Hi, good evening. My name is Bob Connors. It is now 6:05 p.m. I'd like to call the December 2nd meeting of the Newbury Conservation Commission to order. Mason, can you read the preamble at to the remote open meeting law and
take a roll call of members present? As a preliminary matter, this is Mason Ferret, conservation agent at the Newbury Conservation Commission. Please permit me to confirm that all members are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Mary Rimmer, >> yes.
>> Dave Clifford, Mick Brown, Harry Trout, >> yes. >> Woody Knight, >> yes. >> Frank Wetenamp, and Bob Connors, >> yes. >> Good evening. This open meeting of the Newbury Conservation Commission is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker's executive order of
March 12th, 2020 due to the current state of emergency in the Commonwealth. In order to mitigate the transmission of the CO 19 virus, we have been advised and directed by the Commonwealth to suspend public gatherings and as such the governor's order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further,
all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting will feature public comment for this meeting. The debris conservation commission is convening by Zoom call as
posted on the agenda of the conservation commission section of the town's website identifying how the public may join. Um, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Applicants or their
representatives may be called upon to speak and or share information to the screen if able on the fly. We're now turning to the first item on the agenda. But before we do so, please permit me to cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes. Chair will introduce each each speaker on the agenda. After they conclude their
remarks, the chair will go down the line of members, inviting each by name to provide any comment, questions, or motions. Please hold until your name is called. Further, please remember to mute your microphone. Please use earbuds and please remember to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. For any response, please wait until the chair
yields the floor to you and state your name before speaking. Board and committee members should be called upon in a firstname alphabetical order to ease the process. After board and committee members have spoken, the chair will forward public comment as follows. The chair will first seek questions at the chat function. When participants are using this function, please list your
name, address, and then your question. The chair will then seek questions for the public who wish to speak. They'll be asked to identify their names, addresses, question. And once the chair has a list of all public commentators, he'll call on each by name and afford three minutes for any comments. Finally, each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mason. Upcoming meeting dates. Uh our next meeting will be January 6th, 2026 and January 20th, 2026. Meeting minutes review for the October 28th meeting. Why don't we take a moment to to review
that the comments, corrections, or concerns? Welcome, Mick. Good to see you. Okay. Uh any any comments or concerns or questions on the October 28th meeting?
Okay. Hearing none. Mick, did you did you have a question? >> No comment. >> Okay. >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to approve the October 28, 2025 meeting minutes as written. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> And Rob Connor's vote yes. Okay. Next order of business
is uh the meeting minutes for our November 4th meeting. When we take a moment and review those for comments, questions, or concerns. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We all set.
>> Okay. Hear hearing that, I will entertain a motion to approve the November 4th, 2025 meeting minutes as written. >> So moved. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Woody. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> I think I was absent at that meeting, so
I will abstain. >> Okay. Uh Woody, >> yes. >> Mick, >> hi. >> Harry, >> yes. >> And Broad Connor is both votes. Yes. Okay. Next matter is meeting minutes
review for our November 18th, 2025 meeting. and we take a moment review those for comments, corrections or concerns. Okay, plural sec. Okay, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the November 18th,
2025 meeting minutes as written. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. Mick. >> Hi. >> Harry, >> yes.
>> And Bob Connor's votes yes. All right. So, first order of business is a certificate of compliance for D file number 050 143376 Main Street. Applicant is submitting a
request for a certificate of compliance for the repair of a septic system. Mason, can you provide an overview and a recommendation on this matter? Yep. Uh so this came before us I believe it was September or October of last year um for the repair and replacement of the septic
system. Um I can share the screen. It's a pretty tight area with the wetlands in the back. Um and they have completed all the work and they also um had a replacement tree that was installed that we had conditioned. Um, so they had
reached out to me um for species and location and I confirmed with them um and I was able to drive by and all work is completed and the tree is in the ground. >> Okay. Is the applicant on the call for questions if we have any? >> Uh the homeowner is here.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Why don't you just give us your name and address and then hold see if we have any questions. I think Mason has done a very good job of outlining your project. Yes, my name is Wayne Peterson and I'm the owner at 76
Main Street. >> Okay, Wayne, why don't you hang on? Let me just let me open this up to the members. See if there are any questions uh on your submittary. Questions? Any questions for Wayne on his u?
>> Um just u more for Mason just um as a result of a site visit uh just confirming whether or not it's receded now. Was it fully reveated and is the erosion control gone now? >> Yeah, I believe so. And then the the tree went in I believe it was the end of
August. Wayne, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's had some time to establish as well. >> That's correct. >> That is and the lawn is reestablished. >> Yes. Uh probably five or six mowings. It looks great. >> Excellent. I have no questions.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mary Woody. Any questions for Wayne on this application? Um, just a comment. Five or six months. That's good. Good grass. So, >> yeah. Best ever been. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank Thank you, Woody. Mick, any
any questions for Wayne on on this one? >> No questions for me, Bob. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mick. Harry, any questions? >> No questions for me, Bob. Thanks. >> Okay, Wayne, I have no questions. Mason, are there any raised hands in the public at this time?
>> Seeing none. Okay. Do any members have a request for a site visit or additional information? >> Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 76 Main Street.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> I. >> Harry, >> yes. and Bob Connor's vote. Okay. Thank
you, Wayne. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next matter is certificate of compliance for D file number 050163. Burggo Solar. Applicant is submitting a request for a certificate of compliance
for the construction of a solar energy facility. Uh Mason, can you give us an overview on this and what's your recommendation? And I know you guys had a sitewalk today. >> Yep. Uh so just to clarify, this is pretty much just for the roadway um
access easement and mitigation and replication planting areas. Um the other installation of the solar um was issued a superseding order by um the state department. Um so that's not what's before us tonight. It's just the access
easement and utility easement. Um I can share this. Um, >> okay. Because the the only thing on the agenda, Was this amended? I'm looking at an agenda from a couple of days ago because the only one that's on here is
the 1163. >> Yeah. Uh, it should be it believe it was amended. It should be the uh 1398. >> Okay. But can you check your your agenda?
>> Yeah, I can check the posted one. Yep. I mean actually not that it's a big deal when well you know actually we can't act upon it without the 48 hour uh notice the gender posting >> uh the posted one is actually 1163.
>> Okay. All right. Well, we have a we, you know, open meeting law is pretty clear on this. It's it's the agenda is going to be posted 48 hours in advance. Um, this
Well, you know, I'm just thinking this doesn't require a public hearing. Um, we've actually amended. Well, Mary, I'm going to I'm going to re refer to you.
>> It's not on our agenda. >> Well, isn't it there's no agenda item for this one at all. Or is it the wrong number? >> Well, there there are two outstanding orders of condition. One is a superseding order. That's what's been posted. >> Okay. And this one wasn't posted at all.
>> No, wasn't posted at all. Well, let me make it easy. We had a couple of comments, Mason and I, about some additional work that needed to be done. So, I think we're going to end up maybe recommending that this um be tabled until the spring where that work can
take place. Um so, >> okay, >> maybe the applicant can continue to work with Mason on that in between now and then and and talk about that. I I don't know what the rule is, Bob. It it isn't a public hearing. We don't have to take public
input. So, um, it's >> why don't why don't we do this? I I think Bob is here. >> Robert's here. Why don't we open it up to questions? I I don't think we can take action on it tonight, but it doesn't mean we we cannot we can have a that we think we can have a discussion
on it because it's >> so Okay. So, Robert, give us your name and position on this thing. Good to see you again. How's that mas? >> Hi, folks. Nice to see you again. It's been uh been a few years. Uh the mud is
good. >> What puppy? >> Not not quite so muddy. Although the the the same dog did find find her way into the into the into the river again today into the pond. >> I I warned Mason. I said keep an eye on that dog. Otherwise, you're going to
come home soaking wet when it shakes off. >> Yeah. >> That did Yeah, that did not make that did not go over. So, >> we were already wet anyway. So yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, nice to see you all. So, um um so we're we're in front of you
uh to request um uh the certificate of compliance and uh I um after our sitewalk today, I went back and um and looked through the notes and had had some pieces some feedback I wanted to provide um um uh you with uh regarding
some of the questions today. So I think there were basically three three items that we had um today that um would uh were in question and one of them was the uh the amount or the area of of wetland
restoration that occurred and there's an area in there approximately 50 square feet or something thereabouts um that Mary's concerned that it it's it's it's not meeting um uh those needs right now.
And um one of So what I wanted to do was um uh revisit that. >> Robert, could you there were two as I recall there were two replication areas. >> That's a Yeah. >> On wetland. Which one is this? Just >> I think Mary and I are probably the only
two on the commission back. We were >> If you'd like, I can share my screen with you and show you the ones that we're talking about. >> Okay. That I think that'll be helpful. Okay. Thank you. You should be good to share now. Okay, thank you. So, what I would like
to share is let's do this window and then let me go and bring up. So, okay, can you see my uh can you see the email? >> We see agenda. >> Yeah, we have the agenda.
>> Okay, let me try that again. All right, let's see. Try that again. Zoom. >> Are you trying to share a second screen? >> I was just trying to I tried to share what was um the screen as opposed to the app.
>> I can pull up that email if it's easier. Rob, >> no, I got I've got it now. Thank you. Um but it may be um maybe that I need to I'm going to have to stop in between if I'm toggling through. So um so there were two things of f first was um the
um the plans we were actually looking at today were not the were not the last uh amended approval. So, there was uh an amended approval um which I I've got the the email uh and the notes and it looks like uh
unfortunately it was long enough ago that I don't remember exactly the process but the email from um from um Martha which uh actually maybe I'll pull that one up too although I feeling you're not going to rible it. Can you see the new email?
>> No, >> no. I I I think the thing we just have to have have clarity on that, Robert, is you you have emails. Martha was the town planner, but not on conservation.
So, amendments to your plan for the planning board wouldn't necessarily roll over as an amendment to your order of conditions. >> Understood. But what we did was we we presented it to the uh the commission and I think it was determined that there
was a whole whole list of conditions that the commission provided um and that it would that it was we were going to do it as a slight modification, nothing that would require a hearing and and that's what that and that's what this whole piece reflects >> is so we have a um we we have a review
and approval that it was it was just being done as an administrative approval at that point. So, this was just to relocate the replication area. Is that what you're >> Exactly. And I don't honestly remember who recommended it, but there was we originally had eight uh I think 8 thou
800 square ft that were going to be down on uh at the main channel and then it was recommended that we do this piece which you can see here which it was it was only 240 ft that we needed because there was 120 ft of permanent impact.
So, we were going to do 240 ft of wet restoration here. Um, and then we ended up not doing it that way because there was a large oak tree. So this is the asbuilt. Um, and so we ended up splitting it up. There was a large oak tree and we didn't want to damage the
oak. So we put roughly half of it on this side and half of it half of it on this side. Working with Samantha in that process. So there was 240 that we needed. We ended up creating 275. And now there's there's discussion on
whether or not that this part actually uh how much of this part actually works. >> So in my mind we're we're within 20 to 30 square ft of of the required amount. Um so what I would like to and so what
what we had talked about today was um that it needs to go back and be redone. But what I would like to remind the the board is that we we actually restored we removed 165 yards of fill. Um and and we
restored 1,500 square ft where there had been a a road previously and we we were not able to get credit for that because the road itself was considered to be a wetland. Um but the um but there's no question that that it um habitat-wise,
hydraologically, this is we we removed a road from the middle of a wetland. So uh my my appeal to the board is or sorry to the commission is that we're talking 30 or 40 square feet of wetland that that
that we attempted to to do that's now um um being deemed substandard. Um but that we actually you know that that this this project has has been uh um a big improvement for for the wetland overall
um due due to the removal of fill um and the and the removal of the road through the wetland. So that's my that's my first point and I and I wanted to show one other thing on this which was this is the area that we're discussing. So this the um it's this area from this
post to a bit past this post. And the area of concern is the area past the post. And I can remember why it it's not deeper. And the the and you can see it here. There's a there's a big there's a giant rock. There's a large boulder. Um
and the amount of disturbance because it it's underneath the erosion control. And then the same thing there's a large stump that's right here. And that's why we weren't able to pull the grade further down. So, um the discussion with Samantha uh Hol at the time was that
this is this is what we can do without um have creating additional disturbance again pulling out this large boulder and pulling out the stump. Um which basically meant that this is what we could accomplish in here. So, I would I would I would ask the uh
the commission to to consider that um as um as uh as a case for um the the certificate of compliance rather than sending us out to do another 50 square ft. >> Okay. So, one other piece I wanted to add to that which I think is part of the
uh the discussion here was um is I want to I want to remind uh the board because I'm or the commission I keep saying that is that um we um overall this project was an enormous asset. Um when we first
brought this to the to the uh to the to the commission it was for uh there was about 57 acres of of conservation land and in the end um the uh the um the Yair's um really trying to be good stewards put
82 acres into conservation. Um so this was a a huge net plus um for the uh uh for the uh uh uh for the town of Newbury. And again, I I um I I believe that this is this project really was a which was was a huge net plus. Yes,
there's a few uh items that I that are really kind of minor details along the way that I would I would hope we can we can work with um uh given what this project has accomplished. And with that, I think that's probably a good place for me to stop and maybe
answer some questions. >> Okay, Mary, additional questions for for sure. And and just to back up for some of the newer members, you know, this is a a roadway that was constructed to provide a secondary access to the solar farm
that's in Biffield off of Main Street and um it had to cross a substantial wetland as you can see here. So, this was a project that had a lot of impact. the there was an old farm road essentially that came across this wetland and they removed the road and
rebuilt uh removed all of almost all of the fill material that was in the wetland and bridged it. >> No, no, we removed all of it, Mary. It was all >> Yeah, there's a little little piece left. A few >> that was below the water level. It was we removed 165 yards. not really
relevant to the what I'm the point I'm trying to make is just to give them some context for the for the project that you know there was a big bridge that was put in across here that um which I don't know if you you guys are even aware of that but it was a what was the length of the bridge 75 ft or 100 feet or something
>> 120 ft 100 it was a roughly a million half dollar uh bridge >> it's a huge steel span that's >> with no wetland impact y so it didn't have any peers in in the water so there a substantial, >> you know, improvement in removing this
um old road. From the point of view of the wetland protection act in the way it was flagged and presented to the commission, the road was flagged as wetland itself. And that's because it was low enough that it just it had wetland vegetation growing on it and over and the water would wash over it
and and move downstream under under 95. So we had to do replication for the uh amount of permanent wetland impact that was proposed. So all that was temporary. The material that you see the stone everything was all removed. Um and the
temporary impacts were all restored and it actually looks very good. Um and it's and it's going to come back nicely and it was all very stable. Um, and I don't know what it looked like during construction because I never saw it, but um, it it was and I'm sure it was a big effort to get this done because it was a
big big project. Bob will remember. Um, >> so there was this just minor area along the access road where the replication area wasn't quite the size. It didn't it wasn't functional for the size that they were getting taking credit for. And I estimated it was probably 4550 square
ft. It wasn't a huge area. Um and what would be involved to res you know to correct it would be to excavate and you know a little bit deeper and recede again with the wetlands seed mix. Um you know it it's a minor thing but it won't
it doesn't meet the 75% vegetative cover in that area right now. So that was the um that was the comment there. There was also a small area uh >> Mary can we pause and just clarify a few things here real quick? >> Sure. It's it's you mentioned 50, but we
restored 275. We only needed to restore 240. So there's a there was a um uh there's a >> different saying the area that was short. We were short by >> That's right. 45. >> But but we but so if it was short 50 that would then that would be short only 15 square feet.
>> Okay. Because you were you were over for the >> we were over we were we we had done more than was what was required. >> That is that's probably dimminimous then. So, if that's the way you if you want to do the math that way, um you you you built you intended to build more than
you needed because you >> That's right. >> redesigned the shape of it. Um and then you we only needed the 240 ft or whatever. >> That's right. Only 240. Yeah. >> Yep. Um, and then the other other small item was there was a a p a sort of
staging area that was created um as a little bumpout to this road and that hadn't really been restored. Um, it hadn't been receded or anything. So, there was and it seemed to be a little bit larger than what was originally shown on the plan. I don't know if you
have that. >> Yeah, I I can pull that up for you. Unfortunately, this is not letting me um share my screen. It just shares the application. So, I have to kind of go back and forth, but let me let me um let me figure out how I can do that real quick here. I think I can I can probably split screen and make it do do it that
way. So, give me one moment. Um cuz yeah, it the issue is So, here's that. And now, let me do um Yeah. And th this is really probably the in my mind the most significant part because this one this one is this one's
off. Um and so let's do this. And bring that back over here. I don't know if this is going to work or not, but we'll try.
What are you trying to pull up? Maybe Mason could post it uh put it up for you if >> what um Okay. Yeah. Well, what I what I was trying to do is just compare the um uh the asbuilts with the um with the
proposed and um I think I can do that now. I'm sorry if if it's if it's >> So if if I could just ask a question to both Mary and and Bob. So the requirement Mary was we we needed 240
line square ft of replication. Bob you're saying that you've done 275 square ft overall. It just isn't exactly in the spot where the was proposed due to existing conditions.
>> Not exactly. It was that we we thought we we had attempted to do 275. There's pro approximately 50 that are not uh that that that are substandard where we don't have the 75% cover of wetland veg. >> Okay.
>> And so if it's if it's 50 minus 275 that gets us down to 225. >> We're only required to do 240. So we're we're approximately 15 >> and um we're approximately 15 off and and then yeah then my my feeling is that you know we did an enormous
>> skipping everything else that they did to remove all >> yeah cuz the the 165 yards of removal was was really um over and above beyond we didn't need to do it right. We could have just built the bridge over that existing road, but it didn't. And so there was a cost to that.
>> Um, but it it it was a better job to remove >> the fill in the road and it was just it was a better piece. Um, but there was no credit for any of that. >> Yep. So, so that was that area. And then further down, if you continue down this
road towards the bridge, they had a they had a pulloff where they had to >> Yeah, it's right here. Can you see my my my cursor? >> No. >> No. Which one are you seeing? Are you Can you see my cursor now? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we can. Yeah, you're in the >> Okay. So, I'm only able to show you one
screen at a time. Okay. So, let's let's do this real quick then. So, this is um >> uh Okay. So, it's this area right in here. Um so, if we continue on Yes. >> Um I unfortunately I'm not able to show you the multiple. So but what I want to show you if you can follow my cursor the
the um basically it the road should have ended right here. This is the the the lease line um and it should have ended right here. There was this bumpout. So, this area that that that Mary's referring to um is is a gravel area that hasn't been restored that was um that's
that's, you know, valuable for essentially as a turnaround because this is a one a one um a one uh this is a one lane road and one of the requirements of the fire department was that we have bumpouts every every so so number of feet because this this was where all the
turnaround was done. Um, but this the bumpout's bigger than than what was approved. >> That's in the Upland area. >> It is. Yes. >> Okay. >> Is it up? I think it's in buffer zone. I can't tell from this plan. >> I I don't It is not in buffer zone. I'll
show you where the um where that is. So, let's go back and we'll go to one more time. Here's here's the um >> Okay. So, now you should be able to see this one. Um, let me pull this out. >> Those are the 25 foot lines. So, yeah,
you can't really tell. It looks like it's in. >> So, it's this area here that it extends past the line here. Um, and the our buffer zone here. Here's our 25 foot buffer here. And here's our 200t river
area. So, we're we're we're we're on the top of the hill here, >> right? So you probably are a portion of it in the buffer zone is what my point is. So >> how how how are me how am I in the buffer? Here's our 25. What what buffer zone are you talking
>> buffer is 100t from the well that you're only showing 25. You don't show the 100 foot buffer zone on this plan. You show a 200 foot riverfront from the river in the other direction and you show 25 from the wetland that we're talking about.
But if you if you can envision the 25 foot extending another three times its width, you're going to be in the buffer zone. >> Right. There's a 100 foot buffer zone from that wetland line right there. So that's the 25
and this would be the 100 close. >> Yeah. >> And then the third item was just that there was some um still some stone um under the bridge on the
>> that that absolutely cannot be removed. There's no way. That was removed during construction when there was a hall road. We cannot get equipment. We never put we did not put equipment in the water. >> Yeah. And so when that hall road was being removed, everything was below water.
>> The difference is that the water levels dropped. Now >> you removed 165 yards and you're talking about like six inches of stone in there. >> Rob, please hold your comments until I I call upon you. Thank you, >> Mary. Go ahead.
>> Just wanted to just want you know these the are things the commission needs to know and decide upon so they have the information. Um, there was still some uh construction material under a small amount under the a portion of the bridge. It was just stone, like 1-in
stone. Um, it looked like it could have possibly been in the wetland. It's, you know, again, these are small comments given the size of the project. Um, but you're asking for certificate of compliance. I'm giving comments on areas that might not be in full compliance
with but might require just a small amount of handwork to to get rid of. So Mason took some pictures of it. Um I don't know if you want to show those Mason, but >> yeah, I can I can pull those up. >> Yep. >> I can show you though that this area was
this is Bob. Please hold your comments until I call upon you. Thank you. So, yeah, you can see just in the foreground here, right under the bridge, there's some stone there. There's a little bit of stone in material that's about halfway down that's left there.
That might have been remnants from the dewatering operation. I'm not sure. That's not really any um concern. And it's you do more harm than good trying to get at it. This area, this a little bit of stone was totally frozen into the wetland right there at the time we were
there. It's not a lot. It's probably going to reveate over, but you know there it was there. So, um, and you can see the cutting of the vegetation, um, on on either side of the bridge. There were some shrubs and things that needed
to be cleared to to create the construction pathway. That'll all come back and grow in, um, closer to the bridge, I think, over time as well. >> So, it I'm sorry. So I think the main concern for me would
just be you know and it might be for the planning board as well is the clearing and um lack of vegetation in the staging area which a portion of which appears to be in the buffer zone. So >> I don't know Mason did do you have any other things that you had on your list?
>> Uh plantings there was a number of restoration plantings. So um trees and shrubs that were put along uh put alongside the road. We could see those uh had been installed. They still had a lot of tags on them or the ribbons on them. So, you could see that they were
there. They looked from what we can tell they they were okay. But it's, you know, it's December, so it's a little hard to tell whether or not they're living, but it looks like they've have survived the couple years since it's it's been since they've been put in. I think it's been two years since they've been put in.
>> So, Mary, you mentioned the staging area that there was some still some disturbance there. Mason, do you have pictures of that? >> I do in the growing season. >> That's it right there. >> So they they you know cleared but beyond the
>> That's not the staging area. >> That's not it. >> This was the bumpout area that we were talking about. >> That's the bump out at the end of the bridge. The staging area is on the other side. >> Well, that's Isn't that what we're talking about? The bumpout? No, you thought you mentioned reveation of the of the staging area.
>> Okay. Maybe I'm using the wrong term staging, but I meant it's the bumpout I'm talking about. >> Okay. Okay then. Okay. That then right here >> that bump out is on is on the plans. >> Yeah, it's it's on the plans. Uh it's just a little bit larger in in the field
than it was approved on the plans. And a portion of that is >> Which bumpout are we talking about now, Mary? Are you talking about a a different bumpout than we were talking about before? >> No. >> Okay. Cuz that's that's not that's not the same bumpout that we were just talking about. >> Okay. >> That bumpout that we were just looking at there is on the is at the is the one
at the end of the bridge. Um where the and um so that >> that that's a just a minor bump. >> Oh, that's on the far side of the >> Yeah, that's right. That's on the far side of the bridge. >> Not the power line side. >> Yes, it is. Yeah, that's the one on the power line side cuz that's the stone
wall to your right that go that that demarcates the end of the property line there. >> Okay. And maybe Mason doesn't have a picture of this one. >> It looks similar. >> Yeah, >> it's just the same kind of stone. It's cleared and it's just bigger. A little bit bigger. So,
>> yeah. >> You said it was outside of your lease area. So, I think that um Bob, I'm directing this to you just >> Yeah, >> that may be a concern as well. >> I think she's addressing it to Bob Rosen, not not me.
>> Yeah, I mean the the lease is from the Yairs and the Yairs are are are happy with this. Um so I I I don't I don't think anybody on the uh on the project side um has a concern. Is that Can I ask
you Rob if that bumpout is needed for anything in the future? Is it is it necessary because you have now that the bridge is in, does it serve any purpose anymore? >> Um, let me see what's happening. Sorry,
things keep turning off. Um, the um uh No. I mean, other than it's it's these bumpouts and um are items that are are wanted by um um the fire department. So, we we definitely can't shrink it down more. Um there, you know, they were they
were quite concerned about um turning radius all the way through. So, um uh obviously they didn't need it that large. Um but but they wouldn't be concerned about that. So, no, that's just it's a onelane road, so all that does is just provide access so somebody
doesn't have to back further down. >> Okay. >> Um and um um so I mean it's in an area that was that had was already disturbed. Um it's really it was it's an area this I mean it wasn't disturbed with gravel
road and all that, but it it was it was um it it was an area that had already been used for for things prior. Okay, Mason. So, Mary, have you identified I mean, I think you're recapping the result of your sitewalk
today. >> Yeah. >> And and we'll call it uh the minor discrepancies that exist. Um I'm curious down at the restoration at the bridge crane pad site. I I'll be honest with you, Rob. I
don't think anyone on the commission knew. We had talked about this in the past. We had no idea for whatever reason. Uh I don't recall the commission getting any update from Sam on the environ, you know, the
weekly reform >> environmental monitoring. Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Or or even a field discussion about changing. To be honest, we I honestly thought that the project had been abandoned that it wasn't going forward. >> Oh, wow. Because that we sent environmental monitoring reports every
couple of weeks. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, no. Mason Mason got copies of them. It I'm just being candid that I I'm >> Yeah. We had no idea that you would have even proceeded uh with this because I would have loved to been a fly in the
wall watching that bridge get put in because that that was a work of art, too. >> It was a beauty. It it was it was impressive. >> I I hope you took a video of all all of this, but >> I have some great pictures I'd love to share in there and there's a bunch of photos in the environmental monitoring
reports of the bridge install. >> Okay. >> Um I I I will say the these they they worked in really tough conditions and did really uh great work. We had a series of 1-in storms uh during um the uh um uh the the removal and the
installation. It was it was a really tough period of time. They did they did phenomenal work. I was there during if you might recall the environmental monitoring requirement was that in anytime we were in the resource I needed to be there. So there's a lot of monitoring um and um and I was in I was
in regular contact with with uh Samantha. Um, so all of this has been in front of her and I I I'm I'm sorry that that there would had not been um >> No, no, that's this is no criticism on
your part, Rob. Uh I I think the the end result here is just trying to get this across the finish line. But >> yeah, >> I think Mary, do you agree that we really never thought this had gone forward because we >> I was asking about it recently and and Bas said that he didn't know anything about it either. So yeah, I was
surprised that I mean maybe it was at the tail end of Samantha's term and and when um >> was in place. Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> maybe >> but that but certainly that that's that's not on >> Yeah. >> on on on Rob the project's part. Um so
Mary, you have anything else? I was just going to go back to Mason just to quantify kind of what what the punch list is and then to discuss them and and and see what direction we want to go in. Was there anything? >> It was just those three items. The >> Okay.
>> Um I think that the replication area I'm satisfied that that's a you know >> 15 square feet is not going to >> and we're not going to dig things up over that. And then um the stone under the bridge, you know, we it's it's not a lot. Uh
it's probably going to be revagitated. It's just stone, small stone. So um >> well, and it's actually underwater. And that that's what I'm saying is when we when >> that's my that's that was my point is it's underwater. So but you know we can count it as material that just it wasn't
fully removed as part of the removal of the road or something. >> But but how do you how do you say that when we were matter listen everyone all questions go through the chair. >> Thank you Bob. >> All right Mary if you could finish.
>> I'm saying that that's probably not a problem. So >> yeah, no I know I think >> and then the third bra relax >> bump out. >> Thank you. >> And that >> I will relax >> potentially present more of an issue because it was it appeared to be from the plan additional clearing beyond the
limit of work that hasn't been restored. So, I don't know what the square footage is uh because the asbuilt plan doesn't doesn't match it that way with the um you could calculate it, but I don't know what the actual square footage is in the
buffer zone that was was impacted beyond what was approved. >> Okay. >> Woody has some thoughts about how the planning board would look at that. So, >> so let me let me just go back to Mason where you guys are on the site visit and you were kind of the eyes of the
commission. Mason, were were there any additional items that you you took notation of that? >> I think it was just maybe the the stone around the utility pole, Mary, but I think we had discussed on site that that was in the approved location in the end.
Um, so I think that was all for for kind of, you know, concerns or comments that we had. >> Okay. Woody, what what was the status of this in the planning board? I mean, you and I even talked about this. I don't even >> to this date, I had no idea that this
the bridge was in. So, >> yeah, >> news to me. And um there's a few various reasons for that. Uh but here we are. >> Okay. you any you've heard what both Mason and and Mary have brought up and
any questions you have that we can have Rob respond to. >> Um I I don't have any specific questions other than because I was having trouble following at one point there, but the turnarounds were required. The the bump
outs that were shown in the pictures were required by fire. They were. Yes. >> Okay. >> Now, not not the size though. That the one corner the elbow that that where it pushes out across the lease line is is bigger than than what was required. But
yes, there were um that that was part of one of them. They're they're spaced. I I don't remember every 300 ft we have a bump out. Um and uh there was a a turning analysis turning radius um that was required um by the fire department
for that. >> Okay. And those were not those are on the asbelt now, but weren't on the original plan. >> Just just that one corner elbow. They were um the bumpouts were were part of
the approved plan set. >> Okay. >> Just just not the just not the size of that. >> It's a little larger than what it's supposed to be. >> It's larger. Yeah, that's exactly right. And it's it's a bit larger. I mean, admittedly, it crosses the line. It's it's quite a bit larger. Yeah. But it
was Yeah. Yeah. But it was in an area that had was all always used as a turnaround up there. There was even a road and stuff that went off the edge of that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So it's already existing. Y >> So I I think the one question is has the fire department signed off on this now?
Have they actually gone through this and looked at it? >> The they're they're supposed to have their final meeting tomorrow which is just for the shut off. Um but but um so uh the fire department has been uh involved in this. So, because we had, and again, I'm sorry, I don't know why
the the the planning board and the conservation commission weren't aware of this because we we had the required pre-construction meetings and and all these other things. And so, those folks were all CCD on the environmental monitoring reports. And we just assume that if it's going to the planner and the and the conservation agent that that
information would be shared with the boards, >> but yeah, one one would think. >> Yeah, >> it happens though. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So quantifying the issues, uh, Mayor, I'm going to go back to you. What
What are your thoughts on the magnitude of the of the issues? Is mother nature going to take over some of these it's all going to, as I recall, >> yeah, because they put a gravel pad down, so it's been a couple years and there's no vegetation growing in it. So
it's a kind of a parking area. So ideally >> you would, you know, re reestablish the approved limit of work there. We could issue a partial certificate of compliance and have that just be the only remaining work left over which might satisfy things. Um, you know, sign
off on the rest of the project. Um, and it because of time of year, it might be difficult to do that work right now and get it seated and restabilized, but it's probably enough to, you know, be worthwhile in in pulling that back. It's
quite a bit big. It's probably twice as big as it shown on the plan. >> Okay. So, the the the issue before us tonight is the order of the order of conditions that you're seeking isn't on our agenda. So, we we can't act on that.
Um, and I I think Mary, you you've raised a good point about for those that weren't involved in this project, this was one of these >> went on and on. Well, it it the the amount of work and
energy and for planning uh what Rob has put into this and then to actually have it built uh is is quite remarkable. The the original farm road was undetectable. I mean, you you could kind of make it out walking up there.
>> And it something tells me, Rob, that this road isn't going to get used much other than during an emergency. is probably uh going to suffer a similar fate maybe but >> right >> so so Mary are you comfortable well let me so
you propose you brought up for discussion a partial certificate of compliance uh listing these minor um these minor uh variances uh minor in nature to the scope of the
work not minor in nature to a typical order conditions. Um, it is that the direction you see this going, Mary? Like I say, we're going to have to kick this to our next meeting. >> Yeah, I think if between now and the
next meeting, Rob could quantify the increased area that's been cleared, >> the increased area that of that that's in the buffer zone. So, you would have a number and you could decide whether or not
that needed you know that needed to be resolved before issuing a certificate of compliance or not. So, >> well, would you would you consider a So, you want to quantify what the
variance is for >> Yeah. I mean, if we're going to kick it down the can, then there's plenty of time to do that and just overlay approved plan with the asbuilt plan and figure out what the difference is. >> Yeah, that's why we would do that. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Well, then why don't we do this? Uh, Rob, you you've
heard before I do that, let me let me go around to the rest of the commission members out of fairness. Uh, Mick, any any questions uh for Rob, Mary, or Mason on this? >> Just a consideration when we're talking
about the bumpout area. Um, Rob, you said it's oversized uh per what the the fire department requirements are. It's looks like by the the line you drew uh on the map while we're watching that that bumpout area is partially within
that 100t buffer. So just a consideration going forward. Can you reduce the size of the bumpout, still meet fire department requirements and get the bumpout area outside of that 100t buffer? >> Yeah, there's no question we can do
that. I just measured it and it's 268 square feet um that it's that it's that it's over um approximately and you know I I would need to overlay it exactly but it looks to me like it it's about 200 so it's called 270 square ft. We we can absolutely do that. Um
>> yeah just uh that would kind of satisfy a lot of you know kind of discrepancies here satisfy the wetland protection requirements and still satisfy what the fire department needs. Of course, it probably couldn't be done until spring because you need to replicate the area
that you're going to, you know, the reduction part. And I guess maybe going forward a plan with that 100 foot buffer on it, the reduced size of that bump out and, you know, and the restoration area associated with that. So that would I think be helpful going forward.
>> Okay. I mean I mean my my request would be just please recognize that we did 1,500 square f feet of restoration in the wetland that wasn't credited and a a very a significant improvement to the wetland and we're talking about a small gravel pad uh on the edge of the road.
Um and so I mean we can do it but I it feels to me that the have been very you know really good. This has been a good project and they put 82 acres into conservation and we we need we want to close this project up and we can do this.
>> I I understand. >> Understood. >> We're just we're just going by the plan you guys submitted and we approved. >> You know that that the goodwill and then all the other stuff and like you say not getting credit for that restoration because it
was in the wetland already. there was significant restoration work that you didn't get any credit for and I and I certainly, you know, understand that. But we're looking at your plan you submitted that was approved. Uh I I think on the the question on the way the
wetland replication got a little bit deviated through some administrative direction from our agent. I I really don't have a pro any problems with that either. I think it was just good common sense. So
we're looking at Mary, you're going to quantify. So 260 268 square feet is over on the bumpout. Mick would like you to show the 100 foot buffer line on that. You got a fire department sign off meeting tomorrow. Correct.
>> Yeah, that's right. Will you bring up with them the bumpouts to see make sure that they are what they what they're looking for? And if they can memorialize that in an email to Mason, that would be perfect. >> Okay. I I don't know that they are that
tomorrow is a is a sign off for them. I don't think they were intending tomorrow to be a signoff um on the um on the bumpouts. They were simp it's simply uh there was one of the orders of condition um was for there to be a training for the fire department for the shut off. So
that that's that's what this is about. So >> So that will that be on site? That will be on site though, won't it? >> That's right. That's right. Because there there's two shut offs. There's one on site and then there's one at the um >> the other end. >> At the other end. That's exactly right. So, I I don't know that they were
planning to to to discuss um to dis I don't think I I know they were not planning to discuss to discuss bumpouts, >> Bob. It's bigger than what they already approved. So, there'll be they're not going to have enough. >> Yeah. But but you know what? They were put in the fire department. >> Mhm.
>> And and it just while we're going through this >> Yep. I I just think it's they may come back and and in fact say that this size is more accommodating to what they need. I don't know where that's going to go. >> Okay.
>> From a from a public safety standpoint. >> Okay. >> Or or access of vehicle safety or whatever. So >> So So Bob, um could I present it? Would you be okay with with the board be the commission be okay with me presenting it to to the fire department? Would you be
okay with the bumpout as it is oversized? Um would that does that would that be acceptable to the fire department? Is is that um is is that essentially what we're what I'm asking or is there something else? >> I think what we're asking is
what is proposed and in the field does it meet the needs of the fire department? >> Okay. >> Okay. And the answer is probably yeah, we gave you the the bare minimum size that we we wanted. Uh a little bit bigger may
>> may provide. I mean, I just can't imagine when we were doing this originally, Rob, I I was under the impression that the power company wanted to have the bump out so that if they had vehicles, their own vehicles during an emergency, one could pull off to let the other so no
one had to back down one way or the other. >> Yeah, you you you may be right, Bob. It's been so long I don't remember. I think you're actually right. I think it may have been National Grid. you you know I think you're right because now that I remember because remember the issue was what was the road width
>> right for their their their big truck >> and they wanted a 24ft road and we wanted to give them a 12ft road and the compromise was bumpouts >> um that could accommodate double width every 300 feet or something. >> Yeah, that that's kind of what I recall.
>> Yeah, you got a better memory than I Yeah. Well, this was this was well, but this was just one of the this wasn't usual, >> you know, we're building a deck, building a house. This was a very very very unique unique project, >> right? >> Okay. Well,
Woody, I see that you have your hand up. >> Yes. I just wanted to know if um this is currently online now. Yes, it's been online um I believe since uh probably January
of 2024. So this this this would have been or or maybe even a little earlier than that. I'm not quite sure when all the final testing was done, but the uh um construction basically was over by fall of 2023. >> Okay. And so it's been online since fall
of 2023. Um, this access road was approved for um an after the fact from my recollection. >> That's exactly right. >> To tie into the grid and we're just getting around to training the fire
department on how to turn it off. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There were a few balls dropped here. There there's no question about it. >> Okay. There's no question about it. There were a few balls dropped here. the um um the
uh the the the prior um well the the prior folks involved were in the were we're were we're were um supposed to have conducted all that stuff at the end of 2023 um and uh and and it has not gotten done
and that's that's why I'm back involved. >> Okay, thank you Rob. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh Harry, any questions for Rob or any points for clarification that you would like that? >> No, right now we shed light where there is none.
>> I think you guys had uh some great questions and and uh I learned a lot more about the project. So I'm all set. Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. So Rob, why don't you do this? You're going to we're going to put this on our January
6th agenda. January 6th >> where it isn't a public hearing. We don't have to formally request it be continued. We just can't take action on it tonight. >> Understood. >> Are you under >> if the commission would entertain a partial on this? Uh I is there some
underlying pressure on the other end of this to to other than just to wrap this up or is it >> timing? No. Uh expense. Yes. So, so timing there, I don't think there's anything, but there um >> yeah, I mean added expense on this because you may recall this was a this
was a $2 million add-on um for a bridge that's going to get used once a year >> and um it was it was a big deal. Um >> okay. >> And um but so no uh timing is nothing. I I mean well actually shouldn't take it say that timing is something because they're paying on a performance bond.
Um, and so that that's actually what triggered this as they were trying to figure why are we still paying a bond? Oh, the the the the project manager never closed this out. >> Okay. >> I think Mason, you had but that's a very good point. I think Mason, had you
spoken to Lisa, town council? >> Yeah. So, I talked with town council and she just recommended that everything be closed out, not only with conservation but with the planning board as well. >> What's open with the planning board? Um, >> Woody, do you know?
>> Well, you know what? That's a discussion for the planning board. Anyway, >> you know what? We we've spent better part of an hour on this. >> Yeah. Sorry about that. This project is >> No, no, no. This, like I say, you had a surprise $2 million ad to a project which is
>> right, you know, pretty remarkable in itself. >> Yeah. Well, appreciate your patience on all of this. >> No. So, Rob, we're going to put this on our January 6th agenda. >> Yeah. Mason, you'll put it on now. On the 0501163,
has D issued a certificate of compliance? >> They have not. They they received the information the same time that Mason did and and so Mason's acting faster than D. Um I'm expecting something soon, I hope. I I spoke with them before um the Thanksgiving holidays, and
>> I'm sure they're just busy. Was that on the original solar array going in that >> it was and and when when when when when I had last worked with with Martha, we were we were down we were we had gone through the checklist and everything was done on the order conditions for that
superseding order with the exception the only thing that was was remaining was the the planning board sorry the fire department training. So that's not even associated with this permit. Oh actually I can't remember which one. It was one of the permits, but um that was the only remaining condition that that Martha and
I were working on. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Rob, and good to good to catch up with you. >> Nice to see you all. >> Happy holidays. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> See you on the 6th. >> Thanks, Rob. >> Byebye.
>> Next order of business is an RDA for 280 High Road. Applicants submitting an RDA for replacing a rebel foundation and buffer zone. Mason, can you give us an update on this? >> Yep. Uh David reached out requesting a continuence to the January 6 meeting. Um it sounds like they're going to be
reducing the scope of the project just to be repairing um the Rebel Foundation in areas where it's needed most. Um so he's going to be talking with his builder. It's kind of where we left off at the last meeting. Um but he just wants to get some uh kind of clear direction before he comes back to the
board um with his RDA. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Well, why don't we this again where it's not a public hearing on this. There's no no requirement to to uh request continuence. So, we'll just put this on our January 6th order.
Okay. Uh next order business. It's an RDA uh to Yaleway applicant submitting an RDA for the installation of a ground mounted solar ground mounted solar panels. Mason, can you give us an update, an overview, and a recommendation, if you have it?
>> Yep. So, where we left off with this, um, the board wanted to get some more information. Um, on my notes, it says that, um, the board wanted to see the elevation of the panels above the grade. Um, we wanted more detail on whether or not they were going to remove the white
pine and alder that was in the proposed location. And then we also wanted the total square footage of the solar panels. Um, and you know, depending on how high the panels were, we had discussed whether or not um, you know, mitigation planting would be needed. Um,
I had tried reaching out to the applicant and the homeowner. Um, I don't think either of them are on the meeting tonight. I wasn't able to get a hold of them. Um, I left them a message um, regarding the the few items that the board wanted to see addressed. Um, I
actually took some time this afternoon to do some of the calculations based off of what they submitted. Um, so I have some uh totals for a square footage impact um and also some um dimensions and heights um from the base of the solar to the top and then from the base
um to the bottom of the panel. Um so I'll be adding those to the Dropbox for review um for whenever the applicant comes back and is able to present. >> Okay. Why don't you just put this on the January 6th uh agenda?
>> Yep. >> And hopefully I I see some names on on the screen. Is is anyone here for two Yale way for this ground mounted solar panel array?
Okay. So, yeah, let's just bump this to the January 6 meeting. >> Yep. And I'll uh I'll be adding the calculations and stuff to the Dropbox likely tomorrow morning. So, we'll have some more information on that. >> Okay. And I mean, if they're not going
to proceed, if you don't hear from them, don't put it on the agenda. You know what I mean? >> Okay. Okay. Next matter is continue public hearing D file number
0501457 16 Low Street. Applicant is submitting a notice of intent to raise and rebuild the single family home in the buffer zone with associated site work, septic replacement, and construction at vegetated buffer strip along the wetland
boundary. Mason, what's the update on this one? >> Uh, so Woody, uh, Dave and I were able to meet Mike on site to do the sitewalk. Um, we reviewed the wetland line. Uh, we took a look at the far side of the lot, which is where the driveway was proposed. There's about six to eight
pine trees existing there now uh that they're proposing to remove. Uh so Mike's going to be working on a mitigation plan um for some native trees in the backyard area to replace those. Uh Dave Clifford had also noted that there was a wellhead in uh right next to the current existing driveway that they
should be putting on um the new site plan and addressing what they're going to be doing with that. Um, and I believe that was all the comments that we had besides adding the 50- foot buffer onto their plan. Um, so he's trying to get that from Steve Sawyer, the um, person
who's doing the, you know, the site plans on that project. Um, so they're hope hoping to be back in front of us for January 6, um, with all their updates. >> Okay. So, the applicant has requested this matter be continued till January 6th. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Uh, okay. I'll entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to January 6th at the applicant's request. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes.
>> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> I. >> Harry? >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor. Okay. Next matter. A continued public hearing. D file number 0501455 Old Newbury uh golf club applicant is
submitting an NOI for golf course maintenance work including T- box relocation tree removal within the buffer zone areas. Mason, can you give us an update where this stands? >> Yep. So, where we left off with this uh we were asking for them to do some infield flagging um because a lot of
this was done just based off the GIS and aerial imagery. Um, and then I think we also required a 50- foot buffer to be added to the plan just for uh the commission's view. Um, Sam, the engineer on the project, wasn't able to assemble all the materials in time, and so
they're going to be requesting a continuence to our next meeting. >> Okay. All right. I will entertain a motion to continue this public hearing to our January 6th, 2026 meeting at the applicant's request.
>> So moved. Second. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> Yes. >> Harry? >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's third chair. Okay. Next
matter is a continued public hearing. D file number 0501453 Central Street. applicant is submitting a notice of intent for the construction of an MBTA residential housing development at 34 Central Street. Uh Mason has recused himself because he's a
a neighbor and I received a communication uh from Heidi and from Maren that they're requesting a continuence to our January 6th meeting. So, I'll entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to our January 6,
2026 uh meeting at the applicant's request. >> So, moved. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. All in favor? Mary? >> Yes. >> Woody? >> Yes. >> Mick? >> I.
>> Harry? >> Yes. >> And Bob Connor's votes? Yes. Okay, Mason. Anything else? That that's the end of our agenda for tonight. Uh any any other important items? >> Uh no. I had mentioned to a couple of the board members before we started that
the substantial completion for the Lark and Dam project was just done last week. Um so if anyone was interested in seeing that site, I'd be happy to walk down there with you and you know show you some of the project elements and things like that. So if anyone's interested, feel free to reach out. Um but besides that, I don't think I have any other
general project updates. >> Okay. Well, I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. It It's one of my favorite holidays. Uh, football, family, and food. How do you beat that? I don't have any any other matters. Any
final words, Mary? Any comments or what do you >> No, just um great job as usual, Mason. Thanks for all your hard work. You really are keeping all the balls in play. So, that's great. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, there was an interesting video that I come across. I think it was on
Facebook uh when they had the uh the uh hammer out there breaking breaking the uh the >> Oh, I saw that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Very. >> So, that that was the part I think we mentioned at a previous meeting, Mary. You asked if they ran into any issues. So, that's where they found the ent, you
know, a giant wood timber spanning the the whole, you know, concrete area of the dam. So, >> was that behind uh was that behind the dam or up >> it? It was a part of it. It was, you know, within >> Oh. Oh, it was a construction component. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And so that that slowed them down a little bit just, you know, breaking through the material took a little while, but uh but besides that, they uh I I you know, only good things to say about the contractors that we worked with. Uh you know, they were great and and super responsive. >> Who was the contractor?
>> Uh Luciano's brothers. >> Okay. >> Uh you I don't know if Mary you've heard of the the Mat I believe it's Matapo Bog Restoration. Really great project. They worked on that as well. Um, and it they do a lot of stuff with um with deer as well. So, >> yep. Okay. Are they are they local or
they are out of state firm? >> Uh, they're in the state, but I don't know exactly why. I want to say they're about an hour or two away. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Uh, Woody, any any updates you want to provide?
>> I don't have any updates. Uh, I have a couple questions for uh Mason and Bob. I tried to call Nathan earlier today, but uh if you guys could hang on on at the end of the meeting and well give me a call, that would be great. >> Okay, >> thank you.
>> Okay. Uh Mick, any any comments or questions? >> No, no, I'm good. >> Appreciate it. >> Then, uh yeah, I second uh Mason, you're just doing an incredible job. Really appreciate all your work in the field. It helps so much cuz we can't get to the
sites like you can and the the thorough reports and the photographs are are so helpful. So just uh thank you for all your effort. >> Okay, be be careful. He's going to be asking for a raise. We keep giving him all these att that's right. There's only one person
you got to impress for a raise. That's not us. Harry, Eddie, any any comments? >> Just uh echo what everyone said about Mason. You know, I I've been here for what, four or five months, and so far you've been very impressive with all your hard work and energy. So, I look
forward to uh that continuing. So, that that was it. Thank you, Bob. >> Hey. No, it's a great team effort, everyone. And thank you. it. I was actually shocked when you're doing the annual report and you look at the number of meetings, the number of agenda
items, number of site visits. Uh it it's quite a commitment of time and and I I certainly appreciate everything you guys do and I know that the town and all the residents appreciate your fairness and uh your your your contribution. So with
that, I will it is now 7:18. I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> So moved. Second. Second. Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Mary, Woody, Miss Harry, and Barb Connor.
>> Good night, everyone. Good night. Bye. Bye, guys. Have a great night, folks.