Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Approved 3/15/07

Wellesley Wetland Protection Committee Minutes

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Natural Resources Commission Office

Town Hall, Lower Level, 7:30 PM

Present: Ms. Mary Jane O’Donnell (Chair), Dr. Rhonda Ryznar (Vice Chair), Mr. Robert McDonnell and Mr. Marc Taylor (Committee Members). Ms. Jane Sears Pierce, Wetlands Administrator.

Absent: Mr. Robert Lubker

Guests: Mr. Kevin O’Leary (The Jillson Company), Ms. Naiomi Freedman (Catalano Architects), Mr. Brian Strachan (89 Ledgeways), Ms. Caren Seagraves (7 Sunnyside Ave.), Ms. Jennifer Shor (47 Manor Ave.), Ms. Marsha Grogan (1 Sunnyside Ave.), Ms. Mary Jane Driscola (19 Sunnyside Ave.), Mr. Richard Gerard (65 High Ledge), Mr. Mark Fontenella (111 Manor Ave.), Mr. Terry Ryan (Applewood Survey Co.), Mr. Constantine Iliev (3 Sunnyside) and Mr. Larry Borins (5 Arlington St., #36, Cambridge).

Public Voice. Nobody spoke during public voice.

General Business

Approval of Draft Minutes: The Committee took several minutes to review outstanding minutes.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the Draft Minutes of February 1, 2007. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

DEP #324-519, Wellesley Country Club, 294 Wellesley Avenue, Re-Sign Order of Conditions. Ms. Pierce advised the Committee that Attorney Steve Langer (representing Wellesley Country Club) had called Ms. Pierce on February 12, 2007, to ask that the Committee re-sign a second copy of the site’s Order of Conditions, as the original Order had been lost. He asked to have the original document mailed to his attention at Langer & McLaughlin, 137 Newbury Street, Boston, MA 02116. The Committee re-signed the re-printed document.

Enforcement Procedure Discussion (continued to next meeting)

Review/Update Edgemoor Avenue (DEP #324-462) Enforcement, H&R Development. Ms. Pierce reviewed her findings regarding this project’s outstanding enforcement requirements. Ms. Helen MacDonald (WPC Secretary) had discovered that the wetland violation fines for this project were only partially paid (i.e. $6,400 (fine) - $1,000 (paid) = $5,400 outstanding balance).

Dr. Ryznar made a motion for Ms. Pierce to send a formal demand letter to the property owner for the violation fine’s outstanding balance. Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Administrator’s Report/General Administrative Questions for Review:

Proposed Request for Waiver, and Waiver Bylaw Forms. Ms. Pierce had previously distributed copies of her proposed/draft “Request for Wetland Regulations Waiver” and “Wetland Protection Regulations Waiver” forms to the Committee for their review. Mr. Taylor reviewed the history behind the Committee’s intent for the Regulations’ waiver allowance, saying the primary reason for including the waiver provisions had been for Wellesley’s numerous smaller lots. He said that originally, they had required a no disturbance zone (“NDZ”) of only five feet, anticipating that developers would include a larger NDZ (i.e. 25 feet) when developing larger lots, but that was not the case. The NDZ is now 25 feet, to allow the Committee the discretionary authority of granting waivers to the owners of smaller lots. Mr. McDonnell added that by adopting the 25-foot NDZ requirement, the Committee would be able to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis, if warranted.

Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve Ms. Pierce’s proposed “Request for Wetland Regulations Waiver” and “Wetland Protection Regulations Waiver” forms, as drafted. Dr. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Continued Notice of Intent, 89 Ledgeways, DEP #324-0495, Mr. and Mrs. Brian Strachan

Mr. Kevin O’Leary (The Jillson Company) and Ms. Naiomi Freedman (Catalano Architects), the Applicant’s representatives, and Mr. Brian Strachan (Applicant/owner) attended the hearing.

Mr. O’Leary reviewed the proposed project, which included building an addition to a single-family home and related site and utility work within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. He explained that an erosion control barrier would be installed along the rear lot line, continuing along the left-side lot line, up to the 100 foot buffer line. Reportedly, this project had been continued because the owners were unsure whether they would continue with the project that they had originally submitted. Ms. Freedman stated that she had been working with the Applicants when the project was originally filed.

Mr. O’Leary explained that drainage from the roadway flows through/underneath the yard (currently located underneath the area of the proposed addition), discharging to an outlet at Rockridge Pond (behind/abutting the property). The owners are currently working with the Town’s DPW regarding re-routing the current drainage pipe, and plan to reroute and re-join the pipe to the old/existing pipe near the rear property line. In addition, they will be granting a drainage easement to the Town (currently, no Town drainage easement across the property exists). Reportedly, the DPW inspected the existing pipe and they believe that it has collapsed. The proposed drainage system relocation (to be between two ledge outcroppings in the front yard) has been included with the NOI.

Mr. Taylor wanted to know whether there were any Town NPDES requirements for replacing/upgrading drainage structures that outlet into a body of water. Although Mr. O’Leary did not answer his question, he suggested that the Town install deep sump catch basins in the roadway to collect runoff.

Ms. O’Donnell stated “presumably you are not changing the quality or quantity of water, or the location of its discharge point.” Mr. O’Leary responded that “no,” they were not. Ms. O’Donnell asked if any trees were proposed to be taken down. Mr. O’Leary stated that two or three trees would need to be removed, indicating that everything (i.e. trees and shrubs) should be removed from the area of the easement.

Ms. O’Donnell advised Mr. O’Leary that typically, the Committee requires a two to one replacement for trees removed from resource areas. Ms. Pierce asked whether any of the property’s numerous mature rhododendrons would be removed and/or relocated. Mr. Strachan stated that they did, in fact, plan to relocate these rhododendrons.

Mr. O’Leary stated that the proposed side-yard contour would be raised in a couple of locations, explaining that on the proposed plan, existing topography is shown as dashed lines; proposed topography changes are shown as solid lines. About two feet of fill has been proposed in some areas of the front yard (approximately 100 to 150 cubic yards, or around four to six trailer loads). A swale has been included along the side of the proposed addition. He indicated that the FEMA (500 year) floodplain was located on the abutting property, but 98 Ledgeways contained no floodplain.

In summary, Ms. O’Donnell opined that special conditions should require a restoration planting plan, with specific information regarding tree replacement (i.e. a two to one replacement ratio for the removed trees) and, per Ms. Pierce’s suggestion, also require the submission of a construction sequencing plan.

Ms. Pierce asked Mr. O’Leary:

1. what was the depth of the proposed stormwater pipe trenches,

2. did he anticipate having to blast any ledge, and

3. did he anticipate the need for de-watering?

Mr. O’Leary responded to Ms. Pierce’s questions, saying:

1. the stormwater pipes would be buried between five and eight feet deep,

2. there would be no blasting of ledge, due to the (small) size of the lot, and

3. he thought that they probably would not need to do any dewatering, adding that there will be teamwork between the DPW (who will install the piping) and the property owner.

Mr. McDonnell moved to close hearing with conditions requiring the submission of the following information, to be received and approved by the Wetlands Administrator before commencing any construction:

1. proposed Construction Sequencing Plan, with a timeline that addresses:

a. the investigation of the stormwater pipe’s location,

b. the construction of the new stormwater pipes, and

c. the home addition, and

2. proposed Restoration Planting Plan, including:

a. replacement plantings at a ratio of two to one for all trees that are proposed to be removed that are six (6) inches wide, or larger, at breast height, and

b. if rhododendrons can be moved/replanted on-site, then the customary two to one planting ratio will not be required, however, if new rhododendron plants are required, then a two to one planting ratio will be required.

Dr. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

Notice of Intent, 3 Sunnyside Avenue, DEP #324-538, Mr. Robert Dell

(DEP on-line Note: “Under Review”)

The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Terry Ryan (Applewood Survey Co.) and owner, Mr. Constantine Iliev, attended the hearing.

Mr. Ryan reviewed his client’s proposal to demolish and rebuild a single-family home within the riverfront and 25 foot no disturbance zone resource areas. He reminded the Committee that he had come before them a while back to review the site and get the Committee’s input, emphasizing that it was a “very difficult site”. He explained that it had been his understanding that the house had been empty/abandoned for quite some time, and because it had been unoccupied for so long, the natural (wetland) vegetation had grown right up to the foundation.

He stated that his client had “no choice but replace the house,” explaining that the proposed plan included a similar-sized house with the back line of the foundation in the same location as the current foundation. In order to reconstruct the entire house, they are proposing to encroach into the wetlands so that workmen would have room to work on the back of the house. The proposed fill area extended twelve (12) feet (475 sq. ft. of wetland proposed to be filled) behind the current house foundation (at a depth of 1/2 to 7/10 feet of fill). In addition, the proposed plan would raise the house up slightly (i.e. 189.5 foot topo line to 190 foot topo line); around eight inches. He stated that there would be no place to replicate the wetlands, since they currently come right up to the foundation. He stated that the foundation was cracked and flaking off on the back (wetland) side of the house.

Regarding the River Protection Act’s alternatives analysis requirement, he opined that the only alternative would be to try to build a house to the rear of the lot (i.e. on the opposite side of the stream), but indicated that this would require a stream crossing for a driveway.

Mr. Taylor asked whether there were any wetlands on the other side of the stream. Mr. Ryan indicated that the land sloped up to the rear of the property, but in order to cross the stream with a driveway and replicate the wetlands, it would “make a mess.” Mr. Taylor suggested that replication for the proposed wetland filling (behind the current house) could occur on the other side of the stream.

Ms. Pierce asked Mr. Ryan about the water that she had observed gushing out from under the foundation in the area of the back door, stating that it was not coming from the roof or the broken gutter (which was lying on the ground). Mr. Constantine Iliev (3 Sunnyside) explained that the pipes had recently frozen and that the Fire and Water Departments had recently visited to the property to check on the situation, adding that the Fire Department’s logs would indicate when they had visited the site.

Regarding the Riverfront Alternatives requirement, Mr. Taylor suggested that one alternative would be to reduce the size of the basement and to add a deck with posts that we might permit in the BVW, noting however that even “the house on stilts” was only located in the floodplain (i.e. no BVW had been involved). The purpose of a deck would be to provide future occupants with some usable backyard space and reduce the possibility that they would illegally place fill in the BVW.

Mr. McDonnell theorized that wetlands could have been filled when the house (at 3 Sunnyside) was originally built. Mr. Richard Gerard (65 High Ledge) agreed, explaining that there had always been a wetland behind the house, adding that the whole area used to be a wetland. He stated that he had lived in his current home since 1935, saying that the houses (on Sunnyside Avenue) had been constructed in the mid to late 1950s. In fact, he blamed the Town for the problems existing (there) today, saying that the builder did “shoddy work.” Reportedly, Manor Avenue used to be a dead end street with a dump; the road had been extended to Ingleside Road in the late 1940s. He said that this was when the problem had started with the brook, saying it had originally been so clean that it had contained brook and rainbow trout. He stressed his concern for the brook.

Mr. McDonnell explained that the Committee’s dilemma was that this lot was a piece of land that the Town had previously allowed to be developed. He explained that if the Committee prevented all redevelopment of the lot, this might raise a question about whether a complete denial would be a taking of the property. On the other hand, they could allow development of the lot and require that the brook be protected as well as possible.

At this point in the hearing, Ms. O’Donnell opened the discussion to the public.

Ms. Marsha Grogan (1 Sunnyside Avenue; next-door neighbor), explained that she had bought her house three and a half years earlier, adding that she had looked at both houses at the same time (they had been for sale at the same time). She said that her house had been in worse condition than the current condition of the 3 Sunnyside Avenue house, but she had renovated what was there. Her foundation is in as bad condition (as 3 Sunnyside), but they repaired it because of the wetlands close proximity, adding that she did not change her foundation, but is currently planning to re-pour its left side because it too is cracked. She indicated that she is concerned that if they are allowed to fill wetlands abutting their foundation, the displaced water will encroach onto her and her neighbors’ properties.

Mr. Mark Fontenella (111 Manor Avenue) advised the Committee that the stream (behind the Applicant’s and his houses) comes from swamps located upstream, in Natick. He said that his lot contains three feet of hard packed clay and when the Town had come out to inspect the location of his basement addition, he had been required to use three feet of stone (under the foundation) to allow for drainage above the clay layer. Reportedly, there is poor drainage in the area because of the layer of hard-packed clay, saying that he has to wait until mid-summer before his yard dries up enough to walk on it.

Ms. Carne Seagraves (7 Sunnyside Avenue, next-door neighbor) said that her lot is dry. She informed the Committee that she believed that the proposed project’s backyard contained a vernal pool in the wetland area.

Ms. Grogan advised the Committee that the elderly gentleman who had owned 3 Sunnyside, had also owned two other houses on the street, including her house (#1) and #15.

Ms. Mary Jane Driscola (19 Sunnyside Avenue), who had lived in her home for 21 years, said that the brook only runs in the spring. She indicated that the house had been vacant for 20 years; in fact, she had submitted petitions to the town asking them to clean it up. Ms. Driscola thought that it would be nice if the Committee could work out a way to improve the lot, saying that the house was “a dump, an eyesore and a danger.” She said that although the people who abut the property do not want to be affected by the project’s proposed wetland filling, she did not think that the plan looked like it would have a significant effect. Mr. McDonnell indicated that the Committee could include a condition that the wetland needed to remain a wetland.

Ms. Grogan asked that if they (i.e. the Applicants) were allowed to fill in 12 feet of the wetlands, then would she be able to do the same thing, adding that the people who bought the house knew that it contained wetlands when they bought it.

Mr. Taylor asked whether the site contained floodplain. Mr. Ryan responded that it was not floodplain, saying “call it 189.5” (i.e. the level of flooding). Mr. Taylor advised that if there were floodplain at the back of the house, the cubic feet of any filled floodplain would need replication in the same vicinity as the filled area. He suggested that one alternative would be for the Applicant to approach the Zoning Board for a waiver to be able to move the house closer to the street.

Ms. Pierce recommended that (with the Applicant’s permission) the Committee wait until the Spring rainy season, in order to revisit the site to determine the level of flooding that occurs, as well as to determine whether there is a vernal pool in the wetland area.

Mr. Gerard stated that in the late 1950’s one house on Manor Avenue needed to be built on pilings because the area was so wet, adding that when developers started digging in the area of Sunnyside Avenue, he recalled their running into “deep muck.” He stated that the (Sunnyside) brook always ran free and was never stagnant, as it is now, saying that it was now unable to flow the way that it used to. Another abutter indicated that part of the problem could have been from wetland filling for development(s) upstream, in Natick.

Ms. Grogan posed the question: “why can’t they just fix what is there?” Mr. Ryan started to debate with Ms. Grogan; Ms. O’Donnell, Chair, called the meeting to order, asking Mr. Ryan to address the Committee. Ms. O’Donnell asked Mr. Ryan whether he had ever been before the zoning board, to which he replied “it is highly unlikely you will get a variance.”

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Grogan whether she had filed for a permit when she restored her home. She indicated that she did not file, because she did not propose to do any (outdoor) work in the wetland or floodplain. He then asked Ms. Grogan why she would oppose someone else getting a variance. She indicated that she was worried about flooding in her yard.

Mr. McDonnell then asked Ms. Seagraves her position on the matter. She responded, saying that the backyard was now a natural habitat; she could not believe that it had ever been dry (i.e. non-wetland). She said that maybe the idea of a basement might not work on the lot, since the water table is very high. In her opinion, it was probably partly from the stream and partly from hillside springs. She said that her basement floods.

In response to comments suggesting that the project could be denied, Mr. Taylor posed the question of whether anyone was familiar with the “house on stilts” (on Cedar Brook). He then explained that the Committee had denied that project, the Applicant appealed their denial to the DEP, and the DEP okayed the project with a superseding order, adding “we have a bit more protection now because of the town’s [Wetland Protection] Bylaw.”

Ms. O’Donnell indicated that she wanted to hear from other property owners. One neighbor said that the situation at each house on the street varied; her basement is dry and always has been, but her neighbor has a sump pump in his basement, adding that nothing appeared to be different between the two properties. She thought that a hydrologist or engineer/specialist should review the proposed plan.

Mr. Robert Carlson (107 Manor Avenue), who lives across from Sunnyside Avenue, wanted to know how much higher the proposed fill would make the yard. Mr. Ryan replied that the yard would go from 190.1 feet to 190.8 feet.

When Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Ryan’s company had a hydrologist, Mr. Ryan said that they could drop the basement down and install a sump pump, adding that he had not performed a hydro analysis. Mr. Taylor indicated that he did not like the idea of lowering the floor to the point where a sump would be required. Mr. McDonnell indicated that a hydrologist could show that the proposed fill would not increase the area’s flooding problems. At this point, Mr. Ryan stated that he would just remove the proposed fill from the plans.

Ms. Grogan asked, if the foundation were removed, wouldn’t the resulting hole in the ground just fill up with water? Mr. Taylor explained that the foundation hole would be filled with rock to a height that would theoretically be above the water table.

Mr. McDonnell advised that a complete (Rivers Protection Act) alternatives analysis would include the alternative of going before the ZBA to ask for a front yard setback variance. Ms. O’Donnell indicated that the Committee could deny the proposed project for insufficient information (i.e. no alternatives analysis was submitted), to which Mr. McDonnell stated the Committee could also allow the proposed project but require several special conditions.

At this point in the hearing, Mr. Ryan began a heated debate with members of the audience (neighbors). Mr. McDonnell spoke to him about his behavior, advising him that he was out of order and to stop arguing with the neighbors.

Ms. Seagraves advised the Committee that she believed that the property contained a vernal pool in the back yard, asking the Committee to consider this fact. Mr. McDonnell stated that his sense was that most of the wetland would stay intact and the house would not have a back yard. Ms. O’Donnell added that a hydro analysis would help to determine whether the proposed project would affect the adjacent properties.

Ms. Pierce suggested that one alternative would be to construct a narrower foundation, cantilever the house to overhang the foundation, and restoration of the wetland area as mitigation for the project. She continued, saying that the wetland area had numerous invasive plant species that could be removed by hand and then replaced/replanted with native species. She also told the Committee that while visiting the site, she had seen extensive wildlife signs (particularly Eastern cottontail rabbits) in the area next to the house.

Ms. O’Donnell advised Mr. Ryan that the alternatives analysis and hydrology concerns would need to be addressed. She then summarized the Committee’s requests and suggestions, including:

1. revise the proposed plan to show:

a. a smaller foundation footprint, as a possible alternative,

b. cantilevered first floor, possibly including stilts under the extended portion, as a possible alternative, and/or

c. consider adding a deck off the rear of the house as a living space in lieu of yard,

2. file for a variance of the front yard setback requirements with the Zoning Board of Appeals, as a possible alternative,

3. submit a hydro analysis of the current conditions versus proposed conditions

Ms. O’Donnell asked Mr. Ryan if he wanted to continue the hearing to perform the (above) work. Mr. Ryan said “yes,” he would like to continue the hearing.

Mr. Taylor opined, “we want to prevent future owners from creating a backyard by filling it in.” Mr. McDonnell indicated that he believed that if the Committee denied the current application, and if it were to be appealed to the DEP, then the lack of an alternatives analysis would most likely cause the DEP to deny the project, as well (citing recent case laws).

Dr. Ryznar advised Mr. Ryan that if a deck or cantilevered first floor were to be proposed, they would not need to go to Zoning for a variance, and suggested that he think about a different design. She then added that if his client did choose to seek a variance, then the Committee would consider sending a letter of support to the ZBA.

Mr. McDonnell moved to continue the hearing. Dr. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4-0. Ms. Pierce recommended that the Committee continue the meeting to a specific date. Mr. McDonnell made a motion to continue the hearing to April 5, 2007. Dr. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4-0.

RFD, 19 Lexington Road, Ms. Ann Adams

Mr. Larry Borins, architect, attended the meeting, saying that he was working with the homeowner, who was a very ill friend who is proposing a first floor bedroom addition because she needs to live on one floor, due to her illness. The proposed project included building a one-story bedroom addition without a full foundation, to the rear of a single-family house (in a riverfront area), with proposed mitigation planting of native shrubs along the property boundary as a buffer for the brook.

After review of the application, the Committee determined that the Applicant needed to file a NOI for the proposed project because of its location, in a resource area.

Mr. Taylor moved to issue a positive determination for RFD, 19 Lexington Road. Dr. Ryznar seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 0.

15 Royalston Road, DEP #324-516

Ms. Mary Trudeau (representative) and Mr. Paul Bevilaqua (applicant) attended the meeting to discuss the following outstanding Order of Conditions’ requirements [OoC excerpts follow]:

“within 30 days of the closing of this project’s hearing (February 9, 2007) the Applicant must submit the following:

Payment of Fines: The Applicant must deliver the fine of $3,000, payable to the Town of Wellesley, for the violation of the Wellesley Wetland Protection Bylaw.

Restoration Planting Plan: The Applicant must submit a proposed landscape restoration plan, for review and acceptance of the Committee,

Letter of Credit. The Applicant must post a $10,000 letter of credit, in acceptable form, to the Committee for the purpose of securing compliance and enforcement.”

Ms. Trudeau commenced by reviewing the proposed restoration-planting plan. She explained that Mr. Bevilacqua wanted to move several mature spruce trees from property’s front yard to the backyard, along the lot line (in the buffer zone) to buffer the neighbor’s swing set. In the wetland area (currently planted as lawn), they have proposed to plant a mix of rhododendrons, spirea and azaleas, with white pine trees in the 25 foot no disturbance zone to replace the trees that were removed in violation. She explained that although rhododendrons are not necessarily native shrubs, she had included them in the plan because they would be less apt to be torn out, as most people find them aesthetically pleasing.

Ms. Pierce reviewed an email from Mr. and Mrs. Triant (abutters, who were unable to attend the meeting) regarding the proposed pine trees’ planting locations. They were concerned that the pine trees (as shown on the proposed plan) would be planted/located on their property, stating that they wanted to ensure that the trees were planted on Mr. Bevilacqua’s property and not theirs. Mr. Bevilacqua explained that his intent was to plant the trees on his own property.

Ms. O’Donnell asked whether the proposed plan was satisfactory to the Committee members; all members indicated that yes, it was.

Ms. O’Donnell then asked about the status of the letter of credit. Mr. Bevilacqua explained that his bank did not use letters of credit, but rather used tri-party agreements, saying that the money would be prefunded and “in the bank.” Ms. Trudeau further explained that the money would not change hands unless and until he did not complete his part of the project.

Mr. McDonnell asked that Mr. Bevilacqua send a copy of the form to the Committee’s office for their, and Town Counsel’s, review and approval.

Ms. O’Donnell then reviewed the violation fine payment requirement, adding that the Committee had indicated the possibility of reducing the fine if they determined that the quality of Mr. Bevilacqua’s remediation was good. Ms. Trudeau stated that Mr. Bevilacqua wished to decrease the fined amount because it was going to cost $8,000 to $10,000 for him to do the mitigation landscaping. Mr. Taylor suggested putting the fine into a different account, as had been discussed in previous meetings, rather than the Town’s general fund.

Mr. Taylor made a motion to reduce the fine to $600 in consideration of the applicant’s remediation expenses. Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion. Ms. Pierce recommended that the Committee should wait until they had received a copy of a contract for the proposed landscaping work, showing that it would cost $8,000 to $10,000, before voting to lower the fine. Discussion ensued. Ms. O’Donnell opined that the penalty should be determined during the current meeting, and should not be postponed until a later date. The figure on the table was deemed too low; Mr. Taylor withdrew his motion.

Mr. Taylor then revised his previous motion to reduce the fine to $1,000. Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion, as long as it was amended to include the condition that Mr. Bevilacqua submits the following to the Committee:

1. documentation of the planting plan’s cost (estimate) by the next meeting (March 15),

2. the proposed bank agreement document (by March 15), and

3. payment of the above ($1,000) fine by March 29, 2007 (two weeks after the next meeting, assuming that the previous requirements have been met).

The amended motion passed, 3-1 (Ms. O’Donnell voted against the motion).

The Committee and the Applicant then reviewed a draft Consent Agreement, prepared by Ms. Pierce. Ms. Trudeau reviewed, and made written amendments to, the Agreement (including the addition of: “subject to proposed work in the range of $8,000 to $10,000”). The Committee asked Ms. Pierce to make the revisions and then send the document to Ms. Trudeau, who was asked to process and return a signed and notarized copy to the Committee’s office by March 15.

23 Wingate Road, Review of Submitted Mitigation Planting Plan. The Committee reviewed the proposed plan and determined it to be adequate. They discussed the boundary markers that could be installed to delineate conservation land boundaries. Unsure of what type of bounds the NRC would want to have installed, they asked Ms. Pierce to write a letter to the NRC, asking them to clarify their encroachment policy’s bound requirements.

Adjournment at 10:20 pm.

Next meeting: March 15, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Wetlands Administrator