Hi to everyone. Uh yes, so about 27 ft um outside the wetland zone. >> Okay. So I think I I think that if if the 25 ft buffer zone is restored now before the wall is built in that
location, I don't I I it's it's I think it's only going to have an adverse impact. I don't I don't I don't see how it's possible not to, you know, wreck at least a part of the restoration by building the wall in that location. Um
if if if if the commission um is is agreeable to um to that to the the location they now would like, I I would suggest that the restoration be done after the new wall is constructed. Um,
but that but that then leads into the question, well, what is what is the proper process for approving the new wall? Um, as as as I explained to uh Tarly and Luis, uh, then there needs to be some kind of a filing done to um uh,
you know, get approval to to rebuild the wall. Um, it can it it can, you know, the couple possibilities. Request for a termination applicability or a notice of intent filing. Um, you know, I uh as as
as as I mentioned um to them um at at the at the site visit, I think in a general sense, you know, it that whether it's an RDA or an NOI is depends on um
you know, the uh the distance from the wetlands that the farther away it is, you know, the commission's past policy has be more likely an RDA. Um but I but I but I think um I I think we need to step back a little
bit and um you know look at look look at this from the the perspective of well what what would the proper process have been if um if if it had been done in the proper order. you know, if the wetlands had been delineated and you know, a plan
drawn up um and you know, a filing submitted with with with the commission um you know, prior to the work being done rather than, you know, after the fact, you know, the context of a violation as what's being done now. um
because that that and and and that's and that's why I put in the enforcement order, you know, the um the requirement for the original the buffer zone original conditions plan because that that would have then um you know the commission would have looked at the
impact of the wall things like um uh you know are any trees proposing to take down any trees as part of the construction. you know, how how much alteration of the topography is there and really why why do they want to um why does the owner want to construct a
retaining wall to begin with? So, um I I I I think I think you know those are still all legitimate questions and um you know it's it's um you know they come into play. Um I mean c s c s c s c s c s
c s c s c s c s c s c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c certainly what what uh the owner can do is file an RDA you know with the understanding that it could either be a positive or a negative you know where um where if it's a positive then they will have to file a
notice of intent um but you know that that might be you know the the best approach in this case again so that if if the commission at least has that that original conditions plan you can have you uh be in a better position to be able to
assess the impact and you know the mitigation and you know what what the issues are you know part of >> that's good good background information >> um David so I think what I'm hearing then is um again with the filing of an RDA I mean there's no commitment from
this commission whether we're going to give a negative determination or positive we really look at the RDA right >> application and we look at the information that comes in with that and then we make our determination there so >> yes that might be kind a logical next step. >> Yes. And they and and and the applicant
includes the plan >> um you know uh for the wall, you know, and uh if if you know the commission thinks there's not a good reason for it being as close as to what they're proposing, you know, that that that can
be thrashed out, you know, during the hearing. >> Yeah. At the RDA stage. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, now one one thing to keep in mind is is is if if the commission wants the wall uh farther away from the wetlands than I think what they're currently thinking of then then it would
really make sense then to remove more of the wall on either side because they've only on either side of the wall they've only removed up to the 27 you know uh foot buffer zone. >> Right. All right. Charlie has a question.
>> Charlie, do you have a question? Uh I just wanted to to note um the uh the written report for the original condition is also um in the proposing plotting uh planting plan. >> Oh, it is. >> So yeah, Moren uh put all of that
together. Um >> Okay. And we have also requested the land surveyor to prepare a proposed plan with the wall where uh we're asking to build it now. Um along with showing the nine shrubs that she has uh she didn't
find any trees there on there like Google maps pictures and and other stuff that shows um the area pretty well. So in the planting plan, she did put a list of shrubs there that we can choose from
and she requested that we plant nine. So I did ask the lens surveyor to include that in the proposed plan so that it shows where each shrub should be. Um I also have requested that he uh stake out the 25 buffer zone so there there's no
mistake made there um in the construction of the wall as soon as that's permitted. Um the proposed plotting uh proposed plot plan should be ready by Thursday and no later than Friday. He will have
the lot uh staked out as well. Just wanted to throw that information there so you guys know um other than everything that David has said, what else is going on? >> So um here uh here is the uh an aerial photo of the project um of the property
as it uh appeared in 2023. Uh, I gather Luis bought the property in 2024. Is that is that correct, Luis? So, um, so this was actually prior to when, um, the property was, uh,
acquired. Let's take a look at what it looks like now. Um, so I mean it guess it looks a little bit different, but but I'll I'll I'll I'll take a look at um Moren's um report on
the original conditions. Uh but I I I think that that's that's in my opinion, I think that that should be, you know, a topic of discussion during during, you know, the hearing, you know, whatever whatever the filing is. All
right, good. All right. Well, thanks for that input, Charlie. Uh maybe we'll just uh start with the commission. Why don't we start with Peter? Could you have your hand up? We can roll right down. Peter, any comments? >> David, could you go back to just scroll up on the document on the screen,
please? >> So, what Charlie's saying is that they have submitted item one. Is that correct? >> We have that just came in. That's That's what just came in, right? I >> um I I gather again I haven't really had a chance to look at it. I I I will
verify that. Yes. >> Okay. That that's my only question at this point. >> All right. Thanks. Good. Ally roll down. >> David Gachlin, >> since I'm new to this, maybe I can move back around. Is this a modification of an existing submission to us that we
responded to and are looking for more information under the cease and desist or is this a new application? It was a it was a violation situation where the law went >> and what is this the violation that's being corrected exactly >> or is this something brand new? >> This is a correction. So it would be
pulling the wall back and that's what that's what that is. >> Yeah. Yeah. We'd be pulling the wall back away from that 25. >> Did the board have discussions about what the what the wall would look like originally or or not? >> Anybody want to add? >> Um >> or did we not get to that?
>> The the wall was built. >> The wall was built. The wall was built before I ever I even ever knew about it. >> That's and that was that's what has to be changed. >> Um, yeah, because because it was in the 25 foot. >> Is this changing it? >> No, that's the aspill plan. That's the
wall. So, so maybe May may maybe I haven't really been very clear. I think what does need to be decide decided tonight, I mean, ideally anyway, is how to proceed from here. I think there does need to be a fi if they I mean obviously
um the owner wants to have a wall there. So that requires a filing. So um you know regardless of the violation you know it requires a filing. So you know what kind of filing? Um >> you could go in RDA which is a little
simpler and more full NOI. >> In the cease and desist we submitted a list of requirements from the applicant. >> Yes. of which we have some but not all yet and the rest of them I guess are coming by the end of this week
something on Thursday or Friday. >> I I think >> now will that answer all of our open questions as far as we know it or do we need to review information to see if it does? Um I I I think that they've they've they've again I have to verify but let's say for the sake of discussion
that um the verification will uh you know bear bear out what I'm being told. They've they've they've submitted everything that was required under the enforcement order, >> but they they have not done a new filing
um for, you know, rebuilding the wall in the location that they want. And >> so they're just satisfying the requests under the enforcement. >> That's right. >> That doesn't mean that if they do that, the project is approved yet. >> Correct. Okay. Correct. I understand
>> and and there's no guarantee that it will be approved >> but they have to you know a filing needs to be done. >> Okay. >> Um and so you know is at this point is it an RDA again which can be a positive or negative you know gives the commission the option uh meaning if it's
a positive we get a notice of intent or do you want a notice of intent right off the bat? >> All right. Okay, Mark, >> you had a question. >> Carly, your hands up. Yes.
>> Yeah. So, the uh the document I was talking about, the proposed block plan with everything on it, um that was just for the uh building application that we've submitted. So, I think that was just that's not uh in the enforcement order. That's coming uh just to fulfill
the building application which needs it. >> That that's right. I should have said that that that because it was also a violation of um you know the building code because of the height required that it it it needed a um a building permit. Um the building department wanted wanted
to see them also file an application for a building permit. So that's that's you know the context that the plan that Tarly is saying uh is referencing that was submitted in connection with the building department application.
>> Okay. Good. Good. Mark, research system. >> Uh yeah, two I guess two points. The the first point is the restoration uh on what they've already done, taking it everything back out of there. I want to see it back to was
prior to any disturbance there, then they can go ahead and file. I I'm not concerned whether this causes more work from later or not. But you bring up a good point too, saying that how do how do how can we approach this
is want him to do something with the un with uh let me think how we want how we wanted to word that with the uh assurance. >> Well, not the insurance not the assurance but not taking into
consideration that they never they never filed with us. So what what damage was done that that can be un that can't be undone now I guess what I'm trying to say >> well that's that's that's a good
question um I I I don't know uh um according to Tarly um and you know we can check with his consultant on this that there were no trees removed um there there has there has been substantial regrading out there no doubt about that um and I don't I don't know
if most of that was cutting or filling. Tarly, what what can you tell us about that? >> Uh, most of it was filling. And um along with the the nine shrubs that Marine wants us to plant, there is also some um
let me just scroll back here. There's also some uh I'm not sure if I can say loom or moch. I think it's a mix of two that she wants us to uh install. there back again before we
even put the shrubs to bring it back to its original state. >> Do you um >> go ahead >> pretty much like to bring it back to where it was the vegetation and everything um is a fairly simple process. There wasn't much there um that
that we need to put back. So that's not a very complicated thing to do. The It's just really poison ivy that was there that we're not replacing. So um from my point of view there isn't any damage that can't be undone. Um we are going to
put the grading back to where it was. The uh the retaining wall is pretty much going to serve that purpose so that the from the side of the wall that is um facing the opposite side of the wetlands
will have a higher grading. So the wall will will you know if if there wasn't a wall it would be hard to to just have a slope there from where the grading outside the buffer zone is to to the wetlands. So in a way the wall will also
help that. Um what I was discussing with David in regards to what we do now and I did mention that you know if you want us to restore the wetlands that's fine. Um the talk was that should we do that now
and then disturb it again while building the wall or can we have any documents that uh ensures that as soon as the wall is built that 25 buffer zone will be restored to where it was.
Um in in our point of view uh you know we're trying to correct a mistake. So either way that's decided we are going to go along with it. Um, it kind of makes more sense as I talked to David to restore it afterwards so it doesn't get disturbed. But just thinking about it
now, if you guys would like to have that restored before any work is done as proof of goodwill or or so, um, we can put, you know, put a protection fence um, a foot or two from where the wall
is. That way if anything gets disturbed, it'll just be a foot or two of uh of loom. Um the shrubs won't be where the wall is anyway. So it won't disturb them. So >> you decide that we could try to have a protection fence
um protecting the that as well. >> But I but I but I think Mark's question was really getting um at Tarly, not just the vegetation. If you look if you look at at the screen um you probably can't see my screen, right? Um
can you? >> No. >> So So let me let let me share it. Um >> I can see it now. >> Oh. Oh. Can you can you see the um >> can can you the GIS?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, so you see you see these are these are the the contours that existed um well whenever this map was made I I I think it was well before Lewis uh bought the property. Um I mean the the contours
out there right now are nothing like this. >> Um yeah so >> lot of grading done there. >> So so did Luis do that? You know did someone else do that? Um because if you look in
my opinion, if you look at this, I don't see why there's there's a need for a retaining wall to begin with. I mean, this is this is this darker one right here is 170 ft coming down to 165
uh 64 63. Um so it's about it's about a 7 foot drop from just in back of the house down to the wetlands. Um do you so um do you have photos of the site that currently
>> so kind of um >> but down there's like a wall well I mean where where the retaining wall was it's it's now like a big dirt wall in back here. So, so again I think Mark's question and correct me Mark you know if I if I'm not speaking correctly that I
think maybe Mark is asking why not instead of having the wall why not just try to you know smooth it gradually you know according to the original contours here. >> Yeah. So, the wall was pretty much a, you know, a preference for the
homeowner. Um, just to have a a border around the properties, you know, where kids can play and everything. It's just the the process, the steps taken that to build that wall weren't the ones that should have been done, you
know, with uh getting a permission for it and everything. So, it wasn't because there was a need for a wall there. It was just a homeowner preference to install it and try to flatten the backyard to uh instead of having a slope.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I think what you're are you wrestling with the 50 foot no build rule? >> No. >> Thinking the wall should be further away. >> I I we had a violation over over on Smith Street and we made them replicate
what was there before the violation occurred. Then we gave him permission to do what they wanted to do. And I think we ought to follow the same thing here. He says he doesn't want to disturb the area he's replicating, but he shouldn't be in it to begin with. So, how can he
disturb it? >> Well, that that that would mean then taking out the entire retaining wall among other things. And and I assume I'm saying somebody I'm I'm not I'm not saying that he
should be allowed to keep it, but that's it would involve taking out the rest of the wall. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, >> Carly. Yeah. I was going to say something. >> Yeah. In the last meeting that we had,
um the result of the meeting was to remove the wall, the part of the wall that was inside the 25 ft buffer zone, uh that we were to restore it and then seek permission to build the wall um to
rebuild the end of the 25 buffer zone. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yeah, I'm good. >> All right, Mark's good for now. Let's move on to Bill. >> How tall was the wall that you took out? How high a wall was it? >> Four feet.
>> Four feet. >> Um, >> well, that doesn't need a building permit. I mean, that that requires a 5 foot high wall, I believe. >> But it was close to the property line. >> Um, I think it's the height. No, I think
it's the height. It's the height. >> David, is the is the would the wall retaining wall be exempt from the 50 foot no build? Um, I I think uh in my in my opinion uh in
my opinion based on the time I've been here that re retaining walls are not included in the 50-foot no build. Um but I I don't necessarily think that that's cast in stone and the commission needs to be held to that. I mean there's no
there's no nothing formally, you know, uh explicitly in the regulations that say that um the you know permanent structures include retaining walls, >> right? Um I don't remember ever considering a
retaining wall that you know exhaoot. I didn't ever remember us. >> Yeah. and and I think the commission has allowed retaining walls the 50 foot. >> So the retaining wall if you go back
however many feet you're going to go it's going to become taller too right because of the grade instead of a 4ft wall at where where you are where you used to be it's going to be taller because you're going up the grade. >> Um well ex except and and maybe Charlie
you should respond to this um after I give my thoughts. Um it's right now it seems to be pretty flat in back of where the retaining wall was. So um it's it's again I don't know if there was additional grading. Maybe May may may
maybe you could weigh in on that Tarly. >> Um well we won't add any grading to what it is now. The the grading as it stands today is what the homeowner uh was looking for. So there there'll be no grading added to it. I I I guess I think
what Bill's asking is if if the commission makes makes you move the wall back, will the wall have to get higher and higher? Is that >> right? >> Yeah, that's >> uh it would be the opposite. So the further the closer we are to the 25 ft
buffer zone, the higher the wall would need to be. So the more it moves back uh well I mean the the the where the wall was before the existing wall it was inside the 25 uh foot buffer zone. So
moving it back let's say uh to 27 ft instead of you know it was pretty much around like 15 or or 17 ft. Um so the further we move back the the less it has to be hide.
>> Okay. But but if you but if you look at this the contours here say you move it back to the 50 foot set back. I mean the the grade is going up. I mean it's going up you know from 165 to 170. It's going
up a good five feet. Um well I guess this is closer to the one the one the 170 is closer to the 100 foot buffer zone line. Um but but I think that's that's that's the general concern. Um, I think it'd be a hardship to make them
remove all the wall to replace to pull the dirt out that we possibly would grant them the approval to put the wall back. Then you're going to put the same dirt back where it was. I mean, I think you're making a bigger deal out of it than
needs to be. But I think at this point we just need to decide if it's a if it's an what it is an NOI or request for determination and then we'll take it up from there. But um I don't I think maybe we're getting
ahead of ourselves. >> All right, Bill. Anything more? >> No. >> Go ahead, John. >> Uh I'm I'm good with it getting it out out of the 25 foot no build. Okay, that's
I'm good with that. You know, the 27 ft and uh yeah, I think we're we're overthinking 20 30 feet here. 20 feet. But if he's they're going to restore it. >> Yeah, >> they got to obviously they got the
wetland scientists got to have a plant or whatever. It's just when you do this all >> the sequence. Yeah, >> the sequence. It's all the sequence I think that we're looking at right now. >> Well, and and what kind of a filing going to be
>> and what kind of filing? >> That's right. Right. >> Well, I think at our last meeting, we kind of led him to believe that if they moved it out of the 25, we weren't going to make them take the rest of the wall out. We kind of went in that direction. So, I'd hate to see us redesign this
again or rethink these things. >> There's no there's no question in my mind this should be done under notice of intent. It's complicated enough as I listen to this discussion. >> Then you can put special conditions in it, right? That you wouldn't normally be able to put in the >> my my only concern that I've heard
tonight is to move that wall from 25 to 27. Are they going to have to do it by working in the wetlands to move the wall or can it all be done from outside the wetlands? And that would have to be discussed under a notice of intent. What's the construction sequence to get
to get that extra? Is it two feet? All we're talking about is 2 and 1/2 ft. >> Charlie, can you comment on that now? >> Um, so so again, the existing wall wasn't um 25 ft from the wetlands. It
was less than that. Um and to I I think maybe to show goodwill. Um maybe the sequence we can be the first thing we do is just restore the 25 uh foot buffers on M lens to where it was. Uh in that
way, you know, David can go inspect and see that everything has been restored. Um and then if we have your your approval, we can rebuild the part of the wall on the 27 ft. uh buffers on.
>> Yeah. But I don't I don't see how you're going to be able to adequately protect the restoration if you're building the new wall that close. >> Think maybe doing the wall first and the restoration second is a better sequence. >> I think I think if it's kept at 27 ft. Yes.
>> So that's I think David's recommendation I'm hearing. You know, do do the wall first and then do the restoration because we don't want to mess up. >> If if if you're going to keep it at 27 ft. If if the commission makes him move it back to 50 feet, then I would say do the restoration first.
So, um but that that can be decided as part of a filing, you know. >> Yeah. I'm done. >> I mean, our regulations say that 25 foot no build is an absolute >> and there are reason >> that's no disturb
>> and you and you are you can wave that under certain circumstances but the 100 foot is just our jurisdiction to to view what the project is. Doesn't mean they can't do it, >> right? >> That's correct. >> Yes. So, I think what I'm hearing I I think
what I like is what David's recommending, you know, um, you know, have them do the, you know, do the wall first and then do the restoration after that and then there's going to be less disturbance and we get everything restored back to what we wanted. >> Well, I would I I would suggest doing
the filing. >> Yes. >> And then and then, you know, that that can be a condition. Um, it could could be a condition of determination applicability. I I think a notice of intent, you know, is, you know, it's it's it's stronger and, you know, the
order of conditions is, you know, stronger in, you know, in a sense more binding than conditions in a in a determination. So, um I again I I think that if again if they had done things in the proper order and they had come in um
any applicant come in and say we want we want to build you know a 5 foot high retaining wall you know 27 feet away from the wetlands I think I think probably would have been until you got to file a notice of intent but that can still they can still do an RDA and it
can be positive. So you know don't necessarily have to make that decision tonight. Um, but I think a filing needs to be done. >> Okay. >> I would just advocate whatever you would ordinarily recommend to a property owner, which sounds like it would be an
NOI. I mean, you know, we're why wouldn't we ask the same >> I mean, I think my experience has been that a lot of times with the the homeowner, you know, we we go RDAs because you don't have the advertising, legal notices. It's that can get depending. It all depends on how many of
butters you got, but sometimes that can get pretty expensive. There's a lot of butters you have to notify with the legal notices. So, >> uh, you know, a lot of times somebody comes in and talks to us and then we go down the RDA route and then we can make a determination at the RDA route whether we need the full notice of intent at that point,
>> which and sometimes we have to do that. We look at it and it's pretty complicated when they get in front of us with the RDA. So then we say, you know what, you guys got to come back with a full notice. >> Yeah. Just as long as the applicant understands that it could be a positive determination, meaning that they will have to come back with a notice. Jack
So, where are we? >> I think the kind of we're at the point where we just came in today on the agenda really for kind of an update discussion. So, I think we've had the update and discussion. I mean, at the end of the day, it's the applicants, you know, we we need a filing really. And so, I mean, you go either way, RDA or
notice of intent. Um, I'm not hearing people, you know, I mean, notice intent, nobody's going to say that's a bad thing to file, right? I mean, it's very comprehensive and it's good. On the other hand, the applicant might want to, you know, approach us first with a, you know, RDA request and see if that
satisfies our concerns or not. So, >> I think that's where I'm at. I think it's really back to the um, you know, to the property owner here next steps, but I think you've got um, you know, uh, Tarly, I think you got a good sense of where the commission's coming at now. Do
you have any questions before we wrap it up for our discussion? Uh well well um the first hearing we had you know the the number one concern was really to get this corrected and done as fast as possible. So you know I I would
whatever you guys decide that we should do we are you know we're here we're trying to correct the mistake. Um any request made we're going to fulfill it to the best as we can. Um, if an RDA is a simpler way to do it, uh, I
would, uh, request that, if you guys, uh, all agree on it. But again, um, we're just trying to get this solved, uh, as soon as possible. So, whatever, uh, you whatever the the board decides and thinks it's best, we
will go along with it. >> All right. Good. I understand that. Well, but but I I I think what the what I'm hearing the commission sayarly is you got to do a filing if if >> absolutely you know you're if you're 27
feet away from the wetland you got to do a filing. >> Um I I think at this point uh I think you understand you know sort of the the aspects of a request for determination applicability versus a notice of intent.
You certainly have a legal right to to file either one, but you know there's a possibility if you file a request for termination applicability, the commission could come back and say you need to file a notice of intent. That's the point of an RDA. Um it it is asking
the com the commission to make a decision as to whether whether the project is in a sense minor enough that it can be deprove it can be approved without a notice of intent or you have to go the next step to do the notice of intent. You can do the notice of intent
right off the bat if if you want. Um, but as as I mentioned at at the site visit, you have to, you know, notify a butters, you have to uh submit it to uh DP. Um, but you might have to do that anyway if it's a positive determination.
>> I mean, yeah, just piggybacking on that, Tarly. I mean, it could be quicker to do the RDA because sometimes, you know, there's less formalities. You don't have to do the legal notices. Uh, we're not waiting for comments coming back from um from D, etc. So, it could be quicker.
But on the other hand, if you come in here with an RDA and there's a lot of questions and you know concerns, etc., then the RDA could then be deemed as a positive determination by the commission and then you'd be coming back with a notice of intent. So that could be a
longer process. So in some ways, it's a judgment call. You know, if it's if it's going to be a notice of intent, it's kind of bet it's frankly quicker to file the full notice of intent, get all the plans in, notify DP, the abuters and all that, and go down that path. But, you know, it's kind of a judgment call.
>> What is what is the board's opinion on a case like this on whether or not it would become a notice of intent? >> Well, we're kind of jumping the gun a bit because when we do the RDA hearing, we we that's where we legally make the decision of whether it's going to be um
you know, it needs to be a notice of intent and that's like looking at the plans, looking at all the information, then we make that legal decision. I mean, we can informally do a quick poll right now to get a feeling from the commission, but it's not binding it off. I could be clear on that. >> I understand that. >> But we can give you a quick feel. I mean,
>> player, but I would I would really appreciate, you know, >> so let's we'll do an informal polling here. We'll start with John down the left. John, any feelings on >> if they can get it out of the 27 foot and we just got to figure out how they're going to do that before or after
the wall. >> Right. I'm good with it, you know, as far as getting it out of that. >> Right. Okay. >> All right. Thanks for your feel. Bill comments already. >> I think they've worked with us to this point at this point. So, I could go with
the uh request for determination. >> Okay. All right. Mark, >> it's getting kind of complicated. We're making a complicated. >> We're making it complicated, it seems. I I just have a problem with not the way
it was done and it's just kind of being pushed to the side. I I go with an eye. >> All right, Dave. >> Based on what I've heard tonight, you guys have had more discussions. I think it's a significant enough project with
enough unanswered questions tonight that I think a notice of intent is the way to go. >> Thanks, Alan. I would say notice of intent based on what they just said. My concern is is that if we say RDA and then he does it and then now he's going to have to do it anyways, you might as well just file it.
>> It could be longer, frankly, because you do the RDA, you get a positive termination, go down the NOI route, >> more time, more meetings, more discussions, and more uh you know, paying for expert time. >> Yeah. So, thanks Ally and Peter. Over to you. >> I'd vote for the NOI for a couple of
reasons. One of them is at our last hearing, a couple of us anyway expressed the view that if it was further away than 27 feet, it would be a whole lot easier for us to move forward. And my personal opinion is how I feel if it
was, I don't know, 30 40T maybe from the wetland. I'd be happy with the lighter approach in RDA and moving this thing ahead to not make it any more complicated. But I don't see how with 27 feet how you're going to build the wall without impacting the wetland further.
>> And that leads me to the NOI of the more detailed review. >> Very good. Well, Charlie, that gives you a little bit of feedback of where you're at. Um, my recommendation is is consult with our agent and um and we're ready to entertain the filing and and try to move things along as as judiciously possible.
David, >> and your and your consultant, Norris, does notice intent filings all the time, Charlie. So they can they can certainly handle a notice of intent filing if that's what you decide to do. >> Okay. It seems like it would make more sense now um after everyone's opinion.
So it seemed that it would go that way either way. So as you've you've said and suggested it it'd be easier to just go ahead with that uh off the bat. >> Okay. Very good. Well, thanks for joining us. Appreciate your time and appreciate the fact we're making
progress here. So, uh, we look forward to seeing you, uh, you again. >> He's going to push. >> Okay. >> Thanks, everyone. >> Thanks. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> All right. >> The easiest thing to do is forget about it and just grade it off. >> Yeah, >> he wants the kids want to suck.
>> I know. >> I know. Well, I understand he's got a job to do. >> I know. Uh, next up we have um a discussion of an alleged wetland filling at 73 Littleton Road with a possible vote on
um issuing an enforcement order and our conservation agent, Mr. Coul, is going to give us an update on what's going on there. >> Sure. So, Jose. >> Okay. So, so the owners are here. Oh, >> excellent. >> Um, so just give it a little bit of background on this. Um uh several months
ago um I received an anonymous email alleging filling of wetlands um at 73 Littleton Road. Uh you know then then um I wasn't able to get out there right away and then the winter came and then
and then um uh I I did write the owners um you know took it took took a little while to hear back from them and then to arrange a site visit. Um, so, um, I I did did do a site visit. Um, I think when was was that like June 2nd or June
9th? June 2nd, I I believe it was. Uh, went went down and looked at the property. Um, m Mr. Hinto was was there. Um, it certainly does look to me like there has been um a filling of wetlands, you know, rather extensive filling of
wetlands done. I don't know if you could if you can see this triangle right here. Um, I I've just, you know, very very, you know, ballpark estimated it. You know, it could could could be, you know, a thousand square feet of of a filling,
you know, with with with a good with a good foot um uh of fill that was brought in. Um, so given that it it might be rather difficult to determine the original
extent of the wetlands. Um because with with with that much fill, you know, it's there, you know, taking an augur or, you know, some other way to um try and determine where the wetlands originally were is going to be difficult. And you
can see this there there are three different wetland layers that are being shown here. One one is the local, one is the um uh state, and the other is the federal. Um so I I think I think I think it would
be a matter of um you know as more or less typically in those these sorts of situations where the property owner would have to hire a consultant to as uh as feasible as possible make make an estimate of of of the amount of wetlands
that have been filled. you know, based on aerial uh aerial photos and other data sets available. And there are a lot of data sets available that can that can help um in this kind of a situation uh to assess
the you know pretty accurately actually the um you know when wetlands have been filled. Um so that's that's that's the background of this. Um so uh Mr. Mr. Hassinto did uh express to me certain
concerns when I met with him. So maybe we can turn that over to him right now to to speak. >> Mr. Hinto, um yeah, please you can address the commission. Sure. >> Thank you. Um thank you everyone for take the time to to listen. Uh I know I
make the mistake and there is not a lot of information about wetlands when we purchase the house or like what is allowed what is not allowed. I don't have that information and I am not trying to get a way to say
no I don't I just made a mistake and you guys look to the other side. is just um the beginning was um just clean the the air because I don't
see any water. I don't that's uh the first thing uh I was thinking like just cover whatever the the grass or the overgrown uh bushes or whatever was there. I just
put some new fill and uh I put the grass to make the area for the pool for my kids uh was a a nice and clean for them to play in in my backyard. And uh I know uh I find out more
information what is my situation now like what I did wrong and uh I would like to ask and for whatever decision you guys take. I mean uh
I I'm not trying to get away. I just want to tell you my position at the moment. Last year I tried to start a trucking business in here in Cher and uh
well business not going so well I lost uh almost $200,000 last year and since December 5th to April the second week about I've been drowning and drowning in
depths. All my depths is credit cards trying to survive. But if I have to get punished, I'm here to to to get whatever it takes. And uh but
to fix it, I would like to ask for time to correct or or pay any fine or whatever I I need to do. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. Sento. appreciate you being here to uh work with the commission and generally a lot of times uh you know a
lot of homeowners aren't fully aware of the regulations uh in town. Uh let's just get some um and just kind of generally before we get the individual commissioners. I mean generally what we're looking for in these violation situations, we're looking for the homeowner to work with us, cooperate. We
we we look for a a restoration plan. We want to restore you know the wetland values that are that are there. Um and again try to work with the homeowners. Uh we're this commission is you know generally very patient. We want to try to get to the goal of restoring things
back to uh as best they can to where they were before recognizing mistakes were made. Uh but let's let's start with John down the end. John, any comments, questions for Mr. Hendo this point? >> Well Dave, how how thick was the fill? >> I estimated about a foot.
>> About a foot. >> Yeah. Um I mean substantial feet. What's it a foot deep? >> Yeah. No. What's the area? >> 1460 something like that. >> Yeah. I don't know. Can you Can you Can you Can you see this, Dave? This sort of this >> 1462
>> triangle outline in red. Yeah, that's for that's 1462. But again, that's very approximate. >> It it it I I had initially estimated anywhere between a,00 and,500. Um it just it's hard to be any more
precise than that at this point. Wow. >> And how wet is it out there? >> Uh, in my opinion, I think it's a high quality wetland, you know, having having not seen it before it was filled, but
what's there now is very high quality in my opinion. >> Okay. So, are we talking to wetland scientists to come up with a plan? >> Yeah, >> that's Okay.
Well, he says he's going to fix it. >> The other guy who judges what he's going to fix. >> Well, you do you do you want my opinion on how the commission should proceed or should we wait until all the comments? >> We might as well jump right to it, David. Yeah. Give us our recommendation.
So um I've I've thought about this um and you know what what the best way to proceed is you know given given sort of the severity of the violation but on the other hand take take taking into consideration you know Mr. Heninto's
uh concerns. So, I think I I think the the commission should uh issue an enforcement order, you know, for the record, you know, with with uh a deadline in it, you know, for a restoration plan, you typical, but I think that um it the the enforcement
order should be recorded at the registry because heaven heaven heaven forbid um let's say just say for the sake of discussion, heaven forbid Mr. Hinto loses the house. um that you know recording the enforcement order at the
registry will ensure hopefully theoretically that the house can't be conveyed you know it can't be sold or otherwise disposed of you know uh unless the enforcement order is is addressed. So that would be my recommendation the
miss commission go ahead and issue the enforcement order but have have it you know send it to the registry for recording. So that it'll it'll it'll be in the chain of title of the property and ultimately will have to be addressed. Don't know exactly when if if
Mr. Hinto, you know, can't can't abide by the deadlines in the enforcement order. So I I I think that's that's the best compromise this kind of a situation. >> Right. Guy, any further comments?
>> I agree with what David said. I think uh I'd like to see him work with the person. >> Yeah. >> And then just >> I mean obviously we got to find out what the baseline what's the issue is. >> Yeah. >> How many So what do you think a timeline
>> feasible? Yes. Well, well, what I what I was um I haven't I haven't, you know, completely written up to the enforcement order yet, but but I but I think a um you know, have have a restoration plan, have have an assessment of the original conditions um and a restoration plan by
September 1st. I think that that's entirely reasonable, this kind of a situation. >> I'd like to work with David. He's got a good handle on it. >> All right, Mark. Yeah, I I think it I think it all sounds good, but I don't I
don't know. It sounds like there's some there's some financial resources are going to be a big thing on this, >> you know, and I don't want I don't you know, there's enough going on with him, his life. >> Yeah. >> I don't want to make it worse,
>> but I I don't know how you can put a timeline on it. Yeah. I know you said Feb September. >> I I think if if nothing else, it's for the record. >> Okay. It's for the record. >> That doesn't mean that I'm going to come back if I don't receive it. Um I'm not
going to come back to the first meeting after that and recommend the commission file a lawsuit against him. Okay. I'm not going to do that. >> Very good. I I like what you're thinking. >> Yeah. I mean, the point is it provides some breathing room. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, so kind of next step would be for you to write up a, you know,
draft enforcement order, right? >> Yeah. And I've worked on it. Uh you know, have the commission sign it, you know, execute the signature page tonight. Okay. >> And then um I've probably three quarters uh written up. Um I'll send it to you by
certified mail. So you got to make sure you pick up your certified mail. >> Okay. >> Um so um but but we've been communicating by email. You know, um Mr. Hinto has been quite responsive. Um so uh you know, I'll just I'll I'll just
let him know, you know, when I when I've sent it out to to be looking for it. I I'll I'll send him, you know, a a copy, a digital copy of it. Um he'll get the original. It will be uh send another original to the registry for recording and then, you know, the commission can
hold on to an original. So, like to ask the commission to execute three signature pages tonight. >> The um we haven't typically done the recording at >> That's true. >> Only thing I'd ask is just to run it by our town council just make you sure that he's okay with it. Okay.
>> Um, which I assume it will be because it's it's a practice other towns have done. >> Well, and I've and I've certainly been involved in other violations where that's that's that's been done. >> Sure. >> You know, um, so, uh, Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. Mark, you good for David? >> I So, so you described the size of the area that was filled in >> very roughly. >> Okay. Very roughly. One thing I think when while we're waiting for this to to proceed is that that area should be
marked so that it doesn't get any bigger by mistake. >> Yeah. >> Because it's probably a two-step process. One is probably removing whatever material was put in and the second step which is probably the more
expensive is restoring it to wetlands. Now am I correct? Bridge Street is behind this area >> I believe so. Yes. >> Where's the lime quarry relative to this location? >> Um that's um that's down here.
>> That's not too far away. >> Not not too too far away. Correct. There's no question that that area be behind his house and then to the lime quarry on the left if you're facing his house and then to Bridge Street be quite
a ways behind it. That is pretty wet in there. There's no question that as David said from his observation is highquality wetlands. I would not disagree with that. But in the meantime, I don't want to get I don't want it to get any worse. So I
don't want you by mistake doing any more work or people associated with you by mistake >> making it worse. So one would be to delineate >> the area that's been filled in so that everyone understands it. >> Okay. Um,
I agree with I agree with Mark. I I I think that's a good first step. What Dave wants to do, I share Mark's concern. My experience has been these damn wetland engineers are not cheap. >> No. >> So, but at a minimum, if we can stop
what's happening so it doesn't get any worse, I think would be a good first step plus the legal steps. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Dave. Alan, anything? >> Thank you. >> Good. here. >> Um, I agree with what's been said and I appreciate your position. Uh, I just had
a thought and let's not discuss this at length, but what is the highest wetland value now that the land is filled? Is it to return it to wet or is it to plant a good wetland buffer with the right kind of shrubs and whatnot? Because some of
the interests were here to protect, you know, the the the critter part. They use both the wetland and the upland. So, I don't know if we can if our wetland scientists ever really address that in the reports we ask for, but I'd be kind of curious of the trade-offs between
excavating it and mucking everything up with machinery versus planting a bunch of proper shrubs and then trying to keep the invasives away. >> Um, I I I can answer that quickly. >> Do you have an opinion? Yeah, thank you. >> Um, yes, I do. I I I I think and again this this would need of course the
advice and input of a professional you know wetland specialists is is I think it makes I think it's logical to assume that the functions and values of the wetland that remain in other words the wetland that has not been impacted
you know to a large extent reflect what was there before and so in in that sense I I I think it's logical then to try and replicate you know in the restored area. What's What's still left? Now, I haven't had a chance to look like at Mass Map or
see if there was a potential vernal pool. I think that was possible. Um, but yeah, al ultimately it would, you know, be based on the recommendations of the wetland specialist. Um, but rem but removal of the pill of of the fill, I
think, is all part and parcel of restoration. Um, I wouldn't I I wouldn't recommend telling Mr. Hinto to go out and just right now remove the fill, you know, you know, outside the context of a full restoration plan. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thanks for your answer, David. >> Good. All right. Um, so Dave, what are you looking for? Probably a vote from us on the enforcement order. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion then to issue an enforcement order to Mr. Sinto. >> Move. >> All right. Motion by Bill. Do we have a
second on that? >> Second. taken by Dave Glock. Any further discussion? Uh all >> that includes with the registry. >> Yeah, I think I heard a couple. Yeah, it'll be kind of your standard enforcement, you know, calling for the res restoration plan. I think Mr.
Glockin had a really good idea of uh you know, marking out what's what's happened out there now. So, that boundary set was good. And then we've got a um a recording with the registry subject to just town council saying gay on that. Um, that's kind of the scope of what
we're looking at. And we get a certified mail coming out to Mr. Cinto. He's got a copy and then as I said before, this commission is very patient working with homeowners and we appreciate your financial circumstances and we want to work with you. >> Thank you. >> Um, and you know, again, usually we just work work along this as best we can. So,
I think that's kind of where we're at. Uh, why don't we all those in favor? I >> I any oppose? Unanimous. All right. So, Mr. Hinto, you'll be hearing from our agent. Any questions during the, you know, the the typical day time frame, just contact our agent, this commission,
we meet twice a month right here, you know, every other Tuesday. So, >> okay. >> You're always welcome to come back to see us at any point, but work with our agent on a day-to-day basis. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Have a good night, sir. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. Over the years, we've discussed
the possibility and the desire to have an abbreviated memorandum of what can be can and cannot be done on a site that be given to real estate agents to hand to people who buy a house. This gentleman, he said he
didn't know. I believe he didn't know. No, but he would have and he wouldn't even known where to go and look. So, I'm not saying our our regulations because there's 80 pages of them, but there's got to be an abbreviated piece of that that can maybe cover two pages
that says here's what you can do, here's what you can't do. The things you can't do, talk to the conservation commission or something. >> No, you're right. >> And give it and and and and I don't know, maybe we can get some get a real estate agent to back fund it.
Give us some advertising dollars or something. I don't know. >> I just >> love I just >> those projects. >> I'm sorry. >> Talk to Allison Lovewick. She loves those kind of projects. >> Well, and Peter, you've mentioned that a number of times, you know, coming up
with some sort of a brochure or flyer to to uh give to prospective home buyers, letting them know >> sell ads in it by real estate agents. I mean, it's a it's a really good idea and it's a perfect example where I mean, they they move in, they buy a property.
>> He got he gets in trouble out of ignorance and it's not his fault. >> They try to do something nice for his kids in his backyard. Sympathetic, >> but we might >> again, the lawyers get off. >> What's that? >> At the at the conveyance,
>> why can't the lawyer throw a little bit in there and say, "You got water behind you. Be careful. Don't do anything back there. Don't do any filling." That's all I got to say. No, all he wants to do is hand him the keys and get his check. >> Yeah, I was going to say I I think we're going to have trouble we're going to have trouble getting the real estate
people to do this. But having the brochure, >> No, we're not. >> Um, >> Peter, I've talked to 10 years ago when we kicked it off, we had real estate agents that said, "Give us a piece of paper we can hand to clients." >> They asked for it and we just didn't
have the resources to do it. didn't have the resources to do it at that point, but maybe we can have, you know, a more outreach to some of the more prominent realy professionals that we have in town. >> And I do get calls from time to time from realtors having clients that are looking at a particular property in town
and asking me about wetland potential lands issues. So, it's it's it's certainly not unknown, but it obviously doesn't happen enough. >> Yeah. Well, my experience is the opposite, but I think it's a good idea to have a summary >> regardless of how we use it. >> Yeah. All right.
>> But who's going to do the work >> to develop it and I know I know distribute it? That's the issue. >> It's tough. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Well, excuse me. There there has to be something in the can from MACC or somewhere.
>> Yeah. For for towns that have four or five people in their conservation department. >> Well, we do, don't we? Oh, >> I'll ask. >> We'll be back. I think we should come back to that question that Dave raised
and um maybe there is something out in MCC. >> So, >> I'll ask right now. >> Yeah. But ask but every town has their own unique stuff which have that's what takes work. I mean, not everybody has the the 50 foot no build.
>> That's true. It's true. But I mean, right now it's just like they don't know really any any perspective on it. >> I mean, think think about what what are the right now what is the what are the two two or three things that are most important to a new homeowner. It's
exactly what his he comes in, he's got a new piece. He wants to clean his property up. He goes to work. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's probably rule one. And that's not hard to identify. >> I'll do it myself. All right. Jeez, I knew you were going to make me do this.
Well, you know, there you go. We have a volunteer here like >> you're you're you're kind of the new guy. You get to get you get to be hazed a little. >> Haz >> the new old guy. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Well, we'll see who the hazy is and who the hazer is. >> You don't want to start hazing me. >> I don't know.
>> I didn't say I would do it. That was a That was a universal you. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Universal. >> I'm not picking any fights. >> All right. We have some paperwork going down the line that we're signing which is >> boy that was an hour with someone just on violations.
>> Well, it was a big a big night for violations, I'm afraid. But, you know, we take them seriously, but we don't try to, you know, we try to be considerate as we can. That goes that way. This comes back down the line. >> We're a commission with a heart.
>> We are. We are. We're tough, but we're we're fair. >> Plenty boards are as nice as we are, are they? Well, I don't know. Actually, that's a cue. Speaking of planning board, we have our planning board representative. He may want to respond to that question. >> Work that right in there pretty smooth.
>> That was perfect. That was really perfect. Good evening. Now, to our planning board leader, >> Chris Valley, chair of the planning board, uh, one of the nicest boards in town. Um, uh, last meeting we continued the hearing for Lady Slipper Lane without
discussion. Uh we continued our zoning discussions. Uh we had a discussion on data centers and contractor yard definitions and zoning. We started the informal discussion with the Riverneck Road area property owners
for the reszoning of Riverneck Road. This week, um, we have another request for continuing the Lady Slipper Lane hearing again to, uh, I believe sometime in July. We, um, are again are talking to the
Riverneck Road area property owners. Hopefully, we'll have a draft soon, uh, probably another meeting or so of that. We are uh ongoing discussions again on data centers and contract yard
definitions and zoning. Um there was a uh public hearing or public information session in l uh last night um that a couple planning board members attended uh to see what is happening over in l.
Uh we've been doing some research uh for a number of different or on a number of different towns and how people are approaching it. Uh what some of the things we can look at for data centers um and how we might look at restricting
them um in town and what we should allow and what we shouldn't allow. Uh we're I think we'll be close to wrapping up the contractor yard definitions and zoning and then we will start discussing our schedule for July and August uh knowing that we have some
zoning public hearings uh that we'll have to do probably in August for the fall town meeting. >> Thank you Chris. And then, oh, uh, one other thing on the Riverneck Road, um, discussion. There is a small property on Monmouth Street that
is townowned. And the question from the Butters and the planning board to you is whether that would be a property of interest to the conservation commission uh to take over um and protect at some
point or if it if we should reszone it uh RB um residential in case the town wants to sell it. >> What what how do you spell that? Is it M O N M O T? M O N M O U T. >> Oh, okay. So, let me let me bring that
up. >> Close to Route Three, right? >> It's >> next to the Apollo Drive. >> Yeah, it's near Apollo Drive. It's on the back end of Drive, >> wasn't it? 30 Monmouth. >> I don't remember the exact address.
>> 30, but that's not coming up. >> I think that's the neighborhood that had the big office park built in their backyard some years ago. that all over the file. >> Right. See the pavement. >> So I think it's that one. >> That one. Yeah.
>> So yeah, it doesn't have enough. >> It's that one. Yeah. >> So it's >> How How small is it? >> What size is it actually? >> It's um 23 acres. >> This is it a budding any conservation land? >> No. But no, it's isolated. >> And I don't think we want it
>> small and isolated. >> Yeah. But um which was going to be my recommendation of the commission is not accepted. But that doesn't mean it can't be protected almost as well. Um I think you know there are there are deed restrictions that um can be recorded uh
on it. Um I think the thing to do is to talk with town council. >> You know ask him to draft up something. Um >> what's wrong with putting it back on the tax roles anyhow? You're not going to get in that discussion tonight. Well, that's part of what we are trying to
figure out uh as a planning board is do we just um keep it in the residential zone. >> While you're what part of Riverneck Road are you thinking about reszoning or from what to what from Gorum Street?
>> We're looking at the entire stretch of River. >> From Gorm Street to Bill Rick. >> Yeah, the entire stretch of Riverneck as well as the properties behind the Riverneck properties. um to towards the um highway. Uh there's a lot of uh
public uh properties back there that are owned by the town that are marked as IIA. So, we're looking to reszone those as public. Um, and then we're also looking at the couple
uh properties um on the south side or on the the lower end of Monmouth and uh McFarland that abut the um the Apollo Drive area as well. So, we're
looking at all of the properties along Riverneck and some adjacent ones. >> So, uh so I can um I talked to John, the acting town manager about consulting with town council about that. >> Um I mean doesn't doesn't commit anyone
to anything, but at least at least you know have a better um you know understanding of that option. Maybe have something ready to go. My personal opinion is it's something that should be passed by town meeting, you know, for to make it maximum maximum effectiveness.
>> That's what town meeting decides to do. >> But yeah, generally the past if it's really if it's isolated from some contiguous wetland and if it's small, we don't want to take it on >> as our property's always been our policy. >> That's what we were thinking. Uh but I just wanted to double check with you
guys. Um and at this point, we're just looking at all of the options right now. Uh keeping it public. or changing it over to public. Uh changing it over to residential because right now it's technically um IIA. >> Okay.
>> Which is absolutely not a good >> no >> good one for that one. >> No, that wouldn't be I wouldn't think that's like would work too well. >> So Okay. >> All right. Well, thanks Chris. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate the update. >> All right. So now we've moved beyond our preliminary agenda phase
>> to the meat of the today's meeting which was the regulatory hearings. Uh we have one, two, three, four, five hearings that were scheduled for this evening but I suspect that most are not all of them are going to be continued to another time. So maybe we'll just take
it from the top. The first one up was our request for determination applicability CSX transportation railroad right away. Okay. What's going on with that, David? >> So, um I um I did forward some um you know, pursuant to discussion at the last
session of the hearing, I forwarded some questions to the applicants consultant. Um which which I I did forward to the commission. Um he did he did respond to those. Um so here here um here is well
here are my questions are down here. you know what is are what is slash are the specifics uh you know quoted Massachusetts regulations that exempt the spraying from requiring a filing with the commission what is the formal definition of restricted straight spray zone does the definition involve the
maximum horizontal extent of spraying on either side of the rail bed what chemicals uh is are sprayed so that was what I took out of the last meeting that the questions um uh the commission has
so Um here here is his response. Um I make this a little larger. Um so you can read that attaches a preface to the wetland regulations from back in 1987 which states that uh what is
required in order to comply with wetland regulations which as you know is limited to obtaining a determination of the no spray zones. There is no formal def definition of restricted st spray zone which you know is a little bit surprising since he uses that in in the
RDA but anyway but I have attached the formal definition of limited spray area. These are areas in which spraying is limited to one annual application of herbicide through low pressure folure techniques using herbicides approved by the department of agricultural resources. In regards to uh wetlands,
these areas are basically the 100 foot buffer zone. Lastly, I have attached the 2026 spray program for this year's yearly operational plan. Uh the entire yap can be found at the website listed in the letter you received a while back.
Um so, uh he did um Oh, here it is. Here's here's here's the yap. Um, so here's here's are the uh the herbicides right here. Uh, so free spray
and sensitive areas. Um, I'm not familiar with all of the certainly no, you know, >> the Roundup whatever. I guess I guess that's to be expected, you know. And here here are the um the the
concentrations, the application rate and and uh application technique. Um, you know, our our our members basically familiar with this. What what they do is they drive down the tracks in like a little vehicle and and the sprays extend
I think 10 feet out on either either side and then they and then you know there's there's someone I think from Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources who rides along with you know the operator telling telling them when to turn off and turn on the the
sprayers. Theoretically, it's supposed to work. >> That's a great job. >> Theoretically, >> you get that job. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, >> the low salt area. >> I'm told it's very fun to to ride along in the vehicle >> with him. >> Yeah. Just don't breed the spray.
>> He answered our questions. >> He did. >> He did. Yeah, >> he did. And and you know what? I feel better because we got an answer. >> Okay. So, the next step is >> uh to issue the determination. >> And so, what are we So, we're looking So, it's an RDA. Um >> so so what what they're asking for in
this one is the um is for the commission to verify the boundaries of um the no spray areas which essentially the wetlands. So, so what they're asking for in this particular case is is is a positive 2A
>> positive 2A. >> Positive 2A, you know, for for >> we and we rely on the state to tell them when to stop spraying. >> That's what I heard you just say. >> They write along with Yes. And they'll say stop spraying
>> and and and they say stop spraying. >> Yes. >> Does that have to be in our Do we have to acknowledge that? >> No. No. This has this has this has nothing to do whatsoever to do with the actual spring. It's only the delineation of wetland resource areas. >> Uh positive 2A. Okay.
>> A positive 2 and it's for five years. >> I so move >> uh move by Mr. Molafa. >> Well, first I have to close the hearing. >> Oh yeah, that's right. This is the hearing. So we have to >> close our hearing here. >> Can can I make a comment? >> Yes, sir. >> If you do the math, 30 gallons an acre
is a lot of stuff. And we're not going to get into this because it's not really our jurisdiction as I understand it. But when they talk about Roundup Pro concentrate, the question is, are they mixing that with water or is it, you know, applied pure? There's still a whole bunch of questions that I gather
are beyond our jurisdiction because it's a a railroad thing. But, uh, Mark, I'll we can talk offline if you want to explore any of that, but it >> it's probably minimal enough so we can't join the class action lawsuit. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. But I still wouldn't want to be like standing by the sidelines there waving at the little train to that 32 to 64 ounces. Is that what that means? >> I don't know what that means. It means
>> round enough pro concentrate 3264 ounces. >> Yeah. And I and I I don't know exactly how how they they determine the actual amount. Um I think it's probably the size of the area. >> 32 oz size and a 64.
>> I think it say 32 oz and 64 ounce. It wouldn't say 32 >> or 32 32 to 64. >> Right. >> But I don't even know if 64 is good or bad. >> Well Well that's my point. This doesn't really tell us, you know, because we don't know enough to interpret it.
>> All right. Can we uh close the public hearing? >> I make a motion to close public hearing. >> All right. I have a motion on public hearing. Seconded by Peter. >> Any discussion before we close the public hearing? >> None. All those in favor of closing the public hearing? I >> unanimous. All right. So now, uh Dave,
we're making a motion then for a a positive 2A determination >> for five years. for five years. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Seconded by Bill. >> Any discussion f any fur any further discussions at all? >> I I would say um even though the the
hearing will be closed and the determination issued, you know, send me questions. I I I you know that I can forward to the consultant. I I think he'll answer them. You know, the questions about Yeah. these these these these different figures that are cited, you know, in this table.
>> Yeah. Happy to do that. Well, this well, the second question would be to verify in writing that the Department of Agricultural Rep will be in in the cab using the wetland delineation maps from the whatever it is, YOP.
>> I'm also curious, did they give us notice of when they're going to do this? >> Um, >> they have in the past. >> I think I think >> they did. Yeah, I thought they did. >> I don't can't tell you when, but I remember them doing it. I think that is I think that is in the YOP. Um which
which he did give me the link to. This is only one page. Um I'll check that out. I'll check that. >> Yeah. >> This this is the first time I've actually seen a chemical. We've never seen that before. >> I'm glad we glad you asked. >> Well, what does does it mean anything?
>> Well, I mean, you know, I saw Roundup. I know a little bit about Roundup. So, >> I don't know what the other ones are. >> I I have a feeling, >> Mark. >> Yes. chat. GPT is your friend. Get something to do tonight. >> All right. Someone's like birth control. I don't
remember. >> No. >> Wait. How come you know about that? >> Mavorus or something like that. >> Anyway, vote the motion. >> Yeah. Any further discussion? I we had some discussion. I don't think we're starting to to roam a little bit far on
discussion. So, all those in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Unanimous. All right. Thanks, Vivian, for keeping us on track. >> I mean, we could be here all night. All right. We're signing some paperwork coming down the line here.
>> So, you have never had an open session that lasted an hour. >> That was the longest open session I can remember. >> When I in the middle of something where you have to give an opinion, because that isn't what I like to do is give an opinion. We're we're here to judge
something, not tell people what to do. >> Right. Right. They got to figure it out themselves. >> Right. >> Okay. That's uh number one. Number two is a notice of intent which has been continued from April 14th. This is the nine Lady Slipper Lane. And we have a
request to continue that to when? >> July 28th. >> July 28th. Okay. So, uh, without taking any testimony or discussion, we have a motion then to continue to July 28th. >> So, moved. >> Moved by Ally. >> Second. >> Second by Peter. All those in favor? I.
Any opposed? Unanimous. All right. Good. So, that's down. >> Next up is a notice of intent continued from May 26, 2026. That was choice one Smith Street. And we have an abstainer here sitting next to me.
Mark here is um abstaining on this one and we've got >> a butter. >> Is it in a butter? Yeah, exactly. And what's going on with that one, too? Is that another >> I I haven't heard a peep out of them. I have not received any any uh updates. Haven't received a request for a
continuence. Um I I was a little worried maybe I'd missed something, but I I went back and checked all my emails. Haven't heard a thing. So, I guess just recommend continuing it to the um the ne the next meeting. The way things were left was that uh last I heard from the
applicants was that they were working on responses to the DPW's review of the filings of the project. >> All right. I mean, we could continue it. I at some point if we're if we're not hearing from them, we could um close the
hearing and take a vote, possibly deny the the project, which would be pro possibly regretful, but >> I think it's reasonable to continue to to continue it once and I'll I'll I'll send them an email asking what's going on. And I don't, you know, I don't like having to chase people, but
>> you know, >> no, I mean, they run the risk that we're just going to close the hearing up and then they'd have to go, you know, readvertise and go through all the hassle of public publication. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You know, for a for a quasi town agency.
>> Yeah. Yeah. All right. So, we could have a our next me uh meeting is when is our next >> 14th. It's the 14th. >> July 14th. So, do we have a motion to continue to our meeting of July 14th? Move. >> Moved. Bill in the move. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Alli on the second. All those in favor? I >> I >> unanimous. Okay. Good. >> Chris, your board was impressed by the way it was presented, wasn't it? >> Didn't come before us. >> Oh, didn't go planning yet. >> One one Smith Street. >> Yeah, >> that won't go before planning. It's a
It's a 40B. It's a ZBA >> of appeals. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Uh, next up, notice of intent was continued from April 14th, 2026, New England Power Company with respect to a transmission lines right of way.
>> So, I did receive a request for a continuence to July 14th pending their drafting responses to the commission's peer reviewers comments. >> Okay. So, a motion then to continue to July 14th, 2026. >> Moved.
>> Moved by Ally. Seconded by >> Second. >> Second by Dave. All those in favor? I I unanimous. Good. >> Um, just a note, I may not be here for July 14th's meeting. So, Peter, >> you know, >> I might not be here. So, as vice chair, you might be running that one. >> Okay.
>> We'll see. I'll keep you posted. >> And you'll have to be mullanized. >> I'm moanized. Yes. Miz. Mr. McGra just went through the mizing process and came out none for worse for the wear, right, Dave? >> No. I added a few years to my life.
All right. Uh, next up is the notice for 10 continued from April 28th, 2026. This was Alexandria and James Rean. This was the 21 and 23rd 7th Avenue Willis Drive right away. As we remember, this is like the really steep embankment uh
situation. Casey Ferrer, Howard Stein Hudson's representing the applicant. They're al they're they're also requesting continuously July 14th, 2026. Yeah, they're working they're working with the DPW and the contractor to come up with some mitigation plan for
traffic, you know, on Willis Drive during the course of that work. >> Yeah, it could be. >> So, I think they said that they'll have it ready or they expect to have it ready by the next meeting plus the landscape uh planting plan, the landscape architect. >> Okay. Motion to continue.
>> Move. >> Dave on the move. John on the second. All those in favor? >> I I unanimous. All right. We have two from uh from New England Power. >> Yeah, one was one was >> Yeah, the other one's continued to August 26th. That was done at the last >> meeting. Okay. All right. Sharp there,
>> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. >> Hey, Chris, do you have as many continuences as we do? >> Pretty one for one pretty much. >> If we're continuing, you are, right? >> Yeah. The reason I ask is this discussion that
we had a month and a half ago with board of health. Yes. >> Fields board, >> planning board, conservation, water. The idea is to try to expedite the process. >> But, you know, >> until we get our hands around what's
causing all of these requests for the delays, we're not going to expedite the process. Right. >> That's a good point, Dave. I don't know that we're con I don't know that we're causing these. >> Exactly. This a good example where we're not causing delays for sure.
>> Okay. >> I've I've I've given this a lot of thought. The board of the board of health did the board of health did present uh expediting the process is one of their goals, but they were looking at the process of the aqua for protection permit, not
>> the overall permitting, which is a bigger nut. And you're absolutely right. we could make life a lot easier for the applicants and the boards if we uh re-examine that. But I'll tell you what what some communities have done is establish a position called environmental manager to do a whole
bunch of things including coordinating the boards for permitting and I'm I don't think we're ready to propose that but >> no and I don't propose we have a >> but my point my point is all all from what I've learned many communities wrestle with the same problem and the solution is a little bit more you know
coordination on the town part but that's hard to do with largely volunteer boards >> but in the last few weeks Most of these requests are not because we've done something. We've asked for some information and they're taking as little or as much
time as they want to get the information for us. >> Right. >> I I think brought up in that meeting at the town at the library that somebody suggested that the engineers should be more forthcoming on their information. They shouldn't hold back.
There's things that they're holding back and it's only going to slow. Get it out of the way. Get it done. >> Yep. Agree. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. Okay. Moving on the agenda. We have our jumping to uh anything before we jump to land
management. Do you want to talk about David? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Good. So, land management. Let's just jump over to Bill. Bill. Land management. Um coolest farm. anything else you're installing? >> That interpretive sign was installed today uh right near the kiosk, but we don't
have the information that's going to go in it yet. That's in the works. So, that's all done. Thank you to the DPW for doing that. Um, as far as coolest, that was all the lot of new people up there using it.
>> We've noticed a lot of newer people coming in. >> Time to get you a new project. >> Yeah. So, so >> my wife takes care of that, Dave. >> So, I I can just add to that, Bill. >> Sure. >> So, uh members recall at the last meeting, uh Jackson Jackson Leech. >> Yes. Jackson,
>> um had asked to revise, uh his project to um to uh also include another handicapped um access uh picnic bench and and the commission then also asks him to put ramps on either end of the uh
the foot bridge that he's working on. So, um, his is is supervisor or I'm not sure exactly what the title is. Um, when when when I mentioned that to them respond and said, "Well, you know, then adding then adding just the ramps to the
foot bridge probably is is sufficient scope." Um, and a and asked if the commission would then would then, you know, not not want him to do the picnic bench. So, I checked with Bill. Bill said it was okay with him. didn't do the picnic bench.
>> Yeah, we've got two picnic tables now. I mean, we always want more. Also, somebody donated a bench >> out by the tree. >> Yep. So, um so >> whatever works for him. It seems >> So, sorry about that way, but but I but I asked I asked for Dave Spar's input on
on the the uh the ramps, you know, on either side of the foot bridge and and and he he he he really he really gave some excellent direction to Jackson. um uh you know it was re really really helpful. So >> yeah, he's really up on all that.
>> Yeah, he he he he that was that was a big help to me. >> Good learning experience for the kids. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so that's where that's >> Yeah, that's good. >> Did you have a question? You brought up a good point last time about the construction not knowing how what kind of live loads and the dead loads they're
going to have on those. >> Right. Did you talk to him about that construction? >> Dave did. Yes. Yes. >> So Dave went through that with the kids. Dave Sperry. >> Oh, good. Yes. Oh, good. Good. Good. >> Any more >> uh on Coolers? No. Oakill.
>> No, we're good. Up there. Um, can I bring up something else besides those two? >> Uh, I got a call about Swain Pond on Dunable Road that the water, one of the neighbors called me. He said the water seems to be down quite a bit from what it normally is or what he's been there
for his whole life and he's kind of knows what it's supposed to look like and we wanted to find out if there was any uh boards taken out of that little uh dam there or not. Can you find out from uh Stormwater if if any boards have
been removed or >> um I will but but I think my recollection is the way they last left it they only had put one board you know a very high board okay back um I'll I'll verify that but I mean we have been in a bit of a drought.
>> Yeah. No. Yeah. >> You send somebody upstream because sometimes the kids build dams upstream keeps the water out of Swing Point. That's true, too. >> Uh, >> beaver dams. >> Beavers. Yeah. >> And beavers. >> Beavers. Yeah. >> But, uh,
>> I'll check with DPW. >> Yeah. If you could check with the storm water and see if they've get anything to do with it and >> let me know and I can let them know. >> And that reminds me, um, on on Cranberry Bog, I have asked Joe to replace put back the two boards in that spillway,
>> right? >> Because that water level was really low. And >> did they find the boards? I don't know. I couldn't find them. Um Joe seemed to think that he knew where they were. >> Stanway knows where they are. >> I put them up there. >> Well, >> years ago, I put them up there. 2 by six
or 2x4. >> Yeah. But then then he kept pulling them out and he he was adjusting the level and he would store them when he wasn't when they weren't used. >> Well, I looked for them and couldn't find them. But Joe says the person who who's handling it knows where they are. So,
>> oh, >> I'll maybe Peter, if you're going to be out there tomorrow, right? If you maybe if you could double check, you know, if they if they've been removed >> or I'm sorry, replaced. Replaced. Yeah. Yeah, >> sure. >> Uh, Bill, any more? >> No, just let me know, David, if you once
you talk to storm water if they know anything >> or maybe like you could be right. It could be a beaver dam upstream. But >> thank you. >> That's it. >> You're good. Over to Peter. Peter management update.
>> Uh yeah, I'll run through a list quickly. Um working with uh uh DPW on both uh the little improvements at Thanksgiving Forest, taking the posts out, and I had a chance to meet with our gardeners there and was confident that they've got
a good plan to have shrubs instead of wood posts. So that's in play along with uh upgrades to the parking lot at Burbank or our Middle Sex Canal. So, we're in discussions with DPW and working with the land trust guys because we share those kind of share those two
properties. Um, there's a mystery bridge installation that our land steward at Thanksgiving for us >> Oh, you didn't see my email? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Did you figure that out? >> Uh, yeah. Uh, thank you. >> That and I completely forgotten that was an Eagle Scout project. >> Ah,
>> that the commission approved in August of last year. Um, >> I forgot about that. But but well as did I. Um but but that scout Desmond Wetszel had has been I guess he was he's been sick off and on, you know, through last
fall and winter. Uh and and and he's only just now getting back to that. Um but but I but I was able to find the meeting where the where the commission approved that. That was a that was the August 26, 2025 meeting. So yeah, so he's so he's he he just recently uh
posted signs uh right there that said that the bridge will be closed um for June 27th and 28th pending the work. >> So our our land steward uh Jeff only real concern or question was would it be a wooden bridge not plastic? And I don't
recall what we did a year ago. >> Um I think it's I'm pretty sure it's wooden. >> They're mostly wood, right? We're not used to plastic. I don't remember. I don't remember plastic. >> Yeah. I don't think the Eagles I don't think the scouts would allow a PL. >> I don't think he's doing the pipe. >> The decking was plastic.
>> I don't think he was putting plastic decking. I thought it was pressure treated. >> All right. Well, I I'll talk to you offline, David. Maybe we can get to the bottom of that. >> Have to look into that. >> And then uh cranberry bog besides the the the water level thing. Uh tomorrow we've got
a one of our volunteers. Uh this is at David's suggestion, but we're kicking off what's called a weed warrior program, and it's the Sudbury Valley Trust is running this program in the uh 30 some odd communities that
their area primarily covers, but is essentially an expert in invasive management. uh going to meet with a couple of our residents uh to uh further discuss how that program would be kicked off in Chsford.
Um so I'll report more about that later, but it's a pretty exciting program. They've got the thing all Subbury Valley Trust has a website and it's all organized and gives tools to your town volunteer to organize something
>> going after the invasives, I would assume. Yeah. And it's very very specific to what invasive you're talking about. It's not a wholesale remove all the invasive. It's more like target. >> I I think I think that's a that's a great area. >> So that was your suggestion to start there.
>> Yeah. But watch out for the lady slippers. >> Uh yeah, that um that's all. Thank you. >> Thanks, Peter. Yeah, good. Send you scrolling down. Ally, anything to report? >> Nothing crazy. Um, someone I was out there not that long ago and I ran into someone and they asked about putting a
trash can out there and I said that I'd have to obviously talk to you guys first because I feel like most of the trash is blowing in from Littleton Road anyways. And I mean when I'm there I do pick it up if it's within, you know, a certain
area, but I don't know anybody's thoughts on that or how >> if you put a trash can there, they're going to fill it up and nobody who's going to take it away, >> right? So I said I would ask policy was just people eating their lunch and throwing it out the window as
they drive back. >> Yeah. I mean I remember going out there years ago with a a boy scout troop and we were out there for like a couple hours just cleaning up all the trash out there. >> Yeah. But you know just figured I'd throw it out there. >> All right. Good Dave.
>> I'd like to give some kudos to the Girl Scouts in Chelson. Last Saturday, there were maybe eight or nine young girl scouts. I don't know, cavettes. I don't know what you call them, but >> I think it's just scouts. >> And three three had out women with them. >> And they were looking in a storm drain
in front of my house and I thought maybe a critter had got stuck, but no, the women were teaching the kids about storm water. >> Wow. and they were around the storm drains and they're explaining I assume and the idea was when they left they stencled a little sign on the street
said keep these storm drains clean or something but good for them. >> Great. >> I might just add um DPW did some sort of student storm water event and when you go into the lobby of the DPW building on
Alpha Drive there's still all the posters that the kids made about storm water. >> There's probably a subset of that. Yeah. So there there's there's action like that in the town storm water management plan that Courtney Thompson primarily runs and she does a fair amount that you
know we don't necessarily hear about in outreach to students. So I I'm not sure if she was behind that one but there's there's some nice activity. >> All right. Good. Mark >> uh >> any bear reports? >> No bears. I was in your neighborhood again, but I was I was over at uh
Redwing and uh Bob Morris and I were talking and he's saying that he's going to be here for a little bit yet. >> But he he kind of gives me indication that he'll still come back once in a while to cut the grass over a bit. >> I said that's great cuz I was also going
to do it if >> I didn't do it, you know, because I would come over my tractor and do it. >> Yeah. >> But he says no, he'll do it for at least this year. >> Good. But he has some good suggestions though. Does some of the sites have sheds with like real lawnmowers on them
or that that Yeah, like a some place to store them. I mean a truck like a track like they just have a a cover on top. >> Yeah, but we don't have any >> coal's going to burn. >> We don't have any, you know, expensive lawnmowers or anything. Right. >> There's a lawnmower there. Yeah, it was donated.
>> Oh, looking for equipment, not storage. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, looking for equipment. Yeah. >> Oh, we don't have any. No, because it's going to have and Mike probably's not always going to be able to help us out, >> right? >> You know, so because he cuts part of it and >> he used to keep in the cellar of his
barn, which won't be available if he moves. >> Right. >> Right. Right. So, just something to think about in the future. >> Yeah. Think about that. >> Yeah. I didn't want to do it. >> I don't want to bring my tractor over there to do it. >> Well, it isn't the right kind of tractor. >> Yeah. Exactly. It would probably ruin
the tractor quickly. Yeah. All right, good. Anybody anything else on lamage or Peter? >> Um, well, I was going to move on uh to ask for your signature or your consideration for a >> Oh, yeah. Tell us about that. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I don't know a ton about this,
but we got a request from uh DPW to write a letter of support. They're applying for a grant to do some, they call it biodiversity is the current buzzword, but to do some work at Hart Pond, similar to what has been done at
Freeman Lake, take a look at the impacts of applying herbicides and what what the impacts may or may not be to the weeds and whatnot. And so, um, she asked if we would submit a letter of support. That's something that's in the
grant application. They asked for letters of support from other town entities. So, there's a two-page letter. Um, Courtney or somebody wrote it. I added a couple things, but it basically just says, um, we support the town's application to go after a biodiversity
grant for heart pond diagnostic and management assessment. I think that was the same term as >> Yeah. >> used at for the Freeman Lake study that the town paid for. Um, so we can talk a little more if you want or I can ask Chris if he's willing to sign it.
>> Yeah, I'll I'll be glad to sign it. Uh, yeah, I think we're all on board. >> I'll sign it right now. >> Yeah. >> Peter, on this study of the money you go putting into this, how many other towns use that same chemical in their ponds?
And do you expect different results from every other town that >> Yeah, because every pond is different >> that much different will get >> Yeah. >> The idea The idea is I I I don't know exactly what Court is. This is Courtney Thompson asked for our help um at DPW. I
don't know exactly what her scope is. We haven't been that deep into her application, but she's been studying this and as you know she's all over Freeman Lake and Hart Pond. And the idea is to take a look at what the actual impact is on the pond. A a simple way of looking at it is if you dump some
chemicals in and it kills some weeds, how good a job is it doing? And is it killing the wrong ones that the native critter? >> Exactly. But but similar data. >> No, because every pond is different. >> It's a water chemistry thing.
>> All right. >> Yeah, it it's complicated scale. No, probably his water chemistry. >> And I and I just told you about everything I know. >> Where would the grant money come from? Where's Where's the money? >> This is from state uh I call it state uh climate funding. >> Massachusetts continues to have a lot of
grants for things related to climate. The million bucks we got for the renewable energy for the fire station and the new middle school is technically state climate money. It's not always called that. >> Okay. um for marketing reasons, but
>> okay. >> Yeah, there's there's quite a few. And and and and by the way, you know, I I I like talk about grants. The town gets a lot of grants. There's a lot of people that work on those, but there are more. >> Good. >> And we seem to be able to win our fair share. So, it's a good way to
supplement, you know, our our town budget. >> Okay. I'll sign it now. >> Thank you. >> All right. Go back down. >> All right. Great. All right. Good. So, that's land management for this evening.
Agents report. >> Um, I'll I'll just report that speaking of Freeman Lake and herbiciding that's scheduled to take place on uh Thursday. >> Thursday. And there were some notices that were supposed to go out, right? >> Yeah. And they have the notices gone
out. The postings have been done. Good. >> So, um, that's it's going to happen. Okay. >> Thursday. >> Thursday. Do we know what time? >> Uh, sometime in the morning. >> In the morning. >> I don't know exactly. >> Bill, you might want to swing by, take a look.
>> All right. I'm sorry, Chris. >> Yeah. No, Bill. You know, Mark, >> how is that How is that applied? Is it by a boat? It just >> Yeah. Yeah. >> toodles around on the water there. >> Yeah. And And it's going to be a motorboat. Even though there's a bylaw that that prohibits motorboats from Freeman Lake, this this is, you know, a
once well two or three times a year >> sort of thing. So it >> it's government. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I I forgot it. It's been a while since >> I I I could very well be getting some calls. >> I think you will I will there'll be some complaints, I'm sure.
>> We all may actually get some uh emails and calls. >> Just when when people call in, just ask them if they or their neighbors apply herbicide to their garden or lawn. Seriously. >> All right. All right. So that's uh agents report.
>> Good. And then we have um did we sign that certificate of compliance yet? >> No. No. Haven't voted or signed it. >> So we need a uh we have a certificate of compliance for 25 Wellman. Is everything in order? >> Yep. You know that's a lighthouse school. Recall that they did an addition and some parking. Okay.
>> Um so um yeah. >> All right. Good. Uh then a motion to sign this the coc. Uh Dave on the motion um seconded by John John on the second. All those in
favor I unanimous. All right. >> Very good. So that's CLC. Now we move on to the minutes. We have minutes. Minutes from our hardworking >> secretary. >> That must been a long meeting. >> April 14th. We'll look at that. That's
uh >> she had nothing to do when she was on vacation. So she wrote these minutes. That is uh my family. >> That's a nine a 10 pager. >> And you still got your taxes done, too. This is April 14th. >> A 10 pager.
We didn't uh Yeah, 10 pages. So, we'll just take a glance through that for a minute. Make sure we're all comfortable. Yeah, that one we wrapped up at 9:58 p.m. So, we're going to be ahead of that time
tonight. All right. Any questions on this one? >> Make a motion that we approve April 14th minutes. >> All right. Mark on the motion to approve. Second. >> All we have in the second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I
>> All right. We're just signing that now. >> Pause one moment while we're signing the paperwork. We got April 28th minutes as well. So, just take a look at those as we sign some paperwork here.
There we go. Coming down the line. So died April 28th. That was only a seven pager. We were out by 8:55 p.m. >> Okay. >> We still had a lot to say.
>> We still did. >> Eight pages. Eight pages. >> Eight pages and we had no regulatory work whatsoever. >> Okay. >> I use a lot of talking tonight. That's >> You know, it' be interesting to see if
we could get a word count attributed to the various speakers here. >> And poor Peter's moaning over there. >> Hold the record. >> You're not going to max one out next week, are you, Peter? >> Let's just say tonight's document is at 1,967
words. Whoa, >> that's just my notes. >> Whoa. All right, that's right. It might chop down some. All right, so we're appusing April 28th, 2026 minutes. >> We got out an hour earlier that night
compared to the previous meeting. >> Make a motion to approve the April 28th, 2026 minutes. >> Motion by Ally to approve the minutes of April 28th. Seconded by Mark. >> All those in favor? I I unanimous. Okay, great. So that takes us through the
minutes and then now we have Do we have a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting? >> So moved. >> So moved by Alli. Second by >> second. >> Okay. Bill on the second. All those in favor? I >> unanimous. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for attending our
meeting tonight.