Speaker 1: Welcome everybody. This is, this is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is December 4th. This is our first meeting of December. As we've talked about in prior meetings, ev each meeting in December is gonna be virtual as our, as the Select Board Throne Room gets a new AV system and various other ACC Mall. So we'll be online for this meeting and for the one on, on December 18th, we are the first item in the agenda for us here this evening is we're gonna go to executive session briefly. So if you need to go get a cup of coffee, a glass of wine or whatever, feel free to do so. We'll put you all back into the waiting room.
And then as soon as, as soon as we're done with the executive session, we'll come back. I'll admit everyone back in and we'll get going with the public part of the meeting here. So, with that, would someone on the commission please make a motion for the commission to enter executive session? For the purposes of discussion of a potential real estate transaction, we gotta do a roll call, vote as we always do online. So, Mike? Yes, Jim? Yes. David? Yes. And Matty? Yes as well. Alright, just one other thing before I, before I put all you in the waiting room, Claire,
our agent is on holidays this week. I am running the control room. I will do everything in my power to make sure things stay on track and don't go off the rails. Forgive me if there's a little bit of any glitches or anything like that. So with all that, I'm gonna go ahead and put you guys back into the waiting room. We'll bring you back in as soon as the executive session is, is is over there. So hold on one second and we'll go from there. We're now back in public session for the Conservation Commission again. Today is June, December 4th, and now we'll get into the public hearings.
Part of this, the first item of the agenda is a certificate of compliance for the Natick Center Commuter rail station. Do we have representatives? I see Matt, I think you're part of that team, right? Excellent. Speaker 2: Yes, sir. I believe Jeremy from the MBTA is also here. Hey Jeremy, Speaker 1: Welcome. Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah, coach. So thanks. Thanks for, thanks for having us. This, this evening. I'm Matt Sanchez with the aecom, the engineer of record for the project of the RO station renovations. And as mentioned before, Jeremy Fontain with the MBTA environmental department is also here. We're representing the renovation project at the
Natick Center station and we're very happy to finally be here requesting the certificate of compliance here for the completion of work. As the engineer of record, I can attest that everything was done according to the specifications of the NOI and the two follow-up minor changes. I know I've, I've spoken to Claire many times. If you would like, I can quickly run through what the two minor modifications were and then open it up to general questions to the group here. Speaker 1: And Speaker 3: We also had a, we also had a walkthrough with Claire as well, a few months back. And we walked through the, the site
and showed everything that, all the work that was completed as well. And she was not speaking for her. I'm sure she reiterated it, but she was very satisfied, which she saw on site. Speaker 1: Excellent. And the, the file has a letter from Matt Sanchez, deputy Project Manager, AECOM on behalf of the Mass Bay Trans Transportation Authority in accordance with special condition number four. The order of conditions is respectfully requesting a certificate of compliance for the above rest referenced project. The request attached to the documents, the request, the as-builts filed order of conditions and the minor modifications. I also hereby certify
that all work has been completed in substantial compliance with the notice of intent plans as referenced in the order conditions with minor modifications, revised May 22 and updated July, 2023. Matt, if you could just give us a voiceover of those minor modifications that you referenced. Speaker 2: Absolutely, yep. So due to the project delays, there was an additional temporary platform added. So that was additional work in the buffer zone, but nothing additional within the, you know, land underwater or the stream itself. And there were also some temporary construction crossings with some temporary pipes and steel plates that were installed, you know, over
and within the stream, all of which have been removed. And again, that was the first minor modification, which was the most sub more substantial one. The secondary one was more of a relocation of equipment. So the impacts remain the same within the buffer zone, but it was the generator electrical rooms and maintenance sheds were just located in a different spot. So we wanted to keep everything in order by updating with those minor modifications. Speaker 1: Got it. Great. In Claire's notes, as we can see. So staff has done the final walkthrough. Things are in substantial compliance, the final railing
for the staircase on the west side of Route 27. They're still waiting for that from, from the vendors. I presume that's not really relevant for our jurisdiction here and that Claire indicates that she feels that this project is ready for its certificate of compliance. Any questions from the commission on this at this point? Alright, hearing none, happy to entertain a motion for us to issue a certificate of compliance for the MBTA commuter rail station in native center. So moved. Thank you, David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion folks? Any last questions? Hearing none. All those in favor, please, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff?
Yes. David? Yes. And Matty Yes as well. So you got your CSC folks. Thank you. This has been quite a journey. Few, few little guns and whistles to kind of up and all that stuff with the railing and things like that. But it looks great. What a great amenity for the town. Thanks for all your support and efforts in this project and look forward to working with you again. Speaker 2: Likewise with you guys. We're, we're happy to get, get this over the finish line. Speaker 1: Excellent. Thanks guys. Do you have a Speaker 3: Matt? I was wondering if I could have one comment. Oh, please could, if Matt, if Matt Sanchez sends you his address, do you mind sending him the COC?
We just don't have, I don't have the, I can't fill out checks. The t it's weird just for the Got it. The recording. Yeah, Speaker 2: I've coordinated with Claire on that item, but one, once it's time to do that, we'll, we'll work through AECOM on that. Speaker 1: Super. Excellent. Thanks gentlemen. Appreciate your time. Thank Speaker 2: You everyone. Speaker 1: You too. Next item, the on the agenda is a request for determination of applicability for 19 Crescent Street. So let me go ahead. As I mentioned before, guys, I am driving the control panel here, so sorry if it's gonna take a second for me to call everything up. Let me go ahead and open this.
So, in accordance to the Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on request for determination of applicability filed by Brian Sarah for property located at 19 Crescent Street Map 33 lot 29 A. The proposal is for the construction of a 15 by 15 post and beam shed on supports with electricity and propane heating. So first we have Brian on the call. Brian, I see you sit sitting right there. Excellent. Welcome. Brian, let me go ahead and just open up some Speaker 4: Sorry, sorry about that. I was up mute.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no worries. So lemme just go ahead and just share my screen and just open up these, these pictures. Again, Claire is far more fluent at this than I am on a regular basis. That's why one of the many things she, she does for us. So here is the, this is the, the property that we have here. This is the existing conditions there. Let me, I presume, Brian, that this is what the kind of thing that you're proposing to build, is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yeah, post a post and beam, we've been calling it a shed because it's my wife and I wanna build a a, we, we call it a, we shed to, to, to stare at the lake as, as I hopefully go into retirement soon. The, the deck around it wouldn't be that big, but the idea would be to build a simple post and beam shed on, on tubes, on, on pilings. Two of the walls would be wood, and then you, the, the, the walls with the view would be
glass somewhat like this and have it be, have it be a pitch roof with a little bit of an overhang like this. Okay. It's just, that's just a picture I snapped from Pinterest. Speaker 1: Okay. And then this is the, this is your property. Let me just, lemme get it and see if I can rotate it. All right. I'll leave it like that for right now. So the shed from the property, I don't know if you can see my cursor. Yep. So it's, you know, the shed would be over here off the corner of the existing, the existing house, basically speaking,
it would look something like this. So these would be essentially sauna tubes and a wooden platform. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Correct. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. And then glass doors here. What, what I don't see here is the, what I wanna just understand is the resource area that we're, that we're concerned with as, as part of this. So where are we? I mean, so so you're looking out at the lake, correct? Speaker 4: Yeah. So the way this, the way it is on the, the screen right now, the, the lake is to everyone's right.
Speaker 1: Okay. Down in this area. Speaker 4: Yeah. Off to the, off to the right. That's right. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: Constituent lake. Yeah. Speaker 1: What's the, what's the slope of the yard currently? Is it relatively flat? Is it on a steep angle of any sort? What's the topography Speaker 4: Like? It's ver it's, it's very flat. There's a right off the garage is, which is where we're hoping to put the, the outbuilding, the, the, the we shed there. There's a little bit of a decline from the garage to
where the, the right edge as we look at it, the, the shed would be. Yep. After that it gets very flat. There's, there's a bit of a grade change to the lake, but not much at all. It's, it's de minimus. Speaker 1: Okay. And again, the, the, the only foundational elements would be the sauna tubes. How many sauna tubes are you imagining? I mean, this, this picture here shows looks like nine, Speaker 4: Yeah. Nine 15 by 15. It's, I hasn't been engineered. I, I think that would be plenty. But like,
this was my, my crew drawing. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. And then would you, would you be, would you be digging those yourselves or would the installers be doing that? Speaker 4: I would, I wouldn't, we would hire somebody to put the, the tubes in. Speaker 1: It sounds like a smart Speaker 4: Yeah. Smart plan. It would be very smart. Speaker 1: Okay. And then is, is this a kit or is this stick built? Is this Speaker 4: I I'm not, I'm not sure yet. I'm pretty sure we would hire a post and beam builder. I've, I've found one in Connecticut, there's a couple in Maine
where they would literally build the, you know, the post and beam structure. And there there's companies that will do the whole thing and, and they literally build it offsite and come and, you know, would put it on the tubes and construct it. And then, you know, the inside we would just outfit with wood. We would, we would use, there's, there's some of the companies that have insulated panels that go right in between, you know, right in between the, the post and beam. And it's, you know, it's pretty simple. The idea would be to have this hip group like this,
we'd probably do a little bit of a trance room or trance window on the, on the front piece of it. And then the idea is that we have Anderson sliders sitting right next to where I'm sitting right now. That you would, we would do, we would like to have an accordion, you know, I'd be able to open it right up, but we're not sure. I, I think that becomes a lot more expensive. I, my design was basically taking two Anderson sliding windows on, on, on the corner. It shows in the other drawing where you, you would have two
and they would fit perfectly in between the, the, the post and beam Speaker 1: Is the, the area where it's going. Is that currently lawn? Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: Just to orient people. So here's the, this shows some topography here, some distances. So it looks like for the distance from the, you know, we're pro, we're probably just within a hundred feet, you know, or just on the edge of that a hundred feet from the edge of the lake. Does that sound about right, Brian? Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that sounds about right.
And it reminds me too, when I, we bought the property, there was a house here and it was a non-conforming pre-existing lot. So we beat, we built on that, that exact same existing foundation for, but for a little tiny bump out in the kitchen, which I got a, a variance for. And when, when we, there was also a, there was a shed that was in this general area here, which we had the, the shed removed too. There wa there was a shed here when,
when we bought the property and had the existing house, which was in terrible shape raised. And, and we built this new house on the same footprint of the existing foundation. I think it was like eight, eight years ago. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I remember that, that, that, that project coming in front of us commission for the, just if you're not familiar, Crescent Street is one of the, it's kind of a u-shaped street off of, off of Speed street, kind of near, near JJ Lane down there. Any, any questions from the commission on this? Speaker 5: Yeah, it, it seems like it's, it's pretty big.
I is this, is there a building permit too that you have to get through the town? Speaker 4: I'm, I'm not sure we're doing all of this on our own. We haven't gotten any, I don't, I don't think there is, but Speaker 5: Yeah, I I think you might want to check that. 'cause you know, they, they do have rules on sheds and the size of the shed if you're gonna use that term. And 15 by 15 is pretty big. Yeah. That's over 200, right? Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. What is 15 by 15? Speaker 1: 2, 2 2 5, 2 Speaker 4: Shed shed's. Probably a bit of a misnomer. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. We
Speaker 5: Just, and, and I guess Claire had some questions about like, with the propane, you know, how are you, how are you heating this, this shed, like, is there another propane tank going in or Speaker 4: There is a, there is a propane if the this, this document that we're looking at, the propane is outside the house outside that number 17 over there, Speaker 1: Over on the top side of the house on, on the north side kind of. Speaker 4: That's right. That's right. And we would, we would just have a, a, a propane tank outside of the,
the outbuilding that would service this. We, it would be, it would be a ridiculous run to, to get it from the existing propane. It's a, it's a rather large propane tank that's in the ground too by a, a by 17 over there. Speaker 1: But it's not something though where you'd need to be digging. So you're saying that you would have a second propane tank installed on the, on the building right next to the building, but you wouldn't be digging a trench along the back of your house? Speaker 4: That's right. Speaker 1: To, to run a line. Speaker 4: That's right. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. That's good. Electrical connections. Where would those would come from that? From a, a panel in the house probably, or would you have a
Speaker 4: Yeah, separate, Speaker 1: Separate line. Speaker 4: The, the garage is where the 19 is, where, I'm not sure if there's enough. I don't think there's gonna be enough in the garage. So we would where the, there's two panels in the basement. Again, it's the basement, it run on runs underneath the whole thing. But the two panels are over in the 17th section of the house. But we could run one, we could go outside and run it under a, there's a, a raised deck along the back of the house and we could run it right under there within a few feet
of the, of the proposed outbuilding. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: Or, or we could run it, we could probably run it inside the house to, in the garage in, I mean, in, in the basement over to that, the, the garage area. And then we'd have to do a little bit of trenching to, but the idea would be to run it underground versus overhead. Sure. If we did that, if we did that, Speaker 1: The, the, the point of the conversation is that if there's going to be disturbance from trenching, no matter how minor, we just want to have it documented.
And so, you know, you know, don't want a large trench opened up. I mean, for electrical line. It's quite minor obviously, but if, but if you get clarity on that, if you could provide that for the, for the, for the files, just so we know what to expect. Speaker 4: Yeah, it would, it would, there would, we would definitely do it underground and it would, the, the trenching would be minor. It would be, you know, somewhere between 10. My guess would be 10 to 10 to 12 feet of trenching. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions from the commission on this?
Remember this is a request for determination of applicability here. Other questions or concerns? Speaker 6: No, no concerns on my end. I think it's just around, you know, a couple of things. You know, project scope. Will there be a need to remove any trees? Speaker 4: No. Speaker 6: Is the propane tank that's pro being proposed, is it going to be buried or is it gonna be on the side of the building? Speaker 4: It'd be above ground. It'd be above ground. I wouldn't bury it. Speaker 6: Okay. And then just, I think the only thing that Claire and and I would agree with would be just around
establishing some sort of indication or process for erosion control, even though it's probably limited, but you know, the trenching and depending if it's heel Speaker 4: Erosion control is Speaker 6: Screws or piers, Speaker 4: Like erosion control. Is that like during construction where they do the, Speaker 1: The fabric fence? Speaker 4: Yeah. During the, during the project. Yeah. Right. Speaker 1: Faab fabric fence. And so, so that, that would be a condition Brian under, under kind of anything is just surrounding the work area. That would be kind of, you know, we call it the limital work. Yeah. And so everything happens within that.
And so just looking at this, this picture here, you know, something that kind of goes, you know, probably from the corner of the patio there and just kind of wraps around, you know, just, just, just in case if there's a rainstorm while the sauna tubes are going in, in, and it's, you know, we just don't want stuff washing down towards the lake. Yeah. And that's just really just, it buttons it up and makes it secure in that respect so that that will be a condition under any circumstance. Speaker 4: Yep. Speaker 1: And Claire, Claire can provide details of how to do that properly.
I mean, if you have a company coming in who's building it, they will, they almost certainly would know what's, what's required there. But that'll be a condition. Okay. Any other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 5: And, and I will, you have a drawing that's gonna show the, the a hundred foot buffer, or Speaker 1: We have the, oops, I'm going to the wrong, wrong screen here. This, this shows the a hundred foot buffer here. And I presume, Brian, that this gray box here is the presume, is that actually the proposed location of the shed? I mean, it looks kind of conveniently, like it could be. Speaker 4: That might have been the old shed. That
Speaker 1: Might have been the old shed. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 6: Who, who I did a, I did a quick, I just did a quick calculation based upon this drawing of northeast corner of that proposed building or outbuilding. And the, the bank of, of the, of the lake, it's, it's about 80 feet or seven. It's 79.01. But you know, this is a desktop measurement, but so it's about 80 feet from the corner of that building to the lake.
Speaker 1: That, so that's, that's kind of consistent with what this shows Mike. Right? I mean, if you, with where the green line is, the a hundred foot, the a hundred foot buffer zone. So if the, if the box is right there, then we're looking at about 80 feet like this. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. And so the idea then Brian would be having the, the erosion control kind of just, just wrap around it, just again, if there's a big rainstorm or anything while dirt wall construction is happening. Yeah. Okay. Other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 5: Again, just, just to comment, you,
I think you definitely should go take a look at that, the town requirements there on it, because it, it also, it, it says it's supposed to be 10 feet. If it's that big, it's supposed to be 10 feet from the existing dwelling. Now that's not much difference if it's another three feet out towards the lake. Speaker 1: Yeah. Just, just make sure you're, you're building department permits are in order for this, Brian. Speaker 4: Okay. And, and we would work with Claire on that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Claire can point you in the right direction on that. The building inspector. The building inspector would be the, the, you know, so it's, it's the same in town hall.
If you go to the community development office on up on the second floor, you just, just ask for someone from the building department and they can just walk you through what you, you just describe what you're doing, show 'em this stuff, and they can tell you what the requirements from the building permit side of things would be. Speaker 4: Okay. So this is a, this is a totally, this applicability that we're talking about is a totally separate thing. This is just has to do with con conservation. Speaker 1: Exactly. Our jurisdiction. Speaker 4: Then there's a, the building de department will, will be looking at the, out the outbuilding itself Speaker 1: Exactly. Speaker 4: To make sure it, okay. Speaker 1: You know, from our,
from our perspective, this, this picture we're looking at right here, which shows which shows the footprint and the distances from the resource area. Just, you know, those kinds of things. That's what matters to us. Oh, okay. But things like the propane connections and how the electrical is done and all that stuff, that's all building department. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 1: And they can, they can tell you, you know, to Jim's point, they can tell you what size, what are the size thresholds for you to need a permit from them, you know, and whether there's any process that you need to do for, from those things, from the conservation perspective,
you're doing the right thing and you're asking the right questions. And that's the guidance we can give you here. Speaker 4: Yeah. And that's what we, we thought, you know, we thought we'd, you know, th this was be because of the where the lake is. We thought this was kind of the threshold issue. So we would, we would do, we would talk about this first before we went to the building. Right. Speaker 7: Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: Other, other questions for, for Brian from us? All right. Hearing none. So this is a request for determination of applicability. So why don't, would someone make a motion to close and then we'll issue a determination on the project and we'll explain what that means in a second, Brian.
So if that, if that's a pleasure of the board, would someone make a motion to close the public hearing on this Speaker 7: Motion to close? Speaker 1: Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded? Speaker 7: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you David. Any further discussion on that folks? All is in favor. Mike? Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 1: Jim? Speaker 7: Yes. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Speaker 1: That's a yes as well. Determination. This, this would be a negative three determination if that's where I think the conversation has gone. Brian, for you, a negative three determination means that first the project is in our jurisdiction and so we're kind of claiming, claiming that jurisdiction. But it's also the negative three Part of it is saying
that we don't believe that if that's what the commission votes for, that we don't believe that the project that's being proposed would result in any negative impact on the resource areas that are under our jurisdiction. So let someone make a motion to issue a negative three determination on this. Speaker 7: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you David. Is that seconded? Speaker 7: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor, Mike? Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 1: Jim? Speaker 7: Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Speaker 1: Matty? Yes. So Brian, from the conservation perspective, you've got what you need. Talk to the building department, make sure you're squared away with them.
If anything changes in terms of distances. If, if the building inspector says you got, it's gotta be 12 feet, which would push the project closer to the wetlands, I mean to the, to the lake. You know, make sure Claire knows. Just let her know what the, what the final plans look like and she'll tell you it's possible. We may need to have another conversation. The negative three determination. You know, it seems to be pretty solid in that, you know, it's a pretty straightforward project, but should she can guide you through the process from here on out. But right now for this plan that you've presented, you've got what you need from the con con.
Speaker 4: Okay. Very good. Very good. Thank you gentlemen. Really appreciate your Speaker 1: Time. Alright, thanks Brian. Appreciate your time. Speaker 4: All right. Alright, Speaker 1: Let's, let's move on. Speaker 4: So I I can, I can leave right? I can just, Speaker 1: That's it. Your entertainment tonight. Alright, next item on the agenda as I've got a hundred Elliot Street. Do we have any representatives of a hundred Elliot Street Pier in the room this evening? Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Rob Truax, Truax Engineering group. Hey Speaker 1: Rob, how are Speaker 8: You? Good, how you doing? Speaker 1: Doing, doing good, thanks. Let me just go ahead and, you know, navigate through all the, all the files and stuff and sorry if it's a little clunky here this
evening, but we're, we're, we're figuring it out. So this is a hundred Elliott Street, request for determination of applicability. Also, let me go ahead and open this. So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Nats local Wetlands by Article 79, the NA Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Scott Septic representing Anne Geisler for property located at a hundred Elliot Street Map 63 lot 38. The proposal is to abandon the existing onsite septic system and construct a new pump box to connect to town sewer. Alright, it's Tour X. Do you wanna go ahead and, and walk us through what, what the plan is?
I can call up some of the pictures if that's helpful. Whatever works for you. Speaker 8: If you wanna pull the plan up or I can pull the plan up. Either one. Speaker 1: Yeah, why don't I go ahead and do that. So let's just see what we got here. Share my screen. All right. This the right one here, Rob? Speaker 8: Yep, that's it. All Speaker 1: Right, go ahead. Speaker 8: So there's a, in the back of the house, there's an existing cesspool that's failed. So they just sold this house and you know, they gotta put in a new system. They, they're not tied into sewer. There's currently sewer at the top of the driveway, there's a sewer manhole and they have a stub that comes in, goes over
to the side of the driveway. Yeah, right in that area there. So we're looking to put in a new system or a pump system to pump up to the street and connect into that. So we're gonna put in a 2000 gallon tank right in the backyard right there. We're gonna bury that old cesspool hook up there and then we're gonna pump up the hill. So Speaker 1: The existing septic is, is existing septic is right here? Speaker 8: Yeah, it's in that, it's in that. Speaker 1: And that'll be, the idea is that that would be, that would be crushed in place, filled with gravel, you know, pumped out, crushed in place, filled in.
And then there would be a new tank here that would then go up the side and Speaker 8: Then connect. Right. Speaker 1: And connect into town sewer. Speaker 8: Yeah, so we we're going up that route that we picked, we were gonna go up the driveway, but the only problem was that stub comes off into the, off the driveway into that side of the yard a little bit over Speaker 1: Here. Speaker 8: Yeah. So it's about five feet off those cobble stones. And if we went up the driveway, we have to cut through the bushes and then get back to an angle that we can connect into it. We just couldn't, you know, the angle of it makes it difficult.
We couldn't run all the way up to the driveway and just grab it. We'd have to get back over into the front area and then come back in on a 45. We wouldn't wanna put a reverse angle in the pipe trying to put that force main into there. So I did walk it and I talked to Rob Scott, he's the installer. And it seemed like if we tucked right up tight to the front of that garage, cut the pavement right there, and then on the other side of that garage, it's like an old garden area fenced in and we were just run right through that garden, pull the fence out and then we don't have to take any trees down to get up into that stub. Speaker 1: Okay. Any, I was just gonna, I think you just said this,
lemme just be clear, any tree removal required as, as part of this proposal here? Speaker 8: No, no, we don't need to. Okay. You know the tank's going in a lawn area. That's all lawn. We're gonna go around that eight inch maple that's in the garden area. And then Speaker 1: This one here. Speaker 8: Yeah, we'll save that. Okay. That's a pretty nice tree that they have in their backyard. So we're gonna just go around that area. Speaker 1: So you've got erosion control outlined here. Speaker 8: Yep. Speaker 1: Which is all good.
You've got all the board of health documentation that you need currently for, Speaker 8: He's not signed off yet. I just submitted a revised plan to him beginning of the week. I upped the tank from 1500 to 2000 gallons. Apparently there's a lot more bedrooms in the house than I thought. Okay. It seems to be about seven bedrooms in that house. Geez. Yeah. So we wanna provide, he wanted, we provide, we have to provide 24 hour storage in the pump chamber above the second pump once it goes on. Okay. I need to get over a thousand gallons above the pump turning off.
So I had to get a bigger tank in there, that's all. Speaker 1: So you'd be bringing in a backhoe to do the majority of the digging? That's the Yes. The process there. Speaker 8: Yeah. They'll bring in probably a small rubber track they'll saw, cut the driveway and they'll patch it back. They'll, they'll set the tank in one day. They'll get the guy, they'll cut that line, they'll fill in that cesspool. I mean usually this is a couple day, maybe three day job. Okay. One day leave it open so we can go back out and do an as-built of it and then they'll backfill it the next day. Yep. Clean it up. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 8: You know, it is that time of year though,
they probably won't be able to get grass down, so they'll have to put some like hay mulch or something to hold that for the winter. Speaker 1: Okay. The idea is to get this done now? Speaker 8: Yeah. They're looking to get it done. It's, it's in failure and the new people are in the house. Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Questions from the commissioner on this. It's a dual pump system, right? Yeah. Speaker 8: Right. Yes. Yeah, Natick requires two pumps. Speaker 1: Okay, cool. Good. Other questions? Jeff? David, Mike? No. Alright. Hearing on this is a request for determination of applicability. We vote to close. This is both wetlands, blood, puss, also riverfront area.
So we, we, so we have the a hundred foot setback, it is buffer zone, it's also riverfront area. So we would need to do both a negative two and a negative three determination for this. With that, if there's no further questions from the commission, would someone make a motion to close the public hearing on this motion? I think I heard Jeff make a motion to close if that's right. And then I think it was Dave and Jim. Oh, sorry. All right David, I'll take David's motion and then Jim, can I take you as a second on that? Sure. Yep. All right. Any further discussion questions
for the applicant on this hearing on those in favor of closing the public hearing? Jim? Yes. David. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Michael? Yes. Matt? Yes as well. Motion to make a, to issue a negative two and a negative three determination on this please. Someone making that motion. So moved. Thank you Michael. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion? Those in favor, Michael? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Matty? Yes. Alright.
Rob, you got what you need from us? Let us know if anything changes. Claire will be back in the office next week and if you, she'll get the documentation to you. It's not gonna go out tomorrow, but that's fine. But she, she'll be around off her holidays next week. So thanks for, thanks for hanging out, thanks for putting up with the delay and let us know if you have any questions. Speaker 8: No problem. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Alright, Speaker 1: Take care. Alright, next item on the agendas. I've got a notice of intent for six Ambler Court. Do we have a representative of six Ambler Court here on the call? Yes. Peter LaVoy with DNL Design Group. Hey Peter, how are you? Not too bad. Good. Let me go ahead and just call up the,
the right documents here. So much easier when Claire does this. All right. So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and nas local local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NA Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Peter LaVoy for DNL Design Group representing Marcelo Alvis of New Generation custom homes for property located at six Ambler Court Map 51 lot 43 B. The proposal is to demolish the existing single family home and construct a new single family home with associated site features. So, Peter, let me go ahead and just, just open up the, where did my documents go
and get the right, oh, I lost all my screens. I'm getting there. Six Ambler court. And then I'll go ahead and just open up the, the site plans here, plan set for the NOI and then share my screen. Getting there guys. All right, I think we're, I think we're good to go. So Peter, if you could just kind of walk us through existing conditions. We can look at this, this map over here and then, oops. All right. We'll go up here in the upper left corner.
So why don't you talk us through the site and what you got in in mind. Speaker 9: Okay. So, so as you can see, the existing lot is roughly 29,000 square feet in size. It has a, an a structure up close to the front of the lot or the west of the lot. That's, that's the main structure there. Then it has an existing driveway that wraps around rate adjacent to the wetland and comes up to the garage in the back. So that whole back area is pavement.
And there's a, a large portion which is gravel to the left. So you have that garage with the patio in the back, that over, I don't know, it's like a porch or car porch. And then you have a shed with another covered thing. So the total, the total square footage of all the structures comes out to roughly 2000 square feet. And then all the impervious area for the driveway, the walkways in that gravel area come out
to like 4,800 square feet. So what we wanna do is we wanna remove all the structures, remove all the pavement, and whatever we don't use for the house in the drive, the new driveway will be loomed and seated. So if you wanna go to the next sheet, go go to the, go to the next one. Keep going. One more. So this is my grading plan. So you can see the, the new structure was pushed away from the wetlands. So we're outside, we're roughly 47 feet from the,
the wetlands to the south. The existing structure was only 20 feet to the wetlands. So we moved the structure towards the back left corner or north so we could meet that 40 foot no building. I also revised the driveway to, this looks like it's the, oh this is the older plan. This, Speaker 1: This is the older one. 'cause it was tucked up closer this way. Right, Speaker 9: Right, right. So, so the new driveway is outside of the 25 foot no disturb.
So the driveway comes up, it runs along that 25 foot no disturb and then curves into the front of the house. It's a front entry house. So the, Speaker 1: Let me just see, lemme just hold on one second Peter. Lemme just see if I've got a revised if I was calling up the, the wrong. Speaker 9: That's it right there. Got it. That that's the set. Yep. So if you wanna zoom up, go one, keep going. One more. Okay. So, so the house stayed the same. The driveway was relocated outside of the 25 foot no disturb.
So the, the new house is roughly 3,700 square feet and it, like I said, it's 47 feet from the wetlands. The driveway is only in the impervious area for the driveway and the walkways are only 800 square feet. So we're reducing the, the total impervious area on the lot. And then what I'm taking, what I'm doing is I'm taking the roof run off and collecting it and putting it into the recharge in the grass area to the southeast. So that whole roof is gonna go into that recharge area
in the back, which is recharge one. And then the proposed driveway, because the lot slopes from north to south. I'm putting a bituminous berm on the south side of the driveway to stop the runoff to go directly into the wetlands. And I'm also putting a catch basin in the driveway with a four foot sump. So that runoff, which is small, but I wanted to collect that driveway and not let it go directly into the wetlands.
So that catch basin will collect it. And now there's an another catch basin in the grass area area just because I have an angle point and I felt I would put another catch basin in instead of a drain manhole. And then I put it into this other recharge area that's recharge area too, which is adjacent to the wetland area. That area's all been disturbed. We're not removing any trees at all. All the work is being done in grass. There is one small tree that's being removed,
which is in the center of the lie. It's a six inch dogwood. That's just the rate in that location to go, you know, just because of the downspout drainage system, it goes into that recharge area. That's the only tree that's being removed for this project. And also because this area is already disturbed that runs along the, the wetland line. We are restoring roughly 651 feet up near the front of the driveway where that driveway went.
Around the structure there is a 651 square foot of restoration area in that area because now that the driveway was moved outside of the 25 foot, we can restore that area. And my client wanted to, to, to do that. The proposed house is gonna use the existing water service that's there. We're just gonna cut the old water service and then tie the new house into the water service
that's there sewer, there is an existing pump chamber that is located on the, on the lot. It's in very good condition. So we're going to cut, cut the existing sewer connection to that pump chamber and then we're gonna tie the new structure into that pump chamber. And then, so we're not gonna disturb the existing force main or the existing pump chamber. That would impact, you know, I feel that it would have more impact on the wetlands. So that's why we're keeping that where it is.
I do show that we're, we're doing waddles and sill fence around the entire site and that's, that's basically it. And if anyone had questions, it is a lot that's going on, but I just wanted to Speaker 1: Is the, is the house there currently occupied? Speaker 9: To the best of my knowledge, yes. And it is a two family, not a single. There is, it is, it is a two family and we're converting it and I mean we're removing it and then cre creating a single family house. Speaker 1: Okay. So the existing pump
station is this right here? Speaker 9: That is correct. Yep. Speaker 1: And that, and that goes out to Ambler Court out to South Main Street, right? Yes, Speaker 9: Yes. Yep. Speaker 1: And that, that'll stay. We've got recharge here and here. This is the dogwood to be removed. Driveway has been pulled out of the 25 foot no disturb stockpile area here. We've got a couple of temporary basins. And that's just for managing flow Speaker 9: During construction? Speaker 1: During construction, Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Any fill being brought on site?
Speaker 9: There is being, there is fill for the driveway because the, the lot goes up and we really can't cut into the lot too much because there's ledge in the back. So that's why we decided to fill, fill the front yard where the existing house was. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Claire had a few, there was a few staff questions there in the notes guys. Yeah. Orientation of the house. Why is, you know, 'cause in theory you could pull the garage onto the other side and Peter, your response is basically
'cause of slopes down to the, you know, to the of neighboring site. Is that, is that right? Speaker 9: That is correct. As you can see, there's an existing retaining wall on, on the left side right there. And the driveway is, is lower in that location. It, it kind, it's kind of going up, but this lot is, is a little bit higher over there. So by putting the driveway over there, we would have to impact the neighbor to the west, you know, with his drive. And, and you can see the driveway is right there on the
property line and that retaining wall is right on the property line. So any, any disturbance to that retaining wall would affect the neighbor. So that's why we kept the driveway on the right side. And then the driveway would be very steep going into the house. So by doing it this way, I can go, I can run the driveway parallel and kind of come up and I have a longer run. So the driveway is not as steep for, for the people who purchased the house. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 9: And like I told Claire
that she had questions about protecting that retaining wall. So we would put, we would put snow fence around the front of it to protect it. And then any trenching for utilities would be, I, I showed a distance of 4.7 feet from that retaining wall. And if, if we, if we did or if we touched that retaining wall at all, I would let Claire know what was going on at all times if things changed. Speaker 10: Okay. You know, Claire was concerned about the maple.
Yeah. Do you think you could, I don't know, fence off the root ball to keep the equipment off the ground there? Or were you Yes. Speaker 9: Yep. I did, I did show, I did show the silt fence around the tree. That's what that dock line is. Speaker 1: Around the drip. Around the drip Speaker 9: Line. Yep. Around the drip line. Yes. Speaker 1: Mike, what's your, I mean, what's your thoughts about that, Mike? I mean, would, would fencing around the drip line, if that's, if that's respected, would that, would that be potentially sufficient to protect the tree? Speaker 6: Yeah, you know, I I I trust, I trust the applicant and I trust Claire.
And, and you know, with with that I, you know, it's, it's difficult to know without seeing the condition of the tree and, and past land disturbance around that roof system. 'cause obviously that tree's been there before the previous house was even built. So, you know, without having great eyes on what's going on in that tree's life, you know, I I'd say what's what's being proposed is adequate, you know, I guess, you know, where my head goes is just a, you know, I'm still trying to wrap my head
around this temporary basin by the driveway and just because of the location being so close it, you know, is there, I mean, is it necessary? Is it, or is, you know, I'm not obviously an expert in that realm, but is there a better location for that, seeing that it's only temporary and could you get away with just really enforced erosion control or So yeah, I'm just thinking, digging a basin there, you know, inches away from that wetland
Speaker 1: And on the side of a, on the side of a slope. Speaker 9: I I can, I can, can I respond to that? Of course, please. I don't, I don't think, I don't think I would be digging into that area. I, I would be if that, if that basin was needed. 'cause these are temporary basins and if, I don't think that they would be constructed only if there they were needed. So I wanted to show, if we needed temporary basins, this is where I would put 'em. But we would put the erosion control, you know, and, and that would be enforced at all times.
'cause that that temporary basin would go away once that driveway has been graded. And then we could, we could stabilize the side of that as soon as possible once that, that driveway was graded to the proposed grade. And then I, and then as soon as that driveway would be paved, you know, I think that the catch basin would be put in and then there, there wouldn't be a lot of runoff in the front of that house. I don't, I really don't think so. But that was, I was just trying to show clear if I needed a basin, that's probably,
that is the lowest point of the lot on, on that side of the, on that side of the lot. So I wanted to show that we could do a small depression there, but we would fill it and not dig it. It wouldn't be DA dug, we wouldn't have to dig into the ground. Speaker 1: But the idea Peter would be, I mean there would be pretty robust erosion control all the way around the perimeter of this. Speaker 9: Right. You could even make a condition saying that you wanted maybe like a double row of, of waddles in that one location because it is so close to the wetland line.
You know what I mean? I I wouldn't have any issues. I could add another row if you wanted to do a double row. Yeah. Speaker 1: What I'd suggest is that, you know, the is, you know, I I would suggest a, you know, silt silt fence along with, with a sock around the edge. But then for once that's installed, you know, for Claire to come out and inspect it and just, and if she may, you know, she may want a second row, but start, you know, start with with a sock and a silt fence, you know, really solidly installed.
Yep. And then, and then we can have Claire take a look at it and if that's sufficient, that's sufficient. Okay. And then, but, but if we need more, we need more. Where, where is the, where is the, the catch basin in the middle of the yard, Peter? Speaker 9: Well it, it's, if you look right near the underground basin, there's a little square right above it next to there. Right here. Yeah, that's it right there. It's 'cause I, I couldn't go directly into the, I couldn't go directly into that recharge area, so I decided to, you know, put another structure there to turn the angle
so it's easier to get in. And then instead of doing a drain manhole, which wouldn't collect any runoff, I put a, I just decided to do another catch basin so it would collect any runoff that, you know, came from that area. I don't think it's really gonna catch too much, but I needed to turn the pipe. Speaker 1: Right. Okay. Speaker 9: Okay. I was just trying to keep that underground basin away from the structure, so that's why I didn't move the structure up towards, toward, towards the, the, the building.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Understood. Okay. Other, other questions guys? Speaker 10: I think Claire was looking for some TSS calculations of her last point on Yeah, Speaker 1: Did, did, did Claire provide that or ask that question of you, Peter, on for the, for the, for the catch basins to have TSS calculations there. I Speaker 9: I, I did supply that to her so we Yeah, they're in the box. They're in the box. Speaker 1: They're in the box. Yeah. Good, good. Speaker 9: I think we come out may, I think it might be 85% TSS removal. Okay. Speaker 1: And then you also, is this here, is this the detail
of the restoration area that you were, that you were talking about next? That that goes here basically? Speaker 9: Yes. Yep. And you have the plants and the sizes right underneath it. Speaker 1: Okay. So four red maples, highbush, blue beret, spice bush. Okay. All right. Yeah, it's a really interesting little nook of town back in there. You know that back at the end of Ambler Court. It's an interesting little corner. We did a lot of work with Ben Stevens when he was doing Hunter's Lane up there. All right. Any, any further questions from the commission on this? Do we wanna go take a look at it? What do you guys think?
Or do you think this is, do we have a sufficient enough picture to move forward as needed? What do you guys think? Speaker 6: I'm good. I'm good, Speaker 1: Mike. Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm, I'll go along to get along Speaker 1: That the first time you ever said that in your whole life, possibly, Speaker 6: Possibly trying to be it in the holiday spirit. Oh, Speaker 1: That, that's what it is. That's what it's, yeah, I think I'm good too. This looks, you know, Peter, you've provided all the information that's been asked for. So if you could, what I suggest we do Peter
here, is that we can vote to close this at this point in time and then when, what, what I, what I told, told Claire is that she'll then provide a, an order, a draft order of conditions that we'd voted our next meeting. Okay. And then be good to go there, folks. Are there any special conditions that you can think of that we need at this, at this point in time? I'm gonna, I kind of think our standard order or conditions here, I'd wanna put our survival clause in for the exist for the 24 inch maple. If that gets dinged, we'll need to do a replacement somewhere on site, Peter.
Speaker 9: Right? I think Claire will will be on, on that tree. Speaker 1: See? I think so too. Yeah. So we got that, you know, the temporary basins, I, what I'm hearing from you and I agree is that those would be kind of, you know, put in place on an as needed basis, but we start with the erosion control itself. Correct. Just good, solid, robust erosion control would be good. Besides that, I think, you know, I, I I think we've got what we need. So any, any last questions or comments, guys? Hearing none. Someone wanna, wanna make a motion to close the public hearing on this?
So moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion guys? All in favor? Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David, Matty? Yes as well. All right, so Peter, we gotta close. What we'll do is we'll work with Claire to get an order of conditions drafted up. We'll talk about it and vote it at our next meeting on the 18th. Okay. But I think we have what we need for now, man. Okay. Thank you very much. Excellent. All right, thank you. Appreciate your time. Okay. Have a good night. All right, take care. All right.
Somehow we're staggering through this. So that's it for the public hearings. Last thing we got on the, on the, on the agenda is a memo that I wanna share with you. And you guys have probably seen this or looked at it. We were asked by the select board to provide a commentary, a commentary, a comment memo to the select board about our thoughts on Johnson School. And so what I wanna do is just share the draft of that. You've probably seen it and so let's, let's talk this through. Be and just, you know, read it. Let's read it through and ask if this captures our
sentiments around issues, bullet points that we would like, the school, the select board, and the process that the select board is running to consider as part of the the Johnson you know, the, the, the plan for the Johnson school. And so, so we've discussed this, you know, discussed it. Johnson School falls in areas in Natick defined as heat islands or, or dealing with the effect of extreme heat. Maintaining open space and tree canopy is critical. The site experiences existing problems with surface runoff and flooding during large range events,
especially in the baseball field area during large storm events because of the topography of the site runoff from the site and surrounding impervious areas drained to the low areas of the baseball field. Higher groundwater in this area, on average less than five feet below the surface means this runoff is not able to infiltrate as quickly as other locations in town re resulting in puddling. Therefore, decreasing or maintaining the ex existing limits of impervious areas should be a priority for this site paired with the implementation of nature based or low impact storm water management to ensure the neighborhood is not inversely adversely impacted by runoff related flooding also.
So, okay, so, so the, the bullet point is that we maintain or decrease impervious area on the site. The recreational resources provided are critical for the neighborhoods to the west of Route 27. Active recreation spaces in this natick are not subject to the high school's programming are limited community open space is very important and improves to, to preserve and improve upon. As noted in goals one and two of the 20 of the open space and recreation plan. Overall the commission would support future uses of the site, which minimizes increases.
I would, you know, maybe re reword that to say minimized or decrease impervious, impervious area on site. This is an important one and it's one I wanna make sure we're all aligned on. If we're gonna put this in front of the select board that we use the existing building footprint without expansion, I, I'd probably bake that out a little bit further and just say that any proposed use should not increase the build, you know, if they decide to tear down the building, for example. And it's, for me personally, it's from a conservation perspective, I've got my personal opinions on it. I mean, I'd like to see the existing building preserved if
possible 'cause it's just a cool historical structure, but at a minimum, you know, don't increase the amount of area of building footprint on the site is kind of the point that's being made, you know, but that's something we all would have to align on to put that in this letter. Speaker 10: When you say don't, when you say that, I think I agree, but I think you mean more, which is use the footprint, don't create a new footprint, right? Is Speaker 1: That what Yeah, or I mean, use the existing footprint, but if they decided to tear down the building for whatever reason, Speaker 10: Which they may, Speaker 1: Which they may,
that any new building would not have a larger footprint than what is currently there. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 1: Is the point I'm trying to make. Speaker 10: I agree. Speaker 1: Would a bullet point like that work for people? One of the, I'll, I'll, I'll take that as, as agreement does not result in the sale of any portion of the property for residential development. One of the ideas that's been kicked around in different scenarios is that there would be, let me, let me just show this. So, so let me departments it works. Where's our GIS? So if we, one of the scenarios
that has been kicked around, lemme just make sure I've got that. Look at all, it's getting all fancy that's been kicked around as an option is that there could be some of the land for Johnson School could be peeled off and over here on Floral Ave. That the, you could do buildable lots here and you could carve those off as single family residential lots and use and sell 'em and use the proceeds you could either as affordable housing or whatever, but to sell 'em and use the proceeds of that to finance other aspects of this.
And so, and that's been very explicitly discussed as an option, a scenario. And so the question is, is that something that we would support? I mean my personally, my position would be that I would not, I don't, you know, I I think that any co any funds that you generated from this would be relatively limited in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather see the open space preserved and preserve the access from different directions to the site. Speaker 11: And you would've to, that's a, that's a mountain over there. You would have to blast to get buildable lots out of that. Yeah, because that's the back stairway up,
up to Johnson from, from floral. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 11: Okay. That's a, that's a, that's a mountain, that's a, that's an outcropping of rock. I Speaker 10: Don't think you, and you and I were at the, they had a open public discussion session, right, Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 10: At one of the high schools or mid schools. And Matt and I were both there and they had put together I think like eight, eight or 10 different scenarios and most of them, most of their scenarios had two house developments and it was almost unanimous in the attendees
that they did not want that right at all. Speaker 1: I'd like to see the open space preserved, Speaker 10: So, your Honor. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so let's, let's leave that in there as a, as a bullet point. Does not, you know, not result in the sale of any portion of the property for residential development. And then lastly, prioritize improvements to the existing open space and recreational areas. Are there any other bullet points that we would like to include here that at this point here, I mean this kind, I'll, I'll, I'll ask Claire to wordsmith. I, I'll wordsmith this with her.
I don't have, unfortunately I don't have edit access to this, I don't believe. Speaker 10: Mike, should we say something about the canopy that's there now Speaker 1: Preserves or expands tree canopy kind of thing? Is is, is that where you're going David? Speaker 10: That's what I'm asking. Speaker 1: I think we could put that as a bullet point is that any, any, any plan should, should be designed to preserve current or expand tree canopy on the site. Would that make sense to people? Should we add that? Speaker 6: I mean, it would, it would align with your, your first p you know, the first paragraph
or Claire's, you know, first or second paragraph around heat island effects it. Speaker 1: Sure, it sure would. Speaker 6: You know, and you, and you could, you know, she, Claire could consider just some stronger, maybe just some stronger tone around the nature-based solutions because I think that we, we typically lean on engineering solutions quite a bit with storm water. And, and I think for this site, I, if we, if we believe in what, what has been written here, which,
which I, I do, then I would think that we'd want a site that inherently is something that is reducing heat impacts to that neighborhood and, and that area of natick and that including the reduction of impervious, you know, assisting with some other nature-based ways to contain and, and slowly control storm water. I think the neighborhood would applaud that. You know, I, I don't live in that neighborhood,
but I know if I'm dealing with flooding and ponding impacts because of, you know, development and, and just kind of the, the amount of impervious I would applaud the town considering that instead of finding engineered solutions with our best intent may not be working in 50 years from now. Right. Speaker 1: So prioritize. So what I have here is, I'm just adjusting the bud saved a copy of this. So minimizes and or decreases impervious areas on site uses the existing build building footprint
without expansion. If the existing building is removed, new structures do not exceed the footprint of current conditions. Does that work? Yep. Maintains or preferably expands tree canopy, geez, what the word is that? Coverage on site, no sale of any portion of the property for residential development prioritizes
improvements to the existing open space and recreational areas. Prioritize use of nature-based solutions for stormwater management on site over engineered solutions. Mike, does this capture what you were just saying or? Speaker 6: Yeah, I, I think you did an excellent job. I think, you know, from my perspective is I'm trying, I'm trying to wrap my head around footprint and is that the right, and I'm not trying to like micromanage this letter. I think it's, it was perfectly fine before I opened my mouth and it will be perfectly fine when I close my mouth. So I think it's fine the way it is,
but I'm, I'm just thinking about footprint. It just, is that the intent? Is that the tone of this or is it more around that? We don't wanna see the, the square footage exceed. There is going to be a, we'd like to see the, the, his cultural aspect of that building to be retained, which you've already said. However, if the building does get torn down, what, what do we, you know, what do we want with that? You know, is is it about the footprint or is it more about not exceeding a,
a specific threshold of square footage? Speaker 1: How about if say prioritizes the use of the existing building footprint without expansion? Yep. If the existing building is, you know, needs to be removed, new structures, any new structures do, do not exceed the footprint of the current, of current con of, of the current buildings. Speaker 6: I mean my, my rough calculation right now that building the school itself represents 0.46 acres in terms
of squa, in terms of square feet. So it's, it's a, it's a, it occupies a good size. I mean it's almost a half an acre, right? Speaker 1: So I I think this captures it. Are we, are we missing anything? Any, any obvious? I mean it's, you know, we can get it, you know, it, it's out of our jurisdiction to be saying do we want it to be used for affordable housing or for a senior center? I mean, I think that for us is, I think we can, as citizens we can express our opinions on those issues. And I've certainly got my own opinions about it, but from a conservation perspective, it's like
minimizes or decreases total impervious or instead of minimizes, I wanna say maintains and preferably decreases total impervious areas on site prioritize the use of the existing building footprint without expansion, the existing building needs to be removed. New structures do not exceed the footprint of the current buildings in total area maintains or preferably expands tree canopy coverage on site, no sale of any portion of the property for residential or other development
prioritized improvements to the existing open space and recreational areas. Do we wanna give a more, any more in, you know, in terms of tree cover, native plantings, ecological services, et cetera, and prioritize the use of nature-based solutions for stormwater management on onsite? I think we say prioritize the use of nature-based solutions for stormwater management over engineered, over engineered solutions. Put anything in there about the building should be used as conservation commissions headquarters.
Ooh, nice. Are you guys good with this? I mean, I, I'll, I'll, I'll tweak this a little bit, but if we keep these bullets to these, to these points, are we good with that for now? Yep. Yeah. Good. Yeah, well done. Hmm. Awesome. Okay. So we'll do that. We'll get this off the select board and then we'll go from there. Alright, anything else guys? We'll, we're meeting virtually on the 18th. We'll have five Auburn back in front of us. Oh boy. Yep. So that'll be good. But if there's nothing else, I think we're good to, good to go. Someone wanna make a motion to adjourn? Motion adjourn.
Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded, seconded. Thank you Jeff. All right guys. Hey, thank you all. Thanks for putting up with my clumsy it handling that we got there and we'll, I'll see you back here in, in two weeks time. And it's virtual. It's and it's virtual. Absolutely. Yeah. For you, not for you. Yeah. Right, right. You can be there by yourself in the construction zone. All right guys, we'll see you online virtually on the 18th. Take care of y'all.