Speaker 1: Welcome everybody. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is November 6th, first meeting in November. Our next meeting will be on November, November 20th. Just I don't see a lot of people on the, in the, in the crowd. But if, if you're here for five Auburn Street, the applicant has requested that that be continued until our next meeting on, on November 20th. So tonight we will not be talking about five Auburn Street in any substance. We'll simply be making a motion to continue and then a vote to continue that to our next meeting on November 20th. But with all that, why don't we dive into the agenda.
And I just closed my browser that had the right agenda there. We're gonna talk about, be talking about 1 97 Elliot Street. Again. Let me just get that, and it's a fairly brief subject here this evening. And that's simply to talk about peer review. We have three proposals in hand for peer review that we'd like just to look at and to select which version that, or which, which app a proposal. We would like to select an award for this, for this work. Sorry, I think my, my internet is just like Speaker 2: It was going slow on the screen too.
I think it might just be the town hall inter. I do have them pulled up on the, yeah, Speaker 1: Why don't you do it? 'cause I am, I am dead in the water. Right. Speaker 2: So starting with it, I'm going in the same order that they are in my agenda notes. So Echo Tech did respond that they did not be submitting a proposal. Just Speaker 1: Outta curiosity, did they say why Speaker 2: The engineering, they don't have any in-house engineering service. Okay. And I think that the, they just felt that that limited them in this regard. So, BSC group submitted a proposal. They've done two of the most recent peer reviews
for the commission for 2 16 2 18 as well as, oh, Windlow. Yes, of course. So this would be a slightly different side of the BSC team than we're usually working with. 'cause this is a bit more wetlands focused than storm water as the last ones have been. Obviously I don't think that the commission has had any, any concerns with the quality of the BSC peer reviews in the past. I will say that this is the most expensive of the peer review proposals at $11,400. The second response that was received was from Bills.
And Thomas, just to qualify for the commission, anybody listening online, smaller firms are limited in their ability to do peer reviews if they file wetlands applications for review. In our community, because of the way that the Massachusetts ethics codes work, there are a lot of restrictions in terms of being hired as a peer reviewer by the town and also being able to submit filings to that town under the Conservation Commission. So generally for these sort of peer review requests,
I am going out to larger firms because they have larger teams. So one wetland scientist can still file an NOI with the town if we have a different wetland scientist from that firm doing a peer review. Very confusing. And it makes finding enough folks to solicit for peer reviews. Very difficult. Sometimes Bees and Thomas also provided a quote. They are another very reputable firm. Actually, a former con com member worked for Bees and Thomas Mary Kate Shwe Oh yeah. Was a member of the BES and Thomas team. Yeah.
And they provided a very similar scope of services as A BSC group. Their proposal was for a total of $9,000 with costs outlined for additional meetings or reviews needed on top of what was requested in the scope that was submitted. The final proposal that we received was from LEC Environmental Consultants. They are a smaller firm just in terms of the services that they provide, not necessarily the scope of area that they work in. So they do have no in-house civil
engineering capabilities. They did provide that note in the response. So they would be relying on, relying on Bill McDowell's review from a stormwater engineering perspective, and may not be able to provide input on structural crossings of the wetland in the same way as some of the other firms that we, Speaker 1: So B, s, C and, and be. And Thomas could provide that. Yeah, they Speaker 2: Do both have in-house engineering work. I think that this proposal definitely straddles that line of storm water and wetlands. So I did wanna present all three
proposals to the commission. I did tell LEC please, I did encourage them to submit, but just clarify where their limitations are. And so I think that the commission should determine it. It is not an insignificant sum between the lowest and the middle tier, but which Speaker 1: 6,800 is the lowest, the 9,000 is the next one. So it's 30, 2200 bucks. Speaker 2: So it's just there is the question of if all the wetland stuff checks out, do we still have enough questions about the storm water portion of it that we would want that to
absolutely be a part of this review in a really integral way? Or do we really feel that some of those red flags with the wetlands issue are the primary concern on this project? Marcello, the applicant has obviously expressed a preference for the cheapest proposal. Speaker 1: Right. I think for me the, you know, the question is it, it's almost less a storm water question and it's more kind of the construction of the crossing itself than a, than a storm water. Would Speaker 2: The commission become comfortable, if I were
to send L-E-C-A-A question of, does LEC feel capable of providing a review on this aspect from a, you know, a stream crossing, structural crossing perspective? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: 'cause and then if they say yes, we go with them, and if not, we go with bills. And Thomas, Speaker 1: I mean, what do you guys think about the storm water question? I mean, it didn't, the the, I wasn't left with a ton of questions. I mean, Speaker 2: I have questions just on the groundwater depth, but I think that's not necessarily something that I need a peer reviewer on. That's, Speaker 1: And that's almost more of a wetlands question than a, than a
Speaker 2: It's certainly one of those Speaker 1: Yeah. It straddles, you know, Mike, what do you think? I mean, Speaker 3: I mean my, my understanding of the conversation that was in front of us a couple, few weeks ago was around a couple of things. One was clearly around the delineation. Yes. And then about whether we're dealing with previously filled areas that would change, would change the conversation Right. A little bit. Right. So if we're dealing with areas that have been disturbed, that's, and that's gonna change the analysis and, and permitting inherently.
And then the last thing was around, is there an alternative to what is being inherently proposed? Is there a way to span the distance? Speaker 1: That's the construction thing I was talking about. Correct. Speaker 3: Was that, so I think that that's really the, those were the three things. I mean, the other piece is obviously, you know, the whole knotweed situation and like, which I think there's experts here. Speaker 2: Yeah. I think that this firm would certainly, and then in the room as well. Yeah. Speaker 3: There's plenty of really smart people that
within this room as well as, you know, probably any of these firms could tackle that. But I, I think the main thing that I was looking for was, is, is there fill, which changes the equation. Absolutely. Right? And then if, if everything just stays exactly the same, is there another alternative to span that so we're not having to replicate? And then obviously if that delineation is modified a little bit, are we replicating in actually a wetland? Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. That one's the big one. Speaker 3: But that's where my brain goes to, you know, the, the now weed thing obviously is a big deal, but I think
Speaker 1: That feels much more straightforward to Speaker 3: Me. Yeah. We know not to, we're not gonna be moving that contaminated soil on site and all those fun things. Speaker 1: So, Speaker 2: So at the very least, there was fill identified for the first 19 inches in test pit three location based on the soil testing that was done with the board of health. Okay. The other two didn't necessarily demonstrate fill, it was silty loam or, or, or lomi sand. But that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't Phil, it might just mean that it was good Phil. Speaker 1: Right. Different kind of fill. Speaker 3: I didn't come through in the report though, did it? I mean, it came through in the notes.
Speaker 2: Well, so these, and this is why I now include the health department notes, because these are Mike bore's notes, not the applicants. Okay. Yes. Speaker 3: So what language is he writing there? Sideways. Speaker 2: Sideways language. I can't rotate it in Google View, but you've got each of the test, the inches, the soil horizon, soil type, and then where the, the groundwater. So Speaker 3: I'm sure he can read his records. Speaker 2: I learned pretty quick. Speaker 1: So with that, I mean, I think that, you know, I'm, I'm all for going with the most cost efficient. Okay.
Speaker 2: So I'll reach out to LEC pending that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Hold, hold on one second. So let's, you know, let's say that if LEC is, feels competent in commenting on the kind of the construction standards, the stream crossing that stuff, then I'd be fine going with LEC. Okay. If LEC punts on that and says they're not, then I would want to, I would want to go with be and Thomas. Yeah. And Speaker 2: I think it's a, if they say not, or if there's, you know, some strong hesitation hum hoeing, Speaker 1: I think that then we go with be,
then we go with Beales and Thomas. 'cause it would probably cost LEC at least 2200 bucks to bring in a, Speaker 2: A subcontractor, Speaker 1: Civil subcontractor to do that. But I think that's information we need to have Okay. As part of the process. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. And I, I don't, you know, and I don't wanna burden obviously the town resources. Speaker 1: No, no. That's not the town's job. It's the applicant's job to be providing or to be, yeah. To be providing us with the information we need. And that's what a peer review is for. Great. So, okay. Is that, is that good? So, so Claire, how do we want to handle this?
Do we, do we, you know, do we want a contingent vote? Speaker 2: I think a contingent vote would be the most appropriate. 'cause that way we can get the review going. We're not having to wait all the way to the 20th Okay. To get the response done. Speaker 1: And then we'll leave it to your judgment. Great. To, to assess E'S response. Wonderful. If they waffle, you know, your waffle meter needs to be, needs to be on. And so if they waffle on it, then you've got license to go with Beales and Thomas. Right. If they're very clear and say, oh yeah, I got it covered, no problem. Then we'll go with LEC. Wonderful. Okay.
So someone make a motion to that effect. Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 1: Chris. Thank you Chris. Excellent. Chris, does that all make sense to you, man? Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah. No, I think, I think that contingent needs to be part of it. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So Chris made the motion to do that. Go in that direction. Is that seconded? Yep. Thank you George. Is there any further discussion those in the room plus Chris? Yes. Alright, so we got, so that's settled. So we've got a peer review for 1 97 Elliot taken care of. We'll get the information that we need to move forward. Next item on the agenda. Five Auburn Street. So as you know, the applicant has requested a continuation. Mike provided a list of good questions.
Those will not be the only questions that we ask as part of this process, but it was a good starting point to get their research and response juices flowing on this. Those questions are in the, in the Dropbox. Claire, I saw that you had, you had shared those questions with someone, with someone from the public, which is Oh Speaker 2: No. So they're, they're in the public Google drive of Great. Perfect as well, because they were comments from the commission. They're essentially part of the public record. Perfect. So that all, all the materials, except for some of the staff notes that have been developed are all
accessible to the public. Right. Speaker 1: No, that, that's, that's perfect. I just saw that they were out there and someone had clearly accessed them. Yes. 'cause they're, so, anyway, so we'll, we'll pick up five Auburn Street on November 20th. So it's only make a motion to continue five Auburn to November 20. Just, just Speaker 5: One question. Can, can we actually discuss it all the four versus five? Speaker 2: So they've not now because they've requested a continuation. Okay. The no testimony can occur. Yeah. Speaker 1: As, as tempting as it is and as, as I just Speaker 5: Con it's, you Speaker 1: Know, as substantive, Speaker 2: Jim, you and I can certainly have an offline conversation if you'd like, as
Speaker 1: As substantive a conversation as that will be Speaker 2: And will happen on the 20th Speaker 1: And will happen on the 20th. And, and, and take a look at the email that I sent around that actually, I'm gonna make a copy of that email and put that into the public Oh absolutely. Folder as well. Basically that email just said, guys, here's how I think, here's this, the, the, the thread that I suggest for our next meeting on five Auburn Street, Speaker 2: Order of Operations, order Speaker 1: Of operations. It's basically to your 0.584 versus 5 8 5 review. Is this a new development or is it a redevelopment? And then a few other, you know, kind of criteria there.
I will put that email tonight into the Dropbox where everyone sees it. And it really is, it's not very intentionally, was not debating the merits of anything, but just saying here's how we can structure the conversation on the 20th. Speaker 2: And I just, I'm so cautious about this process. It's, I wanted to send the caveat out. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. We cannot debate outside of that. So you, maybe you and Claire can touch base on some of the technicalities of 5 8 4 versus 5 8 5. Speaker 2: Absolutely. Happy to have a quick I'm, yeah. Grab a cup of coffee at Sweetwaters if you want. Okay. Speaker 1: So with that, would someone make a motion to continue five Auburn Street to November 20th? Motion to continue. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Thank you. Thank you Michael. Any further discussion on that?
Those in the room, Chris? Yes. Great. Alright. That's continued to November 20th. Alright. That's all we have for public hearings this evening. So Speaker 2: Chris, if you wanna drop off, you're more than welcome to. Speaker 4: I've got a little more time before I need to get on the road. Speaker 1: No, Chris, go away. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Yeah. Thank you for joining. I know you got a lot going on this evening, Chris. Appreciate that. That's all right. No problem. Alright, so general business discussion. So 52 Everett planning, board filing. We had a site visit last, was it Friday?
Yes, Friday, Friday night. Speaker 2: Fighting the sunset, Speaker 1: Fighting the sunset and had a good, good visit there. We had some members of the planning board there. Martin Kessel made an appearance, which is great. Martin's battling some health issues and it was great to see him out, out and walking around. Really happy that, happy for that. And I hope he's on the right, on the right path there. Claire, you said you had received a letter, a follow up letter from Ben Stevens? Yes. So the Speaker 2: Planning board was supposed to meet last evening. And so this was gonna be a sort of a after the fact they weren't necessarily making a, a decision last night, but that that meeting ended up being canceled. So the commission does have a great opportunity
to revise our comment letter that we had previously put together following the site visit. Ben Stevens did provide a memo that was intended for the planning board, but to us as well, just to talk about some of the things that were talked about in the field to show that layout of the units. This is the 12 unit here. Speaker 1: Scroll back up for one second. Speaker 2: Absolutely. So again, these are not final layouts, these are conceptual layouts essentially. So you'll see that this one is actually slightly different from this one. Speaker 1: But, but that first one you just showed though, I mean that's showing extensively more units than
what we had talked about and what we was represented in the field. I mean that's showing that back site being developed. Yeah. Speaker 2: So this is that 12 unit development. So that's the additional units that Ben is requesting. So this is currently what the planning board is reviewing. I believe it's a 15 unit layout, but it's all clustered towards the front. Ben is, I believe, asking for the waivers. And this is all outlined in the memo. If I'm gonna be honest, this came in this afternoon and I did not, we had, we Speaker 1: Had exactly read through it. Oh, that's interesting. This is news to me that mean that, that there's a, a request for additional units on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So tone at unit calculation yielded 14 units with allowed 10% increase rounded up to 16. Oh, I'm sorry. This is about 2 16, 2 18 South Main Street. Here we go in our 52 Everett Street, OSRD, we respectfully request the calculated density of 11.17 B granted a similar waiver to a 15 unit total yield or a 34% increase. So what I will say is that this is the layout that I have seen more regularly. Exactly. That's so, and that's the 15 unit layout that he's asking. I don't recall. And this may have been in the materials
that I was provided, but I don't recall seeing this layout at any point before. Speaker 1: Right. Okay. That's what I'm reacting to. Okay. Is that this is completely new to me. Yeah, I I kind of shoots down, I mean it shoots down kind of one of the main selling this one. Is this what he's requesting now? No. So Speaker 2: This is what he wants, he wants this 15 units but more tightly clustered smaller individual units. Speaker 1: Okay. That is consistent with what we had talked about in the field. Speaker 2: So this, just to show a comparison. So that other one that's above brings that open space line that's here.
It brings it to here essentially. Speaker 1: Oh, I, no, I think it's even further. Go back up to this one. I mean it, it goes, Speaker 2: Oh yeah, you're right. Actually it does go beyond that, that jog. So it would be more like there here. So that would be to the limit of the 40 foot no build zone mostly. That's, that's Speaker 6: Where he's putting in the ballroom. Right. Speaker 2: So I think that obviously it's the commission's preference for this layout. Maybe not this number of units, but the more tightly clustered layout, Speaker 1: The whole, the whole selling point on this cluster development. Speaker 2: That had been my understanding as well. The hope, Speaker 1: The whole selling point on the clusters is
that there's a substantial amount of open space that's preserved and as soon as we start going into that back field, they're especially pressing up against the wetlands, which is undevelopable anyway, just kind of, it's, I mean that's not a cluster development and you know, that's just a straight up development. That's just a straight up development of that lot. So all that being said, you know, let's, okay, so, so what is he, what is he requesting then? Speaker 2: So from con com he is not necessarily requesting anything.
This is an opportunity for con com to present an updated comment letter to the planning board, following our site visit if the commission would like what I can do. Speaker 1: And there and there there's no, there's no filing in front of us at this point anyway. No, Speaker 2: This is all in front of the planning board at this point in time. So it appears that what Ben is asking for, so in addition we've enclosed the 12 unit site plan layout in comparison with the 15 unit site plan layout. Speaker 1: Okay. So he's still going with the more dense compact 15 unit development. I mean he was very clear about that in Speaker 2: The field.
I think this is an attempt to scare the planning board into accepting the waiver for the 15 units. Speaker 1: Right. But the but the, the challenge he would have here is whether that if he's still going under, Speaker 2: If this would still meet the, Speaker 1: As a cluster development. Yeah. Which I would have some, I mean, you know, not having seen the math and all that stuff, but it's, Speaker 2: And I don't think we need to comment on the units necessarily. We can comment on the layout that there's a, a very strong preference for the clustered layout that in front allows
Speaker 1: For additional space. Right. He was so clear about small units. Yeah. You know, these are 2000 square foot units. Speaker 3: I mean you're losing an acre and a half of open space Speaker 1: With what, with this one or Speaker 3: The 15 unit proposal. Speaker 1: How are you losing an acre and a half of open space just Speaker 2: From the development area, the existing, you know, from 180 non house area Speaker 3: 180. Speaker 2: Here's the numbers right here. Speaker 3: I mean, he says you're gaining, which I, I don't, I don't know how you're gaining when that 15 unit, unless I'm getting it. No, but the, unless I'm dyslexic. Speaker 1: But it says you mean 12, the 12 unit, which is the more spread out one which goes into the back
has less open space than the 15 unit. Correct. So Speaker 3: The 12 unit, you lose an acre, Speaker 1: The 12 unit, you lose open space. Yep. Which is what makes the 15 unit more appealing. Speaker 3: And then you don't have that large, you know what we ran into with the, the reason why Windy Lowe became a problem is somebody got into a D eight dozer and blew into that hillside and expanded that driveway. And you have a similar situation by that walnut tree. That's a very steep slope that is going to get a blade
and a dozer is gonna get dropped and then you're gonna have all that change. Right. And you're gonna have a similar, Speaker 1: And there's substantial, substantial cutting that's going in. Speaker 2: What I'll say is that they will have to do a major storm water permit. So there will be in front of us, under our jurisdiction, even outside of that wetland buffer. Yeah. Speaker 3: The, the additional impervious is really difficult for me to swallow in the, in the 12 unit. Speaker 1: In the 12 unit. Speaker 2: 'cause you've got much more driveway associated with that. Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's, it's,
and again I don't, I don't know that it, you know, again, not seeing, not having done the math at this point, I don't know that a cluster development that it would even meet the specs of a cluster development in that case. But I'd have to go back and, Speaker 2: And then this, his proposal here doesn't have the full set of numbers. So would the com I can draft up a letter like we did last time, send it around for a, you know, a final thumbs up, thumbs down, and then get it submitted to the planning board. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: Mike, I did wanna ask one quick question because I know you and I talked about this when we were out in the field at the site visit. Did you want me to mention anything in the comment letter about the, the soil quality question due
to the prior mechanical use? Speaker 3: I would just Speaker 2: Maybe just mention it as a essay Speaker 3: Do with just a easy Google Earth or you know, look at some aerial photos going back to the eighties to today 2000 or whenever the recent flight over 2020 3 25. Yeah, Speaker 2: We actually, the town subscribes to near maps. So we have annual aerials available to us. Speaker 3: So yeah, just like were there, was there a stockpile of vehicles in that area? Yep. If so, what is the, what is the
potential for there to be leaky engine blocks, et cetera, et cetera. Stuff Speaker 2: That they used to bury in the ground that were not allowed to bury in the ground anymore. Because Speaker 3: I mean Speaker 4: Well there was, there was stuff visible when we were doing the sidewalk. Really? Speaker 3: Wow. Speaker 4: There was some steel looked like a, I mean it didn't look like engine blocks, but it looked like some, a piece of metal Yeah. Speaker 2: Scrap at the very least Speaker 1: Some mechanical something significant Speaker 2: Piece. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. Could have been just a bucket, but, Speaker 2: Well then I think that that's a very valid question that I'll add. Speaker 3: It was, it looked suspicious to me. 'cause there, you know, whenever I see an area
that's been cut like that and then a flat area that has that type of material as a base, it tells to me, it usually indicates to me that there's been vehicles parked Speaker 1: There and, and, and the issue simply being, is there contamination that would need to be cleaned up? Right. I mean that at the end of the day or that Speaker 2: Just would need to be addressed as part of not only the site development, but where storm water is being directed and things like that. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so Claire, so your homework is to draft a comment letter. Yes. You know, I think the other,
the soil quality, you know, the other, the other thing that would be part of this, I mean as, as much as possible a plan that maintains existing topography and is not changing it significantly would be our preference as well. Yeah. Speaker 2: I think I can certainly include language about the commission's commitment to the stormwater bylaws design standards that, Speaker 3: And is any of this gonna affect that storm water on the other Speaker 1: Property? The one next door, the Speaker 2: One down at 66 Everett? Yep. Speaker 3: You know, 'cause you, if the, the larger development
or not larger, the 12 unit suspicious anyways, the 12 unit development goes up against, or it, it, it arrives closely to that stormwater feature. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it just, I'm, I sort of have my cursor hovering over where that little isolated wetland behind 66 Everett would be this lot here is 68 Everett, which is that sort of lot that doesn't actually have any frontage. It's just a shared driveway with 66 Speaker 1: Kind of tuck tucks Speaker 2: Back there. And so, you know, almost directly adjacent to that lot is
where that, that little wetland feature is. And then 66 Everett is this frontage that we Speaker 1: Right here, I mean end. Yeah, I i I think it's a fair question to ask. Just remember from eyeballing the, the topography of those sites, I think that that was basically, that was further up. Speaker 2: Yes. I I believe that a windy low is at a sort of a sloped to elevation between those, a lot of Speaker 1: Those wind. Right. A lot of windy low is, I mean Ben Stevens was very clear about on the other side facing facing 52 Everett on the left hand side.
He was very clear about there being a swale and kind of Yeah, Speaker 2: I think that that is certainly something that I would be putting a very close eye eye on in that area. Speaker 1: I mean, you know, because, because that, that place without good storm water equipment and, and you know, concerted effort would be receiving a lot of the water offset Absolutely. Site so that that site has to be protected. Okay. Okay. So anyway, so why don't you go ahead and draft that, send it around and then we can send that off to the planet board. Speaker 6: Claire could put on Ben's letter just for a minute. Of
Speaker 2: Course. Speaker 6: I don't remember seeing that many in the past, but there's something about it that's, I'm curious. Hmm. Yeah if you can dig it up. This is the letter. I think you want the words or the letter? Oh Speaker 2: The letter. Speaker 6: Sorry. Yeah, the letter Speaker 2: Just sitting here on a map. The one up at the top here? Speaker 6: Yeah. Oops, sorry. Okay. I don't remember seeing many of his letters in the past, but that's a weird signature and it looks familiar. I've seen it before. I think on tv. I'd like to see what his room looks like. Does he have a lot of gold things on the wall? Auto pen.
Speaker 1: Alright, let's move on. Speaker 2: We appreciate the levity charge. We need it. Speaker 6: Well I mean it's not being broadcast now, so. Speaker 1: Alright, so okay next item. So expressions of interest to the EEA equal one stop. Yeah, this Speaker 2: Is just a quick update for the commission. I think I talked about the, one of the last meetings how EEA has sort of combined a number of their grant programs under one application program. The town submitted we were limited to four expressions of interest. We're not limited in grant applications but that's just all the staff capacity they have to review expressions of interest. We resubmitted the Doug Pond stormwater project
that we had filed for funding for that we didn't get selected for. Just to get some additional feedback on that project. We filed a DER culvert replacement grant. We chose not to file expression of interest for the Everett Street location but instead for the South street bridge, which has continued to deteriorate in terms of the super structure and engineering has concerns about road possibility in the future. Speaker 1: Sorry, the south, the South street Speaker 2: Bridge, south Street is that street that comes off of Elliot Street. That is mostly mass auto bond on either Speaker 6: Side of it.
Speaker 2: There's a bridge. Speaker 1: Oh I was thinking South Ave. I was trying to South Street down there. Yeah. Yeah, if Speaker 2: We could deal with that Washington Afco, that would be my top choice. We also submitted the dam parks improvement construction phase for, and one of the eco one stop grant applications. 'cause the intent is to apply to MVP for that construction funding. The last one that I submitted is a totally new project really trying to feed out of some of the discussions out of this group and the larger community for a tree inventory and urban forest master plan. Love it. So this would be likely working
with like a Davy tree or one of those other firms to do a full assessment of Natick canopy, an update to our street and public shade tree. Speaker 1: This is the foundations of the tree bylaw conversation, Speaker 2: Which hasn't been updated since 2015. As well as, you know, things like recommendations and priorities for replanting canopy management, health management for the existing canopy, things like that. This is, again, is a very new idea. I'm really, I'm just trying to get some state feedback on what programs might be a good fit for this type of funding.
I'm also hoping that we could apply for some additional MAPC funding when those grant rounds are released. So looking at lots of grant funding opportunities to help support Wonderful. And continue to, well I guess pick the ball back up again on some of the tree preservation work that the commission had been talking about. Speaker 1: The canopy, the canopy inventory, you know, is something we've been, I mean we've been talking about the tree bylaw option. We, I think collectively, collectively had decided to back off of the by, you know, pushing for the bylaw right now. But really getting into a data and I think that collection phase, this
Speaker 2: Point, this plan would essentially serve as the foundation for the tree committee to then go in and support actions that are being recommended under that plan. We will be scheduling calls with the grant funders to get feedback on those. Most of these applications we'll be opening up in the January, February timeframe Town forest. Great. Speaker 5: Just one question. So that's a full inventory, right? Not just public Speaker 2: Trees. So everything, it would be, it wouldn't be as detailed of an inventory as what we would get back for our public shade trees. But we would get information about percent canopy cover
species, general health, things like that. But it wouldn't be like, this is a 24 inch diameter red oak tree. Okay. Like we would be able to do because Davey or other services that offer similar packages are doing a lot of this inventory data from aerial image ai. Okay. Computer computers. That's cool. Yeah. More more tech than I'm familiar or comfortable with. So we would get very detailed information about our public shade trees and obviously trees on public land if we wanted to. But for residential canopy it will be
slightly less detailed information but still good information to have. Okay. Speaker 1: Town forest, before we get into the invasive species thing, any feedback from our friends over on Big Jennings Pond about what's happening in Little Jennings with respect to the beavers? Speaker 2: No comments. Okay. Speaker 1: So as far as we know, they're out there breaching every once in a while. Yep. Speaker 2: Water levels are pretty much e equal between the two ponds right now if you do a drive by, I mean obviously they're a little bit lower in big Jennings pond just right the way gravity and topography works. Gravity. But the water levels are very
consistent across the board. I did, I was in Town Forest on, on Wednesday, one of the stewards and I were installing a new signpost to let folks know about the trail being flooded. We've sort of given up trying to block off the trail 'cause folks just keep moving all the obstacles anyway. So we're just installing a sign that lets people know, flooded that it is flooded and that there's an alternate trail, but they can still use it if they want. And it looks like they may have breached out a little further than what we had talked about in the field. Not a full breach, but like an additional partial breach further out. So I, I am I do Speaker 1: You say additional partial like another six feet or another 20 feet
Speaker 2: Or it's, I don't know if, if you recall, it was like a four foot section right at the bank. So another four foot chunk further in on the dam. Because Speaker 1: The first one is basically you took a couple of steps in and they, you know, they would clear out the stuff they could reach and now Speaker 2: Exactly. And just a little further. So, but I, I can't tell if it's just the water levels have changed now that part's just under water because I wasn't out in the water, so I was just gonna send a question to them just to check in and make sure that, okay, Speaker 1: I'm not Speaker 2: Concerned about it. Everything is following the status quo. Okay. Speaker 1: So invasive species management though. Yes. Speaker 2: So the Trails
and Forest Stewardship Committee noted on some of their earlier site visits this year that a lot of the invasive species management work that we'd had such great success in has now been lost to the bittersweet around the meadow area specifically. Speaker 1: So a lot of that sapphire sapphire berry stuff, the Speaker 2: Sapphire berry stuff we've had pretty great success with. The buckhorn is more of a mixed bag, but honestly compared to when I started it is night and day and especially along that main trail coming in from town forest. So this is a proposal for, for specifically these areas. It's, it is about a two acre area in total
Speaker 1: All centered around the meadow, all Speaker 2: Centered around the meadow. And it's a three year proposal totaling just over $19,000 for a combination of, of mechanical and, and chemical invasive species management. Obviously there would be some permitting that would happen before any of this work initiated. This is just the proposal from LSI for the work for focusing on primarily bittersweet and buckthorn, but also including all woody invasives in the meadow area. So there, there's a very clear, detailed sort of breakdown of the each individual years and tasks.
Cost Speaker 1: Is 19,000 per year or total? Speaker 2: No, I'd say that's a total for all three years. So Speaker 1: 6,000 and change per year? Speaker 2: Well, it's a lot more at the beginning and then a lot less at the end 'cause of the, the scale of the work. So the re forest stewardship committee would like to engage with this proposal as funding becomes available, obviously as the commission is the landowner. I wanted to get your thoughts on it as well to fund this work and other invasive species work. I have submitted a capital budget request this year. A lot of my budget requests in the past have been sort of, hey, here's my wishlist and, and this year it's, we've sort of gotten down to brass tax
and I'm like, this is the money I need and this is exactly what I need it for. So I've requested a hundred thousand dollars over the next five fiscal years. So $20,000 each year for very specifically inva terrestrial invasive species management on conservation commission owned property super. So if that capital funding request is funded right off the bat, we have the funding for this sort of set and ready to go. Starting in FY 27, I am gonna be applying to sma,
which is a invasive species group out of the s ASCO watershed has a, a small grant program that they just released the RFR for. I'm also gonna be applying to them for some funding to support this work. Specifically it's for invasive species management Specifically. They've talked about, because we have Aurelia in this forest, which is a, a unique one. They would be very interested in supporting invasive species work on this property. So I'm gonna be applying to them for some funding as well. But essentially just looking for the commission's blessing as funding becomes available
to spend funding on this work in town Forest at this point in time, we would not be looking to commit any of the trails budget for at least this fiscal year towards this work. The, the Trails committee has some of that money slated for some of those trailhead improvements that we talked about at one of our previous meetings and some other work that's going on. So we are looking to get not necessarily outside funding, it's either coming from the town or from a grant, but additional funding above and beyond our R $15,000 for trails maintenance. Because Speaker 1: When, when would we, when will we hear from the town
with respect to the 20 k per year for five years. Speaker 2: So that would be part of the FY 27 budgets that would So we get that July one springtown meeting and Speaker 1: You have that access to it July one. Speaker 2: Exactly. So we would be, I would be looking for that SMA invasive species small dollars grant to help support some of that work for this initial period of time. Speaker 1: So I mean as far as, as far as I'm concerned and we all, you know, everyone chimed in, but as far as I'm concerned, I mean if you're out hunting for grants, you know, this is a, and you know, for a targeted purpose and as long as it's consistent with what we are charged with doing in the team, then you've got absolute license to,
to go go hunting for that. Great. With respect to the town budget money, you know what I would, you know, once we know if we have it or not, then let's just revisit this. I think this would be a high Speaker 2: Priority. Yeah. So once I know if I get that money, I'll put together a whole proposal for all of the ComCom parcels. This is just because of the timing of when this is working. Speaker 1: Right. What I would, what I would suggest though is that why don't, why don't you and I also sit down and just take a look at all of the accounts and just see what we have available I Speaker 2: Can throw together for the next meeting. Why don't you do just in a why account inventory. Yeah. Speaker 1: Why don't you do that for the next, I mean,
I've got a general idea, but let's let you know, let's all just get back up to speed in terms of exactly what we have and how much and which accounts and which accounts, you know, and, and what those accounts are dedicated for. Yep. Because stuff like this, for example, I could imagine being a priority item for us and we would want to dedicate some of the money that we have available to us if we Speaker 2: Were allowed to do so. Speaker 1: Yeah. If it's an inappropriate account that's, that's, that's where, that's an, an acceptable use of those funds. Something like this in my opinion, would be a kind of a high priority usage of, of monies that are allowed
to be spent on those kinds of things. But let's take a look and, and, and just get an update across all of our accounts that we have. You know, depending on who you ask on Facebook, it's anywhere from zero to $14 million that we're sitting on. Speaker 2: I have a very nice tracking spreadsheet that gives me Speaker 1: An UpToDate access. Access. I've seen that, I've seen that spreadsheet many times. So let's just get a most recent thing just so everyone knows exactly how much we have. We can then decide if we want to go ahead and just pull the trigger on this, what would be the appropriate time of year to do what you're asking the land stewardship guys. Speaker 2: So in theory they could start now. I think we're looking at either starting now
or starting in the spring. I imagine over the dormant winter months there might be, you know, some mechanical work that could occur. I know that they've talked about if we wanted to do like another brush mowing out there as an initial phase. Right. That kind of work could occur over Speaker 1: Winter. So let's let, let's have that conversation just so that we're all absolute up to speed and then we can make a good decision. 'cause this, I mean this is the definition of land stewardship in my opinion. Yep. Speaker 2: And then I am also feel charge of ours trying to see how I can, and twist is not the right word, but how I can frame things to also maybe make invasive species
management eligible for CPA funding. But that is a much harder hill to climb. Let's, I'm looking for examples from other communities where they've been successful in funding these types of projects. So just that update. Speaker 1: Okay. One, one last thing on Town Forest though you may get, I'm in contact with Rich McGrath. Yes. Rich lives at the end of Bay State. Yes. Speaker 2: No. Terrace, Speaker 1: Terrace Bay Speaker 2: State turns into Terrace, Speaker 1: Bay State turns into Terrace. As many of you may know. Rich, rich works. He's a longtime Natick guy. He's the guy occasionally that we hear about driving his four wheeler in town
Forest. But he's out there Speaker 2: Usually pulling a tire out, pull Speaker 1: Pulling tires and washing machines and junk out of the, out of the thing. And I've, I've told him that generally speaking, that's okay for him to do that. We're not gonna, we're not gonna come after him on that. And if anyone gives him a hard time about it, tell him that he's talked to us Speaker 2: And I've provided him with a little stack of my cards as well. Right. That Speaker 1: He can out to us. And so Rich texted me the other night and I'll text him after this meeting just to check in, but apparently there was a very large poplar tree right at that trail head. Oh that fell. Oh my goodness. And blocked the trail. And he was, you know, his, his skid steer
that he has in his garage. He Speaker 2: Works for Wellesley College and their facilities management division, Speaker 1: His, his skid steer is busted. So he was gonna go out and try to do it himself, but was really worried about just some of the tension and torque on the trunk and was, we could Speaker 2: Definitely get some steward assistance. Speaker 1: So what he, what he said he was gonna do is that he was gonna get a couple of his arborist buddies from Wellesley College out to take a look at it. And I, and I said if you know, I said, rich, you know, don't die. If you do die, we're leaving your body. You know, we're gonna give you a Viking burial in town forest. We're just gonna pile rocks on top of you and call it a day.
But, so I'll check in with him and see where it stands. But if, if he and his guys didn't feel like this was something they could tackle safely Yep. That we would then talk about either getting a, a crew out there Speaker 2: Or we can see if maybe we have a new steward who has a, his own very large chainsaw that he's been most generous in assisting us with. That it might be able to help. It might be beyond even that. 'cause I know Rich is a very experienced Speaker 1: Guy. Guy. Right. I think, you know, it sounds to me like it's less kind of a tools question and it's more just a safety experience and savvy.
Yep. Someone who knows how to take a apart, a torqued tree that might represent, you know, I really don't want anyone to die in town forest as was. That's kind of my, you know, call me crazy. But anyway, so, so I'll circle back with you. I'll, I'll text him after the meeting and just check in with him and see Speaker 2: What he says. Speaker 1: Wonderful. But you may hear about it if chain, if people hear chainsaws going, you know, someone will drop a dime. And, and Speaker 2: That I do know actually I had a very wonderful resident give me a shout that there was, they were hearing tree work over on Strathmore Road, which is that tech road right behind the mall. And he was very worried that there was tree
removal happening in the wetlands. And I did a nice drive by and thankfully they were just pruning, Speaker 1: You should have heard, you should have heard the phone phone lines light up when we had the guy clearing the meadow the first time. Speaker 2: Oh I can imagine. Speaker 1: You know, this big tractor out there chewing up trees. I mean it was just people losing their minds 'cause they were, you know, but it's, it's all good. And I'm glad people do call once they hear something they Speaker 2: Don't know what it is. And I do, I, if folks are listening online or to the recording, I, I am a singular staff person. If you hear something or see something that you are concerned about, please do not hesitate to reach out to my office. If it's not my jurisdiction, I'll connect you
with the appropriate staff person. If it is, I do my due diligence on every report that is received. Speaker 1: Alright. With that PSA, let's talk about, so, so we're good on the town forest invasive species. So Pine Hill Trail work with accept. Speaker 2: Yeah. So Speaker 1: Pine Hill is still one of those parcels that is incomplete in my mind in terms of how we get into it. Speaker 2: And so this is, you know, I'm in these discussions so I believe that I talked to the commission about this a while back. But the Accept program, which is a, a consortium school that operates out of Tech circle.
They take students from all over the Metro West area who have developmental or behavioral challenges who require additional support in the learning setting. They also have a transitional program that serves 18 to 23 year olds. One of their PE teachers actually reached out to us after meeting Doug Dreek out at the Earth Day, talks about getting involved with his students on the Pine Hill parcel, doing trail maintenance, essentially becoming the trail stewards of this parcel. This school sits right at the, the corner where the
trail head that doesn't really exist is Speaker 1: In that parking lot. Speaker 2: In that parking lot right on the corner. So if folks recall a couple of last year I came to the commission about one of the schools on Tech Circle advertising like some of Pine Hill was theirs and and Speaker 1: Part of facility, their, their, their playground that Speaker 2: Has all been dealt with. This is a different school facility. But, so they have essentially the students, the teacher got registered as a trail steward, went through the whole orientation process. Doug went out and did a brief training with the students
and with the teacher there. There's no power tool usage from the students. Just to clarify, they're doing hand tool work only, mostly rakes and shovels. And if I knew where I had just put myself too far to the north is the answer. Tech circle is right here. So they operate out of this building right here. So this is where the trail head is and they have essentially reconstructed almost the entire trail, Speaker 1: All the, all the way into Pine, Speaker 2: All the way in with the loop that used to be Oh fabulous. On all of our maps. And they're gonna be doing a little bit more work to stabilize the trail head entrance
in the next couple of weeks. But they're gonna be hosting a, a small sort of trail opening celebration to really, you know, lift up the students who have been putting a lot of work into this. I just wanted to share with the commission the sort of progress they've made. That event's gonna be happening on Friday the 14th at 10:00 AM If anybody would like to join I'll send it out by email so folks don't have to remember right now. But in the discussions with David, it has sort of re-initiated some of my research into public access to that location. There are several easements that cross this property,
some of which mention public roadway access. The question is, I now need to dig into the deeds and figure out specifically which section of easement is being referred to when they say public access roadway. Because if we can formalize public access through this location with all the work that the students have done, I would really love to be able to sort of larger. Speaker 1: So roughly where, where would those easements be? Speaker 2: So actually I was trying to minimize my typing. 'cause this keyboard really Speaker 7: Doesn't work, but Speaker 6: When the students go out and do clearing and things like that, the teacher is with them. Yes.
Speaker 2: The student, they're only doing work with school hours specifically during that once a week PE session that Speaker 6: He has. But, but someone's always with him because I mean power tools are a problem, but other tools Speaker 1: Es a machetes improperly Speaker 6: Handled Speaker 2: Can be a problem. No, the students are always supervised when they're out there and the teacher was speaking at the trails and Forest Stewardship Committee on Monday about this. He said he has never seen his students spend that long off of their phones as they do when they're out. Excellent. Speaker 1: Love that. Speaker 2: Good stuff. Do you know what to zoom in?
Go a little bit further. Apparently there, they're, so you can see how the easements sort of crisscrossed the parcel. So I know some of them are utility easements, but it very specifically mentions in the sort of general deed for the property, a public access roadway. And I think that's this easement, I think it was intended to provide access off of Oak Street. Speaker 1: So actually though, I mean if you look at, look at that little p piece in between those two houses on Oak Street right there. This
Speaker 2: Is us, this is Speaker 1: Compound. We, we own that. Yes. And so, and it was, we purchased it actually. Yeah. Speaker 2: And it's currently there's, you know, visible encroachment where folks, you know, the neighbor's mailboxes are sitting in that area. Speaker 1: And so, so just as kind of just, just quick, you know, background on that. I mean we purchased that probably 10 years ago and there was some folks from the Open Space advisory committee who kind of really drove that. I mean we use conservation funds for it. The problem is that it's like right between two houses and people had talked about on that little lot, you know,
putting a little pullout so someone could park a car there. And I just, you know, that it's, I don't know that personally that that's the vibe that we want the conservation commission. Speaker 2: Yeah. And I think if we can work out an agreement with this landowner, because this parking lot is only used for the school essentially, you know, weekends and evenings, it's empty. Speaker 1: We had conversations for many years with the, with the landowner and, and he wasn't super amenable to it. Speaker 2: I am curious now that we have CPA funding available to us if he would be amenable to us buying
Speaker 1: Access. Sure. And that's, you know, let, let's have those conversations in Speaker 2: The other. Yeah, that's, I was just saying now that the, these stewards have been, you know, doing this work, I've just been sort of reinitiating some of those explorations. That's great. Speaker 1: The other, the other option that remains intriguing to me is going directly off of if you go down Pine Street and you get to the end of Pine Street at Oak Street and you keep driving straight Yes. Into the woods right there. Yep. That, you know, especially now with our wetland crossing technology that we're, we've become quite expert in in pick pond
and in in, in, in, in town for with the, you know, the, the helic screw stuff. It's not out of the realm of possibility that we could build a boardwalk across the wetlands there that could get to the uplands and, and open up access to that whole side of it, which could be really cool. Yeah. It's not the greatest, you know, the Pine Street, Oak Street intersection is not the most awesome from a pedestrian safety perspective. That's far from right now. But it, it could be a pretty cool entryway into that whole parcel if we wanted. But Claire, I mean I'm totally open to the convers,
you know, continuing to kind of push on this and to try to get it. If I could go back in time, I probably wouldn't buy that parcel that we bought before just 'cause the logistics of shoehorning access in between these two houses, residential Speaker 2: Homes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's just the, the vibe just doesn't work for me. Speaker 2: It doesn't make great neighbors, Speaker 1: It doesn't make great neighbors. And I want, I would, I would, would like for us to be not just good stewards but good neighbors. Speaker 2: And the only other general update that I have is that our warrant article to establish a stormwater revolving fund passed on the first night of town meeting as part of the consent agenda.
So at springtown meeting will be authorizing the use of those funds, Speaker 1: The fees that we collect for stormwater permits. Exactly. Speaker 2: Wonderful. So we'll be setting authorized uses as well as a maximum spending limit for the fiscal year Speaker 1: Each year. And those are, those are, that's so the, so the bylaw, Speaker 2: That's just our stormwater filing fees. Right. Speaker 1: But, but we, we would write the regs for that Speaker 2: Essentially. Yes. The commission will be sponsoring the article, you know, to, to note who is the authorized spenders, what it can be spent on
and how much can be spent of it in a fiscal year. So we can essentially say, you know, con com or engineering are the only two folks who can request use of this money and it can only be requested for use on, you know, drainage improvements that include low impact development or green solutions. Got it. Okay. Can only be, we have, essentially it has to be approved by town meeting, but essentially the world is at our feet in terms of setting that limitation. Speaker 1: Okay. But the but the the warrant article though authorize the establishment of the account. Exactly, Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: And now, and now we have to go back to town meeting to get to say here's what we intend to do with that account and get town meetings approved. Exactly. Speaker 2: We wanted to establish the account now so that way the filing fees that we are collecting are going into, of course the right account makes sense as soon as possible, but we won't be able to touch that money until spring when we authorize the use. Speaker 1: Okay, cool. Speaker 2: But we can't touch it now anyway, so. Right. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 2: And that is all I have for folks. Speaker 1: Anything else Alright. Hearing now looks like Chris had to drop off. Yes. Alright. If there's no other things, let's have a motion to adjourn.
Motion to adjourn. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? It's seconded by George. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor. Thank you very much guys. See you next time.