The commission unanimously approved a Notice of Intent for the installation of EV charging stations on Taylor Street. This project, part of a national initiative by Amazon, aims to convert 166 parking stalls for electric vehicle use. Steve Fusco from Kimley Horn presented the project, explaining the need for an underground power line due to insufficient existing power supply. This installation would necessitate some tree removal at the eastern edge of the parking lot. Fusco assured that the disturbed areas would be replanted with New England semi-shade grass and forbs mix, maintaining existing drainage patterns.

Concerns were voiced about the impact of tree removal, especially since the area had already experienced significant tree loss due to a new well installation. Approximately 2,500 square feet within the 0 to 50-foot buffer and an additional 2,800 square feet within the 50 to 100-foot buffer would be disturbed. Commissioners requested an Alternatives assessment to explore other pathways for the power line that would minimize environmental impact. The representatives were asked to return with a written memo detailing the options considered and the reasoning behind the chosen route.

The commission also discussed the environmental impacts of tree removal, particularly for significant-sized trees. A replacement ratio was debated, with some advocating for more than a one-to-one ratio, and a preference for native hardwoods, specifically Red Oaks. Questions about the potential impacts on local wildlife, including habitat for birds and squirrels, were raised. The need for a comprehensive understanding of the environmental implications led to an agreement for a future site walk once more details were available.

Another topic was the enforcement order related to unpermitted construction of a walkway on Warren Street within a buffer zone. The commission discussed a proposed restoration plan, which included input from a site walk report. Despite needing further input from a second engineer to finalize plans for roof drains and dry wells, the commission allowed the property owner to begin work on certain aspects, emphasizing the importance of proper sequencing and erosion controls. This motion was unanimously supported.

Tree policy exceptions also garnered attention. Members debated the proposed exceptions, such as land used for agricultural purposes, trees within a designated forest management plan, and trees under the care of the Conservation Commission. Concerns were raised about the potential for inadequate oversight, particularly near wetlands, if contractors were not properly monitored. The commission emphasized that exceptions to the tree policy do not exempt applicants from compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act or local bylaws.

The management of hazardous trees was another issue. The commission discussed new language for the removal of hazardous trees, proposing that trees posing an immediate threat could be removed if examined by a certified arborist. However, concerns about the definition of an arborist and the thresholds for what constitutes a hazardous tree were debated. The need for documentation and possibly a second opinion on hazardous tree assessments was highlighted to prevent unjustified emergency removals.

The meeting also addressed administrative matters, including the upcoming vacation of the conservation agent and the implications for the commission’s activities. There was a suggestion to allocate future agenda time to discuss enforcement orders and the ticketing process to ensure all commissioners are well-prepared to support the agents and participate in site visits.

Finally, the commission discussed the ongoing issue of a non-lease parcel of land and the need for an engineered plan. The estimated cost for the necessary work was around $1,800, and funding options were explored. The commission agreed to revisit this topic in future meetings, emphasizing the need for legal counsel to clarify ownership and management implications.