Speaker 1: Welcome everybody. This is, I was gonna say, this is the Natick School Committee and just see what the reaction was. Oh boy. No, this is the Natick Conservation C Commission. Today is April 3rd, our first meeting of April. So let's go ahead and open up the public part of this meeting. First item on the agenda is a certificate of compliance for 45 Hopewell Farm Road. So Claire, if you could give us a rundown on what's going on there. Do we have any representatives of Speaker 2: No. As we talked about on the phone, this is a elderly gentleman who is currently selling the house. We have two orders of conditions open from the 1988
for when this house was first constructed. 2 3 3 dash 180 4 was for the construction of a detention basin that falls in this area that's labeled utility easement behind the single family home as well as the driveway construction. And then 2 3 3 dash 180 6 was for the actual construction of the single family home structure. The lots, the orders of conditions were issued to a developer and surprisingly no one, the developer did not close out the orders of conditions after selling the house slots. And so the owner is now trying to close these out so
that the house can sell. I did just wanna note in, I put this in my staff notes as well, but according to the DEP database, there are two projects that have been assigned the file number 2 3 3 dash 180 6. This was unfortunately not uncommon in sort of the first 15 years of WPA. The other 2 3 3 dash 180 6 is for the construction of the ice rink next to the DPW headquarters. So a very clear location difference and project difference. But unfortunately that the 2 3 3 dash 180 6
project file for this project does not exist currently in our records, which I think is likely why that error was only recently realized. It is not the only project that is double numbered, but all of them are from that sort of very early stage of the Wetlands Protection Act. I did complete a site visit to the site there. It doesn't appear to have been any substantial work on the lot done beyond what is shown on the plot plan. No additional impervious area or hardscaping done on the lot. The lot is primarily lawn with some landscaped plots sprinkled throughout. But I do believe based on the plot plan and my site visit, that the site is in compliance
with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations and is ready for a certificate of compliance for both orders of conditions. Speaker 1: So this is from the original developer and it was, yes. This lot was for a detention basin. And driveways for the entire development Speaker 2: Or just No, just for this lot and the adjacent lot. The detention basin falls behind those two single family lots. And so it was the driveways that were constructed because the drainage infrastructure went underneath them to outfall in the detention basin. Speaker 1: And as far as you can tell, all of the infrastructure's working properly, there's no, no no issues on site that you can tell. Yep.
Speaker 2: The detention basin is well vegetated, but I don't think in a detriment to its functionality. There was water coming out of the outlet pipe as it had just rained the day prior. And so everything did seem to be functioning as it should. Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions from the commission on this? I mean, Doug, you probably, there's Speaker 3: No chance that the rink has been issued a Speaker 1: Certificate for a single family home construction. Yeah, right. And Doug, this is probably even even before your No, no, he Speaker 4: Signed it. I just said to Jim, don't let anybody sign anything. You know he signed Speaker 1: It. Oh, Doug signed it. Oh, great.
So it's all about what's pleasure of the board. We would someone make a motion to issue a certificate of compliance if Wallace the pleasure of the board for this project? So moved. Thank you Mike. And is that seconded by anybody? Seconded? I'll take David's any further discussion on this? No. All those in favor in the room, Jeff? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Any opposed? Alright, issued next item, the agenda order of conditions amendment for 85 Cottage Street. So do we have representatives of 85 Cottage Street here on the call? Yes. Speaker 2: Miles is here on the call. Unfortunately for some reason it does not look like all
of my files ended up in Google Drive. I'll just do a quick rundown, but Miles is here to also answer any questions Speaker 5: So that my folks in the room Speaker 2: Can see what I'm sharing on my screen. Miles 85 cottage was before the commission just at the end of last year. Permit was issued in October. Speaker 1: Hold on one second. Yes, lemme just formally open this. Thank Speaker 2: You Matt for reminding me that this is an OOC amendment Speaker 1: In accordance with the Wes Protection Act of Natick's local wetlands. By Article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on an order of Conditions amendment requests filed by Miles Walker for property located at 85 Cotard Street Map 61 lot three.
The proposal is to amend an existing order of conditions to allow for the further expansion of the proposed garage and additional retaining wall. Alright, Claire? Speaker 2: Yes, so that project was permitted by the commission for There it's, this is what I was trying to get up. So the commission issued a pro approval for the demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new slightly expanded garage. There was also gonna be the reconstruction of a deck within the former deck footprint, as well as some retaining wall work to level out a portion of the backyard.
Because the site does fall within riverfront area, a robust mitigation planting plan was also established, including a line of highbush blueberries as well as some additional plantings closer to and within the wetland. Boundary construction started on the project this spring, and upon the demolition of the existing garage structure and the pulling of the building permits, it was noted by the homeowner that the, and something that I do unfortunately see on a regular basis, the architectural plans were not speaking with the civil design plans.
So the garage extension that was approved allows for one car to reasonably enter the garage, but the angle of the driveway and thickness of the garage wall would prohibit a secondary car from pulling into the garage. Based on the descriptions from the applicant, there was also a proposed yard access door off the back of the garage that would have a three foot drop off from the door threshold to surface grade based on the current grading plan that has been approved. I do just wanna note I did that include some my notes,
but just because there's been a lot of chatter at DEP about OOC amendments recently, order of conditions amendments are entirely at the discretion of the commission. The commission does not need to approve or even consider a request for an amendment. And if a request for an amendment is denied, there is not an appeal process currently under the state law. So I just wanna make everybody aware of what the commission's jurisdiction is when it comes to amendment requests. I will also note that this project does have a current ZBA decision that may
or may not require amendment depending on what the commission chooses to approve, if anything. Miles, did I miss anything? Speaker 6: No, no, that's about it. Yeah, we, we demoed the existing garage and went to stake the, the new foundation wall. And upon layout that's, you know, putting two cars into position, the, the way it's laid out now, the outside face of the foundation wall is at the edge of the driveway. So when you account for a 10 inch concrete wall and then framing to support the headers for the
garage door, you're looking at at least a foot that's coming into the area where you would need to back in that second car. So, you know, an extension of, of one foot allows, allows the, the space for the foundation wall itself, an extension of three feet allows for you to actually have the space to pull that car in and open the door. One thing that that's shown here as well is that we need stairs for the change of grade from garage to first floor level, which is eating up space on the, the right side of the garage. And then, like Claire said, the grading at the back,
currently an access door out the back of the garage, you know, originally proposed, I think it was an extension of a deck that was obviously not approved because we were within the boundaries there. But Claire came to site and said, you know, maybe this is something that I could suggest if we, we filled the grade in back here to, to alleviate that, that issue. So yeah, we, we spent a considerable amount of time last year trying to, to get this plan sorted and approved and considerable amount resources with the wetlands specialists and just to move forward as it was, felt like a disservice
to myself to build something that just doesn't function. But I, I do recognize your side and, you know, I am right up against the boundary here. I just would kick myself from not coming back to explain how I need this to, to function properly. Speaker 1: Thanks. Miles. Can we adjust the volume on, on his, his audio? Speaker 2: I can't adjust the volume on his audio miles. You could check in your zoom tools next to the microphone. There'll be a small carrot. You can check your, oh nevermind.
Miles, it was on, on our end, but not the end that I have control over. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Ah, much better. Thank you. Alright, good. So miles, so, so there's, it looks like there's two requests in or two changes that you're proposing. One is to make the garage a little bit wider so that you can accommodate two cars, right? Yes. What's the, what's the delta? And it's hard to read on these plans here. What's the change on the, on the, you know, facing the garage, you want to go closer to the wetlands on the le on the left hand side by how much? Speaker 6: Correct. So originally you approved a seven foot
extension, it would be an additional three feet. So from the original foundation it would be a 10 foot extension instead of a seven foot extension. That's Speaker 7: A blue. Speaker 2: That blue I was gonna say, and I, I'll note Miles is also drawn on what a one foot extension would look like. That is the red bar. Speaker 1: Okay. And then for the grade issues in the back, I see this brown geometric shape on the Yes, the plan. And so your request would be to extend the retaining wall so that it, so that that area would be filled as well
Speaker 6: To align with the back of the, the garage? Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 7: The wall, does it just allow the door to be flush with the ground or does it go to the past, the door into the corner of the proposed garage? Speaker 2: Currently what is shown is all the way to the corner of the garage. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 7: It, it's an extension of the wall or is Speaker 2: It just extension of the wall to allow for the filled area to be level with the door. Speaker 6: It also allows me to, that footing wouldn't be as deep 'cause it could be frost protected,
but additionally, three, three feet, the, the wall still parallel with the, the wetlands or the, where I'm proposing the extension would still need to be a, a deeper wall. So we're in the water table, which was another concern when we started the foundation, which I already, you know, brought up the Claire and we did a site visit about it. But filling in the rear gives me the ability to step the footing once I made that corner at the rear up to not be as far into the water table with my footing for the foundation.
Speaker 1: So, so the, the f the footing of the foundation of the garage is, is into the water table to some extent? Yes. And you would like to have some relief from that? Just some additional clearance, I guess Speaker 6: Back wall? Yeah. So the, where the blue is that needs to be obviously four feet below grade. So I'm already like three feet up, so I'm going down that delta into the ground. Whereas in the back, if we had this fill without that fill,
it'd be that same, same depth with that fill, I then have three feet of additional frost protection. So wouldn't need to go down. You're, I go down three feet less. Speaker 7: You're still gonna need the seven foot depth on the left hand side of the picture along the blue edge, right? Speaker 6: Yes. For the coroner it would've to step, you know, it would've to come in at return at least probably three feet before we could step back up. Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Thoughts, comments? I'll give, I mean, I'll give mine, I can be, I can be swayed on the three foot extension of the garage.
I'm personally, I'm not gonna vote for the additional fill. I mean, we negotiated that, that retaining wall over a number of meetings in terms of setbacks from the wetlands and all that. And, you know, for you to come back now and, and want to extend it, you know, that's, I'm not willing to go there personally. I mean, I think that the, the retaining wall stays where the retaining wall is. If you need to put, build some stairs on the back, we can talk about that, you know, to step down. I mean, that's a, you know, a design issue. The three feet on extension on the garage, I can, I can get behind that.
I mean, this, this project is jammed up against the edge of the wetlands to begin with. Yeah, that's just my take on it personally. Speaker 2: I will just note, because we are in riverfront area, if we are extending the three feet of garage, we just need to make sure that the mitigation area numbers still work in order to meet those riverfront area performance Speaker 1: Standards. And let's make sure that that works. Other, other thoughts? I'm just, I'm just one, one voice in this. Speaker 8: I, I, I would agree that I don't see any compelling reason for the, the retaining wall. Speaker 1: There's other alternatives, you know, I mean,
you can build a landing in a, in a short stairway down to the yard. Anyone else? Speaker 8: I agree, Speaker 1: Jim. No, I'm good. You good? Yeah, Michael, Speaker 3: You know, I, i, I think if we're going down this conversation then, you know, I would, I would advocate for another, you know, analysis of alternatives. There's a piece of land, you know, I can't speak to setbacks and zoning and all that. That's not our, our bailiwick. But you know, there's a whole area to the north of the house that, you know, could fit up,
fit a garage or fit a one car garage, you know, one space. You know, there's other, you know, I know that's not gonna fit into the aesthetic of, of, of the ownership, but, you know, we went through a huge amount of effort to make this work in riverfront. Numerous weeks, numerous meetings. And, you know, I, I feel as if, you know, now we're facing, you know, stairs and more fill after that was kind of, I thought a very clear message about, you know,
we're in riverfront and we take that piece of law pretty seriously here about what is permissible and what isn't. Speaker 1: And, and does that, does that extend to both the, the, the additional garage space and the proposed fill in the back? Speaker 3: Well, I'd say there's, from my perspective, and Claire has already approached some of it, is that I don't have enough information in front of me. Speaker 1: Okay. So what, what additional information, just, just so we can give the applicant guidance as to what's needed here. Speaker 3: I would say, you know, there would be a, this should, in my opinion, this should be a separate filing
and there should be another alternative analysis about what is being proposed, including the fill. And, and we should be able to take that upon, you know, the merits of the application versus right now, you know, can I get behind adding three feet to that, to that structure? I'm, you know, I think I could get behind that, but I'd need some data points and, and some new calculations. Speaker 2: So just to give the commission sort of a picture of what the sort of choices are in terms of this request, the commission can vote to deny the request entirely,
which means that if Miles would like to move forward with this, he would need to submit a new notice of intent for the additional scope of work. The commission can vote to approve this as an amendment, in which case an amended order of conditions would be developed and approved by this body. I don't think that this would be an option in this case. But in theory, the third choice is that the commission approves this as a minor plan change and doesn't feel it requires an OC amendment. I don't think that's applicable in this particular request, but, so the commission is determining either if this scope change is minor enough in nature,
that it does not increase impacts to the resource areas. We could approve it as an amendment. If the commission has concerns that it may result in an increased impact to the resource areas, which given that riverfront area is a resource area, I think the argument could be made, a new notice of intent should be required. Speaker 1: But there's no way to approve a, a piecemeal to say you can do this. But not that Speaker 2: We could do that. Yes, we could issue an amended order of conditions to allow for a piece of what is being requested, but not all of it. Yes, we do not have to approve the entire request. Speaker 9: Did, didn't he say that he has to get,
is it zoning approval or? Speaker 2: So there is a zoning decision for this lot folks might remember. The shape of this lot is quite odd. It is very long, but the majority of the lot is wetland resource area. So the lot does extend, you know, all the way over to this end of the site plan. But the buildable portion of the lot outside of the wetlands jurisdiction is just this small corner miles. I can look it up quickly, but if you remember off the top of your head, is the need for the ZBA decision because of lot coverage or is it because of the front setback?
Speaker 6: So it's because of the front setback. If you, it is an existing non-conforming, you see the dashed line that says 40, 40 rear setback, 40 front setback. So the majority of the house is as is non-conforming. That's why I can't build a garage on the right side. Not to mention I would've to do an additional curb cut and then it fill in the existing garage. It's just, it's, it's, you know, financially unachievable and from a permit standpoint would not be allowed. Speaker 2: Miles, just so you know, because this is a front setback issue, you, you will likely need an amended ZBA decision if the
commission chooses to Yes. Approve the garage extension. Speaker 6: Yes. I've already reached out to, to peg about that. Yep. She's, she's aware. So I'm not encroaching not that it matters any further forward. So it's only a side encroachment, which I, I have over, you know, 300 feet to the, that setback. Sure, Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean I've, I've said my piece, you know, on that, I, I could, you know, I I approach things like this, you know, if the, would we have wield and dealed if the original proposal had been for the garage
to be three feet wider, would we have wheeled and dealed and pushed back on that? And I, you know, I, that, that in my mind with the mitigation would've been ultimately permittable in my mind. The, when we negotiated the retaining wall, I mean basically what's in front of us as the proposal for the amended order of conditions was more or less what was proposed originally that we then pushed back on and we, we negotiated that to what was permitted, what was conditioned ultimately.
And now what what appears to me to be back in front of us is what we had originally pushed back on. And that's why I'm not, I wouldn't be willing to, I wouldn't vote to support that just 'cause that's exactly what we negotiated. Speaker 3: I mean, could a deck be in place of that fill would, like, would that, could the proposed deck Speaker 1: Extend to the back of the garage? Speaker 3: It could it be tied into that, the back of the garage to accommodate that rear Speaker 1: Door, that rear entry garage could, Speaker 6: I would be more than satisfied with that as well. I didn't, it does not have to be fill, I just thought no structures would be permitted.
Speaker 1: I could get behind a deck and I think that would be an appropriate, Speaker 3: It's less, it's a hell of a lot fill, excuse my language, it's a heck of a lot Speaker 1: Less impactful Speaker 3: Than whatever, you know, 18 feet of fill or whatsoever, whatever's going on back there. Right. Speaker 1: I mean, if, if the commission could get behind that, I mean, I could, I could get behind that. I mean it's, the decks are much less impactful if they're, you know, on ude or, you know, similar. Speaker 2: So would the commission be comfortable, miles would have this plan formalized showing the extension of the garage and we can maybe work, see
what the riverfront area calculations are in terms of mitigation come back to the commission on the 17th with those stamped plans for a, a final review and potentially a vote. Speaker 1: So what I, I think we should provide some very clear guidance when we say deck, you know, if you look at the 10 feet, 10 feet, nine inches of the deck off the back of the house right there. Yep. My expectation would not be that the deck then would be 10 feet, nine inches off the back of the garage going all the way to the corner. Speaker 2: But that would almost slant in it, Speaker 1: It, you know, not slant in
where it would be a single lane, you know, for someone to exit the garage at gr you know, at the level of the deck, walk over onto the, onto the deck and be and do that. You know. But it wouldn't be a 10 foot nine thing. It'd be a, you know, I don't know what the dimensions would be four feet or whatever it is there. Speaker 8: And none of the retaining wall has been completed. Speaker 2: Right? No. The only thing that has occurred to date is the demolition of the existing garage structure. Speaker 3: So I'm still, I'm still a little confused about, you know, so the fill was, the fill is to meet some sort of need
because of the frost. So without the fill, can that rear of the garage be built or not? Speaker 6: It can, it can, it just has to go deeper into the water table. Speaker 3: Okay. Right. Speaker 1: So Speaker 7: And which was the original plan? Which Speaker 1: Was the original plan anyway. Yes. And so I think we stick with that. There could be a small, you know, a, a small relatively narrow extension of the deck to meet a door in the back of the garage. Speaker 3: Yeah. Whatever code is or Speaker 1: Yep. Right. Whatever code is, but but not more. Yep. And then, and then the three foot extension of the garage to accommodate two cars.
And I get that. Okay. So if we could get revis, you know, so if we could get the updated numbers just for the filing there and then if we could get revised plans that show what is being, Speaker 2: What would be approved essentially as under the Speaker 1: Amendment and then zba a's gotta take a look at it and make sure, you know, they're not gonna want to take a second bite at this estimate. Yeah. Speaker 2: Though I think the commission could condition in order of conditions amendment that states that their approval is conditional upon, so that way we're not holding up our process while we wait for a ZBA decision. Okay. It would be miles who'd be held
up, but we wouldn't be, do Speaker 1: We something Speaker 2: On our agenda, Speaker 1: We, do we want to vote this amended order tonight or do we want to hear what ZBA thinks before? Speaker 2: I think we should have the revised plans showing what we would be approved before we vote anything before we vote. We Speaker 1: I totally agree, Speaker 3: Agree. Should we vote on what was just discussed before, before we even have the formal plans? Just that make sure that we're all in agreement that that's a course of action ahead or should we just wait? Speaker 2: I don't if we need to vote, but consensus, Speaker 1: I don't think we, yeah, I don't think we need to vote, but we can certainly go around the table and just make sure that people are on board with what is being discussed here. And so Michael, I'll start with you.
What, you know, are you on board with, you know, with the revised riverfront area data plus revised plans that show a code width extension of the deck to a, you know, to meet a door in the back? Is that something you, you can get behind? Yeah, Speaker 3: I want to, I wanna be helpful to the applicant. I, I just same. I think the non-starter is, is just the Phil thing. 'cause we've, Speaker 1: We've been there. It's Speaker 3: Old news. Right. And I don't like going back on old news. Right Speaker 1: Chris? Yeah, Speaker 8: I, I totally, I think that's a nice, nice workaround. Speaker 1: Okay, Dave? Speaker 7: Yes. I just wanna be clear about code.
So code, let's say code requires 36 inches minimum for that lane. Yeah. Is that what we're expecting when it comes back? When you say code, bare minimum, Speaker 2: I think a minimized deck footprint as it approaches the door in order to be code compliant, but not, Speaker 1: But it gives him the egress that he's looking for. Exactly. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 7: I'm, I'm in. Okay, Speaker 1: Jim? Yeah, just Speaker 9: Two points that the plan will be for the blue. Excuse me. Right, so we don't have to have these choices on the door? Speaker 2: No, no. The the, the plan will be finalized showing the three foot extension as, as part of the official plan sheet. Yeah. And
Speaker 9: Then how far over do you think the door would be? Is it right in the middle, like where it's shown there or? Yeah, Speaker 1: Miles. What do you think about that? More to Speaker 6: That? You're talking about the front or the rear? Rear Speaker 2: The rear door. Rear The Speaker 6: Rear would be in the middle. Yeah. Right. Speaker 9: Okay. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 1: All right. Doug, your thoughts? Speaker 9: So I'm good. Speaker 4: Well, when it comes to the backyard, many a time we've said what you got is what you have. Right. And there's, you know, I'll leave it to you. I don't have a load, but I might give them the width. But like you said, but you know, it is, it is no
Speaker 9: More depth. Okay. Speaker 2: Okay. And we do have Jeff online as well. Jeff? Speaker 10: Yeah, I'm aligned with with where the conversation's going. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright, so let's, let's do that. So let's get some revised plans that show this, the revised data for the riverfront calcs. Speaker 2: Yep. So Miles, if you wanna work on getting those plans formalized, I'll do the calculations, run them by you to make sure that they sound like they make sense, but I mean it's all based on the materials that Goddard already provided essentially. And then we can get you on the four 17 agenda for approval and if you wanna initiate the ZBA process
as well so that way both of those balls are rolling. I think that is a good plan of attack. Speaker 6: Okay, I'll do that. Great. Speaker 1: Thanks Miles. Appreciate your time. Thank you for the time. Alright, take care. Alright, next item on the agenda is, oh, Speaker 2: Do we vote to continue? It is an open public hearing. Speaker 1: Sorry. Thank you very much. Will someone make a motion to continue this to April 17 please? Motion to continue. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Chris. Any further discussion on that? All those in the room Jeff? Yes. Thank you. Alright, next item make agenda notice of intent continuation for Lake Katuit path. We have an order of conditions
to a draft order of conditions to review. Speaker 2: Yes. So the commission will have seen that in the project folder. There is my initial draft order of conditions. There's also a copy with some back and forth between myself and the, excuse me, project team. The project team reviewed the proposed conditions. There were some comments made regarding our standard condition language which may not be appropriate for this style of project. So some of our standard condition language has been amended. The comments align with wherever that has occurred. HNTB folks, I'm just gonna run through this
with the commission and then we can go back and touch base on there's two conditions that are gonna require some discussion and some back and forth. Speaker 1: Good. Speaker 2: So starting off we have our standard administrative information, including the approved plans. I have received the stamped plans, I just need to update that line. I also included a screenshot of the plan sheet index. Rather than typing out what every sheet on the plan set of the 53 page plan set was. I figured the screenshot functioned the findings of fact
for this project are a bit detailed for a buffer zone only project. But I really wanted to make sure that the temporary and permanent impacts were clearly stated that the project was meeting the stormwater management standards as well as noting the article 97 disposition process that the project went through. I also note in that very last line that the construction bid is not set to be released until 2026 and a two and a half year construction period is estimated. The commission has voted to issue a five year order of conditions for this project.
So obviously if we don't vote I will change that language, but that is based on what we discussed at the prior meeting. Condition three is the first standard condition that's been amended at the request of the applicant. This is the condition that allows the commission access to the project site for inspections. The project team does note that this will be an active construction site and a very narrow corridor. So they did request that access be prearranged with the resident engineer rather than it just being at will. So that language has been amended to site visits to the project area will be arranged
with the mast resident engineer in less than five business days in advance just to make sure that there's time for them to make sure that it's safe for us to access. Speaker 1: So, so where is that Speaker 2: Condition three? Speaker 1: I don't see that language in what was on the, on the, Speaker 2: So there were two versions. There's the initial version and then there's the one that says lake constituent path draft conditions Mass DOT comments? Speaker 9: I I, yeah. Speaker 1: All I see is draft special mean. Does anyone el am I alone? Speaker 9: If you click on that one, the comments are there it, the title it didn't say comments in my title anyway.
It's the April, but I can see the comments. The Speaker 1: April 2nd document. Yeah. Am I alone in this? Speaker 9: No, I can just click on it. Can you see Speaker 1: It says draft special conditions is the name of the file, right? Yeah, Speaker 2: No the the one that is the with the comments is late constituent path Draft special conditions. Oh yeah, yeah. Speaker 9: 60 67 Speaker 2: KI Speaker 1: April 2nd. April 2nd. Thank you. First one on the list. Alright, Speaker 2: One more our way. Speaker 1: We are, we are aligned. Okay, great. Speaker 2: Okay, so keep going. Condition three, that language has been amended. Condition four which is the language regarding recording time periods. This order of condition needs
to be recorded against the right of way, takings of which have not yet occurred. So instead of requiring it within 30 days, which is what our standard language requires, it's just been amended to prior to the start of construction Condition eight. The wetland flaggings are apparently no longer in the field, which given some of the windstorms we've had doesn't necessarily surprise me. The applicant has requested that the wetlands do not need to be re flagged in advance of this project, but that the erosion controls can serve as the limit of work. So that has been stricken and additional language has been added to a later condition
to note that the erosion control is serving as the limit of work for the project condition. Nine is standard condition 10 is a new condition specific to this project. This is in regard to the contractor methods and means that we've discussed throughout the project presentations. So this is one of the conditions that we will be coming back to discuss based on the project teams. But tree removal counts including species status and diameter for removal within the buffer zone need to be
provided a temporary stormwater management plan to address construction period to address the construction period including but not limited to detailed sketches and operation and maintenance for all. Temporary storm water features a control of water plan as it relates to concrete washout and dewatering and an invasive species management plan specific to the project site in accordance with mass DOT requirements. So all of these would be required prior to the start of work on site condition 11 has been added and then also amended to reflect the striking of condition eight.
But notes that erosion controls shall be placed as shown on the approved plans and shall serve as the limit of work erosion controls in the 50 linear feet leading up to the route nine bridge over lake cachet and for the full length between station 29 and 32 on the approved plan sheets shall consist of super silt fence due to the tight project envelope and slopes. This was one that the project team also had a question about. A prior responses from the HNTB team had noted that there was no issue with the super silt fence requirement, but it seems like mast DOT may have some
concerns about it personally given the slopes and the project corridor, I do not feel that a staked compost sock or straw water is sufficient to potentially control sediment leaving the site, especially during large storm events. What's Speaker 1: DOT's concern about super silt fence? Do we know Speaker 2: Microplastics? I don't know the comment within the document noted. I just got the right comment. Here we go. Mass DOT has a strong preference for compost filter tubes rather than silt fencing or super silt fencing. Compost filter tubes are entirely biodegradable and provide organic material as they decompose.
SILT fencing contains plastics which contribute to microplastics in our environment. Mass OT respectfully requests this condition be revised or require compost filter tube or other equivalent controls. So if the commission can determine an equivalent control that we would feel more comfortable with, I just feel that given the proximity to the water, the steep slopes, if water sediment laden water is leaving this project envelope, it is immediately getting into the lake there. There's no wiggle room. And my concern is that under maybe a larger project area, I would say we could do additional rows
of compost sock through out. I just Speaker 1: Gonna ask if there was room to do a a double, Speaker 2: My concern is that that would qualify as temporary impacts on DCR land and might interfere with the existing article 97 disposition. Speaker 1: Even if it's temporary. Speaker 2: That's what I don't know for sure that that was one of the things that the project team was open to discussing tonight with the commission. Speaker 1: I mean I'm, I'd be sympathetic to the super salt fence I, you know, for the microplastics reason, but I, you know, protecting against sediment to go washing directly into the lake right there I think is paramount.
Speaker 2: And I maybe potentially we could do a compromise given that we're requiring a control of water and temporary construction storm water management plan from the contractor. We could say, you know, erosion controls shall consist of super silt fence unless commission the approved, you know, methods and means from the contractor determine that additional erosion protections are not necessary or that extent of erosion give Speaker 1: The contractor the, the, the final point of judgment. Speaker 2: So once we get that control of water in the temporary storm water management plan,
if those are sufficient enough that the commission isn't concerned about the potential breach of sediment laid and runoff from that side of the project, that we could alleviate that requirement for the super soap fence, Speaker 1: I'd be okay with waiting to see the plan that they come up with. Okay, Speaker 2: I'll put that in as temporary and we can come back and talk Speaker 1: About it can come up with something clever and solid then we can come back and vote. We can come back and or you know, we can allow that authorized Speaker 2: Clear Speaker 1: To, I'm not, I'm not wedded to a double layer of silk socks, but, Speaker 2: Okay. Condition 12 remains the same
as the pre-construction meeting 13 through 17 remain the same as our standard conditions. Condition 18 is a new proposed condition for this project. The original language required by annual reports be submitted proactively by the mass DOT project team or selected contractor. Mass DOT staff noted that they didn't have the capacity to proactively submit reports but can have those documentation available for upon request. So the language has been amended to read throughout the construction process. Applicant or applicant's contractor shall ensure
that all reports associated with the status of erosion controls and temporary stormwater measures noting any erosion control, limit breaches, repairs performed and or any sediment laid and runoff that left the project site in an uncontrolled manner are available for conservation staff upon request. Speaker 1: Which means they would write it at the moment that we asked for it. Speaker 2: Technically the operation and maintenance plan and temporary stormwater plan would have a schedule for those inspections. But Speaker 1: That's what they're asking for relief from. Speaker 2: Yes. Well they're not as relief from the inspections. Just proactively submitting the Speaker 1: Reports. Not the inspections. Yes, not the inspections. I get that.
Speaker 2: Okay. Condition 19. I did strike that condition given that the likelihood for dewatering is almost non-existent on this particular site. Condition 21, oh I think I missed this. Oh that would be, because these just came in yesterday. Sorry, mast team. If there were comments that came in between the email exchange that we had, I did not see those. This comment, the contractor cannot guarantee all areas will be stable at the close of each workday. Some areas need to be continuously worked over and run. Oh, so I mean the areas of construction shall remain in stable condition at the close of each construction day in areas
unprotected by erosion controls. Does that language change ameliorate the MAs DOT concerns? Speaker 11: Yes, Speaker 1: That's fair. Speaker 2: Okay, great. Continuing to scroll through, this was the other condition, condition 25 that the DOT wanted to discuss tonight. And there's been a topic that's come up a number of times in our discussions about snow management and winter management of the pathway. So this is our standard condition condition 25 mass. DOT staff responded that the district will not be responsible for snow removal and noted that
because of the proximity of the path to the lake, if the town were to take on snow management of the pathway there really, we really only can push the snow towards the resource area rather than away from the resource area. 'cause that would be into route nine. Speaker 5: Right. Speaker 1: So I'm Speaker 2: Kidding, I that's, I'm not the one doing the plowing. So that was just one that we were gonna come back to and discuss 'cause it also applies to one of the later conditions. Speaker 1: But snow, I mean snow stockpile, I mean if you're running a plow down the road or a path
and there's snow that is ejected out of the, off the sides of that, does that constitute a stockpile? Speaker 2: So then do we wanna remove this condition from this particular project? Because the reality is that there wouldn't necessarily be snow stockpile, we're Speaker 1: Not gonna be building associated with be snow, snow pile farms. Exactly. Along the, along the, the length of the path. I mean I would, well I would like for there not to be those, but I don't imagine, I can't imagine where there would be, where Speaker 2: It would be coming from Speaker 1: Those. So I'd, I'd be, you know, but as part of plowing, I mean by definition snow gets pushed to the side of the bath.
Yes. And that's unavoidable. I mean we're not gonna, Speaker 5: We have a question, Speaker 1: You know, so yeah, Speaker 2: We have a question from the audience, Speaker 12: A question just to comment. If that's on your construction, we would not be performing snow plowing operations Speaker 1: On that. Anyway. Thank you Bill. Speaker 2: Just for the record, that was Bill McDowell town engineer Speaker 1: And he was just saying that during construction there's not gonna be snow removal going on anyways. Speaker 2: Okay. So would the commission be comfortable with me striking that condition from this particular order? Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. I would, who, who is gonna do snow removal though town Speaker 2: If, if the town chooses to do snow removal,
there is not a, a guarantee or an expectation necessarily. I'm just gonna delete it 'cause I can't find the strike through option right now The reference to the NA wetland bylaw was stricken from condition 26 because mast DOT is not subject to local bylaws condition 29. This is is usually one of our standard conditions. I have a amended the language of this condition to hopefully address the DOT concerns, which is that they do use herbicides and pesticides as part of their vegetation management plans and yearly operating plans.
Those are plans that are approved at the state level that then exempt those activities from the wetlands jurisdiction. So I have noted no pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer outside of what is approved under this permit or exempt under the Wetlands Protection Act as part of an approved yearly operating plan or vegetation management plan shall be applied within the wetland resource area, including riverfront area and within any buffer zones. So, so the Speaker 1: Concern though Speaker 2: Is it's just acknowledging the exemption that mast OT holds while still maintaining that there should not be extraneous
fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide Speaker 1: Use because they have under their yearly operating plan, I mean they can apply herbicides in the roadway or on the on the shoulders of within Speaker 2: Their right of ways. Yes, Speaker 1: Sure. Okay. That's fine. Speaker 2: Conditions 30 through 32 I've proposed to be stricken because there is no certificate of occupancy associated with the pathway construction nor is there an appropriate place I think for a garage placard condition 33 has been amended, which is that once the site is stabilized, a site visit with conservation staff shall be scheduled to review stabilization. If staff determine the site to be stable,
all erosion controls shall be removed and properly disposed of utilizing the least invasive means possible. Erosion controls shall not be removed prior to any approval by staff. Again, tight project envelope very close to the lake. We just wanna make sure that those protections aren't being removed too soon. And given that we had struck the condition regarding snow management and DOT has noted that they're not responsible for snow management, I would also recommend that we then delete condition 34, which would be in regard to a long-term snow and ice management plan. COC requirements are the same, it's primarily just an as-built plan for the project
condition 35 has been amended to reflect the changes to condition 29 regarding herbicide and pesticide and fertilizer use and conditions. 36. 36 has been stricken and condition 38 has been stricken at the request of MAs DOT as they cannot guarantee that future roadway projects may not impact these areas given route nine's proximity to the lake. Speaker 1: Good questions. Speaker 7: I do have one, I'm not sure it's material, but item 18. Yes. They don't want to proactively
or on schedule issue reports. They'll respond when we ask. Speaker 2: So there, there is an inspection schedule that they will, in theory needing to be complying with, but it's just that the reports won't be submitted to the town unless we ask for them then I, they're, Speaker 1: I'm good. Okay. Alright. Any further questions on this comments Speaker 2: And H-N-T-B-D-O-T staff? I think we talked about a lot of the questions and concerns, but was there any other additional language that we wanted to go back to and touch base on? Speaker 11: No. Okay. This is Lauren McDonald from HNTB. Thank you for your cooperation and your collaboration on this.
I just wanted to mention that mass DOT has agreed to be amenable to the super salt fence if that's the direction that the commission would like to go in. Speaker 2: So I Speaker 1: Think maybe if we be amenable to it. Speaker 2: So they Speaker 11: Would, Speaker 2: Oh go ahead Lauren. Speaker 11: No we, we can meet this condition if that is the preference of the commission instead of updating the control of water plan. Speaker 1: Okay then, then let's go with the best technology in terms of protecting from silt siltation Speaker 2: Into the well and I did add in that language allowance, so I've added a sentence onto the end of that condition, which is pending approval of contractor methods and means the requirement for super silt
fence may be removed. 'cause that way if, if we determine that the temporary construction management methods and those need to be provided prior to construction, so in theory they wouldn't have installed erosion controls yet. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Anything else on this hearing? None. Someone make a motion to approve this order of conditions for the project. So moved. Thank you Chris. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that while I was in the room? Jeff? Yes. Okay. Done. DO two H and TB, thank you very much for your collaboration on this.
Look forward to getting this project built. Speaker 11: Thank you very much. Have a good night everyone. Thank you. You too. Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, moving on. Next item in the agenda. Notice of intent for 14 Leach Lane. Do we have a rep? We do have a representative. Welcome. How are you? Good, how you doing? Good, good. How doing Speaker 2: Set, set up and I've got everything digitally too if you wanna, yeah. Okay. Speaker 13: Well I think that's probably gonna be better than in case. Speaker 1: Oh that's the wrong. There we go. Alright, lemme go ahead and formally open this in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local wetlands by Article 79,
the NATA Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Joseph Lasano, DGT Associates representing Richard and Carol Joseph for property located at 14 Leach Lane Map 55 lot 52, the proposals to demolish the existing single family home with associated site features and construct a new single family home with associated site features. So if you would introduce yourself for the minutes sir and give us a voiceover on what you're doing proposing. Speaker 14: We good? Is this on? Yeah. Well good evening. My name is Joseph Osano, professional engineer from DGT Associates
and I'm here tonight representing Richard and Carol Joseph, who are attendance today for the meeting. They who are the applicants of the notice of intent for the site development at 14 Leach Lane, obviously in Natick, Massachusetts. The proposed project is relatively straightforward, so I've prepared a brief presentation for tonight's meeting summarizing the key points related to the proposed scope of work. The first main construction related task for this project includes the demolition of the preexisting nonconforming dwelling that is located on the property as well as the existing driveway that extends over the property line onto 12 leach lane.
Additionally, the demolition will include the removal of the existing walkways and utilities. The new construction proposed includes construction of a new single family dwelling meeting, the setback regulations in the residential zoning District C and associated garage, new driveway fully within the limit of the subject property, permitable, pavers, utilities, and a stormwater management system comprised of a roof drain network and two subsurface recharges. Some of the key design factors that contributed to the design presented here tonight are the zoning setbacks, the wetland buffer zones site location within the aquifer protection overlay
district, a high groundwater table and counter during the onsite soil testing that was conducted earlier this year. And the local and state stonewater management regulations. The zoning setbacks in the 40 foot no build zone influenced the configuration and location of the proposed dwelling in the garage for the site. Like I said earlier, both are now located com compliant to zoning and outside of the 40 foot no build zone, the site's location within the Aquifer protection overlay district influences the influence the site design to limit the proposed impervious surface to a 20% maximum. Design considerations that were taken into account for.
This includes limiting the driveway width to 10 feet and proposing permeable paver walkways wherever possible throughout the site. The high groundwater table influenced the need to design a spread out low profile infiltration systems to stay two feet above the estimated season log groundwater table while still providing groundwater recharge and limiting the amount of fill that would need to be brought in. The wide table also influenced the building design and required the removal of the originally designed basement, which was then converted into a crawl space, the ground wide table, then set the crawl space elevation and turn set the first floor elevation
and then you know, between that and the sighting of the recharges that basically determine the grading for the rest of the site. As mentioned earlier, the stormwaters management designed for this project includes two low profile called tech recharge systems that collect storm stormwater from a hundred percent of the roof area proposed on the site. The stormwater design recharges two inches over the post construc construction impervious surface, which exceeds the local state, the local and state regulations with regards to recharge volume and water quality requirements while providing the proper total suspended solids and total phosphorus removal
and reduces and matches peak rates of runoff and runoff volumes for all design storm events analyzed up to and including the a hundred year storm event. Overall, we believe the project meets the requirements and intent of the local and state regulations and we hope to work with you moving forward with this project at this time I would like to thank Claire for providing comments from the staff earlier this week. I've gone through the comments and have provided responses that were submitted earlier this afternoon. I'm not sure if you guys would like me to go right into responding to those comments or if you guys would rather provide some
of your own commentary at this time or, or open it up for discussion with the public. So I'll kind of leave that up to you for now. Speaker 1: Great, thank you for that. Would you give a, just a general voiceover, I mean you're, the proposal here is to raise the entire, basically the entire, most of the lot by about three feet, correct? Speaker 14: Yeah, it's about a two to three Speaker 1: Feet. Okay. And the rationale for that Speaker 14: Extremely high groundwater table that was encountered 19 inches below grade in our test pit in the front yard.
And then I need to stay two feet above the groundwater table and put a recharger in and I gotta also have the basement slab elevation of the house to be two feet above the groundwater table. So I kind of don't really have a lot of options. Like I said, the concessions that were made by the homeowners were to, we, they, they had approached an architect prior to doing the soil testing. Originally we had a full basement designed that was eliminated. We, we replaced it with a crawl space just for the utility corridors and everything like that. And we, we've tried to keep everything as low as we can for clearances.
Speaker 2: I will note that the applicant has selected the lowest profile cultec system currently available. Speaker 1: Okay. What's the, in the neighborhood there, I mean what's the closest proximity to Abutters? Speaker 2: The current closest abut is the project applicants. If you recall, they purchased the property immediately next door. And so their house, Speaker 1: Someone is going to purchase that home. I presume. What I'm just, what I'm, what I'm getting at is around, you know, anytime there's a significant grade change
across a lot like this, is there going to be negative impacts on a budding property? Yeah, Speaker 2: So they are meeting the 1 23 grade line as it comes off of the front of 12 leach lane, which you can see right here. The lot sort of hovers between the 1 23, 1 24 all the way along this rear extent. And the existing grade, you can see in the back corner, the 1 24 and the 1 23. So at the closest adjacent neighbors is the least amount of fill increase.
The majority of the fill being proposed is on the stream side of the structure. Speaker 14: I agree with that assessment. Yeah, we we're basically blending into the, the property next door and then just keeping that grade for a little bit longer across the property as we approach the bank. And then we slope down after we meet breakout grade from the recharges and match back into existing grade prior to the 25 foot no disturbance sign. Speaker 5: Got a three foot drop. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions from the commission? Okay. Hearing none currently, do you, do you want to go through and address staff's comments? Yeah,
Speaker 14: I can, I can do that. I guess not all of the comments necessarily require much review. I'd say some of the bigger comments we kind of have just discussed it was related to the, the gray change throughout the property and potentially relocating some of the recharges on the site to be further away from the bank and or just other areas of the site. I prepared an exhibit plan this afternoon or yesterday that showed the, in the lime green outline where
possible recharges could be located that would meet the setbacks on the property from the proposed dwelling property lines and the 25 foot no disturbance line. And I would note that the recharges have been located in an area on the site as to most not impact existing mature vegetation and to limit the amount of fill that would be required for a breakout grade on the site. So although I I, I do understand the comment, but that, that was, that was taken into consideration with the original design and,
and this exhibit plan kind of just shows that the other comment that was made was with regards to the location of the outlets of these recharges being basically right up against the no disturbance line. I I do agree that they are very close to the no disturbance line. They, they were placed there because it, it's the bottom of the slope and, and the thought was that there would be less of an opportunity for erosion and scour. However we would be amenable to amenable to pulling them back to the elevation of 1 22,
which is basically the furthest we can go and still have positive pitch coming out of our recharger because the outlet to the recharger is at 1 22 0.2. So we can't really do too much better than that anyways. So that would kind of be, you know, where we could go. The, another comment was with regards to the grade change at the location of the existing trees in the, in the requirement to remove the two trees that are shown the grade change at the two trees in question being the 15 inch conifer and the 10 inch deciduous tree along the roadway where there's some proposed grade change,
we are not showing enough existing condition spot shots in that area. However, when I get into my 10 file in the cad, the grade change is actually between three to six inches in that area. And I believe that the trees would be able to survive a, a grade change of adding. We're not, we're not digging into the roots we're, we're adding three to six inches around the trunks. I think that that would be, you know, not a substantial in amount to kill them. Speaker 2: And we do have a standard condition in our order that any tree's not approved for removal that dire or demonstrably harmed during construction have
to be replaced at a two to one ratio rather than the one-to-one. So it's just something to consider is, you know, we'll keep an eye on them throughout construction and, and go from there. Fair Speaker 14: Enough. However, we did remove the two maple trees that were located on the site there. They were more removed, not necessarily because of the fill, although they do have a little bit more fill being placed around them. But because the, the root zone of the roots of that tree are very close to the surface and we are digging the two recharges in that area and we're, we're just afraid that we might be compromising too much of the critical root zone and that they won't survive.
So just to be proactive about it, we're proposing that they be removed and replaced with two new river birds trees. And what's, what's the Speaker 1: Caliper on those, those trees? Speaker 14: We have, we have them claimed as two inches. I, I believe I, I I, I couldn't find any other regulations between mitigation. Maybe I'm, maybe I'm just not looking in the right place, but I was going by the, the town of Natick stormwater review guidelines and checklist notes for applicants. It said that all trees over six inch caliper, that it should be removed, need to be replaced at a one to one ratio with a minimum of two inch caliper. If that isn't what I should be following, I I am
Speaker 1: What's the caliper that trees that are being proposed to be, to, to proposed to be removed there? Speaker 14: I think they were, what do they, just let me zoom 10 18. I can't remember. Speaker 1: So they're quite substantial compared to a two inch, it's, Speaker 2: It's two 18 Speaker 14: Inch, two 18. Two 18 maples. Speaker 1: So, so already been removed, Speaker 14: Right? No, they have not already been removed. They're still Speaker 1: So quite substantial compared to two two inch river birch. Speaker 14: I don't disagree. Just, you know. Yep. Speaker 2: And Joe, just to note, my concern about the outlet location was more about constructability Yeah. Rather than the proximity. So I, I think even just like a little secondary loop
of erosion controls in that area, so you guys can pull the original line to allow for that construction is, is primarily my concern. Speaker 14: I had a thought, I I I, I had originally stated something a little different. I was just wondering if where the pipe pipe will outlet itself will be, you know, a few feet back from where the barrier would be and what you had requested that we install a silt fence additional, which needs to be towed in. So there is gonna be a little bit of disturbance and maybe Yeah. At, at prior to construction there's gonna be maybe a little
bit of cleanup that would need to be done to clean up the mess from tone in the silt fence there. So I was wondering if it would just be appropriate to, you know, install the rip wrap in that area at that time of the removal of the silt fence. 'cause the area would already being wor worked in and, and minorly disturbed at that point in time. So, you know, that was just a thought, you know, I, if it would be preferred to, you know, Speaker 2: I think that that would alleviate my concerns. Okay. And we can condition that, that approach as part of the, the order of conditions. Speaker 14: Okay. Okay. Yeah, that was just a thought
that I had, so thank you. Speaker 1: Back to the, back to the trees. Would the applicants consider replacing those, not with River Birch, but with trees that, you know, at some point in the future would've the potential to be of similar size and scale to the trees that are being removed? Absolutely. Speaker 14: I'm getting an absolutely from the applicant. So Speaker 1: That sounds positive. Yeah. Okay. I I, I'd prefer to see that, I mean, just from a, you know, carbon perspective, from a shade tree perspective, a canopy perspective. I'd rather see, see something with the potential to be
substantially replace what was there would be, would be preferable. Speaker 14: I'm, I'm not an aist, but I'm almost positive that there are maple trees that are there today. Would you prefer, you know, I Maple from Maple or I, Speaker 1: I'd be okay with, you know, I mean, I'll, I'll defer to my colleague Mike here on the commission, but I, you know, I would, some native hardwood species would be appropriate. Mike, you know, is there any benefit in getting more specific than that? So Speaker 3: What the applicant aesthetically would, would like? Yeah. You know, that would,
Speaker 2: And I mean we could just condition, you know, two trees of similar nature to the maples being removed. Final species selection to be approved by conservation stuff. Could, Speaker 1: Yeah. It could be Maples Oaks, you know, whatever. And again, Speaker 3: I would just, you know, recognize that with the high water table, the reason why those roots are appearing on top of the ground is, is because of that. Speaker 14: Yeah. And I, and I actually tried to pick the trees. I picked the river bird's trees because I, we did a CO, we helped close out a COC for somebody recently who did plantings within a wetland area.
And some of the trees that were propo proposed were river birch. So I tried to pick a tree that I thought would do well with a high groundwater table. So I have some, I was just trying my best. Speaker 2: No, I, I have some good recommendations for a more similar species to the maples. I, I'll send 'em along to you guys and we can maybe review in advance of the next meeting. Awesome. Speaker 1: Great. Okay. Speaker 2: They are maples. I did just look at the Google Street view. Okay. Speaker 1: Other there other questions from the commission. At this point in time Speaker 7: You'll be spreading Phil pretty widely across the area. How will you protect the roots of the trees along the perimeter?
Where the fills going? Speaker 2: Oh, sorry. I have the, Speaker 14: I'm sorry. Speaker 1: Can, can Speaker 7: One more time we'll be spreading fill pretty widely across the property, including around the perimeter where the trees that existing trees are. I'm just point out you should be careful not to run heavy equipment over the root areas of those trees. Speaker 2: Oh. So just where, how the fill will be placed. Okay. Which is something that we can clarify in the conditions. Yeah, Speaker 1: I was gonna say condition that appropriately to protect the, you know, drip line. Speaker 3: Are those trees on Leach lane? Are they considered street trees? Mm. And which fall under the jurisdiction of the tree water
Speaker 2: Outside. I did actually check in with art about this. He does not believe that these would, they're not listed in the public inventory and he does not believe that they would qualify as shade trees. Especially. There is no sidewalk along Leach lane in this area. Great. Speaker 1: Other questions? Right? Hearing none. Any question from the public abutters? Yes ma'am. Please. Yes. Speaker 15: Abut Speaker 2: Ma'am would Speaker 1: You, could we impose you to come up to the, the podium just so people at home can hear you, you guys Speaker 15: On the record appropriate? Speaker 1: It's mostly just Speaker 16: So the audio gets picked up.
Speaker 15: Hi, we Speaker 17: Butters right down near the, that other cha charger you're talking about the charge station. We are a, along that line. My only, I don't mind the project and my only concern is would that charge station have any interference? We have a, a maple, it's their maple, but it's about four feet across, down in that corner. You know all about it. Yes. Will that have any injury to the roots for that? 'cause it's already getting ill. Speaker 2: Yeah, so it does, the system is cited outside of the,
the critical root zone, at least as identified by the canopy on the plan sheet. And so we don't, I would not expect impact to the tree given where the system is placed. Speaker 17: Now the other thing is if they're gonna raise the land, is that gonna make runoff on our property? Which is right there. Speaker 2: So the project is required. Part of the town's requirements is that they have to fully manage and reduce the runoff leaving the site under the post-development conditions. So with those recharges that are being placed, there will be less runoff leaving the site than under
current conditions, even with the change in grade. Speaker 17: Okay. Is there going to be access coming in from Caswell or does it have to come from from Leach Lane? Because they did a lot of taking down trees on their property and they came through Leach Caswell Street, which abuts the back of their property. And that is all in the buffer zone. But they went in there and took trees and stuff. Speaker 2: So Speaker 17: Is the building gonna be used in Caswell Street to build?
Speaker 2: So as far as we can tell by the approved plan sheets, which is the project that will be approved by this commission, the access will all be off of Leach Lane. That's where the construction access is proposed. Speaker 17: What's coming through that, that's protected area Speaker 2: Based on the erosion control limits. There would not be any equipment access through that back section. Speaker 17: Okay. 'cause that, that was a real mess out there. Speaker 1: And we can list that as a, as a very specific condition of any permit that we issue to say that access is limited off of Leach Lane unless there's a reason why and they would've to come let us know
if there needed to be access and Speaker 17: The wetlands. Right. Right. At the end of Caswell it Right. To the brook. Speaker 1: Right. Right. Exactly. Speaker 17: But, but I called Claire over at the time they were in there with bulldozers, but she said it was okay. Speaker 2: This was for the tree removal that was previously permitted on the lot there, there was equipment access allowed to access the trees that were being removed from this rear section. Speaker 1: But for the construction it's all, it will all come from Leach Lane and we'll put that in writing. Speaker 17: Okay. I was kind of confused because we built an addition on our piece of property there
and we weren't even allowed to. We, we had to put silt all the way along the water of that house and our house all the way down. We weren't allowed to touch anything over in there. And then all of a sudden we have all these bulldozers and tree cutters and everything else. Got it. So it really was worrying me. I don't mind them putting the house in, but I don't, I didn't like what happened. Speaker 1: Understood. Yeah. Speaker 2: On Speaker 17: Caswell. Speaker 1: Yep. Understood. Glad you're speaking up and saying that. And we'll put that into the conditions that li that access is limited from to access
to the project is limited to Leach Lane. Okay. Speaker 2: That would Speaker 1: Be great. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you ma'am. Appreciate you. Any other questions from the public on this? Hearing none, what's the pleasure of the board? This is a notice of intent. We would file, we would someone make a motion? We would close the public hearing and then issue an order of conditions. Okay. If there's no further questions, what's the pleasure of the board? Speaker 2: Would the commission prefer to close and have conditions ready for review at the next meeting or? Yeah, Speaker 1: If, if we close the public hearing, I'd like to review the conditions. Move to close. Alright. David made a motion to close. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim.
Any further discussion on this? Any last comments from the public hearing? None. All those in favor of closing in the room Jeff? Yes. Alright. Public hearing is closed. Claire will draft an order of conditions that we will review at our next meeting and that we would vote to issue it then so we can have some time just to review it carefully. So that's it. So we'll reconvene on the 17th. Yep. Public hearings closed. We don't have to continue anything. And we'll get back together on the 17th to discuss the conditions. So Speaker 2: I'll have those conditions as well as some of the planting options over to you guys. Well in advance of the next hearing for review.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for Speaker 2: Your time. Do we have motion to continue? Speaker 1: We don't. We close the public hearing. Oh yes. So we're good. Alright. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Alright. Next item of the agenda is I've got a notice of intent under the local bylaw for 29 Irving Road. We have representatives of 29 Irving. Welcome. How are you? Speaker 18: Good, Speaker 1: How are you? Good. All right. Hold on one second. Lemme get the Speaker 2: Folks I do have to ask the conversations to move out into the hallway just so that way we can make sure that we're given our attention to the hearings in front of us. Speaker 1: Alright. In accordance with Nick Natick, local Wetlands by Law Article 79, the NA Conservation Commission will hold,
hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Ronald Stro Borough Associates representing Mark Cahill for property located at 29 Irving Road Map 13 lot 23. The proposal is to demolish the existing single family home with associated site features and construct a new single family home with associated site features. Welcome. Speaker 18: Hi. Thank Speaker 1: You. Alright, let's have a voiceover of what you're, what you're proposing here. Alright. Speaker 18: I'm Ron STR from Oxbow Associates. This is Mark Kale. The applicant OX spoke visit of the site on February 21st of this year and flagged the edge of a vegetated wetland east of the property, which is located on the top
of the sheet here. Eight flags and the wetland. We walked around to the neighboring streets, we didn't find any culverts. And confirm with Claire that this area is actually an isolated section of wetland. So it's qualifies under the local bylaw but doesn't meet the Massachusetts regulations at least as A BVW. It probably is ILSF under the act, but the act doesn't have enough buffer zone for ILSF. So the proposed project is the tear down and rebuild of an existing single family home.
Right now the majority of the house is located outside the buffer zone and is going to stay outside the buffer zone. There's only a, only the bulkhead for the basement actually is within the a hundred foot buffer zone. The footprint is actually gonna be reduced from the existing size you can see on the south side of the house there. And so the impervious surface on the site is decreasing dramatically both inside and outside the buffer zone. There's a, there's a brick in stone patio or concrete patio located off the back of the house that
that's going to be removed and a smaller patio put in its place. And that's a reduction of almost 1800 square feet of impervious inside the buffer zone. Along with the fact that this outbuilding that's located inside the 40 foot no build zone is gonna be removed along with a couple other sheds located in the property, in the lawn, in the, in the backyard. As part of this, we're gonna, we're gonna add, fill that that's coming out from the basement of the property and shift it to the backyard to level off the, the yard
and then have it sloped down at a three to one slope towards the back of the property. Erosion control is proposed around the entirety of the lot. It's a pretty small lot. So it's going literally from the road all the way around the project. And then coming back to the road while there's gonna be the grading back there, there's a couple trees proposed to remove, there's six trees. Four of 'em are Norway maple. One of 'em is a, a very large maple that is split directly down the center. I'm surprised it hasn't fallen yet.
And there's another Easter white pine proposed re removed right adjacent to the Easter white pine. There's another large maple that we're proposing to keep and put a retaining wall around and then backfill. As that slope is being created, the retaining wall is gonna protect the root system on that Mabel. Under the bylaw, the retaining wall is in the structure. So even though it is in the 40 foot boundary, it's still meets the requirements. We have proposed a planting plan to revegetate that slope.
We proposed shrubs instead of trees at a two to one ratio. Specifically, there's already heavy tree cover existing adjacent to the, to the, to the wetlands. So it seems that we could fill the understory a little bit better. The material that's coming out of the basement excavation and putting the rear of the lot is approximately 150 yards of material. And it's not shown on here yet. And we have updated plans. The stormwater system will be placed inside the buffer zone currently where those two sheds on the north side
of the property are located. Speaker 1: When you say the stormwater system, Speaker 18: There's Speaker 1: A talk about that a little bit. Speaker 18: Subsurface infiltration system. I actually haven't seen the plans yet fully, but I at four Speaker 19: O'clock today. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for not submitting them to me at four o'clock today, but Speaker 1: Okay. So we'll need, we'll need to see those and kind of talk about those. Okay. Speaker 19: You want me to put the plan up or do you want to I have a copy of it. Speaker 2: They'll need to be submitted for review and comment and along with the appropriate stormwater calcs, just like we do with the rest of the projects.
Speaker 18: And just last thing, mark has indicated that he's not gonna be doing any work on the project until mid summer. So just to alleviate any issues with heavy rainfall or anything during the season where nothing's growing Speaker 1: Would, why all the regrading in the back? Because it seems like the house construction project is independent of the slope. Speaker 2: It's the demolition of that outhouse structure. They have to regrade a portion of the slope Speaker 1: That so so in the upper left corner back? Yeah.
Speaker 2: So if you go to the site photos, you can see this. It's, it's a full structure with a foundation. It's almost like a lake housey vibe. And so they're coming in to demolish this structure. So there will be disturbance of a portion of the slope. Mark and I did a little bit of back and forth on whether a wall would be more appropriate. 'cause the original grading proposed back there was a little bit steeper than I would be comfortable with leading down to the wetland. So Mark pulled the top of the slope in closer towards the proposed house in order
to lessen the grading along the back to a three to one slope. Speaker 19: There's currently a wall there where that slope begins. Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a, a number of small walls. Speaker 20: There's a wall. There's a wall right here right now. And it steps down, I don't know, 24 to 30 inches. And this is a little bit more level. So this is great by bringing this grate up a little bit and then swapping it down. It helps with the backyard. And we thought it was a good solution for the backyard. I mean, you,
Speaker 1: So so from on the photos, can you show me the building that's being removed? Speaker 2: This is the building that's being removed along the, the rear edge of the property. It's Speaker 3: On. Oh, stilts in the back. Right. Looks like, Speaker 1: Oh, I see. Okay. Speaker 2: So the deck is on stilts. There is, I believe, believe first Speaker 1: I thought that was the house. Speaker 2: Oh no, Speaker 18: The house is coming after 500 square foot. Speaker 1: Everything. Everything's going though, right? That's Yes, Speaker 2: Everything's going, everything's Speaker 18: Going on the site. Speaker 2: So the house is, this is the existing house structure and this is that large concrete patio that Ron Speaker 1: Referenced. Got it. Thank you. So is that just, was
that just like a screen house or something? I mean, or was it a occupied? Speaker 19: Honestly, I haven't been in it, but it's more than it. It it's more than a shed. Yeah. It Speaker 1: Looks, yeah. It, Speaker 19: It might have actually been a dwelling area Speaker 1: That, I mean, that's what it kind of looks like is that someone may have lived there Speaker 2: Though per zoning that would not be allowed for Speaker 3: That structure back in 1988. Yourself? Speaker 1: All through high school. Right? Speaker 3: All through high school. Speaker 1: Got it. Okay. Cool. This, this, this is starting to make sense now. It's all, all coming together. Speaker 18: Is, is the fountain staying,
the the fountain's gonna stay? Yeah. That's gonna stay. No, no, I misread the planes. No, Speaker 19: That, that's, no, that's going, Speaker 18: That would be an additional impervious that's being removed 'cause it's blind. Okay. So the fountain's gone. So it's, that's a heck of really kind of close to 2000. Speaker 1: That's a heck of a split tree too. Yeah. Speaker 2: And then that's the photo, first photo on page three. You can see that eastern white pine that's proposed for removal and then the large maple to the rear that is being proposed to be essentially tree weld.
Speaker 3: I, I think I missed it in your, in your narrative, but the proposed retaining wall on the, on the kind of northeastern side or back boundary, so to speak. Yep. Could you just go over that a little bit of, of the intent of that Speaker 18: Retaining wall, the intents to protect the, the tree and the tree roots. So without back filling, you know, an additional foot or two feet of material right around the base of the, the base of the tree.
It, it kinda gives it the breathing room. Okay. And I think the highest point of it is about three feet. Yep. Yeah. Speaker 1: And, and then there'll, there'll be no at, at the top of the slope. There's no retaining wall there. The only, Speaker 2: No, it's just the grading off. Yeah. There's a fence proposed at the back of the quote unquote yard area. Yeah. Speaker 18: The level portion. And Speaker 1: Then for the construction of that retaining wall, that would be done by hand. I mean Speaker 18: You build that by hand. Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 18: Presumably block Speaker 2: It doesn't mean no tools, it just means no equipment. Yeah. Speaker 19: It hasn't been determined yet, but no, the material,
Speaker 1: Yeah. Tool tools are allowed Speaker 2: A slap and mortar on with your hands. Speaker 1: Mud bricks. Yeah. So I think that, you know, we need to see the, the storm water plans Yep. And all that. Or have those submitted? Yep. There, I just lost my account. Any questions from the commission on that? I mean, based on what we're seeing now, do Speaker 3: We need, do we need drawings on the retaining wall construction or not? Or are they there? I didn't Speaker 2: See them. They are, we do not have a detail on the retaining wall construction currently. We could require one prior to start of construction
or mark if you know, if you're gonna do ready rock or stone. And you just wanna clarify that in the package that you submit with the stormwater materials either works, Speaker 19: If we could do it, if I could submit that prior to construction, Speaker 2: Is the commission comfortable with that? Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean we're gonna, we're gonna need before we close, I think we're gonna need to have the updated plans anyway. Yeah. The stormwater Speaker 2: Stuff is a, is a component of the this review. Speaker 3: Will there be any need to stockpile anything while you're building or digging the foundation or is that, that material gonna be used as, as part of the,
the leveling in the back? Speaker 19: That's correct. Yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. So same material. Will there be stockpiling I guess? Or is there a stockpile location or Speaker 19: There is on the storm waterland, it'll all be very temporary. Okay. While the foundation's being pour and then it all gets backfilled and carted away and graded just a, a probably. Speaker 2: So I'll, I'll review that and include any notes on it in my updated thank you agenda. Speaker 1: Okay. So what's a pleasure? The commission, I mean we could, we could continue this to our next meeting just to get the stormwater plans updated and all that.
And then just take a quick look at those at our next meeting. But I, Speaker 2: I'll have conditions ready at the next meeting just, and then we could in case we're, we could ready Speaker 1: For that once we could vote to close and issue it all at the same time. Just wants we take a quick look at those. Okay, good. Okay. It sounds like schedule wise that's alright. Speaker 19: That's correct. That's May 7th. No, Speaker 2: No, no. April 17th. April, oh I, sorry, I forgot to add this note in like I did for the other project. This is also a project that requires ZBA approval, but because the house is located 99% outside of the buffer zone,
it's very unlikely that the ZBA decision will result in any changes to the commission's jurisdiction. So that was a question that I had for the commission is, would you guys like to continue to four 17, the ZBA meeting is April 28th, if I'm remembering correctly. So Speaker 1: What's the variance that ZBA needs on this or that you need on this from ZBA? The Speaker 19: Town, the town is requiring ZBA approval for any, Speaker 2: It's a non-conforming lot. Speaker 1: Oh, it's non-conforming lot originally Speaker 19: Front. Speaker 1: Got it, got it. Speaker 19: Right here and land area Speaker 2: Here. But I think it's, I think it's 67% of lots in Natick are non-conforming
Speaker 4: In this area. Yes. Yeah. East Natick, a lot of them don't. Speaker 2: It's very true. Speaker 1: It's the best part of town, man. Speaker 2: So if the commission is comfortable, we can continue to four 17 given the unlikeliness of changes or we could continue to five seven to get past the ZBA decision. Speaker 1: I mean, it's kind of your call in a sense. 'cause if ZBA comes back with any substantial changes, we'd have to reopen and refile and do all that stuff, right? Speaker 2: Yes. If there are some changes that result in buffer zone impacts, there may be a need to result in an amended order of conditions.
Speaker 1: Sounds, it sounds not likely, but if it were to, if, if the ZBA process that happens af you know, if, if we were to close at our next meeting, ZBA comes back with changes, then we'd have to reopen this, repost it, go through it again. Speaker 19: But it would've to be something inside the, the buffer zone, which is, it's Speaker 1: It's pretty minimal. Speaker 19: Extremely unlikely. You know, I, I don't see any situation where, Speaker 1: I mean, you're just be Speaker 19: Pushed any further back. Speaker 1: You've got this much in the buffer zone from the, you know, from the bulkhead. Speaker 3: The, the one thing I'm I'm trying to discern from this is, is I'm not seeing an indication of of a no disturb line
and I'm not seeing a indication of a no build. Speaker 2: Oh yeah. If we could have those added to the plan sheet, the 25 no disturb line, just, Speaker 3: I mean I'm assuming it's not on the subject property would be my Speaker 2: Yeah, it runs essentially right at the property line, I believe in this corner. It extends very minimally into the property where this W2 flag is and then the, the 40 foot no build zone currently sits right around where the top of slope is proposed. But yes, those should be added to the plan sheet if you guys Yep. Speaker 3: Because that would help me understand things kind
Speaker 1: Of calibrate a little Speaker 3: Bit. Speaker 1: Okay. So if you could get us those updates. I mean, so, so, so you'd be okay with us continuing to the 17th? Speaker 19: That's correct. Speaker 1: And then chance and take your chances life on the wild side. Speaker 19: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 18: Would it be possible to, I think I asked Claire this to just do an amended order of conditions. If Speaker 2: The amended Speaker 18: Small change, Speaker 2: It's the problem is that the amended order of conditions process, just like we did for have come Exactly, yeah. Do the Speaker 18: Same thing. Speaker 1: Yeah. You have to do the same thing anyway. Yeah. Speaker 18: True. Speaker 1: So, I mean, sounds like you're comfortable Mark, let's go.
You know, I mean, let's just do that. Okay. Someone make a motion to continue this April 17th then motion Speaker 9: To Speaker 1: Continue. Thank you, Jim. Seconded. Second. Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 1: Thank you Chris. Any further discussion on that? Yeah. All in favor, Jeff? Yes. Okay. Alright gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker 2: I'll send you guys, appreciate your time. This draft Speaker 4: Conditions I do as this is the first time in a log that a house being proposed is smaller than the one that was selling. Yeah. Well it's going high actually. But you get a, even though the lot is substandard, they still use Yeah. You get special discount. We try to put a Speaker 9: Yeah, I'd show the fountain being taken Speaker 4: On it. Speaker 9: Take Speaker 4: The right side
of the house is five feet off the wall line. Oh no, I understand. I just, yeah, it's, it's unusual. Don't talk them out of it. Yeah. It's Speaker 1: A rare thanks guys. But Speaker 9: You see Speaker 4: Most the time there Speaker 9: Is this a collection of buildings, Speaker 4: But even the one proposed this, this, Speaker 1: All right, smaller. Let's keep going small as that though. Gents. Speaker 4: God's usually there. Speaker 9: It's just that it's a collection thing. Speaker 4: Two, three times the size. Speaker 9: And there, there's that. Thank you. Speaker 4: I Speaker 1: Know. All right, look at this guys. Continuing going Speaker 4: Downhill, coming down. Speaker 1: Welcome back. 11 Pledge Street, south Natick dams. Good.
Good site walk today, I think. Very informative. Yep. You a really, you know, lovely part of town and it's very interesting project being put there. So I understand that we're gonna be talking about some 91 stuff here today. Would you give us an update on where that stands? Yes. Speaker 21: So for the record, I'm Adrian Dunk from GZA, representing the proponent, the town of Natick on this project. Last time we were here, we notified you that we were about to submit the chapter 91 permit application. And we discussed kind of how that application would proceed. Speaker 2: I even put together a how to engage work sheet about it.
Speaker 21: Absolutely. And so we did submit a, a memorandum to you all on April 1st to notify you that we in fact submitted that permit application. We were subsequently notified by the Mass D eep chapter 91 program that they did not feel that they needed to issue a permit for the project. They felt that the project was fully fit within the demolition approval for the demolition of the structure itself. And so we were asked to withdraw our application, which we did, and submit a demolition
notification, which we did. And then actually today demolition approval from chapter 91 came through. Wow. So the chapter 91 process is now complete. Speaker 1: Got it. Speaker 21: Which was not congratulations. Not as expected weeks, I Speaker 2: Think maybe the shortest chapter 91 review process in history. So Speaker 1: Then just for a clarity sake then, the, does this mean, I mean, are there any other, out besides this process, are there any other outstanding permit processes for the, for the project? What, what else remains? Speaker 21: The 4 0 1 water quality certification is under review. Okay. But the public comment period elapsed, so
that is under the technical review. Yeah. By mass DEP, water Quality Unit. And the Army Corps section 4 0 4 permit is under review. And because that complies with the general permit, there is no public component to that review. Speaker 1: Okay. So just to be clear, for the public, I mean this is, this is the last public process Speaker 21: That is correct Speaker 1: For this project. Speaker 2: And I will just note that the memorandum that Adrian put together on Chapter 91 is not only available in the public Google Drive that the commission maintains, it's also available on the decommissioning webpage,
the project webpage that the town maintains. Speaker 1: Okay. From the site walk today, did the commission have any questions that came up as part of that, that information that we gathered this evening? Okay, Speaker 7: I guess I have one. Okay, Speaker 1: Go for Speaker 7: It. I thought it was very good. I, you know, one thing that's been going through my head is what could go wrong? What could go wrong? And there's not much, I mean, the only thing that I can create in my head is with the elimination of the dam, is there less buffer
to that water as the river makes a sharp right turn on Water Street down below. Does that make any sense? Do you see what I'm saying? I Speaker 21: I do know what you're asking. Speaker 8: You're saying whether or not now that it's unrestricted, that you've increased the velocity? I would say that's, I mean, I'll let you guys Speaker 7: Answer that. That's, that's the question. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 21: No. So based on, based on the modeling, no, there's not, the dam's not throttling that flow. And actually the Pleasant Street bridge does act as a hydraulic constriction. So that will continue to modulate the downstream flows as it does today. Speaker 7: Interesting. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay, other questions? All right. Hearing none, any questions from the public? Speaker 2: I know that there was a question from a, a prior meeting from a member of the public that maybe wasn't answered in its entirety at the prior meeting. I think you guys may have spoke with that resident at the site visit. But if we just wanna get the answer out here on the record for the commission as well. Speaker 21: Yes. We were asked about water depths upstream of the dam. We talked a lot about water downstream of the dam during the last hearing. This Speaker 1: Came up at the sidewalk today. Speaker 21: This came up at the sidewalk today. So water depths upstream of the dam
will be lower than today. They are projected to be approximately two to four feet deep on average throughout the impoundment. That will fluctuate based on flow conditions as they do today. So there are a series of profiles in the drawing set. And so to just interpret one of these profiles, the blue line is today's water surface elevation. That's about 110 foot elevation. And that is the top of the spillway. So that is where the water's being artificially held
to today. Then the dark blue line is the hard bottom that was measured. So that's the hard bottom of the substrate of the river. The brown line is where the soft sediment was measured. So the hatched area would be where we expect sediment to move. And the dash blue line is where we expect water to be. So the water depths do range based on the observed depths of soft sediment. As that moves, it'll deepen. But we are expecting the water depths to be about two
to four feet during times of lower flow. It will be shallower. There will be times there, the upstream areas near red bridge will look like areas upstream of red bridge look today. So the flows will be different due to that reduction in, in artificial impoundment. Speaker 2: So the, the measurement of water depth is gonna be from that darker blue line to the dashed lighter blue line in the areas where the sediment,
the soft sediment is projected to shift following dam removal? Speaker 21: Correct. Speaker 9: What's the delta roughly then from today versus now? That's gonna be two to four feet deep, is that what you're saying? Speaker 1: It's, it's six or eight feet Speaker 21: Down. Yeah. So it's about six to eight right now. Yeah. Okay. Six to eight feet and depth reduction. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 1: And again, there's no, for the, for the land that's gonna be exposed, if I remember correctly, I'm just looking here and find it, but there's going to, there's not an active replanting
program proposed. It's seed bank and then invasives management as time goes on. But it's seed bank is Speaker 21: It's, that's correct. Seed bank with active invasive species management and removal. If there are areas that are not naturally regenerating or after the invasive removal, they're bare, there would be seeding with a native seed mix in those limited areas. But the intent is to allow the native seed bank to do the work first. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Other questions?
Speaker 9: How about the wall area, like where the dam is now, then that's gonna be significantly more exposed. Is there any concern on there structurally or anything on the Speaker 21: There aren't structural concerns. There is. That's part of why the gate structure is being left on the river, right side, right side. And there is going to be a small section of the spillway left on the river left side to ensure Speaker 2: That the equipment isn't digging into those entrainment walls once it's removed. Speaker 1: When you say a small amount, is that six Speaker 21: About five feet? Speaker 1: About five feet of the spillway will be left on the
left side, correct? Speaker 21: Yes. Speaker 22: Five feet. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 2: So you Speaker 21: Can see, but otherwise there's not structural concerns related to the walls. Speaker 2: So you can see that here. Yep. Yep. And it, five feet does seem like a lot, but when you are standing at the sort of fence or guardrail here, it will not be very noticeable looking out over the river. It'll be most noticeable when you're downstream looking up at the former spillway location. Speaker 1: Other questions, sir, please, if you would come up
to the microphone so people at home can hear you. It's your, it's your chance to be on tv. Speaker 2: Please identify yourself for the record. Speaker 22: My name is Richard Moon. I'm actually just curious what's going to happen to the sediment when you take this way out? Speaker 10: A clear, I think that the microphone is off. Speaker 22: Okay. What's going to happen with a sediment that is right now up to, I think the spillway level. Is it going to be removed and disposed of or will it just flow downstream? Speaker 21: The sediment is going to be allowed to flow downstream. So it's, it's considered passive release. So as the water's drawn down, it will,
it will begin flowing downstream. And then during construction and after construction it will continue and we'll be monitoring it for two years after construction. Speaker 22: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you sir. Further questions, Speaker 2: I'm just gonna stop share so we can see everybody on Zoom as well, Speaker 7: Just to comment. 'cause it might be his next question. But you've tested that sediment very carefully and it's clean, right? Speaker 21: That is correct. Speaker 8: Yeah. The, Speaker 1: The, there is three more times you'll answer that question. Speaker 8: The data, there's data in the folder I think, right? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes. And all of the historic sediment testing results are all available
on the project webpage. There's been, I think, three separate rounds of sediment testing since the project initiation. Okay. Speaker 1: So hearing no further questions from the public currently nor from the commission. Here's my proposal is that we continue this to April 17th. This will give the public one more opportunity to ask questions, but that we go into our meeting on April 17th, prepare to close and prepared to review an order of conditions. Yep. Just from an efficiency perspective. But I, you know, I want to be clear that folks do have an one more opportunity Yep.
To comment, to ask questions. You know, this is a, this is a big deal project for the town. As you all know, this has been many years, multiple years of deliberation, planning, study design, all that stuff. And so why don't we continue this to the 17th. Claire, if you could start working on the, you know, do your order of conditions magic. Yes. Speaker 2: Just so the commission is aware, this will be a, a hefty order of conditions. I apologize in advance for the review, Speaker 1: Would expect nothing less. And, and let's proceed that way and let's, you know, if we're confronted with a lot of questions or new stuff that comes up at the next meeting,
we'll have opportunity to review that again just for, for clarity's sake. And to say it out loud. I mean if all goes according to plan, just say hypothetically we do close and we issue an order of conditions at our next meeting on the 17th. Would we expect this to happen this summer? Speaker 21: No. Speaker 1: Okay. Next Speaker 21: We, we don't expect to have our Army Corps authorization in time to adequately bid this project out in compliance with open bid Speaker 2: Biding Speaker 1: Laws. Oh. Because it hasn't been, it hasn't been bid out yet. Speaker 21: Okay. And then go to construction in a orderly manner. Speaker 1: So this would be the summer of 2026, correct? Is when this project would take place? Yes.
Speaker 2: The town is also currently, we have a application into the FEMA brick program and Jillian and I are currently working on an application of the dam and seawall program to fund the next phase of the project as well. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright, that's helpful. Speaker 9: Could, could I recommend that, that you, we put it like number one on the agenda, just there was some folks that were here earlier that we're worried about Speaker 2: The time. Oh, the time. Speaker 9: Yeah. Like, oh, I can't stay too late. Yeah, Speaker 2: No, we can definitely have this earlier on the agenda. It's been trying to balance all of the other hearings and understand leaving enough time for this.
But I think given the, the last one I, I was about say given this likely the last one, I don't see any issue with it being earlier on the agenda. Okay. Speaker 1: So any other comments, questions at this point? Someone make a motion to continue this to the 17th. So moved. Thank you Chris. The seconded. Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion? Those in favor in the room, Jeff? Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you Speaker 21: All. Speaker 1: Appreciate your time. If Speaker 4: You wanna make money, chop chop the spillway up into chunks and sell 'em to the Natick. Speaker 2: Doug people. Doug wants one. I Speaker 4: Want a chuck anyway because my wife's grandfather built it.
Oh wow. Speaker 1: Very. Yeah. Put 'em under. Put 'em under. Speaker 4: Chop it up. Because there's a lot of people who probably would wanna sample. Good Speaker 9: Idea. That's a great idea. Speaker 1: We could pay for the board. Speaker 4: Yeah, pay for Speaker 2: If we could pay for the whole thing, that would be some expensive concrete. Yeah, it Speaker 1: Would be. All right. Next item on the agenda. 2 16 2 18 South Main Street. Basically we simply just need to continue this or do we need to accept that? Speaker 2: So for the notice of intent, we need to continue it for the stormwater. I would love to do a quick presentation of the proposal for the peer review that we received, just so the commission can express their approval
for me initiating contracting. Speaker 1: So I'll make a motion to continue the notice of intent under the Wetlands Protection Act and the bylaw and continue this to April 17th, move to continue to April 17th. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Further discussion. Those in favor in the room Jeff? Yes. Thank you. Alright, so major stormwater permit. We have put this out for peer review. We have a bid back from peer review that the applicant has apparently indicated he's willing to accept it Be great if we had others but we don't. So Claire, why don't you show us what we got. Of
Speaker 2: Course. So the proposal was sent out to five different firms in the hope that we would get some multiple responses. Three of the firms did respond in the negative that they were either too busy at this time or didn't have that in-house expertise for the review that we were looking for. We did not receive a response from one of the requested firms BSC group who folks might recall. Did the peer review for windy low that we did last year. That same team did respond to this peer review request. The scope of services we did, the scope of services
for this peer review is much more substantial than the windy low peer review. Obviously given the scope of the project and the level of impact that the project may have, there are a number of meetings that BSC will be attending. Not only a meeting with town staff to give a history of the project from the planning board and the stormwater perspective, but also obviously meetings with the project team. BSC will be on contract to review up to three supplemental material packages. So based on peer review comments and concerns, we have up to three revised material reviews
with BSC group and then meeting attendance at conservation commission meetings as well. Similar to the windy low peer review, if there are additional services that are required, an additional quote will be provided for those services and presented to the commission prior to that work proceeding. The fee for BSC group for the peer review requested came in at $17,200 Based on the cost of the peer review that we did at Windy Low, which came in at right around $10,000. With that additional work that we required, it seems pretty in line with the cost that I would expect. If the commission is happy with the proposal
that we've received, I will respond to BSC group in the positive proceed with contracting and with setting up the 50 3G account for the cost of the peer review, which will be provided by the applicant. Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions on the proposal? Speaker 5: This library? Speaker 1: Alright, hearing none. So we would vote to accept, we would vote to accept the proposal or is it simply vote Speaker 2: To accept the proposal? Yes. Speaker 1: So I wanna make a motion to accept the BSC proposal for peer review. 1 2 16 2 18 South Main Street for stormwater. So moved.
Thank you. Thank you Chris. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion? Those in the room, Jeff? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Alright, done. So let's also continue this to our next meeting. Yes. So I'll make a motion to continue the storm water bylaw hearing until April 17th as well. So moved. Thank you Mike. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion? Those in the room, Jeff? Yes. Alright, so we're all continued. Good updates, Claire? Speaker 2: Yes, and I'll make this brief.
We have been making really fantastic progress on our Natick High School. We storm water management flooding mitigation project. We have been working very diligently in a very short application window to write another MVP grant application request for another round of funding to support that work continuing. We are really hoping to build upon everything that we've done in this current year. So the scope of the request that we're submitting is to permit the design that has been developed for the settling pond location to expand the model
that's been developed to include the dug pond outlet area, which is those culverts that go under Windsor near the DPW facility, which are in very poor condition. I, I'm the one who did the inspection on them and also to expand the model to include the Pegan brook area on the northern end of the watershed to identify additional locations for flood mitigation strategies. We are gonna be, we've got commitment from two different sets of community liaisons. Carolyn Donahue, a resident on Constituit Street, is gonna serve as a liaison for that neighborhood. And a number of the Cedar Gardens tenant organization
members have agreed to serve as community liaisons for that area that falls within the existing watershed that we've modeled. Wonderful. We are also gonna be working with CRWA and the AP environmental science teacher at the high school to develop Charles River Watershed Association for the record to develop lesson plans for existing science curriculum that make use of not only the existing stormwater nature-based solutions on site like the swales and the tiny forest, but the future systems that we're designing lesson plans
that can be implemented under the existing curriculum. So we're really excited about that. Ms. Tulley is really excited and we're looking forward to partnering with her on this project as well. And then finally on the internal capacity side of things, building on the trainings that we've done this year, actually just earlier today was the first half. We are gonna be developing essentially details and concepts for green infrastructure that can be constructed in-house during roadway improvement work that is already scheduled. So it'll essentially be a detail that can be inserted into the bid package for the roadway improvement plan so that those improvements
to our drainage system can be implemented with as minimal effort as possible from the town really trying to line things up where they can just plug it into the bid package. The contractors will provide quotes on it and it'll be constructed in as part of the roadway improvement work rather than a separate project that results in additional disturbance. So what I'm hoping for is that the commission would agree to sign a letter of support for that particular grant application. There is a template available in the folder, no additional futsing with it is necessary. Unfortunately due to our meeting scheduled timing,
we only had the scope finalized and ready to review a letter of support at this meeting. But the application is due tomorrow at 2:00 PM So I do, I do ask that the commission authorize me to sign a letter of support hoping that I would not say anything that the commission disagrees with there. There will be very minimal edits to the existing template that is in the project folder if the commission is amenable to that. Speaker 1: Someone make that motion. So moved. So moved. Okay. Take Chris with a second from David. There you go. Excellent. Any further discussion on that? Those in favor, Jeff? Yep. Great.
Speaker 2: Just a couple of other quick updates. One as folks might have seen or heard or realized from the fact that Jeff is joining us via Zoom. The hybrid meeting allowance was extended by the state legislature. Speaker 1: I thought Jeff was going rogue. Speaker 2: It has been extended through March 31st, 2027. So in two years we'll get to go through this whole rigmarole again. Need a bigger Speaker 1: Table. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. The only other update that I had for you guys is a bit of a request. Barb Coco, who's a member of Friends of Natick Trails, has been leading a group for the last couple of years known
as the trail keepers along the CRT that help pick up trash, maintain plantings, things like that. They are hoping to do a no dig pollinator garden pilot along the strip of land. And I'll pull it up on the map. The strip of land between the rail trail and the mechanic street parking lot, which is land that the commission owns. So there would not be any soil disturbance of the existing soil material. The vegetation would be cut and then it would be tarped over to allow the area to compost. And then seed material or plugs would be brought in
and planted essentially through the tarp material and allowed to establish while suppressing the existing weed growth. If the commission is amenable to this, Barb will put together a formal proposal and, and that'll be back before you guys, but this was just sort of an initial feeler of, of would the commission be interested in that sort of program on on land that we own. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Great. That's me speaking for me. Is everyone okay with it? Any concerns? Jeff, you good with that? Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean that's not gonna be disturbed when they complete the connection to the rail trail. Speaker 2: No, this is all up, up gradient upstream.
My mind is a little too set on the river. It it's down the road. It's down the road or up the road from where the extension is gonna be constructed. There's no additional construction access needed in that corridor. I will be sending around tomorrow the volunteer signup sheet for the bike trail construction, which is set to start this spring in Town Forest. The volunteers have been working with New England Mountain Biking Association. They've got some funding commitments, not only from Landry but through a small GoFundMe that they set up for the purchase of materials. They've developed design sketches for the features
that they're proposing that have been reviewed and they are gonna be looking to start some of the work April 26th. So if anyone is interested in volunteering, I'll send around that sign up sheet for folks to sign up on the Earth Day around Natick activities are published. I would definitely encourage folks to take a look at everything that's going on in town that weekend. There's gonna be a lot of, that's Speaker 1: The 26th and 27th? No, Speaker 2: That's the third and the fourth May we pushed because of April. April vacation week. So I'll be at the town fair on the common on Saturday morning we'll be holding our storm water.
Where does storm water go walk on Saturday afternoon? Sunday afternoon will be the dam parks site walk similar to the one we did last year. So a lot of really cool events. I just encourage folks, I'll send around the link to their webpage when I send around the bike trail signup as well. Speaker 1: So that's Saturday and Sunday? Yes, Speaker 2: Saturday and Sunday. The, the, the common event is Saturday morning only, but there will be events happening throughout Saturday and Sunday. Speaker 1: Do we have any, anyone? Do we have Town Forest walks as Speaker 2: Part of our Speaker 1: Day in the meadow? There Speaker 2: Are currently no Nature Walks planned
because David Laing, Jim Franzi and Lisa Stanley are all out of town that weekend. And with me leading two other site walks and needing to be at the common fair, I was not able to accommodate an additional walk in my schedule. But I will, I will just throw around a great recommendation bin. We, who's a member of the Nit Muck tribe, a cousin of Kristen Wyman, who folks might recall from the dam advisory committee is gonna be leading a walk on May 3rd at Mass Autobon Broadmoor Sanctuary. I don't know if it's officially part of, of the eco activities yet, but if folks are interested I'm happy to share that link as well.
Speaker 1: Great. That it, Speaker 2: Oh, final update. The nit muck are gonna be visiting pick pond on Thursday next week to assess a harvest potential. I will be out on site with them for the duration that they are out on site and there will be notification going out tomorrow to all relevant department heads and the Natick police that that visit will be happening because they will be launching a boat to go out and assess the potential for harvesting. They're looking for between 10 to 1210 foot poles to potentially construct another.
We two specifically, I'm gonna get this wrong and I will clarify for the commission in my email. They're doing a demonstration for a, a woman's an indigenous women's group. They're gonna be building a we two in association with a larger group. So if folks see posts on social media, I just wanna give folks a a Speaker 1: Heads up we do any signage at, at the put in on. Speaker 2: So currently no. It is part of our hope for the additional signage that we would like to see at that property as so Speaker 1: Permanent signage, Speaker 2: Permanent signage as part of the sort of larger trailhead refresh that we, I would like to see come following Bridge
construction. Precisely, Speaker 1: Yes. Should we do temporary signage? Temporary signage just for this event? So if people see, so Speaker 2: I'll be on site for this particular event, but if I'm unavailable, temporary signage would be the sort of next step. Speaker 1: Alright, anything else? Speaker 3: Could I ask a favor? The Community Preservation Committee is getting close to being, you know, kind of fully loaded. We're gonna be rolling out our implementation or our planning document. And so if you have ideas, you know, for Speaker 1: Projects, for Speaker 3: Projects, I think, you know,
we will be starting to take applications here shortly within, you know, a few weeks. So, Speaker 1: Super. Speaker 2: I've already got a list. Speaker 3: Oh, list. And then the other thing, one other thing with the nimmo and the Atlantic White Cedar Resource that we have the wonderful care and custody of, you know, if, if we could encourage maybe some students to start collecting seed, I'd love to start growing Atlantic White Cedar out in, in, in the community. So we can then maybe hand over some seedlings to the munk
to either plants at RO pond. We could plant at RO pond. Yeah. Or they could take back to their community as, as young trees and Speaker 1: Great Speaker 2: Idea. And Kristen Wyman and I have actually discussed seeing if there's any research students in graduate programs who would be interested in doing a larger study. More specifically about the Cedar folks might have noticed that a lot of the ones along the edges that you can see from the roadways are not looking really great. And I think a lot of the extreme weathers that we've had over the last couple of years, I, Lisa Stanley lent me a book that I read.
There are are a number of factors that impact cedar health, but the extreme droughts that we've been having are certainly one of them. And those fringes are especially vulnerable. So we're hoping that we can maybe find some graduate students who would be interested in doing some more research in the area so that we can get more data about the actual health of the trees. Speaker 1: When you say there are the ones along the edge of the roadway, Speaker 2: So when, when you're driving up Oak Street, you can see sort of the back edge of the cedars and they, they they are dead at this point in time. There are definitely healthy pockets on the interior, on the pond side of things, right.
But it's very clear that the, those edges are, are stressed. Speaker 1: Is it possible to get the cedar seeds now or is that, or, or Speaker 3: Yeah. And not right today, but yeah. When, when the seeds come available, you know, definitely I think that, you know, the, the, you know, that genotype that's specific to Natick I think would be important to kind of carry Speaker 1: So we could collect them from the trees themselves. Yeah. Speaker 2: And the indigenous harvesting practices that they leave seeds or they leave the tops of the trees at the site. They make sure to do as much of the disturbance as possible
so that they all drop and are staying on site rather than being lost. Great. Speaker 1: Yeah. Alright. Anything else? Happy to entertain a motion to adjourn. Oops. So moved. Thank you Chris. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. All is in favor, Jeff. See ya. Thanks Jeff. Thanks Speaker 2: Everyone.