uh, roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell?
Uh, Barbara, you're on mute there, kiddo.
There we go. Now, can you hear? Yes. Got a yes, Barbara, on your end? For continuance. Yes. For continuance. Thank you. Uh, Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yes. And Sean Fares, a yes as well. All set. See you in a couple weeks. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, on to, let's see, 4B, 68 Lakeshore Drive, Wayland, DEP file number 322-1057. It's 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 performed at 68 Lakeshore Drive on Wayland, Mass, including installation of a floating dock, gangway, ramp, retaining wall, patio, and repairs to the covered porch steps. Property is shown in the assessor's map 42D, parcel 56, and is located within 100 feet of a boarding vegetated well and bank and land under water. Linda. Um, I thought I saw, was Kevin O'Leary here for that? There you are. Yes, I'm here. Hey, Kevin. All right. And again, do you think we received any new information for this? I don't, we don't have anything in our agenda packet, so. No, I don't think any new information was submitted, but I do have a couple things to update the commission on, um, my office prepared a small plan that shows the, um, the 15-foot setback from the BVW and, um, a proposal, you know, if the patio was cut back, what, what the shape and configuration would be. Um, I did not submit it. It didn't get finished till late last week or early this week. Um, but I can share it with the commission and, um, also I think just an update from the, uh, applicant and property owner, Jeremy, who's, um, retained counsel relative to the Mona Path title issue and hence ownership of it. Um, and he can speak on that. I can also add to it relative to the process, but it's in the early stages. It's, it's not a, uh, a quick, easy process to, um, go through all the old, uh, whatever, the chain of title, the docs, uh, subdivision plans back in the early 1900s. So, um, however, the commission wants to handle it, I'd be pleased to share screen and try to update if possible. Sure. Sure. Please.
Can the commissioner see the GIS plan I just put up? Yes. Yep. Yeah. That's just a general locus on Dudley Pond. It's on the North side, Lakeshore Drive. And then, um, uh, I forget the name of those Pine Ridge Road comes down to the intersection existing house. This is the Mona Path, uh, layout or from the subdivision plans. And, um, Jeremy Jacobs owns, uh, I'm sorry, Jenkins owns 68, uh, Lakeshore on this parcel and also owns this adjacent parcel. And he has ownership rights to this Mona Path, which is what I just tried to describe. So I'll shift and, uh, close out, go to another one.
This is the, uh, notice of intent plan. Can the commission members see it? Yes. Yep. Okay. Site plan, retaining wall, buffer zone down here, Pond, floating dock. Um, actually there are a few components to this wetland filing, which was made in, um, I think it was December 22nd, 2025. And we've had a couple, uh, public hearings that have been on continuance. Um, the proposals are, uh, existing patio. We'd like to keep it in place. Um, the commission has some concerns about it, um, driveway renovation work in this area to a stormwater system with a catch basin. And then this other driveway renovation work that was part of the enforcement order that was issued, uh, the driveway work up here, uh, was undertaken some of the work and a portion of the work was created by, I think DPW that did a waterline replacement. They had to get through or break through the existing pavement. And then there's also a front step, uh, into the house renovation work all within the buffer zone. Here's the buffer zone way out here. So the entire property is within the buffer zone. Um, and, uh, also a dock down here. It's, it's an existing dock or it was a dock that was existing a year ago. I don't think it's gone back in the water, but these are the dock and the patio are the issues that, um, the commission issued the enforcement order on and in addition to the work in this area in the buffer zone, that was all unpermitted and we filed an after the fact, um, notice of intent with this site plan. Um, I'm trying to think, uh, the other plan they have is, um, the, um, the existing patio with, um, here's the 15 foot offset to the BBW. And then there's a 16 foot offset. If this wall and this location were to be moved back existing, uh, large Oak tree, red Oak tree. This is what we had proposed on the site plan with a, um, a grate to provide air and oxygen to the, uh, root ball around the Oak tree. So this is what's, um, this has not been submitted. I apologize. This has not been submitted to the commission. It was just created, uh, earlier this week. Um, and I think, I thought I could just, uh, discuss it with the commission that this is the direction. Cause this is, uh, something that Jeremy and I discussed a couple of weeks ago. He wanted to see what the configuration of the patio was, if he, um, complied and moved the wall or, you know, deconstructed the portion of it, pushed it back and reconstructed it. So I think that's the direction we're going in, uh, to ask the commission if they would, um, approve what's currently before them. Um, and we can formalize it with, uh, you know, a finalized plan with this patio removed or this portion of the patio removed. Jeremy, is that your understanding or is that consistent? My understanding is the, the distance from the patio to the wetland delineated markings was not to code. So we're proposing to move the patio back.
Yep.
So I'm sure you're asking, Kevin, you're saying, Hey, here's what's coming information. We're going to give you all to look through. Is this patio being moved back? It's kind of just giving us a heads up. What you're saying? Um, yeah, in a general sense, yes, because if the commission, you know, if we see all whatever, seven thumbs down and, you know, we would not waste our time or money, um, putting a detailed plan on the table. I'm not sure it's going to contain much more detail than what I provided here, other than maybe the, the stone apron around the base of it. That's why I put it 16 feet back to leave enough room for a one foot stone trench in the front of it. It's all, um, existing lawn or vegetation in this area. Um, there's no tree work involved. Um, this is, this was, or is an existing, uh, filter mitt in this location. So, uh, we can finalize it and put it on the, uh, submitted plan that shows all the other features and request the commission to, uh, review, uh, and ultimately approve it. If the, um, if we get the direction we need to proceed with that, we just don't want to waste time or money on doing something that's a non-starter.
Got it. Sorry. Okay. Uh, Linda, I'll start with you then. Will you start with your comment first? Well, are you still putting in a retaining wall in front of the tree then? Yes.
Okay. I don't know how that's going to work, but, um.
What, what's the concern, Linda? Well, I mean, you know, uh, you're going to just impact the root zone of, you know, of that tree, if you're going to dig in a retaining wall, you know, that close to the trunk. So, um, and it's just, you know, the tree is smack dab in the middle of your patio. So. Yeah. I think, I think with that pretty well, it's pretty well pulled away from the tree trunk. Okay. Okay. And I guess you'll have to, until you find out the results of, you know, um, the title attorney's work, um, because right now you do have the patio in Monopath. So, um, you know, that, that that's going to have to make that decision will have to be made, I guess, at some point too. So.
Yeah. It's an interesting case. It's a really complicated, uh, the, the town surveyor Tom Lashmitt thinks maybe somebody from 1940 may have the title on all paths in this neighborhood, but that woman has no descendants. So it gets rather complicated. It's a, it's a mess. Yeah. Um, uh, yeah, we can only go for what's written on your deed, you know, and the, and so, I mean, when, when you apply to us, you have to see, you have to look at it from our side is that, you know, 60, you know, Lakeshore is this and that, you know, not, not the thing in between. And so it's hard for us to give you a permit to do something on property that is not on your deed, you know? So. Yeah. Well, you could, you could give a permit subject to.
Subject to what? Subject to, uh, ownership of Mona path. If he doesn't own it or it doesn't have rights to it, then he can't do the project or this portion of the project.
Hmm. And I don't think there's much opposition to his future claim against ownership across Mona path. In other words, like Jeremy tried to explain or did explain is that it goes back to possibly back to heirs and success in successors that don't exist. It don't, they're not around anymore. They're from a hundred years ago, which we will solve in possibly land court, but right. I mean, right now it's just speculation. So that just puts us in a bad position. So it's grounded speculation though, because there's other cases around the lake that have done this and succeeded. I mean, it's roughly the same dimensions as the covered deck, which has been there for over a hundred years.
No, I don't really. I mean, we have a permit for that, Jeremy. Yeah. They rebuild it. They rebuild it to the same dimensions. I mean, there would be no entrance to the kitchen without that deck. So I think it's original, at least in dimensions, but they did rebuild it again, but the, you know, the plan we got showed that it was, was on your property, you know, it wasn't, the plan wasn't accurate. So that's why it was. Well, can I just jump in? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Jenkins, you're having an attorney look at this, right? I mean, we're, we're figuring this out. So I, I mean, I don't mean to cut this part of the conversation short, but I think we've, it seems like we're going over the ground we've covered and we've got hopefully some more information coming on this. So it seems a little fruitless to spend too much time going back and forth on that particular piece. It seems like the question tonight is really more with respect to that one section of the patio area. And basically, as I heard it thumbs up, thumbs down, are we generally comfortable with what's shown on this plan or is this something we would never approve? So when we do get that title work done, you know, hopefully the applicant can keep moving this other piece of it forward in the meantime.
Yeah. How are we going to approve of building on Mona Path? These paths were supposed to be for the people who didn't have Lakeshore, who didn't have the pond property. They lived in the other side of the street. It was for those people so they could have access to the pond. If they had a canoe, they could carry it down Mona Path or they could walk with their kids down Mona Path to get to the pool. There are a lot of these little ones and they were put in so the people on the far side of the street could have access to the pond and they didn't belong to, they were public.
Well, to Luke's point, I think we'll probably find that out hopefully soon. So assuming, I think the question is to Luke's point, assuming that gets settled out with the attorneys about who owns what, where, are we, Commission and Linda, with what we're looking at here, generally, again, we can't, we just get this information today, generally okay with that direction, assuming everything works out or no? I have some questions. Like, so what we're saying, you know, what you're saying is that the grayed out part on this map where the patio currently, the retaining wall currently goes into the 15 foot, you're saying that'll be removed and then we'll be rebuilding a new retaining wall section, much, much closer to the root, to the roots of that tree is what is being proposed? That's correct. I don't, I am baffled and I don't know how you could dig deep to make a strong retaining wall without causing massive harm to the roots of that tree and setting the stage for its ultimate failure. I just don't see how that could be done. You kill the tree. Yeah, and then you'd be back here to remove it. You want an arperist's opinion on that? How do we resolve this? I mean, we've got a retained arborist on this project. I mean, that we would be cutting back roughly to where the well is intended to be dug, which is three feet out from the tree. But an oak tree's roots are going to be like well into that area and you have to dig pretty deep to put one of those in. Like a retaining wall has feet and you could be amputating a lot of roots that are, you know, going down, traveling down towards the wonderful water source that is the pond. Right. Shannon, I spoke to the landscape contractor that constructed the original retaining wall and he was surprised that he didn't hit more roots when he dug the original stone retaining wall and he had a comfort level that there weren't a significant number of roots, you know, that that would be diminished or damaged if it was cut back or if it he didn't encounter that many of them is what I'm trying to say. Obviously, nobody can say, OK, you go back a foot from where he excavated and then there's a big root. But I mean, we don't know where the roots are. Yeah, I'm also surprised by his finding that there were not roots there. And is it one foot or is it more than one foot that you'd be moving this back in addition to all the digging and compacting that would be occurring just in the course of putting that there? Is it, I'm sorry, is it one foot or what? So the, yeah, are we talking like how many, how many, what's the scale on this? How, how much closer is this going to be adding into the compaction that is inherent in the creation of a wall? Is it a foot? Is it, is it? No, it's going to, it looks like it's going to be probably like three feet, three and a half, four feet, somewhere in that range to the upland side or the uphill side of the retaining wall of proposed or future retaining wall. So just speaking for myself, I don't, I don't love that. You know, I, I see damage coming to the tree. That's just my opinion. I'm certainly interested in what the rest of the commission thinks of that. Well, I think the applicant has offered to have a, an arborist look at this. I think it's speculation for us and we should just defer to the arborist. Yeah, I, I agree with Cliff. I think I do, I do appreciate the effort here to, to pull this back, which is certainly something that we, as the, you know, the commission has voiced that request. Uh, so I do view this as an attempt to be responsive to what we have said previously. I agree with Cliff. I think, um, the suggestion or offer to have an arborist come in and take a look, um, and offer an opinion would be really helpful. Yeah. Yeah. As a suggestion, instead of building a solid stone wall, you might just put an arch in that spot so you don't have to dig right there. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a great idea. And, and, and absolutely. I mean, very appreciated to remove, to remove that section. Um, I just, I just bulk at the idea of, of, you know, digging and compacting right there. So this idea of maybe having retaining wall in arch where it's, you know, relief is created and just skirting that effort or skirting that area, um, would certainly, you know, be a lovely solution. Um, that's a great idea. But it's still, it's speculation on our part. I think we should have the arborist opinion. Sure. Go ahead. Um, I, I think the arborist has already opined on that in his report. I don't have it. I can't pull it up quickly, but, um, in regards to the arch suggestion, um, I guess that's that might work a little bit, but it would, it might possibly require a fill on the downslope side of the retaining wall. In other words, you wouldn't see say three feet of exposed wall. I might be two feet. If there was a route that's close to the surface and you have to fill over it, um, it would be kind of a, I don't know how to describe it. Um, a little bit of a humpty dumpty view from the water. If you're looking at the wall, um, if there was additional fill needed on the downslope side to protect roots. I mean, it's Kevin, it's a thought. It's not a finished design. Right. Because we don't know where the roots are. That's right. We don't, we don't know. Yeah. Why are we bothering to, we're just wasting our time here. Right. I think the other thing or the other, uh, question I have for the commission is, um, I'm not sure this is possible. I've been thinking about it for a couple of days, but is it, would the commission consider, um, cutting away the other portions of the project site and work, um, so that they can be finalized? For instance, like the floating dock. Can he get a letter or something from the commission that approves the floating dock so he can proceed with DEP on, I forget what it is, chapter, uh, chapter 93 permitting for the floating dock and maybe chapter 91, probably. Yeah, chapter, I'm just guessing here. I didn't have it fresh in my head, but, and also the, um, the construction or reconstruction of his, of his existing driveway to the garage under and also his existing driveway to the, uh, kitchen door entry and work around the deck. In other words, the tree is the tree and retaining wall is going to hold stuff up, but the other things that it's just a thought, can we get those freed up from the tree and the retaining wall issue so he can proceed with that because it's, it's in limbo. And I think he wants to finish up his yard and get the entry to his kitchen finished. Well, Kevin, let me remind you that this was done all without a permit, you know, so the delay in this is, is really not our, is not the commission's, you know, uh, fault. Um, and again, the, the, the dock isn't according to this, your, your plan that sauna is on monopath. That's again, until those, that, that property issue is resolved that, I mean, you're still going to have to, you know, on a path, Linda, I don't know. Your property line is on the back and right behind the retaining wall. But the dock is not on monopath and it can be moved. It's a floating dock. I mean, if you say move it two feet, I can move it two feet. It's from my perspective, it's not in the path. Maybe it doesn't, it doesn't show that it's on your property though. Your property line is behind the retaining wall. Right. Do it, do any of the docks on Dudley Pond, um, are they all on private property or are they in the pond? Yeah. Well, usually, usually the, the walkway that goes from, you know, the, the lawn area to the dock is usually private property. Yeah. So I don't, I don't know of any of that. I mean, again, this is, this is, you know, this is something that still needs to be resolved, but again, it's really hard to pull. I mean, if you want to file a whole separate application, which is a single scope item on there, you can do that. But right now we have an application in front of us that has all the scope items on it. So, um, you know, I mean that it's, it's an approach that you guys have to decide how you want to do it. I can't, I mean, I don't think the commission has the ability to just peel off something and, and, and approve that and, and the way you've applied, which is, you know, one application with all the scope items in there. So. Yeah. Yeah. For what it's worth, I agree with Linda. I don't think we can like approve piecemeal through various order of conditions, different parts of the project, but I would agree. You know, I think what I was thinking was like maybe filing separately a request for determination of applicability, right? Like if there are components of the project, Kevin, that you feel confident, um, are easily approvable, um, maybe, maybe a simple request for determination just for those specific pieces or components. Right. Okay. Could be a way to sort of shortcut those, um, while we figure out the other parts of the larger project. All right. Just a question. I just trying to make best use of everyone's time. So. Yeah. I think that would, I think it's a, I appreciate your thinking a little bit outside the box, but that's, I think Linda's right. I think that would be the way to do it would be to just have a separate filing for whatever those less, uh, thorny pieces of the project might be. Okay. Thank you. Good call, Luke. Good call. Um, uh, or Linda, Linda, anything else on your end? No, I get nothing. Do you get nothing? Okay. Um, so I guess, yeah. So we'll, uh, Kevin and Jeremy, we'll leave up to you guys how you want to proceed with that. I'm going to break it up like Luke said, um, or kind of keep charging along here. Um, in terms of next time for us meeting on this, do I continue to the next, our next meeting on the 8th of July or what do you guys can see on your, uh, front about when we came back in with us with new information? Maybe if I can just speak up, like I'm Jeremy's wife. I think, you know, the challenge, we understand the town's position, but the challenge has been, you know, Monopath has been there for a very long time. And maybe to address Barbara's question, we haven't done anything, you know, in terms of the, we didn't add the porch, but it's been there for such a long time and we don't block, you know, blocking anybody's access, you know, to the pond, just to be clear. Um, and the other thing, the reason why this has been so challenging is not, you know, we bought the house like two years ago, but all of this paperwork has been extremely hard to track. And we've been trying to realize that, you know, it's not the conservation commission's fault, but it's also not something that we were directly involved in. And, you know, so I understand, I feel like it's going to take a little bit of time, but I think the challenge has been, you know, we had the parking lot dug up because the water department had to, you know, dig up the parking lot. So right now there's no parking, I have to end up parking on the street. And, you know, I think, which is why we were really hoping that maybe some of the other areas, which are maybe not so controversial and would not require a lot of research could be split into a different permit. But, you know, that's something I just want to give more context into why we are asking that, you know, because I realized that all of this went into the same permit, but there are other things like we have water pooling in front of our garage all the time when it rains and we really need to have that sewer down. So it's really, you know, and I understand the concern about the tree. And again, I think if you guys can take a look, it's like a super huge tree and we're really trying to protect it because we love the tree. So, you know, we're not really, really wanting to preserve the pond here. So I just want to get a little bit of maybe sympathy, like, you know, it's not, especially because of the, how challenging it has been with the monopap. Like it's the paperwork is just like, really, it's so hard to track and different plans have different sort of maps on there, which makes it really hard to know which is the right thing. So we've been working with multiple people on that. So it's just that, unfortunately, I know, you know, it's, it's, it's something that's going to take a while, which is why we're really hoping maybe we can separate that with the rest of the other things. Well, like I said, you can't separate it. You just have to file a separate application for that. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate that. But yeah, I definitely file new ones then. And, and just for what it's worth, the request for determination of applicability filing that I sort of brainstorm there is less involved than the notice of intent that you filed here. So it's, it's generally supposed to be kind of a quicker, easier process for relatively minor work. You're basically asking us, hey, do we really need a full blown application for this? Or can you just tell us to, to go on our merry way? So hopefully that would, you know, as we said earlier, give you a path to get approvals and permission for some pieces of this. Quick question. Thanks, Luke. Quick question, maybe to Linda and anyone, any other commission member or any commission members. If we file a request for determination, as an example for the dock, the floating dock, are we going to be made to amend the notice of intent to remove that from the notice of intent filing? Well, I mean, I can try to, all that stuff is connected. I can try to weigh in. I, I think Kevin and, you know, I, I would be, I would be interested if Linda views this differently. I mean, the, the hearing on your notice of intent is open, right? So at any point along the way, you can tell us, hey, we're removing this piece of the proposed project, right? So if you file a request for determination, I heard mentioned before the, I think the driveway and garage, like if you file a request for determination, say for that and get what's called a negative determination from us, which is, you know, Mr. Jenkins, that's a good thing, right? Like that's a negative determination is, is what you would want there. Then I think, Kevin, you could just zip Linda and email and say, hey, we're withdrawing that portion of the proposal from our notice of intent, right? I think it could be that simple. Like I don't, Linda, maybe you view it differently, but that's, that's what I would expect. No, I mean, whatever the commission approves is what you get on your permit. And if we're just approving a portion of what you originally, original scope, and the plan reflects that because we're going to be approving a plan. So if you remove that scope item from the plan, that's what we're approving. Okay. So that, that would be my recommendation, at least, you know, providing an updated plan and that, you know, that, that we would reference in that order of conditions. So. Okay. I think I understand. I mean, I follow the process. I just, I'm cautious that we might get caught up in, you know, amending the notice of intent on the total project because we're stripping pieces off it. Well, there's no such thing as amending because I mean, this is, this is a, I mean, it's still open, you know, you can, you can change, you know, you can change the scope of that, you know, right. As long as we reduce the scope and stream, if you want to, you know. Yeah. Well, that's right, Kevin. I think that's, it sounds like we're all sort of saying the same thing, right? Like, you know, in other words, as long as the hearing on the notice of intent is open, it's your prerogative to, to change and, you know, what you're proposing to remove some pieces of it. So. Okay. I would just say don't, you know, maybe the thing that you realize, I, you know, maybe we would say don't, you might not want to start pulling pieces out of the notice of intent until you have a negative determination in hand for those pieces. All right. So meetings concurrently.
Yep. Okay. We can work it through. So for this one, do you want us to continue that until the 8th? I think we're going to need more time than the 8th of July. Uh, Linda, when's the one after that? I had three weeks to that. What is that? Um, I don't have the thing in front of me. It's a 29th. 29th? 29th? Yep. 29th.
Does that work, Kevin? Yes. We'll see you on the 29th. Okay. Commission, can I get a motion then for the, uh, 29th sometime after 6.30 please under both? Yes. I'll move. Thank you, Cliff. Do we hear a second? Second. Thank you. Luke, roll call please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. And Sean Ferzzi? Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. Two weeks. Yeah. Good night. Good night. Uh, on to 4C. Sherman Bridge Road in Weyland. Uh, DEP file number 322-1065. Gets a continued notice of intent to file pursuant to Weyland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by the Weyland Department of Public Work for the Rehabilitation of Sherman Bridge located on Sherman Bridge Road in Weyland and extending towards Lincoln Road in Sudbury, Mass. Proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarding vegetated Welland bank land underwater, boarding land subject to flooding, and 200-foot riverfront area. The project is shown on Weyland's Assessor's Map 6. Linda? I believe we have everybody here to, um, go over some of the new information that was submitted. Okay. Before we go. Hi, everyone. Uh, this is Mike Ocardi with TEC. Um, Paul Pacholli is on the line from Weyland DPW as well. Um, I guess I'll kind of start with, um, updates since we last presented to everyone here. Um, we presented the last hearing. Um, we, um, also presented to the Sudbury Conservation Commission. They provided some formalized questions after our presentation, um, which I responded to and sent, uh, to Linda on June 8th. We updated WAP WPA 3 form on 6-9 and then spoke, uh, or presented to the Sudbury, uh, concom on Monday night. Um, I, um, I guess I'm going off the assumption that our comment responses were shared, um, with, um, the entire commission. Um, but, uh, can touch on a few things there. And then I think just kind of open up the floor to, to discussion is what we're looking for. Um, we, um, in reviewing the, uh, bridge railing, uh, crash-tested details, um, we were able to reduce the deck thickness, uh, from a five and a half inch deck to a five and one eighths inch, um, which reduced, um, our fill numbers, uh, from a total fill in the floodplain from 555 cubic feet to 465, um, broken down, uh, by town, uh, within Wayland. That was a drop from 285 cubic feet to 240. Um, added some discussion about, um, how much maintenance is done on the structure yearly from both, uh, DPWs, um, a good amount of discussion on kind of comparing, uh, different properties of our two preservatives that were, are still kind of on the table. Um, and then, um, I guess just the rest, um, for the most part was kind of some additional mitigation slash clarifications. Um, some addition of turbidity curtains, um, snow storage, just clarifying that, um, the plan would be to, um, plow in the same fashion that is, uh, done today. Um, no street sweeping over the bridge, no de-icing salt over the structure. Um, and yeah, I, I presume that the majority of our discussion here tonight is about that wood preservative, um, which I would be happy to discuss any further questions. Um, I guess I'll, I'll share as well. I believe Linda was copied on, uh, Sudbury provided a draft order of conditions and voted to approve that on Monday night with a few additions that they were planning on adding. Um, so not to say that if you guys have a different opinion, I, I just, I guess just speaking to the fact that, um, we have an order of conditions on the Sudbury side of this project. Um, so looking forward to discussing with you all, hopefully coordinating thoughts, um, and coming to a consensus. Thanks Mike. Uh, I guess Linda, we'll start with you. Uh, um, if I'm not mistaken, didn't Sudbury already approve, uh, preservative? Correct. Uh, and the way that they phrased it, um, was DCOI or a better environmental art, environmental alternative, just to allow for uh, if, if something else, uh, comes about now or in the future. Um, but they voted on DCOI to be used for all the glulam members. Okay. So that, that kind of puts us in a position to, uh, approve that same, that same treatment though, right? Yes, of course. I, I, um, we could have a further discussion if you guys feel, feel differently that the copper napkin is a better, uh, option and we could go back to the, to the Sudbury commission and have that discussion with them. Of course. Um, I don't want it to feel like because they, uh, had a hearing two days before you all that, that they're making the decision. Um, but, um, that is where we're currently, um, the current direction of the project is the DCOI for all the glulam. What appears that a toxicity is less for DCI, DCI, DCOI than the other one. Um, again, I'm, I'm basing that on the email you sent or the, the information you sent to us. And when I responded to Paul, um, earlier this week, it was just, it'd be nice to know where that information came from, you know, the references for that, um, toxicity data, where was, you know, um, where were those numbers derived from? And, uh, but, um, today I didn't receive anything. So, um, sure. I, I, it would probably be a, um, a fool's exercise to open them up and flip through these research articles here, but I can certainly share that, uh, separately. Um, the articles that I pulled from USDA, USDA forest service, EPA, American Wood Protection Association, uh, some other, it seemed like journal articles that, uh, were sponsored by USDA forest service. Um, so we feel plenty of reputable spots. So, um, I can send that along to you, Linda, if that is. No, I would like to have that in the files because I'm, I'm just afraid that, you know, this is, this might, um, you know, it's, it's good to be informed basically. So, um, and I mean, the only thing I had asked for in the last hearing was that, you know, it'd be really nice to have some sort of, you know, um, controls on the stormwater. So, yeah, I, I think, um, as we kind of shared, shared, shared then, I, I, uh, the areas where I think, um, continued, um, uh, gaps on the bridge for, for water to migrate through the structure, um, areas on the wayland side of this. I was thinking more of the approaches, you know, the, you know, Sherman Bridge Road and before you even hit the bridge that, that, that, that water sheds off to the side. And, uh, just be, just, I mean, I'm not an engineer. I wish there'd be some way that we could just manage a little bit of the volume, the, the velocity, you know, and, you know, pick up some of the solids. I, and I'm not sure how to do that, you know, and I don't know if there is a good way to do that, but, um, with that being priority habitat, you know, that area, it seems like we have to do the best we can to, um, you know, make some improvements over existing conditions. Sure. Yeah. I, I don't disagree. It's, um, somewhat difficult where town right away doesn't own those, um, uh, boat launch areas or those park parking areas. So we're kind of constricted with what can be done within town right away. That wouldn't impact access to those boat launch areas. Um, so short of some rip wraps tone on the side of the, um, on the side of the road in, in front of the guardrails, which I don't think that's possible from a safety perspective, um, or catch basins that would need to discharge through existing wing walls, which we don't want to do. Um, I, I'm not, I, I understand the, the worry, um, but I, I'm not sure what we can do within town right away. Yeah. And then, or sent me an email. I don't know if, um, Paul, did I share that with you? I think probably sent it to Paul so that, uh, you know, they were observing crease dripping off the bridge and especially probably during this hot weather. And, um, I guess they wanted to know if there was something that could be done, or is this something that's going to be ongoing forever? Um, there's, there's kind of like, um, it looks like dribbles coming off. You can see these like long strings of, of crease of that's coming right off the supports. And, you know, I guess I'm during hot weather that just starts to drip into the, into the river. They had a question about whether there was something like some improvement could be done on that, on that part too. So, yeah, I think, um, it's, um, for, for better, for worse. Um, I believe that creosote is the original preservative that was placed on these stringers, uh, during the construction in 1992. Um, the better part of that is that there's been some advancements in preservative treatments. Um, but this whole project kind of stemmed from the fact that based on the mess dot inspection reports, which are happening more frequently based on the, the structures, uh, condition, but in general happen every two years, the stringers have been in great shape because that creosote is working as intended. Um, so, um, part of the scope was those stringers can remain in place. We can redeck this structure. Um, so short of removing all those structures, which is a vastly different scope of work and not really feasible here, there's not much we can do. And I would think likely would cause even more concern, more issues to try to leave those stringers in place, remove all the creosote from them and reapply some sort of preservative. I think that would be, um, more harm than the current dripping that happens. No, I'm not asking that, but I mean, it's just, just even removing, you know, the drippings for the most part, you know, just getting rid of what I would consider called excess, you know, that's, that's, uh, dripping into the, you know, just, just cleaning it up basically, you know, what's, what's sort of hanging off these, these supports. So. Okay. Commission thoughts, comments, concerns. Are we good with what Sudbury said? I was leaning towards DCOI anyway. I could see the benefits of the copper naphthalene, but numbers look better on DCOI. Okay. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Well, is that it on your end? Yeah. I mean, like I said, I just hate to, you know, leave you guys open for, you know, somebody to appeal this because, you know, I'm, you know, typically for riverfront projects, we always ask for an improvement over existing conditions and that's the way the, the Wetland Protection Act is written. So, you know, like I said, it'd be really nice to see something, you know, some improvement and which I guess I, I, I thought the stormwater would be an easy one just to even just break up the velocity. So. Did I see something in that Sudbury thing that talked about like removing knotweed as some of the mitigation? Yeah. As far as I know, um, I'm not a knotweed expert, but I believe it's pretty, um, impactful on the Sudbury side. Um, and, uh, something that we asked of them was to help us with a special provision to put into contract documents, um, for, I, I would assume that requires a specialized contractor to do that removal. Um, so, uh, taking their assistance of limits and, um, proper way of disposal. Um, as far as I know, I don't believe that, uh, again, not an expert on the knotweed, but I haven't heard that that's a problem on the Wayland side as well, but certainly we could extend the limits if that is a concern to you all. Hmm. Hopefully when you guys do that, be real careful with those root fragments so that it continues to not be a problem here. Sure. Totally. Um, I, I suppose, I, I, I understand that's on the, the Sudbury side of things, but, uh, and maybe not an improvement on store water conditions, but at least an improvement to the general, uh, project area. Um, so I take that as a slight one. Okay. Anybody else? Are we good? Okay. Anyone want to make the motion?
Sure. I move that we issue an order of conditions approving the project, uh, under both the State Wetlands Protection Act and chapter 194. Oh, I'm sorry. We have to close the hearing first. We have to close the hearing. First, I move that we close the hearing under the State Act and chapter 194. Thank you. Luke, do I hear a second? Thank you, Shannon. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis.
Cliff. Oh, you're on mute there, big guy. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Thank you. Uh, Lisa Alvin. Yes. Uh, Shannon Fischer. Yes. Sean Ferzi. Yes. Thank you, Luke. Next motion. Wait, hang on. Can I just interject? And Luke, when you make the motion, can we just add to mimic the, the order of conditions that Sudbury, um, prepare or issued? Sure. Uh, now I move that we issue an order of conditions under the State Act on chapter 194, approving the project on the same terms as those under which the Sudbury Conservation Commission approved the project. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Alvin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All right. All set. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Great. I appreciate your time. Have a good night. Thanks. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Got it. All right. Moving on to 4D. This is 8 Carpenter Road. Linda, do you have a DEP number here? Nope. Okay. No DEP number. It's a notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Steve Garofalo for the construction of two additions, a deck, expansion of a driveway septic system replacement, and associated utilities. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a boarding vegetated wetland and bordering land subject to flooding. The project is shown in Wayland's Assessor's Map 48, Lot 113. Linda. Oh, is Vito here? Yeah. Vito's here. Yeah. Why don't you present the project to us? Okay. Vito Colonna, Connerstone Engineering. Steve Garofalo is also here on the line, the applicant. So we are at 8 Carpenter Road. I'm just going to bring up the, share my screen quickly.
Okay. Okay. Here we go. So these are pictures of the existing house right now. It's a 0.7 acre lot. The existing house is from about the 1950s. It's been abandoned for many years. Um, we've been told maybe even upwards as, uh, 20, 30 years. Um, so it's been pretty rough shape, uh, right now. Um, as you can see, kind of the roof pretty deteriorated. Uh, there was a lot of vegetation even growing up through the structure itself. Um, so this is just kind of overview of the conditions there. Let's switch over to the plan. All right. And as far as the site itself goes, um, we have wetland resources off to the kind of the plan, right, uh, east side of the page. Um, and they're associated with an intermittent stream, uh, that runs offsite and it's a intermittent under the state by state regulation, but, uh, presumed perennial, uh, under your local, uh, bylaw. And then there's also an associated BVW that extends up away from the stream with this green line. And there's also a hundred year floodplain, um, that generally coincides with the wetland line, kind of meanders in and out. So generally the hundred year flood is contained within the wetland itself. Um, the inner hundred foot, uh, riverfront is this blue line here and that 200 foot extends out across the site. And then this outer green line, that's the hundred foot buffer to the wetland. Um, as I said, the site was kind of been abandoned for years. Um, and it was covered with, uh, it was really overgrown, had brushed vines. Um, and there were some trees around the house, uh, after purchasing the property, um, they did have it cleared. They cleared out this area around the house, um, before they were aware that there were wetlands in the back. Um, so Steve, I think he has already been talking to Linda a little bit about that, uh, kind of offline, um, before the meeting, uh, just to kind of get that out and kind of get a discussion going on that. Um, so the proposal itself, what they're looking to do is to renovate the house and a couple additions on there. So full renovation of the existing structure itself, and then a proposed garage on the side here, and then a front porch, uh, and also a deck off the back. Um, so, and they're essentially going to keep the same roof line on the top. It's just sort of additions and then, uh, redoing the interior of the home. Um, then they're also going to redo the driveway. Uh, currently there's a one bay garage. It's pretty small and the driveway is here. They're going to bump that over, uh, and align that up to the proposed garage over there. Um, as far as the kind of the storm water goes, there would be an increase of about 2,500 square feet of impervious. Um, and to mitigate that we've collected the entire roof area through roof drains and we bring it over to a dry well and fully infiltrate the roof area. And then we also picked up the entire driveway with a trench drain across the end here. And that all goes also goes to a dry well. Uh, so those would be sized to fully infiltrate up through the hundred year storm. Um, and they'd also control the peak rate and volume within the site. Uh, and when we did model that we modeled that as in a fully vegetated, uh, condition, uh, based off of kind of aerials and stuff like that to mimic what it was like, uh, prior to the recent, um, vegetation removal. Um, just to make sure there's no increases, uh, going into any other downgrading properties. Uh, the other component is we also have a septic, a new septic system going in the existing septics in the rear yard. Um, we're going to flip that and put it towards the front. Uh, there were more suitable soil conditions in the front. We had better percolation rates. And over in this back area, we actually had some shallow areas of ledge kind of on this side of the property. So really the only areas that would be suitable is kind of out front and then in the back here. Um, we did go with a Elgin, which is a IA technology. So it's a geotextile sand filter. Uh, we've used them a bunch with the commission and they do give you that higher level of treatment, um, before discharge to the groundwater. So it does give that little extra beyond a conventional system. Um, and, uh, we've talked about this with border health and, uh, there's really no issues. And I believe if they haven't issued the permit yet, um, they are ready to essentially. So we've already, uh, had that reviewed. Um, I think that's my kind of overview of it. Um, and I guess we can go back and take questions, comments. Thanks Peter. Let's start with you, please. You know, show me where the 2,500 square feet of new impervious is because I, I don't, I guess I couldn't add it up myself. So, yeah, so essentially this, so there's the old driveway here. We're going to push that over. Um, so it'd be half this driveway is essentially new. Um, and then this addition right here is new. Uh, and then also the porch. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So I think it, yeah, the existing conditions had, I forget I had it quantified in here, about 2,000 square feet and we'll be at about 4,600, uh, in the post-development. Okay. And again, one thing, the wetlands were donated in March. I don't know, God doesn't seem to know that we have to, they have to do it between May and October because this is happening over and over and over again. Yeah. On that, we, I, I know we've always done that where it's should be in that season. I looked through the regs and the only part I could find in your local was about filing for ANRADs and that they can't be, they are preferred not to be approved during that season. Um, so, you know, I know it's a, it's something we've always gone by and a preference. I couldn't actually find it in there. Um, but we can talk about that another time. No, it's a policy, the, the, you know, the season, it's the group, you know, we need, if you're doing plants, you have to have plants available to delineate them and that you're not seeing that in March, especially in early March. Um, uh, but my issue with this project is a couple of fold. First of all, um, Steve, you know, the applicant did come in and told me he purchased the house in March 6th and already did all the brush removal on the 18th. So this is, this is a third project that the applicant has done in Wayland, a flipping house project. And all three of those, he's taken the trees and down before getting permits for this. So, you know, in this case, he's, I don't have a planting plan for this, for all the trees that were removed, but after the fact, you know, doing it prior to getting a permit and doing all the brush removal and stumping everything. So we have no idea what was there other than with, with aerial photos. Um, the planting plan is going to have to reflect that. It's going to have to, you know, after the fact is usually we ask for, uh, twice as much planting as, as a planting plan as what was normally, um, for compensation. And, um, we're not going to prove anything until we have a planting plan either. Cause, uh, um, you know, this, it gets really frustrating when this happens three times in a row, you know, and, and you can't plead that you didn't know that. Okay. At this point. Um, and also you, you don't have a DEP fund DUP file number probably because you didn't use riverfront as a filing fee either. Um, again, we're in it when a drought, you can't do riverfront determinations during drought periods of drought. And you just have to presume that that it's a, um, a perennial stream. I mean, snake brook runs right along the side here. I mean, so I don't know was, did Goddard look at a tributary, a small tributary to that and call that intermittent because it's based off of, uh, the USGS shows it as intermittent and then that triggers, you go to stream stats and stream. No, but I mean, the policy is, is that you don't, you know, you can't do riverfront determinations during a drought, you know? And so you do have to make the presumption it is, but I mean, snake brook is not that far away from this property. So that's why I'm surprised that that that's not shown, you know, where, where the riverfront to snake brook is. Um, I mean, you have BLSF and that's usually associated with a, with a perennial stream and not necessarily intermittent one. Right. So, um, yeah. Um, so I, I think you, I think you have to make the presumption is probably riverfront and you probably have to, um, put in a filing fee that is one and a half times, but you can, you can check with DEP on that one. They, like I said, I don't know why they didn't issue it. Um, why this hasn't been issued. Um, there's not even any, it doesn't even look like it's been received. Um, you know, usually they, they do acknowledge that they've received it. So we've been having some backup with them a little bit, but, um, yeah. And then the, the third, the last thing is, is that, you know, this is a stormwater management report that, um, I can't review because it's a hydro CAD. So I think I think the commission really needs to discuss whether or not they want that as a peer review to have somebody look at it.
Okay. Um, all right. Commission thoughts, comments, concerns at a minimum, Linda needs to think, well, we need to vote if we want to have a third party peer review on some of this. Uh, and then also we want to do, give feedback on this. So opening up to thoughts from anybody. Linda, is there, is there better data like that we can go back to look at how, like, try to get any kind of sense for what was cleared from this? Cause that's very disturbing. He did produce photos of the site before he cleared everything. Um, I walked it the other day. I mean, there's big, there's big areas that whereas wood chips, you know, obviously where they stumped everything. Um, but I mean, you know, I really don't, and I can look, you can look at aerial photos also, but imagine if you look at the site that only like where the wetland, um, this, the wetland side is probably like, you know, near to the wetlands, there's still some trees and there's a row of trees between the properties on the other side, but everything else has been cleared. So, and the third time, like, this is the third time this has happened. That's absolutely egregious. I mean, the most recent one that you were probably involved in was Pequot. I mean, I, I don't know if you were here for that, that he took down a lot of trees there without, with, you know, prior to getting any permits too. So, um, there was, can I say something? I'm, I'm the owner, Steve Garofalo. There was one other, there was one other project and it was 10 Pequot. And we were honest to God, if you look back at everything at the time, there was nothing published that said we needed to do anything with removing trees. And since then, um, now that this regulations that you can obviously see, um, and you know, we knew after that one, there was only one other one. It was 10 Pequot. And we did have a, uh, Linda was nice enough to work with us. We did come up with a planting plan and we put that in place from, um, April to October. So we did, went through one planting season and it was approved. And, um, so, so we did that. So that was one project at 10 Pequot. Um, we went to meetings and, um, I, you know, I, we did everything we're supposed to do this next project here at eight carpenter. Um, we purchased the property on March 6th. Okay. And on March 19th, we removed four trees and some brush and some shrubs. And then on March 27th, after we asked cornerstone engineering to design a new septic for us on March 27th, they came out and they said, you have wetlands and they flagged off wetlands. So, um, I don't know how, you know, I don't know how much you guys can see, but, um, you know, I gave Linda all these pictures. I mean, that's a forest of small trees. Um, I went to her immediately once I found out that it was wetlands and, um, here's another picture. I mean, look at that. That's, that's a forest. This, the neighbor across the street at number seven, at number seven carpenter, last name is S C A L A. They have been living there for 50 years. And they told me that that house at eight carpenter has been vacant for at least 35 to 40 years. Okay. Um, it was being sold as land only. We bought it and, and, um, we want to renovate it and bring, um, the housing stock back to Wayland seven, sorry, um, 10 Pequot was also, if you look at that listing that was being sold as land, we brought that house back to, uh, its grandeur and we ended up, uh, selling it to a nice family. Um, we, we bought it, you know, we've, we've had five or six houses in Wayland that were basically, um, teardowns or depressed properties. I can list all the property addresses if you want. And we brought those back with housing stock into the area. When I went to the neighbors and got this petition signed with 11 neighbors and believe me, it's hard to get neighbors to even open up their door and talk to you. I had 11 neighbors. I handed this to Linda. We had 11 neighbors and this is what I had on the top of the list on the top of this sheet that everybody signed. We, the undersigned neighbors of eight carpenter road. Wayland have reviewed the renovation and addition plans with the owner, Steve Garofalo and support this project. I showed them pictures of the house that you guys already saw. So they knew what we were talking about. I showed them a plan of the septic system. And, um, I told them it was close to wetlands and also, um, watershed. Cause we knew that at the time I showed them a plan of how the house was going to be renovated and built. And they said, thank God. Two of them, three of them said, thank God that you've done what you've done to this house. If you left this house right now and did nothing else, you've improved the neighborhood by a hundred times. And please don't build another McMansion, like the one next door that they built. Okay. So I hope you guys have done a site visit. I know Linda has, and I'm grateful she did. When, as soon as I found out that this was, cause we only, we knew about the plan. We knew about the plan. I have this right here. It says you cannot remove more than seven live trees greater than six inches in diameter because you need a permit. So we only removed four trees of that size. And those other pictures I showed you, Linda has, um, a copy of all the color pictures. I, I didn't have any to, I can show you in my hand here, but most of them were brushed and around the foundation was abervites that were overgrown. And a couple of them hit the house and damaged the house. So we wanted to make sure that we weren't from a safety standpoint at risk with insurance and everything, because you can't, it's hard to get insurance nowadays, as you know. So we had, um, it was overgrown for over 35 years. Many of the trees were dead, standing dead or fallen dead. And a lot of them, and take a look at those pictures we gave Linda. I can get more, more copies of you guys and we were damaged to the house. So we did not know, honest to God, that we were in a wetlands until they came out and surveyed it. And I gave Linda those dates as well. And I will be happy to, you know, there was two trees in the front that were a little bit larger. I believe they were, um, 35 inches in diameter, or maybe 11.15. I was looking at how the, how you develop those, um, in diameter, but breast height. So, um, in circumference, they were about 35 and there were two maples in front. So my wife and I are planning on planting new maples in the front. Um, but you know, if there's a, and this is, there's also a, um, stag in the back that is, um, that is, um, 20 feet tall. And this is what it looks like. I'm not sure if you can see that or not. It's right there in the wetlands area. We left it because it said, if you leave the snags, I did a yellow highlight on the, on this one, I'm not sure if that's better or worse, is a snag that's, uh, 20 feet tall. So we know about the guidelines now, because we got, we had to go through all that on 11, um, Pequot, but there was only one other property, 11 Pequot. This is the second property. And we knew about it. We knew we couldn't do, um, seven or more that are six inches or more. So we didn't do that. We only did four and the rest of it was all small brush. I can show you those pictures again. So I I'm hoping this isn't going to take a long time to, to resolve. Um, I would like to work with Linda on, on the side, like we did on the last one and come up with a acceptable, um, planting planting plan, acceptable to Linda. So if we can do it on the side and you guys can look at everything else, um, you know, we're trying to do everything right. Um, I said to Cornerstone, do what we need to do to get this right. We have that system with the septic system. That's first of all, it's, um, it's a new septic system. It's not, so we don't get any, um, we don't get any variances. Um, sorry. Uh, we don't get anything, um, regarding the, um, you know, because it's a new system versus a renovation system, we don't get any, anything, any, they don't cut us any slack on that. We have to do everything, um, according to a new system. And also the, this underneath the, um, um, leeching field as Vito mentioned is that other, um, SAS system that kind of like filters the water. So we're, we're, we're doing that. We have all the gutters on the house going into, um, um, subsurface system and be in, in the, um, in the, on the back, right. We have the driveway going in with a drain going into the system in the front. Um, we're doing everything we possibly can to, to, to, to, to do things right. Uh, this, you know, we're also going to have the hay bales around it. We're going to have a, a pad out front, you know, so that when, you know, trucks are going in and out, it's, it's got like a, um, a mud pad with crushed stone. I'm sorry for saying that. You know, I actually really appreciate you explaining all that. Thank you. Okay. I, I, I, my wife is hitting me here saying I'm talking too much, but I just want to, you know, I feel bad about it and I thought we were doing things the right way. And now we're trying to correct it. I'll be happy to do a planting plan with Linda as a side thing, like we did on 10p quad. I was hoping that we were going to get consideration for approval this evening because, oh, and by the way, we did eight deep hole tests to try to locate that septic system. And there was all let the house next door. If you guys remember that one, um, it's number six, I think, um, is, um, that one had a lot of ledge on it and we didn't want to deal with that. If we had torn this house down and built a new house, we would probably would have a problem with ledge. So we have to kind of work around what we have. I'm sorry. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, real quick. Oh, yeah. Right. Right. Oh, just explaining, just expressing appreciation for you explaining all of that. And I thought the neighbors, you know, having that list with the neighbors might help with 11 neighbors. They all, they're all happy. I'm sorry. Um, so commission two things. Linda asked for a vote on, uh, a third party, uh, helping out. Look at the, look at the, what do you need help with? It was stormwater peer review. The stormwater. Okay. Yep. So, oh, we all good with her being a third party peer review. Uh, can someone make that motion real quick? So long. Thank you, Barbara. Second. Second. Thank you, Luke. Roll call, please. Uh, who's your? Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. I'm gonna abstain. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. And Sean, there's a yes. Thank you. Um, so, um, the second part is, uh, obviously we need to continue, we need to have the peer review. Um, so I guess Steve, you, you're, um, ask of working with Linda in the meantime, as you, as this peer review gets, gets sent out, um, I think it's a good idea. So work with her, figure out what she sees as appropriate for replacement and all that kind of stuff. And yeah, I think it would be good to help move along the process as, uh, as quick as we can. Yeah. And, and I would also just reiterate, uh, what Linda said, Sean, on that same score to just, uh, encourage the applicants team to just connect with DEP and see what the holdup is there. Um, for what it's worth, we, we couldn't have closed the hearing and approve this thing tonight, regardless, because you don't have a DEP file number yet. So that, um, is just another thing you could do to help move things forward here between, between now the next meeting. Is that, is that difficult to get, or is it just a application and approval or is it a meeting like this? I suspect Vito, yeah, Vito, I'm sure Vito can advise you on that, but it's, yeah, yeah, it shouldn't be, shouldn't be terribly time consuming, but we have had instances of DEP taking a long time to issue those. So being a squeaky wheel can't hurt. Thank you. Okay. Um, Vito, uh, do you want to continue to send to the eight our next meeting? That sounds good. Okay. Yep. So can you, uh, motion please for continuance under both for the sometime after 6 30 on the 8th of July? So moved. Thank you. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Howell? Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yeah. Sean Fair? Yes. You're all set. See you in a few weeks. Thank you. Thanks guys. Thank you. All right. You're welcome. Uh, on to five public meetings. This is 5A, 17 Sylvan Way, uh, Weyland, D-1057. Uh, to continue to request for determination of applicability filed pursuant to Weyland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Ransom Shaw for the replacement of a septic system at 17 Sylvan Way, uh, in Weyland, Mass. The proposed work is within 100 feet of a border meditative to Weyland. The property is shown on assessor's map 25, parcel 71. Linda? Oh, weyland's here for that one, too. Yep. All right. Back to back. Lucky you. Okay. Uh, yeah. We have, I think, two, two more quick after this one, too. So, um, yeah. So, 17 Sylvan Way, uh, we were here a couple weeks ago. Um, pull that back up.
Um, okay. So, this was the septic repair. Um, we had wetlands in the back. Um, we'd repair septic in the front yard. Um, I think we kind of all agreed that it's kind of limited, uh, on where we can go with the septic, uh, and, you know, it's basically is what it is in the front corner of the yard. And I think the main issue last time was the wetland delineation and having Goddard go back out and reconfirm that. Um, they did go out, uh, in May, uh, May 12th. I think it was Nicole Hayes from Goddard and they reflagged, they confirmed all the flags up top and then reflagged this area down the bottom. Um, so we have a 3A, a 3B. Um, so it was just kind of in this area down in there that they reflagged, uh, and we, uh, kind of showed those on the plan. Uh, the setbacks to those don't really affect the, uh, system in the front. Uh, I kind of think the concern was at the time is whether or not the shed was inside that 15 foot buffer or not. And it does show that it is partially kind of splits between the shed itself. I think the concern was too, that there was the delineation over here and it was how do those two connect? Um, and they looked at that and said that this is the current delineation of how it stands out there today. Um, so that's what we have shown what they've given us and I think we are right on this and I think Ransom Shaw, the owner, had submitted some information related to the shed, um, separately and I did not know if he was going to be here tonight to kind of go over that, uh, or not. So I don't know if there's any questions related to the shed and the delineation. Um, so I believe those are the only kind of revisions that were made to the plan.
I don't see him on the meeting either right now. There is a Carlotta Shaw in the attendees. Okay. Yeah. Maybe if we could bring them over. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to bring them over right now. Okay. You know, I am a little surprised though that the, the, the, the wetland delineation didn't change because this one was the one that was done like in January or something, wasn't it? Yeah. It was originally done in December. Yeah. Yeah. They rechecked all these ones. Um, and they said those were good and they said it was just these couple, uh, down this end. Yeah. Cause I mean, like, I mean, I compared it to 15 silver way and that's like 30 feet off, you know what I mean? That's, that's the difference. And, and, uh, from one property to the other, and they're right adjacent to one another. So it's kind of surprising that it would, would have dried up that much. So, um, yeah, I don't, I don't think I have, um, Darren said that he's pretty, he's okay with this. Was there some, some tweaks that had to be made or something? Yeah. We had the meeting on Monday. Uh, yep. So they approved the variance, uh, to locate it. It was just, the only variance we needed was getting closer to the property line. Uh, so they approved that variance. And then I talked to Darren after the meeting and the only difference is he might be able to grant us a waiver to just lower the height of it. Um, so it wouldn't change any of the footprints or any of the layout. Uh, we might just be able to lower the height of this a little bit and reduce some of the fill and the wall cost. Um, but that was all. Yeah. No, he mentioned that too, in our conversation, but again, that's outside of the buffer. So it doesn't really, um, right. Or most of it is. Yeah. And it would just kind of be less work rather than any more. So just, it would just lower heights. Uh, you wouldn't really even notice it on the plan itself. Um, yeah, I mean, and there's no other place for it anyway. I mean, there's nobody. So, I mean, I mean, you're stuck with the location and in the tank locations, he said too, is it won't change. So, okay. Oh, here's Ransom. Hi. Ransom, I didn't know if you want to go over any of the shed. Sure. Right. Um, I'm sorry for the late submission. Um, but, um, that's be as it may. I didn't quite, I'm sort of learning the ropes here. Um, so we are asking for some formal recognition of the fact that we have a shed. It's a six foot by eight foot shed as Vito's, um, diagram shows there. And we're asking that it be formally, formally recognized as a preexisting non-conforming, uh, structure. In other words, the way that we think of it here as sort of being grandfathered because it was, um, it was established on that site about 28 years ago. Um, and at that time, of course, the, the Wayland bylaw had not been passed. That didn't come until about three and a half years later. So we chose a site that, that seemed to open and that the ground was firm and picked it as a spot. Um, and it's been there ever since. There's been no adjustment to it. There's no change in size or whatever. And so we are thinking that sort of no harm done. Um, and that maybe it would be kind of a shame to have to pick this thing up and move it. Um, especially since, um, we have done, uh, thanks to my wife's volunteering with the, with, um, garden in the woods has done quite a bit of work in, in removing invasives and doing our best to put in native, uh, plants. And so it's, it's a very pretty little area. And, um, so it'd be kind of painful to see this thing trampled on and moved around. But, um, you know, we recognize it certainly is a non-conforming structure, but we also are trying to, um, have the commission understand that, that, uh, that would, it was put in place prior three and a half years or so prior to the local bylaw in Wayland. So we, we, we don't think we've done anything, uh, anything really that is, is, is, is bad or anything. And that, um, what, what else can I say? That there's no harm there. You, you, it's just sitting there and has sat there for 28 years. So that, that's the story. Um, I don't know if there's any questions I can handle, that'd be fine to do it. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, Linda, start with you. Any questions, thoughts, comments, concerns? Oh, I'm sorry. Type in an email. Apologize. Um, no, I mean, I think we discussed this at the last meeting, didn't we? We were going to look at the, um, wait for the board of health review. So we sort of have that and it's gone through the meeting, uh, the board of health meeting. So, I mean, I don't know what else we can do with, you know, with this project. I, I think it's up to the side, whether or not, if they're okay with the shed location. So. Oh, yeah. You think what Linda? Hmm. What's that last part again? What did you say? You think what? I said, I said, the commission just has to decide if they're okay with the, the current shed location. That's it. So. Gotcha. Commission thoughts, comments, concerns. Well, I'll, I'll weigh in. I guess, you know, first, I don't have much of an appetite to start trying to take forms of enforcement against structures that have been in place for nearly 30 years and predate our bylaw. And it also sounds like requiring this to be moved could do more harm than good. Um, at this point that that's sort of my perspective. So, uh, my, my two cents on the shed would be to, to leave it as is. Yeah. I would agree with Luke. I think moving is probably more harm than good. Yeah, I, I concur. And I also have to assume given the garden and the woods connection, your garden must be super beautiful right now. It is. Maybe we should site visit just to see the garden. I think my original concern came when we're looking at the 15 Sylvan Way that, you know, if that, if, if the wetland locations are the same where, you know, the, the previous, the, what we have for the adjacent property, it would really put the shed in the wetlands, you know? Um, so, and, and, you know, none of us have gone over there to, um, you know, uh, to accept the wetland locations at this point. So, um, I, we, we just have to make the presumption that it's not, you know, it's, it's a, just right at the 15 foot, um, no disturb area. Right. Yep. Uh, I agree. I think we should leave it, let it, let it go. Um, so if that's it, Linda, do you have nothing else besides that? That was the last piece you wanted us to go through? Mm-hmm. Yes. Okay. Commissioner, anything else before we make a motion on this one? Okay. I want to make a motion. And Shannon, if you want to try to remember, this is a determination. So this is no longer closing things. You're making, we're making a negative determination. Right, right. Go, go on your way. We don't need you to come through us. So, do you want to make a motion? I move that we issue a negative determination on this project under the Wetlands Protection Act and bylaw. Yep. I think technically we issue a permit under the bylaw. I, I, I move that we issue a permit for this shed under the Wetlands Protection Act and bylaw. Um, Close. Close. Close. Close. It's a, it's a negative determination under the act and a permit under the bylaw. Oh man. See, Luke, this whole time when you were doing these, I just let the legalese walk over me and retain none of it. I'm like, that's a lot of work. Look, everybody in my house zones out when I talk. So why should you be any different?
I had the sense of what you were saying. So it's a negative determination. Yeah. And a permit. And a permit under the bylaw. There we go. Perfect. Thank you, Jen. Do I hear a second? Thank you, Luke. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. Yes. Yes. You're all set. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh, this is 5B, 107 Concord Road, uh, D-1058. This is also a continued notice to determine requests for determination of applicability filed pursuant to Wetlands Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act submitted by Montessori Escuela for the replacement of a septic system at 107 Concord Road in Wayland, Mass. The proposed work is as partially within 100 feet of a border of vegetated wetlands. The property is shown on Assessor's map 15, partial 26. Linda. It's the Vito show tonight. So we're going to go back with Vito. Oh, Lord. Okay. Here we go. All right. Just share the screen. Um, so this is 107 Concord Road. This is the Peace Lutheran Church, uh, property. They, so the front, so, uh, Concord Road is to the left side of the page. Um, they have their existing parking lot comes in and this is the church wing of the building. So it's kind of like an L shape. Um, the church occupies this wing and then this back wing is a preschool wing. Um, it was previously a preschool. Now it's the, it's been taken over by the, uh, Montessori school. Um, and they've been there for a little while. Um, but as part of them moving in, um, they needed to replace their septic system. And so the church itself has a septic that's still functional and good and it's on the other side of the parking lot. And the one that services the school wing, uh, was kind of right through here is under the playground and that was in failure. And when we did the test bits, we found that groundwater is very, very shallow, like 18 inches below the ground. And so that system was basically just sitting in groundwater, uh, which caused the failure. Um, so on this one, it's just an RDA. Uh, we weren't asking for confirmation of the wetland delineation, uh, just that the work, um, wouldn't require an NOI. Um, so the wetlands are on this side of the school. So they're on the opposite side of the school from the work area. Um, and they're pretty defined. Um, it goes right up this essentially kind of a slope up to the school, uh, and then grassed areas, uh, up in here. Um, and the only work in that buffer is just to replace the septic tanks. Um, there's an existing septic tank right in here and would essentially put one in the same location. So we can coordinate with the plumbing out of the building and put in a pump chamber to be able to get up to the new height because the whole system is going to be raised up. Um, we did look at putting the tanks outside the buffer, um, just to avoid, uh, kind of filings and everything. But if we put the tanks out here, the elevation is a few feet lower and the tanks will be, uh, further into groundwater. Um, so to avoid having potential leakage into the tanks, um, they are sealed and they are supposed to be watertight, but as a secondary measure, we'd like to keep them above, at least the inlet pipes, uh, above groundwater elevation. Uh, so we kept them tight to the building where the elevation is a little higher. Um, it just gives us that little extra protection, uh, from infiltration. Uh, so that's really the only reason we have those inside the buffer. Uh, otherwise we would move them out. Um, and I think that's all that there is for this one. Um, it's been through Board of Health and I think the only thing we had left on this, Darren had one question, but it wasn't related to, um, anything with layout or any of the tank, uh, connections. He, he asked that same question of whether we could move it out or not. Um, but we gonna reply on that same thing, but it won't affect any of the design for the field or anything like that. Um, I think that's all we had. Um, and we'll send it back over. Okay. Thanks, Kudo. Linda, start with you. Oh, you know, maybe Darren isn't thinking straight today because I thought he said he had no, there was no health approval. Oh, I think, I don't think they officially approved it yet. Uh, he looked at it and he gave us back comments and we addressed them and, um, I think he hasn't actually issued the actual permit yet. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. But is there any reason for us to hold up then if no? Okay. Not from our end from Board of Health. I don't think there's anything that's going to change. Um, they would affect him. So how, how is the wetland locations determined? Did you guys do that yourselves? Yeah, we, we have, uh, one of our younger surveyors. He's, uh, has some experience with that. And for this one, just because it was pretty clear where that line was and it's on the opposite side of the school, um, going for confirmation of a line. Um, we just did it to save them a little bit of money for the school. Okay. No, I mean, I, I went back and checked at some, a much older, um, uh, RDA and, um, you have it, uh, you actually have it closer than the, the, the, the historical line was. So we'll conserve it just in case because no, I mean, that's fine. The only other thing is, I think on, on general note, um, um, 11 on your, on your plan, it says there are no bordering vegetations and bank surface waters with a hundred feet. You might want to, you might want to just delete that. Yeah. Yeah. But, um, other than that, again, you know, everybody needs a septic, right? So, um, and, uh, if you do have, if you have a change of plans or something like that, make sure that you, um, we have the same plan that border health ends up having. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Christian, thoughts, comments, concerns?
Where's the church's, the one that got run over? Uh, the, the, the church's, uh, septic system? Yeah. Yeah. Theirs is over in here on the, kind of the parking lots down here. So it's just off the edge of the parking lot. Yeah. They did have it inspected and it passed. So that's good. Okay. Somebody ran over their tank. Oh yeah. They didn't tell us that. And when it was first put in. Oh, really? Yeah. They had to replace it. Yeah.
Christian, anything else? Jen, you want to take a crack at this one? Am I closing it first? Do we need to? Nope. This is the same thing as last time. This is a determination. So it's the exact same thing we just, we just did. All right. I move that we issue a negative determination and issue a permit under the state law and by-law.
Oh, come on. I took notes. All right. All right. All right. All right. Permit under our by-law. Under our by-law? Well. Yeah. I thought that was unspoken. I thought that was. Close. I like it. Um, thank you, Shane. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Cliff I heard. Uh, roll call please. Luke Legere. Yes. Uh, Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean Ferzi. Yes. All right. All set. Thanks, Vito. Thank you. Uh, okay. Okay. On a sexist stormwater and land disturbance. 6A is 43 Barney Hill Road, SWLD-160. Linda. Once again, it's- No way. Yes. On stage, so. Uh, good Lord. Go home. All right. Um, Sismon 43 Barney Hill Road, stormwater application. Um, we were here a month ago, maybe about that. We, I think we missed one meeting in between. Um, so at the end of that meeting, we had a peer review done. So, uh, we got that back. Um, I think the end of last week. Um, I think that all those comments are manageable. Um, there was, I think just a few things add, you know, stockpile storage areas. Um, a few minor things with the model, uh, just, uh, balancing areas, but I don't think anything that's going to affect, um, the design or the end results. Um, and they also asked for just results of one of the test pits. Um, we have to get that from border health. It was a test bit done by another company. Um, and they just wanted some elevations on that. So we have to get that from border health. Um, and then they also had a question whether we wanted to have a construction period pollution prevention plan, uh, as a condition of approval. Um, I think other than that, I think those are pretty manageable things that we could address, um, and get those taken care of. Um, and then, and then I think the other comment, major comment was kind of on the planting plans and any tree removal. Um, I think Linda looked back on some of the aerials and they had done some tree removal. Um, and I, after the meeting we talked to the owner, uh, they found their receipt from when they had those trees removed. Um, he forwarded me the receipt. I didn't send it in, uh, have it on. Okay. I can bring it up if we need it, but he had, he knew that he knew how many he could take down. Um, so they did take down the six trees. Um, and then they took down a few dead trees also. Um, we can send in, I think I can pull up the receipt if I can, but this is what they, this is a, they don't have any diameters unfortunately though. Um, so this is what they did. It was back in 2023. Um, so they knew that what the limit was seven and that's what they were taking down. They stayed outside the buffer, um, at that time. Um, you know, you can see the limit of work is defined on there. They actually had a delineated four at that time. So they wouldn't know where that limit was. So they stayed out of the buffer, did the six trees. Um, and now on the current plan, we are requiring to have, uh, four trees removed, uh, one, two, three, and the fourth is up in there. Um, so they were looking to, um, because that was done, you know, prior to the current regulation, but under the bot, the bylaw was in place, but not the current regulation. And they did the, the six, they were looking to replicate for these four at this time. They did forward me over a sketch of what they were thinking. Um, just kind of replenishing some of those trees along the frontage. Um, this is kind of what their thoughts were. There was an oak, a beach, another beach. And I think this one was a pine, but it's not marked on there, but they were looking to put some plantings up in front just based off the guidances, uh, doing that half inch per every inch, uh, removed. Um, so those were the kind of the two main things was the, the peer review and then the, the replication plan things and kind of getting some feedback on what happened on the site previously. Um, and I think the owner, they are on the line. If there are any specific questions, uh, for them, uh, they might have a little better grasp on the history and everything like that than I do. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Linda, start with you, please. Yeah. I'm just looking back at my own, my older notes. You said you had, you had permeable pavers, right? We're being used for part of the driveway. Yeah. For this kind of, there's the darker patch. That's the actual asphalt pavement, just right in front of the bay doors. Okay. This would all be that permeable surface. It's just essentially it's a, a mat underneath to give it structural stability, like a grid and then it's gravel in it, like a crushed stone. Okay. Yep. So it lets all the water go right through, but the mat gives it that structural, uh, stability to hold together. Okay. So how do you want to handle the response to the peer review? Do you want to give me something formally to put it? Yeah, we could do a formal letter after just to document everything, um, revised plan with those couple, you know, we could add the notes that just with stockpiling would go, um, you know, it would just be essentially be next to each one of these areas. So it'd be some in here, probably be some in here next to this one, you know, kind of just adjacent to each of the areas, but inside the limit of working contained. Yeah. And then include the plantings, you know, on the edges there too, right? Yep. Um, so I guess it's up to the commission if they want to just, um, approve this and, um, you know, with, um, waiting for the response, your responses, or if they, you know, how they, we can commission to decide how they want to handle this. So, so I guess the option is we need let Linda finalizes after tonight or have to come back and talk to us. So commission, what are your thoughts on that? We go, go letting Linda handle it from here.
I vote for letting Linda handle it from here. Thanks, Cliff. He's capable.
Anybody else? Can we go with that? Yes. Okay. Uh, I would agree. Linda, it's all yours. Um, any other comments, folks, commission? No, we'll be good. All right. Uh, do you want to make a motion? And Luke, can I ask you to make this motion? And, uh, Shannon, this is a, this is our stormwater land disturbance. So it's gonna be a different one. So I'm writing it down. Okay. Sure. Uh, I move that we vote to approve the project under chapter 193, excuse me. Um, subject to Linda's review and satisfaction with the applicant's responses to the peer review report.
Thank you, Luke. Do we hear a second? Yep. Second. Thank you, Cliff. Quick roll call, please. Luke Legere? Yes. Barbara Hall? Yes. Yes. Cliff Lewis? Yes. Yes. Lisa Aubin? Yes. Yes. Shannon Fischer? Yep. Sean Ferzzi? Yes. All set, Vito? Great. All right. Thank you. All right. Now go home. Yeah. I'm ready for bed. All right. Awesome. Thanks, brother. Appreciate it. Thanks, everybody. Thanks. Uh, where are we? All right. 7A, elect chair and vice chair. My favorite time of year. Um, so the intent was just to set the table, um, have people start kind of working their way up so I can kind of get off the merry-go-round here at some point. Um, Uh, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll not let it. No, no, no, no. Can't get off the merry-go-round. Just, just played plans, Sean. No, no. Yeah, I know, right? That's gonna work. Shannon's doing a great job, but that's all you can't do. Nope. That's gonna work. Uh, that said, there are, there are a lot of, um, things working on the background this year. So I, you know, I'm going back on what I said. Um, and I, we elect both chair and vice chair. I think just one thing I'd ask is as we go elect in theory, the vice chair, or anybody who's been vice chair before, hopefully we can start working their way up into the chairman piece. I know maybe someone's not ready this year. I'm happy to maybe reconsider, but let's try to work to, uh, even this out so we can have people, not just us, but as new people come in, they can work their way if they so choose to be chair. Um, so yeah. So let's have an open discussion. What are we, what are we thinking?
No, the working their way up is good, but you haven't done your job yet to get everybody worked up to your level. Or work down to my level, but either. No, no, up, up is, up is where it is. Yeah. Up is your level. Yeah. Up is your level. Yeah. You're, you're a victim of your own success and good work, Sean. Yeah. No, I see if, if, if, Sean, I'm hearing you correctly and you're saying you're willing to hang on for another round as the chair, I very much appreciate that. Uh, and I very much support that. You're, you're doing a great job have been ever since I joined the commission. And, uh, yeah, I think, as you said, it seems like there's a lot happening that maybe that continuity would be good. So I, I very much support it if you're sure you're willing to do. Yeah. I know it's, I know it's kind of me who was on, on, on deck to step in. So I appreciate you doing this because I truly just don't know the ins and outs of the town and don't know the ins and outs of how legal things go. I know plants. And so I appreciate you kind of like being open to letting me off the hook on that. Do you want to take another year and be ready next year, or are you going to stick to plants? I'm not sure I'm prepared to commit to things like that. You want me to throw you under the bus again, Shannon, like I did last year? And then my computer froze, so I couldn't refute. Oh no. I came back and they're like, guess what? You're not sure. Um, yes. So I'm, I'm open to, to doing, um, another year. Um, and I did, if I don't, I think you're okay, Lisa. I did speak to Lisa offline. Um, and we asked her, uh, you know, asked her if she would be, uh, be offended if someone, you know, threw her in for the vice chairmanship. Um, again, learning at leisure when, when she so chooses to make motions, if not, you know, so not throwing her into the fire yet either, but that way we figured we've had Shannon as a vice chair, you know, Barbara's been chair in vice longer than I've ever been alive. Luke's done it. You know, Cliff, you've got experience. At least we'll have it that way. We all have some kind of experience in this vice chair chairmanship around the, kind of around the horn. So at least you did, did say it would be okay. I don't speak for you, Lisa, but, um, um, you said you'd be up for it. If that were the case, I apologize. I've been a little quiet tonight. I'm still getting over this cold and I'm drained. Um, but yes. Yeah. I mean, same as Shannon, I don't have the experience, but the only way you can get is by doing it. So, um, you know, happy to step in as vice chair and start practicing the motions and see how it goes. I'm practicing the motions too, just as I stepped down too much with it. So
not sure you're, you're stepping up to get off.
Don't worry, Shannon, anybody can make the motions. You don't have to be the vice chair. Luke, you're doing a job with the motions. You're doing really good. We, we did the same thing on the DPW. We had only one guy that made all the motions and he always did a good job. That was Mike Wagerbauer. I'm a, I'm a lawyer, right? Like if I can't do that, then what good am I? We appreciate it though. Or chop some wood or something.
Um, so, so what are we thinking then? Is that someone's gonna make a motion for something? And what, what are we thinking? So I'll throw this out there. I move that we, am I moving or am I nominating? What am I doing here? I think you're nominated. Yeah. I move that we nominate, uh, Sean for yet another term as chair, uh, and Lisa, uh, for a term as vice chair.
I would like to amend the motion to strike another term, because if we do, if that's out of there, then maybe we'll forget next year and then we can put him in again. This is my 10th year. It's kind of hard to forget at this point. Happy anniversary. Yeah, thank you. The plaques in the mail. Um, okay. Do I hear a second to Luke, Luke, Luke's motion? Second. I hear, I hear Babs there at the second. Um, any other discussion on that? Thank you, Sean. Yeah, let's hurry up and vote. Let's hurry up and vote before anybody changes their mind. Yeah, before he runs out of the media. Uh, unfortunately I'm running, so I can't run out, I can't leave. Um, uh, roll call please. Uh, Luke Leisure. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yeah, we're emphatically. Yes. Is that calm more? Sure. Uh, Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. And Sean Fair is a yes. Okay. All set there. Lisa, welcome aboard. Uh, 7B, tree conservation issues. Linda. That's Cliff. Uh, I asked Linda if she would put this on the agenda, so I, I do appreciate that. As you know, I haven't been on this commission very long. Uh, but I think everybody, it's clear that everybody here does like trees and appreciates trees and otherwise we wouldn't be on this commission. Uh, at the same time, uh, there are way more trees that die and, and, you know, just go poof in the night than are cut down by any amount of development. And we're, we're really focused on, on just the development aspects of where, where it impacts and where it concerns the trees. And there, you know, if you look at what's going on in the forest here in Wayland, the woolly algid is killing the eastern hemlocks. The ash borer is killing the ash. There's a beach blight that's going around. We're still trying for, you know, the last 50 years to get chestnuts reestablished. I think we, we should be, we should be looking at, and we should be doing something to preserve trees and, and somehow give people credit for preservation of trees. You know, I think we, we'd all look at a, at a project and let, let's just say we had a project and someone wanted to, to build something. Uh, we would much rather they preserve the, uh, the hemlocks than to just let them die. And, you know, somehow we, we gotta be incorporated. We gotta start thinking about that. Yeah. Because like a, like a proactive approach to say the trees on a lot to me. Yeah. Some, something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Because like I say, there's a whole lot more trees die than are ever cut down. Um, yeah, I think you make great points, Cliff. Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure exactly how to do that, but I'd be happy to, to start, start working with something or somebody or, you know, just start brainstorming this or what to do, how to think about it. Yeah. It's an, it's a, I like the idea, Cliff, what I would like to sort of chew on it a little bit. I mean, what, what I'm thinking, what comes to mind as you're speaking is, you know, like under the, in the context of zoning, like a density bonus, right. You know, in other words, for open space developments, where if you, instead of building on the entire 10 acres, if you focus the development on two or three and conserve the rest, you're able to build more units and you otherwise would be under zoning, right. So I don't, I don't know how that would translate to wetlands, but I liked, I liked the concept. Um, and, but I need to, I would need to think about it a little bit. Does it have to be specifically for wetlands? I understand that's where we mostly work, but like, no, I mean, no, but it has to be within our jurisdiction, jurisdiction or have any meaning. Right. So it would either be wetlands or stormwater related. Yeah. Stormwater. But I mean, we have jurisdiction on stormwater everywhere. We could look at other towns. It's possible that other towns have something there. There could be, there could be some programs of some kind. I will say that like, some of these are more doable than others. Like I have a lot of hemlocks and it's really not hard to treat them for adelgid and have it be long lasting, very minimal intervention. And it works. But how far are they away from your driveway? Oh, they're like super close. So like right behind it. Okay. It's super easy if they're super close. Yeah, no, that, well, it's, I don't have like, it's, it's a, it's a soil drench. It's like one cup of water or one cup of solution. Like anyone, it's not hard. That said, but like, I mean, I'm very close with an arborist and from what I've heard, there's like nothing on the table yet. That's super doable for the large beaches. Like maybe some of the beaches do a foliar spray, but it's a nasty antifungal. That's full of like, or I don't even know what it is. It's wouldn't be an antifungal. It's cause it's a nematode, but like, you can't even reach. Yeah. So there could like, it could almost also fold in somehow if people like taking your idea and having something like that, which, which I actually really love the idea of. And then also, like there's, there's future proofing that people can do. Let's say somebody does have a big beach tree and they know it's a matter of time. And so they choose to plant a small hickory sort of underneath to be, you know, it can live under that shade until it gets up. And then you're sort of preemptively future proofing planting a currently not terribly invested nut tree. And so replacing ecosystem function canopy nut tree in a way. So that's, that's even something people can think about. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't have an answer for this. It's just something that we, we should start a conversation. We should start thinking about this because it's obviously a big issue and it sort of does fall under our purview and we're not looking at it at all. And I think, I think we'll do ourselves justice to start looking at it, start the conversation, start thinking about it. I think it's a really good idea. There's also things that people may not know to think about. So everyone's got the nice big oaks, right? But if they get hit with drought after drought, drought after drought, the way they are now, then they can become more susceptible, I believe, to that, to a soil fungus, amaryllia or something like that. And that can be a problem, but it's always there. It's not usually a problem. So maybe giving the oak tree water now and again and teaching them like, Hey, like if we're in a severe drought, if you give that oak tree a little bit of water, you can help stave off a sudden death in the next year or two. It's like a little bit of education, you know, even just on our website, you know, so in one of the town manager newsletters, you know, you can have a link to our website to, to the conservation page. And maybe there's just these tidbits of information. Like a lot of people might not know that hemlocks are subject to disease, for example, if they have them in the yard. I mean, I know, you know, as we all like trees, right? So it's easy for me to say as a homeowner, like I appreciate the trees I have because I have shade, especially when it's just so hot and dry nowadays. And so I would like to think that people that have, you know, trees on their property want to preserve them. They just might not know about all this stuff. Yeah. I do like the idea, Cliff, though. Yeah, I'll show you some ideas, too. And we also got to get together in that Cross Wayland Trail. So I owe you several things, Cliff. Oh, okay. Then you're remiss. That's what you are.
Um, so I, I like the idea. So yeah, well, let's, let's keep that conversation going. I mean, I, I'd be happy to, to, to talk offline with Shannon and Linda about just start to kick some ideas around. That'd be great. Thank you. Linda's excuse. She's gone missing here. No, I'm typing. Oh, you're typing. Are you, are you up to this idea, Linda? No, I was sending Amy Quizzle an email. So because I'm not in tomorrow, I'm still have like 30 some hours of vacation time that I have to figure out how to use. We're roping you into a new idea here. Oh, great. Yes, of course. She's up for it. Okay, good. Love it. Thanks, Cliff. All right. One last thing before you guys, you know, um, Shannon finished, uh, uh, her newest, uh, uh, what is we call this? Um, the newsletter. That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah. Yeah. Finally, it comes out here regularly. Wild Wayland. So did you send it around to the commission members, Shannon? Not yet. I haven't before. Is it something where I should circulate before we go to press? No, they should get a copy of it though. So. I know Sean signed up to the email thing because I see his newsletter and Barbara and Lisa are all on our newsletter. Luke, I don't know if you are, and Cliff, you might not be either. I'm not. No, I didn't know that you wrote a newsletter. I'll join the idea. I guess I, I missed the boat on, on signing up for that. Yeah. I'll make it happen. I can throw your guys' town emails right into that. That'd be great. Okay. Awesome. Thanks. I do, instead of being shared, I write you a newsletter.
Also, uh, was at the dam today. Lots and lots of activity. They encountered way more ledge than they were expecting. They've been hammering for almost two weeks now at the spillway, but hopefully that'll be done today or possibly into tomorrow. So. Where is this, Linda? At the Snakebrook Dam. Oh, the Snakebrook Dam. Okay. Yeah. So, um, yes, it's, uh, lots of snapping turtles, Shannon, um, uh, uh, laying eggs right along the impoundment, uh, along the edge of the impoundment on the dam. So I think we're going to have to get turtle rescue in there because it's right in the construction zone. So multiple turtles doing that? Multiple turtles. Yes. One of them laid on the loom pile and I wasn't there fast enough to rescue them. Okay. I think a lot of more material got dumped on the loom pile or in the dirt pile. So, um, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about that anymore. So. All right. You guys got through to like, how long is, uh, I'll, I'll ping, I'll ping you offline. I'll send you an email. Yeah, no, I mean, I, I don't think, um, the, the construction actually, when they start slip lining the, under the low level outlet, that's when there's going to be a lot of activity on that bank. So I'm not sure when that's scheduled for yet. So. And real quick, uh, Shane, uh, I've got to tell you three, I got say three huge snapping curls this year on the road. Picked them up. So. Thank you so much. That's so good. You're welcome. The last one was a real big one. Okay. To pick one of those up, you, you pick it up by the side. You pick it up behind the back legs. Behind the back legs. You curl up underneath there because they have really long nails. You know, you may get scratched, but you pick them up behind their back, their back legs under the shell and gently roll up this with them. And they'll actually, yeah. I use a shovel cliff. That's actually a little towel over their heads. And it works just like with a dog, they're just like kind of confused and they won't bite. And then you could even just pick them up by the middle. If you went that way, it's true. Yeah, it's heavy. They're heavy. Yeah. They're heavy. They have very sharp jaws and very, very powerful jaws, don't they? Less so. Oh yeah. You lose a finger. Careful. Oh yeah. Good. Or an Achilles tendon. Yeah. That's even better. They have less bite force than a human. Oh, good. Okay. Thank you. That's reassuring, Shannon. Picked by a bigger teeth though, don't they? A bigger beak. They're just scared. Their plastron is so tiny. All their organs are exposed. They have to. It's very scary to be picked up by a giant. I mean, you don't understand. I'm calling you when I see one. You have you come pick it up. Please do. Go for it. I'll come pick it up. I don't mind. Yeah. Call it. Call me or Sean. Last week I was leaving work and there's JD, our part-time land manager, out on Route 20, stopping commuter traffic at four o'clock in the afternoon, getting a snapping turtle to go across. Like, oh my gosh, I can't watch this. Oh my gosh, somebody's gonna die. Somebody is. Probably not the snapping turtle. Hopefully not the snapping turtle. All right. On to 7C, a point CPC rep. Um, that's been me for the last several years. Um, just for the most of the heavy lifting is really kind of like end of year swinging into the new year before town meeting, right? So right now we don't, we're not meeting really. So, um, it's a great community to be on. You learn a lot of, I mean, you learn a lot, so it's not hard. There's not nothing, nothing compared to what we do here. It's just, um, so, um, Sean, does it have to be a commission number or is that somebody we can appoint from, you know, anybody?
Official rules? No, I'm not sure. I'm not official rules. I don't know that. Um, I can ask. No one wants to do it. Um, yeah. So thoughts. Anyone want to try that one? Give that a whirl? I'll jump at once.
So, so, so it was just for, yeah, just for now. Dominate Shannon.
Here's what I'll do for now, for like, just, just for now, because we're not doing, we're not doing anything. We can always change this. So, A, let me find out, Linda. I don't know if we can appoint non board members. I'll find out. Um, A and B, um, I ask you folks, think through, if you're something you want to try getting nothing we're doing now. So I'll, I'll just, I can say it for now, but come this fall when it ramps up and we actually are meeting and really doing things. Um, be thinking about, we can always kind of change forces then. So this one's not as important because we're not, we don't do anything in the summer. It'd be good to have a clear sense of what, what it is, what it really. CPC is the, so CPA, like, you know, the little tax that gets taken out every year. We, the committee, uh, here, people who want to apply to use the CPA funds and we say yes, no, maybe. And so when it comes to town meeting, we kind of shave that down to what we think is appropriate and what we want to devolve from good for conservation. Part of what that money that comes out, that one and a half percent is automatically already set aside for conservation. Right. So some of the things that they come from the general fund, we actually have our own little fund and kitty. Um, and so, um, yeah, it's nice to have a kind of a say from conservation standpoint, uh, on that, um, and help, help direct, direct where that goes. So yeah, it's not, but okay. So you're, so as, as the committee, you sit down and you, you decide where to direct all of the CPA, CPA fund projects. No, they're going to come before us. Right. So they, we say how much is in, how much is in there. We do our financing. And then it's already the fall. People come before us. So, um, the, the playground, uh, Cachituate, um, they came before us, they wanted a couple hundred thousand dollars. So we had to decide, is that really within our jurisdiction and how much we give a couple of them are pretty easy. And so we just basically monitor the money coming in, making sure we have a certain amount that we always keep there. And we send the rest back out according to what we think is appropriate based on how it's set up. So it's, yeah, you're just approving projects through open space recreation and, um, historical municipal usually just gets a whole chunk of money just delivered to them and they put it in their own trust. So, so how much of like, how much of, um, a time commitment is it in the peak? Are you like, what's the learning curve? Like, and is each like, how much bookkeep, like, is there bookkeeping involved when somebody has a board? So we have a treasurer, but not, not, you wouldn't be, we're not, we're not, I'm not it. So it's like getting like, go and vote and right. So, but it's run by, uh, a chair, a vice chair and a treasurer. Um, the, at its peak, you're meeting once every couple of weeks for, you know, for a couple of times, like there'll be a couple, a few hour meetings when people are coming in and presenting on that, it's just follow up and presenting at town meeting and doing that kind of stuff. And frankly, the chairs, she's a stud, Susan, she does a lot of, I mean, does a lot of the heavy lifting. So the, the, the conservation chair, uh, our spot that we, you know, just, you don't have to not design a learning curve. It's, oh, this is a cool project. Yeah. It fits with what we want. Yeah. I'll vote. It's like three or four meetings a year, typically. And you just go and you look at the projects and you say, I like this or I don't. Typical. Right. A couple of fall meetings before and after. So a total of seven, eight meetings the entire year, but they're compact between fall and beginning of winter before town meetings. But I could potentially, yeah, potentially. Yeah, I could. Susan takes all the projects to make sure that they're eligible for CPC, because that's always the first step, but it's a great funding source for conservation. I mean, we purchased 27 Sherman bridge from that, um, from that funding a few years ago, we're doing boardwalks, we're doing some tree restoration work. So you might be interested in that, you know, we're looking at painting, planting a bunch of red pines, which we don't have very many of in town. So, I mean, there's, you know, we use it as like, it's kind of like, you know, fun projects that we can't really, um, put in our budget and sort of, you know, I mean, those, those are hard to, hard to include in our budget because typically we do, um, level service and you can't start adding a, you know, an $18,000 boardwalk project to that because then it's, you know, suddenly our, our budget's like way over than what it's supposed to be. So we use CPC for doing a lot of this stuff, especially open space management type stuff. So yeah, I think you'd like, I'll kick it aside. Like it's, it's project driven. And so you can actually see where our conservation money goes and like help direct where that money is implemented. Right. So I'm potentially up for this. Okay. Um, You might contact Susan and just ask her what's involved if you're interested. Yeah. Do we have to seal this deal tonight? No, look at the website too. You know, the town website has, the CDC has their own webpage. And so all the previous projects that were, um, probably applications are still in there potentially what they approved and, you know, and who submitted these, all that stuff, there's really good information on the website because then you can kind of get a sense of what, what's, you know, what, what, um, you would be reviewing over the course of a year, you know, so. Well, I do love a good project that tells things. So, so why don't we do this so you can kind of get, do some research and let us know. For now, I'll hold the seat. Again, we're not doing anything and we can always vote to change this later on. Sounds great. Does that work? I'll do that. Yeah. Okay. Um, so what are we doing? So, uh, just paying a motion then to, I guess, reappoint me for the, for the placeholder for the time being. So, Luke. Thank you, Luke. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yeah. Sean Fair. Yes. Let's sit there. Thank you. Public comment. I didn't see any hands, nor did I see any. Nope. Okay. Uh, Babs, how are we doing for the May 27th minutes? You good to go there? I don't remember whether I gave her the, they're just typos that I have. Okay. There's little stuff. And I don't remember whether I gave it to her or not. No, I don't think you did, Barbara. I think we're still waiting for your input. So, um, if it's just a bunch of typos, we can, we can correct those pretty quickly. Right. So, is anybody anything to add? Typhos on 26 rice. Typhos on 26 rice. Oh, that's one. Okay. Um, yeah. So I guess unless anybody has anything to add to that, I guess looking to make me a motion for approval of the minutes pending Barbara's technical edits there for Linda. So moved. Second. Thank you, Luke. Thank you, Cliff. Roll call, please. Luke Legere. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean, there's a yes. Uh, that's all we got. Linda, anything else before we sign off? Nope. Nope. Did you say no? Nope. Nothing for me. Okay. All right, all. That's all we got. I move that we adjourn the meeting for the evening. Yep. Luke will hear a second. Second, Mr. Luke's motion. Thank you, Cliff. Last roll call of the night. Uh, Luke Legere. Yes. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Shannon Fischer. Yes. And Sean, there's a yes as well. We are adjourned, folks.