##VIDEO ID:https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/919346?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false## <v Speaker 1>All right folks.</v> Welcome. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is Thursday, December 5th. Already, before we open the public hearings part of the meeting, I just wanna remind people who are watching at home, please keep yourselves on mute until your particular agenda item comes up. But otherwise, let's go ahead and open the public hearing there. And the first item in the agenda is the continuation of the notice of intent for 12 Ferndale. So Claire, if you would give us an update on where that stands. Yeah, of <v Speaker 2>Course.</v> And I'm not seeing the homeowner on the call yet for that one. I did send him an email about an hour ago, just 'cause I hadn't gotten a response to the conditions that I sent him on Monday. Okay. But I'll give a quick update and then maybe we can jump to 57th Beverly to give dear a couple more minutes to get here. But the commission at the last meeting reviewed the notice of intent. There's not necessarily much new information from the, you know, the background that we've been receiving. A couple of good questions. I did do a summary of the discussion from our last meeting in my notes. The commission did ultimately seem to come to the conclusion that the removal of the material from the 25 foot notice disturb zone was not necessarily worth the potential risk of slope stability. And did discuss some initial, some, a more robust initial mitigation planting plan to balance the lack of removal from the 25 foot notice disturb zone. Am I, I reviewed the slope percent at the request of Mike. It's all noted on the recommended mitigation plan that's in the drive folder. The current slope is a one to 1.5 slope. So not a one to one slope, but not much better. Still pretty steep. Yeah. So the, the jute mesh that I noted as a potential, you know, stabilization requirement is absolutely a hundred percent necessary. And I've also made an additional recommendation in the drafted conditions that, along with the jute mesh placed over the slope, starting at the top of the slope, a straw waddle or core log be placed every seven feet down the slope to provide additional stabilization. And so there are conditions that are drafted. The commission did vote to close the public hearing at our last meeting. As I said, I finished drafting the conditions on Monday and got them to the homeowner. I did not receive any response. I checked in with them earlier today. Did not receive a response to that email as well. I do have my email up and just trying to keep an eye out for, oh, I did just get an email from David. It didn't say anything about it being in attendance tonight, so I'll just follow up with him quickly. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Why don't you do that? Why don't we just move ahead</v> then on the agenda and go to the next item on the agenda so that we can just go ahead and, and go from there. So next item on the agenda is a notice of intent for 57 Beverly Road. Welcome, how are you? <v Speaker 3>Hey, how</v> <v Speaker 1>Are you doing? Good.</v> Lemme lemme just go ahead and open this up formally here. So, in accordance with Na Natick's local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Debbie Anderson, PWS representing Nick Arthur 57 Beverly Road, LLC for property located at 57 Beverly Road Map 14, lot 23 B. The proposal is for the demolition of an existing single family home in construction of a new single family home with associated site features. So welcome. <v Speaker 3>Hi, Nick Arthur, property owner and builder.</v> <v Speaker 1>Great. Do you, why don't you just give us a voiceover of</v> what your intention, your desires are here and then we'll go ahead and ask, ask questions. Sure. <v Speaker 3>As you mentioned, we're proposing</v> to tear down a single family home and rebuild a single family home. Our main goal on this site was currently the backyard slopes back quite a bit. So our intention was really not to change the grading quite a bit and we wanna work with it. So if you look at the existing grading on the existing conditions versus the proposed grading, it's a minimal grading change overall. And we are proposing to put a retaining wall in the rear. I believe my engineer can answer the technical questions on the exact height of that. It is four feet maximum is what we're proposing. And the intent behind that wall is to, as you can see right behind it, it really starts to slope back pretty steeply. So the goal there is just a short, I believe it's somewhere between a two and three foot wall. It's <v Speaker 2>Actually like two and a half feet at its highest point</v> <v Speaker 3>Just to help with erosion, flatten</v> that area out a little bit and that's, that's pretty much it. <v Speaker 1>Got it. So buffer zone,</v> I mean it looks like the buffer zone basically goes across the back of the yard, right? If I'm seeing this? <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So in the existing conditions it cuts</v> through the yard under proposed conditions. A small corner of the proposed of the house structure is just inside the a hundred foot buffer zone. But the majority of the work in the buffer zone is the proposed deck or porch. The site regrading the drainage system and the retaining wall. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Because of the ba the amount of fill is this,</v> is this triggering stormwater? <v Speaker 2>So this project would've triggered stormwater,</v> regardless it's a single family home project, but because they're applying for an order of conditions that're exempt from the separate process. But they are providing stormwater management in accordance with the regulations. <v Speaker 1>But in terms of our review though, our review needs</v> to be both, both wetlands related but also stormwater related, correct? <v Speaker 2>Yes. Okay.</v> So there's currently two drainage systems proposed. One at the front of the site and one at the rear of the house. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Is your engineer on the call here? Yes.</v> Is Kevin should available? Yeah. Great. <v Speaker 4>Hey Kevin. Hi everyone. Ke Kevin Coty with Boston Civil.</v> So yeah, we, we know we followed the typical rules in Natick in the recharge direct for area where we provided 1.2 inches of storage. So most of the roof at the front is, at the front of the house is, is routed there to one coal tech three 30 XL chamber, which is designed to ma to store the 25 year storm without overflow. And then at the back that is designed to hold the a hundred year storm and we provided 10 feet of separation from the foundation as well as the retaining walls. And we found great soils, really sandy soils and had take, we had originally shown the system right behind the deck and one of the comments is why it's clouded is Clat had concerns about the deck runoff potentially causing erosion above the system. So we relocated it in the flatter portion of the yard where it is currently. And we had also gotten some comments about additional tree plantings clarifying what types there were. I believe we landed on three dogwood trees and two eastern red cedars. And there's a few, couple of the back three at the front. And then there were also some comments about our erosion control methods for those arbor, ie. Along the eastern side of the property, which you'll see clouded on the left side, on the left side of the page, which shows more of the existing conditions. And it was basically to put down some plywood to avoid, you know, any compaction in that area as well as trying to avoid any trenching for those to avoid any root impacts. So, you know, the, the stormwater runoff calculations demonstrate that it's a significant amount of runoff reduction as well as flattening out the backyard. It should reduce the erosion potential down the hill. It is a 30 foot grade change to the wetlands below. And so that's, you know, there is gonna be some naturally just being with how steep it is, but it should be an, an overall improvement. <v Speaker 1>Got it. What's the total volume of fill</v> that's being brought into the site? <v Speaker 4>I don't have that number off the top of my head, but,</v> and we, we had masks the existing grades in that just for plan clarity, but the, you know, the grade change there, the 95 contours with slight cut the, we don't have the basement elevation, but you know, it's about 95.8 is where the current basement lies, which is, you know, I've, I wouldn't say it's a ton of fill, <v Speaker 1>No, it looks like it'll be a very modest amount of fill.</v> I mean you're, you know, a lot of the grade you're shifting it a little bit, but it's not a dramatic raising of the overall level of the <v Speaker 3>Er.</v> Our, our main goal was to work with the grade that was there. This site really doesn't lend itself to regrade it. Yeah, <v Speaker 1>Fair.</v> <v Speaker 4>Yeah. And also just to note the, the,</v> the previous condition, you'll see that the driveway there had just, you know, it, it did slope downwards and then just the asphalt ran right into the grass. So that likely had caused erosion. And you know, we, we, we had, I worked with Nick at the project up the street at 67 Beverly. So we took some lessons learned from going through this process last time and applied it to this with the, with the wall and the, the wall detail and you know, we, it's pretty modest wall so it's under, under three feet. Okay. At its highest point. So, but it's about a foot on the, a foot and a half on the western side of the page. <v Speaker 1>Got it. And it looks like, so there's, so two,</v> two pretty significant pines are being taken out. <v Speaker 2>Yeah, so there's one back,</v> it's three pine trees in the back, one twin and then two 30 inch pines. All fairly substantial in size and then two mu much smaller essentially, you know, landscaping ornamental trees at the front of the lot, but both over six caliber inches being removed. So under the wetlands regulations, they're required to replace the trees within the buffer zone that are being removed. And then also under the stormwater regulations, they're required to replace the trees, any of the trees that they'd be removing over <v Speaker 1>Six.</v> So five trees coming out. Looks like five trees in the back. Coming back in. We got the three dogwoods, three dogwoods and two eastern red cedars. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So there's two along the eastern property</v> corner at the, in the rear yard, two on the eastern property corner in the front yard and then one between the driveway and the retaining walls. Okay. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Questions folks?</v> <v Speaker 5>Yeah, I was just curious about the</v> why the 30 inch pines in the back are going. Is that <v Speaker 3>Really just to open the backyard up mainly?</v> Oh, okay. Yeah, I think that we'd probably impact the root zone with the retaining wall and or the infiltration system pretty significantly. But the main intention was to open it up. <v Speaker 5>Okay. It seems like the ones in the front would be</v> 'cause of probably a lot of excavation work in the front, I would assume For sure. Yeah. Okay. <v Speaker 2>There is also that regrading in the back</v> that may impact the, the root areas for the two larger <v Speaker 3>Ponds.</v> Yeah. Currently the backyard gets almost no sunlight, so <v Speaker 2>The entire slope downhill</v> of the erosion controls is fully canopied. <v Speaker 5>Oh,</v> <v Speaker 4>And also just</v> to mention from an erosion control standpoint, we had gotten a comment last time to circle back on that to provide two rows of silt fence just due to the slope potential down downhill. Yeah, <v Speaker 1>No it seems like the, the erosion control has been beefed</v> up, beefed up pretty significantly. <v Speaker 6>Stumps.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh, good point.</v> Nick, Kevin, are you guys planning on grinding those stumps in the back? <v Speaker 3>Usually remove them. Okay.</v> We haven't had great luck with, actually when we grind them they don't go down deep enough so we'll remove them with our excavator when we're demoing the house. <v Speaker 6>Yeah. You're gonna need more than two rows of silt fence</v> for that or silt sock, <v Speaker 2>It's silt fence with straw water.</v> <v Speaker 6>Alright. Need something more than that. Okay.</v> If you're, if you're excavating out stumps <v Speaker 1>With, with that slope,</v> <v Speaker 6>With that size diameter tree,</v> <v Speaker 3>We'd be happy to propose an additional row of,</v> <v Speaker 2>I think probably</v> <v Speaker 3>Maybe hay bales at the top.</v> <v Speaker 2>I think probably maybe looking at one row</v> of super silt fence. That's fine. Instead of the, the standard silt fence just to provide that stability of the backing or any other rejection. <v Speaker 6>Well it's, it's an open pit and an open soar</v> until it is vegetated. Correct. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So there is gonna be additional excavation happening</v> in that area for the storm water system. So I, my assumption is that you guys will not be leaving an open pit in the rear yard for any longer <v Speaker 3>Time.</v> No, generally we would remove, dig around it, remove the stump, backfill it with what's there and not leave, not leave an open pit. But essentially the whole site will not be vegetated during construction, not just that one area. But I'm happy to beef up the erosion control if we need to. <v Speaker 6>I think the main thing for me is when I see stumps taken</v> out, it's, it's usually a very substantial Okay. <v Speaker 2>Maybe we also condition an inspection</v> post tree removal just <v Speaker 6>To Yeah.</v> You know, you might not need the extra erosion control. You might be doing this during a wonderfully dry period of time and that's, that's wonderful. I would just say, you know, monitor some way to monitor what happens after those stumps are taken out. <v Speaker 1>So why don't we do the, the substantial erosion control.</v> I mean maybe the, you know, the, the super sock kind <v Speaker 2>Of super</v> <v Speaker 1>Sot fence, super sot fence approach</v> and then, you know, if the pit itself, I mean, you know, the whole site is gonna be like these guys said I mean's gonna upside down, it's gonna be turned upside down. <v Speaker 2>So I think the supert fence plus the inspection</v> with the condition that any additional erosion controls determined necessary. Yep. <v Speaker 1>Let's do it that way. That's a good call.</v> <v Speaker 6>'cause the con the contours there on that, on</v> that east side just lend themselves to channelization <v Speaker 1>Stuff shooting down the hill.</v> <v Speaker 6>Yep. He's from, you know, looking at the contours on,</v> on this map, it, it just, <v Speaker 1>And it's a straight shot down</v> to the water Yeah. Aligns itself <v Speaker 3>With a nice, that's the steepest part for sure.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Yep. Without a doubt. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 4>So the, we, I had intentionally designed that, you know,</v> behind that 95 contour for it to all be about one and a half, 2% just to, you know, flatten out as much as possible to, you know, reduce any velocity. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Yeah. I mean let's just be, you know, have,</v> have an extra level of security with the silt fence, with the erosion control. And then I, I think an inspection, you know, after the, after the stump is removed and you know, and an inspection within let's say 48 hours Yeah. After the stump is removed so that it, you know, if there is any issues it can be caught fairly quickly and it's not Absolutely. So let's do that. There's <v Speaker 2>A lot of work going on in this</v> neighborhood right now, so I'm, <v Speaker 3>It's there is,</v> <v Speaker 1>There is a lot</v> of work in that neighborhood right now. It's pretty wild. Okay, good. Other questions from the commission on this? Concerns people comfortable with no work on the driveway? No. <v Speaker 2>So the driveway is being removed? Yes.</v> And a new driveway is being constructed. You can see on the existing conditions plan, there's these sort of two f flange retaining walls that come right along the western property line. That's the existing driveway. It goes down the hill and curves around. So that will all be removed. And Nick, I'm assuming that the wall, is the wall that is on the abutting property gonna be removed or is that remaining? <v Speaker 3>Yes, that's not right up against the property line.</v> The, there's one large retaining wall there currently. Yep. It's retaining the front yard to the driveway and we're removing the driveway and replacing one larger wall with two smaller ones. Oh, <v Speaker 2>So the wall that's right on the property line is</v> gonna remain untouched? <v Speaker 3>Yes. Yes. That's actually not our wall.</v> <v Speaker 2>That's, that's what I was just making sure about.</v> <v Speaker 1>One that goes along the property line and then, sorry,</v> <v Speaker 3>Veers off. Sorry. Actually question</v> <v Speaker 2>This one here. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>Second driver that goes, yeah. Okay. Alright.</v> And other questions, if there's no other questions or concerns, anyone enter, wanna make a motion to close the public hearing on this? <v Speaker 3>So moved.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright,</v> <v Speaker 5>I just curious.</v> The abutter is everybody's, <v Speaker 2>Oh, I do have the, yeah.</v> Proof of abutter notification is in the Google Drive folder because <v Speaker 5>Is it a shared driveway?</v> <v Speaker 3>It's not a shared driveway.</v> We will have to work with the abutter because a couple feet of our asphalt actually encroaches onto the Abutters property. I think they will probably, first of all, appreciate that we're removing that and relocating it a little further away from them. But we will have to work with them and notify them. <v Speaker 2>And that is gonna be</v> <v Speaker 3>Ask permission certainly to remove</v> that couple feet that's, that's on their side. We have not heard from them after the notifications were sent out. <v Speaker 1>Okay. If anything, if anything changes</v> with that, let us know. Sure. You know, just, just in terms of process <v Speaker 3>And we would not remove</v> that without speaking to them first. We would not go on their property. Good. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Good. Alright, well David made a motion</v> to close the public hearing. Before we do that, is there any abutters or any residents that have any comments on this project? Yes. Alright. Hearing none. David made a motion to close the public hearing. Go. I have a second on that. Thank you, George. Second in. All right. Got George, whoever here in the room, any further discussion questions? Any kind of things you wanna talk about in terms of, I mean, we will talk about the order of conditions in a second, but, you know, we talked about the erosion control there. We talked about, you know, we have pay attention around the, the, the property, the pavement on the abutting property. We can come to that in a second. Alright. So motion made by David, seconded by George to close a public hearing if there's no further comments or questions at this point. All those in favor in the room? Everyone? And then we've got Chris is a yes. Yes. Excellent. Yes. Thank you sir. I think you're <v Speaker 2>Right.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. So it, so order of conditions.</v> So we've got the super silt fence Yep. For the erosion control and then an inspection requirement to go into the conditions there. Yep. <v Speaker 2>And then just one note for the record</v> that I will note in the findings as well. It does appear, Mike noted from the photos and I did confirm in street view there spruces in the back to be removed. Not pines. Oh just, <v Speaker 3>I apologize.</v> That was not intentional. <v Speaker 1>Okay. They're trees. You got that right.</v> <v Speaker 2>They're evergreens too.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, so the order,</v> so we got the order of conditions there. So are we comfortable issuing the order of conditions as as noted here? <v Speaker 7>Are they gonna be markers?</v> <v Speaker 2>So we, we do have the markers is part</v> of our standard conditions. If the commission wants to determine, do we want those markers to go at the, at the wall on the back? Do we just want markers down at the base of the slope at the 25 foot no disturb line? <v Speaker 1>No, I would do it at the top of the wall.</v> 'cause that's the place where, that's the place where leaves are gonna get dumped over the edge of the wall. Yeah. <v Speaker 3>And I don't think people will be walking down there.</v> No, they might not. Not at that <v Speaker 1>Slow.</v> Not yet. Okay. Might <v Speaker 7>Want to put leaves and grass and stuff</v> <v Speaker 2>Back there.</v> So we'll do markers on the wall. That's fine. That works for you guys. Great. <v Speaker 1>Alright. So if someone wanna make a mo to motion,</v> make a motion to issue the order of conditions as discussed. So moved. Thank you George. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Mike. Any further discussion on that? All those in the room and Chris? Yes. Thank you sir. Alright, so you got what you need. We'll get letters to you. If anything changes, let us know. Thank you. But otherwise, you know, go for it. Yeah. Have edit. <v Speaker 3>Thanks guys. Alright.</v> <v Speaker 2>Think</v> it'll probably go out on Thank you <v Speaker 1>Everyone have a</v> good night. Thanks. Having, take care. The <v Speaker 2>Permit will go out on Monday, probably. Perfect.</v> <v Speaker 3>No rush.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you. All right.</v> So do we have 12 Ferndale here, Dave. Excellent. Dave, welcome. How are you? <v Speaker 8>I am good. How are you</v> <v Speaker 1>Doing? Good. Thanks for joining.</v> Okay. So Claire had sent over Dave earlier this week's conditions Yeah. For, for the work there. Have you had a chance to review those? <v Speaker 8>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Do you have any comments or concerns</v> or protests about that? <v Speaker 8>No, I don't. Yeah, no.</v> I mean, I think it's what we talked about. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, right, exactly. It, it, I'm not really a,</v> it shouldn't be a surprise, you know, an expert, <v Speaker 8>But yeah, no, I mean, nope, nothing.</v> <v Speaker 2>And we'll go through 'em all now.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah. Let's go through 'em now.</v> So, so Claire's gonna walk us through 'em blow by blow just so we can, so we're all on the same page there. But, but you know, this is kind of the last step to get, get things buttoned up. <v Speaker 2>So starting at the top of our order of conditions,</v> unlike the sort of standard order of conditions that we're issuing, this does not have a DEP file number associated with it. This is a local bylaw filing only. I will add in the approved plans and documents going first through some excisions, or actually I'll go through the findings first. So noting the areas of jurisdiction are only under the local bylaw. We have the a hundred foot buffer zone to an isolated vegetated wetland with dissociated 25 no disturb zone and 40 foot no build zone. Noting that the placed film material has appeared to remain stable even after several intense rain events. Majority of the vegetation cleared was likely invasive slope will be fully stabilized through loam applications seeding with appropriate conservation seed mix and installation of a jute mesh and or core logs slash straw waddle mitigation plantings will be planted at the base of the hillside. And additional plantings may be required based on the success of soap stabilization using the seed mix. Overall, the project minimally impacts the isolated vegetative wetland once it is fully stabilized going through our general conditions. I am, I have removed, stricken through every reference to MGL as it's not applicable in this particular instance. I've also changed any reference to BVW as a part of our standard conditions to IVW noting the change in resource area. Pre-construction requirements remain the same conditions during construction is where we start to see some amendments to our standard conditions. The first change or addition to our standard conditions is that the erosion controls shall be maintained at the base of the slope as currently installed. Additional erosion controls in the form of juke mesh or alternate organic erosion control fabric installed over the entirety of the LMEd area with core logs or straw wattles placed starting at the top of the slope and installed every seven feet of elevation change. Bottom of the slope straw water already installed can be included as part of these in terms of counting them out, our standard condition that erosion controls must be maintained. I have removed the dewatering condition as there is likely not gonna be any dewatering associated with this project. Continuing, I also removed the snow removal requirement. There is no, no driveway access or impervious areas that abut the hillside. So there's likely not any snow storage that will be occurring. Another removal of reference to the Wetlands Protection Act moving down into some additional conditions. This is getting into a lot of what we discussed at our prior meeting. All boulders that have rolled beyond the erosion control limits shall be moved back to the erosion control line to the maximum extent practicable. Matt, these are those sort of single boulders that weren't picked up on as part of the line on the survey. Loam application shall be done by hand or through spraying hydro seeding mixtures once reviewed and approved by conservation staff that combine the application of soil, media, fertilizer and seed mix may be used. This was one that I definitely wanted to touch base with the commission on. I know that there was some talk about what materials would be most appropriate in terms of how to get that material onto the slope based on the research that I did. Hand application is likely gonna be the least disturbing, but obviously the most manually labor intensive. The alternate of that application method is, is spraying of loam. It's essentially like a reverse leaf blower. You might have seen it through with mulch application tends to be, it's more commonplace application, but as a large machine that sprays the loam directly onto the hillside on prior slope restoration projects that I've worked on, this has been the method of application. It generally tends to result, there's very little over spray associated with it, with the way that they do the loam. So it thought could be a good option. And then obviously David, if when you're, you know, approaching spring or, or later this year, whenever you're looking to do it, if it turns out that it might be cheaper, easier m more stable to use, like a hydro seeded mix, you can just come back to me and we can talk about that and figure out what the best, the best option is. Okay. Sounds good. The erosion control methods, so David, that's that jute mesh and the, the additional straw waddles need to be installed within 24 hours after the loam and seed application. So that's just to make sure that that loam isn't exposed directly to any rain that could result in it washing down the hillside right after the loam application is gonna be potentially the most risk for, for slope subsidence. Yep. Noting that, that there should be eight shrubs installed at the base of the fill area. I did do a little annotated plan, and this is not necessarily, you know, they need to be in these exact spots as they're shown on the plan, but just to give sort of a representation of what that might look like. Eight shrubs, Dave, the, the shrubs that I'm recommending are, are usually very easily sourced at nurseries and tend to be very hardy. So they, they are generally gonna do well at surviving in this type of area. So the, the shrubs that I'm suggesting is technically a mix of shrubs and, and understory saplings. But fragrant sumac, which is a, a ground cover shrub species that that spreads, it sends runners, it spreads, it's quite drought tolerant, which is why I thought it would be a great opportunity for this area considering most of the rain that it's gonna get is just what's running down the hillside. Along with staghorn sumac, which is more of an understory tree species in some areas I've seen it considered a shrub. It's a hard pass for me on that one. And that is a tree that, again, is very well known for good root systems. Fast growth is used frequently in road stabilization, slope stabilization projects. You often see it competing with tree of heaven along some of our highways and roadways in Massachusetts. And the staghorn sumac does provide something that the fragrance sumac does not, which is some additional wildlife habitat benefit from the berries that it provides. Next condition is that a site inspection shall be scheduled by the applicant six months or two growing seasons, whichever is less following the installation of that loam and seed and plants to assess the stability. So six months or two growing seasons, generally six months is going to encompass two growing seasons. But if the application is done in the spring, two growing seasons would be a shorter period of time than six months potentially to get that spring and then that fall growing season. So Dave, depending on when you're doing this work, we just essentially keep in contact and communicate as soon as I do the, as soon as you let me know that that stuff has been done, I essentially put a tab in my calendar to come back to you in six months and say, Hey, hey, let's take a look at that hillside. And then should staff recommend and the commission determine to require additional stabilization following the six month two growing season inspection, an additional five to 10 fragrance sumac or shrubby sink foil can be planted on the slope based on how well it has stabilized over that period of time. I did work with David following the meeting last week to sort of go over any of the future work plans you guys can see that is also shown on this plan that I annotated these polygons over to the side here, represent the potential work area outside of the buffer zone, roughly about 650 square feet of area in order to trigger review under the stormwater bylaw. Separate from this process that we're going through now, he would need to be bringing in 250 cubic yards of material into that 650 square feet, which does seem unlikely. That's a, but he and I are gonna keep in touch and in communication to make sure that if any additional reviews are needed, that we get those done as appropriate. And so I've noted that should any future work outside the buffer zone exceed 3000 square feet of disturbance and or 250 cubic yards of soil movement, applicant shall comply with all requirements of the stormwater bylaw article 79 A I have removed the condition related to a certificate, certificate of occupancy as there's no certificate of occupancy being held because of this work. Per our discussions at the last meeting, markers will be installed at the top or the base of the hillside. We didn't really settle on where markers would be most appropriate at the last meeting. So I've included both and we can amend it based on the commission's preference or we can leave it open to, to the applicant to choose where the markers should be installed. Dave, we, we have markers in house that we provide. So the, they would just essentially if you, if you're putting a fence at the top of the hillside, you would install the little markers on the fence. Okay. I've removed the garage placard. We had discussed that at the last meeting that it was maybe not necessary for this particular project. Happy to add it back in. Installed mitigation plantings, eight plantings total shall survive for two years or eight growing seasons. So again, taking that six month, two growing seasons and just expanding it outwards, whichever is less following installation prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance. And then an amendment to what is being required of the certificate of compliance, which is essentially a photo log documenting from initial conditions currently throughout the process of the restoration and hillside stabilization process. And I am realizing that the only thing that I failed to put in here was just a clarification on the seed mix. So I'm just gonna wordsmith that really quickly right in front of everyone, which is applicant shall install a seed mix equivalent to the New England wetland plants. I believe that it's the upland restoration mix. Oh, I put it in my notes. Yes. Wetland plants, roadside matrix upland or erosion control restoration mix for dry sites. Alternatives to these seed mixes shall be reviewed and approved by conservation staff prior to application. Okay, <v Speaker 1>Good.</v> So that's it I think. <v Speaker 2>Yes, I tried to capture everything</v> that we talked about at the prior conservation commission meeting, but if I have missed anything that folks were hoping to see in here, please lemme know, <v Speaker 1>Folks.</v> Satisfied. Great job. Yep. Yeah. Pulled it all together. David, are you clear on all of this and you're comfortable with this? <v Speaker 8>Yeah, I, yes, I think so.</v> <v Speaker 2>And so,</v> <v Speaker 8>I mean, I'm gonna have a lot of questions</v> with Claire once we actually start doing it, but yeah, no, I, I think it's exactly what we talked about. <v Speaker 2>Okay. And, and David, the permit is valid for three years,</v> so, you know, given this timeline that we've talked about in terms of, you know, how long the plants need to survive and things like that, you shouldn't need any extensions of the permit, but all you have to do to get an extension is just send me an email asking for the extension up to another three years and the commission would vote to issue that. <v Speaker 1>But just to be clear though, I mean, do we have</v> a requirement as to when this work needs to commence? <v Speaker 2>No, I know Dave is hoping</v> to get this done as soon as possible. So I had not included a condition about that, but I can definitely, I add <v Speaker 1>I I I'd like to, I mean, just for erosion control reasons.</v> I mean, I think having a, you know, and so could we have a com you know, a work to commence by work to be completed by, I <v Speaker 2>I would say work to commence by.</v> And I think given that we are now in a time of year where seed mix application is likely right, it doesn't make sense, not gonna be successful pushing it out maybe within four months of the permit issuance, that would put us <v Speaker 1>Even, that's kind of early.</v> It feels like maybe <v Speaker 2>Within six months of,</v> <v Speaker 1>I would say within six months,</v> <v Speaker 2>April.</v> Okay. March or April. Dave, is that okay with you? What constitutes <v Speaker 8>So like by may</v> <v Speaker 1>Work to commence roughly work to commence by May and then</v> <v Speaker 8>Yeah, I mean yeah, I, I mean I, I was hoping</v> to have it Yes, that's fine with me. Okay. I, but I wasn't gonna drag my feet on this. Yeah, fair. So, so, <v Speaker 1>But just to paper this, I,</v> <v Speaker 8>I thought I would be already having be</v> grass salt there by then. Well, yeah, no, I'm, I'm, I'm ready to go. Okay, <v Speaker 1>Good.</v> So just to make sure that we have this paper appropriately, let's have work to commence by May 1st and, you know, the first, you know, work the first phase or however we want to phrase it to be completed by September one or something like that, just so that we get so <v Speaker 2>At least the initial seed shrub loam</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah.</v> So that it's, it's planted, it's seeded all of that stuff at an appropriate, you know, within an appropriate timeframe. I mean, you know, it doesn't have to be a crazy fast process, but, you know, this needs to be done by, you know, I think by the end of the summer of next year, I, <v Speaker 8>I Travis,</v> <v Speaker 6>There's no need to articulate a kind</v> of backup plan. You give all this wonderful work gets done <v Speaker 1>And it doesn't work.</v> So would Okay. You know? Yes. Well, would, would the various survival clauses and all of that, I don't know. Okay. So, so would the various, you know, let, let's talk about that for a second. I mean, are we confident that the various survival clauses that are in here give us an appropriate handle that if it doesn't work, if the plants don't live, or if we see if everything washes away, you know, I mean, if everything washes away, the plants aren't gonna live. <v Speaker 6>That's true. That's my understanding. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 9>If we have another year, like this year with, you know,</v> no early monsoon and then the drought, <v Speaker 1>Let's just make, nothing's gonna work.</v> Right. We, you know, we gotta make sure that this works. And so, I mean, do we feel confident that this survival clauses give us enough of a handle? <v Speaker 2>And the commission does always retain</v> enforcement capabilities. <v Speaker 10>That's true. I was gonna say, if it, if it fails,</v> it's gonna fail into the IVW and so we would have, <v Speaker 1>There's a handle there. Yeah. If</v> <v Speaker 8>No, nothing, okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>So I mean, I, I feel like the survival clause clauses</v> plus, you know, if, if the stuff washes away, it's washing down into the, into the IVW, which we can then we have jurisdiction over. So it, it gives us a regulatory handle to be able to come back and be like, all right, Dave, let's, let's go back to the drawing board on this. Yep. Plus <v Speaker 10>He lives there and it's, he's incentivized</v> to make sure that this thing works. 'cause this, <v Speaker 1>His, this isn't casting</v> <v Speaker 8>No offense, but I mean,</v> if I never had another meeting, I, I wouldn't be sad. Yeah. Fair. Yeah. No, I want this to work more than you guys and <v Speaker 1>Trust me.</v> Yeah. No, and we're also not casting doubts on you Dave, you know, at all. We're just, we're just just making sure we've got this thing papered appropriately. So, you know, it seems like we're, we're in alignment that the survival clauses and the other, you know, that will have enough of a handle to kind of come back and have coffee with Dave again and develop a new plan if this doesn't work. Yep. Right. Yep. Okay. Sounds good. Sounds good. Good. So with all that, would someone make a motion to issue this order of conditions? Yes. Yes. I'll take that as a motion. Thank you. George. Is that seconded? Second <v Speaker 2>A Yay. Tradit George.</v> <v Speaker 1>Seconded by Jim. Is there</v> any further discussion on this, folks? All is in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. Alright. Hey Dave. Thank you for your engagement on this. You know, we know this. Thank you. We know this has been a grind. Yep. <v Speaker 8>No, sorry I was a little late.</v> It's my daughter's birthday today, so <v Speaker 1>Well tell her happy birthday from all of us.</v> I'll Well, and, and we, we'll be in touch and please, you know, just keep in close communication with Claire so that we get this thing knocked out and you know, you don't have to come to a meeting ever again. <v Speaker 8>So what would be, so is it, I'm,</v> I'm gonna get a, the next step is I'm gonna get a permit or something and then I could you start whenever you are? <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So Dave, I'll have the permit issued to you tomorrow</v> and may we can maybe jump on a quick phone call, talk about next steps. <v Speaker 8>Okay. So the, the next step, well in my opinion would be</v> that little bit of area over there. 'cause can't really do anything else until I do that. Yep. <v Speaker 2>And</v> <v Speaker 8>Well, as far as the loam and stuff. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 2>And I think honestly Dave, at this point loam application,</v> it's probably best to wait until spring so that way you can <v Speaker 8>Seed Well I was just saying maybe some more like the</v> tailings and stuff before the loam just <v Speaker 2>Oh yes.</v> Finishing grading out the area outside the buffer zone. Yeah. Yeah. You and I can touch base on that. Absolutely. <v Speaker 1>Cool. All alright Dave. All right. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 8>Alright. Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you sir too.</v> <v Speaker 8>Take care. Alright, thank you. Take care.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, moving on. Next item.</v> The agenda is Meadow Pond Lane. Any update on that <v Speaker 2>Update?</v> They're still working on it. As expected this time of year, it's very difficult to get an engineer and a surveyor out at a site. Everyone is very busy. So I have, Adam has been responsive to my emails, but n nothing substantial to put before the commission at this point. Alright. <v Speaker 1>Keep it on the radar. We'll,</v> we'll bring it up again next meeting. Exactly. Minutes. September 5th. September 19th. Jeff, have you had a, a chance? I did. You did any, any edits? I <v Speaker 10>Don't recommend any, but I recommend any</v> confident recommending a motion. <v Speaker 1>Any other edits from anyone else?</v> <v Speaker 2>Any you don't recommend?</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright. Would someone make a motion</v> to approve the minutes from September five and September 19th, please? So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on that? Those in the room, Chris? Yes. Thank you sir. All right. Some minutes are approved. General business discussion. What I'd like to do is just in this, you know, why don't we talk about the pick pond Connector bridge update first. <v Speaker 2>That's exactly what I was gonna ask to do</v> 'cause it's a very quick update. So the last things that I showed the commission was the materials and construction options that Kevin or Kyle Zi was gonna be taking out for price quoting options. Kyle gave me a call right before Thanksgiving and said, Hey, so we got some price quote options back for both stick build and prefab and they're both way more expensive than we thought they were gonna be. Okay. So we were getting construction quotes back for $500,000. We <v Speaker 1>Had, we had budgeted three</v> <v Speaker 2>For design and construction.</v> Yes. So, you know, we had, we had 202 55 set aside for the construction phase of this project. So about half of what the estimates that we got back are Kyle is actually gonna go, is going back and getting quotes from the company that did the floating boardwalk in Marlborough on Lake Williams looking at the pricing that they had for Lake Williams. If we were to extrapolate down to the length of boardwalk that we'd be looking at here, it could be a much more cost effective option. The question is, will it work in the type of wetland system that we have here when compared to a true open water reservoir? Essentially, <v Speaker 1>What, what's driving the $500,000 price versus</v> what we had originally gotten? Labor <v Speaker 2>Labor, labor, labor and materials inflation.</v> You know, our, our price quotes were coming from 2022. Sure. Fair. <v Speaker 9>Okay. Let Musk hear about this</v> <v Speaker 2>And, and I I will say I have not seen any</v> actual quote documents. Kyle is putting together a whole package to submit to me. Okay. So at that point we'll be able to actually see what the breakdown is. But from what I've been hearing around town is that it, it's a hot market for these things right now. And so for <v Speaker 1>These kinds of projects</v> <v Speaker 2>Yeah,</v> for the materials in the labor, there aren't necessarily a ton of companies who do stick build boardwalk of this caliber. Yeah. So I, I'll see, I'll hopefully have a package in the next couple of weeks to show to the commission in terms of actual price quotes. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Alright.</v> So let's, let's go then talk about the tree protection bylaw. Yes. And so we have the technical assistance program application review. Let's take a look at that and then let's talk about kind of the outline that we, the working outline we've been working on. <v Speaker 2>Absolutely. So I mentioned at the previous meeting</v> that I had finished this draft application to the technical assistance program with MAPC. The application deadline for these is December 20th. So if we are all happy with where things are at at the end of today, I will likely get that submitted on Monday next week to MAPC for their review. It is a rolling application, so the earlier that we submit things, the faster we will hear back about things. Applicant information is very boring project concept. I'm not gonna read through all of these. I'm hoping that folks have taken some time to take a look at these beforehand. But the sort of key points in answer to this first question is that, you know, we are hoping to ensure mature canopy is preserved without creating an overly burdensome approval permit process and unsustainable replacement requirements. The commission is prioritizing the preservation of healthy native slash noninvasive canopy through tree protection, sustainable and ecologically beneficial replacement requirements, IE sustainable from a long-term survival standpoint and prevention of soil compaction Going into the second question, which is how our project addresses community needs. While this project doesn't necessarily address any specific community needs, I think it does advance or address a community want and a community desire that we've been seeing growing in the last couple of years. It does play into slightly some of the goals outlined in the net zero plan and the Natick 2030 master plan about preserving natural resources in our community. And obviously from the net zero perspective, trees have a, a quite a substantial impact on, on extreme heat, carbon storage, storm water management, things like that. Briefly explain the product deliverables. You know, the primary product deliverable is a draft bylaw for us to take to town. Meeting this project does not involve any other municipalities. This project does involve other organizations. As you guys know, etic has been a strong commenter and supporter of this process throughout their members have expressed interest in continuing to be a part and support this. If we do move it forward to SPRINGTOWN meeting, which of the MAPC strategies, strategic priorities does this are advanced with this project? The, the one that felt the most appropriate to me was encouraging sustainable development, accelerating reduction of greenhouse gases was a little bit of a stretch for a bylaw development. I think once we actually see the, the tree planting <v Speaker 1>Accelerating the reduction of greenhouse gases.</v> Where, where does that go? <v Speaker 2>Question number six on page three of the document.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 2>The other one</v> that I thought could potentially apply is the assisting local governments in being more effective, efficient, and inclusive through capacity building, convening collaboration, community engagement. But again, that one felt a little bit of a stretch. <v Speaker 1>Why not the first one though? I mean, we're making the,</v> in the second part we're making a play, we're making a bunch of comments about, <v Speaker 2>Oh, about equity</v> <v Speaker 1>PJ communities. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 2>That is a great point.</v> <v Speaker 1>Accelerate the, i I don't, I don't buy that.</v> We could do the accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Yeah, that's <v Speaker 2>A, it was definitely a, it's</v> <v Speaker 1>A, it's a stretch.</v> Yeah. So let's do the advanced equity one then. Okay. <v Speaker 2>I'll get that added.</v> <v Speaker 11>Claire, I found it. Typo.</v> Do you want to Yes. Call that out on question five right above it. The last sentence we expect. Right. <v Speaker 2>Ah,</v> <v Speaker 1>We accept them. We accept them from assisting.</v> <v Speaker 2>This is why I stand by more eyes the better piece paper.</v> Now we're moving into section B community context. I know that the table on here is difficult to read. I plan on submitting it as an actual separate JPEG file with the application. I just wanted to be able to provide it to the commission. But this is essentially ire, which is a, a tool that Mike actually introduced me to. It's a great tool. It does a really great job of showing this data is unfortunately quite old, but I still think does a good job of demonstrating how our EJ communities are generally on the lower end when it comes to canopy. I think Natick is a very lucky community in that none of our census blocks are truly devoid of vegetation except for maybe the mall. <v Speaker 1>They have those nice birch trees in the mall though. Yes.</v> <v Speaker 2>And so, and they've got that, that large wooded area</v> behind it, which is full of lovely Norway maples and bittersweet. So I, the, this question gets into how racial or social inequities are relevant to this project. And I do think that, you know, we do see higher rates of redevelopment in environmental justice neighborhoods. We see more dense housing going into our environmental justice neighborhoods that generally is resulting in more tree clearing on the lots. Also all of our environmental justice communities are not in South Natick, which is our highest canopy density in our community. And that is noted in the question. So specifically South Natick where homes and lots are larger have up to 60% canopy cover. While most of the EJ communities are, are known as having under 50% canopy cover. Describe any environmental justice communities that may be served by the project. This project serves the entirety of the town of Natick. So in theory serves all of the environmental justice communities here in town. How will you involve historically underrepresented groups? So the purpose of the bylaw is to provide additional protection to these areas. We also generally see areas with dense lower income housing tend to be areas where there maybe isn't necessarily wetlands jurisdiction. So we don't necessarily have a path to put these regulations into effect that we already have. You know, you look at Natick Center, you see the lots that are happening here. You know, we just passed MBTA communities. We see all these huge large scale developments that are happening. But you know, 45 East Central Street St. Pat's, there's no WELLTON jurisdiction associated with that project. And because it was a 40 B, the stormwater bylaw also didn't apply. And in theory, this is another local bylaw that wouldn't apply to a 40 B project. But not every project is gonna be a 40 B we, I note that we hope to have a robust community engagement effort in advance of town meeting presentations. This may include public presentations outside of conservation commission meetings, charettes with the development community tabling at local events. Oh, sorry, I thought somebody was gonna say something. Moving into category C, which is municipal capacity, what is the local capacity to support and advance this project? As you all know, we have been working on this since the spring of this year. Conservation staff and the commission, along with support from the sustainability office, are fully capable of supporting the project, their significant support for the development of this bylaw within the commission and the larger community. And I note the petition isn't really the right word. The signed letter that we received from Eco Natick with, with the signatures describing any language or translation needs. This is something that I do hope that MAPC if we are selected for funding can really help us with the town's existing translation capacity is pretty localized to the school districts. So we do have a line, a budget line item in our department budget for it. But we don't have vendors set up for it. We don't have great relationships. We've mostly been partnering with Framingham State University to do some translations on some of our other regional grant projects, the Metro West Climate Equity Project. However, Jay, the town's communications director, has done a really great job of improving the town's website's ability to do translation. That is sort of coupled with Google translates improvements throughout the years. But the town website is now more accessible for translations. So what we would hope to get translation services with would be translation of the actual bylaw document, which I think would be a really helpful thing. Especially if the bylaw is passed by town meeting. Being able to have a translated version of the bylaw accessible to residents would be a really wonderful tool <v Speaker 12>And workers.</v> <v Speaker 2>Exactly. Yep. And then</v> what is your anticipated timeline for completion? Our anticipated timeline is having a bylaw completed and ready for presentation at springtown meeting at the end of April, 2025. Primary drafting work would need to be completed by mid-March 2025 for a presentation to the finance committee. I do note that this is not a hard deadline. It is our preferred deadline. Yes. I don't necessarily wanna shoot ourselves in the foot by giving us too short of a timeline. Yep. I do think that with the work that we've done to date, the timeline is not unreasonable. So that is the preference. This is not an initial planning project. So this question does not get answered. MAPC does not request a budget proposal, but they do ask for a description of anticipated costs. I know that there are minimal direct costs associated with this project. Costs are primarily for translation services. The costs are associated or estimated $5,000. This is something that I've pulled from other grant project budgets that I've been working on. For example, the translation budget for the MVP dam parks project was $10,500. That's a two year grant project on a much larger scale. So I thought 5,000 would be a good maximum. And I do note that this may be able to be supported by the existing translation line item that I, that I noted in earlier and that there'll be substantial in-kind contributions from the staff time of myself and the volunteer time of the Conservation Commission members. These numbers include all of the hours that we have spent to date discussing this. So the 50 to 75 hours I think is actually a pretty conservative estimate of the amount of time that we have spent to date and will spend on this. Does your per project have any additional funding sources? We do not have any additional funding sources. Did we work with an MAPC staff to develop this project? No. Do we have an MAPC council representative? Yes. The town does have three Metro West collaborative representatives. And how, how did we hear about the TAP program? We are a prior technical assistance program recipient for, as I mentioned, the stormwater bylaw two years ago. And then they note attachments. I, part of my request here tonight is to request that the commission give me the authority or give Matt the authority to sign on a, a letter of support or commitment for this project. I'll also be including the Eco Natick letter as well as that JPEG image. And then the commission should vote to authorize me to sign this application on behalf of the commission <v Speaker 1>Solid application.</v> As far as I'm concerned, you know, I mean I, I'd be fine with you going in and submitting it. I mean basically what we'll get from them will be a draft bylaw that we can then look at review that's written in the appropriate legalese. So I, I'd suggest we go ahead and, and vote to authorize Claire to submit this. <v Speaker 5>I was just wondering Yeah, what if it doesn't get approved</v> <v Speaker 2>So it doesn't get approved, then we keep trucking along</v> with just ourselves. Yeah, okay. Jim, <v Speaker 1>You write it?</v> <v Speaker 5>Well no, I'm just saying that we, we have been writing,</v> I mean Claire has a version like you said. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. And so I think it will maybe,</v> probably take a little bit longer for us to continue sort of running through that battle with just us. I think the benefit that MAPC provides is the, the technical expertise with this kind of bylaw development. MAPC has helped other communities in the state develop tree preservation bylaws. Oh, they have. And other bylaws in general and their staff time will be able to be more dedicated to this. I've been working on this in addition to all of my other tasks versus, oh, and I'm not trying to say that you're not, but No, no, no. I I understand the MAPC staff will be more dedicated to Yeah. Pushing <v Speaker 5>This through.</v> But you said they've already worked on some tree <v Speaker 2>Bylaw.</v> Yes. A tree preservation bylaws, stormwater bylaws, wetlands protection bylaws. They have a pretty long history of providing bylaw and ordinance development assistance to communities. Super. <v Speaker 1>Great. So if, if people are supportive of that,</v> would someone make a motion to authorize Claire to go ahead and submit this? Why don't so moved. Thanks Chris. In terms of the letter, would it be better coming from me or from the commission or from you? Do you think it matters? I think <v Speaker 2>If I'm gonna be the applicant signature,</v> I think it would be better best coming from the commission. So, which <v Speaker 1>I'll make a motion to authorize Claire to submit this</v> and for me to sign a letter on behalf of the commission in support. So moved. Yeah. Alright. Chris made a motion to authorize that. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you David. Is that made the motion seconded. Any further discussion on that? All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Let's talk through the outline of what we're gonna provide for them. So I had provided to Claire based on conversations, kind of an outline of the fundamental components of this. Claire then provided some really great additions and edits to it. And that's in the, in the folder. So the outline of tree bylaw 10 17 24 cr <v Speaker 2>And, and this would essentially be, I would take this</v> and then apply it to that language format that we have as to provide M-A-P-C-A-A jumping off point essentially. So <v Speaker 1>The basic, the basic pre you know, the, the basic idea,</v> and we can just walk through these quickly and I wanna get people's feedback on these to see if we've hit on the right points. Clear crafted some language around the, the motivation behind this. And there's a whole laundry list of reasons why this is good. And basically the premise is that the residents in Natick wish to enjoy these benefits, wish to enshrine protections for tree cover in the town. And then we talk about a definition of what tree cover is. And I think from a science perspective, you know, I think having, you know, some kind of baseline measurement and then monitoring and measuring against that over time is this working, you know, would be, would be valuable. And so tree cover is defined as the percentage of tree can canopy covering the town as measured by X, X, X, X methodology. And we can define what that would, and I <v Speaker 2>Think that's something that MAPC can also help, can help</v> <v Speaker 1>Us with some</v> <v Speaker 2>Guidance on.</v> <v Speaker 1>Absolutely. Can help us with the right thing.</v> You know, probably something with eye tree, some kind of standardized approach to measuring tree cover. This, this percentage we measured at the outset of the bylaw going into force and annually thereafter. So we can put, you know, monitor for our own benefit and also to report back to the town on the success of the project. So the basic principles of this, so Natick will put a tree committee in place, you know, and we can talk about what that is appointed by a select board. Then this is just straw man in a way in terms of how, how it's pan imp paneled member of the conservation commission, the Natick tree war, and five members at large, the subject trees. And this is where it, you, you know, this is kind of the meat of this. So trees above six inches dbh Yep. Would be the ones that are subject to this on, on private property. I said public or private. 'cause <v Speaker 2>I was gonna say, and I have no strong</v> preference one way or the other. It's, <v Speaker 1>It can, you know, it just all depends if we wanna get into</v> an arm wrestling match with DPW and everyone else and kind of exert control over every tree in town, or if we want to back off of the public. I mean this, this is a place where we can get arts and others input as to whether it's public and private or just private. <v Speaker 2>And I think likely it would be limited</v> to municipally owned property. I I think we'd have a hard time pressing our jurisdiction over DCR or mass shot. Oh sure. <v Speaker 1>Although my goal in life is to, is</v> to take them on and win. So anyway, so, so that's that. So you know that, that, that's a question that we can ask the folks at MAPC as to what makes sense. And we can also have some conversations around what we'd like to do about, you know, who Exactly. But certainly, certainly private property is the intention, you know, and then, and then maybe, maybe municipally owned land as well. Trees that are dead disease, dead or diseased as documented by an arborist or as being untreatable. I had put dangerous, and we'll come back to that in a second. Dangerous or invasive species, trees are exempt. So if you have a dead, diseased, dangerous or invasive species, you would be exempt from the tree bylaw and you could do what you wanted. When you say <v Speaker 2>Dangerous, you mean about to fall or,</v> <v Speaker 1>Well, that's, so I was gonna ask you why</v> you struck that. So <v Speaker 2>That was actually a piece of feedback that I,</v> I think Mike has mentioned it a couple times briefly. It was also something that came specifically from Jen Catrell, who's the arborist who I met with, that the words hazard and dangerous don't actually have definitions when it comes to trees. Right. There's the assessment method that we've been referencing in the bylaw that an c is it 3000 or 300? 300. 300. I always wanna throw an extra zero in there. It provides ratings in terms of risk and in terms of, is it tree health is the other one. <v Speaker 1>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 2>And then those two things are</v> essentially averaged and <v Speaker 1>You get, so you get a two by</v> two matrix like everything else. And any things are in the upper right corner. <v Speaker 2>Exactly. So I was just trying to strike those words</v> that we can't tie data back to. <v Speaker 1>Good. And I like that because also I could imagine the</v> term dangerous being <v Speaker 2>Subjective.</v> <v Speaker 1>Subjective and ultimately abused. Yeah.</v> You know, oh, this tree may, may fall in my house in 20 years since it's dangerous. And the <v Speaker 11>Draft bylaw has a way of assessing that. The risk.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yes. We, we reference those, those NC 300. Right. So the</v> <v Speaker 11>Other thing is, I like that it says diseased</v> and invasive here, dead diseased. But we don't say that in the draft bylaw. Does that matter? <v Speaker 2>No. So this document has not yet been</v> sucked into the draft bylaw. <v Speaker 1>The idea is that this document will form the</v> content outline. So this is of a new draft bylaw end <v Speaker 11>Of our draft</v> <v Speaker 1>Bylaw.</v> This is, this is replacing this. Okay. And we'll start over and just, just with, with, you know, with these principles. Alright. And then documentation regarding exemptions is determined by the tree ward and the conservation commission, the tree committee and or a certified arborist. So they need some real horsepower behind a decision. You know, that the tree, you know, is, is not exempt. Property owners of any subject trees must apply for a tree removal permit in order to proceed with any tree removal work of non-exempt trees over six caliber inches, inches, tree removal companies and residents. And we we're gonna need to get town council advice on this. We'll be subject for foot to fines and or other enforcement actions if they perform any activities that are not duly permitted under this bylaw. And so that, that's where we're trying to put some teeth into it. Whether, whether we could enforce this against, you know, residents, you know, or, or you know, if <v Speaker 2>The enforcement goes to the resident</v> or the company Right. Or split <v Speaker 1>Or split or whatever.</v> We need town council's advice on that as to what makes sense for that. But the idea, you know, in terms of our work as a conservation commission, property owners are the ones who are ultimately liable for our work. You know, we're not get we're not going after, you know, the, the construction companies doing work in the, in the, in the, in the resource areas or in the buffer zones. But we're going after the property owners. <v Speaker 2>And just for some of the newer commissioners</v> who maybe haven't gone through a full bylaw process at town meeting Caris will review these drafts before they even Oh yeah. Go to town meeting. She generally provides recommendations on how to develop the, the motion language and the warrant language that gets presented. And then if this is adopted at town meeting, then the bylaw goes to the attorney general's office at the state and it has to be approved by them. They review it to make sure that we have not put anything in the bylaw that is determined unconstitutional. So that there, there are quite a few sort of checks and balances that this goes through as we're developing it. <v Speaker 1>So</v> <v Speaker 10>Do we have, do we exempt the railroad</v> or do they still, are they subjected to it as they go through? And so they do. 'cause they've, <v Speaker 1>It, it depends on who owns the land.</v> <v Speaker 2>So currently the bylaw language exempts linear transit</v> authorities or, or essentially so <v Speaker 1>D-O-T-M-B-T-A.</v> <v Speaker 2>Exactly. So currently the bylaw language,</v> this bylaw only applies to private property land. So it doesn't apply to state, federally, local or their agencies of providing government action. There's language Masto just sent it to me. So currently the bylaw language does that, I think that was what Matt was discussing is that there's maybe some opportunities to see where there's, where do we draw additional opportunities? Where <v Speaker 1>Do we draw the jurisdictional lines? Well tell</v> <v Speaker 2>The other thing about tree,</v> <v Speaker 9>We technically, when it,</v> when we have something relative to wetlands, we have agreement. So we have some club over the town. <v Speaker 2>Well, and so there's, there is a certain degree.</v> <v Speaker 9>So you, I</v> <v Speaker 2>Think what Georgia is referencing is the,</v> the vegetation management plans. And so the town is required to produce and get approved vegetation management plans that apply to like herbicide treatments, pesticide treatments, things like that. And, and we also have to do DOT and MBTA also have to do vegetation management plans and generally the, I get these little postcards in the mail. It's says keyless is gonna be spraying along the commuter rail tracks. You know, here's, you can look up the maps for your communities here. And most, I think a lot of conservation offices just throw those in the recycling 'cause they're technically exempt from doing any activities that are approved As part of that plan, I am usually the conservation agent who is looking at those maps and sending Eversource or MBTA email saying, Hey, I know it's not required, but have you considered? And so I do try to push back in those particular instances where I can and where is, <v Speaker 1>So we do have, I mean this could be part</v> of the negotiation process with the town. I mean, <v Speaker 9>When they're doing something on a oh,</v> something passing over water or whatever. Yep. They have to let us know and they have, we have to give direction on how they prevent erosion and whatever. <v Speaker 1>So I think that'll be part of the, you know, the process</v> with MAPC as well as with town council is to understand what are the options and then we can decide, you know, we can have conversations with certainly the town and we can then decide if we want to try to exert jurisdiction over others as well. But you know, my sense is that the town is probably where that conversation would stop. You know, I, I don't know that we want to go toe to toe with, well <v Speaker 9>That's sort of just logical.</v> You start playing with state agencies and <v Speaker 1>You know, but</v> <v Speaker 9>It's expensive.</v> <v Speaker 1>Right. And also, I mean it's, it's the,</v> the big state land here outside of the linear corridors is the state parks, you know, and they've got a whole, you know, a pretty much a vested interest in kind of maintaining the integrity of those for the most part. But again, it's all up for discussion. You know, let's see what shakes out here. And then we can get town council's thing. So the next, the next bullet point here is permit. You know, when people file for permits, we'll need to discuss what those application fees are. We don't need that now. But any permit application fees will be used to fund replacement trees and or deposited into a tree fund to be used only for future tree plantings. Assessment of trees or canopy tree management. You know, so the id, but the idea would be that if someone is, we need to clarify this, that the permit application fees need to be sufficient to fund replacement trees. So the application fees would probably scale with the number of trees they're proposing to remove so that we could put replacement trees in place so that they, or we could put replacement trees in place. Right. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>I, I imagined a fee structure somewhat similar to how,</v> how WPA and how our wetlands bylaw and where there's, there's categories of projects. You know, is this site clearing for redevelopment? Is this, you know, invasive species management, is this, you know, a homeowner looking to do a single removal and that there would be, you know, appropriate fees associated with each of those categories. I don't know if from an application fee perspective, we can tie it to each tree that's being removed. 'cause in theory they need to replace those trees or they need to provide funds to replace those trees. <v Speaker 1>I think that's something we just need to clarify. Yeah.</v> 'cause because it's not clear in here is that are the application, you know, is the intention that we would, as part of the permit process, we would issue effectively an order of conditions, you know, that says, yes, you can do that and you have to replace with X number of trees. Yeah. And the application fee is 50 bucks, you know, it covers your time, it cover, you know, it's, it's a, it's an administrative fee versus the application fee being $3,000, which is then used to fund the replacement trees themselves. That I think we just need to clarify what that would be. The intention though is that at the end of the day, we get replacement trees <v Speaker 2>Or we get the money to replace</v> <v Speaker 1>Trees or we get the money to replace 'em. Right?</v> <v Speaker 5>Yeah. I But if, if I'm the homeowner, aren't I responsible</v> for paying for the replacement trees? <v Speaker 1>Well that's, that's what we're talking about.</v> And so in, in either case, they would be responsible whether it's, they get a, they get a permit that says, yes, you can proceed with this. Here are the conditions you gotta pay for X number of trees of x of Y species. <v Speaker 5>And I can choose to, okay, I'm gonna do 10 trees.</v> Even though the, it says want 20, you <v Speaker 1>Can do 10</v> <v Speaker 5>And I'm gonna pay,</v> I'm gonna put money in the fund. Yep. Those <v Speaker 2>10.</v> And Matt, I did add a couple bullets down. I tried to get into that clarification a little bit, but I think that it's gonna need a lot more back and forth. Yeah. <v Speaker 11>We're maybe, maybe I'm on the same point,</v> but the bylaw, I mean the draft bylaw is very clear that with specific exceptions, the intent is if you remove a tree, you will replace that tree. And this doesn't, this isn't nearly so clear. <v Speaker 1>So we can, you know, in fact I think</v> that's a great addition, David. I mean, why don't we, why don't we put a bullet point where we, you know, say that the intention is that trees are replaced on a one-to-one basis or <v Speaker 5>On</v> <v Speaker 1>We'll back to appropriate scale.</v> <v Speaker 2>We'll</v> <v Speaker 9>Come size of the tree you're taking out,</v> <v Speaker 1>We'll come back to the one-to-one basis.</v> 'cause we've got a formula Yeah, yeah, yeah. That we'll talk about in here. <v Speaker 5>Replacement discussion.</v> <v Speaker 1>Right. The replacement. You</v> <v Speaker 10>Also don't want to, if, if you're just funding them,</v> you can be denuding one area of town and just stacking more trees than other. And so you <v Speaker 1>Have have the bamboo forest</v> on the other end of town. Yeah. <v Speaker 10>I mean if you're, if the goal is to have a</v> uniformly distributed canopy, then you would need to have replacement at the point of removing the tree or within an area in that area within a geographic distance from that. Or you're gonna go to south net and just say, how many more trees can we put down here? You know, <v Speaker 1>So I would, so I would say that, you know, the intention</v> of the bile is that trees are replaced on an, you know, prob scale. And funds in loose shall only be acceptable. Replacement trees as required by and associated regulations are not feasible. Yeah. That I, I think that's, that's good. And we just need to bake that in somewhere. Yep. In, in the language there. So then Claire? <v Speaker 13>Yes,</v> <v Speaker 1>Sorry. Yeah, Chris, go ahead Ben. No,</v> <v Speaker 13>No, go ahead.</v> I'll finish up that. <v Speaker 1>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 13>I'll finish your</v> <v Speaker 1>Thought.</v> Yeah. Okay. One more bullet point and then Chris, jump in. So funds can be applied to tree replacement on the subject property or elsewhere at the discretion of the tree committee with appropriate landowner approval where needed. So if it's not feasible to replace the trees on the property where they're being removed, they can pay into a fund. And then that fund can be used to plant trees somewhere else at the discretion of the tree committee and or the, the tree warden. Or at some with some appropriate bylaw. Yeah, I like that one. Chris, jump in. <v Speaker 13>Yeah, I, so I read through it.</v> I, so I apologize if it's in there, but is there any point where we run into a conflict where tribal tribal rules or tribal rights for tree cutting? <v Speaker 1>Great point. Would</v> <v Speaker 13>Be complicated by this.</v> <v Speaker 1>I'd probably put that down as an exemption, Chris. I was</v> <v Speaker 2>Just about to say, so we did include,</v> if folks recall when we were going through the aquifer protection district by Exactly, yeah, we did, we did include some, some language that specifically exempted any activities associated with, I think the language was the exerci of aboriginal rights as Yeah. As approved by executive order 1 26. Well, <v Speaker 6>It wouldn't, it wouldn't, the bylaw would not pass the</v> attorney general's office muster because that Right. Is already protected under state. <v Speaker 1>So it</v> <v Speaker 13>Has to be No, that's a good point.</v> <v Speaker 6>It has to be the, has to</v> <v Speaker 1>Be the</v> <v Speaker 10>How, how do you, how do you deal with if, if that's a</v> finite population, how do you deal with the replacement of those so that, so that at least you have a sustainable, I mean are, are they replacing the trees that they take or would we prioritize? That's an interesting question. So the fund to go and say on <v Speaker 1>Behalf the fund, the funds could be used in that case.</v> I mean it's, you know, practically speaking it will be in wildly limited circumstances. You know, the netbook are not be coming in clear cutting pick pond. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>And then as far as I've been informed, the way</v> that they do the harvesting is that they do remove the topmost portion of the tree and leave it at the site so that it can reroute and in theory start growing a new tree. Obviously that's not a hundred percent effective of a method, but that is the beauty of a lot of evergreen species is that they will, they will. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. I mean, I, it's called what? Layering. Layering.</v> I mean, I, you know, I think it's important for us to com you know, comply with all agreements and laws and all that stuff. I think it's, you know, we don't need to boil the ocean for this case. 'cause it's, I think it's gonna be <v Speaker 9>Very limited.</v> Think with the Don Redwood on the common, the tree warden at that time had the top taken off. Oh <v Speaker 1>Boy.</v> Oh good. Okay. So, so this next bullet point is really, yes, this next bullet point is really important. And this is where the science comes in. And that is that the replacement trees must be selected, you know, must be selected and also in, in species and number right? To provide equivalent or greater canopy coverage within x number of years based on the selected species. And so the idea would be to use a science based approach to say that if you cut down a 30 inch maple then, and it has a, you know, a canopy cover of some number of square meters, that the number of trees, the number and species of trees that you replace it with in some period of time will provide the same canopy coverage. And, and that's the intent. <v Speaker 2>And my recommended change to your language there was just</v> to provide a, a range rather than a specific number for, because every species of tree is gonna have a different growth rate. So we're not, if you know somebody's cutting down a pine and they're replacing it with an eastern red cedar, that tree is potentially gonna be more slow growing in terms of canopy coverage than, <v Speaker 1>But my response to that would be that what I want</v> to be careful of is that then ev then everyone would say, okay, let's do it at 10, 10 years as the number, because that will mean that we have to replace with fewer trees. But is there, is there data, and this is a question for you, Mike. You know, are there models and data that we could rely on that would say if we replace a 30 inch maple with three two inch caliper red oaks, at what point in time would they, you know, under sure optimal growing conditions, whatever. I mean, if we gotta think about that, but at after x number of years, they will have some number of square meters of canopy coverage per tree that would then represent what we lost. You know, and, and it'll be species dependent and it'll be making some assumptions around optimal growing conditions. If there's a drought year, who knows, you know, but we need some kind of hard and fast, I think mathematical method to be able to say, here's why we're, we're requiring so many trees and if you wanna do a, a flowering dogwood or whatever, you know, then you can put, you gotta put 50 of 'em to, you know, to make up for the, for the, you know, and, and canopy coverage is what we're, is the defining metric here. We could talk, we could say, you know, tons of carbon sequestered, we could talk about other metrics as being the answer. We have to put our look on our finger on a number and to say this is the important metric that we're managing to. And I think canopy coverage is probably the right, in my opinion is probably the right one. <v Speaker 13>Is the how do we reach the canopy coverage number?</v> I mean, are we talking about, is it two hand fisted to think of like taking a plot plan for each individual, you know, property and, and doing just a, you know, a GIS layer over the, the high growth ortho photo of that plot plan and then saying, that's your baseline. <v Speaker 1>This is the, feels like this is exactly the question,</v> you know, is how do we measure it? How do we do it? And what are the models that we use to project how fast some number of trees of some species will achieve some amount of canopy cover compared to what was there? Well there <v Speaker 9>Must be tree bylaws someplace. And</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah, I think we that's, yeah, exactly.</v> We'd have to look at those. So <v Speaker 9>We gotta, if something else has been put in place, it seem</v> <v Speaker 13>Acceptable, not reinvent</v> the wheel. Right. It didn't seem like <v Speaker 2>Massachusetts had No, so the, the majority</v> of tree preservation bylaws in Massachusetts are, are A DBH or a number of trees calculation. And that, I think this is partially why I think MAP PC's assistance could be really helpful in this instance. I agree. Because I could foresee this bylaw being a template for other communities to then update their bylaws based <v Speaker 1>On, 'cause this, this is, you know, this is the kind</v> of quantitative rigor that I think a lot of bylaws, I mean, and I've, I've read through a lot of 'em that they don't have. Yeah. You know, they're not, they are, you know, they're, they're emotionally based in some cases. They're based upon this number of sticks that you plant in the ground. They're based upon the diameter of the trunk. But it's not based upon what is the value that it's bringing to the community. And in this case, I think it's can, it is canopy cover is what we're shooting for here. <v Speaker 2>And I did add just one sentence to</v> that bullet point of your language. And I think this got to a point that Mike had made previously of combinations of trees and other planting types may be considered based on remaining canopy coverage on the existing site. So, you know, if a homeowner is looking to remove one or two trees from within a larger canopy area, is replacement saplings the most appropriate and ecologically be beneficial plant that we could get back into that system? Or are there, you know, one sapling and maybe a couple of shrubs would be the appropriate thing for that specific site. <v Speaker 1>But, but this you</v> <v Speaker 10>Looking for tree height though?</v> I mean, you talk about the, the dog of flowering dogwood down Rhode Island, it didn't get as high. It gets a little higher than me six, six feet tall. But if I took down a, you know, a 40 foot, you know, oak tree, I think that's, <v Speaker 1>That's all part of the conversation. And I think carbon</v> <v Speaker 9>Sequestration is different. Yeah. Well</v> <v Speaker 2>I think that the commission is gonna be,</v> or the tree committee or whoever is reviewing these applications, I don't necessarily ever expect average Joe Schmo homeowner to be coming into this application process with a clear cut. Here's what I'm taking down and here's exactly what I'm planting. You know, I've already gone through all of this science and I know exactly what's gonna meet your guys' expectations and maybe the, you know, the math works of the world and, and the malls of the world are gonna come back at us with that kind of stuff. But I do anticipate that the, the tree committee providing quite a bit of guidance and direction to the regular Joe Schmo homeowners on what those replacement plantings are gonna need to be. <v Speaker 1>But I think that though, you know, it's something we need</v> to consider because the, we do need to be able to rat to explain to people if, if this in roughly this form goes through, we need to be able to explain to people why, for example, replacing a 30 inch maple with a six foot tall flowering dogwood is not an appropriate substitution. Yep. You know, and to, you know, and so they may come in just not versed or not, you know, not interested or whatever in kind of those trade offs. And so I think there need, there will need to be some kind of language inserted in here that basically says that if you've got a large deciduous lovely canopy, you know, this <v Speaker 2>Is where regulat regulations come into place.</v> So we're working on a bylaw right now. Fair. Once that's established, then we potentially have the freedom and exploration to be able to develop regulations that provide some of that more nuanced guidance that don't have to go before town meeting. Yeah. <v Speaker 9>Are people look at actually something we just did a few</v> minutes ago with Beverly Street. Yep. Those trees were coming. Those trees were, why were those trees being taken down? <v Speaker 1>'cause he wanted light in his backyard.</v> He didn't want canopy. Yeah. <v Speaker 9>So he didn't want canopy.</v> And what did he dogwoods check to put in, to <v Speaker 2>Be fair, they proposed five dogwoods to begin with.</v> And I said, that's not gonna fly. You guys gotta give us at least one more species. <v Speaker 9>Yeah. It, I mean it, this is something that, you know,</v> if we had bylaw and someone was doing, had just done something like this, I could see all kinds of arguments going on. Someone saying, well, look what he's doing. He's wiping this whole, well I'm not sure how many square feet of canopy is coming out, but quite a bit. So it's, it's inter it's interesting. Would <v Speaker 10>They have to also file under this tree bylaw?</v> Or would it just be rolled into storm water into a NOI We <v Speaker 1>Could talk, we could talk about</v> how it could be administered. <v Speaker 2>I could see this being rolled into</v> <v Speaker 1>Other permitting processes,</v> <v Speaker 2>Other permitting processes.</v> But I think maybe not in the same way that the stormwater bylaw is because right now the stormwater bylaw, you're, you're fully exempt from having to get a stormwater permit if you're getting an order of conditions. Sure. But we've seen a number of sites come through where maybe the majority of the work or the majority of the stormwater system is not actually located within jurisdiction. And on those projects we have required two separate filings. So I, I can see a similar path forward, but I, my only concern is segmentation of projects. Right. Is a homeowner gonna say, oh, well I'll remove these three trees 'cause they're outside of wetlands jurisdiction and I can get away with it. You know, just this quick permitting process. <v Speaker 1>We wanna make sure that we've got exactly</v> teeth there, Mike. But you know, back to this kind of this canopy calculation or this canopy projection, does this feel feasible to you? <v Speaker 6>It it's feasible, but does it matter?</v> <v Speaker 1>Say more.</v> <v Speaker 6>So I guess I look at it as</v> how we approach stormwater, right? So if you're removing canopy and, and we can calculate that 'cause that the tree's still upright. Right? Right. So we can measure that. So it would seem appropriate to me to take a similar approach as we take with stormwater is that, you know, you we should be replacing that canopy. We're not gonna get there in a very long time. Okay. It doesn't matter how many trees you plant, you're <v Speaker 1>Not meaning that if we,</v> if we cut down a beautiful 30 inch red oak <v Speaker 6>Yeah. That</v> <v Speaker 1>The time it would, that</v> <v Speaker 6>Has a quarter acre or a half acre canopy.</v> Right. You're talking like 20,000 square feet. Fair. Okay. <v Speaker 2>I did just do a quick very rough canopy</v> calculation for those Yeah. Bruces at the back of 57 births, but 2000 square feet of canopy. <v Speaker 1>And so you're, so you're saying that it, you know, that</v> my pipe dream of in that there could be some reasonable number of trees that a homeowner could plant that could replace that canopy coverage in five <v Speaker 6>Years.</v> Yeah. It just, not even No way maples. You could, but I think you just take, you take the approach of, you know, the scientific approach would be that we know what's lost. So how do we mitigate that loss? Right. Okay. And and the, the easiest way would be that we plant species that we know that are gonna have a canopy with, 'cause we have, we have all that literature about we know what a northern red oak, <v Speaker 1>How fast it grows. And,</v> <v Speaker 6>And, and at maturity at 50 years old, we know that what</v> that canopy width is gonna be. We have plenty of literature around, even at increments, we know that a canopy width of a northern red oak at six inches in diameter, we know that we, we have that information at, at our disposals. So I, I would say that where do you want to be? Is it, it's something, you know, I would say that you'd want to be in, in a similar light is how you deal with storm water, which is that you want to, to actually, when the tree comes down, it's a sad moment, however, but we have now a great opportunity to now enhance the canopy by what we plant. So <v Speaker 2>It's similar to we're designing</v> for the a hundred year storm, but we know we're not ever gonna hold the a hundred year storm. <v Speaker 6>Correct. We're not gonna see it.</v> We're not gonna see those trees ever replace that canopy. Okay. That's the, i I hate to break everybody's heart, but those trees we're planting, we're never gonna see that canopy. <v Speaker 1>So what you're saying though is that if we, if we,</v> I mean just, just to put it into kind of, you know, like I, I've got this fantasy of having this metric that shows natick tree cover staying constant and then slowly starting to creep back up again after 25 years or whatever it is. So what you're saying though is that this, the way this is currently formulated, what we may see is this before we would start to see any kind of <v Speaker 6>Recovery, not necessarily, okay.</v> If the tree committee is targeted and the town is invested and the residents are invested in enhancing the canopy, we can do that today. <v Speaker 1>Meaning that we get</v> through a public education campaign. You, <v Speaker 6>You start planting today.</v> Yeah. Or as the, as I heard once is it's best to start planting 10 years ago, 50 years ago. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Right. So start, so start planting today.</v> <v Speaker 6>Correct.</v> <v Speaker 1>And,</v> and have a protective mechanism like this in place. So we augment a hundred percent the law with a tree planting campaign. Correct. <v Speaker 10>That makes a lot sense. How long does the tree have to</v> a tree have to grow before you begin seeing an additive? <v Speaker 6>Well, every, everything you see, you know, you under you,</v> I guess my, from my perspective is the trees more than just canopy. Right. I think we can all recognize this. We're, we're dealing in a, we're in a novel ecosystem here in Natick that, you know, the idea that things are not gonna be disturbed is, is a, you know, doesn't exist anymore. But, you know, we can plant trees some, for instance, our oak trees are probably the best pollinator plant that we have. Right. So, you know, and there's a variety of things that we can do to get climate ready with the species that we're planting today. And that's, and I, you know, I would argue that, you know, we should probably be pushing very hard to kind of plant trees that are, are, you know, we know all these arbor that have been planted for time at those are not gonna make it to the end of this century. I a hundred percent <v Speaker 1>For the end of this century.</v> Yeah. Oh, absolutely not. <v Speaker 6>The climate has changed. I</v> <v Speaker 1>Wouldn't say this decade. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 6>The climate has changing so fast</v> for them that they're not, <v Speaker 2>I will say I've not approved an arbor on a planting plan</v> this whole year because, <v Speaker 1>So Okay.</v> But the bottom line though, Mike, is that, is that the, what I'm hearing from you is, is that the approach that we're outlining in this bylaw, it sounds like it make it, it it makes sense. It's not enough. Yeah. <v Speaker 6>No, it's not enough. Right,</v> <v Speaker 1>Of course.</v> And I totally get that. And so what we could do as a commission is then also commit to identifying resources and, you know, a really solid tree planting plan, which would, you know, it's gonna require grant writing, it's gonna require budgets from town meeting, it's gonna require this and that. If, if the town as a, you know, an entity votes in favor of prioritizing again, canopy coverage in this case, if we decide that that's the important metric, prioritize that maintaining canopy coverage in this town is important. Then our recommendation is this, the bylaw, which has a mechanism to replace trees Correct. That are being taken out and a proactive, and you have a upfront pro prophylactic <v Speaker 6>Tree planting program.</v> You have a committee that is committed to outreach and education. Yeah. Workshops, tree planting events, whatever they, their little heart desires they can ex, you know, they can do. But that's, you know, it's, it's, it's kind of this and that. And, and the other piece of this is, is, you know, and I think I've mentioned that at the very beginning of this conversation, some of this is, is difficult for me to wrap my head around because I don't have a baseline. So if I had a baseline of a carbon number or a baseline of a can canopy number, but ideally the ba that baseline data would include all that <v Speaker 1>Would include all, all carbon</v> <v Speaker 6>And it</v> <v Speaker 1>Would include carbon.</v> <v Speaker 6>It would include, you know,</v> inherently a historical perspective of where our canopy is. Are we decreasing, increasing? Right. So you got clearly parts of Massachusetts where the bylaw was a trigger because they were losing dramatically canopy code in 10 years, you know, 25% of their canopy or 10%. So <v Speaker 1>I wouldn't be surprised if Natick was, I mean, I'm</v> confident I I bet a case of beer with anybody that the past 25 years we would be seeing a, a noticeable decrease in canopy cover. <v Speaker 2>I'm</v> <v Speaker 13>Wondering, I would say in the last two weeks,</v> the last month, I'm wondering, in my neighborhood alone, I've seen like 1520 trees go down. Right. <v Speaker 2>To be fair, I will say Northeastern was just out doing</v> tree removal work on the con com properties, but they were all dead trees. Yeah. <v Speaker 11>Okay. I think Mike's point about the,</v> that two part program, I think frankly the, the PR around the planning campaign helps the buzz around the protection. <v Speaker 1>Well and I mean it shows a proactive. Exactly.</v> <v Speaker 11>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 2>Exactly. I think we can capitalize,</v> as folks might recall, part of the tiny forest grant that we're working on is Jillian's Planting the Future program, which is intended to be a supplement to arts strategic tree planting program. Jillian did plantings last fall this spring and has, because we had additional funding available has pre prepurchased bear root plantings from the Arbor Day Foundation to do another round of plantings next spring and next fall. And so we're, we've got little pockets of these kinds of programs going in. But it is, I think because there isn't necessarily a dedicated face to tree protection in town, it's hard for people to find the resources about it. You know, like they, they might end up in Jillian, they might end up with me, but neither of us are really like the perfect person to be answering those questions. And so, <v Speaker 1>So Mike, would it, would it make sense?</v> I mean does this whole kind of empirical pipe dream that I have around, you know, it's kind of scaling, you know, if you kind of want to cut a big tree down, you gotta replant it with an appropriate number of trees that will give it, you know, that same canopy cover in X number of years. Should that even be part of this, do you think? <v Speaker 6>I, I think that you'd, from my perspective, I'm not,</v> I'm not necessarily against that. I guess philosophically I'm trying to wrap my head around is, is the idea that if I'm cutting down a huge sugar maple that is <v Speaker 1>5,000 square feet of canopy and</v> <v Speaker 6>As a big canopy inherently,</v> what can I plant back that is gonna get to that in, in any relative timeframe? And, and it's very difficult for me to, to, to do that unless, you know, you're looking at planting, you know, kind of a more, you know, like 10 or 15 trees in that same area. <v Speaker 1>I'd be curious to see the data, you know, that said,</v> if you, if you're cutting down a 24 inch or 30 inch c sugar maple, how long would it take? Four two inch caliper sugar maples or something reasonably, you know, reasonably priced. I mean, you know, 'cause we can't have, can't have homeowners replacing with six inch caliper sugar maples. 'cause it would be cost prohibitive. I <v Speaker 2>Also think there's the argument that a six inch caliper</v> tree upon replanting is gonna have a much harder time thriving and surviving than a two inch caliber <v Speaker 1>Tree is fair for all, for all of these reasons.</v> Right. But I'd be curious to see the data that's <v Speaker 6>Well, and then the other part is that, you know, we're,</v> we're all about the canopy and the reality is, is that those trees don't really care. They want to spread and, and and develop in a way that's species specific. So if I plant, say I plant two ye, two yellow poplar, some people call 'em tulip tree next to each other with within 10 feet of each other. They're gonna be pretty angry in about 10 years. Fair. 'cause they're fighting each other. <v Speaker 1>So we need to have a thoughtful planting plan that takes</v> that stuff into account. <v Speaker 6>In some cases these trees are gonna be if,</v> and most of the lots that I see, like you can't, there's not 50 feet. <v Speaker 1>Sure. Right.</v> <v Speaker 6>So if I, I cut down one 30 inch tree,</v> I plant a tree there and then <v Speaker 1>10 feet, 10 feet later</v> <v Speaker 6>And, and, and then conservation commission is requiring me</v> to plant another tree. Where do I put that <v Speaker 1>Other tree?</v> But that's where we could write the regs in such a way that we, we would say, okay, you can replant a, you know, a two inch caliper, you know, tulip tree there, but then you also have to plant based on the math. Yeah. Then you also have to either provide funding or, or plant another tree 75 feet away in your yard in order to do that or provide funding into the fund that we can then use to pay for tree replacement somewhere else. Right. I mean, I think that we can write the regs and we could write the regs for this in such a way that could accommodate. I think that's, I mean I think the concerns that, you know, <v Speaker 9>You're really planning for prosperity.</v> <v Speaker 6>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 9>I mean, you know, you,</v> you're really talking about you put these trees that will produce good canopy, but when <v Speaker 6>And what is the average, someone</v> <v Speaker 1>Said 50</v> <v Speaker 9>Years</v> <v Speaker 6>Maybe, what is the average length</v> of home ownership in this town right now? I know I can find it in one of our illustrious documents and planning documents that have been written the last decade. <v Speaker 1>We could find that out. But you're</v> <v Speaker 6>Probably looking at seven years</v> that people stay in their house before they move. <v Speaker 1>Well, okay. So the problem with the problem there</v> being that if changing <v Speaker 2>Times,</v> <v Speaker 1>Well, well the problem there is</v> that if someone cuts down a 30 inch maple plants, two, two inch poplars, appropriately distanced apart and all that stuff, all of a sudden those two trees aren't subject anymore. Correct. <v Speaker 6>Oh,</v> <v Speaker 2>According to</v> bylaw, they are for at least five years. <v Speaker 1>Well, they are for at least five years. Right.</v> So, you know, but we gotta, we'd have to build in protections for that to reflect exactly that reality. <v Speaker 6>I mean, I, I don't, I know I've seen that number</v> 'cause I, I remember reading it recently in one of the housing planning documents, but it's not, you know, there's not a lot of people, well I won't say there's not, but there's a lot of turnover I think. <v Speaker 1>Okay. So, but, but the,</v> <v Speaker 2>Well, and my hope with the five years would be</v> that if we're planting a two inch caliper by the time five years have passed, <v Speaker 1>It's six.</v> <v Speaker 2>Hopefully that tree is now six inch caliper</v> and is being protected again under the bylaw. <v Speaker 1>So these are the details that we would need to hammer out.</v> I mean, so what I'm, what what I'm hearing though is that the idea around this framing is legit. You know, people, I I think people can get behind it. You know, if, if, you know, I mean there may be philosophical agreements and they'll certainly be people in town who hate the idea of this, don't tell me what to do on my private property. And that's okay. You know, this, that's why this comes up for a vote. And if the community, as a democracy, as a democratic community goes and votes to put this in place, then that's the law. And if people don't want it, then they won't vote for it and we won't have it as a law. Sure. That's plain and simple. But you know, if we as a commission feel that this is appropriate, we can put it forward and say, if you like it, vote for it. If you don't like it, don't vote for it, then done. You know, and that's, it's, that's simple. And I, <v Speaker 10>There's also, you know, you know, what</v> Mike is saying is, you know, trying to replant what's gone, but then there's trying to eliminate taking down what's there. Right. Like I think of the project, you know, not to kind of call out the tech, that tech drive area, but when we were looking at the car, oh, I remember that the car storage area that, that parking lot, that land was a very Arthur Wrath one very heavily wooded area, but it was, <v Speaker 1>It must been 75, 75 trees taken outta that.</v> <v Speaker 10>Well it's been zoned industrial.</v> So the land was, was zoned to be, to be cleared clear cut cleared essentially. Right. And cleared, you know, unless you, unless you have another way to also stop that or, and we haven't purchased land, we don't have the money and, and we have some budget issues know that. But if, if you, if there's some land out there that is not, that shouldn't be taken offline and or you take off acres of that land, you may never make that up. Never. I mean, so I don't know how far or even the simple things of when a house is taken down, two houses are put up on the property, more area of the of of properties are being covered by houses. 'cause the she economics of it, the house cost a lot to buy. So I have to put a two family or a three family on the property. We take up more of the land. And so now much more of the land is just being used for the square footage of the house. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. I mean there's always gonna be</v> tension with the zoning loss. But I think that, you know, this, this formulation or a bylaw, what it could do is say, yeah, if the property zoned industrial, fine. So what if you cut down 75 trees, there's a mechanism to replace those. The tree cover, the, the, the, the canopy cover that those 75 trees represented. Yes. It might take a hundred years <v Speaker 10>That that's the thing. It might take a hundred years.</v> <v Speaker 1>Well, you know, but that's, that's the biological reality.</v> Yeah. And, and we can't change that. We can't change that. We can't change that. So I think what we can do is take, play the long game and say, yeah, it might take a hundred years, but we're gonna a be getting, trying to get out in front of it with a, with a proactive tree planting program, which I think is a great suggestion. And we're gonna have replacement mechanism. So yeah, a hundred years from now there will be that canopy cover back again. I mean, or <v Speaker 6>You can, you know, you, you know, we have this, you know,</v> you have this structure for, for payment for ecosystem services. We can calculate that for that single tree. Alright. And so maybe that's what the permit cost is. <v Speaker 10>Well perhaps that's why Wellesley,</v> I mean Wellesley another town in the area has draconian fees associated with that. Yeah. Is to like, to stop the, well, I have 75 trees to take down to create a parking lot storage for a car lot. <v Speaker 1>I, I think, I mean, I'd, I'd have a hard time getting</v> behind the fi the fee structure of Wellesley. You know, that is, it's tough. It is draconian. And I think that I'd rather work on getting people behind the idea of playing the long game than saying it's just gonna cost you $5,000 to take down a tree. That's just philosophically I have a hard, I've, I mean I, I totally understand what you're saying. Well, <v Speaker 10>I mean Mike, Mike makes me back that now</v> because you know that now I see, you know, if you're gonna allow tree existing trees that come down in great numbers because of areas that have been prezoned for these things, the math says that you'll never make that up. And it might not be a hundred days could be longer than that. Right. If you were to take that area off a wrath barn behind that and to, and to turn that into the industrial property, it was zoned to be. You may never get that back a <v Speaker 1>Hundred percent.</v> <v Speaker 2>Well, I, I think I would hope also with the introduction</v> of a bylaw like this, that it, I mean, hopefully represents the initiation of a bit of a, a culture shift where people have more awareness of, oh, hey, if I want to take this tree down, like I have to go through this process and I have to think about, it's not just, I don't like this tree anymore. Let me call up stumpy and have them come and cut it down. It's no, I have to, you know, take the time. I have to go through the permitting process. I have to go through the proof process to be in front of this committee. In theory one would hope that it would create a little bit more of a culture shift. <v Speaker 1>And I also think though, that it would be an important</v> part of any committee in my mind would be, you know, I think private property rights are important. And that's ju that's a, that's a philosophical position. I, I, you know, acknowledge. However, I think that if the community decides that canopy cover, if that's a metric, or ecosystem services, whatever it is, are important to maintain or to compensate for that, you know, you can take that tree down. You can, but there's a, there's some hurdles and there may be a financial hurdle, you know, who, you know, we could define it as modest, we could define it as affordable. We could define it as draconian or whatever it is. But there's, you know, the, the community has decided that we want, this is the goal that we're wanting to achieve. And as a result, you know, there may be some, you know, harder decisions that need to be made around what the priorities are. But <v Speaker 6>I, I still firmly believe you need a baseline document.</v> <v Speaker 1>A hundred percent. And, and Mike, that would be in,</v> in my mind, that is a no-brainer component of this is, you know, I mean, it says in here, you know, canopy cover as measured by X methodology starting with the day that it's implemented. I, or, or or you know, and, and <v Speaker 6>Whatever other measurements we</v> can, you know, come up with. But I, I think that that is what's going to demonstrate to the community that one is, here we are today, <v Speaker 1>Here's where we were 20 years ago,</v> <v Speaker 6>Here's where we were 20 years ago.</v> <v Speaker 2>Add that to the MAPC</v> <v Speaker 1>Application. A hundred percent. That's a great</v> <v Speaker 2>Idea.</v> I'm gonna add it as one of the, the product deliverables <v Speaker 1>And the, I treat calculations and,</v> and we've got, we've got the ortho <v Speaker 2>Or any other method of, of calculating and quantifying,</v> because MAPC has access to a lot of good data as <v Speaker 1>Well.</v> We've got the data sets that could be used to do that. I also <v Speaker 2>Wonder if there's anything rich can do</v> to help supplement any data gaps that we have. <v Speaker 6>So there's data from the US Forest Service, you know, it,</v> it's, some of it's submeter, some of it's 30 by 30 meter Rasta data. But I, I would say, you know, those are the things that I think about in terms of to demonstrate to the community of, of where we are today, where we were historically, whether whatever that looks like. And then, you know, just like we talk about when we talk about development, food, whatever, whatever concern we might have, we model the future. Right. And say that here's what our town will look like if we continue down this path of, at this rate. At this rate. Yeah. And this is how, you know, this is how the heat island map is going to change, or this is how your health is going to change. This is how your energy costs are gonna increase or decrease based upon what happens. But I, I think we gotta be clear, you know, the, the idea that we're gonna plant our way out of this, you know, that's part of it. You know, we can help enhance that. But you know, the reality is, is that the community has to understand where we are, where we, where we've been, and then, you know, what this future might look like. And, and maybe the future isn't really good and maybe that's what is the stimulus. <v Speaker 1>Right. Totally agree.</v> So, so here's the ask then, is that, I mean, I think we've kind of outlined the parameters here. If you guys could think about this, you know, Claire's gonna, we're gonna go for this grant. Yep. Which is great. You know, we'll get a draft if hopefully we're successful, we get a draft bylaw. But in the same, at the meantime, if you guys could be thinking about what additional bullet points or factors do we need to be taking into account here? I think we've captured a good bit of it here. This conversation's been hugely useful in terms of highlighting some other things that we need to be thinking about. Absolutely. But let's, let's keep, let's keep the conversation going and keep thinking about it. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>It'll be on our next agenda as well.</v> And I, I would encourage folks, like, talk to your neighbors. If you've got family members who live in town, talk to other folks and get their thoughts on this as well. 'cause I think sometimes for us, we can maybe get a little bit too in the weeds on some of the details. And I think that other people can sometimes provide a good outside perspective. <v Speaker 1>I mean, I've, you know, there's, there's the,</v> the whole etic community has been really gung ho about a tree bylaw. And I think that, you know, I want us to kind of drive it from a science perspective and from a practical reality perspective and from a, you know, what's feasible to implement perspective and all that. You know, I've, I'm, I'm starting to have conversations with some of the folks who are, you know, further to the right, further to the libertarian side and less pe people who don't want to be regulated to get their input on it. And I'm gonna share the, these out this outline with them just to be like, what would, you know, what do you think? And I'm sure there'll be all kinds of crazy, not crazy all kinds of pushback and comments and, and feeling about it and, <v Speaker 2>And maybe a little crazy,</v> <v Speaker 1>You know, I mean,</v> it's just all, it's all part of the, of the conversation. And I think that's how we can build towards a solution that if, if the community feels that, let's say canopy cover is something we wanna preserve, how can we get their best? I think that's, that's the thing. Chris, first, then George. <v Speaker 13>Yeah, no, I think, I think one of the things that I,</v> when we start talking about carbon sequestration, we start getting into the weeds, the actual, what a tree gives to, you know, nature. You start talking about the argument that people are having, the trend of just basically putting solar panels on your roof everywhere people put solar panels on your roof. Is that environmentally friendly? I mean, yeah. I mean it's not, it's not a coal plant, but it's, you're gonna have people making cases I think that are, they get as esoteric as, you know, hey, I, do I get an offset for that if I put, if I cut down 10 trees, but I put in, you know, solar panels for myself, for my own energy, <v Speaker 1>Abso flip. Absolutely not.</v> <v Speaker 13>Am I ameliorating my carbon</v> footprint? I don't know. Right. <v Speaker 2>I, I think that, you know,</v> and this gets a way deep in the weeds of, you know, lithium batteries and solar panel components and <v Speaker 1>Children mining, children mining minerals</v> to make TVs. And <v Speaker 2>The one benefit of, of tree planting and,</v> and canopy preservation is that it's just such a clear cut argument. Right. <v Speaker 13>Yeah. That's what I</v> <v Speaker 2>Like about there,</v> there are no ecological downsides to planting more trees. <v Speaker 13>Right.</v> <v Speaker 2>Exactly. At least as far</v> <v Speaker 1>As I'm aware. George. George,</v> <v Speaker 9>I just had a question as to</v> you drive down 1 35 and you see all, see all these developments just before framing him, is there something to me, I'm very visual. You could have an aerial photograph today. How far back does documentation go before that was built and you We could actually measure 38. <v Speaker 13>Huh? 19. Yeah, 38.</v> <v Speaker 9>Okay. Now couldn't we</v> <v Speaker 13>First author of photos, we</v> <v Speaker 9>Could actually measure over the past</v> 10, 20, 30 years how the canopy has diminished. Right. And <v Speaker 2>That's where look for MA</v> <v Speaker 9>PC with, with, you know,</v> that's something people can see it, they can say, my god, <v Speaker 1>There were sequoia trees growing over</v> the mall before. That's right. <v Speaker 10>I was gonna say, you could walk over to that picture,</v> that Lithia graph back there, which is probably fairly accurate of what the town looked like in 1880 something and count the number of trees, which are very few. 'cause Massachusetts has been clear cut how many times over. <v Speaker 2>That's the, the truth about Massachusetts is</v> that old growth forest is, <v Speaker 1>I say town forest is all old growth. Right.</v> <v Speaker 10>New</v> <v Speaker 1>Old growth. New old growth. New old growth.</v> <v Speaker 2>There</v> <v Speaker 1>We go. Younger growth. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 10>So, but that, I mean that picture right there,</v> those are fairly accurate Right. Paintings of landscapes that show No, <v Speaker 1>In 1938, we got a lot of big optical data, coal</v> <v Speaker 6>Plants at that time.</v> Well, there was also another big thing that happened in 1938. Yeah. That's a hurricane. <v Speaker 1>Oh, so who pays the fines when a storm knocks down a tree?</v> <v Speaker 10>Well, PC</v> <v Speaker 2>Honor acts</v> of God will have to be exempted. Certainly. <v Speaker 10>Would MA PC honor this outline</v> or I mean, they just giving a, a person who's will say, I will write what you want. Or will they look at this and say, ain't gonna, this ain't gonna get you're sliding uphill and <v Speaker 6>Mean.</v> Clark University has done that for wor the city of Worcester. I mean, there's an, you know, we could probably find somebody that would, you know, there's data sets there existing that we could tap into. I'm just, you know, I'm not a GIS. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>If M-A-P-C-I-I will include it as like a sort</v> of a separate project item. I don't want it to derail the bylaw stuff. And if they don't bite on that piece of it, I think reaching out to Clark University, Northeastern w Umas, extension, any of these organizations, there might <v Speaker 6>Be grant money available through, you know, MVP through</v> urban and Community forestry. Well <v Speaker 2>That's, we're doing MV 2.0 right now and that project,</v> and it didn't, I don't wanna get anybody's hopes up for us getting selected. The MAPC 2.0 process includes not only funding to support updating our plan, but also $50,000 of seed money for a specific project. Great. So this could potentially be, you know, we've applied for 2.0, we're technically required to go through it in this round, but I don't know if they have enough money to select everybody who's required to go through it this round. 'cause it's every community that had a plan approved in 2018 $50,000. Oh, go ahead Chris. <v Speaker 13>I was just gonna say there,</v> there's a remote sensing component to this that, you know, if you found the right academic institution, yeah. They could use an ER DDAs or a, or you know, a sat, you know, satellite image and use a hyperspectral wavelengths to kind of make a, make a very scientifically accurate assumption about, you know, where you've got foliage and where you don't have foliage. And you can even change the, the individual spectrum. So you can, you can suss out what is a oak tree, you know, what's a canopy of an oak tree? What's the canopy? And yeah, I mean obviously that's, we are talking p some kids' PhD program, but, <v Speaker 2>And Rich, the town's drone operator does have some cool</v> lenses that he's acquired in the last couple of years. <v Speaker 1>X-ray,</v> <v Speaker 2>Not X-ray,</v> but it, it's essentially it's thermal imaging sensors that <v Speaker 13>Hyperspectral Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 2>They find health,</v> <v Speaker 13>They go into the oph fill.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh</v> <v Speaker 13>Wow. Yeah. Well</v> <v Speaker 2>That's good.</v> And so like, it, it shades based on what the like density of chlorophyll that's being picked on. Yeah, it's, we're using some of his flyovers using that sensor of the tiny forest on the signage that's going out. <v Speaker 13>Yeah. That, that to me was what drones was all, was,</v> was drones when drones first came out. That's what I thought they should always be. And they use farmers use 'em all the time. Oh yeah. You can use a program called ERDAS that'll allow you to use the RGB connect the RGB calculations. So you can put in visual spectrums of invisible wavelengths that that plants put out. And I mean they're like a thumbprint for a lot of, lot of different plants. It's a good project. I think if they've got that funding, you know, we can get that grant money. It's, you could do the entire town of Natick and that relatively quickly. <v Speaker 2>Something that would be up Jillian's alley as well. The</v> <v Speaker 6>Only, I'm only gonna do one last plug on,</v> on wood utilization. So I think it's a great, some great synergy with the office of sustainability in the town. I think there's great synergy. That's <v Speaker 1>That last bullet point in there, this</v> <v Speaker 6>Future with this fu future tree preservation committee.</v> But if you can tie those knots or tie those loose ends together, you know, you know, you have a wonderful artist community here. There's, there's, there's clearly folks that are very talented with, with wood <v Speaker 1>And that gets right at the carbon sequestration question.</v> <v Speaker 6>And you know, so, you know, I think of,</v> there was a neighbor of mine that cut down a tree and, and there was a, a, a person who turns who, who turns bulls and was so excited because that tree had a number of, you know, knots on 'em. And, and so they could, and, and so they could do a lot of different things. So I, I, I think, you know, from my perspective, I would love to see a healthy holistic bylaw and, and and tree preservation committee and the office sustainability to kind of work collaboratively on, on just being able to utilize, you know, that's where, you know, the tree, I get it. The tree is trees sometimes have to get cut down, but if we can put them into a long lived product, that carbon's there. <v Speaker 1>So the last bullet point in the proposed,</v> and then this outline basically says that tree tree removal fees would be abated if they can document that the trees that are removed are turned into durable products. Something like that might be, <v Speaker 6>It might be better to not have it as as that,</v> but just have a BMP that, you know, the, an C 300 tried this last year, if I remember correctly, there was a section 11 that they were going to add, which was specifically around tree utilization. <v Speaker 1>But, but why would it not make,</v> I mean I I totally agree with you. Why would it not make sense to include it like this? 'cause I think it brings it to the front of people's consideration. Hey, I don't have to pay 1200 bucks to take these three trees down if I turn 'em into park benches or into, into, into bulls or into bed frames. Yeah. <v Speaker 6>Yeah. I, I don't know. I'm not</v> sure how to do that, I guess. Okay. Yeah, fair. <v Speaker 1>We can talk about it.</v> <v Speaker 2>I will raise up the opportunity</v> of Keith Tech. Yep. They they do. There you go. Do have a, a carpentry and woodworking division and Trails Forest has identified opportunities for, for bench building and picnic table building at reduced cost through that program. So maybe it is, you know, that whole full circle partnership of we're getting this wood from private property, we're getting it to the Keef tech students in a usable form and then TAFs volunteers are going out and anchoring a new bench or a new picnic table at Town Forest or something. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, that'd be great. Okay, so homework is</v> to keep thinking about this, you know, and when at our next meeting on the 19th, we'll come back and we'll have more conversations around this. I don't think we'll have an update from MAPC at that point. I <v Speaker 2>Think that's a, a little too fast, a little</v> <v Speaker 1>Aggressive</v> <v Speaker 2>Around 10, 10 days.</v> Come on. You applying on Monday. <v Speaker 6>Grease the wheels clear. There you go. Grease those.</v> <v Speaker 2>I, if Ann Herps was still there, maybe I could.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. So Claire, any other updates from,</v> from community development? <v Speaker 2>Just one quick one which is related to, oh,</v> and I didn't write it down and now it's totally left my brain. Oh, hazard mitigation plan. We are submitted to mema, we submitted to MEMA the week of Thanksgiving, so we should hopefully be hearing back from them in the next couple of weeks. Is <v Speaker 6>That the presentation we saw?</v> <v Speaker 2>It is, yes. From Craig.</v> So we are finally through the now 14 month update process that we've been chugging along through. <v Speaker 1>Cool. Alright. Alright. Anything else folks?</v> Thank you all for chewing on this. This is a good one. One more meeting before we have the holidays, you know, but, <v Speaker 2>And just a reminder, I'll put this on our agenda.</v> We are only meeting once in January on the third Thursday, so there is not a meeting on January 2nd. <v Speaker 1>All right. Someone make a motion to adjourn.</v> Thank you, George. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you everyone. All those in favor? Thank you Chris. Thanks everyone. Take care everybody. Thank you Chris.