Speaker 1: Hey, welcome everybody. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is November 20th. This is our second meeting of, of November. Our next meeting will be on December, December 4th. If I could ask those people who are watching at home to please keep yourselves on mute until your particular agenda item comes up, just to reduce background noise, barking dogs, yelling, spouses, partners, kids, whatever. But let's open the public hearing here. So the first item in the agenda I have is a certificate of compliance for 29 Irving Road. Do we have a representative of 29 Irving Road here in the room? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Mark Cahill is on Zoom. Speaker 1: Hey Mark, that's you. Hi, how are you? How are you tonight? Alright, so let's just take a look at this. Speaker 2: So, the statement of certification for this project is included on the as-built plan. The only change from the approved plans is the stormwater infiltration system moved from one side of the backyard to the other side of the backyard, which did not impact any functionality or sizing of the system. Speaker 1: I'm just looking for this for the actual statement. Speaker 2: It's at the bottom of the as-built plan right above the stamp. Speaker 1: I hereby state that the feature shown here on is a result of a field survey performed as of October 16th.
But there's no statement around kind of this is in, in, you know, in a course. Oh, in Speaker 2: Compliance with it. You are correct. I can certainly get that from the applicant, but I will say I did do a site visit at the parcel and the site is in full compliance with the approved plans. Speaker 1: All, all buttoned up, all vegetated, all Speaker 2: All vegetated. Actually, the rear mitigation planting area was planted much earlier in the fall, so has grown in quite nicely now. You can see some of it in the, some of the grasses, the native grasses in the photos of the wetlands markers that were installed in the field.
But the, it is very difficult to tell that there used to be a detached structure in that rear slope area that's now been planted with the mitigation vegetation. And Speaker 1: Is that tree that that's, well, does that in good shape? It Speaker 2: Is actually, it, it, the tree welling work happened very early on in the project as soon as the foundation was poured and that rough grading could be completed and the tree appears to be in great shape. I saw no signs of early leaf fall damage to trunk structures or anything like that. Speaker 1: Okay. Looks like it's all properly bounded at the
placard up in the garage. Any, any questions on this for folks hearing? I'm happy to entertain a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 29 Irving Road. So moved. Thank you, David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? All in favor? Do we have anybody in the, on the online yet? Nope. Speaker 2: No, Chris has not joined yet. All Speaker 1: Right. So 5, 5 0. Okay, good. Next item on the agenda is a request for determination of applicability for 2 51 South Main Street. Let me go ahead and open and that,
do we have a representative of 2 51 South Main Street here? Speaker 2: Yes. Tim Garish is on the zoom call. He is the representative for the call, the Speaker 1: Great Tim Registered Landscape Market. Lemme formally open this, please. In accordance to the Wettens Protection Act of Nats local wetlands bylaw Article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Timothy Garish, representing Eric Fontaine of the Sason Trace Golf Course for property located at 2 51 South Main Street Map 59 lot 10. The proposal is for renovations to an existing sand trap and green at the Sason Trace Golf Course. So Tim, Tim, if you could just walk us through
and voice over the plans, that'd be great. Speaker 3: Sure, yes. The bunker is located as you can see. Thank you for having that on. And the cursor, the circle on the third hole on the right side of the par three. And if you can zoom in in some way, that would be, that would be great. We are taking one bunker in the front that has been, was filled in a few years ago because of some issues with playability. And we're shifting that a little further up. There we go. Right there. Yep. A little further up away from actually the,
the resource wetland area and rebuilding that. Right. And then the larger bunker, the single bunker on the right side, we are going to rebuild that into two, reducing the sand area and softening the grass slope between the green surface and the, the grass rough area to the, you know, to the edge of the sand. Excuse me. Right, okay. Thank you. And there's no grade change with the bunker floor itself. That's gonna stay about the same grade.
And as I was discussing with Claire, we could have erosion control on the bottom side of the whole self fence. Fine. I know it's on a landfill, it's on a liner, but we're not necessarily digging into the ground, so we shouldn't have too much of an issue. There was a question about fill that I'm assuming at this point it's going to be top soil to soften because it ends up probably being maybe like I've got a plus one there about a foot at the toe of the slope as a fill to help soften. So it's not a dramatic fill. Speaker 1: So, but you won't be digging into the bottom of the bunk
of, of the bunker though, in terms of the landfill liner though, right? That would be Speaker 3: Bad news? No, only, only that front bunker where we're shifting it up into the slope a little bit. But our, you know, the contractor will be required to hand dig and find the liner itself so we know where the depth is and what we have to work with, and then we will develop the bunker from there. Okay. I, I actually wrote my thesis on landfill golf course and this was my first project back in the day, is that 1990, 2019 99. Speaker 2: And I have connected Tim
and Eric with John Giacomo in the engineering division to ensure that all of this work is being appropriately coordinated. Okay, Speaker 1: Good. Questions for the applicant on this Concerns? Speaker 4: Yeah, I, I just had a question about the, the work being done around the, the, the pond there at number seven. Speaker 2: So that work is in sherburne. Speaker 4: Aha. Speaker 2: Yes. So that is why it is not being filed here in Natick. They are all doing another application. Tim, if, correct me if I'm wrong, in the, with the sherburne con com Speaker 3: Right? That's the irrigation pond. So we are renovating the bunkers near there,
near the seventh hole and near the, near the eighth hole. Again, same thing, same situation. We'll be leaving the rough adjacent to the pond and the liner edge and renovating those in, in, well the one on the seventh hole, pretty much in place. That one needs a light touch. The one on the right side of the eighth, splitting it into two and, and softening the, the maintenance requirements and, and adding a little play interest. Speaker 1: Okay. I don't know, do we trust Shervin? I wouldn't, no. Okay. Any, any further questions for the applicant about what's being proposed here?
This is a request for determination of applicability. So we would vote to close and then to Speaker 2: Termination. We did have one question about Speaker 5: What side, what side is the equipment coming in to do this work? Is it coming from the west, the east, the Natick side? The sherburne side? Speaker 3: That's a good question. I don't know if Eric is on my judgment. Is it, would, there'd be staging happening further down in the side clubhouse area? 'cause there's an access road behind want green, if I'm not mistaken, and would get us up onto the landfill to be able to work at least the landfill holes.
I know there's a bridge that connects us over to the Sherburn side. We may want to look at access from that side for just hauling bunkers sand or something like that. But that's yet to be determined. Speaker 5: Yeah. My, the reason why I, the reason why I ask is there is a certified vernal pool in Sherborne right on the line with Natick. So if, if that road that is being utilized, that's on the sherborne side, not the Natick side, you know, just give some breathing room to that vernal pool. So making sure that equipment isn't parked in the vernal
pool or, you Speaker 1: Know, stays on the path. Speaker 5: Yeah. Stays, stays on the road. There isn't, you know, a potential for any type of material to be located within the, you know, breeding zone of that pool would be, which, you know, I'm not a herp, but, you know, love to see a hundred feet if if possible. Speaker 2: I can pass that a Speaker 3: Little. Yeah, yeah. No, I, I completely understand and, and agree the work areas on this, this type of project being a bunker renovation are, are very small.
In fact, you could see the, the plan for the third green where there's an LOW line around, and that would be very typical to all the rest of our drawings where you can see it's a ve a limited amount of exposure and experience and disturbance. So the, the vehicles and their, and the equipment necessary to do this and, you know, it's a medium, medium-sized mini excavator. We're often using either tip carts with a, with a trailer or you know, the front loading bamford's where they're hauling four yards, right.
A material at a time. So it's, it's a, it's a very controlled and the contractors are also would be requiring golf course experience. So there's only a handful that do it. They all have turf tires and, and several of 'em have worked on landfills and, you know, it's a, it's a unique operation. Speaker 5: Great, thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, other questions? Someone wanna make a motion to close? Motion to close. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on this? Questions, comments, discussion? Alright, all those in favor of closing determination.
This is presumably a negative three determination. Someone will make a motion to issue a negative three determination jurisdictional, no negative impact on the, on the resource area. Speaker 2: Just to note with the condition of the silt fence for erosion control on the down gradient side of the slope, that that's the only condition. Speaker 1: Yep. Okay, good. Someone make that motion to issue a negative three determination please. So move to issue negative three. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Further discussion. Speaker 5: Can I, Speaker 1: I'm sorry to That's all right. Interrupt Speaker 5: Indian brook? Yes. Is that, is the work within 200 feet of Indian brook? No, the
Speaker 2: Work is fully outside of the riverfront area for Indian Brook. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, so we had a motion that was second to issue a negative three determination on that if there's no further discussion, all those in favor? No one's opposed. That's it. Alright Tim, thank you. Appreciate your time. Let us know if you have any questions and stick to the plans please. Speaker 3: A absolutely. Thank you. Have a great Thanksgiving. Speaker 1: Great, thanks. You too. Alright, next item on the agenda I have is nine 19 Porter Road, please, a representative of 19 Porter Road on the call. Speaker 2: Yes, we've got Matt Morrow, who's the wetland scientist for the project on the call, as well as Justin Deri who's an owner's representative.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold on one second. Lemme formally open this. All right. In accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Matthew Morrow from Morrow Consulting representing CGP two realty trust for property located at 19 Porter Road Map 24 lot 36. The proposal is to demolish the existing single family home and construct a new single family home with associated site features. So Matt, are you gonna be the one speaking to this? Speaker 6: Yes. I just wanted to make you aware that I have a, a case of laryngitis so I may sound a little funnier. Speaker 1: We will not hold that against you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So what you see in front of you currently is the existing site conditions with the bordering vegetated weapon that I flagged on site. You have a 0.63 acre lott with a house that's currently 1,196 square feet. The house is proposed to be raised and rebuilt. The original structure was first built in 1949. So Claire, I don't know if you want to go up so we could see the proposed house, Say thank you. So what we have here is a proposed 2,213 square foot replacement home
with a a septic system. The work will entail the removal of four trees that are greater than six inches in diameter. They will be replaced on site. There is no work proposed, 40 foot, no bill zone and no work proposed within the 25 foot no disturbed buffer zone. The house will be a slab on grade with no foundation. There isn't, even though we show a stockpile detail on the plans, there is no plan to really stockpile any soils.
Usually they take them offsite if they need any backfill, they'll go back to where they store 'em and they'll put 'em back in for backfill. Just what they need. If there is some type of a change in plans where we would have to come back for say an amendment to the order of conditions, we would want like the stockpile detail already shown to the commission on the plan. So it's there just in case there's an issue that arises. Other than that, that's my, I guess you could call it my Reader's Digest version, open to any questions you guys may have.
Speaker 2: And just to clarify, Matt mentioned a septic system. Matt, I think you were mentioning the meaning the stormwater infiltration system. Speaker 6: I'm sorry, I meant stormwater infiltration system. Sorry guys. I'm too used to doing septics too, so, okay. Even when I see the infiltrators, I call 'em septics, Speaker 2: They're all just boxes on a plan sheet. Speaker 1: Yep. Questions from the commission on this, Jim, there was that Speaker 4: Concern about the, the water utility. Speaker 2: Oh yes. So Matt, I have sent the question about the water utility to our engineering division. I don't think it's necessarily anything
that would fall under the commission's purview at it's sort of the fullest extent if the commission is comfortable with a condition relating to ensuring a revised plan is received. If the water main location does have to change given the level of disturbance for the installation of a water line is, you know, a four inch trench. I'm not particularly concerned, especially given where the a hundred foot buffer zone falls on the lot. But that is something that the applicant did respond to the question noting that the water line is gonna be underneath the stormwater management system, just
because I'm not familiar with how that might be approved or not approved by the engineering division who's in charge of the utility permits. I've sent that question along to them for their review Speaker 1: And obviously it would, it would require choreographed installations Exactly, Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: To make sure things happen in the proper sequences. Okay. Matt, would you speak to the changes? Any, the changes in topography of, of the lot? One of the things that we tend to get concerned about is the, the potential for any runoff a budding or impacting a budding properties. Would you speak to that?
Speaker 6: Yeah, this lot is fairly flat to begin with. The wetland that is behind it is actually part of a larger system, part of a larger swamp system that actually holds a lot of water. You can see there is a FEMA floodline on the map or not working within the FEMA floodline. So there wouldn't be any alteration to like flood elevation that would cause any type of extra water volume to be displaced. The storm water system, the infiltrator chambers that are here are meant to take any extraneous water from
the structure itself and allow it to infiltrate into the ground. Again, eliminating excess runoff. Post-development grading is pretty similar to pre-development grading. I don't see much of a change here at all enough to create some type of significant change in the watershed that would change the drainage pattern pre and post development to anything significant that would impact either the, the wetland on the rear portion of the property or the abutting single family homes. Speaker 1: And the house. The house is on a slab
so there's not an issue mounding of the, of the lot or the site or anything. I mean the plants certainly don't show it. Just again, just wanna make sure that abutting properties, you know, there's, there's zero or as vanishingly low chances of, of of abiding properties being impacted by by this. But it sounds like that is the case. Speaker 2: Yeah, the peak elevation on the lot currently is 1 66. It, I believe its at that, yeah, 1 66 0.5 in the driveway is the highest spot grade proposed and the storm water report demonstrates some
fairly good reductions in runoff from pre-development to post-development conditions. I'm just pulling that table up here. So a delta of, you know, 1.4 inches from, for the two year storm, which is probably our more frequent rain event that we're seeing these days. So certainly meeting the requirements for reductions in rates and, and peak volumes. Sure. Speaker 1: Yeah. The only other thing I'd see is just with this interesting waterline going, being tucked underneath the infiltration stuff, if engineering gets squirrely about
that, you know, and wants something moved, whether it's the waterline or whether it's the infiltration system that, you know, if the waterline moves, that's not a big deal. If the infiltration system has to move, that's something we'd wanna review again. Okay. If we could just make that clear, Speaker 7: Claire, would you guys be okay if that went under the driveway? Speaker 2: The infiltrators or the waterline? Speaker 7: The infiltrator. Just where it's a slab on a slab on grid, I gotta bring the waterline into the house and not into the garage. Oh yeah, Speaker 2: Absolutely. So that is understood. So the only requirement if you guys
are gonna be putting it under the driveways, at least a portion of it has to be in the grass area so that the inspection port can be placed without disrupting the pavement surface. Okay. That way there's a way to inspect the system without needing to excavate the driveway every time. Speaker 7: Alright. So I guess if there's an issue with engineering, I'll let you know. And I guess that will be the plan. We can flip the Caltech over and leave enough out for the inspection port. Speaker 2: Would the commission be comfortable with that? Speaker 1: I'm right with it Speaker 2: If engineering approves it. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 7: I I mean as it is right now, there's a foot of coverage from the top or the water line to the bottom
of the stone of the Caltech system. So the water line just has to go in first. So it shouldn't be an issue, but we'll see what they say. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 1: Yes. I I I think you're getting nods of approval here that if that's the case, that's all right. Is that true, Mike? Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm just thinking of the future, I guess is if a water line has to be replaced, then Speaker 2: That's my con that's why I sent it to engineering. 'cause that's my concern as well, is you have to rip the chambers out to replace a water line, which water lines are generally not requiring, replacing on a regular basis, but never say never, never
Speaker 1: Say never. And that Speaker 4: They've got that new technique to the Speaker 2: Oh, the lining. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. So they don't have to dig too much. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions? I'd like to open up for questions or comments? Sir, you're in a butter. Would you like to ask some questions? If you, if you could come up to the microphone so our, our viewers at home can, can, can listen. Speaker 9: This is it. I never Speaker 2: That's fine. Take your Speaker 1: Pick. Okay. Speaker 9: I'm just curious whether there's any chance of saving the huge maple tree in the front yard. There is a beautiful tree and I, is there any chance of saving it? Speaker 1: Matt, what's the plan for the big maple in the front?
Speaker 7: That was one of the ones that was gonna go, I think it's pretty much right halfway between like the driveway and the cult tech where it's shown right now. Yeah. Speaker 2: I'm pulling up the aerial imagery right now for the lot. And just to acknowledge who you are for the record, if you could give your name and Speaker 1: You could identify us. Speaker 9: Thomas E. Abbott. Thank you. At 17 Porter Speaker 1: Road. Thank you. Speaker 2: Just to make the minutes easier. Thank you. Speaker 6: We do intend to replant, so there will be new varieties planting. Speaker 1: Okay. So it sounds like they're, they're planning on removing four, four trees, sir. And then, and then they'll I heard that.
Yeah. And they'll replace him. Speaker 9: Replace him. Yeah. Yeah. So it's too bad. Speaker 2: Here's the, Speaker 9: It's beautiful tree. Yeah, Speaker 2: Here's that. Oh, I'm sorry, my, I'm not sharing the right screen on zoom. Let's take that again. There we go. So folks can see, I'm assuming this is the maple that you're discussing. Yeah. So based on where the stormwater infiltration system is gonna be placed because of the excavation that's required for that system. Oh, let the roots of this tree would be very severely damaged, unfortunately. Speaker 9: Okay. I just, yeah. Had to have my say about that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. No, appreciate the question. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions for you? That, Speaker 9: That's all I Speaker 1: Can, that's it. Alright. Other questions from the commission on this? Any other questions from the public on this? Anybody online? Speaker 2: I am not seeing any hands raised. I do just wanna note, Chris Stillman did join us at seven 15 when we're doing votes. Speaker 1: Welcome Chris. Chris, did you hear, hear that? All, all the information for that one. Do you feel comfortable voting on this one or do you wanna abstain? Yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. I, I feel pretty comfortable on that. Okay. I read through the notes and I Speaker 1: Good, I Speaker 10: I've looked at the folder and heard everything.
Speaker 1: Other questions? Alright, someone make a motion to close if that's the desire of the board. Speaker 9: Motion to Speaker 1: Close. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion? Debate, hearing none. Those in favor, Chris? Yes. All right. Done. Order conditions, standard order conditions put in, please put in some language around the, if the call tech needs to be flipped. Speaker 2: Yep. And also conditions for the four replacement trees and Speaker 1: Certainly Speaker 2: For in terms of marker locations, this is a, a lot that has a pretty clear sort of transition from wetland to not wetland,
but I think that the 25 foot no disturb line makes the most sense for me in this regard. Yep. Speaker 1: Yep. Okay. Any other conditions we wanna place on this? Hearing? None. So wanna make a motion to issue the order of conditions as amended. Speaker 11: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you Michael. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Jeff. Further discussion? All in favor, Chris? Speaker 11: Yes. Speaker 1: Thank you. Alright, all set. Matt, thank you. Appreciate your time sir. Thank you for coming. Appreciate your time. Thank
Speaker 11: You. Thank you me, thank you for putting up with my voice. Speaker 1: Hey, no, no worries. If that's, if that's the worst we have tonight, I'll consider it a good night. Alright, next item on the agenda is notice of intent for six Ambler court. No, that's not one of the ones that requested a continuation. Speaker 2: No, this one is a continuation. This, so we do need to vote open and then vote to accept a continuance Speaker 11: Second Speaker 2: Or 27. Right next. Speaker 11: Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, so six Ambler court. So go ahead and open it and accordance to the Wes Protection Act and NAS local weapons bylaw vertical 79.
The NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Peter LaVoy, DNL Design group representing Marcelo Alba of new generation custom homes for property located at six Ambler court map 51 lot 43 B. The proposal is to demolish the existing single family home and constructed new single family home with associated site features. So they have not gotten a DEP file number correct at this point. Okay, so applicant has requested that we continue this to our meeting on December four. So let someone make a motion to do so Speaker 11: Before Speaker 12: I could you click, you tell him that they, they referenced another property under standard number three on page seven.
Speaker 2: Good to know. Thank Speaker 11: You. Speaker 1: Get that cleaned up. Speaker 11: Thank you Jeff Speaker 1: With that. So we'll make a motion to continue to December four. Speaker 11: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you David. Is that seconded? Speaker 11: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? All in favor in the room Chris? Speaker 11: Yes. Speaker 1: Alright, continue to December four. Losing track of my copy documents here. Alright. Speaker 11: Hunting Speaker 1: Porter Road 6:00 AM court. Alright, 1 97 Elliot Street. This is the property down at 1 97 Elliot Street that we did the site visit on the, Speaker 2: I'm happy to give a quick rundown if you'd like Matt. Speaker 1: Yeah, why? Why don't you go ahead.
Speaker 2: So as the commission knows, the commission approved a peer review proposal for the project site. LEC Environmental was selected. I met out on site on Monday morning with Rich Kirby from LEC and Russ Waldron from Applied Ecological Services, which is the original wetland scientist. We walked the entire site, pulled probably close to 30 soil auger samples from across the lot. Both Rich, myself and Russ were pulling auger cores confirming locations of hydro soil features. And the wetland flags were greatly expanded on the lot from
what was originally shown. There was a large increase to the bordering vegetated wetland area that abuts the stream. There was a small pocket of isolated wetland identified at the front of the lot and the isolated wetland at the rear of the lot was also greatly expanded in terms of its footprint. So a memo from LEC is available in the drive folder upon receipt of the memo from LEC and the request to the applicant to pick up the new wetland flags on the survey plan, the applicant went out, saw where the new flags were located,
and has now submitted an application to withdraw their notice of intent. So the commission would need to vote to accept the withdrawal. This means that no order of conditions would be issued, neither an approval or a denial. There's also no prejudice if a new application is refiled at this location. In the future though, with the understanding that the wetlands flags will look very different than the plan that was originally filed. That is really it. Speaker 1: I think we all saw that one coming after the site visit. You know, walking through the yard there. It was pretty, pretty squishy squi throughout, you know,
well outside of what was, what was flagged as wetlands. And it turns out that in fact is the case. I mean, you said what, six inches down you were seeing Redox? Yeah, Speaker 2: I, I got some great photos of redox amorphic features for my MACC classes that I teach. Speaker 1: Excellent. Alright, so applicant's requested a withdrawal, we would vote to accept that or someone will make a motion to accept the request to withdrawal moved. Thank you Chris. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any discussion, debate, anybody? Speaker 5: Could I just ask one question? Of course. Will that third party review map be part
of the public record and be something that we could tap into for future? Speaker 1: I think it would certainly, I mean it's certainly part of the public record, no doubt about that. Well, Speaker 2: So there, there is no, you know, stamped plan that shows these flags. I will scan my annotated plan into the record file, but in theory, any new applicant would need to delineate the site to such a manner that aligns with Speaker 1: So it wouldn't count as an rad in a Speaker 2: Sense. No it does not. No wetland line has been approved. That's fair. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's good. Okay. Alright. So I think we had a motion and I think we didn't vote right?
Speaker 2: No, we did not vote. We Speaker 1: Did not vote. Okay. All this in favor of accepting the with request to withdraw in the room, Chris? Yes. Great, thanks. Okay, done with that. Alright, we're done for the night. Next item on the agenda is five Auburn Street. So we're continuing the discussions process for five Arvin Street. So we've talked a little bit, I sent an email that's part of the folder where it's in the file about how we could approach this evening. Just so that we're all on the same page and you know, the, the outstanding questions or the order that I propose and we can talk about that here before we get, you know, really dive into the substance. One of the first questions, and it's a fairly fundamental one for the whole pro for the whole proposal, is,
is this a new development or a redevelopment, a so-called 5 84 or a 5 85 review for this, which would have an impact on several aspects of, of the process that we have here and the process that the applicant would need to go through. So Claire, I'd like to put you on the spot absolutely to talk through 5, 8 4 versus 5 8 5. And you know, we've discussed this and I think all of us have done a lot of homework. I think I've read the Rivers act more times in the past three weeks than I've read it many years, but there's been a, a really good,
very useful exercise for us. So Claire, why don't you talk us through that. Speaker 2: Of course, lemme just get it up on the screen so folks at home can also see what I'm referencing. This is a flow chart that was put together to share with the commission in regards to the sort of breakdown of 10.584 versus 10.585. The flow chart is, is really just a description of the breakdown of the individual performance standards. What their, what the language of the performance standard is, what performance standards may or may not apply to this particular project.
The other item that I just wanted to bring up is the regulations language themselves and specifically the preamble to the redevelopment regulations under 10.585. So for the folks at home, I am gonna read this out and in the room who might not be able to see the screen as well. 'cause I know that the text is a bit small. I am gonna read this out loud, but redevelopment within previously developed riverfront areas restoration and mitigation. Notwithstanding the provisions of three 10 CMR 10.584,
which is the new development standards, the issuing authority may allow work to redevelop a previously developed riverfront area, provided the proposed work improves existing conditions. Redevelopment re me means replacement, rehabilitation or expansion of existing structures, improvement of existing roads or reuse of degraded or previously developed areas. A previously developed riverfront area contains areas degraded prior to August 7th, 1996 by impervious surfaces from existing structures or pavement, absence of topsoil, junkyards
or abandoned dumping grounds. The regulations, sorry, ending my quote from the regulations. Speaking again. The regulations very clearly state that any amount of prior degraded area within the riverfront area on a lot mean that a site is eligible for review under the redevelopment regulations. So just to clarify, the applicant was fully within their rights and their allowances under the regulations to file as a redevelopment project. And that is how the commission will be reviewing the project moving forward under those particular performance standards.
This is not only at the recommendation of working with the staff at DEP, but also reviewing the project with the commission and reviewing revised materials and documentation provided by the applicant. Speaker 1: Yeah, just to add to that, I mean we, the advice we're getting from counsel and others is that the letter of the law says that if there is any quote degraded area and that includes impervious surfaces in the riverfront area and there is a small amount of
asphalt surface in the riverfront area, then the project is eligible, eligible to be reviewed under 10.585 and be treated as a redevelopment. The primary implication of that is that it means that the, the well there's several implications of that, but the primary one for the purposes of this, this discussion right now is that the, the applicant is not obligated to conduct an alternatives analysis, which under a new development under 10.584, if it was reviewable as a new development,
the applicant would need to go through a process to study alternatives and make a case as to why the alternative that's being presented is the right one for under a variety of criteria. But because it's a redevelopment site, according to the letter of the law, this, this can be reviewed as a redevelopment project. And so it's approximately 3% of the riverfront area. Speaker 2: It's 1,588 square feet. If I have that number Speaker 1: Right off the top of my head out 50,000 some, something like that. Yes.
Speaker 2: Total riverfront area on the site is 50 2051 square feet. Speaker 1: Alright. And so small amount of it is previously degraded. And so according to the letter of the law, the review will happen under 10.585, which is the redevelopment. Okay. Is there any, any questions, debate, clarifications that we have on that I want to go through, through this in a fairly structured way and really kind of tick down the list of things just to make sure that we're really covering everything here.
Claire, a question for you and, and one that I would like to do some homework on is to, and you know, we, I think I know the answer and it's, but it's something I'll, I'll be continuing to look into is that, you know, the previously degraded area is 3% and if there was half a percent, would it still qualify? Speaker 2: So town council is researching case law. She did have a family emergency and was not able to provide me with any documentation. She was able to connect with the applicant's lawyer. She and I have had multiple calls and she is working to provide those materials.
So based on discussions with the circuit rider for the northeast region of DEP, there have been several cases that have been settled out of court. So there's no case law associated with them that did indicate that judges in Massachusetts tend to lean very literally into the interpretation of that language that any previously degraded area within the riverfront area means that a site qualifies. I'm not saying that every judge would, but I'm saying that that is what I have been told by the northeast region of DEP pending research on other
case law being provided by town council. Speaker 1: I think that what this, for me, what this shows is that when we are reviewing rads, so abbreviated notices, notices of resource area, delineations in riverfront area, we have to be excruciatingly careful because very small amounts can make a very big difference in terms of how a property is developed. This property was under an rrAD that was done several years ago that this commission reviewed and approved delineating the resource area.
And I'm not calling into question the, the findings of that, it's fairly straightforward in this, in this particular case, but in other cases where the, where the boundaries of the resource area might move by six or eight or 10 feet. And we've seen many instances where a good, you know, a, you know, wetland scientists will disagree on the order of 6, 8, 10 plus feet. We need to be incredibly careful in riverfront area when we're doing RADS because it can, it, it, it changes the, literally changes the rules of the game in, in terms of
how projects are handled. So let's just put that in our memory banks and hang onto it. 'cause I think it's a really important lesson, at least for me personally on this, on this particular project. Speaker 4: Could I ask one question? Oh, absolutely. Here, not to belabor the, the section four thing, but be beyond the alternatives analysis. What other difference is there? Like for, for example, does the new development have the, the two to one ratio thing? It didn't seem to, Speaker 2: So that, that is a great question, Jim. So some of the largest differences between 10.584
and 10.585 is primarily that alternatives analysis, which is a, a requirement under 10.584. The second is there are similar percentages of alteration allowed under the regulations very similar to 10.585 alteration allowance of 10% or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater, which is very similar language to 10.58 E if I'm gonna get that correctly. Some of the things that are very different would be there is a requirement that in order to allow
that alteration and and vegetated buffer must be provided or improved upon. The buffer is generally a hundred feet wide of undisturbed vegetation is provided or to the maximum extent feasible in this project's case because of where the project sits on the lot, I don't think that would've been a substantial difference in terms of the review. What does also come under 10.584 is alteration over 5,000 square feet does require a wildlife habitat evaluation. What I will note is that under 10.585, the commission does have this mitigation requirement
that goes along with the alteration, which we do not get under the 10.584 requirements. And there are also, I Speaker 1: Don't know, Speaker 2: I'm sorry, can folks at home please ensure that they remain on mute until the chair opens it up for public comment? That would be great. The one thing that I will note that we do not get under 10.585 that we would get under 10.584 is just that alternatives analysis, protection of rare habitat, protection of other resource areas. Those cross the two.
Finally the, the perpetual protection for the mitigation areas. So mitigation could be provided under a 10.584 project, but there's no perpetual requirement for the maintaining that area and it's, it's naturalized state. Speaker 1: Okay. What I'd like to do is just in the spirit of an open, open process here, and I, but I'm gonna be fairly rigorous about this, is that if anyone has any questions about this particular part of the process, whether a redevelopment or a new development process is appropriate for this.
I think you're hearing from the commission pretty clearly that the letter of the law is clear and, and the feedback that we're getting, I mean we are gonna wait for some feedback from town council as to whether what, what case law looks like to understand that and just have that as, as a data point here certainly reads to me clearly yes. You know that if this condition is met then it is reviewed there. Any questions from the public on this particular issue before we move on to the next item here? Chair Speaker 13: Gardner, would it be appropriate for me to introduce myself since I'm the newest
member of the team? That Speaker 1: Would be great. I've been sitting here staring at the screen and all this stuff. Welcome please. Speaker 13: Thank you. Good evening everyone. My name is Adam Brodsky. I'm an environmental and land use lawyer with DTM Law in Hingham and I've been brought on to assist the applicant Metro West collaborative development with respect to this project. Obviously, you know, Dana Altoro our professional engineer with Merrill as well as Sharon, small director of real estate with Metro West. We have David Aiken with David Aiken development advisors. Also, just so you know, Brad Holmes,
our professional wetland scientist with ECR is unable to attend this evening, so I just wanted to introduce by myself appreciate that some a reference. I I I, I've worked with Ms. North Town Council for years and did have the opportunity to speak with her and she made time even though she was dealing with a family issue. So I'm very grateful for that. Speaker 1: Great, thank you for being here. I appreciate that and Speaker 2: I apologize for acknowledging who you were without introducing you to the rest of the commission. Speaker 13: I found my help. Thank you Ms. Elli. Speaker 1: Alright, any, any questions before we move on from the commission? Alright, next.
So the law is clear that if we're reviewing it under a 10 10.585 review, so 10.585 a at a minimum proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing cap over existing conditions of the capacity of the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in MGLC by chapter 1 31, section 40 when a lot is previously developed, but no portion of the riverfront area is degraded, which is not the case here. The requirements of three 10 CMR 10.584 shall be met.
Speaker 2: And Matt, earlier this afternoon, Dana did provide a, a document, you know, compliance with the riverfront area performance standards narrative from the applicant team. Speaker 1: Yep. I was gonna have, I was gonna have him go through that and, and speak to that. Perfect. Speaker 2: I just wanted to make sure you were aware. Speaker 1: So what I'd like to do now, because that's a, a very clear condition of the law, is to look at the proposed plans and determine if the interests of the River Protection Act are being upheld. Then importantly, imp improved upon and the interest for, for those watching at home.
And those here in the room, the interests are to protect the private or public water supply to protect the groundwater, provide flood control, prevent storm damage, prevent pollution, protect land containing shellfish, protect wildlife habit, protect the fisheries. Speaker 2: I will note not all of the interests are applicable to every lot. There are no shellfish in concern for this particular project. Areas containing shellfish are areas identified by the state and by shellfish constables. We do not have any in this particular Speaker 1: Area.
Zebra mus, if they're in there, don't count. Speaker 2: And they're invasive too. So Speaker 1: Invasive anyway. Right. Okay. Speaker 14: Please, Jared, can I, I, I brought some handouts to make it easy, just so you have something in front of me Speaker 2: For folks in the room, the handout that Dana is providing is the same thing that's being shown on the screen right now. Thank Speaker 1: You. Speaker 11: Thank you. I'm okay without, I've got my computer. Speaker 14: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Dana Alveo, as Adam mentioned from Merrill Engineers and land surveyors. Just going through the interest that you had mentioned earlier,
this project will provide improvements as, as you had mentioned, and this document kind of walks us through the improvements that are proposed by the redevelopment of this project. With respect to public and private water supply, this lot is located within the aquifer protection district recharge area. The proposed stormwater management system will improve the existing conditions on site substantially. Currently, there are no stormwater management controls as part of the existing parking area and lot itself, any, any stormwater that falls on the
parking lot through throughout the site and the roof and the, the yard itself just flows directly untreated into the Charles River. For the most part, the, the proposed management Stone water management system has been designed to both treat the water, the storm water from the site for both water quality and water quantity, and will provide substantial amounts of recharge with the subsurface infiltrations systems that are proposed on site. I've kind of put a table below that that shows the, the reduction in the, the peak rates of runoff. This is due to the substantial subsurface infiltration
systems that are proposed. We have, you know, just to make sure that we're maximizing our recharge, we have proposed two large subsurface infiltration systems and as a result, with all that water being held back and recharged, it really reduces the peak rates of runoff from the, the site during larger storm events. Excuse me. This system, as I mentioned, has substantial subsurface infiltration system. The minimum recharge required for the proposed impervious area on site is 2,212 cubic feet. The proposed subsurface Stone Mart system provides a total
of 7,727 cubic feet, which is almost 3.5 to one over what's required. We are also proposing to provide TSS removal with the system. The minimum required by the Stonewater management handbook is 80%. And Dana, Speaker 2: Sorry, just to interrupt. TSS stands for total suspended solids for folks in the room who are not Speaker 14: Familiar? That's correct. I I deal with this too much, so it's, yes, as do I. Thank you, Claire. So the TSS removal or, or total suspended solids removal required for the system would be 80%. And the overall TSS removal
provided by the combined systems is approximately 94.7%. So well above the, the minimum. And the next item that we look at is the minimum phosphorous removal for redevelopment projects, the minimum removal is 50%, and again, with the system, the combined phosphorous removal provided is 92.7% for the stormwater system. So with, with the increase in recharge the, the drastic improvement in the water quality from the, the stormwater, from the runoff from the property, the, the public and private water supplies should be protected
and there should be a substantial improvement seen from the runoff from the site. The next item would be the protection of groundwater supply. Most of the items we talked about just previously with the, the, the water supply apply to this as well. You know, again, the, the substantial improvement in recharge volumes provided by the subsurface infiltration systems will substantially enhance the groundwater supply in this area. The treatment of the, the water will also provide a, a, a great improvement to the, the groundwater supply as well.
So it'll get a substantial increase in recharge as well as the water quality treatment from the stone water from the property. And, and again, there's no treatment and no recharge going on currently as, as part of the existing conditions on the site. The, the next item is flood control. This really isn't applicable as the property or the, the project area is located well above the FEMA flood zone associated with the Charles River. But I would note that as I mentioned, there is a substantial decrease and the, the peak rates have runoff from the stormwater from the property. This will certainly help, you know,
during larger storm events with the elevations of the levels of the, the water levels in the, in Charles River, there will not certainly be any increase in runoff from the site as a result. The next item is storm damage prevention. Again, this one really doesn't have much of an impact or the, the proposed project will not ma have much of an impact as there's no portion of the property that will have an impact on wind, ice, fast moving water, et cetera within the Charles River. The project is not within an area mapped as land subject to flooding according to FEMA maps.
The next item is pollution prevention. As detailed in the previous responses, the proposed stormwater management plan will improve the ex existing conditions on the site where stormwater is currently unmanaged. Again, we'll be providing a substantial increase in recharge that's provided on the site, as well as a drastic improvement to the water quality from runoff leaving the, the site as part of this project. The protection of fisheries, this is not applicable as it relates to cold water fisheries. There are no cold water fisheries located nearby or, or downstream of the property.
But again, with regards to the water quality treatment, any storm water coming from the property now is not treated. The, you know, as a result of the, the proposed project will be substantially increasing the water quality treatment of the, the runoff leaving the site, which can only be a, a substantial benefit to any fisheries downstream within the Charles River itself. Protection of wildlife habitat is the next standard. Currently there is a limited buffer within between the site and the Charles River. The rear of the site is currently a, an open grass
maintained lawn or field area. There's, there's very little habitat value within a, a maintained lawn like that. There, it's just kind of mowed lawn that's kind of manicured. So currently there's really not a lot of habitat value in there. There is a, an existing fence that kind of limits the line from the existing buffer area to the Charles River. We will be maintaining that existing fence line as part of this project. There will be no, no, no portions of the proposed project will go any closer than the existing fence line. And actually, if, if you look at the project, the existing project as a whole, as
as was mentioned earlier, the, the project was developed in approximately 1938. At that time there is a septic system leaching pits that are located beyond the fence line in the, the side of the hill. There's also flared end sections from the catch basins from Auburn Street that are located up on our property, you know, well outside of that, that fence line. So there, there has been alteration that's gone on in the past. It's kind of grown over at this point, but we are certainly not any further than any, any of that alteration will be maintaining the existing fence line
and staying well upgrading of any of those further locations on the site as, excuse me, currently the buffer zone be between the river and the fence line is infested with invasive plantings, which have, have taken over the area in recent years. The proposed mitigation that has been shown in the plans will restore open areas with native fruit pro producing vegetation. And we're also proposing the removal of non-native plants, which will improve habitat value within the riverfront area in buffer zones. Also, as a benefit, currently, as I mentioned, there's
that grass area that goes right up to the fence line. We are proposing a 4,861 square foot of native planting area behind the building, which will give an, an additional buffer zone between the Charles River and the, the proposed development. This is currently within that, that maintained grass area where there's currently no habitat. This will be planted with new native plant species, which will provide flowering flowering native plants as, as well as you know, berry producing plants.
This will provide protection and, and cover for habitat and certainly will increase the habitat value of that area and provide additional buffer zone to the river. The project also, Provo proposes some additional benefits that are not, you know, really fitting of the, the standards, but there's certainly benefits to the area in the, the community. As we had mentioned, the applicant is proposing to restore and enhance seven 10,749 square feet of existing buffer zone along the Charles rts remove the non-native invasive plantings.
These will be installed or, or these will be replaced with new native plantings. Also proposed our vegetation management activities that are proposed throughout the site, not just the riverfront area. So this will be maintained for at least the next five years just to make sure that there are no invasive species anywhere, you know, both within the riverfront area and throughout the, the site itself. This is detailed in an updated vegetation management and mitigation plan that was submitted and it's stated November 14th, 2025. The project will also provide emergency vehicles to,
to have an easy way to turn around upon entering Auburn Street for emergency calls to the area. Currently, they're, you know, able to drive down the street, but they essentially have to back all the way back up to Elliot Street when, when visiting the area. So this will give them an easy way to turn around and exit the, the, the road safely. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new ex sidewalk beyond the southwest Philly entrance from the proposed property onto Auburn Street. This will connect from that entrance all the way down to an existing flagpole at the end of Auburn Street.
The proposed project will also provide much needed affordable housing, which will be 100% affordable and available with preference to local residents to the extent allowable by law. Speaker 2: So that is the response provided for 10.58 A by the applicant team. I will just note for the record that those final three items do not follow within the wetlands jurisdiction, but I I understand the reason for providing them. I just wanted to clarify that. Sure. Speaker 1: Okay. What I'd like to do is just go through these and see if we have, so the applicant's made the case around
how the proposed work would improve upon those interests identified in the Rivers Act, and I'd like to hear from the commission in terms of your thoughts. Do you agree, disagree questions for them about, about this as I go to open that up, Speaker 15: What happens after five years with the invasive management? Speaker 1: I wrote that question down too. Oh, Speaker 13: Chair guard. Should I attempt to answer that question or do you want to jump in? You Speaker 14: Can on that if you want. Speaker 13: Thank you. Because one of the things I was asked to think about and potentially address is a notion of a
continuing condition requiring perpetual maintenance of the mitigation area. And I I I, I think the, i I should preface this by saying that we will work with the commission on negotiating mutually agreeable conditions for this project, but I think the answer to that question is actually found in 10 58 H and there are two sentences and with, could I just thank you. The first sentence is, the issuing authority shall include a continuing, excuse me, continuing condition
in the certificate of compliance for projects under three 10 CMR 10 58. Five F or g and G is the mitigation provision upon which we're relying upon here prohibiting further alteration within the restoration or mitigation area, except as may be required to maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition. So you're required to have a continuing condition that prohibits further alteration except what may be required for maintenance,
but it doesn't expressly grant to the commission the right to require perpetual maintenance. And I think this is informed by the second sentence, which says that prior to requesting the issuance of the certificate of compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate the restoration or mitigation has been successfully completed for at least two growing seasons. And, and you're very well aware in the case of A BBW replication that at least under the State Act, you're required to demonstrate that, that you achieve 70% survivability
over two growing seasons. I know many towns under their local bylaws have more stringent requirements. So I, I think reading those together says that we certainly have an obligation to, to guarantee that the, the restoration or mitigation has been successful, but only for a finite period of time. And that once we get our certificate of compliance, that we have satisfied that condition. And, and in fact, that's, that's your guarantee that we're going to do the work because we can't get our certificate of compliance
unless we meet that continuing condition. I should say that, that even after the issuance of a certificate of compliance, the commission retains authority to enforce the State Wetlands Protection Act in, in this particular case, if there's any violation of the order or violation of any of the state regulations, I guess un, unless DEP takes control under a superseding order, so you have both security that the mitigation will be performed within
the defined period of time, and if there's any violation in the future, the commission retains jurisdiction. But I think the strict answer to the question is, I don't think the regulations say that, that you can require an applicant to maintain this in perpetuity. Speaker 2: Matt, oh, apologies. Go ahead. Speaker 1: So, okay. And we, we, you know, we can certainly take that under advisement. What I would want the commission then to consider, I mean, we're talking about the, the remediation of knotweed primarily. Yeah. Knotweed will be back in three weeks. Yeah.
And then after two years it'll come back again. That's, that's what I worried about. And so what that says to me is maybe that's not the right mitigation. Yeah. You know, Speaker 13: I, I should say, and, and excuse me, chair Gardner, we are proposing a, a longer period of time for aspects of that Sure. Work. Speaker 1: Yep. That's fair. I Speaker 13: Appreciate that. Recognizing that it takes more than two growing seasons to tackle invasives. Yep. Speaker 1: Appreciate that. Okay. Well, I mean, let's just take this under advisement as we continue through the discussion there. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Other, Matt, just to note, there's a member of the public who's raised their hand.
I just wanna note that the, there will be an opportunity to open things up for public comment. Wayne, please feel free to leave your hand raised. So I know that you're still looking to ask a question, but I just wanna clarify that that's why we're not calling on you right now. Speaker 1: Other questions from the commission on the case around the, the interests of the act are, are conditions are being improved upon as, as part of this. So we have the, the mitigation issue. I mean, one of the, one of the concerns that I have, and Dana maybe this is to you, is, you know, I agree
that the storm water infrastructure that you're putting in there, you know, treat storm water, treats it effect, you know, we'll, if properly in installed, maintained all of that, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll treat it according to the, according to the parameters that you described, phosphorus, TSS, things like that. One of the concerns that I have is that we're now gonna be introducing if this project moves forward as planned, we're now gonna be introducing say 20, call it 20 to 30 vehicles on site, and the storm water infrastructure, or god forbid, any fire department activity that happens,
foam is thrown down or whatever, that's going to change the nature. I mean, that, you know, that that could easily overwhelm or represent a risk to the river that wasn't there before. If a fuel tank ruptures on a vehicle and, you know, 30 gallons, 20 gallons of gas flows into a structure, that's, those systems aren't really, I mean, you can put oil, water separators in there, but 20 or 30 gallons of, of fuel into one
of those could cause some real issues. How would, how would what what you've proposed mitigate that? I mean, yes, there are vehicles on Auburn Road already, but proportionally speaking, the likelihood of risk is increased. The, you know, the more vehicles you have there. Sure. Speaker 14: So the first, if we look at the, the first treatment train or the, the main treatment train, which kind of covers two of the systems. There's, it starts with a, a bio retention area that's for, for pre-treatment. The pre-treatment prior to the, the bio retention area is a,
a sediment four bay, or it's a, a grass, a vegetative filter strip. So if, if say 20 gallons of petroleum leaks into the pavement gets into one of these, these sediment four bays, you know, the sediment four bays are sized to handle a minimum of 400 cubic feet per acre. You know that, that's the ratio of the, the pavement. There's no, there's no tributary on the, on the, on the site that has a, an acre going to it. So it's, you know, they're generally broken into like 20,000, 15,000 square feet. So the, the sediment four base have been sized to hold, say,
80 or 90 or 150 cubic feet of, of, of water or, or gasoline. So theoretically, if something, if it's not raining out or if it is raining out, you know, the, the, the hydrogen, the, the hydrocarbons will be washed into the, the sediment four bay. They can be kind of bypassed and, and kind of, you know, if the, if it's caught, it can be captured there, you know, within the, the bio retention area. And, and that can be pumped out, cleaned up, and, you know, mitigated before it gets into the subsurface infiltration system. That, that's kind of the, the beauty of the,
the bio retention area. It, it, it is vegetated the, the, the plants will help capture and keep that from getting into the ground. The same thing if you work. So I'm, I'm kind of starting in the, the back of the site where the, it's all good. The playground is if you work your way around, there is a catch base and that was the only place we couldn't really make a bio retention area work. So there's a catch base and that'll direct water into a first defense unit. I don't know if I brought the numbers with me, but again, I think they, they're actually designed to capture a certain volume of, of, of hydrocarbons in, in case of something like this. Typically it's 30 40 gallons, which is bigger than your,
your largest, you know, gas tanks on a, a, a non-commercial vehicle. So that's something that'll, it'll be captured in there, maintained, and then it can just be easily pumped out and that can easily be mitigated as well. And then as you work your way to the front of the site, the same thing with the, the bio retention area. It will have a, a sediment four bay on the, if you're looking at it from the site, it'll have a sediment four bay on the right hand side and a, a filter strip with, with a brain cramp it, it's basically gonna act like a, a sediment four bay.
It'll, it'll capture it, it allows, it'll larger runoff to flow over it. So it, it'll, it'll keep the, the, the hydrocarbons of the, the, the gas contained in one spot. So it's easily cleaned up and removed from the system before it gets into the, the, the subsurface infiltration system. So it should be a, a great improvement that theoretically could have happened, you know, while it was a school. And there's really, in that case, there's nothing to stop it. It's just going either into the ground, into the river, or out in the street to those catch basins at the end of the road. It's just discharged directly into the river. I don't, I don't believe they have hoods on them currently.
So there's, there's no treatment at all that's just gone. Okay. So this will be a, a, a much better situation. Speaker 1: So basically, I mean, you're, what you're saying is that barring, barring a, a tanker truck leaking Yes. Flowing wide open, that the capacity of the systems that you're proposing to install would, would capture anything. Giving, giving responsible parties the opportunity to, to suck it out, clean it up? That's Speaker 14: Correct. Yep. Speaker 1: Or it ever got to the river Speaker 14: And, and the, the treatment systems that we selected are all, you know, as I mentioned this,
this site is located within an aquifer protection district, the recharge zone. So all of the pre-treatment and the, the treatment facilities that were selected are all something that are, are designed to be used in zone twos and, you know, different, you know, watershed protection areas. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: I will just add to the discussion that the DEP notification requirements for those types of, are also a, a secondary layer of protection. Speaker 1: Just thinking through the Speaker 2: Scenarios. Oh yeah, no, the questions are important Speaker 1: Prior to DEP showing up, so, okay.
Other, other questions on the interests of the act here? Jim, I know you got one. I, Speaker 4: I do. Yeah. No, so in terms of pollution, like, so, you know, we think about the groundwater and, and it's, you know, the storm water and all that. But, and I know we've brought it up a few times I think in earlier meetings, but there's, I guess what I'm concerned about is, number one, it's a, it's a three story building, correct? Right. How does that line up with the building that's in front of it? Is it higher? Is it the same height? I, I'm just curious 'cause I, I don't have any sense of the,
the, the height of the building and what I'm, what I'm getting to is I was worried about, you know, we're worried about the habitat and there's light and there's noise, right. Also, you mentioned vehicles coming in, but, you know, what are we projecting onto the, to the river, I guess if you would, in terms of light pollution? I'll just start with that. Speaker 2: And Dina, I do have the lighting plan that was provided. Oh, Speaker 4: Perfect. Yeah, I, I, I saw a lighting plan, but I didn't, I I couldn't convert that to Yep. Is is the whole river all lit up or, sure. Or not.
Speaker 16: So what I heard you ask first is how the height of the new building compares to the existing building. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. That was my first Speaker 16: Question. So I'm actually, yeah, so I wanted to point out what Claire said. So I, I don't have the, the footage in front of me and I'm kind of looking behind me. 'cause Chelsea, our project manager may know the exact footage, but it's about the same height if you look at it from the side. Oh, okay. Speaker 4: Alright. I hadn't seen that. Speaker 2: Just a reminder, members of the public will be at the, this will be opened up to public comment, but currently the commission is asking questions of the applicant team. Speaker 1: Chelsea, do you have numbers?
Speaker 17: I, I don't have the height on hand. Okay, I can get that. Okay. Speaker 1: It's in the documentation, right? Speaker 4: Is that in the Drive Street? You can only see it. I hadn't seen it. I Speaker 2: Believe it is in the ZBA decision document, which is under the folder 11, 6 25 revised materials package Speaker 13: Chair Gardner, can I speak to that briefly? You may. Thank you. And, and I'm, I'm assuming that whatever lighting was reviewed and approved was dark sky compliant. Yes. But under the Wetlands Protection Act, it protects wildlife habitat, not wildlife.
And so if there's concern of light or noise impacts on wildlife, that's not a interest protected under the State Act. And I'm not aware of any studies which address the issue of light impacts or even noise impacts on wildlife. I, oh, there's, there's plenty. I've recently worked on, on a case involving a wind turbine with an allegation of noise impacts on wildlife. And ultimately it was determined that, that
that was not an interest either protected under the ACT and at least administrative of law. Judge found that, that the, whatever studies were available were not necessarily persuasive. But again, the technical, I understand the concern and respect the concern, but it, it's not a protected interest under the act. Speaker 4: I thought there was a discussion about the court or, or something. Mike might I off on that? Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 13: The, again, the life court, Speaker 1: Michael will have some questions and, and Oh, okay. And we'll get to that. Okay, Speaker 4: Great. And then the other thing I guess the concern was, and, and I know it's very difficult with the invasive plants, right?
But this, so the, the use of herbicide, right? It's right next near the river. So Speaker 2: I wanted to just jump in 'cause Dana, you had responded to one of my comments about the herbicide. I had tried to clarify what I'm, I'm not trying to restrict the herbicide use for the invasive management. I understand that not means Yeah, let's Speaker 1: Just, let's put this in context. So the question is about the use of herbicides to, to, to eliminate the invasives initially. That, that's the context of this question. So Speaker 2: The context of this question, at least from my staff note perspective is generally the commission prohibits herbicide
and pesticide use for general property management. Yes. Outside of specific approved uses. That's what I was looking to be clarified in, in the o and m plan. I am will be the first one to say that glyphosate is the one and only way to manage not weed in an effective manner. Yeah. Without doing 20 plus years of land disturbing activity. Speaker 14: So I think when I, I, I first saw that the comment I was, I went right to the, the mitigation. Yes. Speaker 2: And that's why I just wanted to clarify. Speaker 14: We gonna do, and then I read the context with the, I think you had requested some updates in the o and m
and I know in the o and m we actually discuss herbicide and, you know, storage and fertilizers, things like that. So I I I, I, you know, I I was understanding at that point that it was just for, you know, site maintenance as opposed to the Speaker 2: Mitigation. Yes. Apologies. It's hard to format these comments in a way that makes them as streamlined as Speaker 1: Possible. Again, just to, just to clarify for everybody, it, the proposed management plan for knot weed along the banks of the river would include the targeted use of poly glyphosate herbicide to eliminate that initially.
And, you know, knock it down. 'cause there really isn't a, you know, many more options for managing knotweed. But, but we can get to that. Yeah, we can get Speaker 2: To that in more detail at a later point in the discussion Speaker 1: Con conversation there. Jim, any other questions from you? Speaker 4: I guess the only other concern is, and maybe this is slightly outside of the river front, but the tank removal, you know, we've touched upon it, but I I don't see it in any, you know, the existing oil tank that's out there that's gonna be part of this plan to read. Speaker 1: We can we, let's just address that squarely.
So there's, there, there were two tanks on site. One has been, one was removed 1992 or something like that, if I remember correctly. Yep. There's one that was decommissioned filled with concrete in some sort. The one in the front yard basically. Yes. Is the plan for the project, will that be removed? Speaker 14: The plan is to work with the, the board of health with whatever they're, they're gonna require. Okay. Speaker 1: I'm just asking for this in this way 'cause I just want to have a clear definitive statement that's made. And if the answer is we will see, then that's fine. I just wanna have it said out loud. So is the answer, we will work with the board of Health, that's to figure out if that needs to be removed. Yes.
Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 4: And and similar to the asbestos, and I think they mentioned lead, I think also in the building itself, and, and I assume there's a plan to, so Speaker 2: Board of health regulations will require all sorts of protections and processes for that remediation and any removal and disposal, all of that is governed under the, the board of health or potentially building code. Speaker 4: No way that gets to the river. Right. Speaker 2: That would be a strong violation. And I think Speaker 13: We, we would be required to do a, a building's material analysis by the building commissioner under the state
building code before demolition. So there's an understanding of what materials are in that building. And then appropriate plans would need to be developed if, for example, there's asbestos containing materials in the building that's got to be done under the state regulations by licensed contractors. Similarly with respect to lead, yet another different state regulated program. But you have every assurance that all of that has to be addressed and will be addressed actually in connection with the building permit and what other additional reviews the town may have.
Speaker 1: And, and, and just to be clear, it's a legit question, Jim, it's not one of our jurisdictional issues here for the purposes of this Absolutely. Of this hearing. I also want to clarify that my response when you said that you'll, you'll deal with that front yard tank I'll call it. And I said, okay, that's, that's an acknowledgement of the clarity of your answer rather than the opinion as to whether that should be the case or not. I just wanna be really clear about that for people watching at home and, and others. It's, you, you, you answered the question. Thank you for that. Yes. Okay. Other questions? Jeff? Michael?
Speaker 12: Yeah, Jeff Richards, along what Matt was talking about with the, with the stormwater improvements, I, I'm gonna say that any development of that site is gonna have a stormwater improvement. So I'm not really using that as a consideration, but where I would land on this issue, it would happen. I am encouraged by the, you know, mitigating invasives along the river front. I think that that's important, but it's not weed. So there's some challenges about that too. So I have to look at that. I am a, you know,
I'm a fan of letting people see water. You know, I, I'm a I'm a water guy and so I have concerns about, you know, taking very limited land along a very important water body in the commonwealth and essentially in perpetuity, depriving people the ability to stand and look at water. So that's a, that, that's, you know, you know, I've always been that way. You know, I'm from Rhode Island and Rhode Island has in that constitution
that could honor the water. And I take it very seriously, you know, to walk along the, the coast. And, and I don't, and I don't agree with people who want to stop people from being able to enjoy the ability to go to water. And so that's what I'm, you know, I'm troubled not, I don't think there's, it's, I don't think that, that the need to builder is so compelling that we could take away the ability to just have a place where people can look at water. Speaker 13: The, if I might chair, oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker 2: The one thing that I will note is that, that with the change in ownership, public access
to the site will shift. Sure. Currently there is not views from the rear yard of the school to the river because of the vegetation there. That is the one clarifying statement that I wanna make. No. Speaker 13: And chair Gardner, I I do wanna remind the commission that in addition to the invasives management, we're converting that previously developed field area and restoring a naturalized, riverfront vegetated buffer. So I wanna make sure that you understand it's not only invasives where actually bringing back a naturalized
environment that provides a vegetated buffer to the river in response to your concern. And I, and I, I share that concern. I, I live on the, on the, on the coast, that is not an interest protected under the State Wetlands Protection Act. Views of the water or aesthetics are not an interest protected under the Act. I, Massachusetts does have protections for, for, you know, for public access to Thailands under the, the Public Waterfront Act into Chapter nine one, similar to Rhode Island. But that's simply not implicated here.
So I I I I'm sympathetic to your concerns. It something that not regulated by the time the Speaker 12: State should encouraged that. Right. I mean, the state, you know, so I mean, encouraging that and, you know, that would, that's gonna weigh on the decision. Speaker 13: So all I can ask, there was Speaker 12: No building there previously, sir. Right. So I've, I've looked at that, right. To say in my deliberations properly to say, what was there buildings built in 1938? And I've looked like, was there something there I could say, okay, it was something was there previously it was taken for the school, you know, as I'm trying to give a fair
'cause I do believe that the Wetlands Protection Act is a pathway to Yes. Right. I do believe in that, the law, the losses that I do that for a living. Right. I interpret environmental law. I, I have a facility on the Charles, I take that very seriously, you know, but there's also, you know, an encouragement of being able to have these spaces. These spaces don't, they're limited. Right. And so, again, I'm gonna tell you that I'm gonna take that into consideration. Speaker 13: Thank you, sir. Speaker 12: The chips lie where it may, Speaker 13: All we ask is
that you apply the State Wetlands Protection Act and the regulations to the project. Speaker 1: Thank you. And that's what we'll do. And that's also, if you disagree with how those are being applied, then that's grounds for you to explore other actions. So, I mean, Speaker 13: Just again, our, my goal here is to facilitate and approval and to work with the Understood Conservation Commission to condition this project. Understood. I just wanna make that clear. Right. But at the same time, I, I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but the concerns of the commission have to be within the four corners of the regulatory program. Speaker 1: Of course. Okay.
Michael, what do you got, if anything? No, you'll have more opportunities to ask questions. Speaker 5: So I'd like to get back to the Habitat piece. So you seem to be a well read young man, but you seem to have left out one kind of important piece to that definition, which is about wildlife, right? And wildlife is defined in 10.04. Could you just enlighten me what, what you interpret that definition and how it plays a role in a definition of wildlife habitat, please.
Speaker 13: So all I can say Mr. Downey, is that the cases are clear that the State Wetlands Protection Act protects wildlife habitat and not necessarily the wildlife. I I know that that sounds somewhat counterintuitive because within that habitat is obviously wildlife, but it doesn't protect the critters per se. It only protects the habitat of the critters Speaker 5: For wildlife though. Speaker 13: So I don't disagree, sir. Okay. I Speaker 1: I'm just going do, do you want to read the definition? Speaker 5: Yeah. So I'm just trying to that very end point of
that definition for wildlife, then why would the Wetlands Protection Act just stop at that definition? Yes, sir. They purposely added wildlife and defined it in 10.04. Am I incorrect in that? Speaker 13: I, I have the regulations in front of me. Okay. I'm happy to look, I'm, I'm not doubting it at all, sir. All I can tell you is my familiarity with how the regulators view this issue. So I do wanna speak about wildlife, have debt, and I'm, I'm sorry that Mr. Holmes can't be here. One of the things we discussed,
because we knew that there'd be some additional concern, is actually performing a simplified wildlife habitat evaluation to, so that you can document what we believe there is that, that, again, it's not a, it's not a naturalized riverfront environment. We have a field that's been, I guess improved, altered with drainage structures, with septic structures. We've got fences and whatnot. We believe that it's really only has minimal habitat value for sort generalists, I assume rabbits
and deer and whatnot. But we're gonna provide some additional information to the commission to document that from, from our, our wetlands consultant to give you some more objective information on that. And to demonstrate to you that certainly we're not gonna have an adverse impact on the existing wildlife habitat, and we have an opportunity to actually create meaningful wildlife habitat that doesn't exist on the site. And to Mr. Richard's point, I think, I think one of the biggest selling points and improvements here is again, we are taking a manmade previously developed field area
with these structures in it. And we're actually bringing back a naturalized, riverfront vegetated area that actually is going to restore meaningful wildlife habitat to the area with plants that provide, you know, food berries for, for, for, for, for, for the, the habitat in the area. And we will provide you with more information on that. Speaker 1: Other questions? For now, I want to open it up to some questions from the public. Speaker 13: I think Speaker 1: Before we do that, I mean, one, one thing that's come up in the course of the conversation that's gives me great pause is the argument that the law
does not stipulate or, or does not give the commission the authority. And this is something we will look into to require mitigation areas be maintained in perpetuity. If I can make a, and hold on. So what I'm, what that says to me though, you know, and, and so what you're offering is five years. So what that's saying to me is that it'll be mitigated for five years and then left to its own devices. And what will likely happen is that we will lose the benefit of the mitigation area in five years based on the nature of the invasive species that are there now. And that concerns me, you know, because then that mitigating effect,
which is required under the law, goes away because of the nature of what, what, what is being mitigated. We know we have in the system hundreds of years of collective experience in the system too, you know, and so what's, how should I process that? Speaker 13: So chair garner, I, I I'm taking notes with your concerns. Yeah. And, and again, I'm, I'm thinking of ways of, of satisfying your concern. Okay. And I'll discuss it with, okay. The, the, the client, again, it was a more pure regulatory question.
Does the regulation give you the, the, the ability to require perpetual maintenance forever? That's a really long time. I've never seen that condition in any project. It's a really long time. I, I don't know how you, but, but I, your concern, your concern is understood. The object is to, is to eradicate the invasives, the Speaker 1: Ob the object is to, if, if this project, which under the law requires mitigation, that
that mitigation is not a fleeting thing, that is something that the community and more important, equally importantly, the environment and the ecosystem will benefit from for longer than five years. Speaker 13: Yes, Speaker 1: Sir. That's, that, that's the, that's the concern. And that's, that's what I'm looking for some assurances, you know, I don't need an answer tonight, but it's just, this is something that has reared its head for me and is a real stumbling block for me because it's a, you know, by your own admission, this is a temporary thing Speaker 13: And no, sir, i I, you didn't let me finish.
So, so I, I think the system is designed to, to provide this, this wonderful vegetated buffer eradicate the invasive, so it, it naturalizes so it should be self perpetuating without human alteration. Which is why, why you have a continuing condition that says, don't alter that error. We want it to be preserved. We want this to be a naturalized riverfront area. Now, your concern regarding invasives is, is valid. It's, it's a, it's a, a curse in, in every community. And, and I, I like to consider that, and this is way beyond my, I have,
I have no technical skill or qualifications. And this is something we'd need to speak to Mr. Holmes about. Okay. And, and the client as, as to what could reasonably be done. Speaker 2: I think I'll just provide just a, maybe a little bit of context to the concerns here. I think this was something that I brought up in my staff notes is that the abutting River Bank at six eight Pleasant Street has a very substantial knotweed infestation. So I think the concerns are, regardless of the efforts of the applicant here, which may be very well invalid and may in five years truly remediate the knotweed issue on this lot, knotweed is a very aggressive issue.
So is there a naturalized system that can have the resilience to really repel that knotweed, given that it's gonna be not only carried by the water, the seeds, the romo roots will also spread through that bank material. So just to provide some context to, I think those concerns, Speaker 13: Right? And there may be a technical answer, maybe it's a different kind of vegetated buffer a you know, but a maintain metal, which is you, you cut down to prevent invasives, but defeats the purpose of naturalizing the riverfront area. So it's, it's, it's a balancing,
it's a very delicate balance. Speaker 1: And in the case of knot weed with a 25 ton weight on one side of the balance. Yes sir. And so put that question in the hopper, we can, we can come back to it. Other questions currently? Speaker 15: I just have a comment. Yeah, please. Which is sort of a collective one for the things that we've talked about with regard to this part A shall result in improvement over existing conditions. Some of these points come together to me. So an improvement would be to improve a wildlife habitat, perhaps not wildlife, but a habitat includes light,
it includes what's growing there. It includes the lack of chemical smells rolling through. It includes the lack of somebody in apartment two being playing Jimi Hendrix at loud volume. Oh boy. So, you know, and, and it includes ideally control of invasive over a long period of time. All those things to me feel like improvement and I think they're not all gonna happen. Speaker 2: I do just want to clarify that we cannot review the project under the basis of what future units may do. I, I know you were not trying to make that point, David, but I do just wanna clarify for the record
Speaker 1: And don't dis Jimmy Hendrix. Alright. I'd like to open it up for some public comment. We're a public question at this point in time. Mr. Gates has had, he's online. He is had his hand up for quite a while, at least according to my Speaker 2: Just Matt, if I may do a little bit of administrative dance in regards to public comment, we do have folks online as well as in the room here. I know folks are gonna be looking to comment both online and in the room for folks online. I do request, if possible you use the raise hand feature in Zoom. This can be found if you're in a full screen view, under the more button raise hand.
If you're on mobile view, I believe there might be three dots in the bottom of your screen that you can click that will give you a raise hand option. If you cannot find that option, you can physically raise your hand on the screen. I will try to make sure that I see you folks here in the room. What I would ask is if there are comments that you would like to make, first off, I would ask that you keep your comments to the points of jurisdiction that the commission has. I would also ask that if somebody else has made the same point that you are making, that we follow some processes that some other boards and committees use.
Not saying you can't make any comment, but maybe a ditto with a slight appendix. Just, I know there's a lot of folks who are gonna wanna make comments and I wanna be respectful of everyone's time. Finally, if folks who would like to make comment in the room would like to start making a line along the window there, we can take folks in order and we can go back and forth one zoom one in person as such if that's acceptable to the commission. So, Speaker 1: Alright, Mr. Gates. Speaker 18: Thank you Wayne Gates Tenley. And first I just want to commend the Conservation Commission for doing the due diligence and asking all the pertinent questions
and trying to protect the, the community and the residents and the nature of Charles River. The first question I have, and I, and, and I know the chair is familiar with this one, has MWCD come back with an estimate of the cost of the knotweed remediation associated with this? Speaker 2: I would like to jump into that. The finances of this project are not within the commission's jurisdiction. While we can look for assurances through o and m plan, language and project conditions, the applicant is not required
to provide dollar amounts to this commission under the regulations if they choose to do so. That is something that they can do. The commission cannot require those exact numbers because they're likely not available at this point in time. It will be contractor dependent, season dependent, final survey of the not weed likely needs to occur to determine total cost of treatment. I wanna get in front of that issue in regards to all finance questions that might come up tonight. Speaker 18: Well look, Claire, with all due respect, I think this is a big thing as to whether or not this project actually gets done. And if it's too costly, this may never move forward anyway
because this MWCB has not been able to move forward without getting additional funds from the town. And I doubt they will be able to come up with the money if this is excessive. The other thing I would point out with respect to the not wheat is the fact that no one has determined whether or not, unless, unless I'm mistaken, no one has determined whether or not it's under where the slab is going to be. But if you look at where the shed is, there is definitely an outcropping of knot weed there. And have they done the test of whether
or not there is any knot weed below where the slab is going to be. Thank you. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Mr. Gates. Sir, please welcome Speaker 19: Ben King, 19 Glen Street. In addition to the knotweed on six eight Pleasant Street, there is a outcropping of fraidees, which I think is even worse than knotweed. So that's another consideration. I just wanted to ask about occurred comment about fisheries and mussels in the river fisheries. Is that mean, is that a commercial fishery or is it sport fishery
Speaker 1: Coal, A cold water fishery. Which, so which doesn't apply in this case. So Speaker 2: It's a specific area that's been identified by the state as a breeding ground for specific species of fish. Yeah. Speaker 19: And there are mus freshwater mussels in the river. I heard something about mussel or shellfish. Speaker 2: Yeah, so the shellfish areas containing shellfish, as I mentioned at the top of the meeting, is a, an area that is defined by the state or by a shellfish constable in a community. And generally does refer to salt water, shellfish species rather than freshwater shellfish species, which are generally not cultivated for human consumption,
Speaker 1: Oyster beds, clamming thing, things like that is what there Speaker 19: Are freshwater mussels in the river fair. I know that another comment about improving this, this natural corridor or the, or the, how we would just say it, the Speaker 1: Wildlife habitat. Speaker 19: Wildlife habitat, when you build a, that there's, there is no building there abutting this corridor at the moment. And after the building is built, there will be a building there which would affect all sorts of wildlife and things like that. Anyway, just something to, something to consider and any also definition of a public way.
I, I thought I'd heard that the river, a river is a public way in terms of sightings and things like that. I dunno, Speaker 1: Not in the context of hearings like this. All right, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. King. Speaker 5: Could I, could I just add one thing to the, of course the fisheries piece, and I, you know, again, this is in, we, we kind of broached this conversation with regard to wildlife and wildlife habitat. It's the same thing with protections of fisheries, right? There's clear definitions about what cell, what shellfish is. However, the protection of fisheries definition in 10.04 is very clear.
It, it says that is to serve as their habitat nutrient source fish includes all species of fresh and salt water, fin fish and shellfish. And so yes, there is a component of the marine fisheries piece and commercial fisheries and commercial shellfish operations. However, the protection includes all from my perspective. Speaker 1: So, Speaker 5: Okay, Speaker 1: Let's, let's take a look at that and understand that and then decide if we want to have the applicants speak
to that as part of that. So let, let's review that and go from there. Clear. Speaker 2: We've got one other fo person with their hand raised on the line. Yep. Yeah, I see it. Ms. Doran, if you'd like to go ahead and unmute. Speaker 20: Thank you. I am concerned about the Japanese nut weed, but right now I'm more concerned that this commission would allow the use of glyphosate to eradicate it. I am really familiar with the problem of Japanese knotweed having battled it in my yard and coming from my neighbor's yard as far back as 15 years ago, I happened to be highly allergic to it. So I was googling global solutions
and it just all came down to the glyphosate. Now it's not as easy as getting rid of poison vy. You can't kill it by spraying the plant above ground. It's not effective. So what you need to do, what I learned is you cut like the second notch of the bamboo like stalks, and then there's a hollow little inner part, and then you pour the glyphosate in and it goes down to the rhizome, which can be 10 feet underground. That's really toxic to the Charles River, I would think. Now I will say there's one other solution that I did come across and I, I sent a little message on this
to the chair a few months ago. It was a study done in England and it involved the use of chicken wire. And what they did was cut the Japanese knotweed down to the ground and then roll the chicken wire out and waited of course chicken wire with very small holes. So what would happen is the Japanese knotweed shoots would start coming up the next spring and not be able to grow very far because of the little small holes and they choked to death. And maybe we could consider something else. I I think it's not even something that can be eradicated in two years, in my opinion,
based on my own research here in my yard. So I'm really concerned about it. I would hope that the Conservation commission would exhaust all other alternatives before saying yes to glyphosate because it's gonna end up in the river. And I, I just don't, I'm, maybe you could speak to that 'cause it, it horrifies me. It's, it's not a healthy thing for the Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 20: Wildlife. So Speaker 1: Yes, Ms. Dorn, thank you for that comment. And, and we're not at a point where we would, we're approving, there's a proposal for how not weed would be handled.
We're not at a point where we're approving any particular method for doing it at, at this point in the process. And so I'll just say that, you know, this is not, that's not a decision that's being made here tonight. Speaker 20: Oh. But I heard you talk about glyphosate, so that's what concerned me. Speaker 1: Fair. And you know, glyphosate is a, an effective agent for removing knotweed and it is also approved for use by the EPA and you can argue all we want about that and the levels that EPA and other authorities would, would set for that. It is an, an approved methodology for doing it.
And I'll, I'll just leave it at that for right now. I don't want to get into an argument back and forth as to whether the thresholds that EPA sets are appropriate or not, you know, so, so let's, we can come back to this con, you know, keep that in your hopper and then we can come back to that conversation if and when we get to a point where we're talking about actual kind of mitigation efforts and not weed removal techniques. Okay, cool. Mr. Wade here in the room, Speaker 2: It's Speaker 1: Mr. Scott. Oh, sorry Mr. Scott. Sorry I had a different Roger in my mind. Speaker 21: Roger Scott, 40 Water Street.
I'm concerned with the five years that we've built into this whole situation. My concern is I'm a town meeting member and I was trying to get the CPA money 750,000 to be cast back into reconsideration on this project. And one of the comments that was made by one of the select board members was that all of these things would be taken care of by the CPA money when in fact they had to drag out my town council had to drag out the actual sale
consideration for this project. And, and it struck me that instead of the town picking up the cleaning up of the tanks and taking care of whatever has to be done there to improve the land, this, the sale was for a hundred dollars, property was being sold for a hundred dollars as is spoken well by Jamie. And he said the as is nice and allowed. So we understand that none of this money can be spent on renovations or prearrangements before the construction.
So as we understand that, and then, and part of that things is that they could move this property after five years. So I don't like the correlation is this going to be done and at the end of the five years we're outta here and somebody else is gonna get this and what are they gonna do with everything down there? I, I just don't, don't like it, you know, it's just makes me unease as far as what actually care about the neighborhood, the environment and everything else that's associated with this arrangement. And I think we need to get some honest stances here.
What is it a five year project? Is it gonna be there for 20 years? You know, this is a nonprofit, do you sell it for a hundred dollars after five years? You know, I mean, I sell my house, I pay taxes on the difference. You know, so it's like, there's a lot of stuff here. Do Speaker 1: You fair, do you have a, do you have a question or a comment kind of on a jurisdictional issue for us here? Well, I, I wanna find out why. I understand the connection that you, you're trying to make here, but I want to keep things on target for the purposes of this discussion to make sure that we're tackling the pertinent issues Speaker 21: Well.
Well I think the environment, if you're gonna make this as a conservation environmental issue, strictly he said by the lawyer, their lawyer is, all we have is five years to be concerned about your, your environment. And I don't think that should be let off the hook. Speaker 1: Fair. I appreciate that. I think it was framed a little bit differently, but I think you've made your point. Speaker 2: And just to add one additional point of context is perpetual conditions that are a part of an order of conditions apply to any successors and interest of the property. So those perpetual conditions that are a part of any decision the commission may issue would apply
to any future property owners, not just MWCD as the current applicant and potential owner. Okay. Speaker 1: Well thanks for your time. Great, thank you. Alright, please. Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. We do have one other person on line. It's Speaker 1: Okay. I'll, I'll get to it. Please go ahead. Speaker 22: Your name. My name is Mark Den. I live at 32 Elliot Street. When I walked down by the water, actually there, there were a few deer living there this year. We see them regularly. Looked a little odd down the end of the street, but they were living along the riverway seen eagles over there. Not often, but we see 'em come by and lots of other things.
And we talked a little bit earlier, it was brought up about the height. It's good to see an aerial view and if you get a good aerial view, you'll see how it's higher Now is it a three story building or two Speaker 1: Please, John? Speaker 16: It is a three story building, but also I want to clarify, we can certainly confirm the exact heights and come back to that. Speaker 22: Okay. But is it three stories and then the mechanicals on top of that? Yes. Okay. So it's, it's high. And I know we can talk about the Jimi Hendrix music playing, but people have lights. I mean, it's gonna be lit up big time. I assume there's windows out the back.
If I lived there, I'd love to have a window out the back so that light is gonna go all the way. It'll cover a lot area across the river and down. And there will be 24 hour light going on there as well as other things. So that's just to keep in mind. I know it may not be some part of some legal thing, but for reality and for people of the town and people care about nature and the environment, it's a big deal. So thank you very much. And I, and again, as everybody is, and you guys have brought up, it's so important to guarantee
that whoever owns this, 'cause I assume ultimately it's gonna be some corporate non-profit, some corporate profit folks somewhere owning it. And they will have to be held accountable, I guess, like anybody else to take care of the, the river and whatever grows there. So thank you very much. Great. Speaker 1: Thank you for the comment. And Mr. Johnson online. Speaker 23: Thank you. I dropped off some correspondence earlier tonight and I had a flashback to my 19 years on the commission and there was a many pleasant memories.
It's good to see you sorting out the rules regarding the, the need to study alternatives. I think that was a very important step. Obviously it would be very difficult for the project to explore alternatives at this stage of their development. So I think that's very beneficial to the process here. And I just wanna say that I think it's important for this re regulatory review to focus on the big picture. The proposal is in an existing lawn area previously developed. And my experience on the commission is that
that was a very important attribute to start from, you know, you're not disturbing anything that is a buffer zone or undeveloped land. You know, the, the proposal has been very careful to position the building within the existing developed area. And I think I'm encouraged by the comments where it's important for the commission to really focus on the interests of the act and not, you know, other issues relating to things that really aren't part of the Riverfront Protection Act review.
Finally, the comment is don't get lost in the weeds. And then that means both figuratively and literally the issue of the knotweed, you know, it's a great undertaking to control the invasive species, an invasive vegetation, but to look at this project as being the cornerstone in a knotweed control program for the town of Natick along the Charles, it's just, you know, out proportion. It's a, a global problem. And, and to sort of focus on that as a mitigation issue
and no perpetuity or whatever I think is, is somewhat misguided that you're really overemphasizing this part of the, the issue for the project. So that's it. Again, thanks to the presenters too for their very clear present presentation and to the commission for wading through this complicated issue. Thank you. Thanks Speaker 1: Mr. Johnson. Sir, please welcome Speaker 24: Tab Botany. Thank you. Strong medicine Bear chief of the Natick, praying Indians of the Massachusetts.
I just wanted to read something here. Currently this project is being characterized as community development initiative that benefits the residents of Natick, but does it truly serve the community as the direct descendant of the Natick praying Indians in the original stewards of this sacred land at five Auburn Street, our tribe has been requesting since 2010 that the town consider transferring the Elliot School property to us for cultural community use. If this is genuinely community driven project,
shouldn't the wishes be the community be part of the process? Why were we not consulted? Why are the voices of the local neighborhood residents being given less weight than the developer's proposal? And why is the town considering a plan that would negatively impact a waterway that flows through more than 23 communities? There are numerous alternative sites in Natick that would be far more appropriate for a 32 unit housing development locations. Near bus, bus routes, stores, schools, playgrounds in existing roadways with the capacity
to absorb increased traffic, vacant strip malls, unused commercial buildings and underutilized parcels could support housing without the significance significant environment, environmental risk posed by this proposal based on the submitted materials on the site observation, I have serious concerns about the project project's capability with Natick's Environmental protection Standards. The proposed building footprint lies almost entirely within the 20 foot, 200 foot riverfront zone extends
to the 100 foot River riverfront boundary and approaches the 40 foot no structure wetlands buffer. Additionally, the developer's 2024 submission to the zoning board of appeals shows a new riverside fence extended into the 25 foot no disturbed wetlands buffer. An area explicitly designed to main remain untouched under our stewardship, the property could be revitalized in a way that preserves history, protects cultural resources, and maintains the existing environmental footprint.
Our vision would strengthen the community by honoring the land rather than altering it. And by fostering cultural connection, education, and conservation, this decision will have lasting consequences for the town's environmental integrity. I respectfully urge the commission to apply the Wetlands Protection Act and local bylaws strictly and to ensure that any development near the riverfront fully upholds the town's commitment to protecting its natural resources. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you sir. Online, Mr. Kaolin, please.
Speaker 25: Thank you Mr. Chairman and and members. I did wanna say I did get a chance to provide written testimony so I won't repeat that, but I have a concern about this new concept that I'm not familiar with in our conservation bylaws, which is that we have an ability to protect wildlife habitat but not wildlife. It's my understanding that if habitat can't protect wildlife from intrusion of a, a large new development on the riverfront,
then it's not really habitat. I think it's a, it's a, it's a dead end to pursue that too far. I also have to say I, I disagree that not weed is a, as a global problem and somehow not within the scope of what we should be addressing and that we shouldn't focus on it. We're not here to solve a global problem. We're here to decide if this particular project is actually appropriate for this parcel that meets the standards required. And if we're gonna be literal about how we apply the law for determining if this is a redevelopment based on 3%
of the square footage that's currently covered by asphalt that we could pull out in an hour if we had to. We also have to remember that that requirement for mitigation regardless of global conditions, but that requirement for remediation by removing the invasive species is equally non-negotiable. Literalness in applying the law works in both directions and I'm not inclined to forget what the law requires because it doesn't favor a proposed development in which
we've had a, a sunk cost of all these meetings in the past and other approvals. The Conservation Commission has the right and duty to decide whether this meets the literal requirements of the law, regardless of how we feel about the law and whether or not it applies to global issues. Thank you Speaker 2: Matt. Thank you sir. If I could make one quick statement just about the wildlife versus wildlife habitat issue to make this as hopefully as clear as possible. There are eight interests identified in the State
Wetlands Protection Act. The very first section, very, it's the third paragraph of the Wetlands Protection Act. The interest of the act that is identified is the protection of wildlife habitat. That is what we are discussing when we say the interests of the act refer to wildlife habitat. Miss Commissioner Downey has made points about how wildlife habitat and wildlife can very much go hand in hand in a lot of instances, but I did just wanna clarify that that's the reason there's been this distinguishment between, we don't have jurisdiction over the wildlife. There are other state bodies, the natural heritage
and endangered species program that has jurisdiction over the actual wildlife. The commission's job is to ensure that that wildlife habitat is appropriately protected on project sites. Speaker 1: Sure. Thank you Claire. Thanks sir. Please welcome. Speaker 26: My name is Ed Shago. I live at eight Auburn Street here in Natick and I'm a town meeting member of course from Precinct 10. First I was really impressed. Today I want to tell you why 'cause I'm nosy. Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 26: There were two people looking at this property in a very careful manner.
I don't know if it was any of the people sitting in the board or not, but I want to tell you how impressed I was at the copious detail that they were looking at this property and hopefully in our favor next, you know, the dam's coming down, have you people examined the effect of the dam coming down in relation to that property? I contend that unfortunately it's gonna cause some wetlands today,
which are precious to dry up. That said, there'll be then those apostles will become buildable. My question to the board is if all of that happens and it's likely to happen, the decision of this board will bear a direct relation to decisions down the road, whether it be in five years or 10 years, which could cause unfathomable problems. One problem that I wanna address is the deer that are in my yard and on the river bank.
I see them, they live there. There's usually two of them at the bottom of where the flagpole is and they're great to look at. They enjoy that environment. The environment that it is today, I think to change it would be a disaster. Also, you mentioned this infectious species that's hard to get rid of. Let me tell you something and I'm prejudice, here it goes. Agent Orange does not get rid of that species. It's been tested. It's very difficult to get rid of. And if Agent Orange can't get rid of it, nothing Ian,
the river should remain the way it is and this project is gonna destroy it. As far as emergency vehicles turning, unfortunately I'm a little older than many of you, all of you. Two years ago I had the fire department at my house five times seven. See there she goes seven times. Fire engine two cannot turn around on Auburn Street. It's too narrow. Now I suppose you can put up no parking signs. People aren't gonna look at that. And in any case, that truck can't turn around. Can the ambulance turn around? Yes. Not engine two And the drivers are very good.
One other thing, it was, we were asked my wife and I and other neighbors, do you want a sidewalk extended to the river? And we said no. Tonight I heard, hey, it's gonna happen. Why then? Why even ask us? And I resent that deeply. I proposed to you and beg you vote this down. There was so many other proposals, one of them by a previous speaker. I'm probably outta line for saying this to you sir, but the American Indian has been treated
terribly in this state. I think this is a chance for you people to be heroes in part to the American Indian. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you sir. Please response. Speaker 16: I just like to reply to one thing Mr. Shari said, which is that if the neighbors really don't want to see this sidewalk and they're, you know, we're open to talking about just, you know, not extending the sidewalk to the flagpole and leaving it as this. And Speaker 26: Just to clarify this, I appreciate that. You know my problem. I'll tell you one of my problems. I think the developers are really nice people
and I trust them totally. My biggest fear is that this project gets sold to a for-profit company, which would be a disaster to all of the hard work that you and you and you and you have done. And I think that would be terrible. And lemme tell you something, reading the tea leaves, it's gonna happen. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Sugar. Speaker 26: Thank thank you Speaker 1: And thank you. And Speaker 26: I like you Speaker 1: And thank you for your service on town meeting. Speaker 26: Sometimes they don't agree with me. That's, Speaker 1: That is their prerogative. But I appreciate it. Thank you.
Any other comments? We have anyone else in the room, anyone else online who has questions or comments at this point? So what we've done so far here, and let me go back to my, to my notes. What we've done so far is we've talked about the 5 84 versus 5 85 determination. We've got a little bit of homework to do. We're gonna be looking to town council for some case law around thresholds and all of that. Just to really understand the, the, the playing field here, so to speak. At one point it was mentioned around a simplified wildlife analysis. Is that something that would be, that is, is on the, is an offer. Speaker 13: Ye yes. Chair Gardner. We, we've already contemplated doing that.
A again, I anticipated the questions regarding wildlife habitat and we want to provide you with as much information as we can. Speaker 1: So if you could prepare kind of a, call it a statement of work, call it set of bullet points as to what the scope of that would be, that would be great. So we could then talk about that and see what, what that would entail and what would be included there. Speaker 13: There's a DEP standardized form for a simplified wildlight habit habitat. Speaker 1: Okay. So that's what you're referring to is Speaker 2: I can send it around that Speaker 13: Data we would, sets version the parameters of, of what
that evaluation looks like. Okay. And, and so that's what we were contemplating. Okay. Speaker 2: I can share that form with the commission for them to review. Yeah. Speaker 1: And then there is this open question around mitigation, mitigation and perpetuity. The lifespan of mitigation, which you guys are gonna spend some time thinking about. We will be spending some time thinking about and we can address that at a future, at a future meeting. That's not something we're gonna close here on, on tonight. The third point that I'd like to discuss here if there's no further questions from the public. Actually, Mr. Ostroff, I see your hand raised. Please, sir.
Speaker 27: Thank you, Mr. Chair and board members. Well, first, just quickly, I want to commend the commission and staff for, for their investment of time on this and many other issues. So I appreciate it. Josh Ostroff, time meeting member, former select court to one of the abutters who spoke briefly. You might've seen me at the neighborhood today 'cause I had not been there since I was on the board many years ago and wanted to just get a, a look at it. And so I have a couple of questions and I apologize if these were addressed earlier. I was at another meeting and just got
here half an hour or so ago. What, are there plans to disturb or remove any of the trees on the embankment, the river side of the fence or would those all be left intact assuming they're healthy? Speaker 1: Dan, Speaker 14: That's for you. I'm just pulling out the, the revised vegetation management plan. I think there was some invasive trees that be Speaker 2: Yeah, I was about to say I have it, it up I can, I'm happy to just pull it up to make things a little bit easier. So Josh, there is no tree removal in terms of, you know,
removal for construction or things like that proposed for the trees along the slope. There have been invasive tree species identified on the slope. Primarily the management plan provided focuses on Japanese, not weed, but I do believe that the hand removal and selective herbicide application is proposed for all invasive species identified on site, which would be identified following the pretreatment survey. That would require all invasive species proposed for treatment be flagged. Speaker 27: Thank you. Speaker 4: But, but against, I just had one question on those trees too.
'cause it seems to me some of them are hanging like almost over the fence that the new then the building's gonna be pretty close to that fence, right? Yeah. So it seemed to me that some would have to come down also. There's a few that don't look very good anyway back there. I mean there's, so maybe they've already been flat. I thought they were already part of the plan to remove those, but still just be in that new area there that, that, you know, you, you, you want to put new plantings in. So anyway, I just think that that should be looked at
and maybe add it to the plan. Speaker 14: Sure. We, we can certainly do that. One thing that that was noted in the, the vegetation management plan was only saplings less than three inch in diameter will be treated or removed. Speaker 4: Right. These are bigger than that. So Speaker 14: I think anything bigger is gonna stay unless it's, you know, if it's in poor condition Speaker 4: And I just, I thought you wouldn't want it into your building, you know what I mean? So Speaker 2: Pruning is a BuyRight activity. So the removal of limbs that conflict with construction can occur without permits necessarily. I do think that likely there will, once we get
to this point, there will need to be discussion around conditions for pre-work sidewalks with agents and arborists and all that jazz to, to finalize any of that kind of removal. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a ways down the road in terms of that conversation. I wanna be, I just wanna be, be, be be clear about that. Mr. Ostroff, you had finish Speaker 27: Your question. Yeah, just, yeah, just a couple more things. So I, I guess I'm, I'm glad to hear that to the extent possible, the canopy would be maintained and that that may help with light trespass from, you know,
from the building and grounds, you know, on onto the river. The second is, if you could explain better, and I again apologize if this was addressed earlier, but the wildlife car that's been discussed, you know, I see a grassy area where the structure is proposed to be erected and then to one side there's a parking lot to the other side. There's houses that are just pretty much along the natick side of the riverbank and Wellesley side all the way up for quite some distance.
So is that a playing field or the grassy area considered the corridor or is it more the slope and you know, further towards the river? So let me, and and if this is something that you've already addressed or it's moot, then Speaker 1: Now what you're getting into is the, is the parameters. Ultimately it's the parameters of the wildlife assessment that the applicant is, is has on the table to volunteer to do where the site would be assessed for wildlife and wildlife corridor, wildlife, not migration,
that's overstating it. But, you know, transport corridors, places where, you know, animals are ri you know, there's evidence of animals, you know, crossing the site, traversing the site, using the site. And also what what kinds, and that's what, you know, we'll get into that in terms of the actual, you know, parameters of the simplified wildlife study. So are there wildlife corridors on site? That's that, you know, I think that would be the information we would be looking for as part of this. Speaker 2: And Matt, just to clarify, there won't be an assessment of wildlife.
There's not gonna be a survey saying, you know, there are a deer here, deer, deer. It's gonna be assessment of the 10 deer, six turkeys. Exactly. There's gonna be an assessment of the ecology of the area to identify what wildlife habitat is currently in existence and if there's the status of it Speaker 1: And if there's clear evidence of wildlife using the site or using, you know, that that's, that's what we would be looking for. So there's no, you know, we certainly can't say at this point in time with any, you know, clarity or conviction that, you know, that is a, it is a dear migration card or going through the site. We wanna understand that and that's what a, a wildlife habitat assessment would tell us
as if there's evidence for that Speaker 13: Chair garner. I and i, I stand to be corrected by the team. I don't think we're proposing a specific wildlife carter. I think that was a term used by perhaps some of the commission members. And so I just heard you propos, Speaker 1: We haven't heard you proposing a Speaker 13: Wildlife card Speaker 1: Or Thank you sir. A wild, you know, let's leave it at assessing the status of the site for wildlife and who's using it. Not specific animals, but if there's evidence of animals using it. And, and what that is that, you know, that would be a logical thing I think for us, for us to undertake. 'cause that's one of the interests of the act
that we're charged with Speaker 5: Upholding 10.58 specifically identifies wildlife movement and habitat continuity. Right. So from my perspective, I think that inherently that's within the 200 foot riverfront and you know, I think that that question should be answered. 'cause I think the answer that was given that there is no proposed impacts to wildlife habitat and corridors. I, I, I find it remarkable that that's the response. Speaker 13: So, and again, I'm, I'm, I'm happy to look at that issue. Mr. Downey, I believe the reference to wildlife corridors
is in 10 58 4 and not 10 58 5. That's a specific requirement under the no significant adverse, Speaker 5: If I'm not mistaken. Speaker 1: So let's, let's, we'll all do our homework and let's, we'll bring this up. I think, you know, we're, we're gonna be talking about a wildlife assessment on site and we'll talk about what the parameters of that are and then, and then we discuss as to whether that's Speaker 5: Something, it seems to be confusion around 100 feet and 200 feet. We're looking at 200 feet. Am I incorrect in that Speaker 13: The riverfront area is 200 feet wide?
It's divided in, in an inner riparian zone and an outer bearing zone. Each of those is, Speaker 5: Yeah, 200 feet. Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 1: That is jurisdictional for us. Alright, Ms. Ton, please. Speaker 27: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Just wrapping up. So I, I appreciate the discussion and it, it seems, it's like, I mean, globally like the commission has jurisdiction over the entirety of the site and it seems like the most sensitive parts of the site are what's, you know, beyond the fence to, to the river. But you have jurisdiction extending beyond it. I was just surprised to if, if, if we thought of a Carter as
what, you know, was a playing field for the Elliot and Montessori schools before, you know, years ago, but it's surrounded by developed area. I just, I wanted to better understand that, but I, I trust that folks are looking at that and I appreciate it. And I just say as you know, proponent of for affordable housing and, and as folks know, I mean, and generally in support of this development, nonetheless thinks it's critical that, that the commission has the opportunity to do its job impartially and objectively. And I'm very appreciative of, of the process that you're going through. And I know it won't be voted tonight, don't know
how long you'll take, but you know, it's, it's work that has to be done because as we pursue challenges to habitat and to our housing shortage and other things, sometimes things are in conflict. Sometimes they can be worked out complimentary, but it has to stem from facts and, and, and, and good governance. So thank you for doing that. Appreciate it. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Tro, Ms. Holden, how are you? Speaker 28: I'm good thanks. Welcome. My name is Candy Halton. I live on Carver Hill in South Natick, but not in this particular neighborhood.
So I have more comments or a few comments and many of them have also been addressed and I will not bring 'em up again except for lo do it in a location basis. But the design and placement of the new building in no way in my mind protects the authenticity of this South Natick area that we've been referring to. The design is, should be looked at as complimenting what the new school looks like,
fits in the neighborhood. This is a building structure behind a beautiful building that over is an oversight. And as you brought up is blocking the view of the river, which I think is one of the nice things about South Natick. Anyway, most of Natick would agree that Natick needs more affordable housing and most of my discussions about five Auburn Street neighborhood would disagree with this location because it's being squeezed into a neighborhood.
This is all about location, location, location, location as we've heard all our life. But with no transportation and cramped emergency vehicles getting down the lane, the one lane road I should say, no places to buy food. Is this really the right area for it to be in? One of the decisions that you guys have to make is, is this the right thing to do? I'm asking you to vote no on this project. We have many other places that we could be working on.
It was proposed by this group, I believe to look at the Johnson School, which has plenty of land. It's around transportation. It offers many more things. The other concern that I have is some of the numbers that were just just discussed is 200 feet is the river zone riverfront zone. And I believe they're talking about putting the building right there. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me. And one thing that I haven't heard anybody talk about, including the five Auburn street town meeting,
is what's, they take the dam down, it's going to take in my mind, you've got a better estimation than I do, but at least a year for the river to settle down where it's gonna settle down. If it decides to come into your riverfront here and you have a building that's already on your site line, does it make sense to then take a look at the problem because now you have soil underneath that isn't suitable for a big building.
Speaker 2: Okay, so I do just want to clarify. Speaker 28: So I ask you to vote. No thank Speaker 2: You. I do just wanna clarify one point about the dam removal 'cause it's come up in a few comments now. So there are no downstream impacts, anti permanent downstream impacts anticipated from the spillway removal. The water levels will remain the same. There may be, there will be sediment movement through the area. The town has requirements under several different permit conditions to monitor the sediment movement, remobilize sediment if necessary, if it is piling up in places where it's not supposed to be. But because of the elevation of this site, regardless
of any water level changes that that could happen, this site is, is almost 25 feet above the elevation of the river. So the there, but Speaker 29: I'm talking about whatever's on the Speaker 30: Water that you're counting as your buffer. Speaker 2: Well, so the 200 foot extends, it doesn't take into account elevation, so it extends laterally from that bank location. So just to clarify that point. Speaker 30: Thank you Speaker 1: Sir. Please welcome. Speaker 30: Thank you. Speaker 31: Regina Lees, I live at zero Michael Terrace. I am a town meeting member for Precinct 10.
I am the vice chair of the Natick Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Speaker 30: Great. Speaker 31: I commend you this evening for your interaction with both the applicant and also with members of the public. Excuse Speaker 30: Me, sir? Yep, sir. Hold on one second, sir. You cannot go through that. I'm sorry. The Speaker 1: Please continue. Speaker 31: And I, I have to admit, I I am, you know, I am, I'm, I didn't realize that your deliberations are so technical based and you know, I, again, I appreciate your help.
This process, this project has been through a series of, of applications for to move forward. You know, three specifically the, what I see, the three, the very brave select board vote to agree to sell the property to the developer under very certain terms and conditions. Secondly, the, you know, the permit process through the ZBA and thirdly, the town meeting vote for CPA funds to ensure that the finances of the building are in place
to allow the project to go forward. And you know, I, I know that the opposition is used or each of those three opportunities to ensure that they try to have a yes no vote. Yes. They say they would rather not the project go forward. And I would argue during those three occasions, the town of Natick has, has made a very definitive recommendation. The town of Natick has said on those three occasions, we want this project to go forward. And what I will ask you to do is
continue your careful deliberation with the applicant that it doesn't become a yes no decision. It becomes a how and I think how do we make this project continue? Because I believe that's the, that's what the town of Natick has has said in its earlier deliberations on this project. So thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Please welcome. Speaker 30: Thank you. Speaker 32: Hi, I'm Lynn Gonsalves. I live from outside the town, but I'm also of the town folks. I hope that I can just ask a couple questions just to, of course.
Thank you. Under Article 79 a it, it does talk about the storm water runoff and all of that stuff In that article, I just have a clarifying question under section four it says, the bylaw shall apply to any land disturbing activity within the jurisdiction of the town, including, but not limited to any activities that require permits through the town. The Conservation Commission retains the right to oversee and review all matters relating to land disturbing activities within the town of Natick and may promulgate and enforce guidelines, regulations,
and standards relevant there too. Earlier in tonight's meeting I heard you guys talking about a Golf course and you guys were worried about an inch change in topography. And I'm just curious on this project, how much digging is happening and how much oversight you guys have into, and how much have you looked into that piece of it? I'm sorry, I hadn't been at previous meetings on this topic here and I tried to read it in the minutes, but there were some that I couldn't get to before tonight. And I guess I'm curious, have you also addressed that piece
of, of that area and what's gonna happen there when they change the topography of that? Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's all part of the process is that we're understanding what will happen with stormwater, stormwater runoff that happens. The reason that we were talking about an inch, we were interested in an inch or an inch and a half or whatever from the, from the golf course is because there's, there is a, a liner on top of the old landfill that is, that seals the old landfill. And we wanna make sure that the applicant was aware that, and the applicant is very aware that that liner exists so
that they can take measures to not puncture it as part of the work that they're gonna do and or fix it if they do, because that's an essential part of the construction of the landfill and then the ceiling of the landfill. That's why we are interested in an inch, typically speaking when thinking about storm water related issues and inches kind of in the noise. And it's not something that we are super concerned about, but the overall topography of the site and how storm water is handled on the site is something
of deep interest to us. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. Speaker 32: And then the other thing you were concerned about in the earlier project was a vernal pool. Yes. And literally during construction staying within, within not being within a hundred feet of that. Right. How do you feel like this project's gonna accomplish that on the river side of the, of the Charles River in relation to like how close their equipment's gonna need to get, you know what I mean, to get this project accomplished? Do they even have the space for all of that? Like Right. We're not, so again,
you don't may not know the answer to that right now. I'm just saying, is there consideration around, would you bring the same requirements and the same, same expectations? Yes. I guess is the, okay, okay. Speaker 2: If there was a vernal pool that applied to this project, Vernal pools are a very different type of jurisdictional area with very sensitive habitats. Riverfront area has its own performance standards identified under the regulations that the commission is required to review this project under. There is not a vernal pool on this site, so Oh yeah. Regulations associated with that would not apply for this Speaker 1: Project. And there's really, there's really two in my, in,
in my view, there's two phases to a conversation like this. The one is, the first phase is what we're doing right now, and we're, we're going through the law in some cases line by line, does this project as it's proposed, meet the letter of the law and if not where And and having that conversation, if we get to a place where we're convinced that the project meets the letter of the law, then at that point we can start talking about things like construction process and things like that. Of course there will be some overlap between them in some cases,
but generally speaking that's how we're getting at it. And so thinking about the impact of construction vehicles, you know, if they're, if if that's explicitly laid out as a concerning, as a, as a, as an issue relevant to the law, sure we'll talk about it, but that's more, in my mind, that's more of a construction process question that we would then be thinking about how to condition it if we got to that point is the project Permittable is kind of where we're at right now, at least according to our reading of, of the relevant rules. Speaker 32: Okay, thank you. Okay. Speaker 1: Please sir. Welcome.
Speaker 33: Thank you. Good evening Han the chair of the Natick Affordable Housing Trust. First I would like to echo everyone in terms of thanking you for your service and the thoughtful deliberations. I really appreciate it. I also encourage you as, as a body who's thinking about wetlands, that you're also to think about sustainability with the capital S though it may not be directly related to the statute, we are deliberating, you know, the, the project kind of checks boxes of, you know, two of the three, like the historic preservation using the existing resources
and, you know, it, it does provide community housing, while this is not being talked about, the designers made a conscious act of not designing something in the open space that's fronting the Elliot Street. So that open space is being preserved and the view shed like, once you are standing on Elliot Street, you would, you would, you are not going to see a lot of the three story building behind the historic building. So I just want to be, you know, wanted to reinforce that, you know, a lot has been said about water and, you know, views to the water and one can't really see the water on site, like
unless one is there to the edge, you know, and given a choice between a single mom who's ready to be evicted and if this project can find a home for that or a disabled vet living in a car and if this project can find a home for that, or for a town employee who can bike to the town and not drive this project can do all of that. So I encourage you to be cognizant of all that and the broader benefit this project can give to the town. And again, I thank you for your service. Thank you. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you for your comments. Any
other questions in the room currently? Speaker 14: Yes. Speaker 21: This is a technical question. You, when you collect the water from whatever big rain situation and you say you treat the water, what do you treat the water with? Speaker 14: We treat it, we treat it for removal of, of of total suspended solids to get it down below 80%, which is required. Speaker 21: So it's like a filtration system? Speaker 14: Yes, Speaker 1: It's a settling system. Filtration system. It's not chemically treated. It's it, Speaker 21: And that has a life lifespan. How long does that last? Is Speaker 1: That It's a mechanical device. It's, it's a catch base in, in the ground essentially
where the solids settle down to the bottom and then the cleaner water flows out from the top. Okay. So it's, it's purely mechanical, it's physics, gravity, mechanical system. There's no chemical treatment to the water whatsoever. Okay. Speaker 2: And there are operation and maintenance processes that are conditioned and approved as part of the project that have a regular Speaker 1: S So a vacuum truck comes and sucks out all the sediment A that's collected at the bottom after a while at a, at a given period of time so that more sediment can settle down over time. It's a very common and, and, and, and very effective way
to remove suspended solids from water. Speaker 21: Great. And there would be the, they would be responsible for doing that process. Speaker 1: It's part of the applicant's. When a project is built like this or even, you know, anywhere else really a, an o and m plan, an operations and maintenance plan is part of the requirement where they outline how they're gonna maintain all of the storm water infrastructure. There's requirements that it has to be inspected at a certain frequency that it, and, and that has to be recorded and documented. And, and those records can be inspected
by the conservation commission, our agent town staff DPW to make sure they're doing what they had agreed to do. Speaker 21: Excellent. Thank you. Speaker 1: Other questions? Alright, so there's one more kind of one more question that I think we'd be in a position to throw out there tonight, but we're not, I I think it's gonna be folded into the mitigation question we had earlier. And that's around the, this the square footage of the proposed mitigation. And you know, we've got, we're in the process of getting legal counsel's opinion on that. And it's a very technical, it's basically, you know,
how many square feet of mitigation is the applicant required to provide according to the letter of the law. And we've got one reading of it, we're hearing another reading, you know, from your side. And we'd just like to get some clarity and come to an alignment as to what is, what does the law say? And it's a fairly straightforward question that I'm convinced there is an answer that is out there. Maybe you have it, sir, or, or I'm sure you have an opinion. I mean, lawyers always have opinions. Speaker 13: We, I I, I do have an opinion, I don't know whether you want to discuss it this evening or you want us to work offline with staff,
but I'm prepared to speak to that if you'd Speaker 1: Like. Why don't you go ahead and speak to it and let's just see where your head's at at this point. Sure. And then we can decide if we're, if, if we're aligned on that opinion or if we need to do some more homework and then we can come back and just, just revisit that. But it's a fairly a fairly technical Speaker 13: Question. It it, it is a technical question. We're hampered by the fact that the regulations are somewhat ambiguous. Oh boy. Black definitions and have been interpreted differently both by various communities as well as mass DEP.
Speaker 1: And that's where we've come out so far as well. Speaker 13: And, and so I I think at the end of the day, it, it's going to be the commission's interpretation that governs and, and you, you began the analysis by going through the, the various criterion in 10 58, 5. We've discussed a, we've discussed a obviously is in work shall result in improvement. B is we have to comply with the stormwater management standards. And then we start getting into the, the, the criteria that are affect the calculation and mitigation.
The first is subsection C within 200 foot riverfront areas. Proposed work shall not be located closer to the river than existing conditions or 100 feet, whichever is less. And the rest of that is not necessarily relevant except for the combats as, except in accordance with three 10 cmar 10 58, 5 F or GF is the restoration provision G's the mitigation provision that we're relying upon. We believe that actually the, the project meets that require and requirement and does not require mitigation
because we're not proposing work closer to the river than existing conditions. We view the, the, the existing conditions be not only the degraded area, but the previously developed rear front area, which is built into the, the definition. And as you know, the previously developed area, the field extends, you know, to the bottom of the slope adjacent to the BVW where we have a fence, we've got these other structures. And so it's our position that the project doesn't propose work closer to the river than existing conditions and
therefore we're in compliance. And see, and that doesn't require separate mitigation. Speaker 1: So you're, you're, you're, you're holding right now that mitigation is not required, period? Speaker 13: No, sir. No. If I'll, if I might continue the, the, the second or the, the, the next criterion is subsection D, which is functionally the same thing. It's, it's, it's a distance thing. So that says that the proposed work shall be located outside of the riverfront area or toward the riverfront area
boundary and away from the river except in accordance with F and G. So Speaker 1: If you're going closer to the river, then mitigation is required. Speaker 13: No, that, what that says, we interpret that to say is that, that you're required to, to push towards away from the river to the maximum extent you can. And, and Dana can explain to you the efforts that were made to push this project back away from the river. So, so we, we believe that we actually meet that require, if it's actually different than C some communities actually
combine C and d, they basically say they're function of the same thing. It's a distance thing and that they, they're treated together. So we don't believe that we require additional mitigation. So it's, it's subsection E that triggers mitigation in this matter. We are, we're, so we're, we're, because we're in a previously developed riverfront area, portions of which are developed, we're we're actually allowed to alter up to 10% of the riverfront area if you,
and we're actually allowed to exceed the 10%. So if we're below the 10%, we don't need to provide mitigation. If we exceed the 10%, we have to provide mitigation, we exceed the 10%. That's what triggers two to one mitigation in this instance. And that mitigation is provided under 10 58 H Now there's a separate discussion whether you aggregate these various criteria. Speaker 1: That's the crux of it. Speaker 13: And, and, and I, I I think if we're in agreement that we actually meet c and d, that's an academic exercise
because if we meet those criterion, then there's no additional trigger for mitigation then it's simply the fact that we don't comply with E. Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah. Agreed. Agreed. Speaker 13: And, and if we disagree regarding C and D, we can, we can talk about the aggregation issue. Speaker 1: We'll be, we'll be looking, still looking closely at that. But Speaker 13: I, I think, am I, am I correct, have I articulate how you view the world? I, Speaker 2: I've, I've been very correct in, in walking through which of the performance standards. I, I think I personally do disagree on the C and d question. Yes. I think that, that there's a lot of technical detail
that goes into that specific discussion. And so I think that that is, if the commission would like to get into it, I'm happy to get into some of the response points that I had written down Speaker 1: On C and D. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: So just to note, you state that the work is not occurring any here, I'm just gonna pull up the language so that way I'm not Speaker 13: Yes. And because it's complicated, I, I literally live out of my copy of the wetlands regulations, which as you see are annotated. Speaker 2: And that's this, this language is copied straight from Yes. From that document. Yes. So c is within 200 foot riverfront areas.
Proposed work shall not be located closer to the river than existing conditions or 100 feet, whichever is less. So you know that, that there are some existing conditions that get closer than a hundred feet. I think that existing fence line does cross the a hundred foot buffer a hundred foot riverfront area line in that corner closest to Auburn Street. I I am In slight disagreement with the fact that no work is being proposed closer. I I do think very specifically the foundation drain work that needs to be done will likely result in alteration
and disturbance closer to the resource area than what has prior occurred on the site. Again, I think that there are technical measurements that can be done to debate that particular conclusion, but I do feel that based on the limit of work as it is shown on the plans, I do believe that there is work occurring closer to the river than those existing conditions under. Speaker 1: But, but if that's the case, then that would trigger that at our discretion. We could allow that if mitigation is Speaker 2: Proposed, if mitigation is being proposed, yes. I'm not claiming that there, there is no pathway forward
because mitigation is a pathway forward in the redevelopment regulations for number DIII don't necessarily feel that they are the same as C, but I was also taught by Jen Steele who has a very specific interpretation of the regulations. And I, I understand that. So d Reed's proposed work, including expansion of existing structures shall be located outside the riverfront area or toward the riverfront area boundary and away from the river except in accordance with three 10 CMR. So the maximum extent practicable is a piece
where I'm getting a little bit held up on that it's work can be closer to the river if that mitigation is being provided. I don't necessarily see the argument of if the development has been pulled to the maximum extent practical away from the river, then that meets that particular criteria. And again, I I, I do think that it is very clear that with the foundation drain work with some of the limits of work that are identified on the plan, there is work that is being located closer to the river than those existing conditions. But again, I I am very open to going
through the technical points in regard to that. And, and really as I think we've done here tonight with 10.58 A really get into the, the specific criteria associated with c and d. Speaker 1: But then with e you know, this is where the, the math happens and where the mathematical, Speaker 2: And I have no disagreement that if e is the only performance standard that is requiring mitigation, it is only requiring mitigation for above and beyond that 10%. I think where my interpretation differs from the applicant team is, is in that regard of where on the spectrum
of those performance standards, c and d, does the project fall in terms of meeting or not meeting those criteria? I would also note that under no interpretation of the regulations, do I think it is appropriate to add up all of those mitigation requirements into a larger lump sum total? What I do think is that potentially the project mitigation could get closer to that larger number on the mitigation table versus what is currently being provided based on the fact that under my interpretation, c and d are not criteria that are being met. But again, I'm more than happy to go through
that in more detail with Brad, with Dana, with, with yourself. Speaker 1: Okay. And I think that's also a place where, I mean, my bet and the, the research that I've done so far, my bet is that that is also a place where conservation commissions are given a fair degree of latitude to interpret. Speaker 2: Yes. I will go back to that. Oh, I think it's the first of se second sentence in that 10.585 is that the commission may approve work, Speaker 1: May maizes and shalls are very important when it comes to reading laws.
Speaker 13: A little bit more nuanced in the wetland regulations, but I don't necessarily disagree with that statement. And, and interestingly in g there's a concept where square foot footage may not be a relevant measure and so the commission can look to the equivalent level of environmental protection as an alternative to square footage. Speaker 1: So, which gives us a whole lot of latitude. Speaker 13: That's my point. Chair Gardner Speaker 2: And I think is why I brought up to Caris. I I don't think this is gonna come down to five, 10, a hundred plus square feet. I think this is gonna come down to that determination
of the commission is is the mitigation being provided in line with what the regulations are asking for essentially in terms of improvement to riverfront area protection of the eight interests of the act and so on and so forth. Speaker 1: Okay. So we're certainly not gonna land on that answer here this evening. Speaker 2: I di unless we wanna stay here, we do have a hard stop at Speaker 13: 11. I Speaker 2: Don't even know if an hour would Speaker 13: Be enough. My, my suggestion is to turn this over to the professionals to see if they can't reach consensus about C and and d
because I think that would obviously inform the, the conversation Speaker 1: Opinions are welcome. And could Speaker 5: I just ask, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not in full agreement with the square footage measurements that are provided here. Not, not that I'm an expert by any means, but I think there's some mitigation that's being counted that isn't really, you know, planting a seedling, is that really mitigation in a canopy forest. Speaker 13: Mr. Daniel, we're happy to have a conversation with you
regarding the, the size of plants within the mitigation areas. Yeah, it is technically mitigation, but we we're happy to have a conversation with you. Speaker 5: I just have a hard time with just a blanket length, times width calculus for this mitigation area when there's gonna clearly not be something done in certain pieces of square feet. Am I incorrect in that assumption? Speaker 13: All, all I can say sir, is that Speaker 5: Square foot is gonna be treated with some in some way, shape, or form. Speaker 13: The only thing I, I was gonna add, and again, this is not my area of expertise.
You, you have to space plantings based upon standards. So as a practical matter, trees aren't gonna be right next to each other. Bushes aren't gonna be right next, there's the space. Speaker 5: You're talking to a forester. I Yes sir, I understand that. Thanks. Yeah, Speaker 13: I, I don't know your background Speaker 5: I understand is you have square foot measurements here identified. I appreciate the flexibility that we have where we can completely ignore the square footage requirements, right? I Speaker 13: Don't know about No sir. Speaker 5: Or Speaker 2: There is interpretation and flexibility.
Speaker 5: There's flexibility, but what I'm getting at is the calculus with regard to these numbers. I look at mitigations that you're doing something on that square foot personally and if you're calculating it and counting it, what is happening on that square foot? 'cause if you're not doing anything on that square foot, should it be counted? Speaker 1: So it's the intensity, it's the nature of the mitigation activity ultimately. Speaker 13: I I I'm, I'm not sure, I mean we could seed the whole area and not plant it with trees or shrubs or,
Speaker 5: That's up to you. That's not, Speaker 13: I'm I'm just trying to understand your point. I mean, if you would like to have every square foot not have something on it, what Speaker 5: I'm, what I'm trying to, what you are proposing, what's here, what I'm reading, if I'm understanding this high level conversation that we're having tonight, you're planting trees, you're planting shrubs. Am I, am I on the right path right now? Alright. Yes. Okay. We're calculating mitigation areas by square feet. I'm trying to understand how we get to this number when there's stuff that is planted 15 feet apart
where there may not be invasive species or any invasive species controlled, are we looking at a mature tree that you're planting at 15 by 15 spacing and we're extrapolating out in 50 years, it's gonna occupy, you know, a space within that area of the riverfront? Speaker 13: I I, I think I understand your question that the square footage of mitigation is calculated on the percentage of riverfront area and, and so that, that that's the basis
for the square foot numbers. Speaker 2: I think Mike's concern is the, the square footage that is being proposed as mitigation area. I, and what I will say is that this commission does have quite a bit of experience with, with tiny forest, with Milwaukee forests and the success that overly dense plantings can have in these scenarios. I think Mike's concern is that this spacing will leave open areas where invasive species will have an opportunity to potentially take hold. So how can we ensure that the mitigation square footage that is being proposed by the applicant
is truly reflecting a mitigation effort across that square footage. Speaker 13: Thank you. We, we, we'll clearly work with the commission to make sure that you have confidence that the mitigation plan has sufficient density and provides, provides the benefit you're looking for. And it, this may not be the plan and you may need more plants, different plants, different types of plants, plants in different locations. So yes, we're, we're absolutely, we're willing to work with the commission and you Mr. Downey, to, to, to get the mitigation plan
to the point where you're comfortable. Speaker 5: I, you know, it's not about my comfort. I I'm just, I'm just stating my experience and approaches to restoration work and there's been restora wonderful restoration work done along the Charles that is, has a different approach that seems to be aligned with higher densities and focusing in, in, in these hot what what we would consider ecological hotspots with invasives. And I, I just, you know, what I'm, what I'm trying
to get at is, is are we just throwing out numbers because I can measure it and, and there's a square footage with that measurement, but is it adequately reflecting actually the mitigation that's happening on the ground, I guess. Speaker 13: And again, we're prepared to work with the commission and staff to develop a plan that addresses your concerns. Speaker 34: Okay. Speaker 14: Mr. Chairman, just looking back to, I think this may address some of your concerns, you know, with the in-between areas. So on on the second page, it says, in association
with the replacement plantings of native, native sapling shrubs, native seed mixes will be used to promote it in herbaceous plant layer, native seed mixes could range from New England Wildlife conservation, wildlife seed mix to New England Wildlife Mix, et cetera, seed links below. So that kind of gives you that, that herbaceous layer down low that, that you were talking about to make sure that no, it, it'll make it more difficult for invasives to take root, you know, in the future once they've been eradicated. It'll just make it harder if they're competing and hopefully being outcompeted by some
of these ceilings and Speaker 5: You know, sure, sure. Can we get, can we just get a pounds per, you know, pounds per, you know, what we, what you're gonna apply? 'cause then that makes sense, right? Sure. So if you, if you're gonna apply X amount of pounds of whatever the wildflower mix is, whatever the conservation mix seed is, then, then of course you can easily get to that 10,749 square foot piece, right? 'cause we can say, oh yes, there's 30 pounds and that makes sense. But with the information in front of me, it just, it, none
of it is really adding up in terms of how I'm understanding restoration work. Speaker 1: So I think the additional clarity that Dan is proposing would be very helpful and appreciate the applicant's willingness to, to work with us on this. I think we're, we're coming together in terms of what the expectations would be for a mitigation plan that we could then consider as, as part of that the file. And for me that I think that covers kind of the questions that would make sense to try to address this evening. I think, you know, I've got a list here.
We've got our request into town council around specifically around case laws on, on on degraded area and any thresholds there and how that's been interpreted previously by judges and others. The parameters of a, of the wildlife, wildlife habitat analysis and what that can look like. Speaker 2: I have actually already uploaded the simplified wildlife habitat evaluation form as well as the DEP Guide to Wildlife Habitat evaluation into both the public and commission's Google Drive. Speaker 1: Great. So we'll take a look at that. The, there's a question that's remains out there for,
at least for me personally is around this question of timeframes for mitigation and whether mitigation and perpetuity versus over a defined period of time and what the trade offs are there. There's a possible difference of opinion around Section C, D and E in terms of how we interpret those and what the latitude the commission has. And I Speaker 2: Think just C and DI think E Speaker 1: We very much land on, I'm sorry. I'm sorry C and D. Yep, you're right. And then Mike's question that he was getting at around kind of more detail around the mitigation plans themselves and really, you know,
it can range from the very technical pounds per square foot or whatever of seeds to a more almost philosophical question in that is the proposed mitigation replacing or improving upon almost the ecosystem services in a way that well of what was there prior? Speaker 5: 'cause that's what the mitigation is supposed to do, right? Speaker 1: In theory. Right. Okay. Yeah. And so we could get to that level, but that's very hard to quantify, you know, but then that's get the Charles Speaker 5: River on the vegetation management plan please. That would be helpful.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I think just an expanded view of that plan sheet not correct. So the Yeah, sure extent from the area to the BBW is is clearly visible. Speaker 5: I'm kind to see where it is in relation because there are concerns about chemical use and Sure. Speaker 20: We Speaker 2: Do have one member of the public re raise their hands. Speaker 1: Ms. Doran, what do you got? Speaker 20: Just a quick comment. Oh, can you hear me? Thank you. I was interested in the list of proposed plantings, especially in light of the comment that the resident at the end of Auburn Street made about enjoying two deer. Some of those plants will be mowed down in one night by Deer
Mountain, Laurel Rhododendron. I didn't get to see them all, but I think you need to take a better look at that and come up with a bit better plan. That's, Speaker 1: It sounds like you're speaking from experience Speaker 20: Very much. Speaker 1: Okay. So, you know, we can take a look at that and just see it just as part of the mitigation plan. Thank you Catherine. Alright, are we good to, to pause here? Do we have have enough homework to do? Please commission. We good for now, Mike? Speaker 5: Yeah, Speaker 1: I'm sure you'll have some more questions. I'll, Speaker 5: I'll have something. Yeah, Speaker 1: I think we all will. Speaker 2: In terms of selecting a date for continuance,
I just wanna make the applicant team aware I will not be in attendance at the 12 four meeting. I have prior scheduled PTO that is the next available meeting. Our following meeting after that is 1218. I'm just trying to make all applicants who are requesting continuations aware of that. Matt and I will be going through everything. My annotated agenda will be, we talk daily beforehand, but Matt, and I'll be going through everything prior to the meeting. I don't expect there'll be any changes in, in how the meeting is run. But again, just trying to make folks aware, Speaker 16: Claire, given what seemed to me to be some of the very complicated topics that we're discussing, that was also Speaker 2: Why I brought Speaker 16: It up.
Would you suggest we, we wait until the 18th? Speaker 1: I'm I'm okay either way, but you know, I think if you're comfortable waiting until the 18th, why don't we wait until the 18th? I just, you know, just for the, the depth and breadth of knowledge that Claire brings to the table, I think is is helpful. Speaker 2: I also think it will maybe give Caris a little extra time to, Speaker 5: Is there any other philosophical questions that we should be entertaining here? Speaker 1: I mean for me it's the mitigation question is, is is one of the big ones there. And personally, I mean my, my my focus is does this follow the letter of the law?
And if not, and if not, Speaker 2: What do we mean? Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the only other physical philosophical question that comes to my mind and and it it's somewhat embedded in, in the act is, is around this idea of ecological and cultural. And, and it was spoken quite eloquently earlier this evening. You know, the Army Corps of Engineers recognizes the cultural resources are an equal and integral part to all resource management. And I think, you know, this bend in the Charles River
is not just a bend, you know, this bend in the river is inherently critically, culturally important to folks that are around and still live on this land. So like it's just, some of this is, is really difficult for me to kind of articulate well 'cause I'm not smart enough. But I can tell you that there's, there's a cultural part to this conversation that I, I've just aghast. It was never acknowledged through this permitting process that we keep hearing about from, you know,
different commissions and departments and et cetera. It just, i I just wanna make that point is that there's a whole cultural aspect of what we do here and especially with this river and to kind of just ignore that perspective, especially when it has ecological function and it's impossible to separate that cultural and ecological function. I just don't know how we got to this point. Speaker 2: I think that that is the point that's been brought up by the commission. I think in the, the meeting that we had with the applicant team, with the chair and myself is that there,
there were certainly opportunities earlier on in the process where maybe the commission could have been brought more heavily into the process. I know I did provide several comment letters to the ZBA, but I would like to clarify that the commission is not the deed holder of this parcel. And we are limited in our review to the jurisdiction that we have before us not discounting the importance of the issue Mike has brought up because it is a very important issue. Speaker 5: But we, but we make a comment about the historical importance of this 1930 building. Speaker 2: Well we're not making that statement the yes,
Speaker 5: However it is presented in that fashion, however, and to not take into account the cultural aspect of the actual river. It, it just, it's absolutely problematic to me from a, from a personal and professional level. And, you know, I I that's, that's all I'm gonna say about it tonight and probably for the rest of the time here. But I just, I couldn't hold it any longer in terms of the cultural piece to this. You know, we care more about this 1930 building than we care about this river, it seems,
Speaker 2: Folks I do have to ask, this is a jurisdictional body. This is not a place for applause, Speaker 12: You know, to support Mike. And, and again, I I, I respectfully disagree with with you about the act, the, the purpose of those of the points spelled out in the act is not just to protect the river as a thing. It was to allow for the enjoyment of that protected thing and the cultural interaction with that protected thing. So I just don't think it, it's not just, you know, keeping it to be in, of itself out there left alone that no one can, the reason why it's being protected is
because we interact with it. Because we need to interact with it. 'cause we want to interact with these things. And I believe that that, that that's the purpose of the reason for the reason is to make it accessible to us all. I, if not, then there's no other reason to protect it. So I think that that is, you know, that that is a consideration there. It doesn't say, you know, cultural in there, but the purpose that we're protecting these things is to protect their inherent value as a thing that we all enjoy. Not that is just out there that no one can touch.
It's not a, a building that houses something that used to be, it's a thing that's still there inherent in the, in the environment, right? And we have to learn to deliver that. So I think that they are very much part, particularly this river. Speaker 2: I I do also have to just, my position here is the jurisdictional objective body. That there are a other regulatory programs, the chapter 91 program specifically that is dedicated to the protection of public access and use of navigable waterways. Because this project doesn't propose any work within the waterway.
It's not a jurisdictional project under that regard. Again, not discounting the importance of these items, it's just to note that under this commission's review process, those factors are, are not necessarily falling under the Wetlands Protection Act in as clear of a state as they are in other jurisdictional areas. Speaker 5: I think you're hearing some, some different thinking on that. Yeah. Speaker 2: And I think that that's, that's definitely a, a place where i, I will do some more research as well. Speaker 5: Let's, yeah. All all very valuable inputs. Mrs. Speaker 26: Sir, thank you for recognizing me. I have a question, a proposal I beg you
to go look at the site. Speaker 1: We've been there many times, been there. Oh yeah, Speaker 26: Number one, I shouldn't say this, but I'm thrilled you have win lose or draw two. I think you're the only board that has Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Speaker 35: But I'm not surprised. Speaker 1: Alright, so I think we've got homework, we've got some additional conversations we're gonna meet again. 18th is okay, let's do the 18th then. Any further questions, comments? That's it. So some, someone make a motion to continue this to December 18th please. So moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that?
All in favor, Chris? Yes. Excellent. Continue to the 18th. Thank you folks. Really appreciate your time. Thank you. Good night participation folks. Thank all of you who are here. Public participation is everything, so please keep it coming. Speaker 35: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, let's, oops, sorry. Wanna wrap up my, my mike's packing up to get outta dust. Speaker 2: No, I'm gonna try to run through this as quick as I can. Speaker 1: Yeah, hold on one second. Lemme just see work to do. Let's work, let's just see what we got. That's funny. I just goes outta my phone. Damn. Speaker 2: It's meeting dates. Matt, if you just want me to jump right into them, Speaker 1: Jump right into 'em. Yeah, Speaker 2: So up on the screen is the proposed schedule for our
2026 meeting schedule. And I apologize the, the January dates should not be listed in here. That was a copy and paste error. Our first January and only January meeting for the 2026 has already been set as part of our 2025 schedule. Folks, I just have to ask that conversations be taken out of the room Speaker 1: So we can talk. Speaker 2: So we are looking at several dates. Thankfully we have very few needs to shift our schedule this year. The meetings associated with town meeting are May 6th and May 21st, which have been shifted to a Wednesday. Date has been Oh, already? Yes. Good. Already.
The other date that I wanted to discuss is March 5th. Passover is right at the beginning of March this year. And both the beginning and the end are our usual Thursdays. The, if I'm not mistaken, the sixth of, oh, and I, I have my dates wrong. It should be the April dates, which is why I had been reviewing this. So April 9th is technically the last night of Passover,
which ends at sundown. Would the commission be comfortable meeting on that evening or would we prefer to fully shift to a Wednesday date to make sure that we're not in conflict? I, Speaker 1: I would shift to a Wednesday date just to be sure. Okay, Speaker 2: Perfect. I will figure out the appropriate date, send out the, the list of dates for potential conflicts and then if the commission has no conflicts, it can just be approved pending that research. If the commission is comfortable. Speaker 1: Good. December meetings are virtual only? Yes. Speaker 2: Just a reminder, December meetings are virtual only. Don't show up here. Nobody else will be here. Both.
Both meetings. Both meetings, yes. There are gonna be tech upgrades being done in this room and so hopefully when we come back in January we'll have a bright, shiny new system to play with. And as I stated earlier, I will not be in attendance on the December 4th meeting. I'll be out of town in Salt Lake City. But Matt, and I'll be going over everything in any questions or anything like that the commission has, please don't hesitate to reach out. Here Speaker 1: We go. Speaker 2: I was about to say, if you're more than welcome to, yeah, December 3rd, that's my flight date. Feel free to join. And then finally, I just wanted to let the commission know that last night at the planning board meeting 52 Everett Street was approved
for the 15 unit proposal, which is the one that was discussed on the field visit, not the 12 unit proposal. That was a bit of a shock to all of us at the last meeting that extended much further into that rear portion. So Ben is looking to prepare the appropriate applications to file with this body in the coming months. Okay. Speaker 1: Is that it? That Speaker 2: Is it. I tried to keep 'em brief 'cause I knew tonight was gonna be long Speaker 1: Folks, thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn please? So thank you David. Seconded. Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion in that? All in favor, Chris? Yes.
Thank you sir. Alright folks, we're adjourned. Thank guys.