Speaker 1: All right. Good evening. This is the Nay Conservation Commission. I'm Jeff Richards, acting chair for tonight, Thursday, February 6th, and we're ready to go. So first on the docket is Certificate of compliance for 30 Barnsdale Road. Speaker 2: Yes. I don't believe the owner was able to be here tonight. I know he was recovering from the flu at the end of last week. Speaker 1: Any representatives from the DGT?
Speaker 2: No. Likely not. But if the commission recalls this project, and I'm just getting the, there it is. The as built up on the screen here, this notice of intent was filed in response to a violation notice. The applicant had brought in Phil into the rear yard with the intent of leveling out some lawn area. The commission was made aware the process was stopped
until a notice of intent could be filed in order of conditions could be issued. The applicant was looking to construct a, a small retaining wall to create a level yard area. The location of the wall, potentially put two trees in jeopardy because of its location based on review of the site by myself and the town arborist who did not provide any recommendations, just facts. The applicant did choose to remove those two trees and comply with the required replacement plantings just
to avoid any potential damage to the structure if those trees were to decay. So folks can see on the as-built plan, the plants that were planted are all noted as long as well as the existing vegetation that was in the field, in the rear or in the wetland, in the rear yard. We do also have the letter of certification from DGT Associates noting that the work was done in compliance, noting that some
of the plants that were not, some of the plants did not survive. But the project does meet the 75% survival requirement from the order of conditions. And the applicant did also install a fence along the top of the retaining wall just to create some additional demarcation between the resource area and the yard area. Speaker 1: They did note the two differences from the asalt, the,
the retaining wall curves instead of going straight, which Speaker 2: Yes. Curves away from the, the wetland up at Speaker 1: The, and the downspout going to an outlet right away from the house. Yes. Speaker 2: So the retaining wall on the approved plans went straight to the property line and had a right angle going up the property line to meet the grades. My guess is that the curved choice was in order
to save on material costs. But I've done two site visits out to the property one three months after the initial planting occurred, as well as one just a week ago. Obviously it is winter, but getting down into the wetland and reviewing the plants that were installed, they do all appear to be in good health and preparing to bud out in the spring. So I do believe that the property is ready for a certificate of compliance.
Oh, the last thing, the placard was installed in the garage. Speaker 1: That was noted on the, Speaker 2: Noted on the asbu and, and Connor opened the garage door so that I could take a peek at it as well. Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions? Commission the room. No, with that entertain a motion to issue. Yeah. Motion to issue CSC.
Seconded. Second. Seconded. All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes, David? Yes. And that's it, I wonder. Alright, well we're done. Okay. Next on the agenda is request for dissemination of applicability 2 51 South Main Street. So let me open that in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and na local Wetlands Bylaw Article one, article 79,
the Nat Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a request for determination of applicability filed by Amy Knight Civil and Environmental Consultants representing John Westerly Natick Public works for property located at 2 51 South Main Street Map 59 lot 10. The request is for installing underground gas piping for the landfill gas collection system and replacing landfill gas well vents on the landfill.
Alright, so introduce yourself for the record. Yeah, Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Aaron Wilker. I'm a project. Speaker 1: Hmm. I said, hi Aaron. Hi, Speaker 3: Project manager with Civil and Environmental Consultants. Additionally, Amy Knight, the certifying engineer for the project, is present on Zoom as well as Tori Murphy, who is the project manager who oversees the environmental compliance for,
for the West Street Landfill. So, okay, for some background CC contract, we're contracted by the town of Natick to perform weekly and quarterly monitoring services at the site for the landfill guests since approximately October, 2010. And we're seeking a request for determination of applicability for installation of a portion of the landfill gas piping system within the landfill that will be located within the, within the limits of the former West Street Landfill,
which is currently today the SaaS Montre Golf course. The proposed work overall includes installing about 900 feet of eight inch diameter landfill gas pipe, 160 feet of four inch gas pipe, and then replacement of about 10 of the gas well vaults. More specifically, the work that is involved in the wetland resource area,
which will be in the 100 foot buffer zone, is approximately about 250 feet of eight inch, eight inch diameter landfill gas piping installation that will be placed within the final cover system but above the geo membrane. So we're not contacting any of the, any of the compacted soils or anything that would be located within the final cover with that as well.
The, so we're doing this is a response to, sorry, exceeded regulatory limit of methane levels that were identified in probes that were located east of the site. I dunno if you go a little over to the right on that, on that page Claire, you'll see that there are a couple, there's that GP seven, the triangle that is kind of located center on your page there near
in the park in the parking lot. So additionally testing that was done further east of that did not identify any methane that would be going off of site with a response to that CEC in 2021, we proposed installing a, a temporary above grade pipe on the, on the southeast portion of the landfill to help increase vacuum to that area during,
during later future monitoring rounds. Methane concentrations were exceeding the regulatory limit again within that eastern portion of the site, and it was identified as a response of it was identified that low vacuum pressure was, was seen in that above ground piping, likely due to liquid accumulation caused by changes in the pipe slope due to temperature fluctuation since the pipe was above ground
and with installing the piping below ground, this will remedy that issue of having, of having those fluctuations. Let's see here. Sorry. So yes, the kind of going back the a hundred foot buffer zone, we will, the work will be occurring at the closest point about 70 feet from the wetland resource area. And additionally, none of the gas wall vaults or four inch diameter pipe installation will occur
within the limits within that a hundred foot buffer zone. And we're only anticipating about one week timeframe for work that would be located within the buffer zone. Additionally, the construction work, we do see it as temporary in nature once it's completed, we'll re our plan is to restore the area to original conditions and then at the moment we have a
solid waste permit is currently under review with mass DEP and no work will be performed until that solid waste permit is issued. When we receive that, a copy can also be provided to con com if you'd like. Speaker 2: I would certainly add that to the conditions of Speaker 4: The determination. Okay. Can we close before they have that permit? Speaker 2: Yes. My guess is that that permit is more of a box checking requirement rather than a,
there's gonna be any real change of the, in the project as a result of that permit. Yeah, Speaker 3: It's a, it's a, a fa it's a notification to Mass E Got it. Essentially. Yeah. Speaker 4: Alright, well thank you. Any questions from the commission? Where is the, the border for the, the wetlands? Is that that, Speaker 2: Yes. So it's the, the purple initial purple line. Essentially the, the wetland falls along the base of the capped landfill hillside.
It extends almost around the entirety of the former landfill now golf course and Indian Brook runs along the north main street side of the property, but the riverfront area does not extend into the work zone. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: What's the depth of lay or the pipe? Speaker 3: The depth of lay? It should be, it'll be about approximately two feet below the cap.
So it's gonna be on top of four inches of, it'll be on top of four inches of stone will be on top of the liner system that's there with the pipe located on top of that for bedding. Speaker 4: And, and how about the, the pipe that's this, the sum that's gonna just stay in place once, once it's replaced, is that right? Speaker 3: Yes. So that above ground piping will be removed off
of the, will be removed off the site. There is already some existing gas piping that is within that, that's near the buffer zone area. It will just be capped and abandoned in place. It'll, and that is still, will be located within that final cover system. Speaker 2: Orange on mine is PVP. But let me double check. Speaker 1: So it is covered or it isn't covered? Speaker 3: I'm, it is covered. It's covered. Speaker 1: Okay. All
will that be hand dug or you using equipments of the slope? Is Speaker 3: There, there's Speaker 1: There, yeah. Speaker 3: They'll be planning more than likely using just a mini excavator since it's quite a small project. Speaker 2: No, Mike, you are corrected as a certified veno pool.
Okay. But I do think even with the a hundred foot Speaker 6: Yeah, it's two, it's like 250 feet away. Yeah, I I think the plant should reflect it though. Yep. So what I was conversing with cla about was just re having the map and your plans reflect the certified vernal pool that's located in the north about 255 feet away from the planned work.
Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 2: Mike, would you be comfortable issuing that and having that addressed on future plan submissions? Yeah. Great. Speaker 6: I'm comfortable with that. I mean, do we, should we have the 200 foot line?
Is it there, Speaker 2: It doesn't extend beyond the a hundred foot buffer zone, so I do think in this particular instance Speaker 6: It's just not needed. Yes. As, as, as for mapping purposes. Exactly. Speaker 2: And, and Indian brook is a mapped perennial stream, so there's also already the existing assumption of riverfront area. Speaker 6: Excellent, thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, any other questions? No.
So with that I should hand a motion to close. Speaker 6: So moved, Speaker 1: Seconded. Second. Okay. So I took Chris, Mike with seconded by Chris. All in favor in the room and Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Alright, so next is determination. Speaker 2: This will be a negative three determination.
The conditions that I recommended in my staff notes were just that erosion controls are installed per the approved plans and that the project comply with any town requirements regarding the cut and capping of the gas infrastructure, which given that they're public works regulations and you guys are contracted by public works, I would imagine is a no brainer. And then adding in the condition of receiving a copy of the solid waste permit once it's issued. Speaker 3: Alright. Speaker 1: Do we, here, I'm so inclined a motion for negative three determination. Speaker 6: Could I just Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 6: I'm assuming you guys use some sort of spill kit for these projects. There'll be a spill cut on site. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 3: It's part of, as part of the contractor. It'll be part of their safety equipment and everything else. Okay. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thanks Mike. Alright, so, so inclined negative three determination. Speaker 6: So moved. Speaker 1: So moved. Seconded. Seconded. All right. Seconded by Jim on all in the room.
Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Alright. Okay. So you have what you came for. Speaker 2: You guys will likely have the determination from me on Monday. Speaker 3: Oh, sounds good. Thank you so much everybody have a great Speaker 1: Night. Alright, thank you very much. Speaker 6: Three is just not the same without Doug. Speaker 1: It is not, no, Doug is here. Doug is here, but he can't, he can't make that motion though.
Speaker 6: Shucks. Speaker 1: Alright, next is on request for determination of applicability 45 Elliot Hill. Speaker 2: We do have the homeowner on the line representing the project. Speaker 1: Okay, let me open this In accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local wetlands bylaw Article 79, the Natick Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability followed, filed by Adam Armstrong for property at 45 Elliot Hill Road Map
67 lot 50. The request is to construct an addition on an existing single family home. So good evening. Good evening. Can everyone hear? Speaker 7: How are you? Just a bit of background. Looks like we're pulling up some designs here. Moved into the home about four years ago, just after Covid. There are wetlands in the back. We are going to operate under the assumption
that while the house in its standing today is not within the a hundred foot buffer zone, the addition that we're doing is eight feet out on the back. We're not changing the foundation at all. It will be on posts that go into the ground. It's an existing yard back there. There's cement patio already out there beyond where we're going to go. So we're operating under the assumption that the addition may go into that a hundred foot buffer zone
and seeking approval to move forward. Therefore, I'm happy to provide any other information you want. Speaker 1: Okay. Do, do we, does the, do the plans reflect that where the encroachment is? Speaker 2: So the, the plans do reflect the addition. So this, the existing house is flat across the back. So this bump out is the proposed addition? Yeah. The plans do not show the buffer zone and wetland line.
It was not delineated, as Adam said. We're operating under the assumption that this work may encroach into the buffer zone and operating under a more cautious approach, which is why I provided the map of the jurisdictional boundaries as part of the filing materials. So folks can see the existing a hundred foot buffer zone comes roughly it's because of Speaker 7: The way it's right there, Speaker 2: Because of the way that the layer is offset. It's not a perfect measurement, but roughly 10 feet off the back of the house.
So with the eight foot addition and, you know, given space for work and access, just operating, again under an abundance of caution, there are no erosion controls proposed. It is a relatively level area as there is, as you can see, there's a bit of a retaining structure before it leads off to the side yard. And given the disturbance is only associated with the post installation, it didn't feel a hundred percent necessary though obviously if the commission would like to see a staked straw waddle
or something like that, I, I am sure Adam would not have a problem with that. Speaker 7: Yeah, like I, just to add again, there's existing yard in the back. Yep. Claire was there a satellite image showed? Speaker 2: Yes. I was just getting that pulled up actually. Speaker 7: Great. Speaker 8: Just Speaker 2: Switch my share. There we go.
So it should be coming up on the screen now so the commission can see there's this existing retaining wall along the back edge of the yard. And then the addition would be built out over this existing patio and lawn area here. Speaker 7: I don't, and just for detail's sake, I don't even think it's going to go beyond the, the furthest edge away that cement patio that's down there. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any questions about the commission? Speaker 6: We're out. We're outside of riverfront. Yes. On Davis Brook,
Speaker 1: Chris, David? Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm fine with it. Speaker 1: Any questions, David? I'm fine, you're fine. All well with that, Jim?
Yeah, I just, I don't know what the motion is. Okay. Yeah. So this is our, our well first is a motion to close. Yes. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 1: Motion to close. Okay. Jim's seconded by Mike. All in favor in the room. The Speaker 2: Downside of being the only two in the room. Speaker 1: Chris? Yes. David? Yes. All right. Determination. Speaker 2: So this would be negative three buffer zone only.
No conditions in its current state. Though if the commission would want to condition erosion controls, we can certainly add that in. But again, given the retaining walls and the, the limited amount of disturbance, I don't necessarily see it having a, a strong benefit. Speaker 5: Agreed. Speaker 1: Alright. Do I air a motion for a negative three? Determination. Speaker 5: So moved. Speaker 1: Okay, seconded. Seconded. Seconded by Jim. All in favor in the room, Chris?
Yes. David? Yes. Alright, Tom Strong, thank you very much. You have what you came for today, Speaker 2: Adam, you'll likely have the paperwork ready to go on Monday from me. Speaker 1: Great, thank you all very much. Have a good evening. Alright, thank you too. Alright, next on the docket request for determination for applicability for 75 Cottage Street read.
So let me open in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act in NEX local bylaw article 79. The NA Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Philip Bork. The property located at 75 Cottage Street map 61 lot seven B. The request is to construct a second story on an existing single family home with no expansion of footprint.
Speaker 2: So Speaker 1: We evening Mr. Bork? Yes, Speaker 2: We do have Phil on the line. This similar to the other project that we just reviewed is, is a filing primarily out of caution. Feel, feel free to jump in if I'm misrepresenting anything. But the addition is gonna be on top of the existing footprint of the house. There will be a slight cantilever of the second story out over the first story.
The only work that is occurring that is sort of semi jurisdictional is that the proposed deck is to be replaced in kind. However, because of the distance of the deck from the wetland resource area, it would actually be considered a minor exempt project open to administrative approval. The a hundred foot buffer zone line runs about halfway through the existing house structure. There's a small wetland on the opposite side of Pond Ridge Road, which is a private way.
Sorry, I thought that I was sharing the plans to everybody online as well. Yeah, there's, there we go. Speaker 1: Alright, Speaker 2: So there's the a hundred foot buffer zone line and here's the proposed project plan Speaker 1: And no riverfront, Speaker 2: No riverfront area. No. Speaker 1: Alright. Any questions? Commission again pre pretty straightforward.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright, well if there are no questions, we'll take a motion to close. Speaker 9: So moved. Speaker 1: Chris seconded. Speaker 9: Second Speaker 1: By Mike. All in favor in the room, Chris? Speaker 9: Yes, Speaker 1: David? Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 1: Alright. Determination? Speaker 2: Yes. This again would be a negative three
determination buffer zone only. Phil, would you be open to throwing a staked straw waddle along the, the wetland side of the project just in case there's any, you know, equipment disturbance of the lawn and area that might result in some erosion? Speaker 9: Of course. Absolutely. Speaker 2: I think that that would be appropriate for this project. Speaker 1: Alright. I have a motion for negative two determination, but the appropriate conditions
is outlined by Claire. Yeah, Jim? Yeah. Motion for seconded. Speaker 9: I'll second that. Speaker 1: Mike. All in favor in the room, Chris? Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 1: David? Yes. Alright, all thank you Mr. Bock. Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Thank you Claire. Speaker 2: Thanks Phil. Speaker 1: All right, next is request for termination for Plugability for five
Countryside Road. Speaker 9: Oh. Speaker 1: Oh. And we have not opened this yet, right Claire? Speaker 2: No, this is a new RDA filing. Speaker 1: Okay. Just in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act in Natick local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NA Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting and a request for determination of applicability filed by Patricia Bon Fasio for a property located at five Countryside Road map
60 lot 77. The request is to remove 10 trees from the site. So good evening is, is Ms. Bon? Yes, Mrs. Bono on the line? Speaker 10: Yes. Yes I am. Speaker 1: Oh, good evening. Speaker 10: Hi. Speaker 1: So could you, oh, will you have someone talking about the project? Speaker 10: No, it's just me. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So can you just give the commission a rundown on on Sure.
What you're asking? Speaker 10: Yeah. So per Claire's recommendation, we had a level one assessment done by a certified arborist. We let her know which ones that we were considering for removal and she assessed them. Some were found in poor condition. I think it was four were in five were in poor condition, four in fair condition and one in good condition. And so we're looking for guidance on, you know,
can we remove these and if we do what is the requirement or, or perhaps we can't, we're just looking for some guidance on this topic. Speaker 2: So Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Provided in the project materials is the level one assessment by Jen Catrell of Radiant Leaf Consulting, who's a a certified arborist. There's also a cover letter that provides a great summary of the trees, but the Exhibit A actually includes photos
of the trees, which I think is a key part in assessing. I also provided a summary for the commission in the project notes. So there are 10 trees proposed for removal and one tree proposed for some substantial pruning that is the 24 inch Eastern red cedar that was determined to be in good condition. They're hoping to prune and remove a secondary leader to improve growth. Trees two through four were all eastern red cedars
found to be in poor condition and are proposed to be removed. Tree five is a white pine in fair condition, but with several co-dominant unions and large dead limbs. The proposal offered two recommendations, which was to prune the tree to improve structure and then cable, the pine, however, there was a secondary arborist opinion that's also
provided in the project materials that noted that even with cabling, the tree will likely require substantial maintenance and could pose a risk to the structure given its location on the lot. And the other tree removal that is being requested, it would leave the tree as a solo tree on the lot. As you can see in the pictures on page four of the
exhibit A, the pine tree directly adjacent to tree five is proposed to removal, which would leave tree five exposed. Tree six is another white pine noted in poor condition. Tree seven is a red oak noted in fair condition, but that it had a moderate lean towards the structure. You can see the photos do do a very good job of showing the nature of the lien and how it does lean towards
and partially over the existing structure. So is proposed for removal. Tree seven is the tree that is closest to our wetland resource area in the 25 foot no disturb zone. All of, I believe all of the other trees proposed to removal are in the outer buffer zone. So outside of our local bylaw, 25 foot and 40 foot no disturb buffers tree eight and nine. Trees eight and nine are red maples noted in fair condition
but are adjacent to the existing above ground propane tank on the site. Tree 10 is also a red maple in good condition, but growing at the base of a white pine that is proposed for removal. Tree 11 is the white pine proposed for removal and both of those trees are adjacent to the existing shed Speaker 10: On that. That's not quite right. The white pine will stay. It's the, the red cedar
and the maple that are Oh yes, thank you. They're, they all share, you know, all their roots are down at the, in the same location. Speaker 2: Yes, I was reading the wrong line on my notes. Speaker 10: Yeah, that's okay. There are a lot of trees. Speaker 2: So tree 11 is a seven inch Eastern red cedar proposed for removal. The white Speaker 10: Pine in poor condition. Yes. Speaker 2: Noted in poor condition. And the white pine is proposed to remain on the site. My recommendation was that the, if the commission is open to approving this level of tree removal that they discuss
with the homeowner, the potential for some shrub replantings on the site. I think specifically within the 25 foot no disturb zone, potentially some understory trees, there is still a fairly robust canopy that will exist on the site if the tree removal work is approved. I'm just pulling up an aerial now.
Yeah, so there's, there's tree canopy along the property lines and then the open wetland at the rear of the site. So there, there are some opportunities for some tree plantings though. I, I think shrub plantings would likely be shrub and understory trees would more likely fit into the existing ecosystem on the site if the commission is open to this level of removal. I think those are all of my additional notes. Speaker 5: Right. Can I ask her, I i, I don't mean to repeat
information but what, what is jurisdictional for us? Speaker 2: So all of the tree removal is jurisdictional. Those, Speaker 5: Those are all, yes, Speaker 2: It is all within the a hundred foot buffer zone, but only tree seven. And I apologize, I did miss the 20 earlier. It's in the 40 foot no build zone. It is not in the 25 foot, no disturb zone. Got it. So certainly I, you know, a fair amount of tree removal the commission should discuss.
Speaker 1: Mike, do you have any thoughts? Speaker 6: No, actually not too many. Speaker 2: I just as a note, Jen Catrell is the arborist who attended a couple of conservation commission meetings as well as met with me outside of a commission meeting to provide comments and feedback on the tree preservation bylaw that the commission has been working on. Not necessarily a conflict of interest,
but just as a a note so that the commission is aware. Speaker 1: Any other comments? Chris? David, Jim, can you Speaker 5: Claire, describe the replace replacement plan idea once more? Speaker 2: So my, my consideration, you know, if Tricia is open to it, if the commission feels it's appropriate, is looking to do essentially some shrub plantings. I think specifically along this edge of tree line on the property where there will still be some remaining canopy, but where we can potentially bolster some of
that understory vegetation. I i, given the level of tree removal, I, you know, five or six shrubs more if the commission feels it's appropriate. I I do think because so many of these trees are noted to be in poor condition, we don't necessarily need to be looking for like a one-to-one replacement if the commission agrees. Sure, Speaker 1: Makes Speaker 5: Sense. Could you clar, could you clarify the position as to why it wouldn't be trees? Speaker 2: So Chris, I, my thinking had been because of the existing canopy
that's gonna remain on the site and the aerials are taken during fall. So it's, it's hard to see where that existing canopy cover will be. I just think some shade tolerant shrub plantings or, or understory trees would, would fit better into the remaining canopy area. Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah, and I, I'm looking at the 2024 ortho photo and it looks pretty less over there. So I, I guess I That makes sense. Speaker 2: Tricia, would you be open to some shrub plantings on the property?
Speaker 10: I am open to it, but I, I am concerned about like, are they gonna survive because it's, you know, it it, it seems to me like that area, that side of the house is kind of a, a drainage area and the, the ground is very uneven. Like you said there's a, a canopy so it's very shady, it's very damp. There is certainly wildlife over there. Like deer will eat anything that they will eat.
I'm not, I'm not opposed to it. And as a matter of fact, those four poor condition, white, red cedars, I would like to plant something there I think just for curb appeal. But I, I need guidance for sure. Speaker 2: So I mean if the commission, so just to provide some context and let me share my screen again. The, the four Cs that or three Cs that were noted in poor no four Cs in
to be removed, three in poor condition, one in good condition. Speaker 10: It's a very, you know, it's a woodsy place. It's very shrubby and you know, wild. And Speaker 2: So the commission could, you know, I don't wanna say optional, but could essentially condition, you know, working with staff to develop an appropriate planning plan. Trisha, I'm more than happy. This is not something that is just for applicants, but any homeowner in wetland jurisdiction is welcome to reach out to me for advice or guidance on landscaping. Things that will actually survive
and thrive in an existing area rather than it just going in and having to be replaced constantly. So I I'm more than happy to help provide some guidance on that if the commission does choose to require some replacement plantings. Speaker 1: I mean it sounds like the homeowners is open to doing something in the area of where the, where two, three
and four being removed. Speaker 2: Yeah. One, yeah, two, three and four. And I think that would be, you know, far enough away from that existing propane tank that we're not potentially doing anything particularly risky. And I, I, I do tr I do have some experience, we've permitted a number of projects on this street specifically at one three and most recently your permit from last fall. So we do have some potential guidance on some plants
that may do well in that area. Okay. Good. Speaker 1: Okay. What's the thoughts of the commission on that plan or to to condition? Do Speaker 5: I'm good with the exploring, you know, replants replanting if it's not too onerous, shame to lose all that though they are poor shame to lose all those trees, get nothing back.
Speaker 1: I agree. Speaker 4: So how, how about the one in the, within the 40 foot buffer there, what, what's your thoughts there? Speaker 2: So because it's in the 40 foot, it's not, there's no, I don't wanna say violation, but there's no conflict with our bylaw because it's not the no disturb zone. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 4: That looks like it should come down anyway. That's Speaker 1: Pretty, yeah. That seven is one that's growing at
an angle up over the house. Right? Yeah, Speaker 10: That's, that's Speaker 2: Brutal. Okay. Put the sun wherever it can. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright. Well I mean is the commission fine with just clear working with the homeowner to develop a plan for that area of 2, 3, 4, you know, kind of keeping it out of the propane tank area and then just leaving tree seven alone,
not the area not replacing Yep. Anything in the Speaker 4: Area. Area, right. Yeah. I 10 and 11 also they can go right because they're gonna Yeah. Hit the shed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 6: Who else? Alright. Any indication on how stumps are going to be treated? Speaker 2: Oh yes. Trisha. Are you guys planning on grinding the stumps or would this just be a, a cut and leaving the stumps in place, Speaker 10: Whatever is better for the environment? I don't mind leaving the stumps.
I think it's a very wooded area and something is gonna overtake those stumps in no time. Speaker 2: Well Tricia, it'll probably be cheaper to not get the stumps ground Speaker 10: Right? Yeah, Speaker 6: Yeah. I would just, the only thing I would just say is, you know, if you're cutting some of those red maples, they're gonna, they're gonna sprout vigorously from the stump. From the stump, which is a benefit for the deer. 'cause the deer will love those red maples sprouts. But if you don't want a tree back,
a grinding mechanism would probably be advisable. I would not suggest grinding number seven Speaker 2: Though. I'm wondering would grinding be appropriate that close to the propane tank? Speaker 6: Well that's, yeah, Speaker 2: That's the question for the folks doing the job. Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean it just depends on how much you want to fool around with stump sprouts 'cause the red maples are gonna, or that's what they do. Speaker 2: We could condition grinding if desired.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Specifically restrict grinding on number Speaker 6: Or some vinegar on the stump after it's Oh, there you go. You know, I mean that's, Speaker 1: There's, I mean will you have to grind two, three and four to replant in that area or would or Speaker 2: I potentially, but I think we would be looking to locate at, 'cause even the grinding, they're still gonna be root mass in the ground. Yeah. So I think we'd be looking to locate plants slightly outside of that area to minimize Speaker 6: Conflict on top of the ground or in the ground.
Speaker 2: That's a good question. Does anyone know? We do have the photos. We can see if that they, Speaker 4: They look to be more in the ground. Speaker 2: Hm. Sorry for the whiplash for folks on zoom. There's a fair amount of leaf duff upper ground there currently. Speaker 10: It's pretty thick. Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 6: Good. Speaker 10: Very uneven ground. Although, although closer to the street it's not as bad
Speaker 2: Does it not shock me necessarily. Speaker 1: And are those between two, three, and four are, are you gonna be taking out that, that woody, woody shrubs or the beginnings of early growth trees there too? Or, Speaker 10: You know, I, I hesitate to start landscaping the woods, you know what I mean? Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 10: Although, you know, I would like to put a tree there because it, it, it's good cover between the homes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And Trish, I could definitely work with you on some species that, that will do well. Speaker 8: Alright, Speaker 1: Any other questions from the commission? Alright, well with that I'll detain a, a motion to close. Speaker 6: So moved. Speaker 1: Okay, Mike, seconded by Jim.
All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Alright. And determination. Speaker 2: This would be a negative three for work in the buffer zone with the condition to allow grinding for all trees. But number seven, stump grinding if needed. And I don't know if we want to condition working with staff for appropriate replanting. I think writing it down doesn't hurt. Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't hurt. Okay.
It doesn't hurt. Just include that. Speaker 2: But no set numbers, just working with staff on appropriate replanting. Speaker 1: Okay. Correct. Yep. Alright. Do I hear Ryan, thank you so Speaker 10: Much. Speaker 6: I'll make a motion for a negative three with Claire's lovely guidance for future vegetation. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mike. Do I hear a second? Speaker 10: Seconded. Speaker 1: Seconded by David. All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. And David? Yes.
Alright, well thank you Trish, appreciate your, your engagement here tonight and your flexibility to work with Claire on, on identifying some additional trees to replant for that. So any questions for, for Claire? Speaker 10: No, but I will be in touch. Speaker 2: Yes, Trish, I'll be in touch with you as well early next week with the documentation and maybe we can work to set up a site visit a little bit later in the spring. Speaker 10: Thanks so much. Speaker 1: Okay, well thank you very much.
Speaker 10: Good night. Speaker 1: All right. Good night. Alright, next on the agenda is the notice of intent for 11 Porter Road. This had been opened at the previous meeting and And closed. And closed and we were just, we're waiting for a DEP file number, which we do have. We do have, yes. And to look at the draft order of conditions. Speaker 2: Exactly. So this was provided in advance. I did not receive any comments back from you guys. So we'll run through with the commission here tonight.
We start off with our standard administrative information, noting owner, applicant representative date of issuance will be filled in once the commission votes to issue approved project summary, installing erosion controls demolish existing house and shed construct new single family house with associated driveway, front walk, front porch, rear deck and stormwater infiltration system manage invasive species and install native plantings. Excuse me. We have four approved documents.
The site plans, the notice of intent and cover letter by Debbie Anderson, the Invasive Species Management Plan by Debbie Anderson and the Stormwater Management Analysis by Tom Rider. Our findings of fact the proposed project permitted under this order of conditions consists of the project summary I just read. The site is located within areas subject to jurisdiction under the Natick Wetlands Protection Bylaw and the State Wetlands Protection Act, including a hundred foot buffer zone, our local
internal buffers as well as bordering vegetated wetland. The project reduces impervious area within the 40 foot no build zone through the removal of the existing shed and provides protection for the existing 16 inch tree on site. The project proposes two years of invasive species management to control noted invasive species on the site and a 1500 square foot mitigation planting area. The project is not required to provide stormwater management under the Wetlands Protection Act, but has provided stormwater infiltration on site to manage the roof runoff in accordance
with the Natick stormwater management and erosion control bylaw and regulations. Since we've run through a few of these before, I'm gonna quickly just scroll through the conditions that are not changing on this project. One thing that was noted at the last meeting that the commission was looking for was the addition of a stockpile area with erosion controls on the plans which were added to the plans noted under the approved documents. The special conditions that have been added
to our standard templates start at number 25, the first of which being that the stormwater management system shall be installed at the same time the footing slash piers are being placed for the proposed deck. This is to ensure that no damage is done to the system during the installation of deck supports. The following inspections of the stormwater management system are required a pre-bed inspection of the pit excavated for the system as well as a pre berry inspection after the system has been installed.
But before it is backfilled condition 27 contact information for the professional chosen to perform. The invasive species management work outlined in the approved invasive Species Management plan shall be provided to the conservation office prior to any onsite management 28. The project shall fully comply with the approved Invasive Species Management plan and at least one full year of invasive species management shall occur prior to the installation of any mitigation plants to 29. All invasive plant material removed from the site shall be
disposed of properly through compost, burning, or desiccation of the material in black garbage bags for a minimum of six weeks in temperatures over 65 degrees for disposal in normal trash condition. 30. The approved professional performing. The Invasive Species management shall provide monitoring reports in accordance with the approved Invasive Species Management plan, which note annual reports condition 31 all installed mitigation plants, which includes 36 strobes shall be installed within the 1500
square foot mitigation planting area. As outlined in the plans, any remaining exposed ground within the 1500 square foot mitigation area shall be seeded with an approved wetland seed mix, which is also noted on the approved plans. Any revisions to the mitigation species noted on the approved site plans shall be approved by the conservation office. Prior to installation conditions after construction, we jumped to condition 35. All installed mitigation plans must survive one year past
installation in order for the site to qualify for a certificate of compliance. Plants may be replaced within the first six months following initial installation, but any replacements between months seven and 12 following planting will add an additional six months to the survival requirement. And then finally, I noted that likely the most appropriate place for markers to be placed in the field is on the upland edge of the mitigation planting area. If I have the plans up, so this site,
the 25 foot line runs right through the middle of the backyard, so it didn't necessarily seem like the most appropriate place for signage to go. So there's already a fence being installed along the upland edge of the buffer zone. So the, the markers could be placed quite easily on that fence garage placard per our standard conditions. And those are all
of the recommended additions to our standard conditions. Speaker 1: Okay. The, I mean, this is, is the owner or the owner's rep here? Speaker 2: Mike? Mike is the owner. Oh, Michael. Speaker 1: Sorry, I hear is, I was just looking at the, is it condition 35? Yes. About the certificate of Speaker 2: The mitigation planting survival. Yeah. Yep.
Speaker 1: So is, is the house intended to be sold? Are you gonna need a certificate of compliance before that one year period? Speaker 2: So the certificate of compliance is not tied to the certificate of occupancy. So because the order of conditions is recorded at the registry of deeds and places a cloud on the title until the COC is recorded against it, the commission will still have teeth even following the sale of the property to a Speaker 1: New owner. So you, you don't need a COC to, to sell the house. Well, if it's open
Speaker 11: I'm gonna need a clean title. Speaker 2: Well, so generally the process that is we've gone through on other projects that have had similar requirements is that there's essentially a guarantee placed in the PNS agreement that these conditions will be complied with and that you are responsible for acquiring the certificate of compliance at the appropriate time. I have not yet seen a buyer who has turned that down. Push back. Yeah, Speaker 1: I mean it's the, it's, it's not a provocative
condition, but I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. This is gonna be an owner occupied house. That that was, Speaker 11: Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. Speaker 2: And I mean, there's a requirement for two years of invasive species management. So regardless, there's likely gonna be work ongoing on the property, potentially following the sale. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Any, any questions about the conditions, Mike? All right. Commission any, any questions, any recommended additions or changes?
Okay. With that, entertain a, a motion to accept and issue the order of conditions as outlined by Claire. Motion to accept. Second. Second. Second, David, thank you all in the room. David? Yes, Chris? Yes. All right.
You have it. Thank you, Speaker 2: Mike. You'll likely have the, I'll try to get it out tomorrow, but it'll, I'll get the demo and building permits released, but this order of conditions might not come out until Monday. Okay. Just so you know, demo can't proceed until the order is recorded, but I should have that to you on Monday at the latest. Thank you very Speaker 11: Much. Speaker 1: Alright, well thank you very much Mike.
Alright, next is notice of intent for 41 Oak Noll Road. And Speaker 2: We do have Caitlin from Hancock Associates on the call here today. Speaker 1: So this is a new filing? No, Speaker 2: So we did, we opened this at our previous hearing. They did not have a DEP file number so we were not able to close, but the applicant did present the project. There were a couple of minor notes from the prior meeting
that were addressed in a response from the applicant team. There was one additional staff comment in my recent staff notes about what the, the basement, which was something that was noted by a commissioner at a prior meeting as well. The addition, not the garage, but the addition footprint, which is in the footprint of the former garage, will have a full basement eight foot basement. So they did provide a section detail for the basement and my conditions also reflect that condition as well.
I did, the commission didn't close, but I did draft conditions given the minor nature of the comments that were being addressed, if the commission feels ready to app run through those conditions. Speaker 1: Okay. So we have not closed the meeting. We Speaker 2: Have not yet closed the meeting exactly. We did not have a file number at the prior meeting. Speaker 1: Did Oh, did we? Oh, did, did we close the other one without a file number?
Speaker 2: No, they did get, they, they reached out directly to DEP and had got a file number. I wanna say it was 30 minutes before the meeting started, so they did have a file number when we closed at our last meeting. Speaker 1: Alright. That being said, any any further questions is the, is the owner or the owner's rep? Speaker 2: Yes, Caitlyn. Caitlyn is on the call from Hancock as Speaker 1: I Kaitlin from the commission. Any, any additional questions about the, about the,
the hearing before we would move to close? No. Okay. Well with that being said then entertain a motion to close. Speaker 8: So moved. Speaker 1: Oh, alright. Take Chris and Mike Seconded.
All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes, David? Yes. All right. Next order conditions. Are you going to read the order conditions? Yes, Speaker 2: I do have it up on the screen as well. So this will be a quick one since we just ran through another one. Hopefully. So we start off with the administrative information. The approved project summary is installing erosion controls,
demoing the existing garage and covered carport, the removal of about 430 square feet of concrete from the existing driveway, construct the new addition garage and covered carport, extend the driveway to the new garage entrance and then loam and seed the disturbed areas. We have two documents being approved as part of this project. The site plans all three sheets and the cover letter prepared by Hancock Associates that notes the project summary findings of fact.
The site is located within areas subject to the jurisdiction under the Natick Wetlands protection bylaw and the State Wetlands Protection Act, including a hundred foot buffer zone, including our local internal buffers and the 200 foot riverfront area. The project greatly minimizes any impacts to the outer riparian zone through the sighting of project features. The proposed addition is being constructed within the footprint of the existing garage and no work is proposed closer to the river. The proposed garage is being built over
what is existing pavement in parent existing driveway and walkway with a small area of lawn also being disturbed. The proposed carport will be constructed over the existing driveway and the driveway will not be expanded except as approved areas where pavement or existing structure have been removed will be loaned and seated to match existing lawn areas with an overall reduction in impervious surface within riverfront area of 56 square feet.
Erosion controls are proposed to protect the resource area from any sedimentation. Again, just gonna scroll through the standard conditions. We start at condition 16. Mike had noted stockpiling locations being noted on the plans. I don't think it's a huge issue to have not received before the filing. So I did just condition that stockpiling of materials or soil shall be limited to outside the 200 foot riverfront area
and shall be appropriately protected with erosion controls for the duration of stockpiling activities. The majority of the front of this lot is outside of the riverfront area, so they should have plenty of space to do any necessary stockpiling. Continuing down the next change to the standard conditions is the removal of one of our standard conditions, which is the marking of the limits on the property, the placement of the buffer zone
and the 100 foot riverfront area line runs again right through the middle of their backyard. Given the fact that this is pulling away from the wetland, I did think that simply the garage placard noting the perpetual conditions would be the most appropriate. So those are the only two changes to our standard special conditions as there's no plantings or stormwater management proposed with this project. Caitlyn, did you guys have any comments on these conditions? Speaker 12: We did not, no. Speaker 1: Okay.
Commission any, any questions, recommendations, or changes? All right. With that then I would entertain a motion to accept and issue the order of condition for 41 Oak Noll Road as outlined by Claire and accept by the applicant.
Motion. Thank you, Jim. Seconded. Second, Chris, thank you in the room. Chris? Yes, David? Yes. Alright. Thank you very much Caitlyn. Appreciate, appreciate the engagement. Speaker 2: Caitlyn, same note as the last applicant. I'll try to have this out to you tomorrow, but most likely Monday. Speaker 1: Sounds good. Thank you guys. You are welcome. Alright. The, the notice of intent
for the lake ate path, the applicant's requested that continue? Speaker 2: Yes. They not only do they still not have a DEP file number, they don't even have a line in the DEP lookup, so I have recommended that they reach out to DEP. My guess is that there was a, a either a missing application or DEP has been a little slow on file numbers recently. They also are working to address the number of engineering comments that I had in my staff notes. So they do anticipate being ready
to present at the two 20 meeting those revised materials. So they are looking just to have a continuation. Speaker 1: Okay. Attain a motion to continue. So moved. Thank you. Mike. Did I seconded, seconded, seconded by Jim. All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. David? Yes. All right. So continue to our February 20th meeting. Yes. Alright. That ends the, all our cases on the docket
Meadow Lane Pond Dam. The, we did expect that the, that some of the homeowners would be present tonight to discuss this. You read some of the notes that Claire provided to us, but they, the, the member was delayed in travel getting back to Boston. So the vast that we pushed this to the next meeting, yes. Speaker 2: The, the applicant or the homeowner did inform me when we
were scheduling this, they were flying this afternoon. They had, their flight was due to land earlier this afternoon, but because of the weather was delayed. And so they did request a continuation earlier today. No formal vote needed. 'cause it's not a public hearing. If the commission is open to pushing that discussion to the next meeting, I think it, it will be most valuable with the resident here. Speaker 1: Sure. That'll be good. All right. Minutes.
We have two, two minutes. November 7th and the 21st. Did anyone other than me take a look at those that usually you, Jeff? It is, but I, I don't wanna be incestuous with the, as the acting chair, so, but I, I looked at them, I didn't see any issues with them. So. Wonderful. I say any motion Speaker 2: To accept you, you can make a motion as chair,
just so you are aware. It is not Speaker 1: Prohibitive. I don't wanna dominate. I I think I should up up the slack to get to, to take that nod. David, was that you proposing to accept the minutes? I hereby propose to accept the minutes. Excellent. Do I have a second? Second, second, Chris. Thank you. All in favor in the room, Chris, David? Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. I'm Speaker 2: Hoping to have us fully caught up in 20, 24
minutes at the next meeting. Wow. Speaker 1: Yeah. And then general business. Speaker 2: Oh, Doug is Speaker 1: Asking, oh yes, Doug, sure. Speaker 13: If you can't trust the chairman, Speaker 1: Who can't trust handing out little red books earlier in the meeting. Well, thank you for that book of confidence, Doug. All right. Claire has some general updates for us. Yes.
Speaker 2: Pick pond, connector, bridge update. Matt, the designer and myself met in between our last meeting and this meeting to discuss the update that I provided at the last meeting about the costs being significantly higher than we anticipated. We did get some feedback from not only the grant program administrator, I also reached out to my colleagues in Franklin and Marlborough where the floating boardwalks have been installed.
The Franklin boardwalk has been installed since 2014. The Lake Williams boardwalk in Marlborough was, I believe, open to the public in 2022 or 2023 talking about, you know, what kinds of maintenance issues they've had, you know, issues with freezing, issues with all sorts of things. And honestly, a lot of the feedback was really great. Franklin has had no issues with maintenance beyond delinquent youths tying fishing line as a tripping hazard,
which I think is not necessarily something that we are gonna be able to design around. Most of the issues with the floating system in Marlborough were related to just the length of the structure in Marlborough. Ours is a significantly shorter span than what we see in Marlborough. So the designer and I are both confident that the issues that they're facing there, which are primarily around static, the surface of the boardwalk apparently generates quite a bit of static.
So when people touch the metal handrails, they are getting shocked. Speaker 1: And is the, is the metal in contact with the water to, to ground? Speaker 2: No, that's the problem. So the, the railings are attached to the surface of the floating boardwalk, but there's no contact but could easily be grounded on either end of the boardwalk. The other issue that they've had is because of the length, the railings are not quite long enough. So when the floating sections shift,
the railings come apart at the intersections. But again, that's because of the amount of flex that that system is seeing due to the length. Kyle Zi and I also went to the manufacturer of the floating boardwalks. They generally have two set colors that they do, but they offer additional colors. We did reach out to them about getting a color that would be more neutral in the natural environment. Gray is their standard color,
but brown is also an option that we would likely be pursuing. And finally, the manufacturer also, the only other issue that we were noting is that their handrails are generally quite open. So it's, it's the handrail and then it's just open air. But we've worked with them to hopefully have cables being installed between the railing and the base of the platform to avoid any issues with folks potentially falling in the water. Kyle is getting an updated quote with those items
addressed for the construction of the floating boardwalk, but based on the recommendations from the grant program administrator to work with funding that we have available to us in hand, rather than trying to rely on additional grant funding that we may not get. The Mass Trail is a very competitive grant program. It's not guar a guarantee of funding pending the final construction quote update from the
floating boardwalk manufacturer. It does look like that is the system that we will be moving forward with. We don't need to deal with chapter 91 because Pickle Pond is not a listed great pond. And based on Marlboro's feedback in terms of DEP permitting, they did not hit too many snags with the floating boardwalk system. Neither did Franklin, but Franklin was also a decade ago. The regs and the interpretation of them were a bit different. What, Speaker 1: What would the,
because of the nature of the, those floating pieces Yeah. Would the, would the beavers be inclined to start damming up around them or? So Speaker 2: I think given the nature of this area and how level it is, if the beavers were going to dam here, they probably would've done so already. It is something that we'll have to keep an eye out for. But if we do see that happening, I think this would be an obvious location for, you know, a potential beaver deceiver to help mitigate any of those issues.
We do, as far as I can tell, the Beaver Lodge at Pick pond is still active. There's, you know, a freshly chewed wood on top of the lodge, so they're definitely still in the area. They have not vacated. So I, I have a feeling that if they were gonna dam that location, they would've probably done so already. Speaker 1: What's the depth over there? Is Speaker 2: It in that location? Kyle did do, when they were out doing the soil boardings, they also took some water depths. It's roughly four feet in the open water section there.
Speaker 1: I I assume it's frozen. Well, it was frozen. Speaker 2: It is very frozen at the moment. Yes. So Speaker 1: In, in the, in these floating, Speaker 2: They deal fine with ice. Both the Marlborough and the Franklin remain in water year round. Speaker 1: Yeah. And what's the cost for that? Speaker 2: The cost for the construction of the floating boardwalk system? Again pending the updated construction quote would be right around, I'm actually just gonna pull up the number so
that way I don't misstate anything. Roughly $390,000 for Speaker 1: The floating. Yes. Speaker 14: Claire, do you have a picture handy? Like a aerial view down picture?
Speaker 2: Oh, actually yes. I can provide a quick aerial view of the Lake Williams installation actually, Speaker 14: But of ours, our, our pickle pond. Speaker 2: Oh, do you just want the existing aerial of pickle pond? Speaker 14: Yeah. The reason I'm asking, I'm just curious about whether it concentrates the flow and would encourage a beaver to build a dam if there's now a top to the dam there. I don't know. Just to look at it. Speaker 2: Yeah, so the area is very level, so the,
there isn't necessarily that existing sort of flowing water that would trigger the beaver dam. Yeah. So this is the area where the bridge would be constructed. You? No. Oh, I'm not sharing my screen. Thank you. Sorry David. Speaker 14: It's Speaker 2: All right. I was looking at it. Here's the existing area of the area. So this is where, and because the floating boardwalk, it does just sit on the surface of the water.
I think the problem we've seen with bridges in the past, specifically the Perry Bridge at Town Forest, is that it was slightly raised up from the water. So essentially the beavers had an opportunity to obstruct the flow. This bridge, this boardwalk structure would not obstruct flow because there are no piers or supports. The water just flows under the floating sections. Speaker 1: It's fixed, it, it'll be fixed to keep it from kinda walking. It'll Speaker 2: Be fixed at each bank because there will be, there'll also be a set of box stairs constructed at each bank to create a more,
a more accessible access to the boardwalk structure. The topography changes in the area do prohibit full a DA accessibility, so we are operating as close as possible to the fag guidelines for accessibility in terms of the box stair and trail renovations. Speaker 1: And where's across the pond? Speaker 2: Right here. So the, I'll zoom out a little further. So this is the pond. This is the Oakdale neighborhood. The Weathersfield neighborhood is right over here.
So this is where the boat launch and sort of beach area are. This is the Bradford Road Trailhead where the scout bridges were constructed and this is where the new boardwalk would be constructed. Speaker 1: Oh, but just between those two points? Yes. Not, not crossing, Speaker 2: No, not crossing the, the open wetland. It really is, it's about a 250 foot span to connect these two existing banks. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: And again, that will create a, a level
of regional connectivity because the constituent aqueduct trail on the northern side of pick pond does connect all the way to Newton. Speaker 1: Wow. Do you have the Lake Williams one there too? Oh yeah. Yeah. When you do that, you have to cross over, like on over Brook, right. And cross route nine. Speaker 2: Yes. You do have to cross route nine and grab Speaker 6: Coffee Speaker 2: At Duncan. Speaker 1: No, I pick up some at CVS and then, yeah, Speaker 2: And then it, some sections
of the Aqueduct Trail in Wellesley are sidewalk connections through, through existing neighborhoods. And it does unfortunately dead end then at Quin Road in Newton because the MWRA no longer owned the aqueduct parcel as it runs through those residential neighborhoods. So there's been a, a long standing, it's not a battle, but a moderate effort to try to reestablish a trail there. But private property easements are a large undertaking. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Oh, and I am just pulling up the Lake Williams.
Speaker 6: Well, I have walked on the Del Cartt floating bridge in Franklin numerous times. It's quite nice. Speaker 1: Stable and Speaker 6: Yeah, when, even when I've had crowd, like I've had large kind of crowds on it for walks and so forth, and it's even with, you know, 20, 30 kids running and adults, it's, it's still very, still very stable.
Speaker 2: So here's the, the ortho photos are not quite updated to show the, but here's the screenshot from the Marlborough from a Trails website. That's long. Yeah. So it, it, it was a, a $2 million project to construct their, their floating boardwalk. Speaker 6: That's a little bit of an upgrade from the Franklin one. Yes. Speaker 2: I think given a decade of, yeah, a decade manufacturing development. But similar to our situation,
Marlboro had originally been proposing a stick build boardwalk structure, also operating under grant funding. Quotes came back, I believe Priscilla said that it was a $6.9 million to do the stick build boardwalk. And so obviously a significant cost savings coming from the, the floating boardwalk structure. And they are still actively working with the manufacturer to address some of those issues that I noted that they're having. Speaker 1: And it's, it's all composite material
for the deck and Yep. So it should last a long time. Speaker 2: Fingers crossed. And that is, I mean, the Franklin Boardwalk has had no maintenance requirements in the decade that it's been installed beyond some railing repairs. 'cause they have rope railings at the Franklin Boardwalk Speaker 14: Clear as the side railing in this picture to code today. Speaker 2: So the railings in this photo, I do believe, I believe that this boardwalk structure is considered a DA accessible
as far as I'm aware. If not, it's very close to a DA accessible. The rounded handrails are the primary component of a DA accessibility. I don't know if the blocks and the brakes in the rounded handrail remove it slightly from full a DA accessibility, but I, at least as far as I've heard from Priscilla, they have had folks with strollers out on the boardwalk. But, Speaker 14: But separate from a DA, there's no problem with having that space between the rails.
Speaker 2: Oh yes. Speaker 14: Okay, good. Speaker 2: So that, that is the update. We're, like I said, we're waiting on that final construction quote and then hoping to have the designer before the commission to do a full presentation in advance of a formal notice of intent filing. Once we get that final construction quote, we'll come to the commission for our notice of intent permitting and hopefully aim to bid the project out by the end of March
for construction this summer. Speaker 6: Exciting times. Yeah, it is exciting. Cycl Speaker 2: Ponds. Fingers crossed. The next item on general business discussions folks will have seen in the general business discussion folder of the drive, the town is working on updating our, excuse me, floodplain overlay, district bylaw. This is a zoning regulation, technically Oh yes.
But obviously works in in close coordination with the commission's jurisdiction. So Natick has been waiting for, with the most of the rest of Middlesex County a few years now on our updated FEMA maps. FEMA does update the flood maps on a, on a regular basis to address changing conditions, changing climates. We were supposed to receive our updated maps January of last year. We were pushed off a year.
We have received our updated maps, which is very exciting. So this bylaw update is being proposed not only to update the map date, the firm panel dates, but also to bring our bylaw into compliance with the updated state model bylaw. The state did an initial update of the model bylaw in 2020 with some additional minor edits in the last couple of years. This draft that is in front of you all today has been reviewed by Eric Carlson,
who's the state, essentially the state staff who is managing these floodplain bylaw updates. There are no additional comments from him on the draft to date, though. I'll be following up with him in advance of this. Going before the planning board. We are looking for the planning board to sponsor this article at Springtown meeting because it is a zoning bylaw,
the select board officially referred it to the planning board for sponsoring at their meeting last week. And so the planning board will be discussing that at their meeting next week to determine who will be sponsoring the article. If the planning board for some reason chooses to not sponsor it, I will likely be coming to the commission to sponsor the article at town meeting. Again, this is a required process for the town to go through in order for us to be in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program
and the state requirements for this bylaw. I will read through it briefly. I am not gonna read through it word for word, but if folks do have edits or questions, please feel free to either jump in or follow up with me after the fact. So starting at the beginning, we just have the purpose. This is straight out of the model bylaw, this section two.
The first section is the existing language from our floodplain overlay. Bylaw to two is also in our existing bylaw. The change in this section is the updated effective firm panel firm panels and FIS report dates. Section three is just about the conditions where the, the maps don't match.
Community floodplain administrator, the, the town has decided to note that the town administrator will be the floodplain administrator. This is fairly common in the state and generally town administrator, town manager will delegate to the building commissioner, the conservation agent or another appropriate staff to actually, I've pretty much been performing the duties of floodplain administrator since I started, but if it's getting added to my title, there's other changes. No, I'm joking. Section four permitting.
This language again, is coming straight from the state model bylaw, essentially noting that permits are required for proposed development within the flood plain. There are a number of applicable codes and regulations that would apply, including our wetlands regulations as well as the state building code. And there are some DEP, title V regulations that apply as well.
Number three is just noting that the, the town's permit review process includes the requirement. So prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant needs to have all other applicable permits in hand, which is generally standard anyway. Floodway encroachment, essentially sections five through 11 are all straight outta the state model bylaw. No changes to that language for the most part, except
for the removal of the V flood zones, which are the coastal flood zones, which obviously do not apply to Natick, at least for now. Section 12. This language is straight from the model bylaw, but there are technically two variations of this language. Natick does not have any authority from the State Building Appeals Board to issue variances. So this language just notes that any variances to these regulations would have to come from the State
Building Appeals Board variances to local zoning bylaws. This language is straight from the model bylaw, but the likelihood that variances are issued under these regulations is almost negligible. Given the Wetlands Protection Act requirements of development in flood zone, there's almost never a need to grant a variance to these regulations.
Sections 14 is straight from the model bylaw. Section 15. The town had flexibility in the language that we noted in this section. The state leaves the enforcement of these regulations up to the individual communities with the recommendation that we operate under existing enforcement structures and processes. In discussions with Dave Gini, the Building Commissioner and Amanda Loomis, community Economic Development Director,
it made the most sense for the Natick Conservation Commission enforcement procedures to apply in this instance. Given that if we are enforcing under the zoning regulations, there's likely also a violation that has occurred under the Wetlands Protection Act. 16 and 17 are straight from the model bylaw. And then on the following page are the required definitions that we need to have as a part of this. I will just quickly scroll down to where there's some yellow highlighting at
towards the end of the document. Anywhere where there's a yellow highlighted floodplain for floodplain management purposes, those are definitions that already exist under our zoning bylaws. But the language for the floodplain regulations are slightly different than our existing definitions. So there will be some duplicate definitions in the final zoning bylaw. The ones for floodplain management will specifically note for floodplain management purposes.
And so I just wanted to keep the commission in the loop about this update to the bylaw, given its applicability to our regulations. Again, this is aiming for SPRINGTOWN meeting, but is not in a final state yet. If there's additional comments from applicable boards, commissions, and staff, this bylaw was reviewed by the engineering division, Dave Sini, myself and Amanda Loomis. Following its drafting,
some comments from the engineering division were incorporated very minor language requests, but the commission will be seeing this at springtown meeting for an update. Speaker 15: Great work. Okay. Speaker 2: Thankfully with the state model bylaw, it was a very easy lift compared to some other updates. And the last general business discussion is just other updates. And the only other update I have is actually about an email
that would've gone around to the commission earlier this evening about the MACC annual environmental conference. January really got away from me, but the conference is on Saturday, March 1st at Holy Cross in Worcester. The conference runs from 8:00 AM to roughly 4:30 PM is a really great program. Would highly, highly recommend. The email that I sent out includes, you know,
a quick glance at what the workshops are, as well as the detailed workshop descriptions in the links. I am teaching a fundamentals unit, unit 1 0 5, how to write an effective order of conditions. If folks would like to attend, please try to let me know by the end of next week at the latest, just so that way we can get folks registered and get payment issued to MACC prior to the conference date. The town of course, will cover the cost of registration if you are interested in attending.
It is a bit of a hike out to Holy Cross, but I will say that the lunch food provided is a little bit better than most conferences because it's the Holy Cross cafeteria, which Speaker 6: If you can make it down and back from it, is that hill the, Speaker 2: There is a big hill between though they have shuttles now. That's true. They do have shuttles now. I Speaker 6: Was carried up the hill last conference, Speaker 2: So yes. If folks would like to register, please just shoot me an email before the end of next week so I can get you registered.
Please do let me know when you submit what courses you would like to register for, or if you'd like to register for the two fundamentals that are being offered at the conference, please let me know that as well. And that's all I have. Speaker 5: Okay. A slew of speakers. Speaker 2: What was that, Chris? Speaker 5: It's a slew of speakers.
Yeah, the bio, I was looking at the bio, it's just crazy. Speaker 2: MACC usually does a really great job of finding folks who are very well, well educated in the, the topics that they're presenting on. I know Jim attended the, the fall conference and there were some great presentations there as well. And just a, a secondary push. I know some folks attended last week's, I think last week's last week's session, but the, I will continue to send out reminders about Alicia Galen's deep dive series as they come.
There is a little bit of a break in some of the ones that are maybe applicable to our community because Alicia will be diving into the coastal regulations, I believe, at the next couple of sessions. Obviously you guys are not restricted from attending those sessions. They just aren't necessarily as applicable to our Speaker 5: I'll I'm, I'm attending those. There you go, Chris. That's right up my alley. So yeah, Speaker 2: It will definitely still be very interesting information, especially given the, I I don't think Alicia will be going into too much detail, but I do think she'll be touching on the newly coming out
or hopefully newly coming out land subject to coastal storm flowage regulations. Speaker 1: And when is that next one? Was it, is it later in the month or is it, Speaker 2: So I think, oh yeah, Speaker 1: It's the 24th. Speaker 2: 24th, yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. February. Speaker 2: And I will, I'll, I'll, I'll continue to send out reminders day of, for those sessions for folks. Speaker 5: 24th is the next one. Yes. For the inland deep dive.
I mean, I, that first one I felt was a little elementary, but I know it was meant to be that way. Yes. Speaker 2: I think Alicia's really trying to go for all levels of commissioner. Yeah. Yeah. I, I've noticed in some of the other MACC courses that I teach, the state is, seems to be seeing a slew of new commissioners in communities. And I taught 1 0 2 at the end of January, unit 1 0 2 and 90% of the folks on the call had been a commissioner
for less than six months. So we're definitely, I think, seeing a big turnover in a lot of commissions in, in some of the communities in the state. Speaker 1: They heard Doug was rep was retiring, so that opened Speaker 2: The flood gate. They all wanted to jump on the bandwagon, Speaker 5: The flood gate, no pun intended. Speaker 1: Alright, well thank you. Anything else? Speaker 2: That was it on my end. There will be, we'll be getting our annual update from the Community Organic farm at our next meeting, as well as
some more discussion on the tree protection bylaw. Speaker 5: Great. Speaker 2: Still no word from MAPC yet, but hopefully. Oh really? Yeah. Next couple of weeks. Speaker 1: Alright, now next meeting's on the 20th. Yes. Speaker 2: February 20th. Oh, and I, I apologize. I was, did say that I would say this before we adjourned to the meeting meeting at the last one. Currently, the state legislation allowance for hybrid meetings ends on March 31st of this year.
So currently, as the legislation stands, our meetings will need to move to all commissioners being present in person if possible. A, a quorum of in-person commissioners is gonna be required and, and votes cannot be done in a hybrid format past March 31st. I say that with the caveat that every other time that we've come up on this deadline, the state has extended it.
I know there has been some talk about trying to make it a permanent allowance, but I'll be sure to keep the commission updated as I hear more. But do plan on our that first April meeting, being fully in person Speaker 6: And we're gonna have to start signing these order of conditions, huh? Yeah, Speaker 2: When we have everybody in person, I'll be printing out those sheets. Speaker 5: Boy, well they're doing it for federal offices, right? So Speaker 6: That's right. That's right. Get back to the office. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 5: Darn right. Zoom for slackers.
Speaker 2: Yes. Residents can still participate via Zoom. It's just the commission and the quorum for voting needs Speaker 5: To Oh, so no, I don't know about that. I always felt like that was putting skin in the game, you know, making, making people in front of 'em have to be in person. Speaker 2: It would be nice if we could require that. And I think some other boards and committees do. Zoning board of appeals has been back to fully in person with no virtual meetings since early 2023.
But I do think that, especially with the limited number of consultants that tend to operate in this world, it does make things a little easier for some consulting firms who have multiple meetings in one night that they're trying to get to. Yeah, Speaker 1: No, that's understood. Speaker 5: That's when you send your junior staff. Speaker 1: There Speaker 2: You go. Speaker 1: But you bill for the senior staff, right? Speaker 5: Of course. Yeah. 'cause they, you know, they have to, you have to coach the junior guy person, Speaker 1: Coach.
Speaker 5: I've been that junior person Speaker 1: Right with that on detaining motion to adjourn. Speaker 6: So Speaker 1: Moved. So moved, so moved. Seconded there. Speaker 2: I'll take Chris as the second. Speaker 1: All in favor. Thank you. See you guys. Speaker 2: Good night everyone. Speaker 1: Goodnight. Thank you. Night.