Speaker 1: All right, well, I've got 7:00 PM up high. So let's, let's get going folks. Welcome. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is December 18th. Hope everyone's gearing up for a little bit of time off some family time and holidays if you've been celebrating them or if you will be celebrating them. Our next meeting will be in January just to foreshadow a little bit, and I believe it is January. We have one meeting in January due to the schedule, and I think January 15th is the, is the one meeting in January that, that we'll have,
and then we'll be back to our regular two meeting per month schedule starting in in February. So I'd like to go ahead and open the public part of the meeting here this evening. And the first item on the agenda here is a request for determination of applicability for 1 53 Cottage Street. Do we have representatives of 1 53 Cottage Street here on the call this evening? Speaker 2: Yes. Karen Skinner, the wetland scientist for the project, is here to represent. Great. The Speaker 1: Thanks Karen. Welcome. Lemme just go ahead and formally open this, this, this, this hearing. So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act
and natick's local Wetlands Bylaw Article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability, followed by Karen Skinner representing Robert Severance for property, located at 1 53 Cottage Street Map 67 lot 12. The proposal is to replace the existing on site septic system. So, Karen, why don't you go ahead and just walk us through, walk us through the, the details of this and we'll go from there. Speaker 3: Would you like me to share my screen? Speaker 2: Karen? I've got it up, but if you'd prefer I'm more than Speaker 3: Give you No, that's okay. That's okay. So for the record, my name is Karen Kin.
I'm representing the owners of 1 53 Cottage Street. The site was flagged on August 25th, 2025. An area associated with a lodge wetland was flagged across the street from the property. The applicant is requesting a negative determination to replace their failing septic system. The replacement system was proposed in the front yard of the property outside the 50 foot buffer. The wetland is across the street. The wetland across the street is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. The work will cause a total of 2011 square feet of temporary disturbance within the buffer zone.
A straw waddle and s silk fence are proposed as erosion control removal of one crab apple tree will be required. There's no riverfront hundred g have floodplain or natural heritage issues associated with the project. There'll be no stock. There's a note on the plan that that states there'll be no stockpiling or overnight storage of equipment within the buffer zone, and the construction access will be via the driveway, which is on the left portion of the property. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Speaker 2: And just one error in my staff notes, copy and paste error. This would just be a negative three determination. There is no additional resource area, it's just buffers no negative to Speaker 1: Good. Karen. The, the topography of the, of the site there relatively flat, it looks like. I mean, maybe a slight slope towards the street in Speaker 3: In the area. It's, it's flat. There was some pictures. I, I did send some pictures in the submittal. Speaker 2: I can get them pulled up. Speaker 3: So the wetland is across the street, just on the other side of the street. Speaker 1: Claire, if you could just pull those up for a quick sec so we could take a look.
Speaker 2: Yep. Just also trying to let people into the meeting. Ah, Speaker 1: Multitasking. Speaker 2: Let me share apologies for the whiplash. Scrolling, there's the photos. Speaker 3: So that's the area of the installation there. That's a picture taken from across the street, obviously, and the resource area, if you just go up one more picture. Yeah, it's, see, it's very heavily wooded and, and shrugged and tree. Speaker 2: This is the portion of cottage where the wetland essentially just runs right alongside the roadway. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Hmm. Pretty straightforward commission
questions, concerns. Speaker 4: This is Jim Fitzgerald question is the, the location during construction of the, where's the equipment kept and, and any stockpile of any, any soil or anything? Speaker 3: No stockpiling and no overnight storage of equipment. Speaker 4: It's Speaker 3: All dial. And just Speaker 4: Is Speaker 3: That, just to mention the, the existing sy pi, the existing pit from the cesspool is on the other side of the, the property. So that will be crushed in place, filled with sand,
crushed in place and removed. Speaker 1: And Karen, you've got all the, all the permits you need from board of health at this point. Speaker 3: So they don't have board of health approval yet. But I spoke to the engineer about it today and I don't think it's a problem. I think they might be waiting for ya. Approval Speaker 1: Vague. Quite well, maybe. Okay. Other questions from the commission on this? Concerns? It's always good to get a good, clean, new septic system in place. All right. Hearing that, oh, Speaker 5: I saw, I, I saw some comment about trees. Maybe close. Is that the 24 inch oaks there that you're referring? Speaker 2: So David, that would just be the, the 10 inch crab apple.
I think that might, that's coming out. Another slight copy and paste. There's just the one tree that's being impacted on this project. Okay. Speaker 1: Karen, is there any plan at this point to, to replace that tree? Speaker 3: I don't, I didn't show anything in submittal. The engineer didn't mention it. If you want me to back discuss that with him, I, we could put a tree. There's a lot of room on the property. So, Speaker 1: Yeah, I think if, just as a matter of principle, if, if that, if, if the homeowner could replace that tree with a native species, that would be great. Absolutely. Yep. In a, in a one-to-one way, Speaker 3: Did you want that in the buffer zone or can it be anywhere in the lot?
Speaker 1: I personally, anywhere in the lot. Anyone on the commission field feel differently? Speaker 2: I think given the heavy canopy at the front of the lot already, yeah, I think anywhere on the lot is fine. Speaker 1: Alright. Any other questions, comments, concerns about this? All right. Hearing none, someone make a motion to, to close and then we'll issue a determination. So moved. Thank you Chris. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on that? All is in favor. I'll do a roll call. Vote. Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Matt? Yes as well. Determination. Negative three. Determination.
There's no resource area here or the, the, the project is within, besides the buffer zone. So someone make a motion to issue a negative three determination on this, please Speaker 5: Move for a negative three. Speaker 1: Thank you, David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? All's in favor, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. And Matty? Yes as well. So, negative three determination, Karen, you, well you'll get a letter in the mail to this effect, one tree to be replaced.
Besides that, you got what you need from us. Speaker 3: Thank you. Have a good night. Speaker 1: Thank you Karen. Appreciate your time. All right. Next item in the agenda is to talk about the order of conditions for six Ambler court. We voted to close the public hearing at our last meeting. Claire has drafted up conditions. The applicants and their representatives cannot be here this evening and wildly offered and said if we need to add any other conditions, we're free to do so. But we use that judiciously of course. So Claire, if you could just talk us through the conditions,
you know, focusing I guess on this, on the special conditions that would be, that would be super. Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. Just to give a brief overview this, if there's an existing single family home with a detached garage and a shed that'll be removed, those structures will be removed as well as some tree removal. The driveway will be relocated. That should say if necessary. Afterwards, following the demolition of the driveway relocation, there'll be a new structure constructed along with the associated utilities and storm water drainage. And the site will be finished up and stabilized.
So just to read those quick findings of the fact the proposed project fully pulls the structures on site outside of the 40 foot no build zone and relocates the driveway out of the 25 foot no disturb zone to the maximum extent possible. There is a small section where it meets at the amber court right of way. Mitigation plantings are also proposed between the driveway and the wetland boundary to restore naturalized buffers to the resource area. And stormwater management is also provided in compliance with the town's stormwater management and erosion control bylaw general conditions, I'm not gonna spend too, too much time on these we're all
fairly familiar standard prior to construction conditions with some add-ons, there is some tree protection proposed on site that will need to be inspected as well as the snow fencing to protect the existing retaining wall on the lot and the staking for the sewer pump chamber. All important to have before heavy equipment is accessing the site, following the inspection of the installed erosion controls. If it's determined that additional protection is required, the applicant shall stall additional erosion controls as determined by the conservation agent.
That was based on the discussion that I reviewed from the last meeting with the applicant. And then following that, if temporary stormwater basins are determined to be necessary, they shall be constructed following the demolition of the existing structures. Just to give a little bit of timeline on when those things need to be implemented in terms of the project phasing. Yeah, Speaker 1: Just to remind people. So in the plans that we were shown, the applicant had proposed to do some temporary storm water basins along the side of the driveway, but it seemed like a lot of disturbance when they quite well, you know, might not be needed. And so giving the applicant a little bit of flexibility to
decide if they're going to be needed, certainly with our input if we want. And if that's the case, then they'll construct them at that point. Speaker 2: Great. Continuing into construct construction conditions, conditions regarding the copies of the OOC and the approved plans to be kept on site notification of violations, erosion control measures will be maintained in continuous order. There will be a stockpile maintained on the site if dewatering is necessary, how that would have to occur. General policing of the wetland areas. Materials and equipment shall be stored in a manner
to minimize impacts and compacted soils. Snow removal, snow removal areas are identified on the plan sheet in this regard Also, these are special conditions for projects that are proposing stormwater management but are are not part of our standard template. This is just the pre-bed and berry inspection that are required for all stormwater management install in the town of Natick, the catch basin structure in the yard. Shall the honeycomb gr structure to avoid issues with flogging during theum season? Just be really clear. So again,
that's just a a, a be beehive style structure that sits raised above the ground so that way when the leaves fall on it, they fall down to the edge, but the structure itself doesn't get clogged and the water can continue to flow. Conditions. Regarding the mitigation, restoration plants that are proposed on the approved plans, any changes to these species have to be reviewed and approved. The mitigation restoration areas shall be over seeded with an appropriate seed mix to ensure total stabilization seed mixes shall include New England wetland plants for wet mix or erosion control for detention basin and moist sites.
As this area is directly adjacent to the wetland, I do imagine it will be moist a good amount of the time. Standard conditions regarding if trees that are not approved for removal. There are some trees that are proposed to be saved on this project. So if those are damaged or die during construction, they do need to be replaced at a two to one ratio. Moving down, I felt that this was appropriate, the 25 foot no disturb zone or edge of driveway for the markers to be placed in the field. It, it felt a little odd to have them on the house side of the driveway rather than the wetland side of the driveway.
Our standard as-built conditions and the standard, oh, this one should have been highlighted in yellow, but standard perpetual conditions with a condition that I'm, I'm proposing along with the stormwater inspection sort of becomes part of that standard addition to our template when these stormwater systems are proposed, which is just that the operation of maintenance requirements for the stormwater management system shall exist in perpetuity. And that's part of our stormwater bylaw as well. And that is the end of our proposed conditions. Matt, there is a hand raise from the public.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw that. Ms. Doran, do you have a question about this? I wonder if it's an inadvertent hand raise. All right. Not hearing anything back. Let's keep going. Okay, so commission, comments, questions on these, these conditions. Anything missed? Anything we want to add in addition to this? In my opinion, this, this, this captures the discussion. Thank you. Cap captures what we wanted to have included as conditions. Is there anything else that we need? Everyone's good. All right. If that's the case, then I'd be happy to entertain a motion to issue this order of conditions as discussed.
Motion to issue. Wait, was that you Jim? Sorry. Yeah, that was me. Jim, thanks. Thanks Jim. Hey, Matt. Speaker 6: Matt, this is Catherine. Sorry, the screen was blocked and I couldn't unmute myself because the screen was blocked with a Speaker 1: Okay. Do do you have a question? Speaker 6: I have a comment. Okay. This is interesting because Marcelo Alvez, a new, new generation homes, the same builder that did the tear down a new construction next to me a few years ago, and it was a nightmare. They actually cut down a mature oak tree on my property. As Claire will remember, they were digging into the hill
and excavating and starting the retaining wall before Claire had given approval. So my recommendation is to keep a tight watch on this project. Don't assume anything, this builder's not trustworthy. So just wanted to give my 2 cents. Alright, Speaker 1: Thank you Ms. Dorn. Jim made a motion to issue this order of conditions. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion folks? All right, hearing none. All those in favor please indicate by saying yes. When I call your name Mike. Yes. Jim? Yes. Chris? Yes.
David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. And Matt? Yes as well. Okay, great, Claire. Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's move on. Alright, next item on the agenda, five Auburn Street back. Speaker 2: Just one technical question, Sharon, I've made you a co-host, but who else from your guys team is potentially gonna be sharing their screen this evening? Speaker 7: I think you probably just me or potentially. Potentially maybe Brad. Speaker 2: Okay, Brad, I'll just make you a co-host as well, just so that way we're not interrupted in discussion. Thank Speaker 1: You. Alright, well welcome back everybody. Thanks.
You know, lots of, lots of back and forth, lots of information flying over the, over, over the wire about this. And so we'd like to pick up the conversation where we left off. And there is a, a few, a few items that we had been discussing. I need to apologize on behalf of the commission. We had been hoping to get comments and feedback from town council on some outstanding questions and had not received it as of the meeting this evening. So we're gonna need to pump that to the next meeting. And just to remind people, you know, the, the, the questions that we're exploring are around the, there's a number
of them, but basically around the amount of mitigation based upon the proposed disturbance areas to look at some precedents, legal precedents case law around projects like this and which aspects of the Rivers Protection Act, and particularly for previously developed sites or redevelopment projects to get some clarity or get some case law in our hands around that. There's an outstanding question around the, the
length of time that the mo that the applicant may be responsible may be asked to be responsible regarding monitoring and maintenance and upkeep of the mitigate the proposed mitigation. So there's a, you know, fairly long list and we're waiting on that feedback and hope again, I hope to have some of that here this evening. Don't have that here in hand. So what I'd like to do would be you folks from Metro West Collaborative had prepared and submitted a, a abbreviated habitat study and we'd like you to walk through that if
that's, if that works for you. And then to talk about any additional thoughts that you've had around the mitigation efforts. So we can put those on the table as well and then continue the questions that I'm sure the commission will have as we, as we proceed. Speaker 7: Sure. So we have a very short slideshow, which I think covers what you just asked. So if that works, I'll go ahead and then if there's anything we haven't covered, you can let us know. So just again, my name is Sharon Small, I'm the director of real estate at Metro West cd. I have a couple other team members here right now.
We have Brad Holmes, our wetlands expert who can speak to the wildlife analysis and some other details. We've got Adam Brodsky, our attorney, and we have Chelsea Gaylord, our senior project manager, Dana Ello, our civil engineer, who you've seen in our familiar with, had a pressing family emergency. And so unfortunately he couldn't, you know, unexpectedly couldn't join. So there may be some things where we have to bring questions back to him and then report back at the next hearing where he'll be able to join. So thanks for your patience with that. So the first slide is development primer.
I think folks kind of know what the development is. So in, you know, two sentences we're proposing 32 units of affordable rental housing with a range of bedroom sizes in two buildings. One, preserving and reusing valley at school and one a new construction building. And, you know, we're proposing making improvements to stormwater management on the site and also invasive species management and site improvements for mitigation. So this was our list of follow-up items after the last hearing. The first one was a sim submitting,
a simplified wildlife habitat evaluation, which we submitted and we'll go into in more detail. The next was giving some more detail on our mitigation plan and invasive species management. So we also submitted an updated vegetation management plan on Tuesday. The next was continuing to talk about mitigation and the requirements under statute. And so we'll get into this a little bit, but we are proposing some additional adjacent offsite mitigation to treat runoff from Auburn Street. And so that's an additional idea we've had, you know, we have a sketch and some, a kind
of conceptual idea, so I'll come back to that. We have this issue that you mentioned about duration of mitigation. It sounds like maybe the next step there is to get some input from town council and we've kind of feel like this is a continuing conversation, so happy to keep talking about it or if we're just waiting to hear from town council and then can circle back to it. We could do that too, whatever you prefer. And then we also submitted some written responses in response to Commissioner Downey's written comments from November 20th and Claire's comments from December 1st. So this was our list of kind of open items
and now I'm going to turn it over to Brad to talk about the wildlife evaluation if you'd like. You know, I can also switch and we can pull up the exact document that we submitted, but we kind of have a summary here that we thought we'd talk from. Speaker 8: Yeah, Speaker 1: It's fine to go from, from, from this here at this point. Speaker 7: Great. Speaker 8: Good evening. Members of the commission, Brad Holmes with ECR, we prepared a wildlife habitat evaluation to document and respond to some of the commission's concerns about work in the riverfront. The wildlife habitat evaluation was focused within the
project area within the riverfront where the development is proposed. And because that area as you know, consists mainly of old playing field or lawn, there isn't any significant wildlife habitat within that portion of the site. We documented that in the, in deps wildlife habitat evaluation form. And we also provided some more information on the species that are proposed for inter planting within the vegetation management area and the wildlife benefits that they provide.
So if you had a chance to review that, you'd, you'd see that information. We, we also provided additional information in the response package to questions about the improvements to wildlife habitat value and the ability for wildlife to be able to traverse the site in a better manner than exists now with the dense stands of invasive species in there. So that's, that's a little bit of an overview on the improvements proposed. Can certainly get into more detail on that. I don't know how far you would like to discuss.
I know if you've had a chance to review it. So with that I'll, I'll, I'll leave it at that and won't go into further detail on, unless you would like to. Speaker 1: Great, thanks Brad. Questions from the commission on this. I'll, I'll start. So one of the, in the analysis that you provided you, you talked about how you basic you limited the discussion or limited the analysis to the redevelopment area itself, which as you note here and I think is accurate. Paved parking area, playing fields lawn, which in
and of itself, you know, doesn't provide any important wildlife habitat value, at least according to this bullet point here. But in terms of the wildlife corridor, you know, you, you raise the issue of the fence that's being, that, that exists there, there are areas that are not, you know, off property at the end of Auburn Street. You know, there's areas that are not fenced, you know, which, which would provide opportunities for animals to go down to the river, across the river, access the river. Is it, you know, is, is it kind of your position
that the project as proposed wouldn't impact their ability to continue to do so either physically or in terms of lighting, deterrence, additional sounds, additional cars like that? I mean, is that also what you would you would say? Speaker 8: What I, when I think of a wildlife corridor, I think about travel way between wildlife habitats. So where I, where I view this site is the wildlife habitat or significant wildlife habitat is, is along the river,
which will be improving. If we had a situation where there was a forested woodland or another wildlife area to the, to the west of the site and this site was being used as a corridor to access the river, then I think we'd have a wildlife corridor through the site. But because the property itself in the areas to the west of the, of the site consists of development, roadways, commercial buildings and whatnot, I don't see that the,
there's a significant movement of wildlife habitat, you know, from the river to the west or from the west to the east. Certainly there's avian species that would use the site and can travel freely that won't be impacted. But as far as the restriction of, of a, of a corridor east to west or west to east, I don't see that changing. I do see that there would be, be an improvement north to south or south to north along the river with the vegetation management plan. Speaker 1: Okay. One of the, one of the concerns,
and I've said this publicly and we'll be talking about it later tonight, is that if the vegetation management plan is not maintained in perpetuity because of the nature of the invasive species that are there now on that land, but also directly adjacent to it on, on, on a budding parcels, you know, it's not hard to imagine that that, that the, the, the bank of the river would very fairly quickly, you know, based on the properties of Japanese knot weed would fairly quickly become
overrun once again. Would that not kind of eliminate any of the benefits that, in terms of the improved wildlife habitat value, wouldn't that basically eliminate that improvement Speaker 8: If it were left main unmaintained for a, a number of years and it were to, and we were to lose the proposed improvements that we are propo, you know, are including in the design it could, but as I see it, it would be like, you know, not mowing the property or not doing any maintenance at all
and letting a yard overgrow. I mean, once this is underway and can be managed with a very small amount of yearly maintenance once it's under control, it's not that heavy of a lift. The first few years are certainly the, the time period where this is gonna be key. But once it's, once it's managed, it's not that heavy of a lift. So any anybody, any crew that would be mowing a lawn or pruning or doing a fall cleanup would be normal maintenance of the site. And I think that would be included.
A a normal maintenance of the management area would be similar. So yes, I mean if this site were left unmaintained in a certain state, then it could happen. But I don't see that happening because I think there's gonna be interest in the area, the aesthetics of looking out to the river and people that are living there would make sure that the benefits are maintained. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks Brad. Other questions from the commission on this? Okay, are we good to move on? All right, she, let's move on please. Speaker 7: Alright Brad, I'm gonna let you cover the next slide as well.
Speaker 8: Sure. The, the next slide shows the vegetation management plan. It, as you can see, the area in light green is the management area with removal of invasives and revegetation with natives. The area on the, in the dark green moving westerly is the area that would be planted with natives along the back of the, the building area, which currently exists as, as that playing field, there isn't a lot that has changed since the original
proposal as we've discussed. And you've reviewed, there's some more detail and some more answers to questions. But overall it's, it is proposed as you've seen it. So I, I won't go into further detail 'cause I know we've reviewed it unless you have some specifics, we can go from there. Speaker 1: Okay. Questions from the commission on the, currently on the, on the planting plan, the mitigation plan, invasives management? Speaker 4: Yeah, I I I have a question. I'm trying to, the two different areas. So the, the proposed mitigation planting area
essentially butts up right against like the, there's a, that black fence there now Speaker 8: Property? Yes, correct. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 8: The, the whole area is calculated as one mitigation area, but it's kind of divided into two, two in the sense that, okay, when you move, when you move from the fence to the river, that's where the invasives are and that's that light green area. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 8: The area inside the fence to the building is that dark green area, which would be restored, which would be re-vegetated from lawn to a more naturalized area.
Speaker 4: Oh, so that that's inside the fence? Speaker 8: Correct. Speaker 4: Ah, okay. So right now that, that's grass essentially there now, right? Yes. Okay. Yes. I thought the building went even closer to the, to the edge there. Okay. Oh, all right. So roughly how wide is that then that, and I know there's some real close places, but Right, say right in the middle there, how, how, how wide does that strip of land between the fence and the building?
Speaker 8: I'd get, could get you a better answer, but I think you're looking at 20, 25 feet Speaker 4: Really that much. Okay. All right. Okay. And then the, the, like you said, the light green area, that's all the con invasive area and that that's behind the fence. Speaker 8: You're correct. Speaker 4: Okay. Alright. Thanks Speaker 5: Brad. The, the dark green on the inside of the fence, which is currently grass will become what Speaker 8: That the landscape designer has prepared a landscape plan that would be used, that area would be converted from lawn to, to a native seed mix
and woody plantings as far as we've discussed, a mix different, different placing to kind of work with the building, but it wouldn't be lawn, it would be a more naturalized area. Speaker 1: So there'd be no pathway, no walking path back there. It would really be fully Speaker 8: Vegetated there. We've, we've, as you can see, there's, there's space left around the, the building there is, yeah, sure. The plantings would be put in if whatever plantings that would be in there would be kind of clustered. It wouldn't be as dense and filled in as the,
the, the area on the other side of the fence. But it would, it would be kind of more designed, I'll say Speaker 9: Commission members David Aiken here working with the metro West team. Sorry I'm a couple minutes late, but thank you. It gave me time to attend my son's winter recital. Rebecca Bason, who's the team's a landscape architect, couldn't join us tonight. She has another hearing, but Claire had also raised some questions about what was happening in sort of this transition spot. So just wanna weigh in, have some notes from her and also happy to have, you know, Rebecca and, and Claire connect and Rebecca even possibly could join the
next hearing. But there's no question that this is intended to be a mitigation area with a conservation seed mix and some, some plantings, shrubs and, and, and other items identified on the L 200 plan that was submitted. I think that in terms of pathway, the, the thought is that there, you know, just needs to be the ability to sort of walk through here so that there's, you know, maintenance can be done, you know, check it on the side of the building, but it's not intended to be lawn, it's not intended to be mowed. But, you know, if there's any questions about sort of what the final intended planting plan is there,
we can certainly engage and make sure that Rebecca can answer some of those questions. But that's originally proposed, it's a conservation seed mix with other shrubs and, and native plantings. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks Dave. And certainly understand the need to attend your child's rec, your recitals. Appreciate Claire, Claire are there, you had some questions around specifically around this. Can you highlight those and, and, and let's put those on the table please. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I was just looking for a little bit more detail and, and I think that, that the applicant team is, you know, aware of, of what I'm looking for in terms of
what exactly this area is going to look like. There are a couple of, you know, plant specific plants called out in the landscaping plan with that match up with the suggested plant list. But there's also sort of just a large area that that appears to be potentially only seed mix. And I think that there was a conflicting plan sheet from a prior set that said that area was gonna be lawn. And so just wanting to really clarify exactly what is proposed back here to ensure that it, it does meet the requirements of, of mitigation. Speaker 1: Great, thanks. Any
other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 5: I guess the, the reason it's me again on the same issue, the reason I asked is that I think it's an interesting spot, right? You're walking along and the river's right down there and if there isn't gonna be an explicit path, I think people are gonna walk there. I would and the only reason I mentioned that is that whatever you are gonna plant there should be hardy so that people can walk around. 'cause I, I think they're going to, Speaker 1: Any thoughts on that from the design team? Speaker 8: I'll add one piece there is gonna be access to the flagpole in that area. So if you're walking down the street, you'd be able to kind
of go into that area and get a lookout, kind of like an overlook over the river in the mitigation area. As far as pathways in that green highlighted area, we, you, we weren't proposing any, Speaker 1: I think what David's referring, I think, I think what David's referring to is the area that's basically on the inside on the, on the, the Elliot Street side of the fence, you know, in between the building and the fence, David, is that right? Speaker 5: That's right. Speaker 10: It's just, Speaker 5: It's just a small practical concern that I think people are gonna be interested to walk through there and I think you should expect that
that won't be heavy traffic, but I think you should expect that. Speaker 8: I'm sure we can coordinate with the landscape designer and I'm sure people would enjoy looking at the plantings and you know, getting some education on the diversity. Speaker 10: Yeah. Could I, this is Chris, could I get some clarification? Defense remains correct. So it'd be a tight little spot in many areas, right? So walking through it, you'd be kind of tiptoeing around shrubs, is that what I'm imagining? There's no walkway, right? Speaker 9: Yeah, there, there's no walkway. I think the thought was just as I'm conveying it
from the landscape architect bit. So we're trying to wear that, that hat briefly is that it's, it's not maintained, it's not, you know, mode or anything, but that it is an area that would, would grow but maybe it, the selection of species would be such in a way that if the fire department needed to get back there or they had to get back there for building maintenance, it's not, you know, incredibly over overgrown. It's probably not the right term, but I'm also happy to convey some of this to, to Rebecca Beand and, you know, we can submit and, and engage with, with Claire a little bit to kind
of make sure we can, you know, answer some of these questions. But no, there hadn't been an intent of making a, an actual walking path through there. Speaker 10: I, I would with because the fence remains. I'm assuming that you have people fully contained within that site if there was the fence. So, Speaker 9: And, and it's a pretty steep Speaker 10: Slope. Be a conduit between the Yeah, okay. Speaker 9: Yeah, it's a steep slope and you know, I think just other concerns with, with Speaker 1: That, that, okay. Got it. Thank you. Other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 11: Not, not to pile on, but I think the points have been made.
I, I'm having a really difficult time with the calculus of, of this square footage. You know, I can draw a polygon as well as anybody else and calculate square feet. What I'm trying to get around here is that this building has to have egress correct on this other side, on this naturalized area. So the residents aren't gonna complain when there's golden rod that's six feet tall up against their window. Like I, I'm just trying to understand how we're getting to this mitigation square foot area calculus
when I, I'm not really seeing mitigation I guess in this, in, in much of this area, including the river, including the areas closest to Charles River. I think that's a huge exaggeration in terms of what you're mitigating there. Sure. I just, I just have a hard time with this, with this, these numbers because I, I just, I don't, I think they're make believe, I think it's a polygon. I think I can calculate the square foot just like they have, but on the ground, the square feet does not equal
what the mitigation actually is occurring on site is my point. And with this building, there's no indication where doors are on the backs. Are there doors, are there windows? I'm assuming there has to be for emergency purposes at least. And I just, if I was living in a building and had a naturalized area up against my windows, I may not find that hugely useful as a resident. And then also having an area that is inherently open that is difficult to navigate and walk, you know,
'cause I'm surrounded by asphalt on this development, so, you know, where am I gonna go to enjoy myself or to walk a dog probably in the back of this building. So it, I think it's disingenuous to consider some of this as mitigation because I don't think it's going to even meet that definition from my perspective. Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks Mike. Other questions, comments from the commission. I'll take some questions as we go through this.
If you have a question specifically about this, this slide, you can raise your hand. Ms. Dorn, I see your hand up. Speaker 6: I have a comment. Is that okay? It Speaker 1: Is. Speaker 6: I made this observation when I saw this diagram last meeting. I would strongly encourage you to mandate the planting of more mature trees. And I say that from experience, we have a family plot at Glenwood Cemetery, Glenwood Cemetery, which is across the river, just down the road. And I am the gardener there. And I can tell you I, I planted a beautiful magnolia tree. It was five feet tall.
Year three, it had finally filled out and one day I arrived and all the back branches had been chewed down by deer. And I think it's guaranteed to happen with these young, young trees with tender shoots that are really delicious. I think it's unrealistic to think that that's not going to happen. We know that they're deer in this area. So, you know, I know it's cheaper to plant smaller trees and easier, but I don't think it's realistic long term. And if you don't wanna be replanting every year for the next five to 10 years, you might see what you can do in that area. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks Ms. Dorn. Mr. Gates?
Speaker 12: Yes. Thank you. Just wanted to ask a couple of questions. The first one, what is considered the maintenance area? It doesn't sound as though the mitigation area is considered that, but clearly that is something that needs to be maintained. So is that, or is that not part of the maintenance area? Speaker 1: So I guess to the, to the applicants, would the, would the area in in between the building and the fence be actively, actively maintained? And would the, would the area on the other side of the fence be actively maintained?
What's the intent there? Speaker 8: The vegetation management plan includes a five year monitoring and reporting and maintenance. So the mitigation areas as a whole would be maintained so that we have enough, well, let's see. It will be maintained in order to meet the goals of the management plan. We wouldn't be able to come back to the Conservation Commission to get a certificate of compliance unless we had adequate success. Speaker 12: But I, but I guess the question is, if MWCD is going
to own this property and maintain it, shouldn't it also include the property that goes to the River Speaker 8: Madison? I don't, I I I'm not, I'm not Is that for me, I, i it was that for the commission. I'm not, Speaker 12: I don't understand for anyone who's willing to answer the question, Speaker 1: It would be for, I mean Mr. Gates, the, the commission has the right to set conditions and it's one of the open questions that we have right now is what is the timeframe that we, that is, that is acceptable legal allowed for those conditions.
And so, you know, it's a question that we have, I think it's fair to say is, you know, is three years, five years perpetuity, what's the appropriate length of time where we would hold the applicant and the prop and whoever owns and maintains the property to hold them responsible for maintaining the mitigation areas at a, you know, to a particular standard that we can define. Speaker 12: Okay, thanks. Speaker 1: That's an open question.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then the, the, the final question I had is that why not take the fence down or replace it Speaker 1: Applicant? Speaker 7: I, I'll let Dave jump in here, but I think it's an existing fence that's in good condition and for safety and other reasons, we think it makes sense to keep it in place. Speaker 12: But I think that Mike made a good point about the distance between the building and the fence. And it may be in the best interest of the occupants to actually remove and replace the fence or make it, you know, better condition so
that it's not two feet away from the, from the building itself. Anyway, those are my questions. Thank you. Speaker 1: Great, thank you sir. Alright, other questions from anybody on, on this, this particular topic, Mr. Alfin? Speaker 13: Yeah, just, just a a a a quick clarification perhaps from the board or the developer. Doesn't the fence pretty much mimic where the wetlands no disturbed boundary is? So the fence pretty much has to stay where it is. It can't, it can't be replaced at any
greater distance away from the building. And just to, to follow up on what someone said before, I'm not sure I heard an answer. Are there doors that open up into the mitigation area? So that's, that's two separate points Speaker 1: I'll answer. I'll answer the first one. And that is that the way the laws are written is that, you know, fences, in some cases fences can be exempt from the, they can be exempt structures and they can also be allowed at the discretion of the commission and you know, up to, up to the edge of the resource area. So if, if there was a reason to do so,
that would be a conversation. We, we could have to, you know, push the fence away from the building. There's a slope there, there's a variety of reasons that I think it might be challenging, but it is, it, it's not, you know, expressly forbidden. Okay. As for the door, as for the Speaker 13: Official condition, if it's less than 50 feet from the river front, Speaker 1: Sorry, say that again. Speaker 13: If it's less than 50 feet from the riverfront, it's a a, a special condition that is also subject to commonwealth oversight. Speaker 1: It's less than 50 feet from the riverfront.
The commission has the authority to allow a fence to be placed right up to the edge of the resource area. Claire, correct me if I'm wrong. And so Speaker 2: Yes, so fences are considered a minor exemption under the regulation when they are over 50 feet from the resource area. But under an approval such as a request for determination of applicability or notice of intent application that results in either a determination of applicability or an order of conditions work can be permitted within that inner 50 feet of the buffer zone for things such
as fence placement. Speaker 13: Thank you Claire. And that, that I assume does not apply a anything that would be outside of the fence, meaning north of that fence wouldn't be considered mitigation area at this point if it's within the no disturbed wetlands, buffer zone. Speaker 2: Marco, I'm not sure if I'm getting to the root of your question, but the, the areas of mitigation can include anywhere up to and even into the existing wetland resource areas. If this area of the Charles River was, was severely degraded
or like at pick pond a a conservation area here in town, there was, there was a car down on the river bank, the, the removal of that disruption could be considered mitigation. So the applicant is welcome to propose mitigation a anywhere on the lot, including within the wetland resource areas. In this case it would be bordering vegetated wetland. I please lemme know if that got to your question or not. Yeah, Speaker 1: If it's a net, if it's a net improvement to the conditions, if it's mitigating impacts, then as, as Claire said, it can go right up to the edge
and sometimes even into the resource area as, as, as needed. Speaker 13: I understand. So by going into that no disturb area that requires additional mitigation area somewhere else on the site to make up for it. Speaker 2: So they are propo? No. Oh yeah. They're proposing mitigation in improvement to that no disturb zone, which the commission would approve that, you know, quote unquote disturbance within that area with the understanding that it, if it does present a net benefit for the area that would be approved under this permit through conditions
and, and the approved documentation. Okay. Speaker 1: The, the activity within, within those limits does not trigger within those limits does, you know, the mitigation activity does not trigger additional mitigation to be required on site. Speaker 13: Okay. And the second part did, did we ascertain if there were doors opening into the mitigation area Speaker 1: Yeah. To the applicant? Speaker 7: I'll, I'll start to answer that. I don't know if there's a gate in the existing fence, but property management certainly needs to access the area and they could access it from the, the little flagpole area. But let me talk to the design team and see if we think
Speaker 13: Okay. Just, just to be clear, not the vegetation management area, but the mitigation area, which is dark green in the slide is the Oh, yes. From the building that opens into those zones. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. I see. No, there's no door from the building into the dark green mitigation area. Thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you. Speaker 8: I'll also add that, as you can see on the, the image, the mitigation area wasn't proposed up to the back of the building to the, you'll see there's a space, there's a, there's a route that's, that's yeah. Not included so that there's access along the back.
Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Why don't we, why don't we move on next slide. Great. Speaker 7: Okay, so this is the slide. You know, we're, we're presenting without our civil engineer, so please have patience with us. And I'm going to call on Dave, our development consultant, just to briefly give the overview of, of what we're proposing here. Speaker 9: Sure. Hi. Hi commissioners. Excuse me. So Dana Tabelo, who's civil engineer, unfortunately couldn't be with us tonight, but we, this was sent to a couple of the town staff. Claire hosted a conversation with DPW director and assistant director the other day.
So apparently the stormwater and runoff from Auburn Street runs untreated, you know, to screen from screen left to screen right to an outfall that's, you know, within the riverfront area on the five Auburn Street property. And so therefore it's un untreated runoff ends up in the Charles River. And we obviously know from all these conversations how important the, the river and the, and the, the water quality is. And so we've identified that as an area to possibly add a, a first defense water quality unit, which Claire assures me.
Most of your commissioners would, would understand that that device I see Chair Gardner shaking his head and that would help capture total suspended solids and help treat the, the runoff from, you know, from Auburn Street, 14,000 and a 14,500 square feet roughly of Auburn Street. And then that would be additional, you know, offsite but site adjacent mitigation and we would, you know, continue to work with DPW staff on the specifics of that, you know, device and installation. So I don't know that there's a lot happy to take questions
and do our best to either answer them or, you know, have them for our civil engineer for follow up. Speaker 1: The only question I have, and Claire maybe this is something we can put on the list to talk with counsel about, is whether it's appropriate to include the area of street runoff as under the total of mitigation area. If that's a, you know, if, if that's a common treatment. I I haven't seen that previously in a, in the few years that I've been on the commission, I haven't seen that counted in that way.
That's not to diminish the potential benefit that that can bring. I mean anytime untreated runoff is treated is a good thing. But if part of our discussion is around whether the amount of mitigation area is sufficient and meets the letter of the law, I just want to get an opinion as to whether including, you know, including this in that total is, is an accepted practice. Speaker 2: Yes. So just to Matt, I'll certainly ask Harris about that. Based on my interpretation of 10.58 5G,
there is certainly an allowance for offsite mitigation within the same stretch of riverfront area. Speaker 1: Sure. I I fully agree with that and, Speaker 2: And, but I I, I do obviously I, and I think I said this to the applicant as well, I, I don't wanna make any definitive comments on whether this square footage would meet what the applicant is showing on the slide until I see plans and have the, the engineers of which I am not review all the materials to confirm that the, the sizing and the scope all make sense in terms of meeting the state stormwater standards.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's a question we can continue to explore. Speaker 9: Yeah. Think the goal is to be able to, you know, it is been working to find other mitigation there to Sure, you know, work to, to, to meet the, the, the diff you know, the, the differing maybe interpretations of it and not just work through definitions, but actually try to work through other, other options there that seem to be, you know, within, within feasible reach of the project's budget. Speaker 1: Yep. Understood. Appreciate that. Any other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 11: My, my only question would be around, you know, why is this so late to the game? You know, we rec we recognize the size of the development,
the amount of cars that will be increased in this area utilizing Auburn Street. Is there a reason why this proposal is, is kind of at this point of the project why it wasn't, why did it come at the beginning I guess, of the permitting process? Speaker 1: Any comments? Speaker 7: I see Davis unmuted. I mean, I guess I would say at originally we felt good about our mitigation program that we were proposing and we heard some, some different opinions from the conservation commissioners and went back to see what else we could do.
And if we had any other ideas. This wasn't one that had occurred to us originally and our civil engineer took another look at it and kind of saw that it was something we could do. So that, that's what I would say. Dave, is there Speaker 9: Anything you'd add to that? I, I think it's just a, another thing that, you know, every time you take a look at the plans and that, you know, you see something and obviously we went through peer review and worked through with, with the town on, on the ZBA permitting and nothing came up specifically that, you know, Auburn Street was untreated, untreated storm water. So looking, given the fact that, you know, we've discussed
that other, other additional options onsite are, are limited, you know, this sort of showed itself as a way to help treat runoff from the, from offsite adjacent to the Charles River. Speaker 1: Thank, thank you. Yeah, thanks Dave. Any other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 4: Just, just to make a comment on that, that same thing. I, I kinda read it as there seems to still be, there's this disagreement about the whole square footage equation and I think, you know, Claire's team, Claire's staff had an opinion on what it was
and it did not match what Metro West had. And I thought, I, from what I read in the letter, the Metro West was saying, well rather than continuing the argument, we'd like to tack on another 14 500 from this Auburn Street one. So I, I just don't know if we can, can we get to a, can we get to an agreed upon square footage calculation, I guess may that might help the situation. Speaker 1: Yeah, Jim, so we're, that's one of the questions that we're exploring with town council and we had hoped to have that, that information in hand this evening and don't yet, we will be pushing hard to have
that in, in hand for our next meeting. Yeah, I mean I think that's, that's, that's a, an important kind of point that is in the process of being, of being clarified and then I added a new one as to whether, you know, taking the area of the street where we're, we would now be gathering runoff from and treating again a net benefit certainly, but if it's appropriate to include that area of the street as a mitigated area is just, is is something I haven't seen before
and I, you know, we would just, just wanna explore that with council and, and get their opinion on it and do some research on our own and we can talk about that at our next meeting. Alright, Mr. Scott, I see your hand up. Speaker 14: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Loud Speaker 1: And clear. Alright, Speaker 14: Good. So getting back to something we passed quickly over Mr. Gardner is you mentioned about the five years after five years, who's responsible, and I'm just curious to know, is Mr. Is Mr. Michael Sherman, would he be able to make the decision to sell after five years and abandon the responsibility if a future
management of the property? Speaker 1: Any project, any project that would be approved? I mean any, any mitigation effort and any timeframe that would be required as part of that would transfer with the property to any future owner. So it would not be the, you know, someone couldn't sell and just come get out from under it, but it would be attached, it would be attached to the property. Speaker 14: So that would be on the record in town. So if there was a complaint that it wasn't being fulfilled, Speaker 1: It would be recorded as Speaker 14: How, how would that be handled? Speaker 1: It would be recorded as part of, you know, you know,
with the deed essentially, and then it would be treated as a violation of the order of the conditions and, and starting with the conservation commission could be the subject of an enforcement order and then would go from there. Speaker 14: So there could be fines or insolvency involved. Speaker 1: I wouldn't, there, there, the Conservation Commission has the option of levying fines when, when violations are not handled appropriately. Speaker 2: There's gen generally a stepwise process with how the permission handles violations, obviously all dealt with on a case by case basis. But, but there is a, a sort of set process that's followed.
It's generally a notice of violation followed by an enforcement order if necessary. And then the, as Matt mentioned, the commission can then proceed to, to finding and, and potential criminal action if it exceeds to that, which it very rarely, very rarely does, Speaker 1: But it's not unprecedented. Speaker 2: Not unprecedented in Natick. Speaker 14: All right, well I guess that holds for now. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you Mr. Scott. All right, Lynn, please. Speaker 15: Good evening. My question is around the, the concept that the stormwater treatment system would be a betterment,
has there been testing soil testing from the current runoff? And if so, how old is that testing that you guys have done? Speaker 1: There's no testing that I'm aware of. I mean, testing regarding water quality of the runoff coming from Auburn Street, I think it's a safe presumption that if the water is currently untreated, that any treatment, and particularly, you know, well-designed state-of-the-art technology being used would result in a,
in a net improvement to the water quality running down Auburn Street water, you know, salt sand, motor vehicle fluids that drip onto the road, things like that. You know, these systems are designed to remove that pretty efficiently. And so that, that's the presumption here. Speaker 2: Matt, may I add one small thing just so in order to meet the state standards, which the, the commission would only approve a system that meets the state standards or, or goes above and beyond, there are certain calculations that are done based on the type of infrastructure proposed
and based on sort of standard averages that certain types of technology have been proven to have certain levels of either total suspended solids or phosphorus or, or whatever the, the nutrient that you're looking to address is, there are calculations that are done and reviewed, and there are certain standards that are required to be met, certain percentages of removal based on the sort of proven technology and the, and the science that that is approved by the state. Speaker 15: But how do we currently know that the runoff is exceeding those levels?
Speaker 1: The presumption is that if it's untreated currently, that any treatment would improve that Speaker 2: The Charles River is also under a total maximum daily load removal requirement for phosphorus. The town has certain requirements on it in order to remove phosphorus from our runoff that's entering the Charles River watershed. And so the applicant team would be working with the engineering division in the town to ensure that any of the systems that are being installed would meet the
phosphorus removal requirements for the watershed. It is demonstrated because of the high levels of phosphorus in the Charles River that this is a problem within the watershed. Speaker 1: But Lynn is your point, is your point that, that without that testing, that you can't really prove that it's, it's a betterment that, that it's a, a net improvement. Speaker 15: I mean, that is part of my question, but I see your point that the storm water sys treatment system would essentially resolve that if there were a test to show that.
I, I just wonder with the grass, the lawn, I, you know, how, how do we know that that's, I mean, it probably isn't fully to your point, but how do we know it isn't filtering at some level and not causing those things to then go into the river at that location? Speaker 1: Yeah, well, the presumption, I mean, water sheet flowing down a street, down an asphalt street, you know, is not being filtered by anything. It's just picking up additional material as it goes down the road. Sand, silt, you know, organic chemicals, you know, oils and stuff from the
vehicles, things like that. Right. And so, so it's not, you know, it's not having, there's no treatment whatsoever on, and I, and that's, you know, that is, it is untreated water and that is what the applicant is proposing to as an option here would be to put in place some treatment of that. And I'm not, I'm not a prop. I mean, I am a proponent of treating storm water runoff wherever possible, you know, in the context of this whole project. This is something that the applicant is proposing and that we'll take that under, under consideration.
Speaker 15: Right. And in my thinking though, and I, I think I talked about this at the last meeting about topography and like the, the, the, the, you know, the, the layout of the land as it is now, wondering if, you know, their understanding I, is that the, you know, storm water runoff coming down the street, they're collecting that as well and not saying, well that's a, a town road we're gonna ignore that. We're only gonna worry about, you know, the property itself. I don't, I don't see like, I guess I, I'm not good enough engineering wise to see are they in fact collecting everything from
also the roadway to come into their system. And Speaker 1: So the, the system they're proposing is in the roadway. Speaker 15: Okay. Speaker 1: That, that, that, that, you know, that that's the offer on the table at this point is to build something off of their property that would be a betterment for the town and ultimately the river. 'cause they're building it in the roadway. So they're not, you know, they're doing this, you know, above and beyond the systems that is are being proposed for the, the property they're proposing to build on. It would be in addition to that off, off
of their property in the towns in, in, in the towns right of way. Speaker 15: Got it. Thank you. Yeah, Speaker 2: I do see the applicant's hand raised Dave, I didn't know if there was any additional, Speaker 9: Yeah, no, I think I was just gonna try to elaborate, right? There's a whole separate set of stormwater management that's on site, which is also not part of the mitigation. Separate from that. And then this is taking what already the catch basin and piping system already in Auburn Street and adding a treatment device to it to accomplish some of the things that the chair and Claire laid out here for the, for the river. Speaker 1: Great, thanks Dave. Mr. Kaolin
Speaker 13: And I certainly agree that removing petroleum from the runoff is important and I just wanna remind people that there's still petroleum under the ground in front of the existing building because the abandoned oil tank is still there and ought to be removed. And while the amount of petroleum that is around the tank that was discovered before might be below state limits, this is a very valuable opportunity for mitigation to remove that tank and remove that petroleum contaminated soil from the site since
that groundwater is going straight to the same Charles River that the storm water runoff in the street is going to. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you sir. Mr. Scott, Roger, I still see your hand up. Is that from, from previously? Speaker 2: He might just be having trouble unmuting. I just asked him to unmute. Speaker 14: Okay, there I go. Okay, here I am. All right. So getting to Marco's question, has a decision been made regarding the removal of the below ground tanks and the old septic system? Speaker 1: I'll let the applicant just quickly comment on that little off, off of this, this particular slide, but I don't know Dave or Sharon is,
Speaker 9: Sorry, say that again. Is that about removing of the existing septic tank? Speaker 1: The, no, the, the exhibit, the Speaker 7: Underground oil tank, Speaker 1: There were two, two fuel tanks on site, one of which was removed in 1992, the one closer to the river, and then there was one back more towards the front of the building that was left in place and decommissioned and all that. And as far as we know, it's still there. And the question is, is there, is there a plan to remove that from the site as part of this construction?
Speaker 9: I think the intent is to, you know, get all the proper permits and with the, with the, with the building commissioner, it's often things like that are often left in, in place in, in time. I, I know this has, you know, come up before, not sure if it's Sharon could certainly jump in. I'm not sure that it's, you know, for certain that it would be removed. But I think we'll do everything, you know, in that's needed with the building commissioner to make sure that all the proper permits are, are in place here, but, you know, in in closed and closed in case tanks do get left, do get left
behind the standard closed out. Yeah, I would appropriately, Speaker 7: I, I would just add to Dave's comment. I I just wanna acknowledge that we had a question from this, I think from the, the Board of health staff and that working through that would be part of working, coordinating with the building commissioner. So we'd certainly, you know, do that. Speaker 1: You would certainly do that. That's, that you would remove that tank. Sorry. Speaker 7: No, we would certainly coordinate and do, you know, talk to them and do what we agreed was necessary and what they were comfortable with. Speaker 1: So, so t Speaker 7: In the board of health?
Yes. TBD Thank you. Board of health, TBD. So TBD. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Alright, other questions? Let's go to the next slide please. Speaker 7: So these are coming back to some additional topics. I think we've talked a couple times about the duration of mitigation. I think my understanding is the next step is waiting for town council to weigh in. Yes. So I'm gonna pass over that one. We got a comment from Claire about adding some de demarcation where the seed mix and the mitigation behind the building meets the salon. So that's on our list as we keep going and,
and already when we're ready to have a new set of plans and those, that's kind of the last of things on our list to discuss. But you know, I wonder if there's anything else from the commissioners or on your list. Speaker 1: Alright, why don't we, what I'd suggest is I'd like to see if there's any additional, you know, certainly if there's any additional questions from the commission at this point. And then, and I I agree that, you know, we, we have a list of stuff that we are waiting opinion from town council on at this point, I think, and I think we're aligned on what those, what those are. You know, it's the, it's the, the area of mitigate,
from my perspective, it's the area of mitigation that's proposed. It's the, the timeframe over which the applicant or the, you know, the property would be re required to maintain the mitigation area. That's another, that's another open question. Speaker 2: And then Matt, you added the applicability of the, the offsite street mitigation. Speaker 1: Yeah, the applicability, the offsite, offsite street mitigation area to the required area math, just how, what, what, what best practices for that commission?
Speaker 2: I, I have reached out to DEP for some hope for additional information as well given the, the back and forth between town council and some of those slower response times. There have been some personal emergencies understandably, but just trying to hopefully keep this conversation moving. Speaker 1: Yeah, fair. No, I appreciate that and that's, that's certainly our goal is to keep this, keep this conversation moving forward. Commission. Are there any other points that we want at this point before I open it up to public question, probably additional public comment. Are there any, any additional questions or topics that we would like the applicant to be looking at for our next discussion?
Speaker 11: Could, could I just add, you know, we see a lot of vegetation management plans. Some have included Japanese knotweed, you know, where full excavation has occurred and, and soil has been removed and, and replaced. Wellesley road extension kind of comes to mind as good example spot. You know, this, this is a little bit different in, in light and, and I'll be quick and brief with my question is, is that because this is different and because it's not excavating soil and removing it offsite
and, and, and restoring an area to lawn or, or, or some other kind of front yard ecosystem, you know, and, and what's been proposed in the vegetation management plan is a, is what I would consider very thoughtful and, and has a number of avenues and agil, you know, it's very agile to a, to really approach a very difficult species. And I applaud you for that. However, one thing I do see that's lacking is, is some of the methods that are proposed really are appropriately
need to be appropriately timed from my experience. And, and there is some things that are lacking about time of year for certain applications. There's also lack of detail around is this a one off, you know, so we, you know, we do have a, you have laid out a wonderful five year process and, and, and that's great and you have nu number of tools that you are, that you've described that you're gonna use. However, I I just, I think from my perspective, because of the uniqueness of this habitat, this ecosystem
and the scope, I, I just think that maybe having some detail around timing and, and potentially if it's, you know, are there three treatments in year one and then coming back and taking that year two approach that you're having, which is go out, monitor, observe, and react and you know, so the, that's just kind of where my brain goes. So just love to just have some more detail around timing of application and
'cause that's going to determine success, especially with some of those methods that you've outlined. And then also, you know, you know, is this a three, is this a three step process? Are we doing a spring summer and then when Japanese knotweed flowers with a seven injection say, right. That would be, those would be the details I would like to see personally. Yeah, I'm not saying it's a, it's a must. It's just, I think it would provide a little bit more clarity about these.
'cause we're, you know, let's be clear, like I'm not a, I'm not a, I'm not legal expert, but we have five years in reality to kind of deal with this. And if it's not controlled, the reality is that's gonna creep up slope, it's gonna destabilize that slope and then we have a structural issue with a building. That's the reality of the situation from my perspective because that's what Japanese not weed does. It makes soil unstable. So in a nutshell, a little more detail,
timing would be helpful with the vegetation management plan. Speaker 1: Yeah, if I can just, if I can, thanks Mike. If I can just add to that the, and I articulated this last time, I mean, one of my fundamental concerns with the knotweed approach and putting a time limit on it is, speaks to a lot of what Mike was saying. I mean essentially it's because of the proximity of big thick stands of knotweed on either side of this, this, the, this parcel, the moment that maintenance stops, it's gonna fill right back in and very and very quickly. And so in effect it's, you know,
a five year plan is the kind of the functional equivalent of saying, you know, we'll, we'll mow the lawn for five years and then we're, and then we'll stop. And then we all know what happens at that point. And that to me is, you know, isn't effective. It's a temporary mitigation. And so that's, I appreciate the, the storm water thinking and the, what you're talking about with respect to Auburn Street and providing additional water treatment, storm water handling there offsite, offsite of that. I think that's, that that, that that's the right thinking
and you know, but as we're continuing these conversations, as we're getting input from council, I mean that's a, it's a fundamental stumbling block for me is to have what effectively is a temporary mitigation plan in place. And we've seen it happen all over, all over town, all over everywhere. I mean the biology of, of not wheat is well known. It's gotta be maintained, it's gotta be monitored, especially when you've got receding happening constantly from right, literally right next door. The law requires mitigation. And so our job is to make sure that mitigation, that the mitigation that's proposed is appropriate and,
and will result in a net benefit for, for, for the town. And so that's where I'm hung up and, but we've got more to talk about, you know, the progress that that we've made in terms of the, the stormwater handling that you're discussing I think is, is is a good step. That's, that's obviously a permanent mitigation. Is it enough? I think we gotta do some thinking and do some talking about that. Other questions from the commission on this at this point I'd like to invite the public to offer any additional comments or questions on this as well. Please raise your hand in, in, in zoom so we can see and give you that chance. Lynn, Speaker 15: Just some clarifying questions
'cause sorry I'm so late to the game. I guess this one would be for Claire. I know that there's only a couple places that are listed in your town to having rare threatened or endangered species like the salamander and stuff. Are there any on that property or right on the abutting riverway right there or no? Speaker 2: No, there are no areas of rare or estimated priority habitat and there are also no identified areas of critical environmental concern in this area. Speaker 1: And those are, those are legal, legal terms and legal findings or scientifically scientific findings,
but that have legal weight to them and there and there aren't any on this, on this site. Speaker 15: Great, thank you for that. I appreciate it. And then the second part is around the wintering or around the corridor concept that you guys were speaking about a little bit earlier in this meeting. Ha I ha there was, there seemed to be, when you guys were speaking earlier, speculation, was there actually an observation or some kind of review of whether wintering or access by wildlife is actually happening
or not happening on that property? Speaker 1: What was presented to us this evening was an analysis by ECR that says that the property itself is not valuable wildlife habitat, you know, it's lawn and it's pavement and so I, you know, extrapolating I, you know, I I think the answer to that would be likely no. But you know, and certainly there's some animals that would be living wintering down by the river bank, you know, maybe there could be dens down there. I'd just like to offer the applicant's team as I can
speak if, if that's accurate Brad. Speaker 8: Sure. You, you're correct. The, our evaluation as documented in the following deps guidance is that the project area itself does not contain any significant wildlife habitat features like large trees with cavities or springs and freshwater brooks or, or whatnot that are significant. Could there be small areas of dens or wildlife that use the Japanese knotweed area
where along the river? Yes. But what we're proposing is that that would be fully improved as part of the vegetation management plan. So the project area itself consisting of pavement and lawn does not contain wildlife habitat. Speaker 1: Thanks Brad. Speaker 15: Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other questions? Speaker 2: If folks are having trouble finding the raise hand function and just wanna come on the screen and, and physically raise their hand, I'm happy to do a, a scroll through to see if folks are
looking to make a comment. They're having some trouble finding the right button. Speaker 11: Can I ask a a, it's really nitpicky and I apologize about this, but on the wildlife habitat form I saw a date of seven 13 2023. I'm assuming that's an error 'cause it just came across our desk recently and I'm just wondering if this was prepared on seven 13 2023 and if so, why wasn't it in the original packet or maybe it was, I just maybe missed it. Speaker 8: Sure. That's the date that I performed the wetland delineation
and reviewed the site conditions. Knowing the site and standing with and knowing that if I look at an aerial image and I see that the site hasn't changed, where the lawn is and where the pavement is inside the fence line, where the project area is as far as the development, then I know that I can perform based on my observations from my wetland delineation event, I can use that towards preparing that form. Was there, like is there a need to do it to go out there today and stand in the lawn area and look at the lawn imp pavement
and find something different than I did when I did my delineation event? I don't believe so. Speaker 7: Just to, just to add to that, Brad did not fill out the form at that time. Just that's the time of his you official observation. Okay. Speaker 8: Other questions? Yes sir. Please. Speaker 16: Yeah. Hi. I know it's not part of the physical land and I don't know, I I, I've been here a while but not the whole time I, I've been here since talking about the stormwater. But what about the light? I mean in sound you got a big building going to be lit up 24 hours a day,
there'll be some kinda lights going on. There'll be back windows. I mean that affects nature. I've done a lot of reading on this topic and it goes a long way. I mean, if everything is dark and as building comes in, it's gonna spread around the corner and up and over the other side as well. It's gonna affect a lot of habitat. I I don't know if if people care about that, but I, I mean I think the conservation folks do. I think others should. But what are we doing here?
I mean I, I'm gonna go off topic just a tad, but all along I've been going to these meetings for the last 30 years. I chaired one of them. We never dreamt of building behind the school. Okay? We never dreamt of it. It was just always what are we gonna do with the school building and 'cause we respected the land, we weren't sure how much of it was sacred to the Native Indians. We weren't did never, no one ever. We respect the river, we respect a lot and I brought this up more than once. If you go back to the meetings with the select board
and they kept, they told me and they told me off camera, if it gets rejected, bring something back, they'll, we'll come up with another plan. So far no committee has, I think you may find some good grounds to, doesn't mean housing can't happen. It can be a different model. It's not too late if it doesn't meet the standards, if it's not good for the environment, if it's not good for the sacred grounds, the building could still be used appropriately, maybe for affordable housing, maybe make, I don't know what for, but at the, we can respect and do a win-win win situation,
but not at the scale where everything is down to the square foot. This the abatement, we got this Japanese plant that creates havoc. It damages foundation, it cost a fortune. I know someone, they had to get it out of their yard near in a different town and it costs a lot of money. Who's gonna monitor that? Who's gonna do it? And if they don't do it, how are we gonna know it's not being done? Who's gonna do the inspections? This is not a five year thing, it's a 10 year, 20, 30 year, it's gonna look beautiful, whatever. If it were to go through initially,
who is gonna maintain this? They talk, they change it all the time. First Metro West, they talked about how they manage, then they talked about less hours. Now I realize they're not even gonna be the owners on the road who is gonna care enough. It'll be on some little spreadsheet among other properties and I think it'll be minimally managed on all areas, including for whatever drainage, potential issues, whatever Japanese knot, wood, whatever it's called. All of these things and the environment. So I think it's, I think we have to be careful. It can still be a valid project, not this project.
A different project could be valid and everybody could be happy. Thank you Speaker 2: Sir. Can I just ask you to identify your first and Speaker 16: Last name? Yeah, my name is Mark Den. I live in Precinct 10. Thank Speaker 2: You so much. Thanks Mark. Speaker 1: Alright, Lynn again? Speaker 15: Yeah, he just brought up a, a, a good point that I actually have a question about under the wildlife, I mean under the, the WPA three 10 CMR 10.58 under the general performance standards, there's some language there that says applicant shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that there are no practical and su substantially equivalent economic alternatives to the proposed project, which less adverse effects with less adverse effects on the interests identified in. And then it talks about the master law, right? I'm sure you guys read all this as you approach this, you know, this huge decision that you guys have to make, right? I for you first yourself very well on this. I I bring it up and say it and read it out loud. Maybe for others that are joining that haven't maybe gone this deep in, in looking into the,
the wording around this stuff like, like that to, to the gentleman's point that just spoke like, isn't, isn't there something like that to consider? You know, especially, you know, talking about what I brought up the, you know, at the, at the last meeting and also what strong bear from the Natick praying Indians brought up around, aren't there better locations to even do this project? Maybe this project is great for the community, but is there not a better location in the community to do a project like this?
So just bringing that up one more time. Not really a question, but just bringing it up one more time. Speaker 1: Yeah, Lynn, what you're, what you're talking about is, is as you, you know, you've done your homework, it's in the weeds of the, of the way the laws are written and the this project we've that early on in this process agreed that this is what's characterized as, you know, is, is a redevelopment project. And which what it means is that there is a part of the parcel or a part of the resource area of,
of the riverfront area that's been previously disturbed, which allows it to be categorized as a so-called redevelopment project. Which means that an alternatives analysis is not required. And, and then the applicant is entitled to ask that this project is considered under that finding that this is a redevelopment project. If it was not a redevelopment project, then an alternatives analysis, like you described would be required because, because there's a small, you know, there is a part
of the parcel that is, that has been previously disturbed. It is, it is categorized as a redevelopment project and therefore technically according to the laws that we're beholden to uphold here, it needs to be considered as a redevelopment project, which doesn't require an alternatives analysis. Speaker 15: I see. I, I guess, I guess that's what I, I'm getting at though. It's not about, about whether or not you have to follow that it's about sensibility around should you still consider that, you know, because, well, let me ask this question then.
Under your, under your Conservation commission article and, and talking about like you guys mirror the WBP, the WPA to a certain point, and then you add a few more additional items, which you, you use the word values in, right? So you, like, I don't have the document in front of me if, for reading your article, but you guys name like what are the, you know, I don't know if you can tell me what they are right off the top of your head, but that, you know what I mean, the values of the wildlife, the vi values of the right, the, you know, thing.
So my question is though, but in your def I couldn't find anywhere on your town documentation, any definition around how you establish value. Speaker 1: Yeah, there's, there's, you know, our charge is to make sure that the interests of the laws that govern this, so the Wes Protection Act and the Rivers Act are upheld and there is some latitude for the commission to decide what exactly that means. There's legal precedent, there's a variety of factors that we need to take into consideration as part of that.
And if in our opinion we decide that the interests that we're charged with upholding are not being, if that's not happening, then that's, that's grounds for us to deny a project. However, applicants always have the right to appeal and they could go to the Department of Environmental Protection, they could go to up through the court system and appeal it and that people may agree or disagree. And so what we're trying to do here is to deeply understand the letter of the law to make sure
that we're applying standards to this project just like we would apply to any other project, private, public, private public project that comes in front of us to make sure that we're holding everyone to the same standards. And that's, that's what I am, that's what we all are very committed to doing as part of this process and trying to do so in a way that really is, is tight and you know, at least in our opinion is tight. And so that, you know, that what we decide would be upheld in appeal. You know, we're trying to be careful there. That's, that, that's our job and, and that's what we're trying to do. Yeah. Claire,
Speaker 2: Matt, I just wanna add, I i Lynn I do believe, and I'm happy to connect with you offline about this as well, do believe the values that are referenced in our local bylaw refer to the functions and values that are defined in the Wetlands Protection Act. But I'm happy to do some follow up on that and touch base with you after. Speaker 15: Yes, I can. You want me to put my email in the chat or you want Speaker 2: Me to, if you're, if you're comfortable putting your email in the chat, that would be great. But I'll also throw my email in the chat so that way you can just reach out if you prefer. Speaker 1: And then you can also re email con com@natickma.org and that'll come to all of us.
Speaker 15: Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Thank you. Alright Mr. Speaker 16: Yeah, just to follow up and I'll be briefer. Betterment to me would be, make it better than it was if it's been disturbed, like maybe some park benches and a picnic table and that type of betterment and use the building, rehab the building and make use of the building. But to put a monstrosity in the back up to every inch to the river frontage that they can get and add all this extra light and sound and everything that goes with it.
I don't, maybe it's a letter of the law betterment, but we could do both. I mean, no one, again, we've been talking about this for decades, what to do with the building and never did anyone ever propose anything like this where let's put a bigger building in the back and go higher. You look at it from an aerial perspective, looks like what are they doing there? And then you got the river next to it. It's, it's not to me a betterment if, if it's on sacred land, if it's affecting wildlife in there way before we were on both sides of the river.
'cause it goes, you know, the ball field's aren't too far away from there. So that this is a big area, it'll have an adverse impact on wildlife and I just think you can still do both. And again, according to the select board and stuff, they say come back to them if it ever gets rejected. And that's what I'm suggesting. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Great, thank you. Alright, any other questions, comments? We got more discussions to have. Hearing none, I think Sharon, as the, as the ringleader here, I want, you know, I I think you spelled out kind of our collective understanding of what next steps are.
We've got some homework to do. If anything comes up, certainly in the next weeks, we'll absolutely pass that along to you immediately. We're being diligent and keeping pretty much all correspondence and, and, and records in the, in the public folder so that we people have access to it. It is all part of the public record. But if there's no further discussion at this point, I think we can continue this to our meeting on January 15th where we, where we will reconvene and you know, we will be coming back with some answers and additional information. If anything gets in the way of that, we'll let you know ahead of time and we can decide if we want to meet then or you know, push it to the following meeting. But let's, let's proceed that way. Okay, thank you Matt.
That sounds good. Alright, any last questions, comments? Hearing none. Someone make a motion to continue five Auburn Street to our meeting on January 15th of next year. So Speaker 2: Continue, continue. Speaker 1: I will take Chris's motion. And Mike was that, can I take you as a second? I think you said that. Sure. Thank you. Appreciate that. Alright, Chris made the motion, Mike seconded. Any further discussion on that? All is in favor. Please indicate by saying yes when I call your name Mike. Yes. Jim? Yes. Chris? Yes. David. Yes. Jeff? Yes. And Matty Yes as well. Thank you folks.
Really appreciate your engagement on this. You know, this is, this is the opportunity to have your voices heard so we look forward to seeing, seeing you back on January 15th. Let's move on in the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, next item on the agenda is I've got 52 Everett Street and I see Ben Stevens here so we can proceed with that. Let me go ahead and just get the right files open. Speaker 2: Matt, we do have two notices to read. One for the A stormwater permit and one for the RDA. I don't know if we wanted to just open both at once and and come those conversations.
Speaker 1: You bet you. Let's open 'em both. Why not? Let's get the notices here. So I've got so in accordance with whats protection magnetic local wetlands file Article 79. The Native Conservation Commission hold the public meeting on a request for determination of applicability followed by Ron s Strall Oxable Associates representing Ben Stevens of Trask Inc. For property located at 52 Everett Street Map 72 lot 37. The proposal is to construct a naturally surface pathway and conduct invasive species management within the a hundred foot buffer zone and wetland on site. That's the first one. Second one is stormwater.
So in accordance with Natick stormwater management and erosion control bylaw article 79 A that NA Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a major stormwater permit application filed by Ben Stevens of Trash Inc. For property located at 52 Everett Street Map 72 lot 37. The proposal is to demolish the existing buildings and features on site and construct a 15 unit open space residential development with associated roadways, hardscaping, landscaping and drainage. So with that, Ben or Ron who wants to, who wants to kick this off, Speaker 17: Why don't I kick off? I think we have Bruce on as well. Speaker 1: I see Bruce here. Speaker 17: I'll do a quick overview then turn it
over to Bruce and then we can talk stormwater and if, and then we can go to Ron after that if that works. Speaker 2: And Ben slash Bruce slash Ron did you guys wanna share your own screen? I do have all the materials pulled up so whatever you guys would prefer, just let me know. Speaker 17: I think we're fine with the plans you have. Okay. For now the project, some, some members of the commission were out there. I thank you for coming out for the site walk. It's a cluster development down on Everett Street, essentially abuts the back of our Windermere Lane project to the south.
This is an independent project. There is, other than juxtaposition, there isn't a lot of, there's no connection between the two. This is a 7.2 acre site and we are proposing a cluster development that has townhouse units in about 2.9 acres, which is out front visible at near the intersection of Cottage and Everett at the base of that intersection. From a wetland standpoint, there is a wetland there. This is a wetland we had, it was under an a notice of intent
from a our, some of our stormwater work on Windermere actually started with 3 0 3 Elliot house maybe 5, 6, 7, God eight years ago. And so it had been identified during that process. We did have oxbow go out and confirm some lines for us 'cause we had only confirmed one side of the wetland or maybe three sides of the wetland were confirmed at that time. So we had Ron's team go out and confirm the backside. So we more for an area calculation. There's really no work proposed within a hundred feet
of the buffer of the wet within the a hundred foot buffer of the wetland other than a a passive walking trail. But obviously it goes into the area calculations in the cluster open space. So that being said, development infrastructure is all out in the field where the existing houses are now. There's six structures that all need to come down. There's an old pool that all are gonna be removed that is pretty much an open field at this point except for some hemlocks and a large spruce tree that are near the center
of the site on the pool. And the site actually slopes. There's a little bit of a watershed break if you will, just beyond the development site, sort of where the property pinches in everything to the right, which is heading north, sort of flows towards Everett Street and everything to the south actually flows more east. You can see the grade lines are sort of falling down and there's an open field on an adjacent property on the other side of that area. So we're concentrating the disturbance for the stormwater
out front. Right now the water seems to, the soils in the back of the site are marginal. There's no ledge. There's no clays. But the soil in the back of our proposed construction area is a little bit more like our Windermere soils. But we did find, we did several rounds of testing out there and we did find very good sandy gravels out front near Everett Street. Big change in material quality water table, everything
between the back of the site and the front of the site. It seems to make sense 'cause there's a lot of cleared area there, but it never seems to pond up. It never seems to flood even though it's lit slightly lower than Everett Street. So even when Everett Street, when we have some of our inundating rains, that field area now, which has a lot of buildings and a lot of pavement never floods. So our assumption is that front area is recharging very well right now. So from a design standpoint, it pretty simple. We bring in water, sewer, underground, electric,
this will be an all electric project. There won't be gas. And what we're trying to do is bring all our disturbance, all our roof drains into two different systems out front. They actually serve two different purposes. One is for surface collection and roof collection. The larger system on the eastern side, the smaller system on the, the western side, which I'll have Bruce explain a little bit, is sort of, it's a little bit more of a groundwater catch because we have a different groundwater elevation in the
back of the lot than we do in the front. So it's a way to alleviate some of the groundwater in the back, but I would probably defer to Bruce on that. And that's, that's the overview. Not a lot of tree removal. There's a lot of invasives along the property lines because they've been, the fields have been cut up to a tree line, a lot of dead ash, a lot of choke cherry in those tree lines. That'll have to come out. A lot of invasives that'll have to come out. And we do working on a planting plan, which we can present to make sure we're covered on the
minimum one-to-one mitigation on the trees. But we'll, we'll be working on that shortly. But on that I would, I know that Bruce had conversations with Bill today, bill Eng, bill McDowell, and they did talk utilities and they did talk drainage. Not a lot of surprises. Not a lot of changes. There will be a, some modifications to this plan, I believe. But if you, if you didn't let me, we'll have Bruce kind of go into Bruce,
especially if you go into the drainage aspects, I think that would be the most important to talk about. Speaker 18: Oh, okay. Want me to jump in? Speaker 17: Yes, unless the commission wants to ask questions about the project first. Speaker 19: Matt, you're muted. Speaker 18: Anything folks, any questions at this point, Bruce? Go for it. Okay, all right. Okay. I'll try to be pretty brief here. So pen cut Ben explained things pretty well. And so the, you could see that the, the, the development lot, which is just about three acres
and then the, the open space lot is like 4.2 acres just to the left of that property line between those two lots there you can see the, the angle point right there. That point is about 240 feet to the a hundred foot wetland buffer that's over there. And I'm going to explain to you what, why that's important because, and I know this was one of the, the comments that Claire had brought up in her, her email. And that has to do with the, the construction stage erosion control.
And what we're proposing here is to use that, utilize that area and the, we have two large sedimentation traps that are gonna be down towards in the sandy soil towards Everett Street. They're shown on the grading planets gonna be flipped to the next sheet. You'll see there's two nope, one more sheet. Sorry. The grading plan. Yeah, so there's two circles there, kind of oval shape and those are proposed areas that we believe for most part
there's the least amount of activity going on and we utilized as sedimentation traps. We've done a multiple of testing that was out there. You could see some of those round targets. Those are on test holes. We went back, that was done in April. So we have a good idea where the ground high groundwater table is. They are in a preliminary testing. We're gonna go back there next spring with the Board of health to do official testing with the board of health. We've also returned there this month, early this month
to do about another dozen tests just to fill in some of the blank areas so we have a better idea, plus to do some testing where the footprints of the buildings are. But just getting back to the, to the sedimentation traps, and I discussed this with Bill McDowell today is the, as far as, there's a couple different ways of treating this because essentially what we're trying to do is maximize how much water during obstruction stage that will be recharged into the ground, which will limit the amount of filtration that has to be done. The soil that we found there, particularly right along where the chamber systems are located,
we've gone quite a distance, especially on the left side, gone down about 18 feet. It gets very coarse stratified sand and gravel over there and it's gonna perk pretty well. I think we're getting into like hinkley soils on that side of the, the street over there. So the capacity for uptake and the infiltration is gonna be pretty good. And so we're trying to utilize that as part of the erosion control plan. But as everybody knows during construction, you're gonna get a little bit of matting that's gonna happen at the bottom of these traps
and it's, it'll slow down it sometimes we might be able to re scarify the soil a little bit that to get it going again, but we'd like a backup system rather than trying to use just filter bags alone. I think the, and I discuss it with Bill, a better approach would be to put a small pump, maybe about 50 horse, 50 gallons per minute, 60 gallons per minute and it pump it down when we want to get those things dry between storms and pump it back to that area
that I was talking about earlier, which is the distance between the, the buffer zone and the, the top of the hill there in that zone and discuss that with Ben today. And so what we're proposing is to berm up at that area, put a lot of wood chips back there, maybe some stump grindings, a leaf litter and so on. And if we take a, a pump that is a very low flow pump, the area up there will be able to keep up with it. In other words, we're not, it's not gonna be a big rush
of water, it's gonna be like a constant flow while that pump is on, but it's gonna be a small rate. And the, what we're shooting for is that the, the plant litter and the material there will be able to uptake and filter out what needs to be filtered out up there. And there's gonna be some holding capacity because we're gonna be able to berm it up a little bit to keep it from flowing out to the any budding properties and, you know, reserve, we could reserve a, a secondary option in there. We can discuss that, but I don't think it's gonna be necessary because that,
that area hasn't really been disturbed. So they should have a lot of litter on the ground that can use and also supplement that with some additional mulch and so on. So Speaker 1: Bruce, if if you just pause, pause for one second. Sure. So, so the idea though is that during the construction process you wanna be capturing and controlling runoff, right? I mean that's 1 0 1 yes. However, the, the soil conditions, I thought you said the soil conditions down by Everett Street particularly where that, you know, the one on the, on the east side of the lot you said are are really quite good.
Speaker 18: Yes. Speaker 1: So, so why, why are you gonna pump everything uphill to that place up there rather than building a temporary, I mean, and and you, you just showed that you're gonna have these settling ponds down below. Why can't those just handle it rather than kind of building some thing up, up on the hill to, to handle this rather than just letting it percolate Yeah. Down Speaker 18: Below. Yeah, I guess I didn't explain it too well, but so what that would be, that would be situation where those infiltration areas, if they're infiltrating, you know, not as they should be in the ground,
but if they start getting matted up and the filter starts clogging up and we got a storm coming within two or three days, we're looking at the weather, we can, we can, if we have to, we could start moving some of that water back up in the filter area. Speaker 1: I see. Okay. Speaker 18: As opposed to letting this deluge water a thunderstorm come in and order got it the system. Okay. So reserve at least a two three inch capacity in there with some number at all times. So it's, it's really the big T storms that we're worried about. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so this, these two features,
these two traps you're talking about, these would be kind of the primary Speaker 18: Yes. Speaker 1: Handlers of, of water on this lower site where you're doing all the work? Speaker 18: They'll That's correct. They'll be doing all Speaker 1: And and you have this backup place to go put water if you need to, if there's some big storm coming through or whatever. Speaker 18: Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So it's like a, it's like a tertiary type. Speaker 1: I see. Okay, cool. All right, thank Speaker 18: You. Okay, so, so I don't know if I have to get into, I could tell you where the, the south flow, the south portion, four acres of the site flows down towards
El Elliott Street into the drain system, then flows easterly to a discharge point on the south side of Elliott Street. Then it flows out to a large wetland system, which eventually flows to the Charles River, whereas the, the three acre development lot flows northerly to Everett Street. That's the discharge point for everything that comes off the site on the development side gets into the drain system when Elliot on Everett Street, def connects to the cottage street drain system, which then flows about 2000 feet north to a brook crossing
where it discharges into a small unnamed brook, which eventually there's a confluence with that at the Davis brook, which then flows to the Charles River. And so I just want to get past that. And, and as you know, we we, we've fallen under the major stormwater permit requirements and also, but we, we've fallen under the general construction permit and that these, and so the drain system, it's, it's pretty effective because namely the size of the drain system, it's a a,
it's approximately 180 foot long. The main chamber system on the left is, or on the east side is, is gonna be taking all of the roof water and all of the surface water with the exception of very small amount of imperious area, which will go into the everret drain system. And it's gonna be a di minimus amount because the only amount that's coming off the site that's not gonna flow into the large drain drainage system are gonna be the, the patios of the three single family homes
that are on the west side. Those, those are the only areas on the site that's pervious that won't be flowing into that because they're too low. We can't catch those. There's also some offside area from two roof areas on the budding properties that will, that are also included in that. And we are gonna be taking a lot, a lot of TSS out of the system. And the average TSS that we got in there is gonna be approximately 90% removal. We have area drains throughout the site with, with deep sumps in 'em.
We have catch basins with deep sumps and we have a cascade contact unit that's down just before the large chamber system. And then, and then of course the chamber system itself is gonna be itself treats, treats it after it gets in there. But we're gonna be quite a ways down before it even gets there. The water's gonna be be pretty clean and then it's gonna discharge at a, at a control outlet with a eight inch orifice at a outlet control on the easterly side of that chamber system and then connect to the, to the ever street
system in the street. And so the, there's gonna be a big uptake because of soils that we have there. There's gonna be a large capacity of uptake of, of phosphorus. And I know that the, there is a phosphorus issue there. This requirement of taking out at least 50 to 60% of the phosphorus from the stormwater depending on whether it's considered re redel redevelopment or new development. We're taking out a hundred percent the requirement for
capacity recharges like 0.8, 0.8 feet 0.81 10th of yeah 0.8 of an inch. And we're taking out 4.3 inches with the system that we have there as far as storage and recharge capacity. So if you apply that to the MS four criteria, we're gonna be a hundred percent of phosphorus removal from the site. We'll also be taking out the nitrogen as well. We're gonna be up around a hundred percent nitrogen removal from the site with those two, the
also the goes without saying, but we're gonna be reducing the, the peak rates of runoff for the 2 10, 25 and a hundred year storm. And also the, the volume of runoff leaving the site, it'll be substantially reduced, you know, when you compare it to existing conditions. 'cause under an existing conditions we have just a little over half an acre of a pervis area and we're proposing to increase that. And I can give you a comparison of that. So under existing conditions we have 0.54 acres
of impervious area and under proposed conditions we have approximately 0.8 acres of impervious area of, of pavements. And then we have roof areas of 0.5, which is a total of about approximately 1.3 acres. So an additional of 0.75 acres of impervious area with the depose development, let's see, the soils been pretty explaining pretty well. The soils improves as you go northerly
and eastly towards Everett Street. So the northeast corner of the property is like the best and then it, it, as you go back up to the south, you start getting into like a lumier type of soil that's up there. And so we're gonna stay on top of that. Now the, the second chamber system, which is on the west side is exclusively just for a, it's a holding place right now for a sub drain system. It'll be an isolated system. There's not gonna be any interconnection between the sub drain system and the stormwater system
because you can't intermingle those things. You don't want one and connected to the other. So there's, the groundwater is much lower down at ever street. So the idea is we have high groundwater on the south side and once we determine get the official groundwater elevations, then we'll employ a sub drain system that's there. We we're showing a sub drain that's kind of going around a perimeter of the site connecting to that sub drain chamber system for now. But it, the formal design of it is not complete because we've got, we have to do the official testing first
and likewise we haven't really identified the basement or slab elevations of the units, but that's gonna depend on the groundwater official groundwater table as well. Speaker 1: So Bruce, the general idea though is that that side of the development would be captured and, and the, you know, runoff, you know, yard drainage, things like that would then go into, that would go into that larger one or into the smaller one Speaker 18: All Yeah, it's gonna go into the larger one. Okay. The groundwater that we're intercepting with the perimeter drain will go into the smaller one.
Speaker 1: Got it, okay. Speaker 18: And, and so that larger one there is, it's top to bottom, it's about six and a half feet deepest stone with the chamber. Large chamber systems, they're, they're about four feet high that run through there. And so you got 180 feet by 22 feet wide and that's right along the best soils right there. We went down this, this month, we went down with a bigger machine the first time we went out there, we had a smaller backhoe. We couldn't find the bottom of that good soil. So we went out there with a big excavator,
went down about 25 feet some holes and it was a big hole and, but anyway, the soil, it goes down pretty far. We did hit the bottom of it, we did, it's down there pretty far, but, so it's, it's a good depth of soil so it has a lot of capacity for storage in there Speaker 1: And that, that drainage system, I mean, what I'm seeing is features around that east side of the lot there. I mean one of the questions that I would have is around, you know, how are abutting properties being protected
against any additional runoff. I mean the topography of that site is changing somewhat and wanna make sure that there's protections to the Ellis property that it's that, that they're not gonna be faced with with a whole lot more water in their yard than previously existed. Can you just talk to the Sure. Specifically to the features that'll make, that'll put that protection in place? Speaker 18: Yes. If we can, maybe we can flip over to the grading plan. 'cause that'll show some where, where the water's going. So that's on the C two sheet.
Yeah, there you go. So if you go over that east side there, I dunno if you could larger, you're gonna see we got these area drains and so we have the, we have manholes, we have area drains. So yeah, right along the, there's two of 'em right along that east side there. And those are, those are set lower than the grade that's over by the, the, the wall. And that wall is about two and a half feet high vertical on the wall. And it'll probably have a, a reveal on the west side of about a half of foot. So it's gonna be about two feet high, but that's pitching back towards those area drains.
Everything's pitching towards the area drains and they're far off of the, the wall. The idea there is to is actually by having the wall there and the grading as such is, is gonna provide the protection because right now there might be some, you know, there's like a shared contour that's going through both properties and you could have water going across from one site to the other. This will will assure that the, the water can't get over there by having both the, the structure of the wall there plus the grading and the area drains to capture that and put it into that drain that's purposely put down
that side there so we can just carry it out and put it into the chamber system. Speaker 1: Okay. And it seems like those, those drains, those those drains are, they're, they're scattered throughout the site. I mean a lot of that water within the lawns, certainly within the roads is being captured and, and directed to that. Speaker 18: Yes, there's, yeah, and that's what's happening. There's only a tiny little area that's over on the, the westly northly west corner there. We have an area drain there too. And that's right by the small, on the right side of the small chamber system
and we're connecting that right into the, the street system there. We have to do that. Okay. We can't, we can't pick that small area up. Got it. Like I said, it's only got 0.02 acres of impervious area, which is like a de minimis amount. And then we're, it's also taking some roof area, that same drainage area is taking the house from the, the neighbor on the right and then there is also a, a barn or something that's back up on a property behind it, which is intercepting some of that roof as well. And so we're taking that, putting it into a,
a deep sump yard drain and then connecting that to, to the, the street system. So that system, there's not gonna be any pu there Yeah, between the two yards. Speaker 17: If, if it could, I had conversations with the butter to the east right there because they're getting a sort of a sh a little bit of a flow through there. That's the newer house that was built next to the one that we built with the wetland in the back. And there's a flow that comes down that driveway and comes across the backyard of number 56.
The house is up high enough, but there's sort of a flow coming through the yard that ends up along the property line. So Bruce and I talked a little bit about, and I talked with the neighbor about sort of carrying that fall all the way down and then picking it up, not altering the grade too much and now the rear yard of our units, there's some tree, there's some brush and, and invasives that have to come out of there. But if we raise that grade, we're gonna trap it against him. So we talked about sort of making sure that contour stayed low enough that all the water could come all the way down to
something on Everett Street where we catch it right there. 'cause they also have some, their gutter pipes, they're not underground gutter pipes. So they're, they're roof frames sort of. They're dump, that's what you're seeing is the four inch PVC is, some of their pipes are dumping right there. So we're gonna manage that and we've already talked to 'em about that, how we can do it fairly easy. And on the left side, there's actually on the, the east side, east side, there's trees on, on top of that wall. So there's a little bit of a slight burn there with plantings, which will act as a secondary water control.
And, but the units being so close to each other in so many patios, we need small area drains. 'cause we can't, it's hard to grade out from behind units all the way out to the street with the, with between driveways and units and patios. So the, the area drains make it a lot easier to work. Speaker 2: Ben, just a quick clarifying question. And this as well, obviously you guys have done quite a bit of testing out there, but because it hasn't been witnessed is, is there any chance that the grading of the project may change substantially based on that?
No, I just wanted to double check. Speaker 17: No, what we, our only concern was, so like we had to buildings, especially C, d and E, that's a kind of a shift in the grade and it's also a shift in the groundwater. So it's hard to tell. You can see like building D one and D two, we have a top of concrete at 1 77. So we have a basement at one 70. But if you look at our, our, we found groundwater at around 1 72 based upon that elevation, which is
but a hundred yards away, there's no groundwater. So what we decided to do was monitor it over the winter and then in the early spring when we're at our highest time, because then we can establish, it's not gonna change where the, the Caltech system is out front. It just may change the elevation of the sub drain behind those units, if you will, to make sure we're at the base we're at groundwater or basement level if you'll, and if the worst case we can't do it, then those units become slabs. Okay. Speaker 2: That, I think that was the
clarification that I was looking for. Speaker 17: Yeah. Yeah. That, no, the grading the road water, sewer driveways, that can't change at this point. So it's the worst case is those become slabs. Speaker 2: Right. So, Speaker 17: And we like the building in the way back, you see that's already drafted already because I don't think there's any way there would be, 'cause you're already starting in an elevation, you know, that's an 81 85 elevation and it's a 180 5 ground level at this point. So we assume those would need to be slabs, but the rest is really up to nailing down that final level
of groundwater and, and mitigation possibilities. So, Speaker 1: And just to clarify something, Ben, and I think you just set up, I just wanna make sure I heard it right. I mean, regardless of what you find with the groundwater fluctuations and whether you decide to go slab or basement in these units, that's not gonna change any of the kind of storm water handling features that we're, we're talking about. It's just simply gonna correct change whether they have a basement or not. Speaker 17: Correct. Yeah. Nothing, nothing will, this plan will look identical. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Thanks. Alright. Commission questions for,
for Ben and team on the, the storm water side of things. Speaker 2: I will just note quickly while folks maybe get their thoughts together that Ben is currently undergoing his scenic road alteration review with the planning board, which is, I think he mentioned the tree removal counts being finalized and things like that. So there is definitely some additional information that will be coming at, at that process finalizes in terms of the tree removal and, and subsequent required mitigation. Speaker 1: Okay. Questions from the commission in terms of the planning board process and other processes?
I mean, again, you just said that, I mean this is, this is the storm water plan. There's nothing that you're anticipating that could change what is being proposed here, is that right? Speaker 17: No, we're, we're essentially the planning board. We were gonna have a hearing with him yesterday, but we're not, we don't have to file a scenic road for this project. We agreed to do it. We agreed to do an offsite sidewalk to connect the base of Windermere Lane sidewalk to our new sidewalk. And that involves three four trees that are in the town right away.
So we don't have any tree removal for this project and we don't have any stonewall removal. So the scenic road is not applicable to this project. It's only applicable to the sidewalk. However, we did do a landscape plan for the planning board that, that I failed to include in your packet, but I could put that in along with a, an existing tree removal count so we could, so that could be on record, if you will. Yes. For this side, but the scenic road is for the, for the sidewalk. Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you for that clarification. No. Speaker 17: Yeah. So this is not changing.
And there, I know Bruce and Bill talked about maybe an different way of doing some sewer ma sewer lines, but doesn't change grade, it doesn't change impervious collection systems, nothing. So Speaker 18: Yeah, that's, that's correct. I got nice discussion with Bill today. And so he is, had comments on the, you know, how he wants the, the water services tied in and also the individual sewer services tied in and made some recommendations as far as movement
of getting some manholes and better, better locations for access purposes down the road. That sort of thing from, from, you know, from an OM for getting to manholes that are locations for sewer. And then, so I'm going through the mod, those modifications, but that's just utility utilities that are moving around a water sewer that's moving around on the plan. But that's not gonna change any impervious area or anything. 'cause right now we're showing just, I was trying not to,
to busy up the plant too much by putting water and sewer connections to every unit where there'd be like 15 times, two 30 more lines in there and it'd be so busy that it'd be hard to follow. So now we're getting to that level where we're, we're fine tuning where the water stops are and where, which part of the house they're gonna be connecting to and all the, that fine detail. So I might have to kinda split it, split it off in a next separate sheet. We do have a, a drain plan, but we're gonna put it all on that utility plan,
so it'll be pretty busy. Speaker 1: Great. Claire, in your notes, you, you said that you expect to have a letter from engineering prior to this meeting? I, I, I may be looking right at it, but I don't see it in the folder. Is it in there? There Speaker 2: Is not one in there. My guess is that Bill got halfway through a memo and then had a phone call with Bruce and changed it. I did send him an email around three o'clock this afternoon, but didn't get a response. So since we do have to continue, I I will ensure that we have a memo from him for Speaker 1: The call. Okay, good, Speaker 17: Good. And, and I'm, since we're continuing, I I will, whatever changes we make for engineering,
we will send a new plan set in and we'll include the landscape plan with, if it's okay with the commission, I'll put what an anticipated number of tree removal, but we're gonna be probably 5, 6, 10 x on tree replacement versus removal anyhow. So, and you'll see that in the landscape plan. Okay. Speaker 1: And again, then the, the possible air places that this will change based upon subsequent conversations are what, again, if you just list those up Speaker 17: Right now, we, bill
and Bruce are examining the, not to bore you, but the water and the sewer we're, we're replacing the water line on average Street. We're, we're putting a 16 inch Maine to continue what was done before. But unfortunately the water, sewer and drain are all at the same elevation on Everett. So we're trying to find a way to bring our water and sewer together, but only cross them once to avoid multiple crossings. So it's, it's a schematics thing with Bill and Bruce to figure out the best location for the sewer because that is gravity driven, obviously.
But then we can't rise the water up too much or we have a frost problem. So we're trying to squeeze everything in in one spot and Got it. He just has to work through some details, but it won't change anything as far as the collection systems, it won't change. I don't think it's gonna change the, we have two or three catch basins in the street for the road and then we have all the roofs heading down to this, this system and that's not gonna change. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Okay. And if it does, you have to come back as the purpose. Speaker 17: Yeah. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, guys, questions on the, on the, the storm water system and then like to hear from Ron on the, on the RDA side of this, just what, you know, what's gonna happen on the, the open space parcel. Any questions guys? Speaker 11: I, I have a couple and this is a lot to digest, I'll be honest with you. There's a lot of content there, but very, very nicely presented. So I see that you mentioned that there's gonna be stages with regard to kind of site development. Could you just, you know, kind of inform me or inform Sure. The commission about what your vision is
for this, for the staging? Speaker 17: Yes, and I'm happy to put this in because Bruce and I talked a little bit about it. And the ideal staging is the assumption that very early this spring we start removing asphalt, removing loom, removing the buildings, and then establishing those sediment trap areas out front, which will be lower than the street, which will be huge. So that whatever happens with our spring and rains and our heavy thunderstorms, summer storms, we'll have a very, we'll have a football field lower than
Everett Street, three feet lower than Everett Street. There'll be a football field of area to collect as we do the sewer and the water and the underground electric. Then this is the type of site where you'd put in 80 to 90% of the foundations in the ground next fall, try to get all utilities in, get all your sewers and waters in, get all your driveways in pave, you still have your open football field out front because we don't wanna send dirty water into a built Caltech system. And then once we are paved, we will then quickly build the Caltech system when we know
we can control what's going into it, which would probably be somewhere about a year from now. And once the buildings are in and the binder is in, there isn't a lot of area, you know, there is, you're collecting now an open foundations, you're running everything into the street, you're running into your cult tax. You still have sediment areas to deal with and control areas to deal with. But we, we anticipate about one year of site work and foundation work to the point where we can install our drainage systems, roadway systems,
and then start building houses. That's this side of the site. Obviously the invasion, the the working around the invasive removal is also schedule related, but we would be doing it in the appropriate seasons that Ron sort of schedules lets us know are the best times. And I can put that in word too and attach, if that makes Speaker 1: Sense. If you could, if you could, that would be helpful. Okay. As Mike said, I'm, I'm, I'm glad this is being continued. I wanna really digest this, you know, that especially after this voiceover Speaker 11: Mike, there's, there's just one other question I have and,
and it kind of ties into your, your kind of site, you know, your staging. So you, you briefly mentioned it, how, how does this southwesterly area that's gonna kind of control sediment that you're gonna pump, you know, potentially pump up to, or, you know, because I think by your own admission or maybe the data would indicate that the soil's a little bit touchy as you, you know, as you kind of move away from Everett and you know, is that a concern? Is that, you know, is that really a, the best place for that
based on soil site, et cetera? Or, you know, I know you've thought this through very de in de in depth, but I'm just, and when would that be utilized? I know it's, you know, thunderstorms and so forth, but you know, when I hear football field sigh and 25 feet deep hole that you don't get water until you hit 30 feet. You know, I'm trying to figure out all these things in my brain. Speaker 17: I think, I think I, I, if I could speak Bruce might have, I don't think you are ever gonna need the
basin, but after our experience on the other project, I think we needed to think about it. Speaker 1: I appreciate that Speaker 17: Because we do have some funkier soils in the back and I've never had to do a pump out basin in my life because usually if we have an area that's collecting during construction and it's full of water, we go over the excavator or you remove the silt carefully and all of a sudden you can recharge or you, or you open it up a bit. But I think it was important because of the history of the other site to make sure we had a contingency plan. If we had three inches
and another three inches we had, you know, the, the, the summer of two years ago or three years ago where it just wouldn't stop on us. I don't think we'll ever, ever use it. But it's going to be built and it's going to be written. Speaker 2: Ben, I think to to Mike's point, it, it may be helpful to include those, what those emergency parameters would look like in the ONM plan or whatever sequencing document you guys are putting together. Just so that way when we reference that document in the permit that's issued, it's all clearly laid out for everyone what's being approved. Speaker 17: Sounds good. We can do that. Speaker 1: Okay. Other, other questions at this point, again, this,
this will be continued. We'll have time to ask more questions as we all put this under our pillows and sleep on it over the holidays for good. For now, why don't we jump into Ron, if you wouldn't mind just talking us through the, the open space parcel. That'd be great. Speaker 20: Yeah. So T run Ron MoCo associates. Claire, if you could just go to the last say's Speaker 2: Fine. Yep. I was trying to get down to the member or the map. There we go. There we Speaker 20: Go. So as, as Bruce and,
and Ben described this, this space will be open space parcel. It's gonna be significantly easier to explain this one. There's just a, a trail that's gonna be going through this existing meadow and kind of make a loop back to the existing develop or the proposed development. The trail is about, it's just over a thousand feet long that, that goes through the 100 foot buffer and it'll be approximately three feet wide. It's just gonna be mowed. There's not gonna be any soil disturbance associated with creating it. So it won't be stone dust.
I think we did propose that we could, if, if if there's a gif or you know, some type of rut or something that would cause a tripping hazard, we could include some wood chips to try and level that out. But for the most part it's just gonna be mowed with existing vegetation and that kind of follows the 25, no it's, it's outside the 25 foot no disturb between the 25 and 40 for portions of the east side of the well on there. As you can see from this map, we're also proposing to eliminate a bunch of invasive species that kind
of is along the periphery of this meadow. So the meadow is mowed annually and so it kind of limits any woody vegetation that can come up. But in the areas that aren't mowed, it kind of becomes edge habitat, which is unfortunately perfect spot for birds to drop seeds. And you know, that's where you kind of get your invasives kind of filling in is right on the periphery of these meadows. And so we went out there and identified large areas of burning bush bus thorn and actually within the wetland there's some reary grass
and some buckhorn as well growing in there and a lot of bittersweet growing around the entire meadow hanging from the trees. Excuse me. So we're proposing to, we included in invasive species management plan as far as this filing. So basically we would go in there and anything that could be pulled would obviously is a a lot more effective mechanism of just getting it out of there completely for things that aren't gonna reproduce clonally from leftover seeds or, or sorry, leftover parts of the roots and everything.
So things like autumn olive, if we could cut it and and dab the the stump, we would do that. But if we could pull the whole thing out, that would also be effective. And for work within the 25 foot buffer, I've recommended not doing any mechanical removal just 'cause we don't want it to soil disturbance. So that would be some type of foliar application of an herbicide. And in this plan we've, you know, recommended not spraying above head level, watching
for wind drift when we're actually doing the application, but also using tric opere, which is kind of specific to working within the meadow. So it wouldn't actually damage any of the, the grasses and seds and brushes that are, that are actually located in the wetland but will still affect some of the, the vegetation that we're actively trying to target in, in the habitat. So, you know, we do a lot of invasive treatment work. We've been pretty effective throughout, you know,
other towns and we're working for other municipalities so it would be a multi B year process as well. This is not just a one one time and walk away. This is gonna be a continual effort to try and eliminate this. Speaker 2: Ron, I think maybe similar to some feedback that was given to an earlier project, some more specific timing about when you guys are gonna be out there. I don't know if that goes into the larger over sequencing plan or where, how you guys wanna arrange that, but I think it doesn't need to be, you know, in on March 1st in 2026 we'll be out doing X, Y, z,
but generally seasonal when these applications would occur. Yeah, Speaker 20: I think on the next, on the last or the fifth page there, it, it does mention that, you know, we would try and time our foliar application to be in the late summer, early fall time when right when they're trying to move the plants are trying to move nutrients back down into the, into the root system, kind of targets the vascular system pretty heavily and, and ends up leading to more successful results, especially on the woody vegetation and, and bittersweet, especially for the foliar application
or sorry for the, for mechanical removal, that could pretty much be done at any time whenever Ben's got some manpower or machinery. And as long as it's not, you know, we're proposing, we, we propose ev everything outside the 25 foot to could be removed mechanically if, if the patches are small enough, we are still trying to minimize soil disturbance and we ha I did recommend in this, in this plan that immediately follow up if, if it's a mechanical removal, immediately following up with a native seed mix just
to stabilize that area as quickly as possible but also try and promote native plants growing in there to try and prevent obviously any additional seed from sprouting from any of this invasives. Speaker 2: I think that the, the second portion of my comment is also just a little bit more detail on how many applications are gonna be proposed. You know, is it gonna be through the duration of construction? Are you guys gonna do, you know, a year after construction? But I know obviously this might also play into some of the larger sort of homeowner responsibilities in regard
to the me meadow management and things like that. So I don't think we need to get into like too, too much detail. But generally, you know, we plan on doing x, y, z number of growing seasons worth of management, those kinds of details. Speaker 21: Understood. Speaker 1: Great. So questions from the commission on on this, this part of the, this part of the project at this point? Speaker 10: Yeah. As far as the stuff that you're gonna hit on that eastern side on the margins, how do you see that?
How, how do you see the success of that since you're essentially biting into an already existing group of invasives that are on the abutting property? Speaker 17: Well, I mean, if I could speak Ron, I, that's an area that's, there's a, there's a heavy tree line there and so you have a lot of the vines and that's where a lot of the burning bush is growing underneath the tree. So that's the type of area that assuming we can get in there in the right time of year and,
and it's not too wet and you take a, you know, you could probably go in with a small machine and with some guidance or even run there rip and just drag it out. Just don't, don't try to it because it's everywhere. The other side, their field is actually cud a little bit closer to the property line. So there are some EVAs on the other side of the wall, there's a stone wall back there. But for the most part we have some very healthy oaks and maples, 24, 30 inch that are got a canopy
and we would just be pulling out underneath the canopy if you'll, that's an area that we may want to chip because it's so dark with the overhead trees. I'm not sure the native grasses will take, but we'll be careful, you know, that's something like I said, we'd have Ron there to look at it after we did it and talk a little bit about the next step or the timings of the next step after that to see what happens to that area over the summer. So, and that there's a lot, that's where a 90% of the problem is along that property line.
And then the other blue, you know, circle he has there is very similar, the other stuff is in the fields themselves, which is a little bit different, but that field does dry up. 'cause as I, those of you who are out there saw that wetland is higher than the ground than the stonewall next to it. So that, that wetland is, you can drive a machine out there in August if it doesn't rain this August, you could go out there with a 30 ton excavator and it wouldn't matter. So it's a timing issue where even some of the grasses and the, and some of the stuff in that meadow
hit at the appropriate time of year does make some sense to mechanically remove if that's the most effective way to, if, if we determine that's the most effective way, but if not, we can do it otherwise. So Speaker 2: I do also just wanna provide the additional context of, obviously this is not an an immediate thing that will come, but this portion of the project, this open space parcel will have to be permanently protected in some manner. And I think part of the, I I, I know the decision hadn't been finalized yet, but I I think generally a conservation restriction has been the sort of common practice under the new bylaw.
And so those types of, you know, allowed and prohibited uses in terms of ongoing invasive species management, I think similar language was included in the wayside. Graystone meadow management would certainly be a part of that discussion. Speaker 17: Yep. Speaker 10: Do we know what the abutter is there? Speaker 2: This large parcel here? Yeah. Yeah. I was actually, I was just getting the town GIS pulled up for this area. Speaker 10: It doesn't, it seems like it's severed from any sort of road. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it is a, a shared ownership arrangement with a,
a nearby property. But I I think you might be more familiar with this area that I Yeah, Speaker 17: That one. Speaker 2: This one? Yeah. Yes. So it it's this shared property owner who also owns this. It's sort of this series of parcels. Speaker 10: I got it. Okay. But Speaker 2: Yes, this, this parcel is currently fully undeveloped. Speaker 1: Do you think you'd wanna donate it to the town? Just kidding. Speaker 2: Can't hurt ask Speaker 10: Actually Speaker 2: Can I apologize? It can't hurt to ask. Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be this? Speaker 17: That's what CPA funds are for. Buy easement, buy a restriction. Speaker 1: That's it. Alright.
You know, I think we've gotten a good, a good very solid voiceover. My suggestion is that why don't we continue this to our Jan 15 meeting. Ben, is that an an appropriate timing for you? Speaker 17: That's fine. And I, I think we'll have a firm utility layout and then we'll give you a construction sort of sequencing and some of the other stuff we talked about tonight. We can have by that we'll have it in a couple of weeks. So. Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 11: Can I, can I ask one other thing? Of course about 66 Everett is in, in that wetland situation in the backyard. Yep. Yeah, I just, I I'm just, it was briefed over
and I'm, I just like something, I need a little more detail about what that means about things running over across couple of house lo you know, that type of thing. Speaker 17: Sure. Claire, could you go to the, maybe the GIS Speaker 2: Yeah, I was, I I was just gonna, I had pulled up mass mapper as well so that way we could get the contours. Oh. And of course I just hit exit on it. So Mike, and, and if, if I'm remembering correctly, 'cause I've been out to this area with Phil McDowell during prior years. I think when the commission permitted that change to the, the 66 Everett Street lot.
It's the driveway runoff that runs along the side of Speaker 11: Okay. Speaker 2: 66 Everett that is running now then across 56 Everett rather than wetland runoff. But the contours pulled up 'cause I might be wrong. And that was a couple of years ago now. So yeah, Speaker 11: That's really all I needed clarity on. I just, I was trying to figure out is there a culvert going underneath that driveway from Yeah, Speaker 2: So it's because this driveway extends, there's an easement that extends all the way back to 68 Everett Street
and I'm not sure what, I guess that's the old greenhouse. They've not updated any of these aerial building maps. Yeah, so it's, it's this runoff that's coming down. There's this sort of ridge that runs right here. And so this sheds off this way and you can almost see the, the swale that it follows. Okay. Along the property. Speaker 17: Right. Cool. And right now, I mean there's drains that's a funky area 'cause all the four houses were doing the sidewalk in front of all sort of have these area drains picking up when
that wetland overflows, if you will, off of 66. Speaker 2: Oh and Matt, I just wanna do, I didn't know if there were any members of the public here. I know that there was one public comment provided. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Just about to do that. Anyone from the public here would like to ask a question or comment about this particular project? Speaker 2: I didn't think, I didn't think there was gonna be anyone, but I just had to check. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, good. Alright, hearing none happy to entertain a motion to continue this toward Jan 15 meeting. I moved. All right, thanks Chris. Is that seconded? That was David. Thank you David. Yeah, any further discussion on that? Any last questions before we let these guys go? Alright, all those in favor, Jim?
Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Mike? Speaker 11: Yes. Speaker 1: Chris? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Matty? Yes as well. Alright gentlemen, we're, you know, thank you for this detailed presentation. We will continue, you know, we'll pick this back up on Jan 15 and go from there. Great. Thank you. Happy, happy holidays and some good family time these next days. Thank you, Speaker 17: You too. Thank you guys. Take care. Speaker 1: All right. With all that, what I'd like to do is go ahead and we're that to move ahead to 18 to 22 Magnolia,
I see carrie's here on the call. So Claire, if you would please tee this up and give us the background on this and we'll go from there. Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. I'll, I'll hold off on pulling up any materials just yet. Just give a quick voiceover and then I can, I've got a number of the materials that are also in the drive folder pulled up and ready to go. But Carrie and I were communicating in regards to getting the permits, the building permits for these projects closed out. I was, I noted that I was waiting for the final as-built and certification letters regarding the project that was,
I had those materials per my standard process. I could do my final inspection, get the stormwater certificate compliance on this agenda, but also get the certificates of occupancy signed off on upon receipt of the as-builts. I did go out to the site to meet Carrie. There had been some email exchange back and forth prior to the site visit that had raised some, some concerns in my mind. So I, I certainly thought that a site visit was gonna be the most clarifying next step. And upon getting to the site, it did appear to me that there had been some vegetation clearing that had not been part of the approved plans
and that the mapped or staked makris line in the field appeared to be slightly off from what had previously been shown on approved plans. I informed the applicant Mr. Wu of my concerns and noted that that a discussion before the commission was gonna be needed. I, I think given the site history, the major stormwater permit and the limit of work violation that I believe that did occur as, as part of this project. I think the, the summary photos, just to,
to start off the discussion and I I saw the comment in the chat. Mark Arnold from Goddard is also here for this filing as well. So this is the area of the site in August of 2024. So this is following the pre-construction site visit. The erosion control line has been inspected. It's located roughly at the edge of this yellow area here. You can see the stormwater drainage overflow is circled in blue. And these two large mature canopy trees that sort of hang over the line of arb vee that were planted
by the prior site owner. This is that same area in July of 2025. So both, you know, height of summer and these are those same two trees. The, the drainage area is not circled in blue over here, but it is this larger. I was expanded as construction was finalized and, and the finish storm water was installed. But I I, from my perspective, this aerial image very clearly shows that there was vegetation removal in this area outside of the approved limit of work for the project and the, the limit of the erosion controls. Speaker 1: Can, can you please pull up,
I mean you, maybe you're about to do this. Can you please pull up the plans that were approved that had limited work on them? And then let's start with that. Speaker 2: So this is the approved landscaping plan, which doesn't show limit of work. So this is the approved subdivision plan set. So the, just to provide a little bit of context, that macro line is this line here, which aligns roughly with where that edge of the yellow polygon in the previous photos was. And the limit of work is shown here on this approved plan sheet.
That it, you can see that the rear limit of work and erosion control sits right along that mattress line. Speaker 1: Okay. So it seems clear that there was a good deal of work that was done beyond the approved limit of work. Is that Speaker 2: Yeah, and there, there was certainly some vegetation removal approved in this rear area. If the commission remembers concerns were brought up about the proposed mitigation plantings being able to thrive given a pretty heavy black locust canopy in the area. And so a 30% removal
of the existing black locust was approved in order to ensure that there was enough light being provided to these new plantings to thrive. These new plantings have not been completed. Again, Carrie would not have received a certificate, stormwater certificate of compliance until those landscaping was installed in the spring. But with the houses being complete and the site stabilized, I could have signed off on the certificates of occupancy had this limit of work violation not come up, which I felt was critical to be resolved before any permissions were released. Speaker 1: Do you have, do you have the conditions accessible
that outlines the, the conditions that outlines the thinning of that vegetation beyond the macriss line? Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's on the landscaping plan here. So the, within the property limits cut 30% of the black locusts, one foot above grade around the new tree planting locations for openness. I'll pull the permit in just a second. But there was a, a site visit that was supposed to occur in order to mark out which plants exactly were gonna be removed. All plants were be removed by hand,
no machinery except a dingo to bring the tree and root falls in. And that refers to the new mitigation plantings, invasive herbaceous and shrub extrication to be continued for two years, two times per year, do not disturb, disturb ground cover unnecessarily and restore disturbed areas as needed. Snake limits of no disturbed macro line and access path to new planting areas. And then the, the approved permit, I'm just gonna scroll down to the special conditions. I have highlighted the special conditions that, that are most relevant. But invasive species management shall occur per the notes on the approved landscape plan.
In addition to a meeting onsite with conservation staff prior to any black locust removal to determine most effective areas of removal to support replanting, any herbicide treatments must be performed by the cotton paint method and no foliar applications are approved. Speaker 1: Okay. Go back to the aerials Speaker 2: A and I do have additional, additional photos and additional aerials if those are helpful. But the, these two photos I do feel summarized the cons. Speaker 1: I mean, this, this to me looks just at least from the aerial and I'd like to just, I mean, you, you were there on site laying eyeballs on it. This to me looks like this, the, you know,
this area in the yellow polygon was completely denuded Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 22: To the chair. Could could we speak to, oh, there we go. Claire, if you could walk through these photos, Claire, because I think these photos to, to the chair. This is Mark Ron with Garter Consulting. I, I was brought in mainly because I actually have knowledge of this property going back to 20 19, 20 20 actually walking this property by the, for the previous owner wetlands, et cetera. And so George Connor's asked us to kind of step into, kinda help advise kind of where this is at because of the kitchens.
But if Claire, could you walk through these photographs from your sidewalk? 'cause I think by the, the word denuded is, is, is, is kind of harsh in terms of what you will see in these photographs in terms of the understory, particularly on the other side of the silt fence here. As you walk through these photos. Claire, can you walk through the next few? Speaker 2: Yeah. So just to provide some context, these are the photos from the pre-construction site visit on May 15th, 2024. Currently I'm looking west, you can see the lake in the background here behind and through the trees. Speaker 1: And this silt fence here represents the approved limit of work. Correct? Speaker 2: Exactly. At, at least based on my interpretation of, of
what has been performed. This is just moving closer to that rear erosion control line. I do just wanna note that the standing pines in the rear, I do help provide a little bit of context as we then move to, to post construction photos. So now we're turning along that rear erosion control line. We're looking now back along the rear erosion control line. So looking back the way we came, the macro line has been identified by this tape here. And the black locust vegetation, understory vegetation and shrub layer are visible on the left side of the photo.
And the final photo is just looking at that rear corner, the macro line being identified and, and some of the vegetation that was back in this area. And then, and, Speaker 22: And, and for context, Claire, going back to that last, that fourth photo there, going back one more for context for the site. This site was completely clear cut, stripped of top soil and everything. And that's why the left side of this picture is, is denuded of natural herbaceous vegetation that would normally come in after lack of management for quite a few years.
And so in, in terms of what was on the left side of the site of this picture here, there wasn't a lot there except all those saplings that you're seeing. Anything that you can see that's actually like more than like three feet tall. That is all black locusts, every single one of 'em. And the other photographs as you go back, there's that lime green leaf that you can see in the previous photos. Like it was photos three and two and three here, that's all black locust all through that entire understory. Speaker 2: And Mark the commission was well aware of that. They did perform a site visit prior to the issuance
of the major stormwater permit. So they are well aware of the, the heaviness of the black locust in this rear area. However, a as it was discussed during the commission meetings and, and I think I provided those minutes, there's obviously a balancing act between removal of invasive tree species and the potential for then allowing understory invasive species to take hold. And so the commission felt that that removal specifically in those areas where replanting made the most sense to sort of balance that restoration of this area in terms of invasive and native management, which is why the approved plans were,
were approved as such, and the appropriate conditions were, were placed on the project. Yeah. Speaker 1: And, and, and Mark, I, you know, you you you pushed back on the term that I used of denuded, but if, you know, and I'd I'd, I'd like to go out and take a look at this and I can easily, I live kind of nearby is so clear. What are, what are we, so the makris lines, Speaker 2: Apologies for the, the whiplash. I was just getting to the photos that I took during that site visit that occurred on, on December 11th. So I, I think that just to provide content about what the,
I know from the aerial it can be difficult. This, this is what the vegetation, obviously we are in November, but, but this is what that area looks like currently. Speaker 1: So I mean, and, and then if you go back to the original, you know, to the very first aerial that you showed, I mean this to me looks like, you know, it was stripped. I mean that, you know, there, there's not, you know, I it looks like there's not much vegetation left. There is, is that, is that accurate or do you, do you not agree? Speaker 22: I I I would agree Mr. Chair, that the area, the vegetation was all cut,
but the, the, the, the front area closest to the houses was actually loom was added to actually help stabilize the soils. And the area in the back was just cut. And, and I think what happened here was the, the, the invasive species management was overzealous instead of, instead of sticking with 30%, they actually took down all the black loads. Speaker 1: Yeah, right. Speaker 22: And, and hence Speaker 1: Hence the violation conversation. Yeah, Speaker 22: Exactly. And we understand that. And we understand that. And, and our intention is to is to re is to implement the planting plan per the order, per your,
per your approval and to, to restabilize all the soils with a a, a New England conservation seed mix. And we also think that some top soil supplement is also warranted in the back area because the area is really lacking topsoil to establish vegetation, which is why in the photographs that CLA showed the herbaceous layer had it naturally recovered even after five, 10 years of, of being left dormant. Speaker 2: Well, mark, I think that there's, there's a slightly larger issue than,
than just installing the approved mitigation plan. The, the area of lawn was much extended beyond the approved limit of work, and this whole area would've been a vegetated buffer Speaker 1: Delay Speaker 2: Under the approved conditions. And, and now we have lawn and a very small about believe my measurements showed about 40 feet of a buffer, where previously there would've been roughly 120 feet of vegetative buffer between the lawn areas and, and the, the near property line. But I think that the mitigation planning plan, certainly we're not asking Speaker 22: For, we're not asking for the expansion
of lawn here tonight, Mr. Chair. We're, our plan is to put, is to bring the line back up to the macros line. We understand that. So where the lawn expansion, I think was a situation where there was ex over zealous removal of the, the black locust. They wanted to stabilize the soils, they put it in and they didn't think about the fact that it's not supposed to be just a lawn. And so the who is they? It it, it was the, the developer Carrie. So that was, that was what they, they was o overly zealous really with the lack locus. And so again, we've, we spoke with Carrie, our,
our intention is to, to restore everything that was outside the li of work into a natural buffer zone, whether it's, it, it, it's basically upland meadow and then into forested canopy with the, the plantings that were originally proposed. So in terms Speaker 2: Of, well, I think Mark, that's up to the commission to decide at this point. Yeah, yeah, Speaker 1: Exactly. Speaker 2: Enforcement will beq and what the next steps are gonna be. I think we're maybe getting a little ahead of ourselves. Yeah. Speaker 1: Hold on. Claire. Kerry. Kerry, how was this decision made? I mean, this was, this was work that was, you know, negotiated and not, you know,
and what was done was outside of what our negotiation was, I mean, how, you know, we had a, you know, had a conversation in good faith with you and assumed that it was gonna be carried forward in good faith. Yes. How did this happen? Speaker 23: Well, honestly Speaker 1: Yeah, please, honestly. Speaker 23: Okay. And in April when I asked, first contacted Claire to see if we can move back to cell fence, back to where the boundary line is. The, the law line is, you know, in, in the back. And Claire gave me the approval to move the, the line
and so we can do proper grading in that area area. So during that time, because the locus was actually, you know, p pretty small, so whoever was gradating that area pretty much took out everything, everything in that area, all the way back to the bond, the, the new self fence location. So that's, that's what happened. Speaker 1: So, so, so you showed up and your contractor who had you had hired to do the work hadn't been, you know, either either didn't follow instructions or was given the wrong instructions to then,
then took it upon themselves or whatever it was, and decided that they were gonna clear everything and not not follow what the, what the, what the approved plan was? Correct. Speaker 23: And, and then the truth is that there's not much to clear, to tell you the truth because it's the mid in the midst of wintertime, the winter, a, it was the beginning of the April and there was a much, you know, you know how, because this entire area is all sand. So these Oh yeah. After a year I, after a year of construction in that area was sand,
and then the stu being dug out, you know, putting on top of it, it's, you know, by the time we're we backfill and we are ready to actually gray, honestly, there wasn't much left. So, and that's the honest truth, you know, I mean, yes, we took out all the invasive, invasive black locusts, but the fact is, if we were to do 30%, well I, you know, I mean I, if we were to even leave just a little bit
of the black locust in a year, this whole locust will be so evasive, the whole thing will be rampant and none of the plan mitigation planes will, will be able to survive to begin with. That's my view. Yeah. So, oh, Speaker 1: Okay. But that should have been negotiated upfront. Speaker 23: Correct. But I didn't know that. Well, it's very clearly outlined as a condition, your permit, so I didn't know that. I didn't know that. Not, not meaning that it wasn't outlined. Okay. And, and again, clear, I'm not trying to argue with you or anything like that, but you know, we did admit that, okay, we made a mistake.
Okay. So right now, the, the, the fact is let's try to find a way so we can rectify the problem to your satisfaction and then, you know, move on forward, move forward. Speaker 1: Okay. Here, here's, here's my suggestion and my suggestion is that we will, the commission will design a mitigation plan Okay. And a, a remediation plan. Okay. And we will, we will present that to you at our next meeting. Okay. And we'll, and our expectations will be, is that that plan will be followed to the letter and it'll be monitored closely. That
Speaker 23: Will be fine. Yeah. I can't, I can't do any plan. Plenty mitigation until April anyway. Of course. Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. But we will, we, we will tell you what we wanna see. Speaker 23: Okay. And then I, I believe that your next meeting is what, January 15th? Speaker 1: January 15th. Speaker 23: 15th. And so I'm actually going to be out of country, you know, until the 18th. Speaker 1: Okay. We can, we can pick because, because we have a little bit of time 'cause of the seasons. Yeah. We will take a look at, you know, we, we can do it at our first meeting in February. That's fine too. Speaker 23: What is your following meeting after? Speaker 24: No, let's do it on January 15th,
because Carrie, I can take care of it. Speaker 23: You can take care of it. Okay. All right. Speaker 1: Okay. So we will present to you what our requirements are for mitigation and, you know, we'll, we'll, we'll tell you what that is and then we will hand that to you and you can comment as you wish on it. But generally speaking, I think it'll be the plan. Okay. And we'll, we'll present that to you, and then we will, we'll go from there. Then we'll have a timeline for compliance and, you know,
and, and with the expectation that that timeline will be met and we'll, we'll go from there. I mean, it's, it's, as you know, Carrie, I mean this, this property has Speaker 23: A lot of problem to begin with. A lot of coming to the la lot of history. And we have actually come to the, pretty much the end of it. And trust me, this is the last thing I wanna have to go through, you know, shorter to you guys, you know, like I said, I mean, what's done has been done. We're, we're in good. We, we come in good faith trying to rectify the problem and whatever you guys ask us to do, we're trying to do it to, to to, to, to the best of our ability. So, well, you,
Speaker 1: You, you come here because you have to, it's a lock, you know, good faith, nothing. Yeah. Yeah. So with all that, why don't we, you know, what we can do and commission, we can discuss, you know, maybe, maybe if we wanna throw some, some bullet points out now as a starting point, okay? And then what we can do is have Claire then prepare a detailed plan that we can then discuss in public meeting at our next meeting and hand that to you, and then watch you go execute it. Okay? So let's, why don't we proceed that way, the existing,
Speaker 2: I'll pull up the existing approved landscape plan just so folks can see the species that had been proposed to be planted in this area, to, to provide any recommendations, changes, expansions. Speaker 1: I mean the intention, the intention of the mi of, of that buffer there, of that makris line, the intention there was to provide a heavily vegetated buffer between the lake and these new homes. Is that accurate commissioner? Speaker 2: We were never able to get clarification from the mass
historic folks on what the purpose of the historic zoning district is. That is, that's okay. Anticipated based on the location. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's okay. And, you know, but the intention, certainly the, the ecological and aesthetic and philosophical, you know, and I remember these conversations was to provide a buffer and a visual buffer between the, between this development and the lake. So that it Speaker 11: Was, it was also, if I remember the pers my perspective, you know, I've been around
for a little bit too with this lot. I think it was also to kind of correct the previous issues, right? Because that, you know, I think Mark stated it correctly, from my recollection, I've been here since only 2014 or whenever I came, came here to this wonderful world in Natick. My recollection is, is the whole site was cleared basically down to the water's edge. If I remember correctly. You know, we had, 'cause DCR had a trespass issue. The mass pike had a trespass issue. The, the, the property owners to the south
or whatever direction that is the bottom of the map had trespass issues. And I think part of this mitigation plan was to kind of right the wrong from the previous situation. And I think from my recollection of walking the site with all this wonderful dog haired black locust was to kind of how I framed it in the woods or in that, that site meeting was that I applaud you wanting to plant things out here in this black locust that get,
however, what you're planting inherently are intermediate or in many cases shade intolerant species and require overhead light. And it would be best to thin around your plantings to give them the best chance for survival instead of planting something and walking away and likely being shaded out due to comp overhead competition. That was my recollection of the conversations that led up to, you know, whatever this planting plan final decision was and the order of conditions
Speaker 1: That's entirely consistent with my, my, my memory as well. Mike, Speaker 24: May, may I make a comment? Sure. George Connors, I, I remember that very distinctly. The only thing that is in my mind at this particular point in time is that when we walked that I was not aware that there was no topsoil substrate. I had not known that the entire site had been denuded. And with the condition being exposed now that it had been denuded and for many years, and thus the invasives, I think that this particular
opportunity now is, is for a much better replication system with a lot more potential for success. Speaker 1: I think that's, I think that's fine George. You know, I think that the, what, you know, however, what we're dealing with is a, is a situation where work, you know, that was done outside of the bounds of what was conditioned. Speaker 24: Agreed. Speaker 1: And I, and I think that's where you're seeing people's hackles get up. And so with that, you know, so with that, I think we should bullet point out the,
our expectations for what restoration is gonna look like to accomplish what the original intent was, which was to certainly restore the vegetation, provide the visual buffer, you know, to the lake. And it's a question of what, what will accomplish that? You know, my sense is that some fairly significant amount of topsoil restoration coupled with a fairly significant planting plan is what we was, what we need here. And Speaker 22: You know, so to the chair, just, just, I, I agree
with the, the fact that we need to raise the top soil that, just so you know, on the landscape plans, it also uses the word exper ex expiration, which is eradication of invasives for two years in the area. So specifically Speaker 2: Shrubs, mark the, the language does specifically state shrubs. Yeah, Speaker 22: Okay. Or, or based in shrubs. So, but again, again, we, we, we think yeah, maybe more planets may be warranted top snow. Definitely. And, and I think, again, we want this resolved in a way that is ecologically friendly and, and and respects the commission's intention of the original condition.
Speaker 1: That is exactly what we're shooting for here. And so, so why don't we, you know, if we're aligned on that and it sounds like we are, we will outline, we will outline our restoration plan and present it back to you at our meeting on the 15th and with timelines and, you know, those conditions and we go from there. Speaker 23: Okay. Now you guys won't be introducing the black locust back to, to, to this plot. Well, Speaker 1: I think we're gonna have dense, bittersweet plantings required.
Speaker 23: Okay. Speaker 1: And other invasives No, I'm, I'm kidding. Yeah. You know, it will be an ecologically appropriate Speaker 23: Okay. Speaker 1: Set of plantings that will accomplish what the original goal was. Yeah, Speaker 23: Okay. Speaker 1: For Speaker 23: Whatever, whatever you guys, whatever you guys come up, we'll, we'll do, that's all, you know? Okay. Yeah. Speaker 1: As, as out as high level principles behind this commission. Are we aligned that that's the intention here? Speaker 11: Yeah, the, the only thing I would ask, and I, you know, whoever, I don't know who gets assigned this, I assume Claire 'cause she's smart.
Just a square footage of what we're, you know, I, you know, obviously I see the picture, I see what I, I see the area, but if it, you know, having a square footage value so we know, you know, you know, whatever the plan, whatever the reclamation plan is going to be, you know, is it 12, you know, 12 by 12 spacing of trees or whatever it's gonna be. It just makes math a little bit easier or the conver the conversation a little bit easier. Speaker 2: Absolutely. I, I'll I'll use the, the approved survey plan rather than the aerial images
to get those values to try to be as exact as possible. Speaker 11: Thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah. And, and Mike, you know, you can probably expect and we'll we, we'll we'll pay you extra next month if you can, if you can provide some guidance and, and your expertise in terms of appropriate density species, all of that stuff. Speaker 11: I'm fully confident you guys will, you know, I'll obviously weigh in, but there's really smart people here in this room that are just as smart as or smarter than I am about trees. Speaker 1: I doubt it. But anyway, okay.
I think we have the plan in place. So gentlemen, thank you. I appreciate it, Kerry. I wish you safe travels. Thank you. And, and, and, and happy healthy holidays for everybody and to you. We'll, we'll pick this up on the 15th. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Thank you guys. Thank you. Alright, let us, that ends the public hearings. Sorry if my hackles got up, but they did. Let's jump into some general business discussion. We can go through this fairly efficiently. I think due to the, the late hour, we don't usually go past 10, you know, it's,
but with all that to two 14 North Main Street, Claire big project, this is the old fan's liquors, you know, it's that whole site there. Pretty, pretty substantial. So, so what, what's this referring to? Speaker 2: Yes. So I think in an effort to maybe, hopefully get ahead of some problems we've been seeing on other projects where planning board has, has had a big bite before, we've had a chance to have a voice trying to bring more of these projects before the commission to get a more robust comment letter than just my standard comment letter. This project at two 14 North main, which is just
how I'm gonna refer to it for ease. There's several addresses that are being encompassed under this proposal. It's a redevelopment proposal to build a senior memory care facility on this site. One of the existing buildings will be retained and remains under the current ownership. The new structure would be, at least for the construction period, be under the ownership of national development. Who's the applicant in this case? This site does not have any wetlands jurisdiction on it, including buffer zone, the lots, there's several private residential lots between the lake
and the rear line of this property. Side note, we may be seeing a proposal come in for those lots at some point. They just sold recently, but that's, that's neither here or there for this one. You old Speaker 1: Doug? It's the old Shirley Brown property. It Speaker 2: Is the old Shirley Brown property. But, so the project at North Main Street would be coming forward to us under a major stormwater permit. Only the project engineers and national development did start meeting with myself, bill McDowell, and the rest of the town very early on in the process. I think my first meeting with national development on the
site was, it was in late 2022 and they have worked to develop a storm water management system that, that meets all of our town requirements and, and focuses quite heavily on, on low impact development. Folks can see that the site plan and the stormwater report as they stand currently, obviously, that they've only had their first planning board hearing. So subject to change are presented in the folder. And I just, I had a, you know, a very draft comment letter pulled together that if the commission had any points that really stood out to them, we could take an opportunity to call them out.
I know it is late and folks may not have had a chance to look at this, so if we do wanna continue this to our one 15 meeting as well, I don't think that's a problem, but I just wanted to make sure that the Commission's commission was aware that this project was before the planning board and, and have an opportunity to get, get some comments. And Speaker 1: So, Claire, in terms of, I mean, so, so what you're asking is, and I'm, I'm glad that we're, you know, pro the, the process is accommodating kind of this, this input. And I'm sure that your feedback, you know, would, would encompass a lot of, certainly mine initially and, and, and more.
The idea is that we should look at the plans and I, I would suggest that we pick this up again at, on the 15th and kind of give people the homework assignment. There's nothing else that people would rather be doing over the Christmas holidays than this. Speaker 2: Hey, long plane rides, long road trips. What's better to read than this Speaker 1: Rides on ski lifts. You can be looking at these plans, but to, but to basically be looking at them and to be bullet, bullet pointing out questions Yep. That we can then throw together as a commission. We can discuss at the 15th meeting. Some of them we may answer ourselves internally and say, yeah, good pointer Speaker 2: And 'cause this is not a public hearing.
If folks do have questions, you can email them to me and I can respond to you. This is not a public hearing in front of the commission currently, so we, we should minimize deliberation between commissioners. But if there's any questions that I can, can help clarify, please don't hesitate to reach out. I'm, I'm in the office all all season. Speaker 1: So if you could, if you could send out a link to the plans. So we had just gonna go right into the drive Yep. And look at them. And then folks just start asking some questions, you know, but just brain dumping questions and then let's pull those together, you know, reach out to Claire if you have questions. We'll pull those together. We'll put those on the table in
the business in the general business discussion section of the meeting on the 15th and then we'll, we'll, we'll distill those down to some points that Claire will ask you to add to your, if you can walk us through your questions at that meeting. Yep. We'll add, we'll add some of our questions to that and then we can go from there. And I think that'll, you know, that's, that to me feels like a good process. Speaker 2: Wonderful. Speaker 1: Does that work for everybody? Speaker 5: Am I, am I right Claire, that there's no zoning change entailed in doing this project? Is that, Speaker 2: No, there's not a zoning change currently proposed. This, the lot is encumbered by split zoning.
So the rear portion of the lot closest to the lake is technically zoned residential. That is part of what the planning board is discussing because while none of the structure proposed is falling within that residential zoning, a small portion of the parking lot that's being expanded at the rear does tip over it. It's sort of a space length Okay. Over into that residential zoning so that the planning board is discussing what that means for the project and whether or not they're allowed to do that. Okay. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 2: So again, like I said, these are the plans
as they stand now, they, they, these are certainly likely not to be the final plan set that, that we would be seeing under a major storm water permit. Speaker 1: Great grant opportunities. Speaker 2: So, yeah, I just wanted to give folks a quick little rundown. I know I, I missed the meeting last month, but I just wanted to let folks know where my brain is sort of rolling with some of the grant opportunities that are coming down the line. The town did get, we are gonna be having our eco one stop expression of interest review in mid-January. So I'll hopefully have an update for the commission we're meeting on the 14th,
so I should have an update for you guys on that 15th meeting on what the feedback we got from those grant programs are on those four expressions of interest that we submitted. There's also been recently announced some new biodiversity funding on the state level. This year's timing for that money is very tight. It does have to be spent by the end of this fiscal year, which is June 30th, 2026. So I am looking at a couple of shorter term projects to, I, I would hate to let the, the opportunity go to waste for potential funding. So I, I am gonna likely be submitting an application for
that program for some of the projects that I'm considering pending folks responding to my emails. I know it's a hard time a year to get ahold of folks, but potentially getting out there with some folks in the academic research field to get some real hard scientific data on the Atlantic white Cedar swamp up at RI pond. So funding to get, you know, water monitoring equipment installed to go out and do a real detailed survey of just the cedar to see if we can figure out a bit more detail about why that system is doing so poorly these days. Another opportunity that I actually was talking about
with Jillian the other day is do we have an opportunity to do some sort of mini tree planting program in some of the areas of town that have been identified as seed spots? Sort of continuing some of the prior work that Jillian has done in that effort. And then the final opportunity that I was discussing with some of the folks at Wessman Sampson is obviously we did not get funded for that stormwater work that we had been doing the prior fiscal year for this fiscal year, but that proposal did include some invasive species management on that facilities yard parcel. So is there a way that we can get some funding
and get out there and get that work done in advance of the larger permitting effort? That program is expected to be reoccurring every year with hopefully more of a, a lead up to getting the funding applications in so we have a longer period of time to spend the money. So I actually am, I'm hoping that we can maybe apply for funding to support the invasive species monitoring and management along the South Natick spillway removal in FY 27 after that the dam removal has occurred. So just a little bit of a rundown of some of the grants
that we are looking at. This is not off the record, obviously we're on the record, but is not finalized or approved yet. But I think I had let the commission know that I had submitted a capital budget request for invasive species management. We did have some prioritization meetings internally and our, our request did not make it to tier one, unfortunately, not necessarily surprising given the volume of requests and the total dollars available. But I think a good thing that came about during that meeting was maybe some recognition from the other departments about our lack of operating budget.
Why are we reviewing a $20,000 capital budget request was the question that came up. And Amanda is actually included and fully supported, including that additional $20,000 on an annual basis as part of our CED operating budget for my office. Oh, great. And so pending approval of town administration and town meeting at the, at springtown meeting, hopefully the conservation office budget will actually almost just over double with the FY 27 budget approval.
So that will give us a lot of opportunities to do invasive species management, keep up with the tree maintenance that we need to be doing on our parcels with a lot of the pests and climate stressors, and also give us a bit more flexibility for providing matching funds for any CPA projects that we might wanna propose. So I, I know we have an accounts overview later, so I just wanted to give that quick update as, as a pending approval, everyone keep their fingers crossed and, and write your town meeting members, but very exciting news that we, we might be getting some more operating budget, which is very exciting.
Speaker 1: That's great. Nice work Claire. Speaker 2: Administrative approval overviews. So I, I don't know if folks want me to go through the whole list given the late hour, but the, the database is in the general business folder for today's meeting. If folks do want to review, obviously we're, we're a few days shy of the end of 2025, so there's a half shot that I issue one more administrative approval for the end of the year. But generally I think this is a pretty fair representation. We've generally been pretty consistent between about 30 and 40 administrative approvals a year. That is certainly a mix of work that is a minor exemption so
that over 50 feet or even outside of jurisdiction just on a lot with a resource area or, or buffer zone and certainly some tree removal. Most of the tree removal I would say that has been approved in this last year has been dead tree removal. I think given the, the repeated drought years along with some of the hotter summers we've been seeing, we have been seeing more and more dead trees along these wetland edges on residential properties. So maybe something that for the commission to consider a a as we move through, you know, future policy or, or regulation updates.
But we, we certainly are seeing more and more dead trees. I, I think I mentioned we're also having to do more and more management on conservation land in regard to dead trees that are, that are threatening residential properties. We just had northeastern out a couple of weeks ago to remove, I'm sorry, a couple of days ago to remove some trees that were threatening private properties. So just an interesting trend that I've noticed is that this year it seems like most of the approvals that I've granted for tree removal have been for, for dead trees. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean eyeballing this, I mean 33, you know, it's funny, I went to the bottom of the spreadsheet earlier
today and I said, whoa, 200 administrative approvals this year. That's, you know, but no, it's 33 this year. Yes. Speaker 2: Yeah. Sorry, that's the whole list since the commission authorized the administrative approval process since, Speaker 1: Since, since the beginning of time. Speaker 2: Exactly. Speaker 1: You know, and, and Claire, you and I have a pretty good dialogue going. I mean if there's something that's on the edge, you know, you and I will chat about it quickly and I think that's working out pretty well. I mean, why don't folks take a look at this and if you have questions or concerns, you know, we can talk about 'em at our, at our next meeting.
And also Claire, if there's, if you're starting to see kind of systematic trends Yeah. Where maybe we want to think about changing the threshold on something or whatever, we can talk about that. But this is a good, this is a good overview. Speaker 2: I think with the, the potential increasing prevalence of ADUs. It may be worth considering, you know, to some, some shifts for those, sorry, I'm in acronym mode accessory dwelling units, which were recently approved as a, as a BuyRight activity on the state level. So we are, I think just in the last, you know,
six months we've probably had six to eight A DU applications, most of which are, are outside of wetlands jurisdiction. But e eventually we are gonna start hitting ones that are in, in wetlands jurisdiction. So I think that is something definitely to, to be considering. Speaker 11: Great. Claire, one question I have for you Yes. In, in light of time is, is just, you know, is there a way to capture on, on your spreadsheet whether or not a site visit was needed and just, just trying to have, have a calculus of, you know, your efforts, you know, to make, you know,
so like if great call, you know, so if 3 33 visits might not be a big deal if everything's just a phone call, really, but if you're having to make 33 site visits on top of the 350 site visits you're doing a a a week or, you know, that could be a obviously a problem, right? So, you know, I don't know, just think of data points that, you know, to defend, create some defendable space for your time. Right. That's really important. Or at least I think it is.
Speaker 2: You'll notice that some of the, the approvals are clustered on dates. It is because I do tend to, I, unless there is a, an appro a a stamped plan or an arter arborist report, generally I am making a site visit for all of these administrative. So the ones that are like minor plan change requests, those ones are, are not getting site visits because there's, there's stamped plans coming in. But generally for, for everything that isn't, you know, I'm not getting professionally certified documentation for, I, I do try to do a site visit because I think that there can be, not necessarily
malice, but, but misunderstandings about what really requires approval. And I find that that an in-person conversation is usually the easiest way to let a homeowner know that maybe they can't do everything that they want to be doing. Speaker 11: Well maybe another vote for a tree board, right. Or a tree committee. Right. There you go. We need another committee. Speaker 1: Conservation accounts, how much money do we have chair? Speaker 2: So just a quick overview and again, we're sort of halfway through the fiscal year, so these numbers obviously are, are gonna look a little bit different at the fiscal year turnover. Currently in our trails budget we have about
$14,500 available. Obviously we're spending less of that money in the fall when we have a more limited season to get work done. The trails of Forest Stewardship Committee as this group approved, has some improvements planned for town forests that'll use up some of that budget and certainly some other projects as well. The wetlands account, we currently have approximately $77,000 in that account. Just to update some commissioners who this might be their first accounts overview, the wetlands account can only be used for the administration of the Wetlands Protection Act. So that is where I pay conference fees for commissioners,
training fees for commissioners. It, it would also be if the commission ever wanted to do a delineation on one of our parcels, we could pay it out of that particular funding. So very limited use for what that money can be spent on, which is, and it's where all the filing fees go from our wetlands applications. The land disturbance account currently has about $153,000 in it folks might recall. We will have access to use that money following springtown meeting when the new revolving account gets authorized. So that is very exciting that we will have, you know,
this bucket of money that we can use for, for storm water management and drainage improvement. Again, the commission will be seeing language in regards to what the approved uses and who the approved users for that money would be in our lead up to the, the SPRINGTOWN meeting warrant closing. And then finally in our conservation fund, which is the fund that can only be used for, for land acquisition. As far as I've been made aware, we currently have a standing balance of about $144,000. That account does see some small changes every year from the
interest that's being garnered from that account. But generally that value does not necessarily change substantially from year to year. And those are our four conservation accounts. Speaker 1: Excellent. Any questions? Alright, next meeting is on the 15th. We're back in person. Yes, Speaker 2: Back in person. I, I folks would not have had a fun time meeting in the room today. There's a, a lot of wires hanging from the ceiling still, but hopefully everything will be ready to go for the 15th. But I'll be sure to let the commission know well in advance if we do need to shift that meeting to fully virtual.
Speaker 1: Alright folks, thank you. This was a, this was a long one tonight. Appreciate your, your stamina on this, Doug. Great to see you. Happy holidays. Hope you're doing well. Speaker 25: I'm doing well. As I say, I'm above ground and walking, so life is good. Excellent. Magnolia. I thought they sold it back to the original owner, I'm telling you. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 25: That piece of property, Speaker 1: Well, one of these, one of these days after, after one of our meetings, we need to go to the dolphin. Oh yeah. No longer the dolphin.
We need to go to seven South and have a beer and sit and just have a, have a holiday or a new year. A new year gathering. Yeah, that'd be nice. But until then, guys, I think we're done. So someone wanna, wanna make make a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Thanks Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. All right, thanks Chris. All in favor? Aye. Thank you guys. Happy holidays to you all. Take care everyone. Thank you.