to the Danvers Conservation Commission. Let me get today's um the meeting for today is June 25th, 2026. Um, we operate under the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40,
the Wetlands Protection Act, and chapter 26 of the Town of Danver's general bylaw, the Wetlands Protection bylaw. After the applicant presents his or her request and the board has had time to ask questions and discuss the project, we will accept questions from the
audience. Because this is a public meeting, it is required by law that you give your name and address first. Although we may disagree on the issues raised, all persons present during this meeting are expected to be civil to all
other meeting attendees. This includes the members of the commission, staff, abutters, concerned citizens, and property owners and project applicants. We also request that you confine your questions to the project and only as it
pertains to the wetlands act. We cannot handle nor do we have jurisdiction regarding things such as noise or traffic. All problems not related to the wetlands protection act and the town of Danver's wetlands protection bylaw must
be taken up with other boards. and we're gonna wait on going right into our agenda items because we're waiting for um another member to get here. So, we're just going to do a little bit of business first. >> Should we do roll call?
>> Um do can I do roll call without >> You can do a roll call for people that are here and then when Mike comes in, you can roll call him as well. >> I just haven't done that before. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, um please state your name. Lorraine Drapek, >> present. Paul McNelte >> here.
>> Michael Splain and Peter Wilson >> present. >> And I'm Mary Height and I'm present. All right. So, our next agenda item, um, we're going to do old new business.
Actually, we'll do the minutes first, I think. Um, has everybody read the minutes? >> Yes. >> Yes. Are we ready to approve them? >> I'm ready. >> Yes. Okay. Um, so can I ask for a motion for someone to accept the minutes?
>> I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes from our May 28th, 2026 meeting. >> And can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> And for old new business, is there anything else we need to discuss, Brian? >> Uh, no, not at the moment.
>> Not at the moment. All right. So after that, I think we're ready to uh move into the other items. Should we wait until >> I think we should. >> Yeah, I think so, too. For having to wait a little bit. It won't be long. >> Thank you.
Hold on. We're not We're not on camera. >> There we go. And we're back. >> And Michael Splain. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, there we go. So, we're good with that. Um, our first item for today is 267 Center
Street, a notice of intent. D file number 14-1454 and the applicant is John Lacro. Do you have someone to come up and share with us uh what's going on? >> There we just speak your name when you
get to the podium. >> My name is John Dick. I am an independent wetland scientist retired number of years ago but I like the work. Uh we had a good site visit. I think
everybody has a sense of what's going on out there. This is a this is an interesting piece of property. Uh, as I mentioned at the site visit, and I believe I mentioned at the last hearing, there is no wetland mapped on this site.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts D and the National Wetland Inventory both say there's no wetland back there. There certainly is a wetland. Uh the town of Danverse has a water course shown on their topographic maps, but the water
course actually runs across topographic contours. The actual flow on this site is to the northeast. It's not it's not toward 114. It's actually directly toward the river. But
I'll be charitable and say the con the topography has been somewhat altered over the past 40 50 years. Uh in 1980 there's a fairly wellestablished swale proceeding from Center Street across the
site toward the right rear corner of the site away from 114 and down behind the houses down behind Dave McKenna's house and the Fox Run subdivision I think it is. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but basically it's clear that surface flow
used to run perpendicular to the Ipsswitch River and parallel to 114. This is no longer the case. Interestingly, um there's there's no hydric soil mapped for this site either. You have to look
at the inclusions in the uh in the mapped soil. So, I went out. I took a look at it. There's skunk cabbage growing out there. There are red maples. There are spice bush and uh winter berry. There's a pretty nice little
wetland down there being fed mostly by groundwater breakout from the slope. Uh it's comparatively steep coming down toward 114. and then it levels off a little and where it levels off a little the groundwater breaks out of the toa
slope and flows generally across the site. Uh we have colored up the plan in accordance with the town's directives. I will call your attention to the uh the brown line which isn't
>> apparent but it runs right down here along the total slope. What that signifies is limit of disturbance on the site. That's what we're proposing to alter. It is in fact
the entire no disturb zone. And the reason for that as I explained to the site is there's a lot of rubbish out there. a lot of rubbish, mostly concrete, rubble, uh there there's some brick, there's uh there's stone, there's there's all sorts of and there are, you
know, odds and ends of household articles that well, let's be charitable and say they fell off the back of a truck sometime in the past. There is no record of any enforcement action on this site. There is no record of any filing on this site.
Uh the first time apparently that anybody inquired about this was when the uh when the builder was beginning to clear the site. He came and talked to Emily said, "Is it mapped?" She said, "No." He said, "Well, can I go ahead with the clearing?" And she said, "Sure,
why not?" Uh soon as we got out there and started clearing, we started digging up rubble. And uh the proposal now, long story short, is that we're going to take the entire 35- ft no disturb zone and
we're going to regrade it. It's a little steep right now. It's not excessively steep. we could stabilize it in situ, but because we're going to be removing material out there, I felt the smart thing to do would be to opt for since
it's the no disturb zone, flatten the grade a little bit. And the the bottom line here is that it's going to be somewhere between 1 in4 and 1 in5 depending on where you are on the site. The the change in grade differs somewhat. Uh that's a pretty gentle
slope. You could walk. Yeah, I can walk down that. I don't walk so good. Uh the proposal right now that you've got a list of species in my narrative u is to plant essentially four rows of
vegetation parallel to the slope. The lowest row will be so close to wetland grade that we're going to use facultative wetland plants for that. The rest of this, and let me emphasize, the rest of this and all of this, in fact,
even the lowest plantings are in upland. This is all buffer zone activity. We're not altering wetland. We're we're changing the buffer zone basically to stabilize it by changing grade and by planting with native species. What's out
there right now is a conglomeration of virtually every kind of invasive that's present in Danver and a lot of it was buried by this fill. A lot of it has died over the years and and a lot of it
has got showing signs of really rampant growth. The bittersweet seems to love disturbance. You got bittersweet out there as big around as my ankles. So, uh, we're going to do this planting that amounts to, uh, I think the I think
the figure for the, uh, for the no disturb zone is, uh, 8,000 odd square feet, a little, it's in somewhat in excess of 8,000. and the uh
and the proposed house is about 50% of the no disturb and the no build thresholds for this site. So we're asking for waiverss to put the house in the no disturb and the no build and the basis of those waivers is twofold. One
is we're doing a great deal of mitigation on this site. Great deal of stabilization and planting. And two, we're below threshold in both of those zones. The these are fairly minor alterations.
We are recharging the roof runoff directly from eaves rather than uh rather than point sourcing them from downspouts. The uh the bottom line here is that we're trying to improve the site to the extent that it is sensibly possible to do. Uh you're looking at the
uh you're looking at the analysis now. Uh my goodness. Yeah, the combined no build and no disturb is 10,500. And I apologize for this crummy looking table. I'm I'm not the drafter I used to
be. Uh as you can see here in the no disturb, we're at 28%. That is not 2.8%. That's 28% of the allowable threshold in the no disturb. We are at 43% somewhat less
than half of the threshold in the no build. That's uh that's my presentation. If I can answer any questions, I'm happy to do so. Okay. I have a question. Can I just launch into it? How do we >> do we question? Yeah. >> Yeah. Can you go on that picture there?
Just so I'm clear where Can you just kind of point out the no build and no disturb? So the between the red and the Okay, >> we're going right through the ADU. >> No build. >> So the no disturb is the from the red
line to the yellow line. >> Yeah. In that that that band, >> right? That's the margin of the no build. Under the regulations, the no built is actually 50 ft wide and it overlaps. >> Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I
had that understood correctly. >> We show because it's permanent. We show a region stretch along this side of the house. In point of fact, at this stage, we don't have architectural. So, I'm not real
sure whether this is a gable end or an eve. If it's an eve, fine. That's a good place to put this. But if it's not, I included that in our impact. The impact will be less because we're going to have
recharge trenches here rather than here. Long story short, wherever there's an eve, there will be a recharge trench. The only directive runoff would be over the over the
water. >> Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. John, if you could just get the microphone. It's a wireless because the the decat won't be able to pick up what you're saying. >> This guy. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh once again, we don't know where the eaves are going to be. So it may in
fact be that this 24-inch recharge trench will actually be two 24in recharge trenches on the or wherever the eaves are. That's uh that's my presentation. Uh the impervious the
driveway is up here beyond the no build and the no disturb. It's essentially it's as far as you can be on the site and still hit the house. And since there's a garage there, you want to hit the house. That's uh that's my presentation. We've got uh
we got plenty of room to store material and so forth. Upgradient of the foundation. There are minimal construction impacts here. The grading and the planting on the slopes is comparatively easy. It's not a long slope. It's not a very steep slope. So,
we can get at it with small machines. We can dig the requisite holes. we can place material. Uh, a lot of the material removal is kind of a jump ball. You know, if you get a great big chunk of concrete, we may pull out four or
five feet. The plan would be to provide for at least 12 in of plantable soil. And as I mentioned before, you're going to have right here at the bottom of the slope existing and proposed, you're going to have facultative wet plants. As
we work up slope, we'll go to witch hazels and junipers and basically upland species because it's going to be very dry there once we get three or four feet above the water. >> Uh Mike,
>> yes. Yes. So, uh, John, would you just, uh, go back up to the, uh, screen and show me where you're pulling the 50 ft off of where are you measuring from? >> The the 50 is measured from the wetland flags >> right there.
>> Yep. The green line is the wetlands. Yeah. >> So, you actually want to put the ADU in a no disturb, no build. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. And both of them. And you're you're maintaining that um the
percentage is such that it's allowable with a waiver. >> Exactly. Yes. >> Even though and I mean I know it's allowable with a waiver, but you're putting a building there. >> Yeah. >> And then still allowable with a waiver. >> Exactly. But have you thought about is
there as I look around um is there's no other place to put that ADU where you >> we're right at the zoning setbacks. We experimented with reorienting the house this way on the site was worse.
>> Yeah. >> So I mean it wasn't a lot worse. It was about the same. But >> why couldn't you have the ADU where you what is the picture of proper deck? It says it says prop deck. Why couldn't the ADU be put there? That would significantly reduce the amount that's
in the note. >> You mean put the the ADU back behind the house somewhere? >> Basically in the You see right where the mouse pointing is now where it says that that says prop deck. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> What is that? A proposed deck. >> Mhm. Yes. >> Proposed deck. I mean if the ADU and
again I'm not from close enough to where the setbacks are such but if the ADU was there you would move most of it out of the no >> you would have you would have less impact. >> Yeah. Not all of it. It would still be some but it would be less impact. >> Yeah.
>> Would you have a rough idea what the reduction in impact would be just by looking John? Roughly >> you're still going to be in the no build. Uh, I think I mean just based on finger measurements. >> Yeah, I know. >> Yeah,
>> you wouldn't hit the 35. >> I think you wouldn't be in the no disturb. >> You're out of the no disturb. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It would make it u make it a little peculiar coming and going from the ADU. But, uh, >> well, yeah. >> Where's the where's the driveway coming in? I'm
>> driveways. Uh, driveway is way up at the top of the plan here. Well, in the driveway, is the driveway intended to reach the ADU? >> The the driveway serves the entire footprint. That's basically that's the
that's the parking for both units. Yeah. >> See, my recollection was that, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that this this all has been kind of going on in parallel, which has been design work for the lot as you've been doing work on mapping out the wetlands, >> you know, and it's it's I'm reading it's
very possible that the the design work has been done not fully understanding where the wetland delineations were because this has all been going on in parallel. >> That's part of the reason for the question which is could you rejig the the ADU to pull it out of >> conceivably yes. I don't I don't know
what the architectural considerations are. So I would defer to the architect on that. What I would suggest is that uh here we have something that allows for waiverss. this is the this is a proposal that's before you. If we can improve
that situation, then we come back and we make an amendment to the filing. The the idea here is to to get this get to a point where we actually have a permit to do something on the site so that the
architect can begin designing. And if you want to if you want to put a condition in there that they they should consider a different configuration here. >> That sounds great to me. You mean condition and approval on moving the ADU? >> Uh, no, not uh not not condition approval on removing the ADU, but
condition the approval on consideration of that because it's always possible to amend the order for a lesser impact. Let's investigate whether the lesser impact follows up, you know, fenestration on the main building, utility service, what have you. I don't
I'm not an architect. I don't know what the >> A lot of times. people come in and they'll propose alternatives and say why they would work or not work and then you'll say, "Well, okay, I get it." >> Yeah. My hunch is that it it it would be a very strange beast indeed with an ADU
hanging off the back of it. But >> h how so? Because >> because typically you're going to have windows on the front and back of the main dwelling and the ADU is going to take up most of the back of that that device. You're you're essentially going to have
two houses slap up against each other, which you know in this configuration >> eliminate windows where the the two meet, >> right? Yeah. >> Well, there already they're going to be no windows where they meet. >> There'll be the same lack of >> Well, except except as it sits here,
it's taking up the end of the house, the narrowest end of the house. And typically the from the from the projections I've seen of the house, there's a facade and there are doors and windows on the front that signifies to me and the deck in the back. The doors
and the windows are going to be on the front and the back of the house there will be a gable end. >> Yeah. In here. >> But just thinking out loud, how would that work? An approval subject to a proposed amendment. uh simply this uh encourage consideration of alternative
sighting and then we'll pursue that and come back if it works and and if you like we can come back and we can tell you why it doesn't work >> just to continue it with to come back and say that doesn't work and we still
want to go with this. >> The the reason basically that I don't want to continue is we need to show forward motion on this thing there. There needs to be some point where there's a commitment of cash and effort on the part of the architect. Right now, he's on hold. So, if we have an order of
conditions, you know, it's always possible to amend the order of conditions at the commission's direction or suggestion. >> And only thing forward a long time. I don't think I've ever made such a >> No, it's a little bit odd. >> An art of conditions that
>> without a final document >> without the information. >> Right now, what you've got before you is this. Yeah, that's that's what we intend to build. If it's possible to build something that has less impacts, certainly we'd be willing to consider
that. I mean, it occurs to me that the ADU could be the same width as the house and that would make it a little narrower top to bottom. That could reduce the impacts in the no build. I think that I think the primary reasoning for citing
the house this way is, as I said, it didn't work if we rotated 90°. And if you if you saw the report that I wrote on the site, this stretch of wetland down in here is nothing but a drainage
swell. It's basically surface runoff from Center Street that has been running across the site for years and years. I suspect that at one time or another it might have been in better shape than it is now, but the wetland down in here is degraded.
>> Yeah. Is the is the what's the square footage on the ADU? >> The ADU is uh do you know how big that is? >> Well, it can't be larger than 9. Yeah, it can't be larger than nine. >> What is it then? >> It can't be larger than 900. So, I think
it's probably 890 something is my guess. >> Just under Yeah. So, >> it's not labeled on the diagram that I have. Like the dimensions aren't labeled, I don't think, for the um the ADU.
>> No, it's scalable. Um >> yeah. >> Yeah, I don't have a scale bar here, but it it would be scalable if I had a scale bar and a piece of paper. >> It's down there somewhere. >> Just uncomfortable. >> Well, I'm happy they're cleaning the wall up. Hm.
>> There's a question or little bit of brainstorming. >> The staff can we just propose a question to staff? Um the staff feel we could make an order of conditions that subject to a further amendment on relocation of the ADU and how would we
have any control over that? Yes, you could make a condition, but I think the idea is that right now there's they share one wall. This ADU shares one side with this house. If you move it to the back, it would still share one side of the house. There would still be So,
they were talking about the configuration of essentially moving it 90°, which you would have to do. So the front would now be like the front and back of the ADU would now be top of page, bottom page instead of left, right.
It would it would get it out of the 35 foot if they did that. So there has to be an overwhelming reason why they're not doing that, >> right? >> If we don't have a good reason, meaning if it's something architectural, that's
probably not enough of a reason to to do it. If there Looking at the plan, it seems like you could configure it in a different way, putting it out the back, leaving the same dimensions. Um, as of right now, I haven't heard a
very specific reason um why they can't do that other than possible architectural elements. But of course, you could put it in the you could of course you could put it in the back. The question is whether or not um you know their their one is willing they're willing to do that or whether or not um
but it seems like they could still get that 900 square ft >> and they'd be able to get out of the 35 and if we're wrong meaning if that's too impossible where they should show why >> you know >> or even have a second set of plans that
show that or alternatives. >> Well, I mean right now we're just looking at boxes. We're not looking at architecture. So the idea is that can you put the box in the back? That's the direct question. Can you can the architect put put the ADU in the back? If not, what's the reason why? >> Well, directly usually when we're
looking at waivers, the applicant will come in and say, "Well, these are alternatives we explored and they didn't work." And and >> we haven't seen that. >> We haven't seen that. And that would be the only difference to me that um I don't know how the the applicants feel
about get you know moving the ADU and likely getting an approval tonight. Maybe >> elaborate on one thing. The reason I was going into my explanation of what's going on with the wetland here is that
the degraded wetland on this site is this circle on 114. It's mostly street drainage coming down into core weapon which is the back of the water. That's more than half the water. I don't want to get any closer to that core
weapon, but I absolutely have to purely eological point. Never mind what the house is going to look like. I would not recommend poking anything into the no room or disturbing the back of the lot because that's a more valuable weapon.
It's healthier right now. This down here is always going to be primarily street runoff. You can't make the street runoff go away until unless you put sidewalk on a curb center street. That's just where the water shifts off the center street.
There's at least three I think there's four catch basins off of this lot street. They're gone taking more than half of the runoff for the pay service. the other half is falling down between A1
and A6. So that was in the initial argument that was why I suggested this configuration probably would work better simply because we don't want to go any closer to a core wetland than we have to. >> So that seems like a a legitimate reason
that we haven't heard yet. So >> yeah, >> thank you for that. >> I'm that I didn't follow that reasoning. Sorry. He said that's a better wetland there. We >> It's a relatively unaltered, >> but it would still be outside of the >> 35. >> The 35.
>> It would be. Yes, it would be. >> It wouldn't be altering it. >> It would be further. Well, we're not altering it here. This is buffer zone. >> Remember, this is this is not a resource area except in Danverse and it's a buffer zone resource area. That's what
it's called. >> Which is the buffer? So here I'll say so if we move >> within the the the 35 and 50. >> So if we move this box if we move this ADU box to the back it's still going to hit over that 50.
>> And it sounds like what we're what we're hearing is that the impact to that 50 is is actually a real wetland there to the west. Whereas the southern portion >> it's it's it's a drainage swell from Center Street. It's not really like a protected thing that we should
necessarily care about. >> All right. Can I have my turn now, Mary? >> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. >> Why can't we move that green wetland border on the the 114 side of the of the property farther closer to 114
>> and that will get your lines. >> You can't you can't move the wetlands flags. They're there. Meaning they're it's it's telling you where it's going to I know, but we could you could fill in that wet land. Probably not the right choice for words and mitigate somewhere else. We've done it in other parts of town.
>> So, and that would you're just saying it's just a drainage. >> And we did discuss the possibility of doing some moderate alteration of wetlands out there in order to allow us uh >> Can you please take the mic, John? Can you take the mic, please, so people can
hear you? Sorry. I keep doing this. I'm going to wind up throwing the microphone on the floor when I'm finished. >> Don't throw it in there. Uh >> we looked at the possibility of doing some filling down in this area. But of course, the argument is, you know, why
alter the wetland if you don't have to alter the wetland? The general consensus among conservation commissions is the wetland's the wetland. You know, we got an ugly kid and a good-looking kid. We love them both. And that's basically what you've got here. You've got a
wetland that scarcely meets the criteria for any of the wetland functions. But it's a wetland. Should we fill it? I don't think so. I think I think for one thing, it uh there's water coming across here from a public right away. Whether there's an
easement or not, whether there's a pipe or not, >> it needs to keep running there. So there's that function, the ability to convey water down along 114 instead of essentially restricting the flow, but bottom line is
we didn't want to alter any wetland. It's a simpler filing that way. You know, it's all buffer zone. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the buffer zone is no build and no disturb, it's still all buffer zone. So from a staff's perspective, um I was
concerned with the location of this ADU for the very reasons that you guys talked about. I did not know this information before this evening about essentially the quality of the wetlands. So I understand the argument. They are certainly within the buffer zone limits
uh by a long shot, meaning they're not even bumping up against those limits. They're at about 50% or not even 50% of the limits they're allowed to to go into. So the numbers work out. It does seem that this is the better location
because you are impacting a less valuable resource. >> Yeah. Can you just uh if I may um can you just go into why you think that area is a less valuable wetland since
now we're on that topic versus uh the back of the the house. >> Okay. There are uh there are several considerations of course the the eight values under the regulations and primarily among those I think is
wildlife habitat function groundwater recharge and storage. There is no storage in this swale. It's sloped. It was designed by nature or happen stance to flow in this
direction and that's what it does. and it flows in response to surface runoff from a from pavement. So there's there is function there and as I said we don't want to interfere with that. As
far as wildlife goes, there is probably I want to say 30 or 40% invasive cover in that stretch of wetland. There's a lot of stuff that's over the years has been tossed out there. There are uh there are garden
uh cultivated flowers that have been discarded and are growing invasively. Uh one of them is a yellow archangel. It's a kind of a pretty little ground cover, but it's taken over on this site. Uh so there's there's limited wildlife
habitat function simply because many of the native plants in this area either never grew there or haven't been able to grow there because of the invasive cover. And the other one is um
is groundwater recharge. We have uh we have the same soils throughout the site. It's probably an artifact of the mapping that they did back in the 60s and 70s. Uh I'm not prepared to say that the Soil
Conservation Service was wrong. They've done several iterations since then and they left the mapping as it is, but I want to emphasize again according to the National Wetland Inventory and DP there's no wetland on
this lot. Th that that line is complete fiction. Now you and I know you know skunk cabbage is skunk cabbage and wetlands are wetlands and they they happen where they happen. The the mapping isn't all that good. It was done from aerop photos.
Why that's the case I can't say say. I'm not a not a soil scientist. I don't know why this area isn't mapped wetland and adjacent areas are, but that's that's
basically that's the deck of cards we had to play with. We have a site that for years and years has been being actively filled because nobody looked at the maps that govern these things and saw wetlands.
And for for whatever reason, it appears that nobody ever actually went out and took a look at the cider. If they did know what they were looking at, uh it's been a very dry season. Uh I did the best I could, but essentially here, this is not a this is
not a questionable delineation. This is to a slope. It's pretty evident to me that over the years this the fill on this site has gone if not to the edge of the wetland maybe into what was historically wetland
but again >> there's no record of it ever having been mapped as wetland the filling if the ADU would were to go where you propose >> what what is it currently what would it currently be replacing I mean what's
right where that footprint is Now, >> it's going to sit on about 4 to 6 ft of building rubble. >> So, there's no trees there. There's no growth. >> No, there's a there's a compass of trees along the roads. Some of those are going
to come out. They're all invasives, but there's no reason to, you know, clearcut it. I I'm not proposing to. >> And let's talk about behind the house where the proposed deck is. What's >> same rubbish? >> Same rubbish. >> Yep. I mean the pile of >> how can we say one's better than the
other if it's rubbish and >> well that's that's pretty much my thesis is this this is a pile of fill that happened before regulations were enforced. We're kind of playing the playing the hand we were dealt. >> Yeah, I know. But I'm just saying why
are you saying that the >> coming off the back is a better u wetland to to not not disturb Because there are no invasives back there. That the wetland out back is a nice little
red maple swamp. Got some nicely developed herbaceous cover. It's amazing how good it looks. >> Yeah. >> Now you're making sense. >> Yeah. It's kind of It's really weird how good it looks considering the history of this site.
>> Just to add on a little bit that that southern portion of wetland that's that's runoff from Center Street. So it's going it's it's storm water's coming. It's coming down on Center Street and then it follows that course down. That's so you should protect it
because be because you know it's it's it's part of a like a stream but it's not like it's an active wetland with with native species that's working. >> Yeah, I get it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, if I had if I had a pipe
discharging out there and I looked for a pipe because the down engineers office shows a pipe, two pipes coming into this site. They're not there. But looking for them, if I could have found the discharge in the embankment
next to center street that issued water into the A1 through A6, then I would have flagged the center line of the water course, not the toe of slope. But there is there is wetland vegetation in there and you know in an abundance of
caution and because that's what I have to do I did soils I did vegetation I did hydraology and all three parameters were met it's just it's not as good a wetland as A7 through A13
>> not as functional >> question how Are you do you know how much of that for lack of a better word the plateau where the the dwelling is going to be built? Do you know how far down you're going to
need to go to get all of the the rubbish for lack of a better word out of there or is there a limit as to how far you go and then you'll top dress over it? >> We're going to we're going to dig down through it within the footprint of the house. The idea being to get a good
solid foundation rather than building on rubble. As far as the slope goes, the proposal right now is to place a foot of soil, clean soil on top of the regraded slope. The regraded slope is
still going to be rubble. >> Well, your contractor said he was going down to virgin soil. >> Yes. >> What did he mean by the house footprint? >> Huh? >> That's in the house footprint. And that's for structural purposes. You don't >> So, well, how much how much trash are
you proposing to take out? >> We would take a foot >> plus the regrading. As I as I mentioned, the slope is going to change from one in three more or less to one, >> but that's going to be determined by what you take out of there, right?
>> To some extent, yes. I mean, if there's a there's a big chunk of concrete that goes down four feet, we're going to pull out the big chunk of concrete that goes down four feet. But if we can do it by taking off a foot and putting soil on top of it, that's the plan. >> And you're going to >> it's going to be at least a foot.
>> You're going to remove the trees all around the perimeter of that. >> Yes. Such trees as there are >> and replace with the plantings that you >> and replace with Okay. Okay. I'm almost done. >> Um I have a question for you first. Um I
know like we've talked about the house but when I look at that diagram I see what's behind the house and I know you had talked about regrading and um where it goes from like okay here's the land and then we have this the slope but um
that's is still in the 35 and 50. So my question to Brian is um do we have regulations about what happens to that space um where it's in the 35 and 50 because I see this not only is the house
but also the the changing of the the leveling in the backyard. >> As I said we're we're proposing to alter the entire no disturb zone on this site. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so yeah, there that is part of their request essentially to say we're trying to mitigate this area. So,
they need permission to improve it. >> Yeah. >> So, that's where we're at. >> So, could you just talk to me a little bit about what your plans are behind the house? >> Uh, same as alongside the house. We're going to uh we're going to be reveating slope all the way up to
this red line. As you can see from the toebo on the plant, the top of slope right now is 10 to 15 ft out toward the wetland. That means the slope is much steeper now that I'm sorry, the slope is much steeper now than it's going to be.
And you see the proposed lines here. These these are proposed contours. So the alteration here is going to consist of there's a cross-section down in the lower left corner of the plan. Uh there's a Yeah, here's the section right
here. Uh over that way, I think there it is. There's the new slope. There's the existing slope. And of course, you know, that's a that's a cross-section at the mid middle of the
site. It varies depending on where you are on the site because the existing slope is all over the place. Some places it's steeper, some places it's flatter. But in all instances, we felt that the sensible thing to do was to just extend
the remediation all the 35 ft >> from the west. >> And then four rows of shrubs on 12. >> So the um the area from the back of the house to the edge of that slope. Yep. Um
could you just share with us what you're going to do with that space? So my guess is the land will stay as is and just tell us >> yeah this is proposed lawn area. >> So what is how is that going to because there was stuff there um and that is
still also in the buffer I mean in the 35. So could you just share just let us know what you're doing with that space. >> Sure. Pretty much the same thing as we're doing with the slope. We're going to clear away the surface material and restore grade with clean soil at least a
foot. And that's going to be planted along the landscape. not necessarily native species, but once you get to the new top of slope, which by the way is closer to the house than the top of slope is right now, all that's going to
be natives and we and we expect three years of monitoring 75% success rate, the usual conditions. >> Thank you, Brian. Do we typically approve a plan that's not as structured?
Like usually when we see plans for houses and things, there's a little more detail. >> Um, not typically. I mean, you're not looking at house plans. You're you're looking at the boxes of the the percentages of the the buffer zones that they're they're impacting. Uh, this is a
standard issue plan. So, we're not dealing with any of the sewer or water stuff or any of that that stuff that'll happen >> only only to the extent that they come off the front of the house into Center Street. >> All right. Okay. >> But yeah, this is a this is a typical plan. Not it it has all the information
that that we need. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Did you talk about some trenching though, didn't you, John? >> We uh we mentioned trenching in the original proposal. I'm pretty sure I dropped it out of the revised proposal simply because I was getting very heavy
into rigs and area analyses specs for planting. U frankly, now I'm a wetland scientist. There's going to be pipes coming from the street into the house. They're going they're going to be between the street and the house and
there's there's no wetland in between the streets and the house. That's all that's all buffer zone. and the and the impacts obviously I mean if you're if you're going to run a run a lateral trench for house service there's not much impact
>> anything else >> I'm good >> um and now we can ask if there's anybody here from the public that'd like to speak or anybody online >> I guess >> yeah is that regarding this property
>> it would have to be this property Thank you. >> Okay, >> go ahead. >> Um, >> you're going to have to go up to the microphone. >> Go to the mic, introduce yourselves, and just share what you need to speak about. >> Um,
uh, my name is Martha Christensen and I actually live I about their property. Um, I live in 257 rear center street. Um, so if you find 257 Center Street, my
house is behind that. It's the big yellow. You probably see the yellow. Well, anyway, um, this will dis well, I shouldn't say wetlands, but we do have
um trickling down from it starts at Summit Street. So, if that gets altered, that's going to pull in my the bottom of my yard. So, I would think that some drainage would
have to be created because then I'm just going to have a pool right at the bottom right where the the two properties meet. Um there is, you know, a little stream, not stream, but it does get flooded and
um and that. So I'm concerned about that. >> Could you show us that on on the the drawing? >> Um I would if I had absolutely any idea what this is. This is beyond my knowledge. And that's another thing I wanted to ask you. Um what property is
264? >> We're not talking about 264. >> No, I know. It says here. >> Okay. So, but I don't know that. That's what I mean. >> Oh, that's okay. I think um >> like I needed a little clarification about >> That's okay. I think um I read some of your comments from what you're saying
now and from what I read. Um I think it's you're looking at 264 Center Street. >> Well, but I don't know that like which one's 264. That's right. >> So 264 is I think it's a Is it a red house? >> 264. There's nothing. It's a vacant or
sorry there. Sorry. It's a white little house. It's a white house. Sorry. There's no It's a white little house. So the So >> So the red house is 267. >> Red house is next to 267. Yeah, >> there >> is no house. >> Okay. That's what I don't know. That's
>> I'll get a map up, but but we're on the corn we're on the corner of of Center Street. >> Okay. So you're So So 267 is the the lot. >> It's across the street >> with There's no There's nothing there but but rubble. >> Okay. Well, I need lots of maps cuz I have no idea. Yeah, it's okay. Um, but
we can have you come up at the very bottom of the screen. >> Yeah. >> So, here I'll I'll zoom out a little bit. >> I have no idea. >> You have the u the whole map. >> Yes. You live you live in the area,
right? >> It's really easy to just get get up a Google map and show us where we are. Drive Center Street to 114. It's the end the lot at the very end. Just a vacant lot >> is what it is. >> No, it's a vacant lot.
>> 257 257 Street. >> Okay, hold on. >> They were all properties. They were very poor. But I I have no idea what I'm
looking at. I will get up the GIS map showing exactly where we are so everyone knows where we are. But 267 Center is right on the corner of Center Street. It's at the end of Center Street and I'm going to show you >> the vacant lot.
>> It's a That's what we're talking about. They're trying to build a house and an ADU. >> All right. I just didn't know because as far as I'm concerned, it was always the right house. Okay. But they owned a whole lot. So, you know,
Now that it got broken up, I still I wasn't sure what what >> So the the box in red is the is the project site. That is 267 Center Street. The house is actually 265. So 267 is his own address and is
outlined in red. >> Okay. So my property is this here. >> So the water is going down the street. So the water's not >> down here, >> right? So, it's not going on. Nothing that happens on this property is going
to go up. The water can't go up. >> No, but I No, I understand. But the water comes down here and then if there's not drainage currently, then my the water is going to pull right here or right actually right here.
>> But what's happening any drainage? >> It's whatever's happening now. What's happening right that alter that would affect where >> maybe Mr. Dick could answer that question. My gut feel is that it's not
going to >> I'm just asking will there be >> um drainage needs to be created to allow the water to flow through the property cuz right now it just flows through the property to your property. So if you
you know as that's my question if you alter that then all the water I will have all this watering right here. >> I don't know that I'm just saying that >> if anything you're respond >> you may you may respond.
>> Yeah sure. >> Uh she's not a director of butter. There's there's over 100 ft of land in between her and our nearest property line. This is your back line here. >> Yeah. >> This is a whole other lot.
>> We've got topography up into that lot. It's shown on the per site plan. There's almost 10 ft of topography in the first 50 ft. So, in order to back water up anywhere near her property, we'd have to build a 10ft dam. We're not
all very wet under the water. >> Okay. I That's why I needed a lot. It's very steep back there. >> You're talking about this that but still if you Okay. So, it's just going to keep going down there.
>> It let me emphasize that that blue line on the plan >> is not real. >> It's not there. >> Yeah. We we we've confirmed that that that blue line is not there. >> It's not there. But we all know that it's there. If you're concerned, I mean, first of all, if anything, the the they're potentially if it's not going to
affect I don't see how it's going to affect you. Put it that way. >> Yeah. >> Meaning that you're the water's go the water's going toward if anything, you're affecting their property. You're pushing water onto their property. You see? >> Yeah. >> Can't do that. I think there I think
there must be maybe it's not a pipe, but I think it's a very similar situation to our front corner on Center Street that whatever's paved up there, driveway, street, whatever those little narrow streets are, >> it's all draining in our direction.
>> Correct. >> Not saying there's not flow across that adjacent lot. What I'm saying is that there's no way we could possibly back water up on that slope. It's just too steep. e either way to make you feel more comfortable is is that is that you're not allowed to push water from
your property onto another property. That's Massachusetts state law. Forget Com, forget you you can't push water from your property onto another. So, if something is happening where someone there's an impact there's a there's a a development here at 26 uh at 267 and
somehow that does impact your property, makes flooding happen, you you know, you have recourse for that. We're not seeing that. That's possible, but I'm not going to say it's impossible because we just don't talk like that. Um, but it does not appear that this
would affect you. >> Okay, that that's fine. That's I I needed clarification. Okay. >> Yeah, of course. >> That's understandable. >> Lot of numbers, addresses that. >> All right.
Anybody else? >> Could we have a copy of those maps? >> I can give you everything you need. Let me I'll Yep. >> That would be great. >> Do we want to discuss um some of the um conditions?
>> So, it's the public meeting open or closed. >> Yeah. You I think you um if no one else is ready to speak from the public, I would close the public hearing. >> All right. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing for 267 Center Street.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Is there a second? >> Second. I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I'll second. >> I All in favor? >> I No. >> Now, now we we haven't given you a
chance to change. >> Oh, we closed our >> No, no, we just closed the public portion. We didn't close the whole hearing. We just closed the public portion of the meeting from the from the public from public participation. I didn't realize there was a distinction between the two. >> Yeah.
>> Uh but that's fine. >> Just the public hearing, right? >> Yeah. >> Wait a minute. Are you saying we haven't closed the >> No, no. The hearing is still open. Just the public portion is over for for public comment. >> How was the motion presented? Motion to close the public. Yes.
>> How was the motion? >> The public participation. I mean, you you open you open >> the motion again. What's the motion? >> Okay. What was the motion? >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Is that what I said? >> Yes. >> Yeah, that is what you said.
>> Yeah. >> There's nothing wrong with that. So now that we you can deliberate and make your choice. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. >> Uh what do you guys think? >> About what? Sorry, just Oh, about the list of conditions. >> Yeah. >> I mean there, you know, to my eye, we've
seen this is pretty standard stuff. I don't know if you want to read them. I'm sure you've seen them. Um the applicants have seen um they make to me at least they make sense as far as you know >> keeping things still working. >> What do you think?
>> Well, I think he uh he's made an argument as to why the ADU should go there. But uh it always bothers me when we approve something that is both in a no build and a no
disturb. Um, so I mean I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to vote yet cuz I'm not sure. >> I mean, what are you asking me? My >> Oh, yeah. Or either Yeah. >> I mean, from the standpoint of what I am I
>> because you we had talked about um a potential secondary uh look at the wetland. piece. Are you comfortable with that? >> Uh, yeah. How do we do that? I don't know how we do that. >> I'm sorry.
>> How we do a Well, I'm talking to her, but for staff. Yeah. How would we even condition an approval on a second look >> for the wetland delineation? >> And I mean, what information do you
need? Well, I mean, the applicant said if they they would uh at one point he said, "Well, we could condition it uh and come back and amend it if it looks like we'd better off in the back."
>> I would want to see a plan. I would either I would either approve what >> I I just feel like we're being pressured. I would have put this over for another hearing. I I think from where we are at this point, it's either you're either satisfied with the plan
that's in front of you or you want to see how what an alternative plan would look like. That I think that's the decision that you need to make if you have enough information to and you feel comfortable because the the the wetland that that is that is traveling along the
street is not a valuable resource. I think that's pretty clear because you can just go out there. This is not this beautiful thing where it's a wetland. It's a it's essentially >> it's beautiful, right? >> Meaning meaning that it's a stream that's going down the street from surface runoff from the road.
>> That's that is not >> You almost sound like you're arguing for them. >> I sound like I'm arguing for the truth, which is that this is a rain that is falling down on a road and then the road water, the storm water that is from the road is going down the street. So you
can call that whatever you want. I mean, I just, you know, well, I I came in thinking that it would be good to request the an alternate set of plans to look at moving it. Um, and I understand where people are coming from when they talk about that because ideally there would be less encroachment on the Nova
for no build ideally. But as we've gone through it and and as I think about the actual situation on the site that it's it's almost anything is going to be better. I mean that's quite right but it's it's it's in pretty miserable
shape and basically that that spot where the ADU is that's where those huge piles of rubble are. I mean, so it's it's yeah, I understand if it would be great if it was if they could shift everything and it would be smaller, but on the other hand, like time goes on and and
I'm I'm I'm um I don't know what the rig how much benefit would we get by shifting it. Even though I came in thinking that was a good approach. Uh as I list as I've listed, I'm I'm comfortable. Well, I don't know if I'm supposed to say this or not, but uh that you know that I would be comfortable proceeding without having an alternate
set of plans. You know, in other words, continuing for an alter alternate set of plans just given what we've discussed here tonight. >> So, Paul, I agree with you. I think that on looking at this even from a practical standpoint, having gone out there, I mean, I give you a lot of credit with
what you're willing to undertake because it's just it is a huge project. It's a mess. There's no other way to describe that. And the fact that you're doing this work, I think that when you trade off and weigh everything, this is very
little. I mean, again, as Brian has explained to us, the runoffs to the street, there's very little harm. I I think that to make them go through an alternate set of plans, frankly, it's going to be an exercise of futility.
>> What do you think? I still would like to see alternative set of plans or to alter that that front wetlands line. It's just it's just the drainage ditch for lack of a better word. They could just move that wetlands border out
and then they could have the ADU where they wanted. >> Are you saying fill the wetland? >> What are you saying? >> I'm not saying fill the wetland. I'm saying you could alter it. If you altered the flow of the water, the wetland um flora there are not going to survive
because they're not in the wetland environment anymore. The wetlands line would shift and then uh their their setback in relation to the house would change, >> right? We've heard several times that
the wetland in front is is not a pristine wetland. There's nothing really there that's valuable. Why can't we just alter that? Move that away from the >> Can we put the original plan back on, Brian? when you say >> but you know and just to finish with
what the rain said we we really do appreciate what you're trying to do with the law because it is a mess and I think overall it would be an improvement just that it kind of rubs me at least to to improve something that's so far into the
the u the no build zone and the no disturb zone even we could just make a a five or 10 foot difference that would probably alter my thinking a little bit. >> Can I just ask a question? What would we gain from that? I mean, if it's filled
with invasive species, what would we gain by by having um by changing that plan? I just want to understand >> we're changing the fact that the building's not going to be having those boundary lines running right through.
really trying to personally trying to keep whatever buildings out of that no disturb and no build line that that's why it's there. So >> even though it's not pristine and it's filled with invasive species, >> right? >> I guess. Okay. All right.
>> And that's I'm just one vote but that's that's the way I I look at it. >> But also with just so I guess so I'm clear. We're within the waiver boundaries. >> Within the what boundaries? >> Within within the waiver boundaries from the standpoint of the percent. I mean, way under, right? Way under.
>> What were the What was What were the percentages? Could you just give those to us again? >> Nice handwritten. >> I know you had the Yeah, you had the handwritten. I got the no disturb is 28 to 50 is 43. What was 0 to 35? >> 0 to 35 is the uh is the the lesser of
those. The 28 >> just the 28 is no disturb. >> That's right. Yes. 0 to 35. Yeah. >> 0 to 35 is no disturb. 0 to 50 no build. >> We're altering 20 28% of what we could alter.
>> Just keep in mind that those those numbers are a limit the upper limit that we can permit. >> We are not obligated to uh to approve anything within the the the no building.
>> Even if it's 5%, >> right? That's we we have an upper limit, but we can say no to any of that in there. That's within our jurisdiction. So a lot of people come in here and argue we're because we're under those limits, we have the right to do that and they don't.
>> No, but I mean just so so I was clear, we are working within them. >> What's that? >> We are working within them. >> Yes. They're they're at about 50% of they're there are they're altering about 50% of what they could alter under the bylaw >> with a waiver.
>> With the with the waiver. So with Yeah. And you're going to mitigate a lot of the invasives and improve the >> That's the heart of the argument. There's a >> gain and you're going to do the some um alteration of the um
>> the slope the sloping. Yeah. >> This is a big net gain. >> It's almost a quarter acre of new buffer zone essentially. And for that we're asking a few hundred square
feet of intrusion. And again, you know, not to not to hammer the point, we're below the threshold for which a waiver can be considered. >> Is there any way to move it a little bit that way? A little bit >> talking about setbacks.
>> Not and not meet the zoning setbacks. Yeah. I mean, we're right up against the zoning setbacks. Yeah. >> Well, have you considered >> applying for variance? >> Of course, we have and the answer simply is we're we're not interested in pursuing a whole bunch of plans for this
site. This is essentially if I can speak for my client, this is as far as he wants to go with this project. nothing happens or the plan you see before you is is essentially what we've filed with due
consideration of the alternatives. There are other things we could do. Would they be significantly different? No. No. You might you might gain a few feet. You might you might get out of the no disturb zone, but the no disturb zone is
already being completely altered. And the only reason I haven't come in here and said not built within >> we're going to do 8,000 square feet of alteration in the no disturb zone. The only reason I haven't put that on the chart that the town asks for is because
under the regulations that's a minor project. We could come in here, we could do the replication of the entire no disturb zone, put native plants in there and never build a house. Just walk away and say, "Oh, we did you a favor. See you goodbye." But let's be realistic.
The plan here is to put a house on this lot. And this is the house they want to put on the lot. >> Okay. >> Um, did anybody here look at the conditions? >> Yep. >> That we could discuss with them? Is there anything that's important to anyone?
>> Well, these are all standard. We had the same conditions on that lot on Maple Street. So, >> y >> Yeah, these are kind of stock conditions. It's really the question if you want to if you want to get into that conversation, if you want to put other conditions on, but these are just these are relatively stock conditions.
>> Yeah. So, would we have to read through them or >> Yep. >> Just talk to them. Yeah, >> you can. I mean, you can review these very quickly with the applicant and I would, again, these are stock conditions. I would assume they're they would not push back on these, but you
have the conversation. >> Review them now. >> Y Okay. So we're looking at some conditions. Uh it would be that all equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Um any leaking hydraulic lines, cylinders or
any other components should be fixed immediately. And then the equipment for fuel storage and refueling operations shall be located outside of all areas within the jurisdiction of the commission unless otherwise indicated.
Uh would you agree with those? Uh let me let me offer the provision that there's no place on this lot we can be outside the buffer zone. It's all buffer zone. Do the best we can. We you know the the staging area for all the work is shown
on the plan. It's as far from the wetland as we can get it. >> I'm thinking about things like fuel storage. >> Sure. Yeah. Do you know simply there isn't going to be any fuel storage on the site. They'll have to come in fuel and get off the site. But this lives on. >> It lives on.
>> Well, I mean, this is should they sell the property, this continues. Yeah. >> So, that's that's not just for you guys doing the work, but it goes, you know, >> Yeah. >> And then the burial of stumps or any other type of construction refues or other material is prohibited in the
buffer zone. So, as you're refilling that, I'm sure you know, not >> we're actually digging them up. Um and then cement trucks won't be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area or into any drainage system. And then any deposit of cement
or concrete into the buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. Um I know where a lot of that is obviously in the buffer zone, but um are you going to be like storing concrete products or anything like that within those? There would be no reason to do that.
>> Yeah. >> Are you removing things as you go along? Are you trucking them out >> there? The the material will all be removed from the site. There's there's literally no place to put it. >> It's not on a condition, but it should be. >> Then I'm sure you wouldn't dump leaves
or grass or anything else into the wetland um and all of that. And then let's see. Are we ready to vote? We haven't We don't have a motion. >> Oh, I just Oh, that's right. Sorry. I
got to close. I don't know why you're reading that. We don't have a motion. I'm >> closing. >> This is cracking me up. I wrote most of those conditions. >> All right. >> All right. I make a motion to grant a waiver. >> Well, wait. I don't think the chair should be making the motion.
Uh, according to legal counsel, uh, they would advise you not to, but apparently there's been some new court cases that you can, but but we we would say that do not. >> We'll just read what's here. >> I don't think the chair should make a motion. >> Okay, that's okay.
>> So, we've already closed the public hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I make a motion to grant a waiver to allow work in 35 ft no disturb zone 267 Center Street, D number 141454. I'll second it. >> All in favor?
>> Well, you doing the wave just the waiver for the 35 or the >> That's the first Yeah, the first vote that he just did was the 35 waiver. >> 35 >> and there was a second by Lorraine. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I
>> No. No. >> Three yeses and two nos. Okay. >> So, just record that. >> Yep. Okay, I'll go ahead. I make a motion to grant a waiver to allow the work within the 50 foot no build zone for 267 Center Street D number 14-1454.
>> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I No. >> No. >> And I guess I'll do the last one. I make a motion to issue an order of conditions for 267 Sen Street D number 14-1454
with additional positions as discussed. Those were the ones that were just read by Lorraine. >> I think it should be an additional condition if it does pass that all debris be removed, nothing be um allowed to remain on site that it's removed
continuously removed. Okay, we can add that as a condition. >> So, do how do we do it? Just say it's added. >> You can modify your motion. >> I'll modify my motion. Okay. Okay. I'm going to modify the motion I just made
to include the additional >> removal of uh condition. Removal of any debris that's created on the site would be removed. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I I >> No. >> No.
We done on that one. >> Yep. All right. We're good. >> You just did it. >> Yeah, we're good on that one. Thank you guys. >> Appreciate it. >> Good luck. >> That was the easy one. >> Thank you. >> So, even though I voted I wish you luck.
I think you're doing a good thing. >> Good luck with the project. I will say that I believe it is the applicant that is trying to get on. I've been trying to admit them and I hit admit. I've been doing this for 45 minutes now. >> Is this for 264 Senate?
>> Yeah. Um so yes, I believe it it is them. Um they it won't come in meaning that I admit them and it just kind of circles. Um so um it's unclear what's going to happen. Is there somebody here for 264 Center
Street? >> Wonderful. >> Is uh >> Well, let me open it first. >> Sure. But just a logistical thing. Dorian Soulage. Is that >> okay? So, um if you could get in touch with that. I've been literally hitting admit for 45 minutes. >> Um and then it it basically says
admitting them and then nothing happens. >> Yeah. >> And I'm just going to open you open the hearing for you guys. >> Um and thank you for 267. Appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah. Um the screen.
>> Yeah, sure. Um number two item today is 264 Center Street, uh RDA, DCC file number 2026-03. The applicant is Dorian Design and Construction and just give us your name and uh all that.
>> Hi. Yeah, for the record, my name is Anthony G. I am a wetland scientist with Goddard Consulting. I'm here on behalf of Dorian Solage for the um just the confirmed regulatory uh jurisdiction of two IVW systems that are located on the
property known as 264 Center Street. Um if we can pull up the site plan, that would be great just to kind of give some site context. >> Yep. Give me just a minute. Oh, we're out here. Did you want to go through any of these site photos or
>> if he of course yeah if the commission would like to just give some more you know visual context that'd be great. So, as we see here, yeah, there's uh the single family home that's currently existing on the development on developed site. Um associated with the driveway
lawn area, the the IVWs are located to the downgradient portion. Um looking at your to the right, uh as seen in this photo, um the site kind of slopes downward into two depressional areas uh seen as primarily kind of deciduous
wooded swamps. um though small and confined. The first uh if you can scroll down you can see the next photo. So here the kind of uh here's kind of representative of the forested uplands um kind of indicated by black spruce
conifers um that more of that kind of species composition. And as we can go down we can see more of what is indicative of the IVWs. So yeah,
so as seen here, this is the B series which is uh the southern portion one. Um it's a it's an isolated depression. Uh this was done in March, so not fully veged out yet, but sensitive fern was
found or remnants of sensitive fern were found throughout the area associated with hydric soils and and the like. And if we can scroll down, we can probably see the C series. And here is the C series IBW.
Yeah. Again, uh kind of indicative of microtopology, general general same separated by a burm throughout the middle
and soils taken by my colleague Andrew Tibo. Awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Here's our uh at least GIS. Um as seen here a point of note is that while this system is mapped there is no
mapped hydraologic connections seen within mass mapper or the Danver GIS hence making confirming the IVW status. Uh so just yeah just making sure but it was found that the systems are much smaller than this that we'll see in very shortly. Uh the site plate should be at
the very bottom. >> So I'm that's from mass map or that >> yes that's that's mass GIS data. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Here we are. Hold on. Let me get the zoom right.
This is kind of tough. Yeah. So hard to see. Yeah, we could probably zoom into the Yeah, that should be good. So, we have two distinct isolated wetland systems with the C series uh
consisting of 3 thou around 3,000 square ft and the B series consisting of around 1,700 ft if I'm correct. They're separated by a notable berm here. Sorry, noble berm here. uh that is
defined by primarily upland soils uh color do a chroma 3. Um this this hearing is mainly introductory. I know the commission will probably want to go out to the site and take a look, but I'm here to answer any questions or concerns that the commission may have and uh make
sure everyone is and you know get an answer and if the commission agrees on the uh the jurisdiction of the area. >> Well well yeah well I can ask that question. we can whisper to each other. >> So it's public hearing first, right? After he speaks.
>> Uh no, you basically any questions that you have for the applicant, you go you do your questions first and then it would be any questions from the public. >> So reviewing all this earlier um um on what would be helpful and maybe you can just show it here.
There's the two kind of polygons that are your A and B or A and C. I'd get the numbers for the You're saying the revised um isolated areas, correct? Those that one and the one up above? Yes, they're both they're both isolated uh they're
both isolated vegetated wetlands. They're um primarily they exist as depressional areas fed by either groundwater or heavy storm systems uh from surrounding developments. But the current uh GIS data shows just so I'm
getting myself oriented here one larger oval >> wetland that over sorry overlaps those two yes about twice as large in area >> even more so it's uh the massjs data showed the whole site
>> yeah it's about half the lot is what the mass mapper is showing >> mass mapper yeah as most wetland scientists can find that massmapper is typically over or underestimates it's Never. It's usually never perfect or else we'd be out of a job,
but but yes. So, um yeah, it's primarily just uh that I know um Danverse has a 5,000 foot threshold uh on jurisdiction. So, that is on IBWS. So that is the main question that we I'm posing before you
here today um to see if you know we will be considering these as uh as one big system or if the commission would want to or would want to review it or uh before any um plans are considered.
>> Is the the the property owner looking to sell this property? Are they looking to subdivide or why why what's the motivation for this jurisdictional change? I mean, >> well, in the current moment, we're just looking to identify these areas and have
them on record. Uh that's that's the that's the main goal right now. >> Now, I could just ask staff um so is there is there um a discussion on what the real wetland is or whether it's
an overlapping wetland? So, I think if you if you're starting to uh even kind of question what um is being proposed and you're it's unclear whether or not this is one
giant wetland or whether it is two smaller ones that would not be jurisdictional. Um you could do two things. One is the first thing would be a site visit and then after that site visit if you're like I don't know this does not seem to
be isolated at all or we really can't tell then you would uh essentially go into a peer review process that would and what would happen is um you've done this in the past >> we get our own wetland guy >> we got our own wetlands guy or gal they essentially check their work um they are
it's actually their so we hire them but they pay for it >> um and essentially you're we're double-checking their work. Um if you so if you are at all kind of either curious or more than curious of terms of like I don't really know about this that would
probably I would say first step would be a site visit um to kind of really kind of so that he um they can explain kind of everything of the the mentality of where this is going. If you feel comfortable you move forward. If you don't feel comfortable you get a peer
review. >> Mhm. Are they going to map out what they think the wetland is versus? >> They have done that. Yes. You know, so that when we go out, we'll see what >> it'll be flagged and you'll they'll be able to show you. We say, "Well, these are the flags on the plan and these are the flags on the ground and this is
where they correspond." Yes. And of course, we >> are you a scientist yourself? >> I am. Yes. >> So, you would be able to show me well based on the soils where we auger the soil that we think it's here and not there. >> Exactly. Yeah. And like uh primarily it's it's very obvious once we get on
the site it would be relatively easy to describe why we made a decision that we did it. It's a very definitive vegetation break. Um from like especially around the C series uh it goes from sensitive fern and red maples
to immediately just conifers and very you know oaks upland species. uh not too much of a shrub layer to speak of, but very much so like a clear vegetation break. It would be very easy to describe and show you soils and walk the whole
site and show that there's no uh hydraological connection to make sure it's an IVW. >> So just a question for staff though so I'm clear. If if we were to approve this revised I may not be the proper term revised wetlands, there would no longer be any jurisdiction for the conservation
commission over what happens on that property. Short answer, yes. >> Okay. Just so we're clear, that's what's >> But we have conditioned RDAs before. >> Yes. But it ba but essentially yes, you can condition it to a point. And I think
there's there's, you know, it's a question of how much you want to push that envelope, right? But the idea is that what they're you know what they are saying is that based upon their research and their tools on the ground these are not jurisdictional.
>> Mhm. >> So yes you can do some you can condition an RDA. It's a question of what types of I it's unclear under this specific situation what they would be if you if
we believe what is in front of us. So, it sounds like a site visits in autumn. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I would I mean I'm certainly fine with a site visit as well. >> What do you say, Mary? >> Um I know that wetlands like when you look at that first map where all the it
looked like this giant wetlands. Wetlands are designed to fill in. Do you know with debris is plant material comes down and everything else. So, um I definitely think that this is correct. But if people feel a site visit is okay, I'm fine with that. Yeah, >> I mean given I mean not really no
understanding other than that you've just described the peer review process that just basically putting this in a position where currently using the current maps conservation commission would have some jurisdiction over what happens there if we approve the RDA but is that we always remember I
always mix them up negative or positive a negative >> negative determination yeah there's a there's a few things one there's a positive vote to say that this map is correct so there's actually to get into it. There's a positive vote saying it's correct and then there's a negative vote um on top of that. But but
but at the end of the day, if this is correct, >> yeah, >> there's there is very little jurisdiction like Michael said, um you could put conditions on RDA, but you're it's they're they're not these strong
conditions. You are, you know, it is not really your jurisdiction accord according to the to the bylaw. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You guys think a site visit? >> I'm okay with that. >> Yeah, I think so. >> We Yeah. >> Is this drawing the the square? Is that
the the lot? >> It's a very large lot. >> Yeah, this it's a it's a very large lot. >> So, it's um almost two acres. >> Mhm. >> How much? >> Almost 2 acres. 78,000 square ft. >> So, four houses. >> Well, there's not enough frontage for
any of that. So, >> there's a frontage for There's frontage for Wait, this is in the R3? No, there's no frontage. You need 150, >> right? This is an R3, correct? >> Yeah, they need 150. So, they couldn't
they could not split this lot. >> Okay. You sure it's R3? >> Yeah. >> Or >> is it trade off of 150? >> I'm sorry. 267 is in the R3. I can find out in 5 seconds. But, um, assuming it's in the R3, you need 150 ft of frontage. So
therefore, 300 for two lots. Really, the only thing they have in their hand is state law to have an ADU. So it's possible they want to put an ADU back there someday, which they have the right to do. They don't have to ask permission for that, but they would need concom
conservation commission approval. Um if if in fact these are wetlands here. So generally when someone does this, there's some type of development project. Um not necessarily an idea, but just the idea is like you want to know what you have. So you know how to sell or not sell or whatever. It's a huge
piece of property. So they're just trying to figure out what they have. >> Yeah. That's primary motivation here and see >> it. Yeah. We of course welcome the opportunity. Uh my colleague Andrew who conducted the delineation himself would uh will be joining you.
>> So where's the motion here? >> We're going to go right down while we get a close. >> I guess on that note I'll uh I'll officially request to continue the the meeting while we get to public any public comments. >> Oh public comments. Is there any public are you agreeing with everything? >> Yeah. Yeah. I was just u making the actual request to continue so that we
could get the um site visit. >> Yeah. Um so now we have to shift over and ask for public comment. Is there any public comments? >> Y Brad Street town meeting precinct one. I've listened to you folks. I listen to the gentleman. I would I would feel more
comfortable with your decision if you did make a site visit. Possibly if it's within your reason, invite the inuts for the site visit so that they know what's going on next to them.
>> Thank you. >> Do we do that? >> No, that's up to that's up to the property owner. I can't let them. >> All right, I think we're good to close public hearing. >> Close the public. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> Just continue. >> Continue. Sorry.
>> Do RDAs have the same notice requirement for hearings? They do. So have been notified. >> Yes, they certainly are aware. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Of this proposal or of a a building proposal? >> Well, no. The only thing that they're aware of is that there's an RDA on file.
So they know that something is a foot. for they are aware of the >> Yes. Yes. We've received and they're in your packet. We received um several emails from Butters essentially expressing their concern about a development project, but there's nothing to talk about. So,
>> yeah, there's no Yeah, no, there's no development currently proposed. >> All right. Now, we need a motion to continue the hearing. >> I'll make a motion we continue this hearing until our next meeting is what? July 9th. >> Yeah, I think you're right. Um so we are
availability for the July 9th uh the 20 and the 23rd and then August 13th and the 27th those are the next four >> I say why don't we July 9th pending scheduling of a uh >> July 9th week that's the 4th of July
week >> so July 9th >> that's uh two weeks >> that's pretty close right >> that's two weeks from now so that leaves next week to potentially do a site visit um >> the holiday in the in the middle >> so bump it out a week is that >> bump it Oh, no. >> We have to bump it out two weeks. >> Two weeks.
>> No. >> Yeah, we have a >> So then the 23rd Monday through Thursday. >> You want to do the 23rd then? >> 4th. >> So >> So the 20 July 20 continue to the July 23rd. >> I prefer that. >> I prefer that. >> Okay. >> Is the commission not holding a hearing on the um 9th?
>> They are hold they are holding a hearing on the the 9th, but um the idea is that there's a pos there's because it's July 4th week, there's the idea of getting a site visit and everyone there seems >> Yeah. >> a little hard. thing is you don't have any building, you know, no pressing building issues right now or anything.
You just want a determination, right? >> True. Um, but I will I'll know. Can we uh would it be possible to continue to the 9th and if we can't find a time next week to get it done, then we'll totally reasonable. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll stay with the nth.
>> Stay with the 9th and if it doesn't work out, we'll continue to the 23rd. Sounds good. >> I wouldn't be here next week. So that motion was made. >> Can I get a second? >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. >> All right. And um the Kong agent will
reach out to all parties um and we'll organize that site visit for something that we can get everyone from the the commission and any anyone from your team that's there and >> we'll see what happens. >> Perfect. We look forward to seeing you guys. >> Yep. >> You know,
>> he's away. I don't think I'm going to be available. I mean, why are we doing it? >> It's not a pressing matter. >> None at all. >> You can check, but I'm not >> We can If we can't schedule a site visit, it just reverts to the >> Yeah. If if we can't schedule the visit,
then on the 9th, you'll continue to the 23rd. It's It's a nothing. >> Okay. >> All right. So, >> we move to >> all the old business. >> Oh, we did it already. >> No, we already did the minutes. Well, I was got Hey, my I'm sorry about being My
wife fractured her femur last week at the dog park. >> You know how the dogs run around? >> They got her. >> Sorry. Hold on. We're still open open session at the moment. Can we >> Well, anyway, I'm on the light. I was >> Sorry. Yes. Sorry to hear about that.
That's very serious. >> All in favor? I >> Good night, Danverse.