[0:00] So welcome everyone to Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 meeting of the Western Conservation Commission. Our meetings are recorded and your continued presence indicates your consent to being recorded. And we're going to open up, start the meeting with the opportunity for public comment for anything is not otherwise on the agenda. So we're going to raise hands. I don't think we have any members of the public. Curtis is here on behalf of one of the

[0:29] the significance of compliance.

[0:32] We've caused that public.

[0:34] We've caused that public, but not necessarily a Weston

[0:36] resident.

[0:37] I'm all that ISIS in.

[0:39] Yes, let's make sure ISIS gets in.

[0:42] So no public comments.

[0:44] So we can move on to whatever you want to start with.

[0:47] You want to start with the.

[0:49] Yeah, there's a 730 continued hearing for 6-page road.

[0:54] This one's a little problematic only because it's been continued a few times that we opened the public hearing on July 7th and it's been continued since then.

[1:07] And we have not received any other information. In fact, I really have occurred from the applicant or his consultant.

[1:14] I reached out several times in putting today because I think technically we would need a request to continue.

[1:23] Yeah, so I think Reese, I guess the thing is I know they're working on other permitting

[1:29] with the town through the board of health and Mr. Wormwater permitting authority.

[1:34] Is there any call for a no shell?

[1:40] I mean, you know, I think the act would probably tell us that without a natural written request

[1:46] to continue that you'd have to, you know, render a decision, close the public hearing

[1:52] and render a decision. I mean, I don't know. In this case, I suggested the email that we could

[2:01] continue them to our September 29th meeting and that that would, like, hopefully, give them adequate

[2:05] time to work through the other permitting. I mean, the challenge is in Glenn, you watched the public

[2:11] hearing from the summit today to follow the Mullin form. They didn't really relate any information

[2:15] of the public hearing because there were so many questions and outstanding issues and information

[2:21] that they still had to work through. And they knew that when they came forward,

[2:25] then when they came and presented to us until I7. And even when we went to the site visit for that

[2:30] meeting, I mean, there was a lot of information on the site plan and then in those of intent that

[2:35] just needed to be filled out with missing. So, I might look to Eileen to not give us legal advice,

[2:44] but to use her to explore her wisdom on this.

[2:48] Would it be, I mean, I think the summer is a busy time

[2:52] and I think it's understandable that an applicant

[2:54] might not have asked for the request.

[2:59] I mean, I doubt we'll get in trouble

[3:00] for granting us sort of a courtesy continuance.

[3:05] Alan, do you have any thoughts on that?

[3:07] I would agree with that.

[3:08] I would say until the next meeting,

[3:11] but making clear that this is a one-time courtesy.

[3:15] Yeah, yeah. I think so. Yeah, make that clear and we'll grant them a

[3:21] continuance.

[3:22] That sounds very fair.

[3:24] Yeah, but courtesy continuance.

[3:26] That would be to Tuesday September 29th at 7.45 pm.

[3:31] Okay. So who would like to make that motion then?

[3:35] I'll make that motion.

[3:38] And second.

[3:39] Second.

[3:40] and roll call. I mean, yes. There are. Yes. Glenn. Yes. I wrote yes. Alison. Yes.

[3:49] And we. I mean, yes. Thanks. Great. Thank you, guys. All right. We've disposed of that now.

[3:56] Indeed. We have. We have 11 minutes. Yep. Why don't we, if we could go to one of the

[4:05] certificates of compliance request just because Curtis is here on behalf of the applicant.

[4:14] And they are asking for a partial certificate of compliance in this case. Curtis, are you

[4:19] just here to observe and make sure that the commission issues, are you going to present

[4:23] anything?

[4:25] I was just going to present to the commission, let them know what the project was and just

[4:30] Just a little overview of it, just let them know partial requests if you guys know how

[4:35] that'd be great.

[4:36] Do you need to show your screen card?

[4:38] No, I should be all set.

[4:40] Unless the commission would like to see pictures of the site, but unless that, it should

[4:44] be all good.

[4:45] Okay.

[4:46] Yeah, go ahead.

[4:47] Okay.

[4:48] Thank you guys for having me.

[4:49] My name is Curtis Wisegarber.

[4:50] I'm here from Goddard Consulting on behalf of 452 Glen Road.

[4:54] So as you all know, we filed a request for a partial certificate of compliance for the construction

[5:00] of single-family home with an associated garage, walkway, retaining wall stairs, rear patio,

[5:06] tree removal and restoration plantings within the 100-foot buffer zone to BVW.

[5:12] So following the completion of this in the spring of 2026, Spurron Engineering went to the site,

[5:19] they attached a as-build plan as well. They found that the work substantially complied with the

[5:25] proposed site plan. There were a few small deviations, so there were some small variations,

[5:30] no locations of the septic components and some drain manholes to ease constructability

[5:35] and there was also a very slight change in the shape of the driveway, although it does

[5:40] still have a very similar footprint size as to what was proposed. No resource areas were

[5:45] altered or disturbed with these slight changes additionally. Like Jordan mentioned, we are

[5:53] requesting a partial certificate of compliance because we still have two seasons of native plants

[5:59] to monitor and submit reports for. We also are trying to get in contact with the engineer

[6:04] to send a CAD file of the AS Bill plan so we haven't had any success with that but we're still trying.

[6:12] I'm trying to think if there's anything else off the top of my head. I don't think that there's

[6:17] anything else. I have some pictures of the commission would like to see but if not Jordan I believe you

[6:21] visited the site and didn't find anything wrong with the area, except for the fact that

[6:26] we still have the two seasons of monitoring to look at. But if anybody has any questions,

[6:31] I'd be happy to try and answer them. And if not, we would like to respectfully request

[6:35] that the commission issues a partial certificate of compliance.

[6:39] And just so the record I was on site on August 12 and agreed the site looked stable and the only

[6:44] outstanding thing that I could see was, as Kurt said, the two years of monitoring related

[6:51] to the restoration and mitigation areas.

[6:54] And so why are you hoping for a partial rather than waiting?

[6:58] I believe that the homeowner and the property owner wanted to just get a partial CFC now

[7:05] so that when the two seasons of monitoring ends it's going to be an easier transition.

[7:15] And Jordan, the other question I have, so we've done this before with monitoring of growing

[7:20] seasons.

[7:21] Do you foresee that the CAD file for the ASGILT is at all an issue, if that comes in problematic?

[7:29] I was okay.

[7:31] It's really just a data thing, Reese.

[7:34] The town planner and the town engineer, myself and our GIS administrator, for the town met.

[7:41] I want to say about a year ago.

[7:43] and sort of decided that for these types of projects where there's for

[7:49] example a local you know field delineated wetland line and you know local

[7:55] stormwater structures that it would be helpful for the town if we have that

[7:59] data so that we can build out our town on mind GIS and have more accurate data.

[8:04] So the stormwater permitting authority and also the Conservation Commission have

[8:09] of started requiring when an applicant comes forward

[8:12] for a certificate of compliance that in addition

[8:15] to the ASBEL and an engineer certification

[8:17] and any other information that's relevant to the project

[8:20] that we also get the CAD file.

[8:23] So we have that actual data.

[8:26] But I think in this case, because they have to come back

[8:29] in front of you for a full certificate

[8:31] that we sort of have another bite at the apples, they say.

[8:34] Okay.

[8:34] And I think in this case, it's more related to

[8:37] This is new house construction and they had several hurdles including the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission.

[8:44] I think just in order for them to get a temporary certificate of occupancy, they wanted to get a partial COC on their title.

[8:52] Okay, so this is really to get the certificate of occupancy, okay?

[8:56] Correct.

[8:58] All right, that sounds reasonable and consistent with what we've done in the past.

[9:02] Does anybody have any questions?

[9:08] I'm not hearing any, so looking for a motion to issue a partial certificate of compliance.

[9:13] So moved.

[9:14] All right.

[9:15] Second.

[9:17] Okay, roll call, are we?

[9:20] Yes.

[9:20] There are.

[9:22] Yes.

[9:22] Glenn.

[9:23] Yes.

[9:24] I'm yes, Alison.

[9:26] Yes, please.

[9:27] Yes.

[9:28] Thank you.

[9:30] There we go.

[9:31] Thank you very much.

[9:33] Yep.

[9:34] Great.

[9:35] All right. So I've got a couple minutes. You want to do the other one? Sure. This is somewhat unique.

[9:43] This is for 416 Conan Road, which is DEP file number 337-1362.

[9:50] Initially, this was issued by the commission in September of 2019 for the installation of an irrigation well and the replacement of a septic system.

[10:00] And at the time, of course, Michelle Gersenda was the agent, and she did, or the commission

[10:05] did issue a notice of violation in November of that year because of a breach of the

[10:11] limit of work and some work inside of the 25-foot notice store zone.

[10:16] And the notice of violation and the subsequent enforcement order required restoration of that

[10:26] area and that is documented in a memo that you can find in that file from Michelle in February of 2020.

[10:34] And what happened was that the prior owner sold it to the current owner before any of that

[10:39] restoration could occur and then the new owners agreed to their terms of that restoration

[10:46] in a permit that the commission issued to raise and rebuild the house as file number 337-1402,

[10:55] which this commission actually issued a certificate of compliance on that other permit in September of 2022 when I was here.

[11:04] So this is more of a record keeping thing that that old permit was, I don't know, incorporated or that the requirements of that old permit were incorporated into this newer permit number 1402, which the commission closed.

[11:21] and I think the owner, Zach Burnett, thought at the time that this commission had closed

[11:27] that older permit, 1362 at the same time. In fact, the request for certificate compliance

[11:34] of a submitted for file 1402 included an engineer certification that referenced both file numbers.

[11:42] But I told Zach that at the time he had only requested a COC for 1402 so we just didn't deal with

[11:48] this all the permit. But I've been on the site back when this commission closed file

[11:55] number 1402 and obviously at that time all the work had been done including the restoration

[12:00] requirements from the previous permit. This is slightly confusing. So it's more a record

[12:07] of a matter of record keeping and to clear the title from this older permit, 1362.

[12:16] If that

[12:16] up a previous message. But I'm curious when we issued the most the more recent COC,

[12:26] wouldn't we have seen the previous one? We did. Yeah, like I said, it was actually referenced in

[12:33] the request for certificate of compliance that was submitted and the engineer certification

[12:39] at that time reference and spoke to both permits. I suppose we could every side. I'm not sure why we

[12:46] We didn't just sort of slip bias, okay?

[12:48] Except that the request for Certificate Compliance,

[12:51] which is the WPA form 8a,

[12:54] only specifically requested compliance for a file of 1402.

[12:59] That form did not reference 1362,

[13:01] so you just acted on the request,

[13:04] even though I think the intent of the owner,

[13:07] the current owner who submitted this,

[13:10] this Certificate Compliance request,

[13:14] I think he thought that we would take care of both, and maybe he thought we did, and my

[13:19] assumption is that he's now at a point where something's changed, either he's refinancing

[13:24] or selling the house or something, and a title search has found this older permit.

[13:31] I'm not sure why, you know, typically, if there's an open order of conditions with a enforcement

[13:38] order, it's not typical that that is sort of unresolved

[13:44] when a house sells or when a house transfers ownership, but in this case, I guess, it did.

[13:48] So when you guys are rooting through your files and pulling permits out and stuff, or this

[13:53] would show up. This would show up. Right. I was just very curious about how that works.

[13:59] Yeah, because I mean, ISIS has been working through all permits in the 1300s that don't have

[14:05] certificates from clients and reaching out personally into these applicants as a courtesy,

[14:11] So that when this type of situation happens being other prepared when they go to sell the house or refinance or whatever that

[14:18] So we would have eventually found this and again, I don't know why this why Zach how he came to to find this issue now

[14:26] But he did all right. Well, I'm glad it came up. I know you guys are working on cleaning things up

[14:31] So yeah, it's into that. Yes, all right. Did anybody have any

[14:37] Questions or comments about that? Where did we?

[14:40] We haven't, sorry, I lost my track here.

[14:44] We haven't actually voted on this yet, everyone.

[14:46] No, but we need to vote to issue a certificate on this one.

[14:49] Any questions, comments on this one?

[14:53] Then we're looking for a motion to close this outdated certificate compliance report.

[15:00] Good compliance for 416, current road.

[15:04] We'll get down and I'll get glad in the second.

[15:07] Got it. Okay. I mean, yes. Yes. Glen. Yes. And I go, yes, Alison. Yes. And thank you.

[15:17] I'm a yes. Great. Thanks, guys.

[15:23] Okay.

[15:27] I'm just letting Peter be in this in, who's a consultant

[15:30] for 520 Glen Road Reese. Great. Yeah, the timing is good. Good.

[15:40] Let's see, make him a co-host again.

[15:54] Peter, are you there?

[16:02] Peter is muted if he is there. I just got it to come in Jordan, hang in there.

[16:08] It's finally letting me operate. Thank you. I was texting you at the same time to say I'm trying to

[16:14] get in. Oh yeah, yeah, got it. Sorry about that. No worries. Okay. Good. Are you ready

[16:22] for me now? We are. Yeah. And I just just you know, I made you a co-host. So if you if

[16:26] you do need to share your screen or you'd like to do that, you're welcome too. If you'll

[16:30] give me a moment, I could do that. I didn't bring up the drawing it because I was having trouble

[16:35] getting in there with me. I'll do that in that way. When I do join, I'll have it ready.

[17:38] How are you doing there, Peter?

[17:39] Yeah, I'm getting it.

[17:40] I'm sorry.

[17:40] It's making me tighten a couple of things here to get into my network.

[17:44] So sorry.

[17:45] I apologize.

[17:46] That's great.

[17:46] I can also share my screen if it's a problematic for you, so you can look at some of the things.

[17:51] No, I just got it to come up.

[17:55] We have too many security protocols, I'm sorry.

[17:59] Like you, we don't want just anybody getting into our system.

[18:03] Yeah.

[18:03] Good evening, Peter being a engineering design consultant, so thank you for allowing me to catch up here.

[18:10] So on behalf of Jose Maria, they're the owners of this property at 520 Glen Road.

[18:16] The proposal is to construct, it's about 20 feet deep off the back of the house,

[18:24] and about 60 feet wide in general affected areas, about 1200 square feet of rear yard

[18:31] that's going to be used as a hard-scape area.

[18:33] So we're creating some gardens associated with patio areas.

[18:40] So if you'll allow me to share, I'll bring up the screen.

[18:49] I assume that comes from you to say, OK, great.

[18:52] And then I will just zoom in.

[18:54] So just to be clear, with the resource areas

[18:57] that are here, that we've got a riparian zone.

[19:01] So we've got an inner and an outer.

[19:03] and we've got a buffer zone to wetlands, so this is basically the flagged wetland limits

[19:10] that are there, putting the 100-foot buffer zone right through the front of the house.

[19:14] So the whole property is affected by wetland area and then we're just at the edge of that outer

[19:22] riparian zone here. So the proposal is to construct this patio and outdoor areas with retaining wall

[19:30] There's a landscaping plan that we provided by the landscape architect showing a number of native plantings that are going to be included as part of the proposal.

[19:40] We didn't actually name those native plantings. I didn't have a chance to confer with the landscape architect if he had a special plant in mind, but I told Jordan I had no problem with there being in condition that we would identify what those plants are ahead of time.

[19:56] So that nothing that would be non-native or a cult of R would be planted.

[20:04] You know, we do know what you're looking for when it comes to natives,

[20:07] and we can ensure that that's done.

[20:11] We do have an erosion control barrier that's going to be installed.

[20:14] It's really just allowing the work activity to occur here.

[20:17] So like I said, the outer edge of that preparing zone is being affected

[20:21] with a small amount of grading.

[20:24] and then just a work activity zone.

[20:26] This is all land that's basically altered

[20:29] as part of the yard now.

[20:31] So just converting part of the yard

[20:33] over to an active partscape area.

[20:38] Be happy to answer any questions.

[20:39] Thank you for the opportunity.

[20:41] And if you'd prefer to stop the share through the chair,

[20:45] I can or I can keep the share on it.

[20:47] Some to you, are you like to operate with the screen?

[20:50] Let's keep it up for for a little bit anyway. Okay, very good. And when we were looking at the at the plans on the site, the Jordan had and your plan here also has it, we were just curious.

[21:04] What is the thicker blue line with the black boundary down at the bottom right here?

[21:18] I'm sorry, I don't have the exact definition, but I think it was a separate delineation that occurred off of another plan.

[21:28] They identified the, because you could see the wetland vegetation numbers are following the WFC numbers here.

[21:35] And then these are a different WF designation.

[21:40] So, someone in looking at it, I want to say that it was this special flood hazards area

[21:46] area, so that if I was to, you know, zone A.

[21:50] Oh, okay.

[21:50] So, but someone flagged it as such as well in the field because it does follow that.

[21:57] Right.

[21:58] So, I just want to be clear about that too.

[22:02] Okay.

[22:02] So, Jordan, does that, does the special flood hazard area?

[22:06] Well I was going to bring that up right now. It's possible. I mean it's an unusual highlighted line there.

[22:19] It might just be there to show you the extent or the final elevation where that zone A extends to or something. That would be my guess.

[22:31] I mean, while you guys are chatting, I'm going to bring up that parcel of maps online and put the 2025 flood data on and see where it lands.

[22:41] Yeah, that's what this came from Jordan. This would be that resource. And I think it's part of a plot plan that was done. It was identified because it would be a zoning matter.

[22:52] So this site was also evaluating zoning matters as well.

[22:55] So I believe it's just kind of a holdover, but since it is a separate source, and it was defined in the field, we thought it was prudent to show it to you folks.

[23:05] It's going to be no alteration of that zone at all.

[23:08] Yeah, I think generally when we talk about flood zones, we're talking about it's a problem if we fill or excavate in that area and you're honest.

[23:18] Right. So there'll be no activity. I mean, obviously, no activity at the wetland resource area or it's it's buffer.

[23:24] Is that it looks like that that's that's elevation 186 is that Oh, no, I can see 186. I guess it doesn't follow that exact.

[23:33] It's going to be graphical in this section of the site. Okay. Okay. But it's close to that. It is closed. That's true. It's close to. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[23:44] Yeah.

[23:45] Yeah, my guess is that if it's a, again, if it's a flood hazard thing, it's not going

[23:49] to be pertinent to this discussion, because this is just an idea.

[23:53] Yeah, we probably drew more attention to it than we showed up with the exit app.

[23:57] I think that's it, because the 2025 zone A flood data on our maps online lines up with

[24:03] lines up with contour 186.

[24:06] So I think that must be what it is, Reese, is instead of shading the entire bottom half

[24:10] of this plan blue, they just show, they're just pointing out the extent of that zone A.

[24:16] Yeah, okay.

[24:17] Which is the 100 year flood zone, which is not relevant in this case, just because they're

[24:22] not proposing any work down there, but disinformation for the plan, okay.

[24:30] And let's see.

[24:32] So normally we, with a project like this, we might be considered, but concerned about, you

[24:38] essence of infiltration or storm water, but we're all the, let's see, the only impervious

[24:48] area that we're adding is the purgola. And that's a fairly small area, right?

[24:58] Right. A percentage of it, you know, it's just, and it's louvered as well. So it's not like

[25:01] I think it's really going to retain it.

[25:03] Yeah, it's lower.

[25:05] You say.

[25:06] It's being added.

[25:08] Did you say what the square footage

[25:10] of the red patio area depicted on this plan?

[25:14] What is that?

[25:15] Yeah, it's less.

[25:16] The whole area was 1,200.

[25:18] I want to say it was about 1,000 or just under.

[25:22] Okay.

[25:24] And I'm just making sure, like,

[25:26] did you communicate with the board?

[25:30] Yes, you did. Okay. Yeah, and then there's there's going to be a lot of permeable zones associated with this as well

[25:36] Okay, because we're doing a retaining wall that the back of that would be all stone

[25:40] So I would say to you that you know normally we would have like a separate mitigation system in this case

[25:46] There's going to be more than enough mitigation to offset what we're proposing here

[25:53] Because I think they there are our town stormwater permits triggered at 750 squeak square feet of new and pervious

[26:01] But you're saying that this because it's you're using purgeous pavers, it's that's not right, right

[26:07] And like and as I said Richard did vet all of this before he ends. We didn't have to do a separate stormwater

[26:13] Paramedic either with him. We just had to come come to the commission obviously for the activity in the buffer

[26:20] All right

[26:22] So I do have another question about the prior work that was done before we go to that

[26:26] I think we'll we'll turn it over to the commission if there's any other questions about

[26:30] but this RDA, essentially it's long and other previously disturbed areas being turned into patio.

[26:42] Now I have questions, but again, not specifically about this as well.

[26:48] All right.

[26:49] Well, one, I

[26:53] had one question and I just, oh, Peter, I think you're in your narrative.

[26:58] You included it.

[26:59] The closest point of work to the wetland, did you indicate that?

[27:06] I think we measured it, because you gave us a scale plan at, I think, 40 feet.

[27:13] Right, it was under the 50, and exact didn't actually highlight a 50-foot plan.

[27:18] But I would say to you, it's going to be 40-something.

[27:20] And I can do that if you, if I go offline from it, and I give you an exact dimension,

[27:25] but I can assure you that it's more than 40.

[27:36] All right, anybody else have questions about the current proposal?

[27:41] If not, then I think I will move to, and my questions are probably similar to Ellen's questions.

[27:46] When we were on site today, we were trying to figure out the boundaries of looking at this plan

[27:51] and this plan I think may have some older information and didn't include some current trees and stuff

[27:56] and we were trying to figure out the lawn area

[28:00] and that prompted us to look at some old, old aerial images and it looked like there had been

[28:06] some significant tree clearing in 2018. But I believe some trees had come down that was deceased

[28:13] and Jordan was part of that field review, and then they did new plantings. So you should have

[28:20] actually found more trees than previously were present. Do you recall Jordan the inspection you

[28:27] with Jose? Well, we have a record of an approval for a tree permit from 2024, which we issue,

[28:38] and that was just for one tree. I think Reece had done some research on Google Earth showing

[28:43] some significant work in 2018, which, you know, predates my time here in Weston. All right, it may

[28:49] predate the owners time too with this home. Yeah, and it might, and I think that, you know, we're not

[28:56] I don't think we're going to try to chase down, you know, I don't want to be punitive to them.

[29:01] I was prepared for that, but I think that, you know, I think it's important that the owner

[29:07] understands that they are adjacent to this important wetland resource area and, you know,

[29:13] we depend. And less lawn as you move towards the wetland is preferred and more trees are, you know,

[29:22] appreciate so and we did see that there is areas behind some of those

[29:28] our revivities that that were mode and I was trying to figure out why why

[29:33] they're spending time mulling those but anyway that's up to the owner but

[29:36] anyway that's more of a you know an opinion than anything else well I know

[29:43] they know they're trying to make improvements to the property and I think they'll

[29:46] be good stewards over time and that and they do have a full understanding of where

[29:50] the wetland limits are and then the resources here so this is a good starting point I think

[29:56] for them is to understand their property and how.

[30:00] No, I'm never responsible to come to you. Yeah, and that's the other important part is, you know, a lot of people who are adjacent to wireless don't necessarily know this. And now, you know, we know that they know and keep us informed of any future plans and and Jordan and the conservation commission has. Is it is a good resource for advice that they if they're interested to have beautiful, beautiful cat tails back there and some other, you know, it's a pretty area. So it sounds like it sounds like you're saying that they're new relatively new owners. Is that what you're saying?

[30:29] Yes, yes, yes, that date. I don't have the exactal acquisition date, but I'm confident of that date. Time.

[30:42] Resign one other comment.

[30:44] If that's okay with you, just somewhat related to that is Peter.

[30:48] When we were out on site, one of our commissioners out tonight were coming back there and we did know a fairly large area where I think the landscapers are depositing grass clippings.

[30:59] And I believe it's actually in the wetland because it's off the grass footprint.

[31:04] So, this is another thing where like I just want to be able to work with Jose and his

[31:08] wife to, you know, to stop that activity.

[31:14] Yeah.

[31:15] I'll probably document that with you as part of this proposal, Jordan, I'll make sure that

[31:21] it's done before the work starts because we're going to help Jose, you know, implement

[31:25] the program.

[31:25] So I'll document that with your office ahead of time, and then we'll make sure that there's no repeat activity there and further.

[31:33] They should just all that stuff off. These landscapers, you know, I'll look them for shortcuts. There's no need for it. Yeah, yeah.

[31:40] The other thing was that there's obviously some like large arbor bodies that I think back there that are very healthy looking and, you know, there's in very nothing wrong with tree planting.

[31:52] but as Rhys mentioned, they're kind of mowing behind that area.

[32:00] And I would be interested to talk with Jose and see if he would be willing to kind of maybe discontinue that

[32:07] and enhance the buffer a little bit.

[32:12] Okay.

[32:13] I think probably,

[32:17] at some point in the past,

[32:18] you know like like many places in Weston I think this this was probably filled in order to get a

[32:23] lawn back there because the you know the lawn footprint you know really really conforms to your

[32:30] your wetland delineation there and my guess is if you dug deep enough you found hydric soil down

[32:35] down there so I just you know sometimes we see this with homeowners and we try to work with them to

[32:41] make some what I would say maybe you know more more common sense improvements where you know if there's

[32:48] It's really no value to them from a recreational or a homeowner use standpoint to mow back in

[32:53] there.

[32:54] Would they be willing to let that re-naturalize?

[32:57] My guess is if you stopped mowing some of the grass right in the edge of the wetland,

[33:00] it would re-vegetate with wetland vegetation.

[33:03] So I think that potentially could be a good offset or mitigation for the proposed work.

[33:10] Yep.

[33:11] Be happy to do that, Jim.

[33:13] And again, I'll bring proper documentation for your office to identify that.

[33:17] We'll just put it on the plan, I don't see a problem with that.

[33:21] If I could mention something, and again, this is something that's not at all under the

[33:25] commission's jurisdiction, but one of the commission's mandates is to educate people.

[33:31] I know the homeowner has a lot of lighting, I'm sure they really want to enjoy at night the

[33:37] beauty of their property, and I totally get that.

[33:40] Most people are not aware that evening nights, nighttime nights are really damaging to

[33:47] wild life. For instance, right now there are millions of birds migrating and the lights are

[33:52] very confusing and distracting, and many thousands and thousands of birds are killed during

[33:57] the migration. So, for instance, I have lights on my property. The only time I have my driveway

[34:04] lights on is when people I know are coming and going. So, again, this is not at all under

[34:11] the Commission's jurisdiction. It's more an education point. It would be great if your

[34:15] homeowners we just learned that. Okay yeah definitely bring up their

[34:21] attention. Thank you.

[34:26] All right you can probably stop your screen share. Thank

[34:31] you for doing that and any other questions comments from the Commission and I

[34:41] will try not to forget this time to ask for questions or comments from the

[34:45] public.

[34:47] And I'm not seeing any of those either. So I think we're looking for. Hold on,

[34:53] Reese, can I suggest something before you? Yes, you may. I just we just identified a few additional

[35:03] pieces of information that would go on the final plan. You know, I think in our a determination

[35:10] applicability does allow us to place conditions that wouldn't be recorded against the property,

[35:13] which I I'm personally comfortable with, but I'm just wondering if we want to let Peter like

[35:19] speak with his client and come back with a final plan before we close and issue this determination.

[35:27] We're trying to schedule the work Jordan. I have no problem with what we just discussed tonight

[35:32] and getting that to you as part of this project, but I would like to try to get closure so he can enter

[35:39] a contract with a contractor to do the work? Obviously, without it, you kind of can't

[35:44] do that. So that's why the getting on this agenda was important.

[35:49] Well, then I would say, I mean, part of this motion breeze might be that, you know, before

[35:56] any construction commences that we need a final plan that includes the removal of the accumulated

[36:02] grass clippings. And some effort at allowing the grass that's right up on the wetland edge

[36:09] to be naturalized, potentially up to the, you know, where that

[36:12] arbor body line is Peter, but I mean, you know, I think I'm

[36:16] happy to meet you outside it and look at that with you and

[36:19] Jose that come up with a reasonable kind of limit of

[36:23] long. Right, let's plan on that. I don't mind doing that

[36:26] early next week, Jordan, as your schedule will allow. So I would

[36:31] say to you, I could have it in within a week's time. And

[36:34] Jordan, did you also want a little more detail in planting plan?

[36:38] I think that's true as well, that final plan can maybe have some, you know, at least a palette to choose from.

[36:48] Right, I'm fine with that.

[36:50] Okay, so I think we're looking for a negative termination contingent on Jordan being satisfied with the final plan.

[36:58] And that would be a negative three, right?

[37:00] Okay.

[37:04] All right.

[37:05] We got Ellen.

[37:05] Circuit.

[37:07] Okay.

[37:08] And Eileen?

[37:09] Yes.

[37:10] Sarah?

[37:11] Yes.

[37:12] Glenn?

[37:12] Yes.

[37:13] I vote yes.

[37:14] Alison?

[37:15] Yes.

[37:16] Reese?

[37:16] I'm a yes.

[37:17] Thank you.

[37:19] Great.

[37:19] All right.

[37:19] Thank you.

[37:20] Jordan, I'll follow up with you.

[37:21] Appreciate your time.

[37:22] Time's good.

[37:22] Thank you, Peter.

[37:23] Yep.

[37:24] Good night.

[37:25] Good night.

[37:28] All right.

[37:29] So that is our hearings for this evening.

[37:31] Yeah. Yeah. You want to tell us about the summer trail crew? Sure, yeah. So we had three young people,

[37:41] as you know, in their last week was last week or two weeks ago. And we I would say it was a good summer.

[37:51] I think the feedback we got I think was that we might want to add a little more structure to the program.

[38:00] Joel, Angelilo, and I have sort of approached this over the past few seasons as trying to build in as much flexibility as possible, thinking that these are young people.

[38:09] This is a very part time job. It doesn't pay a lot and that we want to give people the ability to do other things with their time like internships, etc.

[38:17] But I think this it might be just this specific crew, but I think the feedback was regular hours would be more helpful and just a little bit of the way that we supervise.

[38:31] More regular check-ins and I think more regular hours and I think more very specific direction. In other words, not a to-do list, but literally what are we doing on Monday, what are we doing on Tuesday, what are we doing on Wednesday?

[38:45] And now that being said that I think they had a great summer and our trails are very well maintained and I think it was a successful program, but we're always looking for ways to improve and we have a bi-weekly meeting Emily and I with the WFTA leadership which we had yesterday.

[39:03] And I thought this idea of maybe trying to think about the long-term seasonal and the short-term

[39:08] seasonal.

[39:09] So someone that would work, for example, from May 1 through the end of September, or maybe

[39:13] even into mid-October, and then one or two short-term seasonal that would be more colleges

[39:19] that would fill in June, July, and half of August.

[39:23] Because one challenge we have now is we don't really have any dedicated trail crew, and the

[39:28] the trails are still growing and they certainly accumulate a lot of growth before our crew starts

[39:35] in June, especially this time of year where I feel like sometimes our trails get grown

[39:40] in and then we leave them. It dies back a little bit for the winter, but then you're sort

[39:45] of that much further behind when we get spring growth next year. So I'll give you more information

[39:52] or provide you more update as we continue these discussions, but I think again, I think

[39:56] one option we're looking at is to have a longer term seasonal, maybe with a little higher

[40:02] compensation and that in an order to justify that that it maybe would involve potentially

[40:09] maybe doing some volunteer supervision over the summer, maybe we could continue our stewardship

[40:14] Saturdays or do weekday things or you know if we wanted to hire someone at say you know

[40:20] $23 or $25 an hour as opposed to, you know, $18 or $19 an hour.

[40:26] So those are just some things we're thinking through, but again, successful season, but

[40:32] I think we need to provide a little more structure, and that's very reasonable and totally

[40:37] doable.

[40:38] And would this still be a partnership with West Enforcement Grows?

[40:42] It would, yes.

[40:42] Yes, and when we would still rely primarily on them for funding, which they are, you know,

[40:49] amenable to do, and it would still be a partnership with the WFTA.

[40:53] Okay.

[40:54] Yeah.

[40:56] And then the deer management program is actually coming up very soon on September 26th,

[41:03] which is our next stewardship Saturday, our sort of first one of the season, the school

[41:07] year season, is when we will distribute our deer permits.

[41:10] We have four new hunters this year, but again, our program is 45 hunters, same 14 properties,

[41:16] same program as we've run in the past.

[41:19] On that Saturday the 26th will be weeding and mulching apple trees at the orchard on Concord Road,

[41:26] and we will also hand out hunter permits and new hunters will have to complete a marksmanship test,

[41:31] which we can do very safely at a distance at the orchard field.

[41:35] So the first Monday in October, which I don't know what date that is, but that'll be the

[41:41] first day of the season.

[41:44] One thing, Reese, just to note is I haven't paid too much attention, but I know there is

[41:49] some legislation right now that Massachusetts is contemplating that would do two things

[41:57] for hunting.

[41:58] That would allow hunting on Sundays, which it doesn't currently, and it would reduce the

[42:02] that no discharge setbacks.

[42:04] So currently we cannot hunt within 500 feet of a dwelling

[42:08] or 150 feet of a roadway.

[42:10] And there's legislation put forward

[42:12] that would reduce that.

[42:15] Just for bow and arrow, I guess.

[42:17] Just for bow and arrow.

[42:18] Yeah.

[42:19] I think we in West and probably when

[42:23] it comes to whether we would allow hunting on Sunday,

[42:26] I think we probably can control that.

[42:29] But I think if state law reduced that,

[42:31] no discharge setback. I'm assuming that we would have to abide by that. And that presumably would

[42:36] open up some additional acres for hunting. And I think I've, you know, mixed thoughts about

[42:43] allowing hunting on Sundays. Part of me thinks, well, the public is already putting up a

[42:46] that six days a week. They should have one weekend day without hunters in the woods. But the other

[42:50] part of me thinks, how often have any of you actually seen a hunter in the woods? I've literally never

[42:55] seen any of my hunters in the woods. So it's not like they're getting in the way of people enjoying

[43:01] the conservation land, and if one additional day, or let's say, you know, 12 additional days,

[43:09] throughout 12 to 13 additional days throughout a whole season, allow them to be more effective,

[43:14] I think I would probably be in support of it. So, but that's the deal. Unless the deer agree to

[43:20] take Sunday off as well. Like when Tom and Jerry clock out and go for a drink of the bar, you know?

[43:26] All right. You can actually see that if it does come up, you know, public comment. So yeah, I agree with that exactly. And I mean, you know, that might be something that we want to put forward to the public to, obviously. So, um, right.

[43:42] So that's September 26 hunter deer hunter permits are issued. We have our stewardship Saturday and then the first money in October is when the hunting program starts.

[43:55] Alright, that sounds good. Now we've got some minutes to approve. We've got 721.

[44:01] 721 and 84. 721, by the way, Rishi weren't here. We did not. We passed over because there weren't

[44:06] enough people here at the meeting that had participated in that meeting on July 21st.

[44:12] I think the other one I wasn't that. I wasn't here on the 84.

[44:16] Oh, it's just I'm sorry I misspoke. It's it's that our last meeting on eight four. I don't you weren't here other people weren't here, but there weren't enough people that were before meeting to feel comfortable approving the 721 minutes while they looked good to me.

[44:34] anyone else have any? Sarah give me one it was just a typo that I corrected on the

[44:40] August 1 minutes related to a dispelling of her name in one of the motions and

[44:45] I fixed that.

[44:48] Got to spell our names right. Got to do that. All right so motion to

[44:52] approve 721.

[45:00] Second. Second. And I don't remember who was not there, so was not voting. I vote yes to approve.

[45:10] Alison, but I'm sorry. Alison, you were there? Yes, I vote yes. Okay. I was there. So I'll be there.

[45:18] please. Yeah.

[45:19] Yes. And I don't know. Glenn Sarah.

[45:23] Staying up.

[45:24] Staying up.

[45:26] Staying.

[45:26] Okay.

[45:27] So.

[45:28] So three zero three.

[45:31] That's it.

[45:32] Yep.

[45:33] Okay.

[45:34] And then August 4th.

[45:35] Okay.

[45:37] Um.

[45:38] I move to approve the minutes.

[45:40] Okay.

[45:41] Okay.

[45:43] Um.

[45:44] Sarah.

[45:44] Yes.

[45:45] I mean.

[45:46] Yes.

[45:46] Yes, when were you there?

[45:48] Of staying.

[45:49] Right.

[45:50] Okay.

[45:50] I wrote yes and Reese.

[45:52] I love staying.

[45:53] Right.

[45:54] Okay.

[45:54] And I'll vote yes.

[45:56] Sorry.

[45:57] That's okay.

[46:00] So I'm going to say I'm lost a little bit.

[46:02] That's 502.

[46:03] Is that right?

[46:03] Two of you have staying.

[46:04] Yep.

[46:06] Glenn and Glenn and Reese.

[46:07] Okay.

[46:09] Oh, 402.

[46:10] 402.

[46:11] Yes.

[46:11] Thanks for the amount there.

[46:12] We should have.

[46:22] one of the things I put under other matters.

[46:26] Oh yeah, 819.

[46:29] Right, so just to update the commission at one of our last meetings, we took a vote on

[46:34] whether to proceed with requesting some funding from the CPC for an appraisal for 18,

[46:40] 819 Boston Post Road, which you all were in favor of at least advancing to getting an appraisal,

[46:45] which the CPC awarded us money and we hired a land vest and they have completed the appraisal.

[46:52] I'm going to get it tomorrow and I think we're convening a small subgroup myself Glenn and

[47:00] Reese and someone from the Historical Commission and a few other town officials.

[47:04] What I would like to do is put this on the agenda for our next meeting on September 15th.

[47:11] I think it is.

[47:14] I do need to put a request in through the CPA by this Friday, which I'm going to do

[47:19] as a placeholder, just so we're sure that we have a request for funding.

[47:26] But then I think through our discussions, we can decide whether we want to pursue it.

[47:32] Refunding for the whole project?

[47:35] Right.

[47:36] Exactly.

[47:37] Yeah.

[47:37] I mean, yeah, real estate is expensive in the West

[47:44] and even without a house on it.

[47:49] And I think there's several hurdles, obviously,

[47:53] including working with the owners to see if they're willing

[47:56] to go below market.

[47:58] That will come on discussion.

[48:00] That's just to let you all know.

[48:02] We're moving forward to this.

[48:03] I will submit a request for funding

[48:06] at Falltown meeting through the CPI as a placeholder.

[48:11] And then we can keep talking about this,

[48:14] but certainly at our next public meeting on September 15th.

[48:18] Now I always have a curiosity question.

[48:21] Do we know how much the appraisal cost?

[48:25] The appraisal? Yes.

[48:27] Yes, we do.

[48:28] I can't tell you what the appraisal cost.

[48:30] I sort of forgot it.

[48:30] It came in a lot less than what we asked CP4.

[48:34] in this case, I think it was like six grand, but give me one second, I'll bring it right up.

[48:44] And the CPA paid for that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and the overturned on spend funds to the

[48:52] fund. Yeah. Yeah. And

[48:58] trouble finding the 6400.

[49:06] And I think we asked for something like 20 just to

[49:09] Yeah, yeah, it was, you know, just made sense to go ahead and yeah approve a large amount and then return them. Yeah, that's not used. Yeah, I think that different town departments have had experience with more complicated appraisals that have come in at like 18 grand. Right, so we just wanted to be careful, but yeah, so 64 hundred dollars. Okay. I mean, it sounds like a lot, but I guess anything related real estate. A lot of money. Right. Yeah. Exactly. So. Yeah. So we'll see how everybody feels once we were

[49:39] the appraisal, you know, talking this sort of smaller working group and then bring it to the full

[49:43] commission on the 15th. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks guys. All right. Yeah. We will see everyone

[49:52] I mean, just need a motion to close, Reese.

[49:56] Anyone want to make a motion to close?

[49:59] Same moves.

[50:01] All right, Glenn's on it.

[50:03] Thank you.

[50:03] All right, guys.

[50:05] Good night, all right.

[50:06] Good night, everyone.

[50:06] Good night.

[50:08] Good night.

Conservation Commission 9/1/2026

Transcript