Speaker 1: So let's go ahead and call the the public meeting to order here. We've got quorum. Today is September 11th Day, day of infamy and I, I'd just like to ask the people who are joining at home to please leave yourselves on mute until your particular agenda item comes up. But then let's go ahead and dive into the business part of the meeting. I'd like to exercise the chair's prerogative and to pull the discussion around the presentation on a fall meeting Citizen Petition Warrant article, article 33 on the Turf Moratorium. We have some colleagues here from the, from the community
who would like to make a presentation to us. I'd like to welcome you on up and let's hear what you got Speaker 2: Donna. Just make sure you turn the mic on. Speaker 1: Welcome folks. Thanks for taking the time tonight. Speaker 2: And we do have Roger and TN on Zoom. Speaker 3: Got it. Thank you also very much for taking the time out of your agendas to allow us to allow us to come and talk about Article 33 on the fall annual town meeting warrant. My name is Donna McKenzie and I am the official citizen petitioner and I am honored to work with a few colleagues
and I have beside me, Rick Devereaux who actually has a master's in education from Harvard if we wanna brag about people's pedigrees. And he's a long standing athletic director and coach has a lot of experience on athletic fields and online we have Loom who is an amazing software engineer and entrepreneur, founder of his own company, expert at data collection, et cetera. And we have Dr. Roger Luman who also has a master's in public health
and is quite adept at analyzing much of the data that is out there on the topic that we're going to be bringing before you Now we have been here before and what is so different about this? What is so different about this presentation? First of all, this time around, I am the citizen petitioner, so that's different, right? And my own background, I have a degree actually in molecular biology, but I tend more not to be a science person for a very long time. A ma I have a master of divinity
and a a doctorate in healthcare ethics and I'm an academic and again trained as a chaplain. So I am here because I am committed actually to the substance of this article and want to make sure that it's presented in a way that is that people hear it and listen to it and can respond to it because I really do think it is that important. Last year when it was presented, I understand there was something about the wording
and the way it was presented that it was not an actionable motion. So the only action that could be taken in response to the request for a moratorium was a referral motion. So last year this item was referred, what is different this year is I have crafted a motion that I believe is actionable and I've actually crafted two motions, an A motion and a B motion. And the B motion is plan B, right in case A doesn't get through. Instead of an actionable motion
that is accomplishes what we want by adding a general bylaw action B would be an advisory, an advisory put forth by town meeting for a moratorium on the construction of artificial turf fields. So that is what is different and what is also different is the science just keeps evolving on this and what we know about microplastics this year and their toxicity and their dangers is even more than what we knew last year,
making it even more worthy of taking a pause in constructing a fourth artificial turf field in Natick. And that's what we hope to accomplish and we hope to accomplish collaboration and partnership so we can build the best playing field possible on the taxpayer's dime Because an artificial turf field in the capital budget that was presented in January was estimated to cost $2.2 million. Recently it was said it could cost $1.7 million.
The difference in the decrease in that price I understand is the infill that they have opted for if they go forward, they have opted for a cheaper chrome rubber infill, which of course is not without its problems because chrome rubber has lead some percentage of lead in it and there is no percentage of lead that is safe for children on which to play. My interest in this article are, are twofold. The health of our children and the health of our environment
and that I know you share especially concerns about the health of our environment. So we're especially welcoming to come and talk to you and to hear your questions and concerns about such an article and to hopefully encourage your support for this article. Basically we have two motions. Again, we have a motion A that would create a moratorium by adding a general bylaw and we have a motion B that would create a moratorium by creating an advisory. Our motion
to create a general bylaw is the most common way this has been accomplished in other municipalities. There are different ways that you can do it. You can do it just as a moratorium without a bylaw, but it is also left to the discretion of the moderator. And the moderator last year didn't like that idea and I, again, I didn't word that motion, but there was something about the wording of the motion that was seemed problematic, but we understand it could be done at his advisory, but Concord did it without a bylaw.
Concord just did it as a moratorium. Other towns have done it either through the creation of a gen, a general bylaw or a zoning bylaw. The most common way to do this is through the creation of a general bylaw. And I've been told by town council that she doesn't have an issue with it being done by either, either method. So that's basically what we want to do. And the purpose of the moratorium is
to give a thoughtful pause again to the process so that we can reduce hopefully the possibility of PFAS exposure. There currently is no artificial turf available without PFAS. They may argue some of the turf companies are very slick and I've spoken actually to some of them, but there, there is no plastic blade available for artificial turf that does not contain PFAS or other chemicals.
And these have been shown to be carcinogenic. Now the exact correlation between that amount and cancer, those studies are still being done. And we deserve, I think as a community we deserve time to, to see where all of those studies fall out. And it's a kind of cancer that would be people would develop in middle age and it's mostly kidney cancer, testicular cancer, reproductive cancers. But any kind of risk like that I think is unacceptable. I serve two terms on the school committee
and I'm committed to the health of the children in this, in this town. So what we wanna do is also give you a lot of time for questions and comments 'cause I'm sure that you have them. And we have Dr. Roger Luman who is online, who has prepared a very thoughtful and slideshow on the scientific aspects, the medical aspects and the environmental aspects of artificial turf. And the reason for our desire to have,
have this moratorium. So I would like to pause and turn it over to Dr. Luman. Speaker 4: Okay, thank you Donna. Hi folks. Good evening. I'm coming here to you from beautiful Grove Road near Morse's Pond in Natick where I've lived for about 30 years. My job this evening is to go into some detail about the, the rationale for this moratorium and the scientific evidence that supports the need for it. I come to this project with about 30 years experience in internal and preventive medicine, public health epidemiology and research on cancer screening, mostly at our favorite
UMass Medical School. Now retired. I've been set free to make good trouble throughout the commonwealth. And so I'm here tonight. So here, here we summarize the, the three reasons, and I think Donna has already kind of touched on all of them. The, the, the first are related to potential health issues. Artificial turf is a significant source of microplastic pollution and we're gonna go into that in some depth tonight. And there's a substantial body of research that points to a lot of potential adverse effects on human health. And it's mostly now based on laboratory studies.
We're waiting for clinical and epidemiologic studies to confirm this and find out just how bad the issue is. But we'll, we'll get into that in some depth and you can use your own judgment in terms of where you think things are at with that. Secondly, we, we, as Donna mentioned, we know that PFAS is this class of forever chemicals and it, it's confirmed enough such that EPA has determined there's no safe level of exposure. So I guess, you know, the experts at EPA have gone into this in great depth and that is their determination that there is no safe level
of exposure that now needless to say, they, the turf manufacturers have taken notice of this and well, they should and they're committed to eliminating PFAS for their product to the extent that's possible. I'm not sure what that is yet, but they're still working on a feasible timeline. So how long will it take to accomplish this? To get it down to minimal? We'll talk about that a little bit more later and where some, some of the manufacturers say they stand on this, but I I, I think we should wait till we have some confirmation that we can get a PAS free product. Finally, I think we'd use some time to look into
natural grass and organic turf. I, I think there's a lot more to be said for it. There are a lot of developments and there are a lot of towns in Massachusetts are using it very successfully. I think it's kind of given a, a bad rap even though it's what I grew up with and, and we'll talk about some of the pros and cons of that a little bit later. Next slide please. So just to refresh all of your memories, if you haven't been out on the sports field recently, these are the layers in the material of artificial turf. We've got to start with those beautiful green plastic braids on top. Usually they're, they're, they're made plastic, nylon, pro
polypropylene and polyethylene. They may themselves contain some PFAS and some other chemicals. They, they need these things in order to get the desired characteristics of function out of these blades. And there's the backing that has plastic and latex also contains some toxic substances that you can see. And then there's this infill that it in the past has been, as Donna mentioned, this crumb rubber from old tires with all the gunk that they contain and including some microplastics as well, that there are some studies suggesting that there, we don't know if there are any really significant exposures
to crumb rubber to folks on the fields. And we're not gonna get into that in great depth 'cause we're really focused on a couple of other issues tonight. And there are less toxic infills available. And I think as Donna mentioned, they're probably more expensive and they have various advantages and disadvantages, but we're not gonna spend a lot of time with it. Finally, we have a padding and, and drainage layer. Next slide. Okay, so the issue here is what we got these grass blaze up here. I mean, how do they break down and get into the environment and, and cause so much trouble, like much plastic,
the integrity of these blades can be affected by sunlight that deteriorates them and, and physical stressors. And, and of course, needless to say it's a sports field. So do we have physical stressors? Well, yes, we have kids playing out there with cleats and spikes and running around and doing what they're supposed to do on the fields and causing physical damage to the, to the blades. And the result is that on average about a half a percent to up to 8% of the blades are lost annually. They go somewhere most off the field.
That that how much depends on the sun exposure depends on the use. That means that we have about 200 to 3,200 pounds of plastic coming off these fields every year. That's I think, a fairly well defined. This mounts up to a lot when you have a lot of fields now in Toronto where they have a bunch of fields. They estimated 237 tons of microplastic coming from an artificial turf and entering the environment in 2020. And they, they actually found that artificial turf was one of the largest contributors to microplastic pollution in, in, in the city.
And you can see that on the right you have that Toronto study that's highlighted there. And, and there was typically laundry fibers. Car tires are typical sources of micro fires, but a lot more was coming from the artificial turf. And Barcelona, they, they studied the artificial turf that was found in the oceans around Barcelona and about 15% of all ocean plastic pollution was coming from artificial turf. Next slide please. Quick refresher. What is microplastic? So you, you can see what this looks like on the right there,
there are five millimeters in length and you see they come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The, the fiber and fragment types. You see that at the bottom there. The last two fiber and fragment types, the, these are the type that's most likely coming off artificial turf. Fun, fun fact. The, the UN report suggests that based on their estimates there are 10 to 40 million metric tons of micro plastics that enter the environment annually. Globally. That's a big problem. Next slide please. Alright, so plastic's coming off the field,
it's breaking down, it's going somewhere. Where does it go? That's the next question. So some of it goes into the air. How much of that unclear? There is a little bit of evidence that there could be some direct exposure to people playing on the field, but it's a little unclear to me to what extent that's that happens and how important it is. They can enter the soil, they could down go down the field drains if they're washed off the field going down drains and there is some potential for them to be captured. But this is kind of a work in progress and worthy of looking into there.
There are a couple studies out there that I heard about but haven't looked at yet. So there might be an opportunity to capture some of this, but we know that when it rains really hard, the drains are overwhelmed, things are gonna wash off, the wind blows, people get off the field. We're not gonna ever capture all of this by any means. Then it enters waterways and can enter our drinking water, which is really a problem. And finally, as the water goes out to the ocean, they're ingested by fish and the fish are caught and placed on our plates and we ingest them and it's one of our sources of microplastics in our bodies. Finally, kids playing on the field potentially at least,
and I'm sure in at least minor amounts, I don't know how much can bring home some microplastic and contaminate their homes. And there is good evidence that indoor air contains microplastics in our houses. Next slide please. Okay, so there are, artificial tur is not the only source of microplastics and in most cases around the globe, it is not the major source of microplastic in Toronto. It turned out to be, but that's not true. Most places, the, the microplastics that we, we imbibe and get into our, our ourselves come from tires on the road
as they break down synthetic clothing and plastic bottles where the, the, the stuff inside that we drink has got a bunch of microplastic in it and then we throw the bottle away and if it's not managed properly, it breaks down and, and puts more microplastic in the environment. So, so that's a problem. And, and we're, we're exposed, as you can see on the roots of absorption on the right through an inhalation ingestion and even through skin contact. It's in indoor air, it's in outdoor air, it's in water, as I said, food, fish maybe predominantly it's in the dust
that roams around outside and inside. And if we're rolling around in the parks or the fields, we could potentially even get some dermal contact and dermal absorption. Next slide please. Alright, all not, not a surprise perhaps. So where does all this go? This is what's interesting in, in the this field is that we have now documented through a variety of studies that we are finding microplastics in virtually all of our organs. It's extremely, extremely common. And most recently you may have heard about it, we've found it's in the brain as well. And in addition to that, in some body fluids like saliva
and when we're coughing it up, and sadly it's in the, the, the placenta, which means that it can be transmitted to infants. And you could say that our children start their life off with an internal preview of the plastic world that they're entering, sadly also in feces and breast milk as you could see. Next slide please. Alright, so what do we really know about microplastics and, and human health right now? What we know is there are some potential impacts
of microplastics on health. And this information comes from studies on animals, both in the wild and in the lab. There are behavioral changes and, and animals who ingested microplastics in the wild. But we're more interested probably in what's happened in the tissue injury and the, or organ dysfunction that's been identified in animals exposed in the lab. And there have been a lot of studies on this. We also have evidence from studies in human cells where you sprinkle some microplastics onto some cell cultures, find out what happens
and analyze that human organ tissues. It's gonna be grown in the lab and sprinkle some microplastics on those and even simulations of human systems like the GI tract to see what's going on there. In the box at the right, you can see some of the types of pathological processes that have been identified. So you're probably familiar with some of these and not some others, inflammation. It can be caused by these things. There's something called oxidative stress that we'll talk about in a minute. Problems with lipid metabolism and then effects on the microbiome and the, in the GI tract. And then ultimately we, we've seen some actual organ dysfunction in the animals
and in the organ models that we've seen in the lab. And there's physical damage from these. So these little particles, they're kind of spiky and the little spikes can actually injure the cells that they get into and destroy things. Next slide please. So I, I just wanna emphasize that the oxidative stress damage, which has been identified in many studies, what does that mean? And ultimately it means that there can be damage to DNA proteins in lipids leading potentially to serious cell dysfunction and then cell death. And that's why we might have organ dysfunction. It all starts at the cellular level and moves up to tissues
and then into the organs. And that's where we have a problem. And, and what's interesting about this is my understanding is that this oxidative stress pro process is, is, is known to be a process that that is a major factor in many human, chronic and degenerative diseases. So we don't know if the microplastic is gonna do the same thing when it produces this pathologic process, but it worries me for sure. Next slide please. So the epidemiologic studies have shown an association of microplastics with liver cirrhosis, reproductive outcomes,
ulcerative colitis and respiratory disease. But just in a handful of studies, literally I think about six studies that are out there. Okay, so this is just the beginning of trying to understand this. We, we require, we multiple studies that meta-analysis before we're gonna kind of reach any conclusion. So that, that's certainly provocative evidence, but it's not definitive. This recent study that we're seeing here, I think is the most strongest available evidence for human impact. And it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine where they thought it was important enough to get it out to people. The subject in this study had their carotid arteries treated
for a blockage and they had some tissue removed as part of that process and they looked at it for microplastics. So they found some had it, some didn't have microplastics and they divided them into these two groups. And you can see the orange folks had the microplastics and the patients without microplastics are in the blue. And you can see what happened here is that the folks with microplastic had 4.5 times greater chances of any one of the outcomes which were stroke, death, or myocardial infarction. Not all three, but any one of them would get you the outcome.
That's a bit of a concern. Well-designed study peer reviewed coming out in New England Journal, so much more work needs to be done to confirm this finding and the other findings. Three year we, we may learn enough in three years to kind of say yes or no, or this is headed in not such a bad direction or a good direction. So another reason for moratorium. Next slide please. And then as we've been talking about PFAS, so interesting there, there are probably 200 or more epidemiologic studies on PFAS. So that's, you know, when you start to get the attention
of the EPA, you got maybe a dozen 20, 30 and maybe a hundred studies. Now we have about 200 studies that, that document effects including cancer and reproductive effects and other effects. And I think we're all, we're all aware of the PFAS is a problem and we need to eliminate it from our drinking water. And the EPA says that we gotta get it out of there, bring it down to I think one in a trillion parts or less than that. And there's no safe level for chronic exposure to PFAS. So, as I said, the artificial turf manufacturers are trying to do what they can with this and, and eliminated from their products
and some claim they've already kind of eliminated intentionally pr intentionally putting any PFAS into their product, which they had done before in order to lubricate it and do some other things. They're taking that out and, and, and they can do that. But the, the group representing their manufacturer says that the timeline to com complete this process is still uncertain. The, the, the problem is that PFAS can be found in the machinery and that goes through, that is used in the production of these things. And it's really, i I gather it's really a challenge to identify all the little pieces of PFA
that are out there in some of this machinery in order to keep them moving and running. And so PFAS kind of gets into things and they say, well, we didn't mean it to be there, but it turns out it is there. And they, the, the folks in the who, who actually represent all the manufacturer, the synthetic Turf Council has said to California like, look, we can't really get, get rid of this or get this down very quickly. Maybe by 2030 we can get it down to a very, very low level and they're not claiming elimination and what's the lowest level when no level is really safe. That remains an open question
to some extent, but that's where we stand. So give us some time to sort of sort that out and figure out where we're going with this PFAS. Now let's have the next slide and talk a little bit about old fashioned natural grass. There, there is an alternative, and I don't know when, when you guys were growing up, but that's all I had when I was growing up. Natural grass, preferably we would say organically managed to get rid of the pesticides. You don't need them. So you can do this very safely. And there, most of the pros and cons, most of the pros for organic turf really have to do with things that are that bad.
Things that artificial turf does. We can do it at lower cost. There's a reduced lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions in natural grass compared to all of the things that go into production of artificial turf. Natural grass doesn't heat up like artificial turf in the winter, so you can continue to use it throughout the summer. Increasingly we're gonna have to stop using a artificial turf for periods in the summer in hot weather now. So there are cons and, and needless to say, why has artificial turf taken off? It's because natural grass has some cons and some problems and, and some of them are probably the key ones.
You get more playable hours out of artificial turfs. And, and you'll hear this, I think time and again from our town officials appropriately 'cause it is true. It, it, it stands out more to the, the, the shock of our players on the turf and it doesn't, can do a little better in the rain, although that, that's not as clear to me. The other thing is taking care of natural grass, it can be labor intensive to do it really well, to preserve it and keep its function up can be very challenging. There's a lot of training that might be needed. You may need some extra staff and it may cost more to maintain it than artificial turf.
And, and I think folks in our town and officials in our town are, are not keen on taking on that project of really investing time and energy to learning how to do this and figuring out how to do this. There are plenty of people who can tell them how to do this and teach them how to do it, but it's a little easier just to say, eh, let's go with artificial turf. So we still think artificial turf can be a viable option. There's one other thing that's on the table here and that's something called hybrid turf. It's a combination of natural grass, which is a predominantly natural grass with some synthetic components. And, and I think the theory is
it's supposed to be more durable. It's really in its infancy. But give us three more years, let's take a look. Maybe that's gonna be a good option. So next slide. Finally, just just to conclude, I wanna just put this in the context. You know, we're we're facing an overall plastic environmental crisis. The UN has acknowledged this. We attempted to get a global treaty, we didn't get it. Artificial turf and microplastic is all another piece of this, this whole disaster that we're facing now. And we feel that we know that artificial turf is a significant source of microplastic.
And the, the date evidence to date suggests that is putting all of us at risk for some health problem. Although we have to confirm how serious is it? How bad is it? We don't know really know. We don't know yet. It may be possible to eliminate pfas exposure as a risk of playing on artificial turf, but we'll not know that. And until we at least that a few years go by to see how the industry's doing with this and where they're headed. So we think the prudent thing to do is to hold off on investments in artificial turf. When you buy it, it's there for 10 to 12 years or eight to 12 years. It's not like you can just throw it away tomorrow without
wasting $1.7 million. Not such a great thing to do. We also think that you gotta look at the big picture here. We've talked about primarily the health effects, but there's the greenhouse gas emissions, there's the waste, there's the heat, there's the whole part of this as part of whole international plastic crisis. And we need to be thinking about all of that as we make decision. So thanks for listening. Hope we have some time for questions. Speaker 3: Thank you very much Dr. Luman, and thank you all. I do wanna have time for questions and I just wanna reiterate that the interest in this,
and I think what's significant about this is just to provide a thoughtful pause because we know that this is dangerous both to the environment and to the health of our children and time we can do something better with time. There may be only about three hybrid fields in the world, maybe at this point, and they're really expensive. But you know, when you think about even the genesis of computers over time they got cheaper, they got more commonplace, and I think we can do this right? There are other municipalities in this area,
I mentioned Concord, others have moratoriums. Wayland, the motion I've crafted is very much modeled on the Wayland motion, which has passed muster with the office of the Attorney General. And there are others, a whole list of other towns. Natick is not the first to propose this. We are, you know, safely as we usually are somewhere in, in the middle. But again, I think this is really important. I welcome your comments and questions a lot. Thank you. Speaker 2: Great. Oh, sorry Matt. Yeah, Speaker 1: Thank you for the presentation.
Very helpful. You know, we can certainly chew on, chew on some questions, but my first one is what's the ask? Is the ask for a vote from each of these boards in support of this, of this Warren article? Is it more informational? Just curious as as to what your desired outcome is from our conversation here this evening. Speaker 3: We would love your support and we'd love it if you, you know, did a formal vote. But the bottom line is we want you to know about this article and support it in whatever ways that you can. If you wanna support it formally, we would love that.
But other than that it's at least informational. We want you to know what this is about and what it entails. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you Claire. Speaker 2: Oh, I was just gonna say, I know the open space advisory committee noted earlier that they were potentially gonna be doing a vote to endorse depending on how the committee members felt. If ComCom also felt that they wanted to take a vote to endorse, we would need motion second vote. But if there's any questions, we should definitely start with that. Speaker 1: Great. Let's start with questions. David, I have a question. Speaker 5: What happens to the artificial field
after whatever it is, 10, 12, 20 years? What, what happens to it? Speaker 3: Well, that's one of the issues too, because the artificial turf cannot be recycled and it's non biodegradable and it really adds to a lot of toxicity in a lot of places. You know, maybe sometime we can do it better. I mean, sometimes as time goes on we can do it better. At this point it is not recyclable, Speaker 4: Right? So where it, it ends up, in many cases in landfills, it, it often is repurposed. So if you take it from a, a big sports field that might be cut down in smaller pieces
and sold to folks to put in their backyard because it doesn't have to be fun as functional as it is when on a sports field as some of the, the manufacturers claim that they're aiming towards finding a way to actually melt down these fibers and turn them back into more artificial turf. As Donna said, that's a work in progress. And we could not certainly say that that's happening. So they're sitting in landfills and to the extent the landfills are leaching into groundwater and elsewhere, all of this stuff is going there, Speaker 3: Great. It could use the benefit of, of more time. And there's also maintenance issues with these fields also.
I mean, they don't, they don't just sit there and you can use 'em. I mean, the fields should be disinfected because pet waste is a problem. It doesn't drain. I mean, it's kind of gross to talk about. And I have three dogs, so I know about problems with pet waste, but you know, it, it doesn't drain and it can potentially be a problem. So there are a lot of, there are more issues than, than you might think with maintenance of artificial turf if, if it's maintained well, and parents of our kids have talked about how they have the,
the stuff from chrome rubber that's always coming into their house from the cleats and everything else. And curiously, it's been an interesting topic because maybe it's like hunger. Both democrats in some Republicans have reached agreement on this issue that it, it seemed it has a potential to be nonpartisan and there's very little we can agree on these days. But I, I think we do agree that if we can do anything to help our kids' health and the environment, we ought to take the time to do it. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions? Speaker 5: I have one more.
Oh, sorry. No, go ahead. Go ahead David. Speaker 1: Go. David, Speaker 5: When I stand on these fields on a hot sunny today, I can smell it. Any studies on offgassing and any effects from that or no? Speaker 4: There, there are studies on offgassing a a lot of, a lot of the offgassing that you may smell is more likely coming from crumb rubber, if that's the infill that has a lot of volatile chemicals within it. The, the grass blades themselves do off gas, some methane and you wouldn't smell that. So you're probably on a field that has crumb rubber and, and smelling some of the stuff that's coming off there.
Very various volatile organic carbons and, and, and other things that could be kind of stinky. Speaker 1: If I can just follow up on that question then, just it's, it's related is are there any or any studies that have indicated that users of turf field, turf fields specifically are getting exposed to some of these chemicals, be it microplastics or the PFAS compounds from the use of turf fields? I think I know the answer to this, but I just want, would like to hear from you Dr. Lip now. Speaker 4: Well there are actually, there are two studies that I'm familiar with.
One that was done by the EPA and one that was done in California. And and Bo suggested that the exposures that do occur are within acceptable limits. So if we're, and and the California study did not deal with PFAS because there's really no safe level for that. But in terms of other chemicals coming off in particular of artificial turf that has crumb rubber within it, because there's been a big concern about crumb rubber, you can see it mean it sounds like awful and it's got terrible stuff. But the two studies that are out there suggest that, you know, to to, to the degree that we know what safe levels
of exposure are, that exposure to crumb rubber within the artificial turf is probably not reaching levels of what considered to be harm based on what we know. I think PFAS is an an open question because of the notion there is that, that no level of exposure is, is considered to be acceptable. So yeah, ar ar argue arguably from a certain point of view, if you kind of, you know, take the EPA in California toxics board word for it may, may not be that much to the exposure
to the folks on the field to those compounds. But folks haven't looked at microplastic and we're talking about microplastic goes off into the environment exposes all of us, not just the players on the field. And PASI mean, my concern about PFAS is you have kids lying down, falling down, kind of there has been evidence that PFAS has has adhered to skin among folks and there was one, one study and when, when players were on crumb rubber that found microplastic and saliva. But there's not been a lot done on that. Speaker 1: Great, thank you. What's the typical replacement rate
of crumb rubber from, on a typical field? You know, a lot of typicals in that question I guess, but you know, just to get a sense of how much is migrating off the field and into the environment. Speaker 4: Yeah, the chrome, the chrome rubber replacement rate, I'm not, I'm not that familiar with it, but it, there is, I, I haven't focused on that in this presentation because we gonna focus on the, the microplastics primarily as kind of the main issue. And there could be somebody in the audience who has more knowledge about that. Like Tian, I don't know if you're you're experience with
that or, or Donna you have some information. Speaker 1: Anybody just curious. Speaker 6: Well I think, I think somebody from DPW could tell you they just put more cru rubber on coal field, right? And it matter how much you're gonna have to put on, depends on how much usage and what kind of usage. Coal is extremely heavily used as most people know who ever go there. And you see the crumb rubber all around the parking lot and the storm drains, et cetera. You can also see it, if you're stand and look at the field, you can see black areas. Oh yeah. And it, the stuff moves around. It should be spread around in order to be retained.
If it isn't or there's rain, you'll lose it and then you have to replace it and they could probably tell you how much they replace. We haven't asked them that. It's a great question. Okay, Jim? Sorry. Speaker 7: Yeah, my question, you mentioned this four artificial fields in Natick right now? Is that what I heard? 3 3, 3. Speaker 3: This would be a, another one would be a fourth one. Speaker 6: So Coalfield Memorial Speaker 3: Memorial and the high school Speaker 6: Memorial's also Cru Rubber Kennedy and JJ Lane Kennedy is not Crumb rubber Speaker 7: Kennedy is not, it's not official, but it's, it's Speaker 6: Not official, but Speaker 7: It is not, not Cru Rubber. JJ Lane is
Speaker 3: Not, they, they get better as we build them. I mean if I had to rate them the bottom in quality is coal followed by the high school and then Kennedy, which was more recently built. So part of the argument of this is with a little more time we could even do this better and the proposed location of course where this JV field also is surrounded by wetlands. So there's just, there's a lot of issues. Speaker 7: So that was my question is that this moratorium is tied to a new request for another artificial turf field. Is that correct? There Speaker 6: Is, it's Speaker 3: A three year moratorium. We don't, we don't know when it's coming.
It was in the five year capital plan. It's not clear when the ask will come, but the ask will come and this, this attempts to get in front of it. This attempts to get in front of the ask. So it's not a defensive posture, you know, arguing against this. This is just like, let's all think together. Speaker 4: Could I ask, so I can say the, the consultant that was hired by the school committee to look into the, the optimal design for the field. We've attended meetings with them. It, it appears, although we haven't seen the final report to my knowledge, they're definitely headed towards
recommending artificial turf and, and folks in the town are, are very open to that as well. Our feeling is it's time to do some education and some study and to think about this be before the capital request comes before the town meeting. And we just have a couple of months to kind of jump on board. Okay. Speaker 3: Town meeting appropriated $220,000 for the field design study study. Okay. And I'm not sure how much of that has been expanded, but as a result of that, the DPW and the athletic department said that they don't see any issue with turf field on this school committee has not
voted on it yet. Again, it has not formally been moved forward and I received communication from the chair of the school committee that it may come up at their October or November meeting that the new capital plan comes in December. So I Speaker 7: I, I guess I'm a little confused. I don't know a lot on this topic, but when I do read on it that over the long lifecycle, it sounds like a natural field is cheaper than an artificial field. So that's why I'm a little puzzled by, you know, the report I get, these firms must, you know, want
to push hard to sell the artificial turf, but it Speaker 2: It's also the use hours. The, the town is more in favor of the artificial fields because it allows them to do more types of sports. Speaker 7: But that's 'cause we limit open space too. That's, so I'm thinking one, one way you could do that is like, well I I'm gonna have to have more, a couple more fields so I can rotate, right? Yeah. Speaker 2: But I think in in town Natick that is quite developed, flat playable open space isn't necessarily available at a premium Speaker 7: Anymore. Well I, anyway, I just, I think there's other ways
of solving this, but I just wanted to be clear that this is tied to a potential upcoming decision in something. Right? Speaker 1: I think one of the things, I mean a metric I'd like to see is what's the, you know, what's the cost per use? Sour? I mean if if natural fields, you can't use them as much, but they're cheaper, you know, the artificial turf fields you can use, you can use them more. There's heat restrictions of course and other things. So what is the cost per use? Sour, you know, I mean if the duty cycle of a natural turf field is, is lower because it has to be maintained or rested or whatever versus that, I think
that would just be an interesting metric just to inform the conversation. Agree. Speaker 3: Well, tn might have something to say about this. Speaker 8: We, we did look into that and there are different studies on that issue. It's very difficult. You, you have to have to look at the sports that are being played on the fields. Sure. And how many hours you want out of the fields. If you, if you play very hard sports like football and lacrosse, you're, you are gonna get on grass. You're not gonna get as many hours if you play,
if you have PE on grass, you can get up to 1800 hours a year. That's what Marblehead is getting. But if you're gonna play hard sports, then you're gonna get less hours. But I, I don't have the metric for you. Right. But if, if I have all the parameters for it, I can, I can, we can, we can come up with that number. Speaker 4: And I, I think the point, I mean, yes, if you look at the maximum number of playable hours, you're gonna find that the, you know, the cost for artificial turf is less, but we not gonna use the maximum number of errors. So ti is exactly right. This has to be looked at in a nuanced way.
What do we need to use it for? What other options do we have? And then look at the cost. Speaker 1: Sure. Fair. Do we have any data about what Concord has experienced? I mean, 'cause they have, they have a moratorium of their own right. And I'm presum presumably they're maintaining grass fields and you know, using those for various sports. I mean, does, does Concord have a, a portfolio of turf fields that they're just kind of continuing to maintain? Or are they all natural all grass at this point? Do we know? Speaker 3: I don't have all that data from all the other communities. And again, that's part partly the gift of taking more time
with this to be able to gather that data. Beline built a brand new grass field and took a pause on artificial turf most recently. I think it's Marblehead Springfield and Martha's Vineyard. They don't have moratoriums, but they have a commitment to grass fields, wherever it's possible to put grass fields. So there are a lot of questions and I, I just, I think I'm not against playing fields for kids. I think it's important for social emotional learning and all of that. I just want them to, as healthy as they can be.
I don't want our children harmed by PPS and these chemicals. And so I think it just needs time. And I think even with time, even if we do come back with turf fields, they'll be healthier. Speaker 1: Fair. Which, which comes to my, my next question, which is around the, the mechanism that you're proposing for this, would this be a three year moratorium and then it's over and it would require another town meeting action to extend it further? Or if you know,
and if that pass then the moratorium continues. If it doesn't pass, or if this expires then, you know, proponents, whoever they may be, could then come in and say, okay, now we're gonna build a turf field. An artificial turf field. What's Speaker 3: This could expire Concord actually did a five year moratorium. We made the decision to go three years. We could have had no time limit on it at all. And I was asked about that by the moderator, but we thought it reasonable to add the time limit. And it can be extended Wayland, for example,
extended their moratorium. They're on their, their second term of a three year moratorium. But it would have to come back to town meeting. And that's not a bad thing. There'd be some accountability to town meeting about what had happened and what are the possibilities and can this, what can we, what can we do to have more playable hours and for our kids in ways that are healthy and responsible. So I I I don't think the three year thing is a bad thing and it can be extended. Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not, I'm not saying it's it's it's bad or good
or, or or otherwise. I'm just curious as to whether it expires or if Tommy would've to vote to, to either reimplement it or if it would just go off the books and it's off the books at that point. And then it would have to be revolted back in Speaker 3: Tom meeting could vote to extend it. Okay. By a majority vote Speaker 9: Fair. I what? Oh, Jeff. Yeah. I'm a little stuck on the, on the mechanism. You know, I'm not a, not a big fan of moratoriums to solve a singular problem. You know, you don't, you know, you don't hit a little tack nail with a boulder
to try and drive it in. So why not take up this discussion at the school committee and debate the issue instead of trying to 'cause a moratorium would essentially shut down debate on that and kick the football three years down the road. Speaker 3: No, we hope it wouldn't shut down debate. We hope it would inspire debate. This was referred last year to the school committee, the Board of Selectmen, the board of Health and the sponsors. We do kind of have a narrative of what happened with that. Some of the original sponsors did meet with the chair
of the school committee and somebody else on the school committee. They also attended the field design meetings. But there wasn't enough, I don't know how to say this. I, I think people have good intentions, but people, there isn't always, sometimes a lot of time, for example, it was difficult. No meetings happened with the select board. I understand a couple people in the select board are really interested in this topic, but because of the override and other commitments, they just were not unable, they were unable to participate in that.
So I actually think it, it sounds like, you know, a hard wall, a rock or something like that. But I actually think it could stimulate the conver kind of conversation that needed to take place. And that people might take that conversation more seriously than they have. I think the sponsors and, and that's part of the reason why I like stepped up and offered to be the citizen sponsor for this because I just thought, you know, we're all reasonable people. We should sit and think about this together and, and come up with the best thinking on it.
I under I understand your concern, Speaker 9: Defend a specific plan. Like, I mean, we, we don't talk about at these meetings things that people might do. We have to discuss the thing that they will do and then we can, you know, look at every aspect of it. They have to present exactly what they want to do. And then it can be, you know, openly debated and defended. And if you know the decision is made on a specific point, then by the, by the people, then the, then that's the decision that's made.
But that may, you know, push it into a, you know, a design that's preferable and acceptable by everyone. I think something like this just says, you, you, you're, you're producing something that we think may go through so we'll end run with a wall that will stop it from happening in a hope of, you know, forcing you the table to discuss it. I I, I'd rather discuss the, the thing, and we've had very lengthy discussions at this committee about projects that were on the, on the bubble
and you know, at the end you can, you, you leave behind a trail of discussions on specific points and not saying, well, you know, I don't want people moving into town, so I'll just say you can't build any more houses. I mean that doesn't solve the problem. That just defers a decision. Speaker 3: But that's not what we're doing. This is, this is temporary to create discussion and communication. And that kind of communication has not happened. And what was said was that they could have a plan, for example, in the fall if they were, were gonna go forward now
with this, where they could get people on board with the turf field. So how is that open discussion about the alternatives and whether parents really want that. There has been no extensive survey of parents, you know, we have these great flash NAIC surveys now. There's been no flash naic survey, for example. The, the community has not been asked, you know, do you want this for your children? And all I have is the example of when I gathered signatures for this petition. I mean I, I was kind of like, oh my god, I got like 20
signatures from parents, like in in less than a half an hour. They're like, we don't want our kids playing on this. So I understand your concern about obstruction, but I, I think I saw from the behavior of the spon, the past sponsors a willingness to engage in conversation and I just, and I've been to your meetings so I I know you carefully vet, you know, both sides of the issue and I just wanna be sure that the financial constraints are really strong here.
But the health issues are, and environmental issues are so important and I, I think they trump other things and you know, costs sometimes go down on things. So I guess I respectfully disagree. I don't think it'll, I don't think it'll be a, a big stone or a block. If I thought I it was, I wouldn't do it. Speaker 2: I do just want to jump in quickly. We are at eight o'clock just about, so I did just wanna, I know there's some members of the public who have their hands raised. I did just wanna Got it. Speaker 3: Thank you. One Speaker 5: More. I I actually tend to agree with you.
I respect my esteemed colleague, but I also think, excuse me, I think also it could force some creativity and what I, my son played hockey when he was young and, and as you, if your sons or daughters ever played hockey, you're all over the place trying to find rink time. 'cause there aren't that many rinks. I'm wondering if some of the towns that have put these measures through have found more creative ways to share fields, the fields that are out there, whether they shared with we we share with Wellesley College or Wellesley Town or parts of Framingham. I just, I wonder if, if this could foster both discussion,
which I think it could, but also creativity and better use of resources. Your thought. Speaker 3: That's a great question. Speaker 5: Other questions from the, from the boards here. Speaker 1: All right, keep thinking. I'm gonna go over to comments from the public at this point in time. Please if you come up to the microphone and introduce yourself so people at home can hear you. Speaker 10: Cindy Speaker 11: Bates five Lincoln Street. I have a question. Could somebody please read the proposal out loud because I couldn't read what it said there was A and B. Could someone read that out loud so I know what you guys might be voting on tonight? Speaker 1: Yeah. Dr. Mackenzie, would you mind, mind mind reading it?
Speaker 3: Read the motions, read the article or the motion? The motions. The motion. The motion. I have, we have proposed two motions. We have a motion, a move that town meeting, adopt a moratorium on artificial turf by adding a new section to the general bylaws of the town of Natick entitled Moratorium on synthetic artificial turf that reads the construction of synthetic or artificial turf on outdoor athletic fields located on town land shall be prohibited for a period of three years from January 1st, 2026 to December 31st, 2029, it should be 2028.
So typo, this bylaw shall not apply to the installation or use of synthetic artificial turf in indoor facilities. An indoor facility is one that has a permanent roof enclosed by permanent non-removable non retractable walls. Indoors, the bylaw will not affect the use of our maintenance of the existing three artificial turf fields at Cole Athletic Field operated by Parks and Recreation. 1 79 Boden Lane, Memorial Field, Nat High School, 92 to 1 0 8 West Street and Kennedy Middle School, 1 65 Mill Street.
This moratorium may be extended upon its expiration by a majority vote of town meeting. And we have proposed, do you want me to read motion B? We move that town meeting, adopt an advisory for all town departments to abide by a three year moratorium on the construction of artificial turf fields on town property for a period of three years from January 1st, 2026 to December 31st, 2028. This advisory shall not apply to the installation or use of synthetic artificial turf in indoor facilities. And indoor facilities is one that has a permanent roof enclosed
by permanent non-removable non retractable walls. Indoors. This advisory will not affect the use or maintenance of the existing three artificial turf fields, which are again, coal Memorial and Kennedy. And the advisory on a moratorium may be extended upon exploration by a majority vote of town meeting. Speaker 1: Great. What's the difference between the, the moratorium and the advisory or the a and b? Speaker 3: The advisory is for a moratorium, it's just a different kind of, it, it, it, the bylaw probably has more teeth Speaker 1: Is the, but is the functional outcome that it's gonna be, that there would be a moratorium in either A or B'S case?
Speaker 3: I think so. I, I, I mean, I suppose legally there'd be some loopholes if it was just an, oh, it's just an advisory. It, it maybe doesn't have the teeth that a bylaw bylaw does, which is actually a law Speaker 1: That's some clarity. I'd like to understand Other comments or questions? Please ma'am. Speaker 12: Hello. B Brinley Vickers, Oakland Street Extension. Also a town meeting member, also an athlete parent. So I just, I actually have been saving for a while and forgot to bring it tonight, but I have a sock that I've had for a really long time and every time it gets washed it still looks the same
afterwards, which is, it's growing little green hairs all over it and those little green hairs are turf because both of my kids are athletes and they spend an enormous amount of time on that turf field. Not because they're playing on the a sport on the turf field, but because they're track athletes and track athletes spend an enormous amount of time sitting and hanging and rolling around and doing their stretches and actually lying on the field. I literally have had that sock for well over a year and it still has the green fibers in it. So I just wanted to say that it really does come home. It comes home in the shoes, it stays on the socks every time I wash it, it
cre creates more macro place MAC microplastics into the wash. The other thing is I, I'm curious about the mechanism as well, and I am hoping that maybe you guys could offer some suggestions if you don't think this mechanism, mechanism is good. I listened to a lot of school committee. I was in the meeting where the design review happened and for sure they didn't do a full evaluation of what grass would look like, what it would cost. They didn't include that in the design study because it didn't get included in the request from the school committee.
I do feel like there needs to be some mechanism to help encourage them to have that type of a robust conversation because there are other factors in town that really want turf because it's easier for them. So my hope is, is that this moratorium is a mechanism to get them to have that conversation because they really have been having the conversation about fixing this field. It's in their view, something very pertinent and current. And so that's my hope. So if you have recommendations for how to encourage
that conversation that isn't a moratorium, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm in support of this moratorium as it in if once we can figure out that mechanism. Thank you. Great. Speaker 1: Thank you for your time. Can I ask a question? Of course. Mike. Speaker 13: On on Ms. Vickers. So you would think at town meeting there would be an alternatives analysis presented when you're talking about large expenditures of public funds. Am I incorrect that there isn't, if somebody's coming to the, the town looking for millions of dollars for a turf field, there isn't an alternative analysis to
that saying what is an alternative? There's there a, is there a cheaper alternative? Is there higher risk or lower risk to health? I it, it's odd to me that there wouldn't be that conversation Speaker 1: Unless it's already budgeted. Yeah, Speaker 14: That's what I wonder. If it's in the school budget Speaker 13: Specific for artificial turf, then why wouldn't the school committee entertain some sort of, you know, I don't know how their structure is, but you know, some sort of advisory to look at into these things.
Look at scientific peer reviewed studies. Speaker 3: That would be great. And that is what we would hope that they would do. And that's what we hope that we will accomplish through this moratorium. It won't be just a quick approval from town meeting for money for an artificial field. Okay. Speaker 9: The still committee is an elected body, so ultimately you could just vote them out and vote in people that had a mindset to not apply that. So I mean they could, they, they're not an appointed body. They're an elected body elected by the electorate. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yes. And we could have the fourth field
before they're elected out. Speaker 7: Just one comment on the fourth field. It's, it's a butts of wetland is what I heard, right? Yes. Speaker 1: It's, so does Kennedy. Speaker 2: The project will fully require contact Speaker 7: Before approval. The Kennedy field that came before our board Speaker 1: Kennedy is the, Speaker 2: It's the field behind Speaker 1: Backyard of Kennedy. Speaker 2: So there's that strip of wetland that runs between the fields and the DPW facility. Speaker 1: We are intimately familiar with that project. It's a very far more than I'd like to admit. Oh, okay. So George, Speaker 15: It seems like we're playing, I dunno, some type of a game,
but with science on one side or evidence on one side, which is lacking right now. Time may come and politics and I mean, you know, look, school committees got the money. Wow. Turns out they're playing with, oh, used to use the term dynamite. They can't do it. Then someone's gonna find a way to stop that dead in its tracks. But as the description was going on, there's very little study in the long term study
and the way science is being looked at right now, it's sort of questionable is whether it's ever going to be soon enough you have a three year moratorium or something like that. Maybe we should be, you know, thinking at least philosophically of a much longer postponement of some of these things. I know recreation is very important, sports are very important, but lethality, toxicity, whatever you want, whatever term you want to use is something really to keep in mind.
Speaker 3: It's, again, it's possible this can be extended and the, the rate of what we learn is so fast. At least it was historically in science, when science was well funded that I am, I'm hopeful that we, we could do more. That whatever came out of this, it would be productive. And we're spending a lot of time in this. My colleagues have all, we're all spending a lot of time in it. We really do care about it. And we really appreciate your time tonight to listen to us and to hear this out.
'cause we know you share our concerns too. Speaker 1: It's a very thoughtful presentation. So for the, for the con com, do we, are we in a position where we would want to vote one way or the other this evening? Would we like to hear more input for example? You know, I would personally feel an obligation to hear from some proponents of the project understand what their case is as part of our deliberations before I wanted, would wanna make a vote on it. I mean, I've got my own, you know, perceptions and senses about it.
But I, you know, would, would like to give others the opportunity to say their piece and they may, we may invite them and they may decide that, you know, whatever the conservation commission does, we don't care. You know, just, you know, do your thing. Which is fine. But, but to at least give them the opportunity. That would be my, my preference. Before we were to decide to vote one way or the other here this evening, we could invite someone to come to our next meeting, which is actually a week from tonight, just to show up and just talk about why, you know, to talk about the use cases, talk about, you know, kind
of the duty cycle and the costs and all of that stuff and the experiences that they have and how much crumb rubber are they replacing every year. Things like that. Just some, some data points that I think we all acknowledge we don't have here this evening. That would be my preference. But, you know, this is a seven six member board here tonight. Seven member board in general. And so anybody can obviously make a motion to do, for us to do whatever any, any preference from the, from the conservation commission here. Then I want to give the folks on open space the opportunity to do their business and say their piece. Speaker 13: I mean, I'd like, I'd like I would agree.
I'd like to hear, you know, the, the, the alternative argument from, or conversation from other folks that are maybe on the other side of, of this conversation. And, you know, I, I'd also encourage the town and, and folks that are concerned about this, you know, and, and looking at, you know, looking at the largest thing that we have right now, which we already have three fields. Is there a way to look at the infill and address that toxicity that I think is, at least in the research that I'm aware of, is very clear.
Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 13: And, and looking at the infill and on these existing fields and is there, clearly there's safer materials and there's natural materials that, that are available and is the, yeah. Is the town willing to go to that expense to ensure the health and safety of the community? Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 7: I think the first question though is really about this fourth field, right? I mean that's what the moratorium is, is, so I just want, I, you know, I, I think I agree with what you're saying,
but the very first thing we gotta find out, do we really, you know, is, is do you want a moratorium to, to delay the fourth field or the Speaker 13: Moratoriums out of our hands, right. However, Speaker 7: Well that's what we're voting on, whether we support the moratorium, right? As, as a council, that's where we, as a committee, Speaker 1: That's where we're be asked. Right? Speaker 7: Yeah. So Speaker 1: Anyway, Speaker 7: Okay. I agree with that. We'd like to get more Speaker 1: So from the commission. Do we, do we want to kind of table any action on this here, this evening and invite and see if there's any proponents of this who want to come
and, and talk about their case as to why they wanna do it or you know, why this would be beneficial. Yes. And then good idea and see if we could have someone here next week for our meeting and then, and then take it up at that point. Would that make sense for the conservation commission? Sure. Okay. So why don't we do that? So no action on this here this evening, but it's intriguing and I'm a scientist, I'm an environmental scientist by profession. Understood. And I understand the, the case that's being made, Dr. Lana's case and the data that that does exist, it is rapidly evolving, is compelling and worrisome, clearly Speaker 3: Understood. And I just wanna say that we are available as the sponsors
to answer any of your questions and to provide you in writing. I can send you the motions and the material in writing if you could just, if that would be helpful. And again, it was the DPW and the athletic director who seemed to lean towards the artificial turf field. So they might be people that you might wanna invite in. No, Speaker 1: We know both of them well. If Speaker 13: You could cite, if you could cite the studies that you used in your presentation, that would be very helpful. Speaker 3: We're happy to do that. We can give you like a bibliography of, that'd be great reference to the studies. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great, Rick, please. Speaker 6: I, so Rick Devereux native town meeting. I was just gonna say Thursday night next week we're in front of FinCon so we won't be here to Speaker 1: Hear it. Fun, fun, fun. Speaker 6: We can listen to it. But, so if you are not in that big a hurry and you kick it down and we kind of our time and Speaker 1: Great. Understood. Speaker 6: Let them have their word, but we would like to hear it. Great. We've heard it before, but nevertheless the reactions in your questions would be Speaker 1: Informative. Great. Speaker 3: Thanks. And again, we really appreciate this time and my auto correct by the way
to end on a lighter note keeps changing fin com to fun com and I'm like, oh no, I have to keep a light spirit here I guess. But anyway, thank you. Truly cosmic, but thank you again so much. We really appreciate Speaker 1: It. Yep. Hold on one second. I, I want to give open, open space advisory community the opportunity to do their business and take Thank Speaker 16: You. Oh, hopefully it will go quickly. We are in a bit of a different situation than, than the con com in a couple of ways. First of all, we don we don't meet until again and for another month, which is after the whole fin com cycle. In our, our best, our, our normal way
of having an impact on those things is to show up at the FinCon meeting with something, some sort of a policy of some sort. So we basically have to take a position tonight if we do. And the other difference is, I realize from this discussion that you guys are way more scientifically knowledgeable than me. I I am lost in all this stuff. I'm not a scientist unfortunately. And I think it's not in our purview as our committee in, in evaluating the science one way or the other. I don't, I don't feel comfortable with that. And, and probably most of us aren't.
We're basically trying to ensure a safe and, you know, safe health and safe environment for people and would like to hear from the experts in how to do that. I think the more personally the moratorium is the way to do it because that gives us time to get the experts together and come up with the answer. And it doesn't cause us any, any problems in the long run. 'cause we can always decide to go forward with the turf fields after that time. But I, I said it in our meeting earlier that what I normally do is ask if anybody has a motion and if nobody has a motion, we won't go anywhere.
And if anybody has a motion, we'll vote on it. So is there anybody in the open space committee that has a motion? No. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So to be revisited, you know, and, and you know, we'll come back and I think what you're hearing from here is some real interest in the topic for sure. And some, you know, a desire for some more information and also to hear from quote unquote the other side, to hear from others who may have, have different opinions and, and, and to give them an opportunity to air those out publicly. And then we can, we can go from there. Speaker 3: Great. Again, Manny, thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. Very thoughtful presentation. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Alright, open space. Are we sticking around for all of the business stuff that we have here? We have Johnson School on the, Speaker 2: Yes. All four of these agenda items are crossed. Great. Speaker 1: Excellent. All right, so let's move on to the next item on the agenda. Which for us would or will be, I'd like to invite the discussion around the Johnson School. Okay. Okay. And is that something you're leading, Claire? Speaker 2: Yeah, I was gonna do a quick overview to get us kick started. Speaker 1: And there was no meeting this week. Speaker 2: Yes. The meeting was canceled due to a lack of a DA accessibility of the meeting venue. It is due to be rescheduled in early October
Speaker 1: For to an accessible Speaker 2: To a fully accessible venue. Yes, Speaker 1: It was. It was supposed to happen last night. Yeah. Alright, Speaker 2: Claire. Yes. I'm gonna use Martin's map from the last open space meeting 'cause why reinvent the wheel? So as folks are aware, the Johnson School was closed as a school and is currently under discussion with the larger community about potential reuse of the existing school property. This map here is one that's been annotated by Martin that just identifies the different areas of the property,
the building footprint, the paved or parking areas, the playing fields, both grassed and impervious, and then the, the woods sections that sort of surround the parcel as a whole. As Matt mentioned, there was gonna be a community discussion last night that I believe both Martin and Matt were gonna be present at. That is gonna be rescheduled to a date in early October based on the information from town administration. But given the amount of existing open space on the field, or I'm sorry on the property and the area of town where the property falls highly developed Natick Center
area, it did feel appropriate to have an opportunity for both of these committees to discuss while this larger community process is ongoing, what the priorities are for these two groups in terms of preservation or protection of the existing open space portions of the parcel and what the committees might be looking forward to seeing at this particular parcel. Which might not be the perfect phrasing, but if there any hoped for desires for this parcel.
Any creative ideas that folks could see for this particular parcel. Just to give my little spiel that I think I've given individually to the open space advisory committee and to at least a couple members of ComCom. Personally, I see this property as a wonderful opportunity for a true public private partnership. I say true because I wanna clarify from some other projects that are currently ongoing that aren't necessarily public private partnerships, but public nonprofit partnerships. So I see this property as having a lot of value in terms
of redevelopment. It is located to Natick Center where there are a number of resources in terms of accessibility. It's right on the M-W-R-T-A transit lines. So the building itself could have a lot of potential reuse for a number of purposes. Housing, recreation, community, the list could go on and on forever. I do think that the preservation of the open space, specifically the woods parcels and some of the, the play spaces that are more limited in this area of town is a very important thing. I think if some folks might be familiar with the heat mapping work that Jillian partnered
with Framingham and some other communities on last year, it very clearly showed that Natick center is along with the mall and sort of the nine route, nine corridor, one of our hottest areas of town. Both because of the amount of asphalt and impervious surfaces that we have, but also because of the lack of vegetative cover. So the preservation of vegetative cover in this area specifically canopy cover is really important. This is a much larger scale project, but I really look to folks might be familiar with the Stowe Acres project that's happening right now. That town or city of Stowe, I'm gonna get mixed up on what they are.
Recently was able to acquire the entirety of the STO acres golf course for permanent conservation, with the exception of a very small portion of the parcel, I believe about two and a half acres that was purchased by a private developer for a subdivision development. This is a huge golf course. There will be, you know, several, several acres of space that are permanently conserved. The town currently has ownership of half of the existing golf course. The remaining half of the golf course is due to diminish their scale over the next 10 years, at which point the rest of the parcel will be
turned over to the town as well. So I just see that project as a really an inspiration for what a public-private partnership can look like. And I do see this parcel as a good opportunity for that kind of project at this point. I really just wanna open it up to these groups for discussion. I don't know if there's necessarily any decisions that need to be made tonight on this particular topic, but just a chance for these groups to voice maybe similar, maybe disparate concerns and have that open discussion. Speaker 5: So Claire, would you, in that, would you envision in whatever
that public private partnership might turn into there would be a CR for the Speaker 2: Oh certainly, yes. Yes. Good. Either a CR or a total deed. It's in this land is already deed to the town. The school committee though, I think that's actually the select board who's carrying custody now following the closure of the school building. So the town could remain in ownership of those open space areas and simply deed the developed portions of the parcel. Or it could be done as a conservation restriction. I think there are a number of pathways forward in that regard. My personal preference would be to see sort of a combination
of both with the town retaining ownership and potentially a land trust in our community taking on the holding of the CR on that particular parcel. But I, I think that's, you know, 10 feet further down the line than where we're at right now in terms of detail. But yeah. Good. Speaker 1: I think in my mind, I mean the way, the way I approach thinking about this is that this is a very dense part of the community. This is a historically a very important part of the community, you know,
from kind of first principles here. I mean I, my personally, what I, you know, believe, and what I will advocate for is that my starting point would be a desire for there to be no, no additional development on the site beyond the footprint of the existing buildings and that everything else is maintained and preserved as open space. And we can talk about what that could look like. It could look like a bunch of different things. Absolutely. Probably not a turf field just saying no. Maybe real grass, maybe real grass, terrible, you know.
But that's, that's kind of my, my starting point is that in this, in this part of the community, you know, that, you know, we need to preserve the open space that we have. I've heard bandi about through various rumor mills or whatever you want to call it, around, you know, peeling off a few lots for single family home development. I'd love to know what the business case is, what the business argument is for that, as to why that would be helpful and what that, what value that would bring to the community. Could I get behind it? Yeah, maybe. You know, but I'm really starting from a point of wanting
to see preservation of that open space and limiting and, and limiting any, any built structures to really the existing footprint of, of what's there now, whether that's renovation of the existing buildings, which I understand has a whole bunch of technical challenges associated with it. But also, you know, if there was some kind of redevelopment of the building envelope in a way that brought great value to the community, awesome. You know, that would be, that would be super, would I be crushed if we decided to tear down the buildings
and just make it all open space? No, that would not be a bad outcome in my opinion. You know, so that, that's just kind of my starting point on this and you know, but I think that the, the public process is critically important. The, the involvement of the people in the, in the neighborhood around Johnson School and their, their senses around this. I mean, it's public property, it is the decision of the town of Natick and its residents. But I do think that the, you know, the neighborhoods around Johnson School have a lot to say and a lot, a lot at stake in this conversation. And, and I look, you know, I was really looking forward to the meeting last night.
I wanted to start, you know, start hearing from people what they were thinking. What I just expressed is my opinion as to where, where my starting point is in terms of what I'd like to see happen there. Speaker 2: And just 'cause I saw some potentially unfamiliar looks when I talked about the heat mapping. This is the Metros heat watch map that was completed in 2023. So folks can see that that Natick center area, the Johnson School sits sort of right about there. Yeah. Weirdly not surprising to anyone. I think the little spot of coolness because of the amount of trees likely, but folks can see how hot Natick Center is,
especially compared to some of the surrounding areas. This area down here is the Coolidge Woods area. So you can see how much of a substantial difference that density of tree cover can make to the overall heat index of an area. Speaker 1: If I can just just close up, kind of my last thought on this. I mean, you know, Claire, you talked about a public-private partnership. I mean, I think that there are a variety of outcomes where if, if the existing building footprint was to be reused in some way, I think there's a variety of mechanisms and structures that could be put in place to realize that. Whether it's a purely publicly funded operation,
whether it is a, you know, some portion of it say the the building envelope is sold off to a private developer for some reason. Maybe I'd wanna be really, you know, I would hope the community would be really, really careful about that and I'm, you know, they likely would be. But, but again, you know, for me it's just coming at it, it's the open space and then the benefit that that brings to our, our community that, that I'd like to see preserved others thoughts, Speaker 9: Those well put. And I, I did, I figured the tower would keep the property or sell it in whole, but I don't think a mix, a mix of the two doesn't, you know,
I understand a private public private partnership could bring money into it that we don't have, but it could also complicate Speaker 2: Things. Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, looking at where you would put that private versus public would, I think it would be difficult on that property. Just the way it's built. Speaker 2: It is a, a small property that has a lot of interesting lot lines. So the division of it will certainly Speaker 9: It does. If that public, if that private was residences, then that's, you know, that's complicated too. Yeah. Speaker 1: There are gonna be opportunities for us
as individuals at some point. Whatever happens there almost certainly would be in front of the conservation commission for other storm water. There's no wetland resource areas nearby, but it would be for stormwater purposes most likely if there was any kind of significant redevelopment on site. So there's Speaker 9: No, well and we didn't, we, what was that? Speaker 2: The house that was 95 South Main, that was a major stormwater permit that was Speaker 9: Just to cut down the trees on Johnson School. Oh, okay. Speaker 2: And I will note, I I think folks might recall from the 95 South Main Street, those who are on the commission, okay, there is existing drainage concerns in that area
because of the ledge and the depth to groundwater. And so preserving that open space, again has added benefits for, for helping in that regard. Speaker 1: Other comments, Martin, Terry, Don, Doug? Speaker 16: I, I would say not. We, we basically have endorsed that concept as well. Open space. Except for the, except for the existing building footprint, there is actually an opportunity to gain a little bit more open space. 'cause there's a lot of roads and parking as a result for some reason the road goes all the way through that
and comes out into the neighborhood. So there's a lot of, a lot of road there. So Speaker 1: Impervious, I mean impervious open space. Yeah. That Speaker 16: Actually doesn't count as open space. So, and, and the zoning bylaw, anything that's occupied by cars or roads is not open space. So that's how, that's the rule of thumb that we've Speaker 1: So technically more open space. Speaker 16: Yeah. So technically more open space. Yeah. Cool. And a lot of parking because schools require it. So it depends on what the use is for the building and, and the, and the grounds is how much parking they need. Natick has this notorious habit of always having too much parking, in my opinion.
So as I see it, the less parking the better. But you know, that's just my opinion. Speaker 1: Others, those thoughts. I mean it seems like, you know, we're fairly well aligned in terms of the desire to maintain, if not increase the amount of open space on site as to, you know, if the building was to be renovated, reused or something rebuilt on the same footprint or the sa same square, you know, different footprint, same square footage. We could talk about that nuance as as to whether that was important enough or not. But also the use of it, you know, and I'm not, I don't feel at this point I'm in a position
to really comment as to whether, you know, retail versus affordable housing versus community center versus whatever is, I mean, I would want it to bring value to the community and I think there's a lot broader conversation for a lot other boards and commissions to have as to what the appropriate uses would be of that square footage. If that's gonna, if that's gonna stay on the site. So I can't really take a po I don't feel like it's our charge to take a position on that at this point in time. At least as commissions, certainly as individuals we can, but I think it sounds like we're really aligned that maintaining the open space, if not
increasing the open space. There's a, sounds like a bit of skepticism around even peeling off a little bit of it for a couple of single family house lots or whatever. I, I just wanna understand what, you know, what the rationale for that was. I mean, why is that, why would that be important? Why would that be helpful? And, and, and maybe there's a good reason we're just not aware of, but I just, you know, it's not clear to me right now. Okay. Any, any other comments or anything we need to chew on about this at this point? Let's stay engaged in the public process though. And I think as we move forward we're, you know, as individuals and as boards, you know, it's, I think it's an, it's an opportunity for us to help help shape this really important resource in the
really important part of town. Absolutely. Cool. Alright. Open spa. Yes. Open space and recreation pan extension request. Speaker 2: Yes. So folks may have recalled me speaking about this previously, but the state has updated their guidelines for the open space and recreation plan planning horizon. And I apologize, I'm gonna use the word planning and plan a lot in this discussion. But in order to qualify for ex extending our existing approved plan
for the new planning horizon, we have to update our action plan. So currently Natick open space and recreation plan was approved in 2020 for a seven year planning horizon. So it would be expiring in 2027. The new state guidance would allow us to extend our plan to the 10 year plan planning horizon, which would have the plan then expiring in 2030 rather than 2027. The open space advisory committee does do an annual sort of review of the action plan goals and the progress that the town has made on them. I have sort of a revised version of
that spreadsheet up here right now. Also available in the drive folder. And generally I'm just gonna quickly run through where I have updated target completion dates. We can definitely do a deeper dive but I would love to reserve most of this discussion time to whether or not these two committees feel that any actions should be added to this plan, which is also an allowance under this extension. So currently I have just updated target dates for the existing actions that were already approved.
If the committees are comfortable with that and wanna just stick with that, I have no issue with that. But since we are having this opportunity and doing this in a public hearing, if there was a desire to see an action added to these categories, we can do that at this time. Generally they still need to fit under the sort of larger goals, but we do have the opportunity to add some actions when I get to the relevant action. I'll talk about the CPA open space acquisition piece. So
Speaker 1: It's your intention here to run through each of these and talk about the actions or Speaker 2: I'm not gonna go into detail about the actions. The actions are fairly self-explanatory. Okay. I'll give like a quick statement of what they are and then just what the target date is and why I've pushed it out. Anything that you see that has NA next to it is either an ongoing goal where a target date doesn't need to be updated or something that has already been completed in our action plan. So pursuing opportunities for land protection, that's an ongoing target. Preserve open space and perpetuity held by the town which is not already protected.
So this is on the topic of some of the things we've been talking about tonight. Five Auburn Johnson School. And so I have updated this action date 2 20 30. The original action date was 2022 to 2023, which has obviously passed. I do think that maybe previously there hadn't been parcels where these discussions were a hundred percent relevant and I think five Auburn Street has everyone thinking about hindsight being 2020. And so I think that this is definitely something for us to focus on in coming years. Seek payments for the FAR stabilization fund and other mitigation.
That is another ongoing one. The target date that I have listed here of 2027 is for a plan to be formally developed and approved for the use of the existing FAR mitigation funds. That plays into a little bit some of the open space acquisition stuff I'll talk about in a second. CPA has been completed. Scrolling down Goal two under goal two we have make necessary improvements to South Natick parks. I have updated the goal date for that to 2027 because that is the on track completion date for if the project continues rolling forward as it has been.
So we are in the permitting phase right now. There's a CPC funding request that has been recommended to go to town meeting and if that is awarded we would be applying to MVP for FY 27 funding for construction, which would see this project completed I guess 2027 to 2028 if we're looking at FY 28. Create pocket parks with priority for dentist neighborhoods. I have updated that to 2029 I think also plays into the Johnson School discussion that we've been having here today. Community gardens, we've installed several throughout town since this plan's completion. Recreate the field adjacent to the native community or senior center 2027 updated goal from 2021.
This has not been an updated target date, I'm still leaving it as 2026. I just wanted to note that Charles River opportunities have been identified. So we are just looking at Lake chit opportunities now at this point. Morris's Pond access path, we actually just talked about this at the trails and Forest stewardship meeting last week. I had been making headway with both of the prior public works directors prior to them leaving their positions and now I'm just waiting for somebody new to be in that position so that I can restart those discussions. Encroachments on con com properties. The intern from last summer,
Nate Lord did complete a full database of encroachments onto town properties. We have started approaching some of the larger encroachments but there are still a number that need to be addressed. So just updating that, that is definitely a priority for me in the coming year. 2028 for a land management plan for all conservation commission owned properties. We've made some headway on that. There were forest stewardship complaints completed for a number of parcels in 20 20 20 13, many of which were not implemented that I'm hoping to sort of round out in the coming years.
We did complete a stewards program. So scrolling down to develop invasive species management plan for Honeywell town forests. Lisa Stanley from the Trez and Forest Stewardship Committee has completed a baseline inventory of invasives at Town Forest. A tremendous amount of work, a tremendous amount of work. It's tremendously valuable. I actually did meet with Land Stewardship Inc. Who has previously done some invasive management earlier this week for them to assess Town Forest for some bittersweet management proposals. And so I am continuing to make progress on that. So I've updated a, you know, developing a plan
for the entirety of Town Forest to 2028. I think we're making a lot of good headway on that. Develop an invasive species public education campaign. We have developed another number of educational materials that are available on the website for the public to use, but a more proactive public education campaign. I've updated an end goal date of that for 2026 as I'd like to prioritize that in the next year. Three new green infrastructure projects on town land. I've updated that to a range of times. We will be, if the parks projects are completed as planned, we will be installing several green infrastructure
installations as a part of that project. The Kennedy School, which was completed since this plan was done. It also has a green infrastructure installation. So we are making progress on that. We also installed the tiny forest, so we are making a lot of good progress on that, but a lot more progress to come developed. Discouraged and recommended lists of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. We have had some draft materials in circulation for a bit that have gone through a lot of back and forth with town staff. Nothing that has ever reached an approval stage for public distribution, but that is another priority for me.
And along with that is establishing a public education campaign about herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers to go along with those materials. Pilot of goat scaping project on town owned land, we have off and on used goats at a number of parcels in town. I really would like to establish a like seasonal plan where every year we just know exactly where they're coming out. So I've updated that to 2028. Explore use of utility easements and paper streets for trails. That's just a very long term project. So I've obviously we have not completed that as of 2023, so I've given us a little bit more time to work on that.
Explore additional options for Lake constituent trail access. That again is one where it, it's not just necessarily on the town, it's a town coordination with DCR. So I've pushed that goal out a little bit further because DCR coordination can be a little bit on the slower side. Completing the Taka Waba trail, the Sudbury Aqueduct study that was completed gave us some really good ideas about how to complete that trail system. And so I've pushed that out to 2028 'cause I do think that within the next two and a half years, that's a very reasonable goal to complete that trail. Add new Henry Wilson sign on Route 1 35.
A new historic marker slash signage along the trail. The trail signage was installed last year as part of an Eagle Scout project that was very successful. I am hoping to work with the Historic District Commission on getting those street signs replaced within the next year. So I've updated that to 2026 Sudbury Aqueduct completing it. I've pushed out to 2027, which might still be a little bit of a lofty goal, but we've completed the, the feasibility study and so now with CPA funding, I've got a fire under under me to get that done. Again, none of these are required target, these are just goals.
So I'm not locking the town into any of these dates. Through this update, develop the last constituent rail trail segment from the current proposed terminus to the MBTA station. And that is due to be completed in 2025. Pavement done has been laid final grading and seeding and drainage is currently underway. So I do expect that to be opening. I know font is hoping to do a community opening once that is complete. This fall Connect North Pickel to South Pickel, this is listed as complete because we do have full funding in place for that project.
I, and based on our current timeline, anticipate that will be completed next year. Develop parking area and improve Trailhead for the Pine Hill area, winter Woods and Pick Pond. So I've pushed that out to a range of years. I think some like pick pond can be accomplished much more quickly versus Pine Woods or Pine Hill and Winter Woods, which have a bit more complications. Collaborate with NA neighboring communities on Charles River Blue Trail. I've pushed that out to 2030 again with the dam removal and all the parks improvement work. There's definitely a lot of community interest in that area. So I think that we have a good sort of standing for getting
that implemented. Continuing to scroll down, create a fully inclusive park and playground. I know this is a huge goal for a number of committees in town. Not only open space trails and Forest. I believe Rec and Parks has it listed on their goals and I am sure that it is on the Commission for Disabilities goals as well. I've pushed that out to 2027 because we do have an opportunity with CPA fundings to do these kinds of large scale renovation projects where maybe there wasn't funding available prior. And with our new community services director, Angela Snell in place, I think there's a lot of
focus on accessibility going into the planning for parks, indicate accessibility levels in brochures, maps, and other public materials. I've updated this goal to 2030 for a very specific reason, which is that in 2030 we will have to be updating our open space and recreation plan. And as part of that, an accessibility inventory also has to be updated for all parks and conservation owned parcels. So as we do that accessibility inventory and update, we will then have UpToDate information that we can then use to update our maps and our brochures, conduct additional open space trails
promotion outreach and environmental justice opport communities. So I have updated that to 2026. The town is currently starting off their MVP 2.0 planning process, which will specifically target environmental justice and other sort of under previously underserved communities and trying to really focus and engage with those communities as well as the larger community. And so I do see a lot of that being completed in the next year or so. As part of the MVP 2.0 process, 10 minute walk campaign, I've pushed out to 2031 to two trails
to be more mobility impaired. I have updated that to 2027 because I think that Trails and Forest is hoping to move forward with some proposals about accessibility improvements at Town Forest in the next couple of years. And the other two are just, again, ongoing ones. And I think I skipped over it 'cause it was likely an ongoing or NA goal. But in terms of open space acquisition and CPA, it is my goal by the end of 2026 calendar year. My goal is before Fall Town meeting applications are due for the CPC next year is to have a plan for
parcel engagement and potential acquisition. This relates not only to the Sudbury Aqueduct trail completion, but also larger open space acquisition parcels. We have CPA funding available. The Metro West Conservation Alliance has developed some really great land prioritization viewers that provide a lot of science backed detail about why certain areas in town have higher priorities for preservation and open space. And I think there's a lot of community sort of support for these types of things right now. So my goal is that since Sudbury Valley trustees has offered
to serve as an, an approach to private property owners that are maybe have parcels that are priority for acquisition, my hope is to have a plan in place for action by the time CPC proposals are due next fall. So there's no target date for that, but just so that the commission and the open space advisory committee is aware. Speaker 1: So when it, when is the, is the vote to extend this plan due? Speaker 2: So this is due, I believe, October 30th. October 30th. So we could discuss this again at our next meeting. Speaker 1: I mean, I'd, I'd, I'd love to kind of put this under my pillow and, and stare at it
and then maybe add some additional stuff if at all possible. I mean, unless the commission feels like we're, we're ready to just kind of vote right. Vote now. But I just, you know, that, that that'd be my preference and we could talk about it at our next meeting or our first meeting in October. Speaker 2: Yeah. And then if there's any, you know, in the interim ideas or thoughts that come to either open space advisory committee members or ComCom members, feel free to just send them to me by email. I will put it on our next agenda. Okay. But if we feel the need to continue it, we can do so. Does that Speaker 1: Work for you, Martin, in terms of timing? Speaker 16: I believe so. Our committee has already voted that we want
to extend to 10 years, but we didn't look at the action plan. So I think we could take time at, at one of our, at our probably our next meeting to, to start looking at Speaker 1: That. I mean, can can, can we separate those? Could we vote to extend it and then continue or, Speaker 2: So I mean, the reality is we can take this and send it to the state as it is right now and add things on our own without it being formally part of the action plan that is approved at the state level. Which I think gives us more flexibility in terms of timing. That's Speaker 1: Very efficient. Let's do it yourself. I Speaker 2: Like that.
I, I try where I can. Yes. Can I Speaker 13: Ask one, just like one really weird question Speaker 1: As long as it's efficient. Speaker 13: Morenci Woods. Oh yeah, I know the town of Framingham owns it. Yes. Speaker 1: Annex. Speaker 13: It's in, it's in Natick. Yes. As far as I understand. Mostly. Is there any way to put that in some of our, like some of Speaker 1: Our plants? What percentage of that is in, is in, I Speaker 2: Would say to 80% of it. The, a very large portion of it is in Natick. I will say that I do work on a pretty regular basis with Brian Pru, who's the trails manager over in Framingham.
Speaker 1: I mean that in a Speaker 2: And Speaker 13: I loving way. Speaker 2: They did just do some recent trail work through a, a volunteer day out there Speaker 1: In Natick Speaker 2: Last year. Speaker 1: The Framingham guys were working in Natick. Yes, it Speaker 2: Is owned by the city of Framingham. So, yes. So there's up on the screen now folks can see I, oh, there we go. Okay. Yeah, I would say about 80% in Natick. So this is the, oh, I'm sorry. 80% in Framingham. 20% in Natick. Speaker 1: Okay. Right. Speaker 15: Shouldn't we get some part of Natick we'd like to give to framing Tim? Ooh, Speaker 1: No, no, no. George. George George. Something
Speaker 15: To get rid of. Speaker 2: We don't need any more town meeting more on articles right now, Speaker 1: So, so we could, I mean, to your point Mike, do you know you would like to maybe have that just be ex explicitly recognized within the open space plan and the action plan that it Speaker 13: Might be? It probably is already recognized. I just, I, I don't ever hear about it. Speaker 1: I guess That's fair. Yeah. Speaker 2: So maybe, and we do have this goal in here about encourage communications between boards, committees, neighboring communities and other related organizations. So I think that that would certainly fall under that goal and maybe can be broken out as a sub action specifically related to Morenci Woods.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's good. I like the idea though of us voting to extend the open space plan. Let's do that and then we can have this document be a living document that we just, you know, I would like for us to spend some more time very deliberately talking about it. I mean a plan needs actions associated with it. Absolutely. And this is that and it's something that we then manage against. Right. And so let's, let's do that, if that makes sense for you guys as you guys have voted to extend it. And so then we, we would need to as well. Yes. Okay. Alright. And but motion to extend. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded.
Any further discussion on that folks? Comments, questions? Alright. All is in the room in favor and there's no one out of the room so good. Done. Alright, Speaker 2: Wonderful. And our last combined business discussion is 52 Everett Street, which will hopefully be a, a fairly brief conversation. But I know the NA Conservation Commission, I gave a little brief overview and I know Open Space advisory has also discussed it very briefly. But this is a current open space residential development, affectionately known as cluster development that's being proposed in South Natick off of Everett Street.
The property in question is 52 Everett Street, which is the property almost immediately, not almost. That is immediately across from you as you approach Everett Street on cottage. Currently there is an existing single family home with associated structures pool and landscaping on the site. The proposal is to demolish the existing structures and construct 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 buildings, 16 units total on the front portion
of the development, leaving the rear portion of the develop or the lot untouched as the required preserved open space under the cluster development by law. I will note, and I believe the numbers are actually on a later plan sheet, but the, I believe that the project is over the minimum required open space under the bylaw Speaker 17: And there's a trail proposed. Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you Terry. Our planning board resident as well. Yes. So there is a trail proposed that would connect folks from Cottage Street.
So a new crosswalk is being proposed with a small section of sidewalk along cottage that would then take folks into the development through the sort of central common space and between the homes to the open area at the rear. Currently at this time the trail is not proposed to formally circle the wetland resource area, but the planning board has not completed their discussions as far as I'm aware on the project. Speaker 1: So would this, would this trail connect to anything else? No, it Speaker 17: Wouldn't. It, it, it would be a dead, it literally just for people
to walk around. But because of where the wetlands extend, you can't stay on that property. Speaker 2: They'd have to jump onto the private windy, low lots in order to fully encircle the wetland resource Speaker 17: Area. So it may not be a matter of being able to walk all the way around and remain on the property. Speaker 1: Are are those private, private, windy, low lots or are is there, is there a common space? There Speaker 2: Is because windy low is a traditional subdivision. There is no required preserved open
space associated with the Speaker 1: Development. Okay. So there's no, there's no association space or anything like that. 'cause it's the same guy. Yep. Speaker 2: Oh. And so yes, they are providing, technically it's, it's 71% of the lot area is being preserved as open space. Speaker 1: I, is there any, any contribution to the affordable housing in town? There Speaker 17: Will be. Speaker 1: So two units Speaker 2: If fee and lie I believe is the current proposal is Speaker 17: What the applicant has asked for or has expressed interest in. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: So this was an opportunity for these two boards
to discuss for me to provide an updated comment letter to the planning board in regards to this committee's thoughts, this committee's as well as open space committee's. Thoughts on the cluster development. Obviously the commission has the wetlands jurisdiction in the stormwater jurisdiction. Open space advisory committee might only be looking at the, the open space, but I do think it's a relevant conversation to both committees. I'll just scroll back to this one so folks can see Speaker 13: The 70% is also including the wetland area. Speaker 2: Yes. That is including the wetland area. Speaker 13: Wasn't there a conversation around that with the bylaw that, so
Speaker 2: The wetland area has to be excluded from the calculations in order to meet the minimum percentage. Okay. So if the very last page of this plan set or not page seven of the plan set provides the table, which notes open space must be 35%. They're proposing 185,000 square feet, 75% of that preserved open space must be upland area. And they are still meeting that requirement as well. Okay, Speaker 13: Thank you. Yes. Speaker 18: No, Speaker 1: Yeah, please.
Speaker 16: So yeah, we have discussed this before and I know that your committee at one point had official responsibility for determining whether a cluster development was superior to the conventional development in a particular case. And that that's not the case anymore under the new cluster bylaw. But our committee has been doing kind of doing that unofficially as to going into the planning board and say, we really like this. We think the open space is particularly valuable. We've done that for Graystone, all the different phases of Graystone, but we were unable to do it for any
of the future, any of the other clusters, which were never, which were, you know, very compromised. So in this particular case, we think we like, we think we like the open space, but we haven't had a chance to see it. We can't see it off any public roads. So we really need a guided, guided tour. And we were hoping that we could have a site visit in conjunction with your committee, perhaps with planning. But I think you, your committee would be interested more in the types of things we'd be interested in, in terms of the, the open space and, and what's out there. So we really wanna see what is out there in the open space and then we can kind of make a comments on
how valuable we think it might be. It Speaker 17: May be good if, if you all are interested to see perhaps our three bodies could come together on, Speaker 1: I think that would be great. Speaker 17: It it will be, it would be easier for the owner if he's, if there's not not a kind Speaker 2: Of a series Speaker 1: Of Sure Speaker 16: It might, it might be. But although we're interested in kind of different ends of the project, perhaps maybe not. Speaker 1: I think logistically it would make sense to, to, to do it all at once. Yeah. You know, and hanging out with our planning board brethren is always a good show.
Yeah, I mean, so I mean that seems like a very logical step where we could then formulate some feedback and input if that timing works for the planning board process or are we looking to craft an input letter, ASAP now I, I Speaker 2: Have a draft input letter that just gives sort of the standard points that I bring up in any project that I'm reviewing. Concerns about wetlands jurisdiction, concerns about stormwater jurisdiction, general, you know, open space concerns. I think what I was, if there are any direct pieces
of feedback that are available now, I would obviously include those in the letter At this point I will include that the ComCom would request that if the planning board is holding a site visit, that the commission and the open space advisory committed be invited to join said site visit. Which I think if that's all the comments that we have at this time, I think is not an issue. 'cause I will still provide those standard comments about, you know, X, Y, z you know, structures will require roof dry wells under the stormwater management bylaw, all of my sort of standard checklist items. Speaker 13: There's an abutting property that's 6.4 acres. Is there any conversation? Speaker 1: I was just looking at that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So does Speaker 13: And does this open up? Speaker 1: I was just looking at that. Speaker 13: Does that open up something else? Speaker 2: So currently that parcel is not under shared ownership. It is not owned by Trask or Ben Stevens? No, it's it's privately owned. It is, it's owned by a private landowner who also owns a, a lot on Elliot Street, I believe. Well Speaker 1: It's got frontage on Elliot Street. Speaker 2: It has frontage on Everett and Elliot Street. Right. And so it is a very intriguing parcel in the area currently, as far as I'm aware, there are no discussions about expansion onto that portion of Is that all
Speaker 1: Auckland's, that 6.4 acres all uplands? Yes. Speaker 13: Whoa, Speaker 1: Let's do the visit. I mean I, you know, I I think I'd wanna lay eyes on it and see, I mean my, I Speaker 9: Mean can you get in there? I mean Speaker 2: Well no, we'd have to arrange Speaker 9: With No, no, but I mean, no. Would it, I mean is it a place that you would warrant? Is it a destination for people or is it just overgrown and you just can't get into it? Yeah. Speaker 1: What this one here? The, the Speaker 9: Wetland? Yeah, Speaker 2: It, right now it is, I mean it is a meed wetland. I would not, I certainly not describe it as a scrub shrub wetland. I would say it very much is grassy herbaceous. It is overground
because I don't think that the homeowners are maintaining it for lawn space. But I think, you know, with boots on a site visit wouldn't be, we wouldn't be like bush whacking the whole way back there. Didn't we Speaker 1: Walk on that Speaker 19: When they were developed, isolated Speaker 1: That other Somewhat I think, Speaker 2: I think when we were assessing for Speaker 1: When Yeah, George, it's, Speaker 19: It's totally isolated wetland, right? Oh yeah. Speaker 2: Yes. This is an isolated wetland. Yeah. Speaker 1: 'cause there's a wall at the top end that Right. You know, the, this, this for me, I mean, I'll I'll just say my, say kind of
a starting point for me right now. I mean this, this, for me, I feels like an example of an application of the cluster bylaw that doesn't make sense to me. And why I say what I say there is because any kind of trail would be a dead end at best kind of lollipop trail. That would not be a place where people would be walking around. The public wouldn't generally be making use of it. And the, the only benefit would be that it would be maintained as open. And that's val you know, there's value to that certainly. Speaker 17: Especially as a critter corridor.
As I like, as, as I like to say. Totally, Speaker 1: Totally fair. Yeah. You know, and my hope, you know, my, my, my aspiration for the cluster bylaw is that it, it provides us with opportunities in exchange for more dense development. It provides us with opportunities to improve connectivity, to make something that really is a public amenity, you know, above and beyond just the, the, the environmental benefit, which is important. And, you know, so I don't, I don't, I don't love this, you know, and if it complies that the law complies
with the law and we have to, we have to evaluate it on those merits. But, you know, it, it, again, it's just an example of, of, you know, I don't, I don't, I don't like it, you know, talk about changing the character of a neighborhood. You know, you're coming down Cottage Street and it's very hard. What, what is now kind of this beautiful farmland kind of open space, big open lawn, and all that's gonna be 16 units of housing, of duplexes. Speaker 17: I, I, and I would say though, the applicants did revise kind of how the site is organized a bit, or how the, how the, the individual units read.
And it was, if you saw the original, some of the original designs is a significant improvement fair improvement, Speaker 1: Fair. And again, if it complies with the law, you know, the law that the town has voted into place and is what dictates how people can do cluster developments, then we would have to evaluate the project on, on its merits, you know, within the confines of that law. Speaker 16: I, I, Speaker 1: I, I don't love it. I just don't, Speaker 16: Yeah. Add, add a little comment of my own, interestingly enough that the kind of semi-circular arrangement of townhouses is exactly the same size
and the same number of units as wayside. And I remember when we looked at the wayside plans, we said, well, you can't have all these things so close together. And you go there now and it looks, it looks beautiful. And one thing about wayside, I think that they finally adapted here is it's set back from Rockland Street and they've added in woods as a buffer. And they didn't have that before, but in the new draft they do. So I think, I think that's, I think it's manageable. And as far as the value of the open space, we're grappling with that too. And I, I think that's good. We all do. And that's why kind of, I'd like to see it.
But we, you know, there is this point that, that open space and wetlands, particularly and Meadows are valuable even if you can't walk in them. And this one will have a trail. It won't be the greatest trail in the world, I admit that. But for the people who live there, they get to go up, look at the wetlands and come back. And that's maybe, maybe that's all they needed for a nice evening to relax. So the private Speaker 1: Open space, there you go. But, but it is at the quiet part out loud. Speaker 17: But what you all also see is a, is a neighborhood that has a lot of walkers and cyclists. And I, when I come through that, you see,
you see folks on foot in ones and twos Speaker 1: And not a lot of sidewalks and protected places to walk also. No, Speaker 17: I get it too. And so I, I'm actually hoping that helps unlock kind of safe space for walkers Fair. Speaker 1: I Speaker 9: Get it. Is this on septic down there or is this Speaker 1: No, Speaker 9: This on sewer. This is on sewer, yes. Speaker 1: Six 16 units septic tank, man. Oof. Cool. So let's, let's, let's coordinate that, that site visit. I think that'd be a great use of time. Then let's check it out and see, and then we can open space kind of reconvene at that point called Speaker 16: Mosquito Speaker 1: Village. That make sense? Speaker 2: Absolutely, it does. Speaker 1: Alright, mosquito, anything else
for our joint meeting before we spring our open space colleagues? Ah, Speaker 16: We're done. Okay. Now we need a motion to adjourn, don't we? Speaker 2: Yes. You guys do need a motion to adjourn you Speaker 16: And if David votes Yes. It's only on behalf of our committee. Not on behalf of you. Speaker 1: We're not, we're not letting him go. Speaker 16: Okay. So yet, all in favor? Oh, we need a motion. Speaker 17: Move to adjourn. Speaker 16: Any second, David? Okay. All in favor? Speaker 1: Opposed. Speaker 16: See you. Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Thanks guys, appreciate it. It's been a pleasure as always. Alright, let's continue with our meeting. Speaker 2: Do you wanna give folks a minute to clear the room or? Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll give a minute to clear, clear the air.
Alright, let's move on then. So let's open the public hearings part of this. We have a Cate certificate of compliance for 17 Manor Avenue. So Claire, why don't you give us a rundown on this. Speaker 2: Yeah. So folks might recall a permit was issued for this property in 2022 for an addition onto an existing structure. The garage extension and minor plan change was approved in April of this year regarding the stormwater system. The style and sizing of the stormwater system was amended to reduce the overall footprint and limit native soil disturbance.
The system did still meet all of the storage requirements of the original system. It was just a change from the plastic cultec chambers, which have a smaller volume overall. And so result in a larger dimension in order to meet the storage requirement was replaced with a concrete dry well structure, which has a lot more volume in a much smaller area. The final compliance package was sent in mid-August and I did note upon receiving the final as-built, which is up on the screen here, that a fence, which was not shown on the app, original plans presented for the project,
was marked on the as-built and did extend beyond the rear property lines of the parcel. Normally this would not necessarily be a concern for a body like the commission, but the problem is that the abutting rear parcel is con com land. This is the picker pond sunk away area. Manor Ave is that small dead end neighborhood off of Route nine that sits in between the Oakdale and the weathers field neighborhoods. And so the certificate of compliance request has been received except for the fence. The project is in compliance with all the requirements
of the project and conditions of the project. The site is fully stabilized, grass has regrown, it's, it is just up to the commission to determine the issuance of a certificate of compliance. Essentially stamps that these plans are approved and we approve of the conditions of the site. And so the commission needs to determine what they feel the next steps are in order for this site to receive a certificate of compliance. Okay. Speaker 1: So what we're hearing though is technically what was installed is in compliance.
We have the engineer's letter that says that this was in substantial compliance with what was conditioned Yes. There, but now we have this issue of the fence on the back. Speaker 2: Yeah. So the fence was originally installed in 2024. It was not marked on the approved plans, but is visible in my pre-construction site photos because it wasn't on the proposed plans that were approved. I wasn't aware that it was encroaching. Sure. But obviously upon receipt of the as bill plan, I did bring that up immediately to the, the homeowners. Speaker 1: When, when was that, that fence installed? Speaker 2: Eric, I don't know if you can give it any more specificity. The aerials show sometime in 2024.
Speaker 20: No, it was in 2018. I installed it. I had installed by a company. There was another fence there. So I just had it replaced to keep the poison ivy and the trees out to keep the dog safe. The child safe. So yeah, I just had the fence installed for that reason. So it wasn't part of the project. So I just replaced it where the other fence was proceeding and it's, you know, it's right on the edge of the property. I, I didn't, I didn't put it near the conservation property, but it, you know, that's, that's
what turned up when we had the engineering done. Speaker 1: What, had you installed the original fence there? Or was there a fence there when you bought the house? Speaker 20: No, no. There was a small fence there and we bought the house. I just had it reinstalled. Yep. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you know, on under most circumstances, I think our immediate reaction would be the fence has gotta move. I mean, we can't have private homeowners putting, claiming town land is their own, you know, that's not a precedent, you know, in intended or not, you know, and that's not to cast aspersions on anybody involved here. What I'm wondering, Claire, is that if this is something we should talk to Caris about
and just get her her take, I mean, you know, when you and I first spoke about it, again, my first reaction is, well, fences gotta move 'cause we can't, again, can't have private people claim private homeowners claiming Townland as their own, which is kind of the net outcome here. Speaker 15: So the original owners though, got away with it. Speaker 2: So I, I do just want to note, I I did do quite a bit of aerial reviews. Eric, can you just clarify where the existing fence was? This is the street view from 2022. Yeah. And there just isn't a clear fence visible in
the rear of the property. Speaker 20: Yeah, it was, it was beyond, actually it was, it was, you know, probably in the conservation land it was like a chicken wire fence. It wasn't sustainable. Oh. So, Speaker 2: Okay, so the, the new fence was not installed in the same location as the old fence. 'cause then it would've been visible in this image? Speaker 20: No, I moved it up beyond the trees. I didn't want it, you know, near the, near, near near the conservation property. Speaker 1: So you pulled it forward of where the old fence closer to your house than where the old fence was, is what you're saying? Yeah. Speaker 20: Yep. I be beyond all the trees and all the bushes.
I mean, you know, you know, I'm sure a site visit would be, you know, Speaker 2: I do have photos from my compliance. I thought you were raising a different issue site. Speaker 5: Hmm. I thought you were raising a different issue. Speaker 10: What, Speaker 5: When was, when was your photo? Speaker 2: So that street view is from 2020, but Eric is saying that the, Speaker 1: The previous fence was further, let's be Speaker 13: Clear. Yes. The previous fence was on a fence. It was, it was a piece of chicken wire. Speaker 1: Okay. Fair. Speaker 2: And what, what I was trying to clarify is that the, the street view from 2022 did not show this new fence, which was why I was raising the question, Eric,
about the, you know, when the fence was installed and where it was located. Speaker 1: So this white fence here was in, was reinstalled in 2024 Speaker 2: Based on the aerial imagery that I have available to me that does appear. So this is the aerial from 2021. This is the subject property right here. I, I removed the outline so that folks could see the, the full extent that, that, that may be a fence line, but it is very difficult to tell 2022. There is not a visible fence 2023, there is not a visible fence.
2025, there is a visible fence and the visible erosion controls from the, the construction project that was completed. Speaker 1: Okay. So the white fence was installed in 2024. Was that, was, did a fence company install that, Eric? Speaker 20: Yes it did. Speaker 1: Yes. Did they do it off? I mean they, and they didn't ask for they no survey was done, obviously. Speaker 20: I don't believe so, no, I mean not Yep. Speaker 1: Because Speaker 13: The plot plan for the building permit would've indicated offense, correct? Speaker 2: I can check. Speaker 1: Yeah, let's take a look at that. Speaker 2: It may not have, fences are not required if the project
doesn't relate to the fence. Okay. But I can pull up the plot plan from, but I believe that the plot plan that was submitted was the same one that the commission approved. Okay. For the building permit Speaker 9: Was treatment removal Speaker 10: In the permit. Speaker 2: Let's go back and Speaker 1: Take a look. Speaker 10: Let me, Speaker 2: I don't need to pull up the recorded order. Speaker 13: There was some, there was something, there was like cleanup or something. I Speaker 9: Don't recall. Speaker 13: It was like erosion 17 Speaker 2: Manner Speaker 10: Order few images. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean the, the, the 2023 aerial on GIS does not show a fence in the back. Right. Speaker 2: Yeah. Which is why the 2024 date is the one
that I had in my notes. Okay. Driveway expansions. I don't have tree removal noted in my, Speaker 1: How, how would tree removal factor into this? It, Speaker 20: Yeah, there wasn't tree removal. Speaker 2: There's also only a portion of the site falls within jurisdiction because of the distance of the wetlands from the rear property line. So maybe that tree removal at the front of the lot was outside of our jurisdiction? Speaker 9: No, it looked like there was a tree like in the back. Speaker 2: It also, the aerials are taken at different times of the year as well. So it may just be the shift between Speaker 9: The No, just on, on that surface. On that surface shot. Right
Speaker 2: In the street view. Speaker 9: Yeah, the street view is that large tree in the back on the property or off the, so I Speaker 2: Still see the large tree in the back in the 2025 aerial, Speaker 9: But not in the photo. The, your photo. I didn't see a tree. Speaker 10: So obviously very good point, right from Speaker 9: The, it's beyond the fence. I mean the tree's outside of the fence, but doesn't, Speaker 2: So I do see roots extending from behind this PVC fencing. I can't speak eer. Erica, I you're saying there was no tree removal, so I'm assuming that there was no tree removal? Speaker 20: No, no, no, no treatment mobile. It was just, yeah.
Speaker 9: So that's that tree right there then. Speaker 20: That'd Speaker 13: Be my Speaker 20: Guess. Not, not that I'm aware of since we've been here. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you know, I think we should stop dancing around there. I mean my, it's further Speaker 2: Back, Speaker 1: My position on this is that the fence has to move, you know, I mean we can't, we can't have private, you know, people extending out onto, you know, 1700 square feet of town owned land. That is not a precedent that I think we should set as a commission. It's just not a, it's not appropriate, you know, under, under really any circumstances here. And you know, I'm, I'm, you know, sorry for the hassle that,
that that in incurs there. But you know, I think you can understand that if people are just starting to extend property, you know, fences and perceive property lines into town owned land, then we're screwed town forest. All these other places where it's just gonna lose land left and right. And we can't, we can't set that precedent. You know, it's, it's incumbent upon the property owner when you put a fence up, you gotta be putting it in a place where you're confident that it's on your property and not on someone else's property. In this case, the towns. That's my opinion. I don't know if anyone else has any difference of opinion on this. Speaker 13: Agreed. So that's why we ask do you own that tree when you want to cut it?
I mean Exactly. Or when you install that patio, is it on your property? Yeah, I mean I, whether it's townland or not, you know, fence gotta go fence. Gotta get moved. Yeah. Speaker 1: And so Eric, I, you know, I know this sucks in terms of what you're hearing from us here tonight, but, but I hope you understand where we're coming from on it, you know, and so I think, you know, we will hold on the certificate of compliance until the fence is moved and then the cer you know, you know, and our expectation is that that fence will be moved in an appropriate amount of time. And we can define what that is and we'll, we'll send you a letter to that effect, you know,
as to what our expectations. It doesn't have to happen instantly, but it is the expectation of the commission in the town that, that that, that the fence line is moved until it's on your property under, you know, how the, how the, the building permit by laws regulate where fences can go. I believe it's one foot in from your property line. Mm. Speaker 2: Though they can install along the property line if the abutting property owner approves it. So if the commission is comfortable sure. Right on the property, Speaker 1: That's, that's fine. You know, that's neither here nor there for me. So Yeah, Eric, sorry. You know, this is just what, what it's gotta be, you know, I know it's a hassle and, and it's an expense
and I get that, you know, we really just need to need to stick to our guns on this or else we're gonna just open up a can of worms that we can't have open, you know, every other house in, in this area, you know, extending onto town on land land, we'd start to see fences creeping backwards. And that just wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't make sense. People would say, well that's where his is. So mine can corner to corner there. Speaker 20: I mean, I I try to be respectful and place, you know, have the fence placed, you know, it's right on the line. I mean, if you look at all the other houses along the street, every other fence is, you know, 5, 10, 15 feet
beyond the property line. I I put it in front of all the trees in front of all the, you know, all, all the, the property that I thought was, you know, the town land, you know, that's why I requested a site visit just so you could see it's not, you know, if you came out and looked at it, it, it, it looks, it's right on the line. I mean, it's not, you know, several feet from the property. All, all the town land and the trees and the shrubs is everything. I mean, all, all my neighbors, the tree, the fences are extended out into the property, you know, we'll Speaker 13: Send a letter to all of 'em with the
Speaker 1: Lawyer. Yeah. I mean, you know, that, that's our job then is to, to take care of that, you know, and to be doing that. And that's, that's the kind of encroachment that concerns us. You know, I understand where you're coming from and I understand it's, it's, you know, that it sucks. It, you know, fences have to be on your property, not on town property. That's, that's the bottom line, you know, cut and dry and town council would tell us the same thing. Building department would tell, you know, will tell you the same thing. I mean everyone from the town will tell you exactly the same thing. And as these other properties come in front of us for different things, if they have fences
that are on town property, we're gonna make them move them to, you know, that's just, that's just that, that's the reality of it. So you'll get a letter to this effect, you know, let us know if you have any questions about it and, you know, we'll go from there and, you know, if you, if you do have any questions, let us know. Speaker 20: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, thanks. Alright, next item on the agenda. Sorry. Speaker 15: So we're saying that the fence installer just ignored it and put it where Speaker 1: Fence installer, where Speaker 15: Someone wanted it. Hard, Speaker 1: Hard to Speaker 2: Say.
What I will say, and I don't know if Eric still on, unfortunately he's not with that mall Speaker 15: Pull their fences down. Speaker 2: The, the property lines are incorrect on the online assessor's map. However, if you look at the deed, it matches what is shown on the as-built plan that has been presented in terms of the property line being a V at the Speaker 1: Rear and, and the As. Speaker 2: And so my assumption is that the fence installer probably just looked at the online map and said Speaker 1: Then the fence installer is a, a clown, you know, Speaker 2: But again, that's, it's sort of a neither here nor there issue because it is, Speaker 15: Looks like there's a, Speaker 1: It's where surveys, I mean that's what surveys are for.
You know, you can't be installing your stuff on someone else's property if that was privately owned property. Oh yeah. You know, I mean if it was not town property, they would've been all over it, you know, immediately. But it's our obligation as the stewards of the land to be making sure this doesn't happen. Speaker 21: It does look like there's a bunch Speaker 1: Of, I'm sure there are, they're probably several Speaker 2: Of the properties along there do extend deeper. That is the shallowest property on Manor Ave in terms Speaker 1: Of which could be what Eric is seeing. And I, you know, I feel bad for the guy. You know, I'm, I I don't think there was any intention here,
you know, but it is what it is. Alright, let's move on. So a request for determination of of applicability for 87 Glen Street. Lemme just go ahead and formally open this Glen. So in accordance with Latin's Protection Act and Tex local wetlands BI article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Ken Solder home for property located at 87 Glen Street Map 69 lot 20. The proposal is a demolition of an existing detached garage in construction of a new 24 by 30 detached garage in a similar footprint. Alright, do we have anybody from, so Speaker 2: Ken could not be here tonight with the shifted meeting date. He already had travel plans for this week. Okay.
He did say if the commission would like, he's happy to continue to next week. But if the commission is comfortable, it is a fairly cut and dry project from my perspective. And I think we could probably, okay, let's take a look at it. Deal with this tonight. I'm, so the proposed plans are up on the screen here. I'll zoom in a little bit, but folks can see the existing footprint of the garage is about fi four to five feet closer to the side property line than the proposed footprint. The garage is slightly expanded from the existing garage. The, it's being pulled away from the property line to better
comply with zoning setbacks. Though it is impossible to comply with zoning setbacks 'cause the lot is nonconforming to begin with. The garage is only very partially in the a hundred foot buffer zone. And while erosion controls are not proposed, Ken is a builder and I'm sure if we ask him to include erosion controls and Speaker 1: A former conservation commission member Speaker 2: And a former planning board member or any not concern, he did say when filing that he would like to say hi to all of the members who he was on the board with at that time. And so I do think that the, the work is only in buffer zone is fully permissible under a negative three. I would recommend a flat lot with a condition about a staked straw waddle along the rear
of the project area just to belt and suspenders any of the potential for erosion. Speaker 1: Looks like existing. Speaker 9: Is it digging a foundation for Speaker 2: No garages, slab, Speaker 9: It's just, is it gonna dig into a slab or just Speaker 2: Usually there is a little bit of digging for the footings for this slab. So, which is why I recommend the erosion controls. Speaker 1: Yeah, it looks like existing lawn. It's, you know, slightly larger garage existing lawn flat and the, the a hundred foot buffer goes just kind of cuts through. This is on Glen Street. That's not riverfront, right? It's
Speaker 2: No, that's set off of the Charles River. This section of Glen Street. Fairly, fairly far off. Glen. Yeah, I can pull it up on the map real quick. Alright. Speaker 1: It's all good. Yeah. Questions, thoughts? Pretty straightforward. Lemme just take a quick look as to where it is. Speaker 2: Here we go for folks. So this is the portion of Glen Street where it sits. It's fairly far down. Okay. Glen Street. Yeah, so it's in that portion of the Charles that bends. Speaker 1: So it backs up to the cemetery basically. Yeah. Rather than, rather than the Charles. Alright, pleasure of the board. This is a RDA negative three determination. Okay.
Someone make a motion to close. So take David's with a George second. Thank you George. Any further discussion on that? Was in favor issue determination. So I'll make a motion for a negative three. Determination. So moved. Thank you George. Was that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion? Those in favor? Good. Done. Alright, last time. Speaker 2: Sorry guys. Unfortunately I was very on track with my estimates for tonight's timing. I was really hoping it would go a lot faster. Speaker 1: You were, you were, you were giving me the evil eye in the first part, telling us to get a move on. So it's man, this close.
Speaker 22: I learned a lot about TUR tonight. Speaker 1: There's a lot to learn back tur. Speaker 2: I would like to point out, I did request that they keep their presentation at 15 minutes. Speaker 1: Oh did you? I, I didn't, I didn't see the time. I would've, Speaker 2: I had rec but I knew that there was gonna be a lot of discussion around the topic. Speaker 1: I would, I would. Speaker 19: Oh, 15 minutes per slide. Speaker 1: Alright. My kids hate. Alright, so where, so where do we stand cl I mean, you know, first what's changed? What's, what's the new, new information? All that since we last met basically. Speaker 23: Yeah, basically the last, the last set of comments that came out. Speaker 1: Yep. There we go. There we go. We got it all Speaker 24: Set.
Sorry. Basically the last set of comments that came out from Claire the other day, we responded to every one of the items. There was four comments from BSC that we addressed. We received a, actually there was three comments from BSC that we addressed. We received an updated comment letter from them today that they were satisfied with the, everything that we had done. We did the mo, the mounding analysis. I know there was the question, there was the issue of the separation. We redid it, they requested a mounding analysis, we did the mounding analysis, which requires some revisions to the system.
PSC reviewed it today, I believe it was today. And they Speaker 1: Were Do we have bscs response to that in the folder Speaker 2: Today? Yes. So, so everything is in that nine 10 revised materials folder under the two 16 it, I might do a full reorganization of this folder just for clarification 'cause it's getting a little crowded. But yes, the title of the file starts with 25 20 25 dash zero nine dash 11 2 16 2 18 South Main Street. When you open it, it's very clearly BSC letterhead. Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 2: Just one brief note that I have that I don't think it's gonna necessarily impact the conversation just because I know Steve is on the call right now for the landscaping plan. You guys still are noting the wildlife conservation seed mix for the detention basin is not necessarily a huge issue, but I would recommend that they make a mix for detention basins. So I would recommend using that mix over the wildlife conservation mix Speaker 24: In the, in the, Speaker 2: In the basin itself. Speaker 24: I thought we had updated that correctly, but Speaker 2: It might be in a different place there.
There's so many notes on that sheet. I saw a note that still said wildlife conservation. It may have also, I may have been looking at the eight rev revision two instead of revision three. 'cause I know that one just came in this morning. So let me just do a quick scan. Oh, that one was corrected. I do think that I was looking at the revision too. My apologies. It's Speaker 24: Okay. I thought we hit 'em also. Speaker 2: Sorry. As I mentioned in my email, folks likely have not had an opportunity to read the BSC memo from today. And we do have Dominic from BSC here as well. How's it going? Any questions? Dominic?
If you want, there's another table, another microphone. You're more than welcome to come to Speaker 24: If you want. I'm alone tonight for once. Speaker 2: I know everybody's on Zoom Speaker 24: Edmond's in Ireland. His parents aren't too. Speaker 2: That's unfortunate. Speaker 1: So Dominic, the mounding analysis, I mean, you know, one of, one of the changes that's happened as, as a result of some of the shifts in the changes in the topography is the proximity to groundwater of the detention basin down by South Main Street. Right. Speaker 2: Detention system. Speaker 1: Detention system, sorry, infiltration system down by South Main Street. Yes. And so that was then going, you know, originally when that was originally placed, that was gonna be,
it was gonna be, you know, too close to groundwater. So the applicant's proposed to mound it, correct? Speaker 25: W Well, so they, they moved it. So Under the stormwater management standards, any kind of in infiltration system, be it an underground system, a surface system requires a minimum of two feet of separation to seasonal high groundwater. So they did provide that. They did the additional test pits, they changed the type of system they were using is actually primarily what they did. They went from, you know, one product to a different product
that allowed them to change the profile and, and the bottom elevation. So they provided that two fetus separation. But if you have less than four feet of separation and you're using it to attenuate peak flows for standard two, you have to do this groundwater mounting analysis. So basically, I mean, you can imagine you, you're putting a bunch of water into the ground as it's sort of spreading both, you know, vertically and horizontally. You get this temporary hump of, of groundwater under the system.
So what they had to do is provide this analysis that shows that temporary hump isn't gonna come up through the bottom of the system and prevent the system from draining like they intended to. So they have the two feet of separation, and I believe the calculation showed around a foot and a half of a mound. So it doesn't, I forget the exact number off the top of my head, but it was about a foot and a half. It was definitely under two. We checked the ve they gave a nice detailed description of the variables they used and, and how they determined them. I mean, honestly the same way I would do it
very, very thorough. I appreciated the, the detail and, you know, they used the appropriate, the appropriate analysis. It's got the OSH method. It's, it's the most commonly used one for, for these types of analyses and showed that that mound won't impede the drainage of the system. So one, their, their runoff calcs that take that into account as part of their attenuation are valid. And two, that draw down calculation under standard three.
So the system has to empty under 72, within 72 hours to create the volume for the next big storm. And by the way, excuse my voice, I'm like, I cannot get it back. I was sick last week and it's just lingering driving me nuts. Excuse me. So is also still valid. Speaker 1: What are the, I mean, a concern that I've got is, is, I mean I've got several concerns about this project in general that I've been trying to be clear about, but one of them is, you know, is that it, you know, with with systems like this, it kind
of feels like we're potentially at kind of the performance limits, you know, kind of at the red line of some of these systems. I mean, so if we've got something where we're coming in within a foot and a half of the, of the bottom of the system, you know, I guess a simple question would be what are the error bars in these calculations? I mean, is it, is it plus or minus an inch? You know, if we've got an 18 inches to play with, is it, you know, I mean we all know that a hundred year storms are becoming, are not really a hundred year storms and, and they're getting more frequent and more, more intense. And so what, you know, what was a hundred year storm is now becoming a 50 year
storm or a 25 year storm? Are we setting ourselves up to a situation where we're putting a system in that can accommodate this but is operating at the limits of its, of its capacity So that if the a either the Arab bars or the storms are just simply more intense that we're gonna have a system that fails, Speaker 2: I will Speaker 25: Just Speaker 1: Perform as as advertised. Speaker 2: I will just note our bylaw requires them use storm volumes that are future projections, not current storm values. Speaker 25: Yeah. So you do use NOA 14 right now? NOA 14 plus. Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: Regardless. Speaker 25: Yeah. So I can't say exactly, I mean
there isn't a necessarily a published plus or minus on, on this methodology of, of, you know, how accurate it is. It's a, it's a, it's a methodology was originally designed, is always used for septic system analysis. So under Title V when you have these systems, because obviously there, it is also very critical that you don't for, you know, treatment reasons. And is is the recommended methodology in the handbook in the stormwater handbook right now, you know, I guess the the fallback
to these systems is always the overflow, right? And that Speaker 1: Oh, it shouldn't be designing for overflow. Speaker 25: No, but that they have, there is an overflow, there is an outlet for because so I mean it's tough stormwater like is is an infinite combination of rainfall events out there, unfortunately. So totally Speaker 1: Understood. Speaker 25: You know, all I can really speak to is that the standards and the regulations require, you know, these sets of, of storms be designed for.
So they did use the a hundred year discharge, the, the a hundred year recharge volume in this analysis, which is good. Again, don't get me started on the gray areas in with DEP and where they have a lot of holes in their, their requirements. So I think they did do it in a, in a conservative manner by right away without being asked, use the total volume being infiltrated in their design a hundred year storm for that analysis. So Speaker 1: If, if, let me frame the question in another way.
If the results had come in and said that the mounding would've would approached within six inches of the bottom of the, of the, of the device, would that still pass muster in your opinion? Speaker 25: That still passes muster. Yeah. So the standard is basically not to break the bottom of the system where everything under the system becomes saturated and therefore the, excuse me again, Dominic, Speaker 2: Do you want a cup of water? Speaker 25: I might have a cough drop. Okay. Tone this down.
The, the standard is that Yeah, it, it would still be, yeah. Speaker 2: Matt, I just had one just 'cause I saw that Mark was on the call. Was there a revised SW that should have been included in the nine 10 package as well? Speaker 24: It was, I believe it was in the Dropbox Speaker 26: Link. I did not, we, we did not submit a revised SW for the nine 10 submittal just because it, it, it's, it's, as you noted clear the, the SWIP is a document that gets updated once with construction, particularly once an order of conditions and other permits are issued. So our intention is once the the permits are issued,
we would update the SW to incorporate any special conditions or information that may be pertinent to be in the SW specifically to ensure that it's fully up to speed on all conditions that are issued. Speaker 2: Okay. Un understood. I just it eight 19. Sorry. Yes. I just, I, I couldn't, I had, I think Mike had said some of these comments as well that there had been some questions about, you know, how ruts will be identified and how that soil will then be loosened. I just didn't see those details in the updated phasing plan. So I just didn't know if those were gonna be included in an
updated SW that we hadn't seen yet. Speaker 26: So we did update in the nine 10 erosion plan that the ruts would be, would be removed by machine scarification and the ruts would be identified by the SW inspector, which has to pass the EPA training or be a, a CPEC or cwe. Again, we're gonna be monitoring the site. So we'll have either a CPEC or a CWE doing inspections, which is a, a, a higher qualification for SW inspections that's required by the EPA. So we do have experts
who are gonna be on the site monitoring the site to ensure and, and, and walk through people through what's going on. And again, compaction is a very easy thing to, to identify in terms of, of, of, of, of, of soil. And, and part of our, our work is we train site contractors pre-construction on these characteristics and situations to make sure they're able to also watch for them, even if we are not on site every day to make sure that those conditions are monitored carefully. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions about the storm water?
Speaker 27: Were for BSC Speaker 1: At this point in time about this and then we can move on to trees. Any, any further questions at this point? I want to go through these, I mean a lot of this stuff was coming in today, so I, I I need to go through this and just kind of read, read through it all carefully myself. Okay. So let's move on to trees. And so Anthony, you provided a letter yesterday? Yeah, yesterday around the, the tree replacement indicating that, you know, acknowledging the tree deficit there, kind of the complexity of the 9 27 fantasy, you know, that and that's, you know, did, did not go into
that conversation expecting that it would be a simple, it wasn't no. A simple kind of thing there. And so your proposal is that setting up a fund in the amount of $62,600 for the 313 trees that could be used for planting trees at the, I mean, not when you say project site, I mean, you mean your project site or at 9 27, 9 27 27 or, or any adjacent areas that had, that have had trees removed that, that reads to me as a really low number per tree. The 200 bucks. I mean,
'cause that's, I I mean I don't know, I'd like to get someone else's. I mean, Mike, I don't know what your, your opinion is on this. Speaker 2: I was about say I'm happy to. So I did just get art on the call because when it comes to acquiring trees for the town, he was the first person that I thought to go to and Art did inform me that it cost him $900 to get a tree in the ground and the initial care for it completed. So in terms of the amount that you have proposed, he could plant 70 trees for that amount of money. Just using that $900 as sort
of the baseline 313 trees at $900 would be $281,000 of mitigation funds. I did also ask Dominic his thoughts, he checked with an ra, sorry LA landscape architect on his team, RLA registered landscape architect and said that, you know, 600 to 800 is the standard that they see as well. So it, it does just seem like a very, very low number. I know in the meeting that we had with Amanda, we talked about how this isn't necessarily about, you know, dollar for dollar value replacement,
but I do think that it is critical to use that assessment to a certain degree just when it comes to this is a mitigation proposal, so it should be mitigating the work that is being done. The valuation that you provided from Bartlett was included on that list of trees to be removed. And the total value of the trees that you guys are removing is $2.2 million based on the valuation from Bartlett, which puts an average cost at each tree about $44,000. I don't think we're looking for $44,000 per tree
that needs to be replaced. But when you, when you look at that, those numbers next to each other, the 44,000 next to the 62,000, if we are looking at trees of the value of what's being removed, that's 17 trees, not 70 trees. And so un unfortunately, I do think it fell short of the expectations of this committee. Okay. Speaker 24: I can definitely revise it. Speaker 9: But it, it's also, I mean the, the mitigation, you know, being Five miles from the site too seems a little bit unfair to that area in my mind
that the mitigation, you know, should be mitigate the area that's being impacted. Right. And I know that's, that's a difficult on there because it's heavily tree, but it won't be anymore. Right. I mean that's, that's a, that's a very noticeable amount of trees. That's the first thing coming up. 27. I got that routinely in that it will be a, it will be a shocking display. Right, right. And so I think trying to mitigate that area would be, I, and I was trying to pin down the mitigation of 9 27. I thought I saw renderings, but there was some stuff in the, in the crossover road that they're gonna do.
It just won't be a vacant plane on top of that bridge anymore. Right. But there's, 'cause people are gonna be riding bikes across it and I thought I saw renderings of trees or bushes or something on there. So I, I could appreciate that. But I also think that there's been a lot of mitigation money not spent in mi in mitigating areas of impact in the town. And Speaker 24: Yeah, we had, we had spoken to art about if he had any opportunities around there and he said he, he didn't, so that was kind of, Speaker 2: Yeah, Jeff, the renderings you're recalling are the ones
from the, the mast presentation to the town and, and are available on the project website. Speaker 9: So that was fake. Oh, it's a rendering. It Speaker 2: Is a rendering is the official term for fake. Yes. Speaker 9: But, but it looked, I mean it looked like it was pretty substantial when you look at that, that, so that's why I was kinda shocked when you were saying that there was no plans to do that would just be road. Yeah. Speaker 1: So I think we're gonna need to just to see some additional, you know, a counter on the, on on the tree stuff. I mean that's a, you know, for me personally, at least one
of the stumbling blocks on the project. So why don't we, why don't we do this? I mean, why don't we, you know, I think a lot, a lot of this information came in today, you know, where yesterday and stuff. And so, you know, we need some time to review this and to, you know, take a look at it. The tree question remains outstanding. So we got to, you know, keep at that one. You know, this, just to articulate kind of where some of my exist re remaining concerns sit is that for, you know, just based on our, I think I've said this before, but based on our experience as a commission with projects on far less challenging sites, you know, my concern is
that we've got, you know, a set of actions where every, you know, a set of activities where everything would have to go perfectly for this project to work as advertised. And that there's a lot of opportunity for stuff to go really sideways. And that's not cast casting dispersions on anyone's expertise or experience or anything like that. But we've seen very experienced builders really struggle with less challenging sites that, you know, that, that for me is that, that that's one, one kind of body of concern.
The other body of concern just relies around, you know, the storm water bylaws written around the principles of low impact development. And there's a whole lot in here that does not align with the concept of low impact development. When we're doing the, the, the, the blasting that we're doing, the clearing that we're doing, the land alteration and topography changes. It has to have to happen here. And so we're kind of at, at, at a, you know, there's a fundamental conflict there in my mind. That's another area of concern.
Then there's the whole tree removal and kind of mitigating the impact that the project will have. I mean, it's a large site, a lot of trees are coming down and figuring out how to mitigate this is proving to be, you know, if that's possible, is proving to be challenging. That's a concern of mine. You know, so this is, this is just where I'm coming from and where my concerns lie with the project right now. And, you know, but we're a seven member board and others, others inputs and, and, and votes ultimately are the ones that, that, you know, will drive the day on this or all, all of our votes drive the day on this.
But I'm just one of them that I just wanna articulate to my colleagues here, what, what my concerns are with this. You know, the reason we're continuing to have these is 'cause if we can find a way to have this, you know, to, if we can find a way to get there, then great. You know, I mean, I appreciate your efforts as a businessman. You know, we've Speaker 24: Done everything we've been asked, so, Speaker 1: And you're, you're working hard at it. Speaker 24: Three peer reviews. We've satisfied the peer reviewer. Understood. Speaker 1: Understood. You know, and, and I, but at the same time, my concerns remain. Speaker 24: And you know, even with the erosion plan, I mean Mark, mark is helping it came in on other projects at the end
and he's here day one with us. And he's, I mean, Speaker 1: And there Speaker 24: Was, and the plan we put together was, is very detailed. It's very phased. It's, I mean, I don't, I don't know what else we can do here. It's Speaker 1: Right. And, you know, and yeah, I mean, I know you've been working really hard at this, you know, and spending money on this and all that. And I, and I acknowledge that, you know, and trying to see if we can find a way to get there, you know, and so let's have a conversation, you know, come back with a counter about the tree so we can talk about the mitigation stuff. We need to sit down and just kind of just really work through these plans, you know, individually
and then come back at our meeting other next week or the first one in October, whatever makes sense. Speaker 13: May I ask a question? Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. Speaker 13: Does, does the bylaw explicitly state in terms of what the one-to-one is this is the mitigation including planting, getting the tree in the ground and maintenance for its survival? Like is there language specific in the, in, in the bylaw about, Speaker 1: Certainly survival clauses are in there. Speaker 2: The answer is no. So I'll, I'll read the, the statement straight from the bylaw, which is rapid,
which is very minimal, which is the removal of a native tree species over six caliper inches is proposed. If removal of a native species tree over six caliber inches is proposed for a site within the limit of work replacement tree plantings shall be proposed at a one-to-one ratio, one tree removed, one sapling planted. Speaker 1: But we've got, that's, you know, fair and I stand corrected on that. But in, in numerous places, in other bylaws and regulations that we have and orders of conditions, I was gonna say Speaker 13: The Speaker 2: Ability that we have to set conditions, Speaker 1: We absolutely, we have survival. Speaker 2: Yep. Speaker 13: Yeah, I just, that's clear.
I'm just, I'm trying to wrap my head around. I, I don't disagree that the $200 value doesn't get a tree in the ground, honestly, because if somebody has to plant it, right, you know, the tree could be a hundred dollars, 150, you know, depending on the caliber size. I get that, you know, depending if we're going with b and b stock or containerized, whatever the case may be, you know, but, but labor is a real thing. And then, and Speaker 1: Who pays for the installation? Speaker 13: Yeah. The labor part. And then, you know, is it, I'm assuming we're gonna be using Ansys standard standards
for that planting, so it needs to be state and, Speaker 2: And so that, that is I think where the $900 number comes from Speaker 13: Art. I think that number's not gonna argue against art. That's, that's a high number in my my world. But, you know, I like the, the BSC six to eight. I think that's a fair number, but that's again, Speaker 1: Not $44,000 per tree. Yeah. Speaker 13: It doesn't matter. I mean, obviously it's, I'm not fighting over, over any of that. It's just, I'm just making a point like, you know, are,
are we, I wanna make sure that we're being true to what the intent of the, the bylaw is and that, you know, you know, we're not being overly excessive in, in this kind of conversation around the one-to-one replacement, I guess. But making sure the trees get in the ground though, that, I mean, it, that has to happen. $200 ain't gonna do it. Speaker 1: Right. Right. And I, I mean, I'm also just, just concerned about, you know, the shifting of the responsibility now then on the town to make this happen. You know, and that's just another, you know,
there's an impact and then yes. You know, $800 or $600 or $900 or whatever the number is per tree to get it installed and all that stuff. But then there's still efforts to, you know, I mean I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm not a fan of the, of the, of the contingency fund Yep. Concept, you know, just 'cause it, it's, it shifts the burden away from the applicant to the town to make it happen. And yes, money talks and all that makes it easier. So why don't we, why don't we do this? I mean, let's, let's give Anthony some time to go back and think about the tree, the, the tree equation there. You know, I'm, I'm, I'm gonna go back
through all the plans in great detail and just kind of, you know, think about it and, and all that. And I want everyone else to do that. 'cause this is important. This is a big, you know, it's a big project. It's a big, you know, we've got an applicant who's been doing what we've been asking him to do, which I'm very grateful for, you know, and let's, let's, let's have this out at our, at our next meeting or Speaker 2: Yeah, I think nine 18 makes the most sense. Th three weeks given the scale of let's go revised materials needed quote unquote, I think that three weeks would be a little excessive. Yeah.
Speaker 24: I mean, I, I don't have any more revised materials to provide Right. Just Speaker 2: Thet tree mitigation letter other Speaker 24: Than that. Yeah. Besides, Speaker 1: That's, Speaker 2: That's why I put it in quotes. I don't need either as revised materials Speaker 24: Don't need to go to work again, which Speaker 1: Is good. Well, which is I get that. I get that. Okay. Thank you Anthony. Appreciate Speaker 2: You guys. We do need a formal vote to continue this Speaker 1: Tour next year. Can we, can, can we continue this to our meeting on September 18th? Yes. Move. Thank you, George. That seconded. Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on that? Good. Done. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 24: Have a good day. Good Speaker 2: Night everybody. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks Anthony. Thank you. Thanks Dominic. Alright,
Speaker 1: Thanks. Hey, thanks Dominic. Feel better Speaker 13: Next time we talk I'll have a Speaker 1: Voice. Yeah. Good. We'll, we'll have you sing. You don't want that out. All right, Speaker 13: Let's see. Speaker 1: So Speaker 2: Stuff just came Speaker 13: In today. Speaker 2: The, so the, that those materials came in yesterday. BFCs response came in today. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. Good response. Yeah, I can wrap my head around that stuff. Okay, we got minutes from May 22nd and June 5th. Good. Look, good. Speaker 2: Cut. Jeff. A little eager, make a motion efficiency to accept the minutes. Speaker 1: Motion made to accept the minutes from May 22 and June 5th. Is, is that seconded? Seconded.
I'll take Jim second on that. Any further discussion on that? Those in favor? Excellent. General business discussion. Bowden Lane parcel right of entry for DOT? Yes. This is, are they gonna fix the damn bridge? Speaker 2: This is in relation to the bridge repair project. Yes. Speaker 1: Well, let's deny it then. Speaker 2: So I, I unfortunately, I don't think denying it would actually impact the bridge project probably. So the, the commission and I'm just getting the plans pulled up here so I can just share them quickly. I'm gonna go through this as briefly as possible so that we can all go home. The commission owns a very random strip of land along Boden Lane just in advance of the bridge. The right of way in this area is really funky.
The parcel we own technically crosses Tamarack Road. It's very confusing. I wish I could tell you why it was given to the con com. We'll have to ask prior town meetings. That's George. That's George. Speaker 1: George. No, that's done by your house man. Come on. Speaker 2: DOT is essentially looking for right of access in order to do work on the overhead wires, which crossed this parcel as well as install erosion controls for the work within the right of way on our parcel. So there will be some slight land disturbance on our parcel. No changes in grade, no overall changes in the area will be loaned and seeded at the end of the project.
But DOT, because con comm owns the land, they do need this right of entry signed by the com or approved by the commission. So the, what we would be looking for tonight is for the commission to either vote for Matt to sign or to authorize me to sign the right of entry for DOT if there so choose Speaker 13: No per no permanent access. No permanent, no Speaker 2: Permanent. We cannot do any of that without town meeting approval. This is simply a right of entry for them to access the property. Speaker 13: Thank you. Speaker 2: That was a Speaker 1: Very light discussion. So Speaker 13: Which strip?
Yeah, I imagine it was, Speaker 2: Oh here I can pull it up on the GIS maps to make it a little clearer. Speaker 13: No, it's riverfront, right? Because Beaver Dam Brook is, that Speaker 2: Apartment is right there. Yes indeed. There are a number of jurisdictional areas. But because DOT, Speaker 13: 'cause they're DOT they don't, Speaker 2: They are exempt. They're Speaker 1: Exempt. Speaker 2: Okay. So it is, are folks see my screen Great. It's this piece of land. There's very strange piece of land. Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Okay. That's what I thought it was gonna be. And Speaker 9: What's that building that's on it? Speaker 2: It's a shed from the abutting residential property. Speaker 1: Blow it up. Speaker 13: Oh boy. Speaker 1: No, I'm kidding. Speaker 13: Get another letter.
Speaker 2: What I will point is that a pool permit came in for a residential property that it was outside of wetlands jurisdiction. But I did note that the fence went onto con com land and I already have a letter drafted to go to them tomorrow. Where is this Harwood Road? Speaker 1: Terrible people on Harwood Road Speaker 2: Deal. Oh, it's 50 Harwood. The one that abuts the con com entrance to pick Pond. The builder clearly built the fence just slightly over the line. So they'll get a letter and be asked to come before the commission to have a similar discussion. Speaker 1: How far onto Con Kong land is it Speaker 2: Much less than the one we were discussing earlier? Speaker 1: The builder of the house. Did it? Yeah. Speaker 9: What's the purpose of this thing? Is that along that long boin?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah, it's a really weird piece. I remember, I remember noting that Speaker 2: One point, I can't find any, like the Old town meeting records don't give any like legitimate reasoning for Speaker 9: Stitch Back to Speaker 2: Beaver. The, the hope had been to potentially create an access pathway down to the station, but that never happened. And I don't know why it ended up with con com instead of with like rec parks or another. Speaker 9: Would you, would this be for raccoons and deer who are gonna take the tea into Boston or? Speaker 2: Yes. Oh, the intent was for for people, but yes. Speaker 9: Can't Speaker 1: Walk on both Humanoids. Speaker 9: I used to live in that back neighborhood. Yeah. Made my wife walk down to the Speaker 1: Train.
Oh. And we have this nice little 39 38. Well that's Nate Town of na. That's Nat and Habit. Yes. Speaker 2: No, that's not us Specifically part Speaker 13: Of the open space and recreation plan. We can't Speaker 2: It is. It is Speaker 13: Listed. Yeah. Listen, we Speaker 9: Can't sign office. Speaker 1: Alright, so what do we need to do? We just need to vote to, Speaker 2: There needs to be a motion to either approve Matt or approve myself on behalf of the commission to sign the right of entry form. Speaker 13: Move we approve you. I second Speaker 1: What's wrong with me? I said David made the motion to, to have Claire sign on behalf of the commission. George seconded. Any further discussion on that? Nope. Good.
Speaker 2: Only one other brief update, which MOOCs might have already seen from the email exchange that's been going back with forth with the Jennings Pond group. But as of yesterday, the state has officially declared a level two significant drought in the Northeast Street. Speaker 1: I thought they were gonna be here tonight. Speaker 2: No, that's next meeting. Next meeting. This, this agenda was already two full. I was not adding anything else to this agenda when that, I hope that folks would agree given what time out. Speaker 9: I, I did like when I, I did like your ladder. 'cause that was my, when I saw that, I was just like, I, I absolutely looking at yellow on my front lawn, Speaker 2: I absolutely understand their concerns
and it's just a, this is a matter of dealing with the climate change that we are facing. And I think that maybe there is something that the commission can do in terms of larger hydrologic studies. Speaker 13: So, so your position though, on the, I mean we should talk about this when it's on the agenda, but your position on this is that we should, because of the drought conditions breaching the dam, may negatively impact the upstream re resource areas. So Speaker 2: What I will say is that the water levels are very low in the lower little Jennings pond area.
Yeah. As you sort of between the, the larger beaver dam and the beaver deceiver in town forest water levels are very low. I do think that reaching that upstream dam would see some immediate water movement. I think the problem is that we are then potentially drying out another wetland system, Speaker 13: Upland, Speaker 2: Upland upstream, that will then see impacts because of the extended drought conditions. Would Speaker 13: DEP review the We will wait. I guess I'll wait. We can Speaker 2: Wait till Speaker 13: Next. Yeah. Yeah, let's do on Speaker 1: The 18, sorry. Alright. Anything else? Speaker 2: That is it? Motion Speaker 1: To do adjourn. Motion adjourn. Thank you Jim. Seconded by George.
Any for the discussion on that? Those in favor. Thank you all. This is a good one.