The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Conservation Commission 05/07/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
Beneath the procedural formality of the Raynham Conservation Commission meeting lies a fascinating exploration of how communities balance development needs with environmental protection. The Commission navigates three distinct projects—each presenting unique challenges to wetland preservation.
The cell tower proposal showcases thoughtful adaptation. After previous feedback, the applicant returns with significant modifications: concrete pipes to reconnect fragmented wetlands, permeable crushed stone for the access path, and comprehensive drainage planning. The Commission's careful consideration of these elements demonstrates how infrastructure projects can evolve to work in harmony with natural systems rather than against them.
The Oakland Street water service discussion reveals the tension between property development aspirations and wetland protection. When the applicant proposes crossing a wetland area for a water line, Commission members push back with pointed questions about alternatives—specifically, whether a well could serve the same purpose without disturbing sensitive areas. This exchange highlights the fundamental conservation principle that wetland impacts should be avoided when possible, not merely mitigated.
Most revealing is the extended dialogue about the public safety project's wetland delineation. What begins as a technical presentation about soil sampling and elevation data transforms into a deeper investigation of ecological connections. When Commission members share field observations of vegetation patterns and drainage channels that suggest potential wetland connections not reflected in the official delineation, we witness the vital intersection of scientific methodology and local environmental knowledge.
Throughout these discussions, the Commission demonstrates that effective environmental stewardship requires both rigorous analysis and willingness to look beyond paperwork to understand the living systems at stake. Their deliberations remind us that decisions about our shared landscapes deserve thoughtful, sometimes challenging conversations that consider both immediate needs and long-term ecological health.
Have you witnessed development projects in your community that successfully balanced progress with environmental protection? Join the conversation about sustainable development approaches.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
All right, good evening. I'd like to call the May 17th and the Reignham Conservation Commission's order. Please be advised all meetings are recorded.
Speaker 2:All public hearings and meetings heard by the Reignham Conservation Commission on Wednesday, may 7th 2025, at 5.30 pm in the Reignham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, donald L McKinnon Meeting Room 558 South Main Street, rainham, massachusetts, are relative to filings and joint hearings and or meetings under Mass General Law Chapter 131, section 40, as amended in the Town of Rainham Wetland Protection Bylaw.
Speaker 1:All right, good evening uh. First up is continued notice for intent for north main street, dep number 269, 1068, proposed salt uh cell tower.
Speaker 3:Good evening. Good evening, I am Brandon Canoff with Ecosystem Solutions. I also have with me Scott Adams, professional engineer from Advanced Engineering Group, and Phil Fusco. Thank you very much. We're back from a.
Speaker 3:This is a continued hearing from back. I want to say December or January for cell phone tower off of South Main. If you may remember, at that time we received comments and we sent you a response letter dated April 29th letter the April 29th, the plans and everything came in some point last week I want to say Tuesday or Wednesday. Okay, so there were changes made and I'll go quickly through the list to to remind you. One of the comments was that a dewatering plan for the tower site itself would be required. So a dewatering plan has been created for the tower site and you can find the revisions on sheets Z2, z3, and EC1.
Speaker 3:The next comment was Chair McRae stated that the BVW on either side of the access path must be hydraulically connected. This is a very old road that goes through a BVW that at one time just completely cut off one side to the other. So as part of this application application, the request was to reconnect the two sides. So as part of that effort to 12 inch reinforced concrete pipes have been designed at the low points along the access path. The plan view and View and details can be seen on sheets Z1, z1.1, z5, and EC1. There's also a question about where would the utility line be going from the street. An underground utility line cross-section is depicted on sheet Z5, and the underground utilities will be in the existing ground under the access driveway.
Speaker 3:The next comment was mr Atonaru stated that the project is not stormwater exempt and the stormwater report and checklist must be provided. So we did do that, which should be included in your your packets. One of the things that mr Fusco has stated in the stormwater checklist is that this project what qualifies as redevelopment under stormwater standard 7 and and also some minor drainage improvements have also been added to the drawings, such as a P stone stretch trench. And the last comment that we addressed was mr Atanaru stated that a surveyor must stamp the plan. So now three sheets sheets C1, c2, and C3, consisting of the existing conditions plan, the property line plan and the overall site plan have been stamped by a professional land surveyor.
Speaker 3:Last thing I want to mention is that the access path will be constructed using 4-inch minus washed crushed stone rather than your typical processed gravel. The idea is that the larger particle sizes will provide a stable and compact substrate while also being pervious. I know it's been a while since we were in here last. The idea is to come in from South Maine through an existing roadway into the more interior portion of the lot to build a cell phone tower. Do you want to?
Speaker 5:add anything.
Speaker 3:No, I think you did a very good job, phil. I just want to add one more about the culverts.
Speaker 6:We used a mass dot standard headwalls to hug the edge of the path, maintain the width of that path meeting create a.
Speaker 3:That was me originally. It was splashed on me and I decided when I took the VW and I said, can you please tighten that up so we don't have any fill? We don't want to have to do any replication.
Speaker 6:It was a design that did just that so all the grades are talking into that head wall the last time you were talking about the crushed stone that is for the entire roadway. I'm going to let Mr Adams yes that is correct and there's a detail later on the set that the entire access road would be designed to utilize that pervious six inches of foreign-finished washed stone.
Speaker 1:Okay, so you're digging and replacing the entire existing roadway?
Speaker 6:yes, are you making it wider? No, still the same 12 feet wide. An existing shelf that's been built now is significantly wider than that. It's roughly closer to 20 feet here, a little bit, but significant wider. But there's already like sapphics and stuff that are have been growing for a number of years on the shoulders. So we're leaving that intact, not touching that at all, who?
Speaker 8:Well, as you probably stated, this one was written last week. So I think it will make more sense to provide them a written review report so that they can actually see the, so that I will not miss anything. But I will say that on a cursory just a cursory review the details of the Z3 and Z5 system, Because on one of them is specifying the gravel and then the other one is specifying that the surface is restored to the original condition. So you're gonna have to take a look at that. And then I want to look at your rainfall data, Cause I think you have the new distribution for the areas eight inches of rain with the Cornell University report that everybody now uses. So I think you, I think you, I think you, I think you use your seven inches, Seven point nine yes okay, On, yeah, and I don't believe this qualifies as a redevelopment, right, because that's not.
Speaker 8:It's not like you're taking a parking lot and putting a building in kind. So the idea that it's a redevelopment but that's something the commission will determine I don't believe it qualifies as a redevelopment.
Speaker 9:But, anyway.
Speaker 8:so with that, I think that's just a cursory review, and I don't think it does use any service to have an incomplete report, but at least they made some good fit. Therefore, we put the stone water report together. We just need to look at the numbers to make sure that they're consistent. Now, did you guys do any test?
Speaker 6:pits at all anywhere For the infiltration of the soils. Yeah, no, did you guys? No, we used the soils.
Speaker 8:So you didn't even do any test. But what about any new borings?
Speaker 8:Yeah, new borings where the towers don't attract the regulation required in situ soil analysis to make sure that the soil map is consistent with your specific site. So you have a very long area, right? Those soil maps are very generic. They do it every 500,000 feet apart. That's how they do those soil maps. So the regulations do indeed say you have to do in situ analysis, at least one or two in the area to determine your groundwater, right, if you're doing any research to make sure you have the right, proper separation, or if you don't have proper separation, then do a mundane analysis on that kind of stuff. So that's why I think it makes sense to write a written report. Then they can then respond to it.
Speaker 1:We did run an infiltration.
Speaker 6:That was a little was on the conservative side, based on the soil, so we did not vote. What was there and?
Speaker 8:added it to. Yeah, but if you didn't do any soil testing, then how do you know where to go?
Speaker 6:I guess Just based on the soil information, yeah, yeah, from the NCS we have on the borings as well. At the power location this is, I believe, 10 feet. In the boring analysis the site is roughly like 13 feet above the mountain. I know that was a concern for the geological monitoring. The foundation is going to go down three feet. The piece stone trench that is being installed as a water mitigation measure is basically two feet in depth, so it surrounds the site. There's no deep farm, because I want to point out that we're a host and part of this project. I mean, it's a pretty low-impact design the entire roadway and crushed stone surface of the compound. We basically didn't even count the design of the voids in the crushed stone. The analysis, what's the letter? But just in this crushed stone surface of the of the roadway is roughly 19 to 20 thousand gallons of storage just in the more reserve the roadway was not counting and no storage was counted in the roadway.
Speaker 1:It was just basically on the cn counties what was the from the original meeting? What was the change? To go to Crush Rock on the roadway.
Speaker 6:It was primarily just to find a way to compromise with the board to improve the existing conditions of the roadway. You know we tried to think of what we could do to improve on existing gravel services what's there now and the best way we could think to do that without doing riprap on the shoulders and things like that which would be disturbing more vegetation, you know, in that close proximity. So we thought that that would be a negative, that the board wouldn't think kindly of rip wrapping the shoulders of an existing, you know, service that's been there for years still. It's still that solution Broadway and help with any sediment that services. It's more than adequate for our clients needs for building site maintenance and the site no, I was curious whether the change in height absolutely okay.
Speaker 1:All right, any comments from the board?
Speaker 6:you'll be proposing to come to Culver. Jeff, you went out. We identified the most spots. It was actually at the rain event, so we kind of made it a little easy. As you were saying. I've been out there. I've seen a twig running to the beginning. Yeah, he gets to up there, absolutely yeah. So we put some flagging in the field and then sent the surveyors back out in the tow boat into the wetlands for those specific areas. We supplemented area with by dark, but in this vicinity they surveyed. It kept the invertebrates, which is above the average. What the grade of?
Speaker 1:we added a little bit on the top get some cover over those culverts and take out the concentrated flow accumulating at multiple spots and smoothed it out.
Speaker 6:The cover over the pipe. Obviously we're trying to keep it to a minimum so we don't have to bring in material. So we went with a class 5 pipe, reinforced pipe. It's technically overkill but it's relatively short length of pipe so it's not a major cost increase. But it's going to come across with cranes and things like that and then they also usually protected with something heavy.
Speaker 6:That was will be good yeah no, and the tower itself has already been approved in the towns, other routine departments. Specifically, there's a separate group in the town that went through that approval. So the tower site itself is, as I said, the closest point around the towers, over 150 feet away from the weather, so that's outside the typical area. But that was under their purview and approval and they they have approved that. So they're focusing on the existing, you know, access path and utilities. Typically they want to go overhead because I'm sure the board can imagine it's all cheaper.
Speaker 6:Quite certainly, before you put in the ground, especially on your access road, you get a concrete case of that entire length but because of the kind of the enduring access road, the amount of tree playing that would be required within the local ladies together, you know my clients have been working on this with us as a team for at least three years. This, this owner, actually owns all the property, or several of these properties, up to 295 to the towers originally closed on 295 and the two whole different sites between there and here have been identified, surveyed, boundaries, surveys done, all that done and it kept moving back because of funds. We would have it identified, have it flagged.
Speaker 6:Thousands of people welcomed the flag and we surveyed it and said this is not something that the board is likely to approve. And it kept moving to this location where it's the kind of the best. Even though you haven't seen all the alternatives, you knew immediately this is not something the board is going to approve Access roads and towers two feet off 11, things like that. So it just kept coming further and further back, and the client also didn't necessarily. Sometimes people don't own what they think they own. You know, when you survey it and the access road is not on your property, it's shifted, it's on private property, someone else's property.
Speaker 6:So it's been an evolution of a project from you know, from the get go to find this location, and it seemed like a fantastic alternative, saying that we could get it out of all the resource areas that use the tower site and the primary access of the development of this project and utilize an existing access map to get to it, albeit it's not necessarily conforming, but it's better than trying to do this, crossing this magnitude from scratch would be possible.
Speaker 1:Ok, anybody from the audience have any questions? No, all right with that. Said, like to continue. May 21st May 21st, that's a purview of the board. Did you post any more time? Yeah, we need time to like. I said, we just got to get a day so we didn't have time to dissect it all. May 21st yes, okay, okay, I have a motion. Motion to approve. No, no motion. You can do that, you're way ahead.
Speaker 4:I want to see the motion, the motion to approve.
Speaker 1:no motion to continue to the May 21st second motion made in. Thank you, okay, okay. Next up is continued notice of intent for Oakland Street. Oakland Street, map 17, lot 61, dep number 269-1069,.
Speaker 10:Proposed Water Service. Good evening, rebecca from Silver Engineering. I am here with the applicant, michael Keith, his contractor, chris. I also have additional information since the last time we talked, so I will give you Chris's, even though it's the JV.
Speaker 10:We completed a site walk on April 30th, in which time we reviewed where the erosion control was staked out and where the crossing would be impacting on the wetland area, and at that time we went over a couple of options for how we should proceed with going over this wetland area, and we decided not to go over the wetland area. One of the things that was discussed was to generate a construction methodology as to how we're going to proceed with this. Another comment made it during the site walk was the width of my erosion control barrier was just not enough. So the little handout represents a plan revised that will have to be finalized, endorsed and everything. It was just for discussion for tonight and it shows ten foot wide erosion control barrier on either side of this trench so that the mini excavator that will be used will be able to enter down the trench, the erosion control and excavate within the barriers and move back and forth in the narrow corridor that we had laid out.
Speaker 10:I do have them here if there are questions. So the revised plan also now shows a dewatering location as that it will be necessary on both sides and a stockpile location on both sides, as this will be, a majority of it will come from Carlton Street but from the other side will come up from Oakland Street. So we're not going to to actually impact as much of the wetlands as it looks. We're going to do as much as we can from the edges. The one thing I didn't put in that construction methodology was to have timber mats available if it got a little too squishy in one particular area, which, if it dries out, it shouldn't be too bad. And I know that's a lot of threw at you in a moment and I apologize okay, anything else.
Speaker 10:I thought that addressed most of the comments we had at that that site walk otherwise.
Speaker 10:Remind me if I missed something no, I mean this oh, and then the construction methodology discusses maintaining the material up gradient. So it's, we can put it right back, you know, in suit, and the use of a trench box in that area, of that wet area that we saw, which, if it doesn't dry up by the time they do the work, could be a concern yeah, I mean originally when we did the site walk, when you had staked out my concern at that time with those.
Speaker 1:There was no way you're going to be able to do you work within that boundary, correct. But now you've extended that boundary, which in turn is a larger impact on the area, so you're doing more disturbance more temporary disturbance correct. I personally am having a little bit of an issue with the whole thing with is. In my opinion, is is alternatives. Uh, you have access to the lot, so it's not like you're doing a wetlands crossing to access your lots. When it comes to, alternatives for the water.
Speaker 10:There is no other alternative. The expensive alternative is to generate and and an 8-inch water line from the beginning of where the sandy hills, 6 inch or 4 inch or whatever it is all the way up and around. There is no economical resolution for two lots. We would be upgrading the whole water line in that area and that's not fair for one applicant to burden well, 1,500 feet like. I said my opinion.
Speaker 1:There is another. Alternative is doing a well, as opposed to that is an alternative as opposed to doing the wetlands crossing. You're right that is an alternative. I can have the, except we don't have the area so if you're gonna speak, you go, come up to the mic he's trying to give me a little cues as to what I'm supposed to remember.
Speaker 10:Septic and a well on the same property. I don't think we have the area for it. The area itself, 60,000 square feetARE FEET ISN'T ENOUGH FOR TWO LOTS, mr KEITH. Was THERE ANY OTHER REASON WE WEREN'T CONSIDERING A WELL THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF? I WAS.
Speaker 1:TOLD THAT YOU COULDN'T DO BOTH. Come UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
Speaker 7:MICHAEL KEITH.
Speaker 10:OVER.
Speaker 1:HERE AT THE MICROPHONE.
Speaker 10:Please, michael KEITH, we WERE TOLD THAT WE COULD over here at the microphone, we were told that we couldn't put both on the side septic yes, at the last planning board meeting, when we form a these it was one of the other. We couldn't do both. I built my house.
Speaker 1:I had septic and water on the.
Speaker 8:I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT YEAH ON THAT CLEARANCE.
Speaker 1:SQUARE FOOTAGE. I KNOW I BUILT MY HOUSE. I HAD SEPTIC AND WATER ON THE SAME.
Speaker 10:BLOCK I DO.
Speaker 8:YEAH, the SEPTIC ONLY HAS TO BE 100 FEET.
Speaker 4:EVEN IF.
Speaker 10:IT HAS TO.
Speaker 4:BE 100, EVEN IF IT HAS TO BE 150 FEET.
Speaker 10:IT'S THE FRONTAGE REQUIREM of the lot, not the area. So if you have, if you have septic in a well, you need 200 feet of frontage across. We don't have that. We can only do 150 feet. That's how the lot was left to be developed. So we can only do 150 foot minimum, which is the only allows us to do a water line connection or a sewer connection.
Speaker 8:But we don't have the area, the frontage along Oakland Street, to go with that approach we did look at these alternatives but from the conservation Commission standpoint, if I'm hearing you correctly, chairman, it's it's not the approach. It's not the Commission's responsibility to make sure you get two lots so you can still develop. It doesn't have to be two lots, it can be one lot. And so, because you're looking at the regulations, it says avoid. We can avoid, minimize.
Speaker 10:Which we've done.
Speaker 8:Okay, yeah, but you can avoid based on what the chairman is saying, you can avoid it the cost impact, unfortunately. Yes, it is a consideration, but instead of extending the one main which makes sense from your argument, you can avoid it by putting it in a. Well, you CAN AVOID A NEW CRASH BY PUTTING IN A WELL, and THE CHAIRMAN JUST INDICATED THAT HE HAS A WELL ON A SMALL LOT AND MR RILEY ALSO INDICATED THAT HE HAS A WELL ON A SUBTEXT SYSTEM. So, if IT IS A, ZONING ISSUE WITH.
Speaker 10:THE FRONTAGE.
Speaker 8:So if it is a zoning issue with the frontage, if it's a zoning issue, right then they can go to the Board of Appeals and say we need a variance for the frontage.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm not sure what that issue is. Like I said, I'm just looking at it from a conservation standpoint where, like I SAID MY OPINION, there IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT HASN'T BEEN EXPLORED.
Speaker 10:IT WAS EXPLORED, but NOT FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW CORRECT.
Speaker 1:SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FEEL. That's JUST MY.
Speaker 6:OPINION I ECHO.
Speaker 4:YOUR COMMENTS.
Speaker 1:I KNOW YOU AND I B board members feel that just my opinion that one area had quite a bit of water and I'm not sure if that ever dries up because it takes all the drainage from those houses on County Street. So that's where I'm at with this can't change your opinion.
Speaker 10:Does anybody else have a different opinion? Temporary disturbance of 1100 1,150 square feet of temporary impact.
Speaker 1:Is that a new calculation?
Speaker 4:or is that the old one?
Speaker 1:That's the new calculation. That's the new calculation, all right.
Speaker 10:I'd like to say I've seen worse projects out there, but I understand we cannot avoid the impact of the current layout we have. The law is suitable for two lots to be divided as it is. If there was another way, we would have presented it. That's all I got. We can give you a replication that we can generate to make you feel like you get something back. That's a compromise we haven't discussed. We CAN GIVE YOU A REPLICATION THAT WE CAN GENERATE TO MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU GET.
Speaker 9:SOMETHING BACK, that's A.
Speaker 10:COMPROMISE WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED, so THAT CAN MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA. Will IS THERE SEWER.
Speaker 1:THERE IS SEWER.
Speaker 10:ON OPEN IT'S ALREADY AGAIN AT MAX, they SPAGHETTIED ALL OF THESE CONNECTIONS ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THERE WAS NONE LEFT. Same THING WITH THE WATER. Up until we have none left, same thing with the water. No more capacity for spaghettis or lines.
Speaker 1:Alright, so you won't be tying it to septic.
Speaker 10:I mean you won't be tying it to sewer Correct. It's been perched with septic all in here. We have successful percs just a couple weeks ago. But because we don't have the frontage to meet the 200 for a septic in a well on the lot, we have to connect the water. Now there's a couple viable corners that we can give you a replication to make it feel like we've balanced the temporary disturbance with a permanent replication.
Speaker 8:REPLICATION JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. Even IF THEY DO REPLICATION, the WATER LINE IS STILL GOING TO GO THROUGH WIND LINE, so THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT PAYS AGAINST THE IMPACT. And IF THEY EVER HAVE ANY PROBLEM ON THAT LINE, then THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DIG IT BACK UP AGAIN, so A REPLICATION DOESN'T ADDRESS THE LONG-TERM CONSIDERATION. Now THE APPLICANT OWNED ALL THE OTHER PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO OTHER LOTS THAT WERE DEVELOPED ON CARLTON STREET BEFORE.
Speaker 10:THOSE WERE ACROSS THE STREET OH CARLTON ST so.
Speaker 8:So when they own that, they knew all the issues that are there. So in listen to about Sherman, it's it's creating your own headship. Bring your ownership doesn't justify the impact hold on.
Speaker 10:No, no, let me finish, please. And IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE IMPACT. Well, that MEANS THE TOWN.
Speaker 8:CREATED THE HARDSHIP WITH THE HILLS. No, no, no, let ME FINISH, please. I'm NOT INTERRUPTING YOU. You NEED TO BE CARDISANT OF THAT, whether THE TOWN CREATED IT OR NOT. That IS A ZONING ISSUE AND I THINK IT WILL MAKE A. And I think it would make a lot more sense in addressing the chairman's concern, because even the Wellness Protection Act asks you have you applied for all other permits that you could need? So if in fact, the town is only changed and it affects what they're doing, then that could be a basis for asking, saying, hey, we want to avoid a wetlands impact, and if the Board of Appeals does not give them that effort, or if they were to have a well drill, us go out there and check and see if there's one, and they say, well, we cannot develop wells there.
Speaker 8:That is a consideration, but all those have not all been exercised. So that's to me, in listening to Dave, that's really what the DEP regulation says. It doesn't say that you create an only headship and then, because you can avoid, and if you can avoid, demonstrate that you cannot avoid. And I don't believe that they have done that. If the Board of Appeals refuses the variance because, hey, there's only the easily, then that's a different issue, right, right, and I don't see from both. An frontage should be a consideration, and you're wondering whether you can put a septic system on the lot without a well. It doesn't make any sense, if indeed you can make those setbacks from a well towards, and clearly there's plenty of upland area for me to use requirements. But anyway, that's listening to you, yeah.
Speaker 1:It doesn't matter to me what you guys do. I think I, you know, I'd like to hear chance that it could be before the Board of Appeals to minimize the frontage. You know, it's kind of a we'll call it unique circumstance. I'd like to talk to him and explore that first. That's my opinion. I'd LIKE TO TALK.
Speaker 4:TO HIM AND EXPLORE THAT FIRST. That's MY OPINION. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
Speaker 1:I don't believe it's just a paper street because there's existing houses already on either side here, so I don't ever see an actual street going through there because there's nothing really to connect to. I mean Oakland Street, Sandy Hill, but there's no need to.
Speaker 10:There's no need to, you know. So I thank the commission for the conversation and we would like to continue so we can have that discussion and see what the zoning board may or may not be able to do Perfect. Okay, then let's give us some time. Maybe the next meeting I'm sorry what. I said maybe not the next meeting okay, how about the June, june 4th?
Speaker 1:I'm okay with that okay, you can get a resolve from zoning board or building inspector yeah, I mean we might, then we should be able to talk to all the people involved. I would say I think we've already had these discussions with the both his only board in the building department.
Speaker 10:Well, if they have to write a letter report saying such a thing, then that's what we need to get from them to give to the Commission saying, but do we need that much time? That's what I'm saying, okay, do we need to know? Let's go for the next meeting.
Speaker 12:I've been working on this for quite a while Aye.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 4:Okay.
Speaker 1:All right, that's your choice. Okay, may 21st, right we?
Speaker 10:can always if we're not resolved. But let's keep it tight and see if we can get it resolved fast. Okay.
Speaker 1:All right, thank you.
Speaker 10:Thank you.
Speaker 11:Motion to continue number 13, 13-7, 61b 269, 269, compose water services to make the equipment. I will send it back. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1:Seconded All in favor, aye Opposed yes, thank you. You bet Staying right there.
Speaker 10:No, I believe the actual wetland scientist will be presenting.
Speaker 4:Oh, okay, all right.
Speaker 1:I thought, you were doing it. I can use your board. You don't have to. I can use my board.
Speaker 8:Okay, okay so I was in the middle of changing the forms to get the new form. Yeah so, but I did get your message and just didn't get a chance to respond information this morning is what he told me he did the legal ad I need.
Speaker 1:I need that. Okay, did you? You provided the proof of payment. I'm sorry, what the second next on the agenda is request for determination ability for 1377 Broadway, post garage and driveway.
Speaker 9:Legal notice on the Rain and Conservation Commission. A request for determination of applicability. Application was filed for the Rain and Conservation Commission under the Weapons Protection Act and the Rain and Conservation Bylaw. The RDA was filed by 1377 Broadway, Wilkie Truck, Kiro Robbie Lombardi for gravel driveway and ON THE 1377 BROADWAY, MILKY TRUCK FOR GRAVEL FRIED WEIGHT AND LAWN AT 1377 BROADWAY, MAP 3, LOT 94. A PORTION OF THIS WORK WILL GO IN THE ZONE FOR VEGETATING REDLINE. The PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2025 AT 5 PM. It WILL BE HELD IN THE SELECTMENT MEETING ROOM, TOWN HALL, 558 SOUTH MAINE STREET, RENAMAS 02767. Anyone INTERESTED IN REVIEWING THE APPLICATION AND PLANNED BRINGING A COPY MAY CONTACT THE RENEWAL CONSULATION COMMISSION. Can YOU GIVE ME ONE SECOND, PLEASE?
Speaker 1:SURE WE ARE NOT LE one second, please. Sure, sorry I misplaced the envelope. Okay, good, good evening.
Speaker 12:My name is Lisa Caledonia. I'm from LSC environmental consulting, which is my own business. I'm from LSE Environmental Consulting, which is my own business. I'm the principal wetland scientist. I've been doing wetland work for over 25 years now. I'm here with the owner, robbie Lombardi, who's the trustee of 1377 Broadway Realty Trust. So we are here. They'll come trust. So we are here.
Speaker 12:The home was built previously in the 1950s. Since then, there has been some additions and some other work, including storm water work that was provided. Mr Lombardi, I believe, had a spring corporation with the town, but so I went out. I was requested to go out in 2018 to Flagney Wetlands and then, when I get there, I, of course, looked at all the vegetation and the soils no-transcript through a previous wetland filing, so the wetland edge was already identified with that. Finally, when mr lamardi told me what he was looking to do, I told him if he could try to keep the garage as far outside the buffer zone as possible, so he moves some things around.
Speaker 12:Garage as far outside the buck as possible, so he moves some things around. I do know that he has taken down three pine trees that have fallen and he had to put in a claim for that, so he plans on replacing those trees. There is one error on this plan. There's loaming and seeding adjacent to the gravel driveway. But, however, mr Lombardi plans to only loam and loam and seed the area near the parking lot and he's going to remove as little vegetation as possible adjacent to the gravel driveway. The again proposed garage is 30 by 36 square feet, so you know if you have any questions about any event, I didn't multiple soils, pits in the area. There's a low area adjacent to the driveway to the north where there's some blueberry bushes. We did multiple soils and pits and there's there's no hydrate soil in there.
Speaker 8:So, yeah, we did a review. I don't know what we did over there and in this particular case, usually if you can stay 50 feet or more, you can do it because of the determination, just that the tiny portion of the driveway. It does not seem to be changing much of an elevation over there and you already have an existing pavement north of the proposed project. Yeah, so there were utility poles. So really that kind of provides a physical boundary of protection to the natural wetlands is not on the top of your question. So unless somebody else finds anything, I think this can do a negative three with the requirement that this area be staked and inspected before they do the work. The house is almost 100 feet away, so let's do it in the garage. Yeah, I don't see an issue with that.
Speaker 12:And one thing I have to mention we have siltation controls and I don't think we're going to do the silt fence, but I think we'll probably do like a, just a wattle slide. Yeah, it's pretty flat there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's not very familiar with the location.
Speaker 6:Okay, I just wanted to add I did have silver engineering come out and state that whole boundary between the two houses. It's there now fresh, just got done last week.
Speaker 1:The property yeah the property.
Speaker 12:I talked to a very so, but you are saying as you would like um the gravel driveway staked out no, just about, just about this, this area here where you are inside the 50.
Speaker 8:Right, just from here to here.
Speaker 6:So this is the 100, right yeah, outside the 100?
Speaker 8:No, no, this is okay, this is just right here. The driveway, okay, she can show you. She can show you, this is 25, this is 50. So just that little piece, okay. Yeah, I can see it right here, just so we can see it before you start construction. Yeah, I can see it right here, just so we can see it before it's not constructed. Yeah, makes sense.
Speaker 12:So you're going to condition it if they have.
Speaker 8:In a negative three, right Makes sense.
Speaker 9:Okay, do you have any questions for the board? Is this a disturbed area right now?
Speaker 12:Some of it is disturbed. Yeah, so that's why I asked him to loam and seed, but if you want any of it to be a conservation seed mix or something like that, I mean, I'm sure he'd be amenable to do that. So what we have there is we have some invasive species, but we have some oak, there's a tulip tree, but otherwise we do have some invasives. We have some. Let me see. I'm gonna just tell you what the other species are. Yeah, we have something. Then we have, you know, multiple rows that's right I mean
Speaker 12:you know right away some, some burners yeah, but would you, would you rather him seed and mow less? You know what I mean mow and seed and mow less, and maybe add more wildlife seed mix or something.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that would be fine.
Speaker 12:Yeah, okay. Is that tree removal size of 50? Is the?
Speaker 6:tree. Yes, Well, I'm sorry okay, is that true?
Speaker 12:yes, yes, well, there was three pines that they're already down. Yeah, a sleep in the stumps right.
Speaker 1:Anything else, all right, close it else. Okay, play the audience.
Speaker 12:Oh yes, could you please close it? Sorry, I'm used to being on that side.
Speaker 4:Drops open, I'll make the motion to close you may close.
Speaker 1:I'll second it Second. So moved favor Aye Opposed, any against.
Speaker 9:Thank you Thank you. Do you want to just vote on it now? We're just going to vote on it now, unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, I will second that motion.
Speaker 1:Motion to be made Seconded. All in favor, aye, opposed, unanimous. Thank you, thank you, yes, it's mine. Just give me a second, please. Just give me a minute, thank you. Just give me a second, please.
Speaker 5:Just give me a minute. Thank you, all right, sorry, go ahead. Good evening, chip. I'm Kim. I'm one of your architects. You're on behalf of Rainham Public Safety Project, with me tonight John Perry from London and we have Kim from the Jacobs group who is our wetland scientist. I know we were here last, on this 16th, the last meeting. There were some questions about specific soil specific, and we also discussed having an on-site walkthrough, which we did last Friday With some, with some of your members Walk the site, so I don't know how. Coming out of that, we had discussions about some contouring that I don't talk about and we can talk about any soils questions that you've talked about or anything that came up on Friday that you want to revisit.
Speaker 1:All right, I guess I'll start then.
Speaker 7:I don't know what I mean. If you want I'd say so you can give me a quick outline of the leveling process, the elimination process to the few members that weren't present before.
Speaker 4:I just want to put on the record that my father is overrated by the department, so they're going to be in the audience and then I was going to present the letter that we sent today yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 13:um, I'm happy to talk a little bit about the wetland delineation process Again my name is Kim.
Speaker 13:I'm a professional wetland scientist from Jacobs Engineering. I was responsible for delineating the wetlands out here at this site. So folks who are familiar with the site or folks who are on the site visit. Thanks for joining us. Most of you probably know this is land that was maintained in agricultural use for longer than I'm aware of, so it appears that the soils have been manipulated over time is what I found and it's currently being used as land and agricultural use.
Speaker 13:So I found that to do the delineation I needed to rely on hydrology and primarily soils. So it was an exercise in digging a lot in a lot of holes. I think I dug 200 holes out there. So I went by just soils, and not only that, I would buy you know what I thought would be a good playbook for disturbed soils. So essentially I found the main indicator that I found out there was depleted below dark surface and I did use a little bit more depth than what's recommended in the BBW delineation manual from Massachusetts. Typically it requires that indicator start within 8 inches. I gave us about 12 because I knew that pulling up the soil, a lot of that top soil was fill material that I found. So the wetland delineation that you're seeing represents areas where soils had that indicator within 12 inches of the surface. So if the soils had that indicator, I flagged it and I just dug and dug until I found that boundary.
Speaker 1:Okay, so folks are going to hate me, but so after our site walk the other day, we had some questions about whether students don't have the right numbers. The wetlands area to the north and one that the majority of you are talking about here, called A and B, I guess.
Speaker 2:This area.
Speaker 1:Yes, that one and the one, yeah, those two.
Speaker 1:So I went back out there today because my curiosity got the best of me and I'm still convinced which is me mean these wetlands are connected. So if you stand the one farthest to the west of the property and look towards the building, you can see, going between the two areas, how the vegetation is much greener, much more growth and a white swath from that wetland over there to the larger one. And then we found the one over here in the corner that a zoo seemed to think that it was connected. And when we stopped our visit we concentrated right here in this corner, behind the Lions Club, where we found a depression. But we really didn't go any further to the north on our walk. So I was curious. I walked up to the north, where the stump pile is, and around the corner, and if you go back towards the Lions Club, there are three distinctive channels. One of them goes all the way down to the river and that would be coming off the top of this higher, this top weapons, I mean the top um weapon area.
Speaker 1:so once again, I'm convinced that they're connected in years that they're connected In Gaius. This land was majorly disturbed two years ago when the loam and everything in the trees were stripped off it. That's why we're getting all the different reading plates, if you want to call it so somebody's got to sell me that they're not connected so that's my speech.
Speaker 4:If you want to see my pitches, I risked life and limb out there.
Speaker 1:I got stuck playing coyote. So if I could just explain to you. I'm standing over here taking this picture. I'm over here. Here's the Lions Club, as you can see the vegetation. I'm just taking my cell phone, but you can see the vegetation is much wider yeah greener and taller in that area.
Speaker 1:The second picture here is the area between the cause of what an area? And the stump pile and you can see where it starts to get kind of like cat nine-tailed right in that area and you can see kind of more of the vegetation there, the ditch yeah, the ditch yeah. And there's the ditch On the other side. It was cut off by the stump pile and you can actually see water flowing through the back of this. Like I said, I mean I'm just trying to take them with my cell phone, but that's what I found out there today.
Speaker 13:I mean, you're welcome to have all those, so I did actually follow these digits, this one in particular.
Speaker 4:Yep.
Speaker 13:Because I saw the same thing. You guys were in these little streets of connection, right, so I was there in the late November, right around.
Speaker 1:Thanksgiving.
Speaker 13:Oh yeah, I did follow those stitches I was there around in the late November, right around Thanksgiving, and I didn't see any well-invited and I did auger my way through them. I said maybe there's hydro soils in here and we're just not seeing the bench right now and I didn't see either of those things. I don't think I was there at a good time of the year to see if there was a hydraulic connection. I didn't see any evidence of hydrology running through it. Again, I didn't see any of that evidence of the hydric vegetation. So that's why I kind of made that determination of like maybe this is part of the remnants of the agricultural use and it's no longer relevant. I do wish I had a way back machine so I could see more perspectives that I'm sure you guys have seen living in town and driving by the site, but I don't. So I'm just kind of going off of what I know and what this is like.
Speaker 1:I showed you the pictures of the land being stripped yeah, and yeah, it's unfortunate.
Speaker 13:So yeah, I mean I can tell you that where I flagged, the soils are going back to hydra and it's only been what two seasons. So, like it is, there is what? Like there's a building hydrology out there and it's returning. It's strong.
Speaker 1:You know where it's lagged I'm and I mean you gotta also remember that you know, the last year at least, we've been, you know, anywhere between minimal and minor drought. So that's gonna play into it a little bit well the soils.
Speaker 13:Do you know if, if there is the water tables near the surface consistently, the soils will change?
Speaker 7:that's why we use the soils so in the letter just to kind of complete that conversation, I guess In the letter, just to kind of complete the conversation. I guess what I intended to mention was two things. In the letter there's an updated survey plan. Gpi did a survey up there so we investigated the CAD survey that we have from them. We found that it wasn't an on-the-ground survey. I know that was a question that we had last Friday when we were out there, so it was done via on-the-ground survey, not LIDAR, and they had a pretty good grid, a whole site. There were a few hundred survey points taken and the site's about 30, 35, just within what would be. We just passed out a figure, things that walk on, a figure, one that zooms in on that area. It does show quarter-foot contours. It shows the spot rays from survey on there. Based on the survey, there's no indication of a hydraulic connection between B and C. There's a high point for elevation 33, highlighted darker here in this map, here where around level flat 107 and 106,.
Speaker 7:How about in Serie B? How do you want to essentially leave that where the great changes and everything flow down to L and C at that point and then it breaks the other way, the opposite way, with L and B. So there's no survey connection there. There, when we were up there I was trying to see what you all were seeing, that kind of ditch between or in that area. We don't know what we can see there. It's hard for me to visualize it. We have no certain indication that there's a connection there and the other thing we're asked to do is to look at series B to see if that would be classified as an isolated landslide or flooding. So that's most of what this letter accomplishes.
Speaker 7:And just to kind of recap part of an excerpt here from the Wetland Protection Act that defines isolated landslide or flooding. It says an isolated depression or closed basin without an inlet or an outlet. It's an area which at least once a year can find standing water volume. It's a quarter at your feet, which is about 80,000 gallons, just to put a perspective into an average depth of at least six inches. Survey indicates that there aren't any. It's not a closed basin. There are no areas of impounded water. It just gently grades from essentially west to southeast, from the high point of elevation 34 take 32, so there is no volume to calculate there. So it does not meet the criteria for isolated lands that we have to flood.
Speaker 8:Not to nitpick here. If all of the elevations and contours that you're showing this contour here about 33, can in fact be more like, because that's a physical 32.1, uh, let's give me 33.01 and we have a 3287 here at 3286 and then 3287, that whole area is level it is level in um.
Speaker 7:Yes, it's very flat there, right? That's why we went to the quarter foot contours, because it was hard to see on the one foot contours. So the quarter foot show, the actual I don't know grade breaks and things like that. And I know you, when we were out there, Kim took some soil samples in this area right between E and C and you weren't finding any indication of hydro soils in that.
Speaker 13:There was one little low pocket that I found hydric soils in. So then I kept going and I did one up gradient, down gradient, and I found one with hydric soils on the other side.
Speaker 8:But you did see the vegetation a little bit out there, kim right.
Speaker 13:It does look like that vegetation is just like a little bit more green, a little bit more brown.
Speaker 8:Yeah, I can see what you're seeing so it was so that vegetation right in there. I don't know how then you put this line over here, this one here, this line over here, this one here instead.
Speaker 1:Of that's a hot one. This is a super difficult one and you know back to my point is because the land was manipulated, I believe, because I'm seeing on the other side of the wooded area that those outflows would come off by the regrading of the land two years ago, so I think they were there originally. That's where I'm having an issue, you know, with the water table being 12, 14 inches when you were doing your auger the other day, um, I just don't know how it's feasible that you're gonna get storm water management and everything else out of this. Whether the grades are so tight, the water level is so high, I don't get it.
Speaker 7:Well, in that regard, what we're planning is to raise the site up a bit so we can shed water off from the building outward and have water sheet flow into some surface basins around the perimeter. So we'd we'd be raising the grade, probably about four feet or so, to do that. We don't anticipate getting, you know, recharge, groundwater recharge here, but we were looking at doing more like a storm water, like a constructed storm water, storm water system. Is it going to have a basement? So it's going to be like a slab, correct?
Speaker 8:All right, let's talk to the community. Do the others have any questions? They're creating a retention, that's right. That's not a word designed yet.
Speaker 1:No, it's not designed yet, that's just concept.
Speaker 5:It's on the plan. You can kind of see some of these areas are all highlighted here.
Speaker 7:It's still pretty conceptual, but yes, there's. You know, if we have concern about this connection to the DNC, we can ship things around. The've got a little meter to do that. We should figure out. The idea is these four areas would be pretty large, pretty flat, certain spaces, uh, that would essentially be used for a stormwater, basically create a well. We put some light, a lot of vegetation in there and we put some micro pools. We basically created a well.
Speaker 8:Yeah, If those two were going to be connected just for conversation conversation purposes, listen to what the chairman is saying. If you were to connect those two, what would that all that involve in terms of what lands fill in an application?
Speaker 7:if BNC were connected, I don't think that would change anything, to be honest with you, because that, because that's not where we're planning to put you know the building or site paving or anything like that, we would probably just ship this stormwater basin out of that area to respect that, if we we'll agree to that, that there was about to ship that stormwater basin away in that area if they were connected would be to be together constitutes no longer isolated still wouldn't be isolated the questions so I just want to.
Speaker 11:I actually have no idea what the plans say because I didn't look at them. I'm just looking at what you have here and it looks like the building has like 50% of it on the wetlands, the actual building. Is there a way you can take the building and switch it for the parking lot in the back so your building is on regular ground versus the wetlands and then you can do more with the wetlands that you need to in a parking lot instead of? You know, I don't want to change the whole plan, but I'm just saying yeah, I mean it is something we looked at.
Speaker 5:There's a number of trade-offs that you get as far as you know, your apron being further from the road, the amount of clearing that has to happen to do that. There's just other things that are taken into consideration. The preference would be to locate it more towards the front of the site.
Speaker 7:That's for sure Part of the response time right for an emergency vehicle.
Speaker 8:we get out of the response time right from recent vehicle. We get out of the site right for the latest. And that area that was sort of Shannon channel, just yeah, just over south of small and see, and the big one is B, yes, okay, so just off the site. I believe we have noted right in this area here some kind of channelization, you know, and so if this were to, I just want to make sure that the commission is done its due diligence. I just want to make sure that the commission is done its due diligence and that if the DEP were to decide to appeal it on its fully initiated, because they can't do that and I've seen them do that in several locations around the area. So I just want to make sure that the commission but it's due diligence so that when he writes his decision he can withstand scrutiny.
Speaker 8:So that's why I ask the question if the area of south because north is not what kept the area south of these two one-hut areas, that channel, because that's where the stream followed down here right, and this were to be considered by virtue of bordering a stream or whatever. An internet doesn't have to be to ring the stream, and if that's where, if that were to be called bvw, as I suppose for absolutely, what amount of filling of would that entail? That was really the question. Would that be in excess of 5,000 square feet? Yes, so there was that little guy there.
Speaker 13:and then in the east-west orientation, and then there's a couple of them that are like this Right, so that whole.
Speaker 8:If they're off-site, if they are connected and have a channel that they border and that channel ties into another stream, then that could be considered a DVW as opposed to isolated. If they were connected.
Speaker 13:Yeah. So we looked at this one and it kind of curls down and kind of ends a parking lot from the ninth Columbus drainage enters into it and then it kind of ceases to exist. So it kind of curls here and then.
Speaker 8:So your report should be then amended. In my hearing you, your report ought to be amended to discuss the fact that there's observed formations of what could be considered string and then widened. The widens are not strings.
Speaker 13:The wider, the wider. Those are not streams.
Speaker 1:Can you write something up about those? And, to my point, that wooded area beyond that little spot we were just talking and where the what I observed today, where those stumps are, they all seem to merge into that one wider ditch. That's why that's why I'm hung up that the whole thing is just feeding, feeding into that they were probably drained, right.
Speaker 13:So this land was better for farming. That's probably what it you know, and if they were reconnected, it would probably bring this know. And if they were reconnected, we probably bring this right. I don't know when they were and that may be contributing to the general higher, large people over here higher water table over here and the hydrotoilets that are going.
Speaker 8:I think you are perfectly clear, because, at the end of the day, this is actually a public project, if you will. And so the commission needs to, in high view, demonstrate that it has turned every stone, everything, and then then can write our determination that can withstand about monster, because the department were to uh, after reading that decision, the department would have to, after reading their decision, that the department decides to step in and then uncover evidences that can point to the contrary, then it will look like they are right in their decision to favor the project. So that needs to. Everybody needs to be very cognizant of that. So that needs to. Everybody needs to be very cognizant of that. So that's why I'm suggesting that your report should you've done your analysis. I mean, the initial topography is important because it's a very flat area, but a discussion as to why you terminated your delineation in this water and, yes, you did not extend your delineation on the property, property because you really shouldn't be flagging somebody else's property but Same line of order, same line of way, same way, okay, so we've got to discuss that, because what matters is that. So then he has to know projections that could suggest that it's tied to someone out that's not shown. So I think that needs to be.
Speaker 8:In my view, that needs to be done, just so that the commission can write a decision that will stand, because it's quite an extensive project that will involve a lot of film, and so I need to look at it. Yeah, certainly a lot of stuff. Yeah, you know, you can supplement it with the USGS quad maps. All the photos, all the evidence show that if you were to connect it, it would still be a large, isolated that is.
Speaker 1:All right, that is a good. All right, anybody else? Anybody new audience seeing none, so we'll move on Continuous until our next meeting. Yes, please.
Speaker 9:Thank you. Motion to continue the request for determination on 254A. I will second that Second Motion made. Second All in favor Aye, opposed Unanimous. Second this is too much yes.
Speaker 1:Yeah, just once. I'm GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE ALL RIGHT ONE SECOND, if I CAN FIND MY PAPERS INFORMAL DID EVERYBODY GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE SCHEDULES ON THE CALENDAR. That's SOMEWHERE HERE, yeah.
Speaker 2:VOTE TO DO. Approved. Scheduled FOR JULY. Well, hold ON, there's ONE DAY THAT I DEFINITELY CAN'T BE THERE THE 20TH OF AUGUST, well, then WE HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYTHING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THREE PEOPLE.
Speaker 4:YEAH.
Speaker 9:I HIGHLIGHTED THE LAST 16. And THEN IN AUGUST I.
Speaker 8:DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE YOU WANTED TO GO TO.
Speaker 6:THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY WERE BURNING OUT. I DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE. Either ONE IS OKAY WITH ME.
Speaker 2:WOULD YOU WANT TO. I CAN'T MAKE A POINT. It's FINE IF YOU GUYS HAVE THREE, which ONE AUGUST AUG.
Speaker 9:I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE, I HAVE.
Speaker 1:A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A SCHEDULE. I HAVE A.
Speaker 2:SCHEDULE. Don't HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT FAR. I CAN'T EVEN FIND THE PAY FOR IT.
Speaker 8:THIS IS A QUOTA PUBLICLY. This WAY, no DOS YES.
Speaker 9:WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IT. Yep, yep. Question ON THE TABLE IS WHETHER WE DO THE 6TH AS OPPOSED TO THE 20TH AND AUGUST IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT. I'm FINE WITH THE 6TH AS OPPOSED TO THE 20TH IN AUGUST IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT, I'm FINE WITH THE 6TH YEAH.
Speaker 1:I'm FINE.
Speaker 8:WITH.
Speaker 1:THAT I'M NOT.
Speaker 8:GOING TO BE HERE THE 20TH EITHER.
Speaker 1:ALL RIGHT, so LET'S GO WITH THE 6TH ALL.
Speaker 9:RIGHTY.
Speaker 4:AMY, did YOU HEAR THAT? Yes, that's THE ONLY CHANGE I.
Speaker 13:THINK we're out of one schedule between the board and then we go to July 16th. Yeah, Is that too much?
Speaker 8:No, because people know that we're doing some of those. Yeah, we meet once a month. Yeah, and I saw that they are posted and so when they do the application, they do that. Are we still doing two in December, the third and the 17th? Yeah, we're back to two weeks.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the 17th is far away enough. Last year was too close, that's right. Okay, all right. Oh, there, it is no insurance. I don't know what that one is. Okay. Motion to accept the dates. We can change to August August 6 as opposed to the 20th, second second. All in favor, aye. Opposed unanimous. Everybody get a chance to review the APRIL 16th MOTION TO ACCEPT SECOND. All IN FAVOR, aye.
Speaker 4:ABSTAIN.
Speaker 1:ONE ABSTAIN. We HAVE ONE BILL HERE. I CAN WRITE YOU A PICTURE. I can't afford that. I'll be in A1. I'll be here. I'll BE IN AVE ON. I'll BE HERE. It's OFF. The BILL OF CORRESPONDENTS. That's ALL. We HAVE SITE VISITS. I HAVE NOTHING AT THE MOMENT, but I'M SURE SOMETHING WILL COME UP BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING AND I WILL SEND E-MAILS OTHER THAN THAT. That's ALL I GOT TO LAND. Second MOTION BE MADE AND SECONDED. All IN FAVOR. Aye, opposed, unanimous. Thank YOU EVERYONE.