Speaker 1: All right folks. Welcome. This is the NA Conservation Commission. Today is June 12th. This is our first meeting in June. We have one more on June 26th before we go into our summer schedule. Our meeting in July, I think it's July 17, I think is the, Speaker 2: So we, we've got July 20, or June 26th and then, yes, July 17th. Speaker 1: July 17. Alright, so let's go ahead and open the, the public part of the meeting here. First item of the agenda is a certificate of compliance for 1 54 Mill Street. Do we have any representatives
of 1 54 Mill Street on the call here, Speaker 2: Wagner did say that he was gonna be attending a person. I had not heard from him today. I'm also happy to give this, it was a pretty cut and dry project. I'm happy to give it commission Speaker 1: It. It is cut and dried. Why don't you go ahead Claire. Speaker 2: Oh, of course. So, if folks recall this was an addition onto an existing single family home, a garage and second floor addition. The applicant did reach out about halfway through construction about adding a deck off of the rear of the house as well. That did not bring the project any closer to the wetland resource area. So Matt did give me the authority
to administratively approve that minor plan change. We did receive the as-built plan and the letter of certification. The one thing that is noted in the letter of certification is that the erosion controls were placed slightly closer to the wetland, then shown on the approved plans. But the area has been fully stabilized and re-vegetated and it was, it was grass to begin with when they disturbed it. So I do, the markers have been installed in the field. The required mitigation plantings have been installed and the garage placard is also up on site. So I do believe that they are all set
for a certificate of compliance. Speaker 1: Great. And we have a perfectly upside down letter from the, yes, Speaker 2: I tried to rotate them, but every time I re-uploaded it into Google Drive it was upside down again. So I think that is a me versus Adobe issue. Speaker 1: All good. So we got a letter from Russ Hart from Marquardt Associates. In my opinion, the site activities outlined in the order conditions were filed 2 3 3 dash 9 0 7 have been completed in substantial conformance of the order conditions issued for the site development under the file. Nu number mentioned above with the following exceptions, the erosion control barriers. As you noted Claire, the proposed fill material at the rear
of the dwelling was not installed. And elevations reflect the existing grade condition prior to construction activities and project materials and stockpiles replaced during construction approximately 25 feet more westerly than proposed on the site plans. However, all materials have been removed from the site and all disturb areas have been stabilized with loam seed or sod post-construction. Existing conditions are shown on the plans attached to this memo. So the site's all buttoned up. Site inspection by the agent shows that it's all ready to go. Speaker 2: Yeah, grass has fully grown in, I think they got a little lucky with all the rain that we've had the last couple of weeks when they they, after they put the seed Speaker 1: Down. Great. Any questions for, for Claire on this project?
Speaker 3: Did they put in a few trees too? Like Speaker 2: Yeah, they had, I believe it was five maple trees that were going in. I think it was a mix of sugar and red maples that went in Speaker 4: Back. You had probably good and everything. Speaker 2: Yeah, they looked to be in good health when I did my inspection. All right, Speaker 3: Because this just seemed like a pretty quick CSC, right? We, Speaker 2: Yeah, it's 'cause it was just in addition it wasn't the full demo. And actually here's Wagner walking in right now. Okay. Wagner, we're almost done. Speaker 1: Yeah, just, just, just talking about the project. Seems like it's all buttoned up. Yes. Kind of ready to go. Any, any problems during the process for you?
Any, was it straightforward project? Speaker 4: Pretty straightforward. Like Speaker 1: As much as possible. Speaker 4: As much as possible? Yeah. Speaker 1: Cool. Alright. Speaker 4: First time walking in town with the, all this new ball. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: Very good lesson line and it's Speaker 1: Good. Cool. Alright. Any questions for Claire or for the applicant on this hearing on someone Make a motion to issue the certificate of compliance for 1 54 Mill Street. So moved. Thank you Michael. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? All in favor in the room Chris? Yes. Alright. That's it.
You're done. Thank you. Take care. Alright, next item on the agenda is major stormwater permit certificate of compliance for 31 Windermere Lane, formerly 74 Everett Speaker 2: Tomorrow. Yep. Speaker 1: Claire? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Do we have any, any representatives of, we have Ben on the call. I don't, Speaker 2: This was not Ben. I know it's Windermere Lane. This was a Nick Arthur project. Oh right, of course. Because the driveway was shifted onto what is now Windermere Lane and was enveloped into that addressing. I had been emailing with Nick Arthur and got him the agenda. Also not here. This was, the work was completed on this project in 2023.
But they did have a planting survival requirement if folks will recall. Yep. The primary stormwater management system on this site was a large rain garden. The red garden is grown in really nicely. All of the shrubs and tree plantings survived and the system appears to be functioning very well. I've driven by that site a number of times on my way to windy low in large rain events to do site checks and have never seen any issues. I have seen ponding water in the rain garden, but it appears to infiltrate quite well. Great. Following the rain event. So I do believe that they are also ready
for their storm water certificate of compliance. Speaker 1: Great. And we've got a letter from Ang Wang, engineer from Creative Land Water Engineering. The entire site is created to match the design plan significantly and fully stabilized with sod and landscaping with mulch. Rain garden is installed and planted as proposed. The gray birch is replaced with a red maple due to the owner being allergic to birch. I guess that's a thing. Yes, Speaker 2: It's, it's actually a very common and the birch pollen allergy can also result in other allergies. Oh goodness. Which I find very interesting. It's something I've been learning a little
bit more about recently. Speaker 1: I think, we'll I guess we'll cut 'em some slack then. There were no continuous water impoundments was in no continuous, no continuous water impoundment was observed in the rain garden, which indicates proper functioning of the infiltration. Trench in the bottom planting will need to be monitored. It's good front walkway from window mirror lane was eliminated to have resulting in less impervious area. The front on onsite catch basin is incorporated into the updated ONM plan to birch cheese replaced with red maples. The backyard retaining wall is located about 15 feet from the property line versus 25 feet as designed,
which does not change the total. Speaker 2: It also did not Oh, change the overall site gradating. 'cause we, it already required that berm along the property line. Yes. Oh was that Speaker 5: That was a long time. Yeah, Speaker 1: That was a while ago. Okay, so it seems like the site's all buttoned up. Things are functioning as needed. Any questions on this? This project Speaker 2: And we have had David join us online. Speaker 5: The good thing pretty birch was traded out 'cause I, you know, those don't live very long. Just Speaker 6: Say it again. We heard it. Speaker 5: The gray birch doesn't live very long, so I'm glad they changed it out. Oh, Speaker 1: Excellent. Excellent. Okay. Thanks. Alright, so hearing no questions, would someone make a motion?
Speaker 6: Actually, actually can I ask one question? Of course. Yeah, Speaker 2: Please. Chris, Speaker 6: Have we heard anything from the neighbor? I, I think that was he he was one of the most concerned Speaker 1: On the left side. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 2: I I have had no complaints from the neighbor in including some of those large repeat rainstorms that we've had in the last couple of years. And in speaking with Mark Flynn, who's the, the owner in residence of that house now, he has quite an amicable relationship with the neighbor. So it's doesn't there's been any, any issues. Speaker 1: Well that means means the stormwater system is working as advertised. Right.
Speaker 2: That's great. That's all we can hope for. Speaker 1: Alright, sounds good. So would someone make a motion to issue the stormwater permit certificate of compliance for 31 wind mirror? Speaker 6: So, so moved. Speaker 1: I'll take Chris's motion. Mike, I'll take that as a second from you if that's all right. Yes, please. Any further discussion on this. Alright, those in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. And David, Speaker 6: I'll abstain I missed much of the discussion. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks David. Great. Alright, so that's all set to go. Excellent. Next item on the agenda, request for determination of app of applicability for Keolis for the commuter rail line. So this is just want to talk through this a little bit
before I, and we do actually, I'll, I'll formally open this and then we'll talk it through a little bit. So in accordance to the Wetlands Protection Act in Nats local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Matt Donovan Benish representing QLS commuter services in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts Bay Transportation authority for MBTA, Framingham Worcester commuter rail line Right of way. The proposal is for vegetation management as part of a vegetation management plan. The vegetation management part of this is, is essentially an exempt activity. What is being asked for us here is, there's a couple
of kind of questions. One is a determination that it, that it is in fact an exempt activity, which is kind of a no brainer 'cause it is. The other one is a determination about whether the, the delineations that they provided on the maps on the charts are still accurate once we go through this. You know, just so keep that in mind as we have the discussion here. Do we have representatives from Keolis here on the call? Speaker 2: We've got Matt Donovan, who's the representative of benish. Speaker 1: Sounds good. Matt, would you just introduce yourself for the minutes and then just go ahead and just talk us through the, the, the project?
Speaker 7: Yeah, so this is RDA. We bring to your commission every five years to confirm the accuracy of the maps used for vegetation management along the commuter rail right of way. We do need to get these determinations as required in order to submit the vegetation management plan to MDAR for approval. The vegetation management plan is designed to manage and control vegetation necessary to keep the railroad and operation safe. And there are sense there are regulations in place to keep the sensitive areas protected and these can be found in CMR 11.04 as well
as our vegetation management plan. The masks we provide you with are mainly made for the chemical portion of the plan, but often dictate where mechanical methods will be used due to chemical restrictions each year there are two main chemical applications. One in the May of June timeframe that targets the road bed and one in the August september timeframe that targets the brush in the areas adjacent to the road bed. The brush program will never be taking place in any of, in your areas of jurisdiction that are marked with blue and yellow on the maps. It'll only be, those areas will only be receiving the Roadbed program. So that's what I'll focus on. The road bed application is performed
by a spray truck driving directly on the track and it has nozzles on the backside about 18 inches of the ground, spraying the solution directly down. It has, it applies the solution up to 12 feet from the center line of the track. There's a certified applicator AC company that's always accompanied by an environmental monitor, familiar with the site conditions and equipped with these maps as necessary and assisting the operator if necessary. The applicator has the ability to turn off the nozzles for the spray or in many cases just the side nozzles
where it's applying the solution to the shoulder where it may be an ENC close to the sensitive area of a buffer zone. The yellow zones will never receive any treatment to the shoulders just on the railroad ties. The track itself, sometimes they'll even need to shut that off and that's done at the discretion of, of the environmental monitor and applicator to keep it within conformance with the regulations. The blue zones will typically receive the full road bed treatment. The light blue zones will receive that once every year.
And the dark blue zones, which is more of like a DEP or water supply zone, will receive that roadbed treatment every other year. So we are seeking a positive two, a determination to confirm the maps as well as a negative determination for the work included in the vegetation management plan. I'm happy to answer any questions. I can open the floor up to the commission if there are any, Speaker 2: I can walk us through the maps quickly if that's helpful. Speaker 1: Yeah, great. Super. Just, just as a, a quick vo, your quick, quick overarching question. Is there any substantive change to the zones,
to the procedure, the processes, the technologies, the chemicals that are being proposed since the previous approval of this plan or since we spoke last about it? Speaker 7: No, so we spoke last in 2020. Since then, nothing with the plan, the plan that's gonna be submitted, this go around the five year plan is almost identical. Just dates and things like that. The, there the chemicals themselves that we will always be taking the chemicals from the, the
rights of way, sensitive area materialist, which is provided by master ar. They do update that occasionally. I don't know when the last time they updated it, but that's the only way we would be switching chemicals if, if something's added or taken away from that list. We do include the, the actual mixture each year in the yearly operational plan that we send to your commission. The maps we did go out and field verify that the the markings are still in place and, and replace them accordingly in, in accordance with the, the regulations in CMR 11, there were
no ch no major changes to those whatsoever. We did change the, the scale of them and the, the layers that are used. Yeah. Does that answer your question? Speaker 1: Yeah, it does. When you say there was no change to the markings, do you mean the markings that indicate where you spray, where you don't spray, kind of restricted zones, things like that? Right. Okay. Speaker 7: Exactly. So the blue and yellow marks, the tracks are, are marked themselves directly on the tracks with, with placards directly on the ties of the tracks screwed in. They, they correspond to the blue
and yellow zones that you see here on the, on the right of way. Speaker 2: Okay. So Matt, just to clarify, there was no field verification of the wetland boundaries that are shown on these maps? Speaker 7: The marking. Yeah, well you would, you would be looking for the wetland boundaries that you see on these maps and, and set the markings back accordingly to stay within the, in conformance with the setbacks Speaker 8: Clear the wetland boundaries, boundaries of the green lines. Speaker 2: Yes, correct. David. Speaker 1: Alright, so, okay, fair. We'll come back to that, that in a second. So Claire, if you would just walk us through the maps
and just voiceover the zones and just, you know, refer it back to, you know, you know, landmarks or Yeah, of course. Locating features that, that we would recognize Speaker 2: Familiar to folks. So we're starting at the Wellesley Townline obviously in East Natick, the stretch all the way along East Central Street receives the once a year road bed application as we approach Natick Center and the Marion Street crossing of the tracks roughly right in the area of sort of the fresh cafe and those businesses along East Central.
We switched to the, the yellow markings, which is Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, that's the every other year application or is that the sensitive No application? Speaker 7: That's the no application to the shoulders. They, they may still keep the directly down onto the ties at their Speaker 2: Discretion. Yeah. Speaker 7: If that, if they can keep it within that buffer. Speaker 2: Yep. So the, the yellow stretch moving into Natick Center is the, the no shoulder application. We switch back to the light blue once a year treatment Speaker 1: For the full width. For Speaker 2: The full width right up until sort of the 27 crossing
where the rail trail picks up and there's that short section of intermittent stream on the north side of the tracks. We switch back to the sensitive areas, no shoulder application. And then there's another small area of that yellow sensitive area where the brook crosses into Pegan Cove under the tracks from the area along Middlesex path. Speaker 1: Right, Speaker 2: Okay. Scrolling onto the next sheet, which again picks up sort of right in the Pegan Cove area and takes us along now West Central Street ending in the dog park area. That all receives the once year application
moving along Lake Capitate. We stay in that once yearly, except in the northern side where the culvert connects fix Fisk Pond and Lake Chit where we go back into that sensitive application. The stretch along the National Guard base does not have any restrictions based on the wetlands jurisdiction. But as you, we cross SP street, there is, we do pick up again with the once yearly roadbed application and then we move again. We're right in sort of the Edwards Road area where Beaver Dam Brook crosses under
the train tracks and then West Central Street, it's the once yearly roadbed application, then we switch to no restriction and then we pick back up with the once yearly with a small section of sensitive back to the once yearly and then the remainder of this page along between Burning Tree Road and the businesses along West Central. No restrictions. As we move on to our last page here in Natick, we're picking up right around, if I'm placing myself correctly,
we're coming up into the stretch where Newfield v Deerfield village and those larger multifamily developments are, we have some areas that are unrestricted, some areas that are receiving that once a year road bed application. Then we do have a small stretch right near the Framingham border where one of the tributaries to Beaver Dam Brook runs alongside the tracks that receives the sensitive area application. Speaker 3: What's meant by no restrictions, Speaker 2: It just means that there is not wetlands jurisdiction that impacts that area. So there's no restrictions on the application method
or frequent and I say no restriction, I meant in terms of the Wetlands Protection Act. And Speaker 3: It might be the same as the blue area, the way they apply it. Speaker 2: Yes. It'll all be the same application method. Correct Matt? It's all done by the spray trucks Speaker 7: In the, in the non-restricted zones. They, they have spray trucks that, but they'll spray, they'll do a brush program later on in the year in like the august, september timeframe. And they'll be spraying out to target the vegetation, like adjacent to the tracks on the right of way. So like further away, closer
to the, the property line thing that would Speaker 2: Roll up and become a hazard in Speaker 7: Future. Exactly. So in these blue and yellow zones, they'll never be able to do that brush program which extends further away from the tracks. So more effort is put into controlling that with like mechanical and manual measures. Speaker 1: So one a question that I have, Matt, is that if, you know, if you go back to page, let's see, it's, I guess I'm just looking at, you know, not, not the Wellesley line to Natick Center, but the second one where we're starting to go along East Central, going
under Marion Street, that area and it switches from the blue, from the lighter blue to the yellow, which indicates a more restricted, I'm sorry, a less restricted, no Speaker 2: More restricted. The yellow is the most Speaker 1: More restricted, sorry, more restricted spray zone there. But then once you approach the the Natick center station, then it goes to the less restricted spray zone. Correct. Speaker 2: If I had to guess, and Matt you may be able to correct me on this, it's likely because these are residential properties
Speaker 1: That that's what I was Speaker 2: Gonna ask. Yeah. Matt, do you know any more specificity? Speaker 7: Yeah, well it to, that sounds right to me that's historically how it was, it's been marked in the field. When I go out there, I don't like to make it any, whether or whether or not there's a sensitive area, which there doesn't look to be a sensitive area that would require a yellow zone there unless if there's ditches along ditches that have turned into wetlands right. Along the, well Speaker 1: That's, that's part of my question. Speaker 2: So the stream only becomes jurisdictional.
It, it's probably right where the blue starts on page Speaker 1: Three at native train station? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Is where the, is where the left Speaker 2: Restrict, it's just considered a, a drainage ditch up until that point. Speaker 1: Right. But then, but then once, so it Speaker 2: Does switch on the northern side of the tracks, you can see it switches to that yellow spray zone on the next sheet where the stream runs along the, the jurisdictional stream runs along the sides. Speaker 1: Okay. So there is that faint yellow I see. Yeah, Speaker 2: The stream sort of sits on top of it, so it looks a little blue in some areas. Speaker 1: Okay. So, oh, I see. Yep. So when you're on the north side, on the northern side
of the tracks on, on the and inbound outbound it yes, it kind of switches. But on the north side of the, of the pair of tracks, then that is a restricted zone Yes. In terms of the spray because of the ditch. Yep. Okay. That may because of the drainage system that then goes into Lake Cochituate. So that makes, that makes great good sense. Yep. And then we go along. But then interestingly, as you go by the dog park and all of that, where you're fairly close, it's unrestricted, but there's a, there's a fair bit of buffer between the, you know, between the edge of the tracks
and the lake itself there. So I think that's, that's alright. And then there is another where it gets really close as it goes almost to the, almost to the National Guard facility, there is a place where they turn it off the shoulders up. I believe Speaker 2: It's likely where there's water conveyance underneath, they're in the restricted, the more restrictive 'cause it does seem to line up where with where those culvert and stream crossings are. Alright. Speaker 1: So, so this seems thoughtful actually, you know, which is a good thing. Alright. Any, any questions from the commission on this or on the zones as to
where spraying is taking place or not taking place? Speaker 3: Now you said like in 2020 this was the same type thing? Speaker 1: Yeah, blue in the yellow. Speaker 2: Oh Jim, your mic is off. Speaker 9: Was this the same in, in 2020? The blues and the yellows the way it was mapped out or? Speaker 2: Yes, I believe in my review of the 2020 maps, there's been almost no change ma from the these maps. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. So any, any questions from the commission on this? Speaker 5: Could I just get a little more detail around Beaver Dam Brook in terms of the spray schedule there, what zone that is? Speaker 2: Yeah, so Matt Beaver Dam Brook is, is this water body here
that runs along? So starting on page six of the map, I mean you could probably push it to page five, but I think page six is probably the, the right place to start. This is a, it's mapped only as wetland the, the blue outline, but there is a perennial stream that runs through this area. The entirety of beaver, Dan Brook in Natick is considered a perennial stream. So I think Mike's question is about these sections of sort of unrestricted area that may fall partially or close to the 200 foot river front area
Speaker 5: And also, you know, flow herbicide, moving downstream and you know, those types of things. Speaker 7: The herbicides themselves when they're, when it's just the road bed treatment, it's, it's, it's getting, they, they set these setbacks based on the studies that they do with the, the migration of the herbicides. And that's what, that's what how they created these, these setbacks. And the, I've, I've read some of the studies from DEP and DAR that they, they measure like the absorption rate, runoff rate and all that.
And there are, there are restrictions in the, that the license applicators need to follow as far as like wind and weather and they won't be spraying in the rain. So there is all, all kinds of different restrictions and and regulations to, to mitigate that. That's Speaker 5: Great. We're in Massachusetts. I get we're in a regulated state, but what I'm asking is, is there's no chance of over spray in that zone that somehow the herbicide is gonna then get into Beaver Brook and flow downstream onto somebody else's life. Speaker 1: Which, which, which location, Mike, are you particularly,
are you zeroing in on here and it's, is it on this chart or is it on the next one where there's, Speaker 2: I think, I think page six, I think Mike's concerns are, are certainly valid for this stretch of the tracks here where there are residential homes in, in quite close. Oh, proximity to the train tracks. Matt, can you do, I don't know if you have any information about, I know that the prior area along when we were coming into Natick center was identified as yellow. Is it, do we have any clarity on why this area is not restricted with any, with the proximity of the residential homes?
Speaker 7: I'm, I'm, I don't think the, the area area at the east of the town is yellow because of the residential homes. I think it's because of that, that ditch and stream that has kind of turned into a wetland along. So Speaker 2: There is not a jurisdictional stream as it runs along this section of tracks that I think is just where some of the confusion from the, it is a drainage ditch, but there is not a jurisdictional wetland that runs along this stretch of the tracks Speaker 7: Y Right. But if you, if you, if you see in the field that it,
it has the characteristics of a wetland, even if it wouldn't be marked as one on this, these DEP layers, we would still be marking for that, which would explain the, the yellow. Whereas in what, what you're coming up on now, it must just, it must just be a dry ballasted ditch that, that is important to keep free of vegetation to, to allow for drainage and and stability of the track. Speaker 1: Are we looking particularly at the section
that's like directly under Mill Street? Is that what you're looking at, Mike? No, I'm looking at far farther west. So on sheet seven of seven where, where Beaver dam brook goes directly kind of goes underneath Speaker 2: The tracks Yep. Where it goes under the tracks. Underneath Speaker 1: The tracks. Speaker 2: Yeah. So Matt, we do know there's yellow on the north side, but not any yellow on the south side where the, the stream system crosses under the tracks. Yes, Speaker 1: Exactly. Speaker 7: So that, that would indicate that it's just a, a wide roadbed on that self side where you would still be
able to, to spray that it only, that would only receive the roadbed treatment, which is, which is in the vicinity of the track only up to 10 to 12 feet from the center line of that track. So if it has, a lot of times there'll be like a road on the side of to allow the high rail trucks to set off the rails and, and be able to drive alongside of the track or just a wide road bed in general, I think. But if there was, if there was a ditch or anything, they would be, they wouldn't be spraying that area. Speaker 1: I think the concern here, Matt, is that there is a crossing underneath the tracks Yeah.
Speaker 2: Of a perennial stream corridor of a corridor in this location. Speaker 7: Okay. I mean, I would be happy to to change that specific area to yellow where the stream crosses. Yeah. But yeah, it, it, but with the, with what is likely in the field, it would still, that's just a wider road bed. The culvert could be hundreds of feet long on that side. I'm just being overly just to kind of get the point across. If the, if the culvert is that wide on that side, you could still apply Sure. That road bed program, I think. But yeah, I would be happy to change that as a condition
and, and submit a new map showing that if Speaker 1: You could, if you could have that yellow extend on both sides of that crossing. You know, I mean, I think what you're hearing from the commission is that it's not a question of the culvert extending hundreds of feet on both sides. I mean, it's a, there's a water conveyance underneath, underneath the tracks and the concern is just to keep, to protect that water by that, that perennial stream from any, any over spray or anything like that. So if you could have the yellow go from the east side to the west side of, of that, of
that stream crossing for beaver dam Brook, I think that's what the commission is looking for. Speaker 7: Yeah, I would be happy to do that. Definitely always good to keep it conservative. I I do great. See it. I know, I know the, Speaker 1: Okay. Does that address your concerns, Mike? Yeah, Speaker 5: I just, you know, I, I know as somebody who lives in the chemical world, all best intentions Speaker 1: Nope. Just Speaker 5: Don't want that herbicide getting into a water body then, then travels somewhere else, Speaker 1: Right? A hundred percent. No, that's, that, that, that, that's why we're reviewing this. Yeah. And then that is the last one.
Then we're in Framingham and whatever happens in Framingham happens in framing. Oh my god. Sorry, I didn't, I didn't say that. Speaker 5: I thought we only said that the Well, Speaker 1: I was gonna say, I said, I said the quiet part out loud. Is there, Speaker 9: Is there a similar concern on page, I think it's 11 where the culvert is between Fisk and Lake Tuit. It's just yellow on one side, but, but maybe that is a long culvert there. I, I don't know. Yeah, Speaker 1: It's, well Speaker 2: That one is a culvert. The culvert starts at the edge of the wetland back from the tracks and then feeds under the tracks to the north side.
And then there's a road that is a culvert that I am unfortunately very familiar, Speaker 1: Familiar with. There's a road on the, on the south side of that. Okay. In, in between the, in between the tracks and, and Fisk Pond is 1 35, but on the north side it gets close and hence, hence it's yellow at that point. Okay, Speaker 9: Cool. Speaker 1: Right. Any other tweaking that we wanna do here? Speaker 5: No, thank you. Speaker 1: All right. Okay. So it sounds like we're good with the, I mean, so the determination here, and Claire help me get the terminology right.
We would be looking for a negative five determination Yes. On, on this, which indicates that it's, that it's ex an exempt activity. Yes. Speaker 2: There is in fact jurisdiction, but the activities proposed are exempt. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So the other, the other issue though, or the other ask in this filing is that there is a validation for, with a two a finding, there's a validation of the wetlands delineations and staff had raised some concerns that there were places that were, there were places out of, out of range
of the spraying that's being done, but where the delineations clearly are no longer accurate. And so the question is how do we wanna deal with those? I mean, we could, one option would be for us to not issue or to, to issue a determination that basically says that the delineations are not accurate or that Speaker 2: We're not affirming the delineations. Speaker 1: Right. So we're not affirming the delineations. Or we could try to, we could wordsmith it through comments that says that we will affirm the delineations within the spraying areas. Yeah. Speaker 2: So we would affirm the delineations only
as they would apply to activities occurring under the approved vegetation management plan would be the language box two A and two B on the determination form. Have that opportunity to put the, the clarifying text. So, so those are the two options that I would be most comfortable with. I I do think that there are some, while they may not be in the vicinity of the tracks, there are some clear discrepancies in the wetland boundaries that are shown on these plans. Even just from the aerial images of the water bodies. Speaker 1: What would be the, it would be, you know,
what would be the implications of us affirming, just leaving it blank and just affirming the delineations for the purposes of this RDA. Is there a risk that any other applicant could say, Hey, you affirm you, you approved these delineations for this and I don't believe that's the case, but is there a risk of that where someone else could use this decision that we're making to then, you know, insist on using this delineation in any filings? They do. So Speaker 2: The plus is that these maps are not detailed enough
for any work that was being proposed that isn't exempt. These maps would not be detailed enough in order for us. That's fair to make a determination. I think I do think that there, there could be an opportunity for folks to Speaker 1: Weaken or Speaker 2: Yes, EE essentially, you know, argue against any other lines. I think it would, it would result in us requiring, you know, individual homeowners to have to go out and delineate these wetland boundaries for, for projects, which is not necessarily a bad thing. So, but I do think that adding the clarifying language just
strengthens the commissions. Sure. Speaker 1: At a minimum I think we should do that. Matt, do you have a, do you have a a a preference here or comments on what we're talking about? Speaker 2: He did provide a comment letter, but Matt, I'll I'll let you let you speak as well. Yeah, Speaker 7: Yeah. Pretty much how, how I, I I gave a little narrative that's, that has been very common that associates with that positive two, A determination from other towns, basically. Yeah, actually I quoted it. The term determination is only valid for the confirmation of the map solely used for the work included in the MDAR approved
vegetation management plan. This determination is not binding for any other project proposed by the applicant or any other parties. And really what this, what this confirmation is confirming is intended to confirm that the markings are in conformance with those setbacks listed in CMR 11, not zero four. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. What's the preface of the, of the commission on this? I mean, is there, are, are people comfortable with us kind of saying, you know, for the purposes of this application we're okay with, you know, and, and,
and for the purposes of this application and for the work that's being proposed and where it's being proposed, we'll sign off on it. We'll comment, you know, along the lines of what Matt suggested in his email and what, what, what Claire is suggesting that just kind of really tightens it down, nails it down to this application, this application alone. No one else can leverage this for any other reasons. Would that make sense to people? Would you guys be comfortable with that? Speaker 10: The diagram say apparent but limit anyway in so Speaker 1: Apparent. Yeah, which is, yeah, Speaker 10: It, it's kind of caveated enough
that no one could use it right. As anything other than just a discussion point. Speaker 1: So, and the resource areas that we're concerned with or that we're paying attention to. Beaver Dam Brook, that hasn't moved much for the purposes of this. Lake Tuit hasn't moved much in the past few millennia. So I think, I mean, I think I, I'd be comfortable with that. Chris, David, how do you guys feel about this? Speaker 10: I'm, I'm comfortable with it. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 7: Same. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So the, so then we would be issuing a, a positive two A, right. So a positive two A with comment Speaker 2: On this.
Yes. Positive two A with comment. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Any other questions? Questions from the public on this? I mean this is an RDA so it's not really open, technically open, but I'm happy to entertain any comments people have on this or questions anyone from the public. Speaker 2: I believe everybody who's on the line is here for, Speaker 1: For other other purposes. Other Speaker 2: Purposes. Matt, would you be able to get me updated maps prior to the issuance of this or would you guys prefer that to be a condition just prior to work? Speaker 7: I can get them to you by Monday if that. Speaker 2: Oh perfect. That works. If works Speaker 5: Great. Could I ask? Okay. Just an odd question to the group is
Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 5: I guess once I see something mapped, I I, that's where I have pause. 'cause there's things mapped here that Speaker 1: You know aren't correct, are Speaker 5: Correct. There's wetlands that I'm looking at that are there that aren't mapped. Is there any way to just map the project area that we're like with these wetlands, Speaker 1: With formal delineations with not Speaker 5: Formal delineations the same processes here it's just we have wetlands all over this map that are identified. Yep. These maps. Yep. Not in the project area. Yep.
Speaker 1: But that's, that's what the comment that we're going, that we would propose to insert into the decision would would, and Speaker 2: It limits as well. It, it is only this vegetation management work. If they were to come in for a larger tree Speaker 5: Cutting, I'd have roadmap to be, to be like Speaker 1: Just, just to not have it in pay on paper that this is I, but Speaker 5: That's just, that's just me. And that's where my background is, is like I, once it's mapped then you have to kind of defend Speaker 1: The map. The Speaker 5: Map.
Right. And I'm not in that. I'm not really mentally ready for that, Speaker 1: That that's where the language that we're talking about is intended to head. Exactly that off is, is simply just to say for the purposes of this project, we're good with these zones and all of that. Okay we're comfortable with it but we can't, we and no one else can use it for any other purposes. Okay, cool. Okay. Alright. Any other questions, comments? So this is an RDA so we would issue a negative two, sorry, a positive two. A determination. Yes. And a negative five determination. Yes. Which you know again accepts the maps
with the caveat that we've been talking about and acknowledges that this proposed activity is exempt. Okay. Someone wanna make a motion to make that determination. No one's wanting. So moved. Come on. So moved all. Thank you Jim. Alright, Jim made the motion. Is that seconded? Please Speaker 2: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank. Thank you Jeff. Alright, any further discussion on this folks? Hearing none. All in favor in the room David? Yes, Chris? Yes. Alright Matt, thank you. Appreciate you walking us through that. Look forward to getting those, those plans. Updated plans to us. Let us know if you have any questions and certainly let us know if any of your plans change.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Alright, take, I'll, I'll get that to you Monday, Claire. Thanks Speaker 2: Matt. Alright, Speaker 1: Excellent. All right, let's keep going then. Next item on the agenda, it's Ola request for determination of applicability for a a minor plan change for 16 Pauline Drive. Claire don't you? Or do we have the applicant's here? Yes, Speaker 2: I believe yes. Luke is on the line here. Yes Luke, I'll just give the quick overview if that's okay. So if folks recall the commission approved an RDA for a deck reconstruction, an expansion and a patio reconstruction and expansion in constructing the patio,
the homeowner was just hoping to square off the patio space is a four by 10 foot additional area of pervious pavers just because of the shape of the wetlands on the lot and the, the fact that they're within the inner, this would be within 40 to 50 feet off the wetland line. It's technically outside of my administrative approval authority. So I just felt it most appropriate for the applicant to come back before the commission to get the approval as a minor plan change for their existing determination. Speaker 1: Okay. Luke, anything to add to that?
Speaker 11: No, I think that's some that summarizes it pretty much. It's just, yeah, that one little, kind of looking at it a second time as it's kind of coming in shape, it was a kind of add wanted to see if we can just square that piece off. So it's just the four extends that, you know, four feet to match the existing left side there and then that's just 10 feet across to the end. Speaker 1: And the original intent of having that notch cut out of that, was that because of setbacks from the wetlands? Speaker 2: You know Luke? Speaker 11: No it was not, it was just sort of, kind of when we're sketching it out, just kind of more of like to, in kind of discussion that that was space
that we didn't really need compared to where the stairs, the stairs are gonna be coming down kind of at the edge, at the edge there. But kind of when it's starting to take shape now it kind of reconsidered that maybe it's just as aesthetically it looks a little bit better. It's just squaring off. But I think it was within even that additional space is still kind of within the setback. Speaker 1: Okay. So we had issued a negative three back a couple months ago, small extension. So you'll go slightly closer, slightly closer to the wetland boundary.
What, what's the Claire, what's the distance, what's the distance of closest approach to the wetlands? Speaker 2: With the extended? Speaker 1: Yeah, either. Yeah, Speaker 2: So the, the extended four feet is, is the closest edge of the patio to the wetlands would be 44 feet off the wetland boundary Speaker 1: And, and then, and then so it's, so it's 48 feet? Yes. Basically. Speaker 2: Okay. No this was in jurisdiction outside of administrative approval authority only barely. Speaker 1: Right. Okay. Right. Any questions from the commission to the applicant?
Any concerns? Erosion Speaker 5: Control still in place or has that been taken up? Speaker 2: I believe the erosion, Luke, the stake little straw waddle, is that still in place? That Speaker 11: That is still in place? Correct. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. I think personally with that, with the erosion control in place, it's a fat, a flat lot. I don't have an issue with this personally. Everyone. Okay. Yep. Chris, David? Yes. Yep, that's fine. Alright, so I'm make a motion to approve the, the plan change for the RDA. So moved. Alright, I'll take David. David David's motion. Speaker 2: Chris? Chris, Speaker 1: I thought they both talked at the same
time and I was Yeah, it could have been both of us. I think I was randomly choosing one that's, I'll take Chris is that seems to be the consensus. Chris' motion. And David, I'll take yours as a second if that's all right. Good. Alright, so motion's been made and seconded to approve the plan, the minor plan change for this. Is there any further discussion on that? All in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Alright, Luke, you're good to go. Let us know if anything else changes. Please. But otherwise you've got what you need from us. You Luke, Speaker 2: I'll get you the formal document, just noting the approval tomorrow. Speaker 11: Great, thank you very much. Alright, have a good
Speaker 1: Evening. Thank you. Alright. All right, next item on the agenda. He's got a notice of intent continuation for 2 16 2 18 South Main Street. Welcome back gentlemen. How are you? Thank you. Good. How you doing? Good, Speaker 12: Mr. Chairman was the commission please. Speaker 1: Alright, so we've got some and we've got representative from BSC on the call. Yes. Speaker 2: Dominic Rinaldi, the peer reviewers on the call. Speaker 1: Thanks Dominic. So we've got a peer review report. I understand that there's some comments in there, there's some additional information that's gonna be needed. So the presumption is that, we'll, we'll continue this until that additional information comes in. Is that a fair assumption to Yeah, well Speaker 12: There's also some additional test pits
that we're gonna performing. I believe the scheduled for Speaker 2: June 23rd. Speaker 12: June 23rd. You said the 20th. Speaker 2: Michael was not available on the Speaker 1: 20th. Okay. Don't fight that. That Speaker 2: Was the original request. Edmond was not wrong. Speaker 1: Alright, so if you guys just wanted to, our overall Speaker 12: Approach would be to, to take the most of, most of the comments other than the first two kind of are all, you know, not minor, but they're all actually I take that back. We should just go through. Okay. Speaker 1: Fair. Alright. So Dominic, do you wanna, do you wanna walk us through your findings, your, your open questions? Give us a, a general overview of, of,
of your thoughts on the, on the plan. Speaker 13: Certainly. Good evening. Dominic Rondi with BSC group, peer reviewer for the conservation commission on the project. So we, we, I'll kind of group 'em together. How I grouped them in the letter. The first couple were just general comments. We've had discussions with the applicants. They were just sort of first impressions, you know, is there an avenue to kind of a win-win, maybe make the project potentially less impactful while potentially making it less expensive to develop based on our conversations with the applicant. There's a lot there that was required
through the planning board process. I'm certainly not here to start intermission and board strife, but certainly we just wanted to point out a couple of things. The next few comments, starting with number three are, are site plan comments, most of which are pretty minor. Some, some clarifications and, and cleanup. Maybe the biggest one of these I wanna say is number seven or eight, which is really, which I, they've, they've clarified in their letter and, and they'll make it more clear in their plans they said, which is obviously as you've, you've picked up,
there'll be a lot of ledge, presumably lasting, but some sort of ledge excavation on this site. And a lot of times when people do that type of work, they leave a lot of exposed ledge. It wasn't clear they had some plantings in areas that were big cuts. They're making it more clear that they are going to be placing some soil back in those areas and to allow the, the plantings to happen. And then we get into the, you know, probably the, the, the, the beef of the matter. The biggest, the biggest portion of it is, is the storm water and erosion and sedimentation control.
A lot of these are just as I mentioned, so there's some additional test pits, some additional information and clarifications to, to meet both state and local requirements. Probably the biggest ones here really have to do with construction period erosion and sedimentation control the town's regulations, I actually really like that part. They, it, it emphasizes prevention of erosion rather than sedimentation control. And just seeing if this project, which it's, you know,
it's up on the top of the hill, it's gonna involve a significant amount of clearing and a significant amount of excavation and and earth work period. There's also some, some decent fills. You know, can this be sort of staged or phased in a way more that reduces the likelihood that there's a construction period problem. Especially as you, you start to expose ledge and you start to get more and more runoff from, from this hillside headed towards the, the resource area. You know, how that can be controlled and,
and best prevented. Speaker 12: We do have a, a plan that we're gonna present on that tonight. So yeah. Speaker 1: A round of a phased approach. Yeah, Speaker 12: It's phased what we're gonna, yeah, we have a, we have nice diagram that Adam from our Godard is gonna present. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: You wanna do it now or do you wanna go through Speaker 2: I can finish going through and then Speaker 1: We finish Yeah. Finish, finish going through it. Yeah, Speaker 13: I mean really the rest of them, as I said, that are really, you know, some, in some cases we're pointing out where they are meeting the res and in other cases just some clarifications or additional information needed, you know, with whether it's with the calculations
or you know, how, how things are shown. So, you know, this, this will be, you know, how those go will be a function of, of getting, getting that information and, and reviewing it later. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: And as I mean Anthony noted there are additional tests that already scheduled with the board of health witness. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Before our next meeting. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So responses to these comments and changes or things that you're considering changing in light of these comments?
Speaker 12: Well, the, the comments as, as Dominic mentioned, most, most of them will be updated on a plan. The, the, the, the smaller ones. There's some minor plan changes that need to be made. There's some updates to landscape plans. We're just trying to do it all at once with the new test bits kind of get and take some feedback from tonight as well and then have updates to those plans and we can get into the construction erosion plan if you'd like to now. Speaker 1: Yeah, why don't we, why don't we start with that? But actually, you know, getting back to the test pits, would you just give us an over, you know, voiceover of the objective of these new test pits.
What are you, what are you looking to discover as Speaker 14: I will? So the test pits that were there for the, for the rear for the front system, were about 18 feet from where the system is going to be the test pits that were carried out Speaker 12: Two years ago. Speaker 14: Yes, that's right. I know. So now Dominic has asked, and I don't argue with him, if we do the test pit directly over where the infiltration system is going to be rather than 18 feet away, Speaker 1: The issue being that because of the characteristics of the site, I mean in some cases 18 feet away is, doesn't matter Yes,
in some cases, but with the characteristics of the site, the ledge being present, kind of the kind of, you know, varying condit subsurface conditions, we just wanna make sure that exactly where things are being proposed, it will infiltrate as as planned. Speaker 14: Absolutely. And even myself, of course as a design engineer, the last thing I want is Speaker 1: To have it not work under Speaker 14: Control or under control. Speaker 2: Hey, you're digging the hole and all of a sudden Speaker 14: Exactly. Now we're within regulation with the feet, we need 20. Yep. But at the same time, when the comment came, I said, that's not a bad comment.
I I I agree with it. And, and that's, Dominic could hear if he has anything to add to that. He of course he can, but I, I, I don't argue with that comment. Speaker 8: Claire, is there, is there a mic on? It's a little hard to hear. Speaker 2: Oh, it's, yeah, if you guys can move it a little closer back and forth. And Matt, just one in the note about the soil addition in the areas where you guys are gonna be doing the plantings, I know you guys noted that you'll update the landscape plans. Just make sure the grading plan also reflects the height of the loam in relation to the rest of the elevations. But Speaker 14: In reality, the grading plan is not going to change.
The, the ledge is going to have to be cut down the additional depth. Speaker 2: Great. So then vice versa, make sure that the blast the colored plan is Speaker 14: Absolutely perfect. A hundred percent. Speaker 1: So, so, okay, so it sounds like something's changing. Why don't you walk through what the changes are, what the proposal is, you know, the modifications you're doing. Yes, Speaker 14: So, so there are areas where there was land and I, I believe they have it on the plan here where there was landscaping called for. Yeah. But there is a significant cut from ledge. So Dominic rightly noticed that we're going to have exposed ledge. How are you going to plant
Speaker 1: Fair comment a Speaker 14: Hundred percent. So what's going to have to happen is the ledge is gonna have to be broken out more and soil is going to have to be brought in for the plantings. Speaker 2: And that's specifically up in, up in this area here. Yep. Speaker 12: It's basically those four trees because the, the rest will be, the ledge will be cut to the depth, the one in London, other houses. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 14: I, and I hope I'm clear. Oh, and actually if Dominic wants to jump in, if, if I'm not clear on something, please feel free. Speaker 13: Yeah, no that's, I think, I think both of those were a good summary of, of both those comments. Both the, the purpose of the test pits, Sherry, you did a,
a very good summary of that. And then, and then also the, the comment about that it, it was unclear as I was saying that a lot of times when you, you take out a lot of ledge, there'll be ledge left exposed, but it's clear they're doing a lot of plantings in that area, but it didn't quite make it clear that they're going to over excavate and put soil back. Speaker 1: But the answer, I mean, so the response to this though, at this point in time is to do more blasting, Speaker 2: Essentially update the notes on the landscaping plan
as well as update that sort of blasting fill diagram. Speaker 1: But the level of excavation will be deeper Yep. In order to provide room to put topsoil in. Exactly. So things can grow. Exactly. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think a lot of what Dominic's comments relate to making sure that everything is as crystal clear as possible on the plan sheets. So that way when we get into construction, everybody's working from the same playbook. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Okay. So what else are, are there other modifications? I mean that we will do the test pits and all of that. Are there other modifications
to the plan at this point in time or is that Speaker 2: Mostly just minor updates. Okay. Making sure all the plan sheets are speaking to each other properly, getting the layers straight. And I did make Adam a co-host so at any point, Adam, whenever you guys are ready, you should be able to share your screen. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 15: Wonderful. So yes, my name's Adam Wick with Guard Consulting. We're just going over the erosion senate, senate control amendments like Dominic, Dominic had mentioned definitely taking a phase approach to this is the, the best path forward here. Lemme just see if I can get my screen shared with everyone.
Just move this over. Speaker 16: Yeah, Speaker 15: There, did we send you over our marked up map there? Speaker 2: No. So the only thing that I got was the response letter from from Edmond's team and Anthony. Speaker 15: All right. Speaker 2: If you send it to me right now Adam, I can get it up as well. It looks like you got it. Speaker 15: Alright, perfect. So, so yeah, so we, we made some, this is just again, very preliminary presentation that we're offering right now. We've taken the town's previous comments under advisement and we're currently working with SPR Honda engineer to finalize this erosion sediment control plan.
They've also come up with a blasting plan that is phased. So we're only gonna be doing one portion at a time and pretty much amending and moving the erosion controls as needed to deal with the blasting. So we can really take this greater watershed and breaking out into sub watersheds for user stormwater management. So this, this multi-tiered, multi-layered system, this phased approach that we're gonna be doing, at least on this plan. These are all additional interior controls that we're adding. So on this plan that I'm showing you here, it does not have
the originally proposed perimeter super silt fence, which again is a, a wired back fence. So pretty much the, the, the toughest perimeter control you can get with middle T posts. So all these interior controls are just supplementing that to prevent any, any runoff velocity. So with the interior controls we plan to build several temporary sediment traps. So there are several buildings on site that are going to be demolished and we figured, hey, they're gonna be holes in the ground.
We can repurpose those as our temporary like sediment basins. When we do the clearing of the trees, we're gonna be stumping in place. And then creating mulch berms that are gonna divert any front off to these sediment basins that we have here. And any clearing that we do on the, the lower portion between the perimeter sot fence and the stump grinding berm there. Or we're gonna be having the stump grinding berms there. So lemme see here. So we have perimeter cell fence, stump grind berms, and then any clear trees, we're gonna leaving the,
the stumps in place to effectively hold the, the soil in place. So Dominic's point, just kind of dealing with erosion controls instead of having to deal with the fallout and the, the sediment cementation controls. So pretty much going bottom. The top slopes will be fully stabilized after any clearing. So once all blasting is done, we've leveled things out a bit more. Those any residual stumps that we can grind, we're gonna be using those stump grindings as additional
mulch stabilization throughout. So that's effectively our high level plan here. And again, we're gonna be working with the engineer to finalize these, but we just wanted to give you kind of an idea of the direction that we are headed, being mindful of, you know, the phased blasting, which again, we will be updating the, the SWIFT document to reflect any of these changes. That was also a note that BSC had for us. Speaker 1: So, Adam, lemme just, lemme just clarify something. So it, I mean, it, it sounds like what you're describing is a blasting plan where you, you
is the plan that the entire site would be cleared in one shot? Speaker 15: Oh, so there is a blasting plan that we have, and it's on this diagram here. Speaker 1: Let's, let's Speaker 12: Cleared or Speaker 1: Blast cleared? No, Speaker 12: We're gonna clear in phases as well. Speaker 1: Okay. So, and when you say clear in phases, what does, what does that mean? Like how, how big are the chunks that you would be clearing and blasting? Is it, is it, I mean, but what does this indicate here on this, on this chart, basically? Speaker 15: So on this diagram, this is the, our phased blasting plant. We're in the uppermost area there.
That's kind of like the ledge at the top of the hill. It's particularly at like a flat null area. So we're gonna be taking that down first. Clearing that again, having everything stabilized, all our erosion controls in place, downgrade of that, and then moving over to phase two, doing clearing best blasting there. And then finally moving over to phase three. So effectively as we move through these phases, we're building up more and more of these erosion control barriers by pre utilizing all the, the stump grindings and, and stumps that are in place.
So from a cost effective standpoint, we are effectively using everything that we have on site to, you know, the, the best, best way forward like possible. Speaker 1: So, but the net result though is that at the end of, so, but my presumption, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we would go phase one, phase two, phase three, and then, and then horizontal infrastructure goes in across the entire site and then construction starts. But the net result would be that at the end of phase three,
we've got a, you know, we've got a site that's been cleared of all trees. All the blasting has been done before any, before any construction, before any of the stormwater infrastructure goes in. Is that we've got a site that's been stripped of all the trees and has been blasted. Is that correct? With Speaker 2: These temporary management methods that are, that were just shown, Speaker 15: Right? Correct. So we have pretty much everything down gradient that's adjacent to the wetland system. We have the super silt fence. We're gonna have the mulch bare in place. We're gonna have the stumps in place with, without being ground to hold that soil in place.
And then envision to that, we have the mulch or the sump ground diversion berms that are gonna be funneling any of the storm water to those temporary cinnamon basins that we have. So we have, again, generally speaking, not just the perimeter controls, but throughout the whole site, kind of like a, a, a multi-tiered approach to effectively manage the storm water throughout this whole process. So by the end of this whole three phase blasting and clearing process, we're gonna have a,
a very substantial rosing control and sediment control system in place. Speaker 2: Adam, you, I assuming that the areas where you guys would be retaining stumps for slope management would be in this southern area here and, and I say southern, I know it's not technically the southern portion of the site where the, the sort of third road is closest to the wetland, that's where those stumps are gonna be left. Speaker 15: Yeah. So kind of jumping back to the southern graph here. So pretty much leading the stumps down as low as possible, out like near the limit of work
and then working our way up there. So it's pretty much gonna be, again, perimeter silt fence, leaving the stumps and then the mulch sperm, and then the, the berm to direct the flow to the cinnamon traps. Speaker 2: And is the plan to then grind stumps before Phil is brought into these areas? I think my concern would be about, you know, the decomposition of those stumps potentially creating issues with slope stability, retaining wall stability post construction in 5, 10, 20 years. Speaker 15: No, absolutely. So, so those stumps eventually,
after all the phase are complete, we'll, we're gonna be grinding those down and spreading them as gonna of a kind of a stump ground mulch blanket erosion control blanket so that they aren't just decomposing in place, but they're actually being repurposed. Speaker 2: And, and you've mentioned the stump ground mulch a couple of times. Is that the only method of stabilization that's being proposed for these sort of areas during construction? Or is there any jut max jut matting seed mix application to some of these areas that, that are gonna be less
quote unquote disturbed during and mostly talking about this area between the stump barrier and the super silt fence perimeter barrier, are there any other methods of stabilization? I mean, the roots will do an okay job holding the soil and where the roots are, but there'll obviously be additional underbrush clearing that's occurring that will just occur naturally as part of the tree removal process. Is there any plan to sort of reseed those areas while the bulk of construction is happening to provide additional stabilization? Speaker 15: Yeah, so, so per, like the CGP, if anything is on stable
for more than 14 days, we definitely want to get in there and again, either put a temporary seed mix down or, or erosion co control blankets, like kind of the, the gambit there. Again, this is kind of just our big picture, high level of what we're thinking. So as far as like nuances like that, there's definitely gonna be effective measures that we will be using or just still kicking that the idea around as far as what is gonna be the most effective. So let's, let's take Speaker 1: A step back for a second and I just want to just talk about, I mean this, we,
we can get into all the nitty gritty details. I mean, hearing that, you know, if this something's left not stable for 14 days is when before when action is taken is, is not a good starting point from my, from my perspective. I mean, this is a very technically challenging site, you know, and, and we have a good bit of experience here in Natick with having housing projects being built on hills that have been really problematic. And we've had continuous, continuous violations and problems with runoff offsite into resource areas. And so I am, I mean I'm, I'm approaching this really skeptical as
to whether this is even technically possible to get it to a place where at least I could vote for it. I just wanna be really straight with you. There's other, other issues that I think that, you know, and I'll again just be really candid, the, the plan that the planning board approved and that you guys negotiated, and I know it was a long negotiation and I don't wanna diminish the effort that went into that, I think is at fundamental odds with a lot of the interests that we are charged with upholding anytime we're talking about removing 10 meters of, of a,
of a hilltop and notching a, you know, a, a site that can accommodate 26 houses where downhill from the site is resource areas that need to be protected. And then we're essentially perching storm water, storm water control and, and, and detention basins on the side of that hill. I'm, I'm approaching this really skeptically as to whether this is technically possible. That is, again, just want to be very candid with you. Yeah, absolutely. And so, you know, I would like to start, take a step back and be thinking about going back to first principles.
And again, I know you guys have thought a lot about this, but from the conservation, or at least from my perspective, from the perspective of being on the conservation commission, is why are we even thinking about taking 30 feet of stone and all of that and blasting down to this? Is there an approach that could be done that is more respectful of the topography that exists there, where, you know, that works with the, the shape of the land that doesn't provide, that doesn't require as much disruption to the site. You know? 'cause even with this phase blasting plan,
the net result is gonna be that the, the site is gonna be bare before any storm water protection goes in before any in horizontal infrastructure goes in. You know, that's the net result. I mean, you know, we could do it a square foot at a time, but if we're gonna be doing all of that before anything else is in, before there's any revegetation that goes on before there's any, you know, I forget about the, the 14 days of spraying hydro seeded down. I mean, that's, that's, you know, that doesn't matter to me. You know, I just, I'm having a hard time with this,
you know, I just, and and before we get into all these technical, you know, nitty gritty details of all this, I think a first kind of a first principles conversation as to, you know, why this plan is this the right plan for this location here in town? It's just, it's a, it's a very large project in a really tough location to be doing this. I mean, if this is a flat site, that would be one thing, but it's on the side of a hill and there's resources at the bottom of the hill, which to me is al you know, is already kind of a trouble site. I mean, that's, that,
that's just kind of where I'm coming from guys. I just, again, just want to be candid with you is, is there a tech, is there, is there an economically viable plan where, you know, which has some, you know, the economics of this has some sway for me, but our charge, our charge is really to protect the natural resources of the town. You know, that's our job. And so has it been considered, and I'd like to talk through, you know, fewer houses on the site, fewer construction sites that are then separated by areas that are being preserved,
less blasting being required. There is, you know, something that came back maybe from the town engineer, maybe it was discussed in the, in the planning process was some kind of terrorist thing where there's just less blasting that's being required. I'd like to kind of hear about that, those conversations and understand, you know, whether what the arguments are for and against those. If the answer comes back to this is the only thing that's economically viable, what, or whatever, then we're gonna be at the place where we're at right now, which is kind of, you know, I think, you know, me personally,
and I'll let the others speak for themselves, being deeply skeptical as to the feasibility of this. Can we do our job in terms of protecting the resources of the community and, and, you know, the jurisdictional areas with such a project at the scale that it is located where it is. I'm, I'm just, I'm approaching this skeptically Speaker 2: And I do think seeing a a more formalized, the phasing and, and temporary erosion control will, will be helpful. Being able to see how those basins are gonna interact with each other and accept storm water,
what the actual stabilization protocol is gonna look like is gonna be important. I know, you know, the letters have had bill's name on them, but the storm water review team have brought up these concerns throughout the planning board process. And I think that there has been a little bit of contention with the planning board on, and I, I don't necessarily think this is a discussion of taking away units. I think it's how can we make the density that the planning board has approved work under the site design requirements of the stormwater bylaw. Speaker 1: Any other kind of comments
that is ranted for a little while? So sorry for that. But Speaker 15: David, so for, for me, I kind of said my piece as far as, again, this is pretty high level preliminary, just still working with the engineers to find like the most viable solution from a stormwater standpoint. So if this, you know, doesn't appease the board, we can definitely go back to the drawing board on this. But I just wanted to at least get it out there that we are trying to come up with some kind of strategic solution just given the typography of the area, which I understand is, is difficult for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I, I appreciate everyone's work on this. I mean, you know, thinking about this stuff is hard and there's a lot of negotiations involved and I think, you know, this is where, again, I think there's just a fundamental tension between, you know, where we landed, where the planning board landed. And that's not to diminish their work and your work with them at all, but also with what we're charged with, with doing as a commission. I think there's just a, there's a, there's a, a mismatch there that, you know, we're happy to work with you and to try to figure out how we can address that. You know, the, as it's currently shaped
and proposed, there's some really high hurdles that we're gonna have to get over to get this, you know, at least to get my vote on it. Speaker 14: Can I ask you a question? Speaker 1: Of course. Speaker 14: You're, you're skeptical of it on understand. Is it the short term during construction that you're mostly skeptical of? Or is it, is it the, the end of the project? Speaker 1: That, that's a great question and a very fair question. I would, you know, it's both, I would put it at 70 30 short term versus long term. I mean, we're taking a whole lot of tree cover off
of the site and the trees themselves provide a very significant storm water function. You know, protecting the resources of the community, protecting the water that goes now down into the wetlands that are at the foot of this hill. Are there technical solutions to that? Probably, you know, I'd, I'd need, you know, as part of this process, we'll be looking at a lot more details of that to really, I think get us all on the same page that water quality is being protected, that what's going into the resource area at the bottom of the hill, that water is of, you know, equal or better quality.
You know, we've got some battle scars from other sites that make my, most of my skepticism is from the construction process side of it. You know, we've had projects in town on significantly less challenging sites that have been wildly problematic and have been violation after violation, after violation enforcement orders, you know, DPS involved. And it's just, it's tough. Yeah. You know, and, and those sites were easier, significantly easier in my opinion. And that's, that's my concern, you know, you know, that's,
that, that's, that's 70% of my concern. Yes. Is the process part of it. Speaker 14: And just in terms of the grading, if the grading is to change along the lines of, could you, Speaker 8: Could you lean to the mic a little bit? It's hard to hear you. Speaker 14: Sorry. I'm just saying if the grading is to change along the lines of Mr. McDowell and the, Speaker 1: The town engineer's concerns about the, the steepness of the road, for example. Yes, yes. Speaker 14: Yeah. By the way, our first iteration was something Speaker 1: Similar. I know that. Okay. Speaker 14: However, Speaker 1: And that's actually an example of where I think there's planning board had one kind of set
of objectives Yeah. To accomplish. And they were engineering to that. Whereas from our perspective, maintaining the topography of the site and the tree cover of the site would be a better outcome. And that's where there's just a fundamental tension between what we're working towards and it, it is what it is, you know. Speaker 14: Okay. What's the next step from that perspective? Speaker 12: It's, it's been a long, it took us a while to get through the playing board and now we're here and we're kind of getting thrown back to, I, I mean, I think we can make this work. I think we've done a lot of work on the stormwater side
of it and think we can manage site Speaker 2: As well. I think when those revised materials are available with the temp management plans, I can review those with Amanda and make sure that we're, I mean, I discussed with her earlier this week after our meeting last week, and she agreed that there's definitely like a range of changes that would or would not require going back to the planning board. Speaker 14: Could we meet with you and Amanda? Sure. To, to discuss, I mean, if we're talking about a change of topography, what is she going to be okay with? Yeah. Without going back to the planning board,
Speaker 2: I'm happy to set something up. Speaker 1: I think it's gonna require some conversations like that. Yeah. Just to, because, 'cause again, it's, you know, as I've said a few times, sorry to repeat myself, but it's just this, you know, we've got one set interest that we're going for. They have another, most of the time they're not that far apart and they're pretty easy to, to, to connect. I think here, here it's not the case. And again, I'm one vote, you know, and I'm just giving my own rant. But this is, you know, I think it's, you know, there, there's some, some more, some more conversations.
I mean, I think having the folks at Goddard kind of continue to, to think on this, I think setting up that conversation will be really valuable with, with Amanda. I'm happy to participate in it. But with Amanda and, and conservation and town engineer and all of that, to see if we can land on something that really, that everyone's comfortable with, I think would be very worthwhile. Yep. Speaker 5: May, may I ask a a or I'm not sure if it's a suggestion or just a request. Is is the terminology is, is a, is a little confusing to me.
Alright. So stump grindings are a different animal. That means the stump comes out of the ground and is ground on site. And that's a different erosion control device than somebody grinding a stump. That's wood chips, basically, which has very little erosion control abilities. So I'm trying to wrap my head around looking at this tree plan that was pre presented by Bartlett. You have thousands of stumps. Are you digging them all out and grinding them? Are you grinding them in place?
Because that, because one, it speaks to the erosion control capacity. Stump grindings are wonderful because they interlock. When you pull out the whole stump and you grind it, it creates a wonderful erosion control product. It's used all over the world. 'cause it interlocks, 'cause it's stringy and et cetera. And, and it works really well. Stump grinding is producing wood chips, which unless you put it in a sock or some sort of device that keeps it together, any type of water is going to blow apart those chips.
And it's going to absolutely not serve your purpose for erosion control. So from a forester's perspective, I would much rather see the stumps come outta the ground, be ground and be used for erosion control than ground in place. Than ground in place. And also I think if we're going down that type of pla path, it would be ideal on the plans to have a place where that activity's happening on the plan. Because there's gonna be a whole, because if you're grinding stumps, you're digging stumps out
and you're processing them on site, there's a whole other host of other things going on with that about this pile of stumps. How do we control the erosion that's coming off the soil that's in those stumps, et cetera, et cetera. Right. So having in a, in, in your plan, what I would call as a forester, a landing or an area where you are processing, processing, this material should be identified in the plan. In my, from my perspective, it makes a lot of sense in the words me. So just, just like the terminology,
when when I hear stump grindings, I say, oh great, that's awesome. But it's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing more of stump grindings that I see somebody in somebody's front yard grinding a stump with a, you know, that device that grinds stumps and makes chips basically. So just I think terminology and process of, of that just helps me better understand, I think, you know, I would, I, you know, I'm not up for, I'm not a big fan of, of of large scale land clearing in, in that, you know, I,
I'd rather see it like you're doing, but even, even on a, you know, a more refined way to kind of, I'd, I'd rather see some houses even built and stabilized and, and in place before you start getting, you know, either going uphill or downhill, however you're gonna do it. But I'm not smart enough. I'm not in your world, but the terminology's important to me. 'cause that's, you know, if, if we're using wood chips to control erosion with nothing controlling the wood chip like in a sock, I'll just tell you that that's not gonna,
it's not gonna control erosion. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think either in Adam, I don't know if you guys are gonna be providing a narrative that goes along with that. Maybe just really being clear in either the narrative or in the op the construction operations and maintenance plan. 'cause I know there are some updates that are gonna be made to that document. I think both of those would be appropriate places to clarify what Mike is asking for Speaker 5: On that. Speaker 15: That's, that's absolutely noted. And yeah, we're, we're going for the, the ground in place instead of actual like the, the wood chips. 'cause we still understand what you're, what you're saying on that end. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So I think next steps, I mean, you know,
Goddard's gonna be continuing to think, I think setting up this meeting Yep. Absolutely is very important. Next conversation just to understand where we're at. And then let, let's reconvene on the 26th. If there's no other topics to bring up here this evening, Speaker 2: I'll try to get that meeting set up for next week so that way we can maybe incorporate some of that discussion into the plan revision work that you guys are doing. Now, Anthony, if you want to send me a preemptive email of times that work for you guys, I have access to all the staff calendars. So it just makes it easier if you guys give me your windows and then I can fit it into our schedules. But next week is pretty open as far
as I can tell right now. It's up Speaker 5: To you. You'll, you'll be busy. We make it happen. Speaker 1: Thank you guys. Speaker 2: We do need to your time. We do need to vote to continue. Oh Speaker 1: Yeah, sorry. Someone make a motion to continue this to June 26th. So thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion? Those in favor, Chris? June 26th. Speaker 2: Oh, we do have a member of the public with their hand raised. I know we've continued, but Speaker 1: Yeah, that's okay. Rick, please jump in with a question. Speaker 17: Yes, thank you. I have a few specific ones. First, Rick Devereux, I live at in South Natick Hills since 2018. And I followed this a little bit in the planning board
and I was curious to come here and, and hear this particularly about the blasting, which is one of my, one of my, I have a couple of questions around that, but, but first for just an easy one. I I'm just curious, I heard thousands of stumps. I'm assuming that a lot of these stumps are very, very small. They're not mature trees. What, just how vast is the clearing? Because we have no sense of it. We look down the hill at the site and see trees over 1 3 5 and Morgan Drive, but I've never been up that, up the road
to that house and just sort of seen how densely forested that is. I'm just curious, Speaker 1: What's the total tree count? Speaker 2: So Rick, I, I don't know the number specifically off the top of my head. If you go to the commission's Google Drive, that's linked the bottom of the agenda in the project materials folder. There is a, the, the tree count that Mike referenced from Bartlett, that, that maps out all the trees, gives details on the sizing the species, the status of the trees. Great. I would definitely recommend looking at that document. And then you can reach out to me by email if you've got a specific Speaker 5: Question.
There's a, okay, there's a bar graph that, that breaks down the diameter at breast type by distribution size class. So look, that's, that's probably gonna give you a better idea of, of hot, you know, small, small versus large. Understand the forest mostly grows like a reverse jha curve. So if that helps you, Speaker 1: But it's, if I remember correctly, it's several hundred trees, thousands. It's not thousands, but it's, but you know, 400 is what sticks in my mind, you know, let's about five, it's fives in the fives, yeah, in in the fives. Okay. Four. Speaker 17: Right. And this is, Speaker 1: I like that Rick, but, but check out those materials
and then come back, come back with questions. Speaker 17: Okay. I've got a couple other related to the blasting though. I'm wondering if, if a lot of testing or any testing has gone on up the hill toward 1 3 5. And the reason, although I don't live in those units that I'm concerned is that on behalf of the development though I don't speak on their behalf and I'm not on their board. So I don't know whether they have, you know, asked this question before or whether they've been informed about this or where that is. But I can easily find that out. In any event, the concern is they're now redoing the decks
behind these, those three units. They're redoing all the decks, in fact. And the ones that are sort of cantilevered over hills, steep hills like theirs have had particular problems. And I don't know whether some of those problems occurred because of the fact that this site and may have been one of the troublesome ones that, that Matt was talking about earlier. I don't know, it was a very challenging site and I'm sure it went on for a long time with a lot of blasting.
But I'm not sure if there is any shifting or sinking or whatever it is that has caused the, the problem with the up, you know, with the posts in the decks that has caused stability problems. And even our deck up above that on Ena lane overlooking 1 3 5, you know, has had to be reinforced and, you know, considerable amount of money is being spent by owners like us. We're all being, you know, three years of, of payments doubling our HOAs to replace these decks.
I'm just wondering if there's any, any expectation that the blasting down below could cause any further or any, any kind of problem. Yeah, Speaker 1: The bug. Yeah. Lemme lemme jump in quickly here, Rick. So yeah, I mean, first of all, I mean if I, if I understand the, the sequence of events or whatever, I mean, no activities happened on this site. No, I know. So, so, so any issues with the decks? Speaker 2: I think you were saying about the blasting from the South ne Hills development, if it's settling post that blasting. Oh, if it's Speaker 1: Settling post that Speaker 17: Blasting Exactly. Claire, you know, this facility's 15 years old. Yeah. It settled
Speaker 1: The pro the process for blasting is highly regulated by the state, by the state, and there's a whole sequence of inspections that would go on pre blasting, post blasting to document and account for any potential damage that happens there. So there's that layer of protection built in. The other issue or the other thing I just wanna say, and this is, you know, th this project is still in the early planning stage, is what kind of blasting, how much blasting all of that is what we're talking about right now. Right, right. So that's unclear the blasting industry.
And what we've learned from other projects is that the, the, the blasting technology that is available these days is highly precise. You know, we've heard from third party experts who have talked about blasting that's happening within feet of the walls of hospitals that have very sensitive instruments on the other side of the wall that are unaffected by it. And so that's just another point of, of information that I'd like to provide to you, that if, you know, when, if blasting were to occur on this site, you know,
it would be highly scrutinized and very and highly precise. So there's a few layers of protection built in for whatever that's worth at this Speaker 17: Point. Thank, well, thank you. That's, that's very reassuring on that side. Just one quick thing, I don't wanna hold you up too much, but in terms of runoff, obviously this, this facility up here, south Natick Hills, the runoff was predicated on conditions that, that exist without another development below it. And I'm sure this has fallen right into your bailiwick, you guys and Claire to think about, you know, in terms
of stormwater runoff. I'm just curious, when you, when you take out so much of the side of a hill beneath homes, is that, do you know, does that cause any consequence that hasn't already been considered? I'll Speaker 1: Give you a very, a very satisfying, it depends, you know, and, and that's part of our process, you know, is to really understand once we land on what, what the plans are Yeah. And the applicant provides us with detailed plans, detailed sequences of construction and all that, then we're in a position
where we can kind of comment on that. But certainly our job, you know, which is why we're, you know, talking at length about this and we'll be talking at length about this, our job is to take all of those things into consideration so that the net result of this project, you know, if, if it happens in the way that it's proposed or in some other form, the net result will be that, you know, the would be a same or better conditions than what existed previously. Speaker 17: Well, I appreciate the attention. Yeah, I appreciate that and I appreciate the, the, the close attention
and fine job that, that Claire and, and the committee do our commission or whatever. And you know, just a last comment in a sentence, standing back from this and being disinterested, it seems like an awfully challenging project for housing. Yeah. I just, you know, it just kind of blows my mind that it's that it can be economically viable to go through as much work as all of this takes to prepare and to do. Speaker 1: That's for the applicant to decide. Speaker 17: I know it is and it's, but it's, I mean, standing back from it, it looks, you know,
we're kind of nuts to me. But anyway, proceed. Thank you. Speaker 1: That's where people with more experience in real estate development, that's their job is to sort that part of it out. So thank you Mr. Devereux, appreciate your time. Speaker 17: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, so we, any, is there any other questions? Speaker 5: There are 779 trees Speaker 2: According to that. That's total inventory on the site just to, Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So we had a motion and I, I'm sorry, Claire, did you, I don't know if you wrote it down, we had a motion. We Speaker 2: Did, we had a motion from Jeff Richards to close and then a second by Fitzgerald to continue to 6 26,
Speaker 1: Sorry, not to close. Geez, what am I saying? Speaker 2: And to continue and we had taken the vote and gotten the online vote. So you guys are technically all set 10 continued to the next hearing. Speaker 1: Okay. So everyone voted. Okay. So we're continued to June 26th. Thank you gentlemen. Appreciate your time. Thank you. All Speaker 18: Set. Speaker 1: Alright, before I'd like to exercise my far reaching prerogative Speaker 2: And to take one item out of order and Speaker 1: To, to take the constituent rail trail connection discussion now. And then we'll pick up the other stuff. Speaker 2: It's just minutes Speaker 1: After we get through that. Mr. Ostroff, welcome. Speaker 18: Thank you Madam Chair. And I'm sorry Mr.
Chair Claire, I'm here to talk about a composed connection to the Constitu Rail Trail and thank you very much. Speaker 8: It's, its, it's hard to hear. I wonder if the microphone can be put. Speaker 2: Oh, Josh turned it off accidentally. Ah, Speaker 18: Sorry. How's that? Any better? Speaker 2: No, mean Speaker 18: You can hear me? Speaker 2: That's it. Speaker 18: Okay, good. Great. Thanks. Alright, thank you so much for commission for having this on the agenda. My name's Josh Ostroff, former select Board member Rail Trail Advisory Committee. I am president of the board of the Friends of Natick Trails,
a a local nonprofit with a mission to enhance our trail network. And among the things we do is help maintain and improve the constituent rail trail. So For many years, well, I guess about four years since the trail was opened, I and others have sought to establish a connection to the Madera Natick multifamily development on North Main Street, which abuts the trail and in various conversations with the
property owner in the town, we haven't yet succeeded in doing that. It's a little bit of a topographical challenge, but I am here in front of the commission because this was conceived of when the CPA, even before the CPA started announcing a, you know, a call for proposals. I knew that we had to come before the commission or whoever wanted to develop that connection had to come before the commission because you own land that would be affected by any connection. Speaker 2: Just to clarify, this is the tail end of the Mechanic Street parking lot parcel. I think Speaker 18: If we skip through a few of the slides, it's
Speaker 2: The tip of the spear. There Speaker 18: You go. Yeah, there you go. Okay. The history of this is that in 2006 into 2007, and Matt and I were the only ones involved, folks that are at least in the room at the time, the commission bought it, exercising his right of first refusal from CSX transportation for I think $375,000 was the price that needed to be paid to be used as a future parking for the rail trail,
even though the CRT was in its infancy as a project for the town. So it just happens that, you know, this historically was a part of a spur that would serve what's currently a, formerly a a coal barn at six Mechanic Street Speaker 2: And see some of the tracks Yeah. That remain through the parking lot. Some Speaker 18: Are still there, so they have not been used for many, many decades. But, but you know, it's just, it, it is one of those pork chop lots that, you know, has kind
of odd shapes. But because it comes at a very shallow angle to the trail, it goes at its most northern end happens to be land that needs to be crossed for a connection to the trail. So as considered by myself and a couple of other folks with the friends of NA trails, this could be proposed as a CPA project that would provide, you know, access to recreation, but also enhance some of the open space it's currently used
as habitat and, and, you know, aquifer recharge. So the idea is that there would be like a little scur connection, the trail to address the grading issues, native plantings, seeding area, some interpretive signage. That's the general idea. It's very, you know, early in development, we don't yet have a design, we don't have, you know, yet we have a ballpark cost estimate. But from conversations with town administration, we need to get some better clarity on what can be done because we want to establish a connection
to private property. The reason that there is no connection there now is, I think, twofold. First, the town had been advised when the CRT was being designed, that connections to private property were not something that the state and federal government would pay for. I think there may be some, you know, exceptions to that, such as one of the connections to Avalon. But in general, all the paved connections that were funded by the state and federal government for the, during construction of the CRT are to public property. And so, you know, that's, that's,
we never were able to do that. We couldn't, I had, and, and others in town had negotiated with Madera to get them to establish a connection that's not necessarily off the, off the table, but for now, the work needs to be done on public land, most of which is under the jurisdiction of the conservation commissions. So the reason to come before you tonight is just to introduce the concept. You may have questions, concerns, want to take it back. It could well come before you as, as a CPA proposal. And if so, I would ask if the commission would consider being an applicant for it,
because while we haven't, the town has not yet evaluated any CPA projects. The plan, the guidelines make pretty clear that you either need to be a town agency such as the con com or you know, other town agencies could, or a 5 0 1 C3 nonprofit or there needs to be some accommodation. The friends are not a nonprofit, but the con com owns the land in, in any event. Speaker 1: So, so font currently is not a 5 0 1 C3? Speaker 18: No, we're a nonprofit, but we don't have 5 0 1 C3 status. Got it. Yeah, so, so, and even if we were, I'm not so sure
that font would be the best, you know, applicant for this because it, there needs to be a procurement and so forth and some of that may best be done by the, the town agency. Yep. Happy to participate in it, but I really just wanted to, you know, this is the first stop other than you know, conversation with town administration that we've had to sound you out, see are you're interested in this, what thoughts or concerns do you have? We can kind of go through the presentation, but I think you have your packet or, or, or easy access to it. So it's really, you know, it, it is, you know, it would be I think when Madera, as you can see in this exhibit here,
you can see the concrete pathway they built approaching the trail. So clearly there was an interest in them doing that. They of course couldn't come all the way to where the trail would be built and when the trail was actually constructed, it was a foot higher than they anticipated. So getting up to a grade was a little bit of a challenge. It's just, you know how it is with small projects, every inch counts and Speaker 1: Hence the switchbacks. Speaker 18: Yes. And we don't want to see something super complicated here, but it is an opportunity to have a nice showcase project that I think would respect, you know, the, the fact
that it is, even though it's a small amount of open space, it is intended to be undeveloped and yet provide access to recreation for the several hundred people that, that are dated residents that live at Madera. Speaker 2: And just to provide a couple quick notes about some of the challenges that Josh noted. So the town does have disturbance limits and restrictions within the railway corridor due to the contaminated material that is historically a part of the railed. And I did in the initial conversations about this potential proposal coming forward, I did confirm
that based on the vote and sale language associated with the mechanic street parcel, this path construction would not result in any article 97 action. Passive recreation connections to the rail trail was specifically listed in the sort of purpose of the parcel along with the parking as Josh noted. Okay. Speaker 18: Glad. Yes, I'm, I'm glad you mentioned that. Yeah. Consistent. Similarly, when the town paid for connections from the parking lot that was established from the past couple of years connecting to the trail, I think
that probably was under the same Yeah. Umbrella. So yeah, thank goodness Article 97, Speaker 2: It's with the new update, it's a much more challenging process than it has been in the past. Super Speaker 18: Important legislation that we're glad to avoid. Speaker 2: Very much so. Speaker 1: Okay, other questions? General senses? I mean, I think kind of, sorry, you're Speaker 5: Gonna have to go through some sort of, you know, kind of again evaluating the soil. Is there heavy metals, is there, you know, because you know, are we getting into like a Speaker 1: Black hole Speaker 5: Of like a eight foot, $1 million price tag? Speaker 2: So the project that would be presented is essentially
design and then construction cost estimates. Okay. So in theory the project that would potentially be coming forward would give us those Okay. Answers. Speaker 18: Alright. Yeah. Wise to be, yeah, Speaker 1: I mean I wonder how much of the test, you know, if testing was needed, how much of the testing work that was done for the rail trail already could just be leveraged, you know, by that, by the data that we already have in hand from that effort. And Speaker 2: It may be if the design can show that, you know, we're only, you know, excavating six inches of material,
we may be outside of that restrictive layer because the rail trail was built up on top of that contaminated material. But it's just that quite a number of unknowns at this point. So. Speaker 18: Absolutely. Speaker 1: So it sounds like there's a bunch of kind of details that need to be sorted out, but I think for right now, I mean in principle, would people be open to this concept? Are there any issues with the concept that you have concerns with? I mean, Mike, I think your question around, you know, are is it a can of worms that we would be opening and that's, but it sounds like there's a process in place
that we could determine that before we crack the lid on the can of potential worms Speaker 5: 21 EI don't want to get involved type of projects if we can avoid it. Speaker 18: Did that already? Yeah. Speaker 1: As, as part of the rail trail itself. Exactly. Speaker 18: Right, Speaker 1: Right, right, right. So we got that information, you know, I think there's some questions around who would be involved with or responsible for the construction, but that's part of the ongoing conversations Correct. At this point. Yep. But generally speaking, I mean, would the commission be okay with a path like this crossing property that we own
and you know, and then depending on the, the details that will get sorted out, are we, you know, would we be open to considering playing a a maybe a formal role in this? Meaning we would be the applicant for CPA funds if that was determined to be the right funding source Speaker 9: And Madera is open to it, like Madera management or Speaker 18: Whatever. Yes. Well I think in, I I, I can't speak to them and, and, and the folks that I dealt with in 2001, 2022, we're not there now, but we, we, we actually,
I'm getting together with 50 folks from Madera tomorrow they have a service day. Speaker 1: Oh, cool. Speaker 18: Many of their employees from all over the Boston area will be in Natick making improvements. Oh, Speaker 1: The company versus the residents? Yes. Oh, okay. Right, right. Speaker 18: Sorry. They'll be mil Mill Speaker 2: Creek, they'll be planting a tree in the mechanics tree lot. Speaker 1: We're planting a tree on property we own. Speaker 2: Yes, art. And I gave approval. I figured that the commission was gonna be okay with, it's a native species. I worked with Barb, you Speaker 1: Plant a tree, you like tree. I think we're Speaker 18: Good. It's, yes, it's the sort, the backend of the parking lot.
And I think Claire has discussed with you before, like a native pollinator, sorry, of the no disturb garden. No day garden, Speaker 2: Yes. The NoMo garden that we did along them. Yeah. So, Speaker 18: So they'll be doing things to the community gardens to, you know, other various plantings we'll be covering over some graffiti, doing lots of good work. So it's all about relationship building Yes. With our stakeholders and, and hoping that yeah, not, I, I don't want to negotiate on camera with how we would working that out, but my hope is that they would be active participants in this if,
particularly if like the project needed to get onto some of their land because I don't know exactly where the property line is relative to where their trail, their trail. So need to kind of sort all of that out. Okay. Speaker 2: So just since those, so Speaker 18: Thank you for asking that. Okay. Speaker 2: Just since those discussions are happening, I would speak with them about potentially construction access happening from their property. Just from a, an access perspective. There's a lot of open space between the actual parking lot limit and this corner and accessing via the rail trail may be disruptive to use.
So if they're open to that, I think that that would be a strong way to demonstrate partnership. Yeah, Speaker 18: Excellent point. Yes. That and, and, and we've, I've actually had initial conversations with 'em about like doing some construction cost estimating. So I have order Oh great. My, my like I can guess, yeah, I think about 25 grand and I'm probably within 50 grand. Speaker 1: I was gonna say factor 10, I like Speaker 18: It. Who, who knows. Yeah. So, but I do think actually it's something that, not just because it's the commission, but you know, consistent
with the CPA, if we could do something that I acknowledge is the importance of native, native species, because right now the CRT is like a breeding ground for not weed and, and a lot of other invasives as, as folks know, it's, it's a, it's a big challenge. So I'd like to do something that would be educational and, and sort of talk about some of the work that we're doing to reintroduce Cool. Establish native plantings and eclair and art have worked with Eversource because they did a whole utility pole project and,
and really tore a lot of earth and so they've, you know, replaced, planted 120 or so native plants. Speaker 2: Nice. I did get your email. I'm gonna get out there next week. Yeah, we'll, Speaker 18: We'll figure it out. But it's, that's an uphill battle. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions right now? Can we, that's great. So, so can we send Mr. Ostroff on his way with a general sense of support from the commission and keep going. Keep us posted? Yeah. Great. Definitely. Is that sufficient for where you're at? Speaker 18: I, I interpret like you reserve your rights, this is within your jurisdiction and if it's something happening on your land, doesn't matter
what you say tonight, you need to look at a specific project and then decide what role you wanna play. So I don't take it from, this is not a, a blank check. In fact there's no Speaker 1: Check. There is no check. David, Chris, are you guys good with this? The conversation? I, I Speaker 8: Like what you're doing and, and the name Josh Ostroff brings some street cred too. So Speaker 1: Street, I'm, I'm very supportive. Yeah. That, that's not a unanimously held opinion, but you're very kind to say. So thank you so much. I appreciate that. Chris, you good? Yeah, I'm good with that too. Cool. Thank you folks. Thank you sir. Okay, thank you. I will leave you to your other business.
Appreciate your time. Alright, nice to see you. Alright, let's get back to it. We got a, just a couple other things we can clean up and I just swiped out my Speaker 2: Minutes is next Speaker 1: Minutes of the minutes. March 20th. I reviewed the minutes. I have no comments on them Jeff, no comments. Okay. So I'll make a motion to have, there's no discussion so I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 20th. So moved. So moved by Mr. Richards. Is that seconded? Seconded. Was that you David? It was, yes. Thank you. Alright, any further discussion on that? Those in favor in the room, Chris? Yes. David? Yes.
Excellent. And it's approved Pickle pond, connector bridge. Speaker 2: Just an update. We are officially, I believe in the public comment period on our determination of applicability. I think there's a 21 day comment period. Not that there's much to comment on the, because we're doing a chapter 91 jurisdiction determination Speaker 1: Around grape ponds Speaker 2: Around great ponds. We essentially just had to submit any historic materials. I went through the assessor's maps in the basement, I went through the engineering old records, I went through the conservation office, old records. I pulled maps off of John Marshall's
and mine's office walls that had scale bars associated with them. So I provided the state with quite a number of materials, including measurements from the USGS topo layers, the U-S-D-E-P ponds layers. Just really trying to provide every piece of information that I can to demonstrate that the pond is under 10 acres. And now it is just the, the waiting game of if they agree or not. It's Speaker 1: Not pond. It's a really good pond. It is a very good pond. It's a great, it's not a great pond. Speaker 2: And, and is, I will say every layer that I have been able
to find measures out at under 10 acres, even trying to like extrapolate based on the survey for the connector bridge using that based on the, I've been doing a lot of brain racking Okay. In, in prepping this. But yes, we are submitted, we're in the public comment period. So I'm hoping that in the next couple of weeks we'll be hearing that clearly Speaker 1: That map from 1913. Yes. Speaker 2: Well I found maps that were older, so I'm hoping that yes, that's, but I also managed to find the original Oakdale neighborhood layout plans.
Oh that's pretty cool. From the 1940s. So I'm hoping that those will also be helpful. Speaker 1: Alright. Other updates, Claire, Speaker 2: Other updates with the, the rain on Saturday water levels are a little high again, but we are just working on hammering down a final date for Beaver Solutions to get out here to repair the cages. Our trail steward who lives next to town Forest, has been continuing to do some slight notching just to make sure that any debris is not further restricting. But, Speaker 1: But the reports are, is that water levels are down significantly from water Speaker 2: Levels are down significantly following the,
the trapping of the beavers. And then Okay, Speaker 1: Just 1, 1 1 Speaker 2: Successful trapping. And then DPW did it a before the big rainstorms that we got in May did it a breach of the dam that is upstream of the Route nine culvert to make sure that there was just free flow of water moving through the system. And Speaker 1: That's, we know from the people who are on Huntington, have we heard anything from them about, so Speaker 2: I actually got an email from Julie and Fred Bears De Bears this morning that the water levels did receive quite substantially. At the end of the month of May,
they have gone back up again, which I believe again is a result of that significant rainstorm that we had on Saturday. But that these, the temporary measures we have in place will bring those water levels back down until the cages are repaired and the system can be fully reset. Speaker 1: The and and the Route nine culverts can be fully cleaned. Speaker 2: Yes. And so Art Roscoe Arthur, sorry I keep saying art 'cause that the tree warden is art. Arthur Roscoe from Mast has confirmed that as soon as the Oak Street cages are repaired, they will go out and do the cleaning. They're hesitant to go out and do the cleaning before then so that we're not filling up town forest
with water that has nowhere to go. Speaker 1: So, relief possibly on the horizon is relief, Speaker 2: Possibly on the horizon. I'm, I'm fingers crossed. Everything will be done before the end of June. Speaker 1: Open box culvert underneath. That's what we need. Nice. We are one beaver must be more over there. Right. Speaker 2: So the, we think that because they've been spreading out in that area, beaver Solutions is comfortable with the one beaver trapping to go in and do the, the cage reset. Though I think as we talked about earlier, it's not a guarantee that this will never happen again. Yeah. Speaker 1: Oh no, it will happen again. But we just have to be vigilant. Well, we are, Speaker 2: We are gonna be enlarging the cages slightly in diameter
to hopefully give us more low water level protection. But Speaker 1: I think, I think it needs to become a part of the curriculum of the Natick scouting community. Oh, there we go. Is Beaver Management. Yeah. We Speaker 5: Could use rubber bullets like they use in Alaska to deter the bears. Speaker 1: Yes. That's, you know, there we go. All right. It's Speaker 5: All behavioral modification. Speaker 1: We digress. Speaker 2: Just a quick couple other updates. I'm just waiting on the formal report of the additional ground penetrating radar work that was done on the Constituit aqueduct. Once we have that report, we'll be able to get our geotech boring plans done to submit to our MWRA for approval.
So that project is moving along. The other updates that are going on, we are gonna be out on Saturday. It's gonna be a little rainy, a little cold Saturday this Saturday, June 14th doing additional Island bridge construction out at pick pond. Speaker 1: Starting with waffles at Mike's house at seven. Yeah, I'm ready. Speaker 2: I should say maybe we can even bring a, a mobile waffle maker. Ooh, there you go. Speaker 1: I don't think we have a budget for that Yeasted. Yeah, I don't, Speaker 2: We've got the budget Speaker 5: For that. I'm a big fan of the Yeasted waffle. Have Speaker 1: You ever been Speaker 2: I've not done the Yeasted waffle yet. I've done sourdough waffles, which are similar, but Other updates.
We are hopefully gonna be hearing back about the MVP application that we submitted in the next couple of weeks about funding awards. Also, hopefully hearing back in the next couple of weeks about the DER culvert replacement grant that we applied for, for that Everett Street Indian Brook Culvert down in South Natick. And just quickly scrolling through my notes to make sure I'm not missing anything else that I believe was all I had for folks today. Just as a reminder, this was part of our original meeting schedule for the year, but because next Thursday,
which would traditionally be our meeting day is the holiday. It's Juneteenth. We are meeting June 26th is our next meeting. Speaker 1: And good news, bad news. Good news is that Jim was reappointed Speaker 2: And David Speaker 1: And David, Jim and David were reappointed by and Matt, I'm the bad that I was No, I'm kidding. Come on. I didn't, never a chance to comment. No, you tried. I I had it. Ardi make Varney was there. Hey. Gave the wrong date. I had it. I had it struck from the record. Alright. If there's no other things, well why was Jim a Did you, you Speaker 2: Finish because Doug's term without
Doug's term technically ended. Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright, so with that, there's no further comments. Someone make a motion to adjourn. Motion to ADN move. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. I'll take David as a second. Any further discussion? Those in the room, Chris? Yep. David? Yes. See you guys. Thank you all. Have Speaker 2: A good night guys. Thank Speaker 1: You. Night.