The Wednesday, May 13th, 2026 Conservation Commission meeting. In attendance, Jason Gumper, Elizabeth Stoen, Thomas O'Brien, and Megan Logan. First order of business is the approval of minutes from the 48 2026 session.
Does everybody have a chance to read it? >> Any questions, changes? >> No. Make a motion to approve the 4206 open session minutes. >> Second. All in favor? I passes.
>> Request for certificate of compliance. D file 150-271. A request for partial certificate of compliance at 75 Cam Drive. Cessor's parcel ID 75-55-8. Applicants George T.
Romo Leios and Jennifer Baneir care of Bruner Angel and Gelenus. >> So this one is where the parcel is not um within it's not within the jurisdiction. Yeah. >> Yeah. Mike Smith submitted a letter to confirm that property and everything
looks looks fine. So what are we looking for a motion to give a partial certific or certificate of >> a partial a partial? >> Make a motion we give a partial certificate of compliance for DP file 150-271.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I pass notice of >> Yeah. Yeah. We're going to we got to sign before we forget. There's two copies. So just
>> okay >> just so that we can Yeah, there's two separate pages. Yeah, you can give that one to There's two packs. Sorry. That's what I meant to say. Two packs. Okay. Notice good. >> Yeah, we're good.
>> Notice of intent three. Notice tenant prospect street assets parcel ID 45-1-0 for the construction of a single family home with associated site improvements subject to the wetlands protection act
310 CMR 10.0 and local wetlands bylaws chapter 424 wetlands protection optimate Jeffrey Mitchell 51 Rogers Avenue West Springfield Mass 1089 continued from 22526.
So, we have a letter from um LEC stating that they would like to uh withdraw the application without prejudice based on um their meeting that they had uh based on comments they received from Eversource. >> So, I don't know if we do need to vote
on that or just >> say you accept the letter for withdrawal. >> Yeah. >> Good to go. >> We accept the letter for withdrawal. Everybody agreed to that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No surprise. Yeah, unfortunately. No.
>> Okay. >> Okay. NOI- 20226-01 notice of intent at 0 Nelson Street, Cessor's Parcel ID 2C-45-299 for the construction of a single family home subject to the
wetlands protection act 310 CMR 10.20 and local wetlands bylaws chapter 44 the wetlands protection ament Ted Bukowski in 1307 Tinkham Road mass 01095 continued from 311
2026 has this right >> yeah it's all to the side all the new information >> all the new information here that were um everything that was comments was answered say that again everything that was Everything that was before in the
comments was answered with the new information. >> Good evening. >> How are you? >> Um actually, do you um Mike, do you want to just walk through this >> the changes? >> Yeah, the changes that we talked about and everything that you submitted that way everyone's brought up to speed. Um
I've read through it. It was it was great. It was exactly what we looked for. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you. So, we reviewed the commission's comments and we incorporated them onto the plan. Uh, the
larger format there that are all stamped originals have flow direction on them. We defined the grades. You know, the bold lines, we actually find them and labeled them so more readily easier to follow up.
Um we came back through with an enhancement plan foration and replication. That narrative describes in detailation
of the notwheat and then some enhancement and things to outside of the excuse me outside of the resource inside the buffer behind the retaining wall. in that um it's
five-page document but it won't planting in forum what to do for habitat and enhancement but it will kind of be native wildlife attractant. So enhances
the buffer significantly from what it is. The I believe that that was it. The one thing I do owe you guys that I went through is the quantity of fill. >> Yep. >> So the fill estimates are just above
1,000 yards. >> Okay. >> Um so we would put as we noted the contractor builder Mr. Vicowski would get it from an approved source to be approved by the commission. >> Cool.
>> Question I had was more than than for you was just in terms of getting a a mitigation plan for uh an invasive species. I haven't seen that before. Um part of a plan. Mhm.
>> Um and it involves herbicide right in front of a wetland. Um do you have any input on on kind of thing or even making a plant? >> Didn't uh I I read through this pretty fast since we just received it. Didn't it say that it was stem injected so it
just goes right into the roots and it doesn't spread through the soil? Correct. >> Yep. And it would be it's documented that it's to be a licensed applicator. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it won't be a homeowner spraying it, >> right? >> It's the least invasive way you can
possibly treat it. >> Um, that I know of. At least. >> Yeah, that's approved by all the DP and all that. >> All right. So, this is the proposed condition set back. This is the same but with up but they're revised with the
>> Yeah, it just has it has the gradings on here. Has more detail around where the swale is just so you can see it better. The color coding is easier to read on this. >> So that was in the electron that was what was in our packet electronically I think was with a >> Yes. Yeah. Just these are printed bigger
so we can see it. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Easier to read. Do you have the company that's going to do it or not yet? >> No. Um, during our discussion, I guess there's license applicators in town. We would most likely pull from that list.
>> Okay. >> And I think you said in here that there was a three-year uh growing season. >> Monitoring. Yeah. So, that's something else to note. And then the new plantings, the introducing companies, those are also
monitored, right? I think what I read in here. >> Yep. >> To be monitoring and they'll greatly enhance. >> Yes, absolutely. >> It is. >> Okay, cool. >> So, I'm going be honest with you. When when we walked to the site visit, I
don't agree with your wetland delineation. it's not an outage when there's wetlands clearly creeping into that back left corner >> and it's not shown on the plan >> that to me is an improper delineation
and so my personal feelings it should be peer reviewed to get a correct delineation >> yeah either way we're happy to adjust with you were out there in January there is some hillside wheat but as I mentioned the augur we have two
non-hydra holes that I pointed out to the commission during the sitewalk and they were probably the closest one to where you're speaking of within 10 ft. I'm more than happy to meet Alex and logger holes right through it or with you folks.
>> I would ask independent >> Yeah. >> somebody independent of us or you >> to go out there and give a delineation. >> Sure. And I appreciate that. But it it is a pretty I don't want to say easy site but it is a pretty direct site that
we can evaluate it together to save Mr. Picowski money because >> this mitigation >> to further talk about saving money. Sure. I think that >> like I would almost call it a question of the wall you want to build too >> because I think it's >> un on structural integrity over a long
period of time. >> Oh, I I'd have to disagree with that. >> No, of course you're the one who >> Yeah. Well, we do. We're structural certified. We We're structural engineers. It's a professional stamp on that plan. I greatly disagree.
And if you're leaning towards getting a a review of it, I would even more disagree just because so what we're doing, the Morafi blocks, right, or mafia blocks, whatever term you use with them, if you look at the
plan designwise, they're it's a gravity wall system. Um, I'll get I'll try to keep it, you know, direct. So, it's a gravity wall system, typically just stacked. They'll retain five and a half, six feet
is the failure point without any reinforcement. If you were just to stack them up, high groundwater condition. If you look at the plan we submitted, we're running geog grid every course. So, and we're not even five, six feet high at
the highest. So, you could >> What is the highest point? The highest point on the plan right now is returned to earth about 5 and 1/2 ft >> which is your own words though.
>> Yeah. Without reinforcement. No typically the the re typically unreinforced it's 5 1/2 6 ft works as a safety. If you look at the plans we supplied we either did a geog grid. We gave them two options. One was a geog
grid every course and the other is what they refer to as a dead man where you bury a block and you use nylon coated cables to tie it back that wall. I mean we could do this all day long with a a posyilock wall, a
unilock wall. Those are the small 18 inch and it would retain what we're holding here. So >> no, I appreciate your standing on the ground. It's not it's not dug in. >> No, it's healed in half a block if you
look at which is standard for any gravity wall. >> I've seen a lot of walls and I've seen a lot of failures. >> Yep, I have. >> And you're talking about a pretty steep gradient here. You're bringing in,000
yards of fill, which >> Yeah. >> It was at least a thousand. >> Mhm. Well, if you look at the section and I provided it to Alex. >> Um, they all have one. >> Oh, okay. Well, I won't mark this the original, but
>> as long as I get one back, you can mark it up. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, if you look at a th00and is the entire site. So, each tick mark, if you would, is 2 feet. So against the wall like I mentioned
where the section line's taken is the fill is just about 4 feet at that elevation. So you're probably talking about like slope potential failure like sliding along the slope. Is that what you're >> that or
falling over potential? >> Yeah. I the way it's designed is so within the building code on top of it and I believe William when he was here we gave it all to him before you guys even received it but the building code
off memory is a factor of safety against overturn sliding is 1.5 so 50% over design and I believe rotation is 50% overdesign with a gravity wall so this met or exceeded all those requirements under the
building code. So >> still calling a question of delineation. >> Sure. >> No problem. You can adjust. We can It doesn't harm the project. So I mean we can hold that line straight
across and that gives you 25 ft which is more than adequate. And our wall and our work zone doesn't even come within it. So, >> so do you hold the buffer zone >> or can I show you what I'm saying? >> I'll be honest with you. It's just my personal opinion that yeah,
>> an outside party should we should get a peer review. Sure. That's that's my personal opinion. >> You're Yes, I understand all the words you're saying and >> or most of them. >> Sure. Yeah. Well, what I'm just I'll just tell you what I'm saying is if we
took this line, right? This is the wetland line and we held it straight across to include where we were talking about >> that where we were talking about is approximately right here. >> Yeah. So, let's say we even jump out
here. We're 30 some odd feet on this side. This was held. This is the 25 ft buffer. So by the scale this is probably what 30 32 feet. It wouldn't >> then if that's the case then then that's all well and good.
>> No I like agree. >> I can delay at wetlands. I'm >> sure >> and when you're sitting there telling me this and showing me this >> and it's not jing with >> what's there in the field. Yeah. >> Which is the vegetation, the soil and the >> the water.
>> Yeah. >> Then that calls into question other things. The other thing, well, I'm happy to address it however the commission would like. Let's shut that. So, I'm I I don't disagree with you, Tom. I think there's I I saw that evidence too
on our site visit. Um the other element of it that is you know unique to this unique to this project I think is the sort of diversion of water into the two um into the two uh swailes on on either
side sort of the engineering of that I think that's um I think with regard to delineating also you know the early removal of all those trees the impact on the property Um, and since that not wasn't done with by you,
was done improperly, I think too early, it deserves closer scrutiny than maybe other projects that we would have seen here just by virtue of the fact that it was done, you know, about it. Frankly, it was it was a lot more trees than I think the project team has acknowledged.
Um, so that would I think give more credence to a peer review of of some of those factors. I think we need to define exactly what would or wouldn't be appropriate. Yeah, the peer review has to be like very specific exactly what you're asking for
like between wetland flag, you know, point to point and so that's a considerable discussion and then I mean to build on what you just mentioned so within the disturb site as I mentioned when we were there one we were there on
a spring melt within our delineation we mentioned that it's a hillside wheat fed stream right pretty much and drainage contributed plants are wetland plants are very advantageous. Even if you go there right
now by the road, you'll see skunk cabbage at the road, right? We we all acknowledge there's no wetland there. So >> there's no doubt. But >> yeah, >> skunk cabbage aside, the soil and the water kind of speaks to itself. And I'm sure >> hillside we
>> I'm sure we could get a you know >> and I'm happy to meet with anybody >> earth and >> look at an aerial view in the fall and it's it's going to show that exact same bumpout and if what you're saying is true that that bump out is still not affecting it
then then we're good. >> Yep. It's just my personal opinion >> and we respect to be square like you went in there and did test borings without even coming to us. >> Well, we did it in response to the order to do it. That's why we were there.
>> I thought you guys did it. The trees were cut. >> Yeah. When I went to the site, the site was cleared, but we were there to file with you folks. We weren't there to elaborate or evaluate a site prior to clearing, if that's what you're asking. >> Right. You went and did borings to
determine the soil composition, right? >> Oh, the test pits you're saying? >> Yeah, you went and and did those, but you never came to us to ask permission. >> Testing is exempt. >> Testing is exempt. >> I can show you that it's 1004 um item 18 or 20. We use it all the time
for soil testing for perk test. >> Okay. just given the site. >> I mean, I get the concerns and I get the >> the uh what do I even want to say? The commission being upset that it was clear
prior to their asking. We do get that. That's why the mitigation plan and the restoration plan greatly improves what that wetland even is or was. If you read through it, what we're doing is it's I know a lot of the
neighbors were talking about wildlife connection, wildlife. These plantings greatly strengthen as a pollinator and a wildlife quarter. >> Oh, there's no doubt. And I'm all board weed elimination, too. Yeah, I just
it's a project we've gone over bunch, so we're welcome to anything to make it go forward. >> I think the the applicant definitely has >> okay >> demonstrated good faith. >> Okay, >> which work um >> not the tree cutting? >> No, not in the tree cutting,
>> but there was he unfortunately there was miscommunication. However, they took it. Um but he is here now and he has agreed to a replication plan. He has agreed to the mitigation plan. >> Okay. If we just iron out that well in
delination as far as I'm concerned, I'm only speaking for myself here. >> I understand your structural engineering background regards to the wall. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Time will tell.
So, if that's something you're considering, there's a couple of options. Um, we have tons. >> The Well, first we have to you have to determine exactly what you're peer reviewing. So, if it's just a delineations, there's flag B1 to B6. That's the end of his delineation. Am I correct? >> Y. >> Yeah. Um,
>> okay. >> And in terms of like cost that can come from either our fund or the applicant. Um, I just might ask that if that's what we're going to do, we determine the what you want peer reviewed today and then
continue just so I can get some time to figure out procedurally how that's going to work >> in the background. >> Makes sense. >> How we put it out to etc. >> Sure. >> What flags do you say one to six? >> Those are Yeah. >> Yeah. It's one to So on there. Can you
see it? >> No, it's it would be from here to Okay, >> here that's the boundaries. >> Perfect. >> That's what we that's we have to put in that we want peer review. Is there anything else you're concerned? We have to be very specific with that. >> No, that would be
>> say about peer review. >> I know I know what you want. >> Oh, that we have to be specific what we want and then if we want we want it to come out of our fund, we have to state that but then continue it to the next meeting so he can get the process. How to go about that? >> Yeah. If you guys should just come up
exactly what you're looking for and then I'll figure everything else out for our end of the month and then you can vote on it then officially and we'll >> Yep. >> Right. >> So you're looking for a motion? >> Do we need to know >> exactly? Do you know is it for sure you
just want to go from that flag to that flag? Is that >> Well, yeah. I just want the thing redelineated. >> Okay. >> To see his accuracy. Now, if you >> calling into question >> if it's possible just to continue the
public hearing to the end of the month and then we can vote on it just so I can make sure we have it all procedurally correct. >> Yeah, cuz we cuz we'll pay for it out of our fund. So, we just have to figure out how to do that. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Unless then it'll come out of your fund.
>> Uhhuh. No, I mean it's kind of unfortunate because while we were there, we would have made the adjustment on the spot, but I didn't think it was going to recreate. So, no problem. >> Well, I don't know. Just the way this whole thing's gone.
>> Mhm. >> We're sitting there and you're saying no and I'm saying yeah, and you're calling it something and I'm calling it something. >> Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just saying there's been two meetings since our site visit. we would have happily revisited
it prior. So, I think we're definitely showing cooperation. We're not trying to fight with anybody. We're >> No, you're not. >> Not at all. >> Much better. >> Yeah. >> Can I add something about that tree?
Uh if you're facing the the property, it's to the left. It's like this. And it's not >> the one in the lower left corner. >> Healthy. >> Yeah. The one that's going to fall. Yeah. >> So, if it's going to fall and we get this peer reviewed and they say that has
to come down before you put a house with people in it, then is that going to also affect the >> Yeah. I don't know. All those trees are really poor condition. >> Yeah. But that one's huge and like this and I touched it and it's not >> Yeah, there's no question.
>> She's not doing well. >> What >> it see? Yeah. It seemed like it needed to come down. Probably going to fall in 3 years anyway, >> right? So >> I I think the way it's angled it like >> something that we need to have >> it wouldn't fall on the house per se,
but on the retaining wall. >> The other thing to consider is you can request >> the other trees come down, they could damage the wall. >> Right. Right. The wall that >> the wall and obviously include the wetland. >> Yeah. So is that as Ted just mentioned, if you guys want it down, he'll take it
down. >> Okay. That would be something though that the peer reviewer should be aware of because that could affect I mean as soon as it's dead the roots are going to that'll affect the erosion. You know that
>> the peer review would just be for the delineations. She wouldn't be or he or she would not be looking at anything else about the project at all unless you like you have to request it. They can't they're not just going to come and look at the whole project. >> Yeah. >> Specific like >> Right. So,
>> can we request that >> that it be in Yeah. Um need a little more information on exactly what capacity like what's the effect on the wetland if they remove the tree? >> I I mean I guess I don't know >> deliberate. It's not I can't >> Yeah. No, I >> Yeah, you're not allowed. I get that.
But you know, do do you kind of understand where I'm coming from or not at all? I mean, if they remove the tree, >> we could just condition that. Um >> I understand exactly what you're saying. just um >> I I'm not wording it well, but do you >> Yeah. What would be the review? Whether
the structural integrity of the tree or the the damage it would cause if it were to fall, >> right? Which it looks like it's on the wetlands. >> It's going to be one strike of lightning to the >> one thing I'd want to throw out there as a caveat. He'd agree to take it down if
it's on his property. Otherwise, we would need permission, right? If >> I >> thought the fence was the property line >> there. Well, the fence actually is our pin is on the opposite side of the fence. >> So, all those trees are definitely on. >> Did it run? I don't know the specific tree you're mentioning.
>> If you're looking at it from the road, it's this massive tree on the lefth hand side. It's like literally leaning like this. It's growing in >> the lower left corner. Lower left corner. >> It's literally leaning right over where the wall is going to go. >> So, is it outside of our or
is it outside of our protected area within our work limit? Because then if it is, it can just be conditioned to come down. >> What? >> I I think it's I think it's within >> I think it's Yeah, I think it's within >> or it's right on the line.
>> Yeah. Do you remember or do we have a that that site visit was cuz I >> I wonder if the aerial is updated for our town GIS? I can check it. We can see the tree right there. >> Check on that. >> Yeah. When I meet whoever, we can bring the GPS unit and locate it.
>> Yeah, cuz I didn't take pictures of that. I don't think >> I took a picture of the tree. >> Did you take a picture of the tree? >> Yeah. What was the date of the site visit? >> I'll tell you what the date was. It was >> two meetings ago, right? >> April 8th was the date
>> or three. Yeah. I don't think it's >> Oh, no. I lied. No, I didn't. >> But it's the opposite side. >> So, that's the If you're looking at it,
that's the lower left corner. So, the tree I'm referring to is like right here >> and it's leaning I think >> if it were to fall straight down, I think it would fall right >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. By the plant, it's probably like >> Yeah. >> Right here.
>> Yeah. somewhere in this area for sure. >> Yeah. >> So I guess >> do we want the So do we want the peer reviewer to inspect the integrity of the tree and then also
give an opinion on what would else needed to be done mitigation wise if it was removed for the wetland. Does that does that make sense? Yeah. And I would also compact >> give them the information that the
landowner is willing to part with the tree. >> I would have them look at all those trees personally. >> All the remaining trees. >> Well, all every are in the same condition. They're all lightning struck cuz it's great grounding there. They're all the same species. They've all been
lightning struck. They're all rotten in the middle. >> Do you think that's a peerreview thing or do you think that's just certified arborist? How do you feel? >> Right. That's the other thing I was thinking about. >> Can we can we do a certified arborist take a look at the trees but then have the peer
reviewer look at the information based on okay if all of these trees were removed what would be the effect? >> Yeah. >> Does that work or no? Not not I don't know how peer review works. That's why I'm asking >> that's I think if we're going to do a peer review, we we need to get
everything in one >> batch. So like we'd have to delay that process and we could talk about that then. You should talk to them as well. But um >> Okay. >> Yeah, we should we can't like have them do it in stages. It's just it's one time review. Otherwise, we're doing multiple
>> Y >> bids out. That makes sense. Um, >> well, I think you could do a wetlands delineation and then have a certified arborist >> for the Yeah, >> in the wet in the delineation, whoever the professional is, have them take into
account whether the trees are there or gone. >> Okay. Okay. I'll I'll look into that and see how procedurally that can work. And then do you want to like maybe talk about whatever you want to talk about for this project, but then like maybe um because we have a lot on our next agenda for the end of the month,
maybe just talk about the peer review process and and that's it then. >> Well, now or later >> for the for our end of the month meeting because I'll need to because I'll need to continue this in order to figure out procedurally what to do in terms of the peer review now
>> and how to include all that. >> Yeah, >> I'm okay with that. So then like we'll meet at the end of the month to actually make the motion for the peer review and I'll then have all the information on how to include all that if it makes sense to >> I'll talk to some people. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Mhm. >> All right. So I got to write that down for myself. >> So barring the peer review, anything else that you folks would like to discuss on the project >> just so we can prepare for >> Absolutely.
>> I think everything else looks good. Yeah. >> Yeah. I really just had that concern about the tree. But >> all right, we want to take a uh >> Yeah. Does anyone in the audience have any questions before we continue this to the next meeting? Discuss the peer
review. Um, I mean I I have this. >> You have to come forward and please >> So I I don't necessarily have a question. State your name, please. Sorry about that. >> Your name and your address. >> 68 Holland Drive, East Lang.
>> Sure. >> Um, I appreciate all the new information and and reviewing and whatnot. Uh, I just wanted to, you know, just say again that it's just it's a crowded neighborhood. It's a really tight corner and I I think that the stress of the new
construction and the stress of a new family living there is going to stress out the neighborhood even more and that in consideration with the impact on the wetland. So just an opinion thing again and that's all. Thank you.
Anyone else? Michael Showcat, 56 Nelson Street, right next to the property. Um, I've noticed with this year, I've been there for before going on 5 years, the knotweed has now spread where it going into my
yard now where it never was. um no certification or anything, but believe it's because it was all dug up and now it's spreading into my ER where it wasn't there before. So, not sure if that's a part of it, but uh figured I should at least state that.
>> Yeah, in the mitigation plan, um they're actually going to be removing all of it and cutting everything off specifically to make sure no seeds remain. >> So, they go on to my property and do that as well for what spread into my property? >> No, that would be something that has nothing to do with us. You'd have to get permission from conservation.
>> Yeah, that's >> improperly doing it has done that to my yard. >> And that's, you know, we can make a note of that. Unfortunately, it's not something we can vote on. Um, you'd have to, you know, work with them directly. >> And could I address I mean,
>> of course, absolutely. >> Unfortunately, notweed is an invasive species and that's how it spreads, right? It >> pollinates. that as well, but it pollinates as well. Windborne, stream born, >> right? It just keeps carrying if you walk.
>> So, you have the property right to the right. >> Right next to it. >> Okay. So, because right in back of you where it goes to the larger brook, I forgot the name of it. >> There's all notweed back there as well, >> but you can literally see it's like a
little line coming from >> You need to address us. >> It is super aggressive. It is >> terrible. face. >> Yeah, but it's literally a line from like the pile of dirt that was stacked right next to my house. Literally like >> pretty obvious. Yeah.
>> Who can say? But there's probably some argument to be made that the disturbance accelerated and spread. >> You need to come forward and state your name if you're going to make comments, please. >> It's part of the procedure, guys. Sorry.
>> Anybody else? Okay, I will >> intention motion to no to continue to the next meeting, Alex. >> I'm working on it now. 27th. >> May 27th. >> Make a motion to continue
NOI 2026-1 for the 27th of May. >> Second. All in favor? >> I 27th. >> Yes. myself. >> You good? >> Yes. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Request for determination of applicability RDA 2026-03 termination applicability for farmer circle ID 54-6-22A. >> That's the
for someone came in last time, >> right? Yeah, I can I think I have them in there, my email. I can send them. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Have a good night. Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> All right.
Continuing on. Huh? >> Wait till they're done talking. I can't hear you. Good seeing you. >> Have a good night. For weather, the area and activities are subject to the wetlands protection act 310 CMR 10.0 and local wetlands bylaws. Chapter 424
wetlands protection applicant bedrock financial LLC trustee Cumberland Blues Realy Trust PO Box 79 East 1028. >> Is this part of um Happy Acres? >> Yeah, it's Happy Acres. >> Okay, that's what I thought. I bought
Farmer's Circle. >> So, it's >> Where is it? Lot >> lot 22. It's at the top like by um Southbend Road. >> The star on the on the map. >> So, you go and you take a right. >> Go and you take a right. Your first
right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> It's out of our >> thing's all the way out. >> Yeah. >> All the way out. >> Yeah. >> I think um I think >> subdivisions like this um Yeah. It just half of the lots are and half of them aren't. We probably should have like
noted to exclude those. >> I think because we had such an issue when we originally did all of it and there was so much back and forth. We made the determination that we had to see every single >> because we had so many issues. >> Right. So what are you looking for like a negative?
>> Uh it's four and six cuz they had asked whether the area and the work are subject to jurisdiction. 46. >> We need to close a public hearing first. >> No, we continued it. >> Oh, >> for for Nelson? Yeah, we'll have to
close We'll have to close a public hearing for for this once we're ready. Yeah. But >> are we are we good to >> Yeah. You think? Do we have questions on this >> on this particular one? I >> completely out of our >> I have no question at all. I mean, it's
I know that it's completely out. >> Okay. So I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing for R826-03. >> Seconded. So moved. >> All in favor? >> I did. >> Did you make that motion? Did you ask for >> You guys did it properly. No, it was
good. So moved and yes, you make it. It was perfect. Um, so do you want to make >> I'll make a motion to issue a negative46 determination on >> request for determination of applic RDA 2026-03.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I something you have to sign, Alex. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> One moment. >> We'll sign it. >> I have so many papers out now it's not even funny. Here
we go. Two pages. >> Sweet. >> Is it supposed to rain tomorrow, too? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All day. >> And Friday or No. >> Really? Friday, too? >> Yep. >> But the weekend is quick.
>> Yeah. The weekend >> in the east. Is that too hot for you? >> In May? Yes. >> Yeah, that's too hot for me. >> Yeah, true. True. >> I mean, if it was July, I'd say no. No problem. But May, it's a little too soon.
>> That is hot. >> Just take a dip in the Cy. >> Oh, no. No. >> That'll give you contrast. >> I'm not going to do that. So gross. Did you get both pages? >> No, of course not.
>> I check. >> Tony's done it enough to me where I check now. >> It's fine. >> Megan will though. >> I got it. Here, I'll even leave your line open for you. >> Oh, you're the best. >> Do what I can.
>> Tony always misses a second piece. That's what he always misses. Thank you. >> All right. >> Project monitoring. >> Uhhuh. >> EO 2025-06 wetlands violation at 30
Vinland Avenue. >> Okay. So if you all have in front of you this page right here. Okay. >> That's the restoration plan. >> This is the restoration plan. Not submitted by a wetland scientist
>> and not a restoration plan. >> Submitted by the guy who did the work. >> Yes. >> That was there. >> Who? He's not >> Is this the equipment he'll use? >> He's not he's not a landscaper. He owns a paving and construction company. >> He did the work already. that he's the one who did the work at the state that
caused the violation. >> Oh, that caused the violation. >> Um, >> so >> do you want me to explain? Yeah, I think I think we need to go back and
um amend the enforcement order or I forget what it was that I said that it needs to >> you got that >> be submitted by an actual wetlands consultant which we told her she need to hire from the list we gave her with an actual
restoration plan to be done by a certified wetland scientist. Yeah. >> And she's not we've asked her to come see us again and she's not responding. >> You had said to not change any of the dates and to just leave it out of
compliance. So all I did to this was uh update the cover letter which is there. So you have everything. >> I updated the cover letter and then on the last page I just I just highlighted the details. Y >> um
for what it's worth, the individual who did the work that she then hired for this didn't have a copy of this enforcement order either. I g I gave him one when he showed up to the office. >> I don't think that he would be able to write a restoration plan anyway based on
he's well he's not a wetland scientist so already we can't accept anything that he would submit. I mean it has to be >> it's a paving services company, right? >> Yes. I looked them up. Yeah. >> It's not uh not not what asked for at all. >> No.
>> For this one, do we just need to need to vote on the amended enforcement order? And yes, and yes to say send it. >> If if this is in the condition that you want to send it in. Um then just we we to amend it. >> If you want to add anything, change
anything, that's >> um >> I think just calling it out like you did >> and making it clear. is yeah is perfect. >> This is exactly what she'll receive verbatim with an exception of I just did attach the list of consultants that she'll >> Okay. Y
>> which is just literally every consultant that we've seen for as long as I've worked here. >> Yep. Which is >> that's what she'll get. >> Yep. Okay. That's perfect. >> Um >> so we we're giving a new date. >> No, we're not changing any dates. We're just sending her a new letter
highlighting what was missed. >> Um because we're going to leave her out of compliance. We're not going to push the date. >> I mean, I think you should address that. It's confusing to put dates in the past and not >> indicate that we've now >> recognize that or we now consider it
past, you know, you pass these dates, >> right? >> Do you want that in the cover letter then? Like maybe I add another another paragraph and it'll say something like you have now surpassed all these dates. >> Yeah. Yeah. And these are the these are the same dates that we asked you for that you're now
>> that that that have now passed and that you're now >> So just reaffirming reaffirming these other paragraphs where cuz I I listed each deadline and then said nothing was >> I think just at the end just >> yeah reaffirm with further instruction >> as of this letter you are still not in
compliance with the enforcement order and you know what we're doing >> and yeah and I see now your language does >> no but it makes sense >> does speak to that but >> just put Absolutely. >> Big old sentence at the end like you are still not in compliance. >> Are the is the highlight going to be in the email?
>> Yeah. >> What are you laughing at me for? >> Do we have Do we have to address the fact that we won't accept? >> You have to be very plain and direct with them or they don't get it. >> Add that in. Like it's not acceptable. >> I can add that. >> That's why I just asked the highlight was going to be included because it
needs absolutely keep the highlights. >> Put it in caps. Sign them or something. Bold the last sentence that says you are still out of compliance. >> Yes, please. >> People speak English. >> And if I need to sign it, I'll sign it. >> We all be signing it tonight. We'll we re literally resign the whole
enforcement order as an amended one. >> Let's do that. >> Um so, >> um Jason had just requested that we also note that the PA is like literally spell it out that the PA was not an acceptable. >> What we what was submitted was not
acceptable. Well, they're not a wetland scientist. It's not a plan. It's >> Yeah. Yep. >> Right. Okay. So, >> good call cuz No. Do we need to vote on this that we're going to >> motion to amend the enforcement order? Yeah.
>> I will entertain a motion to amend the enforcement order 2025-06 for wetlands violation at 30 Avenue. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Sweet. All right. >> Okay. Hold on. Got to sign that.
>> Yep. I know. >> I'm going to give you back the whole stack, but I'm just trying to keep it neat. >> I appreciate that. >> We're keeping the paper companies in business, though, aren't we? >> Yes. Yes. >> Very environmental of us. I I was mortified when I when I got my first job
doing this and I'm like, what is all this paper going to? >> And even with their online system, you still have to submit stuff in >> Yeah, it's both now. It's just >> because it doesn't always work. >> I never understood that. Submit online, but you still need a paper copy. Why?
It's online. >> Two pages. >> The online is because we cuz everybody can see it. Like if somebody submits a building permit, >> reason is so everybody can see it online. Yeah, because if somebody submits like a building permit and it's in a resource area and they didn't know and they don't apply to us, I get pinged
on it. I have it set up so I get pinged like even if it's like way out so I can at least make sure and look cuz not all wetlands are delineated. >> Yeah, that we know that for sure. Thank you. >> Yep. >> EO 2025-05
carts and other debris and broken bank at 406 to 436 North Main Street. >> So, I have some updates. Um, obviously we there's still nothing with the owners of the plaza. Nothing has changed there. Um, but I did get a chance to go out. It
was raining, so I couldn't do the best search, but I I looked a little more carefully at like the garbage back there. It really seems like it's pretty much just Dollar General on the left, like really. And because you would all asked last time, let's after >> the stores. So, in my opinion, that's
the biggest culprit, but there's still the issue of like there's those carts way down uh in the brook. Um, there's still like any way we any way you want it. It can't just land on the tenants at this point. We can issue an enforcement order that that goes to the property
owner and all of the tenants. We could go we could issue an enforcement order that goes just to the tenants or we can continue to resend the same one over and over again. That's getting us nowhere. But, um, >> let's do it to all of them. >> You want to do it to all of them? So, the in anticipation of that, um, the way
I kind of wrote it here, um, I highlighted some things. Every one of you, like the enforcement order has some highlighted things. So, like I highlighted who it's going to go to. Right now, it's just the LLC. >> That's good cuz we put the all of them. That's going to put pressure on the landlord. >> Exactly. Right. That's what you'd said last time. That's that's why there's a change.
>> Um, >> okay. Gotcha. >> The other thing that I added, so under the order, we wanted them to file a restoration plan. It's 627 2025. That's way past. So, >> we'd probably want to update that. And then the other thing was, so with what we're asking, we've asked for the carts to be removed by the property owner. I
changed second part. Um, rather than including the litter that's going over into the brook, rather than asking of that, that's the part that I thought we'd ask for the tenants. Or at least I'm proposing you guys can change it however you want. Proposed to say other litter associated with the puzzic um is removed by the property owner or
tenants. >> Do we know whose carts they are? >> They're all labeled. >> I don't know. So, we could change that as well to the property owner or tenants because if they're Stop and Shop's cart, Stop and Shop can >> Yeah, we we could um >> do that. >> Okay. I don't know whose carts those
are. We'd have to >> That's fine. But if you can say or then if it's a Stop and Shop cart, they remove their own. If it's a cart from Big Y, then the property owner has to take it out. >> Carts from the by the property. Okay. So, I'll add that to or tenants. >> So, everything will just be tenants or >> or tenant owner or Yep.
Um, and then we'll give them a a deadline and and I guess this one I'll have to I don't know how we'd mail this out. So, I guess I'd have to go in and actually hand these to managers directly person, but >> probably Yeah, >> I don't think they have like a mail receptacle there. I think it just goes to corporate. So, >> Oh, yeah. You're right. Yeah, they
>> might have a box. I used to work in like a strip mall and there was like boxes in the back and everybody has their own key and whatever. I'll talk to assessors and either I'll just have to deliver them in person or if there's a key a box like a PO box of some kind. Sure. >> Okay. >> Um so I that's another question but
yeah. Okay. So you want put the pressure on the tenants and send it to every business and >> and then because Yeah. Because then what they can do is they can go to the owner and say hey we've got this enforcement order. What are we supposed to do? >> And then they can get in touch with them like oh we didn't get it or maybe
they'll contact us. I suspect they're not like the property owner is not responding because I'm thinking they might be planning on selling it to another like LLC cuz we got a public records request but it didn't ask for anything for conservation. It asked for like everything but like fire and
building permits, planning issues, etc. But not conservation. So, I couldn't put any of this in. But there was a public records request that came out a couple weeks ago. Someone asking for this the for the whole plaza like any violations at all aside from us. They didn't ask for us. every other department. So
>> because it it it changed hands since the last time, right? >> It had changed hands. So our first issue when we first like last year when the first time when they responded quickly, they were new owners and now the second time we've asked it seems like they're already I think it seems like they're maybe like they're like when we sent
them the enforcement order, it came back return to sender the second time. So I don't even think they're in that New York anymore, >> right? Okay. >> Either. Um, so I think maybe they're just selling and they're like, "It's not my problem anymore, >> which it is their problem."
>> It is. It is. Yes. Um, so, okay. So, we have that you want the removal of the carts and the litter by the property owner or the tenants. Um, I would need to note that it's going to be every business.
>> Yeah. All of them. >> If they don't have litter behind them, then they're good to go. I mean, you know, they'll just if it's by their litter, okay, fine. But >> some really don't. >> And some really don't. Yeah. >> Some really don't. Like stop and shop is not the problem all the way on the right side. Um at least for the stuff in the
brook. I mean, I can't speak for the carts. Those could be >> those could be anyway. And they're probably not even theirs. Like they they didn't do it, but >> I mean, you know, the Stop and Shop didn't go dump carts in the brook, but >> Right. Okay. So, there's that. Uh so, every business covered that. Um, so I
guess if you're happy with what we're asking for and who we're asking it for, then the biggest thing would be um just a date for when we want something filed. >> You want to give them a month? >> Sure, that sounds good. >> End of end of end of June.
>> End of June. So, what do we got for meetings? See what would work. >> So, I would say by by our second meeting >> Wednesday of June. >> So, we need something by um you want by we have two meetings. We have the We have the the 10th and the 24th. >> Say the 24th. >> 24th. Okay. So, have something by the
>> Yeah, by the 24th. >> Okay. >> So, we good on that or we don't need to vote on that? >> Yeah, we need a motion to amend it with all these changes. So, you just just like we did with the last one. Motion to amend the enforcement order. I will entertain a motion to amend the
enforcement order EO2025-05 for cards and other debris in the Brook and Bank at 46 436 North Main Street. >> Second. >> So moved. >> All in favor? I >> I think you got a second. >> No, she did. >> It was before the move. >> Yeah, she said second. Then you said so moved.
>> So moved. So I'll second it. >> Okay, I got it. I'm just trying to participate. Okay. So, it's >> I got to say >> I need to vote. We didn't vote. >> She motion. >> So, I have it now as you >> moved it and second.
>> Yes. >> I have to vote. >> Oh, we don't. >> All those in favor? >> I I No. So, she asked for a motion. So, somebody's say you could say so moved >> and then then has a second. Got it. >> And then a vote. Okay. She she is chair
can't >> generally she can but generally from >> I can entertain a motion but I can't make the motion. Oh >> okay. >> All right. Got it. >> Stream EO 2025-01 stream alteration at 633 to 759 Summers
Road. >> We were going to continue this one, right? >> Yeah. Because we had so much on the agenda. Liz said to continue. We just received a little bit of information today right before we closed up from Ryan. Uh I don't I haven't even looked
at it yet. >> A motion to continue it. >> Do you want go to the end of the month? >> Yeah. >> All right. That's um the 27th. >> 27th. >> Make a motion to continue EO 2025 to 01 to the 27th of May.
>> All right. Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. So confused. >> Okay. >> All right. I'm going back to being silent. >> No, no, don't do not. >> No, keep doing it. >> DC-2026-01
Chesson Street, Silverson Machines, Inc. ratification of emergency certificate of the removal of vegetation growing in an open channel at Culvert inlet. >> So, I approved this. Um, there was vegetation growing in the culvert and I asked for permission to remove it. I
signed >> it was flooding causing flooding on their park. >> Yeah, I know where that is. >> Yeah. So, I I had a we just have to you have to make a motion to ratify it >> and then you can I have the uh the one you signed here. So, I'll just pass around. You all can sign it. >> Okay. Yeah. >> All right. I'll make a motion to ratify
the emergency certificate of the removal of vegetation regarding EC-2026-01. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Mr. Chance Bang >> tell you I'm quiet for now. >> Okay, so sign this one real quick. >> What's the need to sign
>> vegetation like what? >> Um, we're moving fast. You're catching me. Thank you. >> So, we just I can just sign under where >> sign under that one. And there's only one. >> Where's the parking lot? >> Okay. So this is this is um Chestnut Street that across the street is Package
Machinery and Silverson's right here which is the old uh I already signed this one. >> Yep. >> Oh, so it was flooding over handers in the back. >> That's 406 North Street. >> Yeah. >> So there's two basic manufacturers of hand dryers. >> Oh Chicago.
>> Yep. It's just the only We have one original. The other one he got not Silverson. >> One page. He's the guy who invented the, you know, the high powered jet hand hand dryers. >> The Dyson hand dryer or whatever.
>> Oh, yeah. Silver something. >> Yeah, he >> silver. No, >> it's I can't think of it right now. >> That's cool. >> Oh, Silverson machines. Yeah, but I don't I don't I want to say he sold
>> there's two pages. >> Thank you. All right, for business, Alex, you're up. So, the end of the month, we have our DPW storm water report presentation, which is >> Yeah. Um
so um that just look out for that. We'll be we'll be here for a minute that day. Um um other than that I don't really have anything. >> I had one just one thought from tonight that
>> plans for removal of not of Japanese notweed for example. You want to have a standard uh you know guidance that that property owners should be using in cases going forward. >> Yeah. >> Rather than asking each to develop their
own plan. Um it's just something for the future perhaps. >> Yeah. It's something we could certainly keep in mind. >> This might be something DPW might want to have in >> it's all I mean it's not obviously not just that property. >> Yeah. It's everywhere. >> Yeah. It's everywhere. It's becoming a
bigger issue. That's a legal issue too with foundations etc. >> Yeah, that stuff is brutal. >> It's awful. >> Um, you want to want a motion for adjournment? >> Yes, please. >> I'll make a motion to adjourn the May
13th Conservation Commission meeting. >> Second. All those in favor? I >> I was