[Denis MacDougall]: evening, welcome to the January 8th method conservation commission hearing. Um, we have, we have a number of items continued from last meeting on December 18th that are being continued until January 22nd. That is the notice of intent for the super road improvements dp file number 215-0239 and The notice of intent for 28 sick morning I'm you dp file 2, 1, 5, dash 0, 2, 3, 8, both of those are going to be continued at our January 22nd conservation hearing and. The next item on the agenda is a notice of intent 28 pathway and boardwalk file number 2, 1, 5 dash 0, 2, 4, 0, continue from December 18th, 2024. City met for some notes from 10 for the construction post pathways in a boardwalk under the fells way route 28 bridge in Medford projects located within an adjacent to the following resource areas bordering on subject flooding. Bank of the perennial where land underwater border with subject flooding. We're from the area, MR. And a 100 foot adjacent upland resource area buffer zone to a porting of educated well. Project considered a limited project per section 10.5 3 3 J of what the protection act.
[Heidi Davis]: and let the record show that I recused myself from this project hearing as well as I did on December 18th. Thank you, Heidi.
[Denis MacDougall]: So just we did get the. The update the information from. The applicant Monday evening, but I. Just not sure if the board is that fully chance to fully review everything that we got. So, I just figured we sort of sound that maybe we go to the board and sort of let them discuss that.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thanks, Dennis. I see John. Is anybody else from your team joining us, John?
[SPEAKER_06]: I do see Kevin Thompson from MAPS DOT on the call. And then I think Amber Christopherson from DCR was going to join in case there are any questions for the DCR. I don't see her on yet.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thanks for that. I did, as a matter of fact, have a few minutes today to review the materials. Thank you very much for providing those. I will defer to my colleagues on the commission, whether they feel they need additional time to review those materials. That said, if I may, I would like to jump in with a couple of questions that I had. I thought your plan that shows the qualifying area very helpful. Thank you for providing that. With respect to, I don't know if you're able to pull that up on the screen.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yep, I can share that.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, there we go.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right, give me one second. You are now closed. You're good to go.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay, so this is the letter in response to the questions and the items that commission. Requested at the last hearing, you can walk through them 1 at a time. If there's no specific questions you want to jump into, or do you want to ask your questions 1st? Eric.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, if I can, I would like to jump to your 1st plan that had hatching for your qualifying areas. That was, yes, this one. And the westerly most area, I'm fine with this, I should say I'm fine with this approach. I just, I wanted to, I wanted you to confirm that the westerly most qualified area meets the requirements in terms of setback from bank and potentially buffer zone. It's just that the resource areas weren't on there. And looking very quickly, I just want to make sure that we are capturing the adequate square footage in the correct areas.
[SPEAKER_06]: So this area over here, maybe?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, correct.
[SPEAKER_06]: Let's see. There's a scale on here. I can see how far that hatching is. 50 feet.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. My suspicion is it just needs to be turned around a little bit.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah. Yeah. It looks like 50 feet would be maybe, maybe right about here.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_06]: just drawing something parallel to the wetland flags. So yeah, so maybe a little bit less area. We can recalculate that and update the plan.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I think it is likely just a massaging of that area. And relatedly, The supplemental material that you provided referenced an O&M plan. Is that something you could share in draft form with the commission if one is being developed? My concern primarily is that any of these qualifying areas during and after construction are identified as such and maintained in a manner that allows them to function as design. And I think the O&M plan would capture that.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay. Yeah. I don't know if we have a fully developed O&M plan. We have commitment from the DCR. I mean, this is a DCR parkland that they will maintain and consistent with how they maintain all of their parkland.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_06]: So maybe that's, maybe that goes into the order of conditions, just saying that, you know, the, the owner will continue to, to maintain these areas.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. I'm particularly concerned about soil compaction in that area. Right. I mean, we're relying on infiltration. Um, just knowing how these areas can be used, whether per regular maintenance or just public use. Um, there's some way to capture the long-term maintenance of that area as a qualifying area. I would be keen to see that in some way. Otherwise, I really do appreciate the material. I didn't have any additional questions, but like I said, at the top, I'll defer to my colleagues if they had a chance. If not, I would certainly entertain a motion that you're willing to continue to our next hearing to provide them the opportunity to review the materials.
[Jeremy Martin]: Eric, I'll say that I did have an opportunity to review the responses to the couple of questions I had about boardwalk material and decking design. And I understand the durability of the material that's proposed and all the reasons that it's being used. I still don't agree with the notion that it's sustainable, but I don't really think that's the purview here. So I have no other issues or questions either. Thanks.
[Craig Drennan]: I'll chime in. I think the question that I had from the previous hearing was regarding essential alternatives analysis for stormwater structures. I didn't have an opportunity to review this before the meeting, but I've spent the last 13 minutes reading through what you submitted, and I think you address the The gist of the question, I agree that given the amount of vegetation I'm considering, as Jeremy has been working to inform his commission of over the last couple of months, the root diameters of the existing trees and the root diameters of the new trees coming in, I'm satisfied with the response to that question. So I think no further questions for me on the stormwater aspect.
[SPEAKER_06]: Great, thank you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And I'll just add, I haven't had a chance to meaningfully review this, but I don't think it's in response to any question I had, so I'm comfortable if the rest of the commissioners are.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I will second Craig's sentiment. I did have a chance to review that. I agree with the conclusions as well. I don't think, let me put it this way, I guess I would entertain a motion to issue an order of conditions for this project. Dennis, I'll leave it up to you how best to word this, but I would like to see an O&M plan. Perhaps that's a, even in draft form, but perhaps that's a pre-construction document that gets submitted to the commission. I don't know if we have language we typically use for such a request.
[Denis MacDougall]: We've done something similar in the past where we basically had the O&M plan is submitted to the agent for review prior to acceptance by the applicant and things like that. Just so that before it actually is formalized, it comes before me to approve it. Even in that case, send it off to you or one of the other members just as a secondary reviewer that would you know it wouldn't be a full commission review requiring a hearing but it could just be you know double checked by another member of the commission in addition to myself.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah John if that makes sense to you and you think that's feasible that would sort of certainly satisfy me.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yep that'd be great if you included that and so that would be an order that it would have to be provided before construction or
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. Dennis, do we have a standard condition about notifying the commission X number of days before instruction starts?
[Denis MacDougall]: Just doing a little bit of word search and other older orders.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I think we do. I think that's a fairly standard ask. Yeah. And I guess my Suggestion would be that a draft O&M plan would be submitted no later than whatever that date is.
[SPEAKER_06]: I would expect we'd get it to you sooner, but if you had a date, since I have to confirm it with the DCR, since they'll be the ones committing to the maintenance.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah.
[Heather]: We've definitely done this before.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I see a template on one of our prior projects. Number 26, the applicant must notify the commission in writing one week before any activity commences. At the time of notice, the applicant shall provide evidence that the order has been filed at the registry of deeds.
[Craig Drennan]: In which case, I'd probably ask that plan be submitted maybe 2 weeks before because a week before doesn't really give. Time for review and revisions if needed.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I agree with that. Okay, so in addition to our normal sort of standard or just submitted 2 weeks prior to the start of construction.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yes, please sounds good.
[Jeremy Martin]: And just so I understand, what's the mechanism for us providing feedback on that? Does that require a hearing to review or can we provide written comments or requests back to the proponents?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I think it should be, at least I was envisioning that Dennis would approve of the O&M plan. So we internally as a commission could review that plan and provide comments to Dennis. But at the end of the day, there will be thumbs up or thumbs down.
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm just sort of, and I sort of send it off to you all basically, you know, send it individually so that any comments back from you all are not, there's no cross contamination of comments. So there's no coordination or discussion between you all about it. So I just get some individual comments from you. And then that would be that would be sufficient. So that way, we don't have to schedule a hearing.
[Craig Drennan]: That makes sense to me.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: That's all I had, unless any other member has something. I think we should hear a motion.
[Craig Drennan]: I can make a motion to approve this filing with the orders previously stated on top of the standard slate in Medford ComComm orders.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: We'll do a roll call here. Jeremy. Aye. Heather. Aye. Craig. Aye. Caroline.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Aye.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: And Ayme and Aye. Ayes have it.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right.
[SPEAKER_06]: Great, thank you very much.
[Denis MacDougall]: We're all set. I will work on getting that to you pretty quickly, so I'm being out of the office possibly for the next couple of days, but I should be around to work on that. It's pretty straightforward.
[SPEAKER_06]: That's fine. Thank you very much. Have a good evening, everyone.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you.
[Jeremy Martin]: You, too. Thanks.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Denis MacDougall]: Our next item on the agenda is a notice of intent for 53 Winford way. The people are 2, 1, 5, 0, 2, 4, 1, Nicholas trying to sell the most intent to demolish an existing single-family dwelling at 53 Winford way start a new single-family going up property. The proposed work will take place in the 100 foot buffer zone to a boarding educated well. We do have a representative on the line it's at a market on the show. Although he looks like he's having problems with audio. I don't know if that's... I don't know if he's actually gotten through. See if he's emailed me.
[Heidi Davis]: Can you call him at that number, Dennis, and see if he... Yeah, I think I'm gonna...
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I think they may have just and you did.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so. Also by this. And more now just 51 when the way.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, you're in a better going to the project. Yes, we just had a couple of questions. Okay, we will certainly give you the opportunity to ask those questions, but the conservation commission will need to hear the presentation and then deliberate and then you'll get a chance to speak. Thank you. You're very welcome. Mr. Marshawn are you with us? Did you throw that phone number down?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, there were people in the next room talking very loud. So I didn't mean to try to get in the hush. It looks like he's connected. So I don't know, Adam, if you can hear us. You're on mute.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: I can, yes. Sorry. OK, great. Am I late? I thought the meeting started at 7. No, I started at 6.30. Oh, geez. I'm sorry about that. I just put the kids to bed. I thought it was at 7.
[Denis MacDougall]: Nope. You're all right, because we just finished the... You're literally up, so we just finished the case right before you, so... Okay, excellent.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. Can you give us an overview of the project, please?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: Sure, absolutely. So, my name is Adam Ashanda from Ashanda and Associates. And I submitted a notice of intent for 53 Winford Way. I guess, well, the project, the building itself is taking place in Medford, majority of the work. So currently on site, there's an existing dwelling. And the plan is the client would like to raise that dwelling and construct a new house on that lot, a single family. And in the backyard, you can see it's kind of a steep grade as it is already towards the wetlands. So I'm proposing a three to one slope to come up to meet the appropriate grade that I'd need for the house. And we will put erosion control. You'll see by the wetlands, I have the erosion control slash limit of work in the back, as well as I am proposing underground infiltration systems to accommodate the roof runoff. So the entire runoff in the building will be infiltrated into groundwater. And I did calculations for the I didn't provide them. I actually have them here with me, and I can provide them if you would like them. But I did size the recharge systems and do some calculations. And we didn't do any soil testing out there. But what I did was I pulled a soil map off USDA. And based on the hydraulic soil group, I was able to calculate the drawdown and size the chambers for volume static. And in the front yard, you'll see that we're proposing, you know, a bit conk drive, but we're tying into the existing curb cuts. So we're not proposing any new curb cuts. We're just tying into the existing. And I guess they already cut and capped the sewer and the water services. So the game plan would be just to tie into the, to grab those and run them into the foundation.
[Unidentified]: Great thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: You're welcome. Commission do you have any questions?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Sure, I can go Heidi if that works. Sure, of course. First question I just had, who delineated the wetlands? How? When? If you could give us just some more information on the resource area on the property.
[Heidi Davis]: Thanks, Caroline. I also would note that we need the DEP data sheets as well.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: Sure. Yeah, I have to I thought I would have included that. I apologize. I want to say it was, what's her name, Maureen over at Norse Environmental, I believe flagged them. I will definitely confirm that. I'm not 100% certain who flagged them. But someone flagged them, but I'll definitely provide that information. That's not a problem. I apologize for not having that. Usually I put a note in the plan. I didn't in this case for some reason.
[Heidi Davis]: I note that almost the entirety of the project is within the 100-foot buffer zone. And in particular, there appears to be a good amount of clearing of vegetation in the buffer zone associated with the grading of the slope. Have you quantified the amount of clearing of vegetation within the buffer zone?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: I have not, but the clearing in the backyard, there is a tree line there that will be getting cleared a little bit. But at the same time, the grading is, it's already pretty much a three to one slope in the backyard there. I'm just, it was kind of tough to, because it's already, like I said, a steep slope in the backyard. So I kind of, where the limit of work line is, you know, you could see the existing 97 contour, and I just kind of went up. I did one for contour, so I went up every three feet until I hit 103, where I kind of needed to be at that grade to try to... There's already not really even a backyard. It's kind of a tough lot. I know that their game plan was they wanted to keep the foundation in Medford. They didn't want to do any work in Winchester, just minimal work in terms of the existing drive and the utilities. They kind of wanted to deal with you guys, I guess, instead. So that's why it's kind of pushed back as far as it is, I guess.
[Heidi Davis]: Would it help if I brought the map up? I have mine up, but I'm sure the other commission members would appreciate that. We're fairly familiar with this area. My final comment is that given the amount of clearing adjacent to the wetland line and the grading that's taking place within very close proximity to the wetland line, within two feet it appears. In my professional experience, this could very well result in impact to the wetland. And at this point in time, there is no Mitigation, of course, presumed because it's presumed that there is no alteration. But again, I, in my experience in my. 40 years of experience, I have seen that this kind of grading that close to a line will result in alteration, particularly given the amount of. Vegetative clearing have you evaluated anyway to bring that to a slope. Further from the wetland line.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: So I could bring the grading, I could cut it back a little bit towards foundation, but that would require us to do a retaining wall of sorts back there. Which, I mean, part of me was kind of thinking that might kind of be more invasive, because, I mean, if I did a retaining wall, I'm still going to have to cut some of that vegetation, especially if we're gonna put a recharge system in there. Unfortunately, it's kind of crammed back there. So I could maybe do, you know, a retaining wall starting at like, unfortunately, maybe like 100 and have a three foot wall or something like that and have it come up to like the 103, you know what I mean? Give or take, you know, something like that. I could propose a retaining wall in the back, sort of a three-to-one slope, but, you know, it might require a little bit more excavation to work back there versus just kind of grading it out, because some of that grading is only coming up a foot in some areas. Like I said, it's already existing a three-to-one slope back there, which is kind of, you know, in some areas, I could see, like, where the 102 proposed contour is. It's existing 100. and the existing 99 is 101, so maybe a couple feet. But as you get closer to the wetlands, like the 98 and the 99, the 98 proposed contour, it's coming up a foot. That's 98 right there. So it's not really crazy grading back there necessarily. We thought of a wall, but the client said he wanted to try to create though three to one. So I did suggest a wall to kind of pull it off the wetlands a little bit, but I wasn't sure what you guys would feel would have a bigger impact closer to the resource area, I guess.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you for that background. I'll give the other commission members a chance.
[Craig Drennan]: I think to kind of piggyback on what Heidi is saying, you know, especially near wetland flag 1A, you're really, you know, that limit of grading work is right up against the wetland line. And to put it in other terms, I don't think a contractor with an excavator would, you know, be able to find grade within two feet without having impact spillover. So I think the intent of what Heidi's asking for here is, Is there a way to pull back that down gradient limit of work such that you can leave a buffer of, Heidi, I'm not sure, like 5, 10 feet between limit of work and wetland line? Retaining wall is what comes to mind. You come across this weird issue of your infiltration system just getting caught up in the retaining wall's trench drain and getting kicked out to the wetland. you know, balancing impacts, I think, dealing with trying to minimize impacts to the wetland over dealing with stormwater management, which I'll note, as a single-family home, this project isn't beholden to the stormwater standards. I'd say revising the work footprint to kind of give some room to the wetland takes priority, in my opinion, at least.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. Sure. Just want to note that you refer to what then flag 1A. I think you're referring to 4A. That is a 4, yes. Yep. Okay.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: So 10 feet off that will take me to the proposed 100 contour right off the 4A. So if I could hold The proposed 100 foot contour, like, in that area there, like, 10 feet off. If I could stick if the closest I got to the wetland line was just say, 10 feet. And I put a retaining wall there, I'm sure I could work something out. Something like that to kind of back off if that made you guys. You know, okay with it.
[Craig Drennan]: That would make sense to me. I mean, I'll. leave it to the rest of my commission for other thoughts and comments.
[Heidi Davis]: I would appreciate evaluating such an alternative.
[Jeremy Martin]: I have a question, Mr. Marcianda. What are you proposing to vegetate this new slope with? I didn't see any detail about. Proposed final condition other than the erosion control and the grading there.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: I think the plan was to seed it and just have it be a grass lawn area back there.
[Jeremy Martin]: Well, I think considering its adjacency to the wetland and within the buffer itself, there may be a more appropriate vegetation there. It doesn't seem like a slope that can be used for playing or occupying so easily. I'd recommend considering something that is more appropriate. More ecologically productive than the long turf. I also see in the, I'm looking at a street view of the property here, and I see on this corner, the, the. the corner near wetland flag two, but actually a little bit closer to the house. There appears to be a pretty large mature tree there, and I don't see it in the plan. I can't quite tell if that tree is on this property or on the adjacent property, but it looks like it would fall onto this property. Is that tree impacted by the grading work that's proposed here?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: Well, I can't say for certain if that tree is on the property or not. Because a lot of times, if it is right over the property line, we can't. Yes, that one there. Let's see. Charming little house. So 14 feet. I do have that vegetation kind of drawn. It could be right there. It could be. But technically where I'm grading and tying into the existing grades is that that must be like right on the property line. And that's pretty much where I'm tying into the existing grades. So I don't see how it would impact it. From what I can tell here, it must be inside that tree line scrub, it looks like, I guess. But just to get back to your point about the grading and the plantings or whatever you're talking about in the back, if I was going to put a wall, which we talked about, like I was going to change the grading back here to do a retaining wall, I would naturally be leaving the slope at the bottom of the wall. So if I set the top of the wall just at 103, which is what I needed to be in the backyard to make the foundation elevation work, the bottom of the wall would be undisturbed. So if I did a lawn area from the top of wall to the foundation, I don't think I should do anything at the bottom of the wall because I'm leaving that undisturbed. That kind of becomes my limit of work. You know what I'm saying? I'm leaving the existing grade up to the wetlands at that point. So from 10 feet off the wetlands to the wetlands is remaining undisturbed. That would kind of be my limit of work.
[Jeremy Martin]: I hear what you're saying, and I wouldn't disagree with that. I guess my question is in the context of what's currently proposed more so than what alternatives you might be considering. And I do think that grading immediately adjacent to the base of that tree will absolutely have an impact on that tree. It has the potential to severely damage and potentially kill the tree. I think as part of the work with the retaining wall or evaluating that alternative, seeing if there is a way to avoid grading in the immediate adjacency around the tree in the root zone would be valuable to preserve that pretty significant tree within the wetland buffer. Sure. Yeah, that's no problem.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: And I'll make sure to get on the plan. Like I said, I'll double-check the spot shots and the existing conditions strong and make sure that it wasn't a drafting error or what's going on, but I'll try to get that on the plan so we can kind of pinpoint it where it is so you can see it. Yeah, thank you.
[Jeremy Martin]: It'd be helpful to see that marked, the location of it. You have the pine tree just opposite of it marked, so I'm hoping you have that information.
[Craig Drennan]: With regards to impacts at the base of whatever retaining wall you end up putting in, I'd expect there to be at least some disturbance as clearing and grading to actually get the wall footing in. So to what Jeremy's saying, I think calling out some sort of wetland seed mix anywhere that you do have disturbance at the base of that wall might be useful to kind of meet the intent of Jeremy's comment there.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, thank you, Greg. I agree.
[Heidi Davis]: Any other comments from the commission?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, I just have one more, if I may. I guess, Mr. Marchanda, if you're going back to NORS environmental for those required forms, I would think I would appreciate some submittal written narrative from NORS just explaining how This work will contribute to the interest of the act. And if you're taking a note, I'm looking specifically at 310 CMR 10.03 1A3 for work in the buffer zone. So I would just appreciate Norse's explanation how that burden is being met by this project. Thanks.
[Unidentified]: Sure.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: So Just to summarize, kind of, I will obviously speak to Norse environmental, or I believe it's Norse, but whoever delineated the wetlands, I will take care of that. We'll talk about retaining wall, so I kind of back off the wetlands a little bit, and then talk about potentially like a wetland seed mix or something, call out some mix on the bottom side, bottom of the wall there.
[Heidi Davis]: I think that sums it up.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And actually, sorry, can I add one more thing? The other thing I had thought about just because as proposed this project is so close to the wetland line was potentially conditioning it or having the applicant offer maybe some permanent wetland boundary markings that might prevent any creep. I'll leave that up to the commission or the applicant to volunteer to do that, or the commission, if and when the time comes to discuss whether that is a condition we want to impose.
[Heather]: Carolyn, Winford Way is a well-known area, and I think your suggestion is an excellent one. We have done a lot in this area.
[Heidi Davis]: I think that's one of the advantages of a retaining wall also. Hopefully, there wouldn't be downgrading and alteration from the retaining wall.
[Heather]: Do we need to make a specific statement with regard to the tree to clarification? I know it's going on the plan, but is there anything else that we need to say?
[Heidi Davis]: Go ahead.
[Jeremy Martin]: I think it should be accounted for in the plan and accommodated with the modified grading to preserve it, make an effort to preserve it.
[Heather]: So, let's state that. Yeah.
[Craig Drennan]: And to Heidi's point about the retaining wall, Adam, do you know if. If you put this retaining wall in, are you going to be putting in stairs to access the base of it as well? Or is it just going to be access from the top? Because whether or not there's stairs incorporated in this is going to have an impact on creep over the future, as Caroline's saying.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: Sure. So what I was thinking of proposing was the retaining wall, but then putting a fence on top of the retaining wall. And if I put a fence, so basically that would act as the limit of work to protect the resource area, but also if you guys. You were talking about maybe putting in markers or something like that where maybe on the wooden posts on the, just say you did a wooden post fence with wire or whatever you were going to do on top of the retaining wall, you could probably put some plaques if you really wanted to require that. Or you could put it on the bottom of the wall towards wetlands, whatever. But if it was a retaining wall and you had a fence without access to the lower 10 feet to the wetlands, then it kind of acts as a barrier. I guess that probably make people happy with that.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Commissioner. If that is all, I'd like to come back to the member of the public that is attending. And if you would like to ask a question or make a comment, please, if you could again state your name and address for the record, I'd appreciate it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hello, this is Anne M. Warren Malatesta, M-A-L-A-T-E-S-T-A. 51 Winsford Way? Yes, thank you. Okay. That house has been in the family since 1963, but we're relatively newer owners. It's transferred to Anne. And I was under the impression that the wetland started right after our drop-off. And that's why we were wondering why the proposed house is being built so far back. It is pretty wet land down there. And that was the main reason, I mean, why is that house going so far back? It's going to be out of the line of all the other houses too. Just seems a little bit odd, but it could have a nice front lawn too. But just clarification of that, where the wetlands actually begin. It would be a learning process for us too, but since, The family has owned it since 63. That was always known to be where the conservation land started. Because years ago, there used to be little incinerators right there where you could burn your trash. That property was graded years and years and years ago. But it does get wet down there. Just a quick question as to why they were going so far back with the house.
[Heidi Davis]: As you probably heard, one of the items we do want clarified is the wetland delineation.
[SPEAKER_00]: I understand that tree to be right on the line, that maple tree to the left of our property to the right of theirs, if that's the tree that was in question. Because I didn't see it noted on the plan here either. I see the two front trees, but nothing on the side.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: I think it was probably presumed to be over the property line. And I know when the surveyors go out, they try not to really trespass, go onto other people's property. So that probably would be.
[SPEAKER_00]: We were thinking of having, I was thinking of having it delineated anyway, because I know my aunt and uncle put in that rhododendron bush that's there. And I thought the tree was, I thought it was on Matthew's property. But that was a long time ago. But that's, I know that rhododendron bush, I thought they had put that in. Great. Thank you. I wanted to ask the conservation committee too. Is there any maintenance, um, maintenance to be done regarding all that dried brush and whatnot that's out there to me? I think it would be, uh, susceptible to a lightning strike or kids out there smoking or whatever. I know they weren't able to do anything on that property except to enjoy it. But I understood it from my uncle. He could never do anything out there, really even to plant anything. If they wanted to put a tree or whatever, that was sort of taboo too. It just had to be let natural even though The Matthews had graded and put in those weeping willows, what's left of them. Are we allowed to clear any of that in back, that dry brush or whatever?
[Heidi Davis]: If you have a plan, you could always come before the Conservation Commission with your plan, but in general, we cannot permit the alteration of wetlands. We can permit things like the clearing of invasive species and replanting with native vegetation that is not disallowed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, the nine hills and whatnot, you know? Especially what's going on in California. But, I mean, it seems susceptible to possibly a fire.
[Heidi Davis]: The Conservation Commission's authority does not extend to maintenance or clearing. We hear proposals from individuals or parties that want to have a project that's within or near wetlands. And so we're a private authority. We don't have, we don't maintain or enhance or work in wetlands ourselves.
[SPEAKER_00]: I couldn't clear back a little bit if I wanted to.
[Heidi Davis]: You could always come before the Conservation Commission with a plan if you had. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for attending. Is there anybody else from the public online that would like to comment or have a question? Hearing none, I bring it back to the commission once again and pose the question, is the commission interested in viewing the wetland delineation? Or making a site visit to the site?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I would like to have the benefit of the form from the wetland delineator first, but I would be interested in a site visit.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, I agree with that, that we need that background material prior, but. Great. So Mr. Marchanda, it looks like- Heather, you were muted there.
[Craig Drennan]: Sorry, I saw you talking.
[Heather]: You're still muted. I'm trying not to share my coughing with you. I would be happy to make another visit to Winford Way, but if just receiving the material answers our question, I'm curious, as this woman speaks about brush, et cetera, in that area, and the issues that we've had with drought, it would be interesting to just see what we're dealing with now. I think our last visit to Winford Way may have been, what, four years ago? I don't think I was there, so I can't speak to it. The age here, age for beauty. But if it's not necessary, that's fine too. It's more of a curiosity issue. I might just make a little walk up there at some point.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Dennis, have you been, did you look at the wetland line?
[Denis MacDougall]: This one, I've looked at many of the ones on Winford Way, this one not in particular, no, but we could talk to, if Adam wants to speak to the property owner, you know, we can maybe, Adam, if you want to like sort of talk to them and maybe we can sort of just set a time for, you know, if some of the members want to come by and just take a look at the rear of the property.
[Heidi Davis]: Well, we'd like to see the delineation forms first. Oh, that's true, okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, maybe get the donation forms in first and then once we have them in hand, then we can go to the site. All right, sounds that sounds good.
[Heidi Davis]: So are you amenable to a continuation of this hearing? Yeah, sure. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Do I have a motion from the commission?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: make a motion to continue this hearing to our next regularly scheduled hearing on January, Dennis, help me out, 22nd of this year.
[Craig Drennan]: I'll second that.
[Heidi Davis]: All in favor? Eric?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Craig?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Carolyn? Aye. Jeremy? Aye. Heather?
[Heather]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Myself is an aye, so the ayes have it. Thank you and we look forward to speaking with you again, Mr. Marshall.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_02]: All right. Thank you very much. I have a good night. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. Is that it for our agenda? Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: pretty much we still the South Street one but I did talk to the property and we couldn't come tonight, he told me he was he was out of town but I told him about the meeting on the 22nd and he said that seems likely so we can get him on that one finally finish that off we can do that and I know I promised you meeting minutes but the last few days have been a bit of a nightmare so that was literally my plan was to work on a Monday and Tuesday and then I was in and out of the office so I apologize I will I'm going to be here tomorrow, so I'm going to try to get through some. I started on some and then just got way late during the vacation because there were only a couple of us in here. And so I was answering phones and answering questions most of the day.
[Heidi Davis]: Understood. Just to put it back on your list, we spoke about a site visit to Sycamore Ave.
[Denis MacDougall]: which I just I have contacted the representative twice asking them to receive their response.
[Heidi Davis]: If we don't receive a response then there's no sense in continuing the hearing on the 18th early.
[Denis MacDougall]: I will tell him that in my next.
[Heidi Davis]: That might help.
[Craig Drennan]: And I'm out of town. The last week of January in the first week of February so Ideally, we can get it scheduled in the next two weeks. Otherwise, I'm going to have to miss that, which will be a shame. But OK, is what it is.
[Denis MacDougall]: So you're not available on the 29th or the fifth, but you're available on the 22nd.
[Craig Drennan]: And yeah, the fifth, I'll be on a plane during our meeting time. Yeah, you don't want that.
[Denis MacDougall]: Want to be watching a movie?
[Heather]: We're making sure no one's opening a door. You watched the news last night. I try not to. So are we set?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think so. So if we just get a motion to adjourn and I will let you know when I hear back from any either Wynford or Sycamore on a site visit.
[Craig Drennan]: Motion to adjourn? I did.
[Heidi Davis]: All in favor?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Jeremy?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Heather? Aye. Caroline? Aye. Craig?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: And myself is an aye. Good night, and feel better, Heather.
[Heather]: Yes, Heidi. I'm staying away from the stuff that would really make me feel better, but anyway. Need you two over here soon. Take care. Bye, good night. Good night, everyone.