Okay. Calling to order the Lunenburgg Conservation Commission meeting of August 6, 2025 at 7:03 p.m. Uh we have no appointments tonight. Um in accordance with the requirements of
the open meeting law, please be advised that this meeting is being audio video recorded. The agenda list all topics which may be discussed at the meeting and are those reasonably anticipated by the chair. Votes may be taken from these discussions. Not all items may be discussed and other items may be raised
to the extent permitted by open meeting law. Please be advised that the town of Me Lindenburg utilizes Zoom platforms as host for its hybrid and remote meetings. The Zoom platform utilizes AI technology known as AI companion to create audio transcriptions of meetings to aid in the
subsequent preparation of meeting minutes and that AI companion is activated immediately upon launching the Zoom application. You are hereby notified that this AI technology may capture audio prior to the start of the meeting and or following the conclusion of the meeting. And then there's the
Zoom link. Um, all right. So, I'll start with a roll call. Um, Mary Wilson here. Chris and Germaine here.
Mike Larouche here. Richard Bur Rich was here. Andrea Berna here. and Teddy Det.
All right. Still not seeing him. He's here. He is. Yeah. Uh oh. Okay, there he is. Uh Teddy Dette. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. You can just say here.
Here. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Um for announcements, do we have any announcements from members of the public? Comments are to be made limited to three minutes and on a subject matter under the direct jurisdiction of the
commission. Comments about current agenda items are to be made during the comment period of the specific agenda item. Please address all comments to the chair. Do we have any public comment? Does not look like it. Um, minutes were
sent out for uh 11 1225, 521 2022, 642025, 618 2022, and 72 2022. The minutes for 122 2025 were updated. Um, so let's see.
Has everybody had a chance to look at these? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Um, would we want to to go individually or do we want to just do a motion to approve all? Why don't we do them individually? Then
there's no question. Okay. Um, so I'd be looking for a motion to approve one the minutes for 122 2025. So move second. Okay. Mike with the motion. Chris with
the second. Roll call. Uh, Mary Wilson. I Chris Germaine. Hi. Mike Larouche. Hi. Richard Bers. Hi. Andrea Bernap.
I was not. That's right. So, and then I for myself. All right. Um, 521 2025. Looking for a motion to approve. So move and
second. All right. Roll call. Mary Wilson. Hi. Chris Germaine. Hi. Mike Larouche. Hi. Richard Burch. Hi. Um and I for myself. All right. 642025.
Looking for a motion. So move. Approve. Motion to approve. Mike. So move. Yes. Okay. And then a second from anyone. Second.
Okay. So motion from Mike, second from Chris. Uh, roll call vote. Mary. Oh, roll call. Mary Wilson. I. Chris Angelerman. Hi. Mike Larouche. Hi. Richard Bers.
Hi. and I for myself. Um 6 wait 618 2025 looking for a motion to approve. So moved. Mike
second. All right. Mary. Uh motion from Mike and second from Mary. Roll call. Mary Wilson. I. Chris St. Germaine. Hi. Mike Larouche. I. Richard Burch
I and I for myself and then 72205 for a motion to approve. So move. All right. Can I get a second?
Second. Okay. Motion from Mike and second from Chris. Mary Wilson. I Chris St. Germaine. Hi. M Laarouche I Richard Burish I
Andrea Bernap I and Teddy Ducet I I for myself. Okay. So all minutes have been approved. That's five down. Um so
we're going to do h a quick just plug from the pollinator habitat. Then Mike's gonna just give a quick couple minutes on that. Okay. Uh, good evening. I just wanted I just got my Habitat happenings, which is
the monthly newsletter that's put together by Christina, and she gets all of this information from all of her other volunteers and puts together a newsletter. And uh this month is, you
know, as you might realize, you know, we're in the midst of summer. So uh big happenings uh at the habitat. Uh there were 14 different kinds of butterflies spotted at our Lunberg pollinator
habitat. Um, four different bumblebees uh uh were also cited as well as three different kinds of moths. Believe it or not, moths are very
um desirable in a habitat. And um we have Shaina um Meladus who's our moth uh volunteer person and she has spotted three of them in our habitat and a bunch
of caterpillars and um which is amazing. Plus, we have uh another volunteer uh who is a photographer and has been taking photographs of all of these
butterflies and different insects in the habitat. And her name is Jennifer Belt Bouquet. And I'm hoping that we'll have a chance to upload some of her pictures. And there they are. Um wow,
how impressive is that? uh you know, so she's uh trimming with her trimmer as she sees butterfly or a bug. She puts her trimmer down, takes the picture, and keeps working, which
is, you know, to me a phenomenal um Why is it playing music? Sorry about that. Sorry. It was unexpected. Keep going, Mike. No, I'm just saying she's just an amazing volunteer as many of the volunteers are.
Uh Pam and Carol, Christine, and um Jenny and uh I'm sure I'm missing some of the volunteers, but those are the ones who I tend to see when I show up and take a walk through and um work on
the lawnmowers and things of that sort. But um uh as you can see the lawnmowers looking good because of the uh pathways are mowed which is you know uh an amazing thing to do so you can really appreciate all of the native flowers
that are growing um in our habitat. So, I just want to make sure we do a shout out and today I thank you for uploading some of those pictures uh just because they deserve a lot of credit for doing
all the work they do and help to bring all of those pollinators in. Um so, we have a a beautiful habitat. So, and always still looking for volunteers. I was told, you know, any mo anytime you have a an opportunity
to ask for a volunteer uh to help us out, even though it looks like how could we possibly need any more, but we do. Um, you know, whether it's watering, whether it's weeding, you know, there's always work that needs to
get done. And uh so a shout out to them and to anyone who's interested in volunteering uh can certainly get in touch uh with any of us here on the commission or uh if you just go out to the pollinator
habitat, you'll probably run into a volunteer and I'm sure they'd be glad to take your name and see what you'd like to do and help. Awesome. Thank you so much, Mike. And then pollinator habitat address is 250
Hollis Road. 123 Hollis Road. 123 Hollis Road. Yeah. All right. Thank you so much for that, Mike. You're welcome. All right. We're going to move on to public hearings. Um, so pursuant to MGL
chapter 131 section 40 and the town of Lunenberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws, uh, we have a public hearing on a request for amended order of conditions by Fitchburg Land Property Owner LLC for the reduction of scope and size originally approved 3607,000t
warehouse building to 18 3,500 ft² warehouse structure and that is at 260 Vula Road. Do we have the um applicant or applicants representative on the meeting? Bill Hanigan from Hanigan Engineering representing the applicant.
Thank you. Um would you like to tell us a little bit about Am I able to share my screen? Absolutely. Hold. Perfect. Sharing is not turned on. There you go. Should be now.
Excellent. So, um this is the project that is um it's half in Fitsburg, half in Lunenburgg. Um so we have permits from both sides that we're we're um getting and updating. And what happened um this is the original plan that was approved.
And I'll just kind of go through the sheets. This is um Airport Road, Crawford Street um in in uh Fitsburg and Lemonster and Lunberg. The Lunberg town line comes in right in here. Lister Lunberg goes right there. Lunberg
Fitsburg is here. So the original plan um had work within the buffer zone um as well as work within the riverfront uh that was approved by this commission as well as the Fitsburg commission. And what had happened was so I'll go up up
through the plans. Um this is the second sheet which shows us moving moving to the north. And this is this the third sheet which shows us moving even further to the north. And then you can see the size of the building. What happened was the area when they started doing soil
borings for structural uh review. This area right here had a lot of um of of buried material which is not was not conducive to um structurally supporting the building. So what we've done is we've basically and I'll go back. I'll
just go to that sheet there. We've basically eliminated the building in this whole area here. So, it's significantly reduced in scope. Okay. Um of the building. We've really just cut the building almost in half. And so, there's nothing really. We're
we're only purchasing, I believe, about to this line here now or the client is only purchasing about that line there. This is going to remain with Pittsburgh Redevelopment Authority. Um and then the area um the building as you can see gets significantly smaller, a lot less parking, a lot less paving. Um we've re
redone the um the drainage calculations um have been modified to include um the changes needed to reduce the scope of the of of the required drainage. Um the scope of the work around the site has also changed. Um, and then in the front,
um, this is the new the new front, which doesn't really change that much, but the the lanes of of the driveway got a little bit narrower because you weren't obviously going to have as many trucks going through, etc. Um, this area right here in the plans, so the plans were were reviewed for um on behalf of the
town of the town of Lunberg's planning board and Jeff Walsh from Graves Engineering did a review on the project, including storm water review for both Fitsburg and Lemster. Fittsburgh and Lunberg and he pointed out in his review this area here he was a little concerned about. I I'll zoom in um to that.
Um so this is the only area where we're making a change and this was about a 1 and a half to one slope and he was concerned about that relative to you know erosion potential. So what we did was we provided um this sketch which
shows us as at a two to one slope which he uh agreed with and this change was also reviewed by the planning board and the planning board approved the changes to the plans based upon this being incorporated to the final plans prior to construction. So we're asking the
commission to approve the modified plans uh with this grading adjustment um plan that was u prepared for the meeting with the planning board. So overall, the scope of of the project was significantly reduced. Um it's very rare
that you come in with a project and say we're not going to do as much. Um but this is one of those ones, but it was on-site conditions that kind of drove it. And I think I think these two um pictures here kind of show the the scope and scale of how the building is is
shrinking. Um, and if you go to this one here, you can kind of see that it's it's it's it's significant. So, what we're here to do tonight is basically just up update the the plans of record for the order of conditions um to be changed from the plans that were referenced in
the original order to these plans here under under a modification request. Um, some changes in in this area here were were basically that a lot of the site actually got lowered by a couple of feet. Um, so there's there's actually less fill material um in in in the areas
uh depending upon where you are on the site. Um, so that was a benefit. Um, but all in all, the the overall site layout uh from from essentially this line down really has not changed um significantly. It's just a matter of basically making sure that the plans that are on record
with the commission with the planning board of both both L um both Lunberg and Fitsburg are consistent with the plans that are going out for construction. Um, thank you very much. Do is that everything you have to say for now? Yeah, I think it's pretty
straightforward, but we have to make the presentation. So, Mary has her hand raised, but um yes, Madam Chair, I didn't see in the um the agenda the NOI um bill. Do you have the NOI that this was originally
approved under? Um that was um the order of conditions you mean? Yeah. Well, it was it would be in the letter that we submitted. Um
I don't have that up on my screen, but that's that's why we're asking for an amendment because it's an order that's already been reviewed. So, this we did not file a new notice of intent. Uh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I that's I was just looking for the reference material. Um I didn't see it. Uh, well, I'll go back
into open gov and look again. I wanted to see what had originally been approved. What I showed, this is what originally was approved, Mary. This plan plus this sheet and this sheet was what was approved by the by the face
commission. What we're asking for is to mend the approval to basically reduce the building and the parking to eliminate this whole construction area up here on the on the north side. Okay, that's essentially the request.
I Yeah, and I understand that. I I was just looking for the official, you know, uh original official plans that have been approved. Like I said, these are the plans. I have the approved version up on the
screen as well as the proposed version. I'm going to share my screen. Okay. So, it's under the 260. I I'm assuming this is it. I wasn't here for the original approval, but there is this
is before we were using like a a true workflow, right? There is a notice of intent under the 1283 October 6, 2022. seem right for the date. And then we have um
you went by site plans. I'm not seeing I'm seeing well so there's the site plan and then there is D comments um and then the WPA form 3, but I don't see the actual order of
conditions under here. I think the order of conditions is actually in the um I saw the order of conditions in open gov. I just didn't um Oh, I don't know why. Uh I do see the original um approved ones in the open gov now. I just overlooked it.
Apologies. Okay. Uh now, okay. Are there any other questions from members of the conservation commission? Oh, Richard hands.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Bill, is there any change to the amount of um disturbance in the riverfront? Yes, it's significantly reduced. Um,
let me pull the letter up. Okay. Yeah, because unfortunately I don't I mean it's great that the whole project has gotten smaller, but we're kind of concerned with the riverfront in um in particular. So, if you could just go over the changes to the riverfront, that
would be great. And so, the the building can't move any further away from the riverfront due to the structural um stability of the soils. Yeah, basically the with what was approved, we kept everything
south of that line the same. Made some grading adjustments because we were able to lower the site because part of the aspect of of stretching a building that long over over over of a distance is you try to balance the site relative to cut
fill. So balancing it over a longer distance had the everything at a higher elevation eliminating that area in the back and dropping things down to balance the cut and fills. We were able to drop the site by I think Chris said about two 2 and 1/2 ft.
Mhm. Okay. Yeah. Just let me know when you find the letter on the um the riverfront intrusion. Do we have any other questions while we wait for that for members of the commission? So these are the numbers. Um
so this is this is the updated table. Um, I don't have a comparison. I must say I found the previous letter. Um, let me let me try to find the previous letter. Actually, hold on a second because that might answer the
question. Okay, I'm trying to figure out how I can do this best. I'm trying to I'm trying to string one to one side and one to the other, but it's not working for me. So,
this is I'm going to do this for a second. Have you did just did try to uh control N? You might be able to just uh map it in uh two sidebyside windows. Look at Look at you being all techy.
Uh, it's unfortunately a side effect of my day job. Nope. No, won't do it. So, at the top right of your document, I can't see it on your screen for some
reason, but you have the, you know, you have like the dash and then the X and in between that there's a little window. Yeah. Yeah. So, if you click on that, it'll pop up a little window that um it it'll if you hover over it, it actually gives you an
option to put them side by side. Now, if you Yeah. Yeah. You're making me be techy. All right. So, this is the 2022 version. And just to confirm, I'm going to go to the front page of this one. And it's the 2025 version. Okay.
So trying to move things around too so I can see. All right. So I believe all the numbers existing conditions stay the same. proposed conditions um undisturbed area previously degraded those say the stain from zero from 100
to 200 and then from um total I guess it looks like that part undisturbed areas say the same undisturbed impact areas I'm not sure
exactly how he did this it looks to me like the number went down by 100 square ft feet. And it looks like under disturbed impact, permanent disturbance went down by about a No, it looks the same number.
So, I'm not sure what's different in here. So, and I think that might be the point is maybe there is no difference. Um, updated per revised scope. So apparently the most of the work that was which makes sense most of the work that was eliminated was outside of the
riverfront area itself which which goes back to the the um everything on from that line down being the same make sense. Yep. Yeah. I just wanted to verify that there was no um increase no increase in the riverfront
disturbance. Okay. Do we have any other questions from members of the commission? Do we have any comments from members of the public? Okay. Um,
so I think I think that this is the only document because it was more recently created that you may not have in open.gov. Um, but what I can do is I can email this in just so that this becomes part of the record as well if that's
acceptable. Um, yes, please do. Yep. or you can help. I just want to go on the on the record that that you have seen the document and that you understand it and that prior to construction will make this change on the plans for um for the for the
construction documents. Mhm. I'm just checking up, I guess. I I may I may have sent it in to Hurlin when I copied it to the planning board, but I just don't recall. So, if I I I'll send it into her um just to make sure.
And then are you I mean, you're able to upload directly into Open Gov, too, right? Yeah, I I'm not sure if I'm on this if I'm on this clip. Um, but I can I can I can see if I am if I am, I'll just directly upload it. I'm not sure if I'm a user on this on this particular project. I think Chris might be the the main user, but I might
be listed. Okay. It does look like Chris Anderson is the person uploading everything. Okay. Um, be no more questions, right? So, I think that
I'd be looking for a motion to approve. So, moved. Mike. I And I would be willing to make a second if Mike would be willing to amend his um approval to uh include the
condition that that extra documentation is uploaded. Yes. Good counsel. Okay. Second. Okay, roll call. Uh, Mary Wilson. Hi. Christine Germaine. Hi.
Mike Larouche. I Richard Bur. Hi. Andrea Bernat I and Teddy Ducat I and I for myself um for a motion to
approve with the condition that the document be either sent in or uploaded showing the grading changes. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Have a great night. You too. Okay. Um,
up next we have pursuant to MGL chapter 131 section 40 and the town of Lunenberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws a public hearing on a notice of intent by Priscilla Desamps for the econ for the construction of an 18,800 square
foot addition to an existing structure and associated site work. Work will also include the expansion of the existing septic system on site and associated grading at 499 Northfields Road. Do we have the applicant or the
applicant's representative? I know we did earlier. Um the they're still there. Yep, I see them. Let me ask them to unmute. Okay.
Hello. We're here. Hi. Um, so will you be speaking on behalf of the project or will there be somebody else representing you? We're both here. My husband and myself. No. Well, Jason Jasonlair
I think is on. Jason. Jasonlair. Yes. Okay. Yep. Um, I see. So, just for the record, Justin McCarti engineering here tonight on behalf of the the champs for the proposed addition
at 499 Northfield. If you want, I can share my screen and Y, please do. Do you have permission? Can everyone see this? Yes. Okay. So just to orient everyone, this is the
Papro shelter. So Northfield Road is located here. Planned top of the page. The existing house that you can see from the road and the driveway is located here. The back building here is where the current shelter operates out of is
here on the plan. So we're just looking to zoom a little bit here. So, we're looking to construct an 800 1,800 square foot edition, which is shown here, as well as a screened in porch, which is the outer dash line here.
There is a basement to this building, so we are proposing retaining walls here and here. And along the edge of the building to help infiltrate some of the rooftop runoff, we are proposing an infiltration
drip edge. So, here's the side of the building. It's really just some stone with a morphy fabric and then stone underneath. In addition to this, as part of the ongoing process, we did submit to ZBA.
We received that approval. We submitted to the planning board. I believe we're in front of them in the coming weeks for cycling review for the proposed addition and then we do have to go in front of the board of health. Excuse me. As part
of the addition, we went back and forth on title five flows and what would be required for the existing septic system which is shown here. These are the two existing tanks and then the debox here.
So what we came up with is the board of health's going to allow us to maintain the existing septic system but just expand the system to account for the title five flows of the proposed addition. So that's what you see here.
This is the proposed expansion with the additional lines in the septic system. This will be coordinated with board of health. the board of health agent for Lunberg would be on site to inspect the soils, groundwater, and we'll finalize
that design with that. We originally did have it on this side, but we had Three Oaks Environmental go back out and verify the original delineation that we had done on the adjacent property here. And in addition,
she did put an additional delineation as shown here. Based on her report, she believes that it was a former detention basin, but we couldn't find any record of it. So, for the purpose of this filing, we assume that
it is an actual wetland system. So, as you can see, all our work is proposed outside the 50 for the structure. We did put the expansion as far away from the system as possible. The closest that we're working is
approximately 32 feet from the wetland which is just to tie off the excuse me the proposed grading. So I think with that that's a quick rundown of what we're proposing. I'd be
happy to take any questions or comments from the commission. Um, I know the commission went out on a sitewalk this weekend. Does anyone have anything they'd like to share from the site lock?
I was not able to be there. Or does anyone in the commission? Oh, Mary's raising her hands. Uh, yes, Madam Chair. Um, I did have the opportunity to go out there this weekend. Um, one thing that I'll note, uh, and it seems consistent with this,
um, delineation firm is the, uh, the flagging is never blue like we expect. Uh, which is, you know, it's okay. It's manageable, but it would be nice if it was consistent with, um, everybody else is doing, uh, which seems to be an
industry best practice. And uh none of the flags were marked or numbered uh which is which problematic and also seems to be consistent with this uh delineation firm. Um we we didn't see
all of them. Uh so I don't know, you know, if they just have been overgrown or what's going on. Uh they weren't staked uh out, so it was hard to it was hard to find them. Um that being said,
uh what's shown on the drawing does seem to be, you know, a natural depression area and seems to be well away from the um you know, proposed uh construction work. Uh so that's my kind of general
observations. Um where they're doing the where they're doing the septic work, I actually don't see unless I'm Yeah. uh erosion controls and I would expect to see that um which is an independent comment from the sitewalk comment that
you had asked about. Yep. And that is a good catch. I don't see a version controls near the may I just point out? Yeah, please. So it it does get I know on the PDF it does get blurred out a little bit. So
with the proposed expansion here, this is a mound that goes this way, this way, and this way. We do have proposed erosion control along the edge here. We would be relocating the existing fence
that comes down and over to come around to account for the grading. That was a comment and that was the only comment received by us from D was regarding the erosion control. If the commission
feels that it should be extended, we can extend it further. But with the limit of work here and this being the high point of the system as well as the graves on site, the water from here and where we're doing the work would flow this
way. it wouldn't flow back over the system to the wetland. The wetland delineation was done by Three Oaks Environmental. It was located by Topper Land Survey in April of this year. I
know with the turnover that has been going on in the town, this is the first time that the commission seen this plan, though it was submitted previously. And again, it was delineated
back in April. So, I'm not surprised that between the months that some of the flagging might have worn off, some of it might have gotten blown off, a little bit of it might have overgrown. But the delineation that you do see here,
starting at WF1 all the way to WF12 is what was delineated and located by both our consultant and our surveyor. M madam chair um I for one would like to because there is um you know between the high point uh on the in the center of
the drawing and the other high point that's on the kind of more to the right uh there is kind of a valley area and so if during the construction there's any material you know or rain or whatnot I would be worried that we'd have erosion and siltation running down that mound
and into that valley and then towards the wetland. on. So, I would like to see the erosion control uh barrier extended or wrap back up the hill, right? Um to form a, you know, Yeah, that'd be great.
Oh, it should close on itself. But you you get the point that I was trying to make, right? To come down and kind of come back up the hill a little bit there. Yeah. Yeah. I I mean I obviously it's not going to run over the hill, but then running down the hill and into that little valley would be the thing I would
be concerned about. Yeah. So, ignore where it closed off, but this point this point and then kind of tie it back in somewhere here just beyond the edge of the existing system. Yeah, that's that would be relieved my concern. So, thank you.
Yeah. Yeah, that that is more than an easy enough change for us to put on the plan. And then Mary, one of your concerns with the flags was that they weren't numbered. Nope. They weren't numbered. The ones that we saw out there, the three that we
found, didn't have any markings on them at all. Like none. Not even like permanent. You know, a lot of times permanent marker parts of it kind of wash off, but you can see at one point it was marked. It they just we didn't see anything on them at all.
And then out of the expected 12, you only there were only three that were found. Oh, sorry. Expected more than 12 because we also have a D series here. Looks like Yeah, only it's it's really overgrown and so we didn't go all rambling around, right?
Um, but we found what I think was probably uh 10 and we found what I think was probably seven and probably six, but they weren't marked so there's no way for me to know.
Thank you for noting that. We have any other questions from members of the commission? Do we have any Oh, Richard Burch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hey, Mary. I didn't get a chance to go out on site, but in looking at it, we have the series
from April 2025, but they don't connect with the D series from previously. So, we have like an open blob and then we have a a pointed D27 on the Yeah, that makes no sense to me.
wetlands. So does have any idea how this continue how this be is one system or how we draw that get them into one system.
So they should connect pretty much here back into the system. B you can see based on the grading that the 531 contours here. So everything comes down and swelles and then you have a 531 here and you have a 530 contour here. So
these should everything would tie in pretty much here to 27 and then you would extend one out to here. So if some of the um commission commission members Richard I
think you were on the commission when we came in front of you for home and street for I believe it was seven lots. This was part of that development outside the property line here. So that's why you have the March of to of 19 delineation
shown here, which at the time was correct where this was off property. It wasn't delineated at that time. So again, when I had Rios come out and verify this delineation line, they had
being able to walk this side of the property, they were able to notice that yes, this again may or may not have been a detention basin at some time, but it's been shown overgrown and with no record of it being permitted or constructed or
anything like that. We have to assume that it is an extension of the wetland system. Okay. So you're using the D series as a delineation from six years ago. So that was not delineated by three oaks.
It was delineated by three oaks back in 19. It was reertified in April when they came out and did this delineation again. They checked They had this plan. They verified that. Yep.
That original flag is still valid for the limit of the wetland system. Mary, when you were on the sidewalks, did you see anything from the D series there? No, it was really overgrown back in there. Um and and I you know I just as
one as one vote on the commission I I just think it's sloppy work that this isn't interconnected right and again you know from my perspective looking at the the drawing and the proposed work you know everything is well away from where
the wetland is. Uh but I I saw a different type of project come in front of me with this type of work. this would be a really big bone of contention and and I would probably be um not willing to proceed with it. But but this one as
it is with a uh scope of work so far away from um the wetland and where I observed uh the depression being I'm I don't see it as an obstacle for me today. Thank you for that. U Mike, I saw that
you had your hand up. Yes. Madam chair, I just wanted to concur with Mary. Uh I feel very much I saw the same thing she was seeing. You know, the uh very few flags, the different color. Uh you know, the
vegetation was 4t high. Uh the bees were loving uh all the flowers, but you know, we just couldn't go any further than we did uh to make any more verifications. But um as I said, I concur with Mary and
how she's feeling about um some of the flagging that we've seen andor didn't see. Okay. Um thank you, Mike. Hey, do we have any other questions from members of the commission
or comments because it's taking so long. Richard, yeah. Was the wetland report submitted with their application? Uh, I believe it was. Let me take a look.
Oh, I did find it. Okay. Yeah. Buried down in it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other comments for members of the commission? Did we have any comments from members of the public?
does not and then we also um Okay. So, I think I'd be looking for a motion to approve with the condition that we extend the erosion control barrier to wrap around the septic site.
You have a motion or any comments on Madam Chair? Um, yes, Commissioner Burch said he was going to review the um the delineation um report. So, I I thought I was going to withhold
making any further comment until he had a chance to look at that. Yes, Richard, you have your hand up. Is that what you were going to say? Yeah. Yeah. Madame Chair, where we're certifying this wetland for a period of time moving forward, I personally would feel better if they got it cleaned up
and got it properly displayed on the uh the submitted plan that we're going to approve. Okay. Thank you. have um other commissioners who would agree with
that and feel that way. Madam Chair, um Commissioner Burch is correct. If we approve the plan as it's currently presented, those uh that delineation where it we don't know if it's two isolated wetlands or how they
connect, right? Uh is not properly shown on the plan. It becomes the record for three years. So, with that said, um, we'd be looking to have this
redelineated and then come back or have it redelineated. I think they would have to come back if they're redelineating and we'd have to look at it again as a commission. That would be my feeling, Madam Chair,
is to have it delineated properly and and uh depicted properly on the submitted plan. Madam Chair, may I ask a question? Yes. So the in regards to the connection,
it's between extending the line from WF1 to the D series and connecting the WF12 flag to the D series. It's adding two lines to the plant.
Again, I understand the issues that have been going on, but this was delineated located in April when vegetation was sparse, when it wasn't overgrown,
and it was located shortly after it was delineated. So, the flags were there, they were locate. Again, I understand the issue, but this was back in April. We are now in August and this was missed once. It was not put
on the agenda for the last meeting and it's been in limbo and held up. So I'm asking the question on behalf of my clients. It's my job to do this. And if you want to condition it that the lines
be connected, that's again that it's a two second exercise for me to connect the lines. But I don't want to see this continued and push off my clients again for another month over something that can be
simply verified and fixed. So, um it's I mean it's not up to me alone whether and I do understand that. I I just like I said I want to make that point clear and that's all. Uh, exactly.
So, um, I think Richard with Richard, you're you're feeling that you would definitely like to have this fully redalineated correctly. Again, I'm one member, but if you're going to submit a report and a plan to
the Conservation Commission, who is in charge of approving projects around a wetland, and you submit a plan that doesn't depict the wetlands properly,
it kind of leads that you need to fix it and submit it properly before we can approve it. And again, I'm just one member, but and it is in place for three years after we approve it. So, I appreciate your comment, Richard. Uh
Mary, so I again the um you know it does seem like historically we have more problems with this um uh delineation uh firm uh than than others that you know uh contract with uh a lot
of the engineering firms around. Um, but you know, one thing that I'll note, uh, to to Justin's comments, right? So, I'm I'm less concerned about the vegetation growing up. I mean, it's in the wetland. It's not supposed to be mowed back, and I understand and I appreciate that. Um,
but the flags that I find, I do expect to be marked. Um, and then the other thing that's a bit baffling on this on this drawing is that the the elevation lines don't match the wetland delineation.
Um, and and uh, you know, that's the engineer's responsibility to kind of look at that and go, hey, does this make sense? Does it pass the sniff test? Does it not? the um you know the wetlands not actually the wetland delineation not
connecting to each other. That's you know on the engineers's um responsibility to look at that and go oh yeah hey right um that should be cleaned up. Um so I mean I I agree with all of Rich's uh sentiments here. Uh this
particular project um though is well away from it. Uh, and I'm I'm less concerned about it, but if another one came in front of me, I I would probably be real entrenched uh right beside uh Rich on this.
Thank you. Um, other members of the commission, do you are there any comments or what are you what are your thoughts on this? Would you is there anyone who knows that they would prefer to see it relineated and come back or do
they share Mary's sentiments? Um Chris, I um I'm leaning to um to approve um based on the fact that um just putting just putting, you know, logic to it. Um just being common sense, I should say. Um,
I agree that it's it's not perfect, but um, you know, they have been waiting. Um, it is a minor change. I also agree that we'd have to keep an eye out for future future delineations from this company and, uh, you know, let them know that, you know, they're really not
they're really not making, you know, reaching the bar in terms of quality of work. Thank you. Have anyone else who wants to make a comment on how they're feeling about this?
Madame Chair. Yes, Mike. Um, you know, if that change that my colleague Rich and Mary have suggested and we continue, we could actually put this at the next meeting on
the 20th. So that would be less than a month. Um, in my opinion, is that too much to ask? I think I can't speak for the engineer, but if we're asking for a a redineation,
they would have to get the um the firm out there to redineate and have that all submitted before they came back. So, I don't know if two weeks would even be enough time for that. I don't think it would be I don't think it'd be able to get the
donation as well as the updated survey back in time based on their ongoing schedules. But the other thing I'd like to note is where the delineation is shown. You do have the bottom the very bottom
of basin in who knows how long that thing's been there. So the wetland would grow up the slope as shown. So it really does follow the shape and to connect the line
here would actually pull in this line than the buffer. So it actually pull your buffers further down. Essentially we took this line offset it and took the D series line offset it and drew a straight line between them. So,
at least on this side, our buffer zone's conservative to where the line should connect back from WF12 to the D series. Okay, Mary, you have your hand raised.
Yeah. Um, I I just I just have to say that um you know, you're looking at a drawing, right, and you see a bunch of dots, it it's easy to just say, "Oh, yeah. Let's just connect those dots, right? But the point of the drawing is it's supposed to match the field
conditions. And since the drawing in front of us doesn't because it is not closed, um I I would be skeptical of anything that was proposed to just oh I'll just reconnect them to come before
us before the field conditions were um revalidated. And and I again, you know, the more we talk about it, the worse it sounds, right? Uh I'll just draw some lines. It doesn't sound um like engineering work, right?
Um, so I'm I'm trying to stick to my guns about not wanting to get in the way of this one because I don't think that it's material and I don't think this particular project is at risk for doing additional work, you know, uh, within
the 3 years that the wetlands would um, you know, this wetland delineation uh, would be valid. But the more we talk about it, the more I'm starting to get red flags in my head about like what really is going on here. agree.
Um I was thinking the same thing as that was being described is I really you should the the conditions are the conditions. It's not I moved the line based on this line. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Um do we have any
other comments for members of the of the commission? Donald Trump is never on this one. Yes. May I ask a question through you to Rich if he found the um the uh delineation uh
report and if he saw anything um that was other red flags in that. Uh no, it was just uh incredibly brief. I mean, she makes note of the old D series, but doesn't
reference them or connect them in any way. Just started with flag one and went to flag 12. Yeah. Okay. Uh, thank you, Rich. And no explanation on how they uh connect. That sounds consistent with what we've
seen from that firm. So, um, like to take a quick poll from members of the commission, uh, how what they're thinking. um if they'd
like to have this red delineated and continue to a later date or if they would be comfortable approving this based on the scope of work and where it is in um compared to the the edge of the
wetland. So, um, based on the input I've received from Mary and other fellow commissioners, I'm leaning to approve. Okay. And then Mike Larouche.
Yeah. as my colleagues uh Mary and Rich um seem to think is the more we discuss it, the more issues um seems to come up. So, I guess I'm less likely to approve until uh we get a
better plan um than to, you know, in order to go forward. Um And if you ask Yeah, I knew you were going to call on me next. Gosh darn it. Um
I I I feel you're how torn you are. I I I am I Yeah, I am really torn uh about this because u I I I'm an engineer. I don't like sloppy engineering work. Um but um you know
again uh looking at the scope of work and uh understand a lot about the shelter and what they do. Um, and uh, you know, I will point out this is no kill shelter in town. Um, but uh, you know, they're not, and they're a
nonprofit, so they're not growing in uh, great leaps and bounds, right? This project they're doing is a huge project for them. Um, so I don't uh, I don't feel like it's likely that they're going to come back and uh, you know, be encroaching further in the in the uh, in
this wetland system uh, within 3 years time. Um, so I think I would still approve uh ba based on, you know, what I've seen um in my understanding of the of the charity work that they do there,
right? in their their limits on funding and with the um stipulation that that uh erosion control barrier around the septic system extension uh be you know further further wrapped around as we discussed earlier.
So I that was a yes a long-winded yes I would approve it. Yeah. Um Rich at this stage I would probably be a no. Thank you. And um Teddy.
Um yeah, so I'm taking into consideration all my fellow commissioners input as I am a newer commissioner and less experienced. And um I think at this point based on what I've
heard, I'm going to be a no just to be on the conservative side. Thank you. And Andrea, um this is kind of a tough one for me.
um listening to various opinions and um you know especially the more experienced members of the commission. Um but I think I'm leaning toward approve.
Okay. So um I share all of the same concerns as Rich and Mary. Um I do I you know I'm taking into consideration a lot of especially what Mary has said. You know this is I she was out there she
observes the the wetlands. It seems to be you know far away from where the scope of work is and um so I think that I would probably be a yay. So, I think that we could look to a look for a
motion to approve with the erosion control barrier um extended to wrap around the septic site. But I also do want to say that this is a this has been a problem in the past with
this firm and I would really like to see if with in the future when we're coming before us with um delineations that the flags stay marked. I say that they were marked back in
April, but most flags that I look at that are older still have at least some markings on them. Um, I wasn't out there to see these ones, but it would be, you know, if we're going out, I know that there has been some hold up in this one, but if we're going out, at least be able
to somewhat see what the flags are and and have at least a mark on them, maybe a number or something. So, understood, Madam Chair. So, uh, that said, like I said, uh, I think I'd be looking for a motion to
approve. So, move second. Yes. All right. Roll call vote. U Mary and I'll clarify uh with the uh stipulation of the extension of the uh erosion control limit of work by the
septic system as you stated earlier. Um madam chair uh so uh I vote I Chris I. Andrea I No.
Richard Burch. Nope. How do you do that? No. And I for myself. So, um the that is approved. And
think that's it. Awesome. Thank you so much and have a good evening and I'll get that plan revised right away. Perfect. Thank you so much. Right. Have a good night. Okay. So, um
we are going to be moving on to continued public hearings. Uh up next we have pursuant to MGL chapter 131 section 40 in the town of Lunenberg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws. Um, a
public hearing on a request for determination of applicability by Melissa Canavino for the renovation of a patio within the 50ft buffer zone of Hickory Hills Lake. There you go. Come on, Jenny. Can you mute Pat? There you go.
I just did. Um, and this is for 67 Island Road. This is RDA-24-9. Do we have the applicant or their representative? Yeah, Madam Chair. Ryan Proctor with
Dillis and Roy representing the owner and applicant. Let me give you the ability to share. Oh, I already did. Oh, excellent. Thank you. Like to share your screen and share the project with us or
gladly. All right. Thank you. So, just as a reminder, uh this project is for an after the-act filing of some work that was done within the 50-foot no uh no build zone of Hickory Hills Lake and within the 30-foot no disturb zone. It involved the construction of a deck, a
PA walkway, and a short retaining wall. Um primarily within the 30-oot no disturb zone. At the last meeting uh your second meeting of July, I presented a plan uh that the owners and I had discussed and reviewed uh to partially remove some of that walkway and then
provide uh three sign uh collectively significant areas of landscape remediation within the 30-foot uh no disturb zone. the commission had uh asked us to take another look at the plan and perhaps uh find some ways to remove some additional
of the improved areas of that walkway. Um so I did submit a revised plan. Originally at the last hearing we had presented an area of removal that was limited essentially to this corner of the retaining wall and walkway. Uh after speaking with the owners, they are
proposing to remove the entire portion of walkway uh that it runs parallel with the house and the lake. I'll just get a quick picture of this for clarity. Um and this is in the letter that I submitted to your commission, but
basically this entire stretch of walkway would be removed and we're proposing to restore that with lumen seed, which would restore it to its previously existing condition. Um as this was all lawn before the a portion of the retaining wall. We
are proposing to rem uh to leave there um strictly for the stabilization of the slope and to keep that level area where the owners uh can still access the constructed deck from the remaining portion of walkway and then across that level grass area. I think the owners had
mentioned it a couple meetings ago, but there is no access to this deck through the house. It's external only through these stairs that were constructed. Um so that portion of the retaining wall would simply define that slope and hold back that grass that we would be restoring that walker that uh that
walkway with. Similar to the previous application, we still have the landscape mitigation. Um so again, we are proposing to reclaim a little over 100 square ft of what has been beach area with some native plantings, obligate species along the
shoreline. We still have the uh landscape area between what will remain of that retaining wall and then again this grass strip. We still have that landscape area that is 120 square feet and then we have a third area uh that is about 100 square ft along the existing
tree line um for a total of uh 322 ft of landscaping. So after we remove or we're proposing to remove this walkway, the remaining infrastructure which I'm calling the retaining wall remaining walkway and
deck that is within the 30 foot which is just this area here is 117 square ft of the retaining wall and deck. So the landscape ratio of landscaping to the hardscape uh is a 2.75 to one ratio of rep
replication and restoration within 30 foot no disturb zone. Uh the previous presentation last at the last meeting it was a little it was under two. It was I believe 1.8 or so. Um so that that ratio has gone up significantly uh since the last meeting.
That is where we're at today. Um again I submitted those plans earlier this week. Uh if there are any questions relative to that, I' I'd be happy to take them. Do we have any questions from members of the commission? Mary, are you there? Mary,
I was talking into mute. Um do that all the time. Yeah. Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I'm I'm uh I'm pleased to see the revised plan u and to see that the owners have taken on board um the concerns that the commission has had. Uh
and then I'm also pleased to see that the uh you know the uh more more vegetation has been added as well. I I don't um the only other comment that I would add uh is that these um drawings
got received uh really late um you know uh with our in consideration with our um our uh schedule right so it didn't give the commission a long time to review them and I I would recommend you know as
a sidebar that the commission consider drawing a line on uh Friday submission for uh plans for the next uh concerter conservation commission meeting. But I mean that's that's something for another day or later on down in the menu
dialogue. Uh but I am pleased with uh with what I've seen here today. Thank you. I do think we uh put on on the site I believe that there is a an outline now of when things are expected
by but we don't have time. I know we have a schedule for new applications, but I don't know if we have on there, I can go check real quick for updated um plans and whatnot that are coming back to a continued meeting.
Yeah, I apologize for that, too. This is the late submission is of no fault of the applicants. It's uh it's a busy engineer, so I I do apologize. I do try to get them to your commission earlier, but it it couldn't happen. I apologize. Uh yeah, and and and that's um Ryan, I
you do good work, right? And and we've seen that time and time again and stuff happens. We just want to make certain that we have clear expectations out to the field um so that uh we're set up for success in reviewing um the projects. But this this one's relatively
straightforward. Thank you, Mary. And also, yeah, Ryan, we, you know, you typically always get things in well before they need to be. Okay. Do we have any other comments or questions for members of the commission?
Richard, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ryan, for uh updating the plan and uh removing the walkway as we uh had discussed at the last meeting, coming up with some more ideas.
Uh I am happy with what I see. I would recommend uh that we get a timeline for the installation of the plant material and the removal of the walkway and that we request uh a one and a
two-year update just to ensure the survival of the plant material from the engineer. Those would be my only two comments. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Richard. So that was a timeline of the removal of the walkway
and then a one a two and threeear plan or a one and twoear plan. One and two year just a just a letter stating that the plant material has survived uh as was designed. have any other questions or comments for
members of the commission? Madame Chair? Yes. Um, Commissioner Rich made some excellent points there. uh reminded me that um we had as a commission uh talked about when we were looking at
retroactive um RDAs u you know or uh corrective actions on uh violations that we consider imposing uh earlier timelines than the than the typical uh three-year expected timeline. Right.
And I for one would be um leaning towards uh 12 months on getting these corrective actions in place because this is retroactive. Okay. Yeah, that's great. Thank you, Mary. We have any other comments, members of the commission?
Madam Chair, it's Mike. Yes, Mike. Yeah, I concur with Mary uh to shorten up that um timeline to get make sure that uh you know the material is removed and the uh new vegetation
uh is installed and you know I think a year is more than enough time to uh give us verification that uh that material has taken and I think that's a reasonable request.
Thank you, Mike. Do we have anything from anyone else on the commission? Madam Chair, just just to clarify, I I am in agreement with Commissioner Burch's um one year and two-year um required updates on the
you know uh health and uh wellness of the established vegetation. So, um, I want to make sure I have this correct between all of the comments. So, we would want like be looking for 12 months to remove the walkway and get the
plant material and vegetation in place and then a one and twoear plan. Um, would that be one in one year after the first the 12 months is you know the 12 months is up and then another year after that or one year from now and one year
after that? Rich. Do you have your hand raised? I did. I just had a comment on the one year to remove the walkway and plant the plants. I was thinking a little more on the lines of 90 days. Something that can be done this summer and fall
to remove the walkway and uh get the plan material in place. Okay, that again that's just my opinion, but seems like a good opinion. Okay. So, Mary is in agreement with that.
Okay. Um, quick poll. If I were if we were looking at a motion to approve this, would we be looking for 90 days or 12 months? Uh, Chrissy and Germaine 90. Okay. Mike Larouche.
Uh, 90. uh given I'm thinking timeline initial as Rich has proposed and seeing it through for the one year but certainly getting the thing started this season and um so I would go with the 90
initially. Um Andrea Bernap 90. Teddy Dette 90. Okay. And I also like 90. So, um, so I'm just going to go through this again. So, we looking for, if I'm looking for a
motion to approve, it's going to be 90 days to remove the walkway and get vegetation in place. Um, and then a one-year update and a two-year update. And, Madam Chair, that would be one year
after the plants are um planted, put in the ground, and two years after the plants are put in the ground. So, one year, three months after the plants are planted and then two years, three months after the plants are planted.
Well, I would have said one one month after they're or one year after they're planted, but Okay. It's easier that way. Okay. Um, and then as far as the plants,
was there just a Are you just submitting a a plant list? So, there is a Yeah, there is a table on the site plan. Okay. That that calls out the species. And I I guess my only question is if and I'm I'm
definitely not an expert in in this, but if there are plants that are better suited to plant be planted in springtime, would again maybe maybe they're all okay to go in this year, but if for some reason they should not be planted within the 90-day time frame, would that be an issue? It provided the applicant show movement at least on the
landscape area front. So typically native plants are it's better in my experience if you plant in the fall. Okay. So I would say for and Commissioner Burch would probably know. Oh, that's right. Um Rich, do you have
any? Yeah, I I don't see anything there that would uh resent a fall planting. Okay, that excellent. That's all. Okay. All right. So, at this point, I would be looking for a motion to approve with 90
days to remove the walkway and get vegetation plants in place. And then after the plants are in place, a one and twoyear um check-in with the plants to make sure that they are established and doing
well. Madam Chair, I believe this is an RDA, so it would be a negative determination. A negative determination. Yes. Y with the the following um the following call outs which would be the landscape to be
installed within 90 days of uh the determination the removal of the walkway as submitted on the plan and then a one and two-year update on the survivability of the plant material to ensure that they uh survive as designed.
That sounds like a motion. Is that a motion? Yes, it was. Oh yes, I make the motion. Right. So Richard with the motion and Mary with the second. Roll call. Mary Wilson. I germaine. Hi. Michael Larouche.
Hi. Richard Bers. Hi. Andrea Bernett. I. Teddy Det. I. And I for myself. All right. Motion approved. Great. Thank you very much for your time and your patience with this one. I
appreciate it. Thanks, Ryan. Have a good night. Thank you. Okay, so up next we have a continued public hearing pursuant to MGL chapter 131 section 40 and the town of Lunenberg
wetlands protection and municipal bylaws. Um, a public hearing on a notice of intent by Tanner Cole for construction of a common driveway to service four single family dwellings to be served by private wells and on-site sewage disposal systems involving the crossing of a bordering vegetated
wetland in two locations with all proposed dwellings and private driveways outside the 100t buffer zone. This is 183 Northfield Road, NOI-25-10. Do we have the applicant or the applicant's representative on the meeting?
Uh, yes, Madam Chair. I'm standing in for Greg Rory tonight on this one. Um, I I actually do not have any project updates. I believe at the last meeting um the commission had voted to engage with a peerreview consultant and Greg had requested uh the opportunity to review that proposal. So, I'm I'm
actually just here to ask if there's been any movement on that front. Um, so Perlin um put in her meeting notes for tonight that she sent a proposal request to three firms and she's still waiting to hear back from them. Okay. So that is the only update that I have
on this one for now. Okay, understood. Uh like I said, I don't have any updates uh for the commission since we're waiting for that anyway. So um that that's all I had for this one. So I I guess we'd be looking to continue to next hearing. So, and that would be you'd like to
continue to the 8:20 meeting. Yeah. Uh, that would work. And then in case we have any questions, if the peer review comes back, um, we we at least discuss that if there is anything. Okay. All right. So, looking for a
motion to continue to August 20th, 2025. So moved. So second. All right. Mary with the motion, Richard with the second. Uh, roll call. Mary Wilson. I Chris Germaine. Hi
Mike Larouche. Hi Richard Bur. Hi Andrea Bernap. Hi Teddy Ducet. I and I for myself continue to August
20th, 2025. Thank you. Thank you. So next um we have pursuant to MGL chapter 131 section 40 and the town of Lunenburgg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws
a public hearing on a notice of intent by Shawn Pharaoh for the construction of two landscape replacement walls placement of two removable docks and replenishment of beach sand within the 100 foot 50ft and 30 foot buffer zone of a wetland resource area on Lake Shirley.
Um, this is 31 Round Road and it's NOI-25-8. And do we have the applicant or their representative with us? Uh, good evening, Madame Chair. This is uh Matt Marorrow representing Sean Faroh. Um,
if I could be permitted to share my screen. All set. Thank you. Just bear with me for one second. I want to make sure I got the right screen here. Okay, there we go.
Okay. So, I'm assuming you guys can see the plan in front of you. Yes. Okay. So, when I last left the hearing, um the commission had a, you know, a list of things they wanted to see added
to the plans. Um, in the time between hearings, the original um design person that did the drawings um wound up having to retire abruptly due to um injuries sustained in an accident. Uh so it took some time to
find somebody who was able to take the data and redraw the plans. So Christopher Stoddard out of Royalston who was a registered professional engineer um re-evaluated all the plans and um redrew and added the details the commission asked for. The only other
change that has since been made on this plan that my client has requested that I add in is I'm going to see if this switches without me having to shut off. Can you guys see the picture of Round Road here? It's a photograph.
Y So he asked to have a section there's a section of wall that would be to the right of this photograph that we've asked as part of the original NOI to also be replaced. He wants to add or basically round off that section of
wall. So it stops from wall to basically these um evergreen landscapes um on the side slope. So, he wishes to add that. And going back to the plan, um, that would be this section right here that I'm circling with my cursor.
Um, as you, the commission may also recall, we had a um a dock here that was uh put in place without being previously permitted, and he's asked for another 40x4t dock um to be placed here on this part
of the shoreline. Um the commission asked that we eliminate the the silk curtain detail and go with standard waddles and silk fence um with the presupposition that work along that section where he was going to repair and
replace what was pre-existing field stone um would be done with the use of uh waddles and silt fence. So all of the sediment fence that the commission requested is placed in these details here. Um the commission also wanted the
um installation of the uh walls to have a profile detail to show conclusively that the wall face will go no closer to the water as is what is previously there now. And that is what Mr. Stoddard has attempted to uh draw here along with a
profile of how the back of the walls would be done. Um I believe that was it. Um things I would point out there is a section of wall that he is asking to be added that is within the 30 foot note touch. So he would request a waiver for that. It is a
short section. Um the flood plane that you see that was done on the plan was estimated by originally by Mr. Oldfield to be what was coming in July for the commission because it was the only information that they had. The original flood plane map was very indeterminate.
um that has since been verified by the um design engineer now and he was careful to ensure that the new wall would be drawn just outside of the flood plane um so that there would be no work in this section within the flood plane and that it would come no closer to the
lake um face-wise. That's basically it. Okay. Do we have any questions from members of the commission? Richard. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple quick questions. Uh, has this updated plan
been submitted to the portal? Yeah, I submitted it over a week ago. Okay. Um, why is the wall not going to stay at the 30 foot? Why are they asking for a waiver to put it inside of the no disturb zone?
Okay. So, if again I'll I'm going to switch to the picture. Um, Commissioner Burch, Rich, if you don't mind. Um, can you see the picture now? Yep. Okay. So, this is what's existing here. In order to stay out of the 30ft zone
and actually do a type of blended wall like that, he'd have to basically regrade this whole area. So, what he's doing is he's simply ripping the bushes out here and putting a new wall in. Um, that's basically it. He's not like
expanding or regrading or adding fill. It's just he's trading out surfaces. That's basically what's happening. So, the wall is at the toe of the slope or the top of the slope. The wall would go from basically the toe
of the slope up three feet. So, it's not going to be greater than four feet. And greater than four feet would require a structural design. So, he's going to keep the wall limited to 3 feet. And what's the current elevation change from the bottom to the top?
Um 3 ft. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions, members of the commission? Um Mary. Uh yeah, thanks Madam Chair. Um how does
the how does the uh wall that's there now um along that elevation uh die into the uh grade? And and where does it die into the grade compared to what's drawn there? You're talking about this wall?
Yeah. Okay. So, that wall is essentially flush with the existing grade. So, it's essentially the slope that you saw in the picture. It's the same type of slope that goes along that whole area. So, it he's just blending in stone where there is I believe they're little juniper
bushes now. Well, I mean I he has some wall there now. I I just am That's correct. This is existing. This here is existing and it's blending into the existing grade and that's not going to change. So, he's basically just changing the wall material out um
because the stone material there he's concerned is going to collapse because of the way it was installed. And then he's just basically adding a section. Yeah. Where was the new wall start the new wall will start exactly right here. So, what happened is if you can look on the
drawing and I'll I'll zero in a little bit just to help you out here. So, what Mr. starter did was he did the existing wall in a very light gray and then he did the requested new wall in black. Okay.
Okay. Understood. And and so the area within the 30foot I think is what you showed us in that um kind of size profile. Yeah. Yes. The area that's between the 30 and the 50. Do you have any photos of that and what the existing
conditions are? Well, I mean, it would be in the same photo. Um, bear with me for a moment here. It's grass. That's lawn. The trees are on along along the side. Yeah. On the top. But the um the slope area is
it's all lawn here. Junipers. Yes. That's that's what's here. And it's in the slope. And this area right here is grass. Okay. I don't know if I have any other photos that could show it a little bit better. I mean, there's the wall. out that would
be replaced. So, yeah. And um are there trees in that um in that area at all? There's no trees slated to be removed at all. And there's no trees like there's there's trees here like two birches.
Um and if I can go back up to the plan, uh here's the birch trees here. And you've got a triple oak here. Um oak here, oak here. They're rather large and they're well away from the work zone.
They're about 20 They're 15 to 20 ft away from the work zone. Everything else is a grass area. Grass area. It's even labeled grass area. Grass area. Grass area. Grass area. Okay. All the questions you had, Mary. Um
yeah. Well, the other question I had was about the um about the docks and the uh shoreline usage. Um one of the things that I had noticed when I was out on the lake um a few months ago was that uh it looks like he
has a couple of boat lifts. Is that correct, Matt? And where does he install those boat lifts? I remember where he installs the boat lifts. To be honest, I saw them. He had them stored along here. Um, he didn't have anything in the water when I was out there, so I can't answer that
question. Okay, thank you. Further, um, there was a a pre-existing dock here at one point. If you looked at historical aerials, he's just looking to put a dock back in that area
and retrop permit this dock. Matt. Um, Madam Chair, if I may. Uh, Matt, how long ago was that other dock there? And how long has it been gone? Oh, you know, I could have told you that a couple of months ago, but I haven't brushed up on that. Um, it's probably been gone 3, four years, maybe a little
longer. I'm actually looking at the uh property photos from the last sale and I do see it there. When was that last sale? See, it was date on this
um 2019. It was sold in June of 2019. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um uh yeah, and the other dock looked pretty old, too. Yeah. So, the the wood dock at one end and then the proposed feature dock both
have docks in place in this picture. for my own education, Matt. Um, what is the reason to remove the slope with the junipers and then
put a wall there? Is there some benefit to that? Well, he wants to make sure that the the area is more permanently stabilized. He's concerned that in the future that even with the vegetation that's there, it's not enough to because it's not I mean juniper is a good stabilizing
vegetation, but they're planted far apart and he's notice some erosion under the mulching that he has placed there. So, he's just concerned and wants something a little bit more permanent. Thank you.
Um, and then was this going would this all be happening during a draw down? It as far as the work as far as the work placing the dock and the work near the water. Yeah. I mean, the stuff you've
got here where I'm circling is actually in front of a grass area, so there's really no contact with the water. Uh the other work as far as restoring this wall that I had spoken about at the previous one in the placement of the dock which is um I'm assuming that would be done
during draw down because when the last exchange um I believe it was Commissioner Burch that expressed some concern about the silk curtains um not being tested as much and would probably promote the work being done while draw down was not occurring which
um quite frankly I I had I agreed with them and had no issue. Um that's why um I'm assuming that you would place in an order that any work done along this, you know, that's work that's done near the water would occur during the draw down period only.
Thank you. Do we have any other questions for members of the commission? Do we have any Oh, Rich and Mary. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, the proposed future dock, is that going to be a wheeled removable dock, a permanent
dock? What kind of dock are we talking? It's a wheeled removable dock. Okay. And do we have dimensions on the plan for the dock? Um, I don't see dimensions drawn in the plan, but in the notice of intent, I um labeled it as a 40x4
4 foot by 40T. Okay. 4 foot wide by 40t long. Okay. Yeah, because that doesn't seem to be depicted here as a 40 foot by 4 foot dock. If you want to write it in the order
that it would be a removable dock, 40x4, um it would actually make it kind of probably in my view a better enforcable document and the wood dock. Is that to scale where the rest of the plan is to scale? Yes, it is.
So, I guess I don't see any reason why we need to make the proposed dock twice the size of the current dock. That would be my my uh the problem I'd have with the future dock.
If you want to limit the size of the dock, um I don't think my client's really going to have an issue with that. It just would like to have it as part of the order. Okay. And the only other thing, Madam Chair, I myself don't see any reason that uh we should be putting a new wall
inside the 30 foot no disturb zone at this time. Okay. Uh noted. So you would like to see the existing wall that the stay as it is, but we would leave the junipers in place and
not extend that wall where it would be inside the 30 foot. Well, I don't There's no wall there now. The wall looks like it's on the the right side of the first stairway. There's no wall to the left of the
stairs. This is all new wall. So, I have little problem with the new wall. I just It should not extend into the 30-foot no disturb zone. It should be outside of the 30-foot no disturb zone if they're looking to prevent erosion. though I
don't see any signs of erosion at all in the the pictures that they've submitted. The jingers do look well established in that area. So So the area within the 30 to the 50 um are you okay with that?
Madam Chair. Oh, you're asking me that you're asking Well, no, actually I was asking Commissioner Bur, but I'm just going through the chair. Um, Rich, are you okay with this section of wall 30 to 50? Did we lose Rich? Yeah, I'm just I'm just thinking and
looking. I'll have an answer in a minute if you want to go on to anybody any other commissioners with questions. The mayor, you had your hand raised. Yeah, I uh Madam Chair, thank you. I had just had comments. I think I um while Rich is thinking about his comment, I
would not be in favor of adding additional wall that's not already there um from what I've seen from the photos um and it looks like it's established. I don't see any reason to add additional structure there um in the you know no um
no build zone, no structure zone or the um 30-foot zone. And I um I also am concerned about adding additional um docks. Um you know, it's a big shoreline. Uh maybe two docks make sense. Anything that's added, I think
needs to be removable. I'd be uh maybe persuaded for two total. Um that's the existing one and one new one uh that is uh the new one being removed uh in the wintertime, but not three. to me that I
don't I can't justify that in my head, but that's just uh my opinion and I'm just one vote. So, thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, Madam Chair. Yes. I mean, I I can appreciate that and I've expressed a willingness like Commissioner Bur said to have a dock
restricted in size, but I know this commission has allowed in one instance in one property four docks. Um, if I remember correctly, the gentleman's name was Benjamin on Fire Road 12. Um it wasn't a unanimous vote, but it has been allowed in the past. And this
gentleman has the uh Mr. Pharaoh has the shoreline to be able to support the docks that he has here now. Um but if you want to limit the size of that dock and make it so that it's removable, fine. Um no issues with that whatsoever. And I could as a condition of approval
um have the plan revised to have that section of new wall removed so that there's no confusion. So in other words, before an order was issued, like if you guys approved it and before an order was issued, I just simply have that section of all removed
and submitted for, you know, to Erlin so she can verify that it was done. And it would be on the portal so you guys could look at it too. Thank you. Do we have any other comments
for members of the commission? So, um, as far as the, let me just revisit the dock size quickly. Um, so the wood dock is to scale. And what size is that wood dock? The wood dock you have out here? Yeah. This one?
Yes. I believe that one's a 40ft duck, too. They're They're just placed in different areas of the shoreline. That's why you can see one starts here, one starts here, and the one that's proposed starts along the wall here. Um, this one, I believe, is
actually pinned in the shoreline. It's pre-existing structure. It's been there for years. Um, this one is is actually on the top of the shoreline because it's slated to be a removable dock. Okay. And then did you give dimensions
for the plastic dock in the middle? Um, yeah. I mean, that's drawn to scale. I just don't recall the actual dimensions off the top of my head. I apologize. Um, do any of the commissioners have any comments about number of docks
or size of docks? And Rich, what do you think about Oh, Chris St. Yeah. Is there I I I like to um enforce bylaws. Is there something on the books about docs because
I I I'd like to know, you know, is is it does the association manage the number of docs or do does it does the commission and what's what's what do our bylaws say on docks? There's nothing in our bylaws that I was able to find about number of docks. um
unless anybody has been able to find something. Um I haven't been able to. Yeah. So I I agree with Mary. I I think two is appropriate, but I don't feel comfortable enforcing anything that isn't um isn't a bylaw.
And then like Shirley doesn't have any rules on number of docks that I'm aware of. Mary, um yeah, and I agree with you. I haven't found anything um explicit about docs at
the in the um bylaws um and am similarly concerned about enforcing something like this. Something I've been turnurning over in my head. Um but one thing though that I do take under consideration with the um allowance of docks is when you
have a dock, you absolutely channel foot traffic there which tramples vegetation. Um, so in my mind that's that's a good enough reason to restrict the number of of docks to what uh whatever we think is um best practice.
Just again as one commissioner and one opinion. Thank you. Um Richard thank you madam chair. Yeah, there is no um bylaw regulation that I'm aware of. Um but we do have jurisdiction over the
amount of intrusion into the buffer zones and into the wetland itself. Um so myself generally I am of the opinion that one dock per property uh is enough intrusion. Now two is too much intrusion. Like Mary said you do
get um destruction of the shoreline. you do get alteration of the habitat, especially with removable docks. Now, you've got to figure that they're going to be stored within the 30-foot no disturb zone. So, it's clearly something that we do have jurisdiction over. Um,
even though there's no written uh bylaw regulation on exactly how many docks or how many square feet of docks that we do have or we do allow. Okay. And I am generally of the opinion that one dock is sufficient. uh two docks
tends to be a little too much intrusion into the the wetland, the lake and the buffer zones. Thank you. So, um where there where there were two
existing docs at one point, I don't know if that would, you know, factor into this that two docks may be acceptable. Does anyone have any or I know Mary you were you were okay with two docs.
Richard is Mary. Yes, that's right. I I you know and I'd had the chance while others were talking to also look at the history in U Google satellite and there's been a history of two docs there. Um so you know that
seems to be uh reasonably pre-existing and I can wrap my head around that. I I can't for three. So, for me that I would say figure out which of the two docks they want to keep. Um, but I would not be um voting in favor of a total of
three along the shoreline. Okay. Thank you, Mary. Does anyone else have any opinions on numbers number of docks? Teddy, I just want to echo Mary's uh opinion on
that. I would be okay with two docs. Okay. Thank you. And I actually I I agree with that too. I think that where there was two existing docks um you know I can I can see that but three is a lot
and Okay. So anybody else want to add to that? Madame Chair. Yes. Uh I concur with the two dots given that the one in the middle uh was not permitted to begin with. Correct. Is
that correct? That Yeah, that would be a totally new dock because the proposed future dock did have one in place at one point and then the wood dock is still existing. So it would be that middle dock that
um would be a new proposal. Okay. Yeah. I think two's plenty. Uh I think we're docked out on this one. Thank you, Mike. All right. Okay. Um
there anything else that any members of the commission would like to share or comment on? Okay. Okay. So, it looks like what we're thinking is um it seems like we're we have a consensus on if we were to move forward two docks
figure out. Does anyone have any preference of placement of the docks? Would they like to see them where they have been historically or would we be okay with them removing the proposed future dock and having that to where the removal plastic dock is or would prefer
it stays where the the previous dock was? Does anyone Mary I I don't have a preference. I I think I would be happy with the applicant uh determining um you know, if the two that they currently have are uh you know, if that's the best
they can do or if they want to, you know, move the plastic dock over to where the proposed future site, you know, which had been the historical site. It's the same to me. Okay. And Chris, yeah, just echoing Mary's I agree. Same thing.
Okay. And then the other thing um that we want to eliminate is that portion of retaining wall that would be in the 30 foot. Okay. So if I may ask if the commission could move forward with the condition that you don't actually give me the
order until such time as I submit the revised plan with this dock eliminated and this proposed section of new wall eliminated. As one commissioner, I would be okay with that. Um, what what are other commissioners thinking
on that? Mary, I would like to see it before I vote on it. Okay. Anyone else? Madam Chair, uh, I would also like it changed uh, before we vote on it.
All right. So, any other comments on that? So, I think I'd be looking for a motion to continue. Um, and we would want to see a new plan with the retaining wall
removed from where it is inside the 30foot buffer zone and then where the placement of the two docks that would be allowed would be. Am I missing anything? Madam Chair, if I might ask, um, just for clarity, right, and and out of
respect for the applicant, um, is the, uh, are we expecting them to remove all of the new proposed retaining wall or only the section that's um, you know, uh, inside the 30? My understanding was the section that's
with within the 30, but maybe I misheard. What Rich, what were you thinking? or Mary or anybody. Well, I I mean, I'm only one vote, right? Um and uh we have a lot of respect for my fellow commissioners who
uh bring up a lot of points that um you know, maybe I don't think about, but I had uh verbalized uh not wanting to see any new retaining wall either in the 50 or the 30. Um but replacement right uh
as articulated for the uh existing wall I was completely fine with but I I don't know that other commissioners I know Rich was thinking about it um but I don't know how the other commissioners feel about that. I might be being overly
conservative in this point. Okay. So it sounds like you'd be looking for um no new wall at all. So, the wall to the left to be removed from the plan, left of the stairs to be removed from the plan and still okay with the replacement of the wall to the right of
the stairs. Um, and then Richard, what what were you thinking? No wall to the left of the stairs. No new wall within the 50 foot or the 30 foot. I would agree with Mary. No wall within the 30 foot. No structure, no builds on it. Okay. And Okay. So, the 30 and the 50.
Yep. Yep. Okay. And then does anyone else have any Teddy? I agree with my previous commissioners. No wall to the left, but to the right is fine.
Great. Thank you. All right. So then motion. I would be looking for a motion to continue with um Matt to come back with plans updating updated with no new
with the wall to the left of the stairs that is within the 30 and 50 foot buffer removed and then placement of two docks on the plan. Does that sound right?
Move second. Um motion from Rich and second from Mary. Roll call. Mary Wilson I. Richard Burch. Hi.
Teddy Dette. I Andrea Bernab I Mike Larouche I Chris Germaine I and I for myself. So mo uh so continued
to Matt 2020 work for you? Yes, it'll be fine. Shouldn't be a problem having this and this removed. The engineer should be able to do that pretty quickly. Okay, so yeah, so continue to August 20th, 2025.
All right, that works. See you then. Thank you so much. Thanks, guys. Have a have a wonderful night. Thanks. You as well. You too. Thanks a lot, Matt. Hey, anytime. Take care, guys. Okay. Um,
moving on to a continued public hearing for 390 Howard Street pursuant to MGL chapter 131 section 40 in the town of Lunenburgg wetlands protection and municipal bylaws. We have a public
hearing on an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation by Kevin O'Brien at 390 Howard Street. Do we have the applicant or an engineer on the meeting?
Uh Mr. Karen, I'm here. I believe Kevin is on as well. Okay, let me uh I don't know if you have anything to share. I'm just going to give you that ability in case you do. Um well, I can I'll summarize quickly
the u at the last hearing you had concerns about um one potential wetland area on um I think it was on sheet eight of the plan and our instructions were to go out there, walk it with Hurland,
check that area. Um which we we did. I conducted a sitewalk with Hurland. We looked at that area, found that the area that you were concerned about. Um, and basically I see what you were looking at there, but it's clearly
non-jurisdictional. There's a small faint intermittent ephemeral channel um that just kind of originates on a in a rocky slope there. Um, there's no wetlands vegetation of any
significance along it. There's no hydric soils. Um, and the upgradient of it is clearly wetlands. It's just kind of a uh kind of looks to me like the type of area where the water gets hung up during snow melt sometimes more than anything.
Um, Hurlin told me she agreed that it wasn't, you know, jurisdictional area and she was going to put together a quick summary of that for you. Um and I think that was the only
outstanding uh issue. Yeah. And Herland did um give us a comment. It says a sitewalk was conducted with Chuck Karen where we analyze the area, soil, and vegetation. A determination was made that no additional flags were required and um
she sent us an email after the walk. So saying the same. So um if you have do you have anything to add to that or No, I don't. time. I said I think that was the only thing we had left open. We had,
you know, the survey plan uh that we submitted back in April and discussed then and we had um Art Allen's um report confirming that the delineation is correct. Mary, you have your hand up.
Uh yeah, thank you. Um yeah, Herling did send a note and she addressed all of my concerns. Um, so I appreciate you guys getting out there quickly and addressing my concerns. Um and I and I will note uh madame commissioner uh it's maybe not as
much relevant for this uh hearing but when we have been out there uh there are wetland delineation flags that are blue wetland delineation flags which I believe is uh industry best practice and even though those wetland flags have been out there for a long time. Um,
Chuck, when was that uh area those areas delineated? Um, sort of kind of. Well, the the new flags I put up to address the areas that I wanted to add
to the original delineation went up basically August and September last year. So, they've been about a year. Okay. the the other flags from the old delineation that had been survey located back in that I did his initial review of
I believe those went in earlier. Yeah. A long time ago, right? The only thing I wanted to point out for the commissioners is even though the newer flags that have been up for a year uh have been out in the elements and they're very exposed is that we've been
able to differentiate the the numbers the flag numbers on there and we had an earlier hearing uh tonight uh where supposedly they were put up in April and um all of the uh numbers have washed off of them. So yeah, um
I believe that I had to switch. I used the Arctic flagging which is heavier. And even with that until a couple years ago when I was using what I thought were the best permanent markers,
I think the quality of them had declined dramatically and I'd go back three or four months later and could barely read a number. switched to using it. I've switched to using the they're paint markers. Okay.
And I've been using those for about three years now and I found some three years ago that look like you did them yesterday. So, well, the the ones that I've saw out there when I was looking um it was really clear what the numbers were and uh
we've been having some problems with um you know, some other delineation firms. Um you go out there and you don't know are you at you know flag one or flag 10 um or even is this supposed to be a wetland delineation flag? I don't know.
Um but uh out there on the O'Brien property right now uh Charles, your fine work. It was very easy to see what you thought was a wetland and um the flags were as we expected and the numbers were clear. So thank you for that.
You're welcome. Okay. So, um, you know, based on Herllin's note and um, seems like everything we've requested has been performed. I think I'd be looking for a motion to
you approve an anrad, right? Yes. Is that the Yeah. Motion to approve? I would make a motion to approve uh the uh the ANRAD delineation as uh as presented.
Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. All right. So, it's Mary with the motion and Richard with a second. Uh roll call. Mary Wilson. I germanine. Hi. Mike Larouche.
I Richard Bers. Hi. Andrea Berna I. How do you do that? I abstain. Oh, right. And I for myself.
So, um, ANRAD is approved. Thank you so much. Yep. Thank you very much. I appreciate your help and patience with this. Thanks. Have a great night. Yep. You too. Good night. Okay. So, um,
up next we have administrative determinations, but I see Ryan, you're still on the meeting. Um, is that for our the administrative determination or is there something else that you're on for?
Maybe maybe he's on by accident. All right. Was worried maybe something was missing. Okay. So, I'm going move on to Ma Madame Chair. Yes. Sorry. My name's Nancy Mady. Um I think Ryan was staying on for our order of
conditions, which is the 406 sunset. Um Oh, okay. That's all. It's just I think a minor thing just to I believe it gets approved, but I think that's why he's on. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay. So, um
we have up next we have a administrative determination for 141 Hemlock Drive. And um Herlin has notes for this. So, let me just pull them up
then I will share my screen. All right, I'm going to I'm getting some feedback from somebody, but it looks like everybody is muted. So, I'm not sure where that's coming
from. Oh, it stopped. Okay. Okay. So, this is um 141 Hemlock Drive, which is for the removal of one dead tree, two stems, which imposes an immediate hazard to our and our neighbors property. Removal of dead tree has already been approved by
Hickory Hills Lake Commission. So, that's the um narrative on the agenda. So, these are Hurland's inspection notes. Um, multiple trees, at least three, appear to be fully dead with no foliage. Bark exfoliation and decay were
observed on several trunks. Some of the trees lean toward the home and neighboring properties given the location within jurisdictional buffer zone and the confirmed hab hazardous conditions of the trees. Removal is reasonable. The removal will be conducted using low impact minimally invasive methods. equipment
access and stump grinding if any be done in a way that avoids soil disturbance or erosion into the pond. No additional vegetation be removed and replanting with native vegetation is encouraged but not required due to the limited access area and slope conditions. And then here
are some pictures that she took. Um so it looks like it is these right here. I would assume these three and then similar picture.
So I'm clicking the same one over and over. Two. This is the top. Okay. So, do we have any questions for members of the commission based on notes? Mary,
um I'm pretty familiar with that property. Uh there had been um some dialogue uh I don't know, last year maybe uh around uh tree removal there. Um and I think it's reasonable to remove
those um dead trees. Uh but I would prefer to see uh some replacement done. Uh particularly because of the history of that property where a lot of uh trees within um the 50 and 30 had been removed. A lot of vegetation has been
removed um from that uh from that area. Okay. So, c can I I don't know if you can hear me. I just log in. Uh, and I'm the owner of 141 Hemlock Drive.
Okay. You can hear me. Okay. Yes, I can hear you. Yeah. Sorry, I should have asked if you were here. Sorry about that. Yeah. No, that's fine. And I obviously recognize all the pictures. Yeah, we have it's actually one tree. It's two stems. It's a pretty tall tree. uh very
few branches on it and it is clearly a dead tree and it's close to our property and our neighbors property. Um just a remark on uh replanting some trees. Um since the last time I I know
we had some discussions in the past we got permission to put the uh the pathway down to the lake. Uh by doing that by the way none of the trees were removed but the builders about three four three years ago they removed quite a few trees
but I don't know you cannot really see it on the picture itself but I have already replanted about 20 northern pine trees all around that area close to the water and it says in in Hurland's uh
site visit report that I have very little area to put new trees, but I'm still planning to put maybe three or four uh uh northern pine trees in the area where we now have the two trees
that uh hopefully we can uh we can take down because they dead. So, yes, I am planning to put more trees. I love trees. Um I I wasn't happy with the property either, so I I started to plant already proactively. And if I got some
more space, I will put more more trees up. So, I do remember your property and I remember all the saplings that you had. How are those doing? Are those doing well? Yeah, they're doing well. Actually, I counted them yesterday. There's 22 that
I put up in various places and uh I put up a few more. A few died, but I I still have 22 going. Okay. Uh Mike, I see you have your hand raised. Yes, madam chair. I was just wondering
if the owner is going to relocate uh the bird house. I will. Okay. Thank you. But there's there's bluebirds in it right now, so I'm not going to do it yet. Okay. I appreciate your understanding and your care for the birds.
No, I I love birds, too. So, I'm definitely going to put it somewhere else and maybe add a few more. Thank you very much, Jim. Thank you, Mike. Welcome. And Mary, you have your hand raised. Yeah, with the um with the uh owner's um
you know, kind of uh enthusiastic uh test station that he's already uh gone in and planted uh a lot more trees and and Jenny, I do recall uh after you said that we had seen um saplings there uh getting ready to be installed, I withdraw my concern about uh replacement
plantings. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other uh members of the commission who have any comments or questions for the applicant? Hey, it does not seem like it. Do we
have any um members of the public who have any questions? All right. So, I think I'd be looking for a motion to uh we approve an
administrative determination. Yes. Okay. Motion to approve um the removal of it says one dead tree, two stems, but it's it's two different trees. No, it's actually one trunk.
Okay. That's all one big trunk there. One big trunk. Yeah. There goes that. Oh, okay. So, um one dead tree with two stems. uh at 141 Hemlock Drive. So moved, second.
Okay. Motion by Mike and second by Chris. Madam Chair, before before we vote, um I just wanted to say out loud the expectation. And you know, we would have to go back to the original motion or a second that the uh
that the roots stay in the uh in the ground. It can be, you know, um, ground flush, but, uh, with the roots roots staying in the ground. Yeah, we're not going to grind the, uh, the trunk because I, I need it because it's a pretty steep slope there, and I
don't want it to, uh, to create a lot of erosion. But, uh, I'm going to leave the trunk in. And then, would you say you're going to grind it or not grind it? No, not grind it. Not grinding. Okay. Okay. So, um, so I'd be looking for a motion to
approve the removal of one dead tree with two stems, uh, with the roots to stay in place with the stump to stay in place at 141 Hemlock Drive. So, moved. Second.
Mike with the motion. Chris with the second. Uh, roll call. Mary Wilson, I. Chris Germaine, I. Mike Larouche, I. Richard Bers I Andrea Bernard I and Teddy Det
I and I for myself. So approved. Thank you very much. Is there anything else I need to do or this is it, right? Um this is it. Okay. Yeah, I know what to do and what
not to do and I'll put a few more trees in once it's all done. Thank you, Jim. Okay. Thank you. Bye bye. Have a good night. Thanks. Yeah, you too. Bye-bye. Okay, so um we don't have any extension request permits, so we'll move on to
certificates of compliance and then um Perlin had sent notes out for the meeting. So we have some notes on these that I will read if uh you haven't seen them yet. So, uh, we'll start out with 12 Horizon Island Road. Uh, and Herlin
said based on the asbuilt submission, engineer certification and field conditions, I recommend that the commission issue a full certificate of compliance. So, based on those notes, I would be looking for a uh motion to approve the certificate of compliance at 12 Horizon Island Road. Do I have a
motion? So moved. Second. All right. Motion for Mary and second from Mike. Roll call. Mary Wilson. I germaine. Hi. Mike Larouche. I. Richard Bers.
Hi. Andrea Bernup. Hi. Eddie Ducet. Hi. And I for myself. Okay. Uh, next we have 406 Sunset Lane.
Um and I do I know we have the applicant on the line for this. Um we have notes from her limb that say no deviations or unpermitted work identified based on the asbuilt plan engineer certification and site conditions. It is recommended that
the commission issue a full certificate of compliance. Uh Nancy, did you want to add anything to that or do you want to just let us vote? Nope. You you can vote, please. Thank you. Okay. Um, so I'd be looking for a motion to approve a certificate of compliance
at 406 Sunset Lane. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. All right. Uh, motion for Mary, second from Mike. Roll call. Mary Wilson. I. Chris Germaine. I. Mike Larouche. I.
Richard Burch. I. Andrea Bernap. Hi. Eddie Ducet. Hi. I for myself. All right. Um, certificate of compliance approved.
Up next, we have 46 Arbor Street. Um, and the notes for this are all disturbed areas have been loomed, seated, or landscaped. Based on the asbuilt plan, engineer certification, and site conditions, it is recommended that the
commission issue a full certificate of compliance. Uh, do we have any questions or members? We have anyone from this on? Okay. Approve. Thank you. Second. All right. Motion from Mary, second from
Chris. Roll call. Mary Wilson. I. Chris Anderine. I. Mike Larouche. I. Richard Bers. I. Andrea Bernap. I. Petty Det.
I. and I for myself. Okay, so up next we have 147 Holman Street. Uh we have notes from Herllin. While the professional certification letter affirms substantial compliance, issuance of the full
certificate of compliance is not recommended until an asbuilt plan is submitted for commission review. Alternatively, the commission may consider issuing a partial certificate of compliance contingent on receipt and approval of an asbuilt plan or continuing this matter until 825 so the
applicant can obtain the required plans. If I may, um Ally from Benjamin Builders, I did submit the ASB builds today. Um we got an email late yesterday and I did submit them today. Okay, let me uh pull this up. Sorry.
And is it on OpenGV? Yes. Yep. Okay. Perfect. It's like both of the lots are in one, but I submitted it to both. Okay. So, you put it on both individually. Yes. 159 and 147. Correct.
Not seeing it. Not seeing anything new uploaded. Oh, here we go. Additional. Okay. It's just not under the asbuilt bot plan section. Could you share the plans? Um, thank you. There we go. So,
this is from November of 2023. Okay. Thank you. I I just um Yeah, the uh tax records don't show those um addresses yet. Yeah, the plan is from earlier because we had to do the um rain gardens as
well. So, we had originally applied for like a partial um and then unfortunately, I had a baby. So, then the followup of applying for the full certificate of compliance unfortunately got a bit delayed because I was on maternity leave and then it kind of got
forgotten about unfortunately. And this is for Okay. This is it's the same plan. The top one is lot three and the bottom plan is lot four. Okay. Yeah. And so lot four is
159. No, sorry. Lot three is 147 and lot four is 159. Okay. Thank you. Do we have uh anyone have any questions or concerns? Uh now that we have the
asbuilt I think I'd be looking for a motion to approve the certificate of compliance. So thank you. I have a second. Second. Okay. Motion from Mike, second from
Chris. Uh, roll call on issuing a certificate of compliance to 147 Holman Street. Mary Wilson. I Christine Germaine. Hi. Mike Larouche. I Richard Burch.
Hi. Andrea Bernap. Hi. And Petty Det. I and I for myself and then um we had the same notes for 159 Holman Street which is that second lot that we just looked at in the plans. So we that is also up
for a certificate of compliance. So based on everything we just saw in the last one I would be looking for a motion to approve a certificate of compliance at 159 Hullman Street Lot 4. So moved.
Mike, do I have a second? Second. Okay, Mike with the motion. Chris with the second. Uh, roll call. Mary Wilson, I. Chris St. Germaine, I. Mike Larouche, I.
Richard Bur. I. Andrea Bernard. Hi. Teddy Det. Hi. I Okay. um approved. All right. So, both of them have been approved.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks. Have a great night. You too. Okay. So, up next, um for enforcement for violations, enforcement actions and hearings, Ferlin did send a letter send letters to all of the um active
violations that we have. She has not heard back from anybody as of yesterday. So, um, updates maybe to come at the A20 meeting. Does anyone have any questions about that? Okay. Um, on to conservation updates. We
have the there the master plan steering committee. I'm not sure if everyone is familiar with that, but they are looking for a member of the commission to um join as the representative to the master plan steering committee.
Uh let me just pull up the email that I was So the master plan steering committee has a membership spot for the conservation commission and was looking for a representative to join our meetings. Many of the recommendations that could go into the master plan are concom related. We meet two times per
month, which is the second and fourth Wednesday at 6 p.m. through the rest of the year. If you could let me know someone if someone on your commission is available to participate, that would be great and I can start including them. Uh so is is anyone interested in that?
It is. I think the master plan steering committee is very important for the town and uh but I do know that it's a a big commitment especially I mean every Wednesday is tied up by something. Teddy, what is there like what I I know nothing
of this committee. Could you just explain what they're So the I'm gonna as a super lay person, the master plan steering committee is actually setting up a master plan for the town to kind of drive how we try to
draw business. And if anyone can say this better than me, please stop me and and do it better. But it's uh it's kind of like almost like an economic plan, like the way that we want the town to go. Do we want to try to attract more businesses? We want to try to attract more apartment buildings, things like
that. I like I would be very interested in this. Okay. Awesome. All right. I'd love to hear that. So, and you'd be okay with the second and fourth Friday and Wednesday days of the week and that's okay. You could do the that'd be
every Wednesday being taken. Yes. What um I What are the hours? Is it 7 to 10? No, it's it's probably a lot less than this. Um, it's at six. I can't let me look at
a previous meeting and see how long it went for. I I think, you know, the commission skews longer than most of the other meetings in town is my understanding. And from watching meetings that has been
I've seen sometimes like word goes long, but let me just try to find one from And if anyone knows about Was anyone else interested in this? Madam Chair, while you're looking, um I just want to express appreciation for Teddy and volunteering for that. I do
think it's very important. Um I am very interested in it, but I have absolutely no time to devote to it. So I'm um thank you Teddy for um raising your hand uh and being there to represent us. Yeah, same. Honestly, if I had the time, I would totally do it because I think
it's really important. Yeah, that sounds like right up my alley because I'm just so into conservation and like future oriented um like community work. It seemed align with what you had said
to the u the select board when you were uh there and they appointed you as a conservation commissioner. Thank you, Mary. I appreciate that. Yeah, I was I was hoping that you would volunteer to be honest. Um, it does look like their last meeting was three hours.
It started at 6:00 and it ended uh around 8:55. And that's fine. I just I was just curious. Um, and I do have a question though. Um, what is the like say I am on vacation for a week
and not able to attend a meeting. What is the protocol to uh like reconcile that? You're on vacation. you don't attend the meeting. Um, I've been on vacation, not attending meetings. I've been on vac, you know, I don't do the sitewalks if I,
you know, it's it it is what it is. Sometimes you go on vacation. Um, people go on vacation and you don't have to attend the meetings. Madam Chair, if I might recommend, I think it's the same as here. Just send an email to the chair, right? And then they they will have to do meeting
minutes anyway. um and record uh I think they all of the committees record their meetings so you have lots of opportunity to catch up. Okay. But there's like not I I realize this is a volunteer position but I just didn't know if there was some sort of
like work that I have to do afterwards to make up for the time I've missed. Oh, no. No. If you I mean if you just want to make sure you you probably want to catch up and see what you missed with the meeting minutes. Um and you could
either read those when they come out or you could watch the meeting. Like if I miss a meeting I usually just watch it on Lunberg access or listen to it when I have a chance on a I don't even watch. I just listen. Yeah. I've been keeping up with some of them on YouTube. Um which is nice.
Yeah. So I you definitely it's again it's a volunteer position so sometimes you go on vacation, sometimes you get sick. Um, and it if you have to miss a meeting, you have to miss a meeting. That's I I also just wanted to bring up that I
haven't gotten any of the MA was it MACC uh login stuff yet, so I haven't been able to start any trainings. Oh, okay. Um, um, I did let her know and she said that she just hasn't heard back from them
yet. I gave her all my contact information to get started. So, that's funny because I sent them an email about myself because I wanted to This is actually the next thing that we were going to talk about is there's an email that came out from MACC that
they're doing their uh fundamentals frenzy, which is they're going to have 101, 102, 103, like their basics classes. And I had sent an email uh asking about getting in for the you know
because you have to if you've already taken it and you want to take it again it's only $15 but you have to reach out to them and say hey I've already taken this can you put me in for this at the $15 rate and I haven't heard back and it's been about a week and then I have I was actually planning on bringing it up tonight to let everybody know that the
fundamentals frenzy is happening and I was going to say what the dates are. So, I haven't heard back from them either, which is um unusual. So, I'll check in with Heron tomorrow and then I'll send a message again to Mac. Andrea, have you
heard anything from them yet? No, I haven't heard anything and they have all my information. Okay. Yeah, I'll check in with them again tomorrow because I wanted to sign up for some of those classes at the $15 rate anyway. So, um I'll check in with
them and then the Let me just see what the classes are that are coming up because I thought I'm hoping that some people might want to sign up. And these are Oh, they sent them to my Madam Madam Chair, I just forwarded the uh MACC upcoming events to both Teddy
and Andrea as well. Perfect. Thank you. And then did everybody else get those that email from them that tell the the dates of some of the new fundamentals classes? Yes.
Okay. So, it looks like September 23rd is 101, which is overview of conservation commissions. Uh October 1st and this October 1st is actually the night of our meeting. That's uh unit 104, wetland functions and values. But when I first started, Mary told me I had
to miss a meeting to get to do some training. And she said that makes more sense. So, if somebody wants to take that class and they're new and that's something they're interested in, then getting trained up is definitely important. Um, and then yeah, so there's just a you'll see it in the email. But
if anyone didn't get that, let me know and I'll forward it to them because this is what gets you. These are the classes that will help get you I want to see you get your fundamental certificate which is just means that you've taken the core classes and then a couple of elective
classes through MACC and then once you take them I'd recommend you know doing some more meetings doing the convention and then also taking them again because I think that the more you do this and the more you go out it starts to stick with you
more and then the classes make more sense. Um and then they also have the lunch and learns which are really good. So um yeah so I'll check in with them on that. So thank you. All right I will have um someone from
the master planning steering committee reach out to you Teddy and then you could ask some questions too. make sure you're definitely on board and then hopefully you'll be our representative to them. All righty. Does that sound good? Yes. Very good.
All right. Thank you so much for Yeah. And I I do want to say I really appreciate you all um like setting a good example of like how to ask questions when we're having our our meetings because you make a lot of salient points that I would not think of
and um that I think it was the first vote we did. I was pretty torn between some of the opinions. Same. Yeah, it's uh that that was a hard one. And uh but also, you know, it's good.
It's not good that sometimes we disagree too and hear everybody's Yeah. everybody's perspective and um you know, and then go with what you know you think is That was the closest vote I've seen since I've been on. So
really. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That was uh that was a tough one, but and I appreciate Mary bringing up later in the meeting on that the flags
at 390 were good. I was actually surprised by the engineers response on that, but the uh I was actually thinking that I'm like, man, those flags some of those flags have been there for so long and I can read them and I and I wasn't there for the other one, but okay. So
anyway, um all right. So that is the master plan steering committee. Old business budget. I have no updates on the budget. Uh we have no encouragement issues. Open space and land use. Um do we have any grants
updates? No, no grants updates. Uh Madam Chair, uh I'm waiting on a um I'm waiting um well I guess slight update. So, no project work has been done. I'm waiting on getting I've submitted everything for
reimbursement of the uh conservation commission grant of award for 2023 uh which was a park and area improvements and we had two projects um that have you know been designed been approved
uh and I submitted those. I've followed up a couple of times. The grant administrators are very upfront about um June and July. They are worried about state budgets. They're not talking to anybody. You know, there's no incoming
documentation getting done, but I had at least hoped the grant administrator would acknowledge the receipt of the last um you know, cancel checks for the last things. Um so, I've been chasing her up about that. I'm hoping now that we've you know, moved into August, I'll
get um some movement there. but I'll keep chasing her every week. Um, and then uh with regard to um the last part of that grant was doing um planning work uh in the Calgary area.
Um yeah, and I I think what we need to what Bob was telling me, Bob's been, you know, I've been partnered with Bob Peas, former commissioner, who's been doing a lot of the grunt work with the engineers. I I think the next step is to get um you know uh me and any of the
other commissioners that want to go down there and look at it and Bob and the engineering firm to look at that area and see you know how we want to approach um the request because there's a lot of you there's a pre-existing road there uh and u you
know we want to raise it so that we can get access handicapped access there's a wonderful handicap viewing wildlife viewing platform form that nobody can access uh right now because of the deteriorating condition of the cart path. Uh so that was our hope was to get
that improved. We may have to consider you know uh maybe coming in from the other side. I don't know. But that's that's something that's brewing. Um so look for look for invites and certainly you know if anybody um you know particularly our newer members or
anybody that hasn't been down there is interested in that area let me know. I'll be happy to take you down there and kind of uh go over the hopes and dreams. Um, and then the other slight update is that I uh am hoping that we can submit
another grant in January uh to actually implement uh one of the approved uh uh parking areas um uh either Raino or uh Table Rock. Uh and again if we submit
the grant request then you know whatever is the cost of the project the grant would pay 80% um we would have to come up with 20% of the funding. The town would have to come up with 20% of the funding. Uh we may have timber rights funds available. We have
another grant um potentially available. the uh I forget the gentleman's name uh but we have another grant available and and then there are you know uh there is a grant commission here in town that uh we
could potentially request funding from for that 20% as well. Additionally, we can um you know uh volunteer hours uh count significantly as uh in kind matching. So that's another opportunity to fund um to fund that uh 20% of the
work um that would need to be done there. So anyway, so that's a goal. Um towards that goal, Bob has sent um a request to the town manager uh and uh and the HR director who who does some management of contract work to ask what
exactly we would need to do in order to you know um do we would we in order to get the RFQS uh raised you know consistent with town process right so that as even though we wouldn't be doing the work in January we would have to
have quotes from you know the following the appropriate process. We would have to submit those quotes actually and build our budget off of those quotes um in the grant application. So we would have to have that done by the end of January. So anyway, he's trying to get,
you know, uh some transparency in what that process is so that we're hitting all the right notes in terms of diligence. Um so that's what's going on with grants. Um and then conservation land improvement. I think Jenny, we got
a note from um from uh Josie uh Gilchrist, I think is her last name, uh offering to coordinate uh some United Way uh or submit a United Way project um for their uh volunteer month
or day of day of caring uh potentially to do, you know, some trail work uh andor repair work down in the Cry. That sounds really exciting too. Yes. Um I got an email from her and I am going to respond to her tomorrow morning
and I am have on and I will CC you and Bob on that email. But yeah, that's super exciting. Um that it sounds like a great idea. I didn't even know that existed. So I'm very happy that she reached out to us.
Yeah, that's awesome. Getting that. Yeah. And then as a final note, we've had uh two volunteers actually reach in through our QR code and offer to help out uh with uh trail work. Oh, awesome. Yeah.
And is that trail work at do they is it a specific place? These two volunteers I think uh came in through uh the Cry QR codes and and offered to do some work in the Cry. Oh, awesome. Did that just come in like today or yesterday?
Um, no. After Okay. Yeah, that gentleman actually reach one of the gentlemen reached out to me and alerted me of a down tree um between the Cowry and the small town forest. So, I'll be taking care of that when I can. Awesome. Thank you.
Okay, so is that um all of our updates on grants and improvement? Uh yeah, it is for me, Chris. Yeah, open space. Uh, we have our August meeting a week from today. Okay. Thank you. Um, and Mary, I just
want to say thank you again for everything that you do as far as the grants and the trails and you're just amazing. Thank you. Thank you for all of that. Um, Hollis Road Mike, do you have any updates on
The only thing I had is we had an incident with um the riding lawnmower. I got uh an email saying that um the lawnmower was left out in the field. Um I'm assuming it was out back of the
Hollis Road residence, so it was brought into the shed, but I was told that it that it wasn't really working uh properly and I should check it out. And come to find out,
um, there was a piece of of, uh, metal, uh, fencing that was wrapped around one of the, uh, lawnmower blades. So, I was able to cut out the, um,
the fencing that was around the blade, and it looks like uh, it's back in service. Um, but I'm a little disconcerted that it was just left outside with no nobody
making any mention that there's an issue until uh one of the volunteers found it out there. So, uh, but, uh, all is good. Uh, it seems as if it's working fine now, but I just wanted to make sure I
reported that to everybody. Okay. And if if something happens to the lawnmower, would they typically reach out to you and know that that would be the person they would reach out to or they usually do. Um it's usually not
left abandoned without, you know, I think it was that's the part that's a little disconcerting. Uh fortunately, we have uh you know, volunteers who are saying, "Hey, where's the lawn mower?" Oh, there it is.
And um so I mean could have been much worse, but you know um it's nice to get the heads up that something happened um and report it before someone else has to find it. So that's my point.
Yeah. No, that's a good point. Mary, you have your hand up. Yeah, I you know, Mike does an awesome job um coordinating, you know, the concerns of the tenant and the and the pollinator habitat, right, with the conservation commission. And I just have
to say I'm really disappointed that the um that the lawnmower was left out and that it was damaged and you weren't notified. And you know, you you worked really hard to make certain that you know, we got you lobbyed really hard to make certain
that we got funded for a brand new law uh lawnmower last year, Mike. Uh just so you wouldn't have to, you know, put up with uh having to be out there every other week repairing something. And it's just so disappointing that um you know
that's just kind of treated so carelessly. Yeah. Anyway, that is Yeah. Well, thank you for everything you're doing, Mike. Um and thank you for fixing that.
Okay, we'll have to do it. And then there's no really there's nothing that we could really do to prevent that from happening. You know, both sides need access to the lawn mower. That's just a Can we say something to every No, you don't want to like single
anybody out, but say, "Hey, if there's a problem, let me know." Or are you definitely I feel like I don't want to say that they should definitely reach out to you. Is that are you the person that they normally re like that you want to be the person they reach out to? Yeah, I usually have been the person in
the past that you know got the call or got a text or whatever. But uh and I haven't done anything. I just felt I just needed to fix it and you know would deal with uh the ramifications of the no
notice of something was arai. But um thank you for fixing it. We really appreciate it. Um up next we have committee reports. Chris gave us his for open space. Um storm water. We have a lot happening. Um
we're moving to two nights per month now as we get closer to uh town meeting. Not not the fall town meeting, the spring town meeting. Um, but you know, like I said before, it's just we're trying to implement a storm water utility and we
are, you know, becoming more active in that and getting closer to figuring out what that utility cost would be and how we're going to um let the, you know, present it to the town. Bill Bernard's already presented it a little bit, but
there's obviously there's some people there are some pros, there's some cons. So, we're working on that meeting two times a month now. So, I'll be meeting with them tomorrow. And then our do we have any communications any any updates on
anything else that we haven't covered from any members of the commission? Right. Our next meeting is scheduled for August 20th, 2025 on Zoom. And I think I do have I do have a question for the commission. Yes.
Um earlier in the meeting we talked about um the property that we worked on worked with um where they had to remove the their patio and left only the um
only the retaining wall. And we said two things. They had to do it within 90 days. And the second thing was we they'd have to follow up with a one or twoyear report. How do we enforce that report? Do we have to remember to like h how
does that one year two-year thing h how do we catch that? Is it does something come up in our calendars or something like h that's a great question Chris. Yeah. Um, I don't know if open gov I I I wonder if we could build that into
certain workflows in open gov or because I didn't really think about that where it's um an you just wouldn't, you know, give them a certificate of of um compliance, but with an RDA, it's kind of openended.
Yeah. So, um that is a question that I will ask Carol Lynn and um you know we do need some sort of a like Mary had suggested once that we have things come
up on certain dates so that we just know that we have this list of things if I'm remembering this correctly Mary that we have this list of things to do like on October 1st and then there's just a list rather than having everything be on a specific date. Yeah, I think that that
was more managing um violations. But u for something where we've actually deliberated and issued a decision, I I would it seems like open gov, right? It's a workflow management tool. There's got to be a way to set reminders
in there, right? Yeah. And reminders and alerts. I can go in there and, you know, add and things like that. But I haven't tried to add anything else to a workflow.
So Ryan may know and I think our good friend uh Logan now works for Open Gov, right? That's true. He does. Yeah. Um yeah, I'll uh I'll check in
with I'll see if I can add it first. I'm just curious if I have that capability. But um I know depending on the workflow I have different capabilities like I didn't have any capabilities to do anything on the on the CAO at 260 fulo
so I have to ask to have that workflow updated so that I can update it but yeah let me see what I can figure out and see if we can get some reminders set up for things like this
because we definitely want to be able to check up on The other thing I wonder about too, Jenny and Chris, I mean, now that we're talking about this, like what we've experienced over the last couple of years is a high rate of turnover in the office and um you know,
we all hope that that will be remedied. Um but um there still will be turnover. How does does open gov uh handle that gracefully? How do they do you know resource assignment? you know, if you
set a reminder, who would get it if the person that's in the office now is not there in two years when the reminder comes up? That's a good question. Um, so, you know, in my day job, we usually
have reminders set to like the department, not the specific person. Um, I actually did find in open gov in the RDA workflow I can create an inspection step and create it for compliance. As far as
assignees go, I don't there's nothing like I don't have LCC because ideally we could just send it to like the LCC at Lindenburg mailbox and whoever is monitoring that would see it come up. Yeah. Um, but I don't see that set up here. Looks
like you have to choose an individual person. So, that is a good question. Um, and I'm wondering if we could have the LCC mailbox set up as a resource in there for reminders to go
to or something something similar to that. Yeah, something more agnostic than an individual who may or may not, you know, because that email is not good anymore. Then it just like bounces and goes into the ether, right? And that's what happens with um
you know with the our person who just left. I sent an email by accident and it immediately bounced back. So that mailbox is gone. So it's not going to it's not going to go anywhere. They're not being forwarded or monitored. So
that's a really good question. Okay. Um, any other questions? I think I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn. Um, it is 9:55 p.m. and I uh make the
motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. Motion from Mary, second from Chris. Roll call. Mary Wilson. I Chris Germaine. I Mike Larouche. I Richard Bers. Hi
Andrea Bernap. Hi Eddie Det. I and I for myself adjourning at 9:56 p.m. on August 6, 2025. Good night everybody. Good night.