[Denis MacDougall]: Okay. On February 12, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law a supplement to COVID-19 fiscal appropriations and extension through July 15, 2022 of certain authorizations related to public meetings. This new law extends the remote meeting provisions of the Governor's March 12, 2020 executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. In accordance with the 2020 executive order, this meeting of the City of Medford Conservation Commission is being conducted totally via remote participation using Zoom, including committee members and the public. The use of Zoom complies with the law's requirement to provide live, adequate, alternative means of public access to deliberations of the public body instead of holding meetings in a public place that is open and physically accessible to the public. Persons who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by using the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the City of Manfred website. If, despite our best efforts, we are not able to provide for free all-time access, we will post a record of this meeting on the City's website in the near future at the link provided in the meeting agenda.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. So I'll just go over some, some quick sort of rules of engagement for the meeting tonight. My name is Lindsay Colburn I'm the co chair of the Conservation Commission, and I'll call this meeting to order here at 634pm. We will have time for questions and comments from the public. The way this will run is we'll have each applicant present, followed by questions from the commission, and then members of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions and provide comment on each application. If you enter questions into the record, please be sure to identify yourself with your name and address before asking your question. I would also ask that video sharing be turned off with the exception of the commissioners, the agent, and the current applicant who's presenting just to ensure that folks are able to focus on the item at hand. Once the commission has acted on that application, the applicant is free to leave the meeting and the next applicant may turn on their video sharing. Screen sharing is not going to be permitted unless it's absolutely necessary and is approved by Dennis. Otherwise, Dennis will share any plans or documents that we need to review during the meeting. All of our votes will be taken by roll call vote. And in the event of any technical difficulties, anything remaining on the agenda that we have not heard will be automatically continued to the subsequent Conservation Commission meeting. So at this time, I would like to take a quick roll call of the commissioners to introduce themselves. So Heidi, do you want to start us off? Heidi Davis, co-chair.
[Christopher Bader]: Alexander Panchich, member of the Conservation Commission.
[Marie Izzo]: Eric Rexford, commission member. Dave Sharon.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, excellent so at this time we'll move to the first item on the agenda and Dennis I'll just go in the order that the original agenda. was listed so first up, we have a request for determination of applicability, which is a continued application continued from the June 15 hearing. This application is in relation to Herb Chambers Companies. They've requested a request for determination of applicability to determine whether areas at 400 Mystic Avenue are jurisdictional as wetland resource areas under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or the City of Medford Wetlands Ordinance. There is currently no work being proposed under the scope of this request. This is strictly to determine jurisdictional applicability. So is there anyone here from the applicant from Herb Chambers to present this RDA?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. Hi, this is Rihanna Summers from Epsilon Associates, and I'm here with Gabe Crocker and David Newhall, and they're from Crocker Design Group, and they're the civil engineers for the project.
[Marie Izzo]: Hello. Lindsay, sorry to interrupt before the applicant presents. I just wanted to say that I will not be participating in this particular agenda item. Thanks.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, thanks, Eric. We do still have a quorum, though, with four members. So yeah, Brianna, if you want to, or if someone on your team wants to just give a quick overview of the scenario, and we can then open it for discussion.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sure. Yeah, so as you were saying, this project, there's no work proposed at this time, but This is, I had gone out to the site, 400 Mystic Avenue site, a few months back, and we identified a couple of isolated drainage features on the site. And at this time, we're just seeking a determination from the commission on whether either of the two areas would be jurisdictional under the Wetlands Protection Act and or the city's wetlands ordinance. So, If it's okay, is it okay if I share my screen or if I have an aerial of the site? I don't need to show it, but.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, hold on. I'll just make it easier.
[SPEAKER_00]: Great. Thanks. Hi. Here we go. Okay. Yeah. So this just shows an aerial overview of the site. And like I said, it's 400 Mystic Avenue. It's located right next to I-93. And it's currently comprised of a five acre commercial property. And this is a century bank building with a bunch of offices. There's also a drive-through teller. And as you can see, there's a bunch of paved parking areas around the site to the north, west, and south. And then along the perimeter of the site, there's this manicured grass area, and that is where the two stormwater features or swales are located. You can actually see them on this aerial. You can see there's some standing water within one of the swales along the southern edge of the site, kind of wraps around the site. And those swales receive runoff from the highway, from the off-ramp, or the exit ramp, and then also from the parking areas. The site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. And I'm then going to show, this is the existing conditions plan that was submitted with the RDA. So I'll just talk about the two areas. In January, back in January of this year, I went out to the site and I flagged two of these stormwater features. There's one large whale that I kind of pointed out on the aerial, but this I identified as series A, and it's a grass whale. It wraps around the southern part of the site and also along the I-93 side of the site. And as you can see, there's a number of riprap check dams, large, pretty large check dams within this whale. Um, this area, all the vegetation is regularly maintained or mowed. Um, but there was some wetland vegetation within this whale. It was mostly grasses, but there was also a little bit of like soft brush and deer tongue. And, um, there were a number of outlets. Um, there were three outfalls, um, primarily from the highway and then one down here as well, um, that convey stormwater runoff into the swale. So this swale receives runoff from both the parking lot, the exit ramp here, and then the highway itself. There's a couple culverts that discharge runoff from the highway. And then what else? This area, the swale is about five to 10 feet wide, depending on the portion that you're, depending on the portion you're in. And then at the time of the delineation back in January, the southern part of this whale contained a few inches of standing water. And then this area, the eastern segment next to the highway, was dry. And then basically it, for this series, series A, and then the second area I call series B in the RDA, this is a small little drainage area along the northern side of the site. between I-93 and the developed parking lot. And this area, the small drainage fissure also contains maintained vegetation. And it's really small, so I couldn't really identify a lot of the vegetation. It was a lot of water-stained leaves. It definitely had the hydrology, the dark top soil. But it also contained this large riprap splash pad and also a level spreader device. And there's an outfall that conveys runoff into this area from the highway as well. So kind of similar to this whale where it receives its runoff from the adjacent highway. And it was very sparsely vegetated. But I just flagged it because it had the hydrology and some of the vegetation that you could make out was like sedges or wetland grasses. But primarily it was, and I can show photos if that's helpful, but it's primarily just this large level spreader and riprap splash pad device. So based on, so we submitted the existing conditions plan showing the two areas. And essentially, we're just requesting a determination from the commission on whether they are state jurisdictional or locally jurisdictional under the ordinance. Under the Wellness Protection Act 10.022B3C, it's a mouthful, stormwater features that were designed, constructed, and installed, and operated, and maintained in accordance with the stormwater management standards do not by themselves constitute areas that are subject to jurisdiction under the act, provided that they were constructed after November 18th of 1996. And these features, we could tell looking back through old plans and then from like Google Earth historic imagery, that when the site was developed, one of the developments on the site was built around 2002. And you can see on the imagery that these two stormwater features were constructed as part of that development. So they were built sometime between 2002 and 2003 timeframe. So definitely constructed post 1996. And just based on the features that we saw in the field and identified out there, like the check, the stone check dams, the regularly mowed and maintained vegetation, And then primarily just the fact that the culverts that discharge to both of these areas are conveying runoff from the highway and also from like the paved parking lot. We believe that proves that they function, that they were constructed and function as stormwater features. And also both of these areas are isolated. There's no connection to adjacent waterways or wetlands. So they are isolated in nature. and they definitely appear to function as stormwater features. So, happy to take any questions, but ultimately the applicant respectfully is requesting that the commission would issue a negative determination, categories one and six, just to confirm that these two areas are not jurisdictional under the act or under the ordinance. I'll stop sharing.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. That was very helpful. I do have just one very quick question. Are the features on the subject property or are they part of the DOT property associated with the highway?
[SPEAKER_00]: They're on the property.
[SPEAKER_04]: They are, okay.
[Christopher Bader]: I have a few questions. You mentioned that the runoff from the parking lots, which is basically the majority of the property, drains into them. What about the roof runoff?
[SPEAKER_00]: The roof runoff, I believe this might be more a question for Gabe or David, but do you know how the roof runoff is handled? Do you know if that also gets conveyed to the soils?
[SPEAKER_02]: I believe it gets conveyed to the onsite drainage systems, which ultimately then connect through to it. So, yes. Yes.
[Christopher Bader]: Okay. And you saw wetland species? Yeah. But you went out there in January?
[SPEAKER_00]: In January, yes. Obviously, it's kind of hard that time of year, and they're mowed, so they're very small and low to the ground. But you could tell some of like the soft rush and then most of it wasn't grasses. There were some like scattered sedges and then the soft rush within there, but.
[Christopher Bader]: And there's no, you say there's no connection, no drainage to the highway systems, drainage to the Mystic?
[SPEAKER_00]: Correct, yeah.
[Christopher Bader]: And I did look- So this is groundwater recharge. This is a groundwater recharge system?
[SPEAKER_02]: And so we actually did just looking back the plan and I think that answers question. I think the majority of these swell features we're talking about are actually off the property and on the state highway layout. They're just outside our property and a lot of the cases.
[SPEAKER_00]: I just met yes, I'm saying that because I was looking at the same time is that.
[SPEAKER_02]: So I wanted to I wanted to clarify that and then can you ask the question again about stormwater recharge.
[Christopher Bader]: Well, I was saying, are these swales designed to be part of a stormwater recharge system?
[SPEAKER_02]: They're not. They're not part of the on-site stormwater management recharge systems. These are conveyance swales that ultimately flank the property on the perimeter. But there are on-site recharge systems that are within the property that are underneath the parking areas.
[SPEAKER_04]: But there's no outlet to these, correct? They infiltrate? There's no overflow. There's an overflow, but they are designed to infiltrate stormwater, not convey it to another surface water body.
[SPEAKER_02]: That's correct. That's correct.
[Christopher Bader]: And let me just go back. You said that they're not on the property? Did I hear you right?
[SPEAKER_02]: That is correct. They are not on the property.
[Christopher Bader]: Can you bring up that map again? I kind of really thought that they were on the property.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I can show, I'll show both plans, but this, here we go. This is the aerial. So this, I'm sorry, my screens are being, you can see the aerial map, no. Not yet, nope. Here, let me try this again. Here we go. So this shows, Yeah, this shows the property boundaries on this aerial map of the 400 Mystic Avenue property. And you can see it kind of follows basically the limits of the development. And then the swales are located just off the property. So just outside, but we were submitting this because they would, if they were jurisdictional, they would have a hundred foot buffer zone onto the property.
[Unidentified]: Any other questions from commissioners?
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. Anyone here from the public who would like to comment on the project? Doesn't appear that there is. Okay, so I will bring it back to the commission to discuss how we would like to proceed with this filing. So the applicant has presented that the work was or the development was constructed after November 1996. So it does appear, based on all of the evidence, the way that it's functioning, the way that it is maintained, that it does meet the The criteria provided in 310 CMR 10.022B3C. Do any commissioners have any concerns with that?
[Christopher Bader]: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. This is, you know, what you're doing now is you're noticing wetland species. So who has ever created this since that time? Yes, they've created it as a, you know, system to get rid of stormwater, but they've created a wetland. And as a wetland, it's jurisdictional.
[SPEAKER_04]: Not if it meets those criteria, though.
[Christopher Bader]: But yeah, I don't think it meets those criteria because it's got to be maintained as just a drainage system. So you're maintaining the area, you're mowing the lawn, sure, but you've created a wetland.
[Heidi Davis]: And it also doesn't meet the definition of bordering vegetated wetland. It is not connected to a downgraded wetland area. Correct.
[Christopher Bader]: But it's recharging into the groundwater, and then we have the river close by, so I don't agree.
[SPEAKER_00]: Can I respond to that? Sure. I would just reiterate the fact that while there are some scattered wetland species growing within these features, They are, like I said, they're isolated in nature. We did look for hydraulic connections down gradient to confirm that they're not directly connected or discharging to the river. And additionally, just the presence of the constructed park-like features within each of these swales, like the large riprap check dams within the larger swale, and then the level spreader and the, yeah, the level threader and the riprap splash pad was in the smaller area. Those were primarily what we were going off of, just seeing that they were constructed as drainage features. And then also just the mowing of vegetation, like I said, shows that they're being maintained for that purpose.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah, I think- Go ahead, Alex. Go ahead. I believe that the mowing is part of landscaping, and you're not mowing it for that purpose. You're mowing it because you've got a landscaped area. In terms of maintaining it, I still feel like things change over time. Sure. I think in this case, you've created, or the designers have created a wetland here. And so, yes, they're all connected to each other. They're draining into the groundwater. I see it as jurisdictional.
[SPEAKER_04]: Alex, I believe the intent of that section of the Wetlands Protection Act is for exactly that reason, because when you design a structure, depression, that is intended to capture stormwater runoff, you will likely see wetland species start to populate that basin because it is concentrated stormwater runoff and you're taking some time to infiltrate it. So you likely over time will develop some features associated with wetland areas. But the intent is that if it was designed to manage stormwater and it was permitted, so it was after 1996, that regardless of the presence of those features, it is not jurisdictional because it was a engineered system.
[Christopher Bader]: But we have no idea what was there before, do we? I mean, if there was actually wetlands there prior to this, we don't, you know, and without that, I don't think we can make that determination.
[SPEAKER_04]: I think the applicant has presented that based on the aerial photography and the construction drawings that they have looked at, that this was designed as a stormwater runoff feature. And it looks, when you look at the topography of the land and you look at the layout of the highway, because these are linear features next to the highway, that's just another line of evidence that it was likely designed to capture stormwater associated with the highway.
[Christopher Bader]: He's saying it's part of the highway department original design to put these in, not the Century Bank's development of that property. But we don't know what was on that property prior to that.
[SPEAKER_02]: I believe this site was an industrial development prior to that. It was repurposed and redesigned and redeveloped as part of the Eastern Bank complex that it is today.
[Christopher Bader]: No, Century Bank. It wasn't Eastern Bank. And I don't think, I think it was not developed. I actually don't remember anything being on that property prior to Century Bank's construction.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, do you remember what was on that property?
[Denis MacDougall]: You're muted Dennis. I honestly don't, that's what I meant. I'm actually trying to look it up now, trying to see if I've got any older maps and things like that that might help us out. So just, if you want to, I might be able to find a few things.
[Heidi Davis]: I still want to point out that this is not, even if there were a predominance of wetland species, it's not a bordering vegetated wetland because it needs to be connected either by a hydrologic connection such as a culvert or a surface water. And a groundwater connection is not considered a hydraulic connection under the Wetlands Protection Act.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I'm still in a place where I feel that that that provision of the Wetlands Protection Act does apply here, and this is not jurisdictional. I agree. Dave, do you have any concerns with the application of that provision or Heidi's call out that this is not bordering vegetated wetland?
[SPEAKER_07]: No, I do not have any concerns.
[SPEAKER_04]: great. Let's see if Dennis can find a historical aerial in the next minute or so. And if not, make this to a vote.
[SPEAKER_07]: I mean, I just pulled up the historical aerials online. I mean, there was development on the property going back till at least hold on. Jesus. At least the 60s.
[Denis MacDougall]: Can you see me here? This is but I have this from 1971 USGS map. The existing off-ramp there was the same. Basically, the configuration hasn't changed. The building here was probably here and there was development here. I don't have much more to go on or else I can find some old aerials, but I haven't had any success in that.
[SPEAKER_07]: Dennis, I just pulled it up and I've got aerials going back 69, 55, and 38. I'm just using an online database, Into the 60s, it was developed just like that. There's a bit of a ramp, there's a building, a structure on it. And in the 50s, as you can imagine, it was water. That whole area was water right there. The water just came. It hadn't been filled in yet.
[Heidi Davis]: So the highway hadn't been constructed yet.
[SPEAKER_07]: No highway at that point in time. And the 55 aerial shows that it's like, The water would have come right up to the edge of Mystic. I don't know that any of that's really, at the end of the day, changes anything. It's good information. I'd like to see what it looked like previously. But I don't think it actually changed anything from my perspective.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. Alex, is there anything else that we could address for you while we've got the applicant here before we take it to a vote?
[Christopher Bader]: No, I mean, it's not on their property. So it's not that something that they're doing anything. So I'm assuming that it's Mass Highway that's taking care of it. But it has been there for a while. I just, I feel like it, well, you know, I think there's nothing else, I think.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay. All right. I would like to make a motion to issue a negative determination one for the area is not an area subject to protection under the act.
[SPEAKER_04]: I will second. All in favor? Heidi?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Dave?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: And Alex?
[Christopher Bader]: No.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, the yeas are three, the noes are one. All right, thank you for your application. Appreciate your time tonight. And again, thanks for your patience with the continuation as well.
[SPEAKER_02]: Appreciate it. Thanks, everybody.
[SPEAKER_00]: Appreciate it. Can I add one question? You said Category 1. Would that also cover, so not jurisdictional under the Act, but for the local ordinance, would that be Category 6 as well?
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, I don't have your form in front of me. So yes, I would say that if the bylaws fell down after six, then yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: Be thorough.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks all. Have a good evening. Thank you. All right. So the second item on the agenda tonight is a request for a certificate of compliance, DEP file number 215-0005. Shakun Zhang has requested a certificate of compliance regarding an order of conditions filed for work at Hicks Avenue and Colbert Road dated March 4th, 1976. classic. Dennis, do you have some information for us on this filing?
[Denis MacDougall]: I have some. I actually I think I sent you the actual original order and we don't have much else on this to be honest. So I can just give a little history. So this is a like a set of multiple condominiums down back behind Mr. Tuck's school down in South Medford and these were built in the late 70s. I think about 30 units individual sort of townhouse type styles and an order was provided for the entire property and then somehow this owner has the order attached to just their unit. It's not attached to any no other unit has it on there and When they were doing, I guess, the search to sell it, it came up and the current owner is basically asking them to get this cleared up so that they can go through with their sale. So, in the original order itself, I think you've all sort of seen it, it's pretty minimal in what they requested.
[Christopher Bader]: It's a drainage.
[Denis MacDougall]: What was that?
[Christopher Bader]: I was just going to fill in for you. I keep going as a drainage ditch. Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Yeah. There's a drainage. And so I went over there last week and sort of inspected all around the property itself. It's, it's been, you know, it's 46 years on. So a lot of the area has been, you know, rebuilt up and things have, you know, I, I think I couldn't get access to some of the property because it's basically people's backyards, but I was able to sort of walk through it around and try not to be too much of a, A nuisance in trying to, but, you know, it's like the requirement of the drainage ditch was like, so wildly. Precise that, you know, it's basically says, you know. 13 feet above sea level to 12 and there's a lot of. Which is just frankly, at this point, not viable to. Calculate, I mean, it's just. This honestly, this probably when they divided all these into condos, this should have gone for the strict compliance at that point. And it didn't. And somehow it just got attached to this one singular unit, which is one building in a row of like 25 to 30.
[Christopher Bader]: It's actually in the middle. It's not next to any. It's like smack in the middle of everybody. Um, I couldn't, I couldn't find it. I couldn't find this drainage ditch. Did you find it?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think it's in the backyard. I was trying to, I was, so I, I think, I think Earth got covered over. I'm honestly not 100% sure. I was trying to sort of get a better idea, but where I thought the drainage ditch was on some old maps, it looked like it was in the backyard of some of these properties, but there was no way for me to fully access. I was trying not to like climb over and look over fences. So I tried to look at the historic maps and, I'm honestly not sure what was done. And unfortunately, in the years that have passed since, it's basically hard to tell. I mean, if you want my recommendation on this, I mean, as I said, this should have been probably done in the late 70s once these all got finished, and then we could have actually had this. But in this case, And it isn't even like, I looked, I searched through Middlesex South to see if any other order was there. And I went through, you know, 40 years of things and found a lot of mortgages, but no other orders listed anywhere to any other property there. It's just this, for whatever reason, when they divvied them up, somehow this property got attached with the order.
[Christopher Bader]: So we don't really know if this thing actually got built or not, or do we know?
[Denis MacDougall]: Honestly, no. I mean, we know that we know the property did the property got developed. But like, but even with this, the prop, the filing itself doesn't actually say what they were doing. It doesn't actually I mean, my assumption is looking at, like, dates of when this happened versus dates of mortgages, a bunch that all sort of happened 2 years after the fact that but I mean, truthfully, yeah, you're right. This work could have been put in forth, and then they just didn't do anything for this, and then they built the condos. I genuinely have no idea.
[Christopher Bader]: And the seller of the property couldn't shed any light on this from when they bought it?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, no. Their attorney tried finding some information, and I think what happened was that when the owner bought it several years ago, Whoever did the title search maybe didn't catch it because it was so far in the past and it wasn't, I don't know, but they only found out about it once they were trying to sell at this point.
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, so this has changed hands since.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, oh, yeah, changed hands many times since the original owner.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. I mean, my, my thought on this is, as long as there's nothing egregious that you can see when you drive by the site, like they don't have a massive erosion issue or they've dug a pond in their backyard, like, I don't, I don't see what we could, we could do other than give them the certificate.
[SPEAKER_07]: The entire site is almost covered with either home or paper. There's very, very, very minimal amount of, Lindsay, your backyard stretched out might be larger than the amount of actual grass space. It's fairly minimal.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Basically, each of the properties have about 10 to 15 feet behind them, and that's about it. It's very small on all the units. A couple of them are actually, come out as like fingers, they don't actually have a backyard.
[Christopher Bader]: And there's no place that we can actually look up to see if there was flooding issues in any of these?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I mean, historically we do. Actually, I did end up going over there on Like right after a rainy day, just coincidentally, I didn't even think about it, but it was it had been raining and there was no indication of anything, you know, like flooding or anything, but that's just apocryphal.
[SPEAKER_07]: I think if there were flooding issues in that area and the school is literally right there, we probably would have come up at some point in time. This was a lot higher. I don't think it's drastically higher. I've spent more than my fair share at that ball field and the playground in that area. I don't know. I'm just saying, like, I think if there were water issues right there, that potentially it would have come up at some point. The community, someone would have heard about it, probably complained about it. That's not scientific, clearly. I'm just throwing it out there.
[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, the school itself is only built 20 years ago, so that's fairly modern. Times for that area and. Well, if we don't have sort of the.
[SPEAKER_04]: Go ahead, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, this is sort of a little different issue than the one we had before, which the physical property is still there. We can see the work that was done at that point, and we're still trying to sort that out. But this one is, you know, it's been so far after the fact and actually trying to figure out what was actually done versus, especially in what was part of the order, which was, you know, like, and even in the order itself, there's no request for an as-built or anything like that. If there was something like that, then we might add something. We could maybe try to see if we could find plans somewhere, but there's very little. It's a really, except for that one thing which talks about the drainage ditch, which is very lengthy. Everything else is pretty minimal. It's only 11 conditions.
[SPEAKER_04]: The drainage ditch was the wetland that this was filed in relation to? They had high water quality.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah, they had a high water table. And so they were worried about the flooding in the basement. So this was a way to kind of alleviate that.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is like, I don't even know why this triggered an application in the first place. Yeah. So, um, so I think, yeah, I think barring any really obvious issue at the property that we would want to hold them accountable for, I think we should issue a certificate of compliance for this poor homeowner. Do folks feel comfortable moving forward with that?
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah. Yes. I'll make a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for file number five.
[Christopher Bader]: I second the motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 56F. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. Excellent. Thank you, Alex and Heidi. All in favor? Aye. Heidi? Yes. Dave?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Alex?
[Marie Izzo]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: And Eric?
[Marie Izzo]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Excellent. This poor person can sell their house now.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, very happy. So Alicia is going to jump on in a bit to join in on this, but so I don't know if you want to give her a second for her to say she just literally stepped out for a second, but I can sort of maybe just sort of start giving you a little bit of a background for the enforcement order. So, off and on for the last probably longer than nine months. Alicia heard word last fall that there were piles of branches and sticks on the side of the pathway in Riverbend Park. She's heading down now. But we Didn't really know where they were coming from. You know, it was just they weren't sure if 1st, we asked around is the city doing it doing it now. Oh, we don't so we just weren't sure. So we, and we were like, trying to. So, and then back in March resident. e-mailed DEP to say basically sort of the same thing was that they were seeing these piles and I contacted her and I went down and looked and there were, you know, several of these piles up in multiple spots along the river. And at the time, you know, we still didn't know who was doing them. We didn't know what city employees were talking to, DCR. I talked to the DCR person who's in charge of all the things up and down there. We had no indication that who was doing this. And then that was back in March. And so we also have a conservation restriction on this property. So I contacted DCR who holds it, and they came out and took a look, and they were like, you know, there's not really much we can do without a name. And so this is basically some smaller trees being removed, some smaller vegetation. It looks, you know, this, the pruning, you know, is one way, you know, it's sort of, not quite clear-cutting, but it's close. Trees were being left, but scuff was being taken down to basically the roof. We just didn't know where this was happening. I was going down every few weeks and I didn't see anything recently for the last month or two. Then on Friday, I mean, not Friday, on this July 4th, that same resident who emailed us back in March, said the person was down there, but this was July 4th at about nine in the morning. So by the time I found out about it, I went down there and there was nothing going on. Then yesterday morning, she called me and said, he's down here right now. So I went down there and walked across and there was a gentleman with, you know, whoppers and a saw and like a few other hand tools and things like that, basically cutting vegetation around the area south, just to the west of the dog park. introduced myself and said, you know, this is city property. This is Conservation Commission, you know, this is Well and Protection Act area. There's a conservation restriction on this land. You know, you can't work here. This is not allowed work. And he became, I'll be politic and say argumentative, and stated that he had permission to be there. And I said, And basically the people who would give you permission are the people that I help staff the Conservation Commission. And then he basically said that he was helping the trees. And he was doing the work that we should have been doing as a city. And it's like, you still would need to get permission. And he got more agitated and argumentative. then started collecting his tools and while walking off said he would just keep coming back and doing it and that we couldn't stop him. So. At that point, Alicia, I don't know if you want to jump in at this point. This was after the call. Well, I called Alicia and then I called Heidi just to sort of give a heads up that this was coming down the track because I figured, you know, enforcement order would probably be coming and I'd never done one so um and as we were as I was talking to Alicia the resident called Alicia the one who had called in before and he had come by to see her and it was over by the community garden he was visibly upset as well. And so she was pretty shook. Right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Because when I talked to her, she was like, sounded like somebody who was in tears. She was really like, upset at the way he that gentleman had just yelled at her. And I asked her if she knew, I was like, oh, I didn't realize he was in the community garden with you. Do you know his name? She goes, of course I know his name. And she gave me his name. And I went, shit, I know him too.
[Christopher Bader]: What's his name? Because I'm in with the community garden.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, Leon Monin.
[Christopher Bader]: Leon, yeah, OK.
[Alicia Hunt]: And so, so years ago, Leon, and I only know it's years ago because it was pre pandemic. I know Leon from church. So I'm aware that this is like a publicly recorded meeting too. So, um, he had talked to me about cutting back the, he was very concerned about the, um, every, Every time I do this, I can't think of the word, not. Black swallowwort, the vines. Bittersweet. Thank you, the vines, bittersweet. Is very concerned about the bittersweet and them choking the trees. And years ago, I had said, you know, we work with the Mississippi River Watershed Association. Sometimes we do organized trimming of that. We do some organized vista pruning that Aggie organizes them. through with some groups sometimes. And I was like, really, you need permission if you're if you're just cutting bittersweet, you know, we don't have enough people to cut the bittersweet. And so kind of gave him a like, that's not horrible, that's cutting bittersweet is okay. But that was years ago. And so last fall when the piles showed up and I became aware of them, I actually reached out to him and asked him if he had any idea where these piles were coming from and said that even good work, this kind of work would need to be coordinated and approved through the city. And he never responded to that. I actually took that to mean that he didn't know anything about it because he had asked me about removing bittersweet. I was like, this is not removing bittersweet. I think of it as clear-cutting. It's like everything but the largest trees. I know who he is and I had talked to him. And then we emailed, I sent off a note, because there had been these questions about where are these piles coming from. I sent off a note to the mayor and Aggie, the tree warden. And Dennis, had you mentioned that Aggie had mentioned?
[Denis MacDougall]: I haven't gotten to Aggie yet, no.
[Alicia Hunt]: So when I wrote to them yesterday, Aggie wrote back saying that, I don't remember if it was a month ago or two months ago, it's in the notes. a resident who had never identified himself called her, asked about removing the piles, asked about the piles that he was creating and that he was doing great work. She explained to him that she said it sounded like he was cutting small trees. She explained to him that you can't cut small trees at city property and they come with a $500 fine for every tree you cut. which is actually true for street trees. If somebody cuts a street tree without permission, it's a $500 fine. She made it very clear to him that that kind of work that he was doing was not appropriate, but he was never willing to give her his name, so she didn't know who it was. But it's very clear now that that was the same person. She said that he was very abusive and threatening on the phone to her too, argumentative and abusive and said that he had permission and that, I don't know, I'm afraid to misspeak because we've repeated these things so many times.
[Denis MacDougall]: I feel like I have to call up what she said before I. I'm just looking at her email and according to her, his response was arrest me, I'm going to keep doing it.
[SPEAKER_07]: Right. He sounds very unstable. I think it's a, it's a very strange thing to do. I, when you first started saying it, I was assuming it was going to be like those townhouses, like someone that lived there that was like, Oh, it's gonna be so nice to be on my back deck and get like, I don't know, but randomly show up and park in the parking lot by the ball fields and get out with your, your equipment to go. That's that's strange. So, and I don't think that, I think that's strange. I think we can, maybe we can all agree on that. I think that's a strange thing to do. And if you're doing that and you're getting angry with people immediately, but you very well maybe have some. social, emotional, other things going on in your life. That's not normal.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I don't want to speculate on that. I mean, I will say that he feels very strongly that the bittersweet kills the trees, which I do not disagree with, and that that is where this started. And he felt that he was, every person he's spoken to, he has said, I'm protecting the trees. The city should be doing this. They're not, so I'm doing it. but he's clearly gone way beyond.
[Denis MacDougall]: I've got a picture here to give you guys a little bit visual. There's a picture I took a little bit ago.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was trying to see if I had any photos, but I was surprised to find that I don't. As Dennis is pulling that up, I will tell you that we talked to the state, we talked to the circuit rider for this, and one of the things that she talked to us about was, there you go. That's one of the piles. Yeah.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah. There's some bigger ones too.
[Alicia Hunt]: Most of them are taller than me.
[Christopher Bader]: He did a lot of work. Eight hours a day out there? No, it's a lot of work. I mean, when I saw this, I thought this was DCR doing it because I'm really surprised to hear just now that it's one person. It does look like. And the thing that we have a second problem, which is that if we leave these piles, I mean, you know, I could just see some kids, you know, high school, middle school kids, dude, let's make a bonfire. These things are going out.
[Denis MacDougall]: So at least in regards to that now, uh, DPW is aware of it and the, you know, the commissioner and that they're going to some of them, they already have removed. And I think others they're, they're working on getting them out of there, but it's also, it's a bit of a,
[Alicia Hunt]: It's a massive project for them.
[Denis MacDougall]: Do you have the other photos?
[Alicia Hunt]: Are you able to open the tree one? Yeah, that's what I'm doing right now. I went to talk to our DPW commissioner about it this afternoon, and he told me, so if you look at this tree, and you can see all the fresh cuts of limbs, and then the limbs on the ground there, Why? That's so odd. So what you can't see in this photo is that there's a picnic table there. And what Tim told me is that he, it looked to him when he was standing at the location, this photo was taken this morning, was that somebody was vista pruning, was cutting the lower branches off the tree so that when you sit at the table, you can see the river. And It's hard to tell from the photo, but Tim said he didn't do the trimming correctly. You're supposed to go right up to the edge of the vertical to do it, and he didn't do that. That's how disease gets into these trees if there are stumps left on it. They have to send the tree crew out to properly cut the edges off now as well.
[SPEAKER_07]: The guy that rolls in with his tools didn't appropriately trim the trees? I'm blown away by that. I'm actually fairly shocked.
[Christopher Bader]: No, I'm actually surprised too. I thought if he left two inches or less.
[Alicia Hunt]: I was being sarcastic for a second. I can't quite tell from the photo, but what Tim said is that he left too much and it's not right up to the tree, and so it's not done properly. And that was today. So Tim actually did not know this, the rest of this was really going on and reached out to him this morning with a nice letter asking him to please contact him so Tim could speak to him.
[Denis MacDougall]: But then this morning we spoke to Alicia Gillen from DEP, our circuit rider, and just sort of, and her immediate reaction was like, you know, get this in and, you know, and then she actually was like, you know, in terms of like filing, she's the one who recommended the cover letter. She helped us out like writing up the cover letter and the actual order itself, which I've sent to you all so. And we're doing a lot of work.
[Alicia Hunt]: She wrote that cover letter without us asking her to.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, yeah.
[Alicia Hunt]: She also advised us that we should have the police deliver the enforcement order, that for a number of different reasons, including one, that would provide proof of delivery without him having to sign that he received it, and it would get there a lot faster than certified mail.
[Denis MacDougall]: It would also get his attention.
[Alicia Hunt]: Because he said to several different people, what are you going to arrest me and I'm going to keep doing this unless you arrest me or send the police by having the police hand deliver it. It actually they will not threaten to arrest him. They would not arrest him, but they would. advise him that they were asked to deliver, this is an official document on behalf of the city, and that if he doesn't stop, he could get fined and there could be further penalties. In addition to everything about the Wetland Protection Act, by the way, our Medford Ordinance, which I haven't had the reason to review in a long time, does say there's a $300 fine that we can impose for every violation of The what the Medford ordinance it's very clear when I read to the ordinance that this would count as violations and it can be $300 a day that this occurs. There is that, but it is also destruction of municipal property. Dennis and I had a call with our police chief and our city solicitor today, and they both agreed that this was destruction of municipal property, and that they were happy to let this process roll out through the Conservation Commission as the most obvious jurisdictional body. But they both flagged that those actually a civil penalty under construction of municipal property could be considered appropriate, especially if the behavior did not stop. They agreed that the first thing to do was to push him to stop, right? Cease and desist is what they want. And that anything further than that would likely, would be appropriate if there was a refusal to stop after receiving an official, an official order, right? An official document. So when I say like, so he also, I will say to your concerns, Dave, the police chief speculated in a way that said he would ask the officers to assess the situation. that sometimes when they see what they would consider wanton destruction of municipal property type behavior, there is something else going on. And so the Medford officers are trained to look for what is going on here.
[Denis MacDougall]: And to think about that. There's sort of no going in that this might be a possibility. So they're not going in cold. They'll have the understanding that, you know, what he sort of has said recently regarding this matter.
[Heidi Davis]: I think the enforcement order is warranted. I think it's clear that this will anger him further.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah. I mean, if he said, you know, I'm not going to stop. But the thing that is really perplexing me is why, you know, definitely he wants to do something positive. It's not wanting destruction. Yeah. Why? Why he didn't just go and say, OK, what do I need to do to make this legit? You know, I'm doing this voluntarily. You don't have to pay me. What do I need to do? And he didn't do that, which is that's what's surprising to me, because I can understand someone wanting to make it better.
[Denis MacDougall]: there are other groups that do these sort of, you know, yeah, you know, invasives like the, you know, Myra last year came before us about the, you know, removal up and down at different spots. And I was like, these groups do it fairly often. And you told him that? Oh, yeah. And he just, I mentioned, you know, you know, if you want to get a project together, come before the Conservation Commission, we'd be happy to work with you on that. And he says, you know, and he basically said, that'll take six months. And like, no, it would take maybe a month for a project like this. But he was, he wasn't really listening to what I was having to say at that point.
[Christopher Bader]: I think you're right. The enforcement order being handed to him by the police is the next step. That's too bad.
[Denis MacDougall]: Then we'll just have to both the city employees, once this gets done, the public works commissioner, he'll be informed and then his staff will be informed. they'll be aware of and, you know, DC everyone will be just informed. And, you know, we're just going to have to be even more vigilant and just, you know, keep on checking the area. You know, I was going down maybe once every two weeks and didn't really see any signs for a while. So like this, this, what happened this weekend was like the first time it feels like he'd been there for a while, but it's hard to tell, honestly, because you know, if you just like, but some of the, cause I hadn't seen a really big pile down there since March, but He was slowly making his way down from the, you know, OML on his way down, but there wasn't like every single spot. It was like location here, location there.
[Christopher Bader]: Sure, what he considered the bad spots, I'm sure.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. And so, and, you know, that's, and apparently he's had like, you know, more than hand tools because I've heard that people have seen him there with the chainsaw. Oh.
[Alicia Hunt]: The other thing that I don't, is somewhat concerning is that, so the resident who called in was very upset and said she'd almost gotten kicked out of the community garden for reporting him. And so I'm not really sure like, because nobody in the city knew his name until yesterday. So we didn't know who was doing it. So I'm not really sure, but I guess he had come and yelled at her before.
[Denis MacDougall]: was also pretty emotional yesterday so i think maybe i'm not sure exactly what the story was with that i mean she was like because alicia was i was on the phone with alicia and then she called and then i was like further down so i after we got off the phone i walked down there and she was there and her husband and i think i don't know if her husband was there at the time or he came by later and they were sort of talking and she was starting to calm down but she was still pretty a little shaken up at that point but i stayed with them for a while just until she felt you know okay enough to go home but
[Heidi Davis]: So Dennis, good job on your first enforcement order. I'm glad that it was. I do have some suggestions on the language, if I may. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So on your first paragraph, number two, extent and type of activity, if it possible.
[Denis MacDougall]: On the actual form? Nope, I'm talking about the form. Yep, I'm just going to it now, hold on. What was it again, sorry, section number two?
[Heidi Davis]: Number two, extent and type of activity. If you could make an aerial estimate of the amount of vegetation cut, that's always helpful, the extent part. but that would require a hundred foot long tape measure. But, you know, maybe you could do it through GIS just to make it.
[Denis MacDougall]: I could actually do that now pretty easily. So I give a rough idea. I don't fully know, but I can make a few guesses based on that. Yeah, it just needs to be a proximate. Lisa actually mentioned that to us this morning and I knew I missed something. So that was.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, well, so just put that on hold for a moment. Your last sentence regarding Vista pruning, I would actually strike that because Vista pruning is an activity that's exempted from the regulations. It also- Vista pruning is a very specific definition in the Wetlands Protection Act. And so Vista pruning has to take place 50 feet from the top of bank. So I just wouldn't go there.
[Alicia Hunt]: Because this is on the bank, not 50 feet from the top of the bank. That's actually helpful for us to know that the language Vista pruning does not technically refer to what he was doing on the bank. Right. It might refer to those tree branches he cut. Yeah. You don't prune municipal trees without permission. Right.
[Heidi Davis]: I just wouldn't go there. Instead, I would say the violator shall cease and desist from further activity. that needs to be said in here. Yeah, I've done one or two of these.
[Denis MacDougall]: Violators should receive some assist from what? All activity?
[Heidi Davis]: From removal of vegetation. All removal of vegetation.
[Denis MacDougall]: And we're just going to put a little marker sentence in there indicating the square footage of vegetation removed is X. Okay.
[Heidi Davis]: On the third page, where the property owner shall take the following action. I'm kind of questioning your requiring him to restore the area at his expense. I kind of broke up there for a second. Okay, you write that this disturbed areas may need to be restored at the applicant's expense. First of all, he's not an applicant, he's a violator. So he's not an applicant, he's not applying for anything. So we have to keep the language consistent. But I just, I questioned that it says if the altered jurisdictional areas have not sufficiently recovered over the course of one growing season. I guess you're trying to scare him here. But so- Yeah, that was sort of Alicia's language to basically- Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with it.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, and so one question we kind of had is, should we here in this document in any way or just leave it in the cover letter indicate the what if you don't stop or what you could do to do this appropriately with permission. At this point, I'd be nervous about giving this gentleman permission. If I found out that he was part of a group and the group had permission, I'd be fine. Somebody else would be responsible and overseeing. I'm not sure at this point I would recommend giving him permission as an individual.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, and I think to Heidi's point, maybe this is more of, you know, cease and desist. And then what are the consequences if he does not versus we're going to ask you to pay for this? Because that doesn't get any doesn't get it. We're not actually going to do that. And it's it or it would be very hard to do that. I shouldn't say we are not actually going to. It would be very hard to do that.
[Denis MacDougall]: removing kind of that first paragraph and just start with additional unauthorized working commission jurisdiction? I would, Dennis.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay. What's unfortunate is that it will go back, but it's going to be all invasive species. Yeah. In a world where there's like a million volunteers, I would recommend getting a small grant through the CPC for five grand and put in some native plantings right away in all those spots.
[Denis MacDougall]: but I will talk to Danielle tomorrow.
[Alicia Hunt]: The hard part in what you just said is getting the people to go do the planting. Because DPW is hard enough press to just get rid of the pile. Because the $5,000 to put in the plantings to restore the area, the $5,000, I feel like I could make that happen with our budget. It would be worthwhile. It's the organizing the people to get it done.
[Denis MacDougall]: Myra might be a Myra. Yeah, I mean, Myra and talking with I was talking, you know, with the folks from Myra, they've been wildly amazed by the number of people who have been looking to volunteer and do stuff of late, because I think so many people were cooped up inside their houses for so long that any and all outdoor activities are great and stuff that would actually be helpful, I think, is sort of driving a lot of people. And they've been having, they've been amazed by the turnout they've been getting for a lot of their events, so.
[Alicia Hunt]: I guess I feel like if there was somebody who was willing, and my gut feeling is that I'm asking somebody from this board to volunteer their time to guide the suggestion of what plantings, what should be bought from where, or delegate that to Myra. Like, if you say, well, I trust their staff to make that decision. we could come up with some funding if they could organize the volunteers. I'm just, I don't think Dennis or I should be choosing what to buy and where.
[Heidi Davis]: I do know of a resident that might be interested, and she is a She's a landscaper, she's a landscape scientist for DOT. I'm trying to get her on the commission, but she says she's too busy. But she would be, she'd give her opinion for sure. And I, you know. we could try and coordinate going out together and checking it out. But anyhow, that's like what to do about this. We need to address the enforcement order. And yeah, I think if you struck that paragraph about the disturbed areas and just start with additional unauthorized work. Oh, and I'm sorry, to go back to the cover letter and what are the repercussions if he keeps doing it? The repercussions are that if he persists in the removal of vegetation, he would be subject to a notice of non-compliance with accompanying fines. That's like the next step. That would be, you mentioned in the cover letter that you wanted to.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I feel like the cover letter should address the what if.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, let me pull up the cover letter.
[Denis MacDougall]: There is sort of a thing about talking about fines and things like that are the second to last paragraph.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right? So we should actually review that. And I will say that the I thought that the $25,000 violation that was a bit. You know when you put a thread in that's so overwhelming, then you're like, you're not gonna do that. So what's the point in putting in there? It sort of invalidates you. As opposed to $300 every time we catch you doing it again, that they can believe we're gonna do. Frankly, I would recommend it.
[Heidi Davis]: Are enforcement orders appealable documents?
[Alicia Hunt]: Was that they don't get appealed to the state, they get appealed to the court system.
[Denis MacDougall]: And that was why she had us sort of rope in our city solicitor as well, because if he did appeal, she would be the person who would be defending the city on this matter. So we wanted to make sure she was informed about this from the get-go. Yeah, because it's a Superior Court matter.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. The other thing she said is that the Conservation Commission has the authority to waive any fines. She gave us the example of somebody who was refusing to do something or come in front of the Conservation Commission, something like that. And she gave her daily fines until the fines were so large, the person showed up at the Conservation Commission when the person realized that she was actually going to have to pay these. And then the Conservation Commission has the authority to waive some or all of the fines.
[Denis MacDougall]: Once the person actually came into compliance on their property. Yeah, it was like the person brought an attorney and hired a consultant and they actually fixed their property. And then at that point, they decided to, they voted to waive the fines.
[Alicia Hunt]: And I will tell you that our, I don't think I said this before, sorry, I've talked to so many people about this in the last two days. The, our ordinance says that upon the request of the commission and with the approval of the mayor, the city solicitor shall take legal action for enforcement under civil law. blah, blah, blah, municipal boards and officers, including any police officer or other officer having police powers, shall have the authority to assist the commission in enforcement, which is what gives the police department the authority to go deliver this on behalf of this commission.
[Denis MacDougall]: And then we actually, I'm talking to the chief today, he said even without that, he would be happy to do it because his officers are trained to sort of do these sort of things and, you know, issue summons and things like that. So it's sort of there and they can do it, you know. He said, you know, we don't want, you know, me showing up there with something or just relying on certified mail that this is like the best and most, you know, instantaneous way to have this filed.
[SPEAKER_07]: I mean, I think that that, in theory, would take care of all things, I think. Unless he's an incredibly irrational human being. Like, I think, typically, you see that. Going back, I don't think he had any malice. He was doing it. He probably, in his mind, thought this was the right thing to do. And I'm making the walkway better for people. I would assume when the police come knocking at your door, you have a different perspective. And if you don't, well, then there's a variety of other things at play that probably...
[Denis MacDougall]: And then, you know, with the letter sort of spelling it out exactly, you know, point by point, exactly why this is not the right thing to do with the enforcement order, hopefully, you know, that will have the desired effect. I mean, Melissa sort of mentioned that, but that usually does. You know, those sort of combination of factors usually result in, you know, especially for individuals, like, you know, for, like, large companies may be a little less likely to, you know, cooperate right away, but individuals usually have a tendency to, you know, hopefully, realize this isn't the best way to go.
[SPEAKER_04]: This is very minor, but the very last paragraph talks about he could attend a meeting of the Conservation Commission. Just the time says 7 30 p.m.
[Unidentified]: Oh, thank you.
[SPEAKER_04]: That would probably annoy him if he tried to come at 7 30.
[Denis MacDougall]: So, when we'd still be here, she was also on the phone with Melrose. So, a few of these things had Melrose information on it because she was just thinking of Melrose when she was writing it up. So, their meetings are at 730, so bounce back and forth. Something said Medford a couple of things where she killed it and quickly. She was talking at the same time to the Melrose city engineer and threw it to Melrose info. So I had to do a search for Melrose and other such info.
[Heidi Davis]: in the first paragraph, Dennis, in the underlined sentence. Hereby is spelled Herbie.
[Denis MacDougall]: I just, the minute you called up there, I was like, oh, why is there like a little bit of a blue underline there? Because that's spelled wrong. So I think that's the only other one. There's a few, you know, there's a lot of places where commas are not commas, but everything else seems pretty.
[Heidi Davis]: I think the cover letter was good. Oh, hey, wait a minute, you've got the chair signing this, not the agent?
[Denis MacDougall]: That's actually what Alicia recommended. I mean, if you want me to change it, I can change it.
[Heidi Davis]: I don't want my name on this. Nor my address, thanks. I've already been stalked by somebody I took enforcement against. It was Harry.
[Alicia Hunt]: So at this point, everybody who is cc'd on this has been briefed, like it's because they're already sort of in the loop on this with, I will say the exception of the wetlands section chief, they're there rather than Alicia being there, right? We didn't put circuit rider. She said, don't address it to her. But the rest of them, we added either because she recommended it or because they're already looped in on this. And just as an FYI, I will update the mayor on this as well, because people who are upset and angry with how the city handles things go straight to the mayor.
[Heidi Davis]: Do we need to take a vote on this?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. Oh, we do. Okay. Well, yeah, I'm just sort of going back to the enforcement order. So basically, just to sort of give this in situation requiring immediate action, an enforcement order may be signed by a single member or agent of the commission and ratified by majority of the members of the next scheduled meeting of the commission. So, amazing how well this worked out timing wise. So, but so I guess it's just, um, I think we just maybe vote to ratify, I guess. And then, as you know, with the understanding that I'll be the signatory, if that makes sense. I think that's probably the best way to go about it.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. I'll make a motion to ratify the enforcement order.
[Heidi Davis]: All in favor, Heidi? I'll second that.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. All in favor, I'll start with Dave this time.
[Heidi Davis]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Alex?
[Heidi Davis]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Eric?
[Heidi Davis]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, all in favor.
[Heidi Davis]: And I'm yes, too.
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, yes, the seconds are second and the firsts are also yeses.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. All right, then I will get this up tomorrow, get it signed, and then we'll contact the police chief and we'll get it delivered.
[Marie Izzo]: Just a minor consideration on Form 9, the actual enforcement order. Please just double-check spelling in the Section 2. There's a couple of typos in there.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think I'm going to change it. Someone's been looking at it. Yes, it says on the spell check, you're right. Violators cutting removed vegetation, small trees and so on. I think there was a jurisdiction which I fixed. yeah and then yeah two sentences above wetlands protection oh yep thank you we get so reliant on this spell check i appreciate it oh and vegetation not vegetation i think that might have been me just right now so i think we might have learned where some of these spelling errors come from you know i've been so So yeah, the thing there about the square footage, which helps calculate tomorrow and include just so it won't be the whole area, it'll be a few of the areas that I know and recognize. So before I send it out, I'll send you out and I'll send you all out a clean copy of everything before I submit it as well tomorrow morning.
[Heidi Davis]: One thing I just realized, Dennis, I suggested striking the last sentence and add something about cease and desist, but That's a more appropriate actually under the, on page three for the property owner shall take the following action, which would be cease and desist. So, but do please strike the sentence on Vista pruning.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, that's already been stricken. So it also removed, so the violator shall cease and desist from all removal of vegetation. I will put that under the property owner shall take the following action. Correct. Yeah. They're not the most user friendly. Okay, so I just have the 1st time into the violators, Susan, just from all the mobile vegetation and additional authorized work in commission jurisdiction resulting issue. So, and then I'll remove that sentence from. Previous and I'll send it out again. Checks and people want to just. Give a little check tomorrow just to be sure. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Great. Thank you all very much. Yeah.
[Christopher Bader]: I was going to say, while we're on the park there, they're building a permanent structure over there at the dog run. I didn't see anything. Nothing came before us about that? It seems like it should have.
[Alicia Hunt]: That's actually the shed that was approved when we built the dog park. A concrete pad and a shed was approved as part of that project originally. Last winter, the shed was destroyed. So this is actually- Oh, yeah. Oh, true. Oh, they've been complaining about keeps getting broken into and they, why are people, all they keep in there are dog bags and a broom.
[Christopher Bader]: People kept breaking into- Like a rake, yeah. Weird, all right. So yeah, so it's a replacement- So that's why it didn't come first.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yep, it's a replacement and it's using the same concrete footing as before. They wanted to go bigger, and I told them if they went bigger, they had to go back to the con poms, so they agreed to not go bigger.
[Heidi Davis]: If they went bigger, that would just be more of a temptation to break into. Yeah, more of a target.
[Alicia Hunt]: I don't understand why they wanted bigger. I think they wanted an overhang, like a... Yeah, they have overhangs so you can duck in out of the rain, yeah? Yeah. So I haven't seen it yet. It sounds like you saw, that was today. So you were down there today.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah. Looking at the branches cut and thinking, I cut them kind of high, but I thought it was DCR doing it. And the green, you know, because usually when you cut the squall wood back, it's because they've died off and they're just kind of dead hanging there, fire hazard and such. But so then I cut them kind of high on the green.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Christopher Bader]: So that, yeah, they were there today.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, well, thank you for that Dennis. Anything else that we needed to cover tonight?
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't believe so. I think we're pretty good for right now. So there will be stuff coming in the future that rise development will be coming at some point, but nothing, nothing has been submitted as of yet. So the 1 on Mississippi Parkway, but that's still a ways away from my understanding. They're going to. submit at a certain point, but we have nothing tangible. So I figured not go into any really any detail at this point.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, sounds good. I do have an announcement. So I am actually moving out of Medford. What? So after 14 years on the commission, this is probably one of my last meetings unless we meet later in July, because my official move date is the day after our next meeting. I will be a Maine resident as of the 21st of July.
[SPEAKER_07]: Whoa. Whoa. I mean, I have to assume greater Portland, if not Portland, or?
[SPEAKER_04]: York, actually. It's greater Portsmouth. We're kind of more of a Portsmouth suburb than a Portland suburb. So still just about an hour from Boston. So not too far away, but across state lines.
[Christopher Bader]: Wow. What are you going to be doing up there? Do you get a new position?
[SPEAKER_04]: No, no. Same. I've, I've been working remotely for the last two years. Um, and I can, I can work from home up there and it's also a pretty easy commute. The Amtrak down Easter is just a five minute drive and it's an hour and 20 minutes on the train with wifi. So it's, it's not a bad commute. Um, yeah, yeah. So a little bit of a lifestyle change, but yeah.
[Heidi Davis]: We'll miss you terribly. I will miss this crew.
[SPEAKER_04]: This is a good team.
[Denis MacDougall]: As I said, in the email that I sent to you, I'll miss you as a member and also as a friend.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I've so enjoyed all my years in Medford. And I'm going to leave a note for the new owners of my house telling them there's an opening on the commission.
[Heidi Davis]: And that's part of the ownership is that they have.
[Alicia Hunt]: Can you sell it to somebody who will keep an eye on that outflow for me and the banking stuff? Absolutely. Alternatively, before you leave, introduce you to Danielle Evans, who lives up this block from here. Yeah, she's right around the corner. She has staffed conservation commissions in her past. She could keep an eye on things, but you tell her what to look for.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, maybe her husband should join the commission. Well, anyhow, so I don't know if folks are still interested in going out after this meeting, or if we've gone way past everybody's curfew with this long meeting, but I'm game. I'm game.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah, we want to talk to you.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right. Yeah. What was the place with the meeting spot, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. The Ford, which is right across from Wegmans. So there's parking there. new place. So if you want to come, please do. Otherwise, I will talk to you all shortly.
[SPEAKER_04]: Sounds good.
[Denis MacDougall]: Can we get a motion to close the meeting?
[Heidi Davis]: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'll second. All in favor? Heidi? Yes. Dave?
[Christopher Bader]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Alex?
[Christopher Bader]: Close the meeting.
[SPEAKER_04]: And Eric?
[Christopher Bader]: Yes.
[Alicia Hunt]: Close it up.
[Christopher Bader]: All right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thanks, everyone. Bye, thank you everybody.
[Christopher Bader]: See you soon. See you soon.