Oh, thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the uh August 12th, 2025 meeting of the Milton Conservation Commission. Milton Conservation Commission members are appointed by the select board to implement the rules and regulations of the state wetlands protection act and
the Milton town bylaw governing the um environmental uh concerns that the town has. As a matter of formality, two rules. One is that we invite everybody, any member of the public uh whether you're in a butter or not to uh speak up uh be heard, ask questions, make
comments. Um but also we ask because it is a public meeting and we're being recorded. We do ask that you identify yourselves which leads me to the second rule which is we introduce ourselves. My name is John Kieran and let me just go across the top on the screen. Steve >> Steve Ibvis, conservation agent.
Philip >> Philip Driscoll, conservation clerk. Tom Balmer. >> Tom Balmer, commission member. >> Wendy Garpo. >> Good evening. I'm Wendy Garpo, one of the commissioners. >> Authory. >> Authory, commission member.
>> Hans Stanling, commission member. >> Thank you. And Charlie, >> Charlie Bosworth, commission member. >> Okay. I I don't see Ingred here. I don't want to skip her if she's here. But uh I think we've introduced ourselves so
we're ready to go. First on the agenda is uh request for determination of applicability the MBTA right of way uh who is here to present for the T and Kola. >> Hello everyone. This is Matt Donovan from Benish.
>> Matt, welcome. Thank you for being here. >> Yes, of course. Thank you. Um so I'm here to represent CUSA for this RDA to confirm the accuracy of the maps used for herbicide um and application and vegetation management along the commuter rail rightway. This RDA is submitted to
your commission every 5 years required by CMR1. Um and it's required to get these determinations before submitting the 5-year vegetation management plan to Mass Department of Agricultural Resources for approval. Um the
vegetation management plan is a is designed to manage and control vegetation necessary to keep the railroad and operation safe and there are regulations in place to keep these sensitive areas protected throughout the duration of the plan. The sensitive area restrictions are listed and described in CMR 11.04 04 and that's what the the
maps are um marked in conformance with the maps we've provided you are mainly made for the chemical portion of the plan but often dictate where mechanical methods will be used due to chemical restrictions each year there are two main chemical applications one in the May to June time frame that targets the
roaded and one in the August September time frame that targets the brush in the areas adjacent to the roaded um the sensitive areas marked with blue and yellow in your town um which is the entire and the the entirety of your town will never receive the brush program um
and will only receive the roadbed program and that's because of the proximity to to the riverfront. Um, so that that's what I'll focus on is the road bat application that's done with a spray truck drive directly on the track and is equipped with nozzles on the back
side. Um, spraying the solution directly down onto the track from about 18 inches above the ground. Um, it does have arms with nozzles on the arms that um that target the shoulders of the roaded up to 12 feet from the center line of track on
each side. Um certified applicator is always accompanied by an environmental monitor familiar with site conditions and equipped with these maps instructing the operator as necessary. The applicator has the ability to turn all the nozzles off or in many cases just one or both of the side nozzles where
it's targeting the shoulder where it may be closer to the buffer zones of the sensitive areas. Um they can just do that with the the flip of a switch as needed as it's going down the track. The yellow zones will never receive any treatment to the shoulders. However, it may still receive treatment directly
down onto the ties and that's done at the environmental monitor and applicator's discretion to keep it in conformance with the restrictions. Um, the blue zones will receive the full roaded treatment. Um,
and there are no dark blue zones um which is more of like a D or water supply zone which would be sprayed every two years. Um due to the chemical restrictions in these areas, more effort is put into controlling the vegetation, especially in the areas adjacent um to the roaded.
More effort is put into controlling that with mechanical or manual measures. Um the chemicals each year are always taken from the right-of-way approved sensitive area material list provided by Mass Department of Agricultural Resources. They do switch the solution um slightly
each year, but the chemicals will always be coming from that um approved list. We do include each year's solution um in the yearly operational plan that we supply your commission every year via certified mail. We are we are uh seeking
a positive 2-way determination to confirm the maps as well as a negative determination um for the work that's included in the vegetation management plan. And with that said, I can open the floor up to the commission for any questions. >> Sure. And I I know you're going to get a
question from Tom Palmer and he'll be more articulate than I, but uh first let let me kind of put in context some of our questions. Um my first one is that in in your letter, which I appreciate very much uh dated 18th July 2025, you
say on behalf of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and Kiololis, um can you tell me who's doing this? Is it the T and or is it Kas? >> It's the T that's maintaining and
operating the the commuter rail for MBTA um contracted to them. MBTA is still the property owner. Um but it is it is under maintenance and operations by Kias. This is just for the commuter rail um and not for for the T.
>> Okay. Second point, and this is not a question, it's a point just to put in context and and really for the public's benefit approximately 2012, which I understand is, you know, 13 years ago, we had some difficulty um not on the Kolus communal
line, but rather on the the trolley line between Matapan and Ashbond where um we I guess euphemistically referred to it as Napom that was used uh in the area of the Adam Street Bridge. It destroyed
everything. Every blade of grass, every bug, every dandelion. I don't know what it was, but it created a real problem. And the contractor was Northern Tree. And they were taking out um trees for
purportedly for field of vision. We support 100% the right of way of the the railroad and public safety. That's very high priority for us. We understand that. But in this case, uh they kind of got carried away. Um so we entered into
a a consent agreement with MBTA for it was $15,000 in uh dollars and cents. Uh and they were going to provide uh I don't know 40 hours of labor for you know replanting some trees for us and we
never received it. And I understand the the environmental coordinator for the MBTA was a real gentleman and he just said, "John, we're on a deficit, you know, financing situation. Sorry, we just can't we can't do it." Um, and that's been 13 years. So,
we try to be very careful about this, which leads to my third point, and that is when we walked, and again, this is the Ashmont line. I'm sorry, the the the trolley line from Matapan to Ashmont. Uh Tom Palmer and I were out there together and we were looking at, you know, spray
versus mechanical means for that particular line. Um and they were very cooperative with us, the T folks, and they said, "Listen, we agree not to spray in this area because it was just north of Central Avenue where Central
Avenue crosses the trolley line." Uh and Tom, you'll remember this. We walked that way and said it would be better. there is so much there for wetlands um that it would be better if we don't want to fight over where the line is because it's going to be real close and the T
said up fine we won't spray here we'll use you know mechanical means if we need to um so that's and Tom can weigh in on that one the fourth point is um Steve have you walked this or I just
want to make sure that we agree with the wetland lines here and I and I defer to you Yarin expert and I'm not, but I want to make sure that the wetlands are where they say they are because that was the problem that Tom Palmer and I confronted when we were walking in the Central
Avenue line right there. So, I I I think we need to confirm this line. >> So, that those aren't exactly questions, but Tom, let me ask you. Um, as I'm looking at my screen, I see a
portion of the rail line which uh has a cleared area which is a former paper mill and the Tileston Hollingsworth Dam up on top. Is that what you're seeing? >> Yes, that's what I see. >> Yeah, it does appear to show the only wetlands are in the river maybe. But if
you look on the Milton Bank, which is the south bank, between the railroad and the river, as you go to the left or the southwest, there are actually some wetlands up on top of the bank. And I think I see a little green line in there
that might indicate them, >> but it's not really big enough on my screen to see if I can see it or not. Well, there they are, I guess. Um yeah, those are those are depressions
that fill with water and where they're connected under the embankment there's a culvert and uh speaking for myself, I would rather they did it all mechanically all the way through here because it's all quite
close to the river. But um I would like to ask what is the herbicide that currently is being used? >> The herbicide I can I can show you exactly what was being used um last year. We we send it to your commission
every year. Um and that's done with the in the yearly operational plan. Um so this is the mixture right here. Here it's Esplanade 200 SC mixed with milestone or open site at
these application rates mixed with XP or extra or spider um at 4 ounces per acre with a drift control. >> If you're familiar with that stretch of track, it's got a lot of what they call
clinker on either side, right? that that crushed stone and it's also elevated over much of it. Um, so it has a sort of built-in weed suppression of a sort in that it's a elevated very dry material
that doesn't support vegetation easily. At any rate, uh, as I said, I see you go at it two ways, either mechanical or chemical. My preference would be mechanical because it's close to the
river and the wetlands through here. >> Yeah. So that option um and like like you had brought up earlier and I do understand all the concerns with this um it is a sensitive subject um for for good reason. But I think what you when
you spoke with the MBTA back in 2012 and um you were talking about that I would have to think that that was regarding the areas adjacent to the roaded um as there for the roaded itself there is no alternative. You can't you can't um
really control any the weeds in the ballast um with mechanical methods. it would you the only the only uh way to do that is with this roaded program and like I said it it's done with a truck I
can pull up a picture of it um that sprays the solution directly down onto the track from from that distance um about 18 inches above above the ground um and it it there is no it's it gets
absorbed real quickly there are studies um done by the D and D before they release these lists with the rates and everything um to to make sure that it is not um spreading into areas that it
shouldn't be. Um so in your town, you will only be receiving this treatment at the at the very most. And in the yellow zones, it'll turn these outside nozzles off um where it's targeting the
shoulders. So, it'll just be doing the ties. So, help help me understand the difference between the shoulder and the ties because I think the ballast extends laterally out beyond the the rail lines.
>> Yes. So the the ties themselves are just the the wooden timbers that are actually part of the structure of the track and the ballast is part of the structure as well, but the the shoulders is like it'll flat the ballast will continue flat outside the edge of the tie and
then a typical road bed it goes down at a one to one slope um from the tie and like you said it's built up. So you have a a flat area and on each side the shoulders as you can imagine on the
sides. >> I I I can I appreciate the distinction. I also appreciate what you said that for the ballast there's really no mechanical method to to do anything on. So are we talking about the shoulder and and Tom
are you talking about the shoulder? Um I guess what I interpreted uh our guest to say is that between the rails there's no alternative the chemical but maybe he's saying no that I'm I'm speaking
about the ballast in total when I say that I guess I don't understand whether the area where the chemical is unavoidable is the area between the rails or the width of the bast I
I'm I'm sorry. What was What's the question? >> Well, I guess you said that there's an area where you can't use mechanical because it's too close to the rails or between the rails. I guess I'm asking
what is that width >> there where the Yeah, >> that would be that would be like the full road bed. So like the the 12 foot um the 12 foot as you go down from the center line of track at 12t from the center line um it's it's typically
always ballasted. Uh and and that's that's where there's really no alternative um is when it's a ballasted section >> like this. Um as you can see this this isn't even a very wide roaded at all. It's not elevated. When in Milton the
the road bed is way more elevated. So the ballast will be going down and extending out quite a bit further than what you see here. >> Um so so it really getting to the extent of the ballast in Milton where where in
this case it is getting to the extent of the >> the trees tree lines um because it is closer to the elevation of the areas adjacent to it. Um, where there is an alternative is is where my mouse is kind of hovering over
right now is the areas adjacent to the draft. >> We may be on the wrong screen share, Matt. >> Yeah, we're looking at the chart still of the herbicides. >> Oh, shoot. Um, sorry about that. Now, can you see the
picture? >> Yes. >> Uh, now we see a picture, but it's that's a spray truck. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> With a a typical roaded section. Um, but what I was just just describing is if you can picture this, but with the
ballast, a tall area, as you said, in in Milton is built up. So, naturally, it's wider as it goes down at a one to one slope. So the ballast in Milton would extend further out than this. And as you can
see here, the spray is is pretty much just getting to the edge of the ballast where in Milton, if it's an elevated um elevated track, it will still be ballasted beyond where the spray is. Um, so it really will only
be getting ballasted portions of the track and that's where there's no alternative um to vegetation control. >> As we look at it now, would you say the reason there no weeds in the ballast is because it has been treated um at
intervals, regular intervals? >> Yeah. If I've I've I've been out on railroads pretty much the last 12 years of my life and and you'd be surprised with how how quickly weeds will start to grow through that ballast that it had
just from leaves falling from above just things falling off the train. Um it does it does get organic matter in there and will start to grow ballast. I mean, maybe you can go a year skipping it, but it it does it
does grow weeds pretty quick and then that can cause um pretty bad problems for for the structure of the track itself and for inspecting the track and um just a lot of different reasons. this
it's it's the most imperative part of the rightway to keep clear of weeds is is this road bed. >> Yes. You know, I have watched a lot of track myself. I walk the track through the foul meadow and there's a definitely
a sort of look that appears on the edge of the fill beyond the ballast where there's only certain plants that can stand it so to speak. there certain very tough weeds that will flourish in the kind of clinkery soil. Um, so you can
kind of see the effects of the herbicide as you walk up and down. Um, I understand your argument and uh I recognize the importance of keeping the tracks clear. So,
I feel like myself, I'm sort of I have to support the greater good of uh track maintenance. Um, I guess that's my point of view. >> All right. Thank Thanks, Tom. Wendy, any thoughts on the proposed education
management plan? >> Um, no. Thank you, John. I don't have anything to add. >> Okay. Any other commissioners? >> Nothing here. All right. I I don't I don't see everybody, but I don't hear anything. Uh, one question, Tom, go back to u when
Matt was able to blow up the area that you had indicated it was to the left side of the the overhead view that we saw though. That looked like as he blew it up, it looked like the area that you were concerned with that there were wetlands there. My only question is, do
we need to confirm that or are you comfortable because you're familiar with the area? Are you comfortable that they've properly designated those areas that were blown up that do show the wetland areas or the depressions where their their water? >> Yeah, I I would say overall they're
accurate. I would guess that those green lines were drawn from an aerial photo by a mapper in an office. And I would guess as well that if you were to do it on the ground, they would be more complex than
what you see here now. But I'm okay with this depiction for this project. Um I think if somebody were to propose development in there, I would want them to be mapped again, but I think this is
sufficient for what we're talking about. John, >> can I just add something to that? >> Yes, ma'am. >> I I just >> We're sorry. >> There are several towns that will accompany a positive 2-way determination with exactly that being said that this
determination is only good for the purpose of vegetation management in in conformance with the the MD approved vegetation management plan or something like that. So, I mean, because these because these determinations are
binding, it's a way to cover um cover yourself from that. >> Yeah, that's a good idea because we do expect to have a a notice of intent for that area at the top, but sort of to the middle, but the top there that's all cleared there. That's the old Patriot
paper factory. >> Yeah. So that would be a good I can give you I can send you language for that that other towns have used um after this meeting if you want to um make the determination based on or with with that being said.
>> Good idea, Matt. Thank you for doing that. Uh Steve, I have a I can't see you, but do you have any thoughts or suggestions? >> Um not at this time. No, John. >> All right. Anybody else? >> I agree with Tom's um Tom's notes.
All right. Any other uh commissioners that have a question or comment? >> Just a comment, John. Um author here. I would agree with those areas that are identified as two wetland pockets. They are consistent with what was seen on
nepro maps uh from presentations that were given on uh the project for uh the EPA cleanup of the river. >> Good. Okay, that's helpful. Any other I
can't see um everybody that's here. Are the members of the public uh whether you're on a butter or not have a question or want to make a comment? All right. Do not see any. Could you take the the screen sharing down because then then I can see everybody. We can all see everybody.
>> Yeah, >> that's good. Well, I don't see any hands hands raised. Uh so the the request here is to issue a um I want to read it from here. Positive 2A and a negative number F. I'm not sure
what negative number five determination refers to, but the positive 2A, I guess that's the the wetlands delineation, we'd be accepting that. And as Matt suggested, we can use additional language. And Phil, if if you make sure this language gets added into the uh to
the notes. >> Absolutely. >> That that this um approval of the delineation is for the vegetation management program only. So it wouldn't be binding on us if there was a development proposal. We could go out
and reme-measure it. Um but that would be positive uh that that we'd accept the delineation and then issue a negative determination. Um we we do have another condition that we always put in. We call it boilerplate, but it's actually pretty
important that that equipment that we saw a picture of that you don't park that within our jurisdiction. For instance, you wouldn't park it right next to the river um overnight or you wouldn't refuel there, but that I don't anticipate that's a problem at all for you. Correct.
>> No, they they won't be they they show up in the morning and leave right when they're done. Um they they won't be parking. >> Perfect. All right. It's the overnight component that we're concerned with. Um All right. So, any other comments,
questions, commissioners? All right. Is there a a motion to issue a positive determination under 2A that for the approval of the delineation for purposes of vegetation management only? Um and then otherwise to issue a
negative determination uh so as to allow them go forward with a single special condition that they u not store overnight uh the heavy equipment with hydraulic hoses and chemicals and whatnot andor they don't refuel that equipment within our jurisdiction. Is
there such a motion? >> John, really quick, that's it's not a delineation, right? It's an identification of resource areas that >> it is, but we're we're using their map. So, you're right. It's not done by flag.
>> But that's I think that's one of the reasons with Matt's suggestion that we limit the approval to the vegetation management plan only, but we're approving that delineation. I >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay.
Is there a second to Hans's motion? Second. >> All right. Thanks, Charlie. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, we'll take a a voice vote. Tom Palmer, >> I vote yes. >> Hans, >> yes.
>> Arthur Doyle, >> yes. >> Charlie, >> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes. >> And I, John Canon, vote yes as well. >> Go vote, will you send that language so we'll have that in our our file as well? >> Yes, I can send that. >> From the other towns I'm referring to.
Yes. >> Yep. >> Perfect. >> Great. Thank you very much everyone. >> All right. Thanks. >> Next on the agenda is number two, which is of intent parking lot repair and storm water management project at H Hotton's Pond.
Do we have a presenter? >> Hi. Yes. Uh my name is Heidi Fischer. Um I'm here on behalf of ACOM. Uh representing Massachusetts DCR. Um here as well on the call is Mr. Chal, can everyone hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Welcome, Heidi. Thank you for being here.
>> Thank you so much. Uh, with your permission, I have a slide deck I'd like to share my screen. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> All right. Can everyone say that? Okay. >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Great. Um, hi. Thank you so much for your time this evening. Uh so just to reiterate um here representing the
Massachusetts DCR project for the H Hotton's Pond uh storm water management improvements project. Um I'll go ahead and go to the next slide. Uh so just to give an overview of the project area, uh the limit for the project for the improvements in storm water management
features um at H Hotton's Pond is going to be limited to the parking lot uh located to the north of H Hotton's Pond as well as to the uh bath house that is located in proximity to um H Hotton's Pond. And um the areas in red actually that are represented in the picture um
are over a little bit of an overestimate of actually how much we will be um impacting for this area. Um the parking lot will actually be limited to the uh northeastern portion of the lot. Um and the bath h the bath house uh primarily the work will be um located just south
of the bath house um between um the beach and the bath house itself. And the total um uh limit of the u work that will be done is about 2.2 acres. Um go to the next slide.
Uh so in November of 2024, ACOM went out to do wetland delineation. Um you can see from the map there that's on the uh right hand side. Um and as you can see um during the delineation they were able to identify um bordering vegetated
wetlands to the east and uh northeast of the parking lot as well as to the west of the bath house. Um and then as well as um an association with H Hotton's pond identified um bank uh as well as an intermittent water body water course
excuse me um in which a bank was also delineated there as well. Um as you can see from the figure um the limit of disturbance uh will um interact with the buffer zone to the bordering vegetated wetland uh within the parking lot um and
to the bath house to the south. Um the buffer zone to the bordering vegetated wetland will also coincide with uh some of the limit of disturbance um as well as that buffer zone to the bank. uh the bank to the intermittent water course uh will there will be no um project activities uh located within that buffer
zone. So just kind of wanted to clarify that from the um the figure. Uh so for the project activities that's going to take place in the parking lot um there is going to be an installation of a infiltration gallery and that'll be below grade. Um, in addition to that,
there will be the installation of a new flow control structure, um, which will then, uh, connect into the existing catch basin and outfall. Um, not sure if you can see my mouse here. Um, but, um, to the south of the parking lot, um,
well, for the purposes of this figure, to the south is the outfall is, uh, located, um, to the the bottom of the screen, and you can see that there's, uh, protection for the rip the rip wrap around the outfall. there will be no um no work that will take place there. Um
it'll be all um sort of upland of that closer to the parking lot itself. Um and as I mentioned before, this is all going to be um um installed below grade. Um and any um pavers in the parking lot that are removed for the purposes of the installation will be uh
stored and then replaced in kind. Um so this will all be restoration to uh previously existing uh conditions following the installation of the new features. um just kind of give a visualization of what um the area looks like. Uh the picture on the left uh is a view of uh
the location in the parking lot which the uh infiltration gallery will be installed below grade. Um and then the picture on the right is um a depiction of where that um that new pipe will be placed um within that kind of grassy vegetated area. And again that'll be
great as well. >> Okay. And this is uh a depiction of the um of the work that's proposed at the bath house itself. Um hopefully um it's able to kind of make out. I know there's a lot of detail here. Um but to the left
and to the right um you'll see that there's going to be the installation of infiltration galleries here as well. um as long as um excuse me, as well as um trench drains that'll um provide the collection of runoff from um impervious
services associated with the bath house um which will then uh collect and filtrate and treat that um storm water runoff before releasing it to uh vegetar vegetated areas um away from the bath house and away from H Hotton's Pond and
the uh recreational beach. Um, I'll just see if there's anything else I want to include there. Um, the uh only um permanent impacts associated with this, everything will be below grade with the uh exception of a new um a new
outfall uh that will be um protected by RIP wrap. Um and the that will be on one of the infiltration galleries and the other infiltration gallery will um have an um will release to an already existing outfall. um that's already on site. Uh and this is the depiction as well. So
for some detail on the western side of the bath house, um those are the pictures on the uh the top of the screen. Um and that sort of shows the bounds of where the um the infiltration gallery will be below grade as well. Um as you can see from this, it's mostly um
gravel grassy areas and there is some pavers. Um this will all be restoration of grassy areas and gravel um following the installation in infiltration gallery. And similar to the parking lot um any pavers that are removed will be replaced in kind. Um and then on the
east side of the bath house, similarly this is all going to be within um previously disturbed but grassy and gravel areas. Um so those will similarly will all be restored to um previous conditions. Um as for any of the trees that are in the area, those will all be
protected during construction. Um there will be no tree removal of any kind. Um so there will be there'll be protection around the trees during any of the work. >> Thank you. I'm not cutting you off. I was just waiting to see if you had more because it's Thank you for the presentation and and your u uh written
materials are very detailed and very thorough. So we thank you for that as well. >> Thank you. Uh my only question is uh we actually did a sitewalk in July and uh we actually parked in the parking lot. That's a pretty busy place. Um and I'm assuming that over the course of time
there's a lot of oil and uh contaminants dropped from the cars that parked there. And I understand that you're you're improving the drainage and the discharge of water. Um but is there any kind of an oil separator or any kind of mechanism? I know the water is being directed
underground to the uh the basins or the whether they're cultex or whatever the the vendor is that you get it from. But is there any way to capture some of the oil that we can anticipate coming from the parking lot? >> There will be a wear system um in the
diverter uh structure that will have a hood on it to to capture. It's not going to be a typical oil water separator, but it will have a hood and it will it will capture all, you know, any type of oily debris. We don't expect it to be any more than a regular, you know, regular sumps in the catch basins and the hoods
that are in catch basins themselves. So, um, but there will be a structure for sediments and, you know, floating debris, which includes oils. So, >> thank you, John. >> You're welcome. I would like to add that Heidi did a great job, but um I noticed
on the plan the limit of work for the parking lot. Um DCRI does plan on milling and overlaying the whole parking lot when we're done so we don't have this big patch in the middle. And so I just wanted to make that clear to to the commission that you know after we put you know the underground infiltration
galley in the the plan would be to mill and overlay the whole parking lot so it's just one continuous you know new parking lot. you know, it's kind of beat up. If you saw some of the slides, they're uh it's pretty cracked up. So, we plan on we we plan on paving the whole thing.
>> We did. What about that? And I now I've got to go back and look at the the plans again, but do you have erosion controls in place? If you're going to mill the whole parking lot, >> we have to adjust I we will definitely adjust. We can I mean we can certainly close the hearing tonight and send you a revised adjustment for the uh for the
milling overlay. But yeah, we'll the uh the parking lot is kind of walled in, but we will do the erosion controls needed to make sure that that happens. Absolutely. Protect against that. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Questions from
commission members. Um, >> I have one in the storm water plant and it did seem like the subsurface conditions were more or less ideal for infiltration
because there was sand that went down 15 ft. Now further down those borings you indicated a groundwater level and uh in one of the borings you hit a clay
layer and the other boring you found models which said which you interpreted as the high groundwater. I want to ask you when the borings were done was anybody trying to find what the original surface
was there and did they identify it in the borings? Do you know the answer to that? >> I do not >> I do not >> I do not have the answer to that. I know we had a soils analysis uh engineer on site when we when we did the borings, but I I don't know the answer to that.
Um I'm sorry I forgot your first name. >> Could you could you uh Thank you. Could you describe uh for an ignoramus like me, if somebody dropped off an infiltration gallery in front of my house, what would
it look like? What does it look like? How does it work? >> Plans so I can kind of walk through. I don't I want to make sure that I'm describing the what we put on the detail. >> Yes. One moment, please. it looks like
to me um >> that's why I don't want to I don't want to start describing something that we didn't expect. So I want to make sure that I'm describing the the proper um detail. But typically I'll stop and then if you if you pull it typically it would be a ohm like a like a a quarter of a
pipe that's laid on about a foot of stone that you know maybe wind up maybe two or three two or three seconds. Could you go back to the um to the the the one plan that showed the parking lot in the in the uh infiltration area itself or even
even the Holton's Pond um path house? You know, either one will work. >> There's a there's a picture of them on sheet 505 of the details. >> Thank you. The storm water is going to enter through the trench gate grates, you
know, conveyed down the a pipe to a manhole, distrib distribution manhole that then sends it into the three galleys. I think that they're three different sleeves. And there'll be these these half moon galleys that are that are placed on a foot of stone that
disperse the uh storm water evenly and infiltrate into the ground. >> So, uh they're like corrugated plastic pipes that are arch shaped and it's the
area inside those pipes that provides the storage for the water that comes in from the drains. you go to the detail sheet. Uh, could you keep going through the plan set, Heidi? >> Yes.
>> Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. All right. Right there. There you go. So, see that top right? Um, can you zoom in a little bit to the top right, Heidi? That essentially is what's going to be
underground. 45 inches tall by 77 inches wide. Is that inches? Yep. Um and and they they provide the storage on that they're set on on like a bed of stone and that that this is what
provides the storage for the uh for the storm water. >> The void under the arches. >> Say it again. >> Yeah. The storage is the voids or the space under the arches. >> Correct. Correct. then they're sized
appropriate to the uh to the collection area and the soil analysis of what you know what what what perks >> well I just say that um this is going to benefit the wetlands because you won't
have that big uh torrent of water coming in all at once and uh going to benefit H Hotton's pond as well because Hodton's needs help Right. Didn't Wasn't a Hodens closed for swimming all of last summer?
Do you know if that's a fact? >> It that was not a fact, but it was closed a lot. And that's one of the main reasons why this place was targeted through our lakes and ponds in the stormwater group um before you know to help with water quality at Holton's Pond 100% wi with in conjunction with
operations who has been battling erosion issues on the beach during you know rain events from the imperous uh deck around Holton's pond bath house. There's a big prominade deck like a concrete prominade that um that captures a lot of storm
water when it rains and it runs right down the stairs and then right into the pond. So that's what these trench grates are going to um mitigate. They're going to intercept that send it into the infiltration galleys. So the the water either gets infiltrated and never makes
it to Holton Pond or if there's a significant enough rain, then it will infiltrate where it can and then discharge through um an overflow outfall that that Heidi kind of alluded to earlier. >> Um >> wouldn't it also
>> wouldn't it be appropriate to do a job like this at the so-called yard, the construction yard? Because if you go to that yard and you look across Hillside Street, you see that the water drains out through there and there's a huge
thicket of fragmitees which is indicated indicative of sedimentation and storm water problems. So can we get another project like this at the construction yard? >> We would love to do this everywhere. You're absolutely right. But we have to
pick our projects in this being in such close proximity to Holton's Pond, we found this to be, you know, more bene especially with the with the partnership of lakes and ponds. It this is really going to be a major benefit to the water quality within Holton's pond itself. So
>> um I mean we would love to do these projects everywhere we could. >> Um yes I thank you. Uh no further questions. >> Thank you. Any any other commissioners with questions or comments?
>> I don't I don't hear anybody. Um >> John, I sorry this is Hans. I do have one question. Um you mentioned that the milling is a kind of add-on. Um just to confirm, has the current delineation assumed that full limit of work or was
the delineation more based on the just the drainage improvements? I don't know the answer to that. The delineate in in what sense? Uh, Hans, >> just making sure that the the I mean, it looks like a pretty full delineation,
but just making sure that the the limit of work for the drainage improvements, which only includes one side of the parking lot. Um, that there's no other You've confirmed there's no other wetland areas. Um, >> yes, that that I can confirm.
>> Okay. Yes. >> Yeah. That would which would be closer, Hans would be on the north side of the parking lot. >> Yeah. >> But towards the state police. >> Yeah. It looks like it it went all the way up. So >> yeah, that's that's pretty close. That's >> that's why the erosion controls are
going to be important. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. Yep. We would definitely make sure that that's that's um we would we would um revise the erosion control plan and um and and revise that limit of work that shows the uh limit around the you know the excavation area so to speak.
Absolutely. >> Perfect. Um and then I know there's a you know there are some I would call them ditches along the roadway um that runs through. Are there any >> other side of the road
>> um >> of Hillside Road and Hillside Avenue? Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, >> we wouldn't be we wouldn't be messing with any of that. >> Yeah, >> because that would be that would be upgradient and on the other side of the road. >> You're right. It is upgraded. Okay. >> Yeah,
>> sounds good. I don't have any other questions. >> Thank you. >> All right. I can't uh could you take the screen sharing down so I can see the folks? Make sure that that nobody has their hand up. No. Any other questions from commission members, members of the
public, citizens? No one. All right. So, this is a notice of intent. Uh we've got um expect we can do a conditional vote conditional upon the uh revised erosion control on on the plants. Um,
and we've got we've addressed the issue of uh no storage of or refueling of heavy equipment, hydraulic equipment um overnight uh within our jurisdiction, but I I think the state's got a plenty of places to park your equipment in that
area that would comply with that. Any other special conditions from commission members? special condition. >> Hearing no other special condition is a motion to uh approve the notice of intent by issuing a order of conditions.
Uh with that, you know, the erosion controls and the no refueling of storage overnight. Is there such a motion? >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Uh is there a second to the motion? >> Second. >> Thanks, Charlie. Any discussion among
commission members? Hearing none, seeing no hands raised, we'll go to a voice vote. Uh, uh, Tom Palmer, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Arthur Doyle, >> yes. >> Hans, >> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes.
>> Charlie, >> yes. >> And I, John Kieran, yes. As well. Thank you very much. >> Appreciate your presentation, Heidi and Tom. And when you get those those revised plans into us, Tom, we can send those to uh Philip Crystal. We'd be thrilled.
>> Absolutely. ASAP this week if we can. >> Perfect. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Great job. >> Next on the agenda is number um three, request for certificate of compliance at 1421 Canton Avenue.
You know, I I have a question, Philillip. Um I know that in the last couple of years that um D has asked us not to issue a or request a notice of intent for our enforcement orders. But I think in in
this day and a when this this one happened, I I distinctly remember this uh event. This is the one that uh the town engineer actually had a videotape of um the folks dumping um wheelbarls into the brook. Um so I remember it well
and I think we issued an order of conditions to fix it which apparently they did. But do you have the order of conditions in that same file? It would be under the address of 1421 >> I said it's in the it's not in the packet. I thought I put it in the packet as well.
>> Right. I I might have missed it. I've got the uh request for a certificate of compliance. In fact, I got like six copies maybe of that. Um and I didn't know if there was if I was
missing something. They appear to be I've got five copies. Um and I wasn't sure if I was missing something that they all appear to be the same. But it says the request is in reference to work regulated by a final order of conditions which comports with my
memory. But I just I didn't see what we had ordered on the uh order of conditions. I'm sure it was, you know, take the stuff out of the book, >> right? >> But I don't know if we asked for anything else. >> And I and I also don't know if we have a,
you know, some kind of an attestation that it's been done. Steve, have you uh gone to the site to take a look at it? >> Uh yes, I sure did. And it's it's out of the brook. >> Good. >> Yep. >> All right. You see anything?
>> Anyone else? But I didn't receive I got the order of conditions, but I don't think I received the the certificate of compliance request. >> Well, I I've got five of them. I'll trade you. >> Maybe maybe you got them all. >> I think you have mine also, John. >> Okay. Okay.
What What does the order of conditions say, Hans? Um so there are three um non-boiler plate special conditions attempt shall be made to control invasive species the site couple of times a year for the each
species Asian bittersweet Japanese notweed wetland scientist or basic species specialist next two years 2019 2020 short report or email noting the work is completed ated debris dumped in the stream shall be removed. Debris includes non-stone items eg concrete and brush. Short report or email shall be
provided to the commission that the work was completed. The stones in the stream shall be adjusted by a wetland specialist with consultation with town conservation agent to provide added stability to the bank as well as possible riffle for wildlife habitat as
appropriate. So there should be if if there isn't an attestation there should at least be some sort of letter from a well scientist or environmental professional um sort of speaking to the the
work as it was completed. >> All right. Who who do we have? I'm sorry. Who is present? Uh, I know there's a there's a new owner that uh I think the original was Diner Martin and I think she's uh left and I think there's a new owner
on site. Steve, I I I'm embarrassed. I can't recall his name. Do you know it? >> Uh, Michael something or other. Michael M something. Sorry. >> My name is Michael Rosio. >> Ah, good. Michael Rosio and uh I'm from the the
Suffach company and uh one of my companies took title to the property the end of last year uh through a foreclosure sale and uh apparently this enforcement order was issued uh two owners ago
and we discovered the uh the recorded document uh from about six years ago in the title. >> Okay. Is there any way that you can get us some kind of if you've got especially if you've got some companies um it might be easy for you. We're trying to
eliminate obstacles not create them but can you get we require for a certificate of compliance a certification um that the work done was done uh in substantial compliance with the order of conditions. It's that's our rule and regulation. Uh
is that something you could get done? I don't think it's a a big deal because Steve's been there and he's he said the stuff is out of the brook. Hans point I know there was some >> I guess support for the bank uh with the assistance of a wetland scientist. I'm not sure. I I don't have a specific
memory of what that entailed. Steve, do you >> uh Yes. I think it was Brad Holmes that actually worked on it. >> It was. So, Mike, if if you want to email me, >> I'd be happy to get you uh Brad Holmes's contact information.
>> Well, I'd be I'd be glad to assist however I can, but my company, we've done nothing. >> I know that. >> And um Right. >> except take some pictures and forward them to Steve Ives. Okay. And um yeah, >> we we compared the pictures that were
taken six years ago of about like about a dozen >> softball style uh sized rocks that were dumped in the brook and they're no longer there. Uh but I don't know who removed them and and when that was done
and um the uh but I I we don't know who the work who who did the work, what were the extent of the work. Um we were not involved at all. We're just looking to clear up the title. No, we we know that and uh we won't uh create obstacles for you, but
our rules and regulations require that there be some attestation from a a professional engineer or wetland scientist. And if Brad Holmes worked on this, and I I have a vague memory that it was Brad, but we've got two commissioners that say, "Yep, it was Brad." Uh he's accessible, he's easy,
and uh if he were write a letter saying uh they were removed the the stones and debris that was dumped in the brook. >> Yeah. Kind of a memorable survey or anything like that. >> It shouldn't require a survey or anything like that. No engineering
plans, just a just a letter. >> Well, I don't know Brad Holmes. Uh, I I am willing to call him, okay, if I'm giving his contact information. Okay. You have >> Mike, you froze for a minute, so we lost part of your sentence.
>> Sorry, I'm I'm calling it from the Caribbean, so it's uh the >> the um I I I if you give me the contact information for this fellow, I I will give him a call. Um, what you do have is
my letter with the pictures and you have Steve Ives um report that um that whatever was there before is no longer there. Okay. Um, and I am a licensed engineer as well. But um but if you give me the name of
the fellow, I I'll give him a call. I I don't again I don't know who he is and um I can't say that he was involved in doing any work because I don't even know what the work was. Okay. And uh you know my company as a recent owner and this
was two owners ago. >> I got you Mike. You're I know you're blameless. Uh we're just trying to be uniform in our application of the regs. We'll try to make it we'll try to find the path of least resistance. >> Thank you very much. And uh Steve, do you have Mike's email?
>> Um I believe so, but Mike, um why don't you why don't you give me an email? >> Steve, I I will resend an email to you. So you have my email. >> You have mine. >> I had do have yours. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. In my package, I got the order of conditions, but it was a forum only. There was no plan. So, I'm sort of completely in the dark. If you were to ask me, does anything conform to an order where I don't know of any plan? I
don't know of any plan. So, I don't know what the order was. So, how could I say it complies or not? >> Well, I can say also that um this is the first I've heard about an order of conditions. Um there's no order of conditions recorded.
Uh and they typically are required to be recorded. The um uh and and this is the first I'm learning of it. Um >> I think I'm I'm only laughing not at what you say, but I think that two homeowners ago was engaged with uh some
grand jury activity at the time, so she probably forgot to record it. Um because we usually have the applicant record. So, so my >> No, I'm familiar with that. I'm familiar with that from other conservation commissions. Yes. But, uh, it wasn't
done. >> Okay. Right. Okay. All right. I think we're gonna we're gonna help you make this right. Uh, if you just get that, Brad's a pretty good guy and I think we can take care of this in short order. And then and Phil, if you can resend uh
again for all individual files because I I just recounted them. I think I've got seven uh requests for a certificate of compliance, but no uh order of conditions. So, if you could send everybody, you know, one of each, then we'd each and make sure that if Tom
got a blank one, uh it sounds like Hans did not. So, maybe if you could just resend all of that and then we'll >> I'll save that tomorrow. >> Perfect. All right. Then we'll be in a position to get this done quickly. Mike, thanks for your patience and we'll work with you on this.
>> Thank you very much for your help. Good night. >> Okay. >> All right. Good night. >> Good night. >> All right. Next on the agenda is um notice of intent 11 Parkway Crescent. >> John, really quick on that one. Um
that's one of my neighbors. I may have to I received the the butter notification, so I may have to recuse myself. >> Oh, good. >> Just to let you unless you don't think I do. Um, no. I don't think you've got any financial interest in it. Uh,
>> no. >> I can't imagine it will go if it did anything would probably increase your increase your home value, >> which technically is an interest, but yeah. No, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure full disc.
>> Yeah, I've got a I've got a cousin that's one of your neighbors, Megan. So, >> I'll I'll put I'll public disclosure as well on that one. She's not on the abs list. So, >> um, >> so Megan, tell us what, uh, what what you're looking for.
>> Um, so good evening. Um, my name is Nick Courtney with Mel Engineers and Landfares. >> I'm going to be representing Megan and uh, Francis Senzari. Um, this application, uh, do you mind if
I share my screen? Oh, >> it's perfect. Thank you. >> All right, sounds good. Can everyone see that? Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Great. Um, so, um, Megan and Francis are looking to do
an addition to their existing home. Um, and I'll just start by running through the existing conditions for the site. So, this property is a residential developed property um with about 0.15
acres of lot area. So, it's a relatively small lot. Um there's residences abuting the site to the west, north, and east of the property. And Pine Tree Brook, it's located here
to the south. Uh wetlands were delineated by Brad Holmes of Environmental Consulting and Restoration um in July of 2025. And as a result of his um delineation,
there's inland bank located here associated with Pineree Brook and a 200 foot riverfront area off of that um inland brook. So right here is the 100 foot riverfront
area and the 200 foot would extend further out. Um there's a flood zone ab budding the site right here but no proposed work is going to be within that area. Now to run through the proposed
conditions. The applicant is looking to do a 15 and a half foot by 21.1 foot addition totaling 328 square ft. Um the proposed addition space right here.
For erosion control measures, we are proposing a 12-in diameter silt saw to limit any erosion or sedimentation from the project. uh that silt sock is located the limit of work and is this
red dash line here. We are also proposing um silt sack as necessary in any of the catch basins abunding the site in Parkway Crescent to limit any sedimentation going into the
closed drainage system in the street. Nick, apppropo of that, could you curve that silk sock along the street line? >> Uh, yes, we could do that. >> All right, that that would help us because we don't we want to keep it out clearly out of the catch basin but also
away from the street as well. >> Definitely. Um, as part of this project is in riverfront area. Uh when we were doing the notice of intent filing, we were following the
redevelopment section of the riverfront. Um because the site is obviously uh developed with this existing dwelling and you got a garage and um degraded lawn area on site.
Um, we evaluated riverfront area interests in regards to the uh Massachusetts wetland regulations and found that none of the interests such as flood control or storm damage
prevention should be affected by this project. Um in addition we are doing a small uh storm water treatment system for new roof runoff
um to provide treatment for one inch of that roof runoff. Um it's going to be a coldtech chamber located right here with a roof drain tied into the coldtech chamber. Um and we had went through the
Massachusetts storm water standards uh standards 1 through 10 to the extent practicable for this project. Um so I'm going to conclude presentation at this time and open up the floor to any questions. Thank you for listening.
>> Thanks Nick. Yeah, my I already uh made my one comment because I had when I looked at your plan, I just wanted to make sure that that silt sock, you know, curved around and uh and protected the street uh as well as the catch basin. >> Yep,
>> we can definitely do that. >> Commission members, >> no comment here. >> This is Steve. >> Go ahead. Um, D is still waiting for a plan and a
fee, by the way, on this project. >> It's It's on the D notice of intent website. >> Do we have a a D number? >> Yes, we do. >> There is a number without a fee. Wow. >> Um, >> you are you should buy a lot of
>> Can I Can I add to that real quick? >> Yeah. Yes, of course. Um, so we had sent over a set of plans, uh, the notice of intent application and the appropriate fee to the D narrow office, I believe
August 1st. Um, and we got a receipt of mailing back from them August 4th. So, they should have the plans. I didn't get a chance to check with anyone over there as where they are, but I saw we
got a file number this week or late last week. >> Do Do you have it right there, Dick? Do you have the file number? >> Yes. Um, whenever you're ready. >> I'm ready. >> All right. 046
dash 0658. Okay, that's good because we we actually can't vote unless there's a number issued, but you got given us a number. So, that's a big that's a big help. >> All right, no problem. >> Tom, did you have a question?
>> Yeah. Um, I commend Mr. uh Courtney for very complete plan and project description. I think it was very well done. There's like a lot of information here. It allows us to tell what they're
proposing. The photographs were very good. I I will quibble with him about calling a lawn a degraded area in the parliament of the Rivers Protection Act.
I would say degraded areas are described in those regulations and they're old dumps, building foundations, coal ash, things that are really degraded. A lawn is a deliberate
construction and it's alive. It's vegetated. Uh what strikes me about this plan is that all the new stuff is closer to the river than what exists already.
>> And there something else I notice is that the distance between the new enclosed portion of the house shown in brown on this plan. It's going to be less than six feet from the I guess it'll be the fence along the walkway
there. And up in the right corner of the plan, which you can't see in our screenshot, it there's a little box that says zoning requirements and it says uh side setbacks should be 10 ft. And
yet here we're talking about 5.5. Does that mean this will have to go to the board of appeals for a variance from zoning? >> Um, so as far as we're aware at the moment, it will not. Um, I believe
we had correspondence with the architect. Um, and they were relatively familiar with uh the zoning bylaw for Milton. Um and we had come to the conclusion
through reading the zoning bylaw and correspondence that as of right you should be able to um maintain the same non-conforming dimension. So, we have the existing deck that bumps out
uh 5.5 ft here, and we're keeping the same uh setback to the property line. Um if if by chance that's interpreted differently by the building department, we would deal with it then and have to
pull back or reconfigure the addition. It would be smaller. Um but at this time this is what we saw fit for >> um I get it. Yeah. I was wondering if that might be the reason um from a wetlands perspective.
Uh you're going from lawn to a rooftop and you are uh dealing with the increased impervious by adding this storm water device that's shown in gray here. Um, but it occurs to me that if you want
to avoid and increase an impervious altogether, you can remove some of the existing paved area. And I noticed that there's a paved drive on both sides of the house. There's one on the north side that goes
to a garage and then there's another one in the southeast part. >> It simply seems to be a parking area. Did you consider removing that impervious to make up for the impervious service you're adding with the addition?
>> Um, we did not consider that as part of this project and I can't speak for Megan and Francis. Um, but I do not believe they wish to remove the paved driveways um for parking area.
>> Okay. I from the perspective of the riverfront area regulations the over writing consideration is try to make if you're going to work in the regulated area and this is inside the 100 foot so
it's quite close if you're going to work in that area try to reduce the ambious surface or at least not increase it and um I think the submission is clear that there will be an increase that is about
the size of this addition. Um, just makes me uncomfortable because I feel like I'm not regulating a project to have to have the impacts mitigated if the impervious is increasing within the
inner riverfront area, which seems to be what is happening. Not by a lot, but by the dimensions of this new addition. I wonder what any of the other commissioners say about that. >> We've approved projects like this a
number of times. >> Yes. Would you agree that there is an increase in impervious? >> Yes. As most additions are >> right. So that's what you want to mitigate and you can if you can reduce
impervious somewhere else then there is no increase. And I think a lot of our projects have tried to do that. >> Tom, can I ask this? I understand what you said about mitigation for the increase in imperous surface,
but doesn't the cult chamber mitigate that increase by basically holding the at least a one inch rainwater? >> Yes, it does. >> Yeah, I agree. But it's true that
it it accommodates the extra runoff, but there is still a loss of vegetated area in the inner riverfront area. It's going from vegetated to imperous. So, I don't know. I I guess I would if I
was being the tough guy and trying to protect the resources the best I could, I would ask that some impervious surface get removed per like that paved area on that's right on top of the lot line. You
know, I have a lot similar to this. It's even a bit smaller. And uh I only have a driveway on one side of my house. I don't have it on both sides. Maybe we can hear from the property owner why this they would like to keep this area
paved. >> Um >> Megan or Francis can can you respond? >> Sure. Yeah. Francis is actually watching. He's in the air flying home and he's watching on YouTube live so he can't comment but he is watching. Um we
we would like to keep both driveways. It's been really helpful for us with our um children just to have the or our child and our we're expecting another um to have the extra space to have um so
ideally we would like to keep it. >> I I don't mean to be stupid but if I have a child I would rather them to be on grass than on pavement, right? I mean that just I don't see why the child needs a paved
area. >> Megan Megan, did you understand Tom's question? It related to the paved area, not the size of the addition. >> I understand. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's it's um helpful for us to each be able to leave.
We each have a car in one of the driveways and um have been able to leave quickly if needed. I I don't have a very compelling argument. Tom, I'm sorry. It's been very convenient for us to have both and um when we started this
project, our hope had been to keep both driveways if possible. >> I understand that if you have two, then you don't have to jockey the cars. That makes sense. Um but from our point of view, we just the
orthodoxy in protection is try to limit the increase in imperous services. Um I guess for myself, if the rest of the commission feels that we can accept the increase in impervious
service, I'm going to go along with it as well. Uh Nick, this is Charlie Bosworth. I just have a quick question on the Peltech Chamber. Sure. And this is in concert with with Tom's
question on the uh creating more impervious. Uh with the Caltech chamber, aren't we capturing more runoff and infiltrating it into the ground versus uh rainfall running across the ground
and down gradient towards the stream? So, aren't we in fact infiltrating more water than we would if we didn't have if we weren't capturing it and we were letting it run over overland? >> That is correct. Yeah.
>> Well, isn't it so that the existing lawn is not impervious, so it would absorb water before it began to run off. A lawn in the soil if it's permeable will drink up certain amount of rain before it
starts running off. So I agree that yes the cult will capture runoff but what's there now captures some amount of runoff is on >> agreed Tom completely agree. I I'm just
looking at this from a standpoint of infiltrating it back into the ground before it runs off the property. >> And yeah, >> will the chamber take runoff from any areas beside the addition?
>> It's not really clear to me. Yeah, Nick, I would assume that the chamber has been sized to capture the amount of water uh that is now being um uh will be impacted. It'll be an
impervious area. I'm assuming the Caltech chamber was sized for that area. >> Right. So, um down here we just did a little storm water calculation based on this is the increase in pvious area. um
328 square feet and it's typical to do treatment for one inch of runoff. Um >> so we just did um 328 square feet times one inch to get a certain
uh amount of >> coming in at 27 cubic uh feet that we would need to recharge and infiltrate. Um and the coldtech chamber with surrounding stone provides almost 50
cubic feet. So double um what would be required for one inch of treatment. >> Thank you. That answers my question. >> Okay. >> Sorry I was on mute there. Any other commissioners have questions or comments? >> Uh, Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes, Steve. >> Steve Ibus here. Couldn't the existing paved drive >> at the Let me think that's southoutheast corner. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> South south what? Whatever the corner is there. Southwest to southeast. Um, wouldn't that be converted to a um a in semi-impermeable driveway?
>> You mean like gravel or pavers? >> Yes, with pavers with grass planted in between pavers. >> That might work. Nick. >> Uh, >> Megan, what what do you think that would make Tom happy?
>> Make me happy, too. >> That >> you broke up a little bit, Megan. >> Oh, we would certainly be willing to consider that. Um, and just so you know, Megan, it would be
these uh pavers with some voids in the middle. I can send you over some information about them um to look at. Um, one other thing that's probably worth pointing out, and I know it's not
a storm water control that's present on the site itself, but there is there are two additional storm water basins that are between the the property and the the resource area. So there is there is other treatment occurring there that's
actually not captured in this design which is appropriately not being captured because it's more designed to catch the the roadway runoff and the flooding. But um that area actually has pretty significant storm water
protection already. >> Yes. >> One quick >> one quick question, Steve. Are you suggesting that they um they install a pvious paver system in lie of the culttech chamber? >> Oh no, not at all. In addition to the
culttech. >> That's all. >> I think if if I'm correct, um Steve, are you talking about this area here potentially being converted to those pvious papa? >> Okay, >> that's correct.
wood gravel was mentioned, but you know, we have a cold touch chamber and we have the mitigating factors on Parkway Crescent itself that Hans point out. It's a lot of protection there at
present and we don't know that >> the amount of lawn that's going to be lost absorbs any great degree of water. They have no idea what the composition of the soil is, what the angularity is.
So, I'm I'm not inclined to um put an imposition on the applicant to require them to remove the paved drive at this time. Just so they know where I am.
>> Yeah, I was just making a suggestion. it will be torn up anyway as a construction entrance or at least tracked up. Um, I do like the idea of getting mitigation for increased
impervious by adding more fervvious in the driveway area. Although I believe Arthur makes a real point that some lawns absorb more water than others. We don't know how much this one
absorbs. >> And and Hans has made a point about these small basins that are literally adjacent to the site that are on site right now. >> Yeah, they could have been on the plan.
I'm not sure why they're not. >> Yeah, >> they were they were flagged by Brad Holmes, but they weren't put on the plan. One of the things that could be considered is a gravel margin along the sides of the
babe drive, particularly on the side uh facing toward the river. >> Yes. Yes, that sounds like a very good idea. >> So, it's a combination of the two the pavement and and have some additional
mitigation by putting in um marginal area of gravel. Yes, >> I agree with that, Arthur. That's a that's a good idea. >> We just did that at 1034 Blue Hill Avenue, >> right? >> French train right alongside the
driveway. >> Yeah, >> that's easy. And Nick or Megan, it's cheap. >> But just to just to be clear, I mean, and I don't know the answer to this, but Megan, do do you get surface flow? I mean, do you ever get water running over
your driveway or do you ever get any any flooding in that spot? Not that I can recall. No, we haven't had an issue. >> So, it does stay pretty dry. >> It does. >> Okay.
>> I would just say that this idea of a gravel trench seems to me okay compromise. It does somewhat address this impervious issue. >> Wendy, you've been silent. anything.
>> Um, I'm I'm wondering if perhaps I missed something in the presentation. Is there is there a compelling argument why the addition is not being proposed on the
part of your lot that is further away from the over by the garage? Um if I may, I'll I'll just run through really quick. Um so when
looking at this addition, uh I had done a rough alternatives analysis um for you know other potential areas on the site. Um if you were to put the addition over here, let's say, is that what you're suggesting uh Wendy on
this side? Wendy, you may >> as far away from the brook as possible. Where it is now is as close as possible. I would prefer the opposite. >> Yeah. Um Okay. So, if I may, um
this is the setback line on this side of the property. And if you were to put the addition on this side, first of all, you'd lose the access to this garage and you'd be increasing the
nonconformity to the zoning bylaw on this side. You'd be pushing into the setback. Whereas on this side, you're match >> if you were on the other side of the garage, just to interrupt you. Um,
but you're on the other side of the garage. You would not be interfering with the driveway. >> Um, so here, right here, is this what you're suggesting back here >> as one possibility? Yes.
>> Yeah. Uh, I believe that would be the same case. Um, you'd be increasing the nonconformity for the House. So, you'd be pushing back this setback for the House. way into here.
So, they're kind of the same argument for adding the additional the back or the side. You're going to be increasing nonconformity for the zoning bylaw, >> but you're also um non-conforming with the setbacks as
proposed. And you said that you weren't concerned about that. >> This would be an as of right um proposition here because we're maintaining this setback to the deck. Um as far as I'm aware that's an as of
right. Um >> so Nick, what you're saying there's an existing deck there now and you're utilizing the same footprint which um grandfathers you into uh staying within your conformity on the lot,
>> right? >> Okay. So let's say we bump this out to 16 feet this way. then that would require some other type of permit potentially a variance or a special permit to allow
that to happen. >> Um, and when in the area behind next to the garage that wouldn't block the garage, that's actually a one story house. It would be difficult to attach a twotory edition.
All right. Well, we've we've kind of gone around the block on this one. We've got some a number of ideas. What I'm trying to do, and Megan, for your benefit, and uh Francis, I always look for the path of least resistance. Uh I know you you need to have a an addition
here, and we're trying to help you do it in the best way possible. Um, so if I could kind of put all these comments together, it sounds like there may be grounds for a compromise in the area of mitigation. The first mitigation that I
see is that you're accommodating the runoff with a cult chamber. A second mode of of uh mitigation would be to add a a French drain, which is just like a 12-inch wide trench right next to the driveway, which keeps your ability to
put the car there if if that's what you want and you find convenient. Uh so that would be two means of mitigating the increase in imperous surface. Um and then you've got the additional uh catch basins off property on on the street. uh and you've agreed, you know, at least
during construction to put in this, you're going to curve that erosion controls around on the street side to protect uh any runoff into the street and then into the brook. Um is there a consensus there? And I I'm not ignoring what you just said, Wendy.
Um but it it doesn't look like it looks like there would be more of a need for a variance. and and Megan and Nick, please be aware that you can't use if if we were to approve this plan, you can't use that with the ZBA and say, "Hey, they've
already approved it." Um, you know, that's that's their province. That's not ours. If they want to allow you to do whatever it is, 5.5 ft, that's within their Bailey Wick. That's not us. Um, so it would be contingent upon if we were
to approve this plan, you know, with the amendments. Uh it's all contingent upon the ZBA giving you the very if you need it. And Nick, I heard what you said. You think it's a matter of right. God bless you. I hope you're right. Um uh but I don't know. Is there a is there a sense
among the commission members that we could arrive at a compromise uh between the Coltech Chamber and the French drain alongside the driveway and leave the proposed addition on the um Riverside? John, it's Charlie. I I agree with that
assessment. >> And John, this is Steve. I would also agree. >> Wendy, how do you feel? Because I I know you were a proponent of of moving the addition. Um, and I don't from an architectural point of view, I don't know if that'll work because Megan just
said you've got a two-story addition attaching to a one-story garage. And I don't know. I'm not I'm not venturing into the world of architecture. >> Um, in principle, I'm I'm not in favor of of adding
more development closer to the river when there's an alternative, but I will uh defer to the wise judgment of my colleagues. >> Tom, where are you on that? Um, I guess
I'm sort of where Wendy is. And the reason is, I think, because this lot is tight. This space is reasonable in terms of existing house for an addition.
So I'm sort of willing to bend my principle somewhat that projects should not result in a net increase in impervious areas in the inner riverfront area. And uh one more thing I would say
is that you see the orange line down at the bottom the dash line. Yes, >> I believe. Yeah, that's the flood plane boundary. And we know that storms are getting worse and floods are getting higher. And
here's more building that's right on the edge of the flood plane. So, this new building, as useful as it will be to the tenants, is sort of in harm's way as far as Pine Tree Brook goes. Now, we
know that Pine Tree Brook does not flood because of the flood storage dam up at Uncle Harland that holds it back. Probably won't flood again like it did in 55. But things are changing. Floods are getting worse.
Um, it's a little bit >> It's a little bit of a hostage to the climate future to build right here, I would say. Even though I don't believe this owner needs to buy flood insurance because they're outside the boundary,
people in the neighborhood do, as you can see, that orange boundary curves around and goes up toward the top of the plan for some reason. Don't really know why. At any rate, that's the condition at this site
going forward, but I agree that some mitigations are included to an extent that I think we can approve it. >> Yeah, Tom, quick note on that. that is actually a brand new um delineated
boundary and um my property is just a little bit further north and and I got a letter earlier in the summer indicating that I need to purchase flood insurance. So, um that that flood boundary is actually new as of July.
>> I I see it's very curious the way it takes a sharp turn there away from the brook >> is what it is. Lucky them. >> Yes. Well, I'm sorry about that. Hans, may you stay dry. >> I don't I don't skirt the regulations.
So, >> all right. Anybody else? Uh and again, I'm not I'm looking at everybody. We've heard from Wendy, Tom, Charlie, Arthur. Do you uh are you comfortable with this compromise?
>> I am. Um and based upon the conversation, I'll um make a motion accordingly, Mr. Chairman, that um well, let let first let me ask if there are any members of the public, particularly Abutters, but not limited to Autis' have a question or
a comment. I I don't hear anybody, but I don't see all the participants because of the screen share. Uh could you take that down? Okay. So, I I don't see any hands either. So, uh, without further ado, then do you have a motion, Arthur?
>> Uh, yes. With the sort of double mitigation, um, that, um, the one that's incorporated into the plan and then the French train addition on both sides of the driveway >> on both sides. I I only had the
downstream when I said it, but >> you only want one size, Hans. >> That's that's what's been proposed. And again, that's above and beyond. But yeah, just a small French drain on one side of the loop. >> I I prioritized the riverside, but I wasn't
>> I wasn't excluding the possibility that water could sheet onto the driveway from above the driveway, so to speak. So there' be a French train for that purpose as well on the other side of the driveway. But I'll defer to the
engineers. So there's there's also markings on the street there from the town of Milton. I think they're going to also be repairing the the road there as well. So um there's going to be adequate storm water protection,
more than adequate storm water protection there in my opinion. >> Then I'll go with the riverside. I'll leave it at that. >> All right. and and would you take a friendly amendment to just include that u our approval if it if it passes our
approval uh is is not intended to impinge upon ZBA um that that they're that's within their province as to whether or not a variance is needed or not. >> Understood and agreed. >> All right. and Megan for your benefit
and and Nick as well we we um we have a standard uh condition that is that you can't store equipment basically hydraulic any motorized equipment overnight within our jurisdiction and you can't refuel that equipment um
within our jurisdiction but all that means is that your contractor would need to if if they were using like a I don't know excavator or backho or something they'd have to pull it out at night time. Okay. >> All right. So, that's uh this motion. Is
there a second for that? >> Second. >> Thanks, Charlie. Any discussion among commission members? >> Hearing none. Uh Tom, how do you vote? >> I vote yes. >> Wendy, how do you vote?
>> Yes. >> Hans, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Arthur, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> And I, John Kieran, vote yes as well. So, with those special conditions, Megan, you're good to go. And up up there in the sky, uh, Francis, if you can hear us, you're good to go. Okay.
>> Thank you from both of us. >> All right. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, and thank you for your patience with the process. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thanks. Thanks. >> Okay. Now, we're up to five. discussion and vote on the tree placement 131
Elliot Street continued from 78 2025. And Charlie, were you able to find that um revised? >> I was John. Uh if you can bear with me, I'll pull up the email that was sent. So
we the the original enforcement order was dated 61205. The revised enforcement order was issued on August 22nd, 2017.
>> August 27th, 20 17 >> 22nd 22 August 22. >> Got it. >> 2017. >> All right. And what it states is, let me get down a
section under the section C order. It um it states the following. Um and this is specific to the tree dimensions and and numbers that we that were in the original enforcement order. So it says the property owner shall take
the following action to pre prevent further violations of the act. The the property owner shall be required to plant five legacy trees legacy species defined as black oak.
Bear with me. My phone ling black hackberry or red oak. And to ensure the survivability, the commission is willing to reduce the caliber size from 6 in to 4 in to get the
largest survivable legacy trees. The planting location of the trees needs needs to be approved by the Milton Conservation Commission. So that's what the revised order states.
6 in to 4 in I understand. But what happens to the 12 in? I I I can only read what's written here, John. >> John, if I recall, it was the 12 inch that was the issue that they brought up
the concern that the the 12 in it's it's a lot harder to transplant a 12-in tree. >> Oh, absolutely. That that I remember they'd have to take down wires to to get it in place to traverse the uh the roads of the town after we found a location.
>> Yeah. But also digging the tree itself. I mean, that the act Agree. >> Yeah. >> Oh, so that would speak to the survivability issue, Hans. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I I see. Okay. >> But it it still doesn't make sense
because what the original June of 2015 order says one black cherry 12in caliber, three hackberry 6-in caliber, and two red oak of 6inch caliber. So,
we've got one 12 in and five 6 in. And then the 2017 order only addresses the five Well, take the number out. It only addresses the 6-in caliber trees.
Wow. I wonder whether or not we could find because that that's a that's a that's a big issue. Um, so maybe what we could do is just do some research and look at the the minutes of the meeting or, you know, whatever recordation or notes that were taken in back in 2017
because obviously who who signed that? I presume I signed it. >> Uh, let's see. Uh, yeah, John, you're on there. It looks like Ingred. Uh Kathleen Bowen's signature is on
there and I can't make out the other two signatures. >> J maybe Judith Daryl Kemp or Jerry Burke? >> Um they look like scribbles, John. >> Got it. Okay. >> But aren't there typed names beside
them? >> Uh let me tell you. Um, bear with me again. I'm on my phone here with this. It doesn't It doesn't appear. So, in the in the
copy that I have, there is not a typed name next to the signatures. >> Okay. It's just section B that states appeals signatures. And there's four signatures in Kathleen Bowen signature.
for signatures public. >> Okay. Well, >> we're getting a lot of feedback on on your mic. Do you think you can mute it a little bit? >> I'm getting feedback also, Hans.
>> Got it. Thanks. All right. So, it it it looks like there's some confusion. As I told you, this was a contentious issue over a number of years. And um I I know transportation uh and transplanting are
an issue. Um but it's unlikely that we ignored that um that 12-in tree unless we took it as six sixinch trees. I' I'd like to go back and see if we've got minutes of the meeting or notes of the meeting. And I'd
like to talk to Ingred. He may have a memory. I I don't have a memory of which I usually claim to have a pretty good memory of the discussion and who was on which side. I I know that Judith was um active on this this particular issue. Um
Wendy, were you there in 2017? >> No, I was not. >> Okay. Um well thought maybe you could do some research but so that we don't slow the process down because tonight we're going to be considering whether or not you know we apply whatever trees were
required uh if we if we can shift those over to Park uh which is where we are on the agenda right now. So, we're actually looking at um uh tree replacement 131 uh Elliot
Street. And then we've got if we can jump to um I'm sorry I thought we had well I guess maybe implicit in number five was you know putting them in in Beverly Park
because we do have in our packet the you know Peley Park tree locations and we've got um the email from uh Steve Connley And for the public's benefit, I should read it. I know we've all got it in the
packet, but it says to Philip Driscoll. Um, we were contacted by commission member Bossworth regarding the planting of trees at the location of Forbelly Park on Sum Street. My understanding is that the conservation commission members are looking for this location as a suitable site for us to complete requirements listed on the revised
enforcement order issued August 22nd, 2017 regarding 131 Elliot Street. Commission member Bossworth connected us with Bill Madden who is providing professional design services for the project. Please see the attached landscape plan provided by Gregory
Lombardi Design Inc. Um I think that's where Bill Madden works. I believe highlighting the location of the proposed trees. If the conservation commission approves these locations, we will coordinate with Bill and plant the trees. So maybe we could address uh that
issue because attached to that email from uh Steve Conley to Philip is I I believe this is um um I think it's Bill Matson's plan um
landscaping. This is pretty small print. Philip, can you help me out? This is a plan. We're looking at L1.01 and it's got some locations for trees and there are a number of them. I think
the only issue that some people might have is that on this proposed plan, uh we've got a number of different trees. We've got um gosh, somebody's going to have to help my eyesight here. I know we've got
uh red maple. We've got um Hackberry and uh Steve, can you read them? >> Um I don't have them up on the screen right now, but I remember uh there was a um river birch and it was a river birch,
but it was not a native. It was a um it was a hybrid as I remember. That's That's the current plan, right, that you're looking at, John? >> Well, I've got a landscape plan in the lower right hand corner. It says L1-01.
And this is Beverly Park, Summer Street, Milton, Mass in the top right. I thought that was in the packet. That doesn't >> it was in the packet. >> Yeah. Can you read it, Philip? Uh because I'm having a hard time. Right. I >> um >> I shouldn't wear glasses, but under the
>> botanical name, name, and then the size. >> Um and then there's a a caliber off to the right. That's on the left hand side. >> Hold on, >> John. I can see a um >> there's a shad bush,
red maple, and hackberry. >> Yeah. What's the first one? Downey >> Emilier >> Downey Shadlow. There were 11 of those followed by
>> three red maple. >> Three red maple and then >> five hackberry. >> Hackberry. >> So my understanding, John, is that um Mr. Connley intends to donate the trees that are required
under his enforcement order and and um plant them uh in these locations at Beverly. >> But who's whose plan is it that we're looking at? Is this Bill Madden? >> Yes, this this is Bill Madden's plan. He
met with Mr. Connley and um Bill was very gracious to include Mr. Connley's um tree mitigation uh into uh Peverly Playground final
design, which is basically what we're looking at here. and the in the the locations that the the trees are situated that are part of the enforcement order uh could be planted before the the uh the playground
even starts. >> That's true. as as long as as we have the uh property boundary lines because we don't want we don't want to get into a an issue on this land swap because it will
trigger an article 97 issue and we we've got an article 97 issue coming up in the next town meeting at the end of October. Uh there's an article being submitted on the uh land swap uh that took place. So, uh, we need
to be make sure that we're in full compliance. Um, and >> you know, >> did anybody talk Charlie? Did you talk to Bill about that? Whether that's a 4 acre because I think the the provision was no more than four acres would be uh to the park department.
>> So, I just wanted this boundary is no more than four acres. >> My last conversation with Bill, they uh they they were actually shrinking the original design down a little bit. Uh, so it's not it's not growing. It's
>> it's um it's it's it's a might be slightly slightly smaller than the original plan. >> I did have a email. >> They're talking about your issue right now. >> I did have a Steve
phone number. I'd like to know who's there. >> Steve, you're live on the >> You've got it. Steve, you with us? Sure. Steve Ibis. >> Hello, Steve. >> Yes. Steve Connelly is trying to get into the meeting.
>> Okay. >> That's who I'm on the phone with. >> Okay. >> Good luck, Steve. >> So, uh, John, I was looking at the email chain. >> I know. You should be able to get in >> that Mr. Connley had sent me.
>> Um, >> sure. when he sent over that revised order and he had mentioned in the email that um part of the enforcement or the med uh mitigation plan was to plant
certain species on the project in lie of that 12-in tree. Now I don't have any um any do you remember that Hans I see you shaking your head? >> I do. I do. And it was basically to to increase the number of plantings overall
to try and equal out to the the the large trees that that Mr. Connelly was concerned about the feasibility of. >> H one thing I'm certain of is that we never allowed the landscaping plan for the project
to be in lie of the sanction for the enforcement order. That was abundantly clear. >> Okay. because that was an early suggestion from the applicant and the commission unanimously said now you can't do that. >> Yeah, this was >> plan's got to go up or down on its own
merits and you can't you can't use the sanction to fulfill your landscape plan obligations. We we kept those separate and that that was we were >> So you're talking about the the large tree
the the the issue with the the removal of the large tree >> separate from the the modification of the overall landscape plan. Well, I I I don't have a memory of modifying it, but the plan that the
landscape plan that we approved was separate and distinct from the sanction imposed for removing the the John Adams oak. >> That was clear. Now, we might have modified the the landscape plan later on, but I that's what I I don't have a
memory of. It doesn't seem to be in that >> 17 order. Um, so what what I suggest is we just we we move on with this. Um, >> hang on a second. I'm I'm going to invite you right now
into the meeting if I can figure out how to do that. >> Steve, why why don't you go on mute while you're talking to Steve Connley? >> I shall. >> Thanks. Okay. Um, and I think that's the best uh best way to just move this this forward. It
sounds like we've got a plan in place. Um, I just want to make sure that we that the plan that we approve for the planting of these trees being transferred from 131 Elliot Street to Pevelly Park is within the right. We don't want to approve a plan that
exceeds the four acres. And I can't tell I heard what you said, Charlie, but I can't tell if this is is the the new revised U plan that is smaller than an original or a previous plan. I don't know what size this is, but we've got to be very
careful of that. >> Yeah, John. And I don't I I don't know any of that information regarding the original plan uh size versus where we are now. That's something that obviously we're going to have to vet out before
even moves forward. >> Okay. So, why why don't we do this? just take a look at this and just put the 12-in tree aside for the time being. Uh take a look at the plan proposed because as Steve pointed out, uh at least one of them is not a native. Does anybody have
a problem with with that because I think we've been >> I would point out, John, the birches are not trees. >> They're bushes. The river burges, the shad bushes are not trees. They're
shrubs. Also, they're multi- stemmed. A shrub has many stems. A tree has one stem. Shad bush is multi- stemmed. And so is river birch, the ones that are
commonly planted. They usually have three stems. You know, as you go into the library over that, you walk over the ditch into the library, those are all river birches. They're all multi- stems. They're not big trees. Now, if you want
to use this area to soak up the mitigation from central A, I would say hackberry grape, red oak, grape, black oak, grape. Those are big trees, though. they can't really be added to this plan
because it's already stuffed with plantings and these are big trees that take a lot of space. Now, you said, well, we have article 97 concerns we can't expand the footprint of Beverly, the playground area. I would just say
that if the trees were planted on our land outside the boundary of the park department land, I don't think that's an expansion of the project because planting of trees is appropriate for
conservation land. So I'm just suggesting there might be a workaround where we can get the number of trees appropriate to fill out all the mitigation
owed us from Elliot Street without interfering with the existing plan if we were to plant them slightly further out away from the boundaries of the playground.
That's just an a suggestion. I would say in my mind, >> yeah, in my mind, um the issue with these big caliber trees going on >> is that >> it's very difficult to plant them and
get them to live. As you remember, I circulated a 10-in oak that was 200 years old, and we're talking about 12inch oaks. So it just from a practical point of view I
would say let's use our rule of thumb and impose mitigation in caliber inches and where if we're trying to replace an Adam's oak that was 6 feet in diameter
we'll do it with 3-in caliber trees there will just be a lot of them and why do I say 3-inch caliber because That's the size the trees are marketed and planted at. As far as I know, I don't really know that you can acquire bigger
trees than that. Now, I know that it was important to uh Judith to get this mitigation right, and I would like to follow her lead on it, but from a practical point of view, I just don't see the
the um viability or the practicality of looking for these big trees to plant. That's just my point of view, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Ste Steve Connelly would like to
try to go through speaker on this phone in front of me and talk to the group if that's okay with you. >> Yeah, it is. >> Go ahead, Steve. You can hear us. >> No. >> Can you hear him?
>> Slightly, but get the phone closer to your speaker. Um, >> don't we have a call-in number on the uh candy call directly? >> I thought so, but >> there is a number on the agenda.
>> He couldn't get into it, John. >> Okay. Well, I I I tried to get in either. >> Yes, that's him. But he I can't he can't get inside. Well, he's he's muted if
he's on the phone. >> He's muted. >> Yes. But I don't know if he has an ability to unmute on the phone. >> Yeah. The the phone service usually says uh like star six or six. >> Exactly. >> Right. Star six.
>> Um Steve, I believe you have the ability as the host. >> I'm sorry. Zoom. I'm not catching this meeting. >> He's in. He's in. Hello. Hi, Stevie. We can now.
>> He's in. Okay. >> Wow. Okay. All right. Sorry, guys. Um uh regarding the the first thing is that we did incorporate some of the satisfaction of the
enforcement order into the notice of intent. John, it's condition number 47 and what it states is the applicant shall plant uh the largest survivable heirloom tree. Um the commission agreed
to amend the enforcement order to reflect the partial satisfaction of the required sanctioned order. What we did is we had a we had an extensive con uh discussion in August of 217 and my the goal of that meeting for from our perspective was to quantify what
would be left after the notice the work for the notice of intent was complete on site and that's when it was agreed to that we'd have remaining five 4inch caliper trees offsite. So that was discussed extensively at
that meeting in 217. >> So what was planted pursuant to provision 47? >> What whatever is whatever is on that landscape plan I you know it's four years ago now. Whatever is on that landscape plan that we submitted for the
notice of intent everything is there. I think if I remember right, there was 23 trees total, 19 off site and then three uh four along the streetscape on Central Avenue, new ones. So there was 23 total
and then we have um these five for streets remain. >> All right. I'm trying to reflect back because I I we may be in total agreement on this, but there was an originally approved
landscape plan for the project and then as you say, we we went back and revisited that and we modified the landscape plan by adding stuff >> and and that's how we came up with the we had 19 total, John, because the the
uh the notice of intent we came in with a plan. I remember disc, you know, I remember what you had said that we we wanted to have that satisfy the order and the commission said no and I remember that. But we did come to it an agreement that the landscape plan would
be a partial satisfaction and that these five 4inch trees would be the remainder. It was the the discussion was with Michael Blute, Arthur Doyle, uh Ingred was there and uh yourself and that that I I watched that I don't know how many
weeks ago. I watched it again after the last meeting. It's on that Milton Access TV, you know, on the on the YouTube website. You can you if anyone wanted to watch it, they could see that section. So, um, >> so far, you know, I'm just trying,
>> but when you read that 47, it says that you were going to add to the landscape plan. Did you say a legacy tree or four four legacy trees or something? Can you just read that again? >> Uh, I talked about an planting the largest survivable
legacy tree. So, and I I believe there's red oak trees on site there. I just have I'd have to get that plan again, John. But I believe we have red oak trees along with other trees. There's 19 in total on site and four on the um on the uh streetscape for a total of 23.
>> So Steve, did you Steve, did you update the landscape plan to fulfill the requirements? Um >> the landscape the landscape plan Yeah,
the landscape plan that was approved is the landscape plan that was that was generated after our meetings. >> Okay. So, the final plan is always >> Hold on. Let me just clear this up. So, you had an original landscape plan and then to uh meet the requirements of the
enforcement order. You you did an addendum to your landscape plan. We before we if I remember correctly and again this is going back to she is 217 now we we came in it was uh Allan and
Major was our engineer we came in we had multiple meetings with the conservation commission regarding this because we got these things approved before we took possession of the town owned lots there was a lot of things going on at that time with that site. So
this the the final plan that we submitted that got approved for the order and conditions that plan was in and approved. There was never a quote unquote amended plan to it. It went through the meetings and then the final plan was voted on and signed off on by
the commission and that's what's on file right now. So there was a there was a number of meetings on that notice of intent. >> That's true. There were a number of meetings. All right. So, I think just to to move this along,
I'd like to to see that, you know, 47 uh and go over and go over that. Um because the 12-in tree just kind of disappeared on the enforcement order. And it may be as a result of what you just said, the article I mean, provision 47 on the June
of 2017 order. Um, so it it it may work out. So why don't we just we're not even we don't have a certificate of compliance for the enforcement order before us anyway. So I
think we can address the Beverly Park component of this by addressing the five 4inch trees. Um, and I agree with what Tom Palmer said that we don't have to be too concerned with the the limitations
of the four acres because we can put it on our own land. I just don't want to get into a box on article 97 that we we would then have to come up if if if we're changing the use uh from whether active recreation to passive recreation
by planting trees there. We don't have land that we could give to ourselves to replace that land. Um >> unders. So with the would the best thing to be moving before anything gets planted is obviously coordinate with the conservation commission along with uh
Bill Madden who's the point person forever park and just have a have a sitewalk if this if ultimately this is decided on to be a good location five trees. We'll just coordinate and make sure we're in the right spot. >> Yeah, I think so. So, I'd like to get
make sure from Bill Madden that we've get the the final from their perspective that their final approved plan to make sure it's the four acres and if it it's got to be four acres and then if the appropriate location for the trees is outside of that, it's on our land. So, we could
approve that as Tom pointed out and I think that probably makes the best sense and then at the same time we can confirm >> you know the uh provision 47 as Steve has just indicated uh and that'll put us in a position
to take a look at the certificate of compliance >> which is not before us now anyway. >> That's right. And we just tonight it's just to get the okay to plant the trees. Right. >> Right. So the only thing that's left here is
this nonnative species and whatnative species. What? >> Yeah. I mean Wendy, I'd like to hear from you. >> Yeah. I mean >> what you think >> Wendy? I'd like to hear >> I don't know why that's echoing.
>> Wendy what what do you think about the species and we're talking about five 4inch trees at Pely Park or its environments. And I Tom Tom just pointed out that some of these are
>> Yeah. Um why is it that that there's a suggestion of using nonatives? >> Uh I think we're conflating two issues here. um the the the the planting schedule
that we're looking at on the landscape plan for Peverly. Um the those the 11 uh the 11 shrubs that we're talking about, that's a Beverly issue. That's not a Steve Connley issue.
Just to make just to make it clear, Mr. Connley is not propo proposing to put in those 11 um non-natives. That's a Beverly Park issue. Right. Um on the on the landscape plan, they had >> Okay. Um
>> asked for they had asked for a hackberry. And I guess it's because it's the cleanest of the three that were listed, black oak, red oak, or hackberry. And they felt that would be the best tree to be in proximity to the play area.
>> Yeah, that that sounds fine. But I thought that Steve and a number of people said that one of the proposals, which I'm having a hard time reading, is is not native, number one. And then number two, as Tom just pointed out, some of these I guess are shrubs or
bushes and they're not trees. >> Okay. So the um the plan that they that we submitted that he gave to me that I forwarded to to Phil Driscoll it just it should be in color the five trees that has to do with the enforcement order
which are hackberry. That's that's all that I'm concerned. I'm not involved in anything else and it's just the placement of those five trees that are on the plan. They should be highlighted in green. >> I do see it. It's on the top top edge of
the delineated area. They're sort of a little darker in black and white. You can tell. And by the way, hackberry are native and so is shad bush and so is red maple. I don't see any non-natives on
it. Uh Tom, the non the non-native was um the um Patula was was a river birch on that list. Um I don't see it on the list and also
it is native along uh along the deposit from Paul's bridge all the way down to Baker Dam is a sort of grove of river birch that's nearly continuous. It is a
>> but this this was river birch with a um with another word after it. Okay, that's that's what it was. >> I'm looking for it on >> what Philillip sent us, right?
>> I I don't see that, Steve. I'm I'm looking at the upper left hand corner of what Philip sent us. And And I just see the shad bush, the red maple, and the hackberry. >> There are three >> three listed. And Steve Connley is correct because he said the five trees
that he's talking about uh at the bottom of that of that map where it says trees. >> I'm looking it says Durahheit River Burch. I'm looking at a plan. Let me see if I can find the uh date of the plan.
>> This one says May 2nd, 2025. >> Okay. And so does this one. >> It's L1.01 01. >> That's what I have. >> I've got that, too. But I I don't see
the river burge. >> No, no, no. >> If you look up in the top left hand corner, it's yellow. >> Well, mine doesn't have colors. Okay,
there are five. It's a key bn beta verit with a single quote. >> Okay. And that's non native. >> It's funny. I don't see it. >> I don't see them on my list either.
>> I don't I don't see it on mine either that I'm looking at. >> Oh, we don't. No, I think you have a different list, Steve. >> I obviously I do. >> It's got the same date.
>> Yeah, that's odd. >> That's very strange. >> But I I I think I think what they did was they just >> they just mapped out the trees that we're proposing onto the same plan. They probably didn't update the date on it. So, but the one the one that I have that
I submitted on the bottom there's a on the third little box on that left side it has conservation commission notes. >> Does everybody see that >> left hand side box >> left hand side top left in the third box down conservation commission notes.
Yes. >> Trees indicated our mitigation planting. >> If you look at the little box with the trees in it, the third box that says hackberry looks like it was >> revised or edited.
>> That's the second box on my >> So, can I ask um Mr. Connelly, can you ask him to to reissue the plan set with a updated date and and you know >> corrected information just so we're all working off the same thing
>> and I I know it's a pain. >> Yes, I can. >> Yeah, I think that'll help. >> No, I I can do that. >> This train can you see where the locations are that he mapped out at? I don't know if you can >> Yeah, it could those could be made out.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. And they're all outside of the 100 foot buffer. >> Yep. >> All right. So, why don't we do that? Uh, Steve, if you could uh issue the, you know, the new plan. Uh, and I don't know
if it's you or Bill Madden and then we should probably uh walk the site sometime in September. But we need we need to get Bill Madden involved. So, I don't think we could set a date tonight, but at at some Saturday and >> between now and September, whatever. Um,
>> we should probably go out there with Bill and with a new plan, a date to be determined some Saturday in late August or early September. I >> in concept it looks like a good idea to take these five four inch trees and put
them at the Beverly Park area whether it's on their property or on our property. >> And and that's what we're trying to accomplish tonight anyway. Correct. >> Correct. >> John, does that mean we're uh getting a survey of the property to to see
>> where the trees are going? >> Bill, that's already been done. That was the original Beverly Park. That was CPC money uh that Wendy will remember. They got the survey and then we use their survey to go out and uh we actually use their survey to
do the uh locating the pedestrian bridge. That was that was a Pevelly Park Group survey that we used and Steve added flags to it and somebody else was out there putting flags down. Uh, and that's what we're using for the the bridge location.
>> So, that part's been done, but they they hadn't within that property line. They they actually I haven't seen where the playground is actually going to go. That's still in the the concepts. I've seen a concept plan with trails coming down and their trails that Bill provided
to us. I don't know, almost a year ago probably. their trails we're going to connect with the trail that connects the where the pedestrian bridge is going all the way to the current pathway which is on the northern it's further towards the northern bridge where it goes into the woods.
So, we do have those concept plans, but uh Philip, if if you want to and Steve, if if we can the three of us can coordinate with Bill Madden, we can come up with finalizing their plans. Um, and then, you know, we'll go out on a public
public meeting notice and uh locate them based upon, you know, that he's a landscape architect, so and we can we can certainly take his locations to heart. Does that does that make sense? >> Absolutely. I I don't think we need a a vote tonight because it sounds like there's a consensus that that's the
that's the the next step forward to coordinate with Bill and get out there and take a look. >> All right. And again, for Steve's benefit, I think in concept this all makes sense. All right, Steve, can you if you've got accessible, can you um email to to me or
Phillip or Steve or all of us that um order of conditions that you were reciting that uh provision 47 from June of 2017? >> Yes, well, I can do that tomorrow for you. No problem. >> That's perfect. All right. Good. Thank Thank you very much. I don't know. I I
know we've played this point a bit, but I I think we've made some progress at least in in concept. Are there any other suggestions as to further actions at this time or can we delay this until we can coordinate with Bill Matt? That agreeable to everybody?
>> We have to do it. >> All right. >> Yeah, I would love to see a copy of that survey plan. >> Got it. Okay. I'll ask >> in the future. Yeah. >> When we coordinate with um uh with with Bill Madden. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. I think we're good
on article five. Steve, thanks for your participation. U I think we're ready to move on to number six on the agenda and this is determination of applicability 681 695 725 840 Hillside Street continued from our sitewalk uh that's the occasion that
we lost our quorum and couldn't vote but we have a subcommittee um and who was still there Steve was there I was there Ingred was there Tom was there um and I think we lost somebody along the
way. So, I know we didn't have a quorum, but we actually walked to the site. This is a fiber optic cable. It's going in to improve the DCR uh communications. And then we went across the street, parked in the H Hotton Pond lot, and went down and and
saw it's just a small stretch that comes from the uh I don't know what they call it, the fieldhouse or the equipment house. It's before you get to the bath house. Um, it's where the >> the visitors center. >> What's what's it called? >> It's called the visitor center. The visitors center is a building with a
patch roof. Yeah. By the playground, >> right? And uh we saw that that side is is very easy because that that already exists. All they're going to do is pop their manholes and put their fiber optic cable through the existing conduit. So
that there's no construction there at all on the public pathway, but to the visitors center between the visitors center and the um the raised walkway where you can see Maragold Marsh, that's where you can overlook the marsh that we
permitted probably five years ago. Um, so in that area between the fieldhouse and the the raised walkway, they're going to uh dig a trench, but it's only like, I don't know, a foot wide and two feet deep or something like that. >> It's two by two feet by two feet.
>> Two feet by two feet. All right. So, that's pretty limited. Um, they'll use erosion controls, get in and out uh very quickly. Uh it all made sense to me and it looked like uh little to no disturbance, certainly no permanent
disturbance. Uh but Tom, I'd like to hear from from you because you were there and Steve, you were there. >> Yeah, I would say there is no point where these trenches which are long uh go into a wetland or even uh close to
a wetland. As far as I recall, the closest place is a site you mentioned by the visitor center. So to me, it seemed easy to approve because the work was
digging a twoft by two foot drench in a long elongate pattern and then putting the cable in, putting the dirt back in. So that was the work. It seemed to me pretty minor even though
The total length of the trenches is significant. So I would be inclined to approve it as is. >> Steve, any comments? You were there. >> He's on mute.
>> Steve, you're on mute. >> Steve. Steve, I can't hear you. No, you're on mute. You don't have to get closer to the mic. There you go. >> Some of the work is inside existing conduits, so it's even easier.
>> Correct. On the H Hotton's Pond side, it's all it's most of it >> existing conduit. >> Exactly. >> The only trenching was between the the fieldhouse and the the walkway. >> That's right. >> But on the other side of the road near the stables, the trench goes from the
what's it called? the captain's house. Uh in back of the stables all the way up to the state police barracks in back of that. >> Correct. >> And that's about a 300 300 plus foot uh trench. But it certainly made sense to
me. Um Tom and Steve, anybody else? Was it Philip, you were there? >> Yeah, I thought it made sense to me, too. >> All right, good. Any other thoughts or questions? because this and we we decided we'd be a subcommittee and report back uh that we thought we could
take a vote on it. Um and the fellow there from DCR was uh very cooperative and instructive and the gentleman uh answered all of our questions. So I I I think we're in a with a report from the subcommittee there. I think we're in
a position to um issue a a uh negative determination of applicability uh on the condition that uh they have erosion controls um in on that area at least between the the
public pathway and the fieldhouse. It's a stretch of about I don't know 40 feet or so. Um, and they'll need some limited erosion controls because they're they're going to be in and out in less than a day, I'm sure. Um, and the rest of that
is is in existing conduits across the street. Um, Tom, do you think they need erosion controls there? >> Um, it didn't look like it to me, but >> it did. >> Not an expert. >> Did or did not? No, I I didn't think
they were necessary because they were trenching in an area that is far from any wetlands. >> I agree. Steve, you agree? >> I I agree entirely. Yeah. >> So, the the only uh condition would be I think they should have emot erosion
controls when they're right next to the uh H Hotton's Pond area, but that's a simple one. And then the other condition would be that you know the standard no refueling or overnight storage in our jurisdiction. So is there a motion to approve um a
negative determination on that RDA? >> Since others >> I move that we >> Okay. >> So move >> and I and I was there. So I'll second that. Any discussion from commissioners >> or members of the public abundance or
otherwise? >> U hearing none. Voice vote. Uh Tom, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Arthur, >> yes. >> Hans, >> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes. >> Charlie, >> yes. >> And I John Kieran, yes as well. All
right. Thanks. Next is order conditions at uh 1034 Blue Hill Avenue continued from 7:19. This is Ann Greish's home that we all visited. And this is the one where u we actually stopped by her house
uh and she was present but we didn't have a quorum. So we went in and said we like the plan. We've all we were all most of us were there previously. And this is the one where we requested that as you go down her driveway, she wanted to expand it to the left. And we had
suggested at our site visit that she add a one- foot trench drain to the left of the driveway to make sure that there's no water running off of her driveway that would go into her neighbor's yard. Um, and that seemed to be an appropriate
fix. Um, she agreed to it. Uh, her representative agreed to it. And uh I I suggest that we're in a position right now to uh issue the order of conditions with that as a special condition. But Steve, you may remember some other special conditions in >> there. One other special condition and
that was a um a dry weld coming off the the new roof. >> Yes, >> is what it was. >> And Tom, do you remember any other special conditions? Um >> um is that the lot where some big trees
had come down and there was a little bridge over the brook to some lawn on the far side? >> Yeah, >> that's that's a lot >> right. I agree that it's appropriate to issue an order for the proposed work. On
the other hand, when we were there with our owner, I was trying to encourage her to allow some woody stuff to grow up to shade the brook. I think she heard me because she's not actually working in that area. I don't think it's
appropriate to add conditions about that, but I would just say that that particular lot, that brook has been neglected and it ought to be a much much more attractive part of the
lot. I guess that's what I would say about it. much more attractive and much more um ecologically equipped to protect the water quality. What it is now is you remember that
there were um like river rocks placed into the banks to kind of hold it, but there was vines over everything and there was no shade. The biggest issue for me was a complete lack of shade. And
that was only because I had lost two huge trees. So, I did say to the homeowner, wouldn't it be good if you had some trees along the banks here? I don't know if she's interested or not, but I don't really think it's appropriate to require them because
she's not working in that area, not proposing work. That was just my take. Well, how about an order um approving the order of conditions um as as discussed and as proposed. Um
and just adding a footnote, if you will, that the commission encourages you to plant uh shade trees along the brook, but that's not uh a requirement of the order conditions. >> Yeah, that's very good. That's what I would support.
>> All right. Any any other comments on that? The only thing that I'd add, John, to what Tom said is that um the area along the brook was not well tended to.
You know, there's very there's very little obvious historical protection of that book. But are you talking about banks eroding into the uh debris?
>> There was there was a sort of an eclectic combination of things along the side of that for actually on both sides if I remember correctly. >> Well, her land is on both sides. >> That's right. >> Well, maybe we could add that to the
footnote because as Tom pointed out, it it's not where her proposed project is. That's the the >> I would agree. Do my sentiments parallel your observations in addition to the uh absence of canopy
because the the trees or the canopy is going to affect the water quality, the water temperature, insects, possible marine life, a whole host of things that are needed. But what you're saying is just as a
footnote, we would encourage you to maybe consider planting some shade trees in the future to to improve the quality of the >> on the banks on the banks of the brook. >> Yeah. >> Where the roots will hold the soil as well.
>> But just recognizing that is not part of the project that they're proposing. >> Correct. >> Great. Is is that good, Arthur? >> Yes, that'd be fine. >> All right. Um, any other comments or suggestions from
commissioners? >> We might be missing Wendy for a moment. Um, >> chasing her cat. >> Chasing the cat. Uh, let me stall. But um
just because there were very few of us there, I I'll make the motion to um and I'll speak slowly just so we can make sure we get Wendy back um to issue an order of conditions uh approving the the project with our typical special
conditions of no overnight uh storage or refueling of hydraulic or heavy equipment. Um and that we also u footnote this to ensure that uh she knows we're encouraging
uh without requiring uh planting shade trees along the brook to increase its ecological value. >> Sounds great. >> So that's that's the motion. I'm
speaking slowly so we get our commissioner back. Um, is there a second to that motion? >> I will. >> Okay. >> I was trying to do it slowly as well. >> All right. Hello, Wendy.
Come back. Come back. Um but well we still have a quorum so I think we can proceed uh to the if there's no discussion I don't see any members of the public here so uh voice vote Tom how do you vote
>> I vote yes >> Arthur >> yes >> Hans >> yes >> Charlie >> yes >> and I John Kieran vote yes as well okay so Wendy will have um abstaining Um all right. So let's moving on. Number uh
eight. This is certificate of compliance 531 Elliot Street. Um we actually visited there. Um and it was kind of at by that time it was just uh Steve, Tom, and I think it was just me, right? I think it was just three of us.
>> Uh interesting area, interesting project. Um, but what we found was that in back of the GR, and I think you folks will remember this because we were out there a bunch of times. Oh, Wendy, uh, we put you down as
an abstension because we didn't know if you were going to return, but we just voted to, uh, issue an order of conditions at 10:34 Blue Hill Avenue, uh, with the usual conditions. Um, and this is the one where we approved a plan to put a French train along the left
side of the driveway. as you head in from Blue Hill Avenue to the left. Um, and then to add a footnote that not as a requirement, but uh to note that the conservation commission encouraged uh the homeowner who's Ann Greish to plant
some shade trees um along the banks of of the brook to improve its ecological uh value. Um so we we did >> Thank you, Tom. >> My apologies for having to step away. >> All right. Uh so next we're the
compliance at 531 Elliot Street. This is the one where uh we did require um there was some grading done, some uh I think construction debris that was brought in as as as well as regular fill and they basically flattened the
backyard. Uh we were out there a number of different times. We did vote, I know a couple of years ago to enforce a $3,000 fine which Philip, can you confirm has been paid? >> It has been paid. Yes, that should >> that's done. The other part of the enforcement order was to plant I think
six trees and we went out there and counted the trees and they have been planted. They looked healthy to me. The the only concerning part was and and again this may go beyond the enforcement order. Well,
maybe not because there appeared to be debris that had been dumped into the stream which is an intermittent stream. Uh, but it runs from the back of the garage where it daylights. It appears to be a confluence of drainage pipes under
Elliot Street that somehow leave the street, go under his down his driveway, under his garage, and then daylight in the back of his garage and head towards um Pine Tree to the Neponet, sorry, to the Neponet. Now, just to orient
yourself, just to the left, if you're walking along that intermittent stream towards the Neponet, to the left is 30 Curtis Road, which is the Anquity House. Um, and we've all been there several times. But when we looked at the stream
just downstream from the garage, there appeared to be debris that had been dumped in there. And um the growth of I guess it was multifllora rose, and there may have been some other trees here. that are clearly blocking the stream and
it it was it was like a a dam. So, it's easy to add to uh the enforcement order to say that as part of the certificate of compliance, you've got to get the debris out of there. That's the easy part. But I think Tom wanted to add and perhaps Steve wanted to add as well that
they they should remove the multiflloral rows. I I'm not sure we've got the authority to do that, but um this might be one. And Tom, I know you you're in an unusual position because you advised uh
the homeowner in the past. Um this may >> Yeah. for you to talk to him, >> right? I I don't think I should vote, but I did speak to Lucian earlier this week and I said there's one thing that
we probably will have an issue with. Do you know what that is? And I said it is that outfall. You may remember in the original submission that I showed a drainage map of that portion of town
provided by the town that shows that 12 acres all the way over to Brook Road drains under his garage out of that pipe. And we've had big storms. And as you noticed while we were there, the
heavy flow had started to cut into his lawn because it was blocked in the actual channel by debris. But the debris was the smallest part of it. I would say the real block was that big rose bush,
that big multifllora rose that forced the flow towards his lawn and he lost material. And I said to Lucian, "That needs to come out so the stream will go back in his channel." And he said, "I
would have cut it by now, but I was afraid that I didn't have permission." So he is okay with removing it. And if we can give him that instruction in one way or another, I think that would be
helpful to his lawn and it would also improve the condition of the brook because it would not be leaving in its back leaving its backs. I would ask if Steve agrees with my assessment because he looked at it too.
So just wondering really quick. I mean if this is associated with a townowned drainage drainage pipe I assume there'd be an easement associated. Wouldn't that be a town maybe?
>> Um it's on his property. So it's sort of a gray area isn't it? >> Well it depends if there's an easement and what the easement says. >> Yeah. I I don't know the answer to that. You wouldn't think it was anything to do with a town because it's at the back of
his lot and the pipe comes out as you remember from the foundation of his garage. So when he moved in, he had no idea where all that water was coming from. And uh he is sort of supporting the town's infrastructure
via that easement. and uh he is faced with the fact that when we have big storms a lot of water comes out that pipe. Um, as you remember years ago when we first
visited, there was a silty pool in the far corner, rear corner of his lot where material coming out of the pipes settled and it not included not only included sand and grid and mud, but pop bottles
and trash. It was really something that >> yet Tom is the source of the the delotterious material >> is likely from town roads >> being conveyed by a pipe that might be
owned by the town and might in fact be somewhat the town's responsibility to maintain its storm water system. I'm just I'm I'm just looking at it from both sides. Yeah. I if I if I were to say to Lucian,
you go to the town and get them to do X, he would say, I never want to hear from them again. I mean, he is sort of raw about the whole thing. And uh I'm not saying that our
fine wasn't justified, but I would say that he is sort of taking some of the town's water and uh having to deal with it. So when you say if he should go to
the town and ask them to maintain the brook behind his house, I would say that is sort of a reasonable argument. But I would say it's easier if he just does it himself. Goes in there with
chainsaw, maybe some big loppers, removes that enormous multifllora rose bush and the problem is solved. >> Path of least resistance on and there
are two problems with the drainage pipe. One of them is the debris that he dumped there. Yeah, that is >> that's his problem. >> The other one, the the the growth of the rose bush had >> You're right. That >> I wouldn't I wouldn't say that I saw any
debris that had been tossed in there when I was there. >> It may have been I just didn't >> There was dirty dirty fill. I would call it dirty fill. So, >> what did you see? >> There was there was material material
that he used. >> Yeah, we're going way back. That was before I even showed up. Yeah, I get it. I said to Lucian, you know, I was going to argue at this hearing for you not have to pay because
in the past we have waved a lot of fines when homeowners have responded and done what we asked. But I also said to him, I said that to the chairman and he said I don't know about that because in the
beginning real actions were taken that were damaging. So he knows the situation. That's why he's not here tonight. And he's hoping that we will you will award the certificate.
>> Yeah. And and I'll be honest with you, I'm I'm okay with this certificate and I I see this as a separate issue that that Concom could bring to the town on his behalf. Bring up the issue because again, I don't want to take advantage of the
gentleman because just because he's not familiar with how our our beloved, you know, municipal system works. Um, I'd rather, you know, empower homeowners to to understand whose
responsibility is what and and and to get people to take ownership accordingly. I don't know if you're talking about >> recent events >> like the blockage or if you're talking about the original events because the
original events >> he actually violated the wetlands protection act after we issued the enforcement order. >> I I recognize that part. I'm only speaking to the part where where you're saying that the where his property is being eroded and there's the presence of
invasive species that are blocking the the drainage out that goes under his property. >> Those are the only two things I'm speaking to. >> If if you think we're exceeding our jurisdiction, I I'd be comfortable saying take out the debris that you
dumped there. >> Yeah. And that would that would facilitate the the drainage. And then maybe we could do the same thing and put a footnote in there. We encourage you to take that rose bush out because if you don't, it's going to continue to erode
the lawn. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense to me. >> What's that? >> Yeah, >> that makes sense to me. >> We We can do it that way, Hans. The same way we just did with Ann Greish. Just take the debris out that you dumped in
it to open up the channel and then we would encourage you without requiring you to remove the multiffur rose to open up the channel original channel. >> I think you would respond to that because he said I would have taken it
out by now except I was worried about the town's permission. So I think he's waiting for permission. Yeah, Tom, if you want to direct him on on the best way to do that, if you want to advise
him, I'm fine with that. >> All right, good. Any other >> He wasn't my client. Yeah, that's why I'm accused. >> Any any uh >> You're not refusing yourself right now. Okay. >> I'm having a lot to say. I
>> you know, >> any any other comments or questions from commission members, members of the public about I'll make a motion. Yes, Steve, you >> you had asked me if I agreed with Tom and yes, I do agree with Tom. We we
chatted as to the problem there, the existing problem, and we agreed what the existing problem is. It's pretty obvious to both of us. >> I I I'm not sure what part of what Tom said you agree with or everything he said or I I don't know what you're talking about.
>> Pretty much pretty much everything. Pretty much everything. How's that? I I I don't know what you're referring to because he says he didn't think there was debris that had been dumped in there. I I feel strongly that I saw debris that didn't belong in the stream
channel. >> I I agree with >> that's a good reason to tell them not to put anything in there. >> And I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me. Did you see debris that had been dumped in? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, we just tell them take it out. then add a footnote and say we don't require you to do this but it would be appropriate we believe it would be appropriate for you to remove the mult rose to open up the stream channel >> and I I make a motion on that basis
that we issue the certificate of compliance for the and this is another case where we issued the enforcement order then we issued an order of conditions to fix it. So this would be a certificate of compliance that he's fixed. He did plant the trees that uh we
ordered and he did pay the fine that he ordered. So we ask him if the certificate of compliance is conditional upon him removing the debris that he's placed in the stream channel and then encourage him without requiring him to remove the uh multifloor rows that's
also blocking the stream channel. That's my motion. Is there a second? >> Second. Second. >> All right. Any any discussion? >> Uh Tom, no you're not 40. Sorry. Arthur, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Hans,
>> yes. >> Wendy, >> yes. >> Charlie, >> yes. >> Hi, John Kieran. Vote yes as well. And please put in the notes that Tom had recused himself from this one. Um, next on the agenda, we're getting close. Uh,
approve the minutes for the Milton Conservation meeting held on July 8th. uh and uh July 19th and I only had one revision. Now I'm going to be able to find them.
The only revision that I had for both of them was on uh July 8th, 2025. part 14 C um uh that
and I think we've talked about this the the Milton Board of Health did not approve the taking of the Beaver Dam down. What they approved was the trapping of the beavers. Whether or not the Beaver Dam is taken
down is within our jurisdiction and that has been confirmed by DP that the DPW will have to come to the conservation commission for permission to remove the de beaver dam. The only thing the board of health did was to
approve the trapping and removal of the of the beavers. And at the end of that paragraph, it says, "No water crossing Harlem Street." Um, I think that should be deleted. Uh, because
that night that we were meeting, u Marina Fernandez appeared before the board of health and showed a video. I saw a video before I joined us and you know mission and it there was water all over the place on Holland Street on both
sides of the road and completely inundating the road >> when you visited there was no water crossing it that's what that was for John on the day you visited there um that's all >> that's all
>> as I understood well yeah there was no when I When I was there, there was no water crossing. But >> exactly. >> Absolutely. >> That's what I was recording. >> Okay. But it says no water crossing. Argument made that flooding on upstream side on Holland Street crossed and
plunged to lower level. True. No water crossing Holland Street. I I >> fine. >> I think it I think it should be removed. >> I'd be happy to remove it. Yes. >> And and then change the building board of health approved uh the trapping and
removal of the beavers. Now, in in fairness, I don't want to be just euphemistic here. We all know that trapping means they're euthanized. So, when I say remove, >> do you have did they say any beavers anywhere can be
removed or did they refer to specific beavers? >> I I don't the beavers in the area of the dam. >> Yeah. Permit issue for a particular area. >> Yeah. >> Which dam and which area? I it's usually within a well I'd have to look at what
they submitted for their permit but it's usually >> waterway or section of waterway >> it was a section >> I was there so I wasn't >> I'm just curious yeah you know there
there's more than one beaver dam >> so what dam is it >> I'll I'll tell you >> it was the dam adjacent into uh the concrete uh put in by DCR or maybe it was the MDC
at the time at the uh intersection of Anquity Road and Island Street. >> It's Franny's Corner. >> Okay, I got you. >> It's not Franny's Corner. No, it absolutely is not. Go. It's back. It It's where
Holland Street meets Uncle Ro. That's not Franny's corner. But it's true that Arthur is referring to a place where there is another dam. >> That may be true, but that's that's not where this permit >> they got the permit for. >> I think John >> location. Thanks, John.
>> It's the dam between Harland and that's where the location is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. I know where that one is. >> What I just said. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
So >> that dam is 80 feet long and the part that's on the roadside starts at the bottom of the burm >> that separates road from the town from the marsh and it goes through that shrub
swamp but it doesn't get over to Harland Street. It stops at a little upland island that's if you're going from up you're going up Harland or hillside. It's after the cult. It's uh No, it's before
the culvert where the guard rail is. There's a little upland on the right. That's where the other end of the dam is connected. So the little scour pool below the culvert that's actually above the dam. So that's interesting to me
that that is the dam that was of concern because somewhere I had heard that it was the people of the golf course who are concerned about the flooding and I thought that must be another dam because that's pretty far up the brook from this
place but and I think Steve you said there was another dam up by the golf course but >> yes it's further toward the um What is that development >> to the
>> Indian? >> Pardon? >> There's an Indian cliff area. That is >> Yes. Yes. It's further down Harland just before you take the curve and you go to
the right. There's a dam in there as well. >> Does anybody know if any beavers have been trapped yet? >> No. Oh, I think there's a season uh Tom that you have to have permission first and it's October or November I believe when their the permit allows them to do
it. >> So it has not >> Thank you. You know, yeah, there's a lot of feeling in town and myself included that if we can get some non-lethal ways to deal with these problems, that's
better. And I I would add to the group that has that feeling. Uh the uh animal control agent is passionate about that. Nancy Brousani plus a number of people on Hillside Street. So this to me is a
story to be continued. I I really it's hard for me to anticipate where it's going. I I think that we are all facing the fact that the Beavers are going to make major changes to the wetlands in Milton along Pine
Brook. They've done it already. They'll keep doing it and it's going to be something we have to deal with going forward. >> No, agreed. And I and Marina Fernandez for DPW would would also agree with what
you said. and she actually did explore the non-lethal means and that was the I put her in touch with the folks that presented at the Mass Association of Conservation Commissions. One, one is
Beaver Solutions and the other one is I know one's a business and one's a consultant. And they were talking about the beaver deceiver, which is essentially a siphon pipe that goes up and over the dam and tricks the beaver
because they can still hear water trickling, which apparently is is something that um inspires them. Um but uh she did meet with them and uh they told her that it wouldn't work at that site.
Now I wasn't >> I sent pictures >> I sent pictures of those beaver excluders to the members. Do you remember those? I sent pictures of two of them that were placed at this at the same response in Quincy in the Blue
Hills Reservation. And those are those chuck points that are easy to install an excludder. And I did see a letter that Kevin Kading provided to me from some of these beaver experts from
Florence, Mass where they repeated their statement that there's certain dams where the beaver excluders are not appropriate and this 80foot dam was one of them. So my impression tracks with yours, John, that they looked into this
excludder and it wasn't appropriate for that to happen. >> That that's what Marina told me. >> Yeah. >> All right. So at at this point I mean we're we're a little off topic because that's the only uh uh revision that I wanted from that
date and I didn't have any other comments on the second date of of the 19th of July. So my question is does anybody else have any revisions? >> Nothing here. All right, Senator, we do have two votes uh to approve the uh the first one would
be July 8th uh 2025 as revised in 14C. Um and I'd make the motion to uh approve those minutes as revised. >> Is there a second for that? >> Thanks. Any discussion? Um Tom, how do
you vote? This is on July 8th. I go yes. >> Arthur >> yes. >> Wendy >> yes. >> Hans >> yes. >> Kie >> yes >> and John tan v both yes as well. Uh second motion to approve uh as written
the minutes for July 19th 2025. Um I make such a motion as there second. >> Second. >> Uh thank I don't know who seconded that Phil. I don't know what you're writing down. or Steve.
>> I think it was Tom. >> Yes. >> Who Who seconded that? >> Tom. >> Tom. Thanks. Any discussion? Hearing none. Tom, how do you vote? >> Yes. >> Arthur? >> Yes. >> Wendy?
>> Um I wasn't at that meeting so I I can't vote. >> Thank you. Hans, >> yes. >> And Charlie, >> yes. >> And I John K vote yes as well. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is discussion of new tree price continued from July 19th. Uh the last time we had
discussed this uh we decided to go out and see if we could collect some information and uh efforts were made by Charlie and and uh Arthur and um Wendy and uh you know I've talked to some
people about this as well. Uh, and I guess the big the big ticket items are the MACC uh recommendations on tree policies, tree replacement policy. What we're really talking about is if we issue a a
sanction, it's not a sanction. If if we issue an order that says that you shall replace, you know, x number of trees, um, and we're talking about two and a half to three and a half inch caliber trees in that that range. um if there's
not enough place on the project site, then can we uh exchange that for a financial equivalent? And our our policy has been $500 per tree. And that was originally based on like a $350 cost and
$150 um installation or, you know, putting it in the ground cost for $500. I I can't tell you the number of years we've been at 500, but it's certainly an accepted 10. Of interest to me was the MACC's. Uh
they also used 500. Um as a recommended functional equivalent, financial equivalent of the tree. Uh I think Wendy wants to point out that there's a difference between the cost of the tree and the >> putting it in the ground. >> Um but we've got
>> Yes. And and also John, I think it's important to clarify that that's not what MACC recommends. That's what they uh referenced as an example of what one of the other towns has done. And we
don't know um when the last time that was updated. >> Okay. And then we had from Charlie Bosworth uh some uh uh amounts of in those range uh so I don't misquote I want to get
Charlie's note. Um and Charlie while I'm looking for you can probably tell us what you found. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I got three separate pricing. Um one was from Central Nursery and they were 355 for a 3-in caliber.
um one of the local nurseries around here for a 2 and 12 to 3 in caliber was 425 and then Amherst Nursery which uh I got that name from Branch Lane uh and um there's a follow-up email
attached to to what I sent but Branch had mentioned that they were spending uh $200 to $230 on a 2in caliber tree and that's where the town freeze And Charlie, just to clarify, that that
does not include um delivery and installation. Is that correct? >> Um the wholesale number from Central Nursery did not include delivery or uh or installation. The local nursery, it did
include delivery, but not installation. And uh Amherst Nursery, this number was from branch. I didn't speak with the nursery myself. Um, and he didn't mention if it was if it was delivery to the townard or not.
>> Okay. Um, my my personal experience buying retail is that the the cost of the tree uh doubles if you want it to be installed and then
delivery is on top of that. And that's, you know, per mile and site considerations. >> Okay. So, what's your proposal? I mean, if if the issue before us is, do we change the amount of money that we're um imposing for a fine?
>> What's your proposal, Wendy? Well, just really quick, Wendy, one thing that I think we keep in mind is that well, when when we're talking about off-site trees, it's it's trees that are end ultimately purchased by the town. They're they
purchased in bulk. So, the town doesn't just purchase one tree at a time. They usually purchase a number that they store at the DPW. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So, I mean, we're we're really talking true wholesale pricing.
I I think that Yeah, I guess I don't understand what your question is, Hans. >> Well, I mean, you're mentioning retail cost of tree replacement, and that's that's not
what we're dealing with. So, yes, it is probably a better deal to to mitigate offsite than it is to mitigate on-site, but um you're also cutting a separate
check for that. So, I don't if I'm just trying to present both sides of the argument for modifying the price. Mhm. >> Well, but somebody's got to pay for the the cost of delivery and installation.
And if it's done in-house by the DPW, then that's eating into their staff and labor time and expense. So I I feel like it's it's important that
that the price that we choose fairly reflects that. Um and and plus we we don't necessarily want to to make it financially advantageous to
contribute to this fund in lie of replacing the trees on site at least that's my understanding >> not by much but yeah >> c can I ask the question um
when we require a applicant to plant a certain number of trees on his project due to impact or taking down other trees. Um, and we we we issue them uh uh an order.
Uh they're absorbing that cost as part of their project. when we're asking them to uh to to donate a monetary amount to the town.
Um they're they're essentially washing their hands of of of of the installation. And I agree with W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Wendy that that it's it's it's it's difficult to to compare the two, but at what point
>> do we um at what point are we being penal on the cost of the trees if they because if a homeowner is pro uh completing their project and we want we want them to plant six trees but they can only fit
two on their project and we want want them to donate four to the the tree um supply. Should we be going after the full amount which it cost them to put it in their project or should we simply be going for
after them for or asking them to contribute the amount that it cost to get a replacement tree to the town be because the the the the parks or whoever is using these trees or planting these trees. Aren't all of our tax dollars already paying for their
employment and their labor? So, wouldn't it be if we were coming up with a monetary value, wouldn't it be the cost to get the tree to the town yard? >> Mhm. Because on on the other hand, if it if it if they had to in their project, if
they had to replace six trees and it was such a really difficult spot to get to and it cost them $1,500 a tree, we're not going to give them a credit back on the over the delta between what we want to um use for a number and what it
actually cost them to do the work, right? That's kind of the converse argument. If somebody came to me and said, "Well, you know, this is this is the this is your dollar amount that you have to contribute." Um, if I was the neighbor
and and and I had to plant the trees and the and the trees cost me $1,500 to put in, my argument would be, well, why don't I get the delt the credit on the delta? which is the reason why I I came up with
the inch for inch replacement that one inch tree loss oneinch tree replaced. >> You mean the cost of the tree as opposed to the cost? >> Yeah. So, you know, >> it's it's it's
that 3:1 ratio. So, you're you're for every tree that you're taking out, you end up it ends up a wash in terms of what's being lost versus what's going back in. So,
it it eliminates that. You know, I'm only putting in a a two and a half caliber tree. Well, you still owe us, you know, three and a half inches worth of tree. >> But we the the goal was to come up with a a number because I I I tend to agree
with Wendy that $500 doesn't seem like a lot of money for a 3-in caliber tree replacement. >> Yeah, I I think it's it's not even close. I mean, frankly, I I think it's a bargain because to your point, Charlie, somebody
>> one day of labor is a thousand bucks. I mean, for for a two to three man crew. >> Well, it's also cheap insurance to just >> pay the town. >> Yeah. >> And wash your hands of it. Whereas we're holding people's feet to the fire
to ensure that these trees survive, that they plant on site, and some people have to pay to do it all over again. >> Yeah, I was actually going to bring that up during the discussion with Mr. Connelly that this is because a lot of
his argument was because he was mitigating such a large tree. >> Yeah. He gets to he gets to shift the the responsibility of the survival of the tree to the town. >> Yeah. I I I don't feel I don't feel
comfortable um having the town bear that responsibility um without the proponent
paying a fair compensation for that. >> But but the issue is what is fair compensation? And that's why I asked you. I'm still I I don't know what you're suggesting for an amount. My my concern originally was I I I
understood you to be using the bid on um the Pevely Park original. This is before we got to the point of of uh Steve Connley taking his trees and putting them in Pevely Park. When the proposal first came in, there was a bid attached. It was $1,100 a
tree. And I think that's too high to use as a standard for our policy. And this is a policy. It's not a regulation. It's a policy. Um, and I am very sensitive to homeowners. And there is a difference
between a developer who can eat the cost and pass the cost along. But I think our obligation is to the homeowners that are doing projects that seem to be in their best interest. It's their land. Uh, and
we help them comply with the Wilders Protection Act and the Town bylaw. Uh, and they should be able, as long as they comply, they should be able to do what they wish with their land. I don't want to be punitive to the homeowners.
And I think $1,100 would be, you know, unsupported and punitive. And so I don't mind going up for $500 because I know, you know, inflation and all that and it's been in place for, you know, 10 years or or more. I'm sure it's more than 10 years. Um,
but I I'm still waiting for an amount. I I certainly support going up a little bit, but I absolutely would not go up to the $1,000 or $1,100. I find that to be punitive to the homeowners. >> So what what's your proposal?
Are you asking me, John? >> Yes. You're the y you're the proponent of of this idea. >> I think it should be a thousand bucks. >> Easy. >> Anybody? Easy. Was it a thousand? Is that your proposal?
>> Pardon? >> Is that is Do you want it to be more than that or is that your proposal? $1,000. >> That is my That is my proposal. >> All right, >> Charlie. the the places that you spoke to, was that the installed price that they gave you? I mean, what was the
>> uh No. Uh the the u the the first one at the 3 in for 355 was a wholesale price. >> Correct. Uh the the two and a half to 3 in caliber from a local nursery at 425 is retail. >> Yeah.
in and there's a lot of there's a lot of variables here because if a landscape if a per if a homeowner has to replace one tree off the front corner of their house um the landscaper yes but the landscaper is not playing 425 they're paying 20% less.
>> So you've got to look at it from they're not going to be charged a four full 25 425 if they hire a landscaper to drop the tree in the front yard. They're going to be paying less but they're going to be paying more in labor. Uh, and then the Amherst Nursery branch lands information on the 2-in caliber
trees at 200 to 230 seems like they sell in bulk to uh towns and municipalities to to to provide the for these very issues where they're their tree replacement programs.
My my concern my concern with with $1,000, Wendy, to be honest with you, is that it seems very punitive for a homeowner in Milton that's paying exorbitant taxes that we determine they have to replace six trees because of
their addition that they're moving in their elderly mother to. and the the the the result is an additional $6,000 to the project. To me, that seems punitive.
>> We're not talking one tree. The one one tree doesn't concern me. It's the It's the projects that somebody has to expand their their their um septic system to to put an addition on to and move in a family member and
and we're we're we're hitting them with, you know, a massive amount additional amount of money to for them to complete their project. It's a developer is a different story. That's a a conversation for a different time. But for homeowners, I just find it incredibly
punitive to be at $1,000. >> I feel like um in cases where it does feel punitive that we certainly have an open discussion and we we do take that into consideration. But
I think that we need to have a a a starting point that's that's understood and and transparent. >> I agree that we should have a a solid a
solid base. I don't believe $1,000 is a starting point. So, I was basing that on the numbers that you provided, Charlie, with the the wholesale numbers that did not include delivery
or installation or maintenance. And so, that's that's how I came up with $1,000. >> Okay. What >> would they all four of those things? >> If the if the commission came to me and
said, "All right, well, you have to replace this one tree in your sideyard." Um or or it's $1,000. I would go and buy the tree down the street for $355 and put it in on a Saturday afternoon and then put a
sprinkler on it. That would be my argument. But that that also requires a certain amount of ability and resources that not everybody has. >> Understood. But most people can dig a hole with a shovel. It's it's the it's
the it's the older people or uh the single parent or the or the the infirmed that can't do that work and they're the ones that would be most impacted by it >> and and get a tree of that that size
onto their property and lift it up and put it in that hole that they dug and then pay to to to water it for the next three years. You know, there's I I think that it's really important that we that we account for all of those those expenses, not
just the the wholesale cost of the trade. >> Agree. Agreed. But they're paying for their the water. You know, they're not having somebody come in to water it. They're paying for the water already at a significantly high rate. Not if not if they're
paying us and the town to in lie of putting it on their property. >> Wendy, we we are the town and we're not out to make a buck out of the homeowner on this. I mean, they they've got enough problems with the taxes. So, what do you
say about the argument that that you're replacing the cost, not the installation, but the cost of the tree to the town? because if if there you know you know we've been approached by the shade tree advisory committee you know we've been approached by branch
lane who's looking for DPW uh to fund you know a huge expense in the purchasing capacity of DPW he wanted 117,000 perom to purchase trees so if the town goes out and buys them they're
buying in bulk and they're getting a pretty good price and when the town buys them, the town's going to put them in. So that's all DPW. Yes, it's on their back and yes, it's part of their personnel budget, but that's the way it's set up. So if we're asking the
people to pay the town to replace the trees, the town is the repository. So if we can buy a tree for, I don't know, at Amoris at$2 to $230, why isn't that replacing the tree to the
town? Because remember, if they can put it on their property as part of their landscaping plan, they're going to do that. And maybe it's going to cost more than that, but it sure is not going to cost $1,000. >> So, >> probably not going to cost 500.
>> John, could you explain to to those of us who who are relatively new to this commission, how how did you all come up with the $500 10 plus years ago? at the time, you know, we looked at retail cost
and it was 350. Um, and that's what we thought it was. Um, and uh, we said, you know, it's gonna, you know, we want you to put it in and if we have to do it, we're going to charge you what we'd have to charge. Um, and that was 150. So the
500 came from 350 plus 150. >> Okay. So that was the retail cost of a tree plus the cost of installation. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So the retail cost of a tree today
and the cost of installation today is likely quite a bit more than that. >> The retail cost of the tree actually hasn't gone up all that much >> depending on where you get it from. I was just looking. I just did a quick search and for there's a nursery I'm
familiar with Shrubs and Trees in South Bro which is a fairly goodized nursery. Their retail prices are are 375 for a two two and a half inch maple. So tree prices have actually held. They haven't apparently been smacked
with inflation. Apparently when you turn it into lumber completely different story. But um you know for a landscape tree you know Charlie I mean you're the prices you're getting seem to reflect that as well.
>> You well it's it's related to caliber right. Are we what what's what number are we using for a replacement tree does the commission think is appropriate? Is it two two and a half three? It it's it's actually to be honest it's
ranged between two and a half and three and a half but if the most we is three is three inches. >> Yeah. >> So the a 3-in caliper red maple is is going for 355 wholesale at this point.
Yeah. >> And if you're sending it, if you're buying it for the the town's tree bank, you're not delivering one. They're going to get they're going to
get them involved. Typically, John, is my experience. >> Yes. >> I don't I don't see it being much more than that. >> I agree. You were saying before that wholesale Charlie is typically 20% lower
than retail. That was a number I heard you say. >> Yeah. Um from a from if you're looking at a local nursery, Wendy, um wholesale for a a landscape would be roughly 20% under retail.
>> Okay. So, so if we add 20% to that 3-in caliper red maple, the numbers that that branch lane provided, what's that? Anybody have a calculator handy? 70.
>> But that's two branches trees at 200 to 230. >> Yeah, >> I'm just looking at the first one from >> $20. >> I'm sorry, John. branches trees at 200 to 230. >> Correct.
>> So add 20% of of 200 that's 40 bucks. >> Okay. So what the information from central nursery that was not from branch? >> No. No. Central nursery was a nursery that we've used in the past. >> Okay. Well, the Branch was was referring
to a 2-in caliper and we don't know what species. So I I would feel more comfortable using 3 inch as a rule of thumb. >> Okay.
>> Um and obviously you know the pair is more expensive but >> so that's how you get to 425. You go from 355 add 20% you get 425 approximately. That's not exact but that's >> okay.
So 425 and then What? Uh, so you're saying before you used 150, John, as the um calculation for installation? >> Yes. >> Any idea what that would translate to 2025?
>> No, I No. No, I don't. >> Charlie, any thoughts? >> Uh, two laborers, three hours. unskilled. >> Um, so six hours total.
>> It's another 150. >> The cost of labor hasn't increased at all in 10 years. >> I I didn't come up with the first 150 number, so I'm only giving you the numbers that they're paying laborers now, unskilled. Yeah,
>> got it. And actually, three hours is probably being generous. I'd make him do it in two. >> You got it. We're we're struggling pretty hard on
this and I and I know you said that, you know, the MACC at 500 is is just reflective of, you know, one town. I I have no idea what it's reflective of, but that's that's the state association. I just don't think we're far out of it
at 500. And that's and I what I was looking for from you is that I don't mind raising it, but I'm just nowhere near a thousand dollars. I' I'd keep it at 500 if if you just hadn't brought it up. But if you want to make it, you
know, 600 or something that great, but we're not a profit-making machine. We are the town and we should not be looking to make money on the backs of the homeowners. And if we can do the cost of the tree to the town and the town can buy it in bulk
and I I won't even go with, you know, branches 2inch caliber trees, you know, if if we put it at 3inch caliber from Central Nursery and that's where the town can buy it from at that price, then why is it 500? Why isn't it 355? Because
the DPW is going to put it in for the town. We're filling the coffers of the tree bank. And I know that's a terrible word because everybody thinks it means money, but it's trees. So if we're filling the bank with trees,
why are we doing it on the back of the homeowners? We need trees. >> Well, I' I've shared my perspective. I'm not going to beat a dead horse about this at 11:00 at night, but I would like to to um make a few follow-up calls to
the information that MACC provided. My understanding, and Arthur, maybe you can correct me if if um if I'm wrong, um but MACC just didn't make a statement that
this is what we as MACC recommend. They made reference to another town and what they were charging, but we don't know when the last time was that that was updated. That could be as just as
outdated as ours was. So, I I would just like to do some due diligence and and make a couple of phone calls about that. Yeah, I tried to contact them um shortly after I got this information and sent it
around. People were on vacation at that time and u I've not gotten back to them. I'd be happy to do so if you want. I'll do it with you, Wendy. Team up on it. >> I'd love to team up with you, Arthur. Thank you.
>> Happy to. All right. So, why don't we defer this to uh next month and in the meantime you can gather additional information, Wendy? Is that good? >> Sounds great. Thanks, John. >> Okay. Uh, new business, anything, Steve?
Steve, you're on mute. What? We're talking about new business. Yeah, you're still on mute. There you go. >> Uh, no. >> Okay. Arthur, new business. Anybody new business? >> No. >> Motion to adjurnn. Mr. Chairman.
>> Seconded. >> All in favor? >> Yes. >> Got it. All right. Thanks everybody. Thanks. >> Good night everyone.