Speaker 1: Welcome everybody. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is July 16th. This is our one meeting in July. Our next meeting is in, is in August. Unclear the date for the August meeting. Speaker 2: August 6th. Speaker 1: August 6th. So just as a reminder, we've got two commissioners here in the room this evening. We've got three online. So if those folks watching at home, if you could just keep yourselves on mute until your particular agenda item comes up, just to keep background noise down. That would be, that would be great. So let's go ahead and get started and, and open the public hearing. So the first item on the agenda is a certificate
of compliance request for 57 Beverly Road. Do we have any representatives of 57 Beverly on the call here? Speaker 2: I thought Nick Arthur was gonna be in attendance this evening if we wanna Okay. Push that till later. I can send him a quick note to make sure that he, Speaker 1: Yeah, why don't you do that. Let's just then, then jump ahead to 2 92 Elliot Street. This is also a certificate of compliance request Speaker 2: That applicant did let me know that he did have a family emergency come up today. I don't, I'm not seeing him on the call. Okay. Now. So he may not have gotten that resolved before the meeting today. Okay. Speaker 1: Let's, let's take a look. Sorry,
Speaker 3: Sorry. 2 9 2. I, I'm, I'm here. 2 9 2 Oh, Speaker 2: Great. Wonderful. Thank you, Speaker 1: Eli. Thank, thanks for joining. Alright, so this is 2 92 Elliot Street where I'm just looking at the, the drawing. This is kind of several additions and bump outs and stuff that was done to the property there. Whoops. Speaker 2: Yeah, so primarily there was an addition constructed to a single family home with associated deck and stairs after the fact minor plan change was approved for the
shed, which is labeled as accessory structure up towards the front of the lot at the limit of the 100 foot buffer zone. And as stormwater management required for the addition, a rain garden was constructed at the rear of the lot. That has vegetated quite nicely. Speaker 1: Great. We've got a letter from Reet Engineering, Jason Cluff, on behalf of the applicant, and pursuant to the order of conditions issued to the same under the Massachusetts Wet Wetlands Protection Act and in accordance with Form eight a Section six, please allow this letter to serve as a statement that the work regulated with the approved plan referenced in the order of conditions issued
for the above-referenced project has been completed in substantial compliance with the approved plan. So we've got an engineer sign off that what was built is what we, what is what we approved. Claire, you're saying that the rain garden has vegetated nicely. The site is buttoned up, ready to go. Any other, any other comments from you? Speaker 2: None from me. The, the project I think turned out quite nicely and I think it's always nice to see a successful Rain Garden example on one of our residential properties. Speaker 1: Yeah. Good. Any questions from the commission on this?
Hearing none, I'd be happy to entertain a motion to issue an order of conditions for 2 92, I'm sorry, a certificate of compliance for 2 92 Elliot Street. Would someone make that motion? Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you, David. Is that seconded? Speaker 2: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? Those in the room. Jim and I. Are you good? And then I've got David. Yes. Chris? Speaker 2: Chris is not on the line. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Jeff? Speaker 2: Yes. And then Mike Downey. Speaker 1: Oh, and, and Mike, welcome. Hello? Yes. Great. Thank you guys. Alright,
so next item on the agenda is let's do a request for determination of applicability for Ambler Court. Let me go ahead and just get that called up and we can open that up there. It's okay. In accordance with the Wets Protection Act and Natick local Wetlands bylaw Article 79, the Native Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on request for determination of applicability filed by New Generation Custom Homes for the Ambler Court Private right of way. The proposal is to repave the right of way at the same width. Do we have a representative of the Ambler Court project on the call? Speaker 2: Yes. Marcelo Olives is on the call right now.
If folks recall, Marcelo was before us earlier this year, end of last year for the reconstruction of the six Ambler property. That street that is Ambler Court is really a private driveway. It's an unaccepted right of way that serves three single family homes, including six Ambler Court. As I note in my staff comments, if the right of way only served two private residences, the repaving would've qualified as a minor exemption. But because there are three single family homes that use
that for rights of access, it needed to be approved by the commission. Marcelo is actually doing this work, I'm sorry, I'm, I'm confusing Ambler and Bennett, but this work is being done to the benefit of all three property owners along that right of way. Speaker 1: Great. So Marcello, welcome. Hi. Speaker 4: Would Speaker 1: You just give us a voiceover then of what you are proposing to do? Speaker 4: Oh, essentially it's paving the private driveway from 27 all the way to Amal court court to meet the, the driveway on six Amal court.
So it would benefit, benefit? Well it would be the benefit of the three neighbors or abut of that property. Speaker 1: Great. And so in the, in the application or in the, in the, in the notice it's, you're repaving it to its current width. You're not making it any wider. Is that correct? Speaker 4: That is correct. And I have, have spoken to all the abutters and they're very happy and trill that we're doing this improvement. I have spoken with the DPW, even though they, it's a private way, they have no, technically no saying in
that, but they would love to see an improvement of that private driveway. Yeah, Speaker 1: Good. I'm sure, I'm sure the residents are thrilled to have their road repaved when you're going, you know, so there's a stream there. We're, we're fairly familiar with the site as, as you know, what would you talk about any of the protections or the protections that you would put in place over the stream? Crossing Speaker 4: Well over the stream? I haven't not done anything because everything, it's already preexisting, but from the stream, well the stream to the, the crossing,
I have done nothing but the stream to the right of the property. We have done erosion control and maintain erosion control during construction. Those are the what are in place. And they will still in place during construction, well during pavement of that driveway as well. Speaker 2: Yeah. So the erosion controls for the six Ambler project extend to the culvert on this side. Marcelo, I think what Matt is asking is if there are gonna be any erosion controls installed along the other side of the roadway, Speaker 4: It, if it is required, yeah, sure, I can, I can do that. I don't anticipate being, you know, with the drought
and everything else, I don't anticipate anything falling over. But if it is required, I would be happy to throw some, some silt fence to protect doing the pavement. Speaker 1: Yeah, if you could do that, Marcel, I think it's just, it's it's best practice, you know, and if there's a rain event or anything around the time that you're doing this and there's strong flow through there just to, just to protect that. And, and then you're gonna be paving it all the way out to 27, is that right? Speaker 4: That is correct, yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: That's the intention anyway. Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. Alright, so this is a request for determination of applicability here. Questions from the commission on this.
Questions, comments, concerns? Nothing. Nothing. All right. Hearing none if there's no questions, comments, concerns on this? Again, this is an RDA, so we would move, we would, someone would make a motion to close, we would vote to close and then we'd issue a determination. This is a, this is an intermittent stream here, I believe. Speaker 2: Yes. It is not Speaker 1: Perennial here, so we don't need to worry about anything there. So we'd make a motion to close and then we would issue a determination, presumably a negative three determination under the town's bylaw and the wetlands Wetlands Protection Act. So with that, someone wanna make a motion?
Speaker 5: Motion. Thank you. Close. Speaker 1: Alright, I'll take David's motion to close. Jim, can I take you as a second? You got it. Alright. Any further discussion on that before we close the public hearing? All right. All those in favor in the room? Jim? David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: All right. So public hearing is closed. Let's have a motion to issue a determination, presumably a negative three determination. Yes. Speaker 2: With the condition regarding erosion controls on at the stream crossing location. The other condition that the commission could potentially consider is just a final review of paving to make sure
that there's no asphalt that ended up in the stream. Not that I imagine it would, but it, it's a fairly easy one to comply with also, since I'll be doing a final inspection at six sampler as well. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. So let's, so let's have those two conditions, erosion control and then, and then a, a post paving inspection just to make sure that nothing got into the, into the waterway there. So it's only make a motion to issue the determination, a negative predetermination with those conditions. Motion. Thank you. Jim. Is that seconded? Speaker 6: Good. Good. I, I'm sorry to throw a monkey wrench, like, can we just put something in the condition about
tree removal, if that needs to, you know, if that needs to happen, that needs to go through Claire. Yep. In terms of an administrative approval, you know, in case they need to, you know, bring the dump truck in and dump the asphalt and then they can't get the dump truck, you know, up enough to, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Speaker 1: Have you seen that happen before, Mike? Possibly Speaker 6: Just, I've seen a lot of things happen. There's always things that trees create for problems. Speaker 1: Marcelo, is that, is, is that acceptable to you as well? Speaker 4: It is acceptable due to, I'm very familiar with the sites
and, and I'd be, I mean, very shocked or something like that would happen. It's, it's clear as day, so I, I don't see that as a problem. Speaker 1: Okay. Well let, let's just paper it appropriately. Let's put that condition in that any tree removal needs to be, the commission needs to be notified prior to, prior to tree removal. So we've got those three conditions. Erosion control. Yep. Notification around tree removal prior to tree removal and a post paving inspection. So would, would someone make that motion please? Lemme just back up. Would someone make that motion? Speaker 6: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. Is that seconded?
Seconded, seconded. I'll take Jim's. Jim's here in the room. Any further discussion on this? All is in favor here, Mike? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Alright, so we're good there. Thank you Marcello. Appreciate your efforts. Stay in touch. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you all. Speaker 1: Alright, next item on the agenda is Claire, would you just let me know if they Speaker 2: Show up? Yes, I absolutely will. Speaker 1: Yeah. For 57. 57 Beverly. So Elliot's done. Ambler Court is done. Let's do 27 Emerson please.
Do we have a representative? 27 Emerson Here? Yes. Come on up. Lemme just go ahead and formally open that and Speaker 2: Just make sure that green light is on. It's Speaker 7: On. Good. Speaker 1: Alright. Lemme just formally. Speaker 2: Oh, Matt, the plus of the big screen is, it's right in front of you. Speaker 1: Oh yeah. Right. Four feet tall in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Nats local wetlands bylaw. The native con, the Nat Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of Applicability Fi filed by France DTA, representing Ryan Ma and Marina King Kang for property located at 27 Emerson Street, map 14 lot 1 0 7.
The proposal is to construct a new sunroom and deck on an existing single family home. Welcome. Thank you. Alright, if you would for the minutes, just officially introduce yourself and then just walk us through what you're planning on doing. I'm Speaker 7: Francis damato with Advantage Builders and the project entails building a one story addition off the backside of the existing building. It would be a sunroom on the first floor and then a deck above it and extending a patio out to just the edge of the existing building on the backside of the property. Speaker 1: I'm just reading through the description here. Okay. Let's just take a look at this. The maps
Speaker 2: And France. I had sent in that staff comment, are you guys open to putting a, a straw water along the Speaker 7: Absolutely. I was, I was planning on doing that and a so fence as well. Amazing. On that eastern side of the property. Speaker 1: Alright, I see where we're, okay, so for the, the proposed edition, is this a, a crawlspace full basement underneath it Speaker 7: Found just a slab? Speaker 1: Slab. Just a slab, yes. All right. Right on. Yes. Speaker 7: And the existing area, which it's going is, is already a concrete patio. Speaker 1: Okay. Makes it easy. So, Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. So it's going on top of a concrete patio or it, it's replacing a concrete patio there, it looks like it's just according to the map. So it's, it's on the corner kind of facing the, the conservation land over there. So this is backing up to pick pond about 30 feet off the property line there. I don't have a distance. Distance to the resource area. Yes. Speaker 2: Do you have that clear? So I included that map it because of the angle of the wetland, how it curves? Yep. It's not a consistent distance.
The closest distance of the work to the wetland resource area is 47 feet, if I remembering correctly, my calculations. Speaker 1: And that's, and that's taken off of this map here? Yes. Speaker 2: Off of the state maps. Generally the, the pond maps are very accurate because the line is so consistent where the development has sort of ended. Right, exactly. And the wetland has remained, but yes, they were just outside of that realm of being under the minor exemption for over 50 feet from the wetland. Speaker 1: Got it. And the, what's, what's the, the, the slope of the yard, is it like, like sloping down sharply down
to the conservation land? Is it, is it flat? Speaker 7: It's relatively flat where the actual addition will be. It's, it's a gradual slope, kind of minor in the backyard. The, the front yard picture kind of shows more of a, a steeper slope. Speaker 1: Yep. And it, it, but, but then it kind of, if I remember correctly, in that neighborhood, does it kind of drop off pretty sharply down to the we down to the wetlands there or this on Emerson? This is on the other side. Yeah. Speaker 7: So there, there's a fence there. Yeah. Currently, yeah. After the fence it does drop down sharply. Yeah. Okay. But before that, it's kind of a gradual slope. Speaker 1: Okay. Seems pretty
Speaker 2: Straightforward. Matt. There's the contours there. Just should be looking up right there. Yeah. So the, the drop, the significant drop actually mostly happens on the conservation parcel. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Alright. Who's got questions? Any tree removal needed? Speaker 7: No tree removal. It's a concrete removal. It's all, it's all cleared in the backyard. Yeah. Speaker 1: So no tree removal, relatively flat, gradual slope. We'll put erosion control Yep. In there. Questions from the commission on this? Comments concerns? Hearing none. This is an RDA, it's a, so a, a, a motion to close
and then a vote to issue a determination there. And happy to entertain a motion if that's your inclination. Anybody move? Thank you, David. So a motion to close from David, is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you. That was you, Jeff, right? Correct. Great. All right. David made the motion to close. Jeff made the mo. Jeff seconded that. Any further discussion on this? Comments? All right, those in favor in the room. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Yes. Okay. It's closed determination. This is a straight up negative three determination,
jurisdictional no impact to the resource area. Someone will make a motion to issue a negative three determination on this move. I'll take David as a David's motion. Any second? Second. Thank you, Jeff. Any further discussion on that? All in favor in the room. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. And Mike? Yes. Alright. Erosion control. If anything changes, let us know. Will do. Otherwise you have what you need. Thank Speaker 7: You very much. Great. Speaker 1: Thank you for your time. Appreciate your time. Thank you guys. Speaker 2: You guys all have the paperwork from me in
short order. Okay. Yes. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you. Like I said, I'm on the agenda. It is a request for determination of applicability for 24 River Bend Drive. Do we have any representatives of 24 River Bend here on the call? Speaker 2: Yes, I believe Jed, the property owner is on the call. Speaker 1: Great. I'm just go ahead and open this up. 24 Riverbend. There we go. All right. So in accordance to the Wetlands Protection Act, the native local wetlands bylaw Article 79, the Native Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Jed Greenberg for property located at 24 River Bend
Drive, map 68 lot 13 v. The proposal is to construct a new deck and associated stairs on an existing single family home. So Jed, welcome. Speaker 8: Hi, how are you doing? Speaker 1: Good, thank you. Thanks for coming Of course. For having me. So if you could just give us kind of a quick voiceover on what you're planning to do above and beyond kind of what I just read open. Of course. Yes. We'll, we'll go from there. Speaker 8: Okay. Yeah, so I'm just looking to build a approximately 10 foot by 20 foot wide deck on the back of my residence here in, in South Natick. It's just outside of the 40 foot, no build zone, but
otherwise, you know, I I think it's, there's an existing small kind of gravel patio there. The previous owners had left. So I'm looking to kind of go over that with a little bit bigger deck. Speaker 1: Got it. And how would you build the deck? It would be on sauna tubes. Would it be helical screws? How would you Yeah, Speaker 8: I'm looking to use helical piles. I think it'll be less invasive and, and obviously less disturbance to the, the yard. Speaker 1: Okay. Any, any trees need to come down for this? Speaker 8: No, no trees back there. Speaker 1: Okay. So far,
so good. Looks pretty straightforward. Speaker 2: Yeah, this is another one where if he had been, you know, four feet further, it would've been the minor exemption for over 50 feet. Alright. Speaker 1: Any questions from the commission on this? Happy to entertain a motion to close and then issue a determination. Speaker 6: Is it riverfront? Speaker 2: No, the project is outside of the riverfront area associated with the, the stream that is further down the aqueduct corridor. Speaker 6: Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Anybody wanna make a motion to close? Motion to close. Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on that?
All is in favor in the room. Jeff? Yes. Michael? Yes. David? Yes. All right. So it's closed. This would be a negative three determination, no riverfront area. Yes. Involved, no direct in the resource area. So we make a motion to issue a negative three determination. Speaker 8: So Speaker 1: Moved. Thank you, Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion? Those in favor? In the room. All right. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Michael? Yes. Alright, Jed, you have what you need from us. Let us know if the plans change,
you'll get the documentation. But otherwise, thank you very much for attending. Thank you all. I appreciate it. All right, take care. Alright, this next item on the agenda is a request for determination of applicability for seven upland terrorists. We have a representative of seven Upland here on the call. Yes, Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 9: Frankenberg here. Hey Speaker 1: Frank, how are you? Speaker 9: Good, how are you? Speaker 1: Doing well, thanks. Thanks for coming. Let just go ahead and formally open this. So, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act, the Nat Local Wetlands Bylaw Article 79, the Native Conservation Commission will hold a public
meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Louis Matute. Forgive me for misre, for mispronouncing anything representing M builders LLC for property located at seven Upland terrace, map 21, map 21 lot seven. The proposal is to construct an addition and new garage onto an existing single family home with associated driveway construction. So why don't we go ahead and, you know, let's take a look at the plans and all of that and then we can ask questions from there. So sir, would you provide just a quick voiceover on
what you're proposing to do here? Sure, Speaker 9: Yeah, sure. They are planning to, sorry, there they are planning to build a three story addition off of the back side of, of the existing single family house. And then on the left side there would be a two story garage, basically with an upper level living area there on the left side. So that is the plan. Speaker 1: That is Speaker 2: It. And just to provide some context on the jurisdictional areas, the property abuts the Wellesley Natick border
and just over the border in Wellesley is the start of Morse's pond. The rear addition does fall within that a hundred foot buffer zone. The garage addition is, is sort of just on the outside of the line, but I I do estimate that the sort of land disturbance will encroach slightly into the 100 foot buffer zone. The driveway construction is fully outside of jurisdiction, but, and the builders are aware because they are in the aquifer protection district and the additions proposed are greater than 500 square feet,
they will be proposing a stormwater management system to manage those two new areas of roof. Those plans were not finalized prior to tonight's meeting, but that approval is required prior to building permit issuance. So if the commission is comfortable issuing a determination with the condition that the applicant comply with the aquifer protection district zoning regulations as required during the building permit process, I think that that does adequately cover. The developers have been very responsive in terms of getting this permit application submitted
and also working with an engineer to get those plans done as quick as they can. Speaker 1: Okay. Where, yeah, I'm just looking for, Speaker 10: Can't find it. Speaker 1: Sorry. There we go. Okay. So there's two main blocks of, you know, so a 12 by 34 block on the back Yep. And then a 24 by 24 on the left side of the house. Speaker 2: Exactly. And I think the, one of the clearest sort of plan sheets that shows the layout is, I think, yeah, a zero five
probably gives the best side view of the proposed edition Speaker 1: Where the back, the back is on the left. Yeah. Speaker 2: So the back is on the left. So you can see the three stories here are the proposed new addition off the rear of the structure, and then the sort of smaller box that you see on top of the house is the garage addition that is proposed. Frank, feel free to jump in if I'm wrong. Yep. No, Speaker 9: That's a hundred percent correct. Speaker 1: Okay. And then if we go back, go, go back to a oh one. Speaker 2: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Sorry. A oh one, a a dash oh one a. There we go. Yeah, right there.
Okay. Where, where are the, where is the resource area here? Speaker 2: It's to the rear of the lot. Speaker 1: Okay. So that's Speaker 9: Very rear. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So we're 64 feet front to the property line. Speaker 2: Yeah. The, the rear of the back addition is 79 feet from the resource area. Speaker 1: Okay. And then what's the status of the backyard within that 64 feet? Is that lawn, is that, what is it? Speaker 9: It is just pretty much kind of,
I guess woodland area kind of, I wouldn't even call it anything. Speaker 1: I see. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 9: Just it, there's a very big slope down the hill though. It's Yeah. Where the, it's not very, it's not very usable space Speaker 2: Where the tree line picks up. Right about here is a, a, a stark slope leading down towards the water. Speaker 1: Okay. So it's what gradual slope leading to the tree line and then a Speaker 9: Steep, Speaker 1: Steeper slope once you're in the woods? Speaker 9: Correct. Okay. Speaker 1: There Speaker 2: You go. So you can see there, oh yeah, okay. This sort of slightly leveler area before it really jumps down the hill.
Speaker 1: Okay. So erosion control will absolutely need to be a part of whatever is. Yeah, Speaker 9: Absolutely. Yep. Speaker 1: Talk a little bit about the site preparation, what, you know, what are you, you know, it's, it's a three so it's a, you know, kind of a walkout basement kind of thing. Correct. Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 1: Right. And then so you'd be doing foundation, frost wall, that stuff there? Yep. Speaker 9: And there'll be a slab Yeah. With a frost wall. Yep. Correct. Speaker 1: Got it. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Got it. Speaker 9: And then the same on the second side. The second story addition would basic, it's a garage, so it'll be a slab over there as well. Yeah. Okay. Frost
Speaker 1: Wall, any tree removal? Speaker 9: No, the site does not really require any tree removal for the, the construction. Speaker 1: So, okay. And then the, the, the digging would be basically confined to the location of the new additions, right? Just to get the correct, the found the foundation's in and that? Exactly. Okay. Alright. Other questions from the commission please? Speaker 11: Is this a relatively new road or something? I I can't find it on my, Speaker 2: So upland terrace is, Speaker 9: It's a tough place.
There's a lot of roads Speaker 2: Right in that area of, it's an interesting question that were old, like a lot of these properties are old camp properties. Yeah. So the road names have changed, we'll say evolved over time. Okay. Like, this is listed in Google Maps as Grove Road, Grove Road, but this driveway entrance is technically Grove Terrace, but the address for this building is Grove Road. So it, it, this whole area is just a bit confusing. Yeah. I'm gonna be honest when it comes to, Speaker 11: Well there's an Upland road on the other side
of Road Nine at the pond next near it. Yes. I was totally confused. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. So this, this is, this is on the south side of Route nine. Yes. Speaker 2: Right. Just behind the Route nine wine em, former Wine emporium. Right, Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 6: It will always be the ER's package store. There Speaker 2: You go. The Speaker 1: Pack. Yeah, that's right Mike. That's why you're here, man. Staff, you staff historian. Good questions from the commission on this seems like a, again, a fairly straightforward project with erosion control protections built in No.
Or being required, no tree removal needed. Questions, comments, concerns. Speaker 6: I mean, we're not calling that a stream. Correct. That goes underneath Route nine connects to Speaker 2: Mike, the state has it classified as open water. That's their wetlands layer that I'm using. Okay. So I'm going based off the state DEP classification there. Okay. The, the, the Boggle brook that's marked out is the USGS topo maps, which I don't think are, are actually accurate to the field conditions. Speaker 6: I mean, do we have to worry about the culvert
that goes from little, from Big Jennings by little, you know, underneath Grove Road? Grove Street, Grove Road by, is that something that we need to be worried about? Speaker 2: No, thankfully that culvert from the sort of parking lot over to the outfall is less than just less than 200 feet. So it does not count as a stream corridor. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions? If there aren't any, I'd be happy to entertain a motion to close and then to issue a determination. Move to close. Thank you, David. Is that seconded?
Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? Those in favor in the room? David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Michael. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: Right. And then this would also be a negative three determination with Speaker 2: A condition about the erosion control Speaker 1: With the condition about the erosion control Speaker 2: And up for protection district Speaker 1: Requirements and, and Yep. And compliance with the a PD requirements. Can Speaker 6: We just also put a little language about Bogle Brook that it's not a appro it's not considered, I don't know, I just, I'm wondering if DEP is gonna
freak out about Bogle Brook. I guess it's just, just, just to comment. Okay. Just to make sure you know, Speaker 1: What would that comment say, Mike? I Speaker 6: I I don't know that we're, that it's, that it's classified as open water and it's not within, you know, Bogle brook doesn't start until the, the north side of Route nine or so, you know, 'cause it, I'm just want, you know, if we go negative three, that's perfectly legitimate. But are we, you know, if somebody questions Bogle brook as riverfront, does that change the, our design?
Well, it would change our designation potentially. Speaker 2: Mike, I I think I could add language in the approved work description noting that while USGS topo maps show a stream corridor, DEP detailed wetlands data and field observation, clarify that the wetland resource area is an open water rather than a stream corridor. Speaker 6: Okay. I think that's, yeah, I just, I, you know, I get worried about DEP riding in. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's appropriate. Alright, so with that, with the a PD condition, with the erosion control condition,
and Claire will add the, kind of the disclaimer about Bogle Brook into this, into the documentation. With all that, would someone make a motion to issue a negative three? Determination? Speaker 6: Negative three. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mike. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on that? Those in favor in the room? Michael? Speaker 6: Yes. David? Speaker 1: Yes. Jeff? Yes. Okay. We're good to go here. Thank you, sir. Let us know. Great. Thank you guys. Yep. Let us know if you have any questions and please if, if the plans change at all, please let Claire know. Will do. Thank you. Excellent. Alright. Thanks.
Alright, thank you guys. Next time you guys all set. Speaker 2: They were the, the, the builders for seven Speaker 1: Up. Excellent. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Speaker 2: Still No word from 57 Beverly. I've sent two emails now. Okay. Matt, I know I let you know this earlier, but 17 Edgewood has requested a Yep. I know it's got a file number on our annotated agenda. It doesn't on the post agenda. That was a copy and paste error on my part. They do not have a DEP file number yet and have requested a continuation of the eight six. So Speaker 1: Let's just open, let's just open it up. Yep. And we'll, and we'll go from there. All.
All right. So in accordance with Wets Protection Act and Nats local wetlands, biological 79, the NATA Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by, by Grant GAO of Icahn Corporation representing Greg Michael Opolis for property property located at 17 Edgewood Ave. Map 52 lot 96 A. The proposal is to construct several additions onto an existing single family home with someone. Make a motion to continue that to our meeting on August 6th, please. Speaker 10: Motion to Speaker 1: Continue. Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded? Speaker 10: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion? Closing the room. Jeff?
Speaker 10: Yes. Speaker 1: David. Speaker 2: He's just getting on mute. Sorry, Speaker 12: I was mute. Yes. Speaker 1: And Michael? Yes. Excellent. That's continued. All right, we're Speaker 2: Rocking and Speaker 1: Rolling. Next item on the agenda is we've got a notice of intent continuation for 24 Peterson Road. So we've already opened this and have been talking about it. One of the key considerations for 24 Peterson was that originally it was filed as a redevelopment project. We collectively kind of pushed back on that and has now been refiled as a, as a new development project,
new development within the riverfront area. And so let's get an update on where things, where things currently stand here on that. So do we have representatives of 24 Peterson on the call here? Speaker 2: Yeah, Peter is on the call. Peter, did you wanna share your screen or did you want me to pull up the materials? Speaker 12: If you could pull 'em up, that'd be great. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Hey Peter. Welcome. Speaker 12: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright. Yeah. So Peter, why don't you walk us through where we're at right now and then we'll ask questions and we'll go from there. Speaker 2: And, sorry. Okay. I have a new laptop, so I'm still learning all of the new
ways to get at things quickly. They should be up in just a second. Great. Speaker 1: Wait. All right. Why don't you just kind of just back up and just give us a refresher on what's being proposed here and Okay. And then we'll go from there. So, Speaker 12: Okay. So the changes from the last meeting, I basically moved the house forward, basically a foot and a half off the front yard setback. And I also moved the house towards the north or the right of the lot to try to get it out of the riverfront area. So the total disturbance
impervious area in the riverfront area was roughly 672 square feet. Originally I was able to get that down to 285 square feet. So that is the hatched area in the back. That is in the, the 200 foot. So the, and the closest point, which is the back left corner of the house to, to the main mehi annual water line is 190 feet to the back prop back of the, that structure. I moved the recharge areas that were within the,
the riverfront area. I moved them to the side. As you can see, we still are taking the total roof front off and recharging that into the ground. But now those recharge areas are outside of the 200 foot riverfront area. I also had a landscape architect look at the restoration area and I am proposing three, three red maples in that area and 14 witch hazels within that restoration area, which is 870 square feet.
So that stayed the same size. So we're still, we're still restoring that, that lawn area into, you know, a habitat area for the wildlife. And we do have a DEP number and I did provide alternative analysis to, to the, to to Claire. So I mean that's where it stands right now. So we've added, we've added storm water to, to the, to the, to the lot and we've increased the, you know, the restoration area
and then we moved, you know, like I said, the storm water outside of the riverfront area. And that's about, that's about it right now. If any questions I can, I could answer 'em. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you for that and you know, appreciate the, the progress here. Alright, so, so there's a few, a few comments and, and Claire you brought up some, some issues that are important and have these been shared with the applicant at this point? Yes, Speaker 13: The applicant does have these and I, I didn't include them in my formal staff notes, but I did let Peter know via email that Speaker 2: The planting schedule of three red maples
Speaker 1: And 14 Wait, you mic is off. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Pegasus. Yes, these comments have been provided to the applicant and I did not include any formal staff comments, but I did let Peter know by email that I did not necessarily think that 14 witch hazel was appropriate for that planting area. I do think some witch hazel are, are a great addition to a native woodland habitat, but I think 14 full size witch hazel, all 14 of them will likely not survive in that condition given the existing canopy. So diversifying the shrub planting so that there's a,
a better chance of that area remaining in the intended mitigated state Speaker 1: Perpetuity. Okay. That sounds, that sounds pretty straightforward. There is, there is also some kind of structural or some kind of significant design related issues that you noted around the, the, the, the size of the storm water management system that's put in place. Why don't you speak to that? Yeah, Speaker 2: And, and Peter, it it is definitely really minor but currently the, the storm water analysis that's been
provided does not show reductions for all of the storm events, which is technically the town standard. I, I know that you guys shifted those systems out of the area and I don't know if with updated design point analysis based on the shifted system locations, these numbers will change because I know that this stormwater report was based off of the original locations of the system. So that was part of the reason why I had asked for an updated drainage design map, an associated calculations if those changed
to see whether the shifted system changes these numbers at all. Speaker 1: And this is particularly looking at IP two E Speaker 2: Yeah. Which is the, the rear design point towards the wetland resource area. Right. Speaker 1: I Speaker 2: Can Speaker 12: Pull up Right and, and I would update, I i I didn't update, you know, 'cause I, I changed the plan and I wanted to get the commission's, you know, feeling towards the plan and then if the commission was favorable, I would go ahead and redo the, the calculations and I did get your comments
and I would make sure that there was a reduction in every storm event. But I just, I just wanted to, I just wanted to, to know what the commission was feeling. I didn't wanna do a whole drainage and redo the whole drainage analysis if the commission's not open to what I was proposing. Speaker 2: And to be fair, Peter just got those comments yesterday so I wouldn't have necessarily expected Okay. Anything to turn Speaker 1: Around. Okay. Fair. We, you know, in order to issue, in order to issue the cate of the order of conditions on this, I mean we'll need to get those nu get those numbers
and have it have, you know. Oh, Speaker 12: Definitely. I understand that. Okay. I definitely understand Speaker 1: That. Okay, good. Okay. And so, but Peter, you're confident though that with the updated numbers though, that we'll show the reductions that the town bylaw requires? Speaker 12: Yes. Nope. I will, I will, you know, make sure that, you know, I would reduce it. Speaker 1: Okay. And then talk through the alternatives analysis here. You know, with a new development we have to do an alternatives analysis. So would you just give us a voiceover on the,
on the approach to the alternatives analysis. We, we just wanna make sure that this is papered properly. So would you just give a voiceover of, of your analysis, how you arrived at the conclusions and how you arrived at the plan that you're putting in front of us now? Speaker 12: So, so, well my, my client purchased the property so, you know, the no action one, you know, doesn't come into play 'cause he wants to, you know, revise what's there. He wants to build the structure that that's the, so that's, you know, it still doesn't have any recharge and it's all lawn area the way it is.
It may not have any impervious within the riverfront, but you know, there is no recharge. It's just the roof is just going out on the ground. And then, like I said, it's all lawn area. So that was that one. And then, you know, just relocating the whole, I I can't relocate the, the house that my client wants to, to construct on the lot. I moved, moved the structure as far forward as I could, you know, I'm not gonna put it right on the front yard setback. So it's like a foot and a half off the front yard setback.
And I don't wanna move it all the way towards the left because then it's right up against the neighbor. But I did move the structure, you know, to 22 feet to the right hand side. And as you see the lot, the riverfront goes, you know, it's, it's further away on the right side. So I was trying to push that structure all the way to, to the right. Also there is a drain, you know, there is drainage on the left, so moving it to the right keeps it away from the street drainage that goes on the property line.
So, you know, be so because of the, the setbacks in the site configuration, I can't, I can't get the, the structure to fit on the, on the property. So then that's why, you know, alternative c you know, that's why we're proposing the house where it is. And because we are in the riverfront area with, you know, the 285 square feet of impervious, that's why, you know, we're, you know, we're proposing to restore,
you know, three times the area that, that we are disturbing with the impervious area. So I felt that, you know, we are giving the restoration area where, you know, my client would be losing some of the backyard, but you know, we would be, you know, restoring the 50 foot offset and then we're providing that recharge that there is no recharge on the property. So I felt that, you know, this would be the best situation. That's how I came up with this situation.
Speaker 1: Okay. Chris? Oh, Chris Tillman. Okay. Good, good, good. Alright. So, so just, just to walk through this and we're just gonna kind of stress test this a little bit. You know, when we, when we do alternatives analysis, we just want to make sure that we're really, you know, testing the alternatives and all of that. And so your your point here just to see, see if we're capturing this right, your point is that you wanna, you, you don't wanna go further to the right towards, towards lot 1 71
because there's recharge there that we, you know, we asked you to pull recharge outta the backyard and you put it in the side. So yes, there's recharge there, so you don't want to get closer to the recharge. Right. You don't wanna get closer to the abutter there. You, and it's kind of similar on the left hand side, although you'd be going further and you know, you'd have more disturbance within the riverfront area, Speaker 12: Correct? Correct. Speaker 1: What, what about pulling the house towards the street a bit? Is that an option? Speaker 12: Right now we're only a, we're 1.8 feet off the front yard setback, so Okay.
I can only move it, I can only move it, you know, foot, I don't know, a foot closer. So then I would, you know, you don't wanna propose something right. On the setback because you know, that's tough to construct. Right. You know, so I felt that gives, gives a little buffer. I mean I could move it forward another foot you may gain a little bit more, but, you know, I felt that this was, you know, it was good for construction wise. Yeah. Like I said, it's, it's tough to build something that's, I don't think it's even possible to build something
that's right on a setback. So that's why I kind of left. Speaker 1: And, and then you're, and then you're arguing or your, your offer is cut is doing this three to one restoration. We can talk about the plantings, that's one thing, but, but the, you know, basically kind of a three to one restoration is kind of the trade off that, that you're putting on the table here. Speaker 12: Correct? Correct. That and I know the storm water's required, but that's also, you know, we're also adding that storm water that's not there. And I know, I thought, you know, when I read through DEP they said stormwater, you know, if,
if you were making it a better situation where there was none and you are, we are proposing stuff. So, and then I also got the restoration from DEP too. They like to see a two to one ratio for restoration area if, if you are proposing stuff within the riverfront area. And I went, you know, by, by moving the structure we were able to get a three to one. Speaker 1: Okay, good. Claire. Speaker 2: So Peter, I I do just wanna push back slightly on some of the language that you've used in, in terms
of the alternatives analysis a as well as the justification behind the alternatives selected. So the, the regs provide a really clear outline of what demonstrates a practicable or substantially equivalent economic alternative. So I'm not necessarily pushing back on the idea that what you guys have proposed is the best option, but I think that the alternatives analysis that you have provided does not demonstrate compliance with this performance standard. So you guys, you guys note that, you know, you can't build the house that the developer is looking
to build, but what the developer is looking to build doesn't really factor in. If there is a layout that is feasible under the existing zoning regulations that does allow for work to be fully removed from the riverfront area, that alternative does need to be explored. If there are economic reasons why that is not practical in terms of the, how that is defined in the regulations, that should be detailed in the alternatives analysis. So I think that the documentation that has been provided in my mind is not sufficient enough
to protect this project if DEP were to choose to appeal it because of the fact that this alternatives analysis I don't think is strong enough. Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. And you know, and, and so, so for example, the alternatives could be a house of something of similar, it could be of similar square footage Yep. That the configuration of what is being proposed could be pulled out and there could be reasons why or not to do that. But in terms of the documentation that's, that's required,
we just wanna make sure, you know, just make it really airtight, you know, that's, that that, that's the goal here. Speaker 2: And, and that's why I provided this is the, the yeah. Develop new development breakdown that I did during a prior large riverfront area project discussion the commission had for five Auburn Street. I think it just really, the bolded language really calls out what qualifies as economic and practical in terms of this alternatives analysis. Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, being familiar with the site and I'll just speak my mind on this, being familiar
with the site and kind of the topography of that area and all that stuff. I'm not super concerned about what you've proposed personally. You know, I think yes, it'd be great to, to pull the project out. It's a small amount of disturbance within the riverfront area, the, you know, and so it's, for me personally, it's just more of let you know, let's explore all the alternatives and just make sure that, that there's really no other, no other choice here. But there's, you know, so I, I, you know, I think in order and to protect you and, and,
and the process, you know, just wanna make sure that we've really documented this fully and have something that really would withstand all, all the scrutiny. Is it possible for you to include an alternative that maybe has the same square feet but pulls everything out of the riverfront area that the developer would find acceptable or as, as a viable option? Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, I mean, I'd have to look at it. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, I, I, I think if you, Speaker 12: I mean, I, I would say, I would think that, you know, I'm just saying, I mean, I would think if we pulled everything out of it, then we, you know, I, we wouldn't have to do the,
the restoration area and I thought that the restoration area was a positive because, you know, it's 50 feet away from, you know, you're restoring an area that's long that's less, you know, 50 feet, you know, you, you're, you're restoring that whole area, which is closer to the wetland. So, I mean, that's why I kind of like, I thought that the restoration area would counter Speaker 1: It's a, it's, it's, it's a, it's a fair point, you know, that if, I mean technically, well, Speaker 2: And I think my, my concern, Peter is this,
this isn't about what's, what's nice and what's better for the wetland. This is about complying with the regulations. Like I said, I have okay, no doubt that what you guys have proposed may be the best alternative from a practical and economic standpoint. But DEP really has been cracking down on the riverfront area stuff. And I just wanna make sure all of this is papered really clearly. So that way there's no potential for appeal. Speaker 1: That's the objective. You know, I mean, it really, and as I was saying earlier, I mean, I, I see the appeal of this plan. I like the idea of some restoration. It's one of those funny things that, yes,
you could pull it all the way out, but we wouldn't get the restoration that, you know, in this neighborhood there's been a lot of encroachment, there's been a lot of, you know, stuff down in the riverfront area to see some restoration would be a good thing. So it's a funny trade off there. If you could, if you could include and just kind of bake out the alternatives just to reflect it and convince yourself and convince us and just say, listen, this is the best, the best plan here, then I think we're, you know that that'll, that'll take care of it if you see what we're saying here. Speaker 12: Okay. I'll take a look. Speaker 1: Yeah, if you could do that,
Speaker 12: I'll talk to my client and see what he says. Speaker 1: Okay. If you could do that and then also just bake out the, the, the storm water calcs and just have, have that documentation, then I think we'll be at a good place just to close this, you know, close this out and have this. But I want to give the other commissioners an opportunity to speak first. So, Jim, David, Mike, Jeff, Chris, Chris questions or comments on this? Speaker 10: None. Nothing to add? Speaker 1: Okay. No, so not at this point. So, so Peter, why don't you, if you could, if you could take a look at that, talk to your client and then we can meet back here on August 6th
and go through whatever, you know, what you've come up with. Feel free to reach out to Claire in the meantime and you know, she'll help you just, just, you know, make sure the alternatives analysis is, is pretty airtight, then we can go from there. Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Great. Excellent Peter. Thank you. So let's go ahead. Would someone make a motion to continue 24 Peterson Road to August 6th? Please Speaker 10: Move to continue. Speaker 1: Thank you David. Is that seconded? Second. Second. Thank you Jim. Is there any further discussion on that? Those in the room? Mike? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Chris?
Speaker 10: Yes. Speaker 1: Excellent Peter, thank you. Appreciate your time and we'll see you back here on the sixth. Okay, Speaker 12: Thank you. Great. Speaker 1: Alright, next item. I'm on the agenda, a notice of intent continuation for 2 73 West Central. Speaker 2: I don't know if we wanted to open the major stormwater permit and just have one big giant discussion. Speaker 1: Yeah, let's have one big giant discussion that that is more efficient. So let me go ahead and get that opened. Speaker 10: And Speaker 1: So we've opened the wetlands but not the stormwater, right? Correct. Speaker 2: The stormwater project was filed for this Speaker 1: Public hearing. Okay. So in accordance with Natick stormwater management and erosion control bylaw, the NA Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on
a major stormwater permit application filed by Natty King of Fort Point Associates representing Eddie Meter of Gable's residential services for property located at 2 73 West Central Street Map 39, lot 30. The proposal is to demolish the existing building and parking lot and construct a new, a new multi-use building with approximately 219 residential units and associated site features. Alright, so who do we have Naty on the call? Yes. Hey Naty? Yes. Speaker 14: Good evening. I'm here. Speaker 2: Did you wanna pull up the plans Naty or did you want me to pull up the materials? Speaker 14: I have a short presentation that we can run through.
It's mostly just an update of where we've been since the last hearing and then we can go to questions and discussion from there if that works for everybody. Perfect. Speaker 2: You should be all set to share. Speaker 14: All right. All right. Okay. So this is the Gables Natick Crossing Project. I'm Naty King of Fort Point Associates. We also have Eddie Meer here from Gables, the applicant. We have Nate Shield, our civil engineer from TetraTech and Ian Ramey from Copley Wolf Design Group. So object is at 2 73 West Central Street.
It's the first development proposed in the New West Central Corridor zoning district. And just as a reminder from last time, we're proposing to demolish the existing native crossings commercial development on the site and redevelop the property with a transit oriented residential mixed use building. It will be five stories tall, 219 residential units, 4,000 square feet of non-residential space, lots of publicly accessible open space, including a plaza along the roadway
and an MBTA connector walkway along the eastern property line, which connects from the roadway to the West Natick T station surface and garage podium level, garage parking totaling 258 spaces, new storm water management system and an increase in open space including vegetated surfaces within wetlands jurisdiction. So just a reminder, you all saw this last time, but our proposed work and jurisdiction for wetlands is on the rear of the site.
There's an offsite bordering vegetated wetland within the MBTA right of way. That's essentially a vegetated drainage ditch. So that's off our property. It will not be directly impacted by the project. We are proposing some work in the no disturbed, no build and buffer zone within the no disturb zone. The work includes removing the pavement, pulling it away from the resource area, regrading and reaving for the surface circulation areas. Similar work proposed in the no build zone.
And then within the a hundred foot buffer zone we pick up a edge of the proposed building as well. Outside of that building footprint and parking layout are vegetated areas which include a mix of trees and ground cover including native species. So permitting update since June 10, when we saw you last June 11th, we saw the design review board for our third meeting with them. They followed up with issuing a recommendation to the planning board, generally supporting our project. On June 29th, we filed the major stormwater permit
that was essentially updated stormwater report. That was already included with our notice of intent. We had our second planning board hearing on July 1st, July 2nd. We submitted a supplemental construction period wetlands protection narrative to the commission. And then July 7th there was a conservation commission site walk where we all got soaked. But it was overall a good time, I would say. So construction period wetlands protection narrative. We put that together with the project contractor to respond
to comments from the commission at the last hearing about the work on the rear of the, the site, which is kind of a steep slope from the grade of the property down to the BVW offsite to the north. And that construction period wetlands protection narrative just further specifies the best practices that will be implemented to ensure the stability of the bank is maintained and that the offsite wetland isn't impacted. So if y'all had the chance to review that, it included a summary of pre-construction documentation
and inspections that will be undertaken. The proposed perimeter controls, including first a snow fence just to decide, define the absolute outer limit of where any work would be done before any other construction is undertaken. Also, a construction fence that's needed to make sure we separate the work zone from the active rail right of way to the rear. And then silt socks on the inside of the construction fence as well. We expect the construction fence would help provide
stability to those silt socks to, you know, keep running out runoff and sediments from going into the wetland area. We have seen staff comments suggesting implementing a silt fence as well along the limit of work. We'd be happy to do that if that's preferred by the commission. Other items in the wetlands protection narrative included equipment operation standards, so stipulating the size of equipment that will be used along the rear property line. And also detailing best practices to operate
that equipment from stable surfaces away from the edge of the slope. And then lastly, for that slope on the rear, we outlined measures for rate rapid stabilization of exposed soils just to make sure there's no runoff or excuse me, erosion in that area while the work is undertaken. And then other best management practices like covering material stockpiles and locating stockpiles outside of wetlands jurisdiction. And with that I'll pass it over to Nate to run through some Speaker 15: Civil updates. Thank you. Just for the record, Nate Shield,
civil engineer with TetraTech. Since we're before you with the our first hearing, we've made a few updates. First, we reconfigured recharge system number four, which is located in the front of the building. Coming outta the DRB review, there were some landscape changes And we needed to reshape system number four to avoid a RuPaul. One of the comments we received from staff questioning whether area drains were running through water quality units. We've added two water quality units to ensure that all drains are going through a water quality unit prior
to discharge. We've relocated snow storage areas, so they're outside of any buffer zones per staff. Comments, maybe one's a little more technical. DEP had a comment on the stormwater report requesting a mounting analysis for system two and three. System two and three are designed with two feet of separation to groundwater. However, system two and three, we don't consider infiltration as a control during calculating our peak rate,
and we go even further on system three and four, they're both sized to provide groundwater recharge, but that storage for groundwater recharge is below the lowest outlet. We set the starting water surface elevation at that lowest outlet. So if a mound was ever to grow into the system, it would never be able to go above the outlet. So all the storage needed for peak rate control will always be available in system three and four. So from that standpoint,
a mounting analysis wouldn't be required. And few comments on the stormwater o and m plan. Staff requested prohibition of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides within the a hundred foot buffer zone that's been added requested. You know, the snow storage be removed from the buffer zone, which we touched on before that's been addressed. A couple recent comments. We included a de detail for outlet stabilization. We're not gonna do any new outlets, we don't need to address any of the, the outlet stabilization. So we'll delete that detail from our set of plans.
And also there was a sedimentation basin in that we're gonna reconfigure so it doesn't encroach onto any of the existing trees that we plan to keep in the buffer zone. Next slide, please, Patty. This plan here just shows the snow storage that we're currently proposing is shown in yellow. We've got snow storage on the west and south side of the building. As you can see, all the snow storage areas are located outside of the 100 foot buffer. Next slide. This system is just a, or this slide is just a high level overview of the four stormwater stormwater basins.
When these basins are constructed in an operation, you'll see that the basins provide a very decent reduction in peak rates At the design point, the two year storm, we reduce it by about 50%. The 10 25 and a hundred a hundred year storm, we reduce by about 25%. So there's a significant decrease in the rate of discharge and the systems are all designed also so that there's a reduction in the volume of discharge. Next slide please. And with that, I'll pass it over to Ian Raimi. Speaker 16: Thanks Nate. Good evening for the record.
Ian Raimi with Copley Wolf Landscape Architects. So I'll, I'll run through our landscape update since our last meeting. The first comment that we received was with regard to the type of elm tree that we had specified, the, the Princeton Elm and its resistance or tolerance of the Dutch Elm disease, which is a known pathogen. So we spec the Princeton Elm tree often on projects. It's a commercially available tree that's been used since the 1920s. It does demonstrate really good resistance to the disease.
However, it's not fully immune. We think it's a superior tree for the project. We have four of them proposed on this project. We're not concerned with using it. That being said, if the commission would prefer us to do something else, we're happy to make that change. Again, we think it's a fine tree for this application. Other change that we made was re, with regard to the pitch pine, so we've changed that out with the native Eastern red cedar to address any pest issues with that. And then lastly, as it relates to our planting details, we had a minor revision to that to make sure
that we were calling for the full removal of the burlap cage from RuPauls prior to those plant materials being installed in the ground. And I think with that, I'll hand it back to na. Thank you. Speaker 14: Yeah, thank you Ian and Nate. So overall, I think we've tried to be responsive to the staff comments that have come in on our open gov record. And additionally, we've provided that supplemental construction period Nate narrative, to address the commission's comments at the last hearing. So we feel we've designed a really great project here,
a good transition for the area around West Natick Station, and we're really excited to move it forward with your blessing. So with that, happy to open it up to any questions or discussion. Speaker 2: Just for the commission, if you guys are looking for that wetlands protection plan, it's in the notice of intent Google Drive folder versus the stormwater filing folder. Speaker 1: Yep. Would you, naty, would you talk through, so the, the way the stormwater system is designed is that there will be conditions under which there could be overflow or, you know,
outflow from the system into the existing outflow over by the wetlands. Could you just talk through the conditions under which that might be expected to occur? Speaker 14: Sure. I'm gonna redirect that one right over to Nate as our civil Speaker 1: Great Nate. Speaker 15: Sure. So the systems will have overflows for all design events, the 2, 10, 25, and a hundred year event. But if we look at the, the two year event, for example, in the existing condition, we're, the site currently discharges about 10 CCF s under the
proposed condition, we'll will reduce that down to about four and a half CCFs, 4.7 CFS. So we expect, you know, all storm events to produce an overflow, but be a, a significant reduction over what you currently see today. In addition, which we, we mentioned in the initial notice of intent hearing, which I didn't mention tonight, we've also sized all these systems to provide 1.2 inches of recharge across impervious area, which is, you know, consistent with the town storm water bylaw standard in the
Aquifer Protection District standards. Speaker 1: Got it. So we're, so we're providing a, a, the amount of dis of recharge according to what the bylaw requires, and then seeing anywhere from 50% to, or anywhere from 2020 4.4% to 53.4% reduction in, in peak flows. That Speaker 15: Is correct out Speaker 1: Of the discharge. Okay. Good. Other questions from the commission on this? Any questions? Speaker 2: Just Speaker 17: One, I had a, I had a quick clarification. Part of NA's presentation was
to talk about putting in silt fences and I just wanted to be sure that that included straw waddles as well, or is that not what we were intending to ask for? Speaker 14: Yeah, so we, we have compost filter tubes proposed similar measure and were the Claire had suggested we also, in addition to that, include a silt fence as a perimeter control. Got it. We would be happy to add that in. Speaker 2: And, and really my primary concern is just along that rear property area, specifically where pavement is being removed from the site.
So there'll be potentially exposed soils for a period of time just as that extra belt and suspenders. And Ian, just since you are on the call, there was just one staff comment, and I know it's a bit nitpicky, but if you guys could send along the seed mix details for that lawn area that's proposed, if it's just a standard turf mix, that's fine, but if there are any more specifics, that would just be great to have included on the planting plan. Speaker 16: Okay. Yeah, happy to do that. Speaker 1: Okay. Claire, you had a question about whether all of the area drains were connected into some kind of treatment?
Speaker 2: Yes. That, that has been corrected, right? That's been corrected. Good. The plans have been, been updated to include water quality units for those, those area drains. The planning board is due to hear this again on the 29th. I do think based on my check-ins with Amanda, it seems like these committees are moving on a fairly similar schedule. If the applicant is comfortable and if the commission is comfortable, I could certainly prepare conditions for us to review at our August meeting in coordination with, with ideally some decisions being drafted by the planning board. Yeah. But happy to move forward however the commission sees fit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean this as, as I set out on the, out on the sidewalk, not in a deliberative way, but just in an observational way, is that this is a large project but not a super complicated project in, in my opinion. You know, and I think you guys have addressed certainly the questions that I would've had one. Mike, if I can direct a question to you, Mike Downey, are you comfortable with the Princeton Elms? Speaker 6: First of all, I'm not an Ivy Leaguer, so anything that involves Princeton, I'm not a big fan of it, but I, you know, I, I'm, I'm kind of agnostic, I guess I would say with that.
It's, you know, as long as they're not being overused on the site, I, I think I'm, I'm comfortable with them and, and you know, I would agree that, you know, they have a long history and they've been in, in place and in use for a long period of time. They, you know, I think my biggest issue if you're just looking for an opinion is, you know, they, they'll never reach the majestic status of an American, obviously, but, you know, if if somebody's looking for something to get kind of there, you know, it's,
it's our really our only alternative at this point. But, okay. I got nothing. I, I think the only, the only thing, I'm just one area I'm confused because I'm not, you know, necessarily an expert in some of some of this high level stuff is, is that if there's a way to overlay the snow, the snow storage area with these sub these subbasins and, and is there anything that we need, you know,
I know there's been some changes made and I maybe not up to speed and I know I, I've, I've heard that some of the basins have, have water, you know, water quality things that have been in, you know, enhanced over the plan, the plans that were reviewed over the last couple of plans. So, you know, as long as the snow stor, the snow storage areas that, you know, I'm unclear if they're sitting on top of those subsurface retention areas. It, like, I'm, look, I'm trying to compare the plans, I guess is, yeah. So is that something I should be concerned about,
Speaker 15: If I may, the Speaker 6: Recharge systems and the, and the snow storage potentially being on top of those. Speaker 15: So the snow storage at system number two. There's also a little bit of snow storage's top of system number two. But the, the key in my opinion with snow storage is to make sure that it's able to drain to a catch basin and then, you know, flow through that catch basin and then through a water quality unit prior to getting into a stormwater system so that it gets all the water quality benefits that, that you wanna see.
Speaker 6: Is that going to happen? Speaker 15: So we, yeah, that's, that's why we've, we've got it got all the stor snow storage areas situated in locations that are pitched to drain back into catch basin so that it does get that water quality treatment. Speaker 6: And is that, is the snow storage areas adequate for the amount of asphalt that you have? You know, do you believe the square footage of those, I think there's three if I remember correctly. Yep. Those three areas, is that square footage aligned
with the amount of plowing that you're gonna need, you know, in a say a six inch storm? Speaker 15: Yeah, I, I think, you know, every storm is a little bit different. You know, you probably get four or five, six inches of, of storage, but like any other site in this area, if you get a 30 inch storm like we got in February, you gotta bring in the trucks and you're gonna have to truck it off and dispose of it and, you know, in accordance with local, federal, and state standards, Speaker 2: If that language could be added to the operation and maintenance plan, I think that that would be a great just sort of belt
and suspenders for the commission in terms of just that comfortability knowing that snow is not gonna be pushed into that wetland resource area. Speaker 15: Sure. We can certainly add a, a statement to the snow storage section of the wa o and m plan. Speaker 1: That'd be great. Speaker 18: Matt, Jeff here? Yep. Sorry, I did a walkthrough without you guys. I think it was on that same day. 'cause my pictures are on the rain and I was soaking wet too. But the, the snow storage that you're, that you're showing right now, that, you know, there's a significant height difference
between this property and the neighboring property at that point. It kind of, as it flows down along that back towards West Central, it gets even so, you know, piling up snow there, how are we gonna prevent that snow from, you know, melting and discharging back into that neighbor's yard there? Because it, it was at some point it was like feet high, the difference between the existing parking area in the neighbor's yard. Speaker 1: So, so Jeff, what you're saying is the neighbor on the left there, you're saying that, that the snow could be
melting discharging on onto, you know, further up West Central towards Framingham. Speaker 18: Correct. That yard right there. The, the difference right now is at, at about that point, from my recollection, I walked, I didn't, I didn't drive, I walked the whole perimeter there and came back down and noticed through, you know, through the brush there that, that there's a pretty significant difference between the property, that property as you went further along and it pitched up to the back towards the tracks,
you know, that it was feet high and as you get back down towards West Central that it became, you know, just about even. So just yeah, right there. Yeah. Speaker 2: It seems like this might be the area of concern. Speaker 18: Yep. Yep. Speaker 15: So in that area, we've got the snow storage, so it's set completely on the pavement. So any of the melting would hit the pavement and get collected. It wouldn't run off onto the next property. Speaker 18: It says there's a retaining wall there too. Speaker 15: Yep. Speaker 18: That's not the wall that said it's gonna be a new wall that you're putting in. Speaker 15: Correct. Speaker 18: How high is that?
Speaker 15: It's off the top of my head. It's only at a feet, I believe two to i, I believe it's only like two to three feet. Speaker 18: Well, you know, we just have to make sure that we're not pushing that as, as Mike said, I, I thought that those areas seemed to be a little bit small for snow storage and that area right there. It was, the bigger of the areas could end up having snow pushed onto someone else's land Speaker 1: Kind of over the, over the retaining wall, Jeff is what you're saying. Speaker 18: Yeah. If it's only two or if it's only a foot then even and it's taking six, six inches across that property and putting it in that location.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So Nate, your point is that the, at the, the snow storage area, that particular one as it's currently designed, will sit on the pavement and the pavement being pitched to the, you know, the storm water inlet will be sufficient to collect the melting water That's correct. And, and all that. Correct. Yeah. Nate, if you could, if you could take a look, you know, I mean, just kind of forecasting a little bit or foreshadowing a little bit, you know, I, I think our intention here this evening will be to keep this open until our next meeting just
to let the planning process close out. And so if you could take a look at that and just con, you know, just, just double check that you know, that we're not setting ourselves up to where there's gonna be, where there's a potential for a large snow pile to gather there that could spill over the retaining wall onto the abutters property and then be melting onto the abutters property. If you could just kind of convince yourself that that's not gonna be the case, that would be helpful just to, you know, let our minds rest easy on this. Does that make sense? Speaker 17: Sure. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Would the commission like me to start drafting conditions for the project for the next hearing?
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's let, let's just see if there's any other questions. Yep. But, but I think we're, we're kind of converging on that point. David, Chris, Jim, any any additional questions we want these guys to consider or to get answers to? You know, I, Speaker 17: Yeah, Chris at, at the, at the site walk we were, you know, it was just pouring rain, so this was like worst case scenario, but I did notice there was a small stockpile near one of their trailers to the Speaker 1: South side up, up against the, up against the road. Speaker 17: Yeah. On the south side.
And it was just a stockpile of like, I don't know, it was DGA that's graded aggregate, that was just kind of, you could see it pouring in and I don't know where the drain was that it was going to, but it was different color enough that you could see that it was impacting the entire site. So it was s since you guys own the site now, it's like important that those kind of things get checked. Yeah. Just so they're not impacting our storm water drains other than that, that's it. I I I think it's like they've got a good plan. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean one of the, one of the things
that will be really, you know, vigilant for is silt leading the site. So just make sure you got plans in place to handle stockpiles runoff so that nothing's leaving the site, nothing's going on to 1 35 during construction. Other questions at this point? Speaker 6: Could I just get some clarification on the 25 foot no disturb? Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 6: And I guess, you know, ideally I would love to see this development and developer, you know, take an approach as other developers have, which is be respectful of that
and, and not, you know, take the pavement out and make it a naturalized area. I know that's not gonna happen, but it would be wonderful to, to see that happen. But I guess from my perspective is how do, how, what insurances do we have in place beyond the silt sock or the compost sock, the silt fence that the pavement is not going to further encroach into the 25 foot beyond what it already is. So they're gonna rip up pavement. I get that. It's gonna be repaved.
Where is that line? Has it been defined? Speaker 14: Well, if you see that light gray background line work, there's like a, Speaker 6: I, I see, I see paperwork, I, I get, I understand your line on a piece of paper. How is it going to translate in the field? Speaker 15: So when it's time to construct, this is gonna be laid out with GPS total station, that type of equipment. Then I believe at the end construction, your board of conditions probably is gonna have a standard in there
that's gonna require me to come back and review the asbuilt and then make a certification to the commission that we have constructed. The site has been constructed in substantial conformance of the approved plan, which this presumably Speaker 6: Would be. I get those details. So where the compost sock is staked in the ground, is that going to be exactly where the pavement is going up to? Is it going, you know, I guess my concern is is that you put a stake in the ground with the compost sock. We have an understanding that the, the asphalt
that's currently in place that's in the 25 foot zone is not gonna increase. That's my understanding of the project. Is that correct? Speaker 15: Correct. Speaker 6: Okay. How do we ensure on the ground that the pavement doesn't get six more inches into the 25 foot? No zone? No, you know, no build zone or two feet or 18 feet. Speaker 2: Mike? I do think we could condition some interim inspections during the paving process where those distances have to be marked off for inspection, as you know, during construction inspections. I don't know if that would be sufficient to ensure that,
that the concerns are being met, but it's certainly something that we could condition as part of the construction. Speaker 6: Yeah, because the compost sock is not gonna go right up against the existing asphalt. No, I'm smart enough to know that. No. Right, because you Speaker 15: Need to, you're 100% right about that. Speaker 6: Correct. You Speaker 15: Need, you're a hundred percent right Speaker 6: Ast. So if I was somebody who's putting in asphalt, I would go right up to where the sock is. 'cause that's inherently how I would be doing my work. So what I'm trying to do is get somebody like me
who would just be going up and putting asphalt right up to the sock after it gets removed. I'm trying to avoid that conversation. Speaker 1: So I think I, I think the solution will be something like what Claire suggested is that, you know, there's, you know, there's processes for delineating or de you know, demarcating where asphalt goes and where it doesn't go. And I think that we can just, you know, to the, to the development team, you know, I think you're hearing some clear kind of concerns or desire for very heightened vigilance around, you know,
because it's so tight because we're right up in the 25 foot no disturb zone. Just wanna make sure that what's on the plans is really what gets constructed to a high degree of precision. And so Claire, if you could draft in the, in the draft conditions, something that you think would be an appropriate safeguard to really just make sure that you know, what's being proposed is really what then gets laid out on the ground and put in the ground. We can take a look at that at our next meeting. And, and Mike, I think you've made the point abundantly clear,
you know, that that's a concern. 'cause we see it all the time, as I'm sure you guys do on the development team. I mean, you know, an extra foot of asphalt here and there happens very regularly. So we just want to be really vigilant about that because part of the pitch that you're making to us is that we're pulling stuff back from the wetlands and pulling stuff back from the 25 foot zone. We really want to see that realized in, you know, in reality in, in asphalt on the ground when all is said and done at the end of the day. So Claire, if you could put some language in there Yeah. And that'll be shared with the applicant team
and just to make sure they're on board with it as to appropriate safeguards to make sure we are gonna get what we're being told we're gonna get with respect to this. That would be great. Absolutely. Okay. Speaker 19: And, and understood with it's a reasonable request. Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that. I'm sure you know, and again, we've all, we've all been through this before, you know, this is just because of the sensitivity, because of the proximity, we just wanna make sure we really get it right there. So thank you for your understanding on that. Speaker 18: So Matt just yeah, you know, because that was in with the, the greater team that that asphalt, some of that asphalt is kind of cracked
and bent over the, the slope. Is that all being pulled back? Speaker 1: That's all being pulled back? Yeah. Speaker 18: Okay. And then reestablished the 25 foot Speaker 1: Exactly. I is that correct to the applicant team? Is that right Eddie? Yeah, Speaker 2: I've got the plans. I can pull 'em up right now. Absolutely. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So we've got a clear, you know, we've got a clear, clear understanding, clear clear agreement on this stuff. We're gonna find a way to wordsmith this into the, into the order of conditions and then we'll review that when we go over the order of conditions on this. Speaker 2: And, and just to clarify for the commission, I'm on the erosion and sediment control sheet.
Yep. These lighter gray lines are the existing limits of pavement and this thicker black line is the proposed limit of pavement. Speaker 1: So, so we're getting a, looks like a couple of feet. Yeah, Speaker 2: It does get a little tighter as you get closer to this property line where the retaining walls are, but certainly as you pull into the corner with the outfall, things are, are being pulled back and then pavement fully being removed in that corner near the dumpster pad. Speaker 1: Yep. Good. Alright, I think we've got, are there any other questions or comments from the commission on this?
I think we've got a path forward. Claire's gonna start drafting orders of conditions here. We're gonna continue this to our August 6th meeting to let the planning board process wrap up. Hopefully there's no curve balls out of left field, right field, wherever on this. I don't think there will be. And we'll pick this up on August 6th and we'll be at a chance where at, at a point where we can start reviewing the order conditions and go from there. Does that work for you guys? Natie you as the ringleader of this motley crew? Speaker 14: It does, yeah. We appreciate it. Sounds good to Speaker 1: Us. Excellent. Okay, I think we're good commission. Anything else from our side at this point before we spring?
These guys? Alright, so I'll make a motion to continue this to August 6th please. John moved. I'll, I'll take Jeff. Was that you? I didn't see it. Chris. I, Speaker 14: It Chris? Yeah, sure. Speaker 1: I'll take Jeff as a motion. And Chris, you as a second. Are you willing? Is that Chris are you, are you a willing second on that? Yes. Yes. Okay. Alright. Jeff made the motion, Chris seconded to continue this to August 6th. Any further discussion on this? All in favor? In the room? Good. Chris? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Michael? Yes. Alright, we'll continue to August 6th.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Really appreciate your efforts and your responsiveness on this. We'll pick this up at our next meeting and we will go from there. Speaker 14: Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank Speaker 1: You. Thanks guys. Alright, next item on the agenda. We've got some conditions for 43 Cypress Road I think to Yes, we do. To review, we have representatives of 43 Cypress on the call here. Yes, Speaker 2: Rick and Mike are both on the call. Speaker 1: Welcome back guys. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, so with all that, let's go through the order of conditions. Rick and Mike, you've seen the conditions. Just to jump ahead a little bit, you've seen them, you're,
you're good with what's been put together at this point? Yes, Speaker 14: Yes. Speaker 1: Great. Okay, let's walk through them quickly and then we'll go from there. Oh, Speaker 2: Of course. So starting off with the administrative information, we have the 11 sheet plan set, the hydro hydraulic and hydrologic report, the operation, oh, and let's see if I can spell subdivision correctly. The operation and maintenance plan, the Stormwater Permit Alternatives analysis or alternative access for equipment, which is the memo from the Natick Engineering Division regarding the Bayberry access. And then the site investigation memo, which is
by MacArthur Environmental regarding the lack of presence of wetland features on the lot. Moving into our findings of fact, I'm not gonna go through every one of these, I'm just gonna go through the ones that are most sort of specifically called out on this project, which is that an extended construction entrance is proposed to ensure vehicle transit of sediment is minimized. A secondary entrance is also proposed with appropriate construction tracking. Detailed restoration of the secondary entrance will result in improved slope stabilization, noting that interim
and permanent stabilization measures are detailed in the phase Georgia control plan under stormwater management, noting that the project does meet all of our local bylaw requirements. Technically the project does not result in a decrease of offsite runoff because there is no offsite runoff, but it doesn't result in an increase. So I figured the language was appropriate. That's true. Noting that that the project has provided the appropriate documentation regarding the stormwater management moving into low impact design, which I think that's sort of the most applicable to this project. The applicant has worked to develop a limit of work
that minimizes disturbance of unnecessary areas. The town has partnered with the applicant to develop plans that benefit limited land disturbance through the ability to connect the sewer system in Bayberry Road in partner, or in exchange for the transfer of ownership of the zone one parcel. The impervious surface was reduced through the planning board process with the roadway reduction. The applicant has worked to match the existing drainage patterns by retaining that low ponding point behind the retaining wall. And that sub watersheds have been used for both temporary
and final storm water management. Moving into the conditions, I am just gonna scroll straight through our standard conditions, noting that the o and m plan will have to be recorded due to the fact that this is a major permit project will need to return for a stormwater certificate of compliance at the end of everything moving into the special conditions prior to construction. Any changes including but not limited to X, Y, Z shall be submitted in writing to the conservation office. Prior to any field changes. The project shall submit the issued NIP D'S permit within 30
days of receipt by them. The business days and hours provided in the finalized storm water pollution and prevention plan shall conform to the town of Natick construction Noise restrictions. The project shall submit a finalized storm water pollution prevention plan once a contractor has been selected prior to the start of any work on site, including phase zero erosion control installation, the applicant must mark all trees proposed to removal and the access paths to be used for tree clearing equipment and a site walk must be scheduled between owner representative of the tree removal firm and conservation staff to review the final counts
of the remove trees and mark off the areas of Japanese knotweed to be avoided by construction equipment following the installation of erosion controls and the site walk detailed in the prior condition, the pre-construction inspection as noted by condition 18 a shall occur with all necessary parties. I have noted that the town engineers should be included. That's primarily for the bayberry access point, just to make sure there are no concerns in regard to that. To the extent possible tree clearing shall be conducted during dry weather periods or frozen soil conditions to minimize erosion potential, which given the drought we're in probably won't be very hard
during construction. An adequate stockpile of erosion control material shall remain on site if dewatering is required. The water shall be pumped through a filter bag or settling basin prior to the, and that'll be located outside of all wetland resource areas. And the areas where dewatering occurs shall be removed of sediment if there is any. And the areas will be restored through seating and mulching. Areas of construction access shall remain in stable condition at the close of each day. Any stockpiling materials shall be done within the locations shown on the approved plans and properly protected by erosion controls.
If stockpiles have to remain in place for longer than 30 days, they need to be covered with jute netting. Inspections shall occur per the SWIP plan and or every seven days for areas without temporary or permanent stabilization or after any storm greater than a half inch over 24 hours, which is the general requirements of the swip. Really just be built and suspenders there. Inspections shall be completed by the personnel providing the reports and be completed by a qualified professional approved by the conservation agent. The applicant shall inform the conservation agent and or town engineer immediately of any corrective actions required due
to failures identified during those inspections. Should any corrective actions be required upon completion, a report will be provided noting what the failure was, the remediation that was completed and the timeline it was completed. In any storm event, greater than three inches will result in inspection every six hours during active precipitation. I think as we all saw during that storm on Tuesday last week, the a volume of water can really build up upon completion of demolition of the existing single family home and shed land area within the zone.
One district associated with these structures shall be stabilized with vegetative cover, temporary or approved landscaping, and the area's fenced to prevent unnecessary construction access access shall be permitted as needed to complete site grading. So there is limited access that will be needed to those areas to just minimize that upon completion of the roadway and associated drainage, silt sacs or other approved measures will be installed and all drainage structures, especially if there's still areas of exposed soil during the process of final grading, hardscaping
and landscaping installation, low ground pressure equipment will be used within areas proposed to be pervious upon development. So those are the, the lawn and areas, the re-vegetated areas, et cetera. Post-construction, the secondary access pathway from Bayberry Road shall be restored following construction access requirements to a fully vegetated slope. Tree plantings along the new easement for the sewer connections are prohibited. However, a landscaping plan showing shrub herbaceous plantings and seed cover shall be submitted to the conservation agent for review and approval within 30 days of the last construction.
Access from Bayberry Road should there be any construction impacts to the vegetated interior of the traffic circle at the end of Bayberry Road. The provided restoration plan shall also address these impacts upon completion of the work requiring larger heavy machinery. All disturbed areas proposed to remain pervious will be brought to final stabilized condition. Stormwater management features designed to manage final stabilized consi conditions will not be connected to roadway drainage infrastructure until the site has been stabilized. That does include temporary stabilization measures.
No certificates of occupancy shall be approved by a cons by conservation unless a stormwater certificate of compliance has been issued or the request receives the approval of the conservation agent. Mike did raise a couple concerns about this language. This really is just belt and suspenders to make sure that I'm getting appropriate lot as builts before they are released for their certificates of occupancy because we need that stormwater certificate of compliance. I don't, I, I don't anticipate holding up any individual lots for certificates of occupancy prior to the first lot release slash certificate of occupancy.
The homeowners association covenant or declaration must be submitted for review and approval. This is a, a fairly standard for these types of projects. All mitigation trees to be installed on site shall be installed per the approved landscape plan. Any revisions to proposed species or significant changes in planting locations shall be reviewed and approved by the conservation agent. So that's, you know, if there were trees proposed to line the street or a stormwater feature and those are being relocated elsewhere on the site. Those are the types of changes that I'm talking about. The field shifts of, you know, five feet this way, five feet that way, not a concern.
If trees outside the limit of work not approved for removal, die within two years of the start of construction or have been demonstrably harmed by construction activities, they'll be replaced at a rate of two to one all installed. Mitigation trees, a total of 151 on site per the approved plan must survive for one year following installation. Installation date shall be determined by the date of inspection for the installed plantings or a dated invoice for the installation work. And finally, the applicant shall hire a qualified professional to be approved by the conservation agent
to monitor the site for one year following, excuse me, the initial inspection of landscape plantings for any new populations of Japanese knotweed that may require management, a monitoring report supplied by the qualified professional completing the monitoring shall be submitted as part of the stormwater certificate of compliance request package. And then just signatures. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Nicely done. Commission questions. Anything else, anything we missed? Speaker 2: We've had a lot of these projects now I feel like I'm, I've really got a groove down when it comes to the Speaker 1: Excellent. Rick and Mike. You guys good? Speaker 20: Yes. Yeah, just pretty thorough.
Speaker 1: Pretty thorough it is. Alright, any further questions, comments? This is the order of conditions for 43 Cyprus. If people are comfortable with it, I'd be happy to entertain a motion to issue this order of conditions as discussed. Speaker 20: Motion to issue. Speaker 1: All right. Jim made the motion to issue this order of conditions as discussed. Is that seconded? Speaker 20: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you David. Any further discussion folks? Hearing none. All those in favor in the room? David? Yes. Michael? Yes. Jeff? Speaker 20: Yes. Speaker 1: Chris?
Speaker 20: Yes. Speaker 1: All right, gentlemen, you've got your order of conditions. Thank you for your participation, your cooperation. I live in the neighborhood. I'll be walking my dog six times a day through your site. No, I'm kidding. But I really appreciate your efforts on this and your collaboration. Let us know if anything changes. If you have questions or anything like that, just let us know. But otherwise, look forward to seeing a good project come to completion. Speaker 20: All right, great. No, it's been, it's been great working with all you. So alright, have a great night. Great, Speaker 1: Thanks guys. Appreciate your time. Take care. Yep, Speaker 20: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright. I, oh, so
that concludes, I mean, we don't have 57. Speaker 2: Nope, nobody responded. I sent three emails in total. Okay. Did not get any responses back. Speaker 1: Let's push that to our next meeting. Yep. And then let's have some informal discussion around Pine Street. So 33 Pine Street, local bylaw folks. This is the house where the fence kind of came into this little bottleneck right by the side of the house. Mm. Homeowner wanted to do a little bit of, do some filling activity in the back. There's an isolated wetlands in the back where we had some questions around the location of it, but it was basically confirmed more or less.
Yep. And so Claire, there's a request to change a little bit of what we had talked about. Speaker 2: Yeah. So we do have Andy, the, the property owner on the call. Hey Andy. I do wanna give Andy his, his props. He did everything right in terms of having meetings with me beforehand, before any work was completed. And being willing to sort of come back and have this discussion about whether or not the commission feels this change, these changes would require an amendment to the approved permit. So, Speaker 1: Alright. And so this, the, the original permit was a,
under the local bylaw, it was a notice of intent under the local bylaw. Yep. So Andy, why don't you talk us through what you're, what you're thinking. Speaker 2: Andy, we are not hearing you hear you're not muted, but I'm not sure. Speaker 1: Nothing, nothing Speaker 21: Not yet. Oh, there it's, Speaker 22: Is this better? That's Speaker 1: Better. There you go. Speaker 22: Okay. So both the original submission and then this clarified amended submission are both in the same document just for your comparison. So I think the, the bottom line is that in the last submission,
I would say just highlight two things. One, I didn't really make it clear that the, that the grading was likely to extend beyond the limit of the fence. So that's the first thing. And so I, I'll speak to that in just a second. The second was actually a, an amendment after discussing with both the excavation and also the tree service, that the, there were three trees that were one of which we agreed to do a well. And after sort of digging into it a little bit more, didn't feel that that was likely to survive. And so what we
proposed in the submitted plan was basically clarifications on where there's going to be slight grade approximated depth of fill in certain areas and where we would likely increase the grade to meet the existing elevation towards the back. I added some pictures that show where the property lines are because they're a little further back than what you would naturally expect. They're, they're sort of on the, on the hillside. But the, the plan basically is to, to leverage a, a straw waddle, which is
what the commission had asked me to do last time. No change there. We basically would like to install that inside of that 25 foot buffer zone, but close to the back. So that gives us plenty of space to be able to go and sort of meet the, the existing elevation. So that was basically the, the clarification, the plan and, and Claire and I thought it was worth coming back and just making sure it all made sense. Final point that I should mention is because I'm proposing removing a few additional trees, one
of which is invasive, the other two are not. I'm proposing to replant six or more either native trees or, or plants and, and welcome any recommendations the commission has on that. Speaker 1: Great. I appreciate that offer. So, so looking at, you know, let's just pause on this picture here. Yep. Right, right here. So the idea is that the fence would come out, you know, further to the right in this picture and then, but the, the fill that you're bringing in the regrading
would extend something, you know, beyond the fence to a certain, you know, a bit just to make a more gentle slope than what was originally proposed. Is that Right? So Speaker 22: It's, it's the same idea, but it's the back, the southern side. So the, that, that fence side would, would not be any wider than what you saw in that picture. Okay. But it would be just instead of being the 90 degree angle, it would be angling back a little bit towards the, towards the corner of the lot.
Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: And so my, and this was, you know, potentially a bit of miscommunication between Andy and I as well. It, it had been my understanding that the original proposal had been to bring Phil into essentially just there's a quite a steep drop off on the lot existing Yeah. To sort of create a more gentle slope along the length of the new lawn area that's proposed. I think that was the misinterpretation is Andy is really looking for a, a more level lawn area that would then have a, not necessarily a steep slope,
it would still be three to one or greater, but a a essentially a a and I'm gonna use hand gestures that some of the commissioners online. I'll turn my camera on so folks can see my hand gestures. I thank you Pegasus. I had originally anticipated sort of a slope like this coming down through the yard and I think now what's being requested is something more like this. If that is clarifying for folks, I know it's not the most articulate way. Speaker 1: What does that do in terms of runoff to, I mean the, the houses in the back are up a significant
hill as we can see right here. Yeah. And we're very familiar with that property directly behind you. So basically what we would be doing is though on that side, on the right h hand side of this picture is that there would be fill that would be extending closer to the fence line of your neighbor. Speaker 2: Yeah. It's sort of right about two feet in of that leaf litter line that you see is where the new fencing and then the grating is proposed. Right. And I think that the house at 33 Pine is a new build. Right. So does have stormwater management in accordance with our town standards. So there is very little roof runoff generated
by the sites captured by that dry well system. So the majority of the runoff that's being captured by this area is what is being generated by their lawn currently. Yes. And there is, as you can see the, the abutting neighbor is also up slope and the actual vegetated wetland itself is slightly upgrade and then back down from the low point at the back of the rear yard. I do not anticipate any significant drainage impacts, but I think that the plantings that Andy is willing to do could also help mitigate any of those impacts
like a solid shrub plantings along the side of the lawn area to help. Speaker 1: But there's no the Yeah, fair. And then, but just from eye balling this there Yes. Looks like there's no risk of there being sheet flow off of Andy's property into his neighbor's yard as a result of this. There would still be, it looks like there would still be at a minimum, a gully, some kind of swale depression. Yes. In between the two properties. Speaker 2: I not like a formally designed swell, but just the nature of the topography coming off the abutting lot.
I, I would say it would be a, a very interesting day in Natick if the, Speaker 1: There'd be a lot of other things to worry about Speaker 2: The, the right side of butter. There's no changes proposed to the left side, which has a, a lower slope to the other property. But that is not where we're discussing any grading changes that would have drainage impacts or Speaker 1: Anything like that. Okay. And then the three trees, I think one of 'em is a Norway maple and then a couple others. Yes. Speaker 2: So this one is a Norway maple. If folks can see the one that my cursor, this is that tree that we had originally talked about. Welling is a sugar maple and it's not very visible in this photo.
There it is, it's visible in this one. There's a small tree that's up on the slope a little bit that is, is actually not in very good shape right now. When I was out on site, I think Andy, you and I both agree that there are definitely some dead branches. I think it's getting shaded out by the larger maples surrounding it. Yeah. But it was, the leaves were too high for me to be able to pull one off and confirm whether it was a Norway or a sugar maple. It is a maple tree that would be removed. Speaker 1: Okay. But Andy's, Andy's willing to do some replanting. Yes. Which is good. And you could work with Claire on that. So commissioner, and so basically, so we've issued an order
of conditions under the local bylaw and the question is how do we, if, if we agree that this what Andy's proposing makes sense or, and we're good with it, then how do we pay for this appropriately? So that's kind of the two things. So first, first question is then I'd like to hear questions or comments from the commission about what Andy's come back with and whether this is something we'd be okay with. You know, considering the three tree removal, the add, you know, adding some additional trees and we can decide how to be, you know, how, how how rigorous
and prescriptive we want to be about replacement plantings. Other questions or comments about what's being proposed here? Concerns? Are we okay with this proposal? Anybody opposed to it? Speaker 6: Okay. No, I just, my, I guess I'm just cautious around a couple of things Is, is just, is he, is he gonna have a wetter backyard? A what what he has right now, Speaker 1: A wetter backyard, meaning further back Mike? Like at the, at at, you know, once, once if, if this, if the plan is executed as it's now being proposed, would his like the, the the backyard close to his house
or the backyard, like further back near near the isolated wetlands, Speaker 6: It would be the, what would it be? The western southwestern corner? Is that Yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: Back, back there. Right, right. You, I mean 'cause it, it's almost like, you know, it's being pitched so that, you know, and that's why I was asking about kind of the swale or the gully is that there, you know, pine Street's recently read were relatively recently redone, so I don't think there's a whole lot of runoff from the street. Speaker 2: No, the street is at a lower grade than the Yeah. The front Speaker 1: Yard of the lot. So I don't think Speaker 6: That, I guess I'm thinking of it's really mostly
the neighbor, right? We, we all recognize Yep. You know, I don't have to live behind it or in front of it or whatever. But you know, that was a substantial change. Topographically this is, I I'm not saying this is anything like that. It's, it's clearly not. But I'm just thinking between who's gonna win in that battle. Topographically, right? Yeah. And I'm just worried that that slope on the other, you know, that other property along with this work, you know, are we, are we moving in a place where, you know,
somebody's gonna come back to us and say, I have four feet of water now in my south west corner of my property. Like, so I'm just, I just, I fully support this. I I obviously, I think it's wonderful that you can, we can help a young family make a little bit more space for them to enjoy their little ha you know, life in Natick on Pine Street. It's, I I I sometimes get worried that like somebody, you know, are we Speaker 1: Yeah, I know where you're going. Speaker 6: You know what I mean? Yeah. Are we thinking through,
are we thinking through, because we've, we've had some really weird things where they think everything's gonna go perfectly swimmingly and then somebody calls us up and says they got three feet of water in their backyard. Now Speaker 1: Let me, let me offer this up. I mean I, I, you know, being vigilant for that I think is really one of our, one of our real responsibilities. My, my, my gut would be that we would have seen that all already. 'cause I, I think that that property in the back would be 99% of the contribution to any issues that we would see. And Speaker 2: I, I will say that that slope
that these photos are are from earlier in the season, that slope has re-vegetated quite solidly. This spring looks good. But yes, I I do agree that likely we would've seen some impacts with some of the storms we've had this spring. Yeah. But if the commission is interested, and Andy, if you're open to it, I think another item that might help address just managing any of that surface runoff that could be contributing to a wetter spot in that backyard is Andy, would you be open to like a, a small stone trench under the fence line
that would be able to catch water from the lawn and encourage infiltration Speaker 1: Prior to it getting there? Speaker 2: Exactly. Speaker 1: So Speaker 22: Like I'm not opposed, I'm not opposed to that. I, I'm uninformed about what that would mean. But if, if that's kind of a reasonable best practice, I'm certainly open to it. Speaker 1: What we could also do though is what we could also do is just in monitor Speaker 2: For six months Speaker 1: To a year modify the order of conditions that just says we're gonna pay attention to it. And if we needed to do something we would do it. But if we don't need to do it, we don't need to do it.
You know, just to be sure. 'cause we don't want, you know, one of the core tenets of what we try to live up to or, or take care of is that, you know, you're not dumping your storm water that ends up on someone else's property. And so, yeah. So I think if we put a, a clause in there that just said, we're gonna monitor or be vigilant for based on your observations, if your neighbor says anything, and then there's some technical steps that we could take, which would just be basically digging a trench that kind of like perimeters the fill area that you put in
a trench that would be a, a couple of feet wide, a couple feet deep filled with gravel. I Speaker 2: And I think because of the long area, even less than that, six inches wide with like a foot Speaker 1: Feet. Right. Even less than that. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm getting all grandiose here, but it would be something, you know, that would capture the water before it would get to your neighbors. Before it would get to that and, and, and infiltrated into the ground. Let's just put a clause in there like that 'cause you know, and, and not incur the expense upfront when we don't know that we need need it. Speaker 2: So what I'm hearing is that the commission is comfortable with this being a minor plan change with the,
that's mitigation plantings. Speaker 1: That's the next question. Okay. Yeah. So hold on one second. So, so other commissioners, I mean are we comfortable with what and is proposing to do here? Is there any other concerns we need, we'd want to document or capture? And Mike, back to your concern, would this kind of monitoring approach, would this work for you? Would this, would this address your concerns, Mike? Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean if it's not happening right now, then it, it likely not. I, Speaker 1: I can't, not gonna happen. Can't imagine Speaker 6: It. I can't imagine it developing it is just, yeah,
Speaker 1: It's, it's, yeah, it Speaker 6: Wasn't, you know, I'm on, maybe I should have asked a question possibly instead of Speaker 1: No, it's super fair Speaker 6: Question that there's like pooling water there. I just, I just assumed that train wreck next door there created, you know, Speaker 1: And, and you a Speaker 6: Lot more water than historically had been there, but maybe not. Speaker 1: And you mean train wreck in the most diplomatic and politically correct way of saying that, right? No, Speaker 6: I don't, I I mean that you don't, the violation prove that occurred. Speaker 1: Fair. Speaker 22: I haven't had any issues with pulling as e before or after the, the project
behind me for whatever reason. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean that's a good observation. That's helpful in, in and of itself. Okay. Other commissioners, I mean, any other questions to, to address, you know, or, or things to worry about in terms of what Andy's proposing here? Speaker 23: Alright. I'm comfortable with it and appreciative that he has been so proactive with Claire. Speaker 1: Yeah, likewise. Thank you. I totally agree. Speaker 2: So I can issue an administrative Speaker 1: Approval. So that, that's the next question. Yep. Is, are we comfortable, so we had issued an order of conditions under the local bylaw. Are we comfortable with this being simply, I mean we, we could amend the order of conditions
and, you know, the the, and have some updated plans provided. Are we okay with Claire kind of administratively approving this, which is kind of the lower, lower burden there and just kind of changing the language just to reflect this conversation? Speaker 2: Yeah, so just to clarify, the administrative approval would note the updated documents that have been provided. It would note the, that this has been approved as a minor plan change under the existing order of conditions. And we do have the ability to, to put minor conditions on those administrative approvals.
So we would note that a appropriate mitigation plan will planting plan will be developed with the conservation agent to replace the removed trees and that the area will be monitored for any drainage concerns to abate them before they become a problem. Speaker 1: Are we good with Claire? You know, and basically, so what that means though is that we, we, we would not have to vote on that here tonight. We'd basically just be saying it's okay for Claire to administer Yes. Administratively approve this and then Speaker 2: Yes. 'cause if we are amending, Andy has to file and come back at the next hearing. Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. Are we okay with that guys? Does anybody object to that?
Speaker 6: No. Are are we in pro, are we inside the 25 foot? Speaker 2: No, the work is, the erosion controls are placed outside the 25 foot. Speaker 6: Okay. Yep. Perfect. Speaker 1: Okay. So we're all good for Claire to administratively approve this Andy work with Claire on this. Let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. And thanks for coming back and being cooperative. Appreciate your time. Of course. Thank you. And, and thanks to Claire for all the help. Great. All right. Thanks Andy. Take care. Cheers. Alright. Alright folks, so we are gonna pick up the,
I'm totally blanking on the address now. The Speaker 2: 57 Beverly. Speaker 1: 57 Beverly. We're gonna pick that up at our next meeting. Yep. That is everything we've had. We'll have a general business discussion. Let's talk about town forest beavers, keep it Speaker 2: Very brief. Yep. Speaker 1: And pick punch. Speaker 2: Yes. The town force people management. I've been doing the weekly site visits with the abutters. Generally that's been going very well with the rain that we got on Tuesday. I think there was a, a great benefit to all of the wetland systems. The water levels are much increased throughout the system. And I do have another site visit scheduled tomorrow at
9:00 AM if anybody would like to join with the Abutter to review. The last time I had been out there, there was still some fairly decent holes in the Beaver dam from the, the breach that had been approved. Cool. Speaker 1: Those beavers must be getting, so Pod Speaker 2: I I think also the extreme drought and then these crazy rain increases that we've been getting have, have really thrown them for a loop as well. Yeah. That is the, that's that. I'm just keeping it as a running to keep folks sort of involved. I'll run through the other updates as quick as possible, starting with the least interesting
and going to the most interesting. If folks recall way back in 2024, DEP issued a draft revisions to the Wetlands Protection Act for review and comment. We provided comment and heard nothing until today. Oh wow. When it was released that the revisions are going back out for their final public comment round before promulgation. So I will send around some links to the commission next week. If folks are interested in providing comment, we can do a letter together as a commission or folks can provide their own individual letters.
I'll have an item on the agenda. This, I literally just got the email at four 30 today. So, Speaker 1: So do they have updated regulations available now to review? Yes. Okay. Speaker 2: The updates are not anywhere what I would like them to be, but it is definitely a step in the right direction, Speaker 1: Folks. This is a, if there is a, an opportunity to use the glory of artificial intelligence, upload both versions, summary what's changed, you know, and it's, it's, I'm not advocating for any, any particular I
Speaker 2: Of ai. See if a summary document has been provided by the state that I can Speaker 1: Sharing. It could be, it could be co-pilot, it could be Gemini, it could be grok, it could be whatever you like. Maybe not grok. Maybe not grock. Okay. Yeah. But no, this, this is where AI plays a really good, is very helpful. Speaker 2: So that is sort of the least interesting but also very exciting. We've been waiting a long time for these next, most exciting, because it's still a little bit further out. Pick pond Boardwalk. We have a fully executed contract. I have a site meeting with the contractor on Monday at 10:00 AM next week.
If anybody would like to join, there're more than welcome to, this won't be any erosion control review or anything like that. This will mostly be just talking about logistics and timelines of getting that construction started. That's great. But we are so exciting. Gonna get going as quick as we can. And then lastly, and this is maybe just most exciting to me, but hopefully Chris as well for the time that he served on the DAM advisory committee, but the spillway in South Natick is coming out Speaker 1: When, when does that start? Speaker 2: So the in water start date was today. So the contractor of folks were driving by might have noticed that there's some rip wrap
that started to be piled. The hall road was starting to be built today. They expect that that will hopefully be done tomorrow more, more likely on Monday. And that the first cut, they'll do a core through the concrete and then cut upwards as sort of the first step of the demolition process. They expect, we hope for that to happen on Tuesday or Wednesday next week. But because of the timeline of water flows and things like that, there's no, there hasn't been a real firm timeline for how things are moving forward.
That rain we got on Tuesday last week, raised the impoundment up almost three and a half feet from what we had drained out prior to the rain store Speaker 1: Storm. Three and a half feet. Yeah. Speaker 2: Wow. And it's, it's because of the drought conditions, our, our water bodies are seeing an increased amount of runoff because so little of that water is infiltrating into the ground. Right. And so as it worked its way down through the drainage systems, through Indian Brook, through Davis Brook, we saw this pretty significant raise up Speaker 1: The pond refilled to a certain extent. Speaker 2: Exactly. And I think just today we sort
of hit back to the dry point. We were the day before the storm last week. Right. So we are in good shape. We are keeping the abutting communities informed. Wellesley and Dover, our downstream river communities of the Progress pal is on site daily, the public archeology lab with the start of the hall road build out and the demolition removal. GZA also has a staff person who is on site whenever there's work that's being performed. And the contractor Flynn actually has a camera set up
monitoring those low flow gates and the, the gauge that measures where the river is at. So there's a lot of monitoring there. Just as a reminder to folks, Grove Park on the south side of the river is currently closed to public access during the construction period. Speaker 1: So I'm seeing a whole lot of people walking across the spillway. Speaker 2: Yes. I I will also like to note that as we move into the actual demolition phase, there will be some safety fencing installed along the entrainment walls on the north side of the river. And there may be days when Old Town Park is closed
for public access only during construction hours to prevent any injury from flying debris. Mm. But the construction team is gonna be monitoring that. The parks will be reopened following construction air. The park on the north side of the river will be reopened following construction hours each day for public access. But while they're out there working, it may be closed while they're on that northern half of the river. Speaker 1: Big changes, you know. Yeah. I mean it's, it's really, it's, it's, it's wild. Speaker 2: So, and then the, the last quick update, which is just sort of associated with the spillway removal is that we did submit a grant application
for the community biodiversity grants to support ideally the private properties that are being impacted most by the spillway removal in invasive species management and native plant restoration. Gotta re it on those newly exposed land areas. So if we are awarded that funding eligible property owners would be, would receive a no-cost assessment and management recommendations for the property. And if they choose to implement those recommendations, they would be eligible for up to a certain value of reimbursement dollars that would be provided through a sort of mini grant program. Speaker 1: I'm not, I'm not noticing. I mean I've been down there a couple of times
and I'm not noticing a stench in there. Speaker 2: No. I mean, when it was 105 degrees things were a little stinky, but I think we were all a little stinky when it was 105 degrees out. But Speaker 17: Months are beautiful, Matt. Speaker 1: Huh? Speaker 17: The muds are beautiful. Speaker 1: They are, aren't they? But it, I Speaker 17: Snuck down there at midnight and I, I just bathed in it just, it's so good for my skin. Oh Speaker 2: My god. But, but a healthy wetland soil should not necessarily be producing any stench under normal conditions. Yeah. And I always say that I have seen quite a bevy of wildlife in the area.
The only thing getting rich stuck in the mud that I have seen so far is Derek Wheeler from GCA when he tried to walk out there yesterday, Speaker 1: His hip waiters. Were he Speaker 17: Still there? Speaker 2: No, no. He got out and he was not wearing waiters unfortunately. He Speaker 1: Got helicopter. He got helicopter. Now did the homeowners know about this, this program Speaker 2: Before? Oh, so, so there, there's been a commitment from the select board's decision that there would be technical advice available for myself, for any of the property owners. Okay. There has been a commitment to the town to pursue additional ways to support those property owners. Wonderful. And there are several property of property owners
who we've have reached out and have been informed that we've been applying for these grants. I believe there's also an update that's gone up on the project webpage. Okay. But it, it's, there are, it's technically 17 lots, 16 property owners who would be eligible along the impoundment area, private property owners who would be eligible for this program. Speaker 11: What So they can have for plantings or whatever to be put in. So Speaker 2: It would mostly be the invasive species if, if they implement the management recommendations. The grant application we developed was in partnership with a local landscaping firm who has a lot of great experience with wetlands invasives management.
So they would, they would do the assessment, provide the management recommendations, and then the homeowners would contract directly with them to do the implementation and then apply for reimbursement through the town. And that's how we get around that. The town can't perform work on private property realm. Speaker 11: Do they They don't own that land though, do they? Yes, they do. Well, they're gonna own Speaker 2: That muck. It depends on everyone's specific deed, but generally in the state of Massachusetts properties who abut water bodies own to the center line, center of the water or midline of that water body.
Wow. So those newly exposed lands are under those private properties owners. And as the river resets itself, the, the way that the wetlands jurisdiction impacts their lots will also change. Speaker 1: What will be interesting is that, and I would expect in the next 10 years, you know, that there will be some proposals in front of us to do some work. Yeah. Speaker 2: On some of this. I would also, I could also very easily see that happening. Speaker 1: And we just need to Speaker 17: Yeah. I mean they're gonna get closer. Yeah. Speaker 2: Well, we'll still have our 200 foot river front area and, and those exposed areas are likely going to be BVW
for the next 25 to 50 years, if, if not more So we, we'll definitely not, not losing all of our, our wetlands Speaker 1: And, and, and a big, a big storm event. It'll be inundated. Yes. Speaker 2: It will be a naturalized floodplain. The town will be working after the spillway removal, once the river resets itself with FEMA to get a letter, a map amendment for that flood elevation for that stretch of the Charles. 'cause right now it's based off of the height of the spillway. Right. Speaker 1: Alright. Okay. Other questions? Hearing none. Someone make a motion to adjourn. Speaker 11: Motion to adjourn.
Speaker 1: Alright, I'll take, I'll take Jim's motion to adjourn. Speaker 17: Always take in the room. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Right, because I, I'm okay at detecting voices. Jim made a motion to adjourn. Is that seconded? Speaker 2: Jeff? Seconded. I, Speaker 1: Jeff seconded it. Alright, Jeff, second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Great. See you guys. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. Good night everyone. Take care.